This just off the transom from longtime FR friend Brian Johnston of the California Pro-Life Council…
State’s Largest Pro-Life Organization
Takes on Meg Whitman’s Reagan Posturing
SACRAMENTO, CA — In response to Meg Whitman’s blanketing of the airwaves and posturing as a ‘Reagan conservative", Brian Johnston, the Director of the California ProLife Council, explained his organizations concerns.
Meg Whitman is no Ronald Reagan, and her candidacy is unacceptable to millions of California Pro-Life voters. Whitman’s position that there should be no limitations on taxpayer funding of abortion is clear repudiation of Ronald Reagan’s commitment to the value of individual human lives.
Even by her own rhetoric, if this is an issue of ‘privacy’ or ‘individual choice’ the government should not be involved as the financial sponsor of the procedure and underwriter of the state’s abortion industry.
Just as Obama seeks to replicate the California model of a state-sponsored abortion industry on the federal level, Whitman’s open embrace of this ideology reveals her ‘statist’ approach to culture and policy.
Her activist approach to promoting abortion should be rejected. She is hardly the model of ‘government restraint’ that she paints herself as being. As far as Republican legacies, she is more of an Ed Zschau than a Ronald Reagan.
In 2007, the last year complete statistics are available from the California Department of Health Services, taxpayers paid for over 80,000 abortions in a single fiscal year. The fee-for service portion alone amounted to over $23 million dollars. (link)
This of course does not include the over $100 million spent on "family planning" and other programs that are provided by abortion providers.
March 2nd, 2010 at 12:00 am
The problem is people want the children born, but will not pay for the public services needed because the children got born. So if we value life, then we’ll need to work on private and public partnerships to take care of those children who got born.
Or offer incentives where if you make more than two children under government assistance your tubes would need to be tied in order to get future assistance.
March 2nd, 2010 at 12:00 am
Matt:
Less emphasis on the public, more on the private. There is no shortage of private resources for mothers who choose to carry their baby to term. And once the child is born, there is no shortage of options for ensuring that the child is raised in a loving home. The best thing the government could do, in that respect, is get out of the way with its entangled regulatory scheme and expedite adoptions into loving homes. Certainly, this state has plenty of resources, without tapping the public till, for caring for children saved from the murderous hand of the abortionist. The pro-life community has always put its money, time, and efforts where its mouth is.
March 4th, 2010 at 12:00 am
As a former embryo myself, I find it interesting that all those in favor of abortion have already been born.