Passing anti abortion laws.

[coadie]

Anti-abortion rights groups, including Susan B. Anthony List and Americans United for Life (AUL), announced plans to pressure Congress to pass the No Tax Payer Funding for Abortion Act, sponsored by Representatives Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Dan Lipinski (D-IL), and the Title X Abortion Provider Act, introduced by Representative Mike Pence (R-IN).

http://www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?ID=12799
Apr 7, 2011: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 28.

The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act would prohibit taxpayer funding of abortions and would ensure that healthcare reform law does not cover the cost of abortions. The Title X Abortion Provider Act would prevent tax dollars from being sent to abortion providers receiving Title X family-planning grants. AUL has drafted 38 additional model anti-abortion bills.

Michigan is funding under medicaid around 19,000 abortions a year.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...lth-insurance/

Virginia is trying to block paying for abortions.

Of course if the Gubment isn't paying for abortions, this bill wouldn't be necessary. It is easy to get gubment money for abortion.

[coadie]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/...hoods_tru.html

In its last reported fiscal year (2008-2009), PPFA clinics aborted 332,278 children, a number equal to the entire population of Cincinnati. Since 1970, PPFA has aborted an estimated 5,300,000 children, equivalent to the entire population of Colorado.

As for primary health care services, PPFA clinics performed fewer than 20,000 such services in its last reporting year, an insignificant part of the total of 11.4 million services nationwide. Through state and federal Medicaid programs, low-income women already have access to contraception, as well as needed health care services-including testing and treatment for sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs), Pap tests for cervical cancer, and mammograms-at countless hospitals, doctors' offices, and over 1,000 federally-funded community health centers.

If PP wants 300 million fed dollars for ofering services to 20,000 people?

[Sam]

What if I don't want my tax dollars going to military expenses such as weapons and equipment that kill people?

[sandie]

Originally Posted by Sam

What if I don't want my tax dollars going to military expenses such as weapons and equipment that kill people?

Unlike the SC extrapolating from the right of privacy to allow women to kill their unborn and/or just born children, the preamble of the Constituion acutally states:


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I don't know how that could be changed to dis-allow your tax payer dollars not going towards military expenses.

Up until 1973 the constitution didn't allow for killing unborn children, oddly enough...there was just enough justices to make it happen. Maybe years down the road, they'll be enough of them to make providing for the common defense disappear.
I don't see why not, since they were able to make something appear that wasn't there in the first place.

[Sam]

I personally am not a pacifist and have no problem with my tax dollars going to defense spending, but, I can see how it could be the same thing as being anti-abortion and not wanting your tax dollars to go for abortion.