-
Farewell to the Spectator
December 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
Tentative Praise for Ryan’s New Bipartisan Medicare Plan
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
-
The Day Ahead: Thursday, December 15
December 15, 2011 | 0 comments
-
Examiner for Romney, National Review Against Gingrich
December 14, 2011 | 39 comments
-
Paul Ryan to Introduce New Medicare Plan with Democrat Ron Wyden
December 14, 2011 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
It’s worth mentioning that in addition to an provision to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and an planned amendment from Harry Reid to implement the Dream Act that would give illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children a path to citizenship, the defense authorization bill also contains an provision from Roland Burris of Illinois that would allow abortions at military hospitals.
Abortions have been prohibited from military hospitals since 1996. The idea is that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for or assist in obtaining elective abortions. Denis Burke has more on the topic at National Review, but it’s not a complicated issue. As when this same problem came up in the health care bill, the Democrats are simply committed to doing something heinous.
UPDATE: Post edited for clarity.
View all comments (6) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Joseph Lawler
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/09/21/abortion-funding-in-defense-au
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Becky| 9.21.10 @ 1:05PM
It's "heinous" to ensure that female servicemembers and the wives/partners of male servicemembers have the same access to health care (health care guaranteed by the Supreme Court) that non-serving women (theoretically) have? It's "heinous" to provide that care to the increasing numbers of servicewomen who are sexually assaulted, some of whom will become pregnant? It's "heinous" to allow servicewomen, or the wives of servicewomen who have wanted pregnancies that go awry, potentially risking the lives of the mothers, to compassionately end these tragic pregnancies rather than being forced to carry & deliver stillborn children? It's "heinous" that American women (including civilian contractors) must give up their most fundamental right — the right to bodily privacy — when they generously choose to serve their country?
Fight against abortion as a whole if you must. But doing it piecemeal, in a way that singles out women who have chosen to serve, or to spend their lives with someone who serves — the most selfless among us? THAT, sir, is truly heinous.
Warrior | 9.21.10 @ 2:30PM
I read your entire post, and its "heinous."
tj| 9.21.10 @ 2:59PM
If anyone wants an abortion go ahead... but not with MY TAX DOLLARS!!! GET IT NOW
kerry| 9.21.10 @ 4:35PM
even if mother's life is imperiled? (and only if); rare, but does happen. Although I would suspect that the woman could get access to care at another facility if the military doesn't offer that specific care...I understand this is not why Burris put it in the bill.
Brooksanne| 9.26.10 @ 2:35PM
An abortion is never necessary to save a woman's life. If she has a life-threatening problem, doctors can and should work to save both lives. Sometimes that doesn't work. That's part of the human condition. No reason to set out to destroy life.
Kenneth E. MacAlister Jr.| 9.21.10 @ 2:49PM
Arguing with the "It's my body, so it's my choice" crowd is a waste of breath so I won't bother. The only one who can reach these people is GOD Himself. Since GOD created us all has it ever occurred to anyone that our bodies, both male & female which He created are His first & foremost? The "it's my body, so it's my choice" crowd never take this into account & some probably have never given this notion any thought. If they would give this some thought & ask GOD for guidance before joining the march of death in the name of "choice" so prevalent in this country, the number of abortions in this country would seriously decrease. Abortions which occur during childbirth to save the life of the mother are one thing & are not the intentional taking of a life. Elective abortions for selfish reasons, where no danger exists to the mother of the child are just that, selfish. When human beings start playing GOD in the case of selfish elective abortions nothing good will result. Taxpayer dollars should not be used for elective abortions, period! Let the abortion rights lobby pay for them. Elective abortions are not health care. They are contracted murders. No different than hiring a hit man to kill someone. In this case in the name of selfish "choice". Dr. Mengele would be proud of America's blood thirsty abortion on demand movement. They've carried on his legacy with gusto. Life is GOD's to give & take. No one else.