-
Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks
June 18, 2013 | 4 comments
-
Do Beyonce & Jay-Z Understand The “Complexities” of Syria?
June 18, 2013 | 2 comments
-
What’s So Moderate About Iran’s New President?
June 15, 2013 | 9 comments
-
When Did The Obama Admin Know Syria Was Using Chemical Weapons?
June 14, 2013 | 15 comments
-
If Erdogan’s Hold On Power is Threatened
June 13, 2013 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
With respect to Senator Scott Brown’s unwillingness to eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood, John Guardiano writes, “Sure I understand that Brown faces re-election in overwhelmingly liberal Democrat Massachusetts. No one expects him to be a stalwart advocate for unborn children. But is it really asking him too much for him to oppose appropriating taxpayer funds to subsidize abortion?”
But is it really fair to say that Brown supports appropriating taxpayer funds to subidize abortion? Consider Brown’s statement on the matter 48 hours ago:
I support family planning and health services for women. Given our severe budget problems, I don’t believe any area of the budget is immune from cuts. However, the proposal to eliminate all funding for family planning goes too far. As we continue with our budget negotiations, I hope we can find a compromise which is reasonable and appropriate.
While Brown opposed to federal funding for abortion during his Senate run last year I don’t think anything in his statement changes that position. Even if one objects to Planned Parenthood for providing abortion services it isn’t the only service they provide. Thus it is entirely possible to continue to oppose federal funding for abortion but to continue to support federal funding for other services such as breast cancer screening.
Of course, the flip side to that argument is if federal funds are allocated to Planned Parenthood what is to prevent them from diverting funds intended for mammograms into abortion services? Well, nothing really. So while it’s possible that Brown might not intend for Planned Parenthood to receive federal funding for abortion whatever compromise he might be involved with could end up doing so anyway.
For his part, Guardiano isn’t calling for conservatives here in Massachusetts to dump Brown - at least not yet. He writes, “At some point, after all, conservatives must conclude that it is better to lose on principle than to win by jettisoning core beliefs.”
It might very well come to that. But do Bay State conservatives really want Deval Patrick or Mike “Let’s Get a Little Bloody” Capuano to be their next Senator?
View all comments (15) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Aaron Goldstein
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/03/23/thoughts-on-scott-brown-planne
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Odds and Ends
- Confessions of a Soft-Drinking Newspaperman
- A Panoply of Beauties
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
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
Clint| 3.23.11 @ 10:21PM
Apologists for The Opportunistic RINO-CINO Brown are ready to throw Social Conservatives under the bus.
God Is Truth| 3.23.11 @ 10:34PM
Mr. Goldstein, there is NO difference between Brown & DeVal Patrick or Mike Capuano. Quit making excuses for politicians who don't have the moral courage or backbone to cut off funding to abortion providers! God is still paying attention Mr. Goldstein & He will have a lot to say on this issue come the Day of Judgement. Conservatives had better start paying more attention to Him than to winning political victories at any cost! No political victory should come with the cost of the blood of an innocent child attached. You're either for the left's agenda of death for convenience or you're for respecting God's gift of life. Their is NO gray area here. There is NO GOOD excuse for the Federal government funding abortion providers, period!
jharp| 3.24.11 @ 12:05AM
What is it with you stupid f*cks and the federal funding of abortion?
It doesn't happen. It's against the law.
And for you lie and insinuate that is happening for political gain is scum. And your dumbass followers will believe you.
God Spectator readers are stupid.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.24.11 @ 5:20AM
If anybody is stupid it's you:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Poli.....id=1312894
The call for defunding Planned Parenthood came after investigations by Mark Crutcher at Life Dynamics and Lila Rose at Live Action revealed their clinics consistently offering abortion services for minors and trafficked girls, and advice on how to circumvent the law.
Musgrave points out that leading up to Tuesday's vote, grassroots activists spoke loudly against funding the nation's largest abortion provider. "And we know we've got problems in the Senate," she offers, alluding to the Democratic majority in that chamber. "So we need an especially strong stand from the House of Representatives."
JmsA| 3.24.11 @ 8:47AM
"God Spectator readers are stupid." So why do you read their posts?
JmsA| 3.24.11 @ 9:10AM
jharp/stupid:
Why don't you take a look-see at this: http://www.kval.com/news/local/116701424.html
Now answer me this: Why would federal funding cutbacks affect Planned Parenthood, the number one abortionist in the country, if it weren't getting funding from the federal goverment in the first place?
As far as I'm concerned, there's stupid and then there's jharp stupid. When will you leftist morons finally get it? You don't control the dissemination of news/information anymore.
jharp| 3.24.11 @ 11:47AM
"Now answer me this: Why would federal funding cutbacks affect Planned Parenthood"
Because Planned Parenthood uses federal tax dollars to provide vaginal health to poor people.
You know, cancer screenings, infections, and other preventative care stuff that saves lives and saves millions of taxpayer dollars.
And by law Planned Parenthood CANNOT use federal tax dollars to provide abortions.
God you people are stupid.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.24.11 @ 5:18AM
So if you're only a little bit pregnant that's OK? What malarkey. Scott Brown is still a baby killer no matter how you cut it or excuse it.
Andrew| 3.24.11 @ 10:48AM
Remember, family planning is not just abortion, which I am against and the government should not fund. Family planning is also about contraception, which no concervative should be so bold as to negate or dismiss for others, regardless of your religious outlook.
Michael L. Hauschild| 3.24.11 @ 11:04AM
Begone Andrew, this is no place for logic or rational thought.
louie 9| 3.24.11 @ 11:12AM
Hey Goldstein! Still buying into that old argument about all the indispensable "health" services needy women would have to fore-go if PP loses their precious gov't dollars? PP trots out that self-righteous defense (about providing breast care, pap smears, etc., etc.,) every time somebody threatens their REAL livelihood -- i.e., abortion services. They twist their financial figures into pretzels to inflate what (they claim) they spend on such industry window-dressing. It's just a smoke screen to divert attention away from their very profitable first order of business. Meanwhile, in spite of their alarmist rhetoric, true health services for women are readily available from neighborhood clinics and hospitals. Further, for those of you who caution that out of respect for PP's contraceptive smorgasbord, which we ought not to be "…so bold as to negate or dismiss for others, regardless of …religious outlook" -- are you aware of PP's strategy to "get'em young (with sex ed), put'em on the (weakest dose) of B. C. pills (while encouraging them to get sexually active), get'em pregnant (uh oh), then get'em back for abortion"? You are just whistling along in the darkest form of ignorance. Goldstein, et al., wake up and smell the coffee…
tony| 3.26.11 @ 12:54PM
I think Scott Brown is better at posing Naked for Cosmopolitan than he is at passing any kind of intelligent laws.....
Scrapette Jones| 3.26.11 @ 8:30PM
Wow, the comments here, when read in their entireity, are a breathtakingly perfect example of exactly why Obama will win reelection in 2012. Speaking as an Independent (the faction that WILL determine the election's outcome and the faction that the winning party will need) whose views closely mirror the typical, I seem to remember that Brown saved GOP arss and was courted by the TP, NOT the other way around. And he told the truth about his beliefs every step of the way. Now he's not good enough for ya. The far right will bash a moderate worse than a leftist dem...every time. Which is why millions of moderates next year will say better the evil we know than the one we don't. Hear this: until you accept, respect and tolerate moderates in the GOP, then you will continue to be a minority who cannot win. The good news for you is that the far left dems control the other side and they are equally stupid. First party to come to their senses wins.