Home > Health Care, Senator Barbara Boxer > Sen. Boxer says killing babies is the same thing as making them — so fund both!

Sen. Boxer says killing babies is the same thing as making them — so fund both!

I know how it works up here. There are some things you can talk a senator out of saying, some he’s hellbent on saying, either despite the consequences or because he thinks there won’t be any. And sometimes, believe it or not, a senator will go to the floor to speak, and no one — no one — in the office has any clue what he’s going to say. Fingers crossed, press staff watch the floor on C-SPAN from their desks where they can cringe in private while thumbing through Politico or Roll Call.

This could very well be the case here; I don’t know how Sen. Boxer (D-Calif.), my home-state senator, works out her floor speeches, but her reputation as open to staff input isn’t so hot. Therefore, I’ll treat her staff charitably and assume her Viagra comment wasn’t a collective endeavor of mind-blowing stupidity but was instead all Boxer’s own.

As just about everyone who follows D.C. knows by now, Sen. Boxer actually compared the subsidy of, er, life-making enhancement with that of life-ending convenience. She’s bought into the left’s whitewash of the abortion issue so completely — that it’s about “reproductive health,” not the decision to kill an unborn baby, however defensibly, after one has successfully and healthily reproduced — that she is blind to the distinction between subsidizing life on the one hand and its destruction on the other, and she’s deaf to why many might be opposed to the government’s sponsorship of the latter — with their tax dollars, no less. (Side note: I’m not justifying government subsidies of erection creation; I’m saying it has no business paying for abortions and that Boxer’s comparison of the two is off-the-charts-retarded moral equivalency at its finest.)

“Reproductive health” — what a fiction. If one were unhealthy in the reproductive department, would abortion even be a possibility? So, no, abortion — which I happen to believe should remain legal for pregnancies caused by incest or rape or which are life-threatening either to the mother or baby — is indisputably not about reproductive health. It’s about the right not to have to think about reproduction much at all while engaging in the act. Plain and simple.

Advertisements
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: