With ObamaCare proving to be a complete Obamination (hey, I made a new word!), this whole debate has left me with a question. I know what the answer to the question currently is, but I would think that many out there would be asking the same question and wondering why no one is Washington takes this point of view. The question is this:
Why do you have to be for federal funding of abortion if you are pro-choice?
For the record, I am not pro-choice, but I could completely live with abortion being legal if there had been an actual vote on it instead of judicial activists deciding it for us. My own personal goal is to simply make sure it never applies to my life...if everyone could just do that, abortion wouldn't be an issue at all. But I digress.
It would seem to me that a person should be able to say, "I believe that it should be legal for a woman to have an abortion if she chooses to do so, but since it is an elective procedure to amend a self-inflicted condition, it should not be the responsibility of anyone else to pay for it." While the opposite juxtaposition would make no sense, this seems like a perfectly valid point of view for a socially-liberal, fiscally-conservative type.
So why is it that everyone in Washington who is pro-choice has to march in lock-step with the notion of abortion funding? Why are these issues not recognized as completely separate? The pro-choice leaders in the House claim that being pro-choice is the "mainstream" view when at best, it's 50/50 these days, and I am quite certain that some of those pro-choice people are fiscally conservative types who may espouse the above point of view. Why are these people invalidated? The math would indicate that there is no way that half the country favors federally-funded abortions, and yet it is being forced on us.
Of course, the real answer in Washington is that "pro-choice" really means "pro-abortion". I know that, as does anyone here at RS, I presume. But I would expect that this is a question in the minds of many others out there.
The same quandary applies to the moral "pro-choice vs. pro-life" debate and Roe vs. Wade...is it not valid to believe that life begins at birth but that abortion is not a Constitutional right? The same question applies to partial birth abortion as well...you can be pro-choice but feel the need to draw the line somewhere.
In a nutshell, being pro-choice should not necessarily mean being pro-Roe, pro-federal funding, or pro-partial birth abortion, yet for whatever reason, this variety of opinion is not allowed on the pro-choice side. It's about time someone brought it up.