Kathryn Jean Lopez notes a development in the controversy over federal government funding of abortion. Liberal abortion rights groups are squawking about Republican attempts to reverse ObamaCare's permitting this to occur:
They’re talking about H.R. 3, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” introduced last week, the morning after the repeal vote. And they’re admitting the truth: Stupak’s once-proposed funding restrictions and conscience protections are not law. And, yes, H.R. 3 would do what the Left has long pretended is already a reality: Create a universal Hyde amendment, keeping taxpayer money away from abortion funding once and for all.
That would be a dream come true. Keeping taxpayer money away from abortion funding once and for all. (And a late thanks to "pro lifer" Jim Oberstar for allowing this to happen in the first place.)
Although, even in the unlikely event that this bill somehow got around an Obama veto in the next couple of years, the nightmare wouldn't end for some. As noted on Sunday, taxpayers in the state of Minnesota would continue to pay millions to fund thousands of abortions per year. According to our state Supreme Court, abortion is a "right" in Minnesota and the government has no choice but to take your tax dollars to pay for it, if the mother can't afford it on her own.
How did this come about in Minnesota? The facts are available in the Supreme Court decision in Doe vs. Gomez. A Fraters Libertas reader and law student provides this excellent Cliff's Notes summary of how it went down:
A terrific summary. I can't add anything to it, other than observing the decision was a legally and morally confused mess. End result, Minnesotans are forced to pay for abortions and there's nothing the democratic process can do to address this!
Well, we'll just see about that. The Republicans in the legislature are working on a plan to address it, in S.F. 103. People of good conscience should not hesitate to let their representatives know what they expect of them on this issue.
John Hinderaker had a recent post about the banning of incandescent lightbulbs, including this call to action:
If Americans understood what the Democrats were trying to do when they passed this legislation in 2007, the result would be mass outrage.
Which may well be true. But do Minnesotans care more about lightbulbs than the forced taxpayer funding of abortions? The lack of mass outrage since 1995, when this Supreme Court decision went down, makes me wonder about the answer.
The Elder Concurs: I'm no fancy law-talking guy, but couldn't the Court's decision that the right of poor women to have an abortion extends to the state being obligated to pay for it also be applied to other rights that are you know actually specified in the Constitution? Say guns for example. Sure poor people have the right to keep and bear arms, but what if they can't afford to buy a gun? When it comes to deciding whether one should have a gun or not, the ability to pay for that gun would clearly have on influence on the choice that indigent people would make. Are only the rich to be allowed to exercise their Second Amendment rights?