Letters to the Editor

Abortionists disliking pro-lifers assertions: An abortionist recently insisted that he and his accomplices are not Nazis and that abortion mills cannot be compared to Nazi death camps--claiming that abortions are "medical care." An abortionist complained that just because she does abortions, people assume that she hates babies. Being nice most of the time does not excuse the hideous things abortionists do the rest of the time.

Ways abortionists justify actions: Letters of gratitude to abortionists "Gratitude just means that you did what somebody else wanted you to do. It doesn't mean that what you did was defensible." Lack of regret as criteria to measure the rightness of an act -- it's a measure of the conscience of the person acting, not a measure of the rightness of the act committed.

The abortionist said that abortion disturbed him at first, but that as he did more of them, he began to find them more interesting and less morally troubling. Once habitual it becomes easier is something all serial killers claim.

Letter Number: 240

Abortion advocates claim that abortion is not a money maker. In particular, abortionists argue, "I can get three thousand dollars from a woman if I deliver a baby, but only three hundred for an abortion."

This statement tries to destroy the argument that abortionists are only in it for the money. If successful, this statement would also portray abortionists as noble crusaders willing to forgo huge profits to help women.

But there are holes in the image. First, abortionists are not doctors. Doctors treat disease, illness, or injury. Pregnancy is none of these. Perhaps that explains why legitimate doctors almost universally agree that abortionists are the scum of the medical community.

Second, to believe that someone who is so morally bankrupt that they would do abortions without any medical indications would also be able to build a successful legitimate practice is laughable. The long-term doctor-patient relationship is based on trust. What woman in her right mind is going to trust her life and the life of her unborn child to someone who kills for money?

And regarding the profit motive: even a fool can see that three hundred dollars for five minutes work is more than three thousand dollars for nine months work.

Letter Number: 241

In the battle over the budget, Planned Parenthood was arguing that they need money for "family planning" services to save the taxpayers money.

Let's look at what happens when you give tax money to an abortionist.

If we give them money for providing "free" contraceptives, they need to distribute lots of contraceptives to get lots of money. To distribute lots of contraceptives, they need lots of women and girls having sex. So they take government money to go into the schools and promote sexual activity among teens with the promise of "free" contraceptives. The girls become sexually active, and begin to come in for "free" pregnancy tests. Lots of pregnancy tests means lots of tax money.

Once she's pregnant, the abortion mill needs to sell her an abortion to keep the tax money flowing. Even if they can't get tax funds for the abortion itself, they can charge the taxpayers for "counseling" and for pre- and post-abortion physical examinations. There is also another sinister twist: if she carries her baby to term, there will be a nine-month minimum cut-off of the contraceptive and pregnancy test money the clinic has come to rely on.

So when you give abortionists money for anything--even non-abortion services--you will still get more abortions. In fact, you will increase their motivation to sell abortions because each abortion will get them not just an abortion fee, but months of contraceptive fees as well.

It's disgusting but true.

Letter Number: 283

True to form, abortion advocates have abandoned reason in favor of emotional blackmail in the continued battle over federal funding.

A pro-choicer tearfully told of a 27-year-old Hispanic woman who died of an illegal abortion. The abortion proponent blames the death on the cut-off of federal abortion funds. But if you know the whole story, you can see where the real blame lies.

This woman had already undergone two abortions courtesy of U.S. taxpayers. When she got pregnant again, she went to her doctor, who "informed her that Medicaid would no longer pay for an abortion if she wanted one. They did not discuss the pregnancy further."

Now, if this doctor really cared about his patient, he would have referred her to a pro-life group who would have helped her have her baby. Or let's assume legal abortion is safe. He could have at least sent her to a pro-abortion group that would have found other funds for an abortion, or asked a pro-abortion colleague to do the abortion without demanding the usual cash up-front, or done an abortion himself. But he chose to abandon her.

The woman went to a local midwife, who also could have arranged real help for the woman. Instead, she performed an illegal abortion.

The blame for this woman's death lies with the pro-choice community, which let her down at every turn. If they couldn't get tax money, they weren't going to help her. They just let her die.

They should be ashamed.

Letter Number: 326

Pro-abortion forces marched on the State House yesterday shrieking that if we cut state funding of elective abortions, "poor women will be forced to resort to dangerous, back-alley abortions, and their blood will be on our hands."

When the abortion fanatics and the Centers for Disease Control tried to find a connection between restricted abortion funding and an increase in illegal abortions, they were thwarted. Try as they might, they couldn't find any evidence to support their theory. They concluded, "Restriction of public funding for legal abortions has not increased the number of illegal abortions."

They did note, however, that public-funded abortions had more complications than private-pay abortions.

Now, if lack of public funding does not increase the number of illegal abortions, but the funding does increase the number of complications from legal abortions, why would anybody agitate for public abortion funding? Women's well-being is eliminated as a motive, since public funding hurts women, rather than helps them.

Perhaps it is just the money.

Letter Number: 333

Abortion advocates have introduced new legislation requiring government funding for abortions. Is there no end to their gall and hypocrisy?

First they say abortion is intensely private. Not even the parents of a minor or the father of the baby should to have anything to do with the abortion decision. They especially say the government should butt out. Then they turn around and say the government should pay for it.

They are saying that citizens should shut up and pay their taxes, knowing abortionists are going to grab that tax money to do abortions on their daughters behind their backs. Hard-working and responsible fathers pay their taxes, which will then pay for abortions their wives have against their wishes.

People who recognize abortion as evil--as killing babies--will be forced to foot the bill for them. It takes a lot of nerve to tell people that something is none of their business, then grab their wallets to pay for it!

Letter Number: 334

Yesterday, another bill was brought to the Senate asking taxpayers to pay for abortions. This goes to show how much nerve abortionists have.

They claim that taxpayers should pay for abortions because poor women "need equal access to this constitutionally-protected right."

First of all, the "right" to abortion was created out of thin air by a few old men. The Constitution never mentions abortion--or privacy either. But for the sake of argument, we'll pretend it really is a constitutional right.

Since when does the government foot the bill when we exercise our rights? The Constitution specifically grants the right to keep and bear arms. But you never hear the National Rifle Association claiming that the government should provide guns for poor people. The Constitution guarantees the right to free speech. But the government does not buy public address systems or radio stations for poor people so that they have equal access to the ears of their fellow citizens. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. Imagine the reaction if poor churches wanted the government to buy Bibles and hymnals for them!

So, clearly, even if abortion was a right, there would still be no reason for the government to subsidize it.

If pro-choicers are convinced that abortions are the best thing in the whole wide world, they can pay for them themselves. Leave the rest of us out of it.

Letter Number: 335

A senator has introduced a bill requiring taxpayer funding of abortions.

If I recall correctly, this senator said that abortion is none of the government's business. In fact, I think he said that it was nobody's business but the woman's and her doctor's.

It takes a lot of nerve to tell people that something is none of their business, then demand that they pay for it.

Imagine, for example, that defense contractors demanded money for fighter jets, but said that the Pentagon had no business making decisions about the jets. Imagine prison wardens demanding government money, but saying that the taxpayers and legislators should have no control of how it's spent.

A lot of people hate the military or the prison system and think we shouldn't give them any money. But nobody tells them to stay out of public discourse on it. Nobody presses racketeering charges against pacifists who chain themselves to fighter jets. No laws are passed against candlelight vigils outside prisons where executions are scheduled. Defense spending cuts and prison reforms are not thrown out by the courts.

But the courts allow the taxpayers no say on abortion. Voters elect representatives. The representatives write abortion laws. The courts overturn the laws on the grounds that it is none of the voters' business. But the voters still get the bill.

Letter Number: 336

Yesterday, an abortion advocacy group called for government funding for abortions. They claimed that all they wanted was "full coverage for health care, including reproductive health."

Well, abortion is not health care.

Health care aims to cure or prevent diseases or injuries. Pregnancy is not an injury or a disease. Almost all abortions are done on healthy women who are pregnant with healthy babies. To call this "health care" is like calling unnecessary amputations "health care."

Abortions can cause a host of problems, ranging from infection to death. They make women more likely to suffer future reproductive problems, such as infertility, miscarriage, and premature birth of later children. Research has linked abortion to ectopic pregnancy, the fastest-growing cause of maternal death in the United States. Worst of all, abortionists are more careless with public aid patients than they are with women who pay for their own abortions. This is seen in the higher rate of complications among public aid patients. So, in the name of "health care," this abortion advocacy group wants us to pay for women to end up with more health problems than they would have if we had butted out. Why not just lobby for free cigarettes for the poor?

What this pro-abortion group really wants isn't health care for poor women. They want tax dollars for their own pockets.

If they want money, they should go out and earn it doing something useful. That's what the decent, hardworking taxpayers do.

Letter Number: 337

A recent editorial made the disgusting proposal that the government pay for abortions because abortions are cheaper than children on welfare.

Since when do we set a price tag on lives?

When Baby Jessica fell into that Texas well, nobody sat down, calculated how much it would cost to rescue her, and said, "Well, she's just a welfare baby. If we offer to pay funeral expenses, we'll save lots of tax money. After all, a funeral is cheaper than a rescue, especially since we'll only end up supporting her if we get her out."

But that's what the columnist is saying we should tell poor women. "You and your baby are trapped in poverty. We could rescue you and your baby from poverty. But that costs too much. Instead, we will pay to kill your baby, because this saves us money."

If a plane load of refugees went down, would we refuse to rescue them on the grounds that the rescue is too expensive? Do we propose to let them die because they don't have jobs? But that's what we do to the children of the poor. We look at our checkbooks and decide that it is cheaper to kill them.

All people's lives are worthy of protection, not just the rich. Yet rich people like the author of this editorial propose that we kill poor children to save money.

It's time we recognized snobbish, selfish elitism when we see it.

Letter Number: 338

We're having another battle in the legislature over abortion funding.

Why is it that the very people who say the government has no right to be involved in abortion decisions are the ones who want the government to pay for them?

When cornered with this question, they generally try to answer with another question. Its purpose will usually be to get the discussion sidetracked into talking about other things of which taxpayers may not approve but are forced to pay for. The subject could be anything from federal child care, to school lunch programs or even the government's military spending. But that doesn't tell us what the justification is for telling someone they have to pay for someone else's abortion. The issue isn't having taxpayers pay for things they disapprove of. The issue is having taxpayers pay for things that they're told are none of their business.

I still say that it takes a lot of gall to ask people to pay for something that's none of their business.

Letter Number: 339

A June 2 editorial made the disgusting proposal that the government pay for abortions because abortions are cheaper than children on welfare.

I will ignore for the moment how grotesque it is to place a price tag on a child's life like that. Instead, I'll pretend that there is no baby involved in an abortion.

Why don't we do a cost analysis of how much abortion is costing the American people every year?

Abortion can cause immediate, and often severe, physical complications to the woman. The money to treat these problems comes either from the taxpayers or the woman's health insurance.

If the woman is hospitalized, she is unable to work. Many women don't have the sick leave necessary for an extended hospitalization. If she loses her job, we may wind up with another family on welfare. If she is permanently disabled, not only do we have to pay her medical bills, but also her disability payments. And if she dies, her children collect social security until they are at least 18--possibly much longer if they go to college.

It is simplistic to just claim that abortion costs "X" dollars. We have to look, and look closely, at the hidden costs. And it is the taxpayers who foot the bill.

Letter Number: 340

We're having another battle in the legislature over abortion funding.

Why is it that the very people who say the government has no right to be involved in abortion decisions are the ones who want the government to pay for them?

The excuse they usually use is that stale old argument about denying poor women access to health care. But abortion is not health care. Health care relates to the treatment of disease, illness, or injury, and pregnancy is none of those. Even by the abortion industry's own figures, virtually all of the abortions done in America are done for non-medical reasons on perfectly healthy women and perfectly healthy babies.

Now, if they are truly concerned about abortions for poor women, then I have two suggestions. First, since they claim they are not in this for profit but to serve women, why don't they take the profits from the abortions they do on rich women, and use them to pay for abortions on poor women? And second, why don't they set up a nationwide fund to which so-called "pro-choice" people could voluntarily contribute to pay for abortions for poor women? They already have the structure in place to do so, and it would be a nice gesture to America's women from whom they've made billions over the years.

And they can save their breath about the occasional woman they give a discount, or the few that get their abortions paid for by the local Unitarian Church. The point is, they say abortion is vital for women's well-being. Then let them pay for it themselves.

Letter Number: 341

We're having another battle in the legislature over abortion funding.

Why is it that the people who say the government has no right to be involved in abortion decisions are the exact same people who want the government to pay for them?

If they think abortion is so important for women's well-being, why don't they do them for free, or set up a national pro-choice fund where people can voluntarily contribute?

They'll whine that some abortionists do give a discount to poor women. But first of all, salesmen know that any sale is better than no sale. Second, they're often able to get money out of the government by charging taxpayers for the blood tests, "counseling," pelvic exams, and anything else that is not the actual abortion procedure. Some charity!

And they'll whine that there are some private funds to pay for poor women's abortions. But if they really have the pro-choice majority, and if abortions are really that important to women, these funds would easily be able to pay for all abortions, not just those for poor women.

Face it, when a woman gets an abortion, she isn't having life-saving surgery. She's having risky elective surgery for a non-medical reason. If it causes her some trouble and expense, then she'll only do it if she's thoroughly convinced that she needs it. In the final analysis, a lack of government funding for abortion wouldn't necessarily end the indefensible practice of abortion being used as birth control, but it might curtail it. Would that be such a bad thing?

Letter Number: 342

We're having another battle in the legislature over abortion funding.

Why is it that the people who say the government has no right to be involved in abortion decisions are the exact same people who want the government to pay for them?

Think about it: if the abortion industry's rhetoric about this alleged "pro-choice majority" is not a lie, all they would have to do is set up a national pro-choice fund, and they would have more money to fund abortions than they could possibly spend. But they don't want to do that.

You see, a private fund would have to be accountable for the money donors give it. And even the staunch pro-choicers object to a sizable number of the abortions done. For example, this private fund would probably not pay for women to have one abortion after the other. It would probably refuse to pay for abortions on women who got pregnant on purpose to see if they are fertile (yes, this really happens). It might even refuse to pay for abortions women aren't sure they want. And it's safe to assume that this would not want to pay for abortions on women who aren't pregnant (and yes, this also really happens).

The point is, the abortion industry isn't going to create this fund because these people know they wouldn't last very long with these kinds of restrictions--especially coming from their own people! But their agenda has absolutely nothing to do with providing women with choices, or with improving their lives. It has to do with selling them abortions.

Letter Number: 343

We're having another battle in the legislature over abortion funding. (Isn't it strange that the very people who say the government has no right to be involved in abortion decisions wants the government to pay for them?)

I suspect that the most likely motive for this is their realization that government-funded abortion carries the least accountability and the greatest opportunities for fraud.

Abortionists are very creative when it comes to bilking taxpayers. They use tricks like charging for office visits that never happened, tests that were never run, and treatments that were never provided. Abortion advocates have even been caught teaching women to use other people's medical assistance cards to get free abortions they weren't even eligible for! When an industry has this kind of history of fraud, should we trust them with even more of our tax money?

Only if we're stupid.

Letter Number: 344

We're having another battle in the legislature over abortion funding.

Abortion advocates have no interest in helping poor women have access to abortion; what they want is to force pro-life people to pay for abortions. Their insistence that taxpayers be forced to pay for something which millions of them know is cold-blooded, pre-meditated murder is just more irrefutable evidence that their "choice" argument is a lie. If they were pro-choice, they'd let people choose how to spend their own money.

The abortion industry will try to defend public funding for abortion by saying that taxpayers pay for other things they disapprove of, such as military spending. That's a smoke screen. The issue is not whether the government should fund activities that some taxpayers find objectionable, but whether the government should fund activities that the recipients of the funds say is none of the government's business. That's a totally different question.

The fact is, only the abortion industry has the sheer gall to demand the public pay for an activity that it says is none of the public's business. What do you think the chances would be of Congress buying jet fighters from a defense contractor who said the government has no right being involved in decisions about jet fighters?

Letter Number: 345

We're having another battle in the legislature over abortion funding.

Why is it that the very people who say the government has no right to be involved in abortion decisions are the ones who want the government to pay for them?

Abortionists use shabby arguments to defend taxpayer funding. They say things like, "An abortion certainly costs less than eighteen years of welfare." Well, if their argument is that killing a poor child is cheaper than helping a poor child, then I will agree with them. But it's pretty nasty to tell poor women that we would rather pay to execute their children than help provide for them. Is that the message our society wants to send women: that their children's lives are less important than tax money? Abortionists claim they are in this battle to help women. Do they honestly expect us to believe that what they suggest represents a "pro-woman" position? The pro-life movement has tried for years to show not only the self-serving dishonesty of the abortion industry, but the sheer evil of legal abortion itself. For abortion advocates to try to sell abortion for poor women as a way to save tax money, while claiming to be serving the interests of women, makes both of those points far better than anything we could ever possibly say. I truly hope our country hasn't sunk so low that it would seriously listen to such revolting arguments.

Letter Number: 346

We're having another battle in the legislature over abortion funding.

Why is it that the people who say the government has no right to be involved in abortion decisions are the exact same people who want the government to pay for them?

The usual argument is that abortions save tax money by killing a child that might otherwise be on welfare for 18 years. If that is a morally valid argument, then why don't we start requiring all poor women to have abortions? And if we really want to get serious about saving tax money, we could start allowing poor women to kill their children who are already born. Remember, the guiding principle here is saving tax money. If the biological fact that her unborn children are living human beings isn't a consideration, why would the biological fact that her born children are living human beings be a consideration? Why would the humanity of either one matter, since the goal is to save money and the killing of either one would save money?

Issues like this show just how sick and morally bankrupt the whole idea of legal abortion really is.

Priests for Life
PO Box 236695 • Cocoa, FL 32923
Tel. 321-500-1000, Toll Free 888-735-3448 • Email: mail@priestsforlife.org