Halving Abortion in Ten Years
Darwin at DarwinCatholic:
Heck, if I thought it seriously within the power of the Democratic Party to reduce abortion by 50% in ten years, I’d pretty seriously consider voting for them.
While the Dem’s 95-10 plan has been DOA for years (here is Obama supporter Doug Kmiec arguing that his candidate should support the plan, though he currently does not), let me offer a counter-proposal: “The Trillion Dollar Plan“
The plan devotes one trillion dollars over ten years to the reduction of “lawful” abortion (100 billion a year). Five hundred billion could be devoted to educating youngsters about the sacredness of sexuality, the profanity of promiscuity, and the horror of abortion (that’s about $2500 per child per year). The other half of The Trillion Dollar Plan could support maternity homes (i.e., free housing, free food, free counseling), adoption centers, and subsidized health care (that’s about $25,000 per crisis pregnancy per year).
Why support the The Trillion Dollar Plan?
For Republicans: How much do you want to stop the slaughter of our unborn? Badly enough to risk our nation’s wealth? Put your money where your mouth is.
For Democrats: Do you want the Catholic vote? Do you want to win the White House? Then listen carefully: end your party of death.
May 12, 2008 at 11:40 am
Here’s my solution (you all seem to love big government and taxes): Charge a $100,000 tax on each abortion. Then, see how much value morally bankrupt people and doctors want to murder unborn babies place on your constitutional right to choose death.
Let’s see if I get this.
Did I read it right?
You want the taxpayer to pony up $100,000,000,000 each year for publik skoul edukashun to end 1,500,000 abortions each year. And, if anyone balks at the price tag he/she is a BAD PERSON. Is that your plan?
See if I get the math (annual dollars to educate against abortions divided by annual abortions) $100,000,000,000/1,500,000 = 100,000/1.5 = $66,666.67.
Alternatively, there are say 100,000,000 families in the US. That would be $100,000,000,000/100,000,000 = $100,000/100 = $1,000 per family per year.
You think that will work?
[Edited - something about Nazis?]
May 12, 2008 at 11:42 am
I would support such efforts. Evne though I am not ready to endorse a real big nice sounding number without seeing how much is really needed and where
May 12, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Don’t forget paid maternity leave! It’s an atrocity that women have to take unpaid leave to have children.
May 12, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Interesting idea, T. Shaw. Would it be possible to pass taxes that would bankrupt Planned Parenthood without violating Roe vs. Wade? If so, I’m for it.
If someone doesn’t support $100 billion a year in a massive attempt to halve abortion, then that’s their position. Does that make them “BAD”? Most likely not. But the government exists to protect and promote human rights - the most basic of which is the right to life. Though the government can’t ban abortion because of the Supreme Court, it is still obliged to act in any way it can.
I do think that a massive educational and social network dedicated to halving abortion could succeed over a decade, yes. With the limited amounts of money that the pro-life movement has already spent, and the success it has had in swaying public opinion, I do think that a hundred billion dollars a year for ten years would make all of the difference.
Besides, in the interim between now and getting rid of Roe v. Wade, isn’t it a moral duty to do all that we can to stop the shedding of innocent blood?
May 12, 2008 at 6:31 pm
I’m afraid a $100K tax on abortions would be a non-starter, both politically and under current constitutional jurisprudence. On the other hand, Planned Parenthood currently receives a lot of taxpayer money as part of various family planning initiatives, and I see no reason why that, at least, couldn’t or shouldn’t be eliminated.
May 13, 2008 at 8:25 am
I’m not sure if its a coincidence or a joke, but I should clarify that I’m not the Matt K who posted the above comment. I don’t know if somebody is trying to mock me or what…
M.Z.: Looking into it, it appears coincidental. You both have made a number of comments under the same psuedonym.