Offering another option for poverty-stricken women is not only good common sense, it is good economic sense. Do your morals provide you with the salary to include the extra taxes required to pay for the welfare that this child will require for the first 18 years of it's life? As people from poverty-stricken environments have a greater chance statistically of becoming criminals, does your morality have the funds needed to provide possible tax dollars needed if that person goes to prison? Do you have the money needed to support the child so that the mother is not tempted to turn to a life of crime to feed it? Do you have the money needed to support the child as children in poverty-stricken areas also commonly attend failing school districts and would need countless hours of after-school programs to provide that person with a competitive education? In the end, please explain to me how saving a young woman, and the American tax payer, a little bit of hassle is such a bad idea? Unless the hard-core pro-lifers are willing to pay for the baby from their own pockets, they need to shut up.

I have a right to own a gun. Now you lot need to pool up and buy me one. Go on.

Stupak’s amendment to the Affordable Health Care for America Act (which the House passed Saturday), prohibiting funding abortions with federal dollars, preserves a long-standing legislative comprimise. Pro-abortion liberals are trying to use ‘health care reform’ as a vehicle to scuttle the historical prohibition against funding abortions with federal monies.

Stupak’s amendment is mainstream centrism, while attempts to create federal funding for abortions is liberal activism. ObamaCare is, in myriad ways, a trojan horse.