Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Not about money

April 20, 2013

There recently was published another letter making the pithy argument that taxpayers money is funding abortions and how they don't get a choic....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(31)

USABorn

Apr-20-13 4:18 AM

And the King of the Libs speaks.

Reeder, you really should keep your liberal clap-trap out of the public eye.

15 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Apr-20-13 5:36 AM

"There recently was published another letter making the pithy argument that taxpayers money is funding abortions and how they don't get a choice." - Charles M. Reeder

*

You're expecting honesty & accuracy from the Axis Of Ignorance; FAUX Noise, Porky Limbaugh & The NY Post???

1 Agrees | 13 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Apr-20-13 5:40 AM

Taxpayers are not being given a choice.

Unless the female was raped, she had a choice. Now liberals remove her responsibility and place it on the rest of society

16 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CarlHiller

Apr-20-13 6:06 AM

You expect any honesty from the leftists? If even one single dime (actually $542 million worth of dimes in 2012) of federal money goes to a birth control provider that performs abortions, that dime is supporting abortions. That dime is just one more that doesn't have to come from those who receive the abortion. PP is an abortion mill and it doesn't matter how they split up the dollar it all goes to the same thing, killing unborn babies. Would the government give AA tax dollars if they counseled alcoholics against alcoholism while at the same time operating a bar next door? Money is fungible; rent, staff, utilities; all support abortion procedures, no matter how indirectly. Planned Parenthood is propped up with our tax dollars. Whether we want to or not, we are all forced to fund the taking of innocent human lives for profit.

15 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Tgrammiex4

Apr-20-13 6:21 AM

Rather than tax dollars automatically going to planned parenthood maybe they should add a box to tax returns below the option to contribute to the Prez. Campaign fund where folks can contribute to PP. I'm sure all liberals will be checking that box.

9 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ritty77

Apr-20-13 7:08 AM

"There is a law that prevents Congress from allocating taxpayer money for abortions."

There is also a law directly from the Constitution (Article II, Section 2) that states, "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

Obama didn't like that one, so he ignored it. Why should we believe that any abortion funding language in some law would be honored?

Obama has also unilaterally altered the welfare reform law, and refuses to enforce laws about voter intimidation and DOMA.

These facts render the writer's statement worthless.

10 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Tedeaux

Apr-20-13 7:12 AM

If you want to understand a little better on how the abortion industry has developed here in beautiful Pennsylvania, read up a little on the Doctor from Philadelphia that was performing abortions at any stage of a pregnancy. I won't ruin your day by describing the details of the actual murders of near full term children. Chuckie's right! I don't want my hard earned tax dollars going to any organization that has anything to do with the murder (by ABORTION) of children!!! Thousands of abortions are performed every day, not because the mother's lives were in danger or it was the result of a rape on incest, they are being performed out of convenience! Can you imagine taking the life of a child because you were inconvenienced by their presence in your life? Four nice people died in Boston this week and we tore the town apart looking for the perpetrators. Seven thousand five hundred American children died in the same span of time and it didn't even rank a two line article on the back page!

11 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidBross

Apr-20-13 7:46 AM

I believe tax dollars support all the activities of a group that receives them. Sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly. For example, if an organization that provides meals and transportation receives tax dollars for transportation costs, doesn't that often free up more money for meals? The problem is that there are many programs that receive tax dollars and any number of people who object to the goal of those programs. The big question is, To what degree do we see ourselves as individuals, and to what degree do we see ourselves as part of a group? Going too far in either direction causes many significant problems for us as a society.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidBross

Apr-20-13 7:46 AM

I believe tax dollars support all the activities of a group that receives them. Sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly. For example, if an organization that provides meals and transportation receives tax dollars for transportation costs, doesn't that often free up more money for meals? The problem is that there are many programs that receive tax dollars and any number of people who object to the goal of those programs. The big question is, To what degree do we see ourselves as individuals, and to what degree do we see ourselves as part of a group? Going too far in either direction causes many significant problems for us as a society.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GoBB62

Apr-20-13 7:53 AM

BRAWK, faux noise, BRAWK, porky limbaugh, Still sounding like the same ol' parrot sham.

Or should I say Hilfirty?

9 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Apr-20-13 8:04 AM

Liberals are soooo stupid.

If a Republican takes or donates money to a group, they are painted with all the statements/actions of that group.

But it can' work the other way around in this case because it is a liberal group.

Liberal hypocrisy on display, folks!

14 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Apr-20-13 8:21 AM

Interesting that an individual that professes to have such superior knowledge and comprehension lacks the basic skills to understand fungible assets.

8 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

msgjsheets

Apr-20-13 8:23 AM

One day Chuck wants to end a Constitutional Right for millions of law abiding citizens in order to "Save the Children". The next he wants to protect women's right to kill them. Hypocrisy in action folks!!

12 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ritty77

Apr-20-13 8:31 AM

"The problem is that there are many programs that receive tax dollars and any number of people who object to the goal of those programs."

OK, but those programs that end a human life (abortion, death penalty, euthanasia, etc) will and should invite increased scrutiny of their funding sources than "Meals on Wheels."

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

philunderwood

Apr-20-13 8:46 AM

Everyone is skirting around the real issue, which is the unborn child’s right to life. That’s never discussed by the left, because only the “rights” of their victim groups bolster their ideology.

10 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ritty77

Apr-20-13 8:50 AM

"One day Chuck wants to end a Constitutional Right for millions of law abiding citizens in order to "Save the Children". The next he wants to protect women's right to kill them. Hypocrisy in action folks!!"

Bam! Impressive, sir.

9 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

Apr-20-13 8:52 AM

"It is not about money and what it is used for and their choice of how it is used, it is only about abortion and whether it should or should not be done at all. It is about people making a decision that is not theirs to make to begin with."

+++

Maybe we should all ask ourselves, would our mothers have aborted us, if abortions were as easy to get as they are nowadays.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ritty77

Apr-20-13 9:12 AM

A child's "right" to life can't be properly argued until both parties agree that it IS a life. That must be established first, and logically speaking, that point is at conception (" the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism").

Nature then determines whether that conception results in a pregnancy, and whether it survives until birth. Any unnatural interference, therefore, is taking a life.

So if there's a "right to life," abortion violates that right. Logically speaking.

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Tedeaux

Apr-20-13 9:15 AM

I'm sorry, I miss spoke. On average there are 3,322 abortions performed in America each and every day throughout the year. That would be 13,288 children murdered in America by abortion in the last four days. Murders that didn't rate one headline. No police showed up and kicked down any doors. They died as violent a death as any of this sick little basterds could dream up, in their twisted little minds. And to add insult to injury, their are some that would present the bill for these murders to the unwilling participants, conservative and religious American tax payers!

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

Apr-20-13 10:16 AM

Good letter, Charles.. off to Ricketts glen..

1 Agrees | 13 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WKnapp

Apr-20-13 11:19 AM

Where's the legislation, written by Congress and signed by the President, making abortion legal? There is none. Therefore, there is no law legalizing abortion. It is the whim of the Supreme Court, their OPINION, that has been foisted on us as though it was a law. There is no legal standing for any legislation from the bench. Judicial review of state laws, by federal courts, is not covered by the Constitution. Federal courts cannot arbitrarily strike down state law unless the state law somehow violates the federal Constitution. Abortion is not one of the items the federal government reserves for itself. Therefore it is rightly a state issue, to be totally decided by each state individually.

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

cheyenne

Apr-20-13 11:45 AM

Is the concern as much about protecting women's rights as it is about securing women's votes? After all, the "war on women" campaign slogan was a powerful one and undoubtedly paid off nicely.

9 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

philunderwood

Apr-20-13 1:52 PM

Chuck’s correct in that it’s not about money, it’s about the lack of choice in who pays for it and the rights of the unborn.

9 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WKnapp

Apr-20-13 2:19 PM

Just as we can count on mean-spirited and ill-informed opinions from Shameless we can count on vapid and wrong-sided letters from Chuckles. Thanks for giving us consistency we can always count on, guys! The only thing consistent about leftists is their inconsistencies.

11 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WKnapp

Apr-20-13 2:27 PM

cheyenne

Apr-20-13 11:45 AM

Is the concern as much about protecting women's rights as it is about securing women's votes?

It's sort of like gun legislation; not so much about guns as it is about control. Leftism always looks to control the unwashed masses, never about freedom. Leftists see themselves as smarter than anybody else, better qualified to tell the citizenry what to do, what to eat, what to drink, how much to eat, how to rear their children, how much they need, how much is 'too much', what medical treatments they should have, how many and what kind of guns they should have, if any, etc. All things that are NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS!

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 31 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web