Well, so much for the refrain commonly employed by proponents of baby slaughter. The old droning (no, I do not mean President Barack "Born Alive, Let Them Die" Obama ordering the unmanned aerial elimination of Tea Party sympathizers) chorus of "Federal tax dollars do not pay for abortions" has been debunked.
Please do not misunderstand me. It is not like I believe the lie will die. It is a vital implement in the pro-baby-slaughter toolkit. Whether it is employed maliciously by those who profit from the abhorrent act or out of ignorance by those who are products of the education system, it will indeed continue to be used as a weapon against would be protectors of the most innocent.
Perhaps this is old news and everyone other than those in my little sphere of communication already knew that the use of taxpayer dollars for abortion was still happening despite the claims to the contrary. Perhaps those who make the dishonest claim are not intending to mislead at all. It could be that they believe that the exceptions are understood or implied when they spout the most-helpful-to-their-baby-killing-profit abridged description of the Hyde Amendment.
Passed by Congress in 1976, the Hyde Amendment excludes abortion from the comprehensive health care services provided to low-income people by the federal government through Medicaid. Congress has made some exceptions to the funding ban, which have varied over the years. At present, the federal Medicaid program mandates abortion funding in cases of rape or incest, as well as when a pregnant woman's life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.
The above is from the supposed "civil liberty" advocates plea for public funding of abortion. Of course, anyone who does not view the organization through rose-colored glasses, would not be surprised to see that the ACLU does not stand for civil liberties. That is, unless the civil liberties are those of a politically expedient group alone. Does the ACLU have a web page pleading for protection of the civil liberties of the taxpayer? Not that I have seen. Of course, in a society that could re-elect Barack "Born Alive, let Them Die" Obama, the taxpayer is to be hated and treated like a criminal. Or, like what a traditional treatment of a criminal would be as in leftist America the criminal is now coddled or, in a case like that of mass murderer Chris Dorner, glorifed. Forget about civil liberties for the unborn baby. As the vile pro-abort will tell you (you bible-thumping hater of science) the fetus is a tumor, unless he or she is wanted by the mother, at which point science transforms him or her into a baby. Even after the fetus clears the vagina, he or she is still not a baby, according to Barack "Born Alive, Let Them Die" Obama, unless the mother wants to be a mother to him or her. For those of you who defend the resident of The White House because of ignorance or denial, I offer the following:
Jill Stanek's collection of sources, including the ILGA transcript of his arguing against the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act" - http://www.jillstanek.com/2008/02/links-to-barack-obamas-votes-on-illinois-born-alive-infant-protection-act/
Even the liberal Annenberg Foundation (remember the good old days when an upstart Barack Obama was working with terrorist Bill Ayers on an Annenberg Foundation board?) FactCheck.org can't spin away from the facts - http://factcheck.org/2008/08/obama-and-infanticide/
So we have established that only babies who are wanted, even after being born, could even remotely stand a chance at deserving civil liberties, at least in the eyes of the pro-abort. Of course, there are those who would favor expanding the kill list to those of any age who may not meet certain, arbitrary "quality of life" standards. Perhaps when Obamacare is in full swing and the IPAB death panel gets in its groove, the American taxpayer (once the leftard's dream of single-payer is realized) can save a few bucks through evolving "quality of life" standards. Won't Utopia be grand when taxpayers will not only be paying for abortion, but "mercy" killing of those deemed by the IPAB of not worthy?
Until today, I did not know that ICE and the federal Bureau of Prisons paid for abortions. I know, I know "no taxpayer funds pay for abortion!" Tell that to Khaalid Walls, ICE spokesman:
ICE spokesman Khaalid Walls said the agency's 2011 Performance-Based National Detention Standards spells out that the agency must provide transportation to abortion services and other counseling services for pregnant detainees.
Walls said that policy mimics one used by the federal Bureau of Prisons.
"ICE does not perform the procedure in ICE facilities," Walls said, "and pays for the procedure itself only if the life of the mother is in danger or in the case of rape or incest."
What's more, an ICE spokesman told CBS News and The Associated Press last year the agency had not paid for an abortion since its inception in 2003.
Patrick said despite this, Huizenga wants the ICE policy codified into law.
Maybe Khaalid is among the ranks of the public educated and he believes that ICE and the federal Bureau of Prisons are not funded by taxpayers but a pot of leprechaun gold at the end of a gay pride rainbow. The good news is that ICE hasn't yet paid for an abortion. The bad news is that it can and if it gets the right kind of counselor, who will advise the poor illegal alien to claim incest, it will.
Huizenga, mentioned above, is Rep. Bill Huizenga (R- MI2), who along with several other Republicans and one Dimocrat (Dan lipinski (D- IL3)) have introduced a bill titled" "Homeland Security Respect for Life Act." This act, which I'm sure is well intentioned is not likely to become law and, even if it were to be passed on "Fantasy Island," would still allow taxpayer funding for abortion:
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON EXPENDITURE OF FEDERAL FUNDS BY SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY.
(a) In General- None of the funds appropriated for the Department of Homeland Security under any Federal law shall be available to pay for any abortion, except--
(1) in a case where a pregnant detainee suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant detainee in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by, or arising from, pregnancy itself, or in a case of rape or incest; and
(2) that if this subsection is declared unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, this subsection shall be null and void.
Is there any chance at all that those who ruthlessly advocate for baby-killing on demand, a.k.a. women's health, will stop lying about taxpayer funding of the sacrament? I won't hold my breath. After all, "science" and "women's health" are at stake and and we all know that progressive ends justify any means.