“Restrict abortion or cut spending? The Republicans’ ‘Pledge for America’ says the new majority will do both. But negotiations over the federal budget threaten to force the GOP, including its 87 House freshmen, to choose between them…
Rep. Chris Smith, perhaps the House’s most fervently anti-abortion member, said he’d vote against any budget that doesn’t ‘preserve life.'”
“Government spending is too high and getting higher…this is the only important issue in this election, and probably in every election for the foreseeable future. If other issues are important to you personally, that’s fine. Pissed off about the ‘gay agenda?’ Fine, enjoy that. Want tighter immigration controls? Fine, enjoy that. Think marijuana should be legal? Fine, enjoy that. Got a problem with trans fats or Wicca or selling beer on Sunday? Okay, well, you get the idea. Everybody has pet issues…But focus, people.”
If you’re willing to bail on spending cuts to defend your pet issue, then you’re not on the team. If you prefer to insist on your idea of social mores rather than enforcing fiscal discipline, then you won’t have to worry about either for much longer. If removing anti-abortion provisions from a spending bill results in bigger overall spending cuts, then just do it and stop whining.
Full disclosure, I fall on the pro-choice side of that particular fence. I have no problem with Planned Parenthood’s stated mission. At the same time I shall happily welcome the federal government not funding Planned Parenthood. And I eagerly lie in wait for the jackass who refuses to cut spending unless the bill includes abortion-rights assurances, okay?