…but death and taxes. That’s right, it’s tax time again. It’s possibly my least favorite time of year, as I have to file as an ex-patriot not one but TWO tax returns to various scary acronyms (IRS, CRA). Not to pat my own back, but I’ve become something of a North American tax wizard (no, I am not taking requests to file other people’s taxes). But while I don’t fear my own audit, I do hope the accountants have their red pens primed for looking at the tax payouts on a federal level.
Remember that revolutionary slogan, “No taxation without representation!” Well, for many people, that tyranny is just what happens with each and every paycheque. Organizations, like Planned Parenthood, have received billions of tax payer dollars over the past 20 years.
As my pro-choice friend once told me, “It’s okay if you’re pro-life, so long as you don’t object to anyone else having an abortion.” Even with this flawed logic it’s clear, even to pro-choice individuals, that the large population who object in the US and in Canada shouldn’t be paying for the procedure.
The people of Minnesota have never voted to pay for abortions with state money, and neither has the state Legislature. Taxpayer funding of abortion was imposed upon us by a wrongly decided court case known as Doe vs. Gomez in the mid-1990s.
Now it is time for the Legislature to represent the will of the people by passing a ban on taxpayer-funded abortions, and for Gov. Mark Dayton to allow the ban to become law. We know that Gov. Dayton supports abortion; he always has. But many who consider themselves “pro-choice” acknowledge that using tax dollars to pay for elective abortions goes too far.
Funding abortion seems especially unwise at a time when the state faces a massive $6.5 billion deficit. Paying abortionists to kill unborn Minnesotans is an expense that we simply cannot afford, and that unborn babies can live without.
According to the Minnesota Department of Human Services, taxpayers bought 50,869 abortions at a cost of $15.6 million between July of 1994 and December of 2008.
I know the argument will be made by the other side that poor women ought to have the same access to abortion as rich women. But if we really want what’s best for disadvantaged mothers and their babies, we will help them, not offer them abortions.
Brigitte wonders: Am I the only one who noticed the slogan buried in this story? “Abortion: An expense unborn babies can live without.”by