Pro-choice vs. pro-abortion

By Scott Tibbs, June 5, 2019

When I oppose government subsidies to organizations like "All Options" or the local Planned Parenthood abortion mill, I am usually attacked as forcing my will on women's bodies. But who is actually pro-choice on this issue, and who is anti-choice? I am the one calling for local government to stop forcing its will on pro-life taxpayers, while supporters of these handouts want government to mandate support for these organizations.

But what about the military, or school vouchers, and so forth? Let's be real here: These are red herrings. The issue is a very limited one: Should local government use the limited amount of funds available to local government to give money to organizations that taxpayers find morally abominable. We're not going to solve every single issue of government spending in a debate over a single vote by the city council or county council. By making this about bigger issues, corporate welfare apologists are trying to distract from the core issue.

Every year, both city and county government have to deny requests made by local charitable organizations because there is far more money requested than in the budget. Given all of the available options, there is no reason to force pro-life taxpayers to subsidize organizations we morally oppose. There is plenty of money available in this community to help All Options purchase diapers. In fact, city government could just spend $10,000 a year to buy and distribute diapers to the needy instead of going through All Options. If there is a need for someone to administrate that program, give the diapers to the township trustees.

Of course, if it were up to me, local government would not have a social services fund at all. All of this should be funded by the private sector. Let us choose for ourselves what organizations we will and will not donate to. But if we are going to have a social services fund, it should be a source of unity, not a source of discord every single summer.

I am the one who is pro-choice in these debates over handouts to private charities. My critics are not pro-choice: They are pro-abortion. If they were pro-choice, they would not support forcing taxpayers to fund "charitable organizations" that either kill babies or pay for killing babies. They would support government remaining neutral. For them, this is not and has never been about "choice." This is about using the money confiscated by force from taxpayers to advance a pro-abortion political agenda.

Opinion Archives

E-mail Scott

Scott's Links

About the Author