WCF president Sam Bennett debates abortion funding
Women and politics is about a whole range of issues - energy, health care, education, the economy, national security, and, of course, choice.
Reproductive rights is unfortunately the most divisive issue we face, and ultimately turns into a debate over personal beliefs. However, as WCF president Sam Bennett points out, the decisions made over choice not only deeply affect the woman, but also have far-reaching effects on our society as a whole.
Sam appeared on Business Matters - a segment on WFMZ News in Allentown, PA. The question being answered by the panel of four (two pro-choice, two anti-choice) was “should tax money fund abortions“? Watch the video here.
Inevitably, the anti-choice panelists lead the conversation out of the economic angle and into their usual territory of personal opinion. But Sam was able to steer the topic back to the show’s original intent:
“All research shows that access to reproductive options is the single most important indicator across the world in indicating whether a country is going to be economically successful or not.”
Meanwhile, Michael Ciccocioppo of PA Pro-Life said that having taxpayer dollars fund abortion in any way was like a “bailout” for the “abortion industry.” Yet I’m almost positive he has no objection to our hard-earned money supporting failed abstinence-only programs or fake crisis pregnancy centers. Hmm. Deb Sieger of PA NOW wanted to know where the federal dollars for prevention are? Well said.
The comments on the Business Matters blog are reflective of the unchanging ideals of the anti-choice positions given on this panel. What are your thoughts? Should taxes support services that provide women with the full range of reproductive options? Does individual decision-making power over personal healthcare influence our society and economy? Leave a comment below (as well as on the Business Matters blog) and tell us what you think.
Tags: abortion, business matters, Choice, economy, sam bennett, Women's Health
This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 15th, 2009 at 10:32 am. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 15th, 2009 at 10:56 am
I agree that women should be in charge of their own reproductive health. The woman in this video keeps talking about what she’s experienced personally - but everyone has a right to make their own decisions, and my decisions have no basis in what others have gone through. That’s why it’s called choice. We should be given freedom over our bodies, and the government should support that.
April 15th, 2009 at 11:32 am
I thought perhaps the most absurd points made by Michael Ciccocioppo was the implication that if all of the abortions since R v W had not occured, then we would have all of those families and members of the American workforce and contributors to the economy and perhaps not be in the economic situation we’re in now. Right out of the gate he proved he has no understanding of economics whatsoever! The response about the welfare system was perfect, though I was surprised that no one made any reference to the record numbers in unemployment. We don’t have enough housing or jobs, but yes, please have more babies! Oh, and for all those kids who are already out there needing homes. OYE.
I was happy to hear the emphasis on a proactive approach from the women on both sides of the table.
Deb Sieger nailed the point about the risks of compulsory pregnancy when she talked about burying young women after Michael brought out his model of a 12 week old fetus - fabulous! How anyone can deny that this is a MEDICAL service is completely beyond me! The comparison to the $12 billion spent each month in Iraq to kill people was genius. I don’t recall telling any one I was ok with my tax dollars being spent that way. And last I checked most folks weren’t exactly in favor that either!
I LOVED the point that it is a moral decision, but one that is an individual moral decision, one that each woman makes for herself, not that anyone else has the right to make for her. Pretty much sums it up right there. GREAT SHOW!
April 15th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Ugh that guy having the arrogance to say that b/c he was “unwanted” means that all women should have compulsory pregnancy is gross. And the idea that our economy would be FIXED if we brought thousands more children into the world is one of the most absurd things I’ve heard in a while. It seems he’s very pro-birth, but like most conservatives, probably doesn’t want to do provide anything to the child or family once it’s born. shame. My tax dollars should go toward ensuring women have reproductive health options, not told what to do.
April 15th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Sam Bennett and Deb Sieger were brilliant during this show! The comments from the anti-choice people exhibit the ignorance and narrow-minded views of the religious right. We need more people for more poverty in this country? Please! Our government needs to allow women the freedom of choice to manage their own lives and their own bodies.
April 15th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
I get worried when we start talking about economics and abortion; it’s not as if rich people are better parents.
I also fail to understand why abortion is always singled out as if it’s some sort of non-medical treatment. The government should pay for abortion by the same standards it pays for other medical care, no?
April 17th, 2009 at 9:52 am
I think we also can’t forget that all of these restrictions on abortion (no public funding, waiting periods, parental involvement, etc.) don’t actually deter women from having abortions. All they do is make it take longer for the woman to be able to obtain an abortion, thus drastically increasing the potential for serious adverse events.