The silliness of pro-choice arguments regarding the Stupak amendment continues.
Wendy Norris is now claiming money was another probable reason for the Catholic bishops support of the Stupak amendment. Despite the vast majority of abortions being performed in abortion clinics and not hospitals, Norris thinks the bishops wanted to exclude federal subsidies for abortion so they could “omit a competitive advantage secular hospitals …..can use to simultaneously market their services to the expected influx of newly insured patients…”
Jill from Feministe apparently has no clue what a moral objection is. I think she really has no idea that there is a difference between preference claims and moral claims.
Law professor Marci Hamilton thinks the Stupak amendment “violates the Constitution’s separation of church and state” because profilers are religious and the U.S. bishops pushed for it. At the Corner, John Pitney points out a rather large problem with this argument.
The Chicago Tribune has an article on IVF parents struggling to decide what to do with embryos they don’t want to implant. It has this quote from IVF mother Adriana Potter who favors donating her embryonic children for medical research.
"Think about it. The only way we got this far with IVF is because there was research in the past," she said. "There were sacrifices to help families like us have kids…..And which sacrifices were those? That’s right. Human embryos. So it’s okay to sacrifice some children so you can have kids? And then because others sacrificed their children, it’s your duty to sacrifice children you don’t want back to research.