Thursday, January 14, 2010

Center for Reproductive Rights' lame "No Abortion Ban" campaign

I don’t see how the people at the Center for Reproductive Rights could think this new “No Abortion Ban” campaign against the Hyde amendment and its accompanying video is in the least bit persuasive.

A bunch of liberal bloggers don’t want their tax dollars spent on a variety of things. Ooooohhhh..... For some reason they think that means our tax dollars should pay for abortions.

Amanda Marcotte doesn’t want tax dollars going to Blackwater so therefore federal tax dollars should pay for poor women’s abortions.

I know, the logic is impeccable. It's such a great argument I don't where to begin.

The National Rifle Association could make a similar video and then claim federal tax dollars should pay for guns. Yippee! Every poor person gets a free .357.

It’s completely unpersuasive to anyone who is not already in the tank for tax-funded abortions.

They’re so pathetic that they have to call it a “No Abortion Ban” campaign when anybody who’s living in the real world already knows there isn’t an abortion ban in America. Just because the federal government doesn’t pay for abortions, doesn’t mean they’re banned.

I do think this is a somewhat clever fundraising initiative by the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR). They are a fair number of pro-choicers out there who are disappointed in Planned Parenthood’s and NARAL’s tip-toeing around the Hyde amendment and their unwillingness to increasingly advocate for tax-funded abortion. And a good number of those pro-choicers probably visit pro-choice blogs. So just invite some popular pro-choice bloggers to take part in the video and then they'll link to at their blog. That's some nice free advertising.

CRR will, of course, do nothing to attempt to change the Hyde amendment but they may get a few donations by creating a nice echo chamber video.


  1. Henrietta G. Tavish1:45 PM

    The ad makes an unintentionally hilarious argument in favor of funding all of the projects the bloggers purport to hate (Blackwater, abstinence ed etc). It ridicules the notion that moral objections (or any objections) should be considered before funding a project, on the ground that once funded, everyone's dollars are spent on it.

    Would it have been so hard to say we love abortion but hate abstinence ed, so fund the latter INSTEAD of the former? As written, the ad is just an objection to objections to funding anything.

  2. JJ, to the hardcore abortion advocate, nothing short of abort-mobiles cruising the streets, on call, ready to rush to the scene and perform free immediate abortions the moment the idea crosses a woman's mind is good enough. Anything short of an immediate free abortion the moment the words cross the woman's lips is a "ban".

  3. Actually, if we had to get a nationwide consensus to fund any government projects, then our government would be a lot smaller. And that would be a good thing.... :)