RSSDems Stage Morality Ploy
Gene Lalor | December 10, 2009
Not especially known for excursions into questions of morality, two Democrat pols have dredged up the M-word to bolster weak and fatuously immoral policy positions.
“Morality” must be the keyword in this week’s DNC talking points.
First, Senator Barbara Mikulski (D. MD) 
contended, “I think it’s morally wrong to vote against health care.”
Her twisted reasoning? Invoking Pro-Life sentiments, she adds, “Universal access to health care that would guarantee maternity health, sound wonderful deliveries for children, and so on, I think that’s what we want to do.”
Two cheers for Mikulski! She doesn’t merit a third cheer due to her conscious omission of any reference to the antithesis of “sound, wonderful deliveries,” the provisions for abortion funding in Obamacare.
As Karen Schuberg writes for CNS News, “The Senate health care bill permits federal tax dollars to go to health insurance plans that cover abortion. It also requires that at least one insurance plan available in the insurance ‘exchanges’ the bill will set up must cover abortion:” http://bit.ly/4CXCux
“Senator Barb” either forgot those requisites or she believes it’s morally right to terminate the innocent lives of the pre-born.
Granted, she’s never been married nor has she borne any children and there have been more than a few suggestions that she is a lesbian, http://bit.ly/8j15xB, but shouldn’t good Catholic ladies like Barb have more empathy for babies?
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D. CA) 
isn’t nearly as squeamish as Mikulski on the abortion question. In fact, she told CNSNews.com that “using tax dollars from pro-life Americans to pay for insurance plans that cover abortion is morally correct.”
Following the Democrat defeat of an amendment offered by Sen. Ben Nelson (D. NE) to prohibit taxpayer funding of insurance plans that covered abortions, Feinstein scrambled for some rationale to explain why those who cherish life should have to pay for abortions:
“Is it morally correct? Yes, I believe it is. Abortion is legal, and there (are) certain very tragic circumstances that a woman finds herself in. Married, with an unborn baby that’s unable to survive outside of the womb, her doctor tells her it’s a threat to her health.”
The thrice-wed (one child) Jewish senator petulantly continued, ”Please. We pay for a lot of things that we may or may not agree with, and taxpayers pay for it, for those things, as well:” http://bit.ly/4Y5uJt
Please, Madame Senator! You know damned well that the viability of a pre-born baby and the health of the mother are but two circumstances in performing abortions.
Others reasons include sex-selection, inconvenience, finances, embarrassment, which are far more often the motivations of the mother. 
Then try searching a dictionary for the meaning of morality.
In case you’re too busy, I looked it up for you. Maybe jot down these two relevant definitions so you don’t forget them. Morality: “Conformity to ideals of right human conduct.” Moral: “Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous.”
If you believe aborting the innocent is ideal, right, just, and virtuous maybe you and your esteemed colleague Mrs. Mikulski should be working in an abortion mill rather than in the United States Senate.
Their thinking is as rational as Harry Reid comparing opposition to Obamacare with endorsing slavery and the other Barb (Boxer) in the Senate drawing an analogy between abortion and Viagra: http://bit.ly/7Cil8u
Contributor's website: http://www.genelalor.com/
Content posted by users from other sites is posted for commentary and news purposes under fair use and each author is responsible for their own postings and a particular posting should not be construed as being endorsed by this site or its owner.
Leave a Reply
Loading ...Recommended Reading:
