Friday, September 30, 2011

Mr. Trost and Mr. Vellacot: A suggestion.

Wiith Brad Trost (and now Maurice Vellacot) in the news again, I thought it pertinent to re-open this discussion. I still question whether our government should fund optional abortions. But, in terms of providing funds to IPP (International Planned Parenthood), rather than decrying the $6M that went to countries where abortion is already illegal, might a better solution be to find an agency that does a BETTER job of protecting and enhancing the lives of women in the 3rd world and switch funding to them?

Does such an organization exist? If it does, then please frame the decision not as a negative (ie anti-PP) but a positive (better organization). If, however, there is no such alternative, then rather than rail against women who feel they have no options, work towards providing an alternative.

To do anything less is to play politics with people's lives. Provide viable alternatives, or shut up. Abortion should not be used to capture a sound-bite. Life matters.
Respectfully, this is now up for discussion.


  1. The "Better Organization" you speak of is the Church, but when does government give money to religious organizations?

  2. Perhaps it's up to the Church to do a better job of communicating how it cares for pregnant mothers and unwanted babies and to apply for the government grants that exist? And then, apply pressure to receive that funding if they are denied?

    If there are churches that are providing the highest level of care in terms of women's health and infant care, then absolutely the government should be funding these religious organizations or, if that is impossible (because it's not "politically correct"), then perhaps they should fund no one and lower our taxes so that as individuals we have more disposable income with which to increase funding where we want.

    No one should have to fund abortions if that is morally reprehensible to them...but yet, we do through our tax dollars.