Are Leftists Actually Pro-Choice?

Are leftists really pro-choice? They certainly tell us so often enough. (Methinks the lady doth protest too much…) But as soon as anybody else tries to make a choice they don’t like … Well, they immediately start laying down unilateral standards of conformity.

A case in point. The state of Indiana now has a state-wide voucher program in place. Legal challenges to the program have been shot down by the Indiana Supreme Court. So, for the time being, the Indiana voucher program is here to stay. And it’s actually working pretty well.

Leftists, of course, are outraged. How dare Indiana allow parents to spend taxpayer money on the school they think is best. Some of these schools teach the doctrine of creationism. What about separation of church and state? Blah, blah, blah. You’ve probably heard the rant.

The main issue here for leftists is that taxpayers are being forced to pay for something that they might not agree with. Fine. But where was this argument when leftists were fighting to protect taxpayer-funded contraception and abortion? They apparently forgot about it then. Or Obamacare?

And their argument doesn’t even make sense as far as the school vouchers go. Do school vouchers replace public schools? No. So if people want to send their kids to public school, they may. Are vouchers taking money away from public schools? Again, no. Voucher schools are all cheaper per child than public schools, meaning that the savings is spent on making public schools better for the kids that go there. I’m sorry that voucher schools provide a better education for cheaper. But they aren’t taking anything other than over-crowded classrooms away from public schools. Voucher schools just mean that each parent has more options for educating their children in the way they choose.

But leftists don’t like that. Because they aren’t really pro-choice. They don’t want parents to be able to choose where their kids go to school and what their children are taught. And they don’t want Christians to be able to exercise a choice in not supporting abortion. Apparently, we don’t get choices. When they say they are pro-choice, what they mean is that they will support you tooth and nail if you make their choice, and fight you tooth and nail if you don’t.

But I agree with them that taxpayer money should not go to private schools. I don’t think taxpayer money should go to any schools. The voucher program is a halfway measure toward a real solution. I think being really pro-choice is when the taxpayers aren’t paying any taxes for services they don’t want to use. If you choose to send your kids to the degrading cesspools of pedagogical incompetence that the government has set up to make obedient citizens, by all means do so. And pay your taxes for public schools. But if you want to send your kids to private schools or you want to keep them home to teach them yourself, do that. And you should not be forced to pay taxes for public schools.

When it has to do with a private choice, the public shouldn’t pay the price. That much should be obvious. There is a reason the US Constitution has a General Welfare clause, though it is ridiculously misinterpreted by revisionists. The General Welfare clause, basically, stipulates that the national civil government may not spend money, or levy taxes, for measures that benefit only one state, one constituency, or one group of people. Taxes are to be levied at the national level only for things that contribute to the general welfare of all the people in the Union. If they do not generally benefit the entire Union, they should be taken care of by the states, the county, the city, or the individual. And at every civil level, the general welfare principle applies. So the state should not levy taxes for things that do not benefit all the people of the state generally. The county should not levy taxes for special interests. And the city, etc.

Ironically then, the General Welfare clause would prohibit the modern federal practice of “welfare.” It would also forbid corporate bailouts, earmarks and pork, forcing taxpayers to pay for other perople’s health services, etc. It is unconstitutional and immoral to force the entire collective to pay to benefit only a select group within the collective.

If leftists were really pro-choice, they would recognize that. But they’re not. They want to force you to pay for their abortions, whether or not you believe abortion is moral. And they want to force you to pay for them to indoctrinate your kids. And they want you to pay for their life choices without question and publically legitimize their homosexual marriages and agree to their definitions and abide by their rules. And when you don’t, you’re intolerant and close-minded. You are clearly the one who doesn’t want people to be able to choose. Right.

5 responses

  1. Finally, a point well made about pro-choice leftists numbnuts. Leftists are everything America is not. They are not even leftists; they are elite anti-Americans aka communists who think they are the only intelligent life on the planet. We see where that’s got us.

  2. Liberal leftist nut jobs like the concept of “Do what I say, not as I do?” Just seems to fall into place here… Pay for what I want and not what you want. It’s really getting old hearing the leftist whine about not having everything their way.

  3. Once you dimwits recognize there is a wall that separates church & state you may begin to understand why taxpayers shouldn’t pay for religion.

    • Correct, as the author stated. We shouldn’t pay for religious institutions, as the separation clause says. However, that phrase of seperation of church and state is too used and often mis interpreted. It also means the government cant step in and say no no no if a religion is defending or speaking up for their beliefs (I.e. homosexuality, abortion, etc.), or the use of prayer in public places and schools, or even reports by children and their faith in school. We cant turn the country into a theocracy, but you cant make us put God in a box and hide it from the public.

    • While sometimes questioned as possible violations of separation, the appointment of official chaplainsfor government functions, voluntary prayer meetings at the Department of Justice outside of duty hours, voluntary prayer at meals in U.S. armed forces, inclusion of the (optional) phrase “so help me God” in the oaths for many elected offices, FBI agents, etc., have been held not to violate the First Amendment, since they fall within the realm of free exercise of religion.[citation needed]

      Relaxed zoning rules and special parking privileges for churches, the tax-free status of church property, the fact that Christmas is a federal holiday, etc., have also been questioned, but have been considered examples of the governmental prerogative in deciding practical and beneficial arrangements for the society. The national motto “In God We Trust” has been challenged as a violation, but the Supreme Court has ruled that ceremonial deism is not religious in nature.

Leave a Reply