Rebecca has a great piece in the Post today about how abortion is not a private choice if you and I are paying for it:
Let’s take supporters of access to abortion at their word: Elective abortions are a personal choice. For example, in a recent posting on the Post’s Web site, Joyce Arthur, co-ordinator of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, insists that abortion be available as backup birth control so women can have “sex for pleasure.” But then the same advocates immediately push abortion firmly into the public domain, and keep it there, by insisting elective abortions be paid for by taxpayers, a large percentage of whom are completely opposed to the procedure.
Well done, Rebecca! (Who would have thought you could get a tagline so long in the paper? “Rebecca Walberg is a Winnipeg writer and policy analyst, and a founding member of ProWomanProLife.org, recently named the best new Canadian blog of 2008.” Neat-o.)
______________________
Rebecca adds: These pro-abortion folks, they’re all class (well, some of them, anyway): the headline on my blog was “If it’s a private choice, why am I paying for it?” I just got an anonymous reply saying “Because it’s a health care cost, and paying professionals to pick womb-boogers reduces the cost of paying for the results of bungled abortions.” Aren’t they charming?
So, if people threaten to do their own back-alley breast implants, risking sepsis and permanent injury, possibly even death, will medicare start providing all women with perky DD boobs, gratis?
As to the “womb-booger” – keep it up, my friend. The more Canadians hear from this wing of the abortion-rights crowd, the more you make the pro-life case for us.
_______________________
Brigitte wonders: Does the term “womb-booger” apply to all former fetuses, including him/her, or just, you know, other people?
by 
Reading the comments on that article, it's pretty evident that for a lot of people abortion is nothing more than an issue of property rights. How did we ever get to this point? And womb-boogers? UGH, I'm still cringing 10 minutes after reading that.
Thank you Rebecca, for being such a rational voice in an increasingly irrational world!
It has always bothered me to my core that my taxpayer dollars fund an elective procedure that is neither moral, nor medically necessary. What part of “choice” is consistent with “necessary”?? (Where the mother’s life is in danger, terminations have always been legal and will rightly continue to be classified as medically necessary).
Removing public funding from abortions is not the be-all and end-all. But it would certainly lead to a decrease in the number of abortions. And as a first step in the battle against abortion, a decrease in their numbers would be great. Removing public funding would also go a long way towards not making the rest of us complicit in an act which we do not support!
You women at PWPL continue to lend loud and resonant voice to the issues and I want to thank you wholeheartedly! Great article Rebecca. And great work, ALL of you!
On the topic of the term "womb boogers", it amazes me how some – not all, but some – pro-choice people can be so contemptuous towards babies and children. "Womb boogers," "crotch droppings" – at least when white people during the time of slavery spoke about black people in dehumaizing terms, they referred to them as animals, not inanimate human waste products.
Rebecca, your article today hit a nerve. Out here in BC we have been following the lead of Alberta in trying to raise the issue of de-funding abortion from the medical system. All logical arguments favour this happening. We need to remember two things in sound byte fashion. First "If its "your" choice why am "I" paying for it. Second, "Abortion costs society more than it benefits."
Well done and please keep poking that stick into the "feminest" movement.
Heh, I hadn’t heard “womb-booger” before, and I’ve heard a lot of unsavory terms for a fetus. I guess when you’re justifying the unjustifiable, you have to paint it as something trivial. Dehumanizing “undesirables” is as old as the wind though, not very “progressive” at all.