Meg Whitman’s Extreme Pro-Abortion Views
-By Warner Todd Huston
A few weeks ago Jon Fleischman of FlashReport.org was fortunate enough to snag an interview with gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman. But the results of one segment of the meeting left him admittedly non-plussed, or as he termed it “unnerved.” Fleischman was aghast to learn of just how extreme Meg Whitman’s views on abortion really are. And after reading Fleischman’s interview myself, I have to wonder if her views makes her completely unelectable amongst California’s pro-lifers?
In the interview, Whitman was completely upfront about the fact that she stands solidly behind public funding of abortion. She was unequivocal about it, really. Whitman explained why she felt that public funding of abortion was the right decision telling Fleischman, “My view is that if we are going to be pro-choice… that it needs to be available to all women, and whether you are rich or poor, you need to be able to access that right. And it’s unfair to women who can not afford an abortion, and that’s why I support public funding.”
It’s one thing to say that a woman should be allowed to chose abortion — this is quite a common determination among liberals — but quite another, indeed, to say that the taxpayers should have to pay for that abortion.
Whitman obviously believes there is a “right” to abortion and that this “right” must be paid for by our tax dollars to be “fair.” This quixotic view of rights is quite an extreme one. After all, if public funds are used to pay for infanticide, then the rights of every taxpayer not to be a party to such actions is necessarily violated. Apparently Whitman doesn’t care that those with staunchly anti-abortion views might get queasy that their taxes are going to fund abortions.
Thankfully, Whitman agrees that late term abortions are wrong, but one has to wonder what arbitrary reasoning she uses to justify claiming that abortion is a “right” on one hand, but must be outlawed three to four months before full term on the other? Since when are rights based on age requirements? Does a person have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness only at a certain age? Or are true rights endemic to the human condition as has always been believed? If the later then Whitman hasn’t a logical leg to stand on with her view on rights and if the former then rights are transitory and open to the capriciousness of temporary popular sentiment making them less a right and more an mere opinion.
Whitman’s abortion views seem to have placed her decidedly in the minority, too. A recent Pew Research Poll finds that support for abortion is falling nation-wide.
Polls conducted in 2009 have found fewer Americans expressing support for abortion than in previous years. In Pew Research Center polls in 2007 and 2008, supporters of legal abortion clearly outnumbered opponents; now Americans are evenly divided on the question, and there have been modest increases in the numbers who favor reducing abortions or making them harder to obtain. Less support for abortion is evident among most demographic and political groups.
Pew found that opinions were even stronger against abortion when the question became one of making abortions far and few between, the pro-abortion view in the minority. The Pew poll also found that the number one reason cited for being anti-abortion was religious beliefs. Whitman’s views put her in direct opposition to those religious views.
Apparently, though, this does not worry her much. She feels that her abortion views should be cast off as the least important of the challenges facing the next governor. She reminded Fleischman that she is running on economic issues, after all. And if you happen to be a single issue voter?
You know what? People need to know where I stand, and what I have said is people will look at the whole package of attributes of my candidacy; my experience, what I bring to the table, my point of view on the social issues, and then people will weigh it. And if there are single issue voters, which there are on almost every issue, if I don’t agree with that person on that issue, whether it’s this issue or gay marriage or how I want to approach creating jobs in California, people just have to look at the whole package and say, “Okay. I don’t agree with her on every issue, but I like the general approach and I like her authenticity and what she says.
Public funding of abortion is an extreme view even for many Democrats. But for Republicans it is an infinitesimally minority position. I cannot help but feel that if Whitman’s abortion views become more widely known, she won’t [find it] so easy to blow it all off as a mere side issue.
Email This
Posted by Warner Todd Huston on October 16, 2009 2:34 pm
» Filed Under Abortion, Constitution, Hypocrisy/Situational Ethics, Infanticide, Liberal World, News, Polls, Republican, State Government, feminism
Trackback URL:
- Jeremiah Films: Foundations of Government, States...
Comments
9 Responses to “Meg Whitman’s Extreme Pro-Abortion Views”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Actually she is right, if you take the emotion and politics out of it and just view it as a medical procedure – if it is available to women with money, it cannot be denied to a woman without. That’s been my understanding since the 70s.
It’s kinda like Welfare – if you take all the emotion out of it, it’s really not for the adults, it is really for the kids, to ensure that they have food, even if their parents are low-lifes. (Not that everyone on welfare is, but some are).
I don’t think Meg’s views are going to be all that far off.
Best recourse? “Life. What a Beautiful Choice.” Powerful ads changing minds and influencing actions.
That is quite a ridiculous philosophy you have there, Rose. Your idea that if “rich” people have something then that means “poor” people MUST also is patently idiotic.
In fact, there is no way to put a limit on your claim. If a “rich” person has a million dollar home then why can’t a “poor” person have one? If a “rich” person has a Mercedes then why can’t a “poor” person have one? If a “rich” person has a jet plane then why can’t a “poor” person have one? If a “rich” person eats all the best food then why can’t a “poor” person have the same?
If you have a nice home and computer, why don’t you give it to a poor person? Why do YOU hate poor people so much?
Emotion and politics out of it ? It is a life plain and simple, and why is it that when a woman wants to kill her baby it is her body, but when an athlete wants to take steroids it isn’t his right to do what he wants with his body. In any case I am not going to vote for her because of her pro death stance, and also by the way she favors the buyers on ebay way more than the sellers, I am not sure I want her kind of business knowledge
Those who performed, support/voted for abortion rights and if they don’t repent will wind up in hell. That’s all there is to it. You all don’t have that much time to repent.
We are all visitors here on this planet. Who am I to say that some one doesn’t have a right to live. Especially since that person is innocent of all crimes/sins.
Was for Whitman but can’t back or vote for a pro abortionist, so I will work against her.
I’m just shocked that she would say that it’s a certain issue and to look at the whole package. Since when does a life become negotiable over money or economics. You tell that to a parent who has a child with a medical condition that is expensive and see what they have to say about money vs. a life of a child. A child isn’t an issue it’s a life. I was for Whitman until I found out about her stance on abortion. Me and every other taxpayer I know is now going to abort Whitman.
The reason so many wrong people are leading in the upcoming polls now, is because no one is talking about their stand on abortion. There are millions of us who would not vote
for anyone who supports abortion.
Did you ever hear Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton and John Kerry and Barbara Boxer explode in favor of abortion and Barack
Obama’s promise to Planned Parenthood to make abortion on demand the law of the land and promise more funds to Planned Parenthood?
I am a Republican and that is because in the past they have been the pro-life party. Now they don’t even talk about it. Where is the backbone? I hope Jerry Brown wins in California. I will not vote for Meg Whitman or Steve Poisner. There are other candidates running for governor in California and I intend to find out who they are and vote for the best one out of the other candidates, but only if they are pro-life and against amnesty. I wrote to the the Republican National Committee and told them off for not being pro-life with backbone. I said it is
right to stand up for what is decent and moral and just. It is not right to win if you do not have the courage to stand up for what is right. We would not have been in this mess with this traitor and baby killer in the White House if people had really cared about what our country stands for.
“I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, One Nation Under God, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All”
It is not justice when one group of people want to kill babies on demand. Roe vs Wade is unconstitutional and most of all, murder because it makes murder the law of the land. It takes away “The Right To Life, Liberty, And The Pursuit Of Happiness” from the most innocent and tiny helpless human beings. I am not proud that Obama was elected simply on the basis that he is a black man. He is half white but looks black. This is not the kind of man that the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. had in mind when he said:
“There will be a time when a man will not be judged by the color of his skin but by his character.” We have never had a President so lacking in character as this man who feels that it is beyond his paygrade to acknowledge that a baby’s life bagins at conception. With that statement he showed how little regard he has for human life. This answer to a question about human decency and moral judgemnet in regards to little babies in the womb showed his lack of concern about the murder of innocent babies by abortion. That should have shown everyone that he wasn’t worthy to be our President. He is proving himself to be on the side of our enemies. He won’t even acknowledge them as “Islamic Terrorists” and “Enemy Combatants” and that their aim is to take over our nation and make it bow down to ‘allah’ by force and murder as they have been doing for over 1400 years in the middle east and in Europe and the Phillipines and Asia. He is acting like a traitor to “We the People of the United States of America”.
[edited]
I was a big supporter of Meg Whitman and Tom McClintock.McClintock, since George Putnam was behind him.I will not vote for him ever again if he does not have any better moral judgement than to back Steve Poizner.It would not surprise me,if he starts to back Barbara Boxer or Pelosi.There is not much difference between the three.Meg Whitman has made it difficult to finally get her horrible views on ABORTION,and that and that alone will prohibit me from voting for her.I did not know that she was a baby killer.
What ends as a baby begins as a baby! I have seen hearts beating at 5 weeks while still attached to the yolk sac while I was a student in ultra sound school!!!!!!What part of this is not a human being even at this young age?????????