Skip to content

The Size of Government

© Lee Judge

Mike Huckabee said on Monday that abortion is the most important political issue — more important than the economy, jobs, the deficit, wars, etc.



  1. “The most important issue is to DISTRACT EVERYONE FROM EVERYTHING EVER.”

    – Mike Fuckabee

    Saturday, February 19, 2011 at 2:19 am | Permalink
  2. ZJD wrote:

    “Boy, I’ve never seen an issue so divisive. It’s like a civil war, isn’t it? Even amongst my friends, who are all very intelligent, they’re totally divided on abortion. It’s unbelievable. Some of my friends, for instance, think these pro-life people are annoying idiots. Other of my friends think these pro-life people are evil fucks. How are we gonna come to a consensus?” – Bill Hicks

    Saturday, February 19, 2011 at 2:36 am | Permalink
  3. ebdoug wrote:

    Tell them about the seven year old in Oregon who was dropped off at the father’s house by her mother, left for the weekend. Mother never came back. Father and new girl friend turned the little girl into a slave until the little girl fell asleep in the bathtub and drowned. So it is God’s will that we 1) have slavery and 2) don’t have abortions? Slavery is permitted by God’s will?
    And ask who with the cut back in governement funding is going to care for the 1.5 million aborted babies a year in this country? Feed them, house them, give them medical care, educate them ? “The Lord will provide” from whence? The Republicans want domestic programs cut back with no jobs on the horizon. And we have one of the lowest rates of abortion.
    I am totally anti abortion for myself.

    Saturday, February 19, 2011 at 5:23 am | Permalink
  4. ebdoug wrote:

    Demanding all have health insurance is goverment instrusion? but demanding that woman not have abortion is not also government instrusion?

    Saturday, February 19, 2011 at 5:26 am | Permalink
  5. PatriotSGT wrote:

    Abortion cannot be turned into a black/white issue. By that I mean it is a gray issue and there are considerations on both sides. For every kid left on a doorstep story, there are other stories of butchers who drill holes in childrens skulls who are newborn late term abortion murder victims.

    Who will protect them. If the problem is unwanted pregnancy, why don’t we spay and nueter those that won’t be responsible in the first place. I know what about rape, and I agree. I believe in a womens right to choose, in the first trimester. After that it needs to be on a case by case basis because it becomes a gray area. In the 3rd trimester it is murder. I don’t know how a group opposed to capital punishment and fighting wars and the deaths of civilians abroad can be FOR the murder of innocent children. It seems like the 2 sides are on the wrong side of the argument.

    I’ll tell you, I was a baby left at a hospital doorstep. I am so glad my biological mother choose to go through the pain of childbirth and had the courage to give me an opportunity she thought she would not be able to provide. The family who adopted (this american kid)raised me right and I’ve become a contributing member of society.

    People want to make it a polarizing issue, they want it black or white. Why? Thats the question we should be asking and then we can come to an agreement.

    Saturday, February 19, 2011 at 9:55 am | Permalink
  6. ebdoug wrote:

    Patriot, I love the story. Your mother was responsible.
    I think the exact opposite happens with the conservatives. No abortion but we will happily send you to Iraq to be killed in an unnecessary war. Spend money on wars but not on the disadvantaged in our country.
    I happen to be the person with the doorstep. Not people but cats who walk in. Fortunately they are now killing the mice I didn’t have the heart to kill.
    Of course, I have my own do it yourselver son and now his four children. His father wanted me to have an abortion. I made the choice for the child, not the relationship.
    When I worked as a nurse in OB in California in the 60s, they did saline abortions to kill the baby. I watched the baby move for three days before the baby died. That was the last time they made me help in that area. took me a long time to be prochoice for everyone else.

    Saturday, February 19, 2011 at 10:53 am | Permalink
  7. Dan wrote:

    Didn’t Congress pass something that would omit abortions from heath insurance that the gov. subsidizes? Effecting those who can’t afford to buy insurance let alone feed another mouth?
    I think Dr. Dean said it best, “Life does not end a birth.”
    The courts have ruled abortion is legal. We also have a separation of church and state. If abortion is to be reduced then organizations that want to end it, be it churches, civic groups, whatever, need to step into the breach and provide alternatives, adoptions, or whatever.

    Saturday, February 19, 2011 at 12:04 pm | Permalink
  8. Iron Knee wrote:

    To me, the issue is not whether you think abortions are a good thing or a bad thing. The issue is whether or not the government should be involved.

    I am anti-abortion, but I am strongly pro-choice. I can’t even say that third-trimester is murder if the mother’s life is in severe danger. Leave the decision up to the mother and her doctor. It is as simple as that.

    I am sick of the hypocrisy of people who want abortions to be illegal — that is until someone in their family gets pregnant.

    If people are really anti-abortion, they should be spending their time and money on providing a reasonable alternative for women who are pregnant to either keep their babies, or give them up to the many people who want to adopt.

    Saturday, February 19, 2011 at 1:28 pm | Permalink
  9. Michael wrote:

    In my view, it is the anti-abortion side that tries to make it a black-and-white issue with exaggerated slogans like, “Abortion is murder.” The fact that it’s a controversial topic and people hold different opinions makes it pretty obvious that abortion is not morally equivalent to murder. The pro-choice argument is generally that the issue is too complex to be decided with legislation and should be left primarily to the mother and her doctor.

    Legislation at any level is far too blunt of an instrument for the matter. As soon as you add any exception (e.g., allowing abortion in cases of rape, incest, and the health/life of the mother), the frequency of those things happening will skyrocket. Because, really, do you want to interrogate every woman who claims she was raped and wants an abortion?

    Why do anti-abortion groups try to paint it as black-and-white? There are many reasons, one of which is an idealistic view of what sexuality and morality should be. I’ve known many anti-abortion advocates who say things like, “If you didn’t want to get pregnant, you shouldn’t have had sex.” This view makes it sound like pregnancy and children are punishments. It always confuses me when these people then go on to talk about how children are blessings and gifts from God.

    Regarding second- and third-trimester abortion, there is a lot of misinformation and political posturing that really neglects one simple fact: Some of the most common reasons for performing late-term abortions are related to the life/health of the mother and/or fetus. Women don’t generally just wake up in their 8th month and say, “You know, I guess I don’t want this baby after all.” Sure, there are other reasons (e.g., aborting because the parents wanted a child of the other gender), but health concerns are a big cause. My wife works in prenatal medicine, and I’ve learned just how many things can go wrong.

    One thing that infuriates me is political attempts to ban particular practices, primarily intact dilation and extraction (D & X). This is often the HUMANE procedure choice. For instance, I’ve read accounts of women having a late-term abortion because the fetus had a condition that was guaranteed to be lethal (e.g., anencephaly). By having the D & X, the parents were able to hold their child and begin the grieving process.

    Saturday, February 19, 2011 at 4:18 pm | Permalink
  10. Michael wrote:

    As a side note, the story about the doctor charged with 8 counts of murder should not be conflated with the discussion of late-term abortion. Let’s look at the charges against this guy: He wasn’t a certified OB/GYN, he let unlicensed staff (including a 15 year old girl) administer anesthesia and perform operations, there were litter boxes and animals in operating rooms WHILE procedures were performed, and he re-used unsanitary equipment. It’s pretty clear that this stuff is both unethical and criminal.

    Saturday, February 19, 2011 at 4:27 pm | Permalink
  11. TENTHIRTYTWO wrote:

    My opinion:

    The conservatives and evangelical right will never outlaw abortion because it is a key rallying issue. While they may feel one way or another about the issue itself, keeping it legal gives them an easy way to ignite their base.

    How many Republican presidents and congress have we had since Roe v Wade? How many have pledged their hatred for abortion? How many have promised their effort to ban it?

    Why is it still legal?

    For anyone that is interested in what I consider to be an even handed look at abortion, watch the documentary Lake of Fire. It is very difficult to watch, but it is hard to walk away from that movie without it affect you.

    Saturday, February 19, 2011 at 5:56 pm | Permalink
  12. Congratulations folks, you’re officially playing Huckabee’s game. You’re distracted.

    Saturday, February 19, 2011 at 6:07 pm | Permalink
  13. Steve wrote:

    The same argument should apply to how we as Americans handle every issue before us. It should be the entire issue and not the response to one incident. What I mean is, if it is improper to knee-jerk to “harsher gun laws” after the Arizona incident, then it should be seen as just as knee-jerk that we’re having these talks after this doctor did what he did.

    The issue as a whole comes down to the point brought up earlier, how can the right say it is not the government’s job to say who has access to health care because that would be “expanding government into my personal life” yet they have no issue with “expanding government into everyone else’s life.” The right is totally reactionary 100% of the time.
    Being a liberal, I’d much rather think of myself in the truest sense of the term “progressive.” Leave legislation out there that would deter these late term abortions by cementing into the head of the pregnant woman that from DAY 1 she knows society is behind her right to choose. It’s simple, being that I am not a woman, why should my opinion matter? It is her baby, she will do with it as she pleases as long as she does not violate existing laws regarding murder.
    The court has ruled what is and what is not a child and for conservatives to argue that point means that they are arguing science. Argue science, but use contradictory science, not fairy tales. If the GOP wants to try and keep a straight face while they petition the courts to change their ruling on what is and what is not a child WITHOUT using their “good book”, let them try. It is not a religious issue, it is either a baby or it isn’t, next issue.

    Saturday, February 19, 2011 at 10:55 pm | Permalink
  14. C.S.Strowbridge wrote:

    “Abortion cannot be turned into a black/white issue.”

    Yes it can. Until the fetus can be made to live on its own without harming the woman, then it is the woman’s choice. End of story. It has to be this way, because as long as that fetus is in that woman, it’s harming her.

    Everything else is a distraction. The story in Philly has nothing to do with abortions, but with a terrible doctor. You could find horror stories like that with just about any field.

    You are happy your mother made that choice. I’m happy she had a choice.

    Sunday, February 20, 2011 at 7:19 am | Permalink
  15. Iron Knee wrote:

    > You are happy your mother made that choice. I’m happy she had a choice.

    Exactly! People might be glad that their parents decided to let them be born, but might it be just a teeny bit different if their parents really had not wanted to have a baby, but were forced to?

    For example, there is good evidence that the legalization of abortion contributed significantly to the reduction in crime rates. See

    It seems obvious that a child that is wanted is a happier child. A child that is a “punishment” for having sex is not a child I would like to be.

    Sunday, February 20, 2011 at 10:56 am | Permalink
  16. PatriotSGT wrote:

    CSS – “Until the fetus can be made to live on its own without harming the woman” I’m not sure what you mean. Of course children can’t decide when to be born, nor can the mother except when induced. So the issue remains decidedly gray.

    Steve – “what is and what is not a child” I don’t know the court ruling you are referring to, I have heard of a few intances where someone was additionally charged with manslughter of an unborn fetus, because they killed a pregnant women in her third trimester.

    So, is the choice to keep the child or give it up for adoption THE choice or one of three. You all make very good points on reasons for abortion and I’d certainly agree with you if the birth would cause the death of the mother or the fetus is not viable. Thats a decision on a case by case basis that should be made between a physician and patient.
    On the science issue of at what point does the child cross the line of being able to survive on its own (ie breathing, etc), I’d like to see science put a number say the 25th week. Problem is they cannot, the human spirit routinely defies medicine and science. In the first trimester I thinkall would agree the fetus cannot survive, the last trimester that most fetus’ can survive. The 2nd trimester is debatable with earlier being less likely, but later being possible.
    At what point does a fetus become a child?

    And lastly IK, putting a child up for adoption is a choice and not punishment.

    Sunday, February 20, 2011 at 11:33 am | Permalink
  17. Omar Mack wrote:

    Against abortion, don’t have one. Real Simple!!!

    A man has been controlling a woman’s body for thousands of years. Why any woman would a federal law to perpetuate this nonsense is beyond me.

    Sunday, February 20, 2011 at 12:25 pm | Permalink
  18. C.S.Strowbridge wrote:

    CSS – “Until the fetus can be made to live on its own without harming the woman”

    PatriotSGT wrote: “I’m not sure what you mean.”

    It’s simple. Until the fetus can be made to survive on its own without harming the woman, it is the woman’s choice if she wants an abortion or not.

    Any other rule and you are giving the fetus more rights that the woman.

    “So the issue remains decidedly gray.”

    It remains clouded with distractions.

    “Problem is they cannot, the human spirit routinely defies medicine and science.”

    Cause it doesn’t exist. Neither do ghosts, chi, chakaras, auras, etc. and they shouldn’t be the subject of any scientific debate.

    “At what point does a fetus become a child?”

    When it’s born. Look up the definition of fetus.

    “And lastly IK, putting a child up for adoption is a choice and not punishment.”

    Being forced to carry a fetus to term and give birth is. Being forced to do just about anything against your will would be considered punishment.

    Monday, February 21, 2011 at 1:35 am | Permalink
  19. PatriotSGT wrote:

    CSS – “Being forced to do just about anything against your will would be considered punishment”
    Then is being mandated by the gov’t to buy insurance against your will punishment?

    Monday, February 21, 2011 at 6:08 am | Permalink
  20. Iron Knee wrote:

    All right you two, calm down. Paying taxes (even against your will) is not punishment, it is the cost of living in the US. If you claim that you can choose to move to another country (so you don’t have to pay US taxes) then you could make the same argument about abortion (you could move to another country where abortion is legal to avoid having to carry a fetus to term and give birth). This line of argument is not leading anywhere.

    Monday, February 21, 2011 at 2:05 pm | Permalink
  21. BTN wrote:

    CSS, Forget the “doctor” in Philly, that I agree. However, I “harm” is ill-defined and relative. If you want to go for a loose definition, there are lots of people that are “harming” you by using up resources such as food, gasoline, water, etc.

    Also, if a fetus is viable outside the womb, then shouldn’t it just be the choice of the mother on whether or not the fetus is removed from her womb, not whether it is aborted? Once it is removed, it is no longer “harming” her.

    Tuesday, February 22, 2011 at 7:55 pm | Permalink