A bill that reduces abortion

Here at the office of Representative Robert J. Rino, we are very proud of our pro-life record. We are doing everything to not only stop, but also reduce the number of abortions, because we believe every life is sacred.

That’s why we’re sponsoring the “Pro-life Socialism in Action” house bill: a bill designed to not eliminate, but fight the tide of abortions. The genius of it is that it will not only cut down on abortion, but also gain bi-partisan approval, and get Rep. Rino elected again.

Here’s how it works: every time a male comes in for a check-up at his doctor’s office will be given a condom and explained its use in preventing unwanted pregnancy. If a doctor fails to hand out these pro-life condoms, he will loose his license.

Don’t we have the right to do this as a state? After all, we’re the ones that give the doctors their licenses and Roe v. Wade says we have the right as a state to regulate in order to reduce the number of abortions. Currently, almost 8,300 unborn lives are destroyed every day. If we can’t stop abortion, don’t you want to see that number at least go down?

That’s a good thing, right?

No. I’m being very sarcastic here. I hope you get my point.

I’ve been quite upset by the way that UT hands out condoms like they’re cough drops. I do not want the government to think it has the authority to tell doctors that they need to give me one every time I go in for a checkup. Wouldn’t you vote against such a law requiring doctors to do so?

Why does this matter?

I know you probably wouldn’t support a bill like this (if you would, then I’m not writing to you). But conservatives all over this state are just about to do the exact same thing, or at least use the same reasoning.

I’m not saying here that doctors shouldn’t show the sonogram. For me, it’s a duh. They should. However, I object to the government making it mandatory.

The Sonogram Proposal: Socialism is Socialism, even if it’s Pro-life

First, there’s Ballot Proposition #5 on Sonograms, which will appear on the Republican Primary ballot today. Then, there’s the Texas Alliance for Life griping over Medina supporting liberty. Finally, I said enough is enough.

Socialism is socialism, even if we would like to call it pro-life. There is a fundamental difference between incrementalism and unrelated compromise. How can we tell the government it doesn’t have the authority to tell doctors what procedures to preform (or what to hand out) if we reserve the right to tell them to be pro-life?

So, take it or leave it. But if you agree with what I’m saying, I hope you vote that way today. If you disagree, then post a comment. I’m open to the possibility that I’ve missed the elephant here.