Don't subsidize abortion

This time of year in Bloomington has lately been the resuscitator for that much avoided, contorted abortion debate. For the last couple of years, the Bloomington city council members have voted to give the local chapter of Planned Parenthood a tax subsidy through their Social Services fund. The money, usually a couple thousand dollars a year, goes to an organization that performs abortions every Thursday and has already received over $8,000 in Bloomington tax money. This isn't just about a subsidy.\nThe real issue emerges: Should unborn babies be given equal protection under the law? Is it right that an organization that performs abortions receives tax money? \nLet me mention that abortion is fundamentally about two things. First, is an unborn baby a person? The pre-born baby is unmistakably human; it is completely formed, is genetically distinct from its mother, and is unmistakably alive. An unborn baby, then, is a person. \nSecond, does constitutional law protect the unborn? The fourteenth amendment first defines citizens as those who are either born on U.S. soil or are naturalized. Next, however, the amendment extends its protection to any person. The latter part reads, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Unborn babies are people -- the fourteenth amendment should protect them also.\nHere's where the opposition uses the Supreme Court ruling, Roe v. Wade. We all know abortion is legal. But that doesn't make it right and it doesn't make it constitutional. The court ruling opposes the fourteenth amendment. Thus, the ruling is unconstitutional. \nThis isn't a moral issue -- this is a civil rights issue. The main argument is whether or not the victims of abortion deserve equal protection under law. Yes, they do. Each baby is not given a trial before he or she is killed. Even if there was a trial, what defense does the baby have?\nPeople scapegoat the issue by saying they cannot interfere with a woman's decision for her body. Remember though that abortion is the death of a child, not a blob of tissues. Don't let this argument interfere with the subject at hand. Whenever someone interjects this into the abortion debate, simply replace the word abortion by inserting some other criminal behavior -- like rape. "I'm opposed to rape, but how can I impose my morality on someone else?" Most of us wouldn't be swayed by that argument. So why do the pro-aborts use it? It's an easy semantics game used to make you feel guilty when you should not. \nAnother frequent semantics game is to call abortion a medical procedure. Remember again, that abortion is the death of a child. Killing someone, in a medical facility or not, is uncivil and is not constitutionally protected. \nNow let's decide if Planned Parenthood should receive a tax subsidy. Pretty easily we can conclude that an organization that violates civil rights should not be given tax money. Would we all be fine if the council gave the KKK money? Don't think so! \nSupporters of this subsidy claim that Planned Parenthood does so many good things for women, offering many reproductive services. This subsidy, though, could go to the Bloomington Hospital or the Crisis Pregnancy Center. These council members are making a public decision to support abortion, regardless of the controversy behind it.