The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewRon Paul Archive
Allow Americans to ‘Opt Out’ of Abortion and War
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently released proposed rules allowing individuals to opt out of Obamacare’s abortion and contraception mandates for moral or religious reasons. These new rules should be cheered by all who agree with Thomas Jefferson that forcing people to subsidize that which they find abhorrent is “sinful and tyrannical.”

Sadly, Congress continues to pass, and President Trump continues to sign, spending bills subsidizing abortion providers. When government gives taxpayer money to abortion providers, it forces anti-abortion taxpayers to fund something they believe is murder. This is every bit as “sinful and tyrannical” as forcing health plans to pay for abortion and contraception.

If Congress is going to continue giving taxpayer dollars to abortion providers, then it should at least find a way to protect those with moral or religious objections to abortion from subsidizing the practice with their tax dollars. Creating a special fund for the taxes of those who object to abortion and ensuring money in that fund is not used to subsidize abortion providers would help ensure that anti-abortion taxpayers are no longer directly subsidizing what they believe is the murder of unborn children. However, it would force pro-life taxpayers to indirectly subsidize abortion because money is fungible. So, if the government used money from the pro-life taxpayers to increase spending on programs that do not subsidize abortion, it would be able to use a greater percentage of the taxes collected from other taxpayers to fund abortionists.

A better way to protect anti-abortion taxpayers is to give them an expanded charitable tax credit. Pro-life taxpayers could use the credit to support crisis pregnancy centers and other charities that help pregnant women and new mothers. This approach would increase funding to private charities, while ensuring that, since the plan reduces government revenue, anti-abortion taxpayers are neither directly nor indirectly subsidizing abortions.

Opponents of abortion are not the only Americans who should be allowed to opt out of paying for what they consider murder. The many Americans with moral and religious objections to Washington’s militaristic foreign policy should also be able to redirect some of their taxes from the warfare state to private charities. Some may claim this would weaken America’s defenses. However, since America’s military budget is higher than the combined military budgets of the next seven biggest spending countries, and since our militaristic foreign policy has little or no relation to actual security, there is no reason the military budget cannot and should not be reduced.

Allowing taxpayers to opt out of subsidizing war and abortion would be major victories. However, there are other government programs that might offer exemptions for moral or religious objections. For example, followers of Ayn Rand have moral objections to government-funded welfare. Some Christians also find government-provided welfare morally objectionable because they believe it is the duty of the church, not the state, to help the less fortunate. Others may find corporate welfare, the drug war, or restrictions on the First and Second Amendments morally objectionable.

It may be impossible to find a welfare-warfare state program that does not offend someone’s moral or religious beliefs. For many the entire welfare-warfare state is immoral because it is built on a foundation of aggression. The only way to stop the government forcing taxpayers to subsidize activities they consider immoral is to return to limited, constitutional government that does not steal from the people via the income tax and the inflation tax.

(Republished from The Ron Paul Institute by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Abortion, American Military 
Hide 8 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Such good ideas are not coming anytime soon to a government near you.

    • Agree: Dannyboy
  2. Anonymous [AKA "Mary O\'Kay"] says:

    We had an opportunity to have a really great President in ’08 and ’12 and failed. Fake news had it’s way. But shame on us, fooling (some of) us twice.

    We could have had a seriously Constitutional Conservative. We get what we deserve in the end.

    My idea of truly pro-life is opposition to killing in-utero and in war.

    Thanks, Dr. Paul. You were a light in the dark, for a time.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  3. T. Weed says:

    Permit me to quote a part of a Letter published in the Hoboken Reporter August 13, 1995, about how to properly apportion our taxes. It was titled Dollarocracy…
    …Here’s how it works. Every taxpayer is mailed a list showing where his money goes now. His duty will be to apportion his share of the burden (based on his income) where he pleases. He’ll have all year to mull over the list and do what’s right, and he must rise to the occasion. Too much to ask? But isn’t that the whole premise of democracy? That you trust the common people?
    I know where I’d put my money. Not to the Pentagon, to Star Wars, Israel, the FBI, CIA, ATF, to sugar growers, cattlemen or loggers. I’d give to the future, to solar energy, electric cars and birth control. Let’s see how the people really feel. Of course, the High Priests of the Status Quo will dismiss this most democratic tax as “impossible”, :irresponsible”, but I say, Bosh! The details can be worked out.
    Oh, no doubt there’ll be much wailing and gnashing of teeth (and popping of corks; such is my hope, anyway) as the S.S. Superstate creaks and groans at every seam while executing a ponderous change of course in heavy seas. But whichever way it goes, my conscience is clear at last and I’m a better citizen. I’m empowered, free! For the first time in my life I’ve voted, not for Tweedledum or Tweedledee, but by putting my dollars where my druthers are.

    • Replies: @Toxic Talmudist
  4. I don’t suppose this concept could be extended to opting out of supporting Israel?

  5. @T. Weed

    in case you hadn’t noticed, citizens these days are getting less rights from govt, not more

    just wait until they take away your cash

  6. @Anonymous

    You’re right.

    My bumpersticker could read “Don’t Blame Me – I Voted for Ron TWICE” 😉

  7. T. Weed says:

    Yes, Toxic Talmudist, I had noticed, thank you. To explain the what, how, and why, we’d have to get into a discussion of the Federal Reserve Act, in 1913, which allowed a cabal of foreign bankers to print money out of thin air, lend this money to the government, and charge interest on this “money”. Nice work if you can get it, as the song says. That same year, a corrupt and bribed Congress (some things never change!) imposed an Income Tax on Americans, to make sure the Fed bankers got their money. Both are Constitutionally illegal. But the Constitution, as Bush said when he lied us into the Iraq war, is “only a piece of paper.”

  8. I was sure this was already a mandate. That tax dollars could not be spent on anything related to the taking of a human life in the womb.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ron Paul Comments via RSS