I ran out on a short errand today during which was listening to Boortz lambaste Rick Santorum about abortion and contraception. I believe I heard Neal say (and I am paraphrasing) that, if elected, Rick would prosecute docters that perform abortions, make the day after pill unavailable and deny contraception to the poor. Say what?
First of all, Rick Santorum can do none of those things if elected. Roe v. Wade is a Supreme Court decision and the use of contraceptives is protected by law. There is nothing Rick could do unless he decided to act as lawlessly as the current administration. The president can neither make law or decide the constitutionality of a law, so you claims are patently false.
Secondly, say Santorum did stop providing “free” (as in government provided) contraceptives or abortions. That would not make either unavailable. They just wouldn’t be government provided.
For someone who professes to be against government interference in our lives, Mr Boortz is all for government subsidies for the things he believes in. My question is why should the government decide who to subsidize for anything in the first place. It should either be available to all or none. To fall into the trap of thinking it’s OK for the government to decide what it can subsidize or not is a essentially being snookered into a soft tyranny. You can’t have it both ways based on your whims and claim to be consistent.
Lastly, if you want to be intellectually honest Mr Boortz, play or read the actual quotes from Santorum. It’s just hearsay on your part with your strong opinion inserted. In the mean time, I suggest you make up your mind about whether you are for or against government assistance of any kind. Otherwise, some people might start to think you are hypocrite.