Often in the political activism business, we struggle to balance principle with strategy. At RedState, we have taken the oft-criticized stance that we will not endorse any pro-choice candidate, regardless of their stance on other issues. That said, we have not always agreed, even amongst ourselves, how we should treat pro-choice Republicans who would nonetheless doubtless be better than the Democrat alternative. In some cases, many of us (myself often included) have felt comfortable keeping quiet about pro-choice Republicans, saying things about them that are generally positive, and/or attacking their Democrat opponents. In the last couple of years, we have had lively discussions about how to react to primary challenges to Mike Castle and Olympia Snowe, to name but a couple. Personally, I counseled leaving both Castle and Snowe alone at least in the absence of a primary challenger who could win statewide.
That having been said, it is one thing to be pro-choice – i.e., to believe that mothers ought to legally have the right to kill their children in utero. This, perhaps, is something towards which conservatives might turn a blind eye in the service of pragmatism and politics. It is something else to be in favor of taxpayer funding of abortion, a position which is outside the mainstream of American politics and which seeks to make each and every one of us complicit in abortions. This is exactly the position Scott Brown has taken.
Scott Brown can couch his support for Planned Parenthood in all the flowery euphemisms that he likes; that just shows that he has been bought and paid for by the abortion industry. He can attempt to split hairs and claim that the money that goes to Planned Parenthood does not go for abortions, but this is a line of argumentation that only fools the idiots and the wilfully blind. The defining characteristic of money is that it is fungible. Which bank account it goes into is completely irrelevant. And if Scott Brown, after having seen the corruption of Planned Parenthood exposed over and over again throughout the last month, still thinks a portion of my income ought to be forcibly taken from me and given to Planned Parenthood for them to continue their butchery and lawlessness, then I think someone – anyone – ought to challenge Scott Brown in a primary. And whoever that person is, they will have my support and whatever I can afford to donate as long as they repudiate Brown’s stance on this issue.
And if he should survive that primary, I have no idea why any Republican should feel that he deserves their vote in the general. Taxpayer funding of abortion is a replusive position that is outside the American mainstream and it shouldn’t be identified as “bipartisan.”