California Senate Candidate Backs Choice

Have you heard the latest from Barbara Boxer?

The men who have brought us this don’t single out a procedure that’s used by a man, or a drug that is used by a man, that involves his reproductive health care and say they have to get a special rider.

There’s nothing in this amendment that says if a man some days wants to buy Viagra, for example, that his pharmaceutical coverage cannot cover it, that he has to buy a rider. I wouldn’t support that.

Of course, this isn’t the first time she’s compared “reproductive health care,” code for prevention of reproduction, with Viagra, something that has nothing to do with abortion or birth control. Take a look at this:

A real, live example, which I’ve been hearing a lot about from women: There are many health insurance plans that will cover Viagra but won’t cover birth-control medication. Those women would like a choice.

Oh wait, my mistake. That last quote wasn’t from Barbara Boxer. It was from Carly Fiorina. Oops. Who can tell these “choice” advocates apart, though? Of course, Fiorina later backtracked and claimed that she was not taking a position at all on “pro-life” matters, I find it interesting that even then, she refused to come out and say that as a matter of public policy, she opposed abortion. She only claimed to be “personally” against abortion, which is the same formulation used by notable pro-publicly-financed-abortion candidates John Kerry and Rudy Giuliani.

Further, let us not forget that the two issues – abortion and birth control – are legally intertwined. A key precedent of Roe v. Wade was Eisenstadt v. Baird, in which Justice Brennan invoked “privacy” in declaring the right to make a “decision whether or not to bear or beget a child.”

The bottom line is this: time and again, Carly Fiorina has had the opportunity to take a stand for life and sane social values. However she has not, and only falls back on “I am personally pro-life” when questioned, instead of being an outspoken champion for life. This is why we have reason to question her commitment to life as a matter of law, and why pro-life California Republicans should think twice before supporting her in June.