More McHenry County Blog

I remember reading something U.S. Senator Charles Percy put in the Congressional Record about how much it cost taxpayers to raise a child on welfare to age 18.

A cost-benefit analysis about whether another should be allowed to live. How immoral it seems in retrospect.

Personal PAC argues that the Medicaid-eligible woman who wants an abortion must

“borrow from their rent or grocery budgets, which means their families must do without basic necessities” or “obtain an abortion at a later stage, when the procedure is even more expensive and poses a greater risk to her health…The cost of a first trimester abortion is approximately 68% of the basic monthly grant for a family of three.”

Personal PAC asks no question about whether a candidate has ever contributed to a charity that will subsidize the abortions of those on welfare, however. Is there any such "charity?" Or is this issue primarily about making money for the abortion industry?

So, will the candidate support restoring abortion coverage under Medicaid?

And, how about paying for abortions for state employees, a health “benefit” that was eliminated shortly after those on welfare lost the taxpayer subsidy.

Pro-life sidewalk counselors are the targets of the next question, the first on Page 3. Of course, Personal PAC wants to protest “First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly.”

Really. That’s what it says when asking for support to “make it illegal to prevent a patient or staff person from entering or leaving a medical facility.”

And, just in case Cosgrove’s Roe v. Wade pessimism is well placed, Personal PAC wants to know if candidates would support the “Freedom of Choice Act,” which would codify the Federal decision.

The questionnaire complains that

“…the anti-legal abortion movement” has “hijacked the issue of stem cell research for political purposes.” Comparing the issue to the opponents’ “opposition to all forms of artificial birth control and its opposition to emergency contraception for rape victims, the anti-abortion movement is using opposition to stem cell research to establish as public policy (versus privately held religions doctrine) that life begins at conception without respect for a woman’s health and life.

Thus, support of stem cell research is essential to protecting reproductive rights.

The logic sounds convoluted to me, but apparently makes perfect sense to Personal PAC.

And, remember, this question is under the rubric “Protecting the Lives and Health of Illinois Women.”

Stop cloning and protect the lives and health of women.

Does anyone believe a slogan or theme like that can be sold to the public?

To return to McHenry County Blog, click here.