Tuesday, January 21, 2014

The hypocrisy of Eric Cantor

On April 10, 2011 on Fox News Sunday during an interview with Chris Wallace, Eric Cantor had this to say:
WALLACE: Let's talk a little bit about the deal that you guys just made to keep the government running. You talk about the spending cuts are kind of a drop in the bucket, but it's a first step in that process.

Let me ask you another question. Why did the house GOP cave on all the riders, including funding for Planned Parenthood and EPA?

CANTOR: Well, let me just speak to the Planned Parenthood issue, because we believe very strongly that we ought not be spending taxpayer dollars to fund abortion. We fought hard for that.

Frankly, the president and Harry Reid have a very different view on that issue. But what we did get is a guaranteed vote in the Senate for all the American people to see where the senators stand on that issue -- something that we've not gotten before.

But I can tell you, Chris, around the issue of Planned Parenthood, the kind of rhetoric that came out of members on the other side of the aisle is completely inappropriate. When they are saying things like Republicans have come to Washington to kill women, that's just not serious. That's inappropriate.

And when you have that kind of environment, you can't get something serious done.

WALLACE: OK. But let me talk about Planned Parenthood, because I've been looking into this. Let's put up the facts on the screen.

The federal government has been funding Planned Parenthood since 1970. Each year, Planned Parenthood provides 1 million screenings for cervical cancer, 830,000 breast exams. Three percent of its services are abortion. And none of those are funded by the government.

Don't Democrats have a point that defunding the Planned Parenthood is going to hurt women's health?

CANTOR: What I would just say, Chris, is this: it's all about the fungibility and money. If Planned Parenthood accesses hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money and they use that for other purposes, then they can use other dollars to fund abortion.
Okay, stick a pin in that part about the "fungibility" of money. Now consider this:
Last month, a health ministry panel in Israel recommended the state pay for the abortions of women aged 20 to 33, including non-medical abortions. The measure was adopted this week, and will cost the state annually about $4.6 million. Unlike in the United States, abortion is relatively non-controversial in the country.
Okay, now consider this: the United States subsidizes the state of Israel to the tune of more than $3 billion a year. Now apply Eric Cantor's own reasoning--money is fungible--thanks to the aid given to Israel by U.S. taxpayers, Israel's citizens enjoy free abortions on demand with no requirement that the procedure be necessary to protect the woman's health or that there be a showing that the pregnancy to be terminated was the result of rape of incest. Israeli women aged 20 to 33 can terminate any pregnancy they want to for any reason at all, and the Israeli government--which is heavily subsidized by U.S. Taxpayers--will pick up the tab for the procedure.

Now compare that to Republican policy in the United States:
House Republicans are currently advancing the “No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act,” or HR 7, a measure that would impose sweeping restrictions on abortion coverage that could make the procedure less affordable for Americans across the country. In addition to preventing low-income women from using their Medicaid coverage to access abortion, HR 7 could also have dramatic implications for the tax code and the private insurance market. One of its most controversial provisions could actually require the Internal Revenue Service to conduct audits of rape victims.

Why? Because HR 7 eliminates medical-expense deductions for abortion care, essentially raising taxes on the women who opt to have an abortion. Like many abortion restrictions, this provision includes an exemption for victims of rape and incest, as well as women who encounter life-threatening complications from their pregnancies. But in order to enforce those exceptions, the IRS would have to verify that the women who are claiming a medical-expense deduction for an abortion fall into one of those three categories, to ensure they’re not committing tax fraud.
So let's get this straight; Republicans are happy to subsidize abortion on demand in Israel, but they demand that American women who are victims of rape should be audited by the Internal Revenue Service. How does the Republican Party explain this inconsistency?
If [the State of Israel] accesses [billions] of dollars of taxpayer money and they use that for other purposes, then they can use other dollars to fund abortion. --Eric Cantor [paraphrased]

No comments: