New at Live Action – States Burn Through Cash Defending Pro-Life Laws from Sore Losers with Lawyers

My latest Live Action post:

Though the moral cost of abortion is rightly the primary focus of pro-life activists, it’s also worth noting that the “right to choose” and its various penumbras impose a more literal cost on society as well. The Kansas City Star reports that the state of Kansas has paid almost $597,000 this year to defend pro-life laws against legal assault:

The office says it paid nearly $317,000 to Foulston Siefken, a Wichita firm helping defend a budget provision denying federal family planning dollars for non-abortion services to Planned Parenthood. The group has a federal lawsuit against the measure.
The attorney general’s office paid almost $177,000 to Thompson, Ramsdell & Qualseth, of Lawrence, to help defend health and safety regulations for abortion providers. Two Kansas City-area physicians challenged the rules first in federal court and then in state court.
The same law firm also received nearly $104,000 for work in a federal lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union against a law restricting private insurance coverage for elective abortions.

This is insane. There is no reason why states should be legally compelled to accept federal taxpayer money for abortion providers. There is no reason why states shouldn’t be able to prefer to contract with medical service providers who aren’t involved with abortion. And especially considering how many government regulations we tolerate without litigation in everyand I do mean every – other aspect of our lives, there is no reason abortion clinics or insurance coverage regulations should stand out as grounds for legal conflict.

Read the rest at Live Action.

On Wisconsin, On Wisconsin…..

Our new governor, Scott Walker, has announced that Wisconsin will be joining the lawsuit against ObamaCare. It’s gonna take me a while to get used to the sensation of the State of Wisconsin doing the right thing….

Of course, state Democrats are reacting to the shift in power with their usual class and grace.

Hypocrisy? Nope

In response to my last post, a previously-banned commenter submitted a link to a WorldNetDaily article about the American Family Association’s successful efforts to pressure McDonald’s out of supporting the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. His point (delivered ever-so-charmingly, of course) was apparently that our side does it too, so what right do you have to complain?

There’s a big difference, though, and a pretty obvious one. AFA organized a boycott. They spread awareness of McDonald’s policies to which they objected, and persuaded people to do business elsewhere. In contrast, eHarmony’s critics
threatened them with litigation, backed by the Attorney General of the state of New Jersey. The McDonald’s case was ultimately resolved by McDonald’s own customers making clear what they expected out of a business to which their hard-earned money was going, whereas, in the eHarmony case, one man decided to use the force of law to bludgeon them into submission. If you can’t see any difference here, you really need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid.