Skip to main content
Supreme Court of the United States

There’s Nothing “Pro-Choice” About a Democratic Platform Demanding Taxpayer-Funded Abortion

By Marissa Mayer posted on:
October 17, 2017

The official democratic position of “pro-choice” seems to be a thing of the past these days. And to prove it, I give you exhibit A—the Democratic platform.

Tucked away on page 37 of the platform, under the misleading subhead “Securing Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice,” is the party’s abortion agenda. This agenda is problematic to say the least, and a testament to just how extreme the abortion lobby has paid their cronies to become.

Case in point: the average “pro-choice” American still believes abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” Unfortunately, this position has been replaced by a far more disturbing one in this year’s national democratic abortion platform: on demand, until the day of birth, and now on the taxpayers’ dime.

“We will continue to oppose—and seek to overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment,” the platform reads.

Yes, you read that right—for the first time at the federal level, one of the major American political parties has come out in favor of forcing taxpayers to pay for abortion.

For over 40 years, the Hyde Amendment has banned the use of federal funds (aka our tax dollars) to pay for abortion, except in the case of rape, incest, or when the mom’s life is in danger. The amendment has long received bipartisan support, but that is no longer the case.

Leaders in the democratic party now claim Hyde is discriminatory, saying that unless taxpayers pay for abortions, then poor women won’t be able to have them. 

This ridiculous claim is echoed by Planned Parenthood and activist organization NARAL (National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws). Planned Parenthood Action Fund, the scandal-ridden abortion giant’s political arm, asserts that “Hyde hurts low-income women,” and “it is an example of politicians interfering with a woman’s ability to make her own health care decisions,” while NARAL regularly refers to Hyde as “anti-choice legislation.”

But what about interfering with my choice?

If I refuse to pay for someone’s abortion, that has nothing to do with preventing that person from obtaining one. If abortion activists claim that a woman having an abortion only concerns said woman and her doctor, then there is no reason to demand that I bring my wallet into it.

I choose not to have anything to do with abortion outside of spreading the truth about this horrific practice and supporting efforts to protect babies in the womb from this increasing disregard for life.

And I’m not alone.

Recent polls show that more than 80 percent of Americans believe there should be restrictions on abortion. In addition, according to a new Marist poll, 62 percent of Americans oppose taxpayer funding of abortion, including 45 percent of pro-choice Americans and 44 percent of Democrats.

In fact, the democratic party’s own vice presidential nominee, Tim Kaine, supports the Hyde Amendment (if you believe his own words and not those of various Clinton staffers).

Unfortunately, those overwhelming statistics don’t change the fact that the democratic platform emphasizes that the party would take away our choice not to be complicit in taking unborn lives if given the opportunity.

Although disturbing, this is not surprising considering recent attacks on conscience rights. In just the last few months, we’ve seen legislators argue that medical professionals, including pro-life doctors, nurses, and even pharmacists, should be forced to perform or participate in abortion if they want to keep their jobs. In addition, states such as California and most recently Illinois, have passed laws that force pro-life pregnancy centers and medical professionals to promote abortion against their conscience.

But if abortion was really a “choice” like advocates claim, then everyone should have the choice about whether or not to participate in it.

And if abortion advocates are truly concerned with poor women affording abortions, then perhaps Planned Parenthood, which boasts of yearly profit in the tens of millions can find it in their hearts to either charge less for the abortions they claim are so medically necessary, or redistribute some of that wealth to poor women instead of politicians. Crazy thought, right? 


Share if you agree that no one should ever be forced to pay for someone else’s abortion.



Share on Facebook


Marissa Mayer

Marissa Mayer

Senior Copywriter & Editor

Marissa Mayer is an Arizona native who fell in love with the written word at a young age.

Pro-life rally for Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization at U.S. Supreme Court
A Rally for Life: How the Pro-life Movement Spans Boundaries

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization will provide the best opportunity in a generation to overturn Roe and Casey.

Dobbs Roe v. Wade
What You Need to Know About One of the Biggest Abortion Cases Since Roe v. Wade

The reality is that our federal abortion laws are stuck in the past. So, it makes sense that Mississippi would want its state law to reflect our modern scientific knowledge.

Sanctity of Life
This New Bill Could Mandate Unrestricted Access to Abortion

While claiming to protect women’s health, this legislation fails to acknowledge the physical and mental toll abortion has on women—to say nothing of the unborn female lives being aborted.