By JAMES K. FITZPATRICK
We are all taught early in our education that it is unacceptable to act as if we can read the minds of those who disagree with us on an issue. The formal term for it is “imputing motives.” We are told that we should deal with what our opponents actually say, not charge them without proof of dishonest intentions or “ulterior motives”; that we should not attack their character with an “ad hominem” argument, but the quality of their evidence, since even lowlifes can have the facts on their side at times.
Fair enough. But there are instances when circumstantial evidence of a hidden agenda can be too overwhelming to ignore. I submit that just such a situation exists when dealing with “pro-choice” groups and proponents of Obamacare who insist that they have no intention of pushing for taxpayer-funded abortion. Sorry: I find it hard to believe them. I submit that they are biding their time, waiting for the right moment to push for the goal of government subsidized abortion on demand.
That is why there is little reason for pro-life Americans to be pleased by the latest proposal by the Obama administration to exempt employers with religious objections from providing coverage for contraceptives and abortifacients in their company-provided health care insurance. It is a “compromise” that opens the door for government-financed abortion on demand. … Continue Reading