Earlier today, Rick Moran highlighted just a few of the lowlights of the $1.7 trillion spending spree. I’m not going to use the word “pork” since that descriptor has been applied over and over again for decades, yet no one ever seems to get the message.
There are plenty of examples available on the web of how our legislators are going to essentially set fire to your tax dollars. And as Rick pointed out, the sheer size of the bill is staggering. And there is a good reason for that, mainly that if everyone knew what was in it, even as the clock winds down, the nation would collectively projectile vomit. Or maybe not. The public does enjoy remaining blissfully ignorant.
Nestled within the pages of the bill is a particularly odious appropriation. According to Fox News, Republican Congressman Dan Bishop of North Carolina found $575 million to be allocated to “reproductive health.” But it is far more ominous than it sounds. Bishop tweeted:
On a more sinister note, here’s at least $575 million for ‘family planning’ in areas where population growth ‘threatens biodiversity.’ Malthusianism is a disturbing, anti-human ideology that should have ZERO place in any federal program.
If you follow the thread, you will see that Bishop has unearthed a raft of things that are meant to infringe on civil liberties, not to mention fund gender equity in Pakistan, provide more money for NPR, and create a hike in the number of H2B visas, among other things.
On a more sinister note, here's at least $575 million for "family planning" in areas where population growth "threatens biodiversity."
Malthusianism is a disturbing, anti-human ideology that should have ZERO place in any federal program. pic.twitter.com/7EfFx2pq0M
— Rep. Dan Bishop (@RepDanBishop) December 20, 2022
In other words, the Democrats’ greatest hits. But let’s return to the original issue, “reproductive health” and “biodiversity.” Who determines what areas should be targeted? What is the definition of threatened biodiversity? Yes, the bill does include more funding for Planned Parenthood, but we knew that. But when you get into the territories of reproductive health and in particular, biodiversity, any number of agencies, regulations, and actions can be involved.
In my days as a reporter, I saw many incidents in which energy projects were curtailed because of the potential threat to an animal or plant species. At times, it was a stretch to find a species. At one point, a project in Utah was questioned because there might be a potential impact on the Mexican Grey Wolf.
Cutting back on America’s energy production is bad enough. But this means cutting back on Americans. The left has found yet another way to promote abortions and abortion clinics. So if there isn’t one in your town, there will be soon. There are animals, insects, and plants to be protected by preventing the birth of humans. It is an environmentalist’s dream come true.
As Minnesota House Representative-elect Walter Hudson wrote:
There’s a chilling anti-human synergy between the Left’s pet projects, from throttling energy production and raising the cost of living to outright killing people in the womb. It’s all about making fewer, less vibrant, and wholly dependant people. It’s truly evil.
Of course, we know that this is just a ploy to promote abortions, and the environmental angle just adds some sex appeal. But your elected officials, even those with an “R” or an “I” next to their names, have a choice to make, not just about spending but also about the value they place on human life and dignity. And you need to let them know that you know what is in the bill and that they had better vote no.
For some of you, that may be a lost cause. If you live in Kentucky, you know that McConnell has gone all-in for the bill. And in some decidedly blue states, the matter may already be settled. But if you are not in a blue state, or even if you are, call or email your senator or congressman, anyway. Demand to know where they stand on babies versus biodiversity.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member