Jill Stanek's site the other day. According to Jill, Benson is the one obsessing about banning abortion, not Santorum.
I think the whole thing is absurd, along with this "Santorum is coming for your birth control" idiocy. The president does not have the authority to ban abortion or confiscate condoms. The real goal is to scare people into voting for a president who has looser morals than they do because, hey, then he can't possibly criticize anyone else.
I say absurd, because what we desperately need in politics are people with morals. When we elect people who are OK with killing children, why are we surprised that they can't be trusted with money either?
But the good thing about this cartoon is it got me thinking. Is banning abortion really the way to fix the economy? To end war? To balance the budget? Last year, the federal government paid close to $350,000,000 directly to the abortion industry. What if we got rid of that? I know it's a drop in the bucket, but what would happen economically if abortion were banned?
As I pointed out in my post "Healthcare economics and abortion" the children aborted since Roe v. Wade would have contributed 17 trillion dollars to the US GDP. And that's net gain, not gross.
So, if you want to make fun of the idea that banning abortion is the solution to all our problems go ahead. But you've chosen some pretty shaky ground to stand on.