Campaign Contributions from Baby Killers: Chandler, Guthrie, Davis, Rogers, Whitfield

Digby, Aimai and Zandar all catch Aravosis' brilliant point about the fungibility argument on health insurers and abortion:

The House passed the anti-choice Stupak amendment last night. Basically, the amendment stops any government money from funding insurance plans that cover abortions. The twisted logic being that any money connected to any insurance company covering abortions is "abortion money," i.e., profits earned from "killing babies." We can't have the government touching that.

So I sure hope that no pro-life members of Congress are accepting political donations from any insurance companies that cover abortions. Because if they are accepting such donations, they're accepting profits that came from "killing little babies."

Hmmm. I wonder if any of Kentucky's oh-so-moral anti-choice misogynists who voted for the Stupak amendment could possibly have accepted contributions from the baby-killer insurance companies - cash probably still dripping blood from aborted fetuses.

The Center for Responsive Politics has the answer:

From health insurers only (not including other health-related sectors) as of June 2009, since 1989:

Ben Chandler (Blue Dog Traitor, KY-6) - $30,500

Brett Guthrie (R, KY-2) : $19,500

Ed Whitfield (R, KY-1) - $106,614

Geoff Davis (R, KY-4) - $115,718

Hal Rogers (R, KY-5) - $9,600

I trust these five sterling examples of Kentucky manhood have already returned that evil abortion money to the baby-killing insurance companies from whence it came.

As Digby says:

By their own logic, if the jackasses of both parties who voted for Stupak have ever taken one single penny from insurance companies that offer coverage for abortions --- and that's all of them --- they are complicit in baby killing. So, by the way, is anyone who invests in insurance companies or accepts money from them in advertising. Fungible means fungible.

Insurance companies want to provide coverage for birth control and abortion because it saves them money. Pregnancy is expensive and far more risky. It would seem that childbirth is the one risk these people want to require the insurance companies to take.