It's a matter of degree and alternatives. Borders and wars are clearly the domain of the federal government as described by the Constitution. If you don't like it, your only real option is to elect better people. Yeah, it sucks when our leaders invade Iraq for no reason, and then we elect one of few diseenting voices to be our next president and then he... invades Libya. So I realize my words are cold comfort, but there's no much else I can say.

But abortion funding is not the domain of the federal government and there is not much reason for it to be. There are plenty of private citizens who are pro choice and could fund abortion subsidies. It would probably be easier to do that than fight a political battle over it, which also costs money.

A government should govern the people that are actually here, not who you wish were here. Maybe in some places nobody minds abortion, but the US is not one of those places. So, we've got to respect those tens of millions of people at least enough to not spend their money on abortion.

This sounds like a technicality argument - wars are in the Constitution, so whatcanyoudo?

If we should respect the views of tens of millions of people in one area, we should do it in another. If we think that life is sacred and we shouldn’t spend federal money to end it, let’s be consistent.

there are significant gaps in funding for these services, especially in underprivileged areas.

Would you support increasing WIC and other benefits for these children? Because if not, this policy decision would increase the number of people who grow up hungry.