Before continuing, let me tell you that I have been listening to Neal Boortz for over twenty years. Except for his occasional lapse into aviation industry minutia (he is long time private pilot), or his sometimes sophomoric sense of humor (we all know what the word 'farding' means, Neal....it's an old joke) his show is almost always entertaining and intelligent. I will continue to listen to his daily diatribes and discussions covering such topics as The Fair Tax, personal property rights, gun control, Ritalin, the war on drugs, the war on terrorism, national and local elections, current events, the Bush administration, hypocrisy in politics, Republicans, Democrats, mainstream media bias, etc., etc., etc. He is capable of being the meanest SOB on the planet or the kindest, most gentlemanly talk show host working today. After twenty plus years of listening, I can never tell which direction he is going to go with a given caller. In short, the show is a great!

But, when it comes to the "A-word," if a caller brings it up, he hangs up.

Before he decided to be so mean when it comes to this discussion, he used to say that the reason he wouldn't debate the abortion issue is because no one's mind is ever changed by the discussion. Therefore, he would not waste valuable air time on pointless pontifications. Fair enough. It’s his show.

But, I have come to believe there may be other reasons the “Talkmaster” is unwilling to talk about abortion.

Neal Boortz may be described in many ways. Among them, smart, experienced, confident, quick thinking, arrogant, successful. However, perhaps the best word to describe his approach to dealing with most complex issues is logical. But, when he is wrong, as he is on several issues, he goes nuts on those who disagree. Abortion is his worst subject. I have to wonder why a man who can take an unintelligible question from a government educated caller regarding economics, politics, education or media bias and posit a simple step by step illustration which makes it understandable to almost anyone (even someone with a government education) retreats to the age-old and thoroughly illogical refrains of “choice,” alleged Constitutional protection, and double speak when it comes to abortion.

On the numerous occasions when he mentions abortion (so that he can tell us that he never, or rarely, mentions it), he completely ignores his normal understanding of individual responsibility, Constitutional veracity, and logic. When interviewing politicos, if the interviewee even hints at being pro-life he nearly always falls back on one question: "So, you believe the imperial federal government should have the authority to point a gun at a woman's head and tell her she has to have a child she does not want?" He says this in his classic, smug, superior tone as if he thinks the question is completely unanswerable. And, I must admit, I have never heard anyone even try.

It is not that the question is unanswerable. It is that the profound illogic and stupidity of the reasoning would catch most anyone off guard. The answer, of course, is, "Yes, Neal, I do. And, so do you!" If that child is one month or even one minute past her birth instead of one month before her birth when the mother decides it is time to ‘choose,’ even Neal would tell you that it is within the power of the imperial federal government to point that gun and deliver that command. At that point, according to Neal Boortz, we are dealing with a child and not a choice.

Neither Boortz nor any other anti-lifer (hey, they refer to pro-lifers as ‘anti-choice’) will ever mention the choice to abstain from sexual activity until the appropriate time in life, the choice to use birth control, or the choice to surgically prevent pregnancy permanently. No, the only time choice becomes an issue is when the life of the child is about to be taken. The deeply held belief of many (probably most) individuals in this country that taking the life of an unborn child is just as evil and unnecessary as taking the life of an already born child is dismissed as the ranting of religious zealots trying to “force their own morality down the throats” of everyone else.

By this logic, laws against murder, rape, kidnapping, breaking and entering, running stop signs, along with any other laws passed by federal, state or local governments are encroachments on ‘choice.’ Boortz, of course, would say that these crimes affect, either directly or potentially, other individuals but that abortion affects only the woman making the choice. Which raises the question: Just what is it that is being aborted? If it is not a life, why must it be aborted? If it is a life, shouldn’t it be protected? Anti-lifers will tell you that it is the ‘pregnancy’ which is being aborted. Well, the ‘pregnancy’ lasts right up to the moment of birth. Apparently, the abortion could take place right up until that moment. So much for the ‘trimester approach.’

Which brings us to Boortz’s next departure from an otherwise strongly held position. Boortz is a staunch ‘strict constructionist’ or ‘originalist‘ when it comes to the U.S. Constitution. He will decry the Kelo vs. New London Connecticut decision because it violates the letter and spirit of the Fifth Amendment. He will point out ad nauseum the fact that the Constitution does not guarantee anyone in the United States the right to vote. He will orate with profound logic regarding the absence of any reference to the federal government taking part in education, or health care. He will vociferously defend the Second Amendment’s declaration of the right to keep and bear arms. But, when it comes to abortion, he has no Constitutional problem so long as the death occurs in, and I quote, “the appropriate trimester.”

That comment would seem to indicate that he accepts the legal puddle of sludge embodied in the Roe vs. Wade decision and that he joins liberals in their doctrine that Roe vs. Wade has legitimately defined the point at which government should get involved in personal decisions. For true pro-lifers (and, I would argue for true libertarians) that moment is the moment a new life is created. For Neal Boortz, that moment is ‘the appropriate trimester.’ Boortz holds to ‘original intent’ on most issues but on abortion, he firmly embraces the emanations and penumbra of a living Constitution.

But, perhaps his most incomprehensible position regarding the matter of abortion has to do with child abuse. Stay with me, now. This one is bizarre. Neal Boortz has said on live, national radio that when a woman becomes pregnant, and “decides to keep the baby” that, should she after having made that choice, decide to smoke, drink, or take drugs while pregnant, she is guilty of child abuse! So then, according to Neal Boortz, to abuse an unborn child is somehow wrong but, to kill an unborn child is a matter of choice.

Libertarians, like Neal Boortz and me, believe that every woman should have the 'choice' to do whatever she wants with her own body. To fill it with drugs and alcohol to her heart's desire. She should have the right to sell or give away the services of her body to males or other females. To tattoo, pierce, paint, or tan her body. Even to take her own life from her body, if that is what she chooses. She also has the right to choose to use her body to create a baby. But, unlike Neal Boortz, pro-lifers believe that once she uses her body to create another body, that second body deserves just as much protection as her own. As Ben Stein says, "Clipping your fingernails is a choice. Killing a child is not."

Even on the subject of so called, “Partial Birth Abortion,” rather than taking a rational look at the subject, Boortz holds the liberal line that, “There is no such thing as partial birth abortion.” What liberals mean by that is that partial birth abortion is not referred to as partial birth abortion by the medical community. But, when a procedure takes place in which "the fetus is turned so that the legs rather than the head enter the birth canal first. The legs are pulled down until all of the baby but the head is delivered. Then a hole is punched in the skull, the cranial contents are sucked out and the skull is collapsed," few would disagree that what has taken place is a partial birth abortion. It may be referred to in other terms as well but, what has actually taken place is a partial birth abortion. But, since the liberal leaning American Medical Association doesn't call it ‘partial birth abortion’, neither do liberals nor does Neal Boortz. To do so just comes too close to admitting that the unborn child is, in fact, an individual deserving just as much protection as his or her mother.

I do not question the sincerity of Neal Boortz. I think that he thinks he is ‘pro-life.’ No, I think there is something deeper going on here. It is not that Neal Boortz won’t discuss abortion. He can’t! To do so would force him to deal with the inconsistencies of his personal beliefs in individual responsibility, adherence to the Constitution, and, dare I say it…..the right to life.