"If the viewing of pornography is legal, income should not be a barrier."

As Rick pointed out a few days ago, we usually do not equate "legally permissible" with "must be funded by the government."  At a minimum, we should be prepared to make separate arguments for government funding; the fact that an activity is protected by the Constitution is not an argument for funding.  My local paper this morning falls into the trap in criticizing new state legislative proposals on abortion: "If ending a pregnancy is legal, income should not be a barrier."  Perhaps the argument could work if the state was creating financial obstacles to abortion, but there is nothing in law or logic that compels the state to remove financial obstacles to the exercise of a constitutional right.  Particularly in the case of abortion, where the removal requires the financial support of a citizenry sharply conflicted on the topic, these arguments are weak.