“Who do you say I am?”
Jesus asked.
Who do you say I am?
The jars lined the walls.
Each one marked:
A weight and words,
“Products of conception.”
Parts, just parts!
Parts, just parts?
Who do you say I am?
©2012 Joann Nelander
“Who do you say I am?”
Jesus asked.
Who do you say I am?
The jars lined the walls.
Each one marked:
A weight and words,
“Products of conception.”
Parts, just parts!
Parts, just parts?
Who do you say I am?
©2012 Joann Nelander
From Zoey (meaning “Life”)
“Joanna,
Overall I don’t support abortion and I understand what you are saying but I still think that there should be exceptions. There are a lot of children under the age of 12 that have given birth so it’s not a rare situation. In some instances both the mother and the baby died in childbirth. It is not God’s will for a young lady to end up pregnant and then for her and her baby to die in the process. A woman’s body is not physically prepared to deliver a child until the age of 18. It is not rare anymore for a small child to end up pregnant. I don’t believe that its ever God’s will for a child to be pregnant. A lot of people don’t have health insurance and it costs $10,000 to give birth in a hospital. We live in a very fortunate country where pregnancy centers take in young women with a baby on the way and no place to go but other countries don’t. Think of a young child in India or Mexico that has gotten raped, ended up pregnant and doesn’t have any means to take care of the child and no one to help her. Think of all the children that can’t afford to go to a hospital. If there are any problems whatsoever and they can’t deliver the baby naturally, both the mother and the baby die. Other countries don’t have non-profit charities and involved churches or pregnancy hot lines, help centers and women’s shelters. In poorer places both the mother and the child end up homeless, or dead. Just because we have the technology to ensure a proper birthing process doesn’t mean that everyone can afford it. I’m a Catholic, I don’t support abortion, I was in danger of abortion myself, my first name is the Greek word for LIFE and my grandmother gave birth to 15 children, and only 10 survived. And even *I* can make some exceptions for those that really need it.”
Joanna to Zoey:
Dear Zoey (meaning “life”),
You say “I’m a Catholic, I don’t support abortion.” What does that actually mean if you then turn around and become you own Magisterium with your statement, “And even *I* can make some exceptions for those that really need it.”
God loves and values the life of each individual regardless of circumstance and without discriminating on the basis of age or social situation. You seem to place a greater value on lives because of perceived need, (i.e. pregnant 12-year-old) but would abort the life of the even more vulnerable 12 week old living in the womb. Do you really think abortion doesn’t severely scar at any age ( emotionally, physically or spiritually?) Invading the womb with death is more than a moral intrusion. Abortion is a token band-aid. Allowing abortion has led to tolerance and acceptance in our broken society, so that now it is an over-the-counter/vending machine “choice” with no one the wiser. Intrinsic evil is never morally okay. One in four women in our country has had an abortion , and I’m guessing, they weren’t pregnant 12 year olds. A sin like rape or incest is also not justification for another sin, murder. The perpetrator of the killing being a man or woman with an MD after their name doesn’t make it less deadly, nor that fact that the media or law makers gives it the Good Housekeeping seal of approval.
The following is a list of useful abortion statistics as well as some facts on abortifacients. All abortion numbers are derived from pro-abortion sources courtesy of The Alan Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood’s Family Planning Perspectives.Click here for the Guttmacher Institute’s latest fact sheet on abortion.WORLDWIDENumber of abortions per year: Approximately 42 Million
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 115,000Where abortions occur:
83% of all abortions are obtained in developing countries and 17% occur in developed countries.© Copyright 1996-2008, The Alan Guttmacher Institute. (www.agi-usa.org)
UNITED STATES
Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million (1996)
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 3,700Who’s having abortions (age)?
52% of women obtaining abortions in the U.S. are younger than 25: Women aged 20-24 obtain 32% of all abortions; Teenagers obtain 20% and girls under 15 account for 1.2%.Who’s having abortions (race)?
While white women obtain 60% of all abortions, their abortion rate is well below that of minority women. Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are roughly 2 times as likely.Who’s having abortions (marital status)?
64.4% of all abortions are performed on never-married women; Married women account for 18.4% of all abortions and divorced women obtain 9.4%.Who’s having abortions (religion)?
Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as “Born-again/Evangelical”.Who’s having abortions (income)?
Women with family incomes less than $15,000 obtain 28.7% of all abortions; Women with family incomes between $15,000 and $29,999 obtain 19.5%; Women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 obtain 38.0%; Women with family incomes over $60,000 obtain 13.8%.Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).At what gestational ages are abortions performed:
52% of all abortions occur before the 9th week of pregnancy, 25% happen between the 9th & 10th week, 12% happen between the 11th and 12th week, 6% happen between the 13th & 15th week, 4% happen between the 16th & 20th week, and 1% of all abortions (16,450/yr.) happen after the 20th week of pregnancy.Likelihood of abortion:
An estimated 43% of all women will have at least 1 abortion by the time they are 45 years old. 47% of all abortions are performed on women who have had at least one previous abortion.Abortion coverage:
48% of all abortion facilities provide services after the 12th week of pregnancy. 9 in 10 managed care plans routinely cover abortion or provide limited coverage. About 14% of all abortions in the United States are paid for with public funds, virtually all of which are state funds. 16 states (CA, CT, HI, ED, IL, MA , MD, MD, MN, MT, NJ, NM, NY, OR, VT, WA and WV) pay for abortions for some poor women.© Copyright 1998, The Alan Guttmacher Institute. (www.agi-usa.org)
© Copyright 1997, The Alan Guttmacher Institute. (www.agi-usa.org)
© Copyright 1995, Family Planning Perspectives
© Copyright 1988, Family Planning Perspectives
Gov. Mary Fallin of Oklahoma signed a pro-life measure into law, April 20, making it illegal to abort unborn children after 20 weeks of gestation because they are capable of feeling pain. The bill goes into effect November 1, 2011.
“States are recognizing that they have an interest in, and obligation to, protecting unborn children from pain,” said Mary Spaulding Balch, the director of state legislation for National Right to Life Committee.
The Oklahoma bill, titled the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,” states that “Pain receptors… are present throughout the unborn child’s entire body by no later than sixteen…weeks after fertilization and nerves link these receptors to the brain’s thalamus and subcortical plate by no later than twenty…weeks.”
Once this link is made, the bill argues, the necessary and sufficient conditions for pain have been met. The law states, “After twenty… weeks, the unborn child reacts to stimuli that would be recognized as painful if applied to an adult,” and for this reason the state has a compelling interest in protecting the unborn child.
For your consideration:
The most common abortion procedure performed after the first trimester of pregnancy is the “D and E” (Dilation and Evacuation), a procedure which is legal throughout the nation, and which the Supreme Court itself described in this way:
“The doctor grips a fetal part with the forceps and pulls it back through the cervix …, continuing to pull even after meeting resistance from the cervix. The friction causes the fetus to tear apart. For example, a leg might be ripped off the fetus as it is pulled through the cervix and out of the woman. The process of evacuating the fetus piece by piece continues until it has been completely removed.”
(Gonzales vs. Carhart, April 18, 2007)
Now is the time to ask the American public, whether pro-life or pro-choice, a simple question: Should dismemberment of a living child in the womb be permitted? Let’s go beyond the all-encompassing question of “Should abortion be allowed?” and ask, “Should this specific procedure, in which a child’s arms and legs are ripped off, and head crushed, be allowed?” (Fr. Frank Pavone)
Hot Air has this on Planned Parenthood undercover sting video by Live Action Films:
Prostitute: They just came over, they’re workin’ with us, and we’re helpin’ them out –
Parenthood Planned Staffer: Mhm
Prostitute: Just keeping them safe.
Pimp: Could we even sign off as guardians? Could we even sign off as a guardian, is that even possible?
Planned Parenthood Staffer: If you were writing the support letter, yeah, you could say –
Prostitute: Oh good
Planned Parenthood Staffer: that you take care of them, you support them.
Pimp: Cool!
Planned Parenthood Staffer: But nothing here, like, our patients, we don’t ask for guardian’s signature. Everything is the patient. Like a thirteen-year-old could come in and get the services she needed, by herself.
Pimp: So, how would you recommend for them best to do it? Cause we don’t want them getting confused or what not, and it’s kind of a sensitive subject, so we don’t want you know, them saying the wrong thing, you know getting refused or turned away, so how would you suggest they go about you know being able to get the access even in spite of what they do, you know?
Planned Parenthood Staffer: Yeah, like, like I said everything’s confidential, they don’t have to tell anybody what it is that they do when they make the an appointment, it’s just gonna be between them and the Physician they see.
Got that? The pimp just needs to write a letter that says he’s acting as guardian of the girls and that he supports them, instead of the other way around, and PP will have no problem keeping his secrets. They just don’t want to know about — despite their legal obligation to report it. Planned Parenthood is concerned, however, when it comes to one issue:
Planned Parenthood Supervisor/Practitioner: I’m one of the practitioners here.
Pimp: Oh, ok. I was wondering, uh, do you have a moment?
Planned Parenthood Supervisor/Practitioner: Mhm
Pimp: I was wondering, um, so like is this still confidential?
Planned Parenthood Supervisor/Practitioner: Yeah.
Pimp: We’re involved in sex work-
Planned Parenthood Supervisor/Practitioner: Mhm.
Pimp: We have some girls that are kind of young like, 14, 15, that they might need an abortion-
Planned Parenthood Supervisor/Practitioner: Mhm.
Pimp: And, how is the best way should they could go about it?
Planned Parenthood Supervisor/Practitioner: They just show up, and set up an appointment. Do they have insurance?
Pimp: They don’t have insurance, some don’t even speak that good of English ‘cause you know, they just got here.
Planned Parenthood Supervisor/Practitioner: Right. So we have an interpretation phone, so if they don’t speak Spanish that’s not a problem. I mean if they don’t speak English that’s not a problem cause we can have an interpreter …
Once again, I’ll note that the national office did notify the Department of Justice about the visits they got from this pair once the clinics began comparing notes, but these videos show that the clinics themselves seem very comfortable with providing strategies for pimps looking to cover up their exploitation of underage girls. Is that what American taxpayers get with the $300 million in funding that goes to Planned Parenthood each year from the federal treasury?
Full video:
On this, the Feast of the Holy Innocents. I write to honor and pray for the unborn infants who will be aborted each and every day.
From the Womb to Heaven
“Bless the Lord, all you works of the Lord
Praise and exalt him above all
forever.”If Your heavens can bless You,
Simply by being
What You created them to be,
As Your psalmist proclaimed
By Your Spirit,
How much more the living,
Though unborn children of men,
O, Son of Man, Human,
As they are human?If the elements of Nature can bless You,
By coming forth at Your Word
Why not the children
Of empty, aborted wombs,
Who will not live to pronounce Your Name,
Yet shout Your Glory in their humanity.The Waters of the deep,
Your subjects,
Obey by their being,
As the Star of Bethlehem
Obeyed in its course,
So Your snow-white lambs
Come to You in their dying
By the Sin of Man,
Sin for which You died.You died,
Pouring forth a River
That flows forever,
From the Temple of Your Holy Body.
Gushing forth, O Blood and Water,
Wash the Innocents
Who suffer the cold and chill of Man.All wind blesses You, O Lord,
So may the Wind of Your Spirit
Rush to the side of these,
The weak and the powerless.
Trusting in Your Mercy,
Allow Baptismal Waters to flow,
From Your Holy Side,
In answer to the prayer
Of the People of God, Your Body.We pray in the Spirit of Jesus,
Whose pierced Heart
Released the Mercy of God:
Father, by Your sovereignty,
Permit our spiritual act
To the full extent of Your generosity.We Implore the proxy
Of the Cloud of Witnesses
And Martyrs crying beneath Your Altar,
All who stand in silent witness
To the death of the Unborn,
Who will be aborted this day.God willing,
Stand in and take up Christ’s Eternal Water,
More alive than all the waters of the Earth.
Pour it for me upon each child
Now in a womb soon to be emptied.Pray with me, O Church, as the Water flows:
“I baptize you in the Name of the Father,
And of the Son,
And of the Holy Spirit.Let us call the girls “Mary”
And the boys “Joseph.”
God will call them by a name
Known but to Him.That these new citizens with the saints
And members of the household of God,
Produce sweet fruit,
For having held the hand
Of a human chain of life,
From the time of Adam,
To the End of Time;
Father, grant those of their lineage
Faith in the Living God,
That those who will never
Know them in this life,
May embrace them in Heaven,
In whose courts,
They shall praise this day.By Joann Nelander
H/T Semper Gaudete:
Click here to learn of Susan G. Komen’s multi-million dollar connection to Planned Parenthood. H/T Dr.Gerard M. Nadal
Komen Funds Planned Parenthood
Pro-Life Citizens May want to Support the Organizations listed below.The following breast cancer groups do not fund abortion facilities, nor do they advocate for destructive human embryo research. If you are aware of other organizations that meet this criteria, please contact us at info@bdfund.org.
Breast Cancer Prevention
Individual and schools opposed to Komen’s cooperation with Planned Parenthood, but interested in raising money to prevent breast cancer often choose to raise money with volleyball tournaments or walks to benefit the breast screening services at local hospitals provided to underserved women.
The National Breast Cancer Foundation is a national organization that funds mammograms.
Abortion-Breast Cancer Education:
Breast Cancer
Prevention Institute
Full information on avoidable risks including abortion and alternatives to hormone use for contraception and postmenopausal medication.Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer
Educational material on the political and media cover-up of the link between abortion and breast cancer.
Click here to learn the facts about the Komen-Planned Parenthood connection.
Susan B. Anthony List is running this ad in the district of Rep. Steve Driehaus, the Congressman who is trying to take away our free speech because he doesn’t want his constituents to know that he voted for taxpayer funding of abortion:
What Steve Driehaus doesn’t want you to know about his vote for tax payer funding of abortions through Obamacare.
China’s Thirty Years War Against its Own People Slated to Continue.
I was surprised when Beijing decided to celebrate (!) the thirtieth anniversary of the One-Child Policy this week. I thought, quite frankly, that the declaration of a national day of mourning would have been more appropriate.
But I was even more taken aback when the head of China’s National Population and Family Planning Commission, a woman named Li Bin, announced that China would continue to enforce this same Draconian policy for “decades” to come.
Decades? This is, after all, a policy that has led to a slaughter of the innocents of Biblical proportions. Hundreds of millions of women have been forcibly aborted and sterilized. Homes have been razed, livestock confiscated, and exorbitant fines levied. In all, 400 million people are missing from the Chinese population as a result of the one-child policy. Like previous Chinese Communist Party-orchestrated disasters such as the Great Leap Forward, or the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, this policy, too, has been a disaster for the Chinese people.
I should know. I was in China when the one-child policy began 30 years ago.
What I saw then, living in an agricultural commune in rural Guangdong, rivals anything that happened in Nazi Germany. One day in 1980 several hundred young mothers, all pregnant with second or higher-order children, were ordered to attend population control meetings. There they were told that they would all have to abort their pregnancies. Those who refused were arrested for the “crime” of being pregnant and locked up until they, too, buckled under the pressure and submitted to an abortion.
At that point they were taken to the local medical clinic and given a lethal injection into their uterus. If their bodies did not expel their dead or dying babies within two days, they were subjected to a cesarean section abortion. Most horrific of all, babies born alive were killed by means of an injection of formaldehyde into the ”soft spot” on the crown of their heads. Those few women who managed to escape arrest and had their babies in secret were assessed heavy fines.
Everything that I witnessed then, from the forced abortions of women in the third-trimester of pregnancy to government-sanctioned infanticide, is still happening now. Those women who manage to avoid the dragnet by going into hiding are now subjected to even heavier fines, which currently run three to five times the family’s annual income. Those who can’t pay this huge amount have had their homes destroyed and their possessions and livestock confiscated.
Moreover, such a child remains a “black child,” that is, one who does not exist in the eyes of the state. Such children are nonpersons, turned away from the government clinic if they fall ill, barred from attending a government school of any kind, and not considered for any kind of government employment later in life. They are not allowed marry or start families of their own, since the government has decreed that “black children” will not be allowed to reproduce. One generation of illegals is enough.
The Chinese government, supported by foreign population control zealots, believe that its program should be held up as a population control role model for the rest of the world. In reality, it should be roundly condemned for its widespread and systematic violations of human rights, especially the rights of women.
But even those who shy away from defending China’s brutal repression of its population sometimes argue in favor of the one-child policy on other grounds. China is often held up—by the UN Population Fund, for example—as a positive example of a county that has been able to slow population growth rates dramatically, and which has achieved prosperity as a result. But to praise the country that has become the ugly poster child of forced abortion and coerced sterilization for the economic growth that these inhuman policies have supposedly generated is not only inconsistent, but also wrong.
China is clearly worse off economically as a result of eliminating from its population 400 million of the most productive and enterprising people the world has ever known. China’s astonishing economic performance—its annual GDP growth over the past three decades is close to 10%—is not only a tribute to the tremendous work ethic of the Chinese people, but also has led to labor shortages in China’s coastal provinces. Every baby born in China today is a net economic asset. How much more would China have been able to achieve with an even larger population?
Some would argue that adding people would overburden the Chinese environment, but the PRC has been an ecological disaster zone from the time of Mao’s forced-pace industrialization programs in the 1950s. The same remains true today, as the Chinese leadership remains far more concerned about the economic growth rate than about ensuring that the populace has clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. Witness the government-mandated shutdown of all factories in the Beijing region in the days leading up to the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing. Once the athletes (and the foreign journalists) were gone, the smokestacks resumed spewing out their plumes of black smoke. Nothing had changed. This is to say that the sorry state of China’s environment has far more to do with misguided political decisions, and the lack of public accountability for the actions of both government and privately owned businesses, than it does with the number of people.
The one-child policy has been a social disaster as well. Two generations of Chinese have grown up with no siblings, no cousins, and no aunts and uncles. This radical shrinking of the boundaries of the family is, in itself, is a great poverty. Then there is a problem of female infanticide and sex selective abortion, which has eliminated tens of millions of little girls from the population, leaving an equal number of young men without brides to marry. Prostitution, homosexuality, and gang activity are on the rise as a result.
Finally, there is the demographic snare that the one-child policy has set for the Chinese people. Because of the radical cutback in births, the Chinese population is aging faster than any human population in human history. The worker/dependency ratio is unsustainable. How can an only child support two parents and four grandparents in retirement? I am afraid that this will lead the Chinese government to embark upon a “one-grandparent policy” in years to come, in which tens of millions of elderly Chinese will be urged to accept euthanasia, perhaps in return for their only grandchild being allowed to go to college. Forced abortion and forced euthanasia are two sides of the same debased coin.
For all its failings, I do think that the one-child policy has served one important purpose as far as the Chinese Communist Party is concerned: It has helped to maintain the muscular rigor of the one-party dictatorship that rules China. China is a police state, after all, and such a state, to remain strong, must have something to police. Economic controls have been loosened over the past 30 years, so control over other aspects of life must be tightened. The brutal one-child policy is one consequence of such a system’s relentless drive for control over people’s lives.
Do I think that the Chinese Communist Party really intends to continue, as Li Bin asserts, its one-child policy “decades” into the future? Absolutely. And it will certainly never admit that the policy was a mistake. One-party dictatorships don’t make mistakes of such consequence—at least if they want to stay in power.
Joseph Bottum writing in Bad Medicine grieves:
…….I was utterly mistaken. I did warn that Stupak and his fellow pro-life Democrats in the House are, after all, people who have always favored health-care reform—and they were going to vote for the Democratic program if they possibly could. But after Stupak stood firm during the debates over the House version of the bill, forcing his amendment through even while enduring the fury of what seemed like every mainstream editorial page in the nation, I thought he would not desert the pro-life organizations when it came down to a vote on the Senate’s version. But desert he did. Praise Bart Stupak now, I demanded—and, like many other pro-lifers, I was left with nothing to show for it.
Bottum writes of arguments that were used to give cover to the Democrats who call themselves pro-life, from Harry Reid and Bob Casey in the Senate to Bart Stupak in the House.
The first was the claim that, through its complicated payment procedures, the Senate bill ensured that the government portion of the new insurance program wouldn’t actually fund abortions. The second was that nationalizing the health-care system would result in a net drop in the number of abortions performed. And the third was that an executive order from the president would ensure that abortion funding would not follow from the new bill.
Bottum concludes:
Meanwhile, the desertions of Harry Reid and Bob Casey and Bart Stupak mean that the pro-life cause must look entirely to the Republicans for leadership. Oh, they may pick up a few Democratic votes along the way for pro-life measures, but we now know that those Democrats will not take the lead in a pro-life fight. This is a bad result for the pro-life movement—in part because the Republican party platform is not a unified whole: People can oppose abortion while rejecting all the rest. But it’s also bad for the pro-lifers because it weakens the leverage they have within the Republican party.
NPR staff memo quoted by La Shawn Barber in NPR Drops ‘Pro-Life for’”Abortion Rights Opponents’:
NPR News is revising the terms we use to describe people and groups involved in the abortion debate.
This updated policy is aimed at ensuring the words we speak and write are as clear, consistent and neutral as possible. This is important given that written text is such an integral part of our work.
On the air, we should use “abortion rights supporter(s)/advocate(s)” and “abortion rights opponent(s)” or derivations thereof (for example: “advocates of abortion rights”). It is acceptable to use the phrase “anti-abortion”, but do not use the term “pro-abortion rights”.
What’s in a name? Barber points us to: “How the Public is Manipulated” which gives us a heads up and out of the sand noting:
It Makes a Pro-Abortion Assumption that the Debate is About Abortion Rights, Not Abortion It Plays Word Games with the Word “Rights” It Ignores the Fact That Abortion Can Exist Without Abortion Rights It Assumes the Negative It Ignores the Concept of a Right to Life It Affirms the Concept of a Right to an Abortion
Barber makes some points of her own for the mainstream media:
- Refer to abortion supporters as “right to life opponents”
- Refer to gun control supporters as “gun rights opponents”
- Refer to “hate speech” backers as “speech rights opponents”
- Refer to racial preferences advocates as “constitutional rights opponents”
Write me if she missed any.
From:
Majorie Dannenfelser
President, Susan B. Anthony List
I know you are worn down from this battle, but the last word has not yet been spoken on healthcare reform. We cannot allow Washington to think our voices have gone silent for even one moment. Later this week, the Senate will vote on the reconciliation package to the health care bill passed by the House on Sunday, which includes federal funding for abortion. During this process, Senators will be able to offer an unlimited number of amendments. Senator Coburn plans to offer two amendments in regard to the Life issue. One amendment will prevent funding for RU-486, the abortion pill, and the other will ensure conscience protection for doctors who do not want to be involved in abortion. The amendments could be voted on as early as this evening!
Senator Coburn’s amendments are essential to ensure that your tax dollars do not go toward the purchase of the dangerous abortion pill and to allow doctors to practice medicine without the fear of being forcibly involved in an act that goes against their conscience.
William Saunders: Democrats’ EO offer shows Obamacare does fund abortion | Washington Examiner.
After months of insisting that health care reform does not and will not include federal funding for abortion, President Obama is now considering issuing an executive order, after passage of the health care reform bill, that will state that the legislation does not include funding for abortion.
However, if the bill excludes federal funding for abortion, why is an executive order necessary?
The answer, of course, is that President Obama and the Democratic leadership know that the Senate health care reform bill includes subsidies for insurance plans that cover abortions, could possibly lead to abortion coverage mandates for insurance companies, and does not prevent other funds in the legislation from directly paying for abortions.
The question then becomes, can an executive order correct all of the abortion-related problems in the bill?
The answer is a resounding no. While a carefully worded executive order might be able to take care of some of the mandate concerns, it cannot correct all of the abortion-related problems with the bill. A statute cannot be undone by an executive order or regulation. For example, an Executive Order cannot prevent insurance plans that pay for abortions and participate in the newly-created exchanges from receiving federal subsidies, because this allowance is explicitly written in the bill.
The fact that statutes cannot be overridden by executive orders or regulations has been repeatedly affirmed by the United States Supreme Court. In 2006, the Supreme Court struck down an executive order issued by President Bush to invoke military commission jurisdiction over Hamdan because Congress had impliedly prohibited this action. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 579-80 (2006).
Further, Executive Orders can be undone or modified as quickly as they are created. In spite of the fact that the American people overwhelmingly do not want to see their tax dollars go toward abortion, we continue to see restrictions on federal funding for abortions reduced to executive orders, appropriations riders, and regulations. The majority of Americans want to see a prohibition on federal funding for abortion included in permanent, statutory law.
Congress failed to deliver a statutory prohibition on abortion funding in health care reform, and an executive order cannot do the job.
Michelle Malkin » Consequences: Stupak stripped of “Defender of Life” award.
Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund President Marjorie Dannenfelser promised “to work tirelessly to help defeat Members who support this legislation and make sure their constituents know exactly how they voted.”
Dannenfelser stated:
“The executive order on abortion funding does absolutely nothing to fix the problems presented by the health care reform bill that the House will vote on this evening. The very idea should offend all pro-life Members of Congress. An executive order can be rescinded at any time at the President’s whim, and the courts could and have a history of trumping executive orders. Most importantly, pro-abortion Representatives have admitted the executive order is meaningless.”
Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President & CEO of Americans United for Life Action:
“Once again, the proposal to address the problem of abortion funding in the health care bill through use of an executive order is a tacit acknowledgement that the bill as it stands is pro-abortion legislation. Both the President and the Speaker have repeatedly denied this stark fact.
Furthermore, the AUL legal team has concluded that an executive order is not an adequate fix to mitigate the Senate bill’s establishment of taxpayer-funded abortion. For example, an executive order cannot prevent insurance companies that pay for abortions in the exchanges from receiving federal subsidies.
In addition, executive orders can be undone or modified as quickly as they are created. President Obama revoked the Mexico City Policy, through the use of an executive order, and thereby allowed federal tax dollars to finance organizations that provide abortions internationally for the first time in years.
This fact, coupled with the Administration’s repeated endorsement of the pro-abortion lobby’s agenda, force any reasonable person to conclude that this bill will clearly create the largest expansion of taxpayer-funded abortion in American history.”
See what House members voted for the health care bill and which voted against it.
For more reaction see Nicedeb:
A clearly disgusted Doug Ross, cuts loose:
“This bill fundamentally changes the relationship between the federal government and the people; and it does so in a despicably evil way. Health care will, there is no doubt, be wielded as a political weapon to reward and punish.
Congratulations, Bart Stupak and your so-called “Pro-Life” Democrat Caucus, you’ve sentenced the unborn generations of this country to misery, poverty and economic ruin. Way to stay true to your beliefs.
You aren’t pro-life, you’re low-lives.”
Tom Price calls it “a pig in a poke” – you can’t override legislation with an executive order.
Stupak Stripped of “Defender of Life” Award-Susan B. Anthony List.
Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund Pledges to Drive Out Pro-life Betrayers in November
WASHINGTON, DC – In response to Rep. Bart Stupak’s announcement that he and other self-labeled “pro-life” Democrats will vote in favor of Healthcare reform legislation with the addition of an Executive Order from the White House to address concerns about abortion funding, Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund President Marjorie Dannenfelser offered the following statement:“This Wednesday night is our third annual Campaign for Life Gala, where we were planning to honor Congressman Stupak for his efforts to keep abortion-funding out of health care reform-We will no longer be doing so. By accepting this deal from the most pro-abortion President in American history, Stupak has not only failed to stand strong for unborn children, but also for his constituents and pro-life voters across the country.”
“Let me be clear: any representative, including Rep. Stupak, who votes for this healthcare bill can no longer call themselves ‘pro-life.’ The Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund will not endorse, or support in any capacity, any Member of Congress who votes for this bill in any future election. Now through Election Day 2010, these representatives will learn that votes have consequences. The SBA List Candidate Fund will work tirelessly to help defeat Members who support this legislation and make sure their constituents know exactly how they voted. We will actively seek out true pro-life candidates to oppose Members who vote ‘yes’ on this bill, whether it be in general or primary elections. For these Members, it will be a quick downhill slide to defeat in November.”
“The executive order on abortion funding does absolutely nothing to fix the problems presented by the health care reform bill that the House will vote on this evening. The very idea should offend all pro-life Members of Congress. An executive order can be rescinded at any time at the President’s whim, and the courts could and have a history of trumping executive orders. Most importantly, pro-abortion Representatives have admitted the executive order is meaningless.”
Last night, Rep. DeGette told The Huffington Post, “If there was an executive order saying they weren’t going to use federal funds in the bill to pay for abortions that would be fine with me.”
Today, Rep. Wasserman Schultz admitted to Fox News’ Megyn Kelly that “an executive order cannot change the law.”
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops pointed out today that “only a change in the law enacted by Congress, not an executive order, can begin to address this very serious problem in the legislation.”
The Susan B. Anthony List has been leading the fight against abortion funding in health care reform for over a year, spending nearly $2 million on a grassroots campaign of targeted television and radio ads, 1.3 million automated calls, 70,000 patch-through constituent calls, 1.2 million letters and petitions to Congress, two media and grassroots tours in pro-life Democratic districts, television ads in six districts and comprehensive polling in 20 pro-life Democratic districts.
The Susan B. Anthony List is a nationwide network of Americans, over 280,000 residing in all 50 states, dedicated to mobilizing, advancing, and representing pro-life women in politics. Its connected Candidate Fund increases the percentage of pro-life women in the political process.
###
Democrats Against Abortion » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog.
Joseph Bottum directs us to Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List,who” has an op-ed in the Washington Post called “If Republicans Keep Ignoring Abortion, They’ll Lose in the Midterm Elections.”
Dannenfelser writes:
Republicans oppose President Obama’s health-care reform effort for many reasons: It will cost too much, it’s “socialist,” it’s big government at its worst. But they are letting Stupak and his fellow antiabortion Democrats lead on that issue. And the more the GOP ignores abortion and focuses on economic populism—taking up the “tea party” cause—the more the party risks leaving crucial votes behind in November.
Bottum responds:
That’s right—and yet, it isn’t. There are genuine reasons for pro-lifers to resist any move toward a nationalized health-care system. The iniquitous distribution of American healthcare is a scandal, but even the incomplete moves of the current plan create a system that no future bureaucracy or Congress will be able to resist using for purposes of social engineering. And, given the condition of social-elite opinion today, that will always mean increased government-sponsored abortion and euthanasia.
Bottum further says:
All of American politics has been corrupted by this murderous procedure, and, at present, the party platforms are clear enough. But pro-life forces should not want an America in which the great pro-life message is shoved off into one party. We shouldn’t want an America that squanders its religious exceptionalism by having a political party of believers and a political party of non-believers—a European-style division between the Christian Democrats and the Socialists. This is everyone’s issue, we must believe, and when Democrats such as Bart Stupak arrive, they ought to be celebrated.