Image via Wikipedia
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.
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.
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.
Be Holy! 