Notre Dame and Barack Obama

I'm not Catholic and didn't attend Notre Dame but I am outraged that faithful pro-life Catholics who attended the university had to watch this farce unfold.

Notre Dame is supposed to still stand for faithful Catholicism but, alas, inviting a vehemently pro-abortion president and awarding him an honorary degree flies in the face of all of that.

Barack Obama talks about discussing abortion reasonably. When? Where? With whom? Has he invited pro-life groups to the White House? Has he reached out to them in various venues to discuss the issue? The closest he has come to rubbing elbows with pro-lifers is at events like the Notre Dame commencement. Being in the same room with pro-lifers does not a conversation make.

I won't believe anything he says about a "reasonable" discussion on abortion until I see the White House announcement of a summit at which legitimate pro-life groups are invited to discuss the abortion issue. I won't believe it until I see the White House take reasonable positions on abortion-related issues. I won't believe it until I see Barack Obama leave alone protective legislation and laws such as the Hyde Amendment.

Until then, Obama's promises are just smoke in the wind.

Tax-funded Abortions in D.C?

The following press release comes from National Right to Life:

National Right to Life Slams Obama White House for Urging Repeal of
Ban on Tax-Funded Abortion-on-Demand in Nation's Capital
The following statement was released by the nation's largest pro-life organization, the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), soon after today's release by the White House of President Obama's first detailed budget recommendations to Congress. The White House document is intended to guide lawmakers as they craft spending bills for the new federal fiscal year that begins on October 1. NRLC is the federation of the right-to-life organizations in all 50 states.

"Some wide-eyed journalists and various political shills for the Obama Administration continue to write fairy tales about how President Obama wants to pursue policies that would reduce abortions," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). "That is a political scam. In reality, President Obama is pursuing a step-by-step strategy to expand access to abortion, and today's step is to urge Congress to authorize the funding of abortion on demand in the nation's capital, with funds appropriated by Congress."

Today's White House budget submission explicitly urges the House and Senate -- which the President's party currently controls with nearly three-fifths majorities -- to repeal a law (sometimes called the Dornan Amendment) that has prevented tax-funded abortion in the District of Columbia for many years.

Article I of the U.S. Constitution says that Congress holds complete legislative authority over the District of Columbia ("exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever"). That is why the entire budget for the District of Columbia (including revenues generated by local sources) must be appropriated by Congress through an annual appropriations bill.

For many years, the annual D.C. appropriations bill has contained a provision to prevent the use of any congressionally appropriated funds for abortions (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest). The White House budget document released today (on Appendix page 1209) asks Congress to repeal the ban on the use of congressionally appropriated funds, and replace it with a meaningless bookkeeping requirement that would apply only to funds specifically contributed for federal program purposes.

"If Congress goes along with the Obama proposal, the predictable result will be tax funding of several thousand elective abortions annually, including roughly 1,000 abortions annually that would not otherwise occur," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for NRLC. "Any member of Congress who votes for a bill that contains the White House proposal is, in reality, voting for tax-funded abortion on demand with congressionally appropriated funds."

From 1988 until 1993, Congress annually included the ban on the use of any appropriated funds to pay for abortions (with narrow exceptions). The ban was temporarily lost early in the Clinton Administration, but it was restored in 1996 (although the city government illegally continued to pay for abortions for two subsequent years, according to press reports), and has been in continuous effect ever since.

During the period prior to enactment of the Dornan Amendment, and during the time it was suspended in the Clinton Administration, the city government paid for elective abortion on demand with congressionally appropriated public funds. During the congressional debates of that era, evidence was cited that indicated that the city's abortion-funding policy was among the most permissive in the nation, and was not even limited to Medicaid-eligible clients. Elizabeth Reveal, D.C. budget director at the time, "confirmed that the District's government has a policy of funding abortion on demand and does not attempt to determine the circumstances of the pregnancy." (Philadelphia Inquirer, August 1, 1985.) In 1994, then-Mayor Sharon Pratt Kelly authorized the use of $1,000,000 from the Medical Charities fund, which was originally set up to help indigent AIDS patients, to pay for abortions.

Pro-abortion groups periodically publish academic studies that demonstrate that policies that bar tax-funded abortions actually prevent one-third or more of the abortions that would otherwise occur among the covered populations.

"The abortion industry's own studies suggest that many thousands of residents of the nation's capital are alive today because of the abortion funding ban that President Obama now proposes to repeal," said NRLC's Johnson.

"Today's White House action is one more evidence that President Obama is trying to pull off a massive policy scam -- he generates a smokescreen of soothing rhetoric about seeking 'common ground' and 'abortion reduction,' while step by step advancing concrete policies that will substantially increase the number of abortions -- and pay for abortion on demand with everyone's taxes," Johnson concluded.

The next step, Johnson suggested, would be "an attempt to smuggle vast expansions of abortion into law through health care reform legislation."

Barack Obama met with Planned Parenthood in 2007 and promised that mandatory abortion coverage would be "at the center, the heart of" his health care reform legislation. In an April 30, 2009, National Public Radio report, Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, confirmed that "health care reform is going to provide a platform" for ensuring that "all women . . . regardless of their income, can get access to the full range of health care options . . ."

The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) is a national federation of nonsectarian right-to-life organizations, governed by a board elected by the state right-to-life organizations and by members at large.

Changes in abortion pill protocol increase chances of surgical intervention.

Can Barack Obama Become Pro-Life?

First Things looks at whether the Commander-in-Chief can be converted.

Transcript of the Abortion Question During the First 100 Days POTUS Press Conference

CNN's Ed Henry asked:

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. In a couple of weeks, you're going to be giving the commencement at Notre Dame. And, as you know, this has caused a lot of controversy among Catholics who are opposed to your position on abortion.

As a candidate, you vowed that one of the very things you wanted to do was sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which, as you know, would eliminate federal, state and local restrictions on abortion. And at one point in the campaign when asked about abortion and life, you said that it was above — quote, above my pay grade.

Now that you've been president for 100 days, obviously, your pay grade is a little higher than when you were a senator.

Do you still hope that Congress quickly sends you the Freedom of Choice Act so you can sign it?

OBAMA: You know, the — my view on — on abortion, I think, has been very consistent. I think abortion is a moral issue and an ethical issue.

I think that those who are pro-choice make a mistake when they — if they suggest — and I don't want to create straw men here, but I think there are some who suggest that this is simply an issue about women's freedom and that there's no other considerations. I think, look, this is an issue that people have to wrestle with and families and individual women have to wrestle with.

The reason I'm pro-choice is because I don't think women take that — that position casually. I think that they struggle with these decisions each and every day. And I think they are in a better position to make these decisions ultimately than members of Congress or a president of the United States, in consultation with their families, with their doctors, with their clergy.

So — so that has been my consistent position. The other thing that I said consistently during the campaign is I would like to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies that result in women feeling compelled to get an abortion, or at least considering getting an abortion, particularly if we can reduce the number of teen pregnancies, which has started to spike up again.

And so I've got a task force within the Domestic Policy Council in the West Wing of the White House that is working with groups both in the pro-choice camp and in the pro-life camp, to see if we can arrive at some consensus on that.

Now, the Freedom of Choice Act is not highest legislative priority. I believe that women should have the right to choose. But I think that the most important thing we can do to tamp down some of the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on. And that's — that's where I'm going to focus.

Talk about a non-answer answer. BTW, I don't know of pro-life groups who are working with the White House-- to my knowledge none have been invited. If anyone knows otherwise, please let me know.

nrlc: Reflections on Obama's First 100 Days
http://tinyurl.com/d6wlpq

Tip: Reply with 'whois nrlc' for more info.

Senate Approves Kathleen Sebelius for Health Secretary

Well, nuts.

Arlen Specter Changes Party But Not His Beliefs

Yesterday, RNC Chair Michael Steele wrote in an e-mail to supporters that Arlen Specter's defection from the Republican Party should cause outrage among Republicans for two reasons:

First--Specter claimed it was philosophical--and pointed his finger of blame at Republicans all over America for his defection to the Democrats. He told us all to go jump in the lake today.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe a word he said.

Arlen Specter committed a purely political and self-serving act today. He simply believes he has a better chance of saving his political hide and his job as a Democrat. He loves the title of Senator more than he loves the party--and the principles--that elected him and nurtured him.

Second--and more importantly--Arlen Specter handed Barack Obama and his band of radical leftists nearly absolute power in the United States Senate. In leaving the Republican Party--and joining the Democrats--he absolutely undercut Republicans' efforts to slow down Obama's radical agenda through the threat of filibuster.

Facing defeat in Pennsylvania's 2010 Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record, and an end to his 30 year career in the U.S. Senate, he has peddled his services--and his vote--to the leftist Obama Democrats who aim to remake America with their leftist plan.

As recently as April 9th, Senator Specter said he would run in the Pennsylvania primary next year as a Republican. Why the sudden change of heart? Clearly, this was an act based on political expediency by a craven politician desperate to keep his Washington power base--not the act of a statesman.

His defection to the Democrat Party puts the Democrats in an almost unstoppable position to pass Obama's destructive agenda of income redistribution, health care nationalization, and a massive expansion of entitlements.

Arlen Specter has put his loyalty to his own political career above his duty to his state and nation.

Amen.

Specter has never been the best of Republicans. He has voted with the Democrats on many occasions and his position on issues like embryonic stem cell research and abortion are in complete opposition to the Republican Party Platform.

Many in the GOP supported Specter to prevent control of the Senate by the Democrats-- this is now moot.

nrlc: "No Matter Where You Stand on the Abortion Issue, That Ought to Bother You"
http://tinyurl.com/dgxblu

Specter changes party but not his stripes.

Bait and Switch on Stem Cells

First, my apologies again. Between my school schedule and our obnoxious home computer, I've barely been able to check e-mail let alone post on my blog.

There has been a great deal going on lately and Obamamania has not let up. Of course, things like Notre Dame inviting Barack Obama to speak for graduation have been in the news for quite some time. What is new is the latest on stem cell research. National Right to Life sent out a Congressional letter on Friday regarding this issue. The letter can be found at NRLC's website.

"Grotesque"

William Saletan says that from a pro-life viewpoint, this story is "grotesque" and from a "pro-choice" viewpoint it is "agonizing."

The story involves a couple in Japan who underwent in vitro fertilization only to be told that it was possible that the baby growing inside the woman (about 8 weeks along) was not theirs. The couple aborted. The other couple who were the possible biological parents of the child had also been undergoing in vitro. The woman was older (40) and she wasn't told that her baby was possibly aborted until two and a half months later.

Obviously, for pro-lifers, a baby lost his or her life and the families involved will always be haunted by this horrific sequence of events.

Now, my question for the pro-abortion side would be why would this be an "agonizing" situation for pro-abortionists? If a fetus is just a "blob of tissue" or the "products of conception" then this should be a non-issue or at most a dispute over property rights. Is it "agonizing" because it points out all the errors in judgment and the fallacies that pro-abortion groups use in justifying abortion? Or is it agonizing because the reality is that a fetus is more than a "blob of tissue"?

The truth is our gut instinct is to recognize that there is more here than just malpractice issues or property rights.

Kmiec in Denial

Douglas Kmiec, the widely recognized Catholic who supported Barack Obama during the election and claimed that Obama was pro-life, still believes this.

I think that instead of maintaining any Catholic supporters who believed the falsehood that Obama was pro-life, Kmiec is hurting his own credibility by continuing to promote the lie. Despite all the pro-abortion policy Obama has signed, Kmiec still says Obama is pro-life.

Maybe in an alternate universe, but not this one.

Obama Signs Order Allowing Embryo-destroying Stem Cell Research

It's official. LifeNews.com notes that Congress may have something to say.

President Obama Set to Reverse Federal Funding on Embryo-Killing Stem Cell Research

President Obama is doing a great job fulfilling all of his campaign promises: to pro-abortion groups.

Tonight, Obama signed an executive order overturning Mexico City Policy which banned U.S. funds from going to groups that perform or promote abortion overseas. Monday, Mr. Obama will sign an executive order overturning the Bush Administration's ban on federal funding for embryo-killing stem cell research.

And for all of you pro-lifers who voted for him, congratulations for buying into the Douglas Kmiec-hype about Obama "really" being pro-life. Next time, please listen to the rest of us pro-lifers who have been in the trenches. When we say someone is pro-abortion to the gills and Planned Parenthood likes them, well then, it's pretty safe to say that they are for abortion on demand.

'Nuff said.

Universal Health Care-- Redux

It may not be called the "Clinton" Health Care Plan but it's guaranteed to be just as expensive, just as cumbersome and just as pro-abortion.



So, we're headed for even more economic woes and we're going to throw federal monies and bureaucracy into the health care system?!

As for pro-abortion: don't believe me? Look at his speech before Planned Parenthood Action Fund in July 2007 (go ahead, I'll wait, the transcript is on the right, yup, just there...) At the end of the transcript, Barack Obama is asked some questions by three audience members. The first question is how "reproductive rights" and Planned Parenthood fit into a universal health care plan. Barack Obama's answer:

Well, look, in my mind reproductive care is essential care--basic care--so it is at the center, the heart of the plan that I propose. . . .

But, essentially, what we are doing is to say that we’re going to set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don’t have health insurance. It’ll be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services, as well as mental health services and disease management services. [scattered applause]

. . .

Now, I know I’m limited on time but I just want to expand on that second part of your question which is the role that organizations like Planned Parenthood play. . . .my hope is that we still have non-profit participation under my plan.

But, in the meantime, what I’ve said is that I believe we can have universal health care in this country by the end of the next president’s first term. By the end of my first term as president [applause] of the United States of America.

[Italics mine]

In pro-abortion parlance "reproductive healthcare" doesn't just mean pre-natal care (by the way, check out the "pre-natal care" section of a recent Planned Parenthood Annual Report and you'll notice that they don't do a lot of that.) The foundation of "reproductive healthcare" is abortion on demand. To sum up:

Obama Health Care Plan = abortion-on-demand with your tax dollars

Say It Ain't So, Sam!

Sam Brownback looks likely to vote for Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius for HHS Secretary.

Now he may be wanting to get her out of Kansas but the rest of us don't want her!

National Right to Life notes how the Sebelius nomination moves the Obama abortion agenda forward.

Pro-abortion Plans

A friend of mine forwarded a copy of an article that appeared on The New Republic website yesterday. While it's probably one of the worst cases of a "chasing your tail" argument I've ever seen, it does give insight into what pro-abortion groups may be thinking on FOCA.

The Future of the Hyde Amendment

W. James Antle, III, the associate editor of The American Spectator, writes about the danger the Hyde Amendment faces in this congress.

Alleged Assisted-Suicide Ring Arrested

This falls under the "shocking-but-true" category. Pro-life groups have long fought the legalization of assisted suicide for a variety of reasons. One of the scariest concerns is the possibility that a person may change their mind and someone "helping" prevents them from stopping the suicide at the last moment.

Most people seeking assisted suicide (at least 95 percent) are clinically depressed and should receive medical attention for depression.