/PRNewswire/ -- Family Research Council Action President Tony Perkins made the following comments following the retirement announcement of Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Mich.):
"For two decades Rep. Bart Stupak stood firm for the pro-life cause. It is a shame that he will leave Congress remembered more for his vote on the Obama health care bill, the largest abortion promoting piece of legislation in the last 30 years.
"Rep. Stupak's fall lies directly at the feet of the Democratic congressional leadership and President Obama, who pushed their support of government funding of abortion over the principles of pro-life Members of their own party. Although Rep. Stupak certainly is responsible for the decision he made to endorse the Obama plan, the severe demands his President and Party placed on him were untoward and unremitting.
"FRC Action will continue to work with pro-life Members of both parties to protect the mothers and unborn children targeted by President Obama's health care overhaul."
Showing posts with label pro life. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pro life. Show all posts
Friday, April 9, 2010
Friday, February 5, 2010
FRC Statement on New Policy Requiring Military Bases to Carry 'Morning After' Pill
/PRNewswire/ -- The Family Research Council today criticized a decision by the Obama Administration to require military bases worldwide to carry Levonorgestrel, or 'Plan B.'
Jeanne Monahan, FRC's Director of the Center for Human Dignity, released the following statement:
"Family Research Council opposes requiring military bases worldwide to carry Levonorgestrel, or 'Plan B,' because the drug can prevent a fertilized embryo from implanting in the uterus and thereby destroy a human life. We can all agree that there is a huge difference between preventing and destroying human life. And women in uniform deserve to know the truth about their medications.
"In the last year we have witnessed the Obama Administration move from the status quo of abortion as legal and available in health care plans to aggressively promoting U.S. government funded abortions. In the same way, the fact that Plan B is optional for military facilities is not sufficient for the Obama Administration, so now military facilities will be compelled to carry and disseminate Plan B.
"Moreover, a requirement to carry this drug would be a violation of the conscience rights of military personnel who have moral objections to providing it, not to mention the majority of American taxpayers supporting military operations. Taxpayers should not be required to pay for military medical personnel to carry Plan B anywhere in the world.
"Recently the FDA changed its approval of Plan B from a prescription drug to an over-the-counter drug for women ages 17 and up. This change was made despite the fact that Plan B is composed essentially of high doses of regular contraceptive drugs (which still require a doctor's prescription). However, because extensive testing for those under the age of 17 has not taken place, the drug can only be obtained by prescription for girls 16 and under. Forcing military professionals to carry over-the-counter Plan B will make it more difficult to enforce age requirements for a drug not widely tested on young girls.
"Finally, the requirement to carry Plan B on military bases doesn't include a parental notification provision in cases in which a minor obtains Plan B by prescription. This new policy undermines the right of parents to properly care for their daughters' physical well-being. In a society that requires teachers to send students to the nurse for a band-aid, the Administration's approach on something profoundly more important than a paper cut defies common sense."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Jeanne Monahan, FRC's Director of the Center for Human Dignity, released the following statement:
"Family Research Council opposes requiring military bases worldwide to carry Levonorgestrel, or 'Plan B,' because the drug can prevent a fertilized embryo from implanting in the uterus and thereby destroy a human life. We can all agree that there is a huge difference between preventing and destroying human life. And women in uniform deserve to know the truth about their medications.
"In the last year we have witnessed the Obama Administration move from the status quo of abortion as legal and available in health care plans to aggressively promoting U.S. government funded abortions. In the same way, the fact that Plan B is optional for military facilities is not sufficient for the Obama Administration, so now military facilities will be compelled to carry and disseminate Plan B.
"Moreover, a requirement to carry this drug would be a violation of the conscience rights of military personnel who have moral objections to providing it, not to mention the majority of American taxpayers supporting military operations. Taxpayers should not be required to pay for military medical personnel to carry Plan B anywhere in the world.
"Recently the FDA changed its approval of Plan B from a prescription drug to an over-the-counter drug for women ages 17 and up. This change was made despite the fact that Plan B is composed essentially of high doses of regular contraceptive drugs (which still require a doctor's prescription). However, because extensive testing for those under the age of 17 has not taken place, the drug can only be obtained by prescription for girls 16 and under. Forcing military professionals to carry over-the-counter Plan B will make it more difficult to enforce age requirements for a drug not widely tested on young girls.
"Finally, the requirement to carry Plan B on military bases doesn't include a parental notification provision in cases in which a minor obtains Plan B by prescription. This new policy undermines the right of parents to properly care for their daughters' physical well-being. In a society that requires teachers to send students to the nurse for a band-aid, the Administration's approach on something profoundly more important than a paper cut defies common sense."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Americans United for Life Offers Urgent Legal Briefing for Senator Nelson
/PRNewswire/ -- At 4:45 pm today on the floor of the United States Senate, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska made the following statement:
"...even though they [pro-life advocates] cannot constructively point out how it doesn't prohibit the use of federal funds or wall off those funds or keep them totally segregated. They just didn't like the language..."
As a result of this statement, Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President of Americans United for Life, directed her legal team to contact the Senator's office and offer to provide an urgent briefing to clarify the facts about abortion provisions in the bill. In addition, she has issued this statement:
"Senator Nelson has a strong, consistent pro-life voting record, and his vote for the manager's amendment was a surprise to all of us. We have contacted his office and have offered to send our top legal team to fully brief him as soon as he has an opportunity. I believe it is absolutely critical that Senator Nelson has all of the facts before he casts his final vote on Christmas Eve. The facts demonstrate that this bill will create the largest single expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade and impose a first-ever abortion tax on the American people."
FOR THE FACTS, CLICK BELOW
http://blog.aul.org/2009/12/20/the-abortion-tax-and-other-problems-in-sena tor-reid%E2%80%99s-amendment/
http://blog.aul.org/2009/12/19/legal-analysis-of-life-concerns-in-managers -amendment/
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"...even though they [pro-life advocates] cannot constructively point out how it doesn't prohibit the use of federal funds or wall off those funds or keep them totally segregated. They just didn't like the language..."
As a result of this statement, Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President of Americans United for Life, directed her legal team to contact the Senator's office and offer to provide an urgent briefing to clarify the facts about abortion provisions in the bill. In addition, she has issued this statement:
"Senator Nelson has a strong, consistent pro-life voting record, and his vote for the manager's amendment was a surprise to all of us. We have contacted his office and have offered to send our top legal team to fully brief him as soon as he has an opportunity. I believe it is absolutely critical that Senator Nelson has all of the facts before he casts his final vote on Christmas Eve. The facts demonstrate that this bill will create the largest single expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade and impose a first-ever abortion tax on the American people."
FOR THE FACTS, CLICK BELOW
http://blog.aul.org/2009/12/20/the-abortion-tax-and-other-problems-in-sena tor-reid%E2%80%99s-amendment/
http://blog.aul.org/2009/12/19/legal-analysis-of-life-concerns-in-managers -amendment/
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Today Is a Critical Day in Health Care Reform for Pro-Life America'
/PRNewswire/ -- Today is a critical day in the health care reform battle as the U.S. Senate Finance Committee considers several pro-life amendments filed by Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch that would prevent government funding for abortion and assisted suicide, and preserve current conscience laws for health care workers and providers.
A recent Rasmussen poll showed only 13 percent of Americans wanting taxpayer-funded abortions in health care reform. Despite this, Minnesota Democratic Sen. Max Baucus's bill, which is now undergoing mark-up, currently requires the government to spend $6 billion establishing co-ops that could cover abortion. The bill would also enable individuals to receive refundable, advanceable tax credits to purchase health insurance that covers abortion, and require at least one plan in each premium rating area to cover abortion.
Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO of Americans United for Life said, "Today is a critical day in health care reform for pro-life America. All amendments that have had explicit language banning abortion funding and coverage have been defeated in Congress despite rhetorical assurances from President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid that abortion will not be in health care reform. With the upcoming vote on the pro-life amendments today, the Senate has another golden opportunity today to show pro-life America that abortion will be explicitly excluded from health care reform."
Dr. Yoest recently met with the White House on the issue of abortion in health care.
Here are the pro-life amendments being considered for a vote tomorrow (for a more detailed explanation, please go to view this downloadable chart):
-- Hatch Amdt. #C14 (355): Prohibits authorized or appropriated federal
funds under this bill from being used for elective abortions and plans
that cover such abortions.
-- Hatch Amdt. #C13 (354): Protects the rights of conscience of health
care entities (individuals or organizations), preventing
discrimination against those who do not provide, pay for, provide
coverage of, or refer for abortions.
-- Hatch Amdt. #C12 (353): Prohibits federal funds under this bill from
being used to pay for assisted suicide and offers conscience
protections to providers or plans refusing to offer assisted suicide
services.
BACKGROUND
Without an explicit, proactive exclusion of abortion from the health care bills, the courts and administrative agencies will impose an abortion mandate, just as they did with Medicaid (the Hyde Amendment must be included in the LHHS Appropriations Bill each year to prevent federal funding of abortion under Medicaid; however, the Hyde Amendment would not apply to this health care reform). But, so far, every single pro-life amendment proposed to prevent abortion funding and coverage in the health care reform bills in Congress has been defeated.
Mary Harned, Staff Counsel to Americans United for Life asks: "If pro-abortion members of Congress do not intend for the health care reform bills to fund and mandate abortion coverage, then why did they vote against all amendments that would have included explicit language excluding abortion funding and coverage?"
The following pro-life amendments explicitly excluding abortion in the health care bills were defeated:
U.S. Senate
-- Sen. Mike Enzi's (R-Wyo.) amendments that would have prevented
taxpayer funding of abortion and would prevent abortion clinics from
being eligible for federally qualified health center grants;
-- Sen. Orin Hatch's (R-Utah) amendments that would have prevented
tax-funded abortions unless the life of the mother is endangered or
unless the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest (making the Hyde
Amendment permanent);
-- Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-Okla.) amendments that would have ensured no
abortion mandates, prevented abortion clinics from being eligible for
federally qualified health center grants, prevented the invalidation
of state laws that regulate abortion, codified the Hyde/Weldon
conscience protection law, and ensured that Americans have
professional ethicists informing any Government-funded medical
decisions; and
-- Sen. Pat Roberts' (R-Kansas) amendment which would have prevented the
invalidation of state laws regulating abortion.
U.S. House of Representatives
In the Education and Labor Committee:
-- Amendment to prohibit the abortion coverage mandate (Rep. Souder)
(failed 19-29).
-- Amendment to prohibit the abortion funding mandate (Rep. Souder)
(failed 19-29).
In the Ways and Means Committee:
-- Amendment to prohibit the abortion coverage mandate (Rep. Johnson)
(failed 18-23).
-- Amendment to prohibit the abortion funding mandate (Rep. Cantor)
(failed 19-22).
In the House Energy and Commerce Committee:
-- Amendment to prohibit the abortion coverage mandate (Reps. Pitts,
Stupak, and Blunt) (failed 29-30).
-- Amendment to prohibit the abortion funding mandate (Reps. Stupak and
Pitts) (failed 27-31).
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
A recent Rasmussen poll showed only 13 percent of Americans wanting taxpayer-funded abortions in health care reform. Despite this, Minnesota Democratic Sen. Max Baucus's bill, which is now undergoing mark-up, currently requires the government to spend $6 billion establishing co-ops that could cover abortion. The bill would also enable individuals to receive refundable, advanceable tax credits to purchase health insurance that covers abortion, and require at least one plan in each premium rating area to cover abortion.
Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO of Americans United for Life said, "Today is a critical day in health care reform for pro-life America. All amendments that have had explicit language banning abortion funding and coverage have been defeated in Congress despite rhetorical assurances from President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid that abortion will not be in health care reform. With the upcoming vote on the pro-life amendments today, the Senate has another golden opportunity today to show pro-life America that abortion will be explicitly excluded from health care reform."
Dr. Yoest recently met with the White House on the issue of abortion in health care.
Here are the pro-life amendments being considered for a vote tomorrow (for a more detailed explanation, please go to view this downloadable chart):
-- Hatch Amdt. #C14 (355): Prohibits authorized or appropriated federal
funds under this bill from being used for elective abortions and plans
that cover such abortions.
-- Hatch Amdt. #C13 (354): Protects the rights of conscience of health
care entities (individuals or organizations), preventing
discrimination against those who do not provide, pay for, provide
coverage of, or refer for abortions.
-- Hatch Amdt. #C12 (353): Prohibits federal funds under this bill from
being used to pay for assisted suicide and offers conscience
protections to providers or plans refusing to offer assisted suicide
services.
BACKGROUND
Without an explicit, proactive exclusion of abortion from the health care bills, the courts and administrative agencies will impose an abortion mandate, just as they did with Medicaid (the Hyde Amendment must be included in the LHHS Appropriations Bill each year to prevent federal funding of abortion under Medicaid; however, the Hyde Amendment would not apply to this health care reform). But, so far, every single pro-life amendment proposed to prevent abortion funding and coverage in the health care reform bills in Congress has been defeated.
Mary Harned, Staff Counsel to Americans United for Life asks: "If pro-abortion members of Congress do not intend for the health care reform bills to fund and mandate abortion coverage, then why did they vote against all amendments that would have included explicit language excluding abortion funding and coverage?"
The following pro-life amendments explicitly excluding abortion in the health care bills were defeated:
U.S. Senate
-- Sen. Mike Enzi's (R-Wyo.) amendments that would have prevented
taxpayer funding of abortion and would prevent abortion clinics from
being eligible for federally qualified health center grants;
-- Sen. Orin Hatch's (R-Utah) amendments that would have prevented
tax-funded abortions unless the life of the mother is endangered or
unless the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest (making the Hyde
Amendment permanent);
-- Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-Okla.) amendments that would have ensured no
abortion mandates, prevented abortion clinics from being eligible for
federally qualified health center grants, prevented the invalidation
of state laws that regulate abortion, codified the Hyde/Weldon
conscience protection law, and ensured that Americans have
professional ethicists informing any Government-funded medical
decisions; and
-- Sen. Pat Roberts' (R-Kansas) amendment which would have prevented the
invalidation of state laws regulating abortion.
U.S. House of Representatives
In the Education and Labor Committee:
-- Amendment to prohibit the abortion coverage mandate (Rep. Souder)
(failed 19-29).
-- Amendment to prohibit the abortion funding mandate (Rep. Souder)
(failed 19-29).
In the Ways and Means Committee:
-- Amendment to prohibit the abortion coverage mandate (Rep. Johnson)
(failed 18-23).
-- Amendment to prohibit the abortion funding mandate (Rep. Cantor)
(failed 19-22).
In the House Energy and Commerce Committee:
-- Amendment to prohibit the abortion coverage mandate (Reps. Pitts,
Stupak, and Blunt) (failed 29-30).
-- Amendment to prohibit the abortion funding mandate (Reps. Stupak and
Pitts) (failed 27-31).
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Friday, July 10, 2009
Statement by Supreme Knight Carl Anderson: On the Meeting Between Pope Benedict XVI and President Barack Obama
/PRNewswire/ -- The speculation over what the pope and president would discuss, and whether or not abortion would be center stage has been answered affirmatively. As the Vatican's statement makes clear "the conversation turned first of all" to issues "such as the defense and promotion of life, and the right to abide by one's conscience."
We also know that President Obama told the pope of his desire to "reduce the number of abortions," and of his "respect for the positions of the Church."
It is obvious that President Obama has a serious interest in engaging in a meaningful dialogue with the Catholic Church, and with Catholics, who make up one fourth of the U.S. population. President Obama clearly had much to gain from a successful meeting with the Pope.
Certainly this is another achievement for Vatican and American diplomacy and represents a positive development for those of us who hoped that this meeting might mark a new opportunity in the important relationship between the Catholic Church and U.S. government.
We applaud President Obama for showing sensitivity to the growing consensus among the American people favoring the right to life, restriction of abortion, and the protection of conscience.
As our Knights of Columbus-Marist Poll released today shows, there is a great deal of common ground among the American people on these issues. 86% would restrict abortion far more than it is today, and 79% would protect the right to conscience of health care workers. This is a real consensus on the heart of the abortion issue, and it is heartening to see the president's attention to it.
This is an important moment. The pope and the president have laid the foundation for trying to achieve authentic common ground. How we build on this meeting in a constructive way in the months and years ahead is critical. The following issues will help provide a true gauge of the progress made on achieving common ground with the Catholic community:
1. Adoption of a federal conscience clause regulation that gives real protection to Catholic institutions and individuals;
2. Health care legislation that does not contain a back door mandate for abortion;
3. Abortion reduction programs that respect pro-life crisis pregnancy and teenage abstinence programs;
4. Preservation of the pro-life riders that currently exist in the annual appropriations legislation. These riders, which restrict federal abortion funding, also raise conscience protection issues, since their removal would force tax payers to pay for abortions against their conscience.
5. Dropping any attempts to codify by statute the president's rescission of the Mexico City Policy, which allows international abortion funding by the United States.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
We also know that President Obama told the pope of his desire to "reduce the number of abortions," and of his "respect for the positions of the Church."
It is obvious that President Obama has a serious interest in engaging in a meaningful dialogue with the Catholic Church, and with Catholics, who make up one fourth of the U.S. population. President Obama clearly had much to gain from a successful meeting with the Pope.
Certainly this is another achievement for Vatican and American diplomacy and represents a positive development for those of us who hoped that this meeting might mark a new opportunity in the important relationship between the Catholic Church and U.S. government.
We applaud President Obama for showing sensitivity to the growing consensus among the American people favoring the right to life, restriction of abortion, and the protection of conscience.
As our Knights of Columbus-Marist Poll released today shows, there is a great deal of common ground among the American people on these issues. 86% would restrict abortion far more than it is today, and 79% would protect the right to conscience of health care workers. This is a real consensus on the heart of the abortion issue, and it is heartening to see the president's attention to it.
This is an important moment. The pope and the president have laid the foundation for trying to achieve authentic common ground. How we build on this meeting in a constructive way in the months and years ahead is critical. The following issues will help provide a true gauge of the progress made on achieving common ground with the Catholic community:
1. Adoption of a federal conscience clause regulation that gives real protection to Catholic institutions and individuals;
2. Health care legislation that does not contain a back door mandate for abortion;
3. Abortion reduction programs that respect pro-life crisis pregnancy and teenage abstinence programs;
4. Preservation of the pro-life riders that currently exist in the annual appropriations legislation. These riders, which restrict federal abortion funding, also raise conscience protection issues, since their removal would force tax payers to pay for abortions against their conscience.
5. Dropping any attempts to codify by statute the president's rescission of the Mexico City Policy, which allows international abortion funding by the United States.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)