Since it's been a while ... here are two major things that have occured: here are two articles from CNA
- Obama appoints Kansas Pro-Abortion Governor as HHS secretary
- Obama lifts ban on development of new embryonic stemcell ban - while removing funding for adult stem cell research
- Appoints Kansas Pro-Abortion Governor as HHS secretary
Washington D.C., Feb 28, 2009 / 09:38 pm (CNA).- Saturday evening it was announced that Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, a professed Catholic who supports abortion, has accepted a position in President Obama’s Cabinet as secretary of health and human services.
The Washington Post has reported that Gov. Sebelius was nominated for the position by the President and will join the Cabinet upon receiving the Senate’s approval.
A senior administration official told FOX News that "Governor Sebelius brings extraordinary qualifications to this role: As a popular two-term governor known for her bipartisan approach, and as an insurance commissioner charged with standing up for better health care for her state, the governor has unique insight and experience to draw on as President Obama's partner in lowering health care costs and expanding coverage."
While the governor is lauded for reaching across the aisle, her extreme pro-choice support has landed her in hot water with the Catholic Church, particularly the Archbishop of Kansas City Joseph Naumann.
In the Spring of 2008, Archbishop Naumann met with Sebelius to ensure that she understood the gravity of her pro-choice support as a Catholic. Following the meeting, the prelate asked her to refrain from receiving Communion until she makes a worthy confession and publicly repudiates her stand on abortion.
He later clarified that his request to her was not directed toward one particular action, but rather, it concerned her "30-year history of advocating and acting in support of legalized abortion."
According to the Catholic League, Archbishop Naumann hasn’t been the only Kansas City prelate to speak out against her actions. "Sebelius’ support for abortion is so far off-the-charts that she has been publicly criticized by the last three archbishops of Kansas City," the organization remarked. "In 1992, when Sebelius was a state legislator, Archbishop Ignatius Strecker rebuked her for leading what he dubbed a ‘death-march of the unborn.’ When Sebelius became governor in 2003, Archbishop James Keleher, citing her abortion record, asked her to move her inauguration interfaith service from Topeka’s Assumption Catholic Church. She refused. The current archbishop, Joseph Naumann, called her out on the issue: he challenged her to name one instance in her long legislative career where she supported limiting abortion rights. She could not. He subsequently asked her not to go to Communion."
Sebelius is also known to have close ties to Dr. George Tiller, an abortionist who performs late-term abortions and is the subject of a Kansas Supreme Court case for allegedly violating the state’s laws on late-term abortions.
In a statement to CNA, Austin Ruse, president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), emphasized the governor’s relationship with Tiller. "Governor Sebelius threw parties for George Tiller, the notorious abortionist who specialized in partial birth abortions. It is astounding to me that people like Dour Kmiec are still lauding this president as a compromiser on abortion. He is proving in spades to be the most pro-abortion president in our history."
Also commenting on Sebelius’ nomination, the director of the Christian Defense Coalition, Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney noted that the President is continuing his "losing streak" of Cabinet appointments with Governor Sebelius’ nomination.
"The President also affirms his status as ‘The Abortion President’ by nominating a radical extremist on abortion rights to oversee the nation's health care and social programs," he continued.
Mahoney also noted the governor’s abortion record. "The Governor has blocked legislation that would have stopped late-term abortions, she impeded the investigation into the death of a young woman at Dr. George Tiller's abortion clinic and Catholic Church officials have told her not to receive communion because of her radical support of abortion."
He went on to ask why "President Obama would nominate such a divisive and extremist candidate after he campaigned on brining unity and civility to government."
"If the President is looking for a fight with the pro-life and pro-family movement, he certainly is going to get one."
President of the pro-life organization, Operation Rescue, Troy Newman, also weighed in. "Obama's lack of judgment when it comes to cabinet appointments is especially evident in his choice of Sebelius."
"Operation Rescue vows to aggressively oppose Sebelius' confirmation in the Senate. Her cozy connections to late-term abortionist George Tiller and involvement in numerous abortion scandals makes her unfit to serve," the statement concluded.
- Obama ban on development of new embryonic stemcell ban - while removing funding for adult stem cell research
Obama’s embryonic stem cell decision ignored pro-life Democrats
Washington D.C., Mar 12, 2009 / 06:03 am (CNA).- After being excluded by the Obama Administration from the conversation on embryonic stem cell research, Democrats for Life of America is expressing its absolute opposition to the President’s executive order lifting restrictions on the practice. The snub is causing many pro-life Democrats to reexamine their support for President Obama as they ponder the future direction of their Party.
The pro-life Democratic group voiced its surprise that the Obama administration did not give them an opportunity to comment on the policy change, after his team had consulted them over the Mexico City Policy.
The group said in a Monday statement:
“DFLA is against President Obama’s decision, period. There are workable and successful options available to private sector research operations that use umbilical cord blood and non embryonic stem cells. To frame this decision as a necessity to cure finding medical research is not accurate.
“While we have zero confidence that a call for reversal of this Executive Order will prevail, we are hopeful that the President will heed our call for common ground solutions in dealing with pro-life Democrats.”
DFLA said it had an opportunity to state its concerns on the proposed Mexico City Policy reversal in discussions with representatives of the Obama Administration. However, President Obama’s expansion of embryonic stem cell research funding “came as a surprise” to the group.
“DFLA has had a productive relationship both with the campaign and the early stages of the new Administration. To have no opportunity to weigh in on this controversial issue signals a cooling of our relations,” the group said.
An essay published on the DFLA web site on Jan. 26 attacked the embryonic stem cell research debate’s “false dilemma” between being pro-science and pro-life. It argued that policymakers must not push aside ethical issues concerning the creation, cloning and destruction of human embryos.
DFLA again pointed to new research which can produce stem cells similar to embryonic stem cells while avoiding “many moral and practical problems.”
“Supporters of embryonic stem cell research seek to avoid the moral and ethical objections by arguing that the end – the possibility of a breakthrough that might advance medicine – justifies the means – destroying human embryos to harvest stem cells,” DFLA writes, calling this a “dubious argument.”
The DFLA also warns that some backers of embryonic stem cell research advocate “therapeutic” cloning in which embryos cloned from a patient are destroyed for their stem cells.
“Recent developments may well make embryonic stem cells obsolete. At a minimum, scientists must be encouraged to harness the enormous potential of powerful new stem cells created without destroying human embryos.”
In its Monday statement, DFLA suggested the Pregnant Women’s Support Act (PWSA) would be an area of cooperation with the Obama administration.
“We believe this should be put on the front of the legislative burner,” DFLA said.
“We will work with the President to pass this landmark abortion reduction bill and we are hopeful that he will see the PWSA is a far better way to work with pro-life Democrats than focusing on divisive issues that highlight our differences on issues dealing with life and the unborn.”
Democrats for Life of America (DFLA) Executive Director Kristen Day told CNA in a Wednesday phone interview that the decision has prompted many pro-life Democrats to report that they are re-examining their recent support for President Obama as they contemplate the direction of their party.
Saying that the overturning of the Bush-era executive order was “a little disappointing,” she added, “We were hoping that Congress could have an opportunity to look into this.”
Although President Obama said in his speech announcing the executive order that the limitations implemented by President Bush forced "a false choice between sound science and moral values," he did not specify how moral values could allow the scientific experiments, but merely ignored any moral objections in the name of science.
Kristen Day explained to CNA that “There are moral concerns here. We’re using human embryos. Is it okay to sacrifice one life or many lives to save another? This is something we really should be treading carefully on.
“We’re opposed to using the human embryos and experimenting on them. The end doesn’t justify the means.
“The unfortunate thing about this whole debate has been the confusion around it. Media reports talk about ‘stem cell research’ and there’s no distinction made between adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research.
“If people started to distinguish between them, I think there’d be a big shift in support.
“So much has been done and so many cures using adult stem cell research… If you look at adult and umbilical and placental stem cell research, we have cures. Cures for leukemia, cures for sickle-cell anemia.
“We should really be focusing our time and effort on what works. We should probably be using our limited funds, especially in this economy, to use things that are actually working.
CNA asked about legislators’ proposals to codify the president’s executive order in law.
“Really I think a better effort would be to step back. Let’s not rush anything,” Day said. “A lot of people need to be educated about what is going on.”
Day also lamented the “false hope” generated by the claim that President Obama’s executive order is going to cure people.
Asked about other proposals on embryonic stem cell research, such as efforts to overturn the Dickey-Wicker Amendment which bars funding for research which creates or destroys human embryos, she replied:
“We suspected they would come up, given the way things have gone this Congress so far.”
Day said the DFLA had been talking to Obama staffers during the presidential campaign and during the presidential transition on the Mexico City Policy, but not on embryonic stem cell research policy.
“We had no chance to comment on this at all. It’s a little questionable about where we are going.
“We’ve had a good working relationship, which we would like to continue to advance the Pregnant Women Support Act.
“There are a lot of pro-life Democrats who supported the president and voted for him. And I’m hearing a lot of comments from people now who are thinking that was a mistake. They’re wondering where our Party is going.”
CNA asked Day about being in the position of a Democrat who is defending a Republican president’s policy against a Democratic president’s changes.
“The pro-life issue should not be partisan,” Day stated. “There are definitely differences between the parties on raising minimum wage and health care. When you’re talking about pro-life, it should not be a party thing. It cannot be a party thing, because we’re talking about human life here.
Asked to give advice for those opposed to embryo-destructive research, Day said:
“Talk to as many people as you can and share real information about what this does. And really try to advocate for more funding for stem cell research that does work.”
People should especially talk about the distinction between embryonic and non-embryonic stem cell research, she counseled.
“There is really a lot of misinformation out there. People believe ESCR has cured things and it hasn’t. Be careful, and read closely.”
Day specifically advised pro-life Democrats to contact the Obama administration and share their concerns and to write to the new chairman of the Democratic National Committee “as a pro-life Democrat.”
“We are Democrats and we are Pro-life and this is a consistent position for our Party to hold.
“We’ve been too quiet for far too long and we really need to be more forceful and speak up more.”
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Abortion Gag Rule - Strike #1 for Obama
Just a day after the March for Life in DC on the Anniversary of Roe V. Wade, Obama has already decided to repeal the abortion funding rule to foreign countries like Mexico.
Interestingly the Time article title is, "Shhh. Obama Repeals the Abortion Gag Rule, Very Quietly"
My comments in colors below
On the day after the 36th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, President Barack Obama repealed a Reagan-era policy that prohibited foreign nongovernmental family-planning groups from receiving U.S. funds if they provided abortions or even lobbied for abortion rights in their country. It is an action his abortion-rights supporters have waited eight years for and one they had encouraged him to waste no time taking.
But by first issuing a statement urging support for common-ground efforts to reduce abortion rates and then waiting to sign the Executive Order late on a Friday afternoon — a time traditionally reserved for the release of information an Administration would like to bury — Obama sent a clear signal that he wants to turn down the heat on an issue that has defined and divided American politics for more than three decades. (See pictures behind the scenes at the Inauguration.)
*There is no heat to turn down! Pro-lifers will not compromise life!
The Mexico City policy, as it is known, has been one of the most visible differences between the two major political parties on the issue of abortion, in part because incoming Presidents have taken action on it within days of entering the White House. Bill Clinton repealed the policy on Jan. 22, 1993, citing his concern that the ban prevented women and children from receiving health services. Eight years later, George W. Bush reinstated the policy on Jan. 22, 2001. "It is my conviction," Bush said, "that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad." (View new fronts in the abortion battle.)
Bush's statement is one being echoed by supporters of the policy today. But in fact, since 1973, federal law has banned the use of U.S. taxpayer funds for abortions in other countries. What the Mexico City policy did was take that prohibition several steps further. Under the policy, NGOs that applied for family-planning funds from the U.S. Agency on International Development (USAID) had to refrain from using any of their own funds to provide abortion (with exceptions for cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother). The organizations also were not eligible if they lobbied to make or keep abortion legal in their own country or if they provided abortion referrals — a requirement that led many opponents of the policy to dub it a "global gag rule."
*First off NGO's work for the local government, so even if the US is not funding the government directly, the NGO's work still impacts the local citizens of that country! And EXCUSE ME, but lobbying is not a cheap thing to do! Why don't they spend the lobby funds on helping expecting mothers instead!
As a result of the policy — which is named for the city in which the Reagan Administration first announced it at the 1984 United Nations International Conference on Population — some groups, including Planned Parenthood organizations in Romania and Colombia, altered their activities in order to qualify and continued to receive funding. But at least 16 developing nations in Africa, Asia and the Middle East have been affected, with all NGOs in those countries denied U.S. funding to help provide contraceptives and other much needed services.
*Why is the US getting involved anyway! Why don't we help BUILD their infrastructure instead of hand out contraceptives... that result in a dependence on the US and causes more disease and problems! Also, what does the author mean by "other much needed services" -- who said contraceptives were NEEDED.
Planned Parenthood* of Zambia, for example, has lost nearly a quarter of its funding and almost 40% of its staff because of the policy. The group still provides abortions*, but the activities that have been affected by the loss of that aid are more diverse: pre- and postnatal care, early child immunizations, malaria screenings and tests for cervical cancer*. The lack of funding for contraception in some African countries actually became such an obstacle to preventing the transmission of HIV/AIDS that Bush exempted PEPFAR, his global AIDS initiative, from the Mexico City restrictions. Opponents of the policy also argue that it actually increases abortion rates because the rate of unintended pregnancy rises when access to contraception is limited.*
By choosing to take action on the Mexico City policy just two days into their first Administrations, both Clinton and Bush ended up igniting culture wars before they'd even had a chance to find their way around the office. Clinton entered the White House having tempered the skepticism of many pro-life voters with his insistence that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare." But his decision to repeal the Mexico City ban as one of his first acts in office led many to wonder if the slogan was just empty words. With Bush, his reinstatement of the ban and accompanying explanation signaled from the get-go that "compassionate conservatism" was still very much conservative. (Read "McCain and Obama on Abortion.")
*Planned Parenthood is a US-based institution with international ARMS and lots of $$$$$
*Ever hear of shifting the budget to spend more on the other services that have been impacted...?? In comparing the cost of an abortion vs. others things like are likely less expensive.. handing out vitamins and giving immunization shots... I think they should be able to prioritize better...
*Citation for source required. This is a general unproven statement!
Obama sought to avoid creating such political theater by waiting to issue his repeal of the policy until the annual face-off between pro-life and pro-choice advocates on Jan. 22 was over and by doing it out of sight of the cameras***. He observed the anniversary of Roe v. Wade by issuing a statement reaffirming his support for a woman's right to choose but also appealing — as he did throughout the presidential campaign — for common-ground approaches to abortion policy: "We are united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make." (Read "The Grass-Roots Abortion War.")
***How can such a man be trusted if he doesn't publicly state things? Just because he doesn't want a public outcry, doesn't mean it won't happen. ACTIONS speak louder than WORDS alone.
But the President who so carefully cultivates a postpartisan image will not be able to entirely avoid pressure from allies to demonstrate a concrete commitment to changing the cycle of whipsaw abortion policy that takes place whenever a new President occupies the White House. Already he has been lobbied by pro-life religious progressives who urged him to wait a few weeks before issuing the Executive Order. The progressive group Catholics United participated in Thursday's March for Life, carrying a banner that read "Congress Reduce Abortion Now." The shifting ground in the abortion debates means he has more allies willing to work with him on abortion-reduction strategies such as efforts to expand access to contraceptives and provide economic supports for pregnant women. But it also means he has more supporters who expect their pro-life views to be heard. They'll have to decide if what they saw today was a mixed message — or a step toward common ground.
*This isn't a compromise! This is a MIXED message that not only hurts our nation, but the entire WORLD!
Interestingly the Time article title is, "Shhh. Obama Repeals the Abortion Gag Rule, Very Quietly"
My comments in colors below
On the day after the 36th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, President Barack Obama repealed a Reagan-era policy that prohibited foreign nongovernmental family-planning groups from receiving U.S. funds if they provided abortions or even lobbied for abortion rights in their country. It is an action his abortion-rights supporters have waited eight years for and one they had encouraged him to waste no time taking.
But by first issuing a statement urging support for common-ground efforts to reduce abortion rates and then waiting to sign the Executive Order late on a Friday afternoon — a time traditionally reserved for the release of information an Administration would like to bury — Obama sent a clear signal that he wants to turn down the heat on an issue that has defined and divided American politics for more than three decades. (See pictures behind the scenes at the Inauguration.)
*There is no heat to turn down! Pro-lifers will not compromise life!
The Mexico City policy, as it is known, has been one of the most visible differences between the two major political parties on the issue of abortion, in part because incoming Presidents have taken action on it within days of entering the White House. Bill Clinton repealed the policy on Jan. 22, 1993, citing his concern that the ban prevented women and children from receiving health services. Eight years later, George W. Bush reinstated the policy on Jan. 22, 2001. "It is my conviction," Bush said, "that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad." (View new fronts in the abortion battle.)
Bush's statement is one being echoed by supporters of the policy today. But in fact, since 1973, federal law has banned the use of U.S. taxpayer funds for abortions in other countries. What the Mexico City policy did was take that prohibition several steps further. Under the policy, NGOs that applied for family-planning funds from the U.S. Agency on International Development (USAID) had to refrain from using any of their own funds to provide abortion (with exceptions for cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother). The organizations also were not eligible if they lobbied to make or keep abortion legal in their own country or if they provided abortion referrals — a requirement that led many opponents of the policy to dub it a "global gag rule."
*First off NGO's work for the local government, so even if the US is not funding the government directly, the NGO's work still impacts the local citizens of that country! And EXCUSE ME, but lobbying is not a cheap thing to do! Why don't they spend the lobby funds on helping expecting mothers instead!
As a result of the policy — which is named for the city in which the Reagan Administration first announced it at the 1984 United Nations International Conference on Population — some groups, including Planned Parenthood organizations in Romania and Colombia, altered their activities in order to qualify and continued to receive funding. But at least 16 developing nations in Africa, Asia and the Middle East have been affected, with all NGOs in those countries denied U.S. funding to help provide contraceptives and other much needed services.
*Why is the US getting involved anyway! Why don't we help BUILD their infrastructure instead of hand out contraceptives... that result in a dependence on the US and causes more disease and problems! Also, what does the author mean by "other much needed services" -- who said contraceptives were NEEDED.
Planned Parenthood* of Zambia, for example, has lost nearly a quarter of its funding and almost 40% of its staff because of the policy. The group still provides abortions*, but the activities that have been affected by the loss of that aid are more diverse: pre- and postnatal care, early child immunizations, malaria screenings and tests for cervical cancer*. The lack of funding for contraception in some African countries actually became such an obstacle to preventing the transmission of HIV/AIDS that Bush exempted PEPFAR, his global AIDS initiative, from the Mexico City restrictions. Opponents of the policy also argue that it actually increases abortion rates because the rate of unintended pregnancy rises when access to contraception is limited.*
By choosing to take action on the Mexico City policy just two days into their first Administrations, both Clinton and Bush ended up igniting culture wars before they'd even had a chance to find their way around the office. Clinton entered the White House having tempered the skepticism of many pro-life voters with his insistence that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare." But his decision to repeal the Mexico City ban as one of his first acts in office led many to wonder if the slogan was just empty words. With Bush, his reinstatement of the ban and accompanying explanation signaled from the get-go that "compassionate conservatism" was still very much conservative. (Read "McCain and Obama on Abortion.")
*Planned Parenthood is a US-based institution with international ARMS and lots of $$$$$
*Ever hear of shifting the budget to spend more on the other services that have been impacted...?? In comparing the cost of an abortion vs. others things like are likely less expensive.. handing out vitamins and giving immunization shots... I think they should be able to prioritize better...
*Citation for source required. This is a general unproven statement!
Obama sought to avoid creating such political theater by waiting to issue his repeal of the policy until the annual face-off between pro-life and pro-choice advocates on Jan. 22 was over and by doing it out of sight of the cameras***. He observed the anniversary of Roe v. Wade by issuing a statement reaffirming his support for a woman's right to choose but also appealing — as he did throughout the presidential campaign — for common-ground approaches to abortion policy: "We are united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make." (Read "The Grass-Roots Abortion War.")
***How can such a man be trusted if he doesn't publicly state things? Just because he doesn't want a public outcry, doesn't mean it won't happen. ACTIONS speak louder than WORDS alone.
But the President who so carefully cultivates a postpartisan image will not be able to entirely avoid pressure from allies to demonstrate a concrete commitment to changing the cycle of whipsaw abortion policy that takes place whenever a new President occupies the White House. Already he has been lobbied by pro-life religious progressives who urged him to wait a few weeks before issuing the Executive Order. The progressive group Catholics United participated in Thursday's March for Life, carrying a banner that read "Congress Reduce Abortion Now." The shifting ground in the abortion debates means he has more allies willing to work with him on abortion-reduction strategies such as efforts to expand access to contraceptives and provide economic supports for pregnant women. But it also means he has more supporters who expect their pro-life views to be heard. They'll have to decide if what they saw today was a mixed message — or a step toward common ground.
*This isn't a compromise! This is a MIXED message that not only hurts our nation, but the entire WORLD!
Thursday, January 22, 2009
January 22 - Historic Supreme Court Roe v. Wade Ruling
Obama Intends to Lift Family-Planning 'Gag Rule'
Move Would Restore Funds to International Groups Involved With Abortion; Timing Shows Sensitivity to Foes of Roe v. Wade
I wasn't planning to write anything today, but since 1/22 is the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade ruling and the March for Life in DC, it'd be important to to say something :P
Also, since Obama decided to not overturn the international funding rule that Bush undid after Clinton, I wanted to take note of it. However, the media believes he is just holding off because he doesn't want to anger the March for Life folks. Nonetheless, Pro-lifers and the media believe he will do it very soon.
This international funding law is about: "restoring U.S. funding for international family-planning groups involved with abortion".
First off, I don't know why the US would be paying for other countries' abortions in the first place. And secondly, if we did have the $, then why not spend it on our economy or poor in the US.
"Under the original policy, established by President Ronald Reagan in 1984, U.S. funds for contraception and other family-planning services could not go to organizations that advocate, counsel or offer abortion. Opponents call it the "global gag rule." Mr. Clinton, a Democrat, lifted that restriction when be became president in 1993, and then the Republican Mr. Bush changed it back in 2001." Source - WSJ
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123267481436808735.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
However, he did issue a statement about the ruling...unfortunately his entire statement must be quilted together from two different places...
"He issued a statement that both affirmed his support for Roe -- and his determination to reduce the need for abortions. "While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue, no matter what our views, we are united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make," the president said in a statement. "To accomplish these goals, we must work to find common ground to expand access to affordable contraception, accurate health information, and preventative services," he said."
Source - WSJ
...and I guess this is the rest of his statement...
Roe v. Wade "not only protects women's health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters," Obama said in a statement.
Source - CNN
Btw--- to the media like CNN, the March for Life was considered an "anti-abortion" rally... if they had attended the event, they would have heard people also talk about Euthanasia... so they forgot to add "anti-euthanasia" to the description. :P
Move Would Restore Funds to International Groups Involved With Abortion; Timing Shows Sensitivity to Foes of Roe v. Wade
I wasn't planning to write anything today, but since 1/22 is the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade ruling and the March for Life in DC, it'd be important to to say something :P
Also, since Obama decided to not overturn the international funding rule that Bush undid after Clinton, I wanted to take note of it. However, the media believes he is just holding off because he doesn't want to anger the March for Life folks. Nonetheless, Pro-lifers and the media believe he will do it very soon.
This international funding law is about: "restoring U.S. funding for international family-planning groups involved with abortion".
First off, I don't know why the US would be paying for other countries' abortions in the first place. And secondly, if we did have the $, then why not spend it on our economy or poor in the US.
"Under the original policy, established by President Ronald Reagan in 1984, U.S. funds for contraception and other family-planning services could not go to organizations that advocate, counsel or offer abortion. Opponents call it the "global gag rule." Mr. Clinton, a Democrat, lifted that restriction when be became president in 1993, and then the Republican Mr. Bush changed it back in 2001." Source - WSJ
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123267481436808735.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
However, he did issue a statement about the ruling...unfortunately his entire statement must be quilted together from two different places...
"He issued a statement that both affirmed his support for Roe -- and his determination to reduce the need for abortions. "While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue, no matter what our views, we are united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make," the president said in a statement. "To accomplish these goals, we must work to find common ground to expand access to affordable contraception, accurate health information, and preventative services," he said."
Source - WSJ
...and I guess this is the rest of his statement...
Roe v. Wade "not only protects women's health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters," Obama said in a statement.
Source - CNN
Btw--- to the media like CNN, the March for Life was considered an "anti-abortion" rally... if they had attended the event, they would have heard people also talk about Euthanasia... so they forgot to add "anti-euthanasia" to the description. :P
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
President Obama's first day
I was going to post stuff yesterday for his inauguration, but got a little lazy about it. Though, I did read his speech and got to hear about his wife's outfits. I don't remember so much hoopla with Bush, but since Obama is a media favorite, it's only fitting he gets the best coverage.
Here is his speech below. I've added my comments below. Let's see how it is executed in these upcoming years.
Here is his speech below. I've added my comments below. Let's see how it is executed in these upcoming years.
"I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.
Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.
So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.
That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war*, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many**; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.
*What war? Seems kind of vague since the Iraq conflict has settled down, and the troops have mainly been trying to help secure the nation by helping build infrastructure.
**Who are the many? Are you referring to the poor? minorities? immigrants? Please note: our universities are still best in class and attract many from all parts of the world.
These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.
Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many.
They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met. On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.
On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.*
*What dogmas are he referring to?
We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.
*Per something I listened to on 1260/EWTN, why did he skip over the right to life? What is the meaning of "equal"?
In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned*. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.
*Is he saying our value is based on what we can materially contribute?
For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.
For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.
For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn. Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.
For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful* place, and wield technology's wonders** to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.
*This statement is a little bit scary...what does he mean by rightful place? Was it in a wrong place?
**Wield technology's wonders sounds like we will do whatever it takes - putting possible ethical standards aside
Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.
What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage*, care they can afford**, a retirement that is dignified***. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.
*Are Americans underpaid?
**Is this lowering the standard of health care?
***Dignified vs. Viable?
Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child*who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.
*This is the one of the two references to a child in his entire speech. Other references refer to generations.
Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.
We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort - even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.*
*I just realized he didn't mention 9/11 - one of the biggest attacks to hit American soil... Almost makes it sound like we were involved in the Middle East just because of Iraq.
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus* - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.
*Buddhists were skipped.
To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.
To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.
To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow*; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.
*What about electricity? We just can't give them water.
As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages.
We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment - a moment that will define a generation - it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.
For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child*, that finally decides our fate.
*What about a child's right to life?
Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends - hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.
This is the price and the promise of citizenship.
This is the source of our confidence - the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.
This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed - why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.
*Note: His father and his African ancestry/heritage didn't experience the same thing that the African Americans from the slavery/post-Lincoln days had to go through.
So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:
"Let it be told to the future world...that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]."
America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations."
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Latest Appts. By Mr. Obama - President Elect
I just saw on a news update from the World Over with Raymond Arroyo that Obama has selected two prominent women to a Communications post and Domestic Policy. Both are extreme pro-abortion on demand advocates. Also, both played a major role in helping Obama campaign for his election win.
These two women are:
White House Communications Director - Ellen Moran is current the head of Emily's List, "a political action committee (PAC) in the United States that aims to help elect progressive female candidates who are pro-choice to office. It was founded by Ellen Malcolm in 1984" (WIKIPEDIA)
She responsible for the strategic direction of the org, and has played a major role in Democratic party campaigning, etc.
From CNA - "EMILY's List also states being "committed to a three-pronged strategy to elect pro-choice Democratic women: recruiting and funding viable women candidates; helping them build and run effective campaign organizations; and mobilizing women voters to help elect progressive candidates across the nation."
For a candidate to be considered for funding from EMILY’s List there are three requirements: The candidate must be a woman; she must be a Democrat; and she must support unrestricted access to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand.
The List’s support for abortion-on-demand is so strong that it has cut funding from politicians who voted against extreme pro-abortion positions. Two examples of this are Senators Mary Landrieu from Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln from Arkansas who lost funding from EMILY’s List when they voted to ban the gruesome practice of partial-birth abortion."
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14420
Domestic Policy Director - Melody Barnes. "She was previously Executive Vice President for Policy at the Center for American Progress[2] and led the CAP's Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative. She left the CAP in June of 2008 to work on the Obama campaign. She also serves on the advisory board for the Obama presidential transition team. She previously served as the Director of Legislative Affairs for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and as assistant counsel to the United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties[4], where she worked with Congress to pass the Voting Rights Improvement Act of 1992. She was also a board member of EMILY's List." (WIKIPEDIA).
It also appears the domestic policy position will oversee these partipants as part of the policy (with exception of economics). Ignore the names since they are currently Bush's appointees. Just read the actual role.
Richard B. Cheney (Vice President)Michael Leavitt (Secretary of Health and Human Services)Michael Mukasey (Attorney General)Elaine Chao (Secretary of Labor)James Peake (Secretary of Veterans Affairs)Dirk Kempthorne (Secretary of the Interior)Margaret Spellings (Secretary of Education)Steve Preston (Secretary of Housing and Urban Development)Chuck Conner (Secretary of Agriculture)Mary Peters (Secretary of Transportation)Carlos Gutierrez (Secretary of Commerce)Samuel Bodman (Secretary of Energy)Henry Paulson (Secretary of the Treasury)
Additional Participants
Stephen L. Johnson (Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency)Edward Lazear (Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers)Jim Nussle (Director of the Office of Management and Budget)Keith Hennessey (Assistant to the President for Economic Policy)John Walters (Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy)
These two women are:
White House Communications Director - Ellen Moran is current the head of Emily's List, "a political action committee (PAC) in the United States that aims to help elect progressive female candidates who are pro-choice to office. It was founded by Ellen Malcolm in 1984" (WIKIPEDIA)
She responsible for the strategic direction of the org, and has played a major role in Democratic party campaigning, etc.
From CNA - "EMILY's List also states being "committed to a three-pronged strategy to elect pro-choice Democratic women: recruiting and funding viable women candidates; helping them build and run effective campaign organizations; and mobilizing women voters to help elect progressive candidates across the nation."
For a candidate to be considered for funding from EMILY’s List there are three requirements: The candidate must be a woman; she must be a Democrat; and she must support unrestricted access to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand.
The List’s support for abortion-on-demand is so strong that it has cut funding from politicians who voted against extreme pro-abortion positions. Two examples of this are Senators Mary Landrieu from Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln from Arkansas who lost funding from EMILY’s List when they voted to ban the gruesome practice of partial-birth abortion."
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14420
Domestic Policy Director - Melody Barnes. "She was previously Executive Vice President for Policy at the Center for American Progress[2] and led the CAP's Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative. She left the CAP in June of 2008 to work on the Obama campaign. She also serves on the advisory board for the Obama presidential transition team. She previously served as the Director of Legislative Affairs for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and as assistant counsel to the United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties[4], where she worked with Congress to pass the Voting Rights Improvement Act of 1992. She was also a board member of EMILY's List." (WIKIPEDIA).
It also appears the domestic policy position will oversee these partipants as part of the policy (with exception of economics). Ignore the names since they are currently Bush's appointees. Just read the actual role.
Richard B. Cheney (Vice President)Michael Leavitt (Secretary of Health and Human Services)Michael Mukasey (Attorney General)Elaine Chao (Secretary of Labor)James Peake (Secretary of Veterans Affairs)Dirk Kempthorne (Secretary of the Interior)Margaret Spellings (Secretary of Education)Steve Preston (Secretary of Housing and Urban Development)Chuck Conner (Secretary of Agriculture)Mary Peters (Secretary of Transportation)Carlos Gutierrez (Secretary of Commerce)Samuel Bodman (Secretary of Energy)Henry Paulson (Secretary of the Treasury)
Additional Participants
Stephen L. Johnson (Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency)Edward Lazear (Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers)Jim Nussle (Director of the Office of Management and Budget)Keith Hennessey (Assistant to the President for Economic Policy)John Walters (Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy)
Friday, November 21, 2008
List of Papers that Endorsed Obama and McCain
Before I forget, might as well have this on record! Somehow copy and paste is acting funny, so they are clumped together.
Newspapers endorsing Democrat Barack Obama:
Alabama
Tuscaloosa News
California
Contra Costa Times Daily Breeze Fremont Argus Fresno Bee Hayward Daily Review La Opinión Long Beach Press Telegram Los Angeles Daily News Los Angeles Times Marin Independent Journal Modesto Bee Monterey County Herald Oakland Tribune Pasadena Star-News Sacramento Bee San Bernadino Sun San Francisco Chronicle San Gabriel Valley Tribune San Joaquin Herald SJ Mercury News San Mateo County Times Santa Cruz Sentinel Stockton Record Tri-Valley Herald Walnut Creek Journal Colorado Cortez Journal Denver Post Durango Herald Gunnison Times Ouray Plain Dealer Florida Daytona Beach Miami Herald Naples News News-Journal Orlando Sentinel Palm Beach Post Sarasota Herald-Tribune
Georgia
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Hawaii
Honolulu Star-Bulletin
Idaho
Idaho Stateman
Illinois
Chicago Tribune
Chicago Sun-Times Arlington Hgts Daily Herald Rockford Register Star
Indiana Fort Wayne Journal Gazette Richmond Palladium Item
Iowa The Hawk Eye Mason City Globe Gazette Storm Lake Times
Kentucky Lexington Herald-Leader
Maine Bangor News Brunswick Times Record
Massachusetts
Boston Globe Standard-Times
Michigan
Detroit Free Press Michigan Chronicle Muskegon Chronicle Minnesota St Cloud Times
Missouri
Columbia Daily Tribune Kansas City Star St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Nevada
Las Vegas Sun
New Hampshire
Cabinet Press Concord Monitor Nashua Telegraph New Jersey Asbury Park Press
New Mexico Las Cruces Sun News Santa Fe New Mexican
New York
Buffalo News
New York Daily News El Diario/La Prensa North Carolina Asheville Citizen-Times Greenville Daily Reflector Durham Herald Sun News & Observer Wilmington Star News
Ohio Akron Beacon Journal Cleveland Plain Dealer Canton Repository Dayton Daily News Times-Reporter Springfield News Sun Toledo Blade Oregon East Oregonian Mail Tribune Oregonian Register-Guard Salem Statesman Journal
Pennsylvania Philadelphia Inquirer Express-Times Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Tennessee Chattanooga Times Commercial Appeal Tennessean
Texas Austin American-Statesman The Eagle Houston Chronicle Lufkin Daily News Utah Salt Lake Tribune Virginia Falls Church News Press
Washington The Columbian The Olympian Seattle Times Seattle Post-Intell. Tri-City Herald Walla Walla Union-Bulletin Yakima Herald
Washington, DC
Washington Post
West Virginia Charleston Gazette
Wisconsin State
Journal Newspapers endorsing Republican John McCain:
California Bakersfield Californian Napa Valley Register Press-Enterprise San Diego Union Tribune SF Examiner Colorado Daily Sentinel Mountain Valley News Pueblo Chieftain Florida Tampa Tribune Maryland Baltimore Examiner Massachusetts Boston Herald Lowell Sun Nevada Las Vegas Review-Journal New Hampshire Foster's Daily Democrat Union Leader New York New York Post Ohio Columbus Dispatch Findlay Courier Oregon Bend Bulletin Texas Amarillo Globe News Beaumont Monitor Corpus Christi Caller-Times Dallas Morning News San Antonio Express-News Wichita Falls Times-Record Virginia Daily Press Washington Spokesman Review Washington, DC DC Examiner West Virginia The Intelligencer Wheeling News Register
Newspapers endorsing Democrat Barack Obama:
Alabama
Tuscaloosa News
California
Contra Costa Times Daily Breeze Fremont Argus Fresno Bee Hayward Daily Review La Opinión Long Beach Press Telegram Los Angeles Daily News Los Angeles Times Marin Independent Journal Modesto Bee Monterey County Herald Oakland Tribune Pasadena Star-News Sacramento Bee San Bernadino Sun San Francisco Chronicle San Gabriel Valley Tribune San Joaquin Herald SJ Mercury News San Mateo County Times Santa Cruz Sentinel Stockton Record Tri-Valley Herald Walnut Creek Journal Colorado Cortez Journal Denver Post Durango Herald Gunnison Times Ouray Plain Dealer Florida Daytona Beach Miami Herald Naples News News-Journal Orlando Sentinel Palm Beach Post Sarasota Herald-Tribune
Georgia
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Hawaii
Honolulu Star-Bulletin
Idaho
Idaho Stateman
Illinois
Chicago Tribune
Chicago Sun-Times Arlington Hgts Daily Herald Rockford Register Star
Indiana Fort Wayne Journal Gazette Richmond Palladium Item
Iowa The Hawk Eye Mason City Globe Gazette Storm Lake Times
Kentucky Lexington Herald-Leader
Maine Bangor News Brunswick Times Record
Massachusetts
Boston Globe Standard-Times
Michigan
Detroit Free Press Michigan Chronicle Muskegon Chronicle Minnesota St Cloud Times
Missouri
Columbia Daily Tribune Kansas City Star St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Nevada
Las Vegas Sun
New Hampshire
Cabinet Press Concord Monitor Nashua Telegraph New Jersey Asbury Park Press
New Mexico Las Cruces Sun News Santa Fe New Mexican
New York
Buffalo News
New York Daily News El Diario/La Prensa North Carolina Asheville Citizen-Times Greenville Daily Reflector Durham Herald Sun News & Observer Wilmington Star News
Ohio Akron Beacon Journal Cleveland Plain Dealer Canton Repository Dayton Daily News Times-Reporter Springfield News Sun Toledo Blade Oregon East Oregonian Mail Tribune Oregonian Register-Guard Salem Statesman Journal
Pennsylvania Philadelphia Inquirer Express-Times Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Tennessee Chattanooga Times Commercial Appeal Tennessean
Texas Austin American-Statesman The Eagle Houston Chronicle Lufkin Daily News Utah Salt Lake Tribune Virginia Falls Church News Press
Washington The Columbian The Olympian Seattle Times Seattle Post-Intell. Tri-City Herald Walla Walla Union-Bulletin Yakima Herald
Washington, DC
Washington Post
West Virginia Charleston Gazette
Wisconsin State
Journal Newspapers endorsing Republican John McCain:
California Bakersfield Californian Napa Valley Register Press-Enterprise San Diego Union Tribune SF Examiner Colorado Daily Sentinel Mountain Valley News Pueblo Chieftain Florida Tampa Tribune Maryland Baltimore Examiner Massachusetts Boston Herald Lowell Sun Nevada Las Vegas Review-Journal New Hampshire Foster's Daily Democrat Union Leader New York New York Post Ohio Columbus Dispatch Findlay Courier Oregon Bend Bulletin Texas Amarillo Globe News Beaumont Monitor Corpus Christi Caller-Times Dallas Morning News San Antonio Express-News Wichita Falls Times-Record Virginia Daily Press Washington Spokesman Review Washington, DC DC Examiner West Virginia The Intelligencer Wheeling News Register
Protests Over a Rule to Protect Health Providers
There is this "midnight regulation" stuff that Bush is trying to get in before his term ends. So, I just wanted to add this into the list of culture of life activities. This article is from the New York Times. I am not sure if it will pass, but basically Bush wants to allow health care professionals to be able to refrain from a job if it is against their personal beliefs. According to the news, there is already some act from 1964 that allows people to not have to act against their person beliefs unless it causes some hardship on the company. Seems to me like there is a loophole. And the legislation Bush is trying to push through would plug it. As a result, Planned Parenthood is upset.. blah, blah.. saying it would create a loophole for employees. Anyway, here is the article:
Protests Over a Rule to Protect Health Providers
new_york_times:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/washington/18abort.html
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: November 17, 2008
WASHINGTON — A last-minute Bush administration plan to grant sweeping new protections to health care providers who oppose abortion and other procedures on religious or moral grounds has provoked a torrent of objections, including a strenuous protest from the government agency that enforces job discrimination laws.
The proposed rule would prohibit recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to perform or to assist in the performance of abortions or sterilization procedures because of their “religious beliefs or moral convictions.”
It would also prevent hospitals, clinics, doctors’ offices and drugstores from requiring employees with religious or moral objections to “assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity” financed by the Department of Health and Human Services.
But three officials from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, including its legal counsel, whom President Bush appointed, said the proposal would overturn 40 years of civil rights law prohibiting job discrimination based on religion.
The counsel, Reed L. Russell, and two Democratic members of the commission, Stuart J. Ishimaru and Christine M. Griffin, also said that the rule was unnecessary for the protection of employees and potentially confusing to employers.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already prohibits employment discrimination based on religion, Mr. Russell said, and the courts have defined “religion” broadly to include “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong, which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.”
Mr. Ishimaru and senior members of the commission staff said that neither the Department of Health and Human Services nor the White House had consulted their agency before issuing the proposed rule. The White House Office of Management and Budget received the proposal on Aug. 21 and cleared it on the same day, according to a government Web site that keeps track of the rule-making process.
The protest from the commission comes on the heels of other objections to the rule by doctors, pharmacists, hospitals, state attorneys general and political leaders, including President-elect Barack Obama.
Mr. Obama has said the proposal will raise new hurdles to women seeking reproductive health services, like abortion and some contraceptives. Michael O. Leavitt, the health and human services secretary, said that was not the purpose.
Officials at the Health and Human Services Department said they intended to issue a final version of the rule within days. Aides and advisers to Mr. Obama said he would try to rescind it, a process that could take three to six months.
To avoid the usual rush of last-minute rules, the White House said in May that new regulations should be proposed by June 1 and issued by Nov. 1. The “provider conscience” rule missed both deadlines.
Under the White House directive, the deadlines can be waived “in extraordinary circumstances.” Administration officials were unable to say immediately why an exception might be justified in this case.
The proposal is supported by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Health Association, which represents Catholic hospitals.
Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, said that in recent years, “we have seen a variety of efforts to force Catholic and other health care providers to perform or refer for abortions and sterilizations.”
But the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association, 28 senators, more than 110 representatives and the attorneys general of 13 states have urged the Bush administration to withdraw the proposed rule.
Pharmacies said the rule would allow their employees to refuse to fill prescriptions for contraceptives and could “lead to Medicaid patients being turned away.” State officials said the rule could void state laws that require insurance plans to cover contraceptives and require hospitals to offer emergency contraception to rape victims.
The Ohio Health Department said the rule “could force family planning providers to hire employees who may refuse to do their jobs” — a concern echoed by Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Under the Civil Rights Act, an employer must make reasonable accommodations for an employee’s religious practices, unless the employer can show that doing so would cause “undue hardship on the conduct of its business.”
In a letter commenting on the proposed rule, Mr. Ishimaru and Ms. Griffin, from the employment commission, said that 40 years of court decisions had carefully balanced “employees’ rights to religious freedom and employers’ business needs.”
The proposed rule, they said, “would throw this entire body of law into question.”
Mr. Leavitt, a leading proponent of the rule, said it would increase compliance with laws adopted since 1973 to protect health care workers.
“Federal law,” he said, “is explicit and unwavering in protecting federally funded medical practitioners from being coerced into providing treatments they find morally objectionable.”
As an example of the policies to which they object, Bush administration officials cited a Connecticut law that generally requires hospitals to provide rape victims with timely access to and information about emergency contraception.
Gov. M. Jodi Rell of Connecticut, a Republican, said the state law represented “an earnest compromise” between the rights of rape victims and the interests of health care practitioners who had moral or religious scruples against emergency contraception.
The state attorney general, Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, said the proposed regulation “would blow apart solutions and compromises that have been reached by people of good will in Connecticut and elsewhere.”
Protests Over a Rule to Protect Health Providers
new_york_times:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/washington/18abort.html
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: November 17, 2008
WASHINGTON — A last-minute Bush administration plan to grant sweeping new protections to health care providers who oppose abortion and other procedures on religious or moral grounds has provoked a torrent of objections, including a strenuous protest from the government agency that enforces job discrimination laws.
The proposed rule would prohibit recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to perform or to assist in the performance of abortions or sterilization procedures because of their “religious beliefs or moral convictions.”
It would also prevent hospitals, clinics, doctors’ offices and drugstores from requiring employees with religious or moral objections to “assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity” financed by the Department of Health and Human Services.
But three officials from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, including its legal counsel, whom President Bush appointed, said the proposal would overturn 40 years of civil rights law prohibiting job discrimination based on religion.
The counsel, Reed L. Russell, and two Democratic members of the commission, Stuart J. Ishimaru and Christine M. Griffin, also said that the rule was unnecessary for the protection of employees and potentially confusing to employers.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already prohibits employment discrimination based on religion, Mr. Russell said, and the courts have defined “religion” broadly to include “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong, which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.”
Mr. Ishimaru and senior members of the commission staff said that neither the Department of Health and Human Services nor the White House had consulted their agency before issuing the proposed rule. The White House Office of Management and Budget received the proposal on Aug. 21 and cleared it on the same day, according to a government Web site that keeps track of the rule-making process.
The protest from the commission comes on the heels of other objections to the rule by doctors, pharmacists, hospitals, state attorneys general and political leaders, including President-elect Barack Obama.
Mr. Obama has said the proposal will raise new hurdles to women seeking reproductive health services, like abortion and some contraceptives. Michael O. Leavitt, the health and human services secretary, said that was not the purpose.
Officials at the Health and Human Services Department said they intended to issue a final version of the rule within days. Aides and advisers to Mr. Obama said he would try to rescind it, a process that could take three to six months.
To avoid the usual rush of last-minute rules, the White House said in May that new regulations should be proposed by June 1 and issued by Nov. 1. The “provider conscience” rule missed both deadlines.
Under the White House directive, the deadlines can be waived “in extraordinary circumstances.” Administration officials were unable to say immediately why an exception might be justified in this case.
The proposal is supported by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Health Association, which represents Catholic hospitals.
Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, said that in recent years, “we have seen a variety of efforts to force Catholic and other health care providers to perform or refer for abortions and sterilizations.”
But the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association, 28 senators, more than 110 representatives and the attorneys general of 13 states have urged the Bush administration to withdraw the proposed rule.
Pharmacies said the rule would allow their employees to refuse to fill prescriptions for contraceptives and could “lead to Medicaid patients being turned away.” State officials said the rule could void state laws that require insurance plans to cover contraceptives and require hospitals to offer emergency contraception to rape victims.
The Ohio Health Department said the rule “could force family planning providers to hire employees who may refuse to do their jobs” — a concern echoed by Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Under the Civil Rights Act, an employer must make reasonable accommodations for an employee’s religious practices, unless the employer can show that doing so would cause “undue hardship on the conduct of its business.”
In a letter commenting on the proposed rule, Mr. Ishimaru and Ms. Griffin, from the employment commission, said that 40 years of court decisions had carefully balanced “employees’ rights to religious freedom and employers’ business needs.”
The proposed rule, they said, “would throw this entire body of law into question.”
Mr. Leavitt, a leading proponent of the rule, said it would increase compliance with laws adopted since 1973 to protect health care workers.
“Federal law,” he said, “is explicit and unwavering in protecting federally funded medical practitioners from being coerced into providing treatments they find morally objectionable.”
As an example of the policies to which they object, Bush administration officials cited a Connecticut law that generally requires hospitals to provide rape victims with timely access to and information about emergency contraception.
Gov. M. Jodi Rell of Connecticut, a Republican, said the state law represented “an earnest compromise” between the rights of rape victims and the interests of health care practitioners who had moral or religious scruples against emergency contraception.
The state attorney general, Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, said the proposed regulation “would blow apart solutions and compromises that have been reached by people of good will in Connecticut and elsewhere.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)