The pro-life Mexico City Policy, instituted by President Reagan, and rescinded by President Obama during his first week in office, will never be in force again, if pro-abortion Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) has his way.
Congressional Quarterly reports,
A permanent repeal became part of the Senate fiscal 2010 State-Foreign Operations spending bill (S 1434) when Frank R. Lautenberg, D-N.J., offered an amendment that the Appropriations Committee adopted with little fanfare in early July.
Lautenberg said he offered the amendment to end the uncertainty that foreign aid recipients face whenever control of the White House shifts between parties. The restriction was originally put in place by the administration of Ronald Reagan, lifted by President Bill Clinton days after taking office, then reinstated by President George W. Bush shortly after his inauguration.
“Health care providers across the globe should be able to care for the health of women and families without ideological obstacles blocking the way,” Lautenberg said.
Family planning advocates have long said the rule restricts health care and social service groups operating in the developing world.
But groups that oppose abortion rights say it’s inappropriate to include such a measure in a spending bill, in part because it would constrain the president’s authority to determine conditions on foreign aid.
Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, said that if the Lautenberg amendment is included, his organization will use the vote on the underlying spending bill to evaluate a lawmaker’s anti-abortion credentials.
“If the leadership want to use this as a vehicle to make a permanent change in the president’s authority and foreign policy, there are senators that are going to have a lot of other ideas . . . and maybe Sen. Reid should plan on spending a couple of weeks on this,” Johnson said, referring to Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. “Lautenberg has opened that door.”
It's important to note that the Mexico City Policy never limited the amount of federal foreign aid dollars available from the U.S. Government. What it did accomplish was the establishment of a criterion for the types of organizations eligible for funds: namely, those that did not perform or promote abortion as a method of family planning.
Rescinding the policy last January was far and away one of Obama's least popular decisions, according to Gallup.
Taxpayers don't foot the bill for abortions domestically, and they shouldn't be paying for abortions abroad either. One of my favorite quotes about the need for the Mexico City Policy is from Grace Olivarez, a dissenting member of John D. Rockefeller III's federal advisory commission on population:
The poor cry out for justice and equality, and we respond with legalized abortion
THe USCCB Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities used Grace's statement for an ad campaign earlier this year. Their advertisements added,
Some people have long been tempted to see abortion as a "quick fix" for the problems of the poor.
But poor women need help providing for their children, not eliminating them.
The United States should continue President Reagan's vision of promoting life-affirming foreign aid that lovingly supports both mother an child, not policies that drives them toward the uncaring hands of an abortionist. We'll keep you updated on Senator Lautenberg's amendment as the legislation moves through the Senate.
A baby born prematurely was left to die at a British hospital because he did not qualify for treatment under the government-run, National Health Service’s rationing rules.
Sarah Capewell, a 23 year old British mother, says that her son Jayden, born at just 21 weeks and five days gestation, was refused intensive care because the British NHS only allows treatment for premature babies born at 22 weeks. Jayden was two days under the limit.
Capewell says Jayden survived for two hours, crying, before dying in her arms. Capewell spent the time pleading with doctors to help her son. Staff at the hospital, located in Gorleston, Norfolk, told Capewell they would have cared for her son had he been born two days later.
This rule comes from health care rationing guidelines set down by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. The council said in 2006 that babies born under 22 weeks gestation should never be given care, and rarely to those born under 23 weeks.
This guideline was backed by the British Association of Perinatal Medicine (BAPM), who said “it would be considered in the best interests of the baby, and standard practice, for resuscitation not to be carried out” for babies born under 23 weeks gestation. However, it continues, “If the parents wish they should have the opportunity to discuss outcomes with a second senior member of the perinatal team.”
Capewell says her wishes were totally ignored by the hospital staff:.
“When I asked about my baby's human rights, the attitude of the doctors seemed to be that he did not have any. They said before 22 weeks he was just a fetus."
“The British national health care rationing body, the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (N.I.C.E.), has plainly stated that such guidelines are based on financial motives, in consideration of how expensive a treatment will be compared to the ‘quality of life years’ it can provide," LifeSiteNews.com reports.
Now Capewell is fighting to change the law. She has set up a petition and a website, and is calling for a review of the guidelines.
Will this be our future? President Obama’s health care plan would put in place a system very similar to the British one. Care would be rationed under the public option plan to save money. This type of merciless, cruel treatment would become common. Abortion would be paid for by taxpayer dollars and insurance premiums. Do we really want this in the United States of America, a country founded on the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? For the sake of the unborn children and our great nation, we must fight against the health care plan.
The U.S. Senate has confirmed President Obama’s pro-abortion “Catholic” nominee for ambassador to Vatican City.
Miguel Diaz is a professor of theology at two universities: the College of St. Benedict in St. Paul, Minnesota, and St. John’s University in Collegeville, Minnesota. He is the first Hispanic to represent the U.S. to the Holy See.
“I am honored to be given the responsibility of representing the people of the United States to the Holy See,” Diaz said in a statement. He also thanked Obama for the “confidence he has invested in me.”
Diaz was confirmed by unanimous consent, a parliamentary motion where a recorded, individual vote is not required.
Many Catholic pro-life advocates are outraged by the confirmation of a pro-abortion ambassador to the firmly pro-life Catholic country. Abortion is considered an intrinsic evil in Catholic doctrine, meaning it is never permissible and always morally and seriously wrong. The Church has held this position for nearly 2000 years.
Diaz was a member of Obama’s Catholic advisory team during the 2008 presidential election, and helped to cover up his extreme pro-abortion record and convince voters that Obama would seek “common ground” on abortion, something he has yet to do. He also gave $1,000
Yesterday, the National Catholic Register, the nation’s oldest Catholic newspaper, criticized Diaz and Obama on abortion. “The Catholic theology professor’s beliefs regarding the life and other moral issues, where President Obama’s positions differ sharply with Church teachings, remain something of a cipher,” the Register remarked.
The Register blasted Obama and Diaz, saying Diaz “is a proponent of Obama’s ‘common ground’ approach on the life issues, which in practice consists of implementing pro-abortion policies and appointing pro-abortion personnel to key positions while proclaiming rhetorically that Obama would like to see the number of abortions reduced through the implementation of social policies that allegedly would discourage abortions.”
The Register’s claim is proven true by Diaz’s remark before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that as Holy See Ambassador, he would “embrace President Obama and Secretary [of State Hilary] Clinton’s diplomatic vision of leading through active listening and learning from others to seek common ground.”
In 2006, Diaz served as theological consultant to the Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. The CACG has been widely criticized in the Catholic community for defending Obama’s record on abortion and tricking voters into thinking he would decrease the number of abortions.
Rev. Charles Caput, the Archbishop of Denver, said the CACG had “done a disservice to the Church, confused the natural priorities of Catholic social teaching, undermined the progress pro-lifers have made, and provided an excuse for some Catholics to abandon the abortion issue instead of fighting within their parties and at the ballot box to protect the unborn.”
Diaz also supported pro-abortion “Catholic” Kathleen Sebelius, the former governor of Kansas and current Secretary of Health and Human Services. He was one of several “Catholic” professors to support Sebelius, earning criticism from Patrick Reilly, the president of the Cardinal Newman Society, an organization dedicated to renewing true Catholic identity in colleges and universities. Reilly said they were “giving comfort and aid to those whose stated goals are to advance policies directly opposed to Catholic teachings on life issues.”
The Holy See rejected three of Obama’s candidates for ambassador due to their pro-abortion positions. It is unclear whether Diaz will be accepted.
TODAY, July 23, the president of the Susan B. Anthony List, Marjorie Dannenfelser, will participate in a live webcast with an all-star lineup of pro-life leaders!
As you may or may not have been hearing, powerful abortion lobbyists and pro-abortion members of Congress are pushing taxpayer funded abortion as a part of the proposed $1,000,000,000,000.00 health care package. We are already funding abortion providers through the reversal of the Mexico City Policy, but you could be paying for abortions in the United States on a massive scale.
Last year, Planned Parenthood (the nation’s largest abortion chain) received more than $350 million of taxpayer money. They ended the year with a $112 million surplus. This means that our tax dollars are the only thing keeping Planned Parenthood a profitable operation. And now they want even more!
In this webcast, you will learn exactly what is at stake, how it is happening, what we are doing about it, and how you can help. This is one of the most crucial battles in the 36 years since Roe v. Wade. Now, pro-life and pro-family organizations are uniting to fight against this massive assault on life and conscience.
Here is a list (in alphabetical order) of all the pro-life leaders who will be taking part in this 70-minute, live, one-time only webcast. You will even be able to ask questions during the Q&A session!
• David Bereit, Founder and National Director of 40 Days for Life • Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of the Susan B. Anthony List • Kristen Day, Executive Director of Democrats for Life • Melinda Delahoyde, President of CareNet crisis pregnancy centers • Day Gardner, Founder and President of the National Black Pro-Life Union • Peggy Hartshorn, President of Heartbeat International • Kristan Hawkins, Executive Director of Students for Life • Mike Huckabee, former governor and presidential candidate; host of the Fox News show Huckabee • Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director of the National Right to Life Committee • Dr. Richard Land, President of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission • Tom Minnery, Senior Vice President of Government and Public Policy for Focus on the Family • Carmen Pate, host of the nationally syndicated radio show Point of View • Fr. Frank Pavone, Founder and National Director of Priests for Life • Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council • Congressman Joe Pitts, Republican from Pennsylvania’s 16th district • Jim Sedlak, Vice President of American Life League and Executive Director of Stop Planned Parenthood (STOPP) • Congressman Chris Smith, Republican from New Jersey’s 4th district • Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America • Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President & CEO of Americans United for Life
You will need an Internet connection to listen to the webcast and ask questions, and the webcast will work with dial-up connections too. However, you will need to register for the webcast to be able to listen. If you cannot listen at 9 pm Eastern on Thursday, you can register and a full recording will be available shortly after the webcast concludes.
Spokesmen from both the White House and Vatican
City announced on Tuesday that President Barack Obama will meet with Pope
Benedict XVI on July 10 during the G-8 summit. Obama’s wife,
Michelle, will accompany him to the meeting.
Abortion will almost certainly be a topic of
discussion in the meeting, since the Catholic Church is one of the most vocal
supporters of respect for human life. Church doctrine states that it is a mortal sin (a serious
offense which, committed with full knowledge of the gravity of the sin and done
with full consent, and not properly confessed and absolved before death,
condemns a person to Hell) for any Catholic to have an abortion, participate in
one, or otherwise cooperate with one (CCC 2272).
In February, the Holy Father met with Speaker of
the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), a pro-abortion Catholic. While the meeting was
closed to reporters, the Vatican released a statement saying that the Pope urged
Pelosi to protect all human life, from conception to natural death. He also
reaffirmed that Church teaching on abortion applies to all Catholics, especially
lawmakers.
Even the staunchest of pro-abortion activists can
have a change of heart. Norma McCorvey, the “Jane Roe” from Roe v. Wade
became pro-life after seeing a fetal development poster in 1995. Bernard
Nathanson, an abortionist and one of the founders of National Association for
the Repeal of Abortion Laws (now known as NARAL Pro-Choice America), became
pro-life in the 1970s after the development of ultrasound. Those are just the
prominent conversions. Prayer vigils outside abortion clinics, most notably 40
Days for Life, have converted hundreds of abortion clinic workers and continue
to do so. Can the Pope show Obama the truth about abortion? We can only hope and
pray.
A couple from the United Kingdom, Paul and Deborah, recently had their last IVF embryo mistakenly implanted in another woman. The woman aborted the baby upon knowledge that the embryo was not hers. Paul and Deborah, who have a 6 year-old son conceived of IVF treatment, are not expected to be able to conceive again.
According to CNN (video), the couple were compensated an undisclosed amount of money from the hospital, who have almost made mistakes like this in the past. Paul and Deborah believe that if the near misses would have been taken more seriously, they may still have their child.
“In less than 10 seconds,” said Deborah, “our wonderful world was shattered when the senior embryologist stood in front of us and said, 'I'm very sorry to tell you, but there's been an accident in the lab. Your embryo has been destroyed.' We were both rooted to our seats. We were stunned and trembling. We held each other tightly, and sobbed and sobbed. It was like water from a tap. I kept thinking, 'They've killed our baby.'"
John Smeaton, National Director of the U.K. organization the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children commented to LifeSiteNews.com. “This poignant story,” he said, “has many tragic aspects: tiny human beings who are the victims of death by freezing or abortion, a broken-hearted couple who are the victims of the technology which led to the creation and the killing of their babies."
The implications of this story are obvious and tragic. Once the woman realized the embryo implanted in her was not hers, she could easily abort it. She was able to abort the child without even informing the couple to whom the embryo belonged. The rights of the baby, and the couple to whom the baby belonged were disregarded and overshadowed by the woman's right to abort the child, since it was in her body. This story is a reminder that it is not just the baby that suffers from an abortion, but many others also.
The Population Research Institute filmed this video to draw attention to the Obama Administration's decision to fund international abortion organizations like Planned Parenthood with YOUR tax dollars.
When the United States offers our overseas brothers and sisters "help" in the name of foreign aid, are we really helping? Should the destruction of abortion be first priority, over food, water, shelter, and basic health care? Obviously the United States does much good through our foreign aid programs, but the export of abortion should not be on the agenda.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was questioned by the House Foreign Affairs Committee today. This video shows highlights of the pointed questions by pro-life Representatives Chris Smith and Jeff Fortenberry, as well as Clinton's responses.
P.S.-Is this the first time Clinton has ever said the phrase "pro-life" without a derisive tone? I'm still shocked that she didn't slip into the typical "anti-abortion" moniker.
Here's the text of Clinton's response, where she advocates the abortion party-line and manages to completely ignore acknowledging the eugenics views of Margaret Sanger:
CLINTON: Congressman, I deeply respect your passionate concern and
views which you have championed and advocated for over the course of
your public career.
We, obviously, have a profound disagreement. When I think about the
suffering that I have seen of women around the world, I've been in
hospitals in Brazil where half the women were enthusiastically and
joyfully greeting new babies and the other half were fighting for their
lives against botched abortions.
I've been in African countries where 12 and 13-year-old girls are
bearing children. I have been in Asian countries where the denial of
family planning consigns women to lives of oppression and hardship.
So we have a very fundamental disagreement and it is my strongly held
view that you are entitled to advocate and everyone who agrees with you
should be free to do so anywhere in the world, and so are we.
We happen to think that family planning is an important part of women's
health and reproductive health includes access to abortion, that I
believe should be safe, legal and rare.
I've spent a lot of my time trying to bring down the rate of abortions
and it has been my experience that good family planning and good
medical care brings down the rate of abortion.
Keeping women and men in ignorance and denied the access to services actually increases the rate of abortion.
During my time as first lady, I helped to create the campaign against
teenage pregnancy and while we were working to provide good
information, access to contraception, and decision-making that would
enable young women to protect themselves and say no, the rate of teen
pregnancy went down.
I'm sad to report that after an administration of eight years that
undid so much of the good work, the rate of teenage pregnancy is going
up.
So we disagree and we are now an administration that will protect the
rights of women, including their rights to reproductive health care.
The Washington Times had an interesting report on the rise of embryonic stem cell research in Iran this week. Apparently Tehran is investing millions into the research that relies upon the destruction of tiny human beings:
In 2008, Press TV, Iran's state-sponsored English language
international news channel, reported that the Iranian government
planned to invest $2.5 billion in stem cell research alone over a
period of five years.
Iran's stem cell research is centered at the Royan Institute, in the foothills of the Alborz mountains in northern Tehran.
Founded in 1991 as an infertility clinic, it was expanded in
1998 into a Ministry of Health-approved cell research center. According
to the Royan Institute Web site, it hosts departments in six fields:
stem cells, embryology, gynecology, genetics, andrology and
epidemiology.
Iran is in the top 10 of countries in the world that produce,
culture and freeze human embryonic stem cells, according to Mr.
Khademhosseini's study.
This places Iran in the company of countries including Sweden,
Japan, the United States, Australia, Britain, India, South Korea and
Singapore.
Royana, the name given to the first cloned sheep in the Middle
East, was born Sept. 30, 2006, in the Iranian city of Esfahan. Iranian
scientists have also identified and isolated human kidney stem cells
and cultured and produced differentiated liver tissues in mice.
The article goes on to bring up some interesting information about how the Muslim culture in Iran views rights (or lack thereof) for the unborn:
Despite Iran's conservative Islamic rule, there is broad
government approval for embryonic stem cell research, which Muslim
clerics say is permissible under Islamic law. Shi'ite Muslim scholars
believe that the fetus is given a soul at 120 days, before which
abortion is permissible when there is a physical or emotional threat to
the mother - thus avoiding the abortion debates common in the United
States.
Ayatollah Khamenei often cites the Koran's emphasis on
preventing human illness and suffering as evidence that stem cell
research and Islam are compatible. Limits do exist: Iran's supreme
leader has warned Iranian scientists to be careful that producing
identical parts of human beings does not lead to producing a human
being, as human cloning is not accepted - a policy shared by the Obama
administration.
Anyone know where the 120 day limit comes from? Is this in the Koran?
Advocates of embryonic stem cell research continually talk of its "great potential" to cure critical diseases. These arguments often overtake those calling for the defense of nascent human lives that must be destroyed to cultivate these cells.
Over the last several years, however, that supposed "potential" is no where close to being realized. In fact, dangerous results continue to occur. Another horror story of embryonic stem cell treatments going wrong surfaced this week:
A family desperate to save a child from a
lethal brain disease sought highly experimental injections of fetal
stem cells—injections that triggered tumors in the boy's brain and
spinal cord, Israeli scientists reported Tuesday.
Scientists are
furiously trying to harness different types of stem cells—the building
blocks for other cells in the body—to regrow damaged tissues and thus
treat devastating diseases. But for all the promise, researchers have
long warned that they must learn to control newly injected stem cells
so they don't grow where they shouldn't, and small studies in people
are only just beginning.
The initial treatment took place in Russia, and its devastating result caused stem cell researchers here in the U.S. to issue dire warnings about the danger (far from "great potential" here!) of these types of treatments:
"Patients, please beware," said Dr. John
Gearhart, a stem cell scientist at the University of Pennsylvania who
wasn't involved in the Israeli boy's care but who sees similarly
desperate U.S. patients head abroad to clinics that offer unproven stem
cell injections.
"Cells are not drugs. They can misbehave in
so many different ways, it just is going to take a good deal of time"
to prove how best to pursue the potential therapy, Gearhart said.
Fortunately there is some hope in the field of stem cell research. Ethically harvested stem cells are proving to be very promising and effective at treating actual conditions and diseases -- over seventy five to date.
President Obama's decision to send U.S. tax dollars to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has reignited the debate over China's coercive family planning policies.
Under the Bush Administration, tax dollars were withheld from the organization after an independent investigation lead by the State Department in 2002 found the organization to be connected with coercive sterilization and abortion in China.
In 2007, NPR uncovered evidence of women being forced to abort their children against their will, so the practice is far from over.
Just five days after President Obama overturned the pro-life Mexico City
Policy, the United States Senate defeated an amendment which would have
kept the Mexico City Policy as the law of the land.
Today Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL) introduced an amendment to restore
the Mexico City Policy to the State Children’s Health Insurance Program
(SCHIP) bill. The Martinez amendment failed by a vote of 37-60.
The vote was mostly party line with a few exceptions: pro-life Democrat Ben Nelson (NE) voted in support of the Martinez amendment. GOPers who voted against it included: Susan Collins (ME), Lisa Murkowski (AK), and Arlen Specter (PA).
President Reagan first established the pro-life Mexico City Policy
in 1984. Named for the city where it was announced, the policy
declared that American tax dollars would not fund nongovernmental
organizations involved in performing or promoting abortions abroad.
President Bill Clinton rescinded the policy his first day in office.
President G.W. Bush reinstated the policy as his first executive order
on January 22, 2001.
In reference to President Obama's decision to rescind the pro-life Mexico City Policy, Tony Perkins of Family Research Council tells the Washington Times,
"While he bans torture on terrorists he's now forcing taxpayers to
export abortions, a procedure that destroys the lives of unborn
children."
It's pretty jarring to consider how obsessed President Obama is with protecting the rights of terrorists who have killed Americans, yet he continues to condone the torture of innocent unborn children. And ask you to pay for it with your tax dollars!
For those of you who don't know, pro-aborts refer to the pro-life Mexico City Policy as the
"Global Gag Rule." The Mexico City Policy, named for the city where it was announced, is a policy first established by President Reagan. It prohibits the use of U.S. taxpayer funds (aka your money) from going to international organizations that perform or promote abortions overseas.
CNN Reports that key Obama officials have confirmed what pro-lifers nationwide have long expected. President-Elect Obama will rescind the pro-life Mexico City Policy his first week in office:
President-elect Barack Obama is considering issuing an executive order to reverse a controversial Bush administration abortion policy in his first week in office, three Democratic sources said Monday.
Obama's second full day as president falls on the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion in the United States.
Source said Obama may use the occasion to reverse the "Mexico City policy" reinstated in 2001 by Bush that prohibits U.S. money from funding international family planning groups that promote abortion or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion services. It bans any organization receiving family planning funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development from offering abortions or abortion counseling.
The "Mexico City policy," commonly referred to by critics as "the global gag rule," was devised by President Ronald Reagan in 1984 at a population conference in Mexico City.
President Bill Clinton lifted the ban in January 1993 as one of his first acts as president, but President George W. bush reinstated it in his first executive order on January 22, 2001, the 28th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
At the time, critics — including Planned Parenthood — called the move a "legislative ambush."
Bush defended the action, saying then: "It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortion or actively promote abortion."
So what does this all mean? It means that by the end of this week, your tax dollars will be going toward international abortion providers like Marie Stopes International and the International Planned Parenthood Federation.
If you haven't already done so, go to www.stoptheabortionbailout.com to urge your senators to oppose anymore expansions in taxpayer funding for abortion under the new administration.
In celebration of the World Day of Peace, Pope Benedict XVI recently released his message addressing poverty and world peace. In it, he included a notable section condemning the idea that abortion should be considered a solution to world poverty (emphasis added):
Poverty and moral implications
3. Poverty is often considered a consequence of demographic change. For
this reason, there are international campaigns afoot to reduce birth-rates,
sometimes using methods that respect neither the dignity of the woman, nor the
right of parents to choose responsibly how many children to have[5]; graver still, these methods often fail to respect even the right to life.
The extermination of millions of unborn children, in the name of the fight
against poverty, actually constitutes the destruction of the poorest of all
human beings. And yet it remains the case that in 1981, around 40% of the
world's population was below the threshold of absolute poverty, while today that
percentage has been reduced by as much as a half, and whole peoples have escaped
from poverty despite experiencing substantial demographic growth. This goes to
show that resources to solve the problem of poverty do exist, even in the face
of an increasing population. Nor must it be forgotten that, since the end of the
Second World War, the world's population has grown by four billion, largely
because of certain countries that have recently emerged on the international
scene as new economic powers, and have experienced rapid development
specifically because of the large number of their inhabitants. Moreover, among
the most developed nations, those with higher birth-rates enjoy better
opportunities for development. In other words, population is proving to be an
asset, not a factor that contributes to poverty.
In a 129 to four ruling, the Scottish Parliament affirmed
the sanctity of human life and shot down a bill to legalize assisted suicide. The Parliament legislation, introduced by
Independent legislator Margo MacDonald, failed to win substantial support.To have the bill gain time before Parliament,
MacDonald needed support of at least eighteen legislators.Falling fourteen votes short, it seems that
there is little chance of Scotland legalizing assisted suicide.
While the ruling is cause for relief among pro-life advocates,
MacDonald is not ready to give up quite yet.According to her, there is a growing demand for assisted suicide, and
the reasons calling for the legalization of this practice are real and
pertinent among those suffering with chronic illness.
“There are lots of people up and down Scotland who would
like to make sure that they miss the last - and for them most intolerable -
part of life, because of incapacity, loss of dignity, loss of control,
insufferable pain perhaps," MacDonald told
the London Times on Monday.
MacDonald has a personal interest in seeing
this bill pushed through the legislature, since she is suffering from
Parkinson’s disease.MacDonald has
expressed in the past that, should her illness become unbearable, she should
have the right to end her own life via physician-assisted suicide.
While MacDonald’s medical condition incites
empathy, physician-assisted suicide is unjustifiable regardless of
circumstance.In a publication
released by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Fr. Michael Gloth, III, M.D., brings to light the immorality of
assisted suicide.He equates the nature
of suicide with that of murder pointing out that both crimes require the taking
of an innocent human life.
Although a patient may ask for the means to
end his life, the Catholic Church and other pro-life advocates argue that such
a patient is not in the proper frame of mind.The reason being is that we, as human beings, are programmed for survival.Our every instinct, our every action is
geared toward self-preservation. Therefore, any action one takes against his
own life is deemed a perversion of nature, and a person seeking assisted
suicide is not in the right state of mind.
Fr. Gloth cites Catholic philosopher and
theologian St. Augustine who highlights the suicide victim’s vulnerable mental
state:
“It is never licit to kill another: even if
he should wish it, indeed if he request it because, hanging between life and
death, he begs for help in freeing the soul struggling against the bonds of the
body and longing to be released… "
The fact that MacDonald’s assisted suicide bill was
rejected so soundly by the Scottish Parliament gives pro-lifers reason to
hope. In a world too often manipulated by
a culture of death, we should recognize and celebrate every time a legislature
affirms the dignity of human life.
Obama confirmed the rumors -- Former Presidential rival, Senator Hillary Clinton will serve as his Secretary of State. Hillary will oversee the distribution of foreign aid, a major source of concern for pro-lifers who have succesfully blocked the doling out of taxpayer dollars for abortion groups like Marie Stopes International.
Lifenews.com reports on the official SBA List reaction:
"President-elect Barack Obama spoke of finding 'common ground' on abortion policy, but so far his personnel picks preclude this policy," she said. "Women and children deserve authentic common ground that affirms the lives of both. It is hard to see how these aggressive abortion advocates, so out of the mainstream woman's view, would help forge such ground."
Clinton appointment and Ellen Moran, the executive director of the pro-abortion Emily's List, who Obama named as his White House communications director are "headstrong advocates of a no-exceptions, abortion on demand policy" Dannenfelser said.
"Personnel is policy, especially in Washington, D.C. And these abortion advocate picks speak louder than words," she added.
Clinton has a 100% pro-abortion voting record in the U.S. Senate and her failed Democratic presidential bid received strong support from Emily's List, NOW and other top pro-abortion advocates.
SBA List is concerned that Clinton will join Obama in promoting taxpayer funding of international abortions through a revocation of the Mexico City Policy and restoring funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).
The UNFPA has been implicated in supporting China's coercive one-child family planning policy that involves forced abortions and sterilizations.
Dannenfelser says Obama has made conflicting promises of promoting and reducing abortions and can't uphold both.
"The trouble is, President-elect Obama has made two mutually exclusive promises," she explained to LifeNews.com. "He promised Planned Parenthood that passing the Freedom of Choice Act - legislation to strike down every single pro-life regulation and law in the nation - would be the first thing he'd do as president. He also promised to forge 'common ground' on the issue."
"However, it will be a non-starter to find common ground with a no-exceptions abortion policy that refuses to allow a single protection at any stage in pregnancy for unborn boys and girls. The personnel Obama has chosen clearly would back up his first promise, not the second," she added.
The Susan B. Anthony List is dedicated to advancing, mobilizing and representing pro-life women in the political process.
Its connected Candidate Fund increases the percentage of pro-life women in politics.
