We’re getting tired of saying it, Mr. President! Abortion is still not healthcare! Today, SBA would like to remind President Obama that we already have a bipartisan consensus on healthcare: that Abortion should stay out of it!    more »

Tim Tebow with his mother Pam   

UPDATE -- BLOCK HARD FOR TEBOW! Read the story and go to our "Block Hard for Tebow" page to show your support for Tim Tebow!

    Pro-family organization Focus on the Family has produced a commercial that it plans to air during the Super Bowl, the biggest football game of the year that is watched on TV by tens of millions.

    While Focus on the Family has not confirmed the content of the ad, it is expected to feature the story of college football star Tim Tebow. The Associated Press reported this week that the ad will feature the theme of “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life”.

    Tebow, 22, is the quarterback for the University of Florida college football team. He is widely considered among the best college players in the country, setting several records and winning the prestigious Heisman Trophy, awarded annually to the best college football player in the country.

    Tebow’s story began in 1985, when his strongly pro-life Christian parents were on a missionary trip in the Philippines. But Pam Tebow, his mother, contracted dysentery, a potentially fatal infection of the intestine caused by a parasite in a contaminated food or drink.

    Treatment for the infection would require strong medications that doctors said would cause irreversible damage to her unborn baby, so she was urged to abort him. But Pam refused and hoped that because of her strong Christian faith her son would be born without the severe disabilities the doctors predicted.

    Pam was right, and Tim was born a healthy baby boy on August 14, 1987. Her son is now considered a top pick for the 2010 NFL draft.

    Since so many people (up to 100 million) watch the Super Bowl each year, the price of buying airtime for commercials is huge – often hitting as much as $2 or $3 million for a 30-second ad. Focus on the Family confirmed that it has bought airtime for four ads: three right before the game and one during it. Focus on the Family spokesman Gary Schneeberger said the money for the commercials came from generous donors who made special gifts for the project, many of them stretching beyond their typical donation amounts.

    Now, CBS, the network which will air the Super Bowl this year, is facing pressure from pro-abortion groups such as the Women’s Media Center, National Organization for Women, Feminist Majority, and others to reject the ad.

    “An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year – an event designed to bring Americans together,” Jehmu Greene, president of the Women’s Media Center, told the Associated Press.

    CBS officials told the AP they have approved the ad for airing and promised they would block “issue-oriented” content from airing.

    In a press conference on Sunday, Tebow defended the ad, saying, “I know some people won't agree with it, but I think they can at least respect that I stand up for what I believe,” he said. "I've always been very convicted of it (his views on abortion) because that's the reason I'm here, because my mom was a very courageous woman. So any way that I could help, I would do it.”

    Today, SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser also defended the ad, blasting hypocritical pro-“choice” groups for not respecting Pam Tebow’s decision to choose life.

    “NOW and company are losing their grip as their pro-abortion position sinks in public opinion. I had no idea NOW leaders were such experts on sports. Missed that part of their mission.   
 
    “What is real here is their desperation to keep full information from women. Shouldn't the ‘pro-choice’ position respect Pam Tebow’s decision to choose Life?  What is the worst case scenario in allowing the ad to air?  Women are exposed to an example of sacrifice for the sake of an unborn child. NOW needs to explain where the harm and threat to women and children is here.”

    Focus on the Family president and CEO Jim Daly said in a statement that comes at a time when “families need to be inspired.”

    “Tim and Pam share our respect for life and our passion for helping families thrive,” he said. “Focus on the Family is about ... strengthening families by empowering them with the tools they need to live lives rooted in morals and values.”

    Good for CBS – we applaud them for having the courage and integrity to allow pro-lifers the same rights to free speech that pro-choicers get from the media. As you may recall, last year, NBC refused to air a pro-life ad from the pro-life organization Fidelis under its CatholicVote umbrella. The ad, which has almost 2 million views on YouTube, asks what would have happened had President Barack Obama been a victim of abortion.

    God bless CBS and God bless Tim Tebow! He will inspire countless Christians and aspiring athletes to stand up for what is right!

Block Hard for Tebow!

Support the ad and thank CBS for their decision to air it by contacting Sean McManus, president of CBS News & Sports, at sjmcmanus@cbs.com or 212-975-4321.

To see the SBA List statement on the ad controversy, click here.

To see news articles about the ad, click here.

To see the LifeNews.com story about Tim Tebow’s birth, click here.

To see the LifeNews.com story about the ad, click here.

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,


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 USCCB Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities used Grace's statement for an ad campaign earlier this year.  Their advertisements added,


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 middle school student was forced hide his t-shirt’s pro-life message because it was deemed “inappropriate”. Now, the boy’s father is suing the school district for censoring free speech.

    The student, identified as E.B., wore a shirt to school in Lewisberry, Pennsylvania that read “Abortion is not health care” on the day President Obama gave his public address to the nation’s students, in protest of abortion coverage being mandated by health care reform proposals in Congress.

    The student wore the shirt without incident until his fifth period class, when his teacher sent him to the principal’s office to determine whether it was “appropriate”. The principal ordered him to remove the shirt because it might offend other students. He was then sent to the school nurse’s office, where he was forced to turn his shirt inside out because he had nothing else with him to wear.

    Valerie Burch, a staff attorney from the Pennsylvania chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), spoke to USA Today in defense of the boy, calling the school’s actions a violation of free speech.

    “Student-speech law has developed a lot…but one thing that is still plain and clear as day is that political speech like the T-shirt…is highly protected, even within schools,” Burch said. “I don’t see how they can prohibit this.”

    The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a socially conservative legal group which seeks to defend religious liberty, has filed a lawsuit with a federal court on behalf of William Boyer, the boy’s father. The Independence Law Center is also working in conjunction with ADF on the case.

    “Pro-life students shouldn’t be censored for their views,” ADF Senior Legal Counsel David Cortman remarked to LifeNews.com.

    “It’s clearly unconstitutional for school officials to prohibit a student’s message on the grounds that someone might not like it. The school routinely allows students to wear a wide variety of messages on their shirts without any concerns, but this student has been singled out even though his shirt caused no disruption and is clearly within the bounds of constitutionally guaranteed free speech,” he said.

    ADF attorneys are challenging a school district policy which prohibits speech that “seek[s] to establish the supremacy of a particular religious denomination, sect, or point of view,” and speech that “contain[s] material otherwise deemed harmful to impressionable students.” They are also disputing the district’s dress and grooming policy, which bans “clothing which creats a hostile educational environment or evidences discriminatory bias or animus” or displays “inappropriate words.”
   
    “The policies also allow officials unrestricted discretion in determining what speech violates the policies. In this case, they clearly singled out this student’s pro-life speech and illegitimately censored it,” Cortman said.

    Calling the school’s censorship of E.B.’s shirt “draconian”, ADF’s legal complaint says the school’s action violates the student’s right to religious and political speech, covered under the 1st and 14th amendments to the Constitution. It also says it was a violation of Pennsylvania’s Religious Freedom Protection Act, a law passed in 2002 which prohibits the state from causing a burden on a person’s religious practices eand expressions unless the state has a compelling reason to do so.  

    In addition to having the district’s policies struck down, Boyer is also seeking to have any disciplinary references relating to the incident struck from his son’s record, in addition to damages such as court costs and attorney’s fees.

To read the full, detailed legal complaint with the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, click here. (PDF file)

To read the USA Today article on the subject, click here.

To read the LifeNews.com article on the subject, click here.

To read the ADF press release on the subject, click here.

A new article posted today on Time magazine’s website admits that Obama is wrong to call claims of abortion-coverage in health care reform bills “fabrications.”

The article says the health care overhaul proposed by House Democrats (H.R. 3200), if enacted, would “mark a significant change” in the federal government’s role in funding abortions. “It would be a dramatic shift,” remarked Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Michigan). Stupak, along with dozens of other House Democrats, has pledge to vote against the final version of reform unless the language is changed to prohibit any kind of publicly funded abortions.

The federal government has a long-standing “hands off” policy for funding of abortion. Since 1976, a law called the Hyde Amendment has prohibited any federal funds from being used for abortion. Private health plans offered to government employees, including members of Congress, have also been barred from covering abortion. The same goes for the military.

The Time article notes that while H.R. 3200 technically does not override these restrictions, but finds a sort of loophole for publicly funded abortion. Under the bill, funds for abortion would be collected only from member dues (premiums) for the proposed “public option” government-run insurance plan. Anyone who signed up for the public plan would be forced to pay for abortion coverage (in an amount “not less than $1 per month), and that is where the problem lies.

“It does represent a policy shift in favor of the abortion-rights community that [would not have happened] under George W. Bush’s administration,” said Glen Halva-Neubauer, a political scientist at Furman University in South Carolina.

Radical abortion supporters claim that this is a compromise where “[American consumers] get to choose which plan they want. They get to choose a plan without abortion,” says Elizabeth Shipp, political director of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

“But for opponents of abortion, including a number of House Democrats, the proposal represents a major reversal of a decades-old policy of keeping the Federal Government out of the abortion business. In a recent letter to members of Congress, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops called the House proposal a ‘radical change’ built around the ‘illusion’ that public funds could be segregated from private funds in a government-run plan or in private plans that accept federal subsidies. ‘Funds paid into these plans are fungible, and federal taxpayer funds will subsidize the operating budget and provider networks that expand access to abortion,’ writes Cardinal Justin Rigali in an Aug. 11 letter to members of Congress,” reads the article.

Stupak, one of the few pro-life Democrats in Congress, has vowed to keep abortion out of the health care bill, saying, “We are going to do everything we can to stop the rule, or the bill, from coming to the floor” for a vote. He added that as many as 39 House Democrats may join him in the effort. This would pose a serious problem because if all 39 did indeed vote against a bill with abortion included, and every House Republican did as well, there would be a tie of 217 yeas to 217 nays.

It is unclear how the Senate will handle abortion in health care, but this much is clear: Obama is using the same tactics he used during the campaign to coerce some pro-lifers into voting for him as he is now with abortion in health care. President Obama, stop misleading the American people, and tell the truth!

To read today's Washington Times editorial on abortion in health care, click here
To read the full Time article, click here

Recently former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin commented on the healthcare reform legislation making its way through Congress.  In her statement, she makes it clear that she is very concerned that the current healthcare legislation would lead to the rationing of healthcare and a devaluation human life. Palin said,    

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil. 
 
Health care by definition involves life and death decisions. Human rights and human dignity must be at the center of any health care discussion. 

Palin’s statement serves as a good reminder of what it really means to be pro-life.  As pro-lifers, we believe in the inherent value of every human life.  Period.  We do not believe that people are only valuable if they are useful, meet a certain standard of intelligence, or are in a position to significantly contribute to society.  We acknowledge that there are differences among people, of couse.  People vary in height, weight, intelligence, beauty, level of ambition, personality, and countless other ways.  However, we don’t believe any of these differences has a bearing on how valuable a peron’s life is.  Physically fit people and disabled people are equally valuable; the mentally challenged and the precocious are equally valuable.  Pro-lifers believe in the value and dignity of every human life, born and unborn.  Since all people are equally human, everyone- regardless of other characteristics- has an equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

Based on statements that President Obama and people involved in his administration have made, we have good reason to believe that under the proposed healthcare reform people will not be treated equally, but will be discriminated against based on their perceived worth to society.  Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, an Obama health care advisor and brother to Rahm Emanuel, made the following statement in the Hastings Center Report, volume 26, no. 6, page 13: 

…services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. 

Unlike the pro-life community, Dr. Emanuel seems to think that people are valuable based on their utility to society, not simply by virtue of their humanity.  For more on utilitarianism and rationing healthcare, see this recent blog post. 

Sarah Palin ended her statement on the proposed healthcare reform by saying this: 

We must step up and engage in this most crucial debate. Nationalizing our health care system is a point of no return for government interference in the lives of its citizens. If we go down this path, there will be no turning back. Ronald Reagan once wrote, “Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” Let’s stop and think and make our voices heard before it’s too late. 

Like Palin said, it is time to take a stand for Life and make our voices heard.  Since Congress will not be passing healthcare reform until after they come back from their recess this September, we have been given an opportunity to voice our concerns about government-run healthcare to our senators and representatives.  Contact your senators and representative about healthcare reform today!  

   
    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.

The White House is suddenly very concerned with the "disinformation" circulating about the President's abortion-promoting health care proposal.  Today the White House blog posted this:

Did they just say "fishy"? Holy rusted metal batman!  The only fishy thing about the President's health care plan is that it includes the largest expansion of taxpayer-funded abortion since Roe v. Wade. 

Pro-abortion Members of Congress are doing all they can to keep language excluding abortion out of the legislation.  Contact your Member of Congress today and urge him or her to stop the abortion mandate!

   
    A fake “compromise” amendment that adds federal funding of abortion to the House version of the health-care overhaul bill was approved late Thursday night.

    The amendment was offered in the House Energy & Commerce Committee by Rep. Lois Capps (D-California), who claimed it was a “compromise” between pro-life advocates and abortion supporters.

    The amendment explicitly allows the Health & Human Services Department, whose secretary is the pro-abortion Kathleen Sebelius, to include abortion in the services paid for by the proposed “public option” insurance program, which would be run by the federal government and funded by tax dollars.

    The amendment would become law only if the Hyde Amendment, a law specifically prohibiting federal tax dollars from funding abortions, is reversed. This amendment was offered in 1976 by the late Congressman Henry Hyde, one of the most active and vocal pro-lifers to ever serve in Congress.  However, his amendment is in great danger of being reversed by the current Congress, which has a pro-abortion majority.

    The Capps amendment was passed 30-28, despite opposition from both Republicans and Democrats. (To see a record of the vote, click here.)

    Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) blasted the amendment, saying it “[makes] abortion services not only available, but ‘cheaper and more affordable’? That's not a principle I can endorse.”
 
    Douglas Johnson, the legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), said the Capps amendment was “the latest refinement of the phony ‘common ground’ campaign.” NRLC’s records show that Capps has cast 74 votes to promote abortion or block restrictions on abortion during her 11-year congressional career.

    Over 100,000 letters have already been sent to Congress urging our representatives to keep abortion out of any health care reform effort. Have you sent yours?

   
    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.

    Please visit www.stoptheabortionmandate.com for more information and to register. It’s going to be a great event!

Both Democratic and Republican members of the House of Representatives will be pushing for a ban on the federal funding of abortion to be included in the healthcare reform bill (H.R. 3200) that is being marked-up this week.  According to Represenative Joe Pitts from Pennsylvania, if there is not an explicit ban on using federal funds for abortions, abortion “will be considered a minimum benefit” under the new healthcare reform plan.  President Obama has made it clear with both his words and actions that he considers reproductive procedures like abortion to be central to healthcare.  On July 17, 2007, Obama made the following remarks about reproductive procedures and healthcare:

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

 

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

National Right to Life Federal Legislation Director Douglas Johnson said, "We know from a great deal of experience and many court decisions that [an 'essential benefits package'] will include elective abortion unless Congress explicitly says otherwise."  Once abortion is defined as part of an essential benefits package, both public and private insurance plans will be required to cover abortions and American taxpayers will be forced to pay for abortions on-demand.  In addition, according to Johnson many more abortion clinics would have to be opened across the country in order to meet the requirement of health insurance plans to have local access to abortion.   

 

It is imperative that the healtcare reform bill that is passed contains an explicit ban on the federal funding of abortion.  Congressman Pitts has said that he will introduce a ban on using federal funds for abortion in the markup session of the bill in the House Energy and Commerce Committee this week.  According the The Hill, Pitts’ ban is likely to have support from some of the Democratic members on the Energy and Commerce Committee, but other Democrats on the committee will oppose the ban.  Please click hereto tell your Representative that abortion should not be considered an essential part of health care and that you do not want to be forced to pay for abortions.  You can send your Senators the same message here.

SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser has a commentary in this week's issue of The Weekly Standard, "The Abortion Administration."  In it she addresses President Obama's support for the abortion agenda and the growing record of anti-life policies pursued by his Administration.  She takes an important look at the upcoming debates on taxpayer funding for abortion in DC and health care reform.

Here's a sneak peek:

In his first week in office, President Obama issued an executive order overturning the Reagan-era Mexico City regulations, which had prohibited American foreign aid from going to organizations that finance overseas abortions. Just a few weeks later, the Gallup organization revealed that the executive order was the single most unpopular action taken by the president during his honeymoon period. At a time when American families had experienced an average 25 percent decline in their net worth, it would appear that increasing the net worth of foreign abortionists was not high on their to-do list.

Their reaction was even less surprising in the light of another recent Gallup finding: For the first time in over 10 years, voters who describe themselves as pro-life have taken the lead (by 51 to 42 percent) over voters who describe themselves as pro-choice. Even this understates antiabortion sentiment, since many people who describe themselves as pro-choice, when probed, favor restrictions on abortion that the present Supreme Court, with its five members who voted for or favor Planned Parenthood v. Casey, would never allow.

Given the breadth of his domestic agenda, the president might want to make a midcourse correction on abortion. Why highlight an issue where the bulk of the American people, including a sizable share of the 52.9 percent of the electorate who voted for him, are either going in the other direction or have severe qualms?

But by now, nearly six months in, the bottom line for Barack Obama is clear. After making a few polite noisesabout finding "common ground" with pro-lifers, his administration has shown zero interest in doing so. Instead, the Obama agenda is to weave government-backed abortion into the fabric of American life and make it a far more integral part of domestic and foreign policy than ever before.

Read the entire piece at The Weekly Standard online, but leave your comments here about what you think!

           

            You probably heard about President Obama’s swatting of a fly during an interview with CNBC on the 16^th of June. While watching the news, you probably welcomed the light moment in the midst of constant bad news about the economy and the recession. But the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) publicly scolded Obama for the incident.

            “We support compassion for even the smallest of animals,” says Bruce Friedrich, the vice president for policy at PETA. But what about compassion for the smallest of humans?

            PETA’s official statement says: “There are people on both sides of the abortion issue in the animal rights movement, just as there are people on both sides of the animal rights issues in the pro-life movement. And just as the pro-life movement has no official position on animal rights, the animal rights movement has no official position on abortion.”

            So, according to PETA, it is an grave injustice to swat a fly, an animal which survives solely on instinct and lacks any sort of real intelligence. But they could not care less if a baby, a human created in the image and likeness of God, is mercilessly slaughtered.

            This kind of thinking is wacky, if not completely insane, to any fair-minded person. But no one seems to notice or care because our society has devolved so much that we completely disregard the principles that our nation was founded on.

            “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…” Our founding fathers held the principle that government’s responsibility is to protect life and that life is an unalienable right, never to be taken away by and person, group, or government. Would they not be appalled to see the same government which they conceived on this belief has now slaughtered 50,000,000 of its own children?

            “Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

            President Abraham Lincoln repeated those words of the Declaration of Independence – “all men are created equal” – in the Gettysburg Address. It is arguably the greatest speech ever given. But people seem to overlook these words. Lincoln’s and our founding fathers’ choice of words was not accidental or coincedental. They said that all men are CREATED equal. Not equal once they are born or equal once they can survive outside the womb, but equal from the moment they are created by God.

            But in 1857, seven men on the Supreme Court ignored the principles of our founding fathers and ruled in Dred Scott v. Sanford that black slaves were to be treated as property of the slaveholder; that they were not on the same level as other humans and could be bought, sold, or killed freely and without punishment.

Lincoln gave everything he had, including, ultimately, his life, to correcting the wrongs of the 1857 decision and proving the truth that blacks are just as human as whites; that all men are CREATED equal; that no life is any less important or valuable than the next. And, though it took decades for the this truth to be fully realized, he succeeded.

But five score and sixteen years later, seven men on the Supreme Court ignored the principles of Lincoln and our founding fathers, reverted back to the slavery era, and ruled in Roe v. Wade that unborn children are to be treated as property of the mother; that they are not on the same level as other humans and can be killed freely and without punishment.

            We must be the Lincolns of today. We must devote ourselves to correcting the wrongs of the 1973 decision and proving the truth those who are not born yet are just as human as those who have been born; that all men are CREATED equal; that no life is any less important or valuable than the next. We are all created equal.

 

President Obama held a meeting today with several Catholic reporters to discuss his upcoming trip this month to visit the Pope. Though many topics were addressed, one of the attendees, Father Kearns of the National Catholic Register, said that the most noteworthy part of the meeting was the discussion concerning consciences clauses. During the meeting, Obama tried to assure the Catholic community that he was not against conscience clauses for healthcare providers. Here are Obama’s reassurances about the conscience clause:

"…My underlying position has always been consistent, which is I'm a believer in conscience clauses.  I was a supporter of a robust conscience clause in Illinois for Catholic hospitals and health care providers.  I discussed this with Cardinal George when he was here in the Oval Office, and I reiterated my support for an effective conscience clause in my speech at Notre Dame."

Later Obama said, "…I can assure all of your readers that when this review is complete there will be a robust conscience clause in place."

One has to question why Obama’s administration deems it necessary to create a new "robust" conscience clause instead of letting the robust one of the previous administration remain valid. The conscience clause put into effect at the end of President Bush’s second term allowed health-care workers to refuse to provide services such as abortion based on moral objections without fear of discrimination. President Obama made a couple comments during his meeting with the Catholic media that causes one to wonder just how robust the conscience clause his administration creates will be. Consider this statement from Obama:

We, as I said before, did reverse an 11th-hour change in the conscience clause, partly because it hadn't been properly reviewed and thought through and there were some concerns about how broad it might be and what its manifestations would be once implemented.

Obama also admitted that his administration’s conscience clause "…may not meet the criteria of every possible critic of our approach…"

Perhaps most interestingly, President Obama appeared to show surprise that pro-lifers are worried that his conscience clause will be weaker than the previous one. During the meeting Obama said, "So I think that there have been some who keep on anticipating the worst from us, and it's not based on anything I've said or done, but is rather just a perception somehow that we have some hard-line agenda that we're seeking to push." (Emphasis added)

Pro-lifers’ skepticism is not based on anything President Obama has said or done? Perhaps President Obama has forgotten that in July of 2007 he said that the first thing he’d do in office would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)- a policy that would negate all federal and state limitations on abortion including the current ban on partial-birth abortion. Perhaps President Obama thinks that his answer of it is "above my pay grade" in response to the question of when a baby gets human rights should not be a red flag to those committed to protecting all human life. Perhaps President Obama doesn’t think that his recent proposal to remove the Dornan Amendment so that taxpayers’ money would be used to fund abortions in Washington D.C. should cause pro-lifers to expect Obama to be weak on life issues. Maybe the president thinks it should be no big deal that he overturned the Mexico City Policy which resulted in forcing taxpayers to fund pro-abortion organizations in foreign countries. Considering all these things (and more) that Obama has said and done with regard to abortion and life issues, I think that it is reasonable that we remain vigilant and watchful of our new president when it comes to his actions concerning life issues.

On Father’s Day in 2008 then-Senator Barack Obama gave a Father’s Day message at the Apostolic Church of God in Chicago.  During his address, Obama stated, “We need fathers to recognize that responsibility doesn’t just end at conception.”  This year, President Obama wrote an article in Parade Magazine about fatherhood.  In the article, he made a remark very similar to the one above.  He said,  “That is why we need fathers to step up, to realize that their job does not end at conception….”

 

From Obama’s statements about fatherhood, it is apparent that he considers a man to be a father at conception and believes that men need to take responsibility as fathers.  President Obama’s position leads to an important question: If fatherhood begins at conception, does that not mean that a daughter or a son must be created at conception?  Tony Perkins has posed a great question to President Obama on this very issue in the following clip.

 

On his blog, Thomas Peters has called Tony Perkins’ ad “smart” because “…it challenges Obama and the pro-abortion movement to face the contradictory nature of the two things they are trying to say. The only conclusion that they can arrive at - but they avoid it at all costs - is that they honestly believe you can end human life when it is inconvenient. That's an inhuman solution.”  Peters is right.  If life begins at conception, if a daughter or a son comes into existence at conception, then abortion is the ending of that daughter or son’s life.

           
            If you've been watching the news lately, you've probably been hearing a lot about President Obama's plans to overhaul the current health care system in favor of a new, reformed one. But what you probably aren't hearing in the mainstream media is the abortion aspect of the health care issue.

            Obama supports a public health insurance option, where taxpayers would pay for health insurance for some of the population. But this policy is alarming because it would most likely lead to taxpayer funding of abortions.

            Under the current health care system, low-income women and their families can get low-cost health care through Medicaid. As of now, Medicaid cannot assist anyone in paying for an abortion. The pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, run by Planned Parenthood, wrote this in a 2007 report on publicly funded abortion: “Studies published over the course of two decades…concluded that 18-35% of women who would have had an abortion continued their pregnancies” when they could not get Medicaid assistance to pay for an abortion.  What does this mean?  That even abortion groups admit when abortions are not available on the taxpayer’s dime, substantially fewer women have them.

            If the public insurance option is included in the final health care bill, with no restrictions on abortion funding, it will unquestionably lead to a sharp increase in abortion.  Under the Obama plan, some women who chose to keep their child due to the cost of abortion would now be able to abort their unborn child with greater ease than ever. The Obama administration is already using your taxpayer dollars to fund the destruction of human life and they will not stop now. In March, Obama held a health care reform summit in Washington. Among the participants were Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion organizations. How many pro-life groups were there? Zero. What happened to the openness Obama promised?

            Mr. President, this is not the “abortion reduction” and “common ground” you have been promising since the campaign trail. Don’t use our hard-earned money to pay for baby-killing across the country!

President Obama addressed the issue of abortion policy at his prime time press conference last night, in response to a question from Ed Henry of CNN.  The question begins at 3:40 in the video above.

We of course saw more of the same from the President.  Talk about "reducing unwanted pregancies" and coming together on the issue at places where 'everyone can agree.'  The President certainly talks a good game, but his actions in the first 100 days are far, far and away from any common ground.  Check out all the details of Obama's support for the abortion agenda here (SBA Compilation) and here (Jill Stanek's compilation).

One notable moment was when the President said tha the Freedom of Choice Act was NOT among his legislative priorities at the moment.  No doubt that comment has upset NARAL, EMILY's List and Planned Parenthood.  It is important to note, however, that our pro-life laws are far from safe with this declaration.  FOCA is too much for Congress to pass in one fell swoop -- so the SBA List and others are perparing for efforts by abortion advocates to remove pro-life protections one by one, in a piecemeal manner. 

The title of this post is an homage to CNN, who mistakenly translated Obama's remarks, saying he wanted to "reduce unwanted presidencies."  I can think of a lot of pro-life Americans who would love to reduce this unwanted presidency!  Alas, it was just a typo. . .

Full Transcript from CNN:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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