Yesterday in the debate over H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, several House lawmakers offered great pro-life speeches. You can watch them here. One major component of this bill is that it would keep federal funding from going toward abortion (except in rare Medicaid cases of rape, incest and when the mother's life is in danger).
Those lawmakers who spoke up on the Floor in favor of H.R. 3 should be thanked.
In particular, Rep. Chris Smith from New Jersey spoke on the fact that when public funding for abortion is not available, children have a greater chance at survival. He mentions that in 2009, the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute released this statistic:
Approximately one fourth [25%] of women who would have Medicaid-funded abortions instead give birth when this funding is unavailable.
Doesn't that encourage you? It does me. The argument's been made that changing laws doesn't make a difference and we should work to change hearts and minds instead. Well, keeping Medicaid funding from paying for abortion apparently changes the minds (even if it's a "forced" change) of 25 percent of women who planned to have abortions on the taxpayer dime. Put another way: no Medicaid funding for abortion means more babies get a chance at life.
Even if it was just one baby, isn't that worth it?
If the senators who are up for reelection in 2012 choose to disregard innocent preborn life by killing pro-life legislation during their time in office, then one way to hold them accountable is to show their pro-abortion votes to their constituents and argue that they shouldn't be re-elected. Pretty simple.
Contact: Ashley Horne
Source: Citizenlink
