President Signs Health Care Bill into Law, 12 States Immediately Sue
President Obama signed into law the hard-won Senate health care bill at a ceremony in the East Room Tuesday morning. Moments later, as promised, twelve state attorneys general had filed federal lawsuits challenging the bill's constitutionality.
The bill, which pro-life leaders call the greatest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade and abortion leaders have praised as a "huge victory," passed in the House of Representatives Sunday night after Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) gave up resisting against the bill's abortion funding.
Stupak, the leader of a group of pro-life Democrats whose vote was crucial to pass the bill, agreed at the last minute to support the bill if President Obama agreed to issue an executive order upholding the Hyde amendment. Stupak ignored warnings from top pro-life organizations that the executive order would not suffice to fix the problems in the bill.
Twelve state attorneys general, from Virginia, Alabama, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington, had vowed to immediately challenge the new health care law in court after it was passed.
Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and Idaho Gov. C.L. Otter have already signed legislation declaring the Senate bill's provision to fine citizens who do not buy health insurance null and void.
"At no time in our history has the government mandated its citizens buy a good or service," said Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli in a statement this week.
"We believe the federal law is unconstitutional as it is based on the commerce clause. Simply put, not buying insurance is not engaging in commerce," he added.
In addition, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures over 36 states are considering some form of legislative action that would shield citizens from various elements in President Obama's health care reform legislation.
The Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center also filed a federal lawsuit against the bill, on behalf of Michigan citizens who object to being forced to purchase health care coverage, and object to being forced to pay for abortions contrary to their religious beliefs. The group seeks to permanently enjoin enforcement of the new health care legislation.
Contact: Kathleen Gilbert Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: March 23, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
White House Not Worried About States' Constitutional Challenge to Health Care
At least a dozen states are prepared to sue over the individual mandate in the health care overhaul package passed by the House on Sunday.
The attorneys-general of Virginia, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington all have announced their intent to file legal challenges as soon as the president signs the $1 trillion package that changes the way insurance companies do business.
President Obama plans to sign the bill on Tuesday, flanked by Democrats and other health care allies.
The Obama administration is not concerned about the pending cases, said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. He said the administration's defense will be based on the regulation of interstate commerce.
"A lot of big pieces of legislation are challenged in some ways," Gibbs said Monday, adding that he believes some of the challenges will be on legal grounds "that I don't think will be very successful."
"Some of the states and some of the players are curious. But there is a pretty longstanding precedent on the constitutionality of this," Gibbs said.
As of last week, the White House said it had not assembled a legal team to defend against the lawsuits. On Monday, however, Gibbs told reporters, "My advice from counsel is that we'll win."
The Virginia Legislature already has passed a law that would exempt state residents from the federal mandate.
"The health care reform bill, with its insurance mandate, creates a conflict of laws between the federal government and Virginia," Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli said. "Normally, such conflicts are decided in favor of the federal government, but because we believe the federal law is unconstitutional, Virginia's law should prevail."
Cuccinelli believes the federal government will argue that its authority derives from its power to regulate interstate commerce.
"We contend that if a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person – by definition – is not engaging in commerce, and therefore, is not subject to a federal mandate," Cuccinelli continued. "Just being alive is not interstate commerce. If it were, there would be no limit to the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause and to Congress's authority to regulate everything we do. There has never been a point in our history where the federal government has been given the authority to require citizens to buy goods or services."
Under the mandate in the bill approved by the House on Sunday, the federal government will require all legal U.S. residents to purchase health insurance or pay a fine. The law also requires all employers to provide health insurance to their employees
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said, "To protect all Texans' constitutional rights, preserve the constitutional framework intended by our nation's founders, and defend our state from further infringement by the federal government, the State of Texas and other states will legally challenge the federal health care legislation."
Last week, attorneys-general in South Carolina and Florida said they intended to sue over the individual mandate if the health care bill is signed. (See earlier story)
The Commerce Clause would give the federal government authority to impose the mandate, said Nancy-Ann DeParle, the director of the White House Office of Health Care Reform.
"The Commerce Clause of the Constitution does say that people need to meet certain requirements," DeParle said Monday in the White House press briefing room. "The requirement to have coverage is one of them. So, we're not concerned about that."
But two non-partisan government research offices said the constitutionality of the mandate is murky.
A July 24, 2009 report by the Congressional Research Service says, "Whether such a requirement would be constitutional under the Commerce Clause is perhaps the most challenging question posed by such a proposal, as it is a novel issue whether Congress may use this clause to require an individual to purchase a good or service."
An August 1994 report by the Congressional Budget Office, issued when the Clinton administration was pursuing a health care overhaul, determined that the government had never ordered Americans to buy anything.
Nebraska Attorney General Jon Brunning said the current health care legislation blatantly violates the Constitution.
"It tramples on individual liberty and dumps on the states the burden of an unfunded mandate that taxpayers cannot afford," Brunning said. "If the president signs this constitutionally flawed legislation, we will join with other state attorneys-general to protect the liberty of our citizens and sovereignty of state governments."
Even before it can be decided in the courts, Republicans in Congress hope to repeal the law.
"Today the work begins to repeal Obamacare and restore the principles of liberty that made America a great nation," Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), announcing he will introduce repeal legislation.
"The American people must take their country back by methodically eliminating every vestige of creeping socialism, including socialized medicine. The Pelosi Democrats will pay a price for their overreach. This fight is far from over."
Contact: Fred Lucas Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: March 23, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Pro-lifers nearly unanimous in dismay
The nation's leading pro-life groups were nearly unanimous in opposing the agreement reached Sunday between Rep. Bart Stupak and the White House that paved the way for House passage of the health care bill.
House Democratic leaders were still short the necessary 216 votes Sunday afternoon until Stupak, D.-Mich., and a handful of pro-life Democrats said they would vote for the bill after President Obama had pledged to sign an executive order that supposedly would take care of some pro-life concerns. During a press conference, Stupak said the executive order -- which will be signed after Obama signs the bill into law -- would ensure that federal dollars don't go toward funding elective abortions at community health centers. Stupak also said the order would strengthen conscience protections for health care workers.
But the nation's pro-life leaders mostly disagreed. Following is a sampling of their comments:
-- Richard Land, president, Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission:
"Pro-lifers across the country are rightly both chagrined and disillusioned with Rep. Bart Stupak's cave-in on protecting unborn lives in the ObamaCare legislation that just passed," Land said. "His pathetic defense that President Obama's executive order sufficiently protects the unborn in this new legislation strains credulity. It's equivalent to saying that a bikini can cover the fat lady in the circus. The executive order is insufficient and does not carry the force of law equivalent to the legislation. Pro-lifers are justified in their outrage, since it was apparently Stupak and his Democratic pro-life coalition that provided the margin of victory for ObamaCare."
-- National Right to Life Committee:
"The executive order promised by President Obama was issued for political effect," National Right to Life said. "It changes nothing. It does not correct any of the serious pro-abortion provisions in the bill. The president cannot amend a bill by issuing an order, and the federal courts will enforce what the law says.... The order does not truly correct any of the seven objectionable pro-abortion provisions described in NRLC's March 19 letter to the House of Representatives."
-- Kristen Day, executive director, Democrats for Life of America:
"We applaud President Obama for his bold leadership in agreeing to an Executive Order that bans taxpayer-funded abortions in the health care reform bill that passed the House," Day said. ...
"We are proud to support this historic health care legislation. President Obama's Executive Order shows that when we work towards common ground in Washington, we can do the people's business and end the gridlock. By working with House leaders and the White House, DFLA shows how pro-life Democrats are a key and growing constituency.
"Hubert H. Humphrey said it best: '... the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.'"
-- Tony Perkins, president, Family Research Council Action:
"Passage of this partisan government takeover of health care with all of its Medicare cuts, tax increases, a continued marriage penalty, individual mandates, and abortion funding shows the extreme leftist orientation of this Congress," Perkins said.
"The American people, regardless of their view of its legality, should not be forced to pay for someone's abortion. Those who voted for this legislation cannot legitimately claim to be even neutral on the issue of abortion. This legislation accomplishes this abortion mandate in spades.
"Some Democratic Members who have had good pro-life records in the past turned away from those principles [March 21], instead putting their trust in the most pro-abortion President in history and his equally pro-abortion Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius. The President knows his promise would not have the weight of statutory law and is not worth the paper it was printed on. Any order from the President will likely quickly fall in the U.S. courts, if not reversed by Barack Obama himself.
"The President's disregard for the unborn is no surprise. It is the betrayal from those who have fought for life within his party that is the biggest shock. Especially Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) who had fought so valiantly in this debate, but folded when it really mattered.
"FRC Action will seek to defeat many of the Members from majority pro-life districts who voted wrong [March 21], and they will have plenty of free time to realize the grave mistake they have committed on the unborn today with their vote."
-- Marjorie Dannenfelser, president, Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund:
"This Wednesday night (March 24) is our third annual Campaign for Life Gala, where we were planning to honor Congressman Stupak for his efforts to keep abortion-funding out of health care reform- -- we will no longer be doing so," Dannenfelser said. "By accepting this deal from the most pro-abortion President in American history, Stupak has not only failed to stand strong for unborn children, but also for his constituents and pro-life voters across the country.
"Let me be clear: any representative, including Rep. Stupak, who votes for this healthcare bill can no longer call themselves 'pro-life.' ... The executive order on abortion funding does absolutely nothing to fix the problems presented by the health care reform bill that the House will vote on this evening. The very idea should offend all pro-life Members of Congress. An executive order can be rescinded at any time at the President's whim, and the courts could and have a history of trumping executive orders. Most importantly, pro-abortion Representatives have admitted the executive order is meaningless."
-- Charmaine Yoest, president & CEO, Americans United for Life Action:
"This deal to pass the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade is a tragedy for America," Yoest said. "We believe that Mr. Stupak's choice to succumb to the intense pressure of the last week has resulted in his endorsement of a charade that does not even begin to address the anti-life provisions in this legislation. The American people do not support taxpayer funding of abortion and Speaker Pelosi and the President have undermined representative democracy by working to pass this legislation with this unprecedented contortion of the legislative process."
-- Penny Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America:
"Our members know that under the Constitution of this country, Congress makes the laws of the country and not the President," Nance said. "This executive order is not worth the paper on which it's written. An executive order from the President can be just as easily undone. The fact that Rep. Stupak says this is a strong statement by President Obama outlining his intent is utterly astounding especially since President Obama is the one who ensured that the Stupak-Pitts pro-life amendment was not included in the Senate bill."
-- David Stevens, CEO, Christian Medical Association:
"National polling reveals that 95 percent of faith-based physicians say they will be forced to leave medicine without conscience protections. Since the bill passed by Congress does not include strong conscience protections, it opens the door to an increase in discrimination against physicians, hospitals and clinics that decline to participate in abortion and other morally controversial procedures.
"The last-minute deal for an Executive Order relating to abortion and conscience -- the deal that changed the 'No' votes of pro-life Democrats to 'Yes' -- was like trading a birthright for a mess of pottage. The executive order, which added no additional conscience protections whatsoever, can be changed tomorrow by this President, or later by any subsequent President, with the stroke of a pen. The healthcare bill, meanwhile, becomes permanent law."
-- Day Gardner, president, National Black Pro-Life Union:
"Many Americans put so much trust in Rep. Bart Stupak and the other Democrats who stood with him when they promised that they would stand firm -- no matter what -- to ensure there would be NO taxpayer funded abortion," Gardner said. "They caved! A very weary looking Stupak announced that he had changed from No to Yes.
"Don't you get it, Mr. Stupak? President Obama is a staunch abortion supporter! He doesn't care about the 50 million children (including 17 million black babies) that have been butchered by abortionists since 1973. He is not going to give or 'issue' anything of value. He will say whatever it takes to get this horrible bill passed including issuing an Executive Order to do so.... I am truly saddened. Just a few days ago, I saw Bart Stupak as a steadfast warrior--a leader who stood on conviction and principles of everything just and righteous -- but in an instant with a yes vote, he is demolished in my mind -- becoming nothing but cloud of dust."
Contact: Michael Foust Source: BP
Publish Date: March 22, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Abortion holocaust survivors create pro-life generation
A recent Gallup poll reveals that young people are increasingly becoming pro-life.
Timmerie Millington of Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust believes that young people are now more emotionally in tune with the reality of abortion, knowing that a third of their generation has been lost to abortion.
"For me, I've seen so many people who are coming out of the woodwork, who are young, and you would be surprised they even thought to have an opinion on this -- but they do and they care," she comments. "They are emotionally impacted, and I hope soon we will see more and more youth coming up as this Gallup poll is telling us, and they could be the future generation that helps diminish the numbers of abortions [in America]."
Millington hopes that generation will be the one to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in the U.S. She adds that the next step is for the upcoming generation to become activists.
Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust conducts training camps each year, teaching about the issue, but also putting youngsters on the front lines where they participate in demonstrations.
Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: March 23, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
40 Days for Life Celebrates 2,500 Babies Saved During Campaigns
As the dust settles following the devastating U.S. House vote that imposed abortion coverage and government funding of abortion under the guise of health care, many people are feeling a sense of despair today.
But Jeremiah 29:11 clearly instructs us: "For I know the plans I have for you," says the Lord. "They are plans for good and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope."
Even in the midst of this darkness, God has given us more than 2,500 reasons to have great hope. And that hope is because of YOU.
This past week, 40 Days for Life reached a milestone. In this, the sixth coordinated, simultaneous 40-day campaign of prayer and fasting, constant vigil and community outreach, we now know of ... more than 2,500 babies ... saved from abortion during these campaigns!
The exact total is currently 2,536. We're aware of numerous sets of twins -- and at least one set of triplets -- included in that count.
Not only have 2,536 babies been spared from abortion, but the impact was also felt on each of their mothers and fathers.
So that's roughly 7,500 lives directly impacted by your prayers and the mercy of Almighty God!
Add to that grandparents, siblings, friends -- it's staggering to think about the number of people positively affected each time a mother chooses life.
And for this campaign alone, the total stands at 368 babies saved ... that we know of. Of course, only God knows the true total.
The 40 Days for Life campaigns in New York City have reported more than 20 turnarounds this campaign. The good news is that prayer is effective; the challenge is that New York is the abortion capital of the United States.
The 40 Days for Life campaign in Queens is being conducted in an area the prayer volunteers call "abortion row."
It may look at first glance like these people in the photo on the right are praying outside a donut shop -- but that's not the case. The donut shop just has the misfortune of being right between two abortion facility entrances.
To the left, there's Women's Health Care. To the right, Jackson Heights Women's Medical. Because of the neighborhood they're in, both businesses have signs in Spanish.
The prayer volunteers are often hassled for being there. But they know that's where they have to be in order to make a difference.
We're often told that it's useless to stand outside the abortion center because women arriving for appointments have already firmly decided that abortion is the right "choice."
Time after time, that abortion industry maxim is proven wrong.
In Southfield, Michigan, 40 Days for Life vigil participants met a woman who was walking into the abortion facility. They spoke to her briefly, and learned that abortion was the "choice" of her mother and boyfriend -- she was being pressured into it.
As she walked into the building, one of the volunteers told her that free help was available just up the street at a pro-life pregnancy center.
That apparently struck a chord.
She recalled that this pro-life center had helped a friend of hers. So while she was in the waiting room at the abortion facility, she called her friend. The friend soon arrived, walked into the building -- and the two women then left together to go to the pro-life resource center.
The young woman then called her mother to explain why she was refusing to abort her child.
As one of the Southfield volunteers said, "Praise God for using us and this incredible live-saving team he has put together in our community!"
Contact: David Bereit Source: 40daysforlife
Publish Date: March 22, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Ten Year-Old Boy Receives New Trachea from his Own Stem Cells
A ten-year-old British boy has become the first child to be given a new windpipe, which will grow inside his body, created from his own stem cells. The breakthrough surgery was conducted at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children in London on Monday, and doctors hope that it represents the next step forward in transplantation technology.
Stem cells taken from the boy's bone marrow were injected into a fibrous collagen "scaffold" created from a donor trachea. Only hours after the boy's cells were mixed with a growth medium and applied to the scaffold, the trachea was stripped of the donor cells and implanted surgically into the boy.
Doctors are optimistic that the new implant will begin naturally to grow new internal and external tracheal cells inside the boy's body. Previously, organs created from stem cells had all been grown outside the body in the lab, a process that can take months. Dr. Mark Lowdell from the Royal Free Hospital called the procedure "embarrassingly simple."
The boy, whose identity is being kept secret, is reported to be doing well and is breathing normally. A genetic defect left the boy with a windpipe only one millimeter across. A metal implant that had assisted his breathing was pressing into his blood vessels, leaving him open to potentially life-threatening accidental bleeding.
One of the major drawbacks to traditional donor transplant organs, apart from the ethical implications, is the problem of immune system tissue rejection. Recipients of donated organs must remain on drugs that suppress the immune system response and that can shorten life expectancy. The new trachea, created from the boy's own cells, completely circumvents this problem, the physicians said.
The work in England builds on the successful transplant of a partial trachea in Spain on a woman in 2008. Claudia Castillo received a section of a new tracheal airway rebuilt from stem cells, but using a much more complex and costly process.
Surgeons called the procedure a "milestone moment" in the development of transplant medicine, noting that because the whole procedure had taken only hours to complete, it cost only tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands of pounds, bringing it inside the practical realm for patients.
Professor Martin Birchall, the head of translational regenerative medicine at University College London and part of the boy's transplant team, told media, "It is the first time a child has received stem cell organ treatment, and it's the longest airway that has ever been replaced."
Dr. Birchall said there needs to be more research to demonstrate the process can work again, but added, "We'd like to move to other organs as well, particularly the larynx and esophagus."
Professor Paolo Macchiarini of Careggi University hospital in Florence, who was also involved, said, "The question is do we really need to transplant the entire organ and put the patient on immunosuppression or can we stimulate stem cells to make it function again?"
Contact: Hilary White Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: March 23, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
NEWS SHORTS FOR TUESDAY
Vietnamese Abortion Rates Skyrocket; Doctors Anguished by the Killing
Rising abortion rates, especially among unmarried teens, and widespread sex-selective abortions, are causing psychological trauma to many Vietnamese doctors, according to VietNamNet report.
Dr. Nguyen Thi Hong Minh, director of the Central Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital in Hanoi, said she more and more frequently has to confront her "worst fears, having to abort unborn babies that are 20-22 weeks old, when their bodies are fully formed," as the number of mothers seeking abortion steadily increases.
Click here for the entire article.
Are pro-life Democrats becoming extinct?
Is it still possible for an American political leader from the Democratic Party to uphold the pro-life cause? Reflecting in the Wall Street Journal on the recent example of Rep. Bart Stupak, columnist William McGurn reaches a negative conclusion. He adds the sobering note that if pro-lifers act to punish Democrats who abandon their cause, they may only succeed in electing pro-abortion Democrats instead. Would that be a step backward?
Click here for the entire article.
Pro-life activist protests Pelosi outside Vatican
A pro-life activist has demanded the excommunication of U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a brief protest in Rome outside St. Peter's Square.
For exactly a minute yesterday, Randall Terry and six other protesters held placards a few yards away from the edge of Vatican territory. Terry in the past urged people to burn effigies of Pelosi for her championing of healthcare legislation in Congress.
Terry's placard read "No communion for Pelosi." Other signs urged Washington's archbishop, Donald Wuerl, to excommunicate her.
Click here for the entire article.
FDA Approval for Stem Cell Treatment Trails for Lou Gherig's and Heart Disease
Stem cell treatments continue to gain ground in the United States. Louisiana based TCA Cellular Therapy has 6 FDA clinical trials in progress, the latest of which is the first approved US trial to use stem cells to treat ALS (Lou Gherig's Disease). TCA performs autologous transplants that use a patient's own bone marrow to produce stem cells, culture them, and then inject them back into the body. This avoids the need for donor matching. Among the other FDA approved clinical trials TCA has underway are studies on heart disease and limb ischemia (blood vessel blockages in legs). According to the TCA website, while the limb ischemia trials are still in phase II and phase III of FDA approval, the company hopes to begin treating patients for the condition in 2012.
Click here for the entire article.
'Plan Now for Suicide' Australia's Dr. Death Encourages Elderly Irish
![]( "Euthanasia and atheist campaigner Dr. Philip Nitschke, Australia's")
Euthanasia and atheist campaigner Dr. Philip Nitschke, Australia's "Dr. Death," told an audience in Dublin this week that he had traveled to the country after receiving "significant interest" from elderly Irish wanting information on how to end their lives.
Nitschke's visit was opposed by pro-life groups, which have charged that his activities constitute a violation of the country's criminal code that warrants police investigation.
Speaking in Dublin in Thursday night, Nitschke encouraged his audience at the Seomra Spraoi social centre to confirm their plans to commit suicide before they become too infirm. "Don't wait until it's too late, plan ahead and put in place an end-of-life strategy," he said.
Click here for the entire article.
Abortion pill makes big bucks
Planned Parenthood's profits are soaring with use of the abortion drug RU-486.
STOPP International, a project of American Life League, has recently completed its annual review of Planned Parenthood for 2009, "and it confirms that even though the number of Planned Parenthood facilities and affiliates continued to decline, which is wonderful news, Planned Parenthood has actually increased its abortion pill business by 130 percent since 2005," reports STOPP International spokesperson Rita Diller.
She suggests Planned Parenthood is promoting the pill to avoid the cost of abortionists and surgical suites for abortions. So while cutting back on other costs, it does not reduce the non-profit group's profit margin.
Click here for the entire article.
House passes Obama-backed health bill, 219-212
The U.S. House of Representatives late Sunday gave final approval to a massive health care restructuring bill strongly opposed by pro-lifers, H.R. 3590.
The House vote was 219 to 212 in favor of the bill. All 219 votes in favor were cast by Democrats. Of the opposing (pro-life) votes, 178 were cast by Republicans and 34 by Democrats. The official roll call can be viewed here (click here).
Because the Senate already approved the bill on December 24, 2009, it will now go straight to President Obama for his signature.
A March 19 letter to the House National Right to Life (click here), said regarding this bill: "The bill is riddled with provisions that predictably will result in federal subsidies for private insurance plans that cover abortion (some of which will be administered directly by the federal government), direct federal funding of abortion through Community Health Centers, and pro-abortion federal administrative mandates."
Earlier on March 21, a small group of House Democrats, led by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mi.), who had withheld support from the bill because it lacked pro-life protections, agreed to vote for it after the White House released the text of an executive order that President Obama will issue after the bill is enacted. NRLC responded to this development with a statement that read in part, "The National Right to Life Committee remains strongly opposed to the Senate-passed health bill (H.R. 3590). A lawmaker who votes for this bill is voting to require federal agencies to subsidize and administer health plans that will pay for elective abortion, and voting to undermine longstanding pro-life policies in other ways as well. Pro-life citizens nationwide know that this is a pro-abortion bill. Pro-life citizens know, and they will be reminded again and again, which lawmakers deserve their gratitude for voting against this pro-abortion legislation. The executive order promised by President Obama was issued for political effect. It changes nothing. It does not correct any of the serious pro-abortion provisions in the bill. The president cannot amend a bill by issuing an order, and the federal courts will enforce what the law says." To read the complete NRLC statement, click here.
To view the NRLC scorecard showing how your representative in the U.S. House of Representatives has voted on key pro-life issues during the current Congress, click here. To view the NRLC scorecard for the U.S. Senate for the current Congress, click here. To look up the entire voting record of any current member of Congress on NRLC-scored issues, click here, then enter the name of the lawmaker. Once you reach the lawmaker's profile, chose the "Votes" tab. For lawmakers who have served for more than a few years, scroll to the bottom of the list of displayed votes and click "More Key Votes" to see his or her entire record back to 1997.
Source: NRLC
Publish Date: March 21, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Lawsuit awaits Obama's signature on bill
A law firm that defends and promotes Christian heritage and moral values says it's prepared to file a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the healthcare bill once President Obama signs it into law tomorrow.
Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, says Congress clearly went too far. He says the Law Center is challenging the bill on the basis that Congress lacks the authority to force people to obtain or purchase insurance from a private entity -- something he says goes "way beyond what our founding fathers ever imagined" Congress would be doing.
"It went way beyond the enumerated powers that the Constitution gives it," the attorney explains. "We also believe that because the healthcare reform act does provide for taxpayer-funded abortions...it violates fundamental right of conscious and free exercise of religion."
Thompson says with the Democrats controlling both the White House and Congress, their only recourse was taking legal action.
"I think it's important that Americans who do believe in Constitutional government stand up and speak out," he states. "And right now, when the Democrats control Congress and the executive branch of government, the only option we have until that control is changed is to fight these issues in the courts, which was the third branch of government that provides the checks and balances."
Costs of Gov't programs always exceed projections
Meanwhile, Michael Tanner, a senior fellow with the Cato Institute says the Senate healthcare bill will cost more than advertised. He says it will not take long before both Congress and Americans are shocked at the higher-than-expected cost of healthcare reform.
Tanner points out that history shows that government programs almost always cost more than initial projections. (Listen to audio report)
"Most people believe that this bill is supposed to lower insurance premiums. But the reality is that insurance premiums are going to continue to rise despite this bill," says the senior fellow. "In fact they will double over the next six to ten years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Continuing, he thinks people will be "surprised" that the taxes they are hit with are much higher than they expect. "These are not taxes that are just going to fall on the rich," he explains. "Many of them are going to fall on the middle class."
Tanner believes liberals will continue pushing for more government reform and oversight in other areas.
Also read...
Health Care Legislation: Here Come the Lawsuits
Contact: Chad Groening and Allie Martin
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: March 22, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Americans to Pay for Abortions After Health Care Bill Passes
Pro-life leaders stunned by Rep. Stupak's change of heart.
The House passed the historic Senate version of health care reform, HR 3590, on Sunday that includes federally funded abortions.
Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., who had led the pro-life opposition, changed his vote after President Obama promised to sign an executive order placing certain limits on abortion funding.
None the less, it is the first time in more than 30 years that the government has departed from its longstanding policy of not using federal dollars to directly pay for abortions.
The bill allows for taxpayer funding of abortion, calls for federal regulations that would expand access to abortion and provides federal subsidies to help people purchase private insurance that covers abortion.
Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst with Focus on the Family Action, said Congress blatantly ignored overwhelming opposition to the bill.
"More appalling," Horne said, "is that House Democrats also ignored the voices of tens of millions of Americans who believe federal funding of abortion is wrong. They changed 30 years of law protecting Americans of pro-life convictions from being forced to pay for something that violates their personal and, in my many cases, religious convictions."
Although Stupak steadfastly claimed he would not support the bill with abortion language in it, that changed on Sunday.
He and other pro-life Democrats voted in favor of the bill.
The Susan B. Anthony List (SBA) stripped Stupak of the Defender of Life Award in response to his flip-flopping.
"By accepting this deal from the most pro- abortion president in American history, Stupak has not only failed to stand strong for unborn children, but also for his constituents and pro-life voters across the country," explained SBA President Marjorie Dannenfelser. "Let me be clear: any representative, including Rep. Stupak, who votes for this health care bill can no longer call themselves 'pro-life.'"
Stupak said he made his decision, because President Barack Obama promised an Executive Order to apply abortion restrictions to the bill.
Minority Leader John Boehner said an executive order will not do nearly enough.
"The law of the land trumps any executive order, which can be reversed or altered at the stroke of a pen by this or any subsequent president without any congressional approval or notice," the Ohio Republican explained. "Moreover, while an Executive Order can direct members of the executive branch, it cannot direct the private sector."
Attorneys general in a dozen states have said they will challenge the constitutionality of the bill. They have said they will sue the president if he signs it into law, which he's expected to do this week.
"The health care legislation is an assault against the Constitution," South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster told The Associated Press.
Contact: Nima Reza
Source: CitizenLink
Publish Date: March 22, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Fr. Paul Marx, Founder of Human Life International, Passes Away
HLI's Fr. Thomas Euteneuer: "Because of Fr. Paul Marx, the world has a pro-life movement"
Fr. Paul Marx, the famed pro-life missionary priest who founded Human Life International in 1981, and the Population Research Institute in 1989, died at 8:10 a.m this morning (Saturday) at the St. John's Benedictine Abbey in Collegeville, Minnesota. He was 3 months short of 90 years of age.
Fr. Thomas Euteneuer, the current head of Human Life International, called LifeSiteNews today with the news of Fr. Marx's death and stated the following about his organization's founder:
"Because of Fr. Paul Marx, the world has a pro-life movement. He travelled 3 million miles to over 90 countries and was like the Johnney Appleseed of the pro-life movement planting pro-life groups everywhere he went. Pope John Paul II called him the apostle of life with good reason. We miss him terribly but we pray that he has entered into the fullness of life for which he worked so hard in this world."
Stephen Mosher of the Population Research Institute also mourned Fr. Marx' passing in a release today.
"It grieves me to tell you that Father Paul Marx, OSB, my mentor and spiritual Father, went to his reward this morning, March 20, at 8:30 a.m., said Mosher.
"Father Marx touched my life in many ways—he helped to bring me into the Catholic Church, he founded the Population Research Institute and served as its long-time Chairman, and he did me the honor of allowing me to work alongside him in defending Life."
In his statement Mosher also urged, "May we all, in honor of this great Apostle of Life, redouble our efforts on behalf of God's little ones."
Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life also issued a statement about the passing of the great pro-life priest:
"I just learned with sorrow of the death of one of the world's greatest pro-life advocates, Fr. Paul Marx, OSB.
"Fr. Marx was, first and foremost, a priest who was not afraid to be a prophet. He knew that his mission in bearing witness to the Gospel and in fostering love of God and neighbor compelled him to speak up for our smallest neighbors, those in the first moments and weeks of life. He undertook countless initiatives, made seemingly endless trips, gave innumerable talks, wrote a warehouse of articles and books, and inspired countless people in the effort to build a Culture of Life.
"I first came to know Fr. Marx through his founding and leadership of Human Life International and the remarkable conferences he held for pro-life advocates around the world. He was always a clear reminder to his brother priests that we should never be afraid to speak about abortion, contraception, and the beauty of human sexuality as taught by the Church. All of us at Priests for Life are grateful for the strong encouragement he gave to our ministry. We will pray not only for the repose of his soul, but for the continued fruit of his labors in the minds and hearts of so many people and in the policies of so many nations."
Fr. Euteneuer stated that the wake service for Fr. Marx will take place on Thursday night, the Feast of the Annunciation, at 7 p.m. at St. John's Benedictine Abbey in Collegeville, Minnesota. The funeral will follow on Friday at 3:30 p.m. at the same location.
Contact: Steve Jalsevac
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: March 20, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Executive Order Will in No Way Prevent Federal Funding of Elective Abortion
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins released the following statement in response to reports that President Obama may issue an executive order regarding government funding of elective abortions in the Senate health care bill (H.R. 3590):
"Those few pro-life Democrats that would place the fate of the unborn in the hands of the President, will be placing their own political fate in those same hands secured only by a promise that runs counter to everything he has said and done.
"By offering an executive order as a so-called solution, President Obama is finally admitting there is a problem with a bill that would force taxpayers to pay for elective abortions for the first time in over three decades. However, there is no way that an executive order will protect the unborn or prevent the greatest expansion of elective abortion since Roe v. Wade.
"Pro-life lawmakers would be making a serious mistake to trust those who have repeatedly attempted to mislead the American people into believing that abortion is not in the bill.
"President Obama and the Democratic leadership know that such a plan, due to legal precedent, would be worth little in the long run. Court rulings in cases such as Commerce of U.S. v Reich and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld make it very clear that such an executive order likely wouldn't survive.
"Regardless of any executive order, the reconciliation bill will make matters worse by increasing funding for community health centers, which will bypass any abortion funding restrictions in appropriations bills because it is directly appropriated.
"The President could also lift such an executive order at any time with a stroke of a pen. During the campaign, President Obama promised he would treat abortion as a basic health care mandate for both taxpayers and private health insurers to subsidize. He told Planned Parenthood that 'reproductive care' would be at the 'center' of his health care plan.
"And after only three days in office, he lifted the Mexico City Policy which prohibited taxpayer funds from going to foreign non-governmental organizations that promote and perform abortions.
"Since massive abortion funding remains in these bills and an executive order would provide no protections, FRC Action still plans to score votes on both the Senate bill and the reconciliation bill in our annual scorecard."
Contact: J.P. Duffy
Source: Family Research Council
Publish Date: March 21, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Stupak Stripped of 'Defender of Life' Award
Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund Pledges to Drive Out Pro-life Betrayers in November
In response to Rep. Bart Stupak's announcement that he and other self-labeled "pro-life" Democrats will vote in favor of Healthcare reform legislation with the addition of an Executive Order from the White House to address concerns about abortion funding, Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund President Marjorie Dannenfelser offered the following statement:
"This Wednesday night is our third annual Campaign for Life Gala, where we were planning to honor Congressman Stupak for his efforts to keep abortion-funding out of health care reform-we will no longer be doing so. By accepting this deal from the most pro-abortion President in American history, Stupak has not only failed to stand strong for unborn children, but also for his constituents and pro-life voters across the country.
"Let me be clear: any representative, including Rep. Stupak, who votes for this healthcare bill can no longer call themselves 'pro-life.' The Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund will not endorse, or support in any capacity, any Member of Congress who votes for this bill in any future election. Now through Election Day 2010, these representatives will learn that votes have consequences. The SBA List Candidate Fund will work tirelessly to help defeat Members who support this legislation and make sure their constituents know exactly how they voted. We will actively seek out true pro-life candidates to oppose Members who vote 'yes' on this bill, whether it be in general or primary elections. For these Members, it will be a quick downhill slide to defeat in November.
"The executive order on abortion funding does absolutely nothing to fix the problems presented by the health care reform bill that the House will vote on this evening. The very idea should offend all pro-life Members of Congress. An executive order can be rescinded at any time at the President's whim, and the courts could and have a history of trumping executive orders. Most importantly, pro-abortion Representatives have admitted the executive order is meaningless."
Last night, Rep. DeGette told The Huffington Post, "If there was an executive order saying they weren't going to use federal funds in the bill to pay for abortions that would be fine with me."
Today, Rep. Wasserman Schultz admitted to Fox News' Megyn Kelly that "an executive order cannot change the law."
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops pointed out today that "only a change in the law enacted by Congress, not an executive order, can begin to address this very serious problem in the legislation."
The Susan B. Anthony List has been leading the fight against abortion funding in health care reform for over a year, spending nearly $2 million on a grassroots campaign of targeted television and radio ads, 1.3 million automated calls, 70,000 patch-through constituent calls, 1.2 million letters and petitions to Congress, two media and grassroots tours in pro-life Democratic districts, television ads in six districts and comprehensive polling in 20 pro-life Democratic districts.
Contact: Mallory Quigley
Source: Susan B. Anthony List
Publish Date: March 21, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
NEWS SHORTS FOR MONDAY
Pro-Life Movement Vows to Replace Members from Pro-life Districts Who Voted for the Most Pro-Abortion Bill Ever Passed by Congress
A New Congress Is Needed to Restore Abortion Funding Neutrality
Today (Sunday) the House of Representatives passed the Senate health care bill with a multitude of abortion funding provisions and passed the reconciliation bill to increase funding for one abortion funding program. Neither contained conscience protections previously approved by the House.
"FRC Action will seek to defeat many of the Members from majority pro-life districts who voted wrong today, and they will have plenty of free time to realize the grave mistake they have committed on the unborn today with their vote."
Click here for the entire article.
A.L.L on Health Bill Passage: Compromising Human Lives Means Pro-Life Failure in Health Battle
The following is a statement from American Life League vice-president Jim Sedlak:
"Last night the pro-life movement learned several hard lessons. Foremost among those is that it is never morally acceptable, and often it is not even politically expedient, to compromise human beings' lives in the hopes of saving some others.
Click here for the entire article.
New York State Enacts End of Life Law
The Family Health Care Decisions Act -- signed into law Tuesday by Gov. Paterson -- allows family members or close friends to make medical care decisions for loved ones who are incapacitated -- replacing a law that essentially forced doctors to provide aggressive life-sustaining treatment to patients whose wishes were unknown -- even when family objected. The law says a close relative or close friend of the patient can be a surrogate and gives standing to domestic partners. The word fetus was dropped entirely -- those issues had sidelined the bill for 17 years.
Click here for the entire article.
Florida Senate Panel Oks Unborn Child Bill
If a pregnant woman is killed, the offender would be on the hook for two deaths, no matter how far along the pregnancy is, under legislation approved by a Senate panel Thursday. Some opponents of the legislation fear that the bill would also open the door for charges against doctors who perform abortions. Under the bill (SB 290), if someone causes the end of a woman's pregnancy at any stage by death or injury to the mother, he or she would be charged with the death of the unborn child. Under current law, an offender can only be prosecuted for the death of a fetus if the fetus could live outside of the mother's womb. Under the bill, any fertilized egg would expand the crime.
Click here for the entire article.
Abortions Are Not Healthy, Amnesty International
Amnesty International released a report today on Maternal Mortality in the United States. I was enthusiastic to see a subheading for a "right to life" until a little further into the report I read that abortion (the procedure that destroys innocent little lives) was included as part of a woman's "right to life."
From page 14 of the report:
"The right to life is protected in a number of international human rights treaties including the ICCPR, which states that every human being has the inherent right to life and that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their right to life…the need to employ a broad interpretation of the right to life, which includes public health measures, and has called on states to reduce preventable maternal mortality, including by ensuring access to family planning and abortion, as part of their obligation to protect the right to life under the ICCPR.33 Like all human rights, the right to life must also be guaranteed without discrimination."
Click here for the entire article.
Women and Medical Professionals Ask Court to Intervene in Federal Case to Protect the Right to Conscience
Representing Concerned Women for America, America's largest women's advocacy group and four other groups of pro-life medical professionals, attorneys with Advocates International filed a joint motion to lift stay and at last permit their intervention in three lawsuits commenced on January 15, 2009 that seek to invalidate a final federal regulation protecting medical professionals from discrimination because they refuse to participate in abortions. Advocates International is seeking to defend the law against challenges by some state officials, Planned Parenthood, and the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union. A stay of the action was issued last year by the Court when the pro-abortion Obama Administration issued its notice of rulemaking to rescind that regulation year ago and also asked the court for time to consider whether it shouldn't rescind the challenged regulation that denies federal funding to any federal grantee who discriminates against any health care providers for exercising their constitutionally and statutorily protected rights of conscience.
Click here for the entire article.
2 Days From Vote, Pro-Life Groups Mount Pressure
House Democratic leaders Thursday began a 72-hour countdown to a dramatic Sunday vote on the Senate health care bill, a proposal that is opposed by the nation's leading pro-life groups and which likely will pass or fail by only a handful of votes.
Democratic leaders had been awaiting a score on the bill's changes by the Congressional Budget Office, which issued a preliminary report Thursday morning estimating the overall bill would cost $940 billion over 10 years and reduce the deficit by $138 billion over the same period. With the CBO numbers in hand, Democrats unveiled the bill's proposed changes, which they had promised would be public for 72 hours before the House takes a vote. None of the changes pertain to abortion.
But pro-life groups are less concerned about CBO numbers than the bill's impact on the nation's abortion rate, which they argue could dramatically increase if the bill passes the House. The bill changes longstanding federal policy by allowing tax dollars to fund insurance plans that cover abortion. It also appropriates $7 billion to the nation's 1,200-plus community health centers without stating that the money cannot be used for abortions, the groups say. Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, supports the bill and argued it would "significantly increase access to reproductive health care."
Pro-life groups are turning up the pressure on like-minded Democrats, arguing the vote is a monumental one for representatives' careers and encouraging their constituents to call their House member. National Right to Life sent a memo to House members March 5 stating plainly that "a House member who votes for the Senate bill would forfeit a plausible claim to pro-life credentials." Local pro-life chapters also are involved, including Tennessee Right to Life, which said in an e-mail to constituents Thursday that four representatives -- Tennessee's Lincoln Davis, Jim Cooper, Bart Gordon and John Tanner -- would "cast key votes."
Likewise, the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List recently began polling in 19 key districts where self-proclaimed Democratic pro-lifers reside. It sent out e-mails Wednesday highly critical of two Democrats -- Dale Kildee of Michigan and James Oberstar of Minnesota -- who indicated they would support the bill.
"Congressman Oberstar can no longer call himself 'pro- life.' He has set himself with the likes of NARAL, NOW, and Planned Parenthood, and has betrayed his pro-life principles and his constituents," Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a statement. "... Congressman Oberstar has traded the lives of the unborn. He's made this choice to his own political peril."
The Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission also sent out an e-mail, saying, "... if you are opposed to the health care bill, please tell your congressman to vote against the bill or any procedure that would advance the bill in the House."
Neither side of the debate knows if Democrats have the votes, and various independent counters showed it to be razor-thin. With 431 representatives currently in the House, the magic number either to pass or defeat the bill is 216 -- assuming that everyone is present. All 178 Republicans are expected to oppose it. With 253 Democrats in the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi can withstand only 37 defections from her caucus, which would give her a 216-215 victory. If 38 Democrats vote "no," the bill would be defeated.
CNN reported Thursday there were 27 firm Democratic no votes, although that number did not include Rep. Michael Arcuri, D.-N.Y., who said Thursday he would vote no. The Hill newspaper reported there were 37 Democrats who were either "firm," "leaning," or "likely" to vote no. A total of 49 Democrats, The Hill said, were undecided. Yet MSNBC's First Read webpage painted a more optimistic scenario for Democrats, reporting that Democrats were "fewer than five votes away from 216."
The bill's changes -- contained in a separate bill from the health care bill itself -- are at the heart of the controversy because Senate Democratic leaders have pledged to use reconciliation to pass the changes with a simple majority vote. The Senate passed the health care bill in December, and the two chambers soon began working out the differences between the Senate version and the House version, which had passed in November. But that strategy was tossed out the window in January when Republicans won an upset U.S. Senate victory in Massachusetts to fill Ted Kennedy's seat, denying Democrats the necessary 60 votes within their caucus to overcome a GOP filibuster. Democrats then began considering reconciliation.
Contact: Michael Foust
Source: BP
Publish Date: March 18, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Plan B = Abortion Pill
A new morning-after pill works up to five days after intimacy, but opposition to the contraceptive known as "Plan B" is growing.
According to Dr. Donna Harrison, president of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG), the new pill is deceptive because it is in the same family as RU-486, the abortion drug. The only difference is the morning-after pill has a couple of modifications.
"It's really not a 'Plan B' at all," Harrison contends. "It's a different kind of medicine altogether. It's the same kind of medicine as the abortion pill."
The drug stops a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb, preventing it from shelter and nutrition that sustains life. The same occurs for an egg that has implanted in the wall of the uterus. "So in a woman who is already pregnant, [it] will cause an abortion, just like RU-486 does, because it's the same kind of a drug," the APPLOG president explains.
Although the drug is in use in Europe, Harrison believes women have not been fully informed as to what it does or its consequences.
"It's not in the profit interests of the people who are selling this drug to give women full, informed consent, and that's one of the American Association of Pro-Life OB/GYNS biggest points, is that this is basically experimentation on women...without their informed consent," she explains.
Long-term studies on the drug have not been performed, so the manufacturer has no idea what the effects will be on women. The drug is not yet being marketed in the United States.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: March 19, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
No Mention of Abortion in Health Bill "Fix" Package
The health care reconciliation "fix" package, which was posted on the House Rules Committee website Thursday afternoon, makes no mention of abortion, dashing any remaining hopes that the legislation that the House votes on will not include a vast expansion of abortion funding.
Most analysts had predicted that the "fix" bill would not give in to the demands of pro-life representatives, most notably Rep. Bart Stupak, who have demanded that Hyde-like language be included in the bill. Some, however, had said that they were expecting a last-minute fix that would put up a wall against the abortion-funding embedded in the Senate health care bill.
The Catholic Health Association (CHA), whose endorsement of the bill earlier this week was welcomed with open arms by the Obama administration, had excused their support for the abortion-expanding bill by expressing hope for an abortion "fix" in the reconciliation measure.
In a scheme devised by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), Democrat leaders may hold a vote on the reconciliation package in the House, and, should it succeed, the House will simply "deem" the Senate health bill passed - thus possibly coaxing support from wary Democrats by avoiding a direct vote on the bill.
Leaders now hope to hold a vote by Sunday, although President Obama has already postponed a planned trip overseas that day to see the health care debate to the end.
Click here to view the Reconciliation bill.
Contact: Kathleen Gilbert
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: March 18, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
