Tag: Abortion

Millions protest abortion. News? What news?

TBLeave a comment

Red Envelope Project World Net Daily got the scoop on The Associated Press and countless other “big” news organizations with this story which you probably didn’t hear about:

The White House mail office has confirmed it received a “deluge” of as many as 2.25 million red envelopes symbolizing the empty promise of lives snuffed out in abortion in a massive campaign that was larger than most White House mailing movements in the last 35 years.

White House mail worker “Steve” has handled letters for 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. for more than three decades. Every single package and letter destined for the White House goes through his office.

Asked if he has seen a flood of red envelopes bound for the White House, Steve chuckled.

“Uh, yes,” he said emphatically. “Believe me, they made it here.”

Steve said while Obama has been occupied in Europe, his administration has noticed millions of red envelopes on behalf of aborted children.

“Quite frankly, there was definitely a deluge of mail coming through,” he laughed. “I had to handle them all.”

“I’ve been here 35 years, so I’ve seen presidents come and go,” Steve told WND. “This campaign ranks up there with the big ones.”

The Red Envelope Project is an idea sparked in the mind and prayers of a Massachusetts man, Christ Otto, who envisioned in January thousands of red envelopes sent to the White House, a visual expression of moral outrage over the president’s position on abortion.

On the backs of the envelopes, senders wrote a message Otto composed: “This envelope represents one child who died in abortion. It is empty because that life was unable to offer anything to the world. Responsibility begins with conception.”

Time is running out to make your voice heard

TBLeave a comment

From Deirdre McQuade of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops comes this urgent message:

Doctors practice medicine to diagnose, treat, and prevent illness for their patients. They pledge to “do no harm.” Yet many face tremendous pressure to participate in abortion and sterilization.

Informed Catholic health professionals understand that such procedures are not authentic medicine. They are not therapeutic, as they treat no disease or pathological condition. An unborn child is not a disease to be “cured” through abortion; and sterilization stops a healthy reproductive system from functioning properly.

Medical personnel, like all citizens, have the right not to be forced to participate in practices that offend their deeply held moral and religious convictions. This is a fundamental human right long recognized in our democracy.

But the right of conscience is under serious attack. Pro-abortion groups are pushing hard to undermine conscience rights in health care so nothing will stand in the way of maximum access to abortion. They call abortion a “free choice” — but what is more coercive than forcing people to perform or refer for an act they find morally abhorrent? Such coercion strikes at the heart of medicine’s healing mission.

Existing federal laws forbid government bodies and federally-funded hospitals, medical schools and research programs to discriminate against health care providers for exercising their conscience rights on abortion and sterilization. Unfortunately, these protective laws are widely unknown and unevenly enforced. Those who experience discrimination often do not know where to turn. To protect medical personnel, health care institutions must be held accountable to existing law.

The Obama Administration has issued a proposal to weaken current legal protection of conscience in health care, rescinding a recent Bush Administration regulation that helps implement the protective laws. The public has until Thursday, April 9 to write to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) urging it to retain the regulation.

Our voice is needed right now! But what can we do? Go to www.usccb.org/conscienceprotection to get informed, take action, and spread the word.

To send your e-mail, go to the above link. Otherwise, you can send your message directly by e-mail to proposedrescission@hhs.gov or go online to www.Regulations.gov (check “Select to find documents” and then enter “Rescission Proposal”). Comments also can be mailed. See instructions in the March 10 Federal Register . In all comments, refer to “Rescission Proposal.”

 

Conscience Protection

Reuniting victim with potential killer

TBLeave a comment

This is bizarre:

WELLINGTON, New Zealand (AFP) – A woman who gave birth in mid-air left the baby behind when she disembarked in Auckland, Television New Zealand reported Thursday.

Police and Pacific Blue — the airline which operated the flight from the Samoan capital Apia — were saying little about their investigation Thursday, but mother and child were said to be recovering in hospital.

Television New Zealand reported that the Samoan woman gave birth in one of the aircraft’s toilets during the flight to Auckland early Thursday.

The infant was found by an airline worker in the toilet rubbish bin more than an hour after the plane landed.

And then comes the troubling part:

Pacific Blue’s website says women need medical clearance to board a flight if they have passed the 36-week mark in their pregnancy.

“We are relieved to have been informed that both mother and child are reunited, are well and are now being looked after in hospital,” the airline said in a statement.

It’s good that the woman and child are being treated at the hospital, but is anyone else concerned that this child, which miraculously survived a murder attempt, is now reunited with the person who sought to end the child’s life?

Obama to roll back Bush policy on abortion

TB1 Comment

Attention to all you evangelicals who voted for Barack Obama. This was reported today by the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration is moving to rescind a federal rule that reinforced protections for medical providers who refuse to perform abortions or other procedures on moral grounds, an official said Friday.

A Health and Human Services official said the administration will publish notice of its intentions early next week, and open a 30-day comment period for advocates, medical groups and the public. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the official notice has not been completed.

The Bush administration instituted the rule in its last days, and it was quickly challenged in federal court by several states and medical organizations. As a candidate, President Barack Obama criticized the regulation and campaign aides promised that if elected, he would review it.

The rational behind the Obama move is that it could also hinder access to birth control, family planning services and counseling for vaccines and transfusions. If the Obama administration is really concerned about access to health services, it wouldn’t be pushing for nationalized health care. Rather, this is all about not only maintaining abortion services, but forcing others who would have moral objections to offer them as well.

Since the story notes that administration is looking for input from the public, we should do our part and ask them not to trample the rights of Americans who feel that abortion is murder.

Timing is everything: The foolishness of U.S. law

TBLeave a comment

This is the world in which we live. A Florida woman, who was seeking an abortion as an 18-year-old, sued a doctor, a clinic and its staff because her daughter was born alive and then put into a trash bag. The murderer, who was not present at delivery but later “cleaned up,” had his license to practice medicine revoked because he falsified records by saying he was present for delivery.

There are no heroes in this tragic story, where a matter of minutes changes an action, in the eyes of the law, from legal and “safe” (for the mother, not the child) to shocking and harmful (to the mother’s mental health, apparently). From the report, which points out, “(t)he state attorney’s office …said its criminal investigation into the incident is ongoing and no charges have been filed. A fetus born alive cannot be put to death even if its mother intended to have an abortion, police said when the incident occurred in 2006.”:

The baby’s mother, Sycloria Williams, sued [doctor Pierre Jean-Jacques] Renelique, the clinic and its staff in January, seeking damages.

She alleges in her suit that “she witnessed the murder of her daughter” and said she “sustained severe emotional distress, shock and psychic trauma which have resulted in discernible bodily injury.”

“This is not about a pot of gold,” said Tom Pennekamp, her attorney. “What this is about is right and wrong and making a statement, making sure it doesn’t happen to other young women.”

According to the suit, Williams, then 18, discovered while being treated for a fall that she was 23 weeks pregnant. She went to a clinic to get an abortion on the morning of July 20, 2006, after receiving medication and instructions the previous day.

Renelique was not at the clinic, however, and Williams was told to wait for him. She was given two pills and told they would make her ill. When she complained of feeling ill, clinic staff members gave her a robe and told her to lie down in a patient room, the suit says.

Renelique was still not present when Williams “felt a large pain” and delivered a baby girl, according to the suit.

“The staff began screaming and pandemonium ensued. Sycloria watched in horror and shock as her baby writhed with her chest rising and falling as she breathed.”

A clinic co-owner entered the room and used a pair of shears to cut the baby’s umbilical cord, the suit said. She “then scooped up the baby and placed the live baby, placenta and afterbirth in a red plastic biohazard bag, which she sealed, and then threw bag and the baby in a trash can.”

Staff at the clinic did not call 911 or seek medical assistance for Williams or the baby, the suit said.

Renelique arrived at the clinic about an hour later and gave Williams a shot to put her to sleep. “She awoke after the procedure and was sent home still in complete shock,” the suit said.

Police were notified of the incident by an anonymous caller who told them the baby was born alive and disposed of.

Gallup poll: Most disagree with president on Mexico City policy

TBLeave a comment

A new Gallup poll shows that 58 percent of Americans disagree and only 35 percent agree with the president about his decision to reverse the Mexico City policy:

Obama’s decision to reverse the prohibition on funding for overseas family-planning providers may be the least popular thing he has done so far. This was an executive order that forbade federal government money from going to overseas family-planning groups that provide abortions or offer abortion counseling. Fifty-eight percent of Americans disapprove of Obama’s decision to lift this ban, while only 35% approve of it. The ban on federal funds to these groups was put in place by Ronald Reagan, but lifted by Bill Clinton. George W. Bush re-instituted the ban after taking office in 2001, but Obama has once again lifted it.

Not surprisingly, this was the one early decision he made that didn’t get wall-to-wall media coverage. Likewise, there was scant coverage when 250,000 marched in Washington to mark the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade and call for change.

Obama appointee has interesting take on the law

TBLeave a comment

From the blog of U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.) comes this shocker: James B. Steinberg, President Obama’s nominee to be the next Deputy Secretary of State, claimed in written testimony to the Foreign Relations Committee that Congress cannot constitutionally restrict taxpayer funding to perform or promote abortions. Mr. Steinberg stated that the Mexico City policy, which bars taxpayer funding of abortions overseas, “is an unnecessary restriction that, if applied to organizations based in this country, would be an unconstitutional limitation on free speech.” Here is the Q&A:

Question from Senator DeMint: For more than 30 years the Hyde amendments, which prohibit federal funding for abortion services, have been supported by Republican and Democrat administrations and Congresses. Unfortunately, while this is the domestic policy of the United States, President Obama has vowed to reverse our foreign policy by repealing the Mexico City policy and use the federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortion services overseas. Do you support President Obama’s efforts to lift the Mexico City restrictions? Do you believe our foreign policy should contradict long held domestic policies?

Answer from James Steinberg: President Obama has supported repeal of the Mexico City policy, as has Secretary Clinton. Longstanding law, authored by Senator Jesse Helms, expressly prohibits the use of U.S. funds of abortion. The Mexico City policy is an unnecessary restriction that, if applied to organizations based in this country, would be an unconstitutional limitation on free speech.

DeMint explains in the same post that this statement is a direct contradiction of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Rust v. Sullivan, in 1991. But then again, this is all about change, not about laws and things like that.

HT: NRO’s The Corner

Richard Doerflinger: A happy, pro-life warrior

TBLeave a comment
Richard Doerflinger was one of six recipients at Fridays Life Prizes in Washington, D.C.
Richard Doerflinger was one of six recipients at Friday's Life Prizes in Washington, D.C.

NRO recently did an interview with Richard Doerflinger, who was one of six recipients last Friday at the first-ever Life Prizes in Washington, D.C.

Doerflinger is associate director of the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, where he has worked for almost 29 years. He monitors, analyzes, and responds to federal and medical developments on life issues. He writes and he educates—colleagues, bishops, Congress, the media.

During the interview, Doerflinger was asked how devastating the Freedom of Choice Act  would be in this country:

We have said this is the most extreme piece of abortion legislation ever introduced in Congress. It would elevate abortion to the status of a “fundamental” right, and call on all public-health programs not to “discriminate” against abortion—in other words, any government effort to support childbirth would also be mandated to support abortion to the same extent. It would overturn hundreds of modest pro-life laws passed over the last 35 years—conscience clauses, public-funding restrictions, informed-consent and parental-involvement statutes, and so on.

Doerflinger also discusses in the interview how effective former President Bush was in eight years in promoting pro-life issues and how his stance on stem cell research has been totally misrepresented. I encourage you to read the interview. To read more about the Life Prizes and those who were recognized, go here.


Despite what we see, AP assures us that Obama is a uniter, not a divider

TBLeave a comment

Even though Barack Obama has confidently asserted that he doesn’t care what millions of people believe is morally wrong, the Associated Press wants us to know that he has done better than former President Bush:

Barack Obama opened his presidency by breaking sharply from George W. Bush’s unpopular administration, but he mostly avoided divisive partisan and ideological stands. He focused instead on fixing the economy, repairing a battered world image and cleaning up government.

“What an opportunity we have to change this country,” the Democrat told his senior staff after his inauguration. “The American people are really counting on us now. Let’s make sure we take advantage of it.”

And he has changed it, as evidenced by his executive order to overturn the ban on using taxpayer funds for international organizations that promote abortions or give information about them, the so-called Mexico City Policy. The AP noted that Obama went this direction, but downplays its significance:

In the highly scripted first days of his administration, Obama overturned a slew of Bush policies with great fanfare. He largely avoided cultural issues; the exception was reversing one abortion-related policy, a predictable move done in a very low-profile way.

The rest of the article, by Democratic cheerleader Liz Sidoti, goes on to explain that Obama’s decisions have muted most criticism because they were long-expected. You see, he’s popular so we really shouldn’t worry about anything he does.

Sidoti’s breathless prose, which seems suited for an analysis piece or a column, goes on to include this gushing passage:

A picture of poise, Obama didn’t get rattled when Chief Justice John Roberts flubbed the oath of office, an exercise repeated a day later to ensure constitutionality. He breezed through his speech – which repudiated Bush’s tenure though never personally attacked him – without a misstep. Even with the weight of the country’s troubles now on his shoulders, he was relaxed as he twirled his wife, Michelle, at celebratory balls.

“I don’t sweat,” Obama said on the eve of his inauguration – a comment meant literally, and, perhaps, figuratively.

People who disagree with the president will have a hard road to hoe over the next four years. The idea that this president can do little or no wrong, perpetuated by the people who have gone from being attack dogs over the last eight years to lapdogs, will make dissent harder.