News Briefs
Same-sex marriage bill voted down in New York Senate
NY Catholic Gov. Patterson pledges to keep fighting for gay marriage
The New York State Senate just defeated a bill that would have redefined marriage in New York State in a bipartisan 38-24 vote. Below is a new release from the New York State Catholic Conference:
New York State Catholic Conference Executive Director Richard E. Barnes made the following statement today regarding the defeat of a bill in the New York State Senate by a vote of 38-24 that would have allowed people of the same sex to "marry" each other:"On behalf of the Bishops of New York State, we are extremely pleased and grateful that the New York State Senate in a bipartisan vote rejected the concept that marriage can be anything other than the union of one man and one woman.
"While the Catholic Church rejects unjust discrimination against homosexual men and women, there is no question that marriage by its nature is the union of one man and one woman. Advocates for same-sex 'marriage' have attempted to portray their cause as inevitable. However, it has become clear that Americans continue to understand marriage the way it has always been understood, and New York is not different in that regard. This is a victory for the basic building block of our society."
Below is the full roll call of the Senate vote on the bill to redefine marriage. All 30 Republicans joined eight Democrats in voting "NO."
| Senator | Vote |
|---|---|
| Eric Adams (D) | Yea |
| Joe Addabbo (D) | No |
| Jim Alesi (R) | No |
| Darrel Aubertine (D) | No |
| John Bonacic (R) | No |
| Neil Breslin (D) | Yea |
| John DeFrancisco (R) | No |
| Ruben Diaz Sr. (D) | No |
| Martin Malave Dilan (D) | Yea |
| Tom Duane (D) | Yea |
| Pedro Esapda Jr. (D) | Yea |
| Hugh Farley (R) | No |
| John Flanagan (R) | No |
| Brian Foley (D) | Yea |
| Chuck Fuschillo (R) | No |
| Marty Golden (R) | No |
| Joe Griffo (R) | No |
| Kemp Hannon (R) | No |
| Ruth Hassell-Thompson (D) | Yea |
| Shirley Huntley (D) | No |
| Craig Johnson (D) | Yea |
| Owen Johnson (R) | No |
| Jeff Klein (D) | Yea |
| Liz Krueger (D) | Yea |
| Carl Kruger (D) | No |
| Andrew Lanza (R) | No |
| Bill Larkin (R) | No |
| Ken LaValle (R) | No |
| Vincent Leibell (R) | No |
| Tom Libous (R) | No |
| Betty Little (R) | No |
| Carl Marcellino (R) | No |
| George Maziarz (R) | No |
| Roy McDonald (R) | No |
| Hiram Monserrate (D) | No |
| Velmanette Montgomery (D) | Yea |
| Tom Morahan (R) | No |
| Mike Nozzolio (R) | No |
| George Onorato (D) | No |
| Suzi Oppenheimer (D) | Yea |
| Frank Padavan (R) | No |
| Kevin Parker (D) | Yea |
| Bill Perkins (D) | Yea |
| Mike Ranzenhofer (R) | No |
| Joe Robach (R) | No |
| Steve Saland (R) | No |
| John Sampson (D) | Yea |
| Diane Savino (D) | Yea |
| Eric Schneiderman (D) | Yea |
| Jose M. Serrano (D) | Yea |
| Jim Seward (R) | No |
| Dean Skelos (R) | No |
| Malcolm Smith (D) | Yea |
| Daniel Squadron (D) | Yea |
| Bill Stachowski (D) | No |
| Toby Ann Stavisky (D) | Yea |
| Andrea Stewart-Cousins (D) | Yea |
| Antoine Thompson (D) | Yea |
| David Valesky (D) | Yea |
| Dale Volker (R) | No |
| George Winner (R) | No |
| Cathy Young (R) | No |
Pro-Life Senators Plea With Democratic Senators to "Stand for Life"
Below is an unofficial transcript from yesterdays colloquy between Sens. Hatch, Brownback, and Johanns on concerns about the federal programs authorized to fund elective abortions within the Reid health bill.
Senator Hatch: (1:02 PM)
- SUMMARY “It should be abundantly clear to each member of the body that the House of Representatives passed pro-life language exactly two weeks ago marketedly different from that contained in the Reid proposal. The House provisions, in contrast to the terribly flawed provisions in the Reid bill, contain language that would not only safeguards the rights of the unborn, but also prevent medical providers from being coerced into performing procedures that violate their conscience. The Stupak-Pitts amendment was adopted by a significant margin, 240 to 194. That represents 55% of the House of Representatives, including 25% of the Democratic caucus. Even more telling is — happens to be two polls released this week by the Washington Post and ABC News and CNN. They confirm that 61% of the American population do not support federal funding for abortion.”
Senator Brownback: (1:05 PM)
- SUMMARY “The proponents of the Reid bill will tell us that the abortion funding language is essentially the Hyde language included in the annual HHS appropriations bill, but that is plain wrong. Plain wrong, and let me tell you why. The Hyde amendment specifically removes abortion from government programs. But the Reid bill specifically allows abortion to be offered in two huge new government programs.”
- SUMMARY “To be clear the Reid health care reform bill would require at least one health plan to offer elective abortions in each state health insurance exchange, as you noted. Nothing in the Reid bill that assures that the plan that covers abortion, must be the plan that is most affordable. If I do not wish to have a plan that covers elective abortions, but all I can afford is the bronze plan, where does that leave me? Should my constituents have to compromise their own moral code in order to receive health care?”
Senator Johanns: (1:21 PM)
- SUMMARY “Do the president and the members of his party who control the Senate and who wrote the bill behind closed doors, do they really believe that abortion is health care? Why didn’t they just strip this language out? Why didn’t they adopt the Stupak language, which was voted upon in the house, the Stupak compromise? And why didn’t they adopt that, knowing that 64 Democrats had signed on to that language? What do you think about the president’s commitment and his promise to us not to use federal dollars to fund abortions?”
Senator Brownback: (1:25 PM)
- SUMMARY “If we want to do more than pay lip service to lowering the incidence of abortion, we need to oppose the motion to proceed, and we should have had the Stupak compromise language included in the bill in the first place. since the president clearly stated he didn’t want to use federal dollars to be used for the funding of abortion. And consider the fact that when federal funding is not available for abortion, fewer abortions occur. When federal funding is available, as we’ve seen in the past, thousands more will occur. And here is why the Hyde amendment is so important.”
Senator Johanns: (1:45 PM)
- SUMMARY “Now, I just believe if you are pro-life, every opportunity you get to stand for the life issue, you must stand for that issue. These truly are our most vulnerable, vulnerable citizens. And I just feel very, very strongly that at 8:00, when we are gaveled to a vote, we need to stand up on this issue, on this life issue, or by a 97% chance, it is lost. I will just conclude my thoughts on this by saying this. There were many strong courageous pro-life Democrats in the House. I watched that. Wow, was that remarkable. Can you imagine the pressure that they were put under? This afternoon, this evening, we just need one. Not many, just one Democrat who will come here and say, I’m pro-life and if we don’t stand together tonight, this bill will radically expand abortion and I can’t live with that.”
Senator Hatch: (1:50 PM)
- SUMMARY “Let’s protect the Hyde language. And you do that with the Stupak-Pitts language. Let’s protect it. What’s wrong with protecting that language? And, I might add, all we want to do is not have the taxpayers pay for abortions. The vast majority of people in this country feel that way, too. And secondly, why should people of conscience, who really sincerely believe that abortions are wrong, be forced to participate in abortions in any way, shape or form? And, unfortunately, this bill could lead to that forced participation.”
National Right to Life Committee Rejects Reid Abortion Funding Language as "Completely Unacceptable," Calls for Enactment of Stupak-Pitts Amendment
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nv.) has rejected the bipartisan Stupak-Pitts Amendment and has substituted completely unacceptable language that would result in coverage of abortion on demand in two big new federal government programs. ACTION: Contact your Senators and ask them to support Stupak language in the bill. |
Rep. Lynn Woolsey: IRS should scrutinize bishops
Pro-abortion Rep. Lynn Woolsey is upset with the Bishops for their successful efforts in restricting abortion funding in the healthcare bill. Woolsey is calling for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to lose their tax exempt status. She released the following statement:
I expect political hardball on any legislation as important as the health care bill.
I just didn’t expect it from the United States Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).
Who elected them to Congress?
The role the bishops played in the pushing the Stupak amendment, which unfairly restricts access for low-income women to insurance coverage for abortions, was more than mere advocacy.
They seemed to dictate the finer points of the amendment, and managed to bully members of Congress to vote for added restrictions on a perfectly legal surgical procedure.
And this political effort was subsidized by taxpayers, since the Council enjoys tax-exempt status.
When I visit churches in my district, we are very careful to keep everything “non-political” to protect their tax-exempt status.
The IRS is less restrictive about church involvement in efforts to influence legislation than it is about involvement in campaigns and elections.
Given the political behavior of USCCB in this case, maybe it shouldn’t be. - Politico
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) is co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
Urgent Healthcare Update: Stupak Amendment Will be Given Vote
Given the holdout of 40 pro-life Democrats, and intense pressure by pro-life groups and the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops (USCCB) over the federal funding of abortion, last night Speaker Pelosi conceded that she did not have the votes to push a vote on the Rule. After hours of negotiations Congressman Bart Stupak was given permission by the House Rules Committee to offer his pro-life amendment. A vote will occur this afternoon.
Pro-abortion leaders left Speaker Pelosi's office last night upset with the news that the Stupak amendment will get a vote. Planned Parenthood of America president Cecile Richards isn't happy with the U.S. Bishops efforts, and holds them responsible for this new development.
The following email was sent to Planned Parenthood supporters this morning:
Late yesterday, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops met with leaders in the House of Representatives in their bid to eliminate women's access to abortion care under health care reform.
We have just received news that their efforts are working, and Representative Bart Stupak has introduced an amendment to the health care reform bill that will result in women losing health care coverage for abortion.
We urgently need you, and your friends and family, to call your representative...and ask him or her to reject the Stupak amendment that will remove abortion coverage from health care reform.
If the bishops and their anti-choice partners in the House succeed, they'll permanently alter health care in America, even taking away benefits from women that they have today. The bishops want to effectively eliminate abortion coverage in both private plans and the public option. We simply cannot stand for such a discriminatory, mean-spirited attack on women.
Warning to Congress from Fr. Frank Pavone
This morning Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, warned the members of Congress that he would distribute the voting records of members of Congress on the Stupak-Pitts amendment to HR 3962 (and other abortion-related votes) to every Catholic parish in America, with instructions to each pastor on how to make clear to his congregation the implications of how that congregation's representative voted. "Whatever one's position on abortion itself," Fr. Pavone commented, "the vast majority of Americans have always opposed the idea that taxpayers should fund it. Our plan to inform pastors of these voting records is phase one of a year-long effort to activate Churches as never before regarding what they can legally do in preparation for next year's midterm elections. Publishing voting records in a non-partisan fashion is certainly one of those activities."
President Obama is making a rare Saturday appearance to Democrats on the hill to rally support. Democrats need 218 votes.
Ask your Representatives to Support the Stupak-Pitts amendment
What the Stupak-Pitts Amendment Would Do
The Stupak-Pitts Amendment would remove the two major pro-abortion components from H.R. 3962: (1) The amendment would permanently prohibit the new federal government insurance program, the "public option," from paying for abortion, except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest; and (2) the amendment would permanently prohibit the use of the new federal premium subsidies ("affordability credits") to purchase private insurance plans that cover abortion (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest).
Note: The Stupak-Pitts Amendment explicitly allows private insurance companies to sell insurance policies that cover abortion (either abortion alone, or abortion coverage along with other coverage) to persons who pay for such policies entirely with their personal funds. Some pro-abortion groups have claimed that the Stupak-Pitts amendment would prohibit private companies from selling abortion coverage even to a person who receives no government subsidy, but this is false. - NRLC
Contact your Representative and ask them to vote "YES" on the
Stupak Amendment. Contact your Members here.
or call the House switchboard at: (202) 224-3121
Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Seeking to Overturn Obama Embryonic Stem Cell Research Order
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A federal judge has dismissed the case filed by a collection of pro-life groups and an adoption agency that involves the adopts of unborn children frozen at fertility clinics. They had sued the administration of President Barack Obama saying that he should not have issued an executive order forcing taxpayers to finance embryonic stem cell research that involves the destruction of human life. They based their lawsuit on the Dickey-Wicker amendment, a federal law that disallows funding of research on human embryos that involves their specific creation and destruction. U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth put the brakes on the lawsuit, which also said Obama's order, and a second one stopping funding of embryonic stem cell research alternatives, makes less money available for adult stem cell research and fewer human embryos available for adoption.
Pro-abortion Catholic Congressman Criticizes Bishops on Healthcare bill
I thought they (Catholic Church) were pro-life, said Kennedy
Why would it surprise anyone to read a pro-abortion Catholic Kennedy is in disagreement with the U.S. bishops for their opposition to a health care billl that funds abortion. The late Senator Ted Kennedy, Congressman Patrick Kennedy's father, is the poster boy for dissenting Catholic politicians who advocate for abortion policy.
On Thursday, CNSNews.com reported a conversation with Congressman Patrick Kennedy (D-RI). Kennedy was asked to respond to the Oct 8. letter U.S. bishops sent to Congress in which they stated they would vigorously oppose the healthcare bill unless it included an exclusion to fund abortions, and conscience rights protections for healthcare professionals.
Kennedy told CNSNews the Catholic Church is fanning “the flames of dissent and discord." “I can't understand for the life of me how the Catholic Church could be against the biggest social justice issue of our time, where the very dignity of the human person is being respected by the fact that we're caring and giving health care to the human person--that right now we have 50 million people who are uninsured,” Kennedy said.
The bishops position on healthcare reform has remained constant. While they believe healthcare is a basic right that must be available to all legal residents especailly the poor and vulnerable, it must also respect the dignity of all, born and unborn. They oppose any abortion mandate and federal funding of abortion.
Obviously the Congressman has failed to read the documents issued by the U. S. Bishops conference on ethical healthcare reform. Kennedy continues with a statement questioning the pro-life position of the Church.
“You mean to tell me the Catholic Church is going to be denying those people life saving health care? I thought they were pro-life?...If the church is pro-life, then they ought to be for health care reform because it’s going to provide health care that are going to keep people alive. So this is an absolute red herring and I don't think that it does anything but to fan the flames of dissent and discord and I don't think it’s productive at all."
Congressman Kennedy is certainly following in his fathers footsteps. Since taking ofice in 1995 he has taken an anti-life voting posiition on 74 votes. He has a 10% pro-life voting record.
It will be interesting to see if any bishops respond to Kennedys public crticism. His local Ordinary, Bishop Thomas J. Tobin from the Providence diocese, is a courageous leader within the Church often instructing the faithful on social moral issues. In a recent column in the Rhode Island Catholic, Bishop Tobin responds to the criticism he received over his column on President Obama's anti-life policies:
...I do find it intriguing, though, that the critics of the Obama column were more offended by my writing than the fact that the President is using their tax dollars to destroy unborn children. (And now to engage in the destruction of human embryos in stem cell research.) But it still seems to me that if the President’s anti-life actions don’t stir up moral outrage in you, nothing will; if they don’t offend your conscience, you need a conscience transplant, my friend.
Apparently, Congressman Kennedy, unaffected by the prospects of an increase in killing of the unborn if the healthcare bill is not amended, is in great need of a conscience transplant!
Senate Pro-Life Advocates Will Re-Introduce Amdts to Remove Abortion in Health Care
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The pro-life lawmakers who led the fight to stop the massive abortion funding in the Senate health care bills during committee consideration plan to reintroduce their amendments on the Senate floor.
Members of the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee rejected the pro-life amendments during the consideration of the Baucus and Kennedy health care bills.The amendments were defeated on largely partisan votes with most Democrats voting against them and most Republicans voting for them.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican who is a member of both committees and saw his amendments go down in defeat, says he is bringing both of them back on the Senate floor. The first amendment would make sure that no taxpayer funds from the health care premiums Americans send to the federal government could be used to pay for abortions and the second would prohibit federal or state governments or health plans that receive federal subsidies "from discriminating against physicians or health facilities that do not offer abortion services."
The first measure ensures the health care bill does not include taxpayer-financed abortion while the second provides conscience protections for medical professionals who do not want to be pressured to do abortions or make referrals for them.
Sen. Jon Kyl, a pro-life Arizona Republican,is also expected to reintroduce his amendments to ensure that the final legislation does not include rationing.
Obama Administration Asks Veterans to Consider Euthanasia
by Jim Towey in the Wall St. Journal
If President Obama wants to better understand why America's discomfort with end-of-life discussions threatens to derail his health-care reform, he might begin with his own Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). He will quickly discover how government bureaucrats are greasing the slippery slope that can start with cost containment but quickly become a systematic denial of care.
Last year, bureaucrats at the VA's National Center for Ethics in Health Care advocated a 52-page end-of-life planning document, "Your Life, Your Choices." It was first published in 1997 and later promoted as the VA's preferred living will throughout its vast network of hospitals and nursing homes. After the Bush White House took a look at how this document was treating complex health and moral issues, the VA suspended its use. Unfortunately, under President Obama, the VA has now resuscitated "Your Life, Your Choices."
Who is the primary author of this workbook? Dr. Robert Pearlman, chief of ethics evaluation for the center, a man who in 1996 advocated for physician-assisted suicide in Vacco v. Quill before the U.S. Supreme Court and is known for his support of health-care rationing.
"Your Life, Your Choices" presents end-of-life choices in a way aimed at steering users toward predetermined conclusions, much like a political "push poll." For example, a worksheet on page 21 lists various scenarios and asks users to then decide whether their own life would be "not worth living." Full article here.
White House Seeks Informants on Bloggers, Idle Talkers
From the Catholic Key:
This is already all over the place, but it's worth spreading far and wide. This kind of thing has no place in American government and should stop now. Posted on WhiteHouse.Gov today, my emphases:
Scary chain emails and videos are starting to percolate on the internet, breathlessly claiming, for example, to "uncover" the truth about the President’s health insurance reform positions. . .
. . .There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.
This can't be dismissed as an over-eager staffer at the White House posting something irresponsible - They've got an actual email address. I wonder if this makes sense of the president's peculiar call during the election for a "civilian national security force". Like I said, it should end now and heads should roll at the White House communications office
Seventy-Six Percent of Americans Say Pro-Abortion President Obama is Liberal
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- According to a new Rasmussen survey of Americans across the country, some 76 percent now think pro-abortion President Obama is at least somewhat liberal. Another 48 percent say he is very liberal.
This marks the highest finding to date on the question and is a five-point increase in the number who say the president is very liberal from a month ago. Just before Obama took office in January, 65% said he was at least somewhat liberal, with 35% who described him as very liberal. Seventeen percent and only six percent believe the abortion advocate is conservative. Republicans are three times as likely as Democrats to say Obama is very liberal – 77% to 26%. The plurality (45%) of voters not affiliated with either party agree. Among Democrats, 42% say the president is somewhat liberal and 26% say he is a moderate. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of liberals rate the president as at least somewhat liberal, but only 14% say he’s very liberal. For the second month in a row, 53% of voters say the president is governing like a partisan Democrat, while 32% say he is being bipartisan.
In late January, only 39% of voters said he was governing in a partisan fashion while 42% said he was being bipartisan. Sixty-nine percent (69%) of voters also say the man who is a heartbeat away from the presidency, Vice President Joe Biden, is at least somewhat liberal. Thirty-five percent (35%) view him as very liberal, while 20% say he is moderate. Seven percent (7%) think the pro-abortion former Delaware senator is conservative. The findings on Biden have been largely unchanged so far this year.
Fake Pro-Life Abortion Bill Expected in Congress by Ardent Pro-abortion Catholic Politician
Why is it they are always Catholic...Both sponsors of this bill are Catholic. Rep. Ryan was just kicked out of Democrats for Life for his anti-life votes and Rep. DeLauro is one of the most ardent pro-abortion members of Congress. She has accepted over $230,000.00 from abortion lobby groups and co-sponsored the Freedom of Choice Act when it was introduced in the 110th congress. This bill has a deceptive title. It actually increses taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood. If President Obama was really committed to abortion reduction as he claims, he would direct funds to pro-life Crisis Pregnancy Centers - he however in a campaign survey responded to an abortion group that he did not support governmental funds going to these pro-life centers.
Story below from LifeNews:
A former leader for one of the nation's largest pro-abortion groups and a congressman who abandoned his pro-life views to such a large extent that a pro-life group kicked him off its advisory board are introducing a new bill that will be touted as pro-life legislation.
However, the Reducing the Need for Abortions Initiative, expected to be introduced in the House of Representatives this week, is a bailout for the abortion industry.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat who is a former NARAL staffer, and Rep. Tim Ryan, an Ohio Democrat whom Democrats for Life of America recently kicked off its board, are behind the bill.
The legislation is nothing new as Ryan and DeLauro took a Democrats for Life initiative and changed it so much that it sent millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion business.
The bill is strong on rhetoric, but its particulars are so bad that Rep. Chris Smith, a New Jersey Republican who heads the pro-life caucus of lawmakers in the House, told the Copely News Service in 2006 that the measure would "lead to more abortions, not less" and said pro-life lawmakers won't support it. read more
Pro-abortion Catholic Senators Vote to Permanently Kill Mexico City Policy
Four Catholic Senators co-sponsor Senator Lautenerg's amendment to allow taxpayer funds to go to international clinics that promote or perform abortion. If made law it will no longer be at a president's discretion to implement the Mexico City policy. A new law would have to be passed.
From LifeSiteNews:
WASHINGTON, D.C., July 13, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Senate Appropriations Committee voted Thursday to codify President Obama's overthrow of the Mexico City Policy by approving an amendment to open U.S. funding for abortion-promoting non-governmental organizations (NGOs) worldwide.
The abortion amendment was offered by Senator Lautenberg (D-NJ) to the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill (S.1434) and was co-sponsored by Senators Leahy (D-VT), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), and Collins (R-ME). The committee favored the amendment 17-11, allowing it to be considered by the Senate.
Instituted by Ronald Reagan in 1984, the Mexico City Policy bans taxpayer dollars from funding international groups that perform or promote abortions. The policy has gone in and out of use depending on the political party in the White House: Bill Clinton immediately rescinded the policy by executive order, and George W. Bush reinstated it before President Obama overturned it once more. However, the new amendment would codify President Obama's executive order and prevent future pro-life presidents from reviving the policy by executive order.
Lautenberg's amendment states that overseas organizations "shall not be ineligible for such assistance solely onthe basis of health or medical services, including counseling and referral services ... if such services are permitted in the country in which they are being provided."
International abortion NGOs such as Planned Parenthood and Marie Stopes, who are now eligible for U.S. funds, constitute perhaps the primary force behind the spread of abortion worldwide by both providing abortion and aggressively lobbying pro-life nations to dismantle legal protection for the unborn.
The bill assigns $628.5 million for international family planning without the protections of the Mexico City policy, $50 million of which will fund the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Though the UNFPA claims it resists coercive population control policies, recent investigations have confirmed earlier proof pointing to the UNFPA's complicity in China's one-child policy tactics including forced abortion and sterilization.
In the House version of the bill Wednesday, pro-life legislators also met with defeat, after the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee rejected an amendment that would have explicitly restored the Mexico City Policy.
The rescinding of the Mexico City Policy was the least popular among the surveyed early actions of President Obama. While approval ratings for his other actions hovered around 75%, only 35% approved of Obama's decision to provide U.S. foreign aid for abortion groups.
Bill Would Allow Attorney General to Classify Pro-Life Americans as Terrorists
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A bill that is moving through Congress would allow the nation's Attorney General to classify pro-life Americans as terrorists. Rep. Alcee Hastings, a pro-abortion congressman, has introduced a bill that calls for the Attorney General to have discretion over who is called a terrorist and what groups will be treated as terrorist groups.
Congressman Trent Franks, a pro-life Republican from Arizona, talked about the bill: "While the amendment seeks to keep gang members and members of violent groups out of the military, the amendment by its language is much more broad. Specifically, it confers upon the Attorney General the ability to categorize groups as hate groups, and this sounds an alarm for many of us because of the recent shocking and offensive report released by the Department of Homeland Security which labeled, arguably, a majority of Americans as 'extremists.'" Franks continued, "I take extreme offense that the federal government -- through a report issued under the authority of a Cabinet-level official -- would dare to categorize people who are 'dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition or abortion,' as 'right-wing extremists' and it begs the question of whether the Attorney General, under Mr. Hastings' Amendment, can look to the Napolitano report to decide who is an extremist, or can make the same categorization of the majority of Americans as extremists who may then be kept from joining the military, or who may be discharged."
Pro-Life Congressmen to Offer Amendment to Prohibit Taxpayer Funded DC Abortions
Posted at Priests for Life
Congressmen Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) and Lincoln Davis (D-TN) of the House Appropriations Committee will offer an amendment Tuesday, July 7, to restore the Dornan Amendment and prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions in the District of Columbia. An Appropriations subcommittee voted to allow abortion funding in the nation’s capital late last month at the request of the Obama Administration. If passed, the Tiahrt/Davis amendment to stop the funding would save an estimated 1,000 lives a year.
copyright ©2008 One Nation Under God. All Rights Reserved