New poll suggests Americans are most concerned with the decline of the economy and morality and values
WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 /Christian Newswire/ -- A new poll co-commissioned by Concerned Women for America (CWA) and conducted by the polling company, inc./WomanTrend points to a huge task facing the new Congress. In a survey of 842 Americans who voted in yesterday's elections, the overwhelming majority want the government to stop spending immediately and focus on the economic decline as well as the decline of morality and values.
"As members of Congress and Republicans begin to consider their agenda for both the lame duck session of Congress and 2011 it is important to reflect upon the clear priorities of the American people and particularly American women. Both groups clearly stated in our poll that they are overwhelmingly fed up with the out-of-control government spending that has run rampant in the past two years and threatens the livelihood of many of our nation's families," said Penny Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America. "Even voters who once supported Barack Obama have changed course and voted for fiscal and social conservatives."
Of those surveyed, 47% voted for Barack Obama and 46% voted for John McCain in the last election; 45% identified themselves as conservatives, 25% liberals and 28% moderates. When asked if the government should stop spending now or keep spending to address the needs of the current generation, 64% (61% women) of respondents said to stop government spending now in order to stop increases in the national debt.
And when asked about the most important challenges facing future generations, 75% said economic decline. Coming in at a close second at 62% (63% women) said the decline of morality and values.
"Americans want an ethical government that spends wisely and protects traditional values and morals," continued Nance. "Americans, especially women, have high expectations for the new Congress. Half of the voters yesterday went into the polls feeling concerned, while another third described themselves as frustrated - those are strong emotions that demand the country do a complete about face."
"Yesterday's wins are only a start. As Americans continue to face unemployment, declining wages, and foreclosures, the work to undo the last two years of failed policies, rampant government spending, and the legalization of taxpayer-funded abortion, begins now. Concerned Women for America is prepared to remind Washington of their campaign promises."
To speak with Penny Nance, please contact Kristina Hernandez at 703-373-0632 or khernandez@crcpublicrelations.com.
Christian Newswire
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
Americans Remember Health Care Betrayal at the Polls
WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 /Christian Newswire/ -- Representative Bart Stupak and the majority of his collaborators who provided the votes for the pro-abortion health care bill were sent packing as a result of voter outrage culminating in yesterday's election: Representatives Alan Mollohan, Steve Driehaus, Baron Hill, Chris Carney, Kathy Dahlkemper, Marcy Kaptur, Charlie Wilson, Brad Ellsworth, Jim Oberstar and John Boccieri. Only Representatives Marcy Kaptur, Joe Donnelly and Jerry Costello escaped voters' wrath.
"Last night's vote was crystal clear: Americans do not want their money to pay for abortions," said Concerned Women for America Director of Legislation and Public Policy Shari Rendall.
According to Concerned Women for America CEO Penny Nance, selling their votes to pass the controversial health care bill most Americans oppose was their ticket home. "Yesterday's vote showed that Americans realized that President Obama's executive order was just a sham to ram through this unpopular bill."
Concerned Women for America is the nation's largest public policy women's organization.
Christian Newswire
"Last night's vote was crystal clear: Americans do not want their money to pay for abortions," said Concerned Women for America Director of Legislation and Public Policy Shari Rendall.
According to Concerned Women for America CEO Penny Nance, selling their votes to pass the controversial health care bill most Americans oppose was their ticket home. "Yesterday's vote showed that Americans realized that President Obama's executive order was just a sham to ram through this unpopular bill."
Concerned Women for America is the nation's largest public policy women's organization.
Christian Newswire
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Activist Judge Can't Wait for Docile Congress and Military to Cave in -- Orders Liberal Agenda Now
WASHINGTON, Sept. 10 /Christian Newswire/ -- A federal judge in California has ruled that the military's ban on homosexuals openly serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Penny Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America said, "It should not be activist judges who determine what is best for our troops. This judge's ruling shows a blatant disregard for Congress and the military. It should only be at the discretion of Congress and those in military positions who are trained and competent to decide what is in the best interest of the military and what regulations are best for the readiness of our troops."
Shari Rendall, Director of Legislation and Public Policy for CWA, said, "It is appalling that during a time when this country is fighting two wars, that a hostile social agenda would distract from the most important thing we could give our troops- support in a time when military readiness should be priority."
Concerned Women for America is the nation's largest public policy women's organization.
Christian Newswire
Penny Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America said, "It should not be activist judges who determine what is best for our troops. This judge's ruling shows a blatant disregard for Congress and the military. It should only be at the discretion of Congress and those in military positions who are trained and competent to decide what is in the best interest of the military and what regulations are best for the readiness of our troops."
Shari Rendall, Director of Legislation and Public Policy for CWA, said, "It is appalling that during a time when this country is fighting two wars, that a hostile social agenda would distract from the most important thing we could give our troops- support in a time when military readiness should be priority."
Concerned Women for America is the nation's largest public policy women's organization.
Christian Newswire
Thursday, August 19, 2010
New Pew Research Center Survey Reveals Growing Number of Americans Who Say Barack Obama is a Muslim
WASHINGTON, Aug. 19 /Christian Newswire/ -- A new national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life finds that a substantial and growing number of Americans say that Barack Obama is a Muslim, while the proportion saying he is a Christian has declined. More than a year and a half into his presidency, a plurality of the public says they do not know what religion Obama follows.
According to the survey, nearly one-in-five Americans (18%) now say Obama is a Muslim-an increase from 11% in March 2009. Only about one-third of adults (34%) say Obama is a Christian, a sharp decrease from 48% in 2009. Fully 43% say they do not know what Obama's religion is. The survey was completed in early August, before Obama's recent comments about the proposed construction of a mosque near the site of the former World Trade Center.
The belief that Obama is a Muslim has increased most sharply among Republicans (up 14 points since 2009), especially conservative Republicans (up 16 points). But the number of independents who say Obama is a Muslim has also increased significantly (up eight points). There has been little change in the number of Democrats who say Obama is a Muslim, but fewer Democrats today say he is a Christian (down nine points since 2009).
The new poll, conducted between July 21 and Aug. 5 among 3,003 respondents, also examines the link between Americans' perception of Obama's religion and their opinion of his job performance, and covers views on the President's approach to religion, including the influence of his religious beliefs on policy decisions. In addition, the survey explores Americans' attitudes toward churches' involvement in politics and religion's influence on American life and government, and looks at religion's impact on voting preferences for the upcoming 2010 congressional races.
The report, including a summary and topline questionnaire, will be accessible on the Forum's new Web feature, "Religion & Politics 2010," which provides a variety of election resources, including:
• Poll analyses and survey reports on topics related to the midterm elections
• Links to news stories about religion-related issues impacting 2010 congressional and gubernatorial races around the country
• "Election news briefs" highlighting interesting articles and common themes making news headlines
The Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life conducts surveys, demographic analyses and other social science research on important aspects of religion and public life in the U.S. and around the world. As part of the Washington-based Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy organization, the Pew Forum does not take positions on any of the issues it covers or on policy debates.
Christian Newswire
According to the survey, nearly one-in-five Americans (18%) now say Obama is a Muslim-an increase from 11% in March 2009. Only about one-third of adults (34%) say Obama is a Christian, a sharp decrease from 48% in 2009. Fully 43% say they do not know what Obama's religion is. The survey was completed in early August, before Obama's recent comments about the proposed construction of a mosque near the site of the former World Trade Center.
The belief that Obama is a Muslim has increased most sharply among Republicans (up 14 points since 2009), especially conservative Republicans (up 16 points). But the number of independents who say Obama is a Muslim has also increased significantly (up eight points). There has been little change in the number of Democrats who say Obama is a Muslim, but fewer Democrats today say he is a Christian (down nine points since 2009).
The new poll, conducted between July 21 and Aug. 5 among 3,003 respondents, also examines the link between Americans' perception of Obama's religion and their opinion of his job performance, and covers views on the President's approach to religion, including the influence of his religious beliefs on policy decisions. In addition, the survey explores Americans' attitudes toward churches' involvement in politics and religion's influence on American life and government, and looks at religion's impact on voting preferences for the upcoming 2010 congressional races.
The report, including a summary and topline questionnaire, will be accessible on the Forum's new Web feature, "Religion & Politics 2010," which provides a variety of election resources, including:
• Poll analyses and survey reports on topics related to the midterm elections
• Links to news stories about religion-related issues impacting 2010 congressional and gubernatorial races around the country
• "Election news briefs" highlighting interesting articles and common themes making news headlines
The Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life conducts surveys, demographic analyses and other social science research on important aspects of religion and public life in the U.S. and around the world. As part of the Washington-based Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy organization, the Pew Forum does not take positions on any of the issues it covers or on policy debates.
Christian Newswire
Thursday, July 29, 2010
It's Official: ObamaCare Covers Abortion
WASHINGTON, July 28 /Christian Newswire/ -- The Congressional Research Service (CRS) confirmed in a report released today that abortions can be funded under ObamaCare. Concerned Women for America (CWA) President Wendy Wright stated:
"The House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly for an amendment to ObamaCare to ban funding abortion. But the final bill stripped that amendment and was passed on a promise from Pres. Obama that he would sign an executive order banning abortion funding. This CRS report proves that was an empty promise.
"Pres. Obama and Secretary Sebelius need to make this right and pass regulations ensuring our tax dollars do not pay for killing innocent children and harming women. Congress should also learn from this fiasco that ObamaCare has nasty surprises in it and repeal the whole thing."
Concerned Women for America is the nation's largest public policy women's organization.
Christian Newswire
"The House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly for an amendment to ObamaCare to ban funding abortion. But the final bill stripped that amendment and was passed on a promise from Pres. Obama that he would sign an executive order banning abortion funding. This CRS report proves that was an empty promise.
"Pres. Obama and Secretary Sebelius need to make this right and pass regulations ensuring our tax dollars do not pay for killing innocent children and harming women. Congress should also learn from this fiasco that ObamaCare has nasty surprises in it and repeal the whole thing."
Concerned Women for America is the nation's largest public policy women's organization.
Christian Newswire
Monday, July 19, 2010
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Elena Kagan 'A Liberal Political Soldier, Not an Impartial Jurist'
Nominee not fit for Supreme Court
WASHINGTON, June 24 /Christian Newswire/ -- This morning, Mario Diaz, Esq., Policy Director for Legal Issues for Concerned Women for America (CWA), participated in a press conference in front of the Supreme Court to address the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Diaz was joined by representatives from the Committee for Justice, Center for Military Readiness, Liberty Center for Law and Policy, and Americans United for Life.
Diaz said of Kagan's nomination, "Contrary to the 'blank slate' the White House media machine has tried to sell the American people, an objective review of Elena Kagan's record reveals a surprisingly clear picture of who she is. Kagan's record is that of a liberal political soldier, not an impartial jurist.
"And that is the real danger of this nomination. If Kagan, even with her radically liberal ideology, had a clear record of respect for the Constitution and judicial restraint, then we would not have this problem. But when you believe, as Kagan has stated, that judges can 'steer the law in order to promote certain ethical values and achieve certain social ends,' then it is clear your impartiality must be questioned and you should never be a judge anywhere, least of all on the highest court in the land.
"This issue is beyond politics. CWA would oppose a judge willing to circumvent the law to achieve the results we want. Judges must follow the law and the Constitution as written.
"CWA members and state leaders from several states around the country came yesterday to the Capitol to talk to their senators about this nomination. They expressed a feeling that is palpable to them at the state level: Americans believe the real problem we have is an Executive, Legislative and Judicial branch that continually overstep their Constitutional boundaries. And we are tired of it.
"Elena Kagan's nomination is just the latest symptom of this disease that has infected Washington, D.C. She should never be confirmed as the next justice of the Supreme Court."
Full statement can be found here:
www.cwfa.org/images/content/kaganpressstatement.pdf
Concerned Women for America is the nation's largest public policy women's organization.
Christian Newswire
WASHINGTON, June 24 /Christian Newswire/ -- This morning, Mario Diaz, Esq., Policy Director for Legal Issues for Concerned Women for America (CWA), participated in a press conference in front of the Supreme Court to address the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Diaz was joined by representatives from the Committee for Justice, Center for Military Readiness, Liberty Center for Law and Policy, and Americans United for Life.
Diaz said of Kagan's nomination, "Contrary to the 'blank slate' the White House media machine has tried to sell the American people, an objective review of Elena Kagan's record reveals a surprisingly clear picture of who she is. Kagan's record is that of a liberal political soldier, not an impartial jurist.
"And that is the real danger of this nomination. If Kagan, even with her radically liberal ideology, had a clear record of respect for the Constitution and judicial restraint, then we would not have this problem. But when you believe, as Kagan has stated, that judges can 'steer the law in order to promote certain ethical values and achieve certain social ends,' then it is clear your impartiality must be questioned and you should never be a judge anywhere, least of all on the highest court in the land.
"This issue is beyond politics. CWA would oppose a judge willing to circumvent the law to achieve the results we want. Judges must follow the law and the Constitution as written.
"CWA members and state leaders from several states around the country came yesterday to the Capitol to talk to their senators about this nomination. They expressed a feeling that is palpable to them at the state level: Americans believe the real problem we have is an Executive, Legislative and Judicial branch that continually overstep their Constitutional boundaries. And we are tired of it.
"Elena Kagan's nomination is just the latest symptom of this disease that has infected Washington, D.C. She should never be confirmed as the next justice of the Supreme Court."
Full statement can be found here:
www.cwfa.org/images/content/kaganpressstatement.pdf
Concerned Women for America is the nation's largest public policy women's organization.
Christian Newswire
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
GAO Report on Planned Parenthood Reveals Startling Discrepancy
WASHINGTON, June 22 /Christian Newswire/ -- "American Life League's STOP Planned Parenthood project analyzed a new report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office on federal tax money funneled into Planned Parenthood," announced American Life League President Judie Brown.
According to the GAO report, Planned Parenthood Federation of America audits show the organization spent only $657.1 million between 2002 and 2008 from federal government grants and programs when the abortion behemoth's annual reports show it took in $2 billion from government grants and programs during the same time period.
"That leaves $1.3 billion unaccounted for. That's not pocket change," said STOPP national director Rita Diller. "Why the discrepancy? These numbers don't add up and from an organization with a track record like Planned Parenthood's, the American people deserve an explanation."
The report was requested by 31 U.S. senators and representatives. It is the first of its kind since the 2001 figures released by the GAO in 2003. STOPP notes that Planned Parenthood has other sources of government funding - state and local - and that the GAO report for 2001 shows that PPFA expenditures of federal money accounted for 79 percent of its government income. The new report shows PPFA expenditures of federal money comprising an average of only 32 percent of its government income from 2002 through 2008.
"It is simply not believable such a large amount of its funding is from local and state sources," Diller said
Additionally, in just two weeks, Planned Parenthood will complete its 2009-2010 fiscal year. Yet it still has not released its annual report for its 2008-2009 fiscal year.
"So breaking down the situation," Diller said, "At a time when the majority of Americans consider themselves pro-life, Planned Parenthood rakes in over two billion of our tax dollars, inconsistently reports how they spent our tax money and then admits to killing 1,803,302 preborn babies between 2002 and 2008 alone."
"A growing number of Americans are fed up. It's time to defund Planned Parenthood."
American Life League was cofounded in 1979 by Judie Brown. It is the largest grassroots Catholic pro-life organization in the United States and is committed to the protection of all innocent human beings from the moment of creation to natural death. For more information or press inquiries, please contact Katie Walker at 540.659.4942.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Washington Times: Diller: Planned Parenthood's Missing Millions (21 June 2010)
American Life League: GAO Report
Christian Newswire
According to the GAO report, Planned Parenthood Federation of America audits show the organization spent only $657.1 million between 2002 and 2008 from federal government grants and programs when the abortion behemoth's annual reports show it took in $2 billion from government grants and programs during the same time period.
"That leaves $1.3 billion unaccounted for. That's not pocket change," said STOPP national director Rita Diller. "Why the discrepancy? These numbers don't add up and from an organization with a track record like Planned Parenthood's, the American people deserve an explanation."
The report was requested by 31 U.S. senators and representatives. It is the first of its kind since the 2001 figures released by the GAO in 2003. STOPP notes that Planned Parenthood has other sources of government funding - state and local - and that the GAO report for 2001 shows that PPFA expenditures of federal money accounted for 79 percent of its government income. The new report shows PPFA expenditures of federal money comprising an average of only 32 percent of its government income from 2002 through 2008.
"It is simply not believable such a large amount of its funding is from local and state sources," Diller said
Additionally, in just two weeks, Planned Parenthood will complete its 2009-2010 fiscal year. Yet it still has not released its annual report for its 2008-2009 fiscal year.
"So breaking down the situation," Diller said, "At a time when the majority of Americans consider themselves pro-life, Planned Parenthood rakes in over two billion of our tax dollars, inconsistently reports how they spent our tax money and then admits to killing 1,803,302 preborn babies between 2002 and 2008 alone."
"A growing number of Americans are fed up. It's time to defund Planned Parenthood."
American Life League was cofounded in 1979 by Judie Brown. It is the largest grassroots Catholic pro-life organization in the United States and is committed to the protection of all innocent human beings from the moment of creation to natural death. For more information or press inquiries, please contact Katie Walker at 540.659.4942.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Washington Times: Diller: Planned Parenthood's Missing Millions (21 June 2010)
American Life League: GAO Report
Christian Newswire
Monday, May 10, 2010
2009 Confirmation Hearing Shows Kagan a Pro-Abortion, Homosexual Activist
A.L.L. Wants Answers: Does The Constitution Apply to Some Human Beings or All Human Beings?
WASHINGTON, May 10 /Christian Newswire/ -- American Life League President Judie Brown issued the following statement on the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to replace Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.
"On this Monday morning the 51 percent of Americans who self-identify as 'pro-life' are demanding answers to Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's rabidly pro- abortion and anti-marriage record.
"Kagan's 2009 confirmation hearings reveal her deep adherence to stare decisis when it comes to 'a women's right to terminate her pregnancy,' yet Ms. Kagan has demonstrated her willingness to depart from established law in regards to homosexual issues.
"Kagan swore in the hearings to represent 'with vigor' interests of the United States 'even when they conflict with my own opinions,' yet in August 2009, the Department of Justice under Kagan's watch, filed a reply brief in a California case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act.
"Clearly, Kagan has demonstrated a record of interpreting the law in the light of homosexual, pro- abortion activism.
"What's at stake here is the core constitutional question that passionately divides the country - does our Constitution seek human rights for all human beings or merely some human beings? Kagan's answers to her 2009 confirmation hearings provide clear insight into her future judicial philosophy.
"Will President Obama's nomination of Solicitor General Kagan be another example of his continued disregard for human rights in favor of advancing his favorite pet political agenda - abortion on demand courtesy of the American tax dollar?
"With the nomination of 50-year-old Kagan, will President Obama assure his long-lasting assault on the most fundamental human right of personhood?
"As President Obama races against the election clock, he has worked to undermine many of the American values and principles that make this nation the greatest on Earth.
"Despite his best efforts to assail human rights through nominations so blatantly anti-life, anti- marriage and anti-personhood - the voice of the American people - of the 51 percent of Americans who self-identify as "pro-life" will have the last say."
American Life League was cofounded in 1979 by Judie Brown. It is the largest grassroots Catholic pro-life organization in the United States and is committed to the protection of all innocent human beings from the moment of creation to natural death. For more information or press inquiries, please contact Katie Walker at 540.659.4942.
Christian Newswire
WASHINGTON, May 10 /Christian Newswire/ -- American Life League President Judie Brown issued the following statement on the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to replace Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.
"On this Monday morning the 51 percent of Americans who self-identify as 'pro-life' are demanding answers to Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's rabidly pro- abortion and anti-marriage record.
"Kagan's 2009 confirmation hearings reveal her deep adherence to stare decisis when it comes to 'a women's right to terminate her pregnancy,' yet Ms. Kagan has demonstrated her willingness to depart from established law in regards to homosexual issues.
"Kagan swore in the hearings to represent 'with vigor' interests of the United States 'even when they conflict with my own opinions,' yet in August 2009, the Department of Justice under Kagan's watch, filed a reply brief in a California case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act.
"Clearly, Kagan has demonstrated a record of interpreting the law in the light of homosexual, pro- abortion activism.
"What's at stake here is the core constitutional question that passionately divides the country - does our Constitution seek human rights for all human beings or merely some human beings? Kagan's answers to her 2009 confirmation hearings provide clear insight into her future judicial philosophy.
"Will President Obama's nomination of Solicitor General Kagan be another example of his continued disregard for human rights in favor of advancing his favorite pet political agenda - abortion on demand courtesy of the American tax dollar?
"With the nomination of 50-year-old Kagan, will President Obama assure his long-lasting assault on the most fundamental human right of personhood?
"As President Obama races against the election clock, he has worked to undermine many of the American values and principles that make this nation the greatest on Earth.
"Despite his best efforts to assail human rights through nominations so blatantly anti-life, anti- marriage and anti-personhood - the voice of the American people - of the 51 percent of Americans who self-identify as "pro-life" will have the last say."
American Life League was cofounded in 1979 by Judie Brown. It is the largest grassroots Catholic pro-life organization in the United States and is committed to the protection of all innocent human beings from the moment of creation to natural death. For more information or press inquiries, please contact Katie Walker at 540.659.4942.
Christian Newswire
Pro-Life Group Demands Senate Uncover Elena Kagan's Views on Abortion
Dannenfelser: "When evidence of personal preference appears in any Supreme Court nominee's judgment, it should give all women pause."
WASHINGTON, May 10 /Christian Newswire/ -- Today, in response to President Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan to the United States Supreme Court, Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of the Susan B. Anthony List, offered the following statement:
"Elena Kagan has no judicial record from which to determine her position on Roe v. Wade, but she has publicly criticized the 1991 Supreme Court ruling to allow the Department of Health and Human Services to restrict funding from groups that performed or promoted abortion, and has also criticized crisis pregnancy centers. Additionally, President Obama has said he prefers a Supreme Court nominee who would take a special interest in 'women's rights'--a barely masked euphemism for abortion rights. Through the judicial confirmation process the American people must know where Elena Kagan stands on the abortion issue, and it is the responsibility of the U.S. Senate to find out.
"Ms. Kagan's publicly demonstrated prejudices do not lend themselves well to blind justice. Susan B. Anthony and her early feminist compatriots fought for a human rights standard sustained only through blind justice--and they knew that one group is never served by undermining the rights of another. Women will never be served by ignoring the rights of unborn children. When evidence of personal preference appears in any Supreme Court nominee's judgment, it should give all women pause."
Previously, Elena Kagan publicly criticized a 1991 Supreme Court ruling in Rust v. Sullivan that upheld the right of the Department of Health and Human Services that restricted Title X funding from groups that performed or promoted abortion. Additionally, she has expressed her belief that pregnancy centers should be barred from guiding teens in decisions about their pregnancy.
The Susan B. Anthony List is a nationwide network of Americans, over 280,000 residing in all 50 states, dedicated to mobilizing, advancing, and representing pro-life women in politics. Its connected Candidate Fund increases the percentage of pro-life women in the political process.
Christian Newswire
WASHINGTON, May 10 /Christian Newswire/ -- Today, in response to President Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan to the United States Supreme Court, Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of the Susan B. Anthony List, offered the following statement:
"Elena Kagan has no judicial record from which to determine her position on Roe v. Wade, but she has publicly criticized the 1991 Supreme Court ruling to allow the Department of Health and Human Services to restrict funding from groups that performed or promoted abortion, and has also criticized crisis pregnancy centers. Additionally, President Obama has said he prefers a Supreme Court nominee who would take a special interest in 'women's rights'--a barely masked euphemism for abortion rights. Through the judicial confirmation process the American people must know where Elena Kagan stands on the abortion issue, and it is the responsibility of the U.S. Senate to find out.
"Ms. Kagan's publicly demonstrated prejudices do not lend themselves well to blind justice. Susan B. Anthony and her early feminist compatriots fought for a human rights standard sustained only through blind justice--and they knew that one group is never served by undermining the rights of another. Women will never be served by ignoring the rights of unborn children. When evidence of personal preference appears in any Supreme Court nominee's judgment, it should give all women pause."
Previously, Elena Kagan publicly criticized a 1991 Supreme Court ruling in Rust v. Sullivan that upheld the right of the Department of Health and Human Services that restricted Title X funding from groups that performed or promoted abortion. Additionally, she has expressed her belief that pregnancy centers should be barred from guiding teens in decisions about their pregnancy.
The Susan B. Anthony List is a nationwide network of Americans, over 280,000 residing in all 50 states, dedicated to mobilizing, advancing, and representing pro-life women in politics. Its connected Candidate Fund increases the percentage of pro-life women in the political process.
Christian Newswire
Fr. Pavone on Kagan Nomination
WASHINGTON, May 10 /Christian Newswire/ -- Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, issued the following statement in response to the President's anticipated announcement today of his choice for a Supreme Court nominee:
"Supreme Court Justices are not supposed to shape public policy, and their nomination and confirmation should be based on their qualifications, not their views on specific issues.
"But there are certain issues so central to the very nature and purpose of government that one's position on those issues is tantamount to a qualification for the job. The very purpose of government is the protection of human rights, starting with life. No court can legitimize an act of violence, such as abortion, or take away human rights. Anyone who fails to affirm that does not belong in any public office, much less the US Supreme Court."
Priests for Life has begun a Facebook page for people who hold the same view; see www.priestsforlife.org/facebook for details.
Priests for Life is the nation's largest Catholic pro-life organization dedicated to ending abortion and euthanasia. For more information, visit www.priestsforlife.org.
Christian Newswire
"Supreme Court Justices are not supposed to shape public policy, and their nomination and confirmation should be based on their qualifications, not their views on specific issues.
"But there are certain issues so central to the very nature and purpose of government that one's position on those issues is tantamount to a qualification for the job. The very purpose of government is the protection of human rights, starting with life. No court can legitimize an act of violence, such as abortion, or take away human rights. Anyone who fails to affirm that does not belong in any public office, much less the US Supreme Court."
Priests for Life has begun a Facebook page for people who hold the same view; see www.priestsforlife.org/facebook for details.
Priests for Life is the nation's largest Catholic pro-life organization dedicated to ending abortion and euthanasia. For more information, visit www.priestsforlife.org.
Christian Newswire
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
Stupak, 'Pro-Life' Allies Targeted in New Ad and Phone Call Campaign
$150,000 Campaign Also Praises True Pro-Life Democrats
WASHINGTON, April 6 /Christian Newswire/ -- Today the Susan B. Anthony List will launch a $150,000 radio advertisement and automated phone call campaign in the districts of Reps. Steve Driehaus (OH-1), Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-3), Brad Ellsworth (IN-9) , Alan Mollohan (WV-1), and Bart Stupak (MI-1) to inform voters that their 'Yes' vote on healthcare reform forces taxpayers to pay for abortion:
"Leading up to the fateful vote on healthcare reform, the Susan B. Anthony List was working tirelessly to build up grassroots support and encouragement for self- labeled 'pro-life' Democrats, including Rep. Stupak," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of Susan B. Anthony List. "Since these Democrats instead traded their legislative power to prevent taxpayer funding of abortion for an Executive Order that did nothing to protect the status quo and address the fundamental taxpayer abortion funding problem in the bill, we have had to change course. Now, with severe disappointment, we go back to their districts to tell voters that their representative ushered in the greatest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade. We will make sure that their constituents understand the enormous gravity of this pro-abortion vote."
In addition, SBA List will launch a phone campaign with a message praising the true pro-life Democrats. Reps. Gene Taylor (MS-4) and Dan Lipinski (IL-3) held their resolve and stood behind their principles.
The ad running in Rep. Stupak's district includes the following narration. Ads in other districts contain similar wording:
"It was the ultimate betrayal.
"Congressman Bark Stupak told us he was pro-life. Stupak promised us he would protect the unborn. That he would stand firm...and lead the coalition to keep abortion funding out of the health care bill.
"But Bart Stupak betrayed us...and voted to spend federal dollars -- our dollars -- on abortions. He should be ashamed.
"...Tell Bart Stupak we will not forget."
Members of Congress and advocacy groups on both sides admit that President Obama's Executive Order is meaningless. On March 2, 2010, Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, co-chair of the House Pro-Choice Caucus, told FOX News that "an executive order cannot change the law." The United States Conference of Catholic has said 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."
This latest grassroots campaign comes on the heels of last year's nearly $2 million effort to keep abortion out of healthcare which included targeted television and radio ads, 1.3 million automated calls, 60,000 patch-through constituent calls, 1.2 million letters and petitions to Congress and two media tours in pro-life Democratic districts.
The Susan B. Anthony List is a nationwide network of Americans, over 280,000 residing in all 50 states, dedicated to mobilizing, advancing, and representing pro-life women in politics. Its connected Candidate Fund increases the percentage of pro-life women in the political process.
Christian Newswire
WASHINGTON, April 6 /Christian Newswire/ -- Today the Susan B. Anthony List will launch a $150,000 radio advertisement and automated phone call campaign in the districts of Reps. Steve Driehaus (OH-1), Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-3), Brad Ellsworth (IN-9) , Alan Mollohan (WV-1), and Bart Stupak (MI-1) to inform voters that their 'Yes' vote on healthcare reform forces taxpayers to pay for abortion:
"Leading up to the fateful vote on healthcare reform, the Susan B. Anthony List was working tirelessly to build up grassroots support and encouragement for self- labeled 'pro-life' Democrats, including Rep. Stupak," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of Susan B. Anthony List. "Since these Democrats instead traded their legislative power to prevent taxpayer funding of abortion for an Executive Order that did nothing to protect the status quo and address the fundamental taxpayer abortion funding problem in the bill, we have had to change course. Now, with severe disappointment, we go back to their districts to tell voters that their representative ushered in the greatest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade. We will make sure that their constituents understand the enormous gravity of this pro-abortion vote."
In addition, SBA List will launch a phone campaign with a message praising the true pro-life Democrats. Reps. Gene Taylor (MS-4) and Dan Lipinski (IL-3) held their resolve and stood behind their principles.
The ad running in Rep. Stupak's district includes the following narration. Ads in other districts contain similar wording:
"It was the ultimate betrayal.
"Congressman Bark Stupak told us he was pro-life. Stupak promised us he would protect the unborn. That he would stand firm...and lead the coalition to keep abortion funding out of the health care bill.
"But Bart Stupak betrayed us...and voted to spend federal dollars -- our dollars -- on abortions. He should be ashamed.
"...Tell Bart Stupak we will not forget."
Members of Congress and advocacy groups on both sides admit that President Obama's Executive Order is meaningless. On March 2, 2010, Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, co-chair of the House Pro-Choice Caucus, told FOX News that "an executive order cannot change the law." The United States Conference of Catholic has said 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."
This latest grassroots campaign comes on the heels of last year's nearly $2 million effort to keep abortion out of healthcare which included targeted television and radio ads, 1.3 million automated calls, 60,000 patch-through constituent calls, 1.2 million letters and petitions to Congress and two media tours in pro-life Democratic districts.
The Susan B. Anthony List is a nationwide network of Americans, over 280,000 residing in all 50 states, dedicated to mobilizing, advancing, and representing pro-life women in politics. Its connected Candidate Fund increases the percentage of pro-life women in the political process.
Christian Newswire
Monday, January 18, 2010
Los Angeles County Schools and Sheriff's Department Forced to Pay More Than a Quarter-Million Dollars in Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR) Attorney Fees
MEDIA ADVISORY, Jan. 18 /Christian Newswire/ -- Pursuant to a unanimous ruling issued in favor of The Center For Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR) by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, several of its deputies, and a middle school official in the Los Angeles County School District were forced to pay $260,000 in costs and fees for infringing on CBR's constitutional right to demonstrate with graphic abortion images on the public streets in California. CBR attorneys at The Thomas More Law Center yesterday announced the processing of the Los Angeles County attorney fee award payment.
In deciding this appeal, the Ninth Circuit ruled that, "There is . . . no precedent for a 'minor' exception to the prohibition on banning speech because of listeners' reaction to its content. It would therefore be an unprecedented departure from bedrock First Amendment principles to allow the government to restrict speech based on listener reaction simply because the listeners are children."
Not content to mislead its students by covering-up the horror of abortion in the classroom, Los Angeles County tried to extend their cover-up to the public streets outside the classroom.
Ironically, while the Los Angeles County schools were wasting taxpayer money interfering with CBR's First Amendment right to expose the horror of abortion, The Los Angeles Times yesterday reported a story headlined, "L.A. schools paid $200 million more in salaries than budgeted" with a sub-headline which read "The payments occurred despite the layoffs of 2,000 teachers and hundreds of other employees."
Ironically, while the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department was wasting taxpayer money interfering with CBR's First Amendment right to expose the horror of abortion, NBCLosAngeles.com yesterday reported a story headlined, "County Budget: A Crisis of Gargantuan Proportions."
Ironically, while the Los Angeles County Schools argue that its students are old enough to obtain abortion without parental consent, school officials argue that its students are not old enough to see abortions without parental consent. Ironically, while the Los Angeles County Schools are supposed to be teaching students to respect the Constitution, school officials are being rebuked by the Federal Appeals Courts for flagrantly violating CBR's constitutional rights.
Ironically, while the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, Sheriff's deputies are being rebuked by the Federal Appeals Courts for flagrantly violating CBR's constitutional rights.
In addition to CBR being threatened with arrest for showing students the truth about abortion, CBR volunteer James Pullion was recently shot and killed for showing students abortion photos outside a public school in Michigan. CBR is serving notice on would- be shooters that we are contracting with licensed, armed, security personnel who will protect our staff while displaying abortion photos in public.
CBR is also serving notice on law enforcement departments and other agencies of government which attempt to intimidate us with improper threats of arrest, that such abuses will result in CBR lawsuits which will you will lose, along with the loss of hundreds of thousands in wasted tax dollars.
For interviews or further statements contact:
Don Cooper
Project Manager/The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform
P.O. Box 219
Lake Forest, CA 92609
office: 949-206-0600
cell: 541-760-6620
email: don@cbrinfo.org
webpage: http://www.abortionno.org/
Please see The Thomas More Center announcement on the following link: www.abortionno.org/pdf/CBRvsLACSD-VictoryLetter.pdf
Find the entire Press Release in pdf format at: http://www.abortionno.org/pdf/LACountyAttorneyFeePressRelease.pdf
Christian Newswire
In deciding this appeal, the Ninth Circuit ruled that, "There is . . . no precedent for a 'minor' exception to the prohibition on banning speech because of listeners' reaction to its content. It would therefore be an unprecedented departure from bedrock First Amendment principles to allow the government to restrict speech based on listener reaction simply because the listeners are children."
Not content to mislead its students by covering-up the horror of abortion in the classroom, Los Angeles County tried to extend their cover-up to the public streets outside the classroom.
Ironically, while the Los Angeles County schools were wasting taxpayer money interfering with CBR's First Amendment right to expose the horror of abortion, The Los Angeles Times yesterday reported a story headlined, "L.A. schools paid $200 million more in salaries than budgeted" with a sub-headline which read "The payments occurred despite the layoffs of 2,000 teachers and hundreds of other employees."
Ironically, while the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department was wasting taxpayer money interfering with CBR's First Amendment right to expose the horror of abortion, NBCLosAngeles.com yesterday reported a story headlined, "County Budget: A Crisis of Gargantuan Proportions."
Ironically, while the Los Angeles County Schools argue that its students are old enough to obtain abortion without parental consent, school officials argue that its students are not old enough to see abortions without parental consent. Ironically, while the Los Angeles County Schools are supposed to be teaching students to respect the Constitution, school officials are being rebuked by the Federal Appeals Courts for flagrantly violating CBR's constitutional rights.
Ironically, while the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, Sheriff's deputies are being rebuked by the Federal Appeals Courts for flagrantly violating CBR's constitutional rights.
In addition to CBR being threatened with arrest for showing students the truth about abortion, CBR volunteer James Pullion was recently shot and killed for showing students abortion photos outside a public school in Michigan. CBR is serving notice on would- be shooters that we are contracting with licensed, armed, security personnel who will protect our staff while displaying abortion photos in public.
CBR is also serving notice on law enforcement departments and other agencies of government which attempt to intimidate us with improper threats of arrest, that such abuses will result in CBR lawsuits which will you will lose, along with the loss of hundreds of thousands in wasted tax dollars.
For interviews or further statements contact:
Don Cooper
Project Manager/The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform
P.O. Box 219
Lake Forest, CA 92609
office: 949-206-0600
cell: 541-760-6620
email: don@cbrinfo.org
webpage: http://www.abortionno.org/
Please see The Thomas More Center announcement on the following link: www.abortionno.org/pdf/CBRvsLACSD-VictoryLetter.pdf
Find the entire Press Release in pdf format at: http://www.abortionno.org/pdf/LACountyAttorneyFeePressRelease.pdf
Christian Newswire
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Pelosi’s archbishop slams her rationale for supporting abortion
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=18260
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., January 13 (CNA) - Archbishop George Niederauer responded today to Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) recent comments that she has “some concerns about the Church's position respecting a woman's right to choose.” Justifying her decision to support abortion by citing her free will “is entirely incompatible with Catholic teaching,” the archbishop insisted.
Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi told Newsweek’s Eleanor Clift in a December 21, 2009 interview that she disagrees with the Church on certain issues but considers herself a “practicing Catholic.”
“I have some concerns about the church's position respecting a woman's right to choose. I have some concerns about the church's position on gay rights. I am a practicing Catholic, although they're probably not too happy about that. But it is my faith. I feel what I was raised to believe is consistent with what I profess, and that is that we are all endowed with a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. And that women should have that opportunity to exercise their free will,” Pelosi said.
Archbishop Niederauer countered in his January 13 column, “Embodied in that statement are some fundamental misconceptions about Catholic teaching on human freedom.” God gave human beings the capacity to choose between good and evil in order to give them the gift of freedom, even at the cost of many evil choices, the archbishop said.
But this gift of freedom, the freedom wrongly cited in justifying a woman’s right to choose, among other fallacies, does not justify the position that “all moral choices are good if they are free,” insisted Archbishop Niederauer, because “the exercise of freedom does not imply a right to say or do everything.”
Addressing those who advocate for “reproductive choice” while claiming to be Catholic, Archbishop Niederauer emphasized, “it is entirely incompatible with Catholic teaching to conclude that our freedom of will justifies choices that are radically contrary to the Gospel—racism, infidelity, abortion, theft. Freedom of will is the capacity to act with moral responsibility; it is not the ability to determine arbitrarily what constitutes moral right.”
The belief in the validity of arbitrarily determining right and wrong is widespread both in and outside of the Church, the archbishop noted.
Touching on the meaning of one's conscience, the San Francisco archbishop described it as “the judgment of reason whereby the human person, guided by God’s grace, recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act. In all we say and do, we are obliged to follow faithfully what we know to be just and right.”
“As participants in the life of the civil community,” Archbishop Niederauer wrote, “we Catholic citizens try to follow our consciences, guided, as described above, by reason and the grace of God. While we deeply respect the freedom of our fellow citizens, we nevertheless are profoundly convinced that free will cannot be cited as justification for society to allow moral choices that strike at the most fundamental rights of others. Such a choice is abortion, which constitutes the taking of innocent human life, and cannot be justified by any Catholic notion of freedom.”
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., January 13 (CNA) - Archbishop George Niederauer responded today to Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) recent comments that she has “some concerns about the Church's position respecting a woman's right to choose.” Justifying her decision to support abortion by citing her free will “is entirely incompatible with Catholic teaching,” the archbishop insisted.
Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi told Newsweek’s Eleanor Clift in a December 21, 2009 interview that she disagrees with the Church on certain issues but considers herself a “practicing Catholic.”
“I have some concerns about the church's position respecting a woman's right to choose. I have some concerns about the church's position on gay rights. I am a practicing Catholic, although they're probably not too happy about that. But it is my faith. I feel what I was raised to believe is consistent with what I profess, and that is that we are all endowed with a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. And that women should have that opportunity to exercise their free will,” Pelosi said.
Archbishop Niederauer countered in his January 13 column, “Embodied in that statement are some fundamental misconceptions about Catholic teaching on human freedom.” God gave human beings the capacity to choose between good and evil in order to give them the gift of freedom, even at the cost of many evil choices, the archbishop said.
But this gift of freedom, the freedom wrongly cited in justifying a woman’s right to choose, among other fallacies, does not justify the position that “all moral choices are good if they are free,” insisted Archbishop Niederauer, because “the exercise of freedom does not imply a right to say or do everything.”
Addressing those who advocate for “reproductive choice” while claiming to be Catholic, Archbishop Niederauer emphasized, “it is entirely incompatible with Catholic teaching to conclude that our freedom of will justifies choices that are radically contrary to the Gospel—racism, infidelity, abortion, theft. Freedom of will is the capacity to act with moral responsibility; it is not the ability to determine arbitrarily what constitutes moral right.”
The belief in the validity of arbitrarily determining right and wrong is widespread both in and outside of the Church, the archbishop noted.
Touching on the meaning of one's conscience, the San Francisco archbishop described it as “the judgment of reason whereby the human person, guided by God’s grace, recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act. In all we say and do, we are obliged to follow faithfully what we know to be just and right.”
“As participants in the life of the civil community,” Archbishop Niederauer wrote, “we Catholic citizens try to follow our consciences, guided, as described above, by reason and the grace of God. While we deeply respect the freedom of our fellow citizens, we nevertheless are profoundly convinced that free will cannot be cited as justification for society to allow moral choices that strike at the most fundamental rights of others. Such a choice is abortion, which constitutes the taking of innocent human life, and cannot be justified by any Catholic notion of freedom.”
Abortion becomes issue in Massachusetts race for U.S. Senate
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=18266
BOSTON, MASS., January 14 (CNA) - Abortion has become a live issue in the Jan. 19 special U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts. While both candidates generally support permissive abortion law, controversy has centered upon pro-life conscience protections, partial-birth abortion and the place of abortion in the health care bill.
State Sen. Scott Brown, a Republican, is running against Democrat Martha Coakley, the state Attorney General.
According to Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Brown opposes taxpayer funding for abortion and the so-called Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). Unlike Brown, Coakley opposes a ban on partial birth abortion, parental consent requirements for minors seeking abortions, and favors taxpayer funding for abortion.
While Brown supports specifically exempting abortion from health care, Coakley opposes it.
Massachusetts Citizens for Life has supported Brown, claiming the less consistently pro-abortion rights candidate will be “a pro-life vote in the Senate,” the Boston Herald reports.
At the recent Monday night candidate debate, Coakley said she would not vote for a health care bill with a Stupak Amendment in it. She also asked Brown if he accepted the endorsement of a Massachusetts right-to-life organization.
Brown said he had a “very big tent.”
“You and I both have the same position on abortion,” he continued. “Roe v. Wade is the law of the land.”
He said there was a “very real difference” in that he opposed partial-birth abortion and she did not.
Coakley denied that characterization, but Brown said she had criticized the ban on partial birth abortion in an editorial.
Brown said he did not believe in federal funding of abortion but did support a “very strong” parental notification law. He charged that Coakley would be a “social crusader” on behalf of the pro-abortion rights group EMILY’s List.
For her part, Coakley cited Brown for supporting legislation that would allow hospital employees to “deny emergency care to rape victims if it was their choice.”
Brown defended his amendment, which failed in a 2005 vote, saying it allowed hospitals with “religious preferences” not to perform abortions or provide those services.
The Coakley campaign is now running a campaign ad on the issue.
Catholic hospitals have sought conscience exemptions from laws mandating emergency contraception for victims of sexual assault, citing concerns the treatment could kill any newly-conceived human being.
Brown and Coakley are among the candidates seeking to fill the U.S. Senate vacancy left by the death of Sen. Edward Kennedy.
While Massachusetts is a heavily Democratic state, some polls show a close race between the Republican and Democratic candidates.
BOSTON, MASS., January 14 (CNA) - Abortion has become a live issue in the Jan. 19 special U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts. While both candidates generally support permissive abortion law, controversy has centered upon pro-life conscience protections, partial-birth abortion and the place of abortion in the health care bill.
State Sen. Scott Brown, a Republican, is running against Democrat Martha Coakley, the state Attorney General.
According to Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Brown opposes taxpayer funding for abortion and the so-called Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). Unlike Brown, Coakley opposes a ban on partial birth abortion, parental consent requirements for minors seeking abortions, and favors taxpayer funding for abortion.
While Brown supports specifically exempting abortion from health care, Coakley opposes it.
Massachusetts Citizens for Life has supported Brown, claiming the less consistently pro-abortion rights candidate will be “a pro-life vote in the Senate,” the Boston Herald reports.
At the recent Monday night candidate debate, Coakley said she would not vote for a health care bill with a Stupak Amendment in it. She also asked Brown if he accepted the endorsement of a Massachusetts right-to-life organization.
Brown said he had a “very big tent.”
“You and I both have the same position on abortion,” he continued. “Roe v. Wade is the law of the land.”
He said there was a “very real difference” in that he opposed partial-birth abortion and she did not.
Coakley denied that characterization, but Brown said she had criticized the ban on partial birth abortion in an editorial.
Brown said he did not believe in federal funding of abortion but did support a “very strong” parental notification law. He charged that Coakley would be a “social crusader” on behalf of the pro-abortion rights group EMILY’s List.
For her part, Coakley cited Brown for supporting legislation that would allow hospital employees to “deny emergency care to rape victims if it was their choice.”
Brown defended his amendment, which failed in a 2005 vote, saying it allowed hospitals with “religious preferences” not to perform abortions or provide those services.
The Coakley campaign is now running a campaign ad on the issue.
Catholic hospitals have sought conscience exemptions from laws mandating emergency contraception for victims of sexual assault, citing concerns the treatment could kill any newly-conceived human being.
Brown and Coakley are among the candidates seeking to fill the U.S. Senate vacancy left by the death of Sen. Edward Kennedy.
While Massachusetts is a heavily Democratic state, some polls show a close race between the Republican and Democratic candidates.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Fr. Pavone Says Reid Health Care Bill is a Gift Americans Won't Accept
STATEN ISLAND, NY, Dec. 24 /Christian Newswire/ -- Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, the largest pro-life ministry in the Catholic Church, issued the following statement on this morning's passage of the Reid health care bill in the Senate.
"Apparently a Senate bill that unleashes unprecedented funding for abortions is the Senate's idea of a Christmas gift," said Fr. Pavone. "Given that taxpayers oppose public funding of abortion by a three- to-one margin, perhaps next November Senators will learn just how offensive their gift is. Beginning immediately, Priests for Life is mobilizing voters to put the right to life first in every election."
Priests for Life is the nation's largest Catholic pro- life organization dedicated to ending abortion and euthanasia. For more information, visit http://www.priestsforlife.org/ .
Christian Newswire
STATEN ISLAND, NY, Dec. 24 /Christian Newswire/ -- Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, the largest pro-life ministry in the Catholic Church, issued the following statement on this morning's passage of the Reid health care bill in the Senate.
"Apparently a Senate bill that unleashes unprecedented funding for abortions is the Senate's idea of a Christmas gift," said Fr. Pavone. "Given that taxpayers oppose public funding of abortion by a three- to-one margin, perhaps next November Senators will learn just how offensive their gift is. Beginning immediately, Priests for Life is mobilizing voters to put the right to life first in every election."
Priests for Life is the nation's largest Catholic pro- life organization dedicated to ending abortion and euthanasia. For more information, visit http://www.priestsforlife.org/ .
Christian Newswire
The U.S. Senate's Christmas Gift to America: Abortion for All, at Taxpayer-Expense
"This bill is a betrayal of conscience for millions of Americans. And it is a betrayal of the principles proclaimed by Reid, Nelson, and Casey."
WASHINGTON, Dec. 24 /Christian Newswire/ -- In response to this morning's passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act introduced by Senator Harry Reid (D- Nev.), Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser offered the following statement:
"On Christmas Eve, the U.S. Senate gave Americans a gift no one wants: abortion for all, at taxpayer- expense. Even more tragic, they can thank self- described 'pro-life' senators like Ben Nelson, Bob Casey, Jr., and Harry Reid for paving the way for legislation that will open the floodgates for the greatest expansion of government-backed abortion since Roe v. Wade.
"Today's vote was a career-affecting vote. The senators who voted to advance this legislation should consider themselves on notice. Votes have consequences, and the Susan B. Anthony List will use all the resources at our disposal to educate their constituents about today's result. As this debate moves forward, pro-life House members would do well to consider the impact of their own votes. Abortion is never good for women, and it should never be a legitimate aspect of any 'health care' debate.
"If this bill is signed into law, for the first time, federally funded and managed health care plans will cover elective abortions. Pro-life Americans in states that choose to 'opt-out' of abortion coverage will still be forced to foot the bill for abortions in California and New York.
"This is not 'compromise' or 'middle ground.' The only ones who support the senate abortion language are a handful of senators so far-removed from the consciences of their own constituents that it's laughable. Discussions of 'different accounts' and 'separate checks' are just a smokescreen.
"This bill is a betrayal of conscience for millions of Americans. And it is a betrayal of the principles proclaimed by Reid, Nelson, and Casey. Today's vote is exactly the type of 'leadership' that repels the American electorate. Americans are hungry for authenticity. They are hungry for leaders whose actions follow their principles, for stalwart representatives who will never abandon their convictions for a sweet deal. Unfortunately, on Christmas Eve 2009, as a result of that lack of real leadership, Americans received the gift of abortion in the name of 'health care reform.'
"The good news for the pro-life movement is that Bart Stupak is already a leader for Life in the House, and we know he won't compromise his principles. The Susan B. Anthony List plans to reinforce Stupak's leadership with our own efforts to target key members of the House of Representatives.
"Unlike the House version of health care reform, the Senate bill as amended by Senator Harry Reid (D- Nev.) does not prohibit abortion coverage for plans offered in federally subsidized health care exchanges. The state "opt-out" provision does nothing to prevent one state's tax dollars from funding abortions in other states."
The new public insurance exchange managed by the Office of Personnel and Management (OPM) will cover abortions. Each state through OPM can provide two multi-state plans and only one of them will exclude abortions. OPM's current health care program, the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), does not include any plans that cover elective abortion. The bill also includes a reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, without language to prevent federal funding of abortions.
As part of its Votes Have Consequences project, the Susan B. Anthony List has funded television ads in Nevada (video) and Pennsylvania (video), radio ads in Nevada, Arkansas, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, and targeted advocacy telephone campaigns nationwide to mobilize pro-life Americans to contact Congress and urge their legislators to defend Life in health care reform.
For the last several months, the Susan B. Anthony List has mobilized tens of thousands of pro-life Americans nationwide to urge Congress to exclude abortion from healthcare reform. Susan B. Anthony List activists have sent over one million letters to Congress requesting an explicit exclusion of abortion from health care reform.
The Susan B. Anthony List is a nationwide network of Americans, over 280,000 residing in all 50 states, dedicated to mobilizing, advancing, and representing pro-life women in politics. Its connected Candidate Fund increases the percentage of pro-life women in the political process.
http://www.sba-list.org/
Christian Newswire
WASHINGTON, Dec. 24 /Christian Newswire/ -- In response to this morning's passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act introduced by Senator Harry Reid (D- Nev.), Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser offered the following statement:
"On Christmas Eve, the U.S. Senate gave Americans a gift no one wants: abortion for all, at taxpayer- expense. Even more tragic, they can thank self- described 'pro-life' senators like Ben Nelson, Bob Casey, Jr., and Harry Reid for paving the way for legislation that will open the floodgates for the greatest expansion of government-backed abortion since Roe v. Wade.
"Today's vote was a career-affecting vote. The senators who voted to advance this legislation should consider themselves on notice. Votes have consequences, and the Susan B. Anthony List will use all the resources at our disposal to educate their constituents about today's result. As this debate moves forward, pro-life House members would do well to consider the impact of their own votes. Abortion is never good for women, and it should never be a legitimate aspect of any 'health care' debate.
"If this bill is signed into law, for the first time, federally funded and managed health care plans will cover elective abortions. Pro-life Americans in states that choose to 'opt-out' of abortion coverage will still be forced to foot the bill for abortions in California and New York.
"This is not 'compromise' or 'middle ground.' The only ones who support the senate abortion language are a handful of senators so far-removed from the consciences of their own constituents that it's laughable. Discussions of 'different accounts' and 'separate checks' are just a smokescreen.
"This bill is a betrayal of conscience for millions of Americans. And it is a betrayal of the principles proclaimed by Reid, Nelson, and Casey. Today's vote is exactly the type of 'leadership' that repels the American electorate. Americans are hungry for authenticity. They are hungry for leaders whose actions follow their principles, for stalwart representatives who will never abandon their convictions for a sweet deal. Unfortunately, on Christmas Eve 2009, as a result of that lack of real leadership, Americans received the gift of abortion in the name of 'health care reform.'
"The good news for the pro-life movement is that Bart Stupak is already a leader for Life in the House, and we know he won't compromise his principles. The Susan B. Anthony List plans to reinforce Stupak's leadership with our own efforts to target key members of the House of Representatives.
"Unlike the House version of health care reform, the Senate bill as amended by Senator Harry Reid (D- Nev.) does not prohibit abortion coverage for plans offered in federally subsidized health care exchanges. The state "opt-out" provision does nothing to prevent one state's tax dollars from funding abortions in other states."
The new public insurance exchange managed by the Office of Personnel and Management (OPM) will cover abortions. Each state through OPM can provide two multi-state plans and only one of them will exclude abortions. OPM's current health care program, the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), does not include any plans that cover elective abortion. The bill also includes a reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, without language to prevent federal funding of abortions.
As part of its Votes Have Consequences project, the Susan B. Anthony List has funded television ads in Nevada (video) and Pennsylvania (video), radio ads in Nevada, Arkansas, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, and targeted advocacy telephone campaigns nationwide to mobilize pro-life Americans to contact Congress and urge their legislators to defend Life in health care reform.
For the last several months, the Susan B. Anthony List has mobilized tens of thousands of pro-life Americans nationwide to urge Congress to exclude abortion from healthcare reform. Susan B. Anthony List activists have sent over one million letters to Congress requesting an explicit exclusion of abortion from health care reform.
The Susan B. Anthony List is a nationwide network of Americans, over 280,000 residing in all 50 states, dedicated to mobilizing, advancing, and representing pro-life women in politics. Its connected Candidate Fund increases the percentage of pro-life women in the political process.
http://www.sba-list.org/
Christian Newswire
Friday, November 13, 2009
Religious exemptions in D.C. same-sex ‘marriage’ bill are too narrow, archdiocese says
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17676
WASHINGTON D.C., November 12 (CNA) - The Archdiocese of Washington has criticized a D.C. City Council committee for narrowing the religious freedom exemptions in a bill that would recognize same-sex “marriage.” The archdiocese says the bill leaves religious organizations and individuals at risk of lawsuits for adhering to their beliefs and could endanger Catholic social services.
While the proposed bill presently says religious organizations do not have to participate in the “solemnization or celebration” of a same-sex marriage ceremony, a previous version of the bill had exempted such organizations from having to promote “marriage that is in violation of the entity’s religious beliefs.”
The revised vision, the archdiocese said in a Tuesday statement, “significantly narrows” the exemption to the promotion of marriage “through religious programs, counseling, courses or retreats.”
The archdiocese said that those who refuse to promote and support same-sex “marriages” in a “host of settings where it would compromise their religious beliefs” would risk facing legal action. Such settings could include employee benefits, adoption services and the use of church halls for non-wedding events for same-sex couples.
“Religious organizations such as Catholic Charities could be denied licenses or certification by the government, denied the right to offer adoption and foster care services, or no longer be able to partner with the city to provide social services for the needy,” the archdiocese warned.
According to the Washington Post, churches would have to abide by aspects of the city’s Human Rights Act, which includes a ban on discriminating against homosexual employees who choose to “marry.”
“The bill provides no exemption for individuals with sincerely-held religious beliefs, as required under federal law,” the archdiocese’s statement noted. “In fact, one council member opposed an amendment that would have respected an individual’s federally-protected, deeply-held religious beliefs by saying that would encourage a ‘discriminatory impulse.’”
The archdiocese charged that the City Council’s Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary, which is handling the bill, has rejected the concerns voiced in testimony from the archdiocese, the American Civil Liberties Union, the InterFaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington, and nationally recognized legal scholars.
These experts cited Supreme Court case law under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and also the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
The archdiocese has also argued that individuals should be able to exempt themselves from participation in same-sex “weddings” and other activities.
At a city council hearing on Tuesday, Council member Mary M. Cheh questioned why wedding photographers should be allowed to choose the clients they serve.
“That would be discrimination, right?” she asked.
Jane G. Belford, the chancellor of the archdiocese, in a letter to Council member Phil Mendelson, noted the archdiocese’s opposition to the redefinition of marriage in the District but also defended broad religious exemptions if such a law should be passed.
She argued that the bill is not accurately framed as “a clear cut matter of equality and civil rights” but must be seen in the context of balancing competing interests: “The interest of the homosexual community to be able to marry freely and the interests of the religious community to be able to practice religion freely."
Noting that the RFRA requires the District government to burden an individual’s religious practice in the “least restrictive means possible,” Belford said: “The outright prohibition of the observance of a sincerely held religious belief about marriage cannot possibly be said to be the least restrictive means in this case.”
The Washington Post said it was doubtful the archdiocese would be successful.
Edward Orzechowski, president/CEO of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington, said his organization was concerned the narrowing of the exemption would cause the government to discontinue its partnership with Catholic Charities and would “open up the agency to litigation and the use of resources to defend our religious beliefs rather than serve the poor.”
The bill is now headed to the full City Council.
The archdiocese said Catholic teachings recognize that all individuals have equal dignity and deserve equal respect, but by its very nature marriage “must be between a man and a woman.”
“One essential purpose of marriage is an openness to creating and nurturing the next generation, which is the reason that governments and cultures throughout all time have given these relationships special recognition and support,” the archdiocese said.
There are over 580,000 Catholics in the District of Columbia and five Maryland counties. In the District there are 40 parishes, 21 Catholic schools and 25 corporations in service to the community.
The archdiocese has set up a website on marriage at http://www.MarriageMattersDC.org.
WASHINGTON D.C., November 12 (CNA) - The Archdiocese of Washington has criticized a D.C. City Council committee for narrowing the religious freedom exemptions in a bill that would recognize same-sex “marriage.” The archdiocese says the bill leaves religious organizations and individuals at risk of lawsuits for adhering to their beliefs and could endanger Catholic social services.
While the proposed bill presently says religious organizations do not have to participate in the “solemnization or celebration” of a same-sex marriage ceremony, a previous version of the bill had exempted such organizations from having to promote “marriage that is in violation of the entity’s religious beliefs.”
The revised vision, the archdiocese said in a Tuesday statement, “significantly narrows” the exemption to the promotion of marriage “through religious programs, counseling, courses or retreats.”
The archdiocese said that those who refuse to promote and support same-sex “marriages” in a “host of settings where it would compromise their religious beliefs” would risk facing legal action. Such settings could include employee benefits, adoption services and the use of church halls for non-wedding events for same-sex couples.
“Religious organizations such as Catholic Charities could be denied licenses or certification by the government, denied the right to offer adoption and foster care services, or no longer be able to partner with the city to provide social services for the needy,” the archdiocese warned.
According to the Washington Post, churches would have to abide by aspects of the city’s Human Rights Act, which includes a ban on discriminating against homosexual employees who choose to “marry.”
“The bill provides no exemption for individuals with sincerely-held religious beliefs, as required under federal law,” the archdiocese’s statement noted. “In fact, one council member opposed an amendment that would have respected an individual’s federally-protected, deeply-held religious beliefs by saying that would encourage a ‘discriminatory impulse.’”
The archdiocese charged that the City Council’s Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary, which is handling the bill, has rejected the concerns voiced in testimony from the archdiocese, the American Civil Liberties Union, the InterFaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington, and nationally recognized legal scholars.
These experts cited Supreme Court case law under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and also the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
The archdiocese has also argued that individuals should be able to exempt themselves from participation in same-sex “weddings” and other activities.
At a city council hearing on Tuesday, Council member Mary M. Cheh questioned why wedding photographers should be allowed to choose the clients they serve.
“That would be discrimination, right?” she asked.
Jane G. Belford, the chancellor of the archdiocese, in a letter to Council member Phil Mendelson, noted the archdiocese’s opposition to the redefinition of marriage in the District but also defended broad religious exemptions if such a law should be passed.
She argued that the bill is not accurately framed as “a clear cut matter of equality and civil rights” but must be seen in the context of balancing competing interests: “The interest of the homosexual community to be able to marry freely and the interests of the religious community to be able to practice religion freely."
Noting that the RFRA requires the District government to burden an individual’s religious practice in the “least restrictive means possible,” Belford said: “The outright prohibition of the observance of a sincerely held religious belief about marriage cannot possibly be said to be the least restrictive means in this case.”
The Washington Post said it was doubtful the archdiocese would be successful.
Edward Orzechowski, president/CEO of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington, said his organization was concerned the narrowing of the exemption would cause the government to discontinue its partnership with Catholic Charities and would “open up the agency to litigation and the use of resources to defend our religious beliefs rather than serve the poor.”
The bill is now headed to the full City Council.
The archdiocese said Catholic teachings recognize that all individuals have equal dignity and deserve equal respect, but by its very nature marriage “must be between a man and a woman.”
“One essential purpose of marriage is an openness to creating and nurturing the next generation, which is the reason that governments and cultures throughout all time have given these relationships special recognition and support,” the archdiocese said.
There are over 580,000 Catholics in the District of Columbia and five Maryland counties. In the District there are 40 parishes, 21 Catholic schools and 25 corporations in service to the community.
The archdiocese has set up a website on marriage at http://www.MarriageMattersDC.org.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Bishop Tobin says Rep. Kennedy is in ‘flawed communion’ with the Church
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17660
PROVIDENCE, R.I., November 11 (CNA) - Bishop of Providence Thomas J. Tobin has responded to Rep. Patrick Kennedy’s contention that his dissent from Catholic teaching on abortion does not make him “less of a Catholic.” Saying that such dissent renders the lawmaker's communion “flawed,” he urged Kennedy to become a “profile in courage” and to defend the unborn.
Rep. Kennedy (D-R.I.), the son of the late U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy, had accused the Catholic Church of fanning “the flames of dissent and discord” because of the Catholic bishops’ opposition to proposed health care reform that does not explicitly prohibit funding of abortion.
Bishop Tobin responded critically to the congressman and asked for an apology.
A meeting had been scheduled between the prelate and the politician, but a Tuesday statement from the Diocese of Providence said it had been postponed.
“Bishop Tobin remains hopeful the he can meet with Congressman Kennedy in a personal and pastoral setting in the very near future,” the diocese reported.
Responding to Rep. Kennedy in his Nov. 12 diocesan newspaper column, Bishop Tobin said he usually does not speak about someone’s faith in a public setting but it has become an issue in his exchange with Rep. Kennedy.
The bishop focused on Rep. Kennedy’s comment in an Oct. 29 letter in which the Congressman said:
“The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.”
Bishop Tobin said the statement could not go unchallenged because it raises an important question about what it means to be a Catholic.
In a way, Bishop Tobin commented, disagreement with the Catholic hierarchy does make someone less of a Catholic.
“Although I wouldn’t choose those particular words, when someone rejects the teachings of the Church, especially on a grave matter, a life-and-death issue like abortion, it certainly does diminish their ecclesial communion, their unity with the Church.
“This principle is based on the Sacred Scripture and Tradition of the Church and is made more explicit in recent documents,” the bishop explained.
He cited sections from canon law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church about the layman’s obligation to learn Christian doctrine and to live in accord with it.
One’s refusal to accept the teaching of the Church, Bishop Tobin added, makes one’s communion with the Church “flawed.”
He explained that a Catholic believes and accepts the teaching of the Church “especially on essential matters of faith and morals.” A Catholic must also belong to a local parish, attend Mass on Sunday, and receive the sacraments regularly.
Further, a Catholic must give personal, public, spiritual and financial support to the Church.
Bishop Tobin asked whether Rep. Kennedy accepted these “basic requirements of being a Catholic,” including the Catholic stance on abortion.
The bishop said it was “terrific” that Rep. Kennedy has said he embraces his faith. But he wondered what makes Kennedy a Catholic.
Rep. Kennedy’s rejection of Catholic teaching on abortion is a different category than ordinary human imperfection, Bishop Tobin added. Rather, he wrote, it is “a deliberate and obstinate act of the will” that has been re-affirmed “on many occasions.”
“Sorry, you can’t chalk it up to an ‘imperfect humanity.’ Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the Church,” the bishop continued.
The prelate told Rep. Kennedy that he wrote his words not to embarrass or judge him but to correct the public record and to invite him into “a sincere process of discernment, conversion and repentance.”
He said Rep. Kennedy could still repair his relationship with the Church and redeem his public image. Alluding to the book by the congressman’s uncle, President John F. Kennedy, he said Rep. Kennedy could become an authentic “profile in courage” by defending the sanctity of unborn human life.
PROVIDENCE, R.I., November 11 (CNA) - Bishop of Providence Thomas J. Tobin has responded to Rep. Patrick Kennedy’s contention that his dissent from Catholic teaching on abortion does not make him “less of a Catholic.” Saying that such dissent renders the lawmaker's communion “flawed,” he urged Kennedy to become a “profile in courage” and to defend the unborn.
Rep. Kennedy (D-R.I.), the son of the late U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy, had accused the Catholic Church of fanning “the flames of dissent and discord” because of the Catholic bishops’ opposition to proposed health care reform that does not explicitly prohibit funding of abortion.
Bishop Tobin responded critically to the congressman and asked for an apology.
A meeting had been scheduled between the prelate and the politician, but a Tuesday statement from the Diocese of Providence said it had been postponed.
“Bishop Tobin remains hopeful the he can meet with Congressman Kennedy in a personal and pastoral setting in the very near future,” the diocese reported.
Responding to Rep. Kennedy in his Nov. 12 diocesan newspaper column, Bishop Tobin said he usually does not speak about someone’s faith in a public setting but it has become an issue in his exchange with Rep. Kennedy.
The bishop focused on Rep. Kennedy’s comment in an Oct. 29 letter in which the Congressman said:
“The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.”
Bishop Tobin said the statement could not go unchallenged because it raises an important question about what it means to be a Catholic.
In a way, Bishop Tobin commented, disagreement with the Catholic hierarchy does make someone less of a Catholic.
“Although I wouldn’t choose those particular words, when someone rejects the teachings of the Church, especially on a grave matter, a life-and-death issue like abortion, it certainly does diminish their ecclesial communion, their unity with the Church.
“This principle is based on the Sacred Scripture and Tradition of the Church and is made more explicit in recent documents,” the bishop explained.
He cited sections from canon law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church about the layman’s obligation to learn Christian doctrine and to live in accord with it.
One’s refusal to accept the teaching of the Church, Bishop Tobin added, makes one’s communion with the Church “flawed.”
He explained that a Catholic believes and accepts the teaching of the Church “especially on essential matters of faith and morals.” A Catholic must also belong to a local parish, attend Mass on Sunday, and receive the sacraments regularly.
Further, a Catholic must give personal, public, spiritual and financial support to the Church.
Bishop Tobin asked whether Rep. Kennedy accepted these “basic requirements of being a Catholic,” including the Catholic stance on abortion.
The bishop said it was “terrific” that Rep. Kennedy has said he embraces his faith. But he wondered what makes Kennedy a Catholic.
Rep. Kennedy’s rejection of Catholic teaching on abortion is a different category than ordinary human imperfection, Bishop Tobin added. Rather, he wrote, it is “a deliberate and obstinate act of the will” that has been re-affirmed “on many occasions.”
“Sorry, you can’t chalk it up to an ‘imperfect humanity.’ Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the Church,” the bishop continued.
The prelate told Rep. Kennedy that he wrote his words not to embarrass or judge him but to correct the public record and to invite him into “a sincere process of discernment, conversion and repentance.”
He said Rep. Kennedy could still repair his relationship with the Church and redeem his public image. Alluding to the book by the congressman’s uncle, President John F. Kennedy, he said Rep. Kennedy could become an authentic “profile in courage” by defending the sanctity of unborn human life.
Saturday, November 07, 2009
SBA List President Applauds House Approval of Pro-Life Pitts-Stupak Amendment to H.R. 3962, Warns Opponents that Votes Have Consequences
"Congress has sided with the resounding majority of citizens opposed to government funding of abortion." -- Marjorie Dannenfelser, President, Susan B. Anthony List
WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 /Christian Newswire/ -- Tonight the U.S. House of Representatives approved the Pitts-Stupak amendment to H.R. 3962, America's Healthy Future Act by a vote of 240 to 194, with 64 Democratic members voting in favor of the amendment. Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser offered the following comments:
"Tonight the House of Representatives made a principled and politically sound decision to continue our nation's longstanding policy of protecting taxpayers' conscience in the area of abortion funding. We urge the Senate to follow suit. We will remain vigilant, and shift our efforts to the Senate to ensure that these same pro-life protections are added to the Senate bill.
"On behalf of the 280,000 members and activists of the Susan B. Anthony List who contacted Congress on this issue, I applaud all those who voted to honor the American legacy of protecting citizens' conscience from conscription into activity to which most are morally opposed. Congress has sided with the resounding majority of citizens opposed to government funding of abortion. Supporters of government-funded abortion will now have some explaining to do back home, before voters head to the ballot box in 2010.
"If there's one thing many members of Congress learned from Tuesday's elections, it's the danger of being out of step with your constituents. Votes do have consequences, and the recent tensions over health care reform should drive that message home. We will use every tool in our arsenal to ensure the folks back home know the truth about their legislator's record."
For the last several months, the Susan B. Anthony List has mobilized tens of thousands of pro-life Americans nationwide to urge Congress to exclude abortion from healthcare reform. Already this year Susan B. Anthony List activists nationwide delivered over 408,703 letters to Congress urging an explicit exclusion of abortion funding from health care reform.
The Susan B. Anthony List is a nationwide network of Americans, over 167,000 residing in all 50 states, dedicated to mobilizing, advancing, and representing pro-life women in politics. Its connected Candidate Fund increases the percentage of pro-life women in the political process.
Christian Newswire
WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 /Christian Newswire/ -- Tonight the U.S. House of Representatives approved the Pitts-Stupak amendment to H.R. 3962, America's Healthy Future Act by a vote of 240 to 194, with 64 Democratic members voting in favor of the amendment. Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser offered the following comments:
"Tonight the House of Representatives made a principled and politically sound decision to continue our nation's longstanding policy of protecting taxpayers' conscience in the area of abortion funding. We urge the Senate to follow suit. We will remain vigilant, and shift our efforts to the Senate to ensure that these same pro-life protections are added to the Senate bill.
"On behalf of the 280,000 members and activists of the Susan B. Anthony List who contacted Congress on this issue, I applaud all those who voted to honor the American legacy of protecting citizens' conscience from conscription into activity to which most are morally opposed. Congress has sided with the resounding majority of citizens opposed to government funding of abortion. Supporters of government-funded abortion will now have some explaining to do back home, before voters head to the ballot box in 2010.
"If there's one thing many members of Congress learned from Tuesday's elections, it's the danger of being out of step with your constituents. Votes do have consequences, and the recent tensions over health care reform should drive that message home. We will use every tool in our arsenal to ensure the folks back home know the truth about their legislator's record."
For the last several months, the Susan B. Anthony List has mobilized tens of thousands of pro-life Americans nationwide to urge Congress to exclude abortion from healthcare reform. Already this year Susan B. Anthony List activists nationwide delivered over 408,703 letters to Congress urging an explicit exclusion of abortion funding from health care reform.
The Susan B. Anthony List is a nationwide network of Americans, over 167,000 residing in all 50 states, dedicated to mobilizing, advancing, and representing pro-life women in politics. Its connected Candidate Fund increases the percentage of pro-life women in the political process.
Christian Newswire
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
