Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Notwithstanding
Toward a Permanent Ban on Abortion Funding
Subject: Toward a Permanent Ban on Abortion Funding
Send date: 2011-02-18 11:45:49
Content:

Spirit & Life  

Human Life International e-Column
Volume 06, Number 7 | Friday, February 18, 2011

 
Toward a Permanent Ban on Abortion Funding

 

As we are sending this email to you, there is a crucial debate underway in Congress as some courageous pro-life congressman attempt to prevent federal funding of most abortions.  

Since we seek to understand this process and act accordingly, we should establish in clear and precise ways the right of the taxpayer to not be forced to pay for abortion or any other immoral actions of government, like sterilization campaigns in poor countries. But more important than protecting taxpayers' rights is protecting the rights of the unborn. The purpose of a ban on federal funding of abortion is to diminish an incentive towards abortion. This should go together with privately funded programs that would encourage duly married couples to be generous with life.

A government has the right to tax its citizens to promote the common good, but it does not have the right to extract funds from taxpayers to promote the common evil. As a consequence, abortion and many other immoral actions should not receive any government funds. A society that provides financial support for immorality becomes co-author of those immoral actions. We know well enough from history that if a society becomes promoter and supporter of immorality, sooner or later it will start reaping the bitter fruits.

It is an established fact that a nation teaches its citizens about the rightness or wrongness of a given behavior through its laws. That is, laws not only regulate, they also instruct. So if the government finances abortions, the clear message sent is that abortion is a right, that one has the right to kill an unborn child whenever one chooses. Instead, if the government withdraws all financial support for abortion the message that it is giving is that abortion is an evil that should be avoided.

In a 2004 statement, the ACLU stated, "The congressional bans on abortion funding impose a particular religious or moral viewpoint on those women who rely on government-funded health care. Providing funding for abortion does not encourage or compel women to have abortions, but denying funding compels many women to carry their pregnancies to term." Against this position we have to affirm first, that there is sufficient scientific evidence to demonstrate that life starts at conception or the biological beginning of the human being, so when we withdraw funds from abortion we are protecting the most basic human right which is life and we are not imposing religious values. Second, when the taxpayer is forced to pay for abortions he is obliged to act against his rightfully held beliefs and as a consequence his rights are gravely eroded. Third, we have to understand that there is basic incoherence to the position of those who defend the right to kill babies with public funds. As Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops told a subcommittee of the US House of Representatives on February 8th, it is "not 'pro-choice' to force others to fund a procedure to which they have fundamental objections." This lack of coherence on the part of pro-aborts should not surprise us; they often suppress the liberties of others in the promotion of their particular understanding of liberty.

It is beyond dispute that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) will lead to the use of tax dollars to pay for abortion as the non-partisan Congressional Research Service has stated, contrary to former Speaker Pelosi's assertion stating that PPACA will not lead to government funded abortions are not precisely correct.

For the reasons presented above we should support the following bills:

  • No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey, the chairman of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus. The proposed legislation would make the Hyde amendment permanent, which prohibits the funding of elective abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother, through any program funded by the annual Labor, Health, and Human Services Appropriations Act. It is particularly valuable that this act includes a "Prohibition on Tax Benefits Relating to Abortion." Under this provision, "no credit shall be allowed under the internal revenue laws ... with respect to amounts paid or incurred for a health benefits plan (including premium assistance) that includes coverage of abortion." A tax credit is similar to a government subsidy. This bill would require the IRS to "police the contents" of everyone's insurance coverage and "recoup" tax reductions from persons that contract insurance that covers abortions.  
  • The Protect Life Act (H.R. 358) that was introduced on January 20, 2011, by Reps. Joseph Pitts (R-PA) and Dan Lipinski (D-IL). It has the objective to put the PPACA in line with policies on abortion and conscience rights existing in other federal health programs. This bill is intended to: ensure that all PPACA funds are covered by the Hyde Amendment; exclude federal funds from subsidizing health plans that cover abortions beyond the Hyde exceptions, so that PPACA will follow the norms that apply to other federal health insurance programs; uphold rights of conscience related to abortion, ensuring that governmental entities receiving federal funds under PPACA will not discriminate against health care providers who decline involvement in abortion; and close a loophole in PPACA's non-preemption clause, so that state laws restricting abortion or protecting conscience rights will not be preempted, and states will not be able to override PPACA's provisions ensuring that health plans without elective abortion are available in each state.
  • The Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, sponsored by pro-life Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, which would ensure tax dollars are withdrawn from the abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood under Title X family planning funds. It is of fundamental importance to cut all funding to the organization that has been the principal culprit behind the killing of millions of little children.

Taking into account the limitations of the Hyde Amendment, we should support these bills applying John Paul II's Evangelium Vitae (73), which teaches that it is good to support the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed. So when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law, and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.

Our friends at Population Research Institute recently reported that U.S. taxpayer money is being used in Rwanda to fund a campaign to sterilize 700,000 men. The government of this African country is claiming that this is a voluntary campaign, but there is evidence that abusive pressures and coercion are going to be used to reach this objective, as has occurred in the past. Even if these sterilizations were to be totally voluntary, it is totally objectionable that taxpayer money should be used to fund this immoral program that attacks human right to bodily and psychological integrity.

 

We make these comments with the firm hope that one day abortion and many other immoral practices sponsored or at least permitted by the government, will be totally reversed, sincerely expecting that one day the rights of the unborn and the rights of the taxpayers will be duly protected.  

 


Sincerely yours in Christ,  
  
Monsignor Barreiro Signature

Monsignor Ignacio Barreiro-Carámbula
Interim President, Human Life International

 
Lifelines4.175pix

LifeLines Episode 4: Why Women Abort

The pro-aborts' own research shows that they are lying when they say that women must have unrestricted access to abortion because of the "hard cases." In truth, the hard cases make up only a tiny percentage of all abortions, and even in these hard cases, one human person is killed, and another is harmed for life.

See the video here... 





Monsignor Barreiro Head
Monsignor Ignacio
Barreiro-Carámbula
HLI Interim President

S & L Archive

About the Author
Donate Now

Follow HLI

Find us on FacebookFollow us on TwitterView our videos on YouTubeView our photos on flickr


Spirit & Life
Action Items

Human Life International - 4 Family Life Lane - Front Royal, VA  22630  U.S.A.
800-549-LIFE - Fax: 540-622-6247 - E-Mail: hli@hli.org
Copyright © 2010 Human Life International, Inc. All rights reserved.
This email was sent to sphelan@hli.org by hli@hli.org |  
Human Life International | 4 Family Life Lane | Front Royal | VA | 22630



3 posted on 02/24/2011 2:28:38 PM PST by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: Notwithstanding
Print E-mail
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

The Pro-Life Talking Points series provides pro-life activists with clear and concise information with which to argue against common misinformation they will encounter while debating life issues. Feel free to download, copy, and distribute these one-page (two-sided) documents as needed. You can also add this page to Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking sites via the "Share" icon in the upper right corner.

Keep checking back! We will continue to update and add new Pro-Life Talking Points regularly.

Exceptions

Exceptions: Is Abortion Ever Permissible?

Though only a tiny proportion of abortions in this and most other countries are due to hard cases—to save the life or health of the mother, rape, incest, and fetal deformities—pro-abortion groups portray these reasons as the norm.  Exceptions?.pdf 197.74 Kb

Depo Provera

Depo-Provera: Injectable Abortion

Depo-Provera has both contraceptive and abortifacient effects: The Depo-Provera injection, given to women and girls every three months as a contraceptive, actually causes abortion in some instances.  DepoProvera.pdf 140.44 Kb


 

Pro-Abortion Violence: Setting the Record Straight

The Media Narrative for "Pro-Life" Violence is Seriously Distorted. The fact is that abortionists and pro-choice activists are guilty of much more violence than pro-life activists. Pro-Abortion Violence

 pltp-why-abort-1

Why Women Abort

Very few abortions are due to health reasons, rape, incest, or abnormalities: Many people think that women obtain most abortions to save their lives or physical health, for rape and incest, or to avoid birth defects. This is a fallacy that pro-abortion groups continue to cultivate.   Why Women Abort

pltp-abuse-of-pop-control-1 

Abusive Population Control

Population control history has been full of abuse: Since its beginnings in the 19th Century and especially since its exponential growth after World War II, the global population control movement has inflicted documented human rights abuses on millions of women worldwide.   Abusive Population Control

 pltp_negative-effects-of-the-pill-1

Negative Effects of the Pill

Hormonal contraceptives have severe side-effects: Though the mainstream media and feminist groups typically present hormonal contraceptives as a boon for women, they overlook the serious side-effects reported in mainstream scientific literature.  Negative Effects of the Pill

pltp_welfare-1

Does Welfare Reduce Abortion?

The connection between welfare and illegitimacy is well-established: Social scientists have long documented that when women are paid to have children out of wedlock, they are more likely to do so.   Does Welfare Reduce Abortions?  

 pltp_condoms-1

Condoms

Condoms fail for regular users: The condom is the most commonly used barrier method of conntraception in the world. Yet according to mainstream scientific sources, its efficacy has been grossly overstated by its promoters.  Condoms  

pltp_fetal-1 

Fetal Development

A new human being is created at conception: From the instant the male gamete (sperm) fuses with the female gamete (egg), a unique human being with his or her own DNA, different from those of his mother and father, is present. After fertilization, there are 46 chromosomes (or 47 in the case of Down Syndrome) where there were two sets of 23 chromosomes before.  The resulting being is genetically human and alive, and therefore, by standard biological definition, a human being.  Fetal Development

pltp_men_abortion-1 

Men & Abortion

Men suffer in the aftermath of abortion as well as women: Though not nearly as much research has been done on abortion's effects on men as on women, considerable evidence shows that abortion often negatively affects men's mental health and that a large proportion of men regret their partner's abortion later on.Men and Abortion  

pltp-maternal-1 

Does Abortion Save Women's Lives?

Abortion-on-demand has not saved women's lives: Pro-abortion politicians and groups argue that without easy access to abortion, substantial numbers of women would die through illegal, unregulated, and unsafe "backalley" abortions. Yet the evidence shows death from abortion in the United States was very rare even before abortion was legalized.  Does Abortion Save Womens Lives  

 pltp_obama_v_life-1

Obama v Life I: Before the Election

Barack Obama declared the expansion of abortion his first priority: During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama discussed a large number of pressing issues facing the federal government from the economy and health care reform to terrorism and the war in Iraq. He chose to make the removal of all restrictions on abortion his first priority from the beginning of his campaign.  Obama v Life I


Obama v Life II: His First 100 Days as President

As both a state and U.S. senator, Barack Obama compiled a 100% pro-abortion-on-demand voting record, and he favored abortion-on-demand as a presidential candidate. In his closely-watched first 100 days as President, every relevant decision he made favored abortion. Below is a timeline of President Obama's pro-abortion actions during his first 100 days in office. Obama v Life II

 

Female Sterilization

The only medical procedures intended to destroy or inhibit healthy organs are those aimed at the male and female reproductive systems. This is the strange state of reproductive medicine today. Female Sterilization

 

4 posted on 02/24/2011 2:29:25 PM PST by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Notwithstanding; Alex Murphy

Notwithstanding, what is the purpose in putting up all your lengthy HLI page-source copy commentary on this particular post?


7 posted on 02/26/2011 4:29:34 AM PST by mlizzy (Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson