Posted on 12/11/2001 11:44:06 AM PST by IM2Phat4U
October 23, 2001
Pro-Life Policies Quashed
By Charles R. MiVille, Washington, D.C., correspondent
Pro-life issues have taken a beating in Congress. One amendment recently went down to defeat, and two others were withdrawn before they ever received a vote.
In his campaign for president, then-Gov. George W. Bush pledged his support for funding abstinence education equal to so-called "safe sex" programs. Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., seized the challenge, offering an amendment to the annual funding bill for the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education (Labor/HHS/Education) departments. However, Istook's amendment was crushed in a 106-311 House vote two weeks ago, amid a purported desire among many lawmakers to finish appropriations bills without any additional controversial amendments.
That sentiment apparently impacted two other amendments that never even made it to a vote. One, sponsored by Rep. David Vitter, R-La., would have banned federal "family planning" funds from flowing to abortion providers. Michael Schwartz, vice president of government relations for Concerned Women for America, believes the public is strongly in favor of stopping family planning funds from going to abortionists.
"It is something that is in keeping with the whole point of the family planning program," Schwartz said. "After all, why should we be funding abortionists?"
He noted, however, that Congressman Ralph Regula, chairman of the subcommittee that oversees the Labor/HHS/Education appropriations bill, went to extraordinary lengths to line up votes against the Vitter amendment. Faced with such opposition, Vitter pulled the amendment, vowing to try again next year.
Schwartz said Vitter really had no choice.
Rep. Melissa Hart, R-Pa., also planned to offer her amendment banning federal funds to public schools if they distribute "morning after" pills to students. Before she could offer the amendment, however, House Speaker Dennis Hastert asked her to withdraw it before it came up for a vote.
Hastert reportedly promised Hart a House vote on her legislation at some future time.
Meantime, John Paulton, of Focus on the Family, says pro-lifers have to get busy, "basically to show the elected officials in Congress that the American people won't stand silently by while abortion is funded by their tax dollars."
Truer words were never spoke...too many conservatives see their role as dis-involvement with the govt.
I see my role as one of changing a govt gone awry, by every legal means necessary. Campaigns, calls, e-mails, protests, meetings...
It does, indeed, Doc. And I hope this will be the #1 priority of every pro-life organization in the country next year (HLI, ALL, Priests for Life, National Right to Life...)
We need to put these guys on the defensive. Strip Planned Parenthood of $66 million and make it go to its donors for the money. This will give Planned Parenthood less time and money to oppose a potential Bush nominee to the Supreme court or, hopefully, meaningful pro-life legislation. It will also give Planned Parenthood less time and money to harrass innocent pro-lifers, peddle abortion to minors, and campaign against pro-life candidates.
VOICE ONE: "Hello, we're from Planned Parenthood. Back in 2002, our funding was terminated. Would you like to contribute something to our neighborhood abortion mill?"
VOICE TWO: "Bugger off, you sick freaks!"
We hear the door being slammed...
"As with most federal welfare, federal education money is a drug that obscures and intensifies underlying problems. The Republican Party used to preach "Just say 'No!'" Now we are increasing the dose and inviting the country to party on. It's a prescription for GOP and national addiction that immeasurably weakens our children's future. Let us pray it does not ultimately cost us our capacity for responsible self-government."
I thnk Keyes' comments on the federal education bill are even more appropriate when applied to the $66 million in federal Welfare Planned Parenthood will receive.
What's Happening to Pro-Life Legislation in Congress? RINOs and Democrats in Control
The Vitter Amendment
Congressman David Vitter (R-LA) offered an important pro-life amendment to the Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations bill. The amendment denies Title X (ten) family planning funds to Planned Parenthood or any other agency or clinic that provides a chemical or surgical abortion.
This amendment is extremely important because, as John Cusey, executive director of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, reminded us in his memo of October 1, Currently many abortion providers obtain federal family planning funds to establish a financial base for their business, gain access to new customers, and improve their image -- in effect keeping some abortion providers in business. Even though the Title X dollars may not be used directly for abortions, these subsidies to the abortion industry are contrary to both the intent of the law (which specifies that Title X funds may not be used in programs in which abortion is a method of family planning ) and to public opinion, which is strongly opposed to federal subsidies to the abortion industry.
Enter the pro-abortion RINOs (Republicans in name only), led by Labor, HHS Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman, Rep. Ralph Regula (R-OH), and ranking Democrat, Rep. Dave Obey (D-WI). According to our sources, these men organized enough votes to defeat the Vitter Amendment. Consequently, Congressman Vitter chose to offer his amendment and then withdraw it, rather than lose. As long as Republicans who justify abortion in some or all circumstances continue to win election, good pro-life legislation is destined to suffer the same fate. Read on.
The Hart Amendment
Rep. Melissa Hart is a staunchly pro-life new Member of Congress from Pennsylvania. She sponsored an amendment that prohibits the use of federal funds for school-based clinics that distribute the abortifacient morning-after pill to minors. The amendment has passed the House with wide margins before, and Speaker of the House Denny Hastert reportedly promised Rep. Hart that she would be able to offer her amendment. But again, the RINO s and the Democrats prevailed. According to our sources, Congressmen Regula and Obey threatened Speaker Hastert that they would bring down their own spending bill if the amendment were offered, a disruption that always horrifies House leaders. Rather than call the appropriator s bluff, Hastert got Hart, as a personal favor, to drop the amendment. So many promises get broken the morning after. ( Hastert Flip-Flop, by John J. Miller and Ramesh Ponnuru, Washington Bulletin: National Review s Internet Update for October 11, 2001 http://www.nationalreview.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.