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 One amendment recently went down to defeat, and two others were withdrawn before they ever received a vote.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."
Vitter amendment to curb Title X a step in the right direction [But it has been blocked by Regula]
"The federal Title X population control program should be eliminated completely," said Ed Szymkowiak, national director of STOPP International, a division of American Life League. "Although the Vitter Amendment will not do that, it will stop Planned Parenthood from getting about $66 million of taxpayers' money. That's a big step in the right direction."
Rep. David Vitter (R-La.) is expected to offer an amendment which states, "None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used to make any award of a grant or contract under Title X (ten) of the Public Health Service Act for fiscal year 2002 or any subsequent fiscal year to any private grantee, delegate, or clinic that provides a chemical or surgical abortion." Current appropriations for Title X are $253.9 million.
"The Vitter Amendment has been called a domestic version of the Mexico City Policy," said Szymkowiak. "That policy prevents taxpayer funding of abortion providers overseas. We should at least have a similar policy in the United States as well."
Release issued: 5 Oct 01
Just saw this one. Here's my take on it: "Yes, I know that's what their platform says - but at the heart of the majority of [Republicans] is a [cowardly don't-rock-the-boat] pro-abortion stance. Killing [by default]in the name of individual freedom.
And your evidence of this?
I'm not aware of a single other party who brought it up, exposed the practice, and pushed harder to ban the hideous procedure. Sure, there were a few other parties who stood around saying "we're behind you all the way", but of course, they have no ability to pass legislation. And that's what it's all about.
Tell it to the R's who plan to bring it up again in the next session. Tell it to the R president who has promised to sign it.
I am sticking with the Republicans for now, although I am certainly growing quite discouraged. If Bush does indeed plan to fight for the unborn, why would allow another $66 million to go to Planned Parenthood?
* Planned Parenthood spent millions to defeat Bush.
* Planned Parenthood spent millions to stop Ashcroft
* Planned spent millions to defeat partial birth legislation.
By giving Planned Parenthood $66 million more of taxpayers money, he has strengthened his enemy. If nominates a pro-life judge to the Supreme Court, his enemy will have more resources to attack him. If he initiates legislation to ban partial birth abortion, his enemy will have more resources to defeat it. If he runs for reelection in 2004, his enemy will be stronger than before.
The Clintons would never have allowed $66 million in tax dollars to have gone to a pro-life group. If Bush truly wants to get serious about stopping the American Holocaust, he should start by making sure the modern Nazis at Planned Parenthood stop getting our tax dollars.
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.