Subscribe Now!


News & Views

Volume 37, Number 8-9                                                                                                                                                           August/September 2010

Kagan confirmed, as debate rages on abortion funding Obama Administration and Congressional Democratic Leaders Push Pro-Abortion Agenda, But NRLC and Allies Raise Roadblocks

WASHINGTON (August 23, 2010)–The Obama Administration is waging a quiet campaign to entrench and expand abortion on demand–but, faced by stiff resistance from NRLC and other pro-life forces, has been forced to make some tactical retreats.

In July, the Administration found itself in a glare of national media attention generated by NRLC’s discovery that the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) had approved proposals to cover abortions, in some states, under one of the new federal programs created by the Obama-backed health care legislation that was enacted in March.

As that controversy heated up, the Administration abruptly acted to exclude abortion from that single program, which is called the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan. NRLC noted that the episode underscored the need for new legislation to prevent future federal subsidies for abortion under other new federal programs that will be implemented during the next few years, unless Congress acts first to repeal or extensively revamp the health care law.

The summer months also saw the Administration succeed in filling a Supreme Court vacancy with an abortion supporter whose youth makes likely a long tenure on the court, while continuing to promote an abortion-rights ideology as part of the Administration’s foreign policy.


Senate Republicans Hold Back Bill That
Would Restrict Free Speech About Federal Politicians

WASHINGTON (August 23, 2010)–Republicans in the U.S. Senate, voting as a bloc, have halted–temporarily, at least–a drive by President Obama and congressional Democratic leaders to place extensive new legal restrictions on the ability of corporations to communicate with the public about the actions of federal lawmakers.

President Obama has made enactment of the so-called “DISCLOSE Act” one of his top legislative priorities for the year. He and other Democratic leaders spent months pushing hard to enact the bill in time to curb political communications that might be sponsored by corporations–including issue-oriented corporations such as National Right to Life–before the November 2 congressional elections.

NRLC is strongly opposed to the bill, viewing it as a blatant political attack on the constitutional rights of the organization and of its members and donors.

The legislation was crafted in response to the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, handed down on January 21, 2010. In that case, the Supreme Court invalidated federal laws and regulations that had prevented an incorporated group called Citizens United from buying TV ads to promote a movie critical of Hillary Clinton while she was running for president. By a 5-4 vote, the Court ruled that the First Amendment protects the right of corporations to spend money on ads or other communications that criticize or praise those who hold or seek federal office.


From the President

Wanda Franz, Ph.D.


By Wanda Franz, Ph.D.

Under the new health care law, it is not just the unborn who are threatened by the cold hand of government. Now it is also we, the already living, who are in danger, because the inevitable result of the new health care law will be the rationing of medical care. And rationed care leads to involuntary euthanasia of the elderly and of those whose “quality of life” is considered too poor for modern medical care.

The problem is, of course, that the new health care law “over-promises and under-funds.” And when the government rations health care—by making it illegal or impossible to choose lifesaving treatment and nutrition—it imposes a form of involuntary euthanasia.

In the minds of anti-life “progressives,” giving equally shabby and life-denying care to everyone who is under the government’s thumb is the “fair” and “equitable” thing to do. Apparently, our “progressive” friends have missed the numerous accounts in the British press (see the Drudge Report web site) about the horrible treatment of elderly patients in Britain’s government-controlled National Health Service. These are not examples of “fair” treatment—they are examples of callous neglect and often deadly mistreatment of elderly patients.

The public’s persistent opposition to the new health care law rests in large part on an intuitive understanding that governmental overreach inevitably has very bad consequences. In this case, the clumsy and wasteful governmental bureaucracy will impose itself even more than it already does on our medical care. As I already said: the new health care law over-promises and under-funds.

Read Dr. Franz's Entire Column

NRL News Archive

January 2010
February/March 2010

April/May 2010
June/July 2010
August/September 2010

NRL News 2009 Subject Index
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July/August 2009
September 2009
October 2009
November/December 2009

NRL News 2008 Subject Index
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July/August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November/December 2008

NRL News 2007 Subject Index
January 2007
February 2007

March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007

July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007

December 2007

NRL News 2006 Subject Index
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006

April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006

December 2006

NRL News 2005 Subject Index
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005

NRL News 2004 Subject Index
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
une 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004

December 2004

NRL News 2003 Subject Index
January 2003
February 2003
March 2003
April 2003
May 2003
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003

NRL News 2002 Subject Index
January 2002
February 2002
March 2002
April 2002

May 2002

June 2002
July 2002
August 2002
September 2002
October 2002
November 2002
December 2002

NRL News 2001 Subject Index
January 2001
February 2001
March 2001
April 2001
May 2001
June 2001
July 2001
August 2001
September 2001
October 2001
November 2001
December 2001

NRL News 2000 Subject Index
January 2000
February 2000
March 2000
April 2000
May 2000
June 2000
July 2000
August 2000
September 2000
October 2000
December 2000

NRL News 1999 Subject Index
January 22, 1999
February 19, 1999
March 15, 1999
April 8, 1999
May 11, 1999
June 10, 1999
July 6, 1999
August 10, 1999
September 14, 1999
October 12, 1999
November 1999
December 1999

NRL News 1998 Subject Index
January 1998
February 11, 1998
March 11, 1998
April 14, 1998
May 7, 1998
July 8, 1998
June 9, 1998
August 12, 1998
September 28, 1998
October 12, 1998
November 17, 1998
December 10, 1998

NRL News 1997 Subject Index
December 9, 1997

Subject Indexes for 1990 - 1996
NRL News 1996 Subject Index
NRL News 1995 Subject Index
NRL News 1994 Subject Index
NRL News 1993 Subject Index
NRL News 1992 Subject Index
NRL News 1991 Subject Index
NRL News 1990 Subject Index