 |
|
|
| Volume 37, Number 8-9 www.nrlc.org 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 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
OBAMA HEALTH CARE 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. NRL News Archive2010 February/March 2010 April/May 2010 June/July 2010 August/September 2010 2009 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July/August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November/December 2009 2008 2007 2006
2005 2004 2003
January
2003 |
