Pro-Life Mitt Romney Tells NRLC He Is
“Grateful for Their Support
and Honored by the Trust They Have Placed in Me”
By Dave Andrusko
When National Right to Life endorsed pro-life Gov. Mitt Romney, NRLC
President Carol Tobias’s opening remarks at the National Press Club
were an explanation of why the nation’s preeminent pro-life
organization was endorsing Mr. Romney for President and a clarion
call to action.
“National Right to Life is proud and honored to endorse Governor
Mitt Romney for President of the United States,” she said. “On
pro-life issues, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama provide a stark
contrast. As the country’s most pro-abortion president, Barack Obama
has pursued a radical pro-abortion agenda.”
Then in words since echoed by pro-lifers across the country, Mrs.
Tobias added, “It is now time for pro-life Americans to unite behind
Mitt Romney. For the sake of unborn children, the disabled, and the
elderly, we must win.”
Read more...
Majority of U.S. House Votes to Ban
Sex-Selection
Abortions; Obama and 168 House Members Oppose
WASHINGTON (June 21, 2012)–A solid
majority of members of the U.S. House of Representatives has voted
to enact a national ban on the use of abortion to eliminate an
unborn child of the sex not desired by parents–but President Obama,
joined by 168 House members, came out against the ban.
On May 31, the House voted 246–168 in favor of the Prenatal
Nondiscrimination Act (H.R. 3541), a bill to make it unlawful to
perform or coerce a sex-selection abortion. This was a strong
majority, but the bill was considered under a fast-track procedure
called “suspension of the rules,” which requires a two-thirds vote
for passage. Thus, the bill did not clear the House on May 31, but
remains alive and eligible for possible later consideration under a
majority-vote procedure.
The bill would make it a federal offense to knowingly do any one of
the following four things: (1) perform an abortion, at any time in
pregnancy, “knowing that such abortion is sought based on the sex or
gender of the child”; (2) use “force or threat of force ... for the
purpose of coercing a sex-selection abortion”; (3) solicit or accept
funds to perform a sex-selection abortion; or (4) transport a woman
into the U.S. or across state lines for this purpose.
Read more...
|
From the President
 |
|
Carol Tobias |
Who Really Cares for Women?
The so-called “war on women” launched by
President Obama and his supporters is nothing more than a rhetorical
smokescreen and political ploy designed to get women to re-elect
Obama and his pro-abortion allies.
Using the flawed logic being employed by President Obama, MSNBC’s
Rachel Maddow, Nancy Pelosi, NARAL and its allies, if you don’t
agree with them on “choice,” then you must hate women and are
engaged in a war on women.
For years, we have heard that pro-lifers only care about the baby,
not the woman. And it is supposedly those who advocate for abortion
who are the real champions for women. Really? Let’s look at what’s
happening in this country right now and consider who really cares
about women.
Abortion is the least regulated invasive procedure in the country.
Many states do not require that a mother be fully informed about
abortion, its potential risks, and alternatives – something required
for every other medical procedure performed in this country.
Read
Carol Tobias's Entire Column
NRL News
Archive
2012
Winter 2012
Spring 2012
Summer 2012
2011
January 2011
February/March 2011
April/May 2011
June/July 2011
Fall 2011
2010
NRL News 2010 Subject Index
January
2010
February/March 2010
April/May 2010
June/July 2010
August/September 2010
October 2010
November/December 2010
2009
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
2008
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
2007
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
2006
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
2005
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
2004
NRL News
2004
Subject Index
January
2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January
2003
February 2003
March 2003
April 2003
May 2003
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
2002
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
2001
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
January 2000
February 2000
March 2000
April 2000
May 2000
June 2000
July 2000
August 2000
September 2000
October 2000
December 2000
1999
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
1998
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
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 |