Pro-Lifers Flood Obama Website

24 12 2008

Dan Gilgoff at U.S. News’ blog posts about the flood of comments that pro-lifers have posted at President-elect Obama’s transition team’s website.

When she [president of Americans United for Life, Charmaine Yoest] sent the E-mail last night, Yoest says, there were fewer than 200 comments responding to a memo titled “Advancing Reproductive Rights and Health in a New Administration,” on the Obama site, change.gov. Now, there are almost 2,000 comments.

Comments areas are notorious for their nastiness, but I’m struck by the respectful tone of these protests. Does it mean pro-lifers see Obama as a different kind of Democrat, more willing to listen to their concerns than has traditionally been the case? In that regard, the civil tone suggests that Obama might be able to make headway with pro-lifers with policies that reduce demand for abortions without restricting abortion rights.

No, Dan, what it means is that pro-lifers are generally much more civil than their counterparts on the pro-abortion side. And don’t be deceived by the “civil tone”–most pro-lifers will not settle for policies that do not restrict abortion rights.

Advertisements




Obama’s Q&A site stifles free speech

14 12 2008

In yet another sign of how things might be under the Obama administration, if you go to President-Elect Obama’s Open For Questions website, you’ll see a blatant example of the way that the Left really believes in the freedom of speech.

This website was set up to allow Americans to post questions that they have for Obama. You can vote for questions to help move them up the list. You can also flag questions that you think are inappropriate, and they are then disqualified from being sent to Obama’s team to be answered.

Do a search for “Freedom of Choice Act” or “abortion” and you’ll see many questions about Obama’s promise to make his first legislative act to be signing the Freedom of Choice Act, which would remove all state restrictions on abortion. You’ll also notice that any questions asking if he would rescind that promise have been flagged as inappropriate. The pro-abortion activists have made a concentrated effort to cut pro-lifers out of the discussion.

Here are a few that were flagged as inappropriate:

“Would you consider rescinding your promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, given your desire to reduce abortions and to seek common ground, and in light of the fact that it would invalidate every measure and law intended to reduce abortions?”
Justin Taylor, Chicago

This submission was removed because people believe it is inappropriate.

“Will you still follow through with your promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, even though Maryland has passed similar legislation and their abortion rates have risen significantly compared to their prior numbers and the rest of the nation?”
Jonathan Baird, Magnolia, AR

This submission was removed because people believe it is inappropriate.

You can register and leave feedback here. They’ve closed the first round of questions, but should be opening again soon. I sent feedback, asking for them to hire a moderator panel to make final decisions on the appropriateness of questions before they’re disqualified from the website. Otherwise, their stated goal of giving Americans unprecedented access to their administration is just a joke.

Hat tip to LifeNews.com





The John Birch Society on FOCA

11 11 2008

Ann Shibler from the John Birch Society writes a great article on the ramifications of the Freedom of Choice Act–the first bill President-Elect Obama has said he would sign.

Unfortunately, we are getting used to the intrusion and restrictions of big government in our personal lives on a daily basis. But when it comes to abortion and the murdering of innocents, the federal government is willing to turn a blind eye under the guise of freedom of choice, while with the other eye they limit how much toothpaste and shampoo we can take on an airplane.

Proponents of the deceptively titled Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) would have us believe that the purpose of the bill is to codify Roe. v. Wade. Such is not the case. There is no attempt, however, to hide the true intent of FOCA, H.R. 1964 in the House and S. 1173 in the Senate, in any ambiguous terminology. Feeling threats to Roe. v. Wade, as some states try to limit and regulate abortion, the pro-abortion league is going all out to effectively end any opposition to abortion, legally and finally.

FOCA will specifically change the present policy in the United States, guaranteeing that surgical and medical abortions be a fundamental right. It would invalidate any “statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action” of any federal, state, or local government or governmental official, that would “deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose.”

The far-reaching provisions in the bill will invalidate and nullify the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, the Hyde Amendment, informed consent laws, waiting periods, parental notification laws, limits on public funding for elective abortions (American taxpayers, like it or not, will foot the bill for abortions and the abortion industry), and health and safety regulations for the abortion clinics themselves.

The most egregious provisions of the bill would allow the killing of technically full-term babies for “health” reasons, and would remove legal protections for religiously-affiliated hospitals and the doctors and nurses who staff them.





Cardinal George Likens Abortion to Racism

11 11 2008

LifeNews.com covers a conference of Catholic bishops, in which their leader, Cardinal Frances George compares the fight against abortion to the fight against racism.

Cardinal George said Americans should “rejoice” that the nation elected its first African-American president, but he immediately issued a challenge to the nation and to incoming leader Barack Obama.

“If the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision, that African Americans were other people’s property and somehow less than persons, were still settled constitutional law, Mr. Obama would not be President of the United States,” George said.

“We are perhaps at a moment when, with the grace of God, all races are safely within the American consensus,” George said. “We are not at the point, however, when Catholics, especially in public life, can be considered full partners in the American experience unless they are willing to put aside some fundamental Catholic teachings on a just moral and political order.”

He explained that opposition to racism is a “pillar” of Catholic teaching, but so is opposition to abortion — a comment that received a standing ovation from his colleagues.





More on Freedom of Choice Act

28 10 2008

Don’t Drink the King’s Wine has posted about Americans United For Life (AUL) and their fight against the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). They’ve started an ad campaign against it. For more info go to FightFOCA.com. Here’s some more info from their website.

This [FOCA] would eradicate state and federal laws that the majority of Americans support, such as:

– Bans on Partial Birth Abortion
– Requirements that women be given information about the risks of getting an abortion
– Only licensed physicians can perform abortions
– Parents must be informed and give consent to their minor daughter’s abortion

FOCA would erase these laws and prevent states from enacting similar protective measures in the future.





A Reminder of Obama’s Promise

28 10 2008

Americans United for Life is reminding voters that Obama has promised that if he’s elected, the first bill he’d sign into law would be the Freedom of Choice Act.

“Many people still don’t even know about this radical bill and Obama has promised Planned Parenthood it would be his first priority in the White House,” AUL president Charmaine Yoest told LifeNews.com on Tuesday.

Sen. Obama last year promised the national Planned Parenthood abortion business, “The first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.”

Yoest says FOCA would wipe away every restriction on abortion nationwide, and prevent enactment of future protective measures like common-sense parental involvement laws and prohibitions on partial birth abortion.

The letter specifically focuses on how the Obama-backed legislation would overturn parental notification and consent laws and leave parents in the dark about their minor daughters having an abortion.

AUL’s letter tells the story of a 14-year-old girl from Cincinnati who became pregnant by her 22-year-old soccer coach.

“Planned Parenthood gave her an abortion after turning a blind eye when the soccer coach pretended to be a family member for the parental notification requirements,” Yoest said.

AUL explains that the FOCA bill would make unlimited abortions the national law and overturn state laws such as informed consent requirements, bans on taxpayer-funding of abortion and conscience protections for pro-life doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals.





Obama Regrets Answer at Saddleback

7 09 2008

In yet another example of Barack Obama backtracking on something he’s said during this campaign, the senator is now saying he regrets how he answered a question posed by Pastor Rick Warren during a question and answer session a few weeks ago at Saddleback Church.

“At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?” Warren asked.

“I think that, whether you’re looking at it from the theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade,” Obama said — an answer that offended some people.

“Was that phrase too flip?” Stephanopoulos asked Obama today.

“Probably,” Obama said. “Yes. I mean, what I intended to say is that, as a Christian, I have a lot of humility about understanding when does the soul enter into…”

“It goes back to Augustine,” Stephanopoulos interjected.

“It does,” Obama said. “It’s a pretty tough question. And so, all I meant to communicate was that I don’t presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions. What I do know is that abortion is a moral issue, that it’s one that families struggle with all the time, and that in wrestling with those issues, I don’t think that the government criminalizing the choices that families make is the best answer for reducing abortions.”

I have a problem with his latest response. So he’s saying that it’s a theological question about when life starts? He’s punting. So why wouldn’t anyone with any amount of human decency say, “Let’s err on the side of life and assume that life starts as early as conception so that we can prevent the taking of innocent human life”? Instead, he’s saying let’s not worry about when life starts. Let’s err on the side of convenience. By saying that it’s a theological question, he is attempting to take the responsibility off of us “normal” folks and say that since most of us are not theologians, we aren’t qualified to answer it. So anything goes.

So here’s a question that Stephanopoulos should have asked: okay, so if I find a Christian theologian that says that a baby should get human rights at conception, will you change your stance on abortion? I think we all know what his answer would be (although he’d find a slick way of avoiding saying “no”).