Pro-life Democrat nudges victory against Planned Parenthood
On February 28 the Washington Post reported:
The Virginia Senate voted Wednesday to cut off state funding to Planned Parenthood of Virginia because it offers abortions….
Before excitement overtakes, I should warn this bill may not become law. It seems unlikely Gov. Timothy Kaine would sign it since he’s a pro-abort who just rejected federal funds to teach abstinence. He would now cut off a main line to low-income contraceptive provision and compehensive sex ed? Doubtful, but pro-lifers should certainly push.
But 3 other points do make this development exciting….
1. “The decision [was] a major setback for the Senate’s new Democratic majority….”
2. “The GOP-controlled House has long pushed to cut off state aid for Planned Parenthood, but the moderate Republicans who controlled the Senate until this year fought off the effort.”
3. “On Thursday, however, all 19 Senate Republicans decided they would vote for the amendment….”
Democrats could not break 1 lone pro-life member, Charles Colgan, from voting with Republicans, creating a 20-20 tie broken by the GOP pro-life lietenant governor. For whatever reason milk-toast Republicans coalesced with pro-life colleagues. I expect vindictivness played a role, but I’ll take it.
So in this case, 1 pro-life Democrat made the difference. Stated Colgan, according to the WP:
“It’s because of my conscience, and I don’t waver from that, as my colleagues found out today. I ran on a pro-life platform, and most of my constituents are pro-life.”
Good for Colgan.
[HT: Thomas Peter of The American Papist; photo, circa 1970s, courtesy of Library of Virginia]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
My apologies to the 5 who commented on my previous incomplete post on this topic. I deleted it, but it wouldn’t die.
Re-comment? Thanks.
Didn’t THIS abortion-related story break in your home state?:
Federal Court Hands Defeat to Advocates of Abortion Notification Law
Last Edited: Saturday, 01 Mar 2008, 10:21 PM CST
Created: Saturday, 01 Mar 2008, 6:21 PM CST
By MICHAEL TARM
Associated Press Writer
Chicago, IL. — A federal judge refused to allow enforcement of an ill-fated state law requiring teenage girls to notify their parents before getting abortions, potentially ending any chance the decades-old measure will ever take effect.
Abortion rights groups on Saturday hailed the ruling on the legislation that was passed in 1984 and updated in 1995 but has never been enforced because of complex legal wrangling.
“We’re very pleased,” said Lorie Chaiten of the Illinois chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. “This should be the end of that law.” Anti-abortion forces decried the judge’s ruling on the law, which says minors can’t obtain abortions without telling their parents or getting a court’s OK to bypass the requirement.
“It’s a major defeat for the people of Illinois,” said Thomas Brejcha of the Chicago-based Thomas More Society’s Pro-Life Law Center. “This is a defensible, constitutional law.”
In a decision entered Friday, U.S. District Judge David H. Coar rejected a request from Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan to dissolve a 1996 order that put the law on hold. The Illinois Supreme Court opened the door to enforcement of the Parental Notice of Abortion Act in 2006 when it issued necessary rules for the notification process.
But Judge Coar appeared to slam the door back shut. In his 13-page ruling, Coar said the law still fails to give a teenager workable judicial options to notifying her parents, calling parts of the statute “contradictory and incomplete.”
Madigan spokeswoman Robyn Ziegler said Saturday that the attorney general’s office was “still looking at appropriate next steps for the state, including an appeal.” Brejcha expected Madigan to appeal, if need be, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“We would fully expect her to do that and we would support her,” he said. “The attorney general is under a statutory obligation to defend laws enacted.” Currently, 35 states have parental notification or permission laws, and most states enforce them, according to the Guttmacher Institute — which supports abortion rights. Illinois is the only state in the region that doesn’t have such laws, and anti-abortion activists say that enables teens from other states to travel here to receive abortions.
Brejcha also argues that the Illinois law is commonsense legislation, saying it was adopted with bipartisan support. “Families ought to consult with one another about matters of this importance, which is major surgery,” he said. “You even need permission to dispense aspirin in schools.”
The ACLU says the vast majority of teens inform their parents about their abortions anyway, but laws mandating notification leave some girls vulnerable. “In the few instances where a young woman is not able to tell her parents, because of fear of abuse, neglect or being tossed from the house, that young woman should not be denied essential reproductive health care,” an ACLU statement said.
— Associated Press Writer Ashley M. Heher contributed to this report.
I honestly don’t understand the logic behind calling someone who believes abortions should be rare and legal “pro-abortion.” It seems like something you would say simply to imply that someone’s intentions are to go around killing babies, and ignores the conflict that one arrives at when trying to form a position on the issue. “Pro-abortion” would mean you would want to push a woman to or force women to have an abortion, and no one wants that, and no one supports that. Pro-choicers believe the women should make that decision. Please be more accurate in your arguments. It’s like calling them Pro-Hussein-abortionists just to “get a rise out of people” to quote your comment policy.
Joshdavis: Why the discomfort with being labeled pro-abort? So what if someone inaccurately labels your position. I am called plenty of things that aren’t true. I don’t care if a prochoicer calls me an “anti” for instance. Again, why the discomfort?
I am proud of Colgan for standing up to the rest of the Dems. Glad to see that he didn’t abandon his principles. I must say that I am always surprised when a prolife law passes.
Ohhh so there IS such a thing as a pro-life democrat! Wow!
Penn and Teller stated on one episode of their current show that “you’re either pro-abortion or anti-abortion” and argued against the semantics of “pro-choice and pro-life.”
Now all I have to do is get Colgan to run for president so I don’t have to hold my nose when I vote. Lol, though I really don’t mind McCain so I will be voting for him.
I have no problem being called anti-abortion. I am proud to be against abortion. Same can’t be said for many proaborts.
….as in their insistance that they are not proabort, but prochoice.
Another interesting article
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/feb/21/griego-lessons-at-a-school-for-moms/
Phil-
I like what they have to say about a lot of things. I think that is a good topic to discuss.
I particularly like their episode on abstinence ;)
I honestly don’t understand the logic behind calling someone who believes abortions should be rare and legal “pro-abortion.” It seems like something you would say simply to imply that someone’s intentions are to go around killing babies, and ignores the conflict that one arrives at when trying to form a position on the issue. “Pro-abortion” would mean you would want to push a woman to or force women to have an abortion, and no one wants that, and no one supports that.
Posted by: Joshdavis at March 3, 2008 12:06 PM
Often times people are really pro abortion. For example they say things like, ‘sometimes abortion is the best thing in certain situations’ which is totally different from ‘it is better to allow women to choose’ Some here have said directly that at times and in some situations forcing women to abort should be the right of parents or the state and that women who stay in abusive relationships have an ‘obligation’ to abort.
They want women to have the option to choose abortion because they hope she will choose abortion because they think it is better in some situations.
That is pro abortion.
If I see a pregnant woman in a terrible situation, I think we should help her to help herself and her baby. I don’t think she would be better off aborting so she can more quickly improve her situation. I am against abortion because the baby has a right to live even if her mom is having problems at that time.
Ohhh so there IS such a thing as a pro-life democrat! Wow!
Posted by: prettyinpink at March 3, 2008 12:25 PM
Of course there are. There are many. That is how Arkansas passed a Human Life Amendment. The democrats voted for it.
That is why you should vote for prolife democrats in the primaries. That way in the general election you will have a choice between two prolife candidates.
“I have no problem being called anti-abortion. I am proud to be against abortion.”
————————————
Same here…so what’s all the whining about being called PRO-ABORT if you really support abortion??
Is there something you don’t like about supporting abortion?
pro-aborts like to use “pro-choice” because it masks their despicable support of the hienous act of abortion. “pro-choice” is the devil’s word, because the devil is a liar.
RSD: Good luck getting them to answer that question directly.
Josh,
Saying you’re in favor of legalized abortion means you can tolerate abortion – death. There is no grey area between life and death, even when it’s just a little fetus, so you’re either pro-life or something else. The choice of words is irrelevant. Those who don’t like being called pro-abort might need to re-think their position.
“Of course there are. There are many. That is how Arkansas passed a Human Life Amendment. The democrats voted for it.
That is why you should vote for prolife democrats in the primaries. That way in the general election you will have a choice between two prolife candidates.”
Well duh Hippie, I am a member of Dems for Life ;)
I was being sarcastic, I don’t know how many times I have heard on this blog, “there are practically no Democratic pro-lifers.”
there are practically no Democratic pro-lifers.
really, hardly any.
If there are any Democratic PLfers, can someone please name them.
*yawn* for some reason I’ve heard that before jasper…I wonder where….
heather, check out Democrats for Life, they will hook you up.
If there are any Democratic PLfers, can someone please name them.
Robert Casey, for one. Pennsylvania.
Thanks pip and Alexandra.
Same here…so what’s all the whining about being called PRO-ABORT if you really support abortion??
Just as pro-lifers feel that pro-life is different from anti-abortion, I feel that pro-choice is different from pro-abortion. I support and work towards increasing women’s access to all their choices — adoption, birth, or abortion — and I support making sure they are not pressured into any choice by economic or social factors. I would be perfectly fine being called pro-abortion if the debate were framed in those terms — pro- and anti-abortion — but as most pro-lifers see the term “pro-life” as being part of a larger philosophy, I see the term “pro-choice” as being part of a larger philosophy. So if the discussion is framed by philosophy rather than by support of or opposition to the legal right to abortion, I would rather be called pro-choice.
Of course, I have learned not to expect respect from most of the pro-lifers on this site, so it doesn’t really matter very much what you call me.
FF:
Regarding your post on parental notification in Illinois, why are 35 states able to write an enforceable statute and Illinois is not?
Should we ask Obama what he’s done for the state in this regard?
It’s ridiculous that a teacher can take a pupil to PP for an abortion without the parent knowing, but can’t give them an aspirin.
FF:
Regarding your post on parental notification in Illinois, why are 35 states able to write an enforceable statute and Illinois is not?
Should we ask Obama what he’s done for the state in this regard?
It’s ridiculous that a teacher can take a pupil to PP for an abortion without the parent knowing, but can’t give them an aspirin.
Posted by: Janet at March 3, 2008 6:48 PM
…………………………….
Apparently the people of Illinois do not want parental notification laws. Do the people of Illinois not have the right to govern themselves?
Also encouraging is the fact that this vote took place prior to
the startling video by the Advocate, showing the racist
PP clinics agreeing to take $$ so babies of certain races
might be aborted, was widely seen.
BTW a PP brochure from the 60s, when their agenda was more
birth control related stated,
“Is it [birth control] an abortion?
Definitely not. An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it. Birth control merely postpones the meaning of life.”
Truer words were never spoken – except the ‘postpones the
meaning of life.’ Say what?
Also encouraging is the fact that this vote took place prior to
the startling video by the Advocate, showing the racist
PP clinics agreeing to take $$ so babies of certain races
might be aborted, was widely seen.
BTW a PP brochure from the 60s, when their agenda was more
birth control related stated,
“Is it [birth control] an abortion?
Definitely not. An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it. Birth control merely postpones the meaning of life.”
Truer words were never spoken – except the ‘postpones the
meaning of life.’ Say what?
Posted by: lesforlife at March 3, 2008 7:17 PM
………………………
Say what? I say you are incredibly ill informed.
Sally,
What is Lesforlife misinformed about?
Is there anything more entertaining than watching Phill Kline LOSE and LOSE and LOSE?
I’m beginning to think he gets off on public humiliation:
Abortion Clinic Avoids Kan. Indictment
By ANDALE GROSS, Associated Press Writer
Monday, March 3, 2008
(03-03) 18:51 PST Kansas City, Mo. (AP) —
A Kansas grand jury that investigated a Planned Parenthood clinic has refused to issue an indictment on allegations that it violated restrictions on the procedure.
The Johnson County, Kan., grand jury’s decision was announced Monday evening, Planned Parenthood officials said.
Abortion opponents, through a petition, had forced the court to convene the panel and investigate the clinic in Overland Park, Kan., to determine whether it violated laws on parental notice and informed consent.
They also wanted to see whether the clinic was illegally trafficking in fetal tissue.
“We are once again vindicated, as we have been any time there is an objective review of these allegations,” said Peter Brownlie, president and chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri. “The jury investigated all of the allegations that were in the petition that resulted in the grand jury being formed, and they found no evidence of any wrongdoing.”
Said Planned Parenthood attorney Pedro Irigonegaray: “It gives me great faith in the justice system and the people of Kansas.”
Those who called for the grand jury believe the case was weakened because the panel did not get all the records it initially sought. The jury convened in December, but its investigation was delayed for more than a month while it waited on records from Planned Parenthood.
“Planned Parenthood cannot claim they are free of any indictment, because the full evidence never reached the grand jury,” said Tim Golba, spokesman for the LIFE Coalition, the anti-abortion collaborative that petitioned for the grand jury.
The jurors issued a subpoena in January seeking the records of 16 clinic patients, but Planned Parenthood feared information in the records would identify the patients.
Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline, who has started his own investigation into Planned Parenthood, asked District Judge Kevin Moriarty to make the agency and its clinic abide by the subpoena.
Kline also asked for the grand jury’s investigation to be extended, given the delay over records.
In the end, Planned Parenthood was allowed to turn over a limited number of records, those relevant to the grand jury’s questions about parental notice and informed consent.
The laws require that a parent or guardian of a minor seeking an abortion be notified, and that a woman be given information about the procedure or alternatives 24 hours before an abortion is performed.
Kline spokesman Brian Burgess declined to comment Monday. Kline was unavailable for comment, Burgess said.
Cheryl Sullenger, spokeswoman for Operation Rescue, one of the groups in the LIFE Coalition, said she wasn’t surprised by the grand jury’s decision. Jurors didn’t appear to seriously investigate all of the allegations, she said.
“We’ve been considering a second grand jury effort,” Sullenger said. “That’s something that’s on the table right now.”
Brownlie said he expected abortion opponents to claim the grand jury’s work was tainted.
“Any time a decision is different from the one they want, they will claim it’s because of some nefarious doings,” he said. “The only people who continue to insist that there’s criminal wrongdoing are people who have a political agenda.”
___
Associated Press writer John Hanna in Topeka, Kan., contributed to this report.
FF:
Regarding your post on parental notification in Illinois, why are 35 states able to write an enforceable statute and Illinois is not?
Should we ask Obama what he’s done for the state in this regard?
It’s ridiculous that a teacher can take a pupil to PP for an abortion without the parent knowing, but can’t give them an aspirin.
Posted by: Janet at March 3, 2008 6:48 PM
…………………………….
Apparently the people of Illinois do not want parental notification laws. Do the people of Illinois not have the right to govern themselves?
Posted by: Sally at March 3, 2008 7:01 PM
Sally: It is not being held up for lack of support by the people of Illinois. The law was passed, but the Attorney General’s Office apparently cannot figure out how to enforce it. How complicated can it be?
FF…now more than ever, I’m convinced you work for PP.
FF…now more than ever, I’m convinced you work for PP.
Posted by: Mike at March 4, 2008 12:32 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Actually, I work at a large and small veterinary practice with a dairy specialty, but sometimes I hand out condoms to my emus.
Those who called for the grand jury believe the case was weakened because the panel did not get all the records it initially sought. The jury convened in December, but its investigation was delayed for more than a month while it waited on records from Planned Parenthood.
“Planned Parenthood cannot claim they are free of any indictment, because the full evidence never reached the grand jury,” said Tim Golba, spokesman for the LIFE Coalition, the anti-abortion collaborative that petitioned for the grand jury.
FF:
You must have missed this part of the article.
Try reading it again.
“A Kansas grand jury that investigated a Planned Parenthood clinic has refused to issue an indictment on allegations that it violated restrictions on the procedure.”
Try reading it again.
Jurors didn’t appear to seriously investigate all of the allegations, she said.
FF:
This article clearly supports the fact that PP has scammed out of an indictment, not because they were fully investigated and found innocent, but because they refused to cooperate by turning over key evidence.
This is not over.
BTW, have you changed the paper in the bottom of the bird cages yet today?
Sally: It is not being held up for lack of support by the people of Illinois. The law was passed, but the Attorney General’s Office apparently cannot figure out how to enforce it. How complicated can it be?
Posted by: Janet at March 4, 2008 12:28 AM
………………….
Janet,
Seems to me that if the people of Illinois want the law to take effect, they will pressure their government into doing so. I really don’t see what the big deal is. If a teen cannot trust their parents enough to consult with them over pregnancy options there is probably something wrong with the parent/child relationship.
well it’s not the kind of news that is worth discussing. i wonder why are you all here so excited?
Every time I visit this website I loose my assurance that everything written here is real. But even if it’s not true, I keep on visiting it because it’s interesting. There are many posts which you can’t find anywhere else.