Democrat budget fail is pro-life win x 2
Recall that last week Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid all but abandoned efforts to pass a bloated federal budget for Fiscal Year 2011, called the Omnibus Appropriations bill. In that bill were increased financial perks for pro-abort groups:
- $327 million allocated for the Title X Family Planning Program, which provides funding to groups like Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the nation. This was a $10 million increase over FY10 and a $44 million increase over the last 4 years (FY07 was $283 million)
- $710 million appropriated for international family planning/reproductive health, which provides funding to organizations that promote and perform abortion overseas. This was a $62 million increase over FY10 and a $270 million increase over the last four years (FY07 was $440 million)
Today the Senate passed a short-term budget called a Continuing Resolution – which is expected to pass in the House tonight – that will maintain the status quo on the aforementioned budget line items through March 4, 2011.
In other words, pro-abort groups including PP will not get any additional funding for the time being.
We hope the increased social/fiscal conservative influence in the upcoming 112th Congress will flatten if not scale back this funding.
In addition, although the CR allows public funding for abortion to continue in the District of Columbia until March 4, it will also allow the incoming Congress to cut that funding off for the remainder of FY11.
[Top photo via Life]
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.
There is no doubt that the 112th Congress was a mandate from the people.
The tea party and republican candidates ran on cutting the budget and lowering our National Debt. Family planning, in the form of government subsidized murder, will be the first to be obliterated from the pages of any 2011 Budget.
Opponents of abortion gained about 45 seats in the midterm elections, and they count the next speaker, Representative John A. Boehner, a staunch ally, virtually guaranteeing more conflicts with the White House on the issue.
Mr. Pitts was chosen last week as the chairman of the subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over private health insurance, Medicaid and much of Medicare, as well as the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health.
45 seats people!!!! Woo Hoo
Well gee maybe some wealthy liberals and Hollywood hobnobs will just have to cough up some of their own money to support their pet cause.
Elections have consequences. This time we won. It is time that those sent to D.C. on a pro-life platform stand firm in their convictions. We will be watching.
Does anyone know which congressmen and women will be attending on January 24th?
I think Mr. Pitts of Pennsylvania should be a speaker.
By the way…if you are still organizing buses to the March you may visit
—— marchforlife.dcrallybus.com
Some years ago there was an undercover operation at Chicago area abortion clinics. It was found that “counselors” were not paid to counsel patients, but to make sure they didn’t get away. One undercover reporter posing as a counselor was told to stop trying to help a sobbing woman. She quoted her supervisor as saying “we don’t have time for that, we’re much too busy!”.
45 seats people!!!! Woo Hoo
Don’t get your hopes up. When the anti-choice legislation gets to the Senate, it will disappear. Unlike the House, the Senate has some moderate, pro-choice Republicans. No anti-choice legislation will get the requisite 60 cloture votes. Too bad, so sad.
There is no doubt that the 112th Congress was a mandate from the people.
The tea party and republican candidates ran on cutting the budget and lowering our National Debt. (Alfrazolam)
I shake my head at “the people,” here. Part of it is the usual knee-jerk reaction against the party of a sitting President, and part of it is that economic times are “bad.” Seems to me the electorate has an attention-deficit-disorder.
Cutting the budget deficit – perhaps, but I would not expect much, there. Past Republicans have piled on debt like nobody before, and while the Obama administration has further increased it, there is just one big trend at work here.
The last President to make a serious effort at slowing the increase in spending and the size of government was Reagan, and only for his first 2 years out of 8. Clinton benefitted from increased tax receipts and a generally “good” economy, at least on the surface, but the prevailing trend of higher spending was in force.
As for lowering the national debt – good grief, pipedream city. Who among us wants the programs that we favor to be cut or stopped? Politicians will do what is politically expedient, regardless of the long-term economic effects, and I do not think the Tea Partiers will be any different.
True “economic conservatives”? Show me some.
Ones with enough clout and willingness to truly make a difference? I’ll show you none.
Doug,
We’ll both enjoy the action when the young guns start cutting the budget. And I heard thatb the new GOP pledge includs a mandate to cut funding from existing spending in order to pass new spending. That would be tough. And the pledge also says that you cannot raise taxes to pay for new spending. The Democrats are gonna be pulling their hair out; which is a good thing. I heard that Ryan will be proposing a 100 billion dollars in spending cuts next year alone. When the Democrats don’t back these cuts; and we all they won’t; there will be another huge price to pay for ignoring the will of the people.
DD,
You are right about 45 seats not being enough to pass legislation through the Senate. And several of those are still RINOs anyway. But we have enough votes to stop the bleeding. And the Democrats have 23 seats up for re-election in 2012 compared to the GOP which only has 10 seats up for re-election. Where will that leave your party after 2012…..Its a long way to fall; Don’t forget to say hi when you are passin me on your way down. What is the wordto describe something worse then a shellacking?
How on Earth is the denial of voluntary family planning choices to women somehow a “prolife victory”? Since when is preventing a life from starting tantamont to taking that life after s/he has begun?
Millions of abortions happen worldwide precisely because women are *denied* access to family planning services.
Both international and Title X domestic family planning funds are awarded *with restrictions* preventing their use to perform or promote abortions.
I’d rather these funds go to prolife than prochoice groups.
But even though something like 85% of US prolifers support women’s freedom of conscience in family planning methods, and a good many support comprehensive sex education, the prolife movement as such takes the self-defeating position of inaction or hostility towards contraception and complete sex ed.
Prolifers tend to be better at helping individuals get through crisis pregnancies. Prochoicers tend to be better at prevention and at fostering public policies like family leave, living wage, universal health care access, etc.
I’d love to see the growth of a pro *every* life movement that does all of the above!
Both international and Title X domestic family planning funds are awarded *with restrictions* preventing their use to perform or promote abortions.
Maryissa,
When Obama was sworn in as president he reversed the restriction you refer to by REMOVING the restrictions from the Mexico City policy so now the US is again providing fundingworldwide to organizations that perform abortions . I guess you must think Obama is a jerk too then huh?
“Prochoicers tend to be better at prevention”
No, but they are better at destroying life and spreading STDs.
“How on Earth is the denial of voluntary family planning choices to women somehow a “prolife victory”? ”
Cause prochoicers are terrible at preventing unwanted pregnancy. You will not prevent unwanted pregnancy by teaching adolescent girls that they can safely have sex as long as they keep ingesting high doses of hormones from the local Banned Parenthood.
I heard that the new GOP pledge includs a mandate to cut funding from existing spending in order to pass new spending. That would be tough. And the pledge also says that you cannot raise taxes to pay for new spending. The Democrats are gonna be pulling their hair out; which is a good thing. I heard that Ryan will be proposing a 100 billion dollars in spending cuts next year alone.
Thruthseeker, I’ll believe it when I see it. Even Ronald Reagan could only slow down the growth a little, rather than actually make any true cuts.
As for the political stuff, Republicans can get blamed for a bad economy too….