Jivin J’s Life Links 11-16-09
by JivinJ
In a nationally televised address to Congress he claimed “under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions” when the legislation at that time included abortion funding. Now that the legislation has been amended to remove abortion funding via the Stupak amendment and prevents abortion coverage from being federally subsidized, Obama is sending out David Axelrod (below, left) to act like the Stupak amendment changes the “status quo” and that Obama’s original promise was that he wouldn’t change the status quo…
“The president has said repeatedly, and he said in his speech to Congress, that he doesn’t believe that this bill should change the status quo as it relates to the issue of abortion,” Axelrod told CNN. “He’s going to work with the Senate and the House to try to ensure that at the end of the day the status quo is not changed.”
Excuse me, but how on earth is a government-run health care insurance program (in which the federal government subsidizes health care plans which include abortion) the status quo to what we have now?
Secondly, when did Obama ever promise to keep the status quo? He even attacked the status quo in his health care speech to Congress:
And I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time. Not now.
They could barely get this thing through the House, even when the pro-life Democrats had the Stupak Amendment to sweeten the deal. Now they appear to be willing to lose the health-care bill — and it’s not even in defense of their underlying principle of abortion rights. They are willing to risk losing the bill simply because the bill does not expand access to abortion as much as they would like it to.
That’s a devotion that borders on religious fervor. There are many things that have been called make-or-break for the Obama presidency: winning Afghanistan, preventing another 9/11, turning the economy around. Here’s another thing that could break his presidency: torpedoing his No. 1 agenda item, in obeisance to a single-issue special-interest lobby that is losing support from the American people.
I practice in Washington, D.C., where women on Medicaid, the public health-insurance plan for the very poor, don’t have abortion coverage except in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to their life. The Stupak amendment mirrors these Medicaid restrictions, which also currently apply to women in the military and female federal employees, no matter where they live. These patients–as well as the women who can’t afford any insurance or have insurance that doesn’t cover abortion–give my colleagues and me a preview of what women’s health care would look like in Rep. Bart Stupak’s America.
During council, Rebecca Dooley, VP (University Affairs), indicated that four complaints against Choose Life have been brought to the attention of the Student Equity Committee since it was granted club status last year. The motion to suspend incorporated a clause which would send the club for evaluation by the Equity Committee.
An amendment was added and stipulated that the club would meet with the Committee to develop a document that would allow for the expression of a pro-life viewpoint while remaining in line with the SSMU constitution and equity policy.
[Image attributions: photo of Willie Parker: prch.org; David Axelrod: chicagonow.com]
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.
Jivin J
If you are the first to submit a particular correction of a material error, ARTL will gratefully send you $100.00 dollars.
I would roll up that 100 dollar bill and shove it where the sun don’t shine. The pro-life movement is not going to make ANY headway until we accept EVERY method of supporting unborn human rights and every group who wishes to do so with open arms. Your self-directed venom isn’t helping anyone.
How about we agree on a common definition of “pro-lifer”? If you believe in a Right to Life, you are, and if you don’t you’re not.
According to their carefully researched information, Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin don’t qualify. Maybe Sarah doesn’t qualify simply because she doesn’t act according to her beliefs. She still misses — or else she could call them and say “I believe in a Right to Life and therefore I support Personhood” (they’re the same thing), and she gets moved to a higher level!
I think back to all of the previous posts during the election by pro-aborts that continually stated that abortion is a non-issue and most americans don’t care about it.
Well well well………….
It always saddens me to see a black doctor perform abortions. After all we as a people have been through . . .
The report says things like “Sarah Palin said that she opposes tax payer money going towards elective abortion” under the heading “Sarah Palin supports tax payer funding of abortion.”
It also talks about the board election of the former PP member but fails to mention that the only options she could have put in place were pro-choice, and the other option had similiar radical ties.
Honeslty, I did not think the report was remotely convincing.
Publicity-seeker Palin has met her match in ARTL, which will do anything for publicity. Very funny.
“It always saddens me to see a black doctor perform abortions. After all we as a people have been through . . .”
Posted by: Phillymiss at November 16, 2009 3:53 PM
I know.
Not to make light of that, but what also really bugs me is seeing so many foreign-born abortionists, and so many male-abortionists. Just an observation – you don’t see many Catholic abortionists. I’d be wondering about their motives constantly. Is it a secret conspiracy against Catholics? Does the foreigner have a grudge against Americans? Are they in the USA because they can make more money? ICK. Pro-abort feminists should be outraged that men would take part in an abortion at any level. Regarding female abortionists, if they had any maternal instinct at all, they would reject abortion and really help these women.
“Their new website, ProlifeProfiles.com, is devoted to attacking pro-lifers who aren’t on their personhood bandwagon.”
It actually appears to me to be devoted to profiles of pro-lifers, including those for and against Personhood. Why the false reporting? Is that what I should expect from this site?
Don’t you agree we need a resource like this?
Are there any factual errors on the Palin or Bush profile?
Lauren – “and the other option had similiar radical ties.”
One was a extremist child killer and the other an environmental extremist. Who would you pick? If this was a KKK member vs. PETA, Palin picked the KKK member. That’s evil.
Lauren – “Honeslty, I did not think the report was remotely convincing.”
Sarah Palin thought it was. Why else did she scrub her own site after the ProlifeProfiles.com site was launched? She scrubbed the exact page that they linked to.
Reading Palin’s profile is almost as bad as finding out your wife has been committing adultery.