|
|
|
|
Another Outrage: Funding Abortion Worldwide
Not satisfied with using our tax dollars to fund elective abortions in the U.S. through the recently passed Obama Care legislation, a bill was introduced in Congress on Friday, April 23, 2010 that if passed, would expand foreign assistance funds (also our tax dollars) to include sex education, contraception and abortion to countries throughout the world! Please read the article included in this email and then take a few minutes to call the Houston area Congressmen most likely to vote for this bill and tell them what you think about this latest misuse of your hard-earned tax dollars. They include:
By Terrence McKeegan, J.D. 
(NEW YORK C-FAM) Last Friday, a Congresswoman from Brooklyn, New York introduced a bill in the United States (US) House of Representatives that would greatly expand international funding for abortion, contraception, and sex education, and would effectively eliminate the long-standing Helms Amendment prohibiting the use of US foreign assistance funds for abortion.
The Global Sexual and Reproductive Health Act of 2010, sponsored by Representative Yvette Clarke and co-sponsored by at least 17 other House members, appears to be linked to the US statement at the recently concluded United Nations (UN) Commission on Population and Development (CPD). That statement touted that President Obama has requested $715.7 million for bilateral and multilateral reproductive health, including family planning, in 2011. If approved later this year by Congress, this amount will represent the single largest U.S. contribution in history for international reproductive health programs. The stated purpose of the bill is the advancement of sexual and reproductive health is necessary to meeting most of the eight United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), with its findings based almost entirely on the controversial UN report entitled Adding It Up." That report was authored and sponsored by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), and was also cited prominently in the US statement to the CPD. It advocated increased family planning and access to abortion as the primary means of reducing maternal mortality worldwide. The bill states that foreign assistance funds should be used to support safe abortion services, including referrals, and support the training of abortion providers and the necessary equipment and commodities for surgical and medical abortion. Section 7 of the bill calls for funding to ensure and promote sexual and reproductive health care for young people, including comprehensive sexuality and reproductive health education, as well as abortion services. The bill defines young people as including all individuals as young as 10 years of age up to 25 years old. According to the pro-abortion Ipas organization, Adoption of the Act would mean the end of the Helms Amendment. The Helms Amendment was first enacted in 1973 and states that, No foreign assistance funds may be used to pay for the performance of abortion as a method of family planning or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions. A statement from Representative Clarkes office suggests the bill is needed to comply with international norms: By revising existing legislation to meet current international standards, we can establish an integrated, progressive model for delivering more efficient and effective sexual and reproductive health services across the globe. Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America, expressed her outrage to the Friday Fax. This bill is beyond irresponsible. No abortion procedure is fully safe and the danger multiplies for women without access to basic medical care, clean water or penicillin. Exporting abortion to the most deprived women in the world and promoting 10 year olds to engage in sex, putting them at risk of deadly disease, exploitation by pedophiles, and candidates for abortion, could be considered a method of ethnic cleansing. Good News!
Dawn Johnsen Update On Friday, April 9, 2010, Dawn Johnsen withdrew her name from the consideration Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel. Johnsen admitted Friday that it was the “strong opposition” that led her to withdraw her nomination. Read story here at ABC News. Background: In 1988 Attorney Dawn Johnsen argued that the Catholic Bishops needed to choose between either having the Catholic Church stripped of its tax-exempt status as a religious organization or keeping their opposition to abortion to themselves. The Catholic Bishops defeated Johnsen in the Supreme Court Case United States Catholic Conference v. Abortion Rights Mobilization. From 1998 to 1993 Dawn Johnsen was the legal director of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Now Barack Obama has nominated her for the Office of Legal Counsel. This woman is a radical pro-abort. Some of her more bizarre statements include:
Please send us an e-mail to sign-up for our Life Advocate Action Alert. We will let you know of upcoming events and actions on local, state and federal levels both in the political and social realms.
To find your incumbant by address, use the link: http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/mnuAddress.aspx For a list of conservative organizations compiled by The Conservative Caucus, with links to e-mail talk show hosts, etc.... follow The Right Links or www.conservativeusa.org/ritelinks.htm. Helpful non-partisan resource: www.politicalresponsibility.org You can find the positions of the national candidates at www.priestsforlife.org/candidates/index.htm for voting records visit www.issues2000.org You Wouldn't Even Ask
Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director, Priests for Life Click here for pdf version. You may print and distribute it! "If a candidate who supported terrorism asked for your vote, would you say, "I disagree with you on terrorism, but where do you stand on other issues?" I doubt it. In fact, if a terrorism sympathizer presented him/herself for your vote, you would immediately know that such a position disqualifies the candidate for public office -- no matter how good he or she may be on other issues. The horror of terrorism dwarfs whatever good might be found in the candidate's plan for housing, education, or health care. Regarding those plans, you wouldn't even ask. So why do so many people say, "This candidate favors legal abortion. I disagree. But I'm voting for this person because she has good ideas about health care (or some other issue)." Such a position makes no sense whatsoever, unless one is completely blind to the violence of abortion. That, of course, is the problem. But we need only see what abortion looks like, or read descriptions from the abortionists themselves, and the evidence is clear. (USA Today refused to sell me space for an ad that quoted abortionists describing their work because the readers would be traumatized just by the words! Abortion is no less violent than terrorism. Any candidate who says abortion should be kept legal disqualifies him/herself from public service. We need look no further, we need pay no attention to what that candidate says on other issues. Support for abortion is enough for us to decide not to vote for such a person. Pope John Paul II put it this way: "Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights -- for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture -- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination" (Christifideles Laici, 1988). False and illusory. Those are strong and clear words that call for our further reflection. "I stand for adequate and comprehensive health care." So far, so good. But as soon as you say that a procedure that tears the arms off of little babies is part of "health care," then your understanding of the term "health care" is obviously quite different from the actual meaning of the words. In short, you lose credibility. Your claim to health care is "illusory." It sounds good, but is in fact destructive, because it masks an act of violence. "My plan for adequate housing will succeed." Fine. But what are houses for, if not for people to live in them? If you allow the killing of the children who would otherwise live in those houses, how am I supposed to get excited by your housing project? It's easy to get confused by all the arguments in an election year. But if you start by asking where candidates stand on abortion, you can eliminate a lot of other questions you needn't even ask. For more election related articles and information, visit www.priestsforlife.org/elections |
|
Home | About Us | Action Alerts | News Bulletin | Newspaper Archives | Life Issues | Events | Contact Us
Right to Life Advocates Inc.
10900 Northwest Freeway, Suite 112 Houston, Texas 77092 Fax (713) 688-0174 (713) 681-7283 (SAVE) All Rights Reserved © 2010 |
|