home index pages politics Church
home
index pages
politics Church
President Bush and homosexual issues
|
DOES SECRETARY CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN’S PRO-ABORTION IDEOLOGY MAKE A DIFFERENCE AT EPA? The pro-abortion Governor of New Jersey Christine Todd Whitman has been named by George W. Bush to be "head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Whitman, who vetoed the New Jersey Legislature’s ban on partial-birth abortions, led the fight to get the pro-life plank out of the Republican Platform, who works hard to raise money to elect pro-abortion candidates, who supports condom distribution to children in the public schools, and who endorses special legal privileges for homosexuals was President George W. Bush's choice. "Some people have said that Whitman’s appointment to the EPA.. .won’t really matter so much because she won’t be dealing with social issue policy. But, consider the fact that the EPA has a research facility in Research Park, North Carolina where tests are conducted to identify environmental toxins. Life Dynamics, the organization that exposed trafficking in the bodies and organs of aborted babies by both and government funded research laboratories, has proof that the EPA has ordered baby ‘left and right palates,’ ‘gestational age based on foot length at 45-55 days,’ for the ‘study of molecular and cellular responses to potential developmental toxicants that may cause cleft palate."’ Source: Republican National Coalition for Life’s FaxNotes, 12/22/00
DESIGNATE JOHN ASHCROFT ECHOES BUSH POSITION ON ABORTION: EXCEPTIONS TO ABORTION OKAY "On nine occasions in the Senate I have voted for pro-life legislation that provided exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother." Senator John Ashcroft, the Associated Press, Nov. 3, 2000 (as reported in The New York Times, 12/23/00, p. A9)
INTERIOR SECRETARY GALE NORTON IS CHARACTERIZED AS A PRO-ABORTION DEVOTEE OF LIBERTARIAN (AMORAL) IDEALS According to William Booth (Washington Post, 1/8/01, p. 8), the politics of Gale A. Norton, President George W. Bush’s Interior Secretary nominee, "took a turn after the young Norton began reading Ayn Rand novels such as ‘The Fountainhead.’ She became active in Libertarian Party politics and served as a delegate when Edward Clark ran for the White House on the Libertarian ticket in 1980.... "Denis Berckefeldt, secretary of the Colorado Democratic Party, said that in his state, ‘which is dominated by the right wing,’ Norton is generally considered a moderate, mostly because she supports abortion rights. "In 1996, she ran for the Senate but lost in the primary to a more conservative opponent, the eventual winner, Wayne Allard (R). KARL ROVE HAD HER AS A CLIENT "Her nomination, according to knowledgeable sources, was greatly eased by [one of Bush’s closest advisers, political consultant Karl] Rove who had worked for Norton on her Senate bid."
TOMMY THOMPSON IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATIVE The word "conservative" — a term loosely bandied about in characterizing some of George Bush’s cabinet appointees, who are anything but "conservative" in the "traditional" sense.Take for example Tommy Thompson, whom Bush appointed to be Secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services. His appointment received almost universal plaudits from the Beltway conservative community. But there is a different perspective offered by Ed Frami, National Vice Chairman of the Constitution Party, who has run for Governor of Wisconsin on the Constitution Party ticket in opposition to Tommy Thompson. Mr. Frami’s observations relate to these facts on the pro-life and family causes: 1) In 1998, the State Assembly overwhelmingly passed a Defense of Marriage Act which defined marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Gov. Thompson stated he would sign the bill ‘if it reached his desk.’ The bill was killed in the Republican controlled State Senate by Republican leadership. When Gov. Thompson called a Special Session, he had the option of adding the DOM Act to the agenda and did not." 2) Gov. Thompson has the power of the line item veto, but has never used it to limit money earmarked to agencies who fund Planned Parenthood and other pro-abort groups. 3) Gov. Thompson publicly supports the fetal tissue research taking place at the University of Wisconsin. 4) Gov. Thompson wrote a letter of welcome to a homosexual organization which held a national conference in Madison. He has also refused to take a public stand in support of closing Mazomanie Beach, a public facility that allows nudity and has become an international gathering place for homosexuals....5) Several times, Tommy Thompson has appointed Democrats to judgeships and higher bureaucratic positions to vacate legislative positions and force special elections to help get more Republicans elected. This strategy has resulted in some of the most liberal people in Wisconsin gaining more power on Tommy’s watch. 6) Thompson actively solicited the funds to introduce Goals 2000 into Wisconsin schools. He actively supported alternative funding for public schools that increased the state government’s role while decreasing local control of funding...."
Laurie McGinley writes (Wall Street Journal, 1/16/01, p. A28) that "Pro-Life Wisconsin, affiliated with the American Life League, is sharply critical of Gov. Thompson. The reason: his enthusiastic support of pioneering embryonic stem-cell research conducted at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "‘He did nothing to stop the destruction of embryos that takes place at the university,’ says Peggy Hamill, who heads the group. Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, based in Stafford, Va., says, ‘We don’t believe he is pro-life, or should be confirmed.’ PRIOR TO THE ELECTION, COULD WE PREDICT PRESIDENT BUSH'S APPROACH TO EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS? "During the campaign, Mr. Bush said he opposes federal funding for ‘experimentation on embryonic stem cells that require live human embryos to be discarded or destroyed’ —a position recently reiterated by his spokesman, Ari Fleischer. Now, anti-abortion groups are pressing Mr. Bush to move quickly to block the NIH funding, which is scheduled to begin later this year.‘We’re hoping he’ll take some early presidential action to address these things that are within his discretion,’ says Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the Secretariat for Prolife Activities for the National Conference of Catholic Bishops." President Bush chose to take on this 'issue' after the election and was praised by Christian leaders for his decision, even though he took us further down into the moral abyss, President Clinton willingly chose not to deal with this question and actually was asked by Gov. Bush to leave it for his administration, something Mr. Clinton was pleased to do. See the analysis here. "For years, the federal government has been barred by Congress from funding experiments involving the destruction of human embryos. But last year, the Department of Health and Human Services found a way around the ban. It said that the NIH could fund the experiments — if the federally funded researchers didn’t destroy the embryos, but acquired the stems cells from privately funded scientists. The NIH is currently accepting applications for grants and is expected to begin funding embryonic stem-cell experiments later this year (1991).... "In January 1999, Gov. Thompson praised university scientist James Thomson, who led the effort. At the time, Ms. Brown of the American Life League blasted the governor for ‘expounding the virtue of scientific efforts that result in the intentional deaths of human beings whose lives begin at fertilization.’ She said, in a letter to the governor, that the university work was ‘abortion.’" MRS. GWB AGREES WITH MRS. GHWB ABOUT ABORTION According to The Los Angeles Times (latimes.com, 1/19/01), "Laura Bush said Friday that while she thinks more can be done to limit the number of abortions, she does not believe the landmark Roe v. Wade pro-abortion ruling should be undone. ‘No. I don’t think it should be overturned,’ she said in response to a question in an interview broadcast on NBC’s ‘Today.~~~ "Her husband, President-elect Bush, said during last year’s campaign that while he opposes abortion, he does not believe the nation is ready to overturn the 1973 decision...." PRO-LIFERS CRITICIZE ASHCROFT’S RHETORICAL CONCESSIONS ON "REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM" AND "FREEDOM OF CHOICE" Julia Duin reports (Washington Times, 1/22/01, p. A4) that "Several pro-life groups are upset by John Asheroft’s replies to questions about abortion posed at last week’s hearings o f his nomination to be attorney general....‘He can’t think Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land,’ says Colleen Parro, director of the Republican National Coalition for Life. ‘Roe V. Wade is no more settled than Dred Scott was,’ she says, referring to the 1856 Supreme Court decision denying constitutional protections to slaves...."GOP-FUNDED NRTLC DEFENDS NOMINEE’S OBSEQUIOUSNESS "The National Right to Life Committee does not fault Mr. Ashcroft. ‘I expected he’d articulate it the way he did,’ says spokesman David O’Steen. ..."
WILL PLANNED PARENTHOOD QUOTE ASHCROFT IN THEIR ADS? "Nevertheless, Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition says pro-life activists are ‘extremely disturbed’ by Mr. Ashcroft’s assertion that Roe v. Wade is the ‘settled law’ of the land. "‘We feel, as Dr. Martin Luther King did, that you cannot legalize the killing of innocent children,’ he says. ‘You cannot legalize segregation. You cannot legalize slavery. That Supreme Court decision decriminalized abortion. If that’s a signal on how the Bush administration will handle abortion, I’m concerned." ‘It’ll be interesting to see how Ashcroft’s quotes will be used in a Planned Parenthood fund-raising letter.’
SINCE WHEN DO PRO-LIFERS TREAT BABY KILLING AS A "REPRODUCTIVE RIGHT"? "Serrin Foster, director of Feminists for Life, says she was especially unhappy about Mr. Ashcroft’s use of abortion-rights language. ..."‘He used abortion euphemisms, like "reproductive rights" and "reproductive health clinics." Those are abortion clinics. You look at him and say he’s not serious. You cannot believe he is using that language.’ ‘When talking about abortion issues, he should say it like it is. Men have a right to their opinions. Men have a right to say abortion is wrong. He said "freedom of choice." About what? Schools? If it’s abortion, say it. If he doesn’t believe in it, then don’t use the language. "The problem, she says, is that Mr. Ashcroft’s future boss, President Bush, ‘is surrounded by a number of pro-choice Republicans who try to keep these issues from him. Male politicians have got to learn to think about abortion as something that really hurts women.’ JUDIE BROWN REJECTS LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR DEFINITION OF "PRO-LIFE" "Judie Brown, director of American Life League, says Mr. Ashcroft is ‘an example of the kind of Cabinet this president is putting together. He’s defining himself as pro-life according to the lowest possible standards and doing the absolute minimum."’
BUSH MEXICO CITY EXECUTIVE ORDER DOES NOT CUT OFF $425 MILLION FOREIGN AID TO PRO-ABORTION GROUPS ‘It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion either here or abroad,’ Mr. Bush wrote in an executive memorandum to the Agency for International Development, which administers and monitors family planning aid to overseas groups. THE MONEY IS FUNGIBLE "In a statement released along with the memorandum this evening, the White House made clear that Mr. Bush was not proposing any reduction in the $425 million in aid allocated for overseas family planning for this fiscal year, but was simply placing restraints on how it was used...."Mr. Bush did not have to render a decision on the federal aid until Feb. 15. ‘This is something that he ran on, and so I don’t think it’s anything that’s unexpected,’ [White House Press Secretary An] Fleischer said. "The memorandum Mr. Bush signed today reinstated a 1984 ban, issued by President Ronald Reagan and then maintained by Mr. Bush’s father, on providing money for use by overseas groups that promote abortion. Mr. Clinton essentially suspended that ban, although the delivery of the money was halted late last year until Feb. 15, thus allowing a new president to decide what to do."
NOT ONE PENNY OF YOUR TAXES SHOULD GO TO PLANNED PARENTHOOD "The $425 million affected by Mr. Bush’s decision goes to an array of groups, like Planned Parenthood International and the Centre for Development and Population Activities, in addition to foreign governments.While many private groups would lose financing, the governments would not be bound by the edict." Source: Frank Bruni and Marc Lacey, New York Times, 1/23/01, p.1
"MEXICO CITY" ABORTION RESTRICTIONS DON’T CUT OFF THE SUBSIDIES TO PRO-ABORTION GROUPS Cathy Young writes (Wall Street Journal, 1/25/01, p. A20) that "The argument that these [abortion] programs should continue to receive U.S. aid so long as they don’t use it directly for abortion-related services is a dodge. Money is fungible: If an organization runs Project A, which you find objectionable, and Project B, of which you approve, giving money to Project B will obviously help Project A by freeing up other parts of the organization’s budget."FEMINISTS HAVE A TOUGHER STANDARD THAN DO PRO-LIFERS "Surely, liberals and feminists wouldn’t buy the argument that Title IX - the law prohibiting sex discrimination at educational institutions receiving federal funds - should apply only to those specific programs that get federal dollars, while the rest of the school should be free to discriminate."
BUSH’S "MEXICO CITY" ABORTION POLICY DEPENDS ON WHAT THE MEANING OF "IS" IS. ABORTION AND ABORTION ADVOCACY WILL STILL BE FUNDED Previously, your editor has pointed out that President G.W.B.’s decision to restore the Reagan "Mexico City" policy, limiting the provision of your tax dollars flowing to overseas population control organizations was less significant than assumed by many well-intentioned pro-life leaders, in that, while the Bush policy does limit the direct use of U.S. subsidies to perform and promote abortion, nonetheless, the pro-abortion recipient organizations still get the money to which they are not Constitutionally or morally entitled, with these funds available to offset their other expenses, so long as the U.S. Treasury dollars are assigned to a separate bank account. Now, in reviewing the policy as enunciated in the Federal Register (Vol. 66, No. 61, Thursday, March 29, 2001) Presidential Documents, "Memorandum of March 28, 2001: Restoration of the~ Mexico City Policy" over the signature of President Bush, it is clear that this is even less a pro-life victory than first believed.
"FAMILY PLANNING": YES GWB: "The Mexico City Policy announced by President Reagan in 1984 required foreign nongovernmental organizations to agree as a condition of their receipt of Federal funds for family planning activities that such organizations would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.... "It is my conviction that taxpayer funds appropriated pursuant to the Foreign Assistance Act should not be given to foreign nongovernmental organizations that perform abortions or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations... except as otherwise provided below...." "The recipient agrees that it will not furnish assistance for family planning under this award to any foreign nongovernmental organization that performs or actively promotes abortion as a method of family planning in USAID-recipient countries or that provides financial support to any other foreign nongovernmental organization that conducts such activities. For purposes of this paragraph (e), a foreign nongovernmental organization is a nongovernmental organization that is not organized under the laws of any State of the United States, the District of Columbia or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. "Abortion is a method of family planning when it is for the purpose of spacing births. This includes, but is not limited to, abortions performed for the physical or mental health of the mother, but does not include abortions performed if the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or abortions performed following rape or incest (since abortion under these circumstances is not a family planning act)." "To perform abortions means to operate a facility where abortions are performed as a method of family planning. Excluded from this definition are clinics or hospitals that do not include abortion in their family planning programs. Also excluded from this definition is the treatment of injuries or illnesses caused by legal or illegal abortions, for example, post-abortion care. "([P]assively responding to a question regarding where a safe, legal abortion may be obtained is not considered active promotion if the question is specifically asked by a woman who is already pregnant, the woman clearly states that she has already decided to have a legal abortion, and the family planning counselor reasonably believes that the ethics of the medical profession in the country requires a response regarding where it may be obtained safely)... .
"Action by an individual acting in the individual’s capacity shall not be attributed to an organization with which the individual is associated, provided that the organization neither endorses nor provides financial support for the action and takes reasonable steps to ensure that the individual does not improperly represent that the individual is acting on behalf of the organization. SEPARATE BANK ACCOUNTS FOR ABORTION AND CONTRACEPTION "The recipient may request USAID’s approval to treat and separate the family planning activities of two or more organizations, that would not be considered separate under the preceding sentence, if the recipient believes, and provides a written justification to USAID therefor, that the family planning activities of the organizations are sufficiently distinct so as to warrant not imputing the activity of one to the other." ALL U.S. FUNDS MUST BE CLEANLY LAUNDERED "Assistance for family planning may be furnished under this award by a recipient, subrecipient or subsubrecipient to a foreign government even though the government includes abortion in its family planning program, provided that no assistance may be furnished in support of the abortion activity of the government and any funds transferred to the government shall be placed in a segregated account to ensure that such funds may not be used to support the abortion activity of the government."
PRESIDENT BUSH SAYS USAID SUBSIDIES WILL FUND CHILD-SPACING ABORTIONS "The requirements of this paragraph are not applicable to child spacing assistance furnished to a foreign nongovernmental organization that is engaged primarily in providing health services if the objective of the assistance is to finance integrated health care services to mothers and children and child spacing is one of several health care services being provided by the organization as part of a larger child survival effort with the objective of reducing infant and child mortality."
WHO IS "PRO-LIFE"? Dr. Thomas Droleskey writes (Christ or Chaos, Late January/Mid-February 2001) that "No one who supports one single abortion as a matter of principle is pro-life. Such a person is less pro-abortion than those who support abortions as a matter of constitutional right in all circumstances, but he is not pro-life. George W. Bush is not pro-life. As I have indicated on so many occasions (including in the last several issues of this publication), George W. Bush would never call racism or anti-Semitism matters of ‘opinion’ about which ‘good’ people can disagree. He would never campaign with overt racists or anti-Semites, no less appoint them to his administration. However, he believes that those who support the slicing and dicing of little babies are eminently qualified to hold positions of high honor and trust in government. When are we going to realize that no one who is legitimately pro-life makes it a point to place great trust in pro-aborts?"
NO ANTI-ABORTION CRUSADE WILL "MIRE" BUSH PRESIDENCY Mimi Hall points out (USA Today, 4/20/01, p. 1) that "On the campaign trail, candidate George W. Bush said he opposed abortion and pledged to promote a ‘culture of life.’ "Bush has no intention of letting his presidency become mired in controversy, or of jeopardizing his chances at re-election, by launching a crusade to outlaw abortion, his advisers say." "To win a second term, Bush may need to improve his standing with female voters, most of whom backed Democrat Al Gore last fall. And as he tries to push an ambitious agenda through the evenly divided Senate, he can’t afford to alienate Republican lawmakers who support abortion rights. "Republican political consultant Rich Bond says Bush won’t seek strong abortion restrictions because there’s neither a national consensus nor an effective political bloc to help him push them through Congress.
NIH USES HUMAN TISSUE FROM ABORTED BABIES FOR MICE EXPERIMENTS "The U.S. government, according to a written statement by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), funded the transplantation of human fetal tissue taken from abortions performed in the 20th week of pregnancy into a laboratory mouse that is used in AIDS research. ..." "The researchers in this federal program use a creature called the SCID-hu BTL mouse, which carries a human immune system, created by the transplantation of human fetal thymus, liver, lymph node and long bone. Once transplanted with this tissue, the mice are infected with HIV, and, in the research at [the University of Pennsylvania], examined to see how HIV [affects] the central nervous system...... "When asked ‘by what method were these 20-week fetuses aborted?’ the NIH responded: ‘Abortions are coordinated through the Anatomic Gift Foundation and Advanced Bioscience Resources, suppliers of fetal tissue, the method of abortion is not known to the investigator.’ "In response to repeated written inquiries, NIH failed to provide a copy of the consent form used in this research or to directly answer whether women donating post-20-week fetuses to NIH-funded research using SCID-hu BTL mice were informed that tissue from their fetus was going to be transplanted into a mouse.... "The latest publicly available grant abstract for this ‘Core’ state that it would ‘provide segments of human fetal long bone for construction of SCID mice carrying xenografts of the human immune system SCID-hu BTL (Bone-Thy/liv-Lymph Node) mouse.’ The abstract also says, ‘As outlined, human fetal tissues and cells will be delivered from Harrisburg/Hershey to Philadelphia within 4 hours of the surgical procedure by courier.’ This tissue was destined for researchers at Penn. "In answer to a series of questions asking ‘what gestational
age does the fetal donor need to be to contribute’ either long bone, or liver, or
thymus or lymph node to create the SCID-hu BTL, NIH said that the answer was the
‘same’ for each type of tissue — that is, ‘a gestational age of
greater than 20 weeks.’
BUSH NOW FAVORS REPEAL OF STATUTORY PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL FUNDING OF HUMAN EMBRYO STEM CELL EXPERIMENTATION In the debate concerning stem cell research, "The President will decide, everyone from White House spokesman An Fleischer to Health & Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson has said. But has not the President already decided the supposedly touchy subject of embryo experimentation? He decided it the day he took the oath of office ‘to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.’ "The law, in the form of the Dickey Amendment, says ‘No’ — no federal funding of experiments in which embryonic human babies are sacrificed. What decision, Mr. President, remains to be made? What choice, after all, does an honorable man have?" Source: Life Advocacy Briefing #8-25, 7/2/0 1 Richard L. Berke reports (New York Times, 8/11/01, p. A9) that "President Bush appears at first blush to have defused a political time bomb that could have caused deep fissures in his relationships with conservatives...." "[T]here was the Rev. Jerry Falwell, who had been against stem cell research, immediately praising the president. ... ‘It was an important moment for his presidency,’ said Ralph Reed, chairman of the Georgia Republican Party and a former director of the Christian Coalition. ‘It allowed voters to see him as a strong leader with core convictions who was also willing to listen to disparate views.’ Robin Toner notes (New York Times, 8/10/01, p. A17) that "Carrie Gordon Earll, bioethics analyst at Focus on the Family said: ‘We were pleasantly surprised with this. .. .we’re not disappointed by this. It could have been worse.’ "[T]he Southern Baptist Convention had lobbied the president hard to reject any compromise. Dr. Richard D. Land, president of the convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said ... ‘the fact that he stopped short of allowing federal funding that would underwrite the destruction of any new embryos is a very important firebreak."’ Mike Allen reports (Washington Post, 8/11/01, p. All) that "Rep. J.C. Watts (ROkla.), chairman of the House Republican Conference ... issued a statement praising Bush for his ‘fair and balanced deliberation.’... "[T]he administration’s stroking appears to have paid off, with muted criticism from many conservatives and even praise from the National Right to Life Committee.... "James C. Dobson, president of Focus on the Family, who had prepared his radio listeners for the worst, said in a statement that Bush ‘faced tremendous political pressure to betray his pro-life commitment’ but ‘has courageously upheld his promise to protect unborn children.’ ..." Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform said "Bush had ‘looked solicitous of everyone’s concerns’ and ‘threaded the needle just right.’" Amy Goldstein writes (Washington Post, 8/11/01, p. AlO) that "Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, said yesterday that Bush ‘did a very smart tactical move when he put together this compromise position’ ...." WOULD THEY HAVE BACKED A SIMILAR STANCE BY GORE? ‘I find their positions difficult to square with the fundamental principle that human life is precious and ought to be preserved,’ Kenneth L. Connor, president of the Family Research Council said of abortion foes who praised the president’s decision. ‘If a President Al Gore had come out with this position,’ he said, ‘I am left to wonder whether or not their reaction would have been entirely different.’ " (New York Times, 8/12/0 1, p. 22) "Yet the National Right to Life Committee, the largest anti-abortion group, announced that it was ‘delighted’ with Mr. Bush’s speech.... "Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition, proclaimed Mr. Bush’s compromise ‘an elegant solution to the thorny issue of stem research by firmly protecting the rights of the unborn.’ " (New York Times, 8/12/01, p. 22) President Bush authorized the use of Federal tax dollars to be used for research into stem cells from human embryos. (Speech by the President 8/9/01). According to The Washington Post, Bush’s rules are "more permissive than those of President Bill Clinton, involving ‘the removal of strict ethics guidelines governing the procurement of stem cell-laden embryos from fertility clinics.’ THREE THINGS WRONG WITH BUSH EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH DECISION: IT’S IMMORAL, IT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL. AND IT’S ILLEGAL As reported by Katharine Q. Seelye (New York Times, 8/10/01,
p. 1), "President Bush said tonight that he would allow federal tax-payer money to be
used for research into stem cells from human embryos. ... ‘I have concluded that
we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines,
where the life and death decision has already been made,’ he said."
Announcing his decision, President Bush said that "Some of the hardest ethical
decisions pit good against good. In the case of stem cells, the promise of miracle cures
is set against the protection of developing life. ... Government has a clear duty to
promote scientific discovery.... Under my policy, existing stem cell lines, to be used in
publicly supported research, must be derived (1) with the informed consent of donors, (2)
from excess embryos created solely for reproductive purposes and (3) without any financial
inducements to the donors. A RETREAT FROM PRINCIPLE AND PROMISE Kenneth L. Connor, Chairman of the Family Research Council, protested (The Washington Post, 8/11/01, p. A21) that Bush "has made a breach of faith in the service of an untenable compromise.... As recently as May 18, in a letter to the Culture of Life Foundation, the president made his views plain: ‘I oppose federal funding for stem cell research that involves destroying living human embryos.’ ..." WITH CHRISTIANS' BACKING, PRESIDENT BUSH DID NOT CLOSE THE DOOR- HE OPENED IT "Taxpayer funds will be used for research only on cell lines derived from embryos already killed. No cell lines derived from fresh killing — presumably, that is, killing after the date of the president’s speech — will be permitted.... The issue isn’t academic. Existing stem cell lines are believed to have a ‘shelf life’ of some two years. Beyond that, after multiple cell divisions in man-made environments, the cells deteriorate. No serious person — check the capital markets for capital flows to biotech firms — believes that the therapeutic potential of stem cells will be thoroughly explored two years from now. The president’s new ‘bright line’ for federal involvement will collapse." THE LIVES ARE SMALL, THE PRINCIPLE IS BIG "At the end of the day, however, this issue has never been about the quantity or sequence of embryo destruction and experimentation. It has been about this principle: Can a human being cease to have value for himself or herself and merely become a means to preserve life and health for others? ..." "Why indeed have we paid so much attention to the fate of such tiny human beings? Because even though they are small, the ethical principle at stake is huge. For 3,000 years, the first rule of medicine has been ‘Do No Harm.’ By abandoning that rule, the president has helped to usher in a new era marked by the philosophy that the ends justify the means. As Bush even acknowledged, Aldous Huxley’s vision of a ‘Brave, New World’ has arrived. We now say that it is permissible to kill so long as we intend to bring good from it. The new modus operandi for medicine will be ‘kill to cure.’ This was the ethos of Dr. Mengele, who experimented on doomed twins at Auschwitz." FOLLOW THE MONEY - YOUR MONEY (GUILT BY ACCEPTING THAT WHICH GOD WOULD NOT) Sheryl Gay Stolberg writes in The New York Times (8/11/0 1, p. 1) "[TIhe administration moved quickly today to put its plan into effect and announced that grant money would be available for the studies by early next year.... ‘Now that the president has made his decision, we can go forward,’[Health & Human Services Secretary Tommy G.]. Thompson said, adding: ‘Make no mistake. This is a bold step.’ ... Mr. Thompson made his remarks flanked by some of the government’s leading scientists, who proclaimed Mr. Bush’s decision courageous and said it would open up a new era in medical research.... "[E]xtracting the cells requires destroying the embryos. ... Religious conservatives and abortion opponents, who regard human embryos as early human life, are strongly opposed to the studies. And Congress has imposed a ban on experimenting with human embryos." According to Adam Clymer (New York Times, 8/12/01, p. 22), "Representative Mark Foley, a Florida Republican who advocates more research, said that by ‘allowing the 60 for the moment, going against the vehemence of the religious right,’ Mr. Bush ‘gives the scientists the opportunity to make their case for more research.’ He predicted that Mr. Bush ‘will ultimately allow further development of stem cell research.’" SOME PRO-LIFERS STICK TO THEIR PRINCIPLES "‘The president’s position contradicts the Nuremberg Code,’ said Wendy Wright, the communications director of Concerned Women for America, a conservative public policy group. ‘We should be horrified at the prospect of participating in research on embryos who are deliberately killed for the same reason that we are horrified that gold fillings were taken from the teeth of Holocaust victims. .... "Lauren Newell of the Savior’s Alliance for Lifting the Truth, a Christian youth group, said: ‘I am ashamed of our president, who compromises and gives my generation the disposable human life mentality that human life can be picked apart, abused and destroyed. If the president wants to be a strong man and moral man, then I urge him to reconsider his decision.’ "This disappointment was echoed by leaders of several organizations supported by evangelicals and Catholics. They include Human Life International; the Christian Legal Society; the Traditional Values Coalition; the Eagle Forum, led by Phyllis Schlafly; and the Family Research Council, founded by Gary L. Bauer, who opposed Mr. Bush in the Republican primaries last year.... ‘His moral principle seems to be, if the killing has already been done, we can fund this research,’ [Richard M.] Doerflinger [U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops] said. ‘But by the time the scientists come forward with the next group of cell lines, that destruction will already have been done, too. And on we go. Where is the moral limit? On what basis will the president say no? I think it is an untenable and unstable policy.’ " New York Times, 8/12/01, p. 22 Ken Connor, President of Family Research Council writes in Washington Update (August 10, 2001) that "Lawyers are all taught that you cannot admit evidence that is illegally obtained because you give the government a perverse incentive to continue to engage in illegal activity." Mr. Connor adds in an article for USA Today (8/10/01): "Killing to cure is morally repugnant and must not be established in law. People, no matter their size or stage of life, are not products to be used for the benefit of others. ... "During the campaign, candidate George W. Bush told the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, ‘I oppose using federal funds to perform fetal tissue research from induced abortions.’ Yet the Chicago Tribune reported on Sunday that in May the administration quietly approved such research. The National Institutes of Health now can conduct research on aborted fetuses up to eight weeks after conception. The administration pleads that its hands are tied by a 1993 law. But if this is so, then why the secrecy? FRC today sent a letter to President Bush expressing our dismay and urging him to repeal this unwise decision. As the president said in his stem cell speech last August, even noble ends do not justify any means. Using aborted fetuses for research provides a perverse incentive for abortions and legitimates the killing of innocent unborn after the fact. We urge President Bush to reconsider and repeal this unconscionable decision. FRC’s letter to the president can be viewed on our web site www.frc.org." Source: Ken Connor, President, Family Research Council, Washington Update, 7/9/02
BUSH OK’s STEM CELL EXPERIMENTATION BY FEDERALLY FUNDING RESEARCHERS WITH PRIVATE MONEY "When President Bush opened the door to human embryonic stem cell research a year ago this week, he imposed strict limits on federal financing to discourage the destruction of embryos. But in a little-noticed ruling, the administration later told federally financed researchers they could go beyond the president’s strictures — as long as they did so with private money. "In a prime-time television address on Aug. 9, 2001, the first of his presidency, Mr. Bush said scientists could use taxpayer dollars only to study those self-sustaining colonies, or lines, of cells that had already been extracted from human embryos. "‘This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research,’ Mr. Bush said then, ‘without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos.’" "That policy still stands. But in March, in an interpretation that attracted little public attention, the National Institutes of Health determined that federally financed researchers could indeed study new stem cell lines —and even derive them from embryos — in their university laboratories, provided that they do not commingle their federal and private funds. "The interpretation was approved by senior administration officials, who did not go out of their way to publicize it. Still, it has been heartening to proponents of stem cell science. "Since 1994, Congress has prohibited federal financing for embryos experiments, and Mr. Bush’s announcement last year was in keeping with that ban." Source: Sheryl Gay Stolberg, New York Times, 8/7/02, p.1
"Another Clinton Holdover Re-appointed by Bush — Franz Leichter, who served 30 years in the New York Legislature, has been re-appointed to a position on the Federal Housing Finance Board on which he already serves, having been appointed to the Board by Bill Clinton in 1999. According to the Swarthmore Bulletin (http:www.Swarthmore.edu/bulletin/archive/99/sept99/profiles.html), Leichter ‘exhibits pride when speaking of two legislative accomplishments that stand as bookends around his career. In 1970, a bill he introduced made New York the first state to legalize abortion. This was three years before the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision and an extremely controversial move at the time — especially for a newcomer. "It was just the right thing to do," says Leichter of his pioneering effort.’ " Source: Republican National Coalition for Life FaxNotes, P.O. Box 618, Alton, IL 62002, 11/2/01
PRESIDENT BUSH WORKED IN FAVOR OF HUMAN CLONING On June 17, 2002, the Bush administration blocked legislation (S.Amdt. 3843 [to S.2600], cloture motion, 6/17/02) which would have prohibited the cloning of human beings. It would have been much harder for an Al Gore to stop this legislation in the face of concerted Republican support and broad-based popular backing. But it was Republicans in the Senate, prodded by the Bush administration, who killed this legislation.
GWB SWITCHES POPULATION CONTROL FUNDING FROM U.N. TO AID (SHELL GAME?) "Pres. Bush made it official last Monday. He dispatched a memorandum to Secretary of State Cohn Powell directing that the $34 million previously allocated to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) be transferred to the U.S. Agency for International Development, specifically to USAID’s Child Survival & Health Programs Fund. "The action affects only funds appropriated for the 2002 Fiscal Year, which closed Monday. ..." "Though the shift to AID’s Child Survival fund looks good on paper, Congress will need to be extraordinarily vigilant about the use of what amounts to a bonus for an agency with its own questionable practices. ‘ "The administration," ‘writes Scott Lindlaw of Associated Press (AP) quoted in Pro-life Infonet, ‘ "told lawmakers that decisions on where the money goes will be made on a country-by-country basis and used for such things as contraceptives and reproductive health." ‘ But is that what children most need to survive in underdeveloped countries where even clean drinking water is an unfamiliar concept? "USAID’s involvement in such oppressive depopulation [programs] as Peru’s forced sterilization campaign should trigger at lest a yellow light. We hope Congress and the President will not incorporate the $34 million transfer bonus into AID’s base for final FY 2003 decisions. That $34 million would look better in the private sector of the US economy by reserving it for tax cuts than in the hands of either the anti-people fanatics in UNFPA or their comrades in USAID." Source: Life Advocacy Briefing #97, 10/7/02
GOP LEADERS TO PRO-LIFE VOTERS: GET LOST! "Instead of rewarding pro-life Americans for giving their votes overwhelmingly to Republican candidates in last week’s election, the GOP leadership in Congress tried to pass a bankruptcy reform bill with the anti-life Schumer amendment attached. Never mind that the incoming Congress can pass a clean bankruptcy bill after the GOP retakes control of the Senate. Instead, the Republican leadership jabbed a thumb in the eye of pro-life voters barely a week after the election at the behest of the well-heeled business wing of the party. In effect, Republican leaders said to pro-lifers, ‘Thanks for your votes, now get lost!’ However, a handful of stalwart pro-life congressmen — Joe Pitts, Mike Pence, Chris Smith, Todd Aiken, and John Shadegg - held firm. The bill was defeated late this afternoon. FRC and Focus on the Family worked hard all week lobbying members personally and generating hundreds of phone calls and emails to the Capitol. When it became apparent the bill would fail, the leadership’s plans crumbled. This was a big win for the pro-life movement." Source: Ken Connor, Family Research Council’s Washington Update, 11/14/02
"This same pro-abortion bill was pulled from an imminent House floor vote just weeks before the Election because of a firestorm of protest from prolifers. These same pro-lifers helped bring 5 new pro-life women to the House of Representatives and a strong pro-life woman to the Senate and change-overs in 3 states from pro-abortion Senators to pro-life Senators. "Harvard Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon told Congressman Chris Smith in her November 12 letter, ‘The impact of this (Schumer amendment) provision on peaceful pro-life protestors would be grave. ... No matter their financial circumstances, no matter the size of the judgment or the nature of the protest, these judgments (against peaceful pro-life protestors) could never be discharged in bankruptcy.’ "Source: Jim Backlin, Director of Legislative Affairs, Christian Coalition of America Action Alert, 11/14/02
BUSH FAILURE TO BAN RU-486 YIELDS 130,000 NON-SURGICAL ABORTIONS "Doctors used RU-486 and similar pills to perform about 6 percent of abortions in the first several months after the drug was approved in the United States, researchers reported [January 151. "The study, by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, is one of the first to account for the number of abortions using RU-486, or mifepristone, since it became available in 2000. The study estimates that more than 37,000 abortions were performed with pills in the first six months of 2001." IS THAT WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A "PRO-LIFE PRESIDENT"? "In all more than 130,000 women in the United
States have used the pill to obtain abortions since doctors were able to distribute it,
Pam Long, spokeswoman for Danco Laboratories of New York, the maker and distributor of
RU-486, said [January 15]."
From a pro-life standpoint, another so-called 'victory' since this publication is the passage of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban by the Senate. This is considered on this page on this site. Copyright © 2003, Dio, Inc.
|
Dio, Inc.
P.O. Box 1811
Pelham, AL 35124