Wisconsin Right to Life is working with several legislators on legislation which will allow Wisconsin to opt-out of abortion coverage in the state-based insurance “exchanges” created by Obamacare. Polling indicates that citizens do not want to subsidize abortion coverage or pay for abortions.
The new law requires federal agencies to subsidize and administer health plans that will pay for elective abortions. The law also opens the door to direct federal funding of abortion in Community Health Centers, hundreds of which are operated by Planned Parenthood – the nation’s largest abortion provider.
The Executive Order signed by President Obama, widely and inaccurately reported as prohibiting taxpayer abortion funding under the law, cannot overrule the abortion impact of the law. Unfortunately, the opt-out provision can only be applied to abortion coverage. Action at the federal level will be needed to negate the impact of direct abortion funding at Community Health Centers.
Opt-out legislation cannot be introduced until January of 2011. Wisconsin Right to Life is promoting a petition to our new Governor, who will take office then, letting him know that thousands of Wisconsin citizens want Wisconsin to opt-out of subsidizing abortions through health insurance under Obamacare.
You can download the opt-out petition here. Or , you can sign up online and urge your friends and email address book to do so also.
According to a recent Gallup poll, being pro-life is the new normal in America. This is exciting news! Although the label you proscribe for yourself does not adequately determine your abortion position, people wanting to be described as pro-life displays a defining cultural shift in American values.
For decades, it was politically correct to be pro-choice. As a movement, we tried many strategies to attack the concept of “choice” to no avail. It was simply ingrained in the American mindset that to be pro-choice was compassionate and correct.
Gallup reports that “all age groups have become more attached to the pro-life label since 2005, with particularly large increases among young adults and those aged 50 to 64…” Both groups are significant because they represent population bulges. “Both genders have also become more likely to identify as pro-life with the increase among women coming mainly since 2008, whereas the increase in men started after 2006.” Again, wonderful news and trends.
In other Gallup findings on the question of whether abortion should be legal or illegal, young people ages 18-29 have moved nine points from 14% to 23% in believing that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. This shift occurred from the early 1990s to the present.
Much work remains, but it is deeply gratifying to observe the American culture turning to value human life.
The exchange reported earlier this week in this blog between Senator Russ Feingold and Senator Rick Santorum on the Senate floor back in 1996 regarding partial-birth abortion left people speechless. It is bad enough that Feingold is the pro-abortion poster child, but his comments following questioning by Santorum vividly display how an anti-life mentality has no stopping point.
Feingold supports taxpayer abortion funding here and abroad, no parental involvement in abortions for minors, abortion on demand for any reason, partial-birth abortion. For Feingold, where does it end? Apparently not even after birth. Shocking, but it shouldn’t be surprising. The baby killed in a partial-birth abortion is mere inches from being fully born. If it is acceptable to kill the baby at that point, when the baby’s head is still inside of the mother, why should it matter if the baby is fully born? After all, the whole purpose of the “decision” is to end with a dead baby. Feingold is a true-blue, hard-core proponent of abortion — they don’t come any stronger.
The following exchange between Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) took place on the Senate floor on September 26, 1996:
Sen. Santorum: Will the Senator from Wisconsin yield for a question?
Sen. Feingold: I will.
Sen. Santorum: The Senator from Wisconsin says that this decision should be left up to the mother and the doctor, as if there is absolutely no limit that could be placed on what decision that they make with respect to that. And the Senator from California [Sen. Barbara Boxer] is going up to advise you of what my question is going to be, and I will ask it anyway. And my question is this: that if that baby were delivered breech style and everything was delivered except for the head, and for some reason that that baby’s head would slip out — that the baby was completely delivered — would it then still be up to the doctor and the mother to decide whether to kill that baby?
Sen. Feingold: I would simply answer your question by saying under the Boxer amendment, the standard of saying it has to be a determination, by a doctor, of health of the mother, is a sufficient standard that would apply to that situation. And that would be an adequate standard.
Sen. Santorum: That doesn’t answer the question. Let’s assume that this procedure is being performed for the reason that you’ve stated, and the head is accidentally delivered. Would you allow the doctor to kill the baby?
Sen. Feingold: I am not the person to be answering that question. That is a question that should be answered by a doctor, and by the woman who receives advice from the doctor. And neither I, nor is the Senator from Pennsylvania, truly competent to answer those questions. That is why we should not be making those decisions here on the floor of the Senate.
What do you think Feingold is saying here? More on this tomorrow.
On a recent media trip, I was asked several times about Elena Kagan and her views on abortion. My response was that Kagan will be a reliable vote for Roe and the pro-abortion position. As with most Supreme Court candidates, groups and individuals are scouring everything she has said or written. A few days ago, I reported a Kagan writing dating back to 1980 in which she referred to “avengers of ‘innocent life.’”
Now comes the following additional information:
During her tenure with the Clinton administration, LifeNews.com reports that Kagan wrote a memorandum to President Clinton advising him to support a phony partial-birth abortion ban that actually prohibited no abortions. “The Daschle phony ban, which the Reed-Kagan memo endorses, had only one purpose, which was to provide political cover for pro-abortion senators who might otherwise feel compelled to vote to override President Clinton’s veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act,” says Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director of National Right to Life. Johnson estimates that this successful ploy helped keep partial-birth abortions legal for six extra years.
Americans United for Life (AUL) reports that Kagan extensively criticized the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Rust v. Sullivan which upheld regulations that prohibit Title X family planning funds from being “used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.”
AUL also reports that Kagan has contributed financially to the National Partnership for Women and Families (NPWF). This organization has as one of its goals “to increase women’s access to…reproductive health services and block attempts to limit reproductive rights..and to give every woman access to…abortion services…” The NPWF has strong ties to Emily’s list which works to elect pro-abortion women to Congress.
Kagan will hide behind the “Roe is settled law” code words and not respond directly to questions from Senators and the media about her position on abortion. We right-to-life organizations know that Kagan will be that reliable vote to keep abortion legal for any reason.
Last night a crowd of 300 listened intently to Abby Johnson at a Wisconsin Right to Life event in Madison. Abby was Director of Planned Parenthood’s Houston abortion clinic and on a fast track to become COO of the mega-clinic which just opened there until her eyes were opened to the reality of abortion and how it harms women and children.
Abby was raised pro-life and her husband has always been pro-life. Somewhere along the way, she was “hooked” by Planned Parenthood, believing it was a sincere organization trying to achieve “good” for women. Abby first became suspicious of PP last summer when she was given her 2010 budget. She expressed dismay that her family planning goals for number of women served had remained constant while her abortion “quota” had doubled. The answer she was given is that abortions are where the money is made.
In September of 2009, Abby interviewed a new abortionist who said he does first trimester ultrasound-guided abortions which are “safer” for women and assist the abortionist in knowing what he is doing inside of the uterus rather than blindly poking around. Abby agreed to assist at one of his abortion so she could see how they are done.
At the abortion of the 13-week baby, Abby watched as the little baby felt the abortion cannula touch him and immediately began flailing his arms and legs trying to flee the instrument. Then the suction was turned on and she watched in horror as the baby was ripped apart. Abby had told thousands of women upon being asked that abortion does not hurt the baby because he/she cannot feel sensory sensations until 28 weeks. The baby she watched struggle and try to flee the abortion instrument gave her a heavy heart at the lie she had told to so many women.
It was very hard to listen to this graphic testimony, but Abby urged the participants to never, ever get comfortable with the idea of a baby being torn to shreds, because then we will have lost the battle.
Honored at the event were the people who responded to the threat of late-term abortions at the Madison Surgery Center, employees at the Center, and leaders of organizations who helped carry out this successful effort. The presence of rock-star Vicki McKenna as MC made this a memorable evening that will not soon be forgotten.
A few days ago, we told you that Planned Parenthood is becoming the Walmart of abortion clinics with a new business plan to build massive abortion centers in major cities. We told you about the newest one that will be right across the border in St. Paul, Minnesota. Many western Wisconsin women travel to the Twin Cities for abortions and you can be certain that the St. Paul mega-clinic will advertise close to home.
The 46,000-square-foot St. Paul clinic will be located near Hamline University, Concordia University, growing ethnic populations and the future Central Corridor light-rail line. Perfect for attracting those college and minority women. Planned Parenthood is in a position to receive millions more in taxpayer dollars under Obamacare and the Minnesota PP is set to collect the rewards by expanding its abortion business and abortion income.
Our good friend, freelance writer and editor Tom Szyszkiewicz, lives in Minnesota and has been watching this development closely. Tom told us even more chilling details. “Not only will it be near Hamline and Concordia, but far more importantly (and forebodingly) it will also be a quick 10-minute ride on the light rail line from the University of Minnesota. And it will be a quick bus ride from Augsburg, Bethel, Macalaster, the University of St. Thomas and St. Catherine University. “ He said the PP mega clinic “will be more closely placed to some poorer neighborhoods in both St. Paul and Minneapolis, whereas their current location in Highland Park is in one of the most upscale neighborhoods in the city. ”
Seems like PP has thought of everything to make their new facility a really, really big money-maker. And they will have plenty of taxpayer money to help them do it! With the passage of Obamacare, all of us will be subsidizing health plans that provide abortions and our tax dollars will provide the federal funding for abortions at so-called Community Health Centers. (PP affiliates are already running 850 Community Health Centers in the nation).
Oh, and if that wasn’t enough, PP has opened, or plans to open, more mega clinics in Houston, Chicago and other major cities.
Your tax dollars at work, folks, thanks to the Obama administration and those members of congress who voted for Obamacare.
Had enough? Remember November - our chance to un-elect a bunch of these folks and replace them with people who actually believe the government shouldn’t be providing and paying for the destruction of human life!
WASHINGTON — The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of right-to-life organizations in all 50 states, issued the following statement regarding President Obama’s nomination of Elena Kagan to fill the seat on the U.S. Supreme Court that is being vacated by Justice John Paul Stevens. This statement may be attributed to NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson:
On April 21, 2010, President Obama used thinly veiled code language to communicate his clear intent to choose a nominee who would be hostile to legislative attempts to protect unborn humans. The President stated that he wanted someone “who is going to be interpreting our Constitution in a way that takes into account . . . women’s rights,” and that this was going to be “very important” to him as he viewed our “core Constitution” as protecting the “bodily integrity” of women.
In light of the President’s stated intent, senators have an obligation to probe whether Elena Kagan will tolerate limits on abortion, enacted through normal democratic channels, or will seek to impose extreme pro-abortion views by judicial decree. Ms. Kagan herself argued forcefully in 1995, in a lengthy book review published in the University of Chicago Law Review, that such inquiries by senators are a legitimate and necessary part of the confirmation process.
In the most recent Supreme Court ruling dealing with abortion and the rights of unborn children, Gonzales v. Carhart, on April 18, 2007, a five-justice majority upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Yet on that occasion, four justices in dissent — including Justice Stevens — argued for a constitutional doctrine that would have invalidated the ban on partial-birth abortions and also, by implication, condemned virtually any other law or government policy intended to discourage abortion. If the dissenters’ position became the position of the majority of the Supreme Court, various types of laws that have been deemed permissible under Roe v. Wade could be invalidated by judicial decree, perhaps including the Hyde Amendment (restricting government funding of abortion) and parental notification laws. It is appropriate and necessary for senators to inquire into whether Ms. Kagan would embrace the extreme, results-oriented doctrines enunciated by the dissenting justices in that case.
(Since the Gonzales case was decided, dissenting Justice David Souter has been replaced by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Most analysts believe that Sotomayor would be very likely to join the pro-abortion bloc when such issues are revisited in the future.)
There are troubling indications that Ms. Kagan generally favors an activist, results-oriented approach to constitutional law. For example, in her 1995 law journal article, she wrote, “The bottom-line issue in the appointments process must concern the kinds of judicial decisions that will serve the country and, correlatively, the effect the nominee will have on the Court’s decisions . . . If that is too results oriented … so be it. . .” She also wrote that “it should be no surprise by now that many of the votes a Supreme Court Justice casts have little to do with technical legal ability and much to do with conceptions of value.”
Regarding Ms. Kagan’s specific views on the Court’s past abortion-related rulings, there is little on the public record. But Ms Kagan may have betrayed a possible personal animus towards the pro-life movement in a 1980 essay lamenting Republican gains in the 1980 election, in which she referred disparagingly to “victories of these anonymous but Moral Majority-backed [candidates]…these avengers of ‘innocent life’ and the B-1 Bomber…” Was Ms. Kagan so dismissive of the belief that unborn children are members of the human family that she felt it necessary to put the term “innocent life” in quote marks, or does she have another explanation? Would she be able to set aside any animus she has towards those who fight to protect innocent human life, when reviewing laws duly enacted for that purpose?
Despite the flurry of statements and denials regarding abandonment of the late-term abortion plan at the Madison Surgery Center, there are no surprises here. It is no surprise that UW is committed to finding another location for late-term abortions. To them, it is the politically correct thing to do.
A series of emails exchanged between parties involved in developing the late-term abortion plan were made public. In November of 2008, Dr. Fredrik Broekhuizen of Planned Parenthood chided Drs. Laurel Rice and Caryn Dutton of UW, saying: “ …I really think the Madison physician community should step up to the plate…What is wrong with this picture? If Madisonians consider themselves so progressive and that’s how they often talk, why can’t they do this walk?” This was in response to concerns raised by Dutton who said: “Dr. Rice and I are trying to be advocates within these institutions, and I think the vast majority of ObGyns in town are supportive, but other specialties and departments are terrified of having abortion happening in their ‘space.’”
It is also no surprise that the Madison Surgery Center has been abandoned as the location for late-term abortions to be performed. The fact that the Madison Surgery Center has not performed a single late-term abortion, even though the plan was adopted in February of 2009, suggests that insurmountable obstacles prevented the plan from going forward at that facility.
Email exchanges and documents from the Madison Surgery Center describe deep division and dissension within that facility over the late-term abortion plan. Officials ask for counts on how many appointments and surgeries have been canceled and discuss ardent opposition to the plan by key medical professionals who utilize the Center.
Thanks to the thousands of Wisconsin citizens who vehemently oppose this plan, it has been derailed at the first location. Wisconsin Right to Life, those citizens, and the groups who kept up a constant stream of opposition are now alert and looking for the next move by UW officials. The abandonment of the Madison Surgery Center is one gigantic step forward but not the final one, and we will be there every step of the way.
The news today is fast, furious and fantastic. Rep. David Obey is announcing that he will not seek re-election. Obey is considered as one of Speaker Pelosi’s top lieutenants. His fingerprints are all over the major pieces of legislation enacted in the past year including Obamacare. So long, Mr. Obey, to whom we wish a great retirement.
In another piece of stunning news, we learned that UW has abandoned plans to start a late-term abortion program at the Madison Surgery Center. It is a complete victory for unborn children who would have been victims of late-term abortions, their mothers, their families, the grassroots people who demanded that the late-term abortion plan be stopped, and the citizens of Wisconsin.
Information that UW dropped the plan became available through a letter from the Department of Justice to an attorney in Eau Claire who asked for an investigation of UW for violating the law by promoting and being involved in the late-term abortion plan approved in February of 2009.
Many individuals and organizations made this possible by their calls, letters, emails, and presence outside the Madison Surgery Center. Special thanks and praise go to those who work at the Madison Surgery Center who refused to participate in any way in providing late-term abortions and individuals who courageously changed their doctors and insurance rather than be treated at the Madison Surgery Center.
Wisconsin Right to Life joined many other organizations in a coordinated effort to make certain that not a single late-term abortion would be performed. It was a gigantic effort that reached a successful conclusion – zero late-term abortions at the Madison Surgery Center. The news doesn’t get any better! Many thanks to those who contributed to this effort.
Barbara Lyons
![[Email]](http://www.wrtl.org/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
![[Facebook]](http://www.wrtl.org/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[MySpace]](http://www.wrtl.org/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/myspace.png)
![[Twitter]](http://www.wrtl.org/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
