Pro-abortion groups have ‘long list’ of desired U.S. abortion policy changes

News Resources Tools Columns Documents ACI Group

Contenidos del sub-menu

Comments: 13

Cecile Richards / President-elect Barack Obama

Washington D.C., Dec 20, 2008 / 10:04 am (CNA).- Abortion advocates have handed over a "long list" of policies they want to see implemented under the administration of President-elect Barack Obama. Their "smart and strategic" list includes the restoration of funding to the United Nations Population Fund and the reduction in the price of birth control pills at college health centers.

"We're going to be smart and strategic about our policy agenda to bring people together to make progress for women's health," Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, told the Wall Street Journal. "The Freedom of Choice Act is very important... but we have a long list of things to get done that I think can address problems immediately that women are facing, that are really immediate concerns."

FOCA was not listed in strategic plan submitted to the Obama transition team by a coalition of more than 50 abortion rights advocates.

The Obama administration could also decide whether to cut funding for abstinence education, whether to increase funding for "comprehensive sex education" that includes discussion of birth control, whether to rescind a ban on taxpayer funding for abortions, and whether to overturn regulations that make unborn children eligible for healthcare coverage under the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Activists also want to lower the cost of birth control at college health clinics.

Obama is expected to restore federal funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) soon after taking office, the Wall Street Journal reports. Investigations by the Population Research Institute and the U.S. Department of State under Secretary of State Colin Powell have linked the UNFPA to China’s coercive population control policy.

Pro-abortion rights groups are also opposed to new conscience protection regulations announced on Thursday by the Bush Administration. While federal law requires that doctors and nurses not be compelled to perform abortions, the new rules promulgated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) clarify that all health-care workers may refuse to provide information, such as a referral, to patients looking for an abortion.

Many activists on both sides of the conscience protection issue interpret the rule as protecting workers who refuse to participate in providing birth control or other care to which they have conscientious objections.

The new rule could be blocked by Congress. The HHS under an Obama administration could also reverse the regulation.

According to the Wall Street Journal, officials close to President-elect Obama’s transition team indicate that they intend to implement change through the HHS regulatory process.

Comments: 13

Subscriber comments:

Published by: Dan
Santa Fe/NM/US 01/13/2009 08:02 AM EST

The one pro-abortion commenter is following the new left game plan---infiltrate good organizations, claim you are one of them and belong there,spew falsehood, twist logic, make good people doubt the truth, even represent themselves as spokes people for that group and publically announce that their 'beliefs' are 'inclusive' and the norm---see any so called catholic pro-'choice' group. Yes Satan comes as an angel of light and he will sit in the Church of Christ at the endtimes.

Published by: Lisa
Massachusetts 01/04/2009 11:35 AM EST

When "pro-choice" advocates seek to eliminate laws that seek to protect minors - such as laws that insist parents be notified that their child is requesting an invaisive surgical proceedure - when they seek to overturn laws that prevent women from receiving the same degree of information about this invaisive surgical proceedure that they'd get if they were getting any other type of surgery - when these same people insist that a 24-hour waiting period is "harmful", yet any surgeon on any other elective procedure would never do the surgery the same day - when getting reliable information on other options available - when women are prevented from getting honest and truthful information regarding fetal development, and are still told, in this day and age, that they are simply removing a "blob of tissue" - and they are prevented from seeing an ultrasound - where is the actual "choice" here? If basic medical protections are considered "anti-choice" and basic protections for minor children are also considered "anti-choice", if actually giving the woman other choices is considered "anti-choice" - what is "pro-choice" then? They offer NO other choices, NO other supports, NO protections for the vunerable. All the offer is the one "choice" - kill the baby and then get rid of the "problem". That's not a choice. That's taking advantage of women in difficult situations. And it's certainly NOT health care!

Published by: Fr. Anthony Weidner
Omaha 12/22/2008 09:28 AM EST

Suzanne - there are a tiny minority (perhaps 10%) of those who call themselves "pro-choice" who are genuine libertarians who think abortion is bad, but that women should be able to choose it. However, the *vast* majority of all so-called pro-choicers, if you strapped them to a hypothetically infallible polygraph and proposed to them a gamut of around 10 "problem pregnancy" situations, would have to admit to at least one or two of those in which they believed that the woman has a moral obligation to get an abortion. By basic definition, that makes them, at least in a "soft" sense, pro-abortion, period, end of story. There are also *plenty* of folks out there - Planned Parenthood folks, UNFPA folks, Ann Lamott, Christopher Hitchens, those who said Sarah Palin was a bad example for not aborting her son with Downs' Syndrome - who would say that the women ought to get abortions in 8-10 of those situations. Those individuals promote the language of "pro-choice" as a bald-faced and outright lie.

Published by: Peter Calabrese
Lewisotn NY 12/21/2008 09:25 PM EST

Dear Suzanne,
My faith also tells me that rape is wrong, that slavery is wrong, that racism is wrong. Does that mean we need to allow those in order to preserve your precious separation.
Remember, the murder of civil rights workers in the SOuth was justified because they were "meddlers" against the choice to lynch blacks. Your argument is appeasement for racists, rapists and murderers.
Abortion is murder; whether 9 robed hangmen want to call it constitutionally protected or not it is still murder. Remember the SUpreme Court said salvery was a consitutional right also.

Published by: Warren Anderson
Victoria, BC, Canada 12/21/2008 04:02 PM EST

Of course people are pro-abortion. If you are "pro-choice", you are pro-abortion. That's what pro-choice means - "choosing" to abort/kill/terminate your baby. Just ask those who have left the abortion industry what is meant by pro-choice. Newspeak has so infected our vocabulary that people either knowingly hide behind words or, out of ignorance, use words with an already sanitized "daffy-nition" promoted by ideologues of the culture of death. Furthermore, the notion that there is a separation of Church and State is another illusory philosophy that has crept in (through the usurpation of politics by activist judges) to support the marginalization of religious freedom. There is no "separation of Church and State" enshrined in the Constitution. However, there is amply evidence that religion, i.e., Christian philosophy is the heart and soul of the Constitution. E.g., inalienable rights stemming from an inherent dignity founded on a Judeo-Christian understanding of the person.

Published by: Ron Pichlik
Battle Creek, MI USA 12/21/2008 02:57 PM EST

Ms. Sisson-Price: Of course your position is rife with fallacy. There is no such thing as separation of church and state. The founding father's ONLY intent was to prevent the government from formally establishing a state religion. Being opposed to abortion, and pro-life is actually the pinnacle of being pro-human rights; because, if we cannot agree that human life from natural conception to natural death is to be held sacred and protected thant the rest of the long list of rights that we are promised are meaningless. Additionally, the so-called right to choose is based on a right that frankly DOES NOT EXIST; there is no right to privacy in the constitution. Since you are opining on a Catholic website I am going to assume that you are Catholic. Obtain for yourself a copy of the Catechism; it makes it quite clear that abortion is an "intrinsic evil". Catholics cannot ever condone, or cooperate in anyway with evil. The Church says we are to form our conscienses' however, it also states that a properly formed Catholic conscience by definition can NEVER be at odds with Church teaching on faith or morals. Lastly, being opposed to abortion is not religious; there is an organization I believe called Atheists against Abortion, which opposes abortion on human rights grounds. Even Hippocrates, (a pagan), taught his students to not perform abortions.

Published by: Frank
Bremerton WA 12/21/2008 02:34 PM EST

It sounds like Suzanne Sisson-Price has swallowed the kool-aid. I guess if the issue was slavery, she would agree that "no-one is pro-slavery", and that slavery was the norm since the start of our country. What a hypocrite. Stand up for life, you don't have to be religious to know that abortion is just as wrong as slavery! God bless you!

Published by: ghp95134
San Jose, CA 12/21/2008 11:37 AM EST

Suzanne writes: "...Nobody is "PRO-abortion". You're being irresponsible by using this term. ..."

Yes, they are PRO-ABORTION. "Pro-choice" is merely the euphamism for "gimme an abortion" and has nothing at all to do with separation of church and state (which prevents the state from establishing a national religion!).

Next time you use the term "pro-choice" go ahead and finish the clause: pro-choice to have an abortion (id est: to kill a human fetus).

--ghp

Published by: Ann
Virginia 12/21/2008 10:49 AM EST

To Suzanne Sisson-Price...By supporting abortion under the euphemism..pro choice..people really supporting the existence of legalized abortion. People are "pro abortion" in the sense that they support the idea that someone can decide to kill their baby if they so choose. Can't you see that a "pro choice" person supports abortion? You talk about the separation of church and state as being so important. It is, that is why pro-lifers are fighting to keep the state from infringing upon their religious conscience and making healthcare workers refer for abortions, contraception, etc. Also, it is a scientific fact that life begins at conception. The anti-abortion movement is based on science and human rights. The freedom of religion in our Bill of Rights frees us from a state religion, not freedom from God or basic morality. You ask us not to forget our history, pro-lifers do not. Remember the Intro to the Declaration of Independence...we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are LIFE. liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our founders realized that because God made us, we have human rights no one can take away. Those working against abortion are fighting to protect the human rights of the million plus babies that will be killed this year through a "choice."

Published by: Rose
IL 12/20/2008 10:56 PM EST

All anyone has to do that is interested in an abortion is go to "A" in the yellowpages...it's the first or second entry...there's no need for all this overturning of helpful protection of life legislation.

That all these appalling pro-death demands are being implemented under the guise of "health & human services" is insanity--even evil.

Published by: Jack
Ohio 12/20/2008 04:06 PM EST

How many more millions of children need to be murdered in the so-called name of 'woman's health?' FOCA, among many other things, would be nothing but evil codified. If you want truly to support women, try spending the $$ on prenatal care, health care, vitamins, insurance, etc., as opposed to dismantling or chemically killing the child in the womb. Our country and each of us who support this will face a bad day when we meet God face to face!

Published by: Suzanne Sisson-Price
Lakewood CO 12/20/2008 10:59 AM EST

Rate: Bad

Nobody is "PRO-abortion". You're being irresponsible by using this term. People are PRO-choice who understand that our country was founded on separation of Church and State. This separation has given us Freedom of Religion that we did not have under the British Empire. It has also given us other freedoms including the freedome to be PRO-choice. If we remove these free choices, we lose Separation of Church and State and lose our freedom of religion. We become like the Taliban. It's that simple. Do not forget our history and why we have Freedom of Religion.

Published by: Jack
NY 12/20/2008 10:18 AM EST

The Antichrist is seemingly for the "good of all people," but he himself refuses to bow down to Christ because he so controlled by the devil. The Antichrist has to come and usher in the Parousia of Christ. The Antichrist will seduce many of a false peace and that all religions are ok and promise that he will eliminate all the problems of the world and blah blah blah. We always should be on guard for this man who that 2 Thess 2:1-16. St. paul tells us that this man will must appear first before Christ returns. A very excellent book thatis currently sold out is "The End of the Present World and the Mysteries of the Future Life" by Fr. Arminjon, who was St. Therese Liseux's priest who wrote the book. It's about the end times and she said it was a grace that she read this book. It has an excellent chapter on the Antichrist. People who are blinded and mesmerized by Obama will defend him to the end. People who are wise to his cunning and charismatic persona have already figured him out. Let's go by the signs of the times as these things not only ave to come to pass but WILL come to pass. Christ warns us of false Christs seducing many, but that most abominable man, the Antichrist will emerge from as a chastisement for those who have rejected Jesus, Son of God, who is the Savior. Christ will kill the Antichrist with the spirit of His mouth 2 Thess 2:8. Please read 2 Thess 2:1-16. St. Malachy's prophecy of there being one more Pope after Pope Benedict XVI is all too evident.

ADD A COMMENT (Your e-mail will NOT be published):


NAME:
CITY/STATE/COUNTRY:
EMAIL:
COMMENT:

PLEASE ENTER THE SECURITY CODE DISPLAYED ABOVE:
Chars:

* Thanks for your comments. The number of messages that can be online is limited. Length should not exceed 1500 characters. CNA reserves the right to edit messages for content and tone. Comments and opinions expressed by users do not necessarily reflect the opinions or beliefs of CNA. CNA will not publish comments with abusive language, insults or links to other pages.

ADVERTISING
CNA does not necessarily endorse these advertisers. Please proceed with discretion. If you feel that a website announced has inappropriate or offensive content, please send it by e-mail to catholicna@catholicna.com