|
Obama’s Plan to Fund D.C. Abortions Shows
He Is Not Seeking ‘Common Ground,’ Congresswomen Say
At a press conference
urging Congress and President Barack Obama
not to revise the bill that would allow federal funds to be used for
abortions in the District of Columbia are, from left, Rep. Cathy
McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Majorie
Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, Rep. Jean Schmidt
(R-Ohio) and Rep. Virginia Fox (R-N.C.). (CNSNews.com/ Penny Starr)
Pro-life activists and members of Congress said President Barack
Obama’s claim that he wants to seek “common ground” with people who
morally object to abortion and find ways to reduce abortions contrasts
his actions, including his recommendation to revise an amendment in the
2010 budget for the District of Columbia and thus allow federal funds
to pay for the procedure.
Under the Constitution, Congress is authorized to allocate funds for
the District. The Dornan amendment, which was introduced in the D.C.
budget in 1988 by then-Rep. Robert Dornan (R-Calif.) and included in
the District’s budget for most of the last 20 years, prohibits both
federal and local funds from being used for abortions in the District.
The amendment allows exceptions for abortions in cases where the
mother’s life is at risk or the pregnancy is the result of rape or
incest.
“One way to reduce the number of abortions and a way that works and one
that is a common ground issue for the American people is to not allow
taxpayer-funded abortions, period,” Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio),
chairwoman of the House Pro-Life Women’s Caucus, said at a press
conference outside of the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday.
In Obama’s 2010 proposed budget the Dornan amendment would be changed.
Below, in brackets, is the Dornan amendment followed, in italics, by
the Obama administration’s proposed changes to that amendment:
SEC. [820]815. [None of the funds appropriated under this Act shall be
expended for any abortion except where the life of the mother would be
endangered if the fetus were carried to term or where the pregnancy is
the result of an act of rape or incest] (a) None of the Federal funds
appropriated in this Act, and none of the Federal funds in any trust
fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for
any abortion. (b) None of the Federal funds appropriated in this Act,
and none of the funds in any trust fund to which Federal funds are
appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for health benefits
coverage that includes coverage of abortion. (c) The term health
benefits coverage means the package of services covered by a managed
care provider or organization pursuant to a contract or other
arrangement.
SEC. 816. (a) The limitations established in the preceding section
shall not apply to an abortion (1) if the pregnancy is the result of an
act of rape or incest; or (2) in the case where a woman suffers from a
physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a
life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the
pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the
woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed. (b) Nothing
in the preceding section shall be construed as prohibiting the
expenditure by a State, locality, entity, or private person of State,
local, or private funds (other than a State's or locality's (sic)
Contribution of Medicaid matching funds).
Majorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life advocacy group Susan B.
Anthony List, said at the news conference that because Congress funds
the District, the language stating “local” funds can be used for
abortion means taxpayers will be paying for the procedure, and that the
number of abortions will likely increase.
“This dramatic reversal of policy would also undermine common ground on
the abortion issue if that common ground means reducing abortions,”
Dannenfelser said. “What would D.C. funding of abortion do? What would
tax-paying funding do? It would increase abortion in the District of
Columbia to at least 1,000 more abortions per year.”
Schmidt noted that Obama said during his televised interview with the
Rev. Rick Warren of Saddleback Church during the presidential campaign
and in a speech the president made at the commencement ceremony at
Notre Dame that he wanted to find “common ground” with people who
disagree with his pro-abortion stance.
“I believe in Roe v. Wade, and I come to that conclusion not because
I’m pro-abortion, but because, ultimately, I don’t think women make
these decisions casually,” Obama said when Warren asked him about
abortion. “I think they – they wrestle with these things in profound
ways, in consultation with their pastors or their spouses or their
doctors or their family members.
“And so, for me, the goal right now should be – and this is where I
think we can find common ground,” Obama said. “And by the way, I’ve now
inserted this into the Democratic Party platform, is how do we reduce
the number of abortions? The fact is that although we have had a
president who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years,
abortions have not gone down and that is something we have to address.”
Obama also talked about respecting the views of pro-life Americans when
he gave a controversial commencement address at the University of Notre
Dame, a Catholic institution.
“That’s when we begin to say, ‘Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we
can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman
to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions,’” Obama said at
Notre Dame.
“So let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions
by reducing unintended pregnancies and making adoption more available,
and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to
term,” he said.
“So let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and
draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our
health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as
well as respect for the equality of women,” Obama said.
Schmidt said by removing the Dornan Amendment, Obama would be
“violating the consciences of millions of pro-life Americans to fund a
procedure to which they object – based upon deeply held religious and
moral belief – by allowing taxpayers to fund abortions.”
Schmidt said such action would also likely “increase the number of
abortions performed” in the District of Columbia.
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), also at the conference, said Obama is
out of touch with the growing number of Americans who describe
themselves as pro-life, as a recent Gallup poll showed.
“America is moving in exactly the opposite direction,” Bachmann said.
“America is embracing the view of life.
“We want to put a marker in the ground here today in our nation’s
capital saying, ‘We’re here for women, born and unborn,’” Bachmann said.
Keeping the Dornan Amendment “would be the common ground on the
abortion debate,” said Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.). “We hope
that President Obama and the Democrats will change their mind and stand
with the majority of Americans who support the Dornan Amendment.”
Rep. Virginia Fox (R-N.C.) also attended the press conference.
The House Appropriations Committee will hold a full committee hearing
on the Financial Services appropriations bill, which includes the D.C.
funding, after the Fourth of July congressional break.
Contact: Penny Starr
Source: CNSNews.com
Publish
Date: June 25, 2009
Link
to this article.
Send
this article to a friend.
 
The IFRL is the largest grassroots pro-life organization in
Illinois. A non-profit organization, that serves as the state
coordinating body for local pro-life chapters representing thousands of
Illinois citizens working to restore respect for all human life in our
society. The IFRL is composed of people of different political
persuasions, various faiths and diverse economic, social and ethnic
backgrounds. Since 1973 the Illinois Federation for Right to Life has
been working to end abortion and restore legal protection to those members of the
human family who are threatened by abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. Diverse though we are, we hold one common belief - that
every human being has an inalienable right to life that is precious and must be protected. IFRL is
dedicated to restoring the right to life to the unborn, and protection
for the disabled and the elderly. Click here to learn more about the IFRL.
|
