Posts Tagged ‘Rockefeller’
Junior Senator says only “No” twice during hearing to prevent taxpayer subsidies for elective abortions, extend conscience protections.
CHARLESTON, W.Va. – Today, Sen. Rockefeller ignored calls from West Virginians, led by the Family Policy Council of West Virginia, to protect innocent human life and current conscience protections in the, “America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009.”
“Senator Rockefeller’s silence at today’s hearing speaks volumes for his support of abortion on demand,” said Jeremy Dys, president and general counsel of the Family Policy Council of West Virginia. “For the pre-born and for medical professionals of conscience, Senator Rockefeller’s vote was anything but, ‘family friendly.’”
The proposed legislation explicitly includes elective abortion and would subsidize health plans that cover all elective abortions. It would also undermine current conscience protections by not protecting health plans from being forced to cover elective abortions.
“Senator Rockefeller has helped the powerful abortion lobby to create a backdoor way around current Federal prohibitions to stick taxpayers with the bill to subsidize abortion services,” said Dys. “What may be worse, this legislation now allows for medical professionals to be coerced into performing such services – even against their own conscience.”
Today’s votes continue the trend by those in Congress to vote against the inclusion of life and conscience protections in health care reform. So far, every pro-life amendment proposed to the health care reform measure has been defeated.
Visit www.familypolicywv.com/Rockefeller for more details.
The Family Policy Council of West Virginia is a servant organization advocating for policies that embrace the sanctity of human life, enrich marriage, and safeguard religious freedom. On the web at www.familypolicywv.com.
# # #
Good news this morning from the New York Times:
Abortion opponents in both the House and the Senate are seeking to block the millions of middle- and lower-income people who might receive federal insurance subsidies to help them buy health coverage from using the money on plans that cover abortion. And the abortion opponents are getting enough support from moderate Democrats that both sides say the outcome is too close to call.
As the Senate returns today to consider amendments to the health care reform package, proponents of life are gaining ground – not that we would know it from Sen. Rockefeller’s recent comments in the press. Instead of working to ensure that the rights of the pre-born are given access to health care, Sen. Rockefeller is working closely with the controversial, liberal website MoveOn.org to strengthen his political connections with the most liberal political base in West Virginia.
The New York Times continues:
Yesterday, the United States Senate had the opportunity to reject the President’s plan to use billions of taxpayer dollars to fund abortions worldwide. On the question, “To restore the prohibition on funding of nongovernmental organizations that promote abortion as a method of birth control (the “Mexico City Policy“),” Senator’s Rockefeller and Byrd voted “Nay.” Just to be clear, that means the good Senators voted in favor of using more taxpayer dollars to fund abortions, nationally and internationally.
In related news, President Obama appears poised to make good on his campaign promise to begin the funding of UNFPA – the United Nations Fund for Population Activities. One might ask why the Bush administration ceased this practice. According to LifeSiteNews.com,
President Bush halted funding for UNFPA when it was discovered by an independent investigation in 2001, and confirmed by a U.S. State Department investigation in 2002, that the UN group supported restrictive laws and coercive population control tactics in China, including forced abortion and sterilization.
In President Obama’s announcement that he was rescinding the Mexico City Policy, he noted his rationale:
I have directed my staff to reach out to those on all sides of this issue to achieve the goal of reducing unintended pregnancies. They will also work to promote safe motherhood, reduce maternal and infant mortality rates and increase educational and economic opportunities for women and girls.
In addition, I look forward to working with Congress to restore U.S. financial support for the U.N. Population Fund. By resuming funding to UNFPA, the U.S. will be joining 180 other donor nations working collaboratively to reduce poverty, improve the health of women and children, prevent HIV/AIDS and provide family planning assistance to women in 154 countries.
Apparently, promoting “safe motherhood” is agreeing with the policy of some nations to force abortions on women. I suppose, since most on the pro-abortion side of the argument conclude that the “fetus” is not an infant, that would achieve President Obama’s goal of reducing “infant mortality” as well.
I don’t think so.