Tag Archives: Ohio

News

Pro-life news from Texas, North Carolina, Iowa, Ohio and Pennsylvania

2 Comments
Unborn baby scheming about Iowa's abortion ban
Unborn baby scheming about Iowa's abortion ban

Steve Ertelt at Life News does a great job of tracking the progress being made by Republicans on life issues.

Texas

An amendment to a Senate bill would make it so hospital districts that do abortions in the state would not qualify for receiving state taxpayer funds.

Excerpt:

“Senate Bill 7 passed with the pro-life provisions in place,” Texas Alliance for Life director Joe Pojman explained. “Two good amendments were also added: one by Rep. Zedler (R-Arlington) relating to more detailed reporting of information relating to abortions and one by Rep. Christian (R-Nacogdoches) to prevent tax funding for abortions by hospital districts. This was the preliminary vote in the House, the final vote in the House will be tomorrow.”

Rep. Wayne Christian floated the hospital amendment, which also targets contracts with the Planned Parenthood abortion business or other abortion businesses and says hospital districts would lose state funding if they “contract or affiliate with other organizations, agencies or entities that provide or refer for abortion or abortion-related services.”

State House members approved the budget amendment 100-37 after Democrats attempted to use a procedural motion to block consideration of it. The Dallas Morning news indicates Democratic Reps. Guillen, T. King, Lozano, Martinez, Munoz and Pickett were the only ones to join Republicans supporting it.

[…]“Sen. Jane Nelson (R-Flower Mound) has filed Senate Bill 7 to make Planned Parenthood ineligible for all family planning funds. Please call your state senator and urge him to support this bill,” Pojman added.

North Carolina

North Carolina Republicans approved a bill to provide women who are considering abortion with more information so they can make a better decision.

Excerpt:

North Carolina legislators approved a bill today that pro-life groups support to help women obtain information about abortion’s risks and alternatives they may not otherwise receive before an abortion.

The measure, which also has a 24-hour waiting period component, is designed to help women find positive abortion alternatives. The Woman’s Right to Know bill, H 854, is similar to legislation other states have passed and is proven to reduce abortions. When women are given information about abortion that Planned Parenthood and other abortion businesses don’t routinely provide, they frequently consider alternatives.

The state House voted 71-48 for the Right to Know bill that provides them with information about the development of their unborn child, the medical risks associated with having an abortion, and the availability of abortion alternatives.

During the debate, according to an AP report, Republicans explained how the measure would help women considering an abortion and Democrats responded that the measure was an intrusion between the doctor-patient relationship, even though women getting abortions normally have never met the abortion practitioner and will never see him again following the abortion.

Iowa

Iowa House passes a ban on abortion at or after 18 weeks of pregnancy.

Excerpt:

Today, House Republicans passed a revised Senate File 534 that removes the weak Senate language and replaces it with, according to the Des Moines register, a ban on virtually all abortions after 18 weeks of pregnancy — two weeks earlier than the Nebraska law that has not been challenged in court by abortion supporters.

Rep. Dawn Pettengill, a Republican who headed up the changes, said she was glad that the bill would be one of the strongest pro-life laws in the nation.

“I believe life begins at conceptions so, to me, I say great. I’m glad that is true,” Pettengill said, according to the Register.

The revised legislation would charge abortion practitioners with a crime for doing abortions after that point and they could face 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine for abortions afterwards. That upset Rep. Janet Petersen, a Des Moines Democrat who was upset “doctors” would be charged even though abortion practitioners typically don’t practice legitimate medicine.

Jill June, president of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, opposed the ban on late abortions and claimed lawmakers supporting it “seem to be on a reckless attack of Iowa women.”

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania Republicans in the Senate approved a bill that would opt the state out of abortion funding required by Obamacare.

Excerpt:

The Obamacare legislation requires state health insurance exchanges created under the legislation to cover abortions, but the law allows states to opt out of requiring abortion coverage. The ban extends to the state exchanges the Obamacare legislation would set up because the funding for abortions would come at taxpayer expense through the exchanges, which would be funded with federal subsidies.

Under the new health care law, states will be in charge of their own health care exchanges that are available for individuals and small businesses. The exchange doesn’t go into effect until 2014 and states are filing lawsuits seeking to stop the pro-abortion health care bill in its other pro-abortion provisions entirety, but states are moving now to exercise their right to opt out of some of the abortion funding.

The Pennsylvania Senate approved Senate Bill 3 on a 37-12 vote that lawmakers described as a common sense piece of legislation which would ensure that Pennsylvania is not forced into the abortion business as a result of so-called health care reform. The legislation now goes to the state House for consideration.

Senate floor later, Sen. Larry Farnese, D-Philadelphia, criticized the bill saying it would make it harder for women to get abortions.

“This is not a new or radical step for Pennsylvania, but rather an extension of the restrictions we already have in place for (Medicaid) and other taxpayer-subsidized programs,” countered the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Don White, R-Indiana.

Ohio

Ohio Republicans in the Senate approved two amendments to prevent taxpayer funds from being used for abortions.

Excerpt:

This afternoon, state senators accepted two pro-life amendments that will ban non-therapeutic abortions in publicly funded facilities and further protect taxpayer dollars from paying for abortion. The Senate Finance Committee voted to include the Ohio Right to Life amendments to House Bill 153 which is expected to advance this week.

Designed to withstand pro-abortion challenges, both Ohio Right to Life amendments mandate measures to prevent state funding for non-therapeutic abortions. The first bans abortions from being performed in public hospitals. The second prohibits abortion coverage in insurance plans of local public employees.

“Countless times, the citizens of Ohio have stated that they do not want their tax dollars paying for abortion,” says Ohio Right to Life Executive Director, Mike Gonidakis. “These measures will ensure that Ohioans’ tax dollars will be protected.”

Gonidakis said, “Ohio Right to Life expresses its gratitude to the Ohio Senate for their courage to stand up for the unborn and to defend the conscience rights of Ohio taxpayers. We thank Senate President Tom Niehaus (R – New Richmond), Senator Kris Jordan (R – Powell) and all state senators who stand for protecting women and supporting life. Ohio Right to Life and the pro-life people of Ohio have confidence that their legislators will continue to be steadfast in their commitment to vote for life.”

You can follow Steve on Twitter here.

News

What is a “right-to-work” law, and why do Democrats oppose them?

4 Comments

From the Heritage Foundation.

Excerpt:

It’s hard to imagine Uncle Sam telling Walt Disney where to make movies or McDonald’s how many hamburgers to make, but if you take a look at the case of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) versus Boeing, you’ll see that the federal government is trying to do just that: dictate where and how private industry may do business. And it’s doing so to bolster one of President Barack Obama’s favorite special interests—labor unions.

To catch you up on the story, Boeing Corporation decided to build a new assembly plant in Charleston, South Carolina, in order to produce the 787 Dreamliner. The NLRB (which is responsible investigating unfair labor practices) got wind of the decision and last month filed a complaint against Boeing, alleging that the company decided to build the plant in South Carolina out of retaliation for union strikes at its Washington state facilities. Nevermind that Boeing actually added 2,000 jobs in Washington on this particular project.

South Carolina is a right-to-work state, meaning that Boeing can hire non-union workers. For fans of big labor (like President Obama and his allies), right-to-work states are a threat to unions’ dominance. (It’s worth noting that the NLRB today is composed of four members, three of whom are Obama appointees.)

The NLRB’s intentions, then, could be easily inferred. It is doing all it can to help unions at the expense of right-to-work states, corporations and at the end of the day, American workers. But in this case, we have even more than inference.

This is important. The way to destroy the Democrats as a political party is to go after their funding.And a lot of their funding is taken from union workers, many of whom are social conservatives who don’t agree with Democrat priorities like taxpayer-funding of abortions and legalizing same-sex marriage.

Here’s a good explanation of the difference that right-to-work laws make to individual union members.

Excerpt:

As Oregon teachers and lawmakers continue brainstorming various education reforms, getting rid of mandatory union dues should be at the top of the list.

That’s nothing against the Oregon Education Association. As far as I can tell, OEA has well-meaning, knowledgeable people working for it. And unlike in Washington, where the state-level teachers union was recently riddled with lawsuits over how it spends members’ dues, Oregon teachers who have had unacceptable run-ins with their state-level union either don’t exist or are hard to find.

But no matter how decent a job a union does, a teacher should never be forced to give it money as a condition of his or her employment, especially when unions are known to engage in all sorts of politicking. Just imagine if your employer took a portion of your paycheck each month and spent it furthering causes and issues and candidates with which you disagreed.

As Susan Stacy, a special education teacher in Seaside, said, “I don’t agree with a lot of the policies or pursuits of the NEA or the OEA. And when they support organizations or causes I flat out disagree with, I don’t think I should be forced to support them. Even when it comes to organizations I think are good, it should be my choice to support them.”

Stacy has been teaching in Oregon for 12 years. Before that, she taught for five years in Utah, a state without compulsory unionism. When she was hired here, she was surprised when she received her first paycheck to find a deduction for union dues. She asked her district what it was all about since she wasn’t planning to be a member and then was informed that in Oregon she had to pay dues.

“I was incensed,” she said.

[…]Taxpayers should be against compulsory union dues, too. After all, taxpayers employ teachers, not unions. It’s crazy that the state allows a union to take hundreds of dollars from 47,000-plus educators each year to help further its agenda. While the majority of the union’s work involves collective bargaining, the union regularly opposes charter schools and partakes in legislative battles to eliminate them. It routinely backs Democrats, endorsing just eight Republicans from among 90 state races in 2008.

There is a move to pass a right-to-work law on right now in New Hampshire. This would allow workers to work without being forced to join a union, and to pay union dues.

News

Republicans introduce national right-to-work legislation

4 Comments
Sen. James Demint

From the Hill.

Excerpt:

Eight Republican Senators introduced a bill Tuesday giving workers a choice as to whether to join labor unions, which they argue will boost the nation’s economy and provide an increase in wages.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), introduced the National Right to Work Act to “reduce workplace discrimination by protecting the free choice of individuals to form, join, or assist labor organizations, or to refrain from such activities,” according to a statement.

Seven other Republicans signed onto the effort: Sens. Tom Coburn (Okla.), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Mike Lee (Utah), Rand Paul (Ky.), James Risch (Idaho), Pat Toomey (Pa.) and David Vitter (La.).

“Facing a steady decline in membership, unions have turned to strong-arm political tactics to make forced unionization the default position of every American worker, even if they don’t want it,” Hatch said. “This is simply unacceptable. At the very least, it should be the policy of the U.S. government to ensure that no employee will be forced to join a union in order to get or keep their job.

“Republicans cited a recent poll they said shows that 80 percent of union members support having their policy and that “Right to Work” states outperform “forced-union” states in factors that affect worker well being.

From 2000 to 2008, about 4.7 million Americans moved from forced-union to right to work states and a recent study found that there is “a very strong and highly statistically significant relationship between right-to-work laws and economic growth,” and that from 1977 to 2007, right-to-work states experienced a 23 percent faster growth in per capita income than states with forced unionization.

“To see the negative impacts of forced unionization, look no further than the struggling businesses in states whose laws allow it,” Vitter said. “It can’t be a coincidence that right-to-work states have on balance grown in population over the last 10 years, arguably at the expense of heavy union-favoring states.”

DeMint blamed the problems faced by U.S. automakers on the unions.

“Forced-unionism helped lead to GM and Chrysler’s near bankruptcy and their requests for government bailouts as they struggled to compete in a global marketplace,” he said. “When American businesses suffer because of these anti-worker laws, jobs and investment are driven overseas.”

If you want to attract businesses, then you need to have pro-business laws. That’s where jobs come from – businesses.

Here’s an article about states who are trying to pass these laws to attract more employers.

Excerpt:

Currently 14 states beyond Indiana and Wisconsin are considering legislation that would limit union benefits and/or collective bargaining power. They are: Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington (state) and West Virginia. In any number of these states, supporters have planned or held rallies against the measures. But public support might be less than deep. According to a Rasmussen Poll conducted late last week and released Monday, 48 percent of likely U.S. voters sided with Wisconsin Governor Walker whereas only 38 percent sided with his union opponents; the other 14 percent were undecided. And 50 percent of the respondents favored reducing their home state’s government payroll by one percent a year for 10 years either by reducing the work force or reducing their pay. Only 28 percent opposed such action.

This is how we are going to turn the recession around. Cut off the spending on left-wing special interests – NPR, PBS, ACORN, Planned Parenthood, Unions. They all will have to pay their own way, just like the grown-ups do.