Tag Archives: Taxpayer

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

Republicans respond to pro-lifers desire to cut UN abortion funding

Leave a comment

From Life News.

Excerpt:

Earlier this month, LifeNews.com reported on a public vote House Republicans were taking, seeing input from American voters on which one of three ideas for saving taxpayer dollars was the most attractive and should become the next bill pushed in Congress. With thousands of pro-life advocates encouraged to vote, legislation cutting UNFPA funding won out and will now become the next piece of legislation Republicans will advance.

The vote at the popular YouCut web site makes it so the public will be able to track the progressof the legislation as it moves through the legislative process.

Rep. Renee Ellmers, of North Carolina, will be introducing legislation soon.

“This is going to save American taxpayers $400 million dollars over a 10 year period and it’s just another part of what we’re doing here in Washington to cut wasteful spending that we see happening,” she said in a new video introducing the bill. “And I am very excited to be part of this program and each week we will have more cuts coming forward.”

The legislation would result in cutting the funding President Barack Obama put in place for the UNFPA, an agency that promotes abortion and works hand-in-hand with family planning officials in China enforcing the one-child, forced-abortion policy.

[…]Steve Mosher, the head of the Population Research Institute and the leading campaigner exposing China and the one-child policy, says the UNFPA is the UN population control agency that is complicit in China’s brutal one-child policy, which is carried out through a program of coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization. He hopes the YouCut program receives enough votes to move the pro-life bill forward.

“With just a click of your mouse, you can cut funding to the United Nations Population Fund,’ he said in an email to LifeNews. “Defunding UNFPA could be considered by the House soon, but only if this option gets the most votes on the YouCut website. That’s where you come in. If you think the United States House of Representatives should cut funding to the UNFPA, then vote for that option on the YouCut web site, and urge everyone you know to do the same.”

Pro-life blogger Jill Stanek also encouraged people to vote in it.

“How many times have you been forwarded an email to vote on a meaningless opinion poll?” she asked. “Well, for once, here’s a poll that can really save the lives of preborn children. If you have friends who are solely fiscal conservatives, tell them that at $400 million, this choice will save taxpayers the most money of any of this week’s 3 options.

The YouCut web site talks about the history of UNFPA funding.

“In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan withheld all U.S. contributions to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) after determining that UNFPA participated in the support and co-management of China’s population control program,” it explains. “Under the Bush administration, the U.S. withheld funds for the UNFPA from America’s annual contributions to the United Nations due to UNFPA’s complicity in China’s one-child policy enforced through coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization, but the Obama administration and the 111th Congress resumed contributions to UNFPA.”

The budget House Republicans wanted sought to terminate UNFPA funding, which stood at $55 million in FY 2010. UNFPA funding was cut by $15 million, to $40 million in the final agreement over FY 2011 spending, but the remainder is sent to the pro-abortion agency.

After Obama restored the funding, Rep. Chris Smith tried to offer an amendment to revert the language back to the original ban on such funding, but House Democrats blocked him from doing so. Then, pro-life Sen. Roger Wicker offered a similar amendment but the Senate defeated it.

Republicans are opposed to funding coerced and sex-selection abortions in China. If Republicans can cut off the money to the United Nations, then maybe the coerced and sex-selection abortions in China will decrease. Regardless of that, we taxpayers can certainly use the money better on our own projects than the government of China can. For example, if I get my money back from the United Nations, I could give it to a crisis pregnancy center. Let me decide – it’s my money. I earned it.

News

New study shows how taxpayer-funding increases number of abortions

1 Comment

From Life Site News.
Excerpt:

A major pro-life group is responding to the study released by a pro-abortion organization saying abortion rates have fallen for women as a whole but increased for women below the poverty line. The National Right to Life Committee blames taxpayer funding.

As LifeNews reported, the new study in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology indicates the abortion rate has decreased in the United States — good news because it means more pregnant women are opting against having an abortion. However, the report presents news that should spark a drive to help more women below the poverty level find pregnancy resources and support because it indicates poor women are having abortions at a higher rate than before.

The new report was published by the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion research group formerly affiliated with the Planned Parenthood abortion business. According to Guttmacher, poor women accounted for 42% of all abortions in 2008, and their abortion rate increased 18% between 2000 and 2008, from 44.4 to 52.2 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44. In comparison, the national abortion rate for 2008 was 19.6 per 1,000, reflecting an 8% decline from a rate of 21.3 in 2000.

NRLC officials disputed Guttmacher’s claims that restrictions on abortion “disproportionately affect” poor women.

“Data showing an eight percent drop in abortion rates across the board from 2000 to 2008 are encouraging,” said Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D., National Right to Life director of education and research.

“Guttmacher suggests that higher abortion rates among poorer woman and abortion restrictions are somehow connected, yet it’s a thesis that goes undefended,” O’Bannon further noted.  “How common sense regulations like right-to-know laws, which tell women about abortion’s risks and alternatives which are better for both them and their unborn children, and similar protective measures, are supposed to hurt poor women is hard to fathom.”

The researcher says the overall downward trend seems to indicate that such laws, along with the assistance provided by pregnancy care centers, which provide lifesaving alternatives to abortion, are enabling more women to choose life for their unborn child. However, several states – California, New York and at least a dozen others – publicly fund abortion for poor women with taxpayer money, which O’Bannon blames for increasing the abortion rates for poor women receiving the free or reduced-cost abortions.

“While the abortion industry saw declines among most demographic groups, it just happened to see growth among women for whom states were covering abortion costs,” observed O’Bannon. “The fact is, when tax dollars pay for abortion, you get more abortion.”

[…]O’Bannon noted: “The abortion industry likes to argue that high abortion rates are due to insufficient government funding for ‘family planning,’ but the record seems at odds with that assertion.  As abortion industry giant Planned Parenthood has received hundreds of millions of tax dollars each year, abortions at their facilities have steadily increased at rates that very nearly match their increases in government funding.”

I really like when pro-lifers have thought about abortion as an economic problem, and are willing to embrace (in part) economic solutions. I know a lot of pro-lifers who will accept nothing less than a full ban on all abortions right now today. They do not understand incremental measures. The same pro-lifers who do not understand incremental pro-life policies usually don’t understand pro-life arguments either. They just haven’t thought about the issue as a problem to solve, but only as a hard-line pose to impress their friends.

These uninformed pro-lifers do not want to think about the causes of abortion, nor about the incentives to abort, nor about incremental measures that will reduce the number of abortions, such as parental notification laws, mandatory sonograms or waiting periods. Pro-life legislators can only legislate based on what the public opinion will support (and maybe a little bit over that line). In the meantime, there is a battle for public opinion that needs to be waged by each individual pro-lifer with his neighbors, using arguments and evidence that are convincing to the non-pro-life person (i.e. – not “The Bible says” or “The Pope says”, but “the statistics show” or “the science shows”).

Related posts