WASHINGTON —The unanimous passage through the Senate of a defense spending bill that expands abortion access for military personnel has generated concern that pro-life politicians are in retreat because of the November election results.
“It’s extremely disappointing,” Tom McClusky, vice president of the Family Research Council, said of the National Defense Authorization Act’s almost certain endorsement by the House of Representatives after passage by the Senate. “And we’re concerned that we’ve allowed the other side to frame the debate entirely in terms advantageous to helping women. Everyone wants to help women. But we also want what happens to the child to be part of the debate. The child is a human being.”
But McClusky said he saw the passage of the bill as a result of a general failure by the pro-life movement. “We all have to take responsibility,” he said. “If we point fingers, the pointing would go full circle.”
The defense bill was passed by the Senate unanimously Dec. 4 with an amendment sponsored by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., that provides medical coverage for military personnel to obtain abortions at military facilities in the case of rape or incest. It otherwise leaves in place the existing ban on funding or facility use for other abortions except when a servicewoman’s life is in danger because of her pregnancy.
Since 1976, Congress has annually attached an amendment to all funding bills banning federal spending on abortions except when the mother’s life is threatened by the pregnancy. The amendment is named after its initial proponent, Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois. During the Clinton administration, congressional Democrats forced the rape and incest exemptions into the Hyde Amendments, and these have remained in place. But they were never added to military appropriation bills until now, said McClusky.
McClusky and other pro-life analysts said the House was almost certain to accept the inclusion of Shaheen’s amendment when the Senate and House negotiate the final version of the defense bill.
Victimizing Unborn Children
In his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), Pope John Paul II confirmed that “the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral.”
Added Blessed John Paul II, “The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end” (57).
Marie Hilliard of the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia said that politicians were wrong to vote for the bill, but pro-life Americans should have been contacting their congressional representatives to let them know “there are two victims or potential victims when there is a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, the woman and the child.”
Hilliard added, “It is a tragedy when a woman is sexually assaulted, but the unborn child should not be treated as a perpetrator. The child is innocent and should not become a victim too.” Society, or, in this case, the military, should reach out to support women in this situation and offer them alternatives to abortion, she said.
As for congressional politicians, Hilliard rejected the idea that they had to vote for the bill because its good features outweighed the pro-abortion aspects.
“Pope John Paul II’s teaching on incremental legislation allowed politicians to support laws that made abortion a little more difficult though not eliminating it altogether,” she said. “But I don’t think this teaching allows support for laws that make abortion a little bit easier.”
Among supporters of the bill was a leading pro-life senator, Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H. Some pro-life observers were concerned about her support of the bill’s inclusion of funding for military abortions, particularly in light of her previous 100% rating from the National Right to Life Committee and 0% from both Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Ayotte’s compromise on this pro-life issue came in the wake of a call from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to fellow Republicans to play down their beliefs about abortion and life issues.
Appearing on Fox News Sunday on Nov. 25, he suggested that, while “I can state my position on abortion,” Republicans should, “other than that, leave the issue alone when we are in the kind of economic situation and, frankly, national security situation that we’re in.” McCain also voted in support of Shaheen’s amendment to the defense bill.
‘Complex Politics’
Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, refuses to find any fault with the pro-life senators who supported the bill, given the “complex politics involved.”
But Dannenfelser shares McClusky’s concern about the impact of the election on pro-life advocacy in the corridors of power.
“I am concerned generally about the lack of courage shown by the Republican Party and about the wrong conclusions being drawn from the election results,” Dannenfelser said.
What is worrisome to pro-life activists are the implications of the measure’s passage unanimously through the same Senate that managed to muster 38 socially conservative votes early in December to defeat a U.N. disabled-rights treaty.
McClusky said the way the abortion issue played out in the November elections was problematic for the pro-life cause, especially in the case of Missouri Republican senatorial candidate Todd Akin, whose controversial use of the term “legitimate rape” to explain his opposition to abortion in the case of rape contributed to his loss.
Richard Mourdock similarly lost his bid for a Senate seat in Indiana after he said that a pregnancy resulting from rape was “something that God intended to happen.” This was widely and deliberately misconstrued by Democrats and mainstream news media to mean that he thought God approved of rape when it resulted in pregnancy.
McClusky said, “The pro-life movement has failed to defend or argue well enough the position that we care about women, yes, but we care about children in all circumstances.” He added that the Republican Party and the pro-life movement should have prepared its candidates better to advocate for life and not fall back into a defensive stance.
Another Washington activist for an organization with strong pro-life views who spoke with the Register on condition of anonymity said that Mourdock and Akin were known to stumble over explanations of pro-life positions and should have been better prepared.
The pro-life advocate was worried about a misperception growing within the Republican leadership that the party lost the presidential election and some other close races because of social issues and, consequently, should now tread softly with positions regarded as conservative in these areas, especially with life issues.
Dannenfelser agreed strongly that this is a misperception. “There is no data to support the idea that the Republicans suffered generally or in the presidential race from socially conservative positions,” she said. It is true that in a few individual races they did suffer.
“But, overall, it was a wash; socially conservative issues helped in some areas and hurt in others.”
Defensiveness Doesn’t Work
But the Republican Party’s pro-life position on abortion would have been more of an asset, Dannenfelser believes, if Republicans had been more willing to promote it during the campaign and if they had defended themselves less feebly against attacks that accused the party of being anti-women.
“The Republicans were on the defensive from the start,” she said. “They let the other side slap the extremist label on them without response. They never tried to label the other side as extreme.”
Register correspondent Steve Weatherbe writes from Victoria, British Columbia.
Catholic News Agency contributed to this report.
SDG: Decision 2012: Hitting Bottom? A Moment of Clarity
Jennifer Fulwiler: If Men Don't Have a Right to Oppose Abortion…
Comments
Post a Comment
Evil is as evil does. The NDAA represents the ultimate tyranny. This law allows government to arrest any citizen without due cause and to detain them indefinitely without due process. It its no surprise that an abortion issue was staged to it with full bi- partisan support. DC is full of DCvers. Support nullification in your state- insist upon the nullification of the NDAA. It its your unalienable right, under the 10th amendment, regardless of what DC tells you.
Evil is as evil does. The NDAA represents the ultimate tyranny. This law allows government to arrest any citizen without due cause and to detain them indefinitely without due process. It is no surprise that an abortion issue was included and passed with full bi- partisan support. DC is full of DCvers. Support nullification in your state- insist upon the nullification of the NDAA. It is your unalienable right, under the 10th amendment, regardless of what DC tells you.
Some let the pro abortion people interpret actions and outcomes and prolife people do not present the correct view. The “republicans” lost the election because there wasn’t any difference in the abortion view in the candidates. Many did not vote in the presedential election and there was immeasurable fraud, two main reason why Mr Obama won. When our congress can get beyond the party affiliations they will more clearly see the truth.
This is a battle between God and the devil.
MORE PRAYER WILL CONVINCE GOD THAT HIS FOLLOWERS REALLY DO WANT HIS INTERVENTION AND HE WILL ERASE THE FOLLOWERS OF THE DEVIL!
PLEASE GOD ENLIGHTEN YOUR “SHEEP” AND HAVE MERCY ON US!
This is yet another seemingly subtle, yet sinister attempt to drive a wedge among the pro-life community, and thus establish the abortion cause as common “law.” The HHS “contraceptive” mandate applies the same tactic—abortion (now of the drug-induced variety) is slipped into the law as “preventive reproductive health care.” We have to be very careful how sins, moral evils, social problems, marriage, health care and social justice are being systematically redefined for our culture by an ideology bent on reshaping modern thinking.
Catholic politicians or any politician voting for this bill is a moral outrage.
“Dannenfelser agreed strongly that this is a misperception. ‘There is no data to support the idea that the Republicans suffered generally or in the presidential race from socially conservative positions,’ she said. It is true that in a few individual races they did suffer.”
On Nov. 7 Steven Greydanus observed in his blog:
“A moment of clarity can be the beginning of a change in direction. One recognizes that one was fooling oneself, that one has a problem, that what one has been doing isn’t working, that one doesn’t want to continue down the same path. If so, there is the hard work of changing course. The alternative is a low point that turns out not to be the bottom, and an ongoing spiral downward.”
The suspense (if there ever was any) appears to be over. The spiral downward has been chosen.
This is not a ‘Failure’ of the Pro-Life Movement. It is a ‘Failure’ of the Catholic Bishops and priests to “JOIN” to Pro-Life movement like Fr. Pavone and Priests for Life. The “BLAME” rests squarely on the shoulders of the 52% of Catholics who voted for Obama and the Party of Death and Deceit. Until the Priests For Life become the rule rather than the exception of the Catholic Church, we will continue to see Planned Parenthood living fat on yours and my tax money.
To Vance and cowalker:
I can empathize with your posts, yet it seems erroneous to blame Catholic voters for the election outcome. In so many states, the Catholic and conservative vote did not count against delegates concerned with demagoguery. Secondly, many voters in general are confused regarding the term “social justice”, and are duped into voting on another issue like health care instead of abortion, thinking that they are doing a good thing.. Aside from the fact that blame-shifting is not within the Christian way of life, it its futile . Where we may see support for the pro-life movement among some Republicans, they are the same individuals who support other egregious unconstitutional laws, which result in other horrific tyrannical laws, also conflicting with Christian principles.. Moreover, such laws are not within the role of the govt, according to the Federalist Papers, yet no one in DC abides by the Constitution and rule out law. To think that a Republican president will make the changes we seek, is not realistic, as the system as a whole is corrupt. Just look at the broken promises of John Boehner. Lastly, I have not seen misinterpretation regarding the positions of the Church and its leaders. I have seen language of the church leaders used outside of its intended context, to support left-wing ideology. If I were to assess the system, I would say that most Americans have been taught tainted history regarding the last 200 years of the United States and we have succumbed to falsehoods presented by both parties. DC will never fix any problem; they are three problem. Even the honest man will have no voice. They solutions exist within the states, assuming their constitutional authority.
I do not believe that the majority of Catholics voted for Obama, when in reality the majority of the popular vote was for someone other than Obama. Like Christians we should forgive the Dem supporters for they know not what they do, and we shills forgive the rest for not understanding states’ rights, the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers. We ask should read these documents.
It is disgusting that congressmen who are supposed to be 25% Catholic in their faith are becoming more favorable to abortion.It’s about time our Church leaders take them aside and remind them that their Faith must come first in a matter such as this. Bishops should confront them with staying in the Church and supporting Church teachings or face being branded as a heretic. It’s time for the easy friendly approach promoted by those officials to be noted as a failue.
Trica -
You don’t know what you are talking about. 45% of church going Catholics voted for Obama again. And 50% of all Catholics who ID themselves as Catholics voted for Obama again as compared to 54% last time. Democrat Catholics are the ONLY reason abortion on demand remains the law of the land and I DON"T forgive them for that nor will God because those Catholics, which include a majority of clergy even at the highest levels, give their name and votes to the pro-abortion party after claiming they believe God is the giver of life and pray for “God’s will to be done on earth.” God is justice and will not be blasphemed. NO Catholic Democrat is exempt from his justice because they are not true to what they profess to believe and pray for in Mass on Sundays.
I don’t know about the rest of the “pro-life” senators but Robert Casey Jr., D-PA, is a pro-choice wolf in pro-life fleece. The only thing he really cares about is re-election. I don’t think he has national ambitions at this stage but if he appears in national politics please, please bear in mind that he is a very smooth politician but not sincere. I had a dialogue with him about the Texas Planned Parenthood scenario during which he tried to convince me that a) the Hyde Amendment prevents federal funding for abortions because nobody would ever violate a Congressional mandate (lol) and b) audits of Planned Parenthood’s books can be trusted because nobody ever manipulates accounting (rofl). Can anybody who really believes these two items be smart enough to serve as a Senator, leaving aside his disingenuousness? Eeeuw.
We can see the faults in many of our supposed catholics. They are like the ones who practise contraception and still go to communion. The problem with most of humanity, catholic or not, is they live in this world FOR the world.
Most do not realize they are here for only less than 100yrs. BUT they are given souls for ETERNITY. The time on earth is an option time. The question being ARE YOU GOOD ENOUGH TO SPEND ETERNITY IN A PLACE GOD DESIGNED FOR THOSE WHO ARE ALWAYS TRUSTWORTHY AND WILL MAKE UP A PERFECT REPOSE FOR ONLY THOSE WHO WILL NOT MAKE WAVES!
I surely would not think it would be heaven if you can’t trust the ones around you. What a place!! to always be able to trust those around you and even encourage you to do what God would want. Those who would not want to take your freedom, your livelihood, your peace, but even add to it instead. It’s what I am working toward.
PLEASE GOD HELP US!!!!
Phyllis Poole; “There is a battle between God and the Devil.”
This ridiculous proposition has been bandied about for eons. God cannot be in battle, God has only a will, and is pure act…we might be in battle, but any god which is in battle is no god at all.
And where are our cowardly clergy? Chasing boys ?
This IS a battle between God and the devil. (it doesn’t take degrees to make a person smart!) It started with Satan and God is giving him his time to bring down souls to him. Our world is an option place. We live here usually less than 100 yrs. and choose while we are here where we want to live in eternity. God will NOT cause a human to choose Him. He will give graces, which the devil cannot do, but He gives free will to us and He is constantly working to grasp souls away from the devil- with our help. That is the battle. God will not win everyone. He has given the devil 100yrs (see Pope Leo XIII) to gather souls to him.
It is my feeling that we will soon have the 3daysdarkness that saints have been warning us for centuries. Look it up. The time given to the devil was from the 1880’s and you can see that the world changed dramatically in that time. Materialism soared in new inventions, broke up the family and caused many to live FOR the world, not thinking of an eternity.
PLEASE GOD ENLIGHTEN YOUR “SHEEP”
Phyllis Poole:
Yes, there seems to be a constant struggle between good and evil. Let us remember that good and evil are not equal forces. To believe that they are equal is gnosticism and Manacheanism, a common religious practice around 100 to 300 . God is supreme omnipotent. As Christ said the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak, since His birth, humans have continued down very dark and sinful paths. In the US, you mention the 1880’s as a time of degradation, yet as early the late 1700’s demonstrated the suns of man as well. The Alien and Sedition acts of 1798 are a good example as well as the industry of slave trade. Which sin to we consider in order to assess the worst of times. Perhaps the crucifixion is the worst of times.
My point is, that man’s weakness is not new, and if we do not know our history, we will continue to make the same mistakes over and over. Americans have not been taught true American history; it does not exist within our schools and it has not for over a century. The history handed down to us is false and biased in support of the central govt. Moreover, political campaigns use the words of our clergy for their personal gain, just as they did to our founding fathers. Unless we show an interest in our history, read the Federalist Papers, and read history books based on original letters, journals, finds, etc. . -typical of the proper standards of historical accounting, we will remain in the dark and under the influence of politicians , half truths and myths. Further, the Catholic Church will never be lauded for its contributions to the New World and science. Christopher Columbus is taught in the schools to be much like an invader, when his true quest was to spread Christianity. Spain at that time was appointed by the Holy See as the Premiere See of new world exploration. In the same regard, the Pontificate Academy of The Sciences is somewhat ignored, even though its members are the great scientists of the world, from Copernicus to Einstein and nanny today. We will never learn that its was a Jesuit priest who was responsible for the big bang theory. I digress.
I’ve yet to see one person investigate our true history without resistance. See: authors Tom Woods and Kevin Gutzman if you are interested in truth. And see EWTN shows for great history of the church in America, among other things.
That is: many today…not nanny today sorry for the typos.
To: Posted by Tom on Sunday, Dec 30, 2012 12:18 AM (EDT) “EJ, removal of religion from government protects us all and our ability to worship as we see fit.”
I hesitate, no cringe, at the thought of expending the effort on such verbal dribble. But here goes; to clarify, if you don’t understand the “public square” to mean anything BUT government then clearly it’s you who doesn’t understand the issue(s) and (distancing myself here from the prior direct personal attack - truly sorry) are buffoonish, not a buffoon per se.
The “public square” is purely within the purview of the people. It is that, now mostly allegorical, place where we actually get to freely tell government to take a flying leap if we so choose, and should supposedly be able to influence government officials unlike in places such as Russia, China, Iran, Syria, and Egypt to name just a few countries. It might be a town hall or the town square if we the people choose. Its most exquisite and highest form is represented in our public expressions of faith and religion. It says you, man and the politician, are not in charge here, God is master of all, and acquiescence to natural law not Obama or the ACLU the ultimate test of our conformity to His ways.
A case in point is the annual March for Life that takes place on and around the Capital Mall every year for the last coming up on 39 years. To a lesser but no less important degree, this includes placing creches in public areas. Don’t spread the lie taxpayers are being forced to pay for these displays. The vast majority of the citizenry doesn’t object to such use of public monies. Whether publicly or privately funded, the anti-religion warriors want it all removed. It’s just that they haven’t been as successful as you would like.
Apparently, your not a student of American or world history as well. The key is not whether we can “worship” within the confines of our own private church buildings, at least not at this stage. It is whether we can continue to wrongly justify removal of prayer from public school classrooms and sporting events for example, and then finally any and all traces of religion from all places where we ought to be free to express it with exuberance. Religion doesn’t end at government doors. We the people are the “government” and not the purist “state”, as the antichrists have so far successfully argued. The likes of such religious illiterates, perhaps yourself included, have been permitted to win the day.
The true day of reckoning is upon us, and has been for the last 2,012 years. We simply don’t know the day or time it will come to final fulfillment. However, I think I’ll place all my chips on God and not the state as the winner in that time of judgment.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.