Call to Action

As we approach the year two thousand and ten, we approach the year of the Personhood Amendment. With activity in 32 states, at least one is likely to pass, but fight vigorously anyway to make sure.

But don't let this very important issue mak e you loose track of the bigger picture. Fight for the unborn, yes, but also fight for the poor, the young, the old, the gay, women, et cetera. Fight for free speech, freedom of religion, for the separation of church and state, for school reform, for a more reasonable language (Esperanto), for a more reasonable numeral system (dozenal), and for logical arguments.

Fight against euphemisms, restrictions on freedom, and unequal treatment.

Democrats against democracy?

This disgusts me. Most Americans are against coverage of abortion in health care.

Fuzzy Language

Couldn't've said it better myself

SPLASH merch

Anyone got ideas?

And, from DFLA:

CAPPS AMENDMENT PERMITS TAXPAYER FUNDED ABORTIONS IN HEALTH CARE BILL A closer look at the health care reform bill passed by the Energy and Commerce Committee has revealed some troubling news: the Capps Amendment clearly permits taxpayer funded abortions. While the headline of one of the sections in the bill reads "Abortion Coverage Prohibited as Part of Minimum Benefits Package" , the reality is that it does not have the force of law and thus meaningless. The enforceable text is in the explanation of the section. which states that "the plan is not required (or prohibited) under this Act from providing coverage of services". In other words, abortion coverage is not required, but neither is it prohibited. In fact, each "premium rating area" must offer at least one health care plan that covers abortions and one that doesn't. Essentially, the section will allow health insurance companies to determine the services, which could include abortion. We had a partial victory in the Amendment which ensures that the Act will not preempt state law with respect to restrictions on abortion funding and laws requiring parental consent or notification. Second, it recognized conscience protections for health care workers. We should all appreciate the hard work by pro-lifeCongressman Bart Stupak. He is a true hero.

Health Care, not Death Care

When contacting your congresspeople, be sure to mention how abortion is antithetical to healthcare, as in my example.

I was wrong;

there's not an amendment on the floor yet, but they're working on it.

19 Democrats

...have sent a letter to Pelosi. Here it is:

Dear Honorable Pelosi:

As the debate on health care reform continues and legislation is produced, it is imperative that the issue of abortion not be overlooked. Plans to mandate coverage for abortions, either directly or indirectly is unacceptable.

We believe in a culture that supports and respects the right to life and is dedicated to the protection and preservation of families. Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan. We believe that a government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan, should not be used to fund abortion.

Furthermore, we want to ensure that the Health Benefits Advisory Committee cannot recommend abortion services be included under covered benefits or as part of a benefits package. Without an explicit exclusion, abortion could be included in a government subsidized health care plan under general health care. The health care reform package produced by Congress will be landmark, and with legislation as important as this, abortion must be addressed clearly in the bill text.

Furthermore, funding restrictions save lives by reducing the number of abortions. The Guttmacher Policy Review, a leading pro-choice research organization noted "that about one third of women who would have had an abortion if support were available carried their pregnancies to term when the abortion fund was unavailable."

Thank you for taking the time to consider our request. By ensuring that abortions are not funded through any health care reform package, we will take this controversial issue off the table so that Congress can focus on crafting a broadly-supported health care reform bill.

Respectfully yours,

Reps. Dan Boren (D-OK); Bart Stupak (D-MI); Colin Peterson (D-MN); Tim Holden (D-PA); Travis Childers (D-MS); Lincoln Davis (D-TN); Heath Shuler (D-NC) Solomon Ortiz (D-TX); Mike McIntyre (D-NC); Jerry Costello (D-IL); Gene Taylor (D-MS); James Oberstar (D-MN); Bobby Bright (D-AL); Steve Driehaus (D-OH); Marcy Kaptur (D-OH); Charlie Melancon (D-LA); John Murtha (D-PA); Paul Kanjorski (D-PA); and Kathleen Dahlkemper (D-PA).

C-SPAN

Watching Congress on C-SPAN, I realize that they're wasting alot of time. Half of the bills are "Recognizing the __ anniversary of ______", or "Congratulating ______".

Pass some bills that at least do something!

Urgent reminder from DFLA!

HELP US STOP "FETAL FARMING" DECISION

The National Institutes for Health have released guidelines for a procedure known as fetal farming. These guidelines provide funding for research using human embryonic stem cells that were derived from embryos created by in vitro fertilization (IVF) for reproductive purposes and were no longer needed for that purpose.

The Obama administration legally is prevented from allowing the creation of human embryos for the specific purpose of destroying them for research, which is prohibited under a current federal law known as the Dickey amendment.

However, U.S. Congresswoman Diana DeGette (D-CO) is sponsoring a bill to overturn that law and allow fetal farming, and the Obama Administration might sign that bill into law.

NIH Director Raynard Kingston in a media conference call made the outrageous claim that embryonic stem cell research would be a boost to overall scientific progress even though, unlike adult stem cells, it has never helped a single patient.

The guidelines also contain a long list of informed consent procedures and make it so parents know and agree to how the human embryos will be killed and used in scientific experiments. They only apply to research involving federal funds and do not affect research involving state funds or private dollars. The public will have one month to comment on the new guidelines and the Obama administration is expected to release the final set of rules in July.

Interesting Essay

Socialism and the Pro-Life Perspective

The Poor States of America

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88218

...WTF?

iPS cell research

Three dozenth post!

News is Obama won't sign an executive order funding ESC research (which has not helped a single patient). Hopefully this will lead to more adult stem cell research (which has helped many), or iPS cells, that work the same as ESC cells but minus the ethical issues.

PWSA

Just wanted y'all to know I just installed Google Chrome, am using it right now, and it is awesome. Because of that, you won't be seeing any of those annoying extra lines between paragraphs. Download it.

Well, on to today's post...

(Note: see the lack of an extra line)

Democrats for Life of America is urging everyone to support the Pregnant Women Support Act (the one I urged President Obama to support earlier). Regardless of your stance, pretty much everyone want a lower abortion rate. All PWSA does is provide services to pregnant mothers. Yup, no restrictions on abortion or anything like that (though correct me if I'm wrong). Nothing in this bill should offend anyone, except maybe hardcore freemarketers. Visit DFLA's website for more.

An Open Letter to President Obama

Dear Barack Obama, 

I would like to congratulate you on your historic inauguration, and hope you will continue advocating social change, though I am more a Green myself, and supported kat swift(1) until she lost the nomination. 

The mark of the left has always been its defense of the underdog. The unborn child is much more vulnerable than the farm worker or the single mother welfare recipient. I've noticed change.org has a section for animal rights but not one for prenatal rights. You said that abortion is not something decided lightly, and, while that may be the case, it does not mean abortion should be legal; a poor man deciding to kill his daughter to collect on the life insurance may be making the hardest decision of his life, but that does not mean no one should stop him, though it doesn't mean he shouldn't be given welfare either. While we should continue fighting poverty and other societal ills, we must eventually stand up as a nation and as a party and declare that all are equal: male or female, young or old(2), black or white, gay or straight, born or unborn, theist or atheist, rich or poor, American or foreign. Because of this, I strongly urge you to support a Constitutional Amendment defining "personhood" as beginning at fertilization, at which point modern medical science tells us a unique human individual is present. I also suggest you abandon ESC research in favor of the much more promising adult stem cells, or iPS cells (equal in all regards to ES cells, but with the added bonus that they do not involve the distruction of human embryos).

Being pro-life is not merely a stance of "the religious right", as is so wrongly believed by many. We are much more diverse than that. I, myself, am at once pro-life, liberal, feminist, and an atheist. I am anti-war, pro-universal health care, pro-ERA (The ERA's original author was pro-life, by the way), pro-gay marriage, pro-comprehensive sex ed, and anti-religion. 

I would also like to discuss the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). The only good thing about it is its abolishment of parental consent and notification laws; it is insulting, when millions of young children are being denied equality, to turn around and strip older, biological adults, of equality as well. Ignoring the issue of abortion's immorality, FOCA completely deregulates abortion, and, thus, puts the lives of mothers in danger. It allows doctors not trained in the practice to perform abortions, abolishes laws requiring operational emergency equipment standing by, abolishes informed consent laws, and even allows unsterilized equipment to be used. Not to mention it would also force doctors to perform abortions, regardless of their moral convictions. Catholic hospitals have threatened to close before performing abortions, and will follow through on it.

Instead of signing FOCA, I suggest signing the Pregnant Women Support Act, which is endorsed by Democrats for Life of America, does not restrict abortions, and would dramatically reduce abortions by providing support to pregnant women; sadly, many women feel abortion is their only choice, and college campuses often default to directing pregnant students to abortion clinics because the colleges do not know what else to do, a fact lamented by Feminists for Life of America. 

This is one of the main reason Crisis Pregnancy Centers exist, supplying everything from ultrasounds to baby clothes free of charge. We need more federal funding for these charitable organizations if we really want to decrease the abortion rate. These are needed because women do not want abortion like a kid wants a candy bar; they want it like a bear in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg. 

I would suggest that you read Democrats for Life: Pro-Life Politics and the Silenced Majority by Kristen Day and The Liberal Case Against Abortion by Vasu Murti. 

If you've read this far, or even read this post at all, I am extremely grateful and sincerely apologize for this post's length. 

Yours in the fight for freedom, fairness, and equality, 

Nulono

(1) That's how she writes it, not a typo. 

(2) Youth rights is a bigger topic not discussed here, but I suggest you look into the National Youth Rights Association and read their arguments. I was disturbed, yet not surprised, by your statement on the drinking age. Youth rights was a main reason I support(ed) kat swift.

Tim Kaine

I would like to congratulate Obama for picking pro-life Democrat Kaine for DNC chair. He's not as pro-life as I'd hoped, but it's a step in the right direction.

The bigots at Democratic Underground

I just wanted to warn you that, as far as progressives go, I have never seen more hidebound, illiberal, intolerant, narrow-minded bigots as those at Democratic Underground. I spent less than a day there before I was banned for heresy. I am very supportive of progressive ideals, yet I disagreed with them on abortion, so I was banned. Never mind the fact that my opposition to abortion comes from an entirely secular progressive viewpoint. Never mind that I was completely civil in my posts.

I'm not surprized, though. Their demeaner is entirely that of a group protected from any and all opposition or criticism. They regularly call those who support the rights of the preborn "anti-choice" or "Jesus freaks" that "have a Bible to sell you", and generally show bigotry towards and prejudiced stereotypes of those who disagree with them. They are Roebotic to the extreme.

Now, not all of them are like this. Those that debated me were very civil and rational. I'm not talking about them.

Goodbye

EDIT: I'd originally used this post to announce that I'd just finished reading Democrats for Life: Pro-life Politics and the Silenced Majority; It was very informative and I suggest everyone here read it.

However, due to recent events involving overreaction to the little profanity in this blog (as if words, mere collections of lines and curves, had some magical power to maim innocent kittens), warnings that some may commit the style over substance fallacy (fallacies being, ironically, one of the reasons this blog was founded), and threats of censorship, I have decided to shut down Restraint of the Heartless.

Goodbye, and have a rational 2009.