Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘President Obama’

TopSecretPaperclipThe Internal Revenue Service has proposed new rules for political activity by nonprofits –overturning more than 50 years of settled law– in order to conceal the true political record of pro-abortion politicians.

The IRS proposal will undermine the ability of certain (“C-4″) tax-exempt nonprofits to conduct

  • nonpartisan voter registration and
  • voter education.

Such organizations advocating for the unborn, like Kansans for Life and the National Right to Life Committee, would be

forbidden to leave records of officeholder votes and public statements on their websites in the two months before an election.

In other words, during the small, premiere window of time that the general populace is paying attention to elections, pro-abortion politicians’ records would be locked away!  Read details by former Federal Elections Commission Chair Bradley Smith here.

NRLC, and affiliates like KFL, are invaluable for informing the public about the positions of candidates, including those nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court! The Obama team sees pro-life organizations as a threat and want to muzzle those views.  It’s that simple.

NRLC has issued a nationwide alert to raise a storm of public protest against these regulations, to make it as hard as possible for the IRS to give final approval. 

We need to educate the American people that it seems every group that opposes Obama’s policies is now under threat of having their most fundamental rights taken away. The use of the IRS as a political weapon has to stop!

Read Full Post »

U.S. Reps Tim Huelskamp (Dist.1), Lynn Jenkins (Dist.2), Mike Pompeo (Dist.4), Kevin Yoder (Dist.3). Photo: CJOnline

The majority of the U.S. House–including all 4 members of the Kansas delegation– voted Thursday to ban sex-selection abortions, but the measure failed to reach the necessary 2/3 majority. The vote was 246-168 in favor of the bill.

The Prenatal Discrimination bill, (PRENDA) H.R. 3541, addresses a true “war” on women —the destruction of innocent little baby girls in the womb. Four states currently ban sex-selection abortions and Kansas offered such a ban as a provision in the Pro-Life Protection Act, which passed the House this session but was dropped for action in the Senate.

PRENDA would apply federal criminal penalties to any person who does any of the following four things:

  1. performs an abortion knowing that such abortion is sought based on the sex of the child;
  2. uses force or the threat of force to intentionally injure or intimidate any person for the purpose of coercing a sex-selection abortion;
  3. solicits or accepts funds for the performance of a sex-selection abortion; or
  4. transports a woman into the United States or across a State line for the purpose of obtaining a sex-selection abortion.

President Obama opposed the ban, (more…)

Read Full Post »

Abortion supporters continue their brazen complaints that Kansas has already spent nearly $480,000 in legal fees defending 3 pro-life laws enacted in 2011.

But it’s those very abortion supporters that are forcing that drain in state resources, for profit and ideological motives, plain and simple.

Let’s look at the three lawsuits and examine what is really at stake.

1. The family planning funding prioritization is a new measure, attempted this year in differing forms by a half dozen states, with Kansas having arguably the strongest legal ground.  Wichita Judge Thomas Marten placed the law on hold by injunction and ordered supplemental money sent to the three businesses that did not meet the new criteria. The Kansas Attorney General has appealed those actions to the 10th Circuit appellate court, and a ruling on the merits of the appeal is expected at any time.

This lawsuit was filed because financially-failing Planned Parenthood branches in Wichita and Hays, and one independent business in Dodge City, were not going to get nearly $375,000 in Title X state subsidies under the new law. No services formerly provided to Kansas women were being eliminated.  In fact, the only change was that the state would only contract for reimbursements with public clinics serving the poor, and in fact, would provide BETTER access to a full range of health care.

This lawsuit is little better than extortion, backed implicitly by the pro-abortion Obama administration and the federal agency that controls Title X money–HHS, headed by former Kansas governor, Kathleen Sebelius.

2. The law banning coverage of elective abortion in private insurance plans without a separately purchased rider, is not new.  It survived past court challenges and has operated in other states, like Missouri, for decades. Part of eastern Kansas has been covered this way by Blue Cross during that time! This law is operating without an injunction, but is headed for trial next year.

This law was sued by the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) ostensibly on behalf of unspecified women who can’t afford to pay for their own abortions.  But the suit is really a steppingstone to changing the “privacy” basis that undergirds the so-called legal right to abortion. The ACLU is still searching for courts willing to rule abortion is healthcare that must be paid for under the constitutional guarantee of “equal protection.”

Although abortion lawyers have pressed this “gender equality” argument unsuccessfully for decades, they are back at it again, at OUR taxpayer expense.

3. The third lawsuit (actually a series of 3 suits) has blocked the new law instituting state licensure, oversight and inspection of abortion businesses sought by Kansans since 2002. Currently there are only 3 abortion sites in Kansas, all in the Kansas City area, although there are threats to open a new one in Wichita this summer.

After a public fuss (and a suit they filed and then dropped) the Overland Park Planned Parenthood met the new minimum standards for licensure. The other two clinics didn’t, and sued the preliminary agency regulations from KDHE, while securing an injunction. So the law is not currently in effect.

Now get this: the pro-abortion voices complaining loudly about legal fees, themselves wasted a bundle when they filed suit in federal court in July, and then switched their game plan to file suit in state court in November. So last week, lawyers for the 2 clinics formally dropped the first lawsuit and are itemizing months of legal expenses– which will get paid by state taxpayers– if the abortion team prevails in the newer suit.

Next post: the real reason the abortion clinics’ lawyers changed from federal court to state court.

Read Full Post »

In an unprecedented move, the federal Health & Human Services director, Kathleen Sebelius, overruled a decision by the Food and Drug Administration to make Plan B (also called morning-after pills or emergency contraception) available without a prescription.

Since 2009, women younger than age 17 have needed a doctor’s prescription for Plan B, and Sebelius said  it should stay that way.

Sebelius said the pharmacy industry had NOT provided evidence that girls as young as 11 “can understand the label and use the product appropriately”.

Pro-lifers– thankful for any small victory in the culture war– nonetheless scratched their collective heads trying to discern Sebelius’ motives. Some opined she was throwing a bone to religious conservatives riled up at the continuing onslaught of hostile actions by the Obama administration.  To name just two of these actions:

  1. awarding preferential grants to unqualified, but abortion-supportive, groups to rescue & assist sex abuse victims;
  2. issuing contraceptive mandates for insurance plans without meaningful conscience exemptions.

As one well-known pro-abortion blogger noted, “ this victory for women’s health [was] snatched away at the last minute by Sebelius, sending shocks of confusion and betrayal through the pro-choice community, who always thought of Sebelius as a member in good standing.” (That’s an understatement.)

Planned Parenthood was curiously late (Thursday evening) in issuing a complaining letter to Sebelius, perhaps indicating (more…)

Read Full Post »

Pro-Life Action League envelopes NARAL supporter headed to hear Sebelius (photo by Matt Yonke)

Yesterday at a Chicago NARAL fundraiser, 300 attendees gave some of their loudest applause (according to the AP) to HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ mention of the Obama administration mandate that health insurance plans cover birth control without copays.

But beyond the ever faithful pro-life presence of the Pro-Life Action League, another rebuke to Sebelius was today’s good news that the U.S. House will be voting next week on a pro-life bill to UNDO abortion in Obamacare.

HR 358 the “Protect Life Act” is sponsored by Congressman Joe Pitts, and co-sponsored by all four Kansas U.S. Representatives:  Tim Huelskamp, 1st district; Lynn Jenkins, 2nd district; Kevin Yoder, 3rd district; and Mike Pompeo, 4th district. Express your support here.

UPDATE,Oct.13: In a 248-173 vote, the House approved the Protect Life Act, however Senate Democrats oppose it and President Obama has promised to veto it.

Modeled on the former “Stupak-Pitts” amendment, HR 358 would correct the numerous abortion-expanding provisions kept in the final health care law and contains important conscience protections for (more…)

Read Full Post »

Obama and Sebelius

The National Right to life Committee revealed Tuesday that the first Sebelius /HHS-approved “Obamacare” insurance plan for states will indeed cover abortions. (Read their detailed memo here.)

Announced on June 28 as a high-risk pool plan approved in Pennsylvania, the language deceptively claims on one page that “elective” abortions would be  prohibited.  But in another section, the plan allows coverage for “legal” abortions and contraception.  Under Pennsylvania statute, abortions are “legal” through all nine months for any reason except admitted “gender” selection.

So much for the political lies from Democrats like Rep. Bart Stupak and his allies that the President’s March “executive order” would suffice to keep U.S. taxpayers from funding abortion under Obamacare.

UPDATES today: The Washington Times explains the deceit. NRLC says the New Mexico high-risk plan also covers abortion. Stupak squirms.

And even more shameful (more…)

Read Full Post »

The national council of Catholic Bishops and Washington state pharmacists –among other pro-life entities–are pushing back hard to keep the right to refuse involvement in abortions.

And that’s why 105 Congressmen have co-sponsored the “Protect Life Bill,” H.R. 5111– to undo Obamacare health reform that forces all health care entities and providers to treat abortion as basic care for women, including taxpayer funding for it.

STATE SITUATIONS
First, a pro-life victory. After a 3-year battle in the state of Washington,  state attorneys announced they will accommodate pharmacists’ conscience rights.

Washington state has now conceded it does not have to restrict the religious freedoms of pharmacies and pharmacists in order to “ensure patient access” to abortion.

Under pressure from pro-abortion Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire, the state pharmacy board had approved rules in 2007 making pharmacists dispense all drugs, including those that would violate their moral or religious views.  Read more here.

In Kansas, hospitals and physicians do have a specific right to refuse to do abortions.  However, other heath care workers (nurses, physician aides, nursing home attendants, stem cell lab workers,etc.) are without legal “conscience” protection.

Kansas pharmacists do not have clear religious or moral protection, although Kansas statute 65-1637 does allow a pharmacist to refuse ” to fill or refill any prescription if (more…)

Read Full Post »

The pro-death agenda (rationing and abortion) in Obamacare cannot be justified, but the administration is hoping a grant program authorized in Sections 10211- 10214 might somehow magically erase that fact.

Unfortunately, Democrats for Life argue that providing a limited amount of support for pregnant women redeems Obamacare and those politicians who voted for it.

A surprise announcement Friday from the federal Health & Human services division(HHS) introduced a $25 million taxpayer-funded Pregnancy Assistance Fund to be funneled through universities, high schools, State Attorneys General offices and  “community organizations.”  The latter term –undefined–might easily include renovated ACORN groups or Planned Parenthood!  UPDATE July 12: Non-profit pregnancy centers cry Foul.

It is anticipated that up to 25 grants in the amounts of $500,000 – $2,000,000 per year will be awarded.  Obama-insiders like Planned Parenthood are undoubtedly well-prepared to apply for these grants, but it seems unlikely that our 72 Kansas non-profit pregnancy centers will be able to qualify on such short notice.  By Aug. 2, applicants have to submit a completed 25-page form (more…)

Read Full Post »

Stem cells from non-embryonic sources — also called ASC for “Adult stem cells”– are saving lives now and offering hope to patients who suffer from injury or more than 70 other diseases.

This past week saw 4 exciting announcements about new ASC successes, and a court decision advancing access to federal funding of such work.  First the lawsuit: a federal appeals court today has upheld the right of two scientists specializing in ASC to sue the Obama administration for funding destructive human embryonic research.

The lawsuit claims that Obama’s 2009 executive order harms their ability to be funded and violates the 1995 Dickey-Wicker budget amendment, renewed annually, that bans the use of federal tax money to harm human embryos.

Though the over-hyped and unethical use of human embryos remains unsuccessful (more…)

Read Full Post »

A federal proposal that would silence pro-life and conservative campaign speech [the so-called "DISCLOSE" Act, H.R. 5175] is being rushed to a vote this week in Congress.  UPDATE, June 18: Today’s vote called off for the DISCLOSE act, details here.

NRLC (our parent group, the National Right to Life Committee) has issued several warnings about this blatant attack on our right to participate in a free government.

Under this proposal, the federal government would dictate to a 75-year old woman with health problems, who holds strong religious convictions and who wishes to promote enactment of the Protect Life Act, that

she is “free” to donate money to a pro-life group to be used for broadcast ads to urge specific elected officials to vote for the bill – but ONLY if she (as a “significant funder”) is willing to submit to the INTIMIDATING REQUIREMENTS: that she appear in those ads herself, and also have her name and address posted on the Internet, so that she can be subjected to verbal abuse or even threats by those who disagree with her views.

Enactment of such a law is not a curb on corruption, but itself a type of corruption – a corruption of the lawmaking power, by which incumbent lawmakers employ the threat of criminal sanctions (more…)

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 38 other followers