President Barack Obama last January 23rd —in office just two and a half days—revoked the Mexico City policy. That policy was initiated by President Reagan and supported by both Bush administrations. Obama’s action was hailed by pro-abortion groups around the world. The little-known but very powerful outfit, Americans for UNFPA, issued an ecstatic statement: “[This action] allows all Americans to again hold our heads high. We can be proud to be part of a nation that is, once again, ready to lead the world in promoting the health and rights of women.”
What was the Mexico City policy? It was a prohibition on giving U.S. foreign aid monies to organizations-like Planned Parenthood-that perform or promote abortion in developing countries. Because the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) had been found complicit in communist China’s massive practice of coerced abortions, UNFPA was also de-funded. This was done under a provision of the Kemp-Kasten Amendment that has the force of law.
These conscience protections are important because powerful interests are inclined to force health care workers and others to participate, directly or indirectly, in morally controversial procedures. Physicians, nurses, pharmacists and others have been denied employment, dismissed, or penalized because of objections to abortion, contraception or the morning-after pill. The same pressure will almost certainly be applied to force conscientious objectors to participate in reproductive technology, eugenic screening, and in euthanasia and assisted suicide, particularly where such things are legal or are tolerated.
“Kids deserve good schools,”TheAnchoress School vouchers in D.C. are being threatened by President Obama and Congress. These vouchers offer opportunities for school choice and allow students to excel in smaller, safer classrooms.
“Free Speech For Thee, But Not For Me,”An Ol’ Broad’s Ramblings Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she would support the Fairness Doctrine if it were passed. Talk about a direct violation of the First Amendment.
President Obama’s “Health Care Summit” continued at the White House today. From Ted Kennedy to the National Federation of Independent Business, a diverse group was assembled to provide input in the large public forum and in smaller “breakout” sessions.
It is beyond dispute all Americans want consistent access to high-quality and cost-effective medical insurance and care. No one who has ever seen a loved one suffer or who has personally experienced a serious disease or injury wants anything less. How we arrive at this goal is where the division lies. President Obama has asserted that health care is a “right.” Is healthcare itself a “right” or is access to health care a right? These are important distinctions. If it is a fundamental right it must be provided for and that would fall to the government. A government-run monopoly would result in sharp increases in health care costs, rationing of healthcare and a decline in quality.
The British press is a-flutter over President Obama’s gift of 25 DVDs to Prime Minister Brown. In response to criticism that the gift was cheap and vulgar, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs responded that the DVDs represent an American Film Institute selection of classic cinema that accurately portrays aspects of the United Kingdom’s history. Downing Street reportedly will not divulge the titles of the DVDs. The U.K.’s Daily Mail has published a list of the movies, but luckily, we at Family Research Council have obtained the real list of DVDs given to Prime Minister Brown.
Here is President Obama’s selection:
The Wind that Shakes the Barley
A Bridge Too Far
John Adams (HBO Series)
A Man for All Seasons
The Crossing (A&E)
The Bounty (1984)
Churchill: The Hollywood Years
A Passage to India
In the Name of the Father
Joan of Arc (1948)
Now,what subject of the Crown wouldn’t enjoy watching these films?
[Special thanks to my colleagues Michael Fragoso and Michael Leaser, who contributed to the above mischief.]
The Politico reported yesterday “it’s rumored that [Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT)] could face a challenge [in his 2010 Senate re-election race] from CNBC host Larry Kudlow, an opponent who would focus the coming election squarely on the economy.”
Say it ain’t so, Kudlow.
For those not familiar with you, Larry, I provide two links with some fair and balanced info: CNBC, Wikipedia. In short, you are a supply-side economist who served in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Reagan Administration’s Treasury Department, and various Wall Street firms with distinction. You are a happy guy; an optimist. You are a conservative, and, as I have observed over the years, a much-needed media friend of the pro-life cause - something we at FRC appreciate greatly. And, since the financial meltdown you have been hosting a M-F 7:00 p.m. hour-long market analysis program on CNBC - now called The Kudlow Report.
What do you call an American citizen who objects to one of President Obama’s most radical nominees? “Verbal terrorists,” according to “Hardball’s” Chris Matthews. The MSNBC host, who last night addressed the controversy surrounding Kathleen Sebelius, took a gratuitous swipe at the pro-life community for opposing the Governor’s radical positions. “Is she going to get through the anti-abortion people?” Matthews asked. “Yes. I think she’s going to do that. I mean, verbal terrorism? Yeah, she’ll get through that.”
Give me a break! Educating Americans on Sebelius’s record isn’t “terrorism,” it’s activism, no, it’s realism! As a candidate for one of the most influential posts in Obama’s Cabinet, Sebelius’s public positions matter—particularly if they’re as far outside the mainstream as hers have proven to be. Before Sebelius is confirmed, Americans deserve to know where she stands. They should know that the Kansas governor supports late-term abortions, filthy, roach-infested abortion clinics, government as the final authority on children’s health, the killing of innocent abortion survivors, and socialized medicine. Despite what Chris Matthews believes, standing up for the defenseless and the vulnerable is what public officials are supposed to do. This is just an attempt to shift the focus off the extremism of Sebelius’ record.