Bush Isn't Pro-Life and I have the numbers to prove it

[ajk19]

Not sure if this fits here or not, but in any case, I’m sure many of you here (as I once did), believe that President Bush is Pro-Life like he claims to be. Well I’m here to tell you that’s he not, and the numbers back it up. Take a look here:

opa.osophs.dhhs.gov/titlex/ofp-funding-history.html

This is a history of Title X funding since it was introduced back in 1971. Per the site linked above:

The Title X Family Planning program “Population Research and Voluntary Family Planning Programs” (Public Law 91-572)], was enacted in 1970 as Title X of the Public Health Service Act. Title X is the only federal grant program dedicated solely to providing individuals with comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services. The Title X program is designed to provide access to contraceptive services, supplies and information to all who want and need them. By law, priority is given to persons from low- income families.

Keep in mind of course that Planned Parenthood gets quite a bit of their money from this funding.

plannedparenthood.org/news-articles-press/politics-policy-issues/birth-control-access-prevention/title-x-13163.htm

Now notice just how much government funding Title X has received since Bush came into office. It’s quite a bit isn’t it? Also notice how it increased each year through 2005. If Bush was truly as pro life as he has said he is:

a. why would he continue to fund Title X

and b. why would it be seeing an increase in funding for his first 4 years in office?

Quite simply Bush is nowhere near pro-life as the numbers I have shown here prove.

 

[Philothea53]

I don’t believe you can take just the Title X funding and PROVE anything. Although I whole-heartedly agree that the money going to PP has got to stop, the President has done many other things that puts him squarely in the so-called anti-choice camp as evidenced by this at the Planned Parenthood website.

plannedparenthood.org/news-articles-press/politics-policy-issues/public-affairs/bush-war-6069.htm

I was led to it from World Net Daily, where former abortion nurse Jill Stanek said, “A few pro-lifers say President Bush is not pro-life “enough,” or worse, not pro-life at all. They should read PP’s report and count their 113 blessings – that many more than if Gore were president.”

worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40785

I, too, would love to see the President just wipe out abortion with one stroke of the pen. The battle over partial-birth abortion - the years and millions of dollars spent in the courts fighting pro-abortion judges liberal agendas - should tell you that it just isn’t that easy.

 

[nickyvoo]

I don’t mean to offend any party but I think we shouldn’t get into politics in this forum.
Let just share some spiritual experience or spiritual needs together. Let us be here to seek for a better catholic life and to deepen our understanding and learning of Jesus teaching.

 

[Philothea53]

I don’t mean to offend any party but I think we shouldn’t get into politics in this forum.
Let just share some spiritual experience or spiritual needs together. Let us be here to seek for a better catholic life and to deepen our understanding and learning of Jesus teaching.

For a junior member, you’ve got a lot on the ball. Thank you for reminding us what we are here for.

God bless you.

 

[pigtown]

I agree that we shouldn’t get into politics but killing babies should be a moral issue, not a political one. Anyone who feels that pre-born babies should be killed is not the moral person I’d want to lead me.

 

[dmelosi]

It would be nice if you could seperate morality and politics, but the politicians too easily sell their soul to the devil for power.

ANY politician who is not pro life is pro abortion.

Pro life originally meant against abortion, but those looking to ease their conscious made it into so many other things and try to twist statistics.

Every once in awhile you see the facts twisted here to try erode or “dumb” down the fact that abortion is murder.

 

[ajk19]

I don’t believe you can take just the Title X funding and PROVE anything. Although I whole-heartedly agree that the money going to PP has got to stop, the President has done many other things that puts him squarely in the so-called anti-choice camp as evidenced by this at the Planned Parenthood website.
plannedparenthood.org/new…h-war-6069.htm

I get what you are saying, but at the same time one would think if anything else, the numbers would be going down instead of going up like they have under Bush (2006 not withstanding, and even then it didn’t go down very much).

 

[PLAL]

Unfortunately we Pro-Lifers are always faced with voting for the lessor of two evils. I will not be doing that anymore. I will only be voting for Pro-Life candidates whether they have a chance to win or not. Therefore I may be voting for many Independent candidates.

I voted for Bush twice. He was not my pick in the primary elections. In the primary’s I voted for Dr. Alan Keyes. I voted for Bush because I knew there would be a few Supreme Court Judicial appointments which would affect our country for 50 years. I wanted Pro-Lifers in those seats so I voted for Bush.

Bush made me happy by selecting Pro-Life Catholics like Roberts and Alito. I think we could do better but the mainstream media does not give any exposure to the really good candidates running for office.

 

[pyropam]

Let us remember to pray for all those holding political office…

 

[sprout]

If Bush was truly as pro life as he has said he is:

a. why would he continue to fund Title X

and b. why would it be seeing an increase in funding for his first 4 years in office?

Quite simply Bush is nowhere near pro-life as the numbers I have shown here prove.

Although I agree in principle that the Republican party, and not just Bush, are not as “ProLife” as they would have us believe, the issue of Title X funding is in no way “proof” of that claim since Title X funds are not for abortions but provide much needed care. Title X funding is categorized as Labor/HHS/ Education Appropriations. See the following:

Title X Funds a Range of Reproductive Health Services

Family planning services provided through Title X include contraception, treatment of STIs, preventive services, such as screening for breast and cervical cancer, pregnancy tests and counseling, and educational programs. Title X funding does not cover pregnancy care, such as obstetric or prenatal care.

Title X funds cannot be used to provide abortions.4 However, Title X projects must offer pregnant women neutral and factual information, non-directive counseling and referrals upon request for all of their pregnancy options. This includes prenatal care and delivery; infant care, foster care or adoption; and abortion.5

*Consolidated Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 108-7 (2003) ("[A]
mounts provided to said [Title X] projects under such title shall not be expended for abortions, that all pregnancy counseling shall be nondirective, *

and that such amounts shall not be expended for any activity (including the publication or distribution of literature) that in any way tends to promote public support or opposition to any legislative proposal or candidate for public office"). See also, 42 C.F.R. § 59.5 (Title X projects must “[n]ot provide abortion as a method of family planning”).

Services Title X agencies DO PROVIDE:

As of 2004-MAR, this appears to be the most recent report issued by the Alan Guttmacher Institute. They report that 4,590 Title X agencies served 4,857,717 users of family planning services during 2001. This is an increase of 7% over the year 2000, and is the highest level ever reported.

Services included:

3,047,310 **pap tests **for cervical cancer
2,853,669 **breast exams **for breast cancer
601,259 **HIV tests **
5,111,547 tests for other sexually transmitted diseases (STD). 4

In additon,
The “Republican Party” has steadily increased funding for Title X since 1996, the first year of Republican control. See this chart

• $54.7 and $11.9 million was appropriated for SPRANS and Title XX abstinence respectively, in addition to $50m in Welfare block grants
• $70.1 and $11.9 million was appropriated for SPRANS and Title XX abstinence respectively, in addition to $50m in Welfare block grants. This does not include the $4.47 million in evaluations of “adolescent pregnancy prevention approaches” which is not confined to abstinence programs.
• $99.2 and $13.02 million is appropriated for SPRANS and Title XX abstinence respectively, in addition to $50m in Welfare block grants. Out of the $99.2million for SPRANS, $10 million may be used for a new “national abstinence education campaign.” This does not include the $4.46 million in evaluations of “adolescent pregnancy prevention approaches,” which is not confined to abstinence programs.
• $108.9 million was appropriated for CBAE/SPRANS (of which up to $9.9 million may be for a national abstinence education campaign), $12.99 million for Title XX abstinence grants, in addition to $50 million for Welfare block grants.
• $4.5 million for evaluations of “adolescent pregnancy prevention approaches,” which is not confined to abstinence programs.

 

[JimG]

Bush made me happy by selecting Pro-Life Catholics like Roberts and Alito.

Two is a good number, and in this case it may one of the the most important pro-life numbers in the legacy of George W. Bush.

 

[ajk19]

What about contraceptives?

 

[aspawloski4th]

I don’t mean to offend any party but I think we shouldn’t get into politics in this forum.
Let just share some spiritual experience or spiritual needs together. Let us be here to seek for a better catholic life and to deepen our understanding and learning of Jesus teaching.

this debate is a part of the spiritual aspect of life. if one is proabortion or excuses it they are spiritually dead.

 

[Steve40]

I don’t mean to offend any party but I think we shouldn’t get into politics in this forum.
Let just share some spiritual experience or spiritual needs together. Let us be here to seek for a better catholic life and to deepen our understanding and learning of Jesus teaching.

This is in social justice. All authority on earth comes from Jesus so discussing how that God given authority is being used politically is part of discussing Jesus’ teachings.

 

[Steve40]

Although I agree in principle that the Republican party, and not just Bush, are not as “ProLife” as they would have us believe, the issue of Title X funding is in no way “proof” of that claim since Title X funds are not for abortions but provide much needed care. Title X funding is categorized as Labor/HHS/ Education Appropriations. See the following:

Services Title X agencies DO PROVIDE:

In additon,
The “Republican Party” has steadily increased funding for Title X since 1996, the first year of Republican control. See this chart

• $54.7 and $11.9 million was appropriated for SPRANS and Title XX abstinence respectively, in addition to $50m in Welfare block grants
• $70.1 and $11.9 million was appropriated for SPRANS and Title XX abstinence respectively, in addition to $50m in Welfare block grants. This does not include the $4.47 million in evaluations of “adolescent pregnancy prevention approaches” which is not confined to abstinence programs.
• $99.2 and $13.02 million is appropriated for SPRANS and Title XX abstinence respectively, in addition to $50m in Welfare block grants. Out of the $99.2million for SPRANS, $10 million may be used for a new “national abstinence education campaign.” This does not include the $4.46 million in evaluations of “adolescent pregnancy prevention approaches,” which is not confined to abstinence programs.
• $108.9 million was appropriated for CBAE/SPRANS (of which up to $9.9 million may be for a national abstinence education campaign), $12.99 million for Title XX abstinence grants, in addition to $50 million for Welfare block grants.
• $4.5 million for evaluations of “adolescent pregnancy prevention approaches,” which is not confined to abstinence programs.

I’m in NY and I can tell you without a doubt Republicans are not Pro-Life. I left the party when they decided to make a baby killer the govenor of the State. So called Prolife other Republicans in elected positions supported this.

 

[dmelosi]

I’m in NY and I can tell you without a doubt Republicans are not Pro-Life. I left the party when they decided to make a baby killer the govenor of the State. So called Prolife other Republicans in elected positions supported this.

The republicans as a party are way more life than the democrats, but I agree with you, that simply is not enough.

It is time for pro life (against abortion) voters to take a stand and to not vote for a republican candidate who is pro choice. It does have to be a unified vote so the numbers can be counted. It has to be for a pro life candidate, even if they stand no chance to win.

As it is, I see the republicans pro life stance eroding…a statement has to be made and that has to stop.

 

[Yerusalyim]

The republicans as a party are way more life than the democrats, but I agree with you, that simply is not enough.

It is time for pro life (against abortion) voters to take a stand and to not vote for a republican candidate who is pro choice. It does have to be a unified vote so the numbers can be counted. It has to be for a pro life candidate, even if they stand no chance to win.

As it is, I see the republicans pro life stance eroding…a statement has to be made and that has to stop.

And here’s the reality of politics, if you do as you’re stating it rips the Republican party down the middle and the democrats are elected and what gains have been made in the prolife arena are set back by the appointment of folks like Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Janet Reno,

 

[dmelosi]

And here’s the reality of politics, if you do as you’re stating it rips the Republican party down the middle and the democrats are elected and what gains have been made in the prolife arena are set back by the appointment of folks like Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Janet Reno,

I am torn with how to do this, but the erosion has to stop. If it continues it will get to the point of no return. I am just saying that a point and a strong point needs to be made. A short term loss is certainly better than a long term one.

 

[sprout]

Originally Posted by Yerusalyim
And here’s the reality of politics, if you do as you’re stating it rips the Republican party down the middle and the democrats are elected and what gains have been made in the prolife arena are set back by the appointment of folks like Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Janet Reno,

I agree DMelosi! Besides, the Republican Party is already ripped down the middle. I think it would be better to send the message loud & clear that we will not compromise on life, we will not be lied to, or patronized, and we will never give up or give in. The best way to do this is to only cast our vote for someone who has proven themselves 100% prolife whether they have a chance of winning or not. Show that we are willing to lose the battle to win the war.

 

[sprout]

And here’s the reality of politics, if you do as you’re stating it rips the Republican party down the middle and the democrats are elected and what gains have been made in the prolife arena are set back by the appointment of folks like Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Janet Reno,

Ruth Bader Ginsberg was confirmed by the US Senate vote 96 to 3. The three negative votes came from conservative Republicans Don Nickles (OK), Robert C. Smith (NH), and Jesse Helms (NC).

She is only the second most liberal member of the Court, Justice Stevens appointed by Republican President Gerald Ford has the dubious honor of being the most liberal. The other liberal on the bench would be Souter, also appointed by Republican President G.H.W. Bush (Sr.). So not just ANY Republican will do when it comes to appointing conservative justices.

Republican does not equal Prolife!