Democrats Promise to Stop Tax-Funded Abortion Ban in Senate

[Carlan]

Could you share with us the names of the Republican politicians who are working passionately to over turn Roe /Wade during the years between the elections, and importantly on a day to day basis. Inundating the Media, marching on Washington Mall Identifying them selves in their passion to over turn identifying personally! Give some proof of it, that which shows their passion to be continuously working to over turn. Nothing is happening, Talk is cheap. I need to see the action ,not just election time talk .
Peace, Carlan

 

[DawnInTexas]

Lest we forget:

*The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right *to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.
**
2008 Democrat Party Platform

How could anyone say, I’m a Catholic and a Democrat?

We were warned.

God Bless you.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn

 

[estesbob]

Could you share with us the names of the Republican politicians who are working passionately to over turn Roe /Wade during the years between the elections, and importantly on a day to day basis. Inundating the Media, marching on Washington Mall Identifying them selves in their passion to over turn identifying personally! Give some proof of it, that which shows their passion to be continuously working to over turn. Nothing is happening, Talk is cheap. I need to see the action ,not just election time talk .
Peace, Carlan

It is not possible for a republican to overturn Roe- V Wade. However as this thread alone proves the Republcuians have been passionate about resticting abortion as much as possible for the last 40 years. The Ddemocrats have resisted each and every effort they have made .

Just look at the last two years, for instance. The Republicans fought hard to make sure that the new health care bill did not cover publicly funded abortions. The Democratic Party absolutely refused to include an amendment that would’ve made it clear that it did not . Now we see the Republican Party moving to stop all funding of abortions and once more the Democratic Party stands in the way of every attempt to do so.

I am afraid that the old Democrat Catholic dodge that they can support the Democrat Party because the Republican Party really doesn’t care about ending abortion, a myth that never had any substance anyway, cannot withstand the moves to limit abortion taken by the Republican Party now that they’ve taken over the house. We see the same battle being fought, by the way, at the state level. For instance in Texas the Democratic Party is viciously fighting a law that would we require sonograms of her child to be viewed by a woman at least two hours prior her abortion.

Hopefully Democrat Catholic will soon come to the conclusion I did 30 years ago when I left the Democratic Party. One simply cannot reconcile the policies of the Democratic Party with the teachings of the Church.

 

[estesbob]

Could you share with us the names of the Republican politicians who are working passionately to over turn Roe /Wade during the years between the elections, and importantly on a day to day basis. Inundating the Media, marching on Washington Mall Identifying them selves in their passion to over turn identifying personally! Give some proof of it, that which shows their passion to be continuously working to over turn. Nothing is happening, Talk is cheap. I need to see the action ,not just election time talk .
Peace, Carlan

Here are the names of the Republicans supporting a bill to rmove publci funding abortions from Obama Care:

Mr. PITTS (for himself, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mrs. SCHMIDT, Mr. ROSS of Arkansas, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. UPTON, Mrs. BLACK, Mr. PENCE, Mr. FLEMING, Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. AKIN, Mr. AUSTRIA, Mrs. BACHMANN, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mr. BUCHANAN, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. CANSECO, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Ms. JENKINS, Mr. CARTER, Mr. CHAFFETZ, Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. COSTELLO, Mr. CRAWFORD, Mr. CRITZ, Mrs. ELLMERS, Mr. FORTENBERRY, Mr. GARRETT, Mr. GIBBS, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. GRAVES of Missouri, Mr. GUTHRIE, Mr. HALL, Mr. HARRIS, Mrs. HARTZLER, Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois, Mr. JONES, Mr. JORDAN, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois, Mr. KLINE, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. LANCE, Mr. LATTA, Mr. LEE of New York, Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. MCCAUL, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. MCKINLEY, Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. OLSON, Mr. PAUL, Mr. POE of Texas, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. ROGERS of Michigan, Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, Mr. ROSS of Florida, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Mr. SCALISE, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. SHULER, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. STUTZMAN, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. TERRY, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. WHITFIELD, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. POMPEO, Mr. KELLY, Mr. LONG, Mr. ROSKAM, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan, Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky, and Mr. SHUSTER)

 

[estesbob]

Could you share with us the names of the Republican politicians who are working passionately to over turn Roe /Wade during the years between the elections, and importantly on a day to day basis. Inundating the Media, marching on Washington Mall Identifying them selves in their passion to over turn identifying personally! Give some proof of it, that which shows their passion to be continuously working to over turn. Nothing is happening, Talk is cheap. I need to see the action ,not just election time talk .
Peace, Carlan

Hre are the names of the Republcians co-sponsorong a bill to cut off alll funding for abortions:

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey (for himself, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. AKIN, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. AUSTRIA, Mrs. BACHMANN, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. BARLETTA, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mr. BENISHEK, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. BONNER, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mr. BROOKS, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mr. BUCHANAN, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. CANSECO, Mr. CARTER, Mr. CASSIDY, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. CHAFFETZ, Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado, Mr. COLE, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. COSTELLO, Mr. CRAVAACK, Mr. CRAWFORD, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. CRITZ, Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky, Mr. DESJARLAIS, Mr. DIAZ-BALART, Mr. DONNELLY of Indiana, Mr. DUFFY, Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee, Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. FITZPATRICK, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. FORBES, Mr. FORTENBERRY, Ms. FOXX, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. GARDNER, Mr. GARRETT, Mr. GERLACH, Mr. GIBBS, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Mr. GOWDY, Ms. GRANGER, Mr. GRAVES of Missouri, Mr. GRIMM, Mr. GUTHRIE, Mr. HALL, Mr. HARPER, Mr. HARRIS, Mrs. HARTZLER, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. HERGER, Mr. HUELSKAMP, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. HURT, Ms. JENKINS, Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois, Mr. JONES, Mr. JORDAN, Mr. KELLY, Mr. KING of New York, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois, Mr. KLINE, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. LANDRY, Mr. LANKFORD, Mr. LATOURETTE, Mr. LATTA, Mr. LEE of New York, Mr. LOBIONDO, Mr. LONG, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. MARINO, Mr. MCCARTHY of California, Mr. MCCAUL, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. MCHENRY, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. MCKINLEY, Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. MULVANEY, Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mrs. NOEM, Mr. NUNNELEE, Mr. OLSON, Mr. PAUL, Mr. PENCE, Mr. PETERSON, Mr. PITTS, Mr. POMPEO, Mr. POSEY, Mr. PRICE of Georgia, Mr. RAHALL, Mr. RIBBLE, Mr. RIGELL, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, Mr. ROKITA, Mr. ROSKAM, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. ROSS of Arkansas, Mr. ROYCE, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Mr. SCALISE, Mr. SCHILLING, Mrs. SCHMIDT, Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. SHULER, Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. STUTZMAN, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. TERRY, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. TURNER, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. WHITFIELD, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. WOLF, Mr. WOODALL, Mr. YOUNG of Florida, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. WITTMAN, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. BOREN, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. MCKEON, Mr. ROGERS of Michigan, Mr. CALVERT, Mrs. ELLMERS, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. TIBERI, and Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

 

[Carlan]

:Thanks, 40years and nothing changes everything stays the same
: Peace, Carlan

 

[estesbob]

:Thanks, 40years and nothing changes everything stays the same
: Peace, Carlan

A lot has changed over the last 40 years. We have seen abortions drop from 1.5 million the year to a little 1.2 million a year. Through the efforts of the pro-life community aided and abetted by the strong efforts of the Republican Party we have seen parental consent laws, informed consent laws, passage of the born alive act, the outlawing of partial-birth abortions and very soon the complete defunding of abortion providers in this country. We have seen the appointment, just in the last five years, up to pro-life justices to the United States Supreme Court and numerous pro-life judges to federal courts across the country. Under last three Republican presidents we have seen the cutting off of funds to international abortion providers-funds that Obama released on his third day in office . Had it not been for the opposition of the Democrat Party we would have seen a national parental consent law and a law forbidding the transporting of a pregnant minor across state lines to procur abortion to avoid State parental consent laws. Had it not been for the opposition of the Democratic Party the Stupak amendment would’ve passed and there would be no chance of abortion funding under Obama care.

There are two irrefutable facts that people need to keep in mind:

1. If the Democratic Party opposed abortion, abortion would be illegal in this country
2. If Catholics refused to vote for candidates who support abortion, abortion would be illegal in this country.

 

[JaMc]

. . .

In addition, the legislation seeks to forbid the use of tax benefits to pay for abortions. Thus, a woman would not be able to use money from a tax-exempt health savings account (HSA) to pay for an abortion or to deduct the cost of an abortion or of any insurance that paid for it as a medican expense. There are fears that the bill would lead to the end of private health insurance coverage for abortion.

. . . .

So, what’s wrong with that?

 

[estesbob]

So, what’s wrong with that?

You would think Catholics would applaud that.

 

[st_lucy]

Rather than broad-brush attacks against Democrats as the “party of death”, let’s look at the legislation itself, which was supposedly the point of this thread.

Since 1976, federal law has prohibited the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, and when the pregnancy endangers the life of the woman.

The “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” sought to further restrict this prohibition by redefining “rape” to “forcible rape,” which would exclude, for example, statutory rape, rape involving the use of alcohol or “date rape” drugs, sex non-forcible sex with women with limited mental capacity, and so on. There has been some backtracking on this re-definition of “rape” after heavy criticism from a number of groups.

In addition, the legislation seeks to forbid the use of tax benefits to pay for abortions. Thus, a woman would not be able to use money from a tax-exempt health savings account (HSA) to pay for an abortion or to deduct the cost of an abortion or of any insurance that paid for it as a medican expense. There are fears that the bill would lead to the end of private health insurance coverage for abortion.

So, Democratic opposition to the bill is not an attempt to promote federal funding for abortion but an attempt to maintain the status quo, a legislative compromise that has been in place for 34 years. The posts above serious misrepresent the opposition to this bill.

A link to the Washinton Post, which provides more reliable information on the legislation:

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/31/AR2011013105755.html

So are you or are you not against abortion. Do you follow in your parties footsteps and claim women’s rights to kill children?

Children are being killed on our dime and the DEM. are the ones who want this to stay this way. Have you not been watching the video’s being sent out of what it is that is going on at PP the biggest abortion tax-funded business in the USA and you still stand by this!

 

[SamH]

So, what’s wrong with that?

The silence is deafening.

 

[Suudy]

The Democrats are opposing a Republican stunt. There is no federal funding for abortion, so no need for the stupid legislation.

There’s not? They why the need for the Mexico City Policy that Obama immediately revoked when he took office?

What about the CHC fund established in the new health care law? The status quo is in regard to the Hyde Amendment, which has no affect on CHC funds. I posted on this before:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7542198&postcount=48

The Hyde Amendment only affects the omnibus spending bill to which it attached. Since the CHC funds are appropriated from the PPACA, the Hyde amendment does not apply.

 

[estesbob]

There’s not? They why the need for the Mexico City Policy that Obama immediately revoked when he took office?

What about the CHC fund established in the new health care law? The status quo is in regard to the Hyde Amendment, which has no affect on CHC funds. I posted on this before:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7542198&postcount=48

The Hyde Amendment only affects the omnibus spending bill to which it attached. Since the CHC funds are appropriated from the PPACA, the Hyde amendment does not apply.

Let us not forget that the Stupak amendment would have made it crystal clear that no funding could go to abortions. Senate Democrats refused to pass the bill if this amendment was included. And of course so-called pro-life Democrats in the House caved to party pressure when the final vote came putting a stake through the heart once and for all of the myth of the pro-life Democrat Congressman.

 

[George_2007]

And of course so-called pro-life Democrats in the House caved to party pressure when the final vote came putting a stake through the heart once and for all of the myth of the pro-life Democrat Congressman.

To stave off the next round of “broad brush” complaints, I think this goes too far. I believe Stupak is truly pro-life. He deserves credit for the stand that he took, as far as it went, but he gave in to a deal with the president that he shouldn’t have. He took Obama’s word that he would by executive order effect the same thing as the Stupak amendment would have. Unless Stupak is a liar, his intent was correct.

But, this would all be moot if a half-way respectable percentage of Catholic Dem members of congress stood with Stupak.

 

[estesbob]

To stave off the next round of “broad brush” complaints, I think this goes too far. I believe Stupak is truly pro-life. He deserves credit for the stand that he took, as far as it went, but he gave in to a deal with the president that he shouldn’t have. He took Obama’s word that he would by executive order effect the same thing as the Stupak amendment would have. Unless Stupak is a liar, his intent was correct.

But, this would all be moot if a half-way respectable percentage of Catholic Dem members of congress stood with Stupak.

He took no stand. He gave in to party pressure and voted for a bill he knew funded abortion. It takes a lifetime to gain respect trust-only a moment to lose it.

 

[George_2007]

He took no stand. He gave in to party pressure and voted for a bill he knew funded abortion. It takes a lifetime to gain respect trust-only a moment to lose it.

Hmm. I think we made our case loud and clear and rather convincingly without having to kick Stupak in the teeth.

He accepted Obama’s promise to make sure via executive order that no abortion funding would happen. So he was naive and too trusting. Foolish, even. That doesn’t mean he can be lumped in with the rest of them. Unless you know exactly what was going on in his head, I think a reasonable approach would be to take him at his word that his intent was right.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Hmm. I think we made our case loud and clear and rather convincingly without having to kick Stupak in the teeth.

He accepted Obama’s promise to make sure via executive order that no abortion funding would happen. So he was naive and too trusting. Foolish, even. That doesn’t mean he can be lumped in with the rest of them. Unless you know exactly what was going on in his head, I think a reasonable approach would be to take him at his word that his intent was right.

Nope. An Executive Order is not a law. Can be overturned at any time by another Executive Order. Stupak is too smart not to know that.

 

[estesbob]

Hmm. I think we made our case loud and clear and rather convincingly without having to kick Stupak in the teeth.

He accepted Obama’s promise to make sure via executive order that no abortion funding would happen. So he was naive and too trusting. Foolish, even. That doesn’t mean he can be lumped in with the rest of them. Unless you know exactly what was going on in his head, I think a reasonable approach would be to take him at his word that his intent was right.

He folded when Pelosi put pressure on him. He left the House in disgace and did great harm to the always tenous idea that ne could be pro-life and democrat.

 

[Wowbagger]

I must let Alan’s post pass, because I find it difficult to recognize someone who defends a bloody, genocidal “legislative compromise” (and calls repeal attempts a “Republican stunt”) as Catholic. Of course, I felt the same way about a great many Catholic bishops who thought the Missouri Compromise was a pretty good idea.

But Carlan raises an important point. Him I address.

Could you share with us the names of the Republican politicians who are working passionately to over turn Roe /Wade during the years between the elections, and importantly on a day to day basis. Inundating the Media, marching on Washington Mall Identifying them selves in their passion to over turn identifying personally! Give some proof of it, that which shows their passion to be continuously working to over turn. Nothing is happening, Talk is cheap. I need to see the action ,not just election time talk .
Peace, Carlan

For almost twenty years, the pro-life movement did work tirelessly in direct, frontal assaults on Roe v. Wade. They were dogged and even a little crazy. Human Life Amendments went up to debate in both houses of Congress. Cases reached the Supreme Court on a regular basis. Reagan gave the movement its first presidential support. Operation Rescue protesters chained themselves to abortion clinic doors. That phase of the pro-life movement culminated with what was to be its crowning victory, in 1992.

See, we’d gone to the Supreme Court time and time again ever since Roe. And we kept losing. Every time we tried to impose even a minor restriction on the unlimited right to an abortion, the Supremes not only overruled us – they kept expanding the “right” to an abortion! We fought like demons – and lost, in Bellotti I (1976), Belotti II (1979), Akron v. Akron Reproductive Health (1983), Thornburgh v. American College of OB/GYN’s (1986), and Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989). Essentially the one and only thing the pro-life movement was able to do was pass the Hyde Amendment year after year. It was that and on-the-ground, grassroots education, trying to lower the abortion rate (which was still rising at that time) and help the American people realize that abortion was murder. We kept fighting in Congress for a human life amendment, and, most importantly of all, we kept fighting to elect Republican presidents who would in turn appoint pro-life Supreme Court justices.

And we won.

The moral monsters in the Senate, especially that infamous killer Sen. Edward Kennedy, lied (quite boldy! quite shamelessly!) about Robert Bork, but we got Anthony Kennedy onto the Court, replacing the Roe supporter Lewis Powell. Sandra Day O’Connor, who was believed to be a federalist, replaced the pro-Roe Potter Stewart. Clarence Thomas replaced Thurgood Marshall. But our great victory, our decisive victory, the one that was to change everything, was the “home run” for conservatism: David Souter, who joined the Court in 1990 on President H.W. Bush’s nomination. And, better still, an epic abortion battle was already wending its way up the federal court system. Roe, everyone believed, was in its last days.

The decision was handed down in 1992. It was called Planned Parenthood v. Casey. It was an epic disaster. I cannot overstate the depth of the betrayal by O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter – not only to the unborn, but to their own principles. The decision is insane, and elevates one particular precedent (Roe) above all logic and reason and every other precedent the Court has ever had. Basically, it concluded, (1) everyone has a right to decide for themselves who is human who is not (!) and (2) even if the unborn were human, and acknowledging that the Roe reasoning is completely ridiculous, the Roe decision is so darned important as precedent that we couldn’t overturn it.

Yeah, tell that to Plessy v. Ferguson and Dred Scott.

The glimmer of light in Casey was that it opened the way for certain limited restrictions on abortion. The trouble was: those restrictions mostly had to be enacted at the state level. The federal government would have little power over abortion in the new regime. Which, in some ways, is actually good legal reasoning, even if it makes it hard to win abortion victories in Congress.

So the pro-life movement adopted a new strategy: let the Wookie win.

No, wait, that’s Star Wars. Actually, the new pro-life strategy was called “incrementalism.” And it wasn’t really new: pro-lifers had been deploying it throughout the country since the mid-1970s, starting, perhaps, with the Hyde Amendment itself. But with the decision in Casey, suddenly our strategic landscape shifted. The movement made a prudential decision:

We could not win a direct legal attack on national abortion law in the climate of the early 1990s. We did not have the votes in Congress, we did not have the presidency, we did not have the Supreme Court, and we did not have the popular will. The fact that the majority of Americans are pro-life is a dramatic and pretty new development.

We could not win by shutting down clinics through sheer protest. Planned Parenthood and the Feds were cracking down on Operation Rescue and others by charging them with felonies instead of misdemeanors. Our protest movement was gutted by this, and has never remotely recovered.

Violent rebellion is always suggested by a few in our movement, but they are roundly and loudly rejected by the pro-life mainstream, which considers violence impractical, counter-productive, and above all unjust.

 

[Wowbagger]

But suddenly our legislators had a new and possibly successful option, which brings us back to incrementalism. The idea was: propose small, incremental, and (above all) widely popular restrictions on abortion. Impose parental consent laws. Strip abortion of its government subsidies. Expose (and ban) partial-birth abortion. Meanwhile, use the grassroots to create pro-life support networks, who would find ways to help women in trouble on the ground, so that women would have an alternative to abortion. Establish crisis pregnancy centers. Offer ultrasounds. Put up billboards about your unborn baby’s toenails. In combination with this on-the-ground movement, the incremental legal approach would not only save lives and help women right away, by imposing very modest, reasonable conditions on procuring an abortion, but it would help establish a wider culture of life.

The reasoning was like this: if you restrict abortion in even a small way, if you promote the dignity of the unborn even in a small way, you begin the process of changing people’s minds. They stop looking at abortion as a simple matter of a “woman’s right to her body.” They start to see it as an attack on both a child and her mother. They start to consider how their dignity is undermined by abortion. It’s subtle; most people don’t even notice its happening; but over time the whole logic of abortion is undermined, because we end up with all these laws that protect unborn children and we realize that unborn children are children too! We wear down Roe v. Wade on the edges. We undermine it like ivy. We create a culture in which abortion is increasingly rare and increasingly recognized for what it is.

Meanwhile, we don’t dare give up on ending abortion once and for all. We fight like tinkers when we have the power to put a pro-lifer on the Supreme Court. Every year, pro-lifers in Congress put together and offer up a Human Life Amendment, which is the only way to end abortion without taking the Court. And when there is an opportunity to make an inroads, they fight like not just their re-elections but innocent lives depend on it.

Incrementalism has succeeded. The pro-life movement’s second twenty years have seen abortion rates fall and Americans join the pro-life movement in greater and greater numbers. We have watched as what would have been unremarkable decades ago – a provision in the federal health care bill funding abortions through the Act – became so controversial that it came within one vote of blowing up the whole bill (and would have, if Reps. like so-called ‘pro-life Democrat’ Oberstar hadn’t betrayed his constituents and Rep. Stupak hadn’t lost his courage). And – to get back to answering your original question – we have watched pro-life Republicans take courageous and important stands. The number of fights at the state level are too numerous to count, and have even included some attempts to ban abortion outright, and most recently to get the unborn declared to be full human beings in several states.

But, for the sake of proving my point, here are some of the fights our federal leaders have fought – and won! – against the monolithic pro-abortion lobby known as the Democratic Party:

• Appointed pro-life Supreme Court Justices Roberts and Alito: Think about this: if John McCain had won the election, we would have two more pro-lifers on the Court instead of Sotomayor and Kagan. We actually were only one election away from defeating Roe v. Wade. It is putatively Catholic Democrats – people like Alan55 – who have, through their disparagement, cynicism, and despair, guaranteed us a pro-abortion Court for at least the next three years. Our SCOTUS victories are our most important and cherished wins.
• Rescinded the Mexico City Policy: When a Republican is President, we don’t fund abortion counseling overseas. This drives Democrats nuts.
• Passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act: After several vetoes by President Clinton, the tireless Republicans finally passed it over monolithic Democratic opposition and got it signed by President Bush.
• Prohibited federal funding for stem-cell research if it kills the unborn: this was a widely unpopular decision which the Republicans and President Bush upheld, because they knew that even young embryos have human rights.
• Passed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act: it’s now a federal crime to kill an infant who survives an abortion, and that Gosnell monster in Pennsylvania will face charges for it. Barack Obama voted against a similar bill in Illinois.
• Passed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act: Thanks to the Republicans, and despite brutal Democratic opposition, after quite a lot of time we were able to make it a federal crime to kill an unborn child. Interestingly, the culture has now shifted so much in favor of life that the right to life is legally recognized – except in our abortion blind spot, where a special exception had to be carved into the law.
• Made the unborn eligible for SCHIP insurance
• Banned abortions in military, taxpayer-funded hospitals: The Democrats very, very nearly undid this ban last year, in the same bill that would have ended Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
• Defended conscience protections for pro-lifers everywhere: NARAL and the Democrats want to force pharmacists to dispense RU-486 (the abortion pill), medical students to perform abortions, and hospitals to offer them. Republicans have held the line, supporting – ironically! – the “pro-choice” position for people of conscience.