There is an important election coming up that will determine the balance of the U.S. Senate and the future of the U.S. Supreme Court. The election could also determine whether or not there will be impeachment efforts to rid the White House of Donald Trump. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) is in a very close battle, and all Democrats would like to see her continue her tenure in the U.S. Senate.
Missouri Party Chairman Stephen Webber thinks that the best way to support Senator McCaskill and other Democrats in Missouri is to create an unnecessary battle over abortion.
A few weeks ago, there was a meeting to amend the Missouri Democratic Party platform. A vote took place, and the amendment was accepted. The Missouri Democratic Party then said that they welcome Whole Life Democrats in the party. The “conscience language” to include pro-life Democrats did not dilute the abortion-rights plank in the Democratic Party platform.
Unfortunately, it does not appear that the acceptance, along with the compromise language, lasted. Party Chairman Webber held a meeting this morning to strip the inclusive language from the platform because nothing says “We we want your vote” more than overturning a fair process of debate and approval. It is very unusual to remove language unilaterally after a platform has been ratified. It makes you wonder about the kind of pressure supposedly “progressive” groups exerted and why. They know that this removal will cause chaos. Continue reading
By Matt Tuman
Lost in the presidential race this year was what happened this summer in the Illinois state legislator. Governor Bruce Rauner signed into law Senate Bill 1564, which made abortion the preference for unintended pregnancies in Illinois. The bill stipulates that all doctors, hospitals and pregnancy centers not only provide information on abortion and where it is available, but also discuss the ‘benefits’ of abortion. If the doctor or center is morally or religiously opposed to abortion, they still must either refer the patient to another provider, transfer them to another provider or provide them with information on locations that will offer abortion.
This law amounts to total hypocrisy on the pro-choice community. Their major argument is that the government should not be involved in women’s health decisions and that those decisions should be left between the woman and her doctor. However, with the passage of this law they take that decision making process away by forcing what the doctor has to say even if he has moral or religious objections to it.
Working inside the bubble of Washington, you grow used to the idea that sound-bites, raising money for the next election or strategizing on how to win the majority back from your opponent are the most important things. If you stop and listening to the work of amazing women around the nation, you will realize that, while our work here in Washington is important, there are people on the ground who are providing support, love, and assistance to women facing unplanned pregnancies or healing from abortion. These women are heroes to me.
They are on the ground, working tirelessly to give women a choice and a chance to be a mother or a birth mother. They provide options, not just while the women are pregnant, but they make sure that they have the tools and the skills to take care of their babies or help prepare the mothers for the greatest gift of adoption. They don’t demonize the abortion industry or dehumanize the women or prenatal child. In fact, some receive referrals from abortion clinics for women who don’t want an abortion.
The common thing among all these women is that they do not talk about pressure or hate or shame. Their stories all speak of support, love, and empowerment. Women are strong and we can face any “obstacle” particularly if our sisterhood is along for the ride to lift us up instead of knocking us down. And, these sisters are doing just that!
A White Paper from the Protect Life Coalition
** Basis for the testimony of Tom Perille, MD, before the Colorado House Health, Insurance and Environment Committee on April 7, 2016
The Women’s Health Protection Act is an attempt to ensure that women who choose abortion are not victimized by those who would profit from the procedure. For pro-choice activists who for decades have railed against the prospect of unsafe/back-alley abortions, ensuring safe, sanitary conditions for this surgical procedure should be a no-brainer. Pro-life activists, who abhor abortion for its effects on the woman as well as the developing human, gain no solace from the maiming and mutilation of young women during a legal abortion procedure. Everyone in Colorado, regardless of their position on abortion, should endorse sound abortion clinic regulations, commensurate with the risk attributable to abortion.
The State of Colorado through the Department of Health and the Environment, Health Facilities and Emergency Medical Services Division, have promulgated rules concerning a wide variety of health care facilities to ensure public safety. They currently license hospitals, long term care facilities, acute treatment units, assisted living residencies, community clinics, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, chiropractic centers, birth centers, maternity hospitals, dialysis centers, psychiatric hospitals, ambulatory surgical centers, hospices and home care agencies.1 Abortion is the most common out-patient surgical procedure in the state and abortion clinics deserve to be included in this list of health care facilities with specific state oversight and supervision. Continue reading
Ignore the talking points. Here are the numbers for Planned Parenthood vs. Community Health Centers:
The Supreme Court unanimously decided Thursday that Massachusetts violated the First Amendment by excluding speech from a 35-foot “buffer zone” around abortion clinic driveways and entrances. McCullen v. Coakley is a victory for pro-life speech rights, although just how broad a victory is uncertain. The majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts ruled for the sidewalk-counselor plaintiffs but rejected their argument that the Massachusetts law in question discriminates against pro-life speech. Before I discuss the implications of those holdings, let me highlight a different, significant way in which McCullen may advance the pro-life cause.
1. The counselors’ “outstretched hand.” The state law was challenged by Eleanor McCullen and other pro-life counselors who sought to engage women entering abortion clinics in quiet, personal conversation and offer them information and help concerning financial support, adoption, and other alternatives to abortion. Roberts’s opinion (joined by Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor) held that the law “burden[s] substantially more speech than necessary” to accomplish the state’s asserted goals of protecting public safety and preventing harassment or obstruction of women entering clinics. It noted that the state had plenty of more narrowly tailored means to prevent these harms; it also rejected the state’s argument that the plaintiffs could exercise speech from outside the buffer zone.
GOP majority leader Eric Cantor’s primary loss to Tea Party challenger David Brat has shocked the leadership of the Republican Party. It ought to shock Democratic Party leaders, too. Among other things, it ought to spur our party toward a savvy recalculating of the politics of abortion. A smart recalculation should mean more welcome and more support for pro-life Democrats.
Cantor outspent Brat almost 12 to 1. He had the support of leading and prominent Republicans from around the country. He was long-time incumbent, with a well-honed campaign organization, and as the number two power in the House of Representatives had enormous inside-the-Beltway clout. Yet he still lost – and lost handily by double digits. So, what happened and what’s the lesson for Democrats?