Thank you Congressman Sensenbrenner and Congressman Smith

From Pro Life Blogs
Congressmen to Obama: Stop Efforts to Rescind Conscience Protection Will Reduce Abortions
By Georgia Kijesky on May 23, 2009 7:57 AM No Comments
ShareThis
Washington, May 19 - In response to President Obama's commencement address last Sunday at the University of Notre Dame, today Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and Congressman Chris Smith(R-NJ),, co-chair of the House Pro-Life Caucus, held a press conference in Washington, D.C. and sent a letter to President Obama calling on him to publicly forgo rescinding the Bush Administration conscience protection regulation.
In the letter Sensenbrenner and Smith write, "You indicated that you wanted to 'honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion.' Given our agreement in regard to a conscience clause, we respectfully request that you put an end to your Administration's review of the Bush Administration rule that enforces existing conscience protection laws and completely forgo the rescinding of this rule. In addition, we urge you to commit to defending conscience protections in future rulemaking that affects both individual and institutional health care providers."
The letter goes on to state that, "We should reduce the number of abortions by continuing the restrictions on abortion funding... We urge you to use all the tools at your disposable to keep conscience protections in place and reduce the number of abortions in the United States."
Congressman Sensenbrenner and Congressman Smith are heartened to share common ground with the President on the issue of conscience and want to work toward a better solution that protects life and the rights of health care employees.
"If this Administration wants to be the Administration of choice, then all people need to have their choices protected," Sensenbrenner said. "The religious and moral views of health care workers should be respected. Workers should have the right to refuse to participate in an abortion procedure without the fear of losing their job or being discriminated against."
"We're simply asking President Obama to ensure that his deeds match his words," said Rep. Chris Smith, co-chair of the House Pro-Life Caucus. "This past weekend President Obama said that he believes we should 'honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion," Smith noted. "To make that happen, Mr. President," Smith added, "simply stop all your efforts, and those of your Administration, to rescind the current conscience regulations that protect the fundamental right to prolife healthcare workers--and Catholic Hospitals--to refuse to participate in procedures that they find morally reprehensible. Protecting conscience is the truly pro-choice position and respects the diversity of opinion in our society as well as the sanctity of life."
In 2008, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a rule that prohibited recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and health care aides who refuse to take part in medical procedures in which they have religious or moral objections. The rule implemented existing conscience protection laws that ensure medical professionals cannot be denied employment because they do not want to provide abortions. Although federal law has long forbidden discrimination against health care professionals who refuse to perform abortions or provide referrals for them, the regulation required institutions that get federal funding to certify their compliance with laws protecting conscience rights, promoted education within the medical community regarding their rights, and provided an avenue of recourse in the event of discrimination through the Office of Civil Rights within HHS.
It was at the end of February, when the Obama Administration announced that it began "reviewing" the regulations implementing conscience laws, the first step toward rescinding the rule altogether. At that time, as part of a bipartisan effort, Sensenbrenner and Smith joined in a statement expressing their concern about the President's review of the clause.
Categories:
Abortion

Even an self proclaimed AntiChrist can see it!

Read Jill Stanek's page here.

Denver Post columnist converts to pro-life, almost
We may be seeing the house of cards starting to fall. Recent polls indicating a growing nationwide affinity to the pro-life position prompted self-described "atheist and a secular kinda guy" Denver Post columnist David Harsanyi to announce in a column yesterday he's lining up with the new majority:
After a life of being pro-choice, I began to seriously ponder the question. I oppose the death penalty because there is a slim chance that an innocent person might be executed and I don't believe the state should have the authority to take a citizen's life.?

So don't I owe an nascent human life at least the same deference? Just in case?
You may not consider a fetus a "human life" in early pregnancy, though it has its own DNA and medical science continues to find ways to keep the fetus viable outside the womb earlier and earlier.
But it's difficult to understand how those who harp about the importance of "science" in public policy can draw an arbitrary timeline in the pregnancy, defining when human life is worth saving and when it can be terminated.
The more I thought about it, the creepier the issue got....
I'm sure it was difficult for Harsanyi to write that column, beginning to distance himself from his culture on its cornerstone point. Then again, gaining a sense that one's belief is not only noble but popular may embolden more, hence my thought we may be seeing the house of cards start to fall. Harsanyi is not quite there, but he's on his way:
Now, I happen to believe... that the right to life and liberty is the foundation of a moral society. Then again, I also believe a government ban on abortion would only criminalize the procedure and do little to mitigate the amount of abortions.
I wrote this as a comment response to Harsanyi:
There is no law that has not been broken. But we do not stop making them. It would appear that laws against child porn have done little to mitigate child porn, but we do not abandon the law and forsake the children.
At any rate, I think your premise is faulty. Laws restricting abortion have indeed mitigated it - from parental notice before a minor aborts to 24-hour waiting periods before abortions. It stands to reason that making abortion illegal will lower the number of abortions.
[HT: Dougy, moderator Chris]