It’s a serious question: is there a politician alive who loves abortion more than Barack Obama? Is there a bureaucrat alive who serves it more faithfully than Kathleen Sebelius?
They both put fealty to abortion access before health care for poor women.
President Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services has withdrawn $30 million worth of funding from a Texas Medicaid program that provides health care services for low-income women.
It did so because Texas recently passed a law that said its Women’s Health Program could not disperse funds to abortion and contraception providers such as Planned Parenthood.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius personally traveled to Houston to make the announcement that the Obama administration would cut funding of the program and would no longer continue the waiver that Texas had previously been given to continue funding of the program temporarily.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has issued an opinion declaring that federal law allows states to exclude abortion providers and their affiliated organizations from Medicaid. In a letter to Obama, Texas Gov. Perry accused the administration of trying to violate states’ rights “by mandating which health providers the state of Texas must use.”
. . .six organizations applied for anti-trafficking grants from HHS’s Office for Refugee Resettlement (ORR). Four scored so low they did not make the cutoff when evaluated by an independent review board. Two applicants scored well. Heartland Human Care Services scored highest and MRS came in second, very close to Heartland, even after losing points for not being willing to refer for contraceptives and abortions. Yet, after finagling by Sharon Parrott, one of three politically-appointed counselors to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, ORR awarded $4.5 million, spread across Heartland, which earned the award, and United States Committee for Refugees and Immigrants and Tapestri, groups that hadn’t made the grade according to the independent review board.
HHS denies any hanky-panky. Show me the data.
Obama has put abortion before the life of a baby born alive during the procedure.
But even this is not the most important part of his argument. That would be his first sentence — the one about “caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion.” He seems open to this idea. And he does not state explicitly that a pre-viable, premature baby is not a “person.” Rather, he is arguing that the question of their personhood is a moot point. Even if the state should perhaps provide care for these babies, any recognition of their personhood might threaten someone’s right to an abortion somewhere down the road. That made the bill unacceptable to him.
People are always entitled to their opinions, — decent people can disagree and still be decent people — and many people evolve on this subject. I certainly have; I used to call myself pro-choice. I know pro-life people who cannot find themselves wholly sold on the idea of overturning Roe v Wade because it does nothing to change people’s hearts, and I can respect their arguments, even as I now believe that the ruling was inappropriate.
I also know pro-choice folk who are perfectly sincere when they say that since women have always sought abortions. it ought to be “legal, safe and rare” but are troubled by the excessive number of abortions, the marketing of it and particularly the practice of late-term and partial birth abortions.
But I think it’s a peculiar person who is so enthralled to abortion that he/she is willing to assault the consciences of others (or insist that they jump aboard the abortion train or be excluded from the privilege of providing their well-established assistance and health care to people in need.)
I mean, think about that mindset: no, you’re not allowed to help these women and children who have been trafficked, because you won’t serve abortion; no, you’re not allowed to help these poor women with their health needs, because you won’t serve abortion; no, you’re not allowed to offer your own insurance policy to your employees unless it serves abortion, sterilization and more.
No, you’re not allowed to serve the living, unless you first pay your obeisances toward death, sterility and emptiness.
This seems extreme to me. I can’t trust people who love death so much that they make sure access to it comes before access to healthcare, human safety or free consciences.
How can anyone love death that much, without it somehow demonstrating a hatred for life, a desire to over-control — which is really a desire to play at being God?
How is it a healthy mindset? Whole economies are being allowed to dry up and die in order to protect the Delta Smelt. But for the unborn (and the accidentally unslain) no protections?
UPDATE: Over at the USCCB’s media blog, Sr. Mary Ann Walsh writes:
Until now the federal government has respected the church’s role in defining its ministries and has not tinkered with doctrine. Despite this history, however, HHS and the rest of the Administration now are digging in their heels on the neuralgic point. They stick to the ACLU definition unreasonably, even while saying it’s only for this health care regulation and won’t apply to others. They turn a blind eye on those of us who shudder at Caesar’s defining what constitutes a church ministry.
Why President Obama seems to have chosen this moment to become theologian-in-chief is a mystery. Why should Caesar weigh in on theological questions such as what ministry is religious enough? Distributing Holy Communion at the altar? Yes. Distributing bread in the soup kitchen? No. He might have to meditate on where the loaves and fishes on the hillside would fit, in this theological framework.
You’ll want to read the whole thing