National Right to Life Communications

New Resources on Abortion in Health Care

August 15, 2009 · Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON (August 15, 2009) – The purpose of this e-mail is to alert you to a number of new documents available on the NRLC website, dealing with the abortion-related implications of the health-care restructuring bills that are being pushed by the White House.  The new resources include the following:

 – A new and detailed NRLC memorandum that documents the abortion-related problems with the two bills that President Obama and the White House are pushing:  Senator Kennedy’s bill (as yet unnumbered) and the House Democratic leadership bill, H.R. 3200.  This analysis contains numerous citations to primary sources.  It includes an examination of the Capps Amendment, a “phony compromise” that was written by hard-core pro-abortion lawmakers and adopted over pro-life objections in one House committee on July 30.  Among other objectionable elements, the Capps Amendment explicitly authorizes coverage of all elective abortions in the proposed new government health insurance program (the “public option”).  This memo, dated August 13, 2009, can be viewed or downloaded here (PDF format).

 – A one-page summary of abortion-related problems with the bills, here.

 – An August 5, 2009, Associated Press story, “Government insurance would allow coverage for abortion,” by Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, here.

 – A detailed update on the current state of the debate in Congress, sent to NRLC affiliates and supporters nationwide on August 7 in the form of a page 1 article in the National Right to Life News.  This article can be viewed in your web browser here or downloaded in PDF format from here.

 – A special webpage set up by NRLC to highlight the pro-abortion activities of Congressman Tim Ryan (D-Oh.), who impersonates a pro-life lawmaker in the media in order to undercut the efforts of the real pro-life lawmakers of both parties, here.

 – A new letter sent to members of the U.S. House by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on August 11, urging the lawmakers to vote against the “rule” – the procedural bridge by which H.R. 3200 would be brought to the House floor in September — unless the rule allows consideration of amendments to remove the pro-abortion components from the bill.  To view or download the letter (PDF format), click here.

Youc an also visit www.nrlc.com/AHC/index.html for these and other documents on abortion in healthcare.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: FedLeg
Tagged: , ,

Tim Ryan: Pro-Life Impersonator

August 14, 2009 · Leave a Comment

Congressman Tim Ryan (D- Oh.) has become a major asset to the pro-abortion lobby in Washington. In recent weeks, for example, Ryan has worked with pro-abortion groups to undermine the efforts of the pro-life members of the U.S. House of Representatives (of both parties) who are seeking to remove pro-abortion provisions from the health care bills being pushed by the Obama White House.

Although Ryan’s voting record in recent years is NOT pro-life, he continues to impersonate a pro-life lawmaker in order to undercut genuine pro-life initiatives in Congress. Therefore, NRLC has set up a special web page that links to several detailed documents regarding Ryan’s pro-abortion activities, including a report by veteran NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. This report contains quotes critical of Ryan from multiple pro-life groups and from key pro-life members of the House of Representatives.

The page also links to a recent article about Ryan published by The Weekly Standard.

To visit the new NRLC page on “Tim Ryan, pro-life impersonator,” click here .

→ Leave a CommentCategories: FedLeg

Eunice Kennedy Shriver: Rest in Peace

August 12, 2009 · 3 Comments

EKShriver-Pic

Eunice Kennedy Shriver with John Cardinal O'Connor at the 1994 Proudly Pro-Life Awards Dinner.

  Tributes from around the world continue to pour in for Eunice Kennedy Shriver, who passed away yesterday at age 88. National Right to Life would like to add ours.

  NRLC veterans remember when Mrs. Shriver attended the Proudly Pro-Life Awards Dinner in 1994 which honored John Cardinal O’Conner and Nancy DeMoss of The Arthur DeMoss Foundation. The following year Mrs. Shriver, along with her husband, Sargent Shriver, served as Honorary Chairpersons for the Proudly Pro-Life Awards Dinner that honored Illinois Rep. Henry Hyde, Pennsylvania Gov. Robert Casey, and Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

   Mrs. Shriver is best known, of course, for being the driving force behind the Special Olympics. Like all revolutions, what seems ordinary now was a breathtaking change in understanding 30 and 40 years ago.

   The most telling reminiscences have not been from high-powered political insiders, although as a sister of President John F. Kennedy and Senators Robert and Ted Kennedy, she no doubt had access to them all. They are from ordinary citizens whose children’s lives were made immensely richer because of the power of the Special Olympics’ example

   We have many miles to go before we fully treat people with disabilities with the kind of generosity and respect that is owed them simply because they are fellow members of the human family. But that the journey has begun at all is in no small measure the result of the labors of Mrs. Shriver.

    We forget how the prevailing thought at the time was that children with mental retardation should be excluded from physical activity out of fear that these kids might injure themselves. But in her address at the opening ceremony of the first Special Olympics in 1968, just weeks after the assassination of Robert Kennedy, Mrs. Shriver said “The Chicago Special Olympics prove a very fundamental fact, the fact that exceptional children — children with mental retardation — can be exceptional athletes, the fact that through sports they can realize their potential for growth.”

    There could be no more fitting ending than the concluding paragraphs of her family’s statement on her passing:

    Inspired by her love of God, her devotion to her family, and her relentless belief in the dignity and worth of every human life, she worked without ceasing ─ searching, pushing, demanding, hoping for change. She was a living prayer, a living advocate, a living center of power. She set out to change the world and to change us, and she did that and more. She founded the movement that became Special Olympics, the largest movement for acceptance and inclusion for people with intellectual disabilities in the history of the world. Her work transformed the lives of hundreds of millions of people across the globe, and they in turn are her living legacy.

   We have always been honored to share our mother with people of good will the world over who believe, as she did, that there is no limit to the human spirit. At this time of loss, we feel overwhelmed by the gifts of prayer and support poured out to us from so many who loved her. We are together in our belief that she is now in heaven, rejoicing with her family, enjoying the fruits of her faith, and still urging us onward to the challenges ahead. Her love will inspire us to faith and service always.

  She was forever devoted to the Blessed Mother. May she be welcomed now by Mary to the joy and love of life everlasting, in the certain truth that her love and spirit will live forever.

→ 3 CommentsCategories: General News

AP confirms: Obama plan would allow abortion coverage

August 5, 2009 · Leave a Comment

For more information:
Federal Legislation Department (202) 626-8820, legfederal@aol.com 
or Communications Department at (202) 626-8825, mediarelations@nrlc.org.

AP confirms:  Obama plan would allow abortion coverage 

 As the Associated Press accurately reports in a new story below, the health care legislation being pushed by the Obama White House would cover elective abortions.  Under the Senate bill, sponsored by Senator Kennedy, “the public plan — and private insurance offered in the exchange — would be allowed to cover abortion, without funding restrictions,” the AP reports.  Phony “compromise” language approved by a House committee, over pro-life objections (the Capps Amendment), would authorize the new government-run “public plan” to cover elective abortions, and also permit new federal premium subsidies to flow to private plans that cover elective abortions.  ”Under either the Senate bill or the House bill, the federal government would run a huge system of subsidizing elective abortion,” said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson.  For further information and documentation, visit the NRLC Legislative Action Center at www.nrlactioncenter.com.

 ************

August 5, 2009

Associated Press

 Original URL:  http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jE8oH07rubGHV6lmgcgIGJFdUdkAD99SLQBG0

 Gov’t insurance would allow coverage for abortion
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR (AP)

WASHINGTON — Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions, a decision that would affect millions of women and recast federal policy on the divisive issue.

Federal funds for abortions are now restricted to cases involving rape, incest or danger to the health ["life"] of the mother. Abortion opponents say those restrictions should carry over to any health insurance sold through a new marketplace envisioned under the legislation, an exchange where people would choose private coverage or the public plan.

Abortion rights supporters say that would have the effect of denying coverage for abortion to millions of women who now have it through workplace insurance and are expected to join the exchange.

Advocates on both sides are preparing for a renewed battle over abortion, which could jeopardize political support for President Barack Obama’s health care initiative aimed at covering nearly 50 million uninsured and restraining medical costs.

“We want to see people who have no health insurance get it, but this is a sticking point,” said Richard Doerflinger, associate director of pro-life activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. “We don’t want health care reform to be the vehicle for mandating abortion.”

Donna Crane, policy director for NARAL Pro-Choice America, said abortion opponents “want an abortion ban in private insurance, and that’s not neutrality at all — that’s a radical departure from current law. They want something far more extreme than where I think the American public is.”

A compromise approved by a House committee last week attempted to balance questions of federal funding, personal choice and the conscience rights of clinicians. It would allow the public plan to cover abortion but without using federal funds, only dollars from beneficiary premiums. Likewise, private plans in the new insurance exchange could opt to cover abortion, but no federal subsidies would be used to pay for the procedure.

“It’s a sham,” said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for National Right to Life. “It’s a bookkeeping scheme. The plan pays for abortion, and the government subsidizes the plan.”

Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif., author of the compromise, said she was trying to craft a solution that would accommodate both sides. Her amendment also would allow plans that covered no abortions whatsoever — not even in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother — to be offered through the insurance exchange.

“With all due respect, not everyone adheres to what the Catholic bishops believe,” said Capps, who supports abortion rights. “Our country allows for both sides, and our health plan should reflect that as well.”

For years, abortion rights supporters and abortion opponents have waged the equivalent of trench warfare over restrictions on federal funding. Abortion opponents have largely prevailed, instituting restrictions that bar federal funding for abortion, except in cases of rape and incest or if the mother’s life would be endangered.

A law called the Hyde amendment applies the restrictions to Medicaid, forcing states that cover abortion for low-income women to do so with their own money. Separate laws apply the restrictions to the federal employee health plan and military and other programs.

But the health overhaul would create a stream of federal funding not covered by the restrictions.

The new federal funds would take the form of subsidies for low- and middle-income people buying coverage through the health insurance exchange. Subsidies would be available for people to buy the public plan or private coverage. Making things more complicated, the federal subsidies would be mixed in with contributions from individuals and employers. Eventually, most Americans could end up getting their coverage through the exchange.

The Democratic health care legislation as originally introduced in the House and Senate did not mention abortion. That rang alarm bells for abortion opponents.

Since abortion is a legal medical procedure, experts on both sides say not mentioning it would allow health care plans in the new insurance exchange to provide unrestricted coverage.

It would mirror the private insurance market, where abortion coverage is widely available. A Guttmacher Institute study found that 87 percent of typical employer plans covered abortion in 2002, while a Kaiser Family Foundation survey in 2003 found that 46 percent of workers in employer plans had coverage for abortions. The studies asked different questions, which might help explain the disparity in the results.

In the Senate, the plan passed by the health committee is still largely silent on the abortion issue. Staff aides confirmed that the public plan — and private insurance offered in the exchange — would be allowed to cover abortion, without funding restrictions.

Under both the House and Senate approaches, the decision to offer abortion coverage in the public plan would be made by the health and human services secretary.

Abortion opponents are seeking a prohibition against using any federal subsidies to pay for abortions or for any part of any costs of a health plan that offers abortion. Such a proposal was rejected by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the same panel that approved Capps’ amendment.

But abortion opponents say they can’t accept a public plan that would cover abortion. And they say private plans in the insurance exchange should offer abortion coverage separately, as an option.

“You can have a result where nobody has to pay for other people’s abortions,” said Doerflinger.

Heidi Hartmann, president of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, said applying the current restrictions for federal employees and low-income women to a program intended for the middle class will provoke a backlash.

“There is a difference between picking off one group of women here and one group there and something that would affect a very large group,” Hartmann said. “Everyone would like to avoid that fight.”

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: FedLeg · Media

Staying Current?

August 5, 2009 · Leave a Comment

As we all know, the health care debate in Washington is changing on an almost hourly basis.  Even with the House in recess and the Senate getting ready to leave town for the rest of August, things can change quickly.  If you haven’t already checked out the latest alert from our Federal Legislation Deparment, head over to National Right to Life’s Legislative Action Center at www.nrlactioncenter.com.  Even if you have been there, it’s best to make the Action Center part of your regular rounds on the web.  The Action Alert on health care is updated constantly (last update as of this post is August 1) to keep up with the changing landscape.

Also, check out the latest Today’s News and Views from our NRL News Editor, Dave Andrusko.  You can sign up to have it delivered to your inbox.  Or you can follow us on Twitter – TN&V is tweeted daily. (www.twitter.com/nrlc). 

And, of course, be sure to check back in here for the latest news from the Communications Department.   Congress may be in recess, but we’ve got work to do!

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Media
Tagged: , , , , , ,

A MUST-Read: NRL Academy Graduation Address

August 3, 2009 · Leave a Comment

Last Friday, we held graduation ceremonies for the NRL Academy Class of 2009.  Below is the address that Burke Balch, who does double-duty as director of the Powell Center for Medical Ethics and as academic director for the Academy, gave to the students during the ceremony.  It inspired not only the students, but all of us in attendance and we wanted to share it with you.  Please forward on to any and all appropriate lists.

 If you’re interested in more information about the Academy, or are interested in sending a student to the 2010 NRL Academy, you can contact Megan McCrum at (202) 626-8825 or megan.mccrum@gmail.com.

ADDRESS TO THE ACADEMY GRADUATES
 NRL Academy Graduation Ceremony, July 31, 2009
Burke J. Balch, Academic Director

            “These are the times that try men’s souls.  The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.”

             My friends:

            Let us tonight openly face the stern truth, directly and boldly: as we assemble for the graduation of the Class of 2009 of the National Right to Life Academy, there is all too much to unite our time with the darkest days of 1776 when Thomas Paine penned those lines.

            We have just seen the election of a President who is so sworn a foe of the helpless children yet within their wombs that he is pledged to support a bill that would strike down all legislation that might meaningfully protect any of them from violent death.

            The foes of life confront us on every side.  To the demand for unabated abortions is now joined a swelling call for euthanasia.

            The cry of almost all the seats of leadership, of the formers as of the purveyors of public opinion, seems ever against the protection of the helpless and the vulnerable.

            Do we look to the scientists, to illustrate with compelling proofs the humanity of the victims?  The National Academy of Sciences, the scientific journals, all the organs of the scientific establishment, with rare exception instead loudly agitate for inhuman experimentation upon the victims, and the exploitation of their organs for transplant.

            Do we look to the doctors, trained to heal and schooled to save life?  The American Medical Association, which in the 19th Century led the effort to protect unborn children, educating legislators and the public about their living existence from the very moment of conception, today lends its prestige and support to those of its members whose daily occupation is to kill them.

            Walk into virtually any campus, virtually any newsroom, virtually any place where the educated, the well-to-do, the elite gather, and dare to assert the human equality of the very young, of those not yet born–and you will be met less with rebuttal than with scorn.

            My friends, in America of 2009, you will know from all the organs of sophisticated opinion that abortion is respectable–and that we in the pro-life movement are not.

            It is, we think, the world turned upside down.  How can it be sophisticated and civilized to be discriminatory, and beyond the bounds of respectability to insist on human equality?  How can it be sophisticated and civilized to be violent, and beyond the bounds of respectability to call for loving alternatives to violence?  How can it be sophisticated and civilized to dehumanize and destroy the helpless and vulnerable, and beyond the bounds of respectability to seek their protection?  How?

            My friends, in history’s scale we are not alone in lack of respectability.  The well-known PBS series on the Civil War included this quote from historian Barbara Fields:

             Those appointed or self-appointed as spokesmen for “respectable” opinion in the loyal states agreed [that the war was an issue between free, white citizens: between unionists and secessionists] even when they disagreed heatedly on the conclusion to be drawn from it.  Some might believe that property rights, including rights to human property, must be held inviolable, others that slavery must not be allowed to spread, yet others that neither goal mattered compared to preserving the Union undisturbed.  Nevertheless, as respectable citizens of sound and practical sense, all concurred that the aggrieved parties in the struggle of North against South were white citizens, and that the issue should be decided on the basis of what would best promote such citizens’ desires and interests.

            But wars, especially civil wars, have a way of making respectability scandalous and scandalousness respectable, and that is just what the American Civil War did. Abruptly, people whose point of view had never been respectable became the voice not just of morality but of practical common sense as well: abolitionists, black and white, calling not just for the containment of slavery but for its eradication; free black people demanding a right to take an active part in the war; and especially the slaves themselves, insisting on the self-evident truth that their liberty, like everyone else’s was . . .  inalienable.

             In 1844, James Russell Lowell wrote a poem to summon his generation to the fight for what was right rather than currently respectable:

           Once to every man and nation, comes the moment to decide,

            In the strife of truth with falsehood, for the good or evil side;

            Some great cause, some great decision, offering each the bloom or blight,

            And the choice goes by forever, ‘twixt that darkness and that light.

             Then to side with truth is noble, when we share her wretched crust,

            Ere her cause bring fame and profit, and ‘tis prosperous to be just;

            Then it is the brave man chooses while the coward stands aside,

            Till the multitude make virtue of the faith they had denied.

             For what truth, for what good, do we of the pro-life movement fight?  You will recall that in Roe v. Wade Justice Blackman deemed it necessary, before elevating abortion to a constitutional right,  to try to discredit the Hippocratic Oath, by which for millennia new physicians had pledged to refrain from abortion and euthanasia.  The great anthropologist Margaret Mead wrote this about the epochal significance of that Hippocratic Oath, now cast aside by contemporary medical schools who substitute far other words for their graduation ceremonies:

             For the first time in our tradition there was a complete separation between killing and curing.  Throughout the primitive world, the doctor and the sorcerer tended to be the same person.  He with power to kill, had power to cure, including specially the undoing of his own killing activities.  He who had power to cure would necessarily also be able to kill.

            With the Greeks the distinction was made clear.  One profession, the followers of Asclepius, were to be dedicated completely to life under all circumstances, regardless of rank, age, or intellect.  The life of a slave, the life of the Emperor, the life of a foreign man, the life of a defective child.

            This is a priceless possession which we cannot afford to tarnish.  But society always is attempting to make the physician into a killer–to kill the defective child at birth, to leave the sleeping pills beside the bed of the cancer patient.

            It is the duty of society to protect the physician from such requests.

             The man who was assassinated in Ford’s Theater right across the street from our headquarters, who died in a building just two doors away from where we gather tonight, wrote these words to the Congress:

             Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history.  We of this . . . generation will be remembered in spite of ourselves.  No personal significance or insignificance can save one or the other of us.  What we do will light us down in honor or dishonor to the latest generation.  We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last, best hope of earth.

             Solemnly I assure you: each of you is called to serve.  In what role and in what manner your individual contribution can best be given must depend on circumstances and your own appraisal of your talents and opportunities.   But whatever particular way you are called to serve –

            Let it never be said of this movement and of your generation that when the time of testing came, you fell away. 

            Let it rather be said, by the historians of the 21st Century, that in the darkest hour– when the fight for life seemed to tremble on the edge of being lost– a stalwart band yet raised high the torch of truth and the lamplight of compassion and with renewed effort and unremitting dedication found somewhere and somehow the way again to turn the tide and stem the age of death.

            We have done our best to help you take the torch of leadership from we who go before.  And now, we send you forth to bear onwards that torch of truth, that lamp of compassion– that fight for life– with our blessing, our support, and our hope.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Youth Outreach
Tagged: , , , ,

Press Conference on Abortion Mandates

July 29, 2009 · 1 Comment

Doug Johnson

NRLC Federal Legislation Director Douglas Johnson participated in a press conference organized by pro-life Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) in front of the United States House of Representatives to discuss abortion mandates in health care “reform.”  Among the participants were House Pro-Life Caucus Co-Chair Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE), Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO), Concerned Women for America’s Wendy Wright and Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins.

Pictures courtesy of NRLC Communications Assistant Jessica Rodgers.

Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) speaks at a press conference on abortion mandates on July 28, 2009 in front of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) speaks at a press conference on abortion mandates on July 28, 2009 in front of the U.S. House of Representatives. Press Conference on abortion mandates in health care, July 28, 2009.

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) speaks on abortion mandates in health care, July 28, 2009.

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) speaks on abortion mandates in health care, July 28, 2009.

Congressman Mike Pence addresses reporters at a press conference on abortion mandates in health care, July 28, 2009.

Congressman Mike Pence addresses reporters at a press conference on abortion mandates in health care, July 28, 2009.

→ 1 CommentCategories: Media
Tagged: , , , ,

Pelosi Double Talk

July 28, 2009 · 2 Comments

Pelosi Doubletalk on Abortion:  Hear House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) duck, weave, stammer, and prevaricate in response to a question from CNN’s John King about whether the Obama health bill will pay for abortions (July 26, 2009). 

→ 2 CommentsCategories: Media
Tagged: , , , , ,

Letter to Senate on Sotomayor

July 27, 2009 · Leave a Comment

The following letter was sent by National Right to Life to members of the U.S. Senate on July 27, 2009.   

 July 27, 2009

 The Honorable Harry Reid
Majority Leader
United States Senate
S-221 The Capitol   
Washington, D.C.  20510

The Honorable Mitch McConnell
Republican Leader
S-230 The Capitol
Washington, D.C.  20510

Dear Leader Reid and Leader McConnell:

On behalf of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of right-to-life organizations in all 50 states, we write to express the opposition of our organization to the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court.

 As a judge, Ms. Sotomayor has encountered little in the way of abortion-related litigation, either at the district court or the court of appeals.  In the single ruling that she authored that bore directly on an abortion-related federal policy, Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, the result was unambiguously governed by the precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court and the Second Circuit.  Yet, there are many troubling indications that Ms. Sotomayor believes that it is the proper role of the U.S. Supreme Court to construct and enforce constitutional doctrines on social policy questions, even where the text and history of the Constitution provide no basis for removing an issue from the realm of lawmaking by the duly elected representatives of the people.

 Legal abortion on demand was imposed by seven Supreme Court justices in Roe v. WadeRoe was an exercise in judicial legislation, aptly branded “an exercise of raw judicial power” by dissenting Justice Byron White.  The ruling lacked any real basis in the text of the Constitution, and imposed a policy that was completely at odds with the intent of the lawmakers who crafted and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment. 

 The evidence indicates that Ms. Sotomayor approves of the Roe ruling and approves of the type of judicial activism that produced it.  For a period of 12 years (1980-1992), prior to becoming a judge, Ms. Sotomayor served on the governing board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF), and for part of that time she was the chair of the PRLDEF Litigation Committee.  During her tenure on the board, the PRLDEF was actively involved in litigation that attempted to persuade the Supreme Court to expand the judge-created “right to abortion,” often beyond what the Court was willing to embrace.  During this period, the fund joined briefs at the U.S. Supreme Court in six abortion-related cases.  These briefs urged the Court to regard abortion as a “fundamental right” (a right on the level of freedom of speech), to apply the strictest standard of scrutiny when reviewing abortion-regulated laws, and thereby to nullify informed consent requirements (including those involving ultrasound), waiting periods, parental notification requirements, restrictions on taxpayer funding of abortion, and even record keeping requirements. The PRLDEF’s own “statement of interest” in three of these cases said that the PRLDEF  “opposes any efforts to overturn or in any way restrict the rights recognized in Roe v. Wade.” 

 During her recent confirmation hearings, Ms. Sotomayor suggested that she was only aware of this litigation activity in the most general terms, and had no responsibility for or awareness of the substance of the briefs.  Frankly, this testimony was not very believable.  Ms. Sotomayor was a Yale Law School graduate who, according to many accounts, is exceedingly – even excessively – detail oriented on the legal matters in which she is involved.  More believable is what the New York Times reported on May 29, 2009, after interviewing various parties who were directly involved in the PRLDEF litigation activity during this period:  “Ms. Sotomayor stood out, frequently meeting with the legal staff to review the status of cases, several former members said. . . . .The board monitored all litigation undertaken by the fund’s lawyers, and a number of those lawyers said Ms. Sotomayor was an involved and ardent supporter of their various legal efforts during her time with the group.”

 If confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court, Ms. Sotomayor will no longer be constrained by the precedents of that Court, including the precedents in which the Court upheld laws requiring notification of a parent before performing an abortion on a minor, requiring a pre-abortion waiting period, barring public funding of abortion, and – by a single vote, in 2007 – banning partial-birth abortion.  Nor, it appears, will she feel greatly constrained by the text and history of the Constitution, in which Roe v. Wade and its progeny find no support. 

 Because the available evidence strongly suggests that once on the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor will seek to nullify abortion-related laws adopted through the normal legislative processes of our democracy, consistent with the extreme legal theories with which she was associated before being appointed to the federal bench, National Right to Life urges all senators to vote against her confirmation to the Supreme Court.

Respectfully,

David N. O’Steen, Ph. D.
Executive Director 

Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director

cc:  Members of the United States Senate

→ Leave a CommentCategories: FedLeg
Tagged: , , ,

NoDak Heartbeat Law Challenged

July 23, 2009 · Leave a Comment

For immediate release: Thursday, July 23, 2009

For more information:
Derrick Jones,  (202) 626-8825                                                                                                     mediarelations@nrlc.org 

NRLC RESPONDS TO CHALLENGE OF NORTH DAKOTA HEARTBEAT LAW

 National Right to Life today responded to news that The Center for Reproductive Rights, on behalf of Red River Women’s Clinic in Fargo, North Dakota, is asking for a temporary injunction against the new life-affirming heartbeat law in North Dakota. The law, which was passed this spring, requires that a woman seeking an abortion be offered the opportunity to see an ultrasound of her unborn child and hear the fetal heartbeat, which can begin as early as eighteen days after fertilization. 

 “It’s unclear why a clinic, which claims to care about women, would be afraid to offer their patients all the vital and relevant information before performing a life-changing and intrusive medical procedure,” said Mary Spaulding Balch, J.D., State Legislation Director for the National Right to Life Committee. “Diagnostic ultrasounds and listening to the fetal heartbeat provides mothers accurate information about the development of their unborn child.  Why is the abortion industry afraid of these tools?”

 The North Dakota ultrasound law not only provides the mother the opportunity to see a visual image of her child, but also allows her to hear her baby’s heartbeat, joining six other states with similar provisions. The bill was designed to offer the mother the most information while placing the entirety of the burden upon the abortionist.

 The law was passed by overwhelming margins in both the North Dakota House of Representatives (77-9) and the Senate (44-1).

 “We want women to be informed, and receive all possible information available –  much of which has historically been omitted by those in the abortion industry,” Balch said.  “It is shameful in our society that women cannot rely on abortionists to voluntarily provide them with information that would help them make the best decision for themselves and their unborn children”

 NRLC’s Mary Spaulding Balch is available for interviews regarding the North Dakota heartbeat law and the growing trend to enact similar laws in other states.

 The National Right to Life Committee, the nation’s largest pro-life group is a federation of affiliates in all 50 states and 3,000 local chapters nationwide. 

 # # #

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Press Releases
Tagged: , , , , ,