Obama promotes homosexuals in military in State of the Union Address: steers clear of abortion
WASHINGTON, D.C., February 13, 2013, (LifeSiteNews.com) – President Barack Obama did not clearly address the issue of abortion in last night's State of the Union Address, usually a time to unveil specific policy proposals before the nation. However, in an address that focused mostly on economics, he made several references to homosexuals, including those serving in the military.
In the most impassioned rhetoric of the night, he said, “What I've said matters little if we don't come together to protect our most precious resource, our children.” His topic, however, was not about abortion but gun control, his proffered solution to mass shooting victims, whom he cited in rising cadences.
The president may have made an oblique reference to his commitment to expand contraceptive use and its abortion backup during his discussion of the Third World.
To promote “progress in the most impoverished parts of our world,” he promised, “the United States will join with our allies to eradicate such extreme poverty in the next two decades: by connecting more people to the global economy and empowering women.”
The Obama administration's delegation at international events has held that “empowerment” means counting contraception and abortion as fundamental to “human development,” and perhaps an inalienable human right, a strategy that comports with the tactics of the United Nations and some global charities.
“It’s striking that the president did not mention the Life issue tonight, despite the long catalogue of other issues he did choose to address,” said Americans United for Life President Dr. Charmaine Yoest. “The president helped create a health care law that intertwines abortion and funding for life-ending drugs and devices throughout.”
“It is irresponsible of the president to insist that Americans pay for life-ending drugs and devices as well as for a medical procedure without also requiring a full reporting of the consequences of such a choice,” she added. Currently, all abortion reporting is voluntary, and some states such as California refuse to provide any statistics. The president's “nonchalance about deaths and complications from a procedure performed routinely on American women is unconscionable,” Dr. Yoest said.
Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser said the president may have chosen to omit abortion from the State of the Union because he is out of the mainstream of American opinion on abortion. “Will President Obama side with the 87 percent of Americans who believe healthcare professionals should be protected from having to participate in procedures they find morally objectionable? Will he agree with the 72 percent of Americans who object to taxpayer funding of abortion? Can he find common ground with the 63 percent of Americans, including 70 percent of women, who support a ban on abortion past the point at which an unborn child can feel pain?” she asked.
Citing recent polls, she wrote, “Whether or not they identify themselves as ‘pro-life’ or ‘pro-choice,’ Americans oppose more abortions than they support, whereas President Obama has yet to identify one instance where he would protect the life of the unborn child. Last year, he even refused to support a ban on sex-selective abortion – lethal sex-discrimination – even though such legislation is supported by 77 percent of Americans and a whopping 80 percent of women.”
At a chamber before all branches of the United States government – except Supreme Court justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito – President Obama instead focused on the more poll-friendly issue of homosexuality.
Early on he said it was his administration's “unfinished task to restore the basic bargain that built this country,” including championing people regardless of “who you love.”
“We will ensure equal treatment for all service members, and equal benefits for their families – gay and straight,” he said. The president dropped the “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” policy instituted by President Bill Clinton and allowed homosexuals to serve openly in the military, something experts worry will harm group cohesion.
“We will draw upon the courage and skills of our sisters and daughters, because women have proven under fire that they are ready for combat,” he added.
In a segment of his hour-long address that garnered largely positive reviews among social conservatives, President Obama promised to “strengthen families by removing the financial deterrents to marriage for low-income couples, and doing more to encourage fatherhood.
Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!
He added, “What makes you a man isn’t the ability to conceive a child; it’s having the courage to raise one.” Many believe the president's often curt references to fatherlessness stem from his own upbringing, which he wrote in his autobiography was “shaped more by” his father's “absence than by his presence.”
Earlier in the day, the Family Research Council unveiled two new reports showing the importance of “family intactness” on social policies, such as child poverty, welfare dependence, educational attainment, and out-of-wedlock births.
“Children born outside of marriage are nearly six times as likely to be poor than those born to married parents,” noted Rachel Sheffield of the Heritage Foundation.
Out-of-wedlock births, she wrote, are “creating a two-caste society with marriage and education as the divide. Lower-income Americans and, increasingly more so, those in “middle America” are having children outside of marriage, putting themselves and their children at risk for poverty.”
President Obama did not specify how he intended to strengthen families.
Dr. W. Bradford Wilcox, an expert on the family at the University of Virginia, speculated he could determine which welfare programs make the poor less likely to get married, or simply issue “low-income couples a check equal to the penalty they incur from marrying.”
However, at least one leader at the Family Research Center saw the president's stance as irreconcilable.
“He calls for fatherhood as a moral imperative, but wants to redefine marriage,” said Rob Schwarzwalder, senior vice president of FRC.
The president may also be at odds with himself in his plan to expand preschool programs, such as Head Start, which take children out of the home and place them in the care of others.
Barack Obama pressed the issue of amnesty for illegal aliens, as well as alternative energy, and rebuilding infrastructure in the economic portion of his speech.
View CommentsClick to view or comment.
Share this article
Planned Parenthood closes rural Iowa abortion facility because of low business
DUBUQUE, Iowa, May 3, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Planned Parenthood closed an Iowa abortion facility on Friday, noting low business that left the facility unsustainable from a financial standpoint.
Although Planned Parenthood of the Heartland announced in January that it planned to close the Dubuque, Iowa, office, pro-life sidewalk counselors were overjoyed on Friday to read the sign in the window that read: “Our office is closed, effective April 28, 2016.”
The office did not perform surgical abortions but did provide medication abortions to the community of about 58,000.
“Rejoice with us for the lives of unborn children saved!” Iowa Right to Life said in a statement after the closure.
As with numerous other closures, Planned Parenthood, which styles itself a provider of “care no matter what,” emphasized it was closing its doors to preserve its bottom line.
“After assessing the shifting health care landscape, changing demographics, and the challenges of operating in areas with low patient volumes, we made the tough decision to close the Dubuque Health Center,” the group said in an announcement. “This change allows us to expand hours and see more patients in Cedar Rapids, where there is unmet demand due to lack of clinician hours.”
“While we regret making this change, we know it is a necessary step in order to continue our mission to provide, promote and protect reproductive and sexual health through health services, education and advocacy. Patients have been notified, and if they wish, they can receive a broader array of services at our health center in Cedar Rapids, where we have expanded hours to accommodate more patient,” Planned Parenthood said.
American Life League’s vice president, Jim Sedlak, remembers speaking to the county right to life group nine years ago.
“I told them at the time that they needed to protest outside Planned Parenthood at least once a week,” he said. “They told me they would do better than that. Over the last eight years, these dedicated pro-lifers were outside Planned Parenthood every hour it was open. And now...it’s closed for good.”
That aligns with advice that David Bereit, the founder of 40 Days for Life, once told young people who wanted to know how to end abortion.
Be loving and compassionate, he said.
“Your peaceful, loving presence out there flies in the face of all the stereotypes they want to throw onto us,” he added. “When you show them love instead of condemnation, when you show them peace and joy instead of anger and judgment, that will begin to break down the walls.”
Iowa Right to Life credited just such tactics with closing an office in Red Oak that performed webcam abortions. “Planned Parenthood shut down in Red Oak in large part because of the constant, prayerful presence outside their clinic,” the group said.
Upon hearing of the latest abortion facility shuttering, the Dubuque County Right to Life said that Planned Parenthood isn't the only group that will move its base of operations. “We will probably put our efforts in Cedar Rapids and will continue to spread the pro-life message,” said Executive Director Marian Bourek.
Ted Cruz confronted by mom who supports aborting disabled babies…just like hers
MARION, Indiana, May 3, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Senator Ted Cruz was met on the campaign trail by a mother who strongly opposed a state pro-life law that would have protected children with birth conditions – like her own.
Andrea DeBruler, a 41-year-old nurse, confronted the presidential hopeful in the city of Marion as Cruz campaigned with Gov. Mike Pence.
DeBruler first asked Cruz, then Pence, about House Bill 1337, which bans abortions performed due to the child's race, sex, or disability, such as Down syndome.
DeBruler held up a picture of her daughter, Jania, who was born with cerebral palsy. “This was a choice,” she said.
She asked Sen. Cruz if he supported the bill, which made Indiana the second state in the nation to ban abortion for Down syndrome, after North Dakota.
“I'm not Governor Pence,” he replied. “But I'll tell you this: I believe in protecting human life.”
Pence, who endorsed Cruz in today's make-or-break Indiana primary, listened to her objections.
“I'm not here as a Republican, I'm not here as a Democrat. I'm here as a woman, a woman with choices, choices that you guys should not make,” DeBruler said.
After hearing that she felt many families lacked sufficient resources to care for children, especially in an area like Marion, Gov. Pence offered to connect her with social services.
“God bless her,” he said, looking at Jania's picture, “and God bless you.”
Though it may be unusual to encounter a woman arguing for the right to abort her own child, the governor handled it calmly. Pence had specifically reflected on “precious moments” he spent with “families of children with disabilities, especially those raising children with Down syndrome” when he signed the bill into law in March.
"We are truly thankful for the passage of this historic legislation by the Indiana House and applaud the new civil rights protections this bill creates for unborn children, as well as the new provisions this bill establishes for the humane final disposition of aborted babies," Indiana Right to Life President Mike Fichter said at the time.
DeBruler told the UK media outlet The Independent that H.B. 1337 “means you can no longer have an abortion based on deformity. I’m against this law, because I think it should be a woman’s choice” to abort for any reason.
Congressional Democrats made similar statements during hearings last month for Rep. Trent Franks' federal Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA), with Congressman John Conyers saying the bill is “patently unconstitutional,” because a woman has the right to abort a child before viability for any reason.
Both leading contenders for the Democratic nomination expressed their displeasure with the law, which protects unborn children from racial or sexual discrimination, as well as discrimination on the basis of an inborn trait like mental capacity.
When Gov. Pence signed the law, Sen. Bernie Sanders tweeted:
The decision to have an abortion is for a woman to make, not the Governor of Indiana. https://t.co/1VOroXS2br— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) March 24, 2016
Hillary Clinton later said, “I commend the women of this state, young and old, for standing up against this governor and this legislature.”
DeBruler told The Independent, despite her comment about not being a Democrat or a Republican, she is in fact a Democrat and will vote for Hillary Clinton in today's primary.
The moral challenge to Cardinal Wuerl in pending Notre Dame outrage
May 3, 2016 (CatholicCulture) -- In 2009, when the University of Notre Dame invited President Barack Obama to deliver a commencement address, dozens of American bishops lodged loud public protests. Yet this year, as Notre Dame prepares to confer an even greater honor on Vice President Joe Biden (together with former House Speaker John Boehner), the silence from the hierarchy is deafening.
Back in 2009, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Houston said that Notre Dame’s invitation to President Obama was “very disappointing,”, while then-Archbishop Timothy Dolan termed it a “big mistake.” The late Bishop John D’Arcy, then leader of the Indiana diocese in which the university is located, spoke of “the terrible breach which has taken place between Notre Dame and the Church.” For the first time in his 25 years of service to the Fort Wayne-South Bend diocese, Bishop D’Arcy declined to attend the Notre Dame commencement exercises; instead he addressed a protest rally organized by pro-life students, faculty, alumni, and staff.
These prelates and others explained their dismay by referring to the statement “Catholics in Political Life,” released in 2004 by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. In that document, the bishops reflected on the need to maintain a consistent public witness in defense of human life, and therefore to distance themselves from public officials who support legal abortion. The statement set forth a clear policy that Catholic institutions should not give public honors to “pro-choice” politicians:
The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.
By giving President Obama an honorary degree and offering him an opportunity to speak at graduation, Notre Dame clearly violated that policy. University officials could offer only garbled partial defenses, claiming that they were honoring Obama not because he supports unrestricted abortion, but because he is President of the United States.
This year the university cannot offer even that lame defense of the decision to award the Laetare Medal to Vice President Biden. Unlike Obama, Biden is a Catholic, and by granting him this award the university is explicitly saying that the Vice President has “illustrated the ideals of the Church and enriched the heritage of humanity.” In other words, Notre Dame is honoring Vice President Biden as a Catholic political leader despite his unwavering support for abortion and same-sex marriage.
Give credit to Bishop Kevin Rhoades, the current leader of the Fort Wayne-South Bend diocese, for raising a lonely voice of protest. “I believe it is wrong for Notre Dame to honor any ‘pro-choice’ public official with the Laetare Medal, even if he/she has other positive accomplishments in public service,” Bishop Rhoades said. But if any other bishops have joined him in that rebuke to Notre Dame, I must have missed their public announcements.
Some observers, of liberal political sympathies, have argued that it is wrong to honor John Boehner, too, because the former Speaker disagreed with the US bishops’ stand on immigration. This is a tired old argument, conflating disagreement with the bishops on a prudential political decision with defiance of Church teaching on a fundamental moral principle. But it is noteworthy that Notre Dame officials saw fit to make a joint award, no doubt in a cynical effort to dodge political criticism by choosing one honoree from each side of the political spectrum.
“We live in a toxic political environment where poisonous invective and partisan gamesmanship pass for political leadership,” said Father John Jenkins, the president of Notre Dame, in announcing the Laetare Award recipients. (Notice the pre-emptive suggestion that those who criticize the school’s choices may be engaged in “poisonous invective.”) He went on to make a tortured argument that although Notre Dame is honoring two politicians, it is not honoring them for what they have done in their political careers:
In recognizing both men, Notre Dame is not endorsing the policy positions of either, but celebrating two lives dedicated to keeping our democratic institutions working for the common good through dialogue focused on the issues and responsible compromise.
By now we all know the familiar dodges. The politician claims to oppose abortion personally, but to feel a delicate reticence about imposing his views on others. He says that we must be willing to compromise (even on life-and-death decisions). He insists that he is not “pro-abortion” but “pro-choice.”
That last bubble of rhetoric was unceremoniously burst by Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, DC, when he celebrated Mass at Georgetown after Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richard had delivered a lecture there. “The word ‘choice’ is a smokescreen,” he said, “behind which those killing unborn children take refuge. Every chance you get, blow that smoke away!”
Now Cardinal Wuerl himself has a chance to “blow that smoke away.” As things stand, he is scheduled to celebrate Mass at the Notre Dame commencement, and to receive an honorary degree. He could pull out; he could absent himself from the ceremonies, to ensure that he does not become part of an event that pays homage to a “pro-choice” Catholic politician.
And there is a precedent. Back in 2009, the Harvard legal scholar (and former US ambassador to the Holy See) Mary Ann Glendon was chosen to receive the Laetare Award. But when she learned that President Obama would be speaking, she announced her decision to decline the award. Clearly annoyed that her presence might be used to quiet the critics of the honor for Obama, Ambassador Glendon wrote that she did not want to be used as a counterweight, nor did she see the Notre Dame commencement as an appropriate venue for a genteel debate about legal abortion:
A commencement, however, is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision—in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops—to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.
Could Cardinal Wuerl do this year what Ambassador Glendon did in 2009? Even at this late date, his withdrawal would send a powerful message of support for the right to life: an unmistakable rebuke to politicians who hide behind the smokescreen that the cardinal himself identified. To be sure, if he did withdraw, the cardinal would be caught in an avalanche of public criticism; he would suffer for his public witness. But there is a reason why cardinals wear red.
View CommentsClick to view or comment.