In the aftermath of President Obama’s executive order on the funding of stem-cell research and human cloning, Democrats for Life of America published the following statement:
“Democrats For Life of America disagreed with the Mexico City Policy reversal but had an opportunity to air our concerns with representatives of the Administration. But the announcement that President Obama would allow expanded use of embryonic stem cells came as a surprise. DFLA has had a productive relationship both with the campaign and the early stages of the new Administration. To have no opportunity to weigh in on this controversial issue signals a cooling of our relations. DFLA is against President Obama’s decision, period. There are workable and successful options available to private sector research operations that use umbilical cord blood and non embryonic stem cells. To frame this decision as a necessity to cure finding medical research is not accurate. While we have zero confidence that a call for reversal of this Executive Order will prevail, we are hopeful that the President will heed our call for common ground solutions in dealing with pro-life Democrats.”
Moral Accountability congratulates Democrats for Life on their unequivocal condemnation of President Obama’s executive order. We hope that all pro-lifers who supported Barack Obama will join pro-lifers like ourselves who found Obama’s denial of the inherent and equal dignity of every human person unacceptable in opposing each and every attack on the most defenseless members of the human family.
USA Today: “Mr. President, we need more than lip service” – David Gushee
“Centrist evangelicals like me embraced Barack Obama’s campaign pledge to help bridge the gaps of the culture wars. Instead, the president’s short record on abortion-related issues is familiar- and disappointing – rather than revolutionary.”
Prominent evangelical David Gushee, distinguished university professor of Christian Ethics at Mercer University and president of Evangelicals for Human Rights, reflects on President Obama’s deeply disappointing executive orders and presidential appointments.
During the presidential campaign, self-identified pro-life supporters of Barack Obama claimed that despite differences between Obama and John McCain on abortion, the two candidates had the same position on embryonic stem cell research. The truth is, though, that they did not. Although McCain supported efforts to lift Bush administration funding limitations for research on cell lines derived from IVF embryos left in a cryopreserved state in assisted reproduction clinics and then donated for research, he emphatically opposed human cloning for any purpose, including the creation of human embryos by cloning (or any other procedure) for research in which they would be killed. McCain’s position on human embryos was “no creation for destruction.” By contrast, Obama supported legislation that would allow human cloning for the purpose of creating embryos for research so long as those nascent human beings were then destroyed or discarded and not implanted. In his executive order on stem-cell research policy, President Obama has gone even farther by authorizing the use of federal taxpayer dollars for research involving the destruction of human embryos created by cloning. This is an unprecedented and truly radical step.
RCP: Morally Unserious in the Extreme – Krauthammer
Washington Post: Behind the Cell Curve: Why is Obama Ignoring a Scientific Fact? – Parker
Weekly Standard: Perpetuating a Needless Stem Cell War – Ryan Anderson
Wall Street Journal: The President Politicizes Stem-Cell Research – Robert P. George and Eric Cohen
NRO: Obama’s False Choice – Yuval Levin
By Yuval Levin, Ethics and Public Policy Center
Amidst the fawning press coverage of President Obama’s overturning of the Bush stem cell funding policy, it is important to understand a few basic facts about what he has and has not done. Read More »
By Michael J. New, University of Alabama
President Obama’s nomination of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius for Secretary of Health and Human Services has set off a firestorm of controversy in Catholic political circles. A number of Catholic organizations, citing Sebelius’ steadfast support for legal abortion and her cozy relationship with notorious late term abortionist George Tiller, have publicly come out in opposition to her nomination. Sebelius’ own archbishop, Joseph Naumann has expressed concerns about her nomination as well. However, some progressive Catholic organizations, most notably Catholics United, have come to defense of Sebelius. Furthermore, instead of shying away from the abortion issue, Catholics United is boldly arguing that Sebelius is functionally pro-life. They argue that the health and welfare policies Sebelius pursued as Governor resulted in a significant abortion decline in Kansas.
However, this abortion reduction argument put forth by Catholics United is problematic for several reasons. First and foremost, abortion statistics from Kansas are among the least reliable in the country. Between 1979 and 1987 data from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment indicate that the number of abortions performed in Kansas fell by almost 50 percent. Then between 1987 and 1992 the number of abortions suddenly increased by 73 percent. The Kansas Department of Health and Environment states that these sharp fluctuations are partly due to changes in reporting and not the actual incidence of abortion. Furthermore, according to data from the CDC, 40 percent of Kansas abortions are performed on out of state residents, which is one of the highest figures in the country. Read More »
Excerpts from Archbishop Joseph Naumann’s column in The Leaven archdiocesan newspaper published March 6, 2009. Read the entire column at www.theleaven.com
The appointment of Governor Sebelius as the Secretary of Health and Human Services concerns me on many levels. With her history of support for legalized abortion and embryonic stem cell research, it is troubling the important influence that she will have on shaping health care policies for our nation.
I am also concerned personally for Governor Sebelius. Her appointment as Health and Human Services Secretary places her in a position where, unless she is prepared to reverse her own long held positions, will involve her with the development and implementation of policies that will only deepen her cooperation with the destruction of innocent human life. Read More »
By Michael Fragoso, Center for Human Life and Bioethics of the Family Research Council
On December 18th, 2008, the Department of Health and Human Services promulgated regulations on the conscience rights of healthcare professionals. While the regulations themselves are new, conscience protection of medical personnel at the federal level dates back to the time of Roe v. Wade in the form of the Church Amendments (42 U.S.C. 3001-7). Conscience rights are protected in two additional components of federal law: the Public Health Services Act §245 (42 U.S.C. 238n , also known as the “Coats Amendment”), and the Weldon Amendment 9 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub L. 110-161, §508(d), 121 Stat. 1844, 2209). The regulations promulgated by HHS, entitled “Ensuring that Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices In Violation of Federal Law” are an effort to provide a stronger regulatory context for the existing laws. Read More »
