Now, he is the most pro-life Democrat in the Senate, but unfortunately, that’s not saying much.
Aid for pregnant women key to fewer abortions by Sen. Bob Casey
I am a pro-life Democrat. I believe that life begins at conception and ends when we draw our last breath and that we must protect life at every point in that process.
Actually, Bobby, you believe that life begins at implantation. At least, you would have to, considering your support for emergency contraception, which can destroy a fertilized egg by preventing it from implanting in the womb. You certainly couldn’t support something that you think destroys an innocent unborn life, now could you?
My actions as a U.S. senator have been consistent with this philosophy. I have voted against federal funding of stem cell research that would destroy living embryos.
Sure, you voted against it… while campaigning for the very man who, by executive order, forced federal funding of stem cell research that would destroy living embryos. But you had to support Obama, because he’s… uh… for hope and change, yeah, that’s the ticket!
I have voted to codify the federal regulation that provides unborn children with health coverage under the Children’s Health Insurance Program.
How bold of you to vote for an expansion to a government program! I’m sure that made you plenty of enemies in the Democratic Party.
I have voted to prohibit funding to organizations that support coercive abortions.
And yet you supported Obama’s repeal of the Mexico City Policy, thereby forcing us all fund foreign organizations which perform abortions. Your justification? That you want to help these organizations buy condoms for people. Wonderful. Next we can help Hamas buy food for widows.
I have voted to prohibit circumvention of parental involvement in abortion decisions.
Of course, unfortunately, the presidential candidate you strongly endorsed wants to pass the FOCA. But it’s OK, because according to you, Congress will never pass the FOCA. Right.
I have consistently supported the Hyde Amendment and the Helms Amendment regarding federal funding of abortions or abortion-related services.
Yep, more pro-life legislation which is on Obama’s chopping block. Who did you support for president, again, Bobby?
And I have worked closely with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and other faith groups to introduce S. 270, the Pregnant Women Support Act — last year and again last month. This legislation would reduce the number of abortions by providing health care, education, counseling, nutrition, pre-natal care, and information for pregnant women.
Kudos to you for that, Casey, and I mean it. I do support that. But again, you can hardly be called a hero for voting for an expansion in government power. It’s not like Democrats have any qualms with that.
Many pro-life activists talk about one strategy only — the appointment of a justice who may tip the Supreme Court against Roe v.Wade.
Wrong, Bobby. Most pro-life activists also seek to help pregnant women, whether through government aid or private charities and churches.
I understand this approach. I, too, believe that Roe was wrongly decided. I strongly oppose the Freedom of Choice Act which would codify the Roe decision. While this bill has not been introduced, I will oppose it if it is introduced.
Too bad we don’t have a president who would have vetoed it. Too bad you didn’t campaign for a candidate who would have vetoed it.
What we don’t often hear is the reality that overturning Roe will not outlaw abortions — it will send the question to state legislatures. Many states will legalize abortion in some or most circumstances. And that is assuming that five justices will put aside the principal of stare decisis and overturn a 35-year-old ruling.
So, Bobby, you believe that Roe was wrongly decided, but then you whine that overturning it would be a violation of stare decisis? Make up your mind, will you? Either Roe is constitutional or it isn’t.
What are we doing now to help the unborn? Does the fifth-justice strategy help support pregnant women who need help in order to choose life? Does it help women think through their options? Does it provide assistance to teenagers and college students so they can have their babies and stay in school? Does it help pregnant women who have abusive partners get the support they need? Does it eliminate pregnancy as a pre-existing condition in the individual health insurance market? Does it provide home visitation to young mothers without support? The answer, sadly, is no. Neither party does enough to help pregnant women.
Does campaigning for a pro-abortion president help women choose life? Does supporting a pro-abortion party help women choose life? Does funding Planned Parenthood, which encourages women to abort, help women choose life? Does Obama’s plan to discourage charitable giving help women choose life? Does teaming up with organizations who think that unborn children are worthless blobs of tissue to help you get elected help women choose life? Does the Democratic Party leadership’s endless mockery of pro-lifers and endless attacks on so-called “conservative” Catholics help women choose life? I agree that neither party does enough to help pregnant women, but it would certainly help if YOUR party would stop fighting tooth and nail to ensure that women kill their “inconvenient” children.
My bill would address these urgent priorities. It also would provide funding for centers that help pregnant women, young mothers and babies with such critical needs as child care, educational support, counseling, parenting classes, business skills training, emergency aid, nutrition education and food assistance.
As someone said to your lackey during the March for Life, this is a no-brainer which should have been passed years ago. One would have to wonder why the Democratic Party, which never saw an increase in government power it didn’t like, hasn’t already done this.
Recent research finds that the abortion rate among women living below the poverty level ($10,830 in 2009) is more than four times that of women with an annual income above 300 percent of the poverty level, or $32,490. We know that 48 percent of all pregnancies are unintended and, excluding miscarriages, 54 percent of unintended pregnancies end in abortion. “Cannot afford a baby” is the second most frequently cited reason why women choose to have an abortion and 73 percent of women having abortions cited it as a contributing factor.
So women abort because they cannot afford a baby? That’s not very “pro-choice”, is it? Maybe you should tell that to the leaders of your party who insist that women need abortion because they need bodily autonomy.
A woman facing the challenges of an unplanned pregnancy that may be a crisis for her does not need a lecture from a politician or a clinical reminder that she has a simple choice to make. The choice is never simple. Never. This woman needs support and understanding — and genuine assistance. She needs to be embraced in her time of crisis, not sent on her way to deal with it on her own. She needs our help; she needs us to walk with her, not only throughout the nine months of her pregnancy, but also for the early months and years of her child’s life.
Too bad your party doesn’t agree with the scientific reality that the unborn child is in fact a child. Instead we are forced to argue with your party whether or not an unborn child should have legal protections or if it’s just a blob of tissue. Obviously if it’s a child and not a blob it’s much easier to protect its rights and secure assistance for it through government aid and private charities. Wouldn’t you agree?
When I re-introduced the Pregnant Women Support Act, I renewed my hope and determination to achieve genuine common ground in reducing abortions. The research clearly shows that economic and social supports like those in my bill effectively reduce abortions. Surely we can all agree that this approach must be part of the solution to this decades-old battle — a battle that has achieved little other than bitter polarization and stalemate. My bill will reduce the number of abortions in America.
You’re right, it will. That’s why I support it. I’m shocked it wasn’t already passed ages ago. But you know what else would reduce the number of abortions in America? Having a pro-life president who supports pro-life legislation and pro-life judges. Maybe you should find a pro-life presidential candidate so you can join his or her campaign.
Polarizing rhetoric and false choices don’t help the unborn. Supporting pregnant women does. As we embark on a new era in our country, I ask Pennsylvanians to join me, to join together in common purpose to truly help pregnant women so that many more will choose life for their unborn children.
I support the Pregnant Women Support Act, Bobby, because this is something that should have passed a long time ago. Who could possibly be against helping pregnant women? Unfortunately, YOUR party insists that ONLY government can help pregnant women. YOUR party plans to discourage citizens from giving to charities which help pregnant women. YOUR party makes any and all pro-life activists out to be evil beasts who hate women. YOUR party is in bed with NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and other horrible pro-abortion organizations which sell sex and abortion to teenagers.
How can I or any other pro-lifer take you seriously when you happily and enthusiastically campaigned for the most pro-abortion and most anti-Catholic president we have ever had? You’re right about us embarking on a “new era”, Bobby, but it will be an era of inhumanity, and the Obama years will go down in history as a time of hopelessness where the only “change” was for the worse. The only hope for America lies in prying power out of the hands of the Democratic Party as soon as possible.
Comments, compliments or complaints? Email John Lewandowski, Join the other 2 commenters or
Share This...