Pro-life defeats in Congress
On September 6, 2007, the Senate voted on the “Boxer amendment” regarding the longstanding Mexico City policy, which had prevented federal money from flowing to foreign organizations that promote and / or perform abortion as a method of family planning. (We might think of the Boxer Amendment, then, as a big-money sop to a powerful corporate special interest, i.e., Planned Parenthood. One suspects, of course, that this is not how the Amendment will be cast in the press.)
Here is the roll-call vote. Only one Democrat — Ben Nelson, not Robert Casey — voted to preserve the policy. Also, the Senate rejected the Brownback Amendment, which would have prohibited contributions to organizations that promote and / or perform abortions as a method of family planning. Two Democrats — Ben Nelson and Robert Casey — voted in support of the Amendment. The Senate agreed, however — just barely (!!) — to another Brownback Amendment, which denies federal money to groups that “support coercive abortion.” Only two Democrats — Ben Nelson and Robert Casey — supported the Amendment.
Comments are closed.
Although I imagine the pressure on Casey is intense inside the Democratic caucus, he was elected as a pro-lifer….that’s very disappointing.
GW Bush was elected as a pro-life President.. yet brags about being the first President to federally fund embryonic stem cell research.
Pro-life politics as usual (from both sides).
Jonathan, if I remember correctly, Casey was NOT completely pro-life like his father. He is against some abortions but not all. This vote confirms his support for “some.”
I only followed the race from afar, but it sure seemed that he wanted to be seen as pro-life.
And as far as stem cells go, Bush articulated a policy (with large amounts of input from faithful Catholics) well within the culture of life.
Jonathan,
Funding embryonic stem cell research of any kind is not within the culture of life. To glorify it in debates (as he did) shows to me he does not truly believe what he says.
I disagree. He was firm in the decision to not fund the destruction of living human embryos, and his first veto disallowed the loosening of the restrictions on federal funding for stem-cell research.
This is exactly why I did not vote for Casey in the last election. He was portrayed as “pro-life” here, a harmful label because it took “conservative” votes away from Santorum, who certainly would have voted the right way on this amendment.
I don’t get what Casey was doing. He voted for the Brownback amendment, which would seem to have extended the Mexico City policy (and which some Republican senators who I thought were pro-life – Lugar, Stevens, Gordon Smith – voted against) and he voted for the Boxer amendment which says specifically:
Sec. 699B. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, regulation, or policy, in determining eligibility for assistance authorized under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.), foreign nongovernmental organizations shall not be ineligible for such assistance solely on the basis of health or medical services, including counseling and referral services, provided by such organizations with non-United States Government funds if such services do not violate the laws of the country in which they are being provided and would not violate United States Federal law if provided in the United States, and shall not be subject to requirements relating to the use of non-United States Government funds for advocacy and lobbying activities other than those that apply to United States nongovernmental organizations receiving assistance under part I of such Act.
Whatever was going on, this is a disappointment from him.
Jonathan,
He himself said he funded embryonic stem cell research and he was the first to do so; yes he limited it to those already brutally murdered, but again, do you want Jack the Ripper to be given funds to experiment on his victims? I don’t.
Although the decision provides funding for research on cell lines which were created by means of moral offense, the decision also firmly ends the practice while so long as he is in office. There are also other incentives not to destroy any more human embryos, and the president’s rhetoric actions have generally matched his culture of life rhetoric.
In terms of leadership in a political climate stacked strongly against the moral position, he did well.
Jonathan,
You miss the point. The point being, of course, obfuscation of the fact that the “progressive” party who supports so many good things and opposes so many bad things also happens to have sold its soul to Planned Parenthood / NARAL / NOW / Emily’s List / etc.
Pointing out that Bush has been insufficiently pro-life on the issues of abortion and ESCR is so much easier than having to defend the full-fledged sell out to the culture of death that the “progressives” voting in favor of the Boxer Amendment represents.
I’d call it moral equivalence, but it’s not even that. It’s pointing out the speck in Bush’s eye while ignoring the pro-abortion / pro-ESCR plank in the “progressives” eyes.
You know, because otherwise they support the “correct” policies.
And look, I’m no Bush defender. I think the guy has screwed up just about everything he could possibly screw up.
But this is one area where he has been very good. Certainly not perfect, but very good. And for that he deserves to get some credit rather than having his record compared to those who just voted to rescind the Mexico City Policy.
It’s just politics as usual — pro-life statements are dime a dozen, no matter what party one is from. As long as one makes it an issue of party politics and “well, Bush is ok with less killing than the others, so it is only a speck in his eye,” one has already given way to the culture of death.
It is not ok. Nor is it ok to fund people to do scientific experiments on their victims. Only one who truly believes it is a victim will see how insane it is to support such behavior.
“… Bush is ok with less killing than the others, so it is only a speck in his eye, one has already given way to the culture of death.”
Yes, I am the minion of Death himself.
Look, I acknowledge that Bush made a mistake in funding those existing stem lines. It was morally wrong for him to do so.
And if it makes you feel morally superior to keep grasping at that as if it is the sum total of the man’s record on abortion and ESCR, and to paint it as the moral equivalent of those who want to go full-bore in funding ECSR and who vote to rescind the Mexico City Policy, then go right ahead. There are just some who are loathe to give the man credit for anything. He’s all bad, right? Someone who goes to war with Iraq, etc., etc., couldn’t possibly have any redeeming qualities when it comes to his policies on abortion and ESCR.
But for those who want to acknowldedge when people do manage to get some things right, we will note that Bush, whatever else his faults, has taken a stand on the issues of abortion and ESCR when it has probably cost him politically (especially ESCR).
Again, for that he deseres to get some credit rather than having his record on those issues compared to those who just voted to rescind the Mexico City Policy.
FYI, Casey has since changed his vote(!) on the Brownback amendment.
“The contradictory votes received little attention, but certainly neither made sense in the context of the other. This Monday, however, Casey resolved the tension. He went to the floor of the Senate and announced that on the Brownback amendment, “it was my intention to vote ‘nay.’ Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome of that vote.””
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWEyY2Y1YWZmY2VmNmY0YzBlYWI4ZmQyNDE5ZjM4NGI=