- Arizona General Election
- Ballot Propositions
- Big Abortion
- Big Government
- Border Invasion
- Candidate loses endorsement
- Church & State
- Faith & Families
- Faith & Freedom
- Health Insurance
- Hillary Clinton
- Homosexual Agenda
- John Semmens
- Judicial activism
- Left-Stream Media
- National Defense
- Planned Parenthood
- President Reagan
- President Washington
- Prop 122
- Prop 487
- Radical Environmentalism
- Reading Assignments
- Religious Freedom
- Religious Liberty
- Sanctuary cities
- Sheriff Arpaio
- Soviet Union
- The Arizona Conservative University
- The Left
- Poll: 2016 U.S. Senate Election in Arizona
- McCain Angers ACU with False Claims about Conservatism
- Center for Arizona Policy: A Good and Balanced Law
- The Pillars of Modern American Conservatism
- Conservative Coalition Eliminates Huckabee, Santorum, Perry, Among Others
- Memorial Day Arizona: Thank You, Courageous Veterans
- Failure to Disclose $26 Million in Bribes an “Oversight” Says CEO
- Homosexual Group Wants to Deny Children Their Mother or Their Father
- Feds Warn Lenders Not to Deny Loans to Welfare Recipients
- Study: How the Broadcast Networks Have Deleted Hillary’s E-Mail Scandal
Category Archives: Congress
By Michelle Moons, Breitbart.com
Senator John McCain (R-AZ)’s campaign team is getting called out by the very organization whose rating it cited on Twitter. Team McCain advertised his 91 percent rating in 2014 from conservative group ACU as the Washington insider heads into a tough 2016 campaign season. What it doesn’t mention is his abysmal 2013 rating of 52 percent or his history of higher ratings going into re-election fights.
The American Conservative Union (ACU), host of the hugely popular Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), rates Congressional officeholders year over year.
McCain’s lifetime ACU based on 32 years in office is 82.13 percent. Looking back over the past decade, the numbers vary widely, and spiked during his 2010 primary challenge.
2006: 65 percent
2007: 80 percent
2008: 63 percent
2009: 96 percent
2010: 100 Percent (as he faced primary challenger J.D. Hayworth)
2011: 80 percent
2012: 92 percent
2013: 52 percent
2014: 91 percent
McCain certainly seems concerned. He’s taken to Twitter to boost his image:
— Team McCain (@TeamMcCain)
The ACU replied to McCain’s tweet with the following:
Yo @TeamMcCain get the numbers right. he got a 91 in ’14, but a 52 in ’13. Even by Common Core standards thats a 72% or a D+
— The ACU (@ACUConservative)
Arizonans have wearied of McCain. What many Arizonans remember is the promise he made in his infamous “build the danged fence” border security campaign ad.
Republicans in his own state officially censured him in 2014, the year he claims a lofty conservative rating. Since the censure reports have surfaced that McCain and his allies have launched a political cleansing of their Arizona leadership, ousting one conservative Republican after another. Politico reported that after the censure, McCain’s team sought to, “unseat conservative activists who hold obscure, but influential, local party offices.”
Just before announcing his re-election effort, worried emails began pouring from the McCain camp. “I’m going to be the target of a wide array of powerful groups,” he said in a plea for his own re-election. That letter was quickly followed with a worried message from his wife, emphasizing fear-invoking dangers in the world and a plea to keep her husband in office.
Arizona State Senator Kelli Ward opened an exploratory committee in March that will help her determine whether she has the political and financial path available to challenge McCain in what she has called a battle on the scale of David vs. Goliath.
U.S. Representative Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ) has been quiet about whether he intends to challenge McCain, but that remains a possibility. Salmon told the Hill he has yet to announce whether he’s in or out or will even run for re-election to his seat in the House. GOP party leaders have indicated Salmon could delay his decision until the fall.
“I want to express my deepest and sincerest gratitude to my colleagues who not only played a role in the creation and development of The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act but who also voted today to protect little pain-capable unborn babies. I especially want to thank the leadership of the House for bringing it to a vote on this unique day. Protecting those who cannot protect themselves is why we are really all here and today’s vote is a strong reminder of that.
“Exactly 2 years ago to the day, one Kermit Gosnell was convicted of killing a mother and murdering innocent, late term, pain capable babies in his grisly torture chamber abortion clinic. This bill and its passage express our deeply sincere desire to protect both mothers and their little pain capable unborn babies entering their sixth month of pregnancy from the unspeakable cruelty of evil monsters like Kermit Gosnell.
“The historic passage of the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection act proves that those of us privileged to live and breathe in this the land of the free and the home of the brave finally came together with our minds and hearts open to the humanity of these little victims and the inhumanity of what is being done to them.”
Life News reported on the bill …
The vote for the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act broke down on mostly partisan lines with Republicans supporting the ban on late-term abortions and Democrats opposing it. The House approved the bill on a 242-184 vote with four Democrats (Reps. Cuellar, Langevin, Lipinski, and Peterson) voting for the bill and five Republicans voting against it (Reps. Dent, Dold, Hanna, Frelinghuysen) or voting present (Hice). (See very end of this article for how members voted).
Should the Senate approve the bill, President Barack Obama has issued a veto threat. But pro-life groups hope to use the measure as an election tool in 2016 in an attempt to wrest control of the White House and approve a pro-life president who will sign it into law.
During the debate today on a bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks, Congressman Sean Duffy gave what may be one of the most passionate defenses of the pro-life position ever seen on the floor of Congress. Duffy took on the claim often made by Democrats who support abortion saying they stand for the defenseless and voiceless.
“I’ve listened to the floor debate day after day .. about how they fight for the forgotten, they fight for the defenseless, they fight for the voiceless. And they pound their chest and stomp their feet. You don’t have anyone in our society that’s more defenseless than these little babies,” he said. “And we are not taking — I believe in conception. I know my colleagues can’t agree with me on that. Can’t we come together and say we are going to stand with little babies that feel pain, that survive outside the womb? Ones that don’t have lobbyists and money? Don’t we stand with those little babies?”
“If you stand with the defenseless, with the voiceless, you have to stand with little babies. Don’t talk to me about cruelty in our bill — when you look at little babies being dismembered, feeling excruciating pain, if we can’t stand to defend these children, what do we stand for in this institution?” he added.
Once again, Obama is on the wrong side of history …
A national poll by The Polling Company found that, after being informed that there is scientific evidence that unborn children are capable of feeling pain at least by 20 weeks, 64 percent would support a law banning abortion after 20 weeks, unless the mother’s life was in danger. Only 30 percent said they would oppose such a law.
Five-term incumbentSen. John McCain (R-AZ) has good reason to fear a primary challenge. Newly released data from liberal-leaning Public Policy Polling shows half of Arizona’s Republican primary voters disapprove of McCain’s job performance, and more than half would prefer a more conservative Senate candidate in 2016.
After more than three decades in Washington, McCain earns merely 41 percent approval from Arizona Republicans and 36 percent from general Arizona voters, PPP finds. Just 37 percent reported a willingness to support the Senator in his 2016 re-election bid.
In the days leading up to his re-election declaration, McCain and wife Cindy each released letters asking for financial support.
Notably, 51 percent of those surveyed in the poll indicated a desire for someone more conservative than as the 2016 Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Arizona.
The result comes as little surprise, considering that members of McCain’s own party officially censured him on the basis that he has “amassed a long and terrible record of drafting, co-sponsoring and voting for legislation best associated with liberal Democrats, such as amnesty, funding for ObamaCare, the debt ceiling, assaults on the Constitution and 2nd amendment, and has continued to support liberal nominees.”
Since that censure, McCain has accordingly voiced expectation that he will face a primary challenger in 2016.
Large percentages of survey respondents took no position, favorable or unfavorable, on potential McCain challengers State Senator Kelli Ward or former gubernatorial candidate Christine Jones.
With the 2016 primary elections still a year away, McCain’s extensive tenure gives him a big advantage in name ID. Still, every potential McCain challenger measured against the incumbent fell short of overcoming him, though all came within striking distance.
According to poll results, “McCain leads Congressman David Scheikert 40-39 percent, Congressman Matt Salmon 42-40 percent, Kelli Ward 44-31 percent, and Christine Jones 48-27 percent.
State Senator Ward has come the closest to declaring. She opened an exploratory committee in April and has been weighing whether the financial and logistical path to victory is there. She has characterized a McCain challenge as a classic David versus Goliath battle.
Arizonans have a vested interest in border security as residents of a border state. McCain’s critics are unlikely to let the entrenched Washington legislator forget the 2010 “build the danged fence” campaign that McCain launched to shore up his [faux] conservative record. But as many continue to point out, there’s still no “danged fence.”
Each potential challenger is said to have time yet to make an official decision and it appears they are taking that time to weigh whether each can gather the necessary support to take on the political goliath.
Just a few days ago 10 Republican members of the U.S. Senate voted to affirm Loretta Lynch as attorney general of the United States. While we were overjoyed at the departure of Eric Holder — the most lawless, most corrupt attorney general in U.S. history — his replacement is just as bad and totally unacceptable as he is. She should never should have been confirmed. Everyone knows that if the Democrats were in control of the Senate they would have refused to affirm a Republican president’s nominee for attorney general.
Nonetheless, we were curious to see how Arizona’s junior Senator Jeff Flake justified his vote to affirm Lynch. This is the message he posted on his official Senate website:
“I was pleased today to confirm Loretta Lynch as attorney general. While I disagree with Ms. Lynch on many policy positions, I have always believed that the Senate should give deference to the president to pick his Cabinet unless there is something disqualifying in a nominee’s background.
“Furthermore, with Loretta Lynch confirmed, Eric Holder’s tenure as head of the Department of Justice draws to a close. Not a bad day in Washington.”
So it’s “not a bad day in Washington” when the people we sent to D.C. to oppose the most lawless, radical, un-American presidential administration in our history refuse to do their jobs.
Now let’s look at how a real leader — Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, who voted against Lynch’s confirmation — responded to the same responsibility set before him:
The Senate must never confirm an individual to such an office as this who will support and advance a scheme that violates our Constitution and eviscerates established law and Congressional authority. No person who would do that should be confirmed. And we don’t need to be apologetic about it, colleagues.
Ms. Lynch has announced that she supports and, if confirmed, would advance, the president’s unlawful executive amnesty scheme—a scheme that would provide work permits, trillions in Social Security and Medicare benefits, tax credits of up to $35,000 a year (according to the Congressional Research Service), and even the possibility of chain migration and citizenship to those who have entered the country illegally or overstayed their lawful period of admission. The president has done this even though Congress has repeatedly rejected legislation that would implement such a scheme.
President Obama’s unlawful and unconstitutional executive action nullifies current immigration law—the Immigration and Nationality Act—and replaces them with the very measures Congress refused to adopt. Even King George the Third lacked the power to legislate without Parliament.
During her confirmation hearing in the Judiciary Committee, I asked Ms. Lynch plainly whether she supported the president’s unilateral decision to make his own immigration laws. Here is the relevant portion of the hearing transcript:
Sessions: I have to have a clear answer to this question—Ms. Lynch, do you believe the executive action announced by President Obama on November 20th is legal and Constitutional? Yes or no?
Lynch: As I’ve read the [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion, I do believe it is, Senator.
Of course, the lawful duty of the Attorney General is to enforce the law that exists, not one she or the president might wish existed.
One of the most stunning elements of the president’s scheme is the grant of work permits to up to 5 million illegal immigrants—taking jobs directly from citizens and legal immigrants.
Peter Kirsanow, Commissioner on the United States Commission on Civil Rights has written at length about how this undermines the rights of U.S. workers, especially African-American workers, and other minorities, suffering from high unemployment. At her confirmation hearing, I asked Ms. Lynch about what she might do to protect the rights of legal U.S. workers. Here is the exchange in question:
Sessions: Who has more right to a job in this country? A lawful immigrant who’s here or a citizen—or a person who entered the country unlawfully?
Lynch: I believe that the right and the obligation to work is one that’s shared by everyone in this country regardless of how they came here. And certainly, if someone is here, regardless of status, I would prefer that they would be participating in the workplace than not participating in the workplace.
This is a breathtaking statement. It is unprecedented for someone who is seeking the highest law enforcement office in America to declare that someone in the country illegally has a “right” to take a job.
This nation is—as George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley has put it—at “a constitutional tipping point.” Professor Turley, who is a nationally recognized constitutional scholar and self-described supporter of President Obama and his policies, testified before the House of Representatives in February 2014, 9 months before the president announced his unprecedented executive action:
“The current passivity of Congress represents a crisis of faith for members willing to see a president assume legislative powers in exchange for insular policy gains. The short-term, insular victories achieved by this president will come at a prohibitive cost if the current imbalance is not corrected. Constitutional authority is easy to lose in the transient shifts of politics. It is far more difficult to regain. If a passion for the Constitution does not motivate members, perhaps a sense of self-preservation will be enough to unify members. President Obama will not be our last president. However, these acquired powers will be passed to his successors. When that occurs, members may loathe the day that they remained silent as the power of government shifted so radically to the chief executive. The powerful personality that engendered this loyalty will be gone, but the powers will remain. We are now at the constitutional tipping point for our system. If balance is to be reestablished, it must begin before this president leaves office and that will likely require every possible means to reassert legislative authority.”
One of those means is the advice and consent power. It was created for just such a time as this. It is not only appropriate, but necessary, that the Senate refuse to confirm a president’s nominees when that president has overreached and assumed the legislative powers of Congress. It is particularly necessary when the president’s nominee is being appointed specifically for the improper purpose of advancing the president’s unconstitutional overreach—all through the powers of the office to which they have been nominated.
Congress must not confirm anyone to lead the United States Department of Justice who will advance the president’s unconstitutional actions. Congress has a limited number of powers to defend the Rule of Law and itself as an institution and to stop the Executive Branch from overreaching. It is unthinkable that we would ignore one of those powers in the face of such a direct threat to our constitutional order—and it is part of an escalating pattern of overreach.
Every day that we allow the president to erode the powers of Congress, we are allowing the president to erode the sacred Constitutional rights of the citizens we serve. We have a duty to this institution, to the Constitution, and to the American people not to confirm someone who is not committed to those principles but rather who will continue in violation of them. For those reasons, I will oppose this nomination and I urge my colleagues, regardless of party, to do the same.”
Senator Sessions, you are an inspiration and a true patriot and leader. We applaud your courage and your integrity in standing up to evil and to minimize harm to this great nation. You are doing what you were elected to do.
As for you, Senator Flake, the same cannot be said. We do not compound one mistake by replacing it with a second mistake. The lack of reasoning, the void of depth and intellect in your brief, casual statement is stunning. And unacceptable.
By Casey Mattox
It has been 22 years since President Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law. For two decades it has applied to every law in the District of Columbia and the federal government. In the intervening decades, 20 other states have followed suit with their own state RFRAs. These RFRAs hold government to a high burden of proof when it burdens religious exercise. Under RFRA, there are no guaranteed outcomes, but the government cannot take burdens on religious exercise lightly.
In two decades of RFRAs, the world has not ended. In fact, not a single person who identifies as homosexual has been harmed by these RFRAs. None. This may come as a surprise to you if you have watched any of the media coverage or been on social media for the last several days. The unhinged claims from the Left have been entirely detached from the reality that these laws have actually existed for decades and have never resulted in any of the things they worry will happen. This is not new. Dire warnings that are unsurprisingly not confirmed by future events have been a common theme in arguments from the Left in recent years.
Prophesying Doom that Never Materializes
The Equal Access Act is the reason your child can have a Fellowship of Christian Athletes group at school. Most Americans would think that permitting students to voluntarily get together before school to pray is a good thing. But when Congress considered the act in 1984, some Democrats, including then-Rep. Barbara Boxer, opposed it because allowing Christian students to gather to pray “could usher in KKK and Nazi” student groups. More than 30 years later, it is clear Boxer was on the wrong side of history. Her worry that letting kids study the Bible would lead to “Mein Kampf” has not been realized.
Boxer’s worry that letting kids study the Bible would lead to ‘Mein Kampf’ has not been realized.
When the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2006, abortionists argued that approximately 2,200 partial-birth abortions per year were necessary for health reasons. This was important because the law lacked any health exception (except to save the mother’s life). When the Supreme Court issued its opinion eight years ago in April 2007, it held that the law was generally constitutional.
However, the Court invited any abortionist or woman filing a new challenge to show why a partial-birth abortion was necessary in one of those 2,200-per-year instances. Planned Parenthood warned of consequences for women’s health from the decision, just as Justice Ginsburg wrote in a dissent: “One may anticipate that such a preenforcement challenge will be mounted swiftly, to ward off serious, sometimes irremediable harm, to women whose health would be endangered by the intact D&E prohibition.”
Eight years later, no such complaint has been filed. I’m not aware of a single example of any woman who was harmed by not being able to have a partial-birth abortion procedure in that time.
There are three possible reasons: (1) by incredible fortune, the threats to women’s health making partial-birth abortion necessary ceased on April 18, 2007; (2) Women are harmed daily, but Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry lack the resources to file the invited lawsuits; (3) the claim that partial-birth abortion was necessary to protect women’s health was a lie.
Finally, when Texas passed HB2, the pro-life law that brought stardom to Wendy Davis, a primary focus of abortion supporters who opposed the bill was its prohibition on abortions after 20 weeks gestation, when the unborn child is capable of feeling pain. This provision was the centerpiece of the controversy, and Davis opposed it at length. But while virtually every part of the Texas law has been challenged in the intervening two years, the prohibition on abortions after 20 weeks has never been challenged. It has been Texas law since October 2013.
Time to Stop Listening
And Texas isn’t alone. Laws like it have been enacted in 13 states. But despite their cries of harm to women’s health, abortionists have only challenged these laws in the Ninth Circuit and in a now-pending Georgia state court case. At least 10 of these laws, including Texas’s, are in effect without legal challenge. As MSNBC reported, there is
a strategic reason to avoid challenging that [20-week] ban…. [A] Texas challenge would go to the conservative Fifth Circuit. Not only would that court potentially uphold the law…, the combination of decisions would create a split in the circuits that would make the Supreme Court likelier to hear it.
This is their choice. But at some point when your warnings of imminent harm are stifled by your own prudential choices, and none of the bad consequences you warn about ever happen, perhaps your claims just aren’t true. That’s critically important to keep in mind with the needless hysteria happening now over completely mischaracterized state religious freedom laws.
But history need not repeat itself. In the children’s story, when Peter repeatedly cries, “Wolf!” the townspeople finally stop listening. It’s time to stop giving credence to the Left’s cries.
Multiple conservative groups rebelled right out of the gate to Senator John McCain’s announcement that he will indeed seek re-election in what is expected to be a historic 2016 election cycle.
Within hours of McCain’s announcement both Conservative Review and the Senate Conservatives Fund had emailed to rally supporters against McCain. The messages pointed out McCain’s record and weakened position. Senate Conservatives Fund called for a strong show of support to oust a weakened McCain and elect a fresh face to represent Arizona in the U.S. Senate.
Conservative Review grants McCain an “F” with a 48 percent rating, calling out McCain for an extensive 32-year entrenchment in Washington. CR Editor Gaston Mooney said, “McCain’s consistent support for gun control, cap and trade, amnesty, and tax increases have put him at odds with just about every coalition inside the Republican Party and recent straw polls have shown that he is vulnerable. McCain pandered to the right in 2008 and now he is at it again.”
“There are few Republicans who have betrayed our conservative principles more than John McCain,” read the Senate Conservatives Fund letter. “McCain lost his way a long time ago.”
Both messages criticize McCain for his part in the “Gang of Eight” immigration reform and his support for amnesty, his vote for the taxpayer funded “Wall Street” bailout, his vote to fund implementation of Obamacare and criticism of efforts to halt that funding, opposition to a $1.3 trillion tax cut, support for a $600 billion tax hike, repeated votes to raise the debt limit and voting against term limits.
Mincing no words, the Senate Conservatives letter refers to McCain as “one of the most anti-conservative RINOs in the Senate.”
Senate Conservatives Fund is asking those supportive of a McCain alternative to put their money where their mouth is with a financial contribution and signature on their “Replace John McCain” in 2016 petition.
The grass roots, urges the letter, “is asking for our help,” citing polling that says 98 percent want a conservative alternative to McCain.
“To replace John McCain, we need to get hundreds of thousands of patriots united and working together. The Republican establishment in Washington will pour millions of dollars into this race to save him.”
According to FEC records, the Friends of John McCain campaign committee held $2 million in cash on hand at the end of 2014. Almost $1.2 million of that came from 2008 presidential campaign committee funds transferred in 2013, in addition to $1.3 million in individual contributions. It comes as no surprise that the National Republican Senatorial Committee is supportive of McCain as the “Friends of John McCain” committeetransferred $265,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 2014 and late 2013.
“President Lincoln explained that the role of government in caring for veterans is “To care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow, and his orphan.” Unfortunately, the Phoenix VA is ground zero for the tragic failures of bloated, big government bureaucracies. It is demonstrative of the chaos of government empowering itself with the care of our veterans rather than empowering the veteran herself or himself.
“I fear that the mismanagement and lack-of-care provided to our veterans in Phoenix and around the country will be a microcosm of what we can expect from Obamacare, which puts government in control of healthcare, rather than the doctor and the patient.
“Last year Congress attempted to empower veterans by passing sweeping legislation that would provide better access to quality care. Unfortunately, failure by the executive to implement these changes only allowed access to relatively few.
“When it comes to serving those who have served us all with honor and distinction, the buck stops at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I am encouraged that President Obama has finally decided to visit the Phoenix VA Hospital to hear about the travesties that took place there. It is my hope that he personally invests himself to ensure that what took place here never happens again.”
By Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council
|The streets of Washington were warming up just as pro-life action was heating up inside Congress! Late Wednesday, a handful of Republicans managed to derail an effort that had been underway for months on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act — stalling a bill that pro-lifers had hoped to celebrate during today’s March for Life.
After meeting all day with conservatives, House Rules Committee Chair Pete Sessions (R-Texas) made the reluctant decision to pull the pain ban and replace it with another pro-life measure, H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act, which is another one of FRC’s top priorities.
The plan had been to move Rep. Trent Franks’s (R-Ariz.) five-month abortion limit first and then turn off the spigot for federal dollars for abortion next. Unfortunately, that plan was spoiled — not by liberal Democrats, but so-called pro-life Republican women like Renee Ellmers (N.C.) and Jackie Walorski (Ind.). Both had previously voted for the measure but last week began organizing opposition to the rape and incest reporting requirements, which were a part of the compromise they help reached in the last Congress. What the reporting requirement does is simple: it insists that anyone who says they were raped and seeks an abortion after the fifth month of pregnancy has to report the assault to authorities.
If Ellmers and others had picked this fight before, pro-lifers might understand. But the reality is, Ellmers and her RINO allies voted for this exact same language in 2013 when the Pain-Capable bill passed the House. So you can understand why groups like FRC were confused — not only by the timing of this stand (just days before a vote that had been planned since last year), but by the group’s sudden opposition.
While I was on Capitol Hill yesterday meeting with members, FRC’s government affairs team and thousands of you around the country tried to rally the House to overcome these obstacles. Ultimately, leadership decided it would be best to put the bill on hold for now and fast-track the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act. For Ellmers and others, the backlash since last night’s betrayal has been severe. Today, the North Carolina politician tried to put out the fires of withdrawing her co-sponsorship by insisting that she was still “pro-life.” She’ll have an uphill climb proving it, after sidelining one of the first real meaningful unborn protections of the new Congress.
Of course, some are quick to put the blame at House leadership’s feet. I’m not one of them. As Rep. Franks said later, this isn’t the end of H.R. 36. “GOP leaders want to try to create as much unity as we can.” Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), the lead GOP sponsor of the bill that replaced Franks’s — and one of the strongest advocates for the unborn the U.S. House has ever seen — agreed. The Pain-Capable measure is “only delayed,” he promised, as we “just work through some bits.”
While this isn’t exactly how pro-lifers planned to mark the 42nd March for Life, we were just as thrilled that House conservatives united to pass the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act — a bill that would permanently wall off taxpayers from the bloody business of abortion in ObamaCare and other federal legislation. For Rep. Smith, Democratic sponsor Rep Dan Lipinski (Ill.), and the entire movement, seeing the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion pass the House was tremendous victory, several years in the making. And not just for us — but for an overwhelming number of Americans who support the idea (68% according to this morning’s polling).
To the credit of House leaders, all but one Republican — even the wobbly ones — voted yes on the bill. As disappointed as we are at the handful of members who delayed the pain ban, we applaud the House leadership for remaining committed to advancing pro-life legislation.
While hundreds of thousands poured out on the National Mall with fresh hope for the conservative majority, members inside the Capitol were giving legs to that optimism. To observe the solemn anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the House took a stand to save the children of “choice” by creating a blanket ban on taxpayer-funded abortion across the entire government, permanently.
From the government’s abortion surcharge to the abortion-heavy D.C. plans (which FRC’s exposed), Americans are more implicated than ever in the procedure that a majority oppose. Liberals insist the country doesn’t need H.R. 7 because it has the Hyde Amendment (which prevents taxpayer-funding of abortion in federal appropriations bills). But unlike H.R. 7, the Hyde Amendment has to be reauthorized every year to stay in effect. The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act would save Congress from that annual fight and political horse-trading that takes place just to keep taxpayers mostly out of the abortion business.
H.R. 7 will create a permanent, government-wide ban on abortion funding — not just for health care bills, but also for overseas aid, and anything else that Congress subsidizes. As plenty of research shows, that doesn’t just save money — it saves lives! And what better way could we commemorate this day than that?
If you’re reading this, you know well that digital media is one of the central battlegrounds of the pro-life movement. Today at FRC headquarters, digital media specialists from around country gathered to talk about how to best move America to a culture of life online. From the professional to the public servant to the personal, the 10th annual ProLifeCon offered motivation to anyone who speaks out online that we can make a difference.
Senators Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and James Lankford (R-Okla.) gave us their perspectives of this year’s pro-life potential on the Hill. We also heard from our friends who head pro-life organizations like Senator Rick Santorum, Star Parker, Kristan Hawkins, Charmaine Yoest, and Roland Warren.
Susan Gallucci gave us a poignant look at the positive work that can be done at a maternity home like D.C.’s Northwest Center. Film producer Ann McElhinney joined us by Skype to talk about going the masses to fund their movie about abortionist Kermit Gosnell. Chelsea Patterson encouraged the audience about the power of a person’s own story in standing for life. Miss Delaware 2011 Maria Cahill showed us how the lasting rewards of serving a worthy cause are more important than any earthly crown. Jenna Gassew and Dan Haley shared the powerful story of their baby Shane and how even a terminal diagnosis in the womb didn’t mean that his life didn’t matter. I also had the privilege of presenting pro-life blogger Jill Stanek with FRC’s inaugural Digital Pro-Life Pioneer Award for excellence in paving the way in being a voice for the unborn online. If you missed it, you can watch all the day’s action on-demand here:
** FRC also marked the Roe anniversary by writing a couple of key columns, including Ken Blackwell’s Washington Times piece, “Aborting Black America” and Rob Schwarzwalder’s “The Abortion Industry: A Study in Predation.”
Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.