Missouri  RIGHT TO LIFE News

Thought you'd like to know . . .

. . . . . The nation's largest association of Christian doctors hailed the passage by the U.S. House of Representatives of the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act by a vote of 229-189. The executive director of the 16,000-member Christian Medical Association, said, "This bill provides important protections for the conscience rights of healthcare professionals and providers. Most Americans support the common-sense principle of this bill, that no one should be forced to violate their conscience by being coerced to take part in abortion."

The Missouri members of the U.S. House "yes" (pro-life) votes were: Akin (R-2), Blunt (R-7), Emerson (R-8), Graves (R-6), Hulshof (R-9), Skelton (D-4); "no" (pro-abortion) votes were Clay, Jr. (D-1), Gephardt (D-3), McCarthy (D-5).

Prolife Infonet, 9/26/02

Tobacco Tax Initiative (Proposition A) on November ballot could fund abortion referrals, life sciences research, abortifacient

Proposition A, billed in the secular media as a tobacco tax, does more than tax cigarettes; it puts the tax money to use for certain vague health purposes without needed pro-life controls.

Possible funding for Planned Parenthood

"Proposition A would take tens of millions of tax dollars available for subsidies to Planned Parenthood and referrals to abortion providers by health officials," said James S. Cole, General Counsel and State Legislative Chair of Missouri Right to Life. "We urge pro-life supporters to vote it down."

Under Proposition A, approximately $342 million in new tobacco taxes will be split among several purposes, including 43% ($147 million) to "health care treatment and access" and 14% to "life sciences research." Other categories to be funded include 29% ($99 million) to "emergency preparedness resources," 7% ($24 million) to "early care and education," and the remaining 7% ($24 million) for "tobacco and addiction prevention."

Cole pointed to serious problems in the massive "health care treatment and access" section. "That section incorporates only pro-life protections found in the Revised Statutes of Missouri and the state constitution," Cole said. "Unfortunately, that is a back-door way of allowing the state to subsidize Planned Parenthood, because the current funding restrictions are found only in

Cole also said that current statutes lack prohibitions against referrals by state officials to abortionists. He pointed to federal court decisions in the 1980's: "The state statutes against `counseling and encouraging' abortions with state money were declared unconstitutional in the 1980's, and the Legislature never revised and re-enacted them."
The lack of any protective language in Proposition A would also allow vast increases in funding for contraception and for assisting minors in obtaining contraceptives behind their parents' backs.  Current Missouri law makes it illegal to notify parents that their minor children are obtaining contraceptives. (§431.062(3), RSMo.) Many contraceptives act to cause an abortion when their "conception control" mechanism fails.

Implication for life sciences research

The "life sciences research" section also contains problems related to the destruction of humans at the embryonic stage for research and cloning, Cole maintained.  "While there is certain language that incorporates partial protections for new human beings, the language is insufficient to close the door to abuses." 

The text of Proposition A may be downloaded from the website of the Missouri Secretary of State.  Further information about the pro-life consequences of Proposition A may be obtained from James S. Cole at (573) 635-5110 or by e-mail at jscole@justice.com.

Missouri Right to Life Political Action Committee Endorsements

Unlisted districts have no endorsed candidates. Only major parties are listed.

To Contact Missouri Right to Life or Missouri Right to Life Political Action Committee, please call the state office at 573-635-5110.

In Loving Memory and Honor

Please send your tax-deductible gifts to:

Missouri Right to Life Education Fund

P. O. Box 651 Jefferson City MO 65102

Dorothy M. Burkett

Given By:

Shirley & Don Andrews

Dr & Mrs Robt. Linsenbardt

Helen & Harry Cook

In Memory Of:

Agnes M. Keeven

Given By:

Vernon Dean Counts

Helen Meyer

Gary & Barb Dreckshaze

Bob & Pat Schneider

Marcia Turvold

Nicole Turvold

Catherine Reller

June L. Klenc

In Memory Of:

Mary Lou Bayer

Given By:

Jane Schulte

In Memory Of:

Eleanor Forster

Given By:

Gene & Evelyn Bickel

Clare Alt

In Memory Of:

Noel C. Orr

Given By:

Rosemary R. Orr

Samuel J. Orr

In Honor Of:

Dave & Diane Snively

Given By:

Jean Hepper

Today's News & Views at nrlc.org

A Most Revealing Gaffe

Dave Andrusko

The welcomed new rule (well, welcomed by anyone with a modicum of common sense and compassion) allows states to recognize an unborn child as a "child" eligible for services under S-CHIP, which provides medical assistance for a low-income children under age 19.

Of course, pro-abortionists are doing everything they can to minimize the "damage." For one thing, since compliance by states is voluntary, pro-abortion forces could try to keep as many states as possible from joining in.

For another, they are already pushing a bill to extend S-CHIP coverage to an eligible "pregnant woman." This would partly overlap but not nullify the rule. However, the bill would not extend coverage to recent immigrants, as the final version of the rule would.

Now I understand that anyone can make a "mistake," but the response of NARAL President Kate Michelman was a whopper. Michelman told the Post that the change would raise medical and legal dilemmas. "If the pregnant mother [as opposed to her fetus] is ill and must be treated, who is the patient?" she said.

Mistake? What mistake? Michelman had committed the (almost) unpardonable sin: She said "mother."

In the NARAL canon, the term "mother" can only be applied after birth. Prior to delivery the only correct term is "pregnant woman."

This verbal lapse from grace brought to mind Michelman's famous l993 gaffe. In December Michelman gave an interview to the Philadelphia Inquirer and in the course of the conversation said, "We think abortion is a bad thing. No woman wants to have an abortion." Beg pardon? Abortion "is a bad thing."

Not surprisingly, five days after the story ran

A month later Michelman resumed her hard-line position. She told a congressional subcommittee, "The reporter absolutely quoted me incorrectly." When interviewed subsequently by Howard Kurtz of the Post, Michelman insisted, "I would never, never, never, never, never mean to say such a thing." Unfortunately for Michelman, Kurtz read the transcript which showed that Michelman had said exactly what Enda reported her as saying.

For her part, Enda told Kurtz that Michelman's repeated denials are "a little disconcerting. . If she says she was misquoted, she's not telling the truth." As for Michelman's back-up position-that her remarks were "taken out of context"-Kurtz wrote, "She [Enda] said the article conveyed both the `context' and `spirit' of Michelman's remarks."

The new rule, originally proposed last January, will go into effect 30 days after it is published in the Federal Register October 2. In reporting the "controversy" over the new rule, the Washington Post let it slip that the rule is "designed to promote prenatal care." Indeed!

According to the Post, "The change will affect [S-CHIP], a $40 billion program started in 1997 that, until now, has covered children from birth to age 19." The change means that HHS is "giving states permission to say that coverage can start at conception."

Pro-abortionists predictably condemned treating the unborn as a patient. Pro-lifers, with a truer, more welcoming perspective on the human family, welcomed HHS's rule change.

Sorry, Kate, it's one for the kids-and their "mothers."

Dave Andrusko can be reached at dha1245@juno.com