Wednesday, more courageous Pro-Life Democrats joined the others who just last week stood up against what is being properly called the “Stealth FOCA” (Freedom of Choice Act) effects of the several Health Care Proposals. It is hidden in this legislation and is not being honestly admitted to by its supporters, including the President. This Legislation will mandate abortion coverage which will be paid for by taxpayers if it is passed.
Further, it will offer absolutely no conscience protection for Doctors who still believe in their Hippocratic Oath and refuse to participate in abortion or euthanasia. I wrote about this in a recent article. Many readers sent me the actual legislation and confirmed my concerns. Those similar effects at the other end of life can be found in the House Bill at Pages 425 – 430. The Proposals will implement euthanasia by stealth.
These Democrats stand in the proud tradition of the man who, in my opinion, was the last truly great Democratic candidate for the Presidency of the United States. The late Pennsylvania Governor Bob Casey was a great champion of all the poor, and a candidate whom I proudly supported in his bid for the White House. He was censored at the National Democratic Convention when the forces of death on demand took over that once great Party.
We commend these Democrats who stand in his proud lineage and who hear the cries of all of the poor. That includes those whom the late Mother Teresa rightly called “the poorest of the poor”, children living in the first home of the whole human race, who have no voice but our own.
Under the leadership of the late Governor Casey, a full-page advertisement appeared in the New York Times during the Democratic Convention in July 1992 calling for “A New Compact of Care: Caring About Women, Caring for the Unborn.” The Compact is republished in full in one of our related stories and is as timely today as it was almost twenty years ago. We offer a small excerpt:
Beyond the False Dichotomy: A New Compact of Care
“…The advocates of abortion on demand falsely assume two things: that women must suffer if the lives of unborn children are legally protected; and that women can only attain equality by having the legal option of destroying their innocent offspring in the womb. The cynicism of these assumptions reflects a terrible failure of moral imagination and social responsibility and an appalling lack of respect for women.
“We propose a new understanding, one that does not pit mother against child. To establish justice and to promote the general welfare, America does not need the abortion license. What America needs are policies that responsibly protect and advance the interest of mothers and their children, both before and after birth. Such policies would provide maximum feasible legal protection for the unborn and maximum feasible care and support for pregnant women, mothers, and children…. a public policy that more adequately expresses the traditions and convictions of the American people will do more than restore legal protection to the unborn.
“It will take seriously the needs of women whose social or economic circumstances might tempt them to seek the abortion “solution.” It will recognize our shared responsibility, in public and private settings, to make realistic alternatives to abortion available to such women. It will support women in caring for the children they choose to raise themselves, and it will help them find homes for those they cannot raise. It will work to provide a decent life for mother and child before and after birth.
“In sum, we can and we must adopt solutions that reflect the dignity and worth of every human being and that embody understanding of the community’s shared responsibility for creating policies that are truly pro-woman and pro-child. What we seek are communities and policies that help women to deal with crisis pregnancies by eliminating the crisis, not the child.
Common Choices, Common Destiny
“The rhetoric of abortion advocacy contains a truth that abortion advocates often fail to perceive. Abortion is a question of choice. The “choice,” though, is not one faced by isolated women exercising private rights. It is a choice faced by all the citizens of this free society. And the choice we make, deliberatively and democratically, will do much to answer two questions: What kind of a people are we? What kind of a people will we be?
If we abandon the principle of respect for human life by making the value of a life depend on whether someone else thinks that life is worthy or wanted, we will become one sort of people.
But there is a better way.
“We can choose to reaffirm our respect for human life. We can choose to extend once again the mantle of protection to all members of the human family, including the unborn. We can choose to provide effective care of mothers and children. And if we make those choices, America will experience a new birth of freedom, bringing with it a renewed spirit of community, compassion, and caring.”
These words need to be heard this week as our Nation debates this extraordinarily important piece of legislation. That is why we have chosen to publish them in their entirety in our first related Story. No-One who recognizes the objective truth that every human person has dignity and possesses an inalienable, fundamental Natural Law Right to Life should support this legislation in its current form. It must not pass unless it is substantially changed to protect the Right to Life from Conception to Natural death, period.
– – –