Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Fr. Pavone calls for “Steady and Calm Determination” on Abortion Defunding

Monday, April 11th, 2011





Fr. Pavone called upon pro-life activists to continue to insist, in creative ways, that the government stop funding the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood. He issued the following statement:

“The defunding of Planned Parenthood was not included in the budget deal reached this weekend by Congress. At the same time, this is not a ‘one chance only’ proposition. Cutting off funds from Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry overall is an imperative that must be brought up again and again, and pursued through various legislative proposals not only on the federal level but also in the states. Moreover, activists should continue to target corporate funding of Planned Parenthood.”

“The separate vote in the Senate this week on this issue should be carefully scored and used as an election issue next year. Moreover, this debate gives all of us the opportunity to consider again how important the abortion issue is. If government can take away your life, it can take away your money, too – and everything else besides. All our rights depend on the right to life. Government should neither be funding nor permitting in any way the planned, advertised killing of innocent children.”

Click here to leave a comment for
the article above.






Gary Bauer and Dr. Alveda King: Why Our Government Must Stop Funding Planned Parenthood

Thursday, March 31st, 2011





FoxNews.Com – New York, NY
Thursday, March 31, 2011

President Obama has made the concept of shared economic sacrifice a constant theme of his presidency. “Shared sacrifice” should be the catch phrase, Mr. Obama told the National Governors Association in late February. “If all the pain is shared by one group…that’s not good for anyone.”

We agree, but there’s one group that isn’t making the economic sacrifices most other Americans are making. Planned Parenthood, America’s largest abortion business, receives $350 million annually from taxpayers in the form of government grants and contracts, even though it makes tens of millions of dollars in yearly profits.

A current proposal to defund Planned Parenthood might seem like just another skirmish in the culture war, but it ought to be seen as something more fundamental: the most basic measure of whether our government is serious about resolving its debt problem.

The continuing resolution (CR) passed in February by the House of Representatives to fund federal agencies through the end of FY 2011 included language to defund Planned Parenthood. Had the CR passed, Planned Parenthood’s 825 facilities would have been prohibited from receiving federal taxpayer dollars from any federal programs or departments, but the Senate refused to pass the CR, in part because Senate Democrats would not compromise on taxpayer funding of abortion. Two subsequent stop-gap CRs did not address defunding Planned Parenthood either.

Now, with the prospect of an April 8th government shutdown looming, abortion funding is back in the news as lawmakers this week are debating whether to include cuts to Planned Parenthood in a budget to fund the federal government through the rest of the 2011 fiscal year.

Because new House rules require a bill to be publicly unveiled three days before any consideration on the House floor, any such bill would have to be drafted by April 5th at the latest.

Abortion-rights advocates claim that ending taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood would eliminate funding for cancer screenings, birth control, adoption referrals and other services for which many poor women rely on Planned Parenthood.

Recently Alaska’s senators, Lisa Murkowski (R) and Mark Begich (D) wrote that “without the care Planned Parenthood provides…women will die.”

But Planned Parenthood does not have a monopoly on any of these services. There are thousands of other health care facilities across the country that receive federal funding and offer authentic health care to low-income women.

Also, though it stresses its less controversial work, Planned Parenthood’s raison d’etre is to perform abortions. According to the Chiaroscuro Foundation, abortions constitute roughly 37% of all Planned Parenthood’s revenues. (That’s a conservative estimate.)

A quarter of the nation’s abortions are performed at Planned Parenthood centers, and even as the number of abortions nationally has dropped in recent years, the share performed by Planned Parenthood has grown.

In 2008, the last year for which data is available, Planned Parenthood performed more than 324,000 abortions, up from 305,000 in 2007. To put this in perspective, one abortion takes places at a Planned Parenthood center roughly every minute and a half of every hour of every day.

By law, Planned Parenthood cannot allocate any federal funding for abortions, but its $350 million yearly taxpayer subsidy frees up other funds for abortions. With a $1.1 billion budget, and more than 700,000 donors, Planned Parenthood’s fiscal 2009 net profit was $21.7 million, according to its Internal Revenue Service Form 990 tax filing.

But lavish public subsidies aren’t the only reason to defund the abortion giant. In recent years, Planned Parenthood centers across the country have been exposed for committing a variety of offenses—including refusing to comply with statutory rape reporting laws and parental consent laws, performing illegal late-term abortions and overcharging clients on birth control.

To be sure, ending Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer subsidies won’t by itself close our budget deficit, but it will save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars a year. And it will signal to a skeptical public that the federal government has finally gotten serious about its profligate spending.

Soon, Congress will vote on a continuing resolution to fund the federal government through the end of the fiscal year. It must include the elimination of all taxpayer subsidies for Planned Parenthood. After all, if our federal government won’t say “no” to a scandal-ridden business that’s already raking in tens of millions of dollars a year in profits, who will it say “no” to?

Gary Bauer is President of American Values and Chairman of Campaign for Working Families. Dr. Alveda King is Founder of King for America and Pastoral Associate at Priests for Life.

Click here to leave a comment for
the article above.






No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act Is Real Common Ground

Thursday, January 20th, 2011





Staten Island, NY – Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director for Priests for Life, issued the following statement today on the introduction in Congress of the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.

“When polls show that 60 to more than 70 percent of the American public agree that the government should not pay for abortions, I think that qualifies as ‘common ground.’ The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act expresses the will of the people. It will save money, but more importantly, it will save lives.”

Fr. Pavone added, “Priests for Life will activate all its communications outlets and hundreds of thousands of supporters to lobby strongly for this legislation, and to challenge abortion advocates to explain why what they consider a matter of choice should be funded by force.”

Priests for Life is the nation’s largest Catholic pro-life organization dedicated to ending abortion and euthanasia. For more information, visit www.priestsforlife.org.

Click here to leave a comment for
the article above.






Father Pavone Encouraged by Views of RNC Candidates

Monday, January 3rd, 2011





Staten Island, NY – Father Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, issued the following statement today following the debate among candidates for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee.

“It’s encouraging to hear all the candidates for the RNC leadership say they are proud to be pro-life and would be ready to work in coalition with pro-life activists across the country. All the candidates agreed that Planned Parenthood should be defunded, and that was also welcome news.”

Father Pavone continued, “The candidates recognize that a majority of Americans favor at least some restrictions on abortion and that it is vital to ensure that every pro-life American is registered to vote, and energized to take part in the political process.

“Despite suggestions from some top GOP lawmakers to put social issues like abortion aside while concentrating on the economy, there can be no truce on abortion and it’s more important than ever for the RNC chairman to promote that message.”

Click here to leave a comment for
the article above.






Fr. Pavone on 2010 Elections: Time to Get to Work

Wednesday, November 3rd, 2010





Staten Island, NY – Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, issued the following statement today on Tuesday’s elections:

“Last night was a great night for the pro-life movement. New pro-life Governors, Representatives, Senators, and state legislators across the nation have won victories.

“I am grateful to the Vote Pro-life Coalition and to all who worked so hard to inform their fellow citizens and get them to the polls.

“Now let’s communicate with and encourage our newly-elected officials, and work with them on the specific initiatives that will need our help. And let the work begin to make even greater progress in 2012. Sign up at PoliticalResponsibility.com.”

Click here to leave a comment for
the article above.






Reach for the Low-Hanging Fruit

Friday, October 29th, 2010





Each of us has but one vote. Yet we can all influence thousands of votes. And we should start with the people who need the least amount of urging. If you have friends who already agree with you on the key issues of the day, and who would probably support the candidates you support, please make sure that they do in fact intend to vote for that candidate. Some information from you, a friendly nudge, or perhaps a promise of assistance to get them to the polls can go a long way.

We should reach for the “low-hanging fruit.” If the same amount of energy by which we persuade one who disagrees with us can mobilize ten people who agree with us already, get the ten first; then come back for the rest.

Click here to leave a comment for
the article above.






A Moral Obligation to Vote

Wednesday, October 27th, 2010





While voting is always a moral obligation, sometimes that obligation is stronger than at other times. This is especially true when pro-life people have an opportunity to elect, in a close race, someone who is committed to protect the unborn, and remove from office someone else who isn’t. The closer a race is, the more each person’s vote matters. And among candidates who have a strong enough base to win, we have a moral obligation to vote in such a way that will do the most to advance the culture of life.

We each have one vote, but we can also influence thousands of other votes. We can directly help candidates by volunteering for their campaigns, and we can help other voters understand their duty and get to the polls.

Click here to leave a comment for
the article above.






The Party Matters

Tuesday, October 26th, 2010





When deciding on the candidate for whom you cast your vote in an election, a number of moral principles have to be considered. As I have often written in the past, the position of the candidate him/herself on the most important issues is of key importance, because by putting that person in a position to vote on legislation, you help to move public policy either closer or farther away from the moral law.

But that very consideration also means that the positions of the party to which the candidate belongs also matter. By putting that candidate in office, you also help to put his/her party into power. This has to be taken into consideration, too. Voters need to ask how much the election of a particular candidate will shift the balance of power between the parties, and what will happen when a particular party takes control. Voters should know the platform of the party and the official positions of party leadership on the same moral issues on which the individual candidate is evaluated.

At times, in all parties, the individual candidate will take a different position than his/her party on fundamental moral issues. Yet if the election of that candidate would shift control to his/her party, which holds the opposite position on those issues, a vote for that candidate, in effect, works against the position the voter may be trying to advance.

In short, the party matters.

To illustrate why the party matters, let’s look at what happens in the United States Senate.

The Majority party in the Senate chooses the Majority Leader. The Majority Leader has control of the Senate schedule and agenda. This includes the ability to select the timing for floor proceedings, that is, debates, consideration of amendments, and voting, both for legislation and nominations.

The Majority Party has a majority on all committees (except the Ethics Committee), usually in close proportion to its share of the body as a whole. The Majority Party on every committee also controls a majority of the staff on the committee.

The Majority in each committee recommends to their caucus a Committee Chairman. Typically, their selection is rubberstamped by the Majority Party in the Senate. The chairmen, in turn, set the agenda of their respective committees. This is an extremely powerful post. For example, chairmen sometimes refuse to schedule hearings on nominees and legislation, and this effectively kills them. In other words, the best candidate in either party could introduce the best legislation imaginable, and it would never come out of committee. The party matters.

Considerations about what party would be in power as a result of the outcome of a particular election become especially relevant when the opposing candidates take the same position on issues of key importance.

Reflections like these are not an endorsement of a party; rather, they are an aspect of the duty that we as clergy have to articulate the moral dimensions of voting. If they benefit one party over another, that’s not by our choice, but by the choice of the party to take the positions it takes.

Click here to leave a comment for
the article above.






Every Vote Matters

Monday, October 18th, 2010





Many states have begun early voting for this year’s elections. As our bishops have said, “Every voice matters in the public forum; every vote counts.”

We need to use our vote to advance the culture of life. Sometimes candidates for local office say that their positions on big moral issues like abortion don’t matter. But they do, because they measure a person’s character. Besides, those in local office tend to move up to higher office.

And if a politician can’t respect the life of a little baby, how’s he supposed to respect yours?

Don’t miss out on voting. Learn who is running, and where they stand on life issues. And call your friends and those in your Church groups, and remind them to vote as well.

Click here to leave a comment for
the article above.






Convenient or Not

Monday, October 11th, 2010





A coalition of pro-life groups has responded to the assertion of some pro-life candidates that in this year’s elections, the social issues like abortion should not be a focus of attention, but rather issues like jobs and the economy.

The Vote ProLife Coalition, organized by Priests for Life, points out that abortion is always a critical election issue, because if the government can take one’s life, it can take one’s job and money, too. There is no issue more fundamental or non-negotiable than abortion.

There can be no truce, and no “agree to disagree” position, because when someone is perpetrating violence, we don’t sit back and agree to disagree with the perpetrator; rather, we stop the perpetrator. Therefore, whether politically convenient or inconvenient, we call for an end to abortion.

Click here to leave a comment for
the article above.