The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama's War on the Republic (16 page)
Read The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama's War on the Republic Online
Authors: David Limbaugh
BOOK: The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama's War on the Republic
13.94Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
Despite Obama’s insincere call for us to “work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions,” his administration doesn’t take kindly to people actually trying to achieve that goal. His Justice Department doesn’t regard Retta as an innocuous champion of life, but rather “among the most vocal and aggressive anti-abortion protesters outside the Clinic.” So the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division sued Retta for $25,000 in fines, alleging that he has obstructed entrance to the clinic and that he walks “very closely beside patients” and yells at them, allegations that reportedly shocked Retta.
72
72
Thus, Obama’s Justice Department looks the other way when New Black Panther Party members brandish nightsticks outside election places to intimidate voters, but seeks to punish a harmless man reciting the Lord’s Prayer and passing out brochures outside an abortion clinic. Retta’s loving words cautioning against abortion are verboten, while the Panthers’ intimidating threats are ignored.
By contrast, the administration showed surprising leniency toward a woman who assaulted Retta. After the woman pepper-sprayed him when he offered her pro-life literature, the government granted her a generous plea deal in which it would drop charges after just six months’ probation. There were reportedly no fines, community service, or any other probationary conditions except that she avoid re-arrest for six months.
73
“THE MOST PRO-ABORTION PRESIDENT IN OUR COUNTRY’S HISTORY”73
Barack Obama has been a strong ally of Planned Parenthood, the abortion factory that performed, in 2009, some 910 abortions a day.
74
His administration has shown its allegiance in many ways: while pro-life groups were largely shut out of Obama’s healthcare summit, Planned Parenthood was invited, along with other pro-abortion groups; the White House website serve.gov at one point promoted the organization’s abortion business by recruiting pro-abortion volunteers on its behalf;
75
Obama threatened to veto bills that would de-fund the Planned Parenthood abortion business;
76
and the Obama Justice Department filed legal papers to support Planned Parenthood in a lawsuit challenging the state of Indiana’s legislation that cut off funding for abortions.
77
74
His administration has shown its allegiance in many ways: while pro-life groups were largely shut out of Obama’s healthcare summit, Planned Parenthood was invited, along with other pro-abortion groups; the White House website serve.gov at one point promoted the organization’s abortion business by recruiting pro-abortion volunteers on its behalf;
75
Obama threatened to veto bills that would de-fund the Planned Parenthood abortion business;
76
and the Obama Justice Department filed legal papers to support Planned Parenthood in a lawsuit challenging the state of Indiana’s legislation that cut off funding for abortions.
77
During one of the many congressional budget skirmishes, the administration refused to relent on funding for Planned Parenthood. It had no problem eliminating $600 million in funding for Community Health Centers, which provide health services to the poor, including mammograms and pre-and post-natal care. But it insisted that Planned Parenthood’s work was indispensable in providing women’s healthcare. Frank Cannon, president of the American Principles Project, said that in 2010 Community Health Centers performed 320,000 mammograms while Planned Parenthood performed none. Cannon said, “Coating its ideology in flowery language about women’s health and alleged Republican mean-spiritedness, liberal Democrats refused to cut one dime out of Planned Parenthood’s plump federal purse during the budget debate. All the while a sharp knife was being taken to community health centers that actually perform full-scale exams for the needy.”
78
78
It came as no surprise, then, when Obama’s administration ignored undercover sting videos showing Planned Parenthood centers appearing to assist supposed sex traffickers in arranging abortions and STD testing for their underage prostitutes. In light of the videos, Congress approved a bill to defund Planned Parenthood. But the group was protected by its Democratic supporters in the Senate, who defended its funding, and by the Obama Justice Department, which refused to prosecute anyone involved. Lila Rose, head of the Live Action organization, the group that released the videos, said, “An untold number of women, and possibly underage girls, are being exploited and likely in danger and the Justice Department is looking the other way.”
79
79
These sordid events have not dampened the administration’s support for Planned Parenthood in the slightest. In June 2011, New Hampshire’s Executive Council voted not to renew its $1.8 million contract with Planned Parenthood clinics in the state because of their provision of abortions. Just as with Indiana, the administration would not take no for an answer; the Health and Human Services Department argued that New Hampshire broke federal rules because defunding Planned Parenthood might deny low-income women access to “family planning”—even though assistance is available from other agencies. New Hampshire Health and Human Services Commissioner Nick Toumpas worried that the state could lose federal Medicaid funding if it didn’t bend to the administration’s demands. Daniel St. Hilaire, a member of the New Hampshire Executive Council, said that the state’s contract should go to an organization that does not perform abortions. Republican David K. Wheeler said, “It is wrong to require taxpayers who believe that abortion is murder to have to pay for (abortions).”
80
80
The administration ended up circumventing the Executive Council and contracting directly with the Planned Parenthood clinics, a move that prompted Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser to complain, “President Obama has proven time and time again that he will do whatever it takes to ensure that Planned Parenthood continues to receive taxpayer subsidies, even if that means going around a state’s elected representatives. Obama is the most pro-abortion President in our country’s history and his allegiance to Planned Parenthood is unwavering.”
81
81
The public got a firsthand view of the militant politics of Planned Parenthood when Susan G. Komen for the Cure, an organization committed to fighting breast cancer, decided to cut funding for the group because it does not do mammograms. But after Planned Parenthood, Democratic congressional leaders, and the liberal media publicly attacked Komen, it decided it would still allow the organization to submit grant requests. The coordinated assault was so vicious that Karen Handel, a top Komen official who was influential in the initial decision to defund, resigned from her position with the group. Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life was outraged at these developments, saying “Handel’s resignation only furthers Planned Parenthood’s status as a bully who shakes down whomever they need to in order to get their way…. Komen had good reason to defund Planned Parenthood and is now paying the price for doing business with thugs.”
82
82
Indeed, scandal surrounds this organization Obama seems to revere. Karen Reynolds, a longtime employee of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, in Texas, has filed a legal action alleging that twelve Planned Parenthood mills in Texas and Louisiana defrauded the government by billing medical agencies for unnecessary services and for services that were never provided.
83
83
Planned Parenthood also showed its radical pro-abortion colors when it joined with other pro-abortionists such as NARAL to promote a Washington state law that would require health insurance coverage for abortion if a health plan covers maternity care—a law that would compel everyone who wants to buy insurance coverage for maternity, including those morally opposed to abortion, to purchase policies that would cover elective abortions.
84
While Planned Parenthood claims to be about much more than abortions, some of its critics say that it “continually lobbies for and in fact promotes abortion on demand, unrestricted, and unregulated,” and is even “promoting abortion for underage minors without any parental involvement or consent.”
85
“DIMINISHING THE CIVIL RIGHTS” OF HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS84
While Planned Parenthood claims to be about much more than abortions, some of its critics say that it “continually lobbies for and in fact promotes abortion on demand, unrestricted, and unregulated,” and is even “promoting abortion for underage minors without any parental involvement or consent.”
85
In 1973, Congress passed the Church Amendment, which barred any entity that “receives a grant, contract, loan or loan guaranty” under certain federal titles from “discriminating in the employment, promotion, or termination of employment of any physician or other health care personnel” because that person refuses to perform or assist in a “service or activity” that “would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions.”
86
Because the law did not specify how aggrieved parties would seek remedies, the Bush administration in 2008 issued clarifying regulations establishing a complaint procedure. But in March 2009, the Obama administration suspended these regulations, once again thwarting the intent of Congress.
86
Because the law did not specify how aggrieved parties would seek remedies, the Bush administration in 2008 issued clarifying regulations establishing a complaint procedure. But in March 2009, the Obama administration suspended these regulations, once again thwarting the intent of Congress.
Without specified legal remedies, the injured parties may be left without recourse. Catherine Cenzon-DeCarlo, a nurse working at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, a recipient of federal funds, filed an administrative complaint with the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as well as a federal lawsuit alleging she had been forced to participate in an elective second-trimester abortion. While the OCR/HHS opened an investigation, a federal appeals court shot down her lawsuit, saying the Church Amendment didn’t confer a cause of action for injured parties. The fate of Cenzon-DeCarlo’s administrative complaint was unclear because of the administration’s suspension of the 2008 Bush regulations. As Chuck Donovan of the Heritage Foundation observed, “A civil rights law without an enforcement mechanism is just a noble sentiment.”
87
87
In his speech at Notre Dame on May 17, 2009, Obama said, “Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women.”
88
The remarks were particularly cynical, considering that a few months earlier the White House had quietly announced that Obama had started the process of overturning protections President Bush had put in place to make sure medical staff and centers are not forced to do abortions.
89
In March 2009, while administration officials were telling the media that they were merely trying to clarify the existing rules,
90
in fact, they had just published in the Federal Register a proposal to rescind the pro-life protections entirely.
91
88
The remarks were particularly cynical, considering that a few months earlier the White House had quietly announced that Obama had started the process of overturning protections President Bush had put in place to make sure medical staff and centers are not forced to do abortions.
89
In March 2009, while administration officials were telling the media that they were merely trying to clarify the existing rules,
90
in fact, they had just published in the Federal Register a proposal to rescind the pro-life protections entirely.
91
At least two congressmen were not fooled by Obama’s dissembling. Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin and Chris Smith of New Jersey held a press conference following Obama’s Notre Dame remarks, calling on Obama to stop his effort to overturn the Bush protections. In a letter to Obama, they wrote, “You indicated that you wanted to ‘honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion.’ Given our agreement in regard to a conscience clause, we respectfully request that you put an end to your Administration’s review of the Bush administration rule that enforces existing conscience protection laws and completely forego the rescinding of this rule.”
92
92
But Obama continued to deceive the public on these policies. Despite the fact that his administration was in the process of repealing the Bush regulations, in September 2009, in one of his many healthcare speeches, Obama said, “One more misunderstanding I want to clear up—under our plan … federal conscience laws will remain in place.”
On March 22, 2010, true to form, Obama signed ObamaCare into law, a bill that contains no conscience protections. Meanwhile, his administration was still working hard to cancel the Bush conscience rights protections. In a lawsuit that the state of Connecticut filed to overturn the Bush-era protections, Obama administration attorneys admitted in papers filed with the court that the administration was seeking to finalize a rescission of the conscience rules.
93
93
In February 2011, the HHS scrapped a portion of the 2008 Bush rule, calling it “unclear and potentially overbroad in scope.” Officials then adopted a new rule that retained protections for conscientious objectors to abortion, but provided no protection for medical workers who have moral or religious objections to dispensing abortifacients such as Plan B, Ella, or other emergency contraception that could cause an abortion in some cases.
The HHS released a statement emphasizing that the new rule supported the conscience protections on abortions, but without mentioning the detrimental impact it would have on conscience rights concerning abortifacients. Dr. J. Scott Ries, on behalf of the Christian Medical Association, charged that the new rule would “weaken the only federal regulation protecting the exercise of conscience in health care.” Accusing the administration of using a specious argument (ensuring access to contraception) to justify abandoning conscience protections for dispensing abortion drugs, Ries argued that “absolutely no evidence is presented to justify any such concern. In the process, the administration blatantly ignores the scientific evidence that certain controversial prescriptions that abortion advocates promote as contraception are actually potential abortifacients, ending the life of a living, developing human embryo. This is a critical concern for pro-life patients, healthcare professionals and institutions.”
94
94
The rule change, Ries maintained, diminishes the civil rights of physicians
95
and will result in losing conscience-oriented healthcare professionals and faith-based institutions, which will imperil the poor and patients in medically underserved areas. National surveys have shown that 90 percent of faith-based physicians say they would leave the medical profession before perfoming procedures that violate their consciences. A similar deterrent effect is occurring with faith-based medical students, 20 percent of whom say they are “not pursuing a career in Obstetrics or Gynecology” because of what they perceive to be discrimination and coercion in that specialty. Dr. Ries pointed out that this means fewer physicians in a field that is already facing critical shortages.
96
95
and will result in losing conscience-oriented healthcare professionals and faith-based institutions, which will imperil the poor and patients in medically underserved areas. National surveys have shown that 90 percent of faith-based physicians say they would leave the medical profession before perfoming procedures that violate their consciences. A similar deterrent effect is occurring with faith-based medical students, 20 percent of whom say they are “not pursuing a career in Obstetrics or Gynecology” because of what they perceive to be discrimination and coercion in that specialty. Dr. Ries pointed out that this means fewer physicians in a field that is already facing critical shortages.
96
Other books
Retrato en sangre by John Katzenbach
The Key by Michael Grant
The Analyst by John Katzenbach
Outlaw Pass (9781101544785) by West, Charles G.
Más grandes que el amor by Dominique Lapierre
Iron Eyes, no. 1 by Rory Black
Shadow of Legends by Stephen A. Bly
Wild Cat by Christine Feehan
Of Merchants & Heros by Paul Waters
Deep Blue by Randy Wayne White