It was like a breath of fresh air this morning to read a recent New York Times article regarding an effort apparently being pursued by the Bush administration, entitled "Abortion proposal sets condition on aid."
The article describes the current draft of a proposed rule being considered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Apparently, the administration has decided at this time, its 11th hour, to take action that would require, according to the article, "all recipients of aid under federal health programs to certify that they will not refuse to hire nurses and other providers who object to abortion and even certain types of birth control."
The language is reported to read as follows:
any of the various procedures – including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action – that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.
"Well," I said to myself, "after eight years in office, the president and his staff have chosen to be perfectly clear about what they consider to be abortion and how they believe it should be handled when federal dollars are involved. What a tragedy that it took eight years for a simple recognition of at least part of the truth to become part of the political rhetoric."
However, I have to tell you I believe that this is too little, too late. First of all, if the New York Times article is to be believed, this proposal will garner immense opposition from the abortion cartel. One of its most ardent advocacy groups has already stated that the proposed language would "cover many types of birth control, including oral contraceptives and emergency contraception."
And, of course, the abortion cartel will clamor that any such move is preposterous and it will be screaming incessantly! As a matter of fact, the organization that is the main beneficiary of birth control marketing, Planned Parenthood, has already launched a campaign to oppose the proposal. You can see it at the following URL:
http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/spp08sadv10?url=http://www.plannedparenthood.org/
While it's about time that such a definition of abortion became a point of discussion and the pill's true nature exposed, I believe that the proposed language is disingenuous to the core. I believe it is actually nothing but a trial balloon that the White House knew, if leaked to the New York Times, would provoke heated debate and thus provide them with a reason to back off and do nothing, which has basically been their modus operandi for the past eight years. On its action web site, Planned Parenthood claims that the President is "selling out women's health care." Of course, that is absurd, but why did he wait so long to take this first step? Perhaps because he is not really serious about implementing this new rule in the first place.
For those who have no memory of the Bush administration's history in this matter and thus wonder why my skepticism is at an all-time high, it would help to revisit a couple of the interesting things that have defined this period in political history.
Under the Bush White House, funding for organizations such as Planned Parenthood has steadily increased. As one Stop Planned Parenthood International report reveals, just between fiscal years 2001 and 2003, taxpayer dollars pouring into PP's coffers increased from $202.7 million to $254.4 million.
Emergency contraception, also known as the "morning-after pill," a powerful set of pills designed to "protect" a woman from becoming pregnant, was approved for over-the-counter use in 2006. This regimen has always made it possible for a preborn child to be aborted, and, tragically, the political opposition to it has never been forceful.
I could go on, but I think the point has been made. While we can and should applaud the effort to expose the precise manner in which the birth control pill works, we should not be celebrating what appears to me, at least, to be a sop! However, I pray that my jaundiced view is proven to be totally in error. Time will tell.
