Torog
07-07-2005, 02:45 PM
California Law Could Impede Efforts to Protect the Unborn (http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1438287/posts)
CWA ^ (http://freerepublic.com/^http://www.cwalac.org/article_230.shtml) | 7/6/05 | Amelia Wigton
Posted on 07/07/2005 7:34:59 AM PDT by ZGuy (http://freerepublic.com/~zguy/)
California, a state in precarious economic waters, is now swimming in a case of extreme moral irony with the potential passage of a bill that would take federal funds away from low-income and unborn children and use them to provide abortions for women.
A.B. 794, proposed by California Assemblywoman Judy Chu (D-49, Monterey Park), aims to direct $304 million from children's health and prenatal services to women's health care programs.
Federal guidelines require that the $304 million mentioned in the bill be spent on children from conception to the age of 19. However, Assemblywoman Chu in her draft of A.B. 794 notes, "Since Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed in many cases a woman's right of reproductive choice, which is based upon the principle that the fetus is not a person with rights separate from and equivalent to those of the pregnant woman."
In this light, Chu asserts that funds should not support the health of the unborn because, according to the law, a fetus is not a person. Chu proposed the bill over concern that federal guidelines could suggest that the unborn were actual people. Those who support abortion find the federal wording threatening, because it asserts that the unborn have the right to receive medical care.
As a result of the distorted and tragic ideology that proposes that a fetus is not a person, A.B. 794 twists federal guidelines that were meant to provide care for children, and could actually hurt the group that the funds were originally intended to protect -- the unborn.
The legislation holds a woman in greater regard than her unborn child. A.B. 794 states that federal funds could be dispersed to expectant mothers "only when, during the period of coverage, the woman is the beneficiary." This stipulation could allow women to receive state-funded abortions instead of the originally intended prenatal care.
A.B. 794 passed easily through California's Legislature, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R). signed it on June 30. Considered to be an official test of the governor's abortion policies, A.B. 794 pitted Schwarzenegger against many California Republicans.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Planned Parenthood support the bill. "Basically this measure is consistent with the governor's commitment to get California's fair share of federal funding," said Sabrina Demayo Lockhart of California's Health and Human Services in the Sacramento Bee.
The concern from pro-life groups has apparently befuddled the president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, Kathy Kneer.. "I would hope they're recognizing that we're using the money for prenatal care for pregnant women. I would hope that's consistent with their pro-life views," Kneer said.
However, Assemblyman Greg Aghazarian (R-Stockton) notes, "In essence, what we're telling the government is, 'We want your money to run this program, but we're not going to do it the way you want.'"
Camille Giglio, director of California Right to Life Inc. said, "They're willing to jeopardize the health of poor women and children in order to maintain some aura of being a pro-abortion state."
Although Schwarzenegger signed the bill, it could still be stopped at the federal level. The Sacramento Bee reported: "While supporters say the bill is a good compromise that paves the way for acceptance of the $304 million, opponents claim it increases the odds that the federal government will reject the state's funding application."
While the proposed legislation is meant to save money for the economically troubled state-, taking funds away from young and unborn children for the support of federally funded abortions is not a moral or responsible way to promote fiscal responsibility.
Concerned Women for America (CWA) agrees. "This is extremely unfortunate that California would try to fool the federal government to support its efforts to try and get around federal law that bans funding of abortion," said Michael Bowman, director of CWA's Legislation Action Committee. "We will be working with senators and congressman to make sure that no federal funds will be used to pay for abortions in California."
Pro-life California citizens and CWA members need to make Assemblywoman Chu, Gov. Schwarzenegger and California lawmakers aware that twisting federal law to defend and promote abortion is not best for California women and children. CWA continues to be tirelessly committed to fighting the battle over abortion, and holds steadfastly to values and core principles that hold in high regard the sanctity of life and the rights of the unborn.
CWA ^ (http://freerepublic.com/^http://www.cwalac.org/article_230.shtml) | 7/6/05 | Amelia Wigton
Posted on 07/07/2005 7:34:59 AM PDT by ZGuy (http://freerepublic.com/~zguy/)
California, a state in precarious economic waters, is now swimming in a case of extreme moral irony with the potential passage of a bill that would take federal funds away from low-income and unborn children and use them to provide abortions for women.
A.B. 794, proposed by California Assemblywoman Judy Chu (D-49, Monterey Park), aims to direct $304 million from children's health and prenatal services to women's health care programs.
Federal guidelines require that the $304 million mentioned in the bill be spent on children from conception to the age of 19. However, Assemblywoman Chu in her draft of A.B. 794 notes, "Since Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed in many cases a woman's right of reproductive choice, which is based upon the principle that the fetus is not a person with rights separate from and equivalent to those of the pregnant woman."
In this light, Chu asserts that funds should not support the health of the unborn because, according to the law, a fetus is not a person. Chu proposed the bill over concern that federal guidelines could suggest that the unborn were actual people. Those who support abortion find the federal wording threatening, because it asserts that the unborn have the right to receive medical care.
As a result of the distorted and tragic ideology that proposes that a fetus is not a person, A.B. 794 twists federal guidelines that were meant to provide care for children, and could actually hurt the group that the funds were originally intended to protect -- the unborn.
The legislation holds a woman in greater regard than her unborn child. A.B. 794 states that federal funds could be dispersed to expectant mothers "only when, during the period of coverage, the woman is the beneficiary." This stipulation could allow women to receive state-funded abortions instead of the originally intended prenatal care.
A.B. 794 passed easily through California's Legislature, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R). signed it on June 30. Considered to be an official test of the governor's abortion policies, A.B. 794 pitted Schwarzenegger against many California Republicans.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Planned Parenthood support the bill. "Basically this measure is consistent with the governor's commitment to get California's fair share of federal funding," said Sabrina Demayo Lockhart of California's Health and Human Services in the Sacramento Bee.
The concern from pro-life groups has apparently befuddled the president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, Kathy Kneer.. "I would hope they're recognizing that we're using the money for prenatal care for pregnant women. I would hope that's consistent with their pro-life views," Kneer said.
However, Assemblyman Greg Aghazarian (R-Stockton) notes, "In essence, what we're telling the government is, 'We want your money to run this program, but we're not going to do it the way you want.'"
Camille Giglio, director of California Right to Life Inc. said, "They're willing to jeopardize the health of poor women and children in order to maintain some aura of being a pro-abortion state."
Although Schwarzenegger signed the bill, it could still be stopped at the federal level. The Sacramento Bee reported: "While supporters say the bill is a good compromise that paves the way for acceptance of the $304 million, opponents claim it increases the odds that the federal government will reject the state's funding application."
While the proposed legislation is meant to save money for the economically troubled state-, taking funds away from young and unborn children for the support of federally funded abortions is not a moral or responsible way to promote fiscal responsibility.
Concerned Women for America (CWA) agrees. "This is extremely unfortunate that California would try to fool the federal government to support its efforts to try and get around federal law that bans funding of abortion," said Michael Bowman, director of CWA's Legislation Action Committee. "We will be working with senators and congressman to make sure that no federal funds will be used to pay for abortions in California."
Pro-life California citizens and CWA members need to make Assemblywoman Chu, Gov. Schwarzenegger and California lawmakers aware that twisting federal law to defend and promote abortion is not best for California women and children. CWA continues to be tirelessly committed to fighting the battle over abortion, and holds steadfastly to values and core principles that hold in high regard the sanctity of life and the rights of the unborn.