In the course of reading The Boston Pilot, together with data culled from the Internet, I discovered a one-page letter penned by the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy, dated August 3, 1971. It was addressed to one of his friends and supporters, Mr. Thomas Donnelly of Great Neck, New York. Mr. William Donohue, President of the Catholic League – a Catholic civil rights organization – vouched for the letter’s authenticity.
I found its contents remarkable, because I have always thought Senator Kennedy to have been a staunch abortion supporter. Prior to his recent illness and death, he was not only a pioneer for healthcare reform, but was also a strong advocate of abortion rights.
His letter is very striking though, because it reveals that in 1971 the Senator held a completely different position on the legitimacy of abortion.
Here is an excerpt of his original views as stated in his 1971 letter to Donnelly:
“While the deep concern of a woman bearing an unwanted child merits consideration and sympathy, it is my personal feeling that the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life.”
Kennedy added, “Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized -- the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old. When history looks back at this era it should recognize this generation as one which cared about human beings enough to halt the practice of war, to provide a decent living for every family, and to fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception.”
Resolving the question of Federal funding for abortion was the decisive factor in the recently successful passage of a healthcare bill in the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill prohibits any type of funding by the U.S. Government for the procedure. That topic will continue to be a major issue as the Senate puts forward its own version of a healthcare bill.
Showing posts with label Abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abortion. Show all posts
Friday, November 13, 2009
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Obama’s Executive Order on Abortion
Friday afternoon, President Barack Obama signed an executive order which, in combination with other family planning measures, will provide U.S. greenbacks for abortions performed on citizens of other nations as a means of birth control.
One of the controversies surrounding this action was that, as reported in the Washington Post on Saturday, “The . . . order was signed late in the day yesterday without any reporters, news photographers or television cameras present, in marked contrast to elaborate ceremonies highlighting orders Obama signed earlier in the week.”
While campaigning for the Oval Office, Obama made it clear that “We will make government open and transparent.” Apparently, this guideline does not apply when it comes to a potentially incendiary topic such as abortion. Obama’s signing of the executive order is controversial, because it reverses a prior order signed by former President W. George Bush in 2001 which eliminated that practice.
The original prohibition against U.S abortion funding in foreign lands had been initiated by Ronald Reagan in 1984. It became known as the Mexico City Policy, the location where he signed it into law. When Bill Clinton came to the White House, he saw the matter differently and, in 1993, reversed Reagan’s action by issuing his own executive order.
And so it went. Each of these presidents has, according to his own political and presumably moral compass, countermanded the other on this divisive practice which provides U.S. funds to other nations for abortion counseling and for recommending the practice to their own citizens as a means of birth control. Obama is merely the last president to append his personal signature to the controversy.
Our new president should have had the courtesy and fortitude to have signed his order and to comment on its justification in the “open and transparent” light of the public square. That is what he promised and that is what he did for the other executive orders which he executed in his first week of office. But not for this one. Journalists should have been inside the room, and the cameras should have been rolling to record the event.
One of the controversies surrounding this action was that, as reported in the Washington Post on Saturday, “The . . . order was signed late in the day yesterday without any reporters, news photographers or television cameras present, in marked contrast to elaborate ceremonies highlighting orders Obama signed earlier in the week.”
While campaigning for the Oval Office, Obama made it clear that “We will make government open and transparent.” Apparently, this guideline does not apply when it comes to a potentially incendiary topic such as abortion. Obama’s signing of the executive order is controversial, because it reverses a prior order signed by former President W. George Bush in 2001 which eliminated that practice.
The original prohibition against U.S abortion funding in foreign lands had been initiated by Ronald Reagan in 1984. It became known as the Mexico City Policy, the location where he signed it into law. When Bill Clinton came to the White House, he saw the matter differently and, in 1993, reversed Reagan’s action by issuing his own executive order.
And so it went. Each of these presidents has, according to his own political and presumably moral compass, countermanded the other on this divisive practice which provides U.S. funds to other nations for abortion counseling and for recommending the practice to their own citizens as a means of birth control. Obama is merely the last president to append his personal signature to the controversy.
Our new president should have had the courtesy and fortitude to have signed his order and to comment on its justification in the “open and transparent” light of the public square. That is what he promised and that is what he did for the other executive orders which he executed in his first week of office. But not for this one. Journalists should have been inside the room, and the cameras should have been rolling to record the event.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)