Archive for Charmaine Yoest

Alveda King and Charmaine Yoest: Pressing on for ‘life

Posted in Abortion, Alveda King, Slavery with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 11, 2010 by saynsumthn

YOEST & KING: Rights for the unborn
Pressing on for ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’

By Charmaine Yoest and Alveda King

The Washington Times
Friday, August 6, 2010

President Obama’s selection of Elena Kagan, the most demonstrably pro-abortion Supreme Court nominee in recent memory, presented a daunting challenge to pro-life leaders, as her 63 Senate votes during Thursday’s confirmation attest.

Not unreasonably, observers have asked: Why then, do we bother?

The question resonates for this particular political confrontation but applies equally to the larger issue as a whole as we near four decades of abortion on demand in America post Roe v. Wade.

We bother because, in the end, we will win.

Think of “Rocky” and “Rudy.” In a universally favorite movie plot, the unsung and discounted hero defies great odds, ignores the naysayers, perseveres in the face of overwhelming obstacles and emerges triumphant just when it looks impossible.

Tenacious persistence has been part of the American fiber since the beginning.

After all, our nation’s founding was the impossible dream of the 18th century. America’s founders had the audacity to believe that the people could govern themselves, and they agreed to take on the world’s greatest military power to earn the right to try.

But in our modern, 24/7 drive-thru microwave Twitter culture, we often forget that great victories for the betterment of humankind don’t happen instantly. Real, substantive change doesn’t take place in the course of one election, one year or as the result of one political battle. It is achieved through a long march that can span many lifetimes.

Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech was not the launching point in the struggle for civil rights and equality. Rather, Dr. King’s genius was his dedication to carrying a well-weathered baton that was handed to him by a long list of committed visionaries. The struggle to make all Americans truly equal regardless of race, which predates our republic, took more than a century and a half.

In 1773, Benjamin Franklin wrote “a disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America” while Thomas Jefferson, in another letter, castigated King George for his “cruel war against human nature itself” because the king opposed efforts to prohibit the slave trade in the American Colonies.

President John Quincy Adams – the “hellhound” of abolition – was a strong opponent of slavery in America’s early years and had hoped to see its end. Realizing near the end of his life that victory would not be achieved on his watch, he noted that in spite of this, “my conscience presses me on.”

But Adams, in his later years, befriended a one-term congressman from Illinois. Young Abraham Lincoln, who went on to become the 16th president of the United States, later based his Emancipation Proclamation on Adams’ anti-slavery arguments.

As decade stretched into decade, Americans from Harriet Tubman to Rosa Parks pressed on in the defining human rights struggle of their time. And, after fighting a bloody war, staging protests at lunch counters or walking into a hostile school escorted by armed paratroopers, hundreds of thousands of people eventually moved the nation to do the right thing.

Finally, on July 2, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson – with King present – signed the Civil Rights Act, a law that put into practice the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection for all Americans.

Today, in poll after poll, Americans are trending more and more pro-life. They want to see abortion restricted, support parental involvement laws and want an end to taxpayer-funded abortion. On the issue of judges, Americans are also very clear. In a recent poll, 87 percent said they support judges who “interpret the law as it is written” and 70 percent said they think elected officials should make policy and not the courts.

In spite of this opposition to an agenda-driven judiciary, Washington elites continue to defy the people. Elena Kagan’s nomination is a prime exemplar of this vast contradiction.

After months of dedicated opposition to her nomination, Ms. Kagan’s confirmation is a difficult setback in our long march to ultimate victory.

Justice Kagan’s agenda-driven philosophy, her advocacy of abortion without any restrictions, and her record as a White House aide who manipulated medical evidence to achieve political ends has caused a stir among the electorate.

In 1857, when the Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scott v. Sanford that black Americans essentially had no protection under the Constitution and therefore virtually no rights, abolitionists may have felt that their cause had been dealt a serious blow – yet they continued to press ahead.

They pressed ahead, as we do now, not because victory was immediate but because they were compelled by duty to do what is right. And in America, land of the second chance, we know there will be another opportunity.

When opportunity comes, we will take on the challenge to the best of our ability. We take that challenge knowing that maybe on our watch, or maybe on our children’s watch, 1964 will come again. We are, after all, one human race on an unending quest to secure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all.
Remembering this, may our consciences press us onward.

Charmaine Yoest is president and chief executive of Americans United for Life. Alveda King is director of African American Outreach for Priests for Life and founder of King for America.

Dr. Alveda King is featured in this powerful documentary on abortion and black genocide: Maafa21

Abortion and the Health Bill

Posted in Abortion, Anti-abortion, Harry Reid, Health Care, Obama, Pelosi, Planned Parenthood, Politics, Population Control, pro-choice, Pro-Life with tags , , , , , , , , , on March 5, 2010 by saynsumthn

There is no middle ground. Either taxpayers will fund it or they won’t.
By CHARMAINE YOEST

It’s now becoming clear that Barack Obama is willing to put everything on the table in order to be the president who passes health-care reform. Everything, that is, except a ban on federal funding for abortion.

Last September, the president promised that “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.” Yet the legislation most likely to move forward in Congress would be the single greatest expansion of abortion since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

The White House knows how to turn Mr. Obama’s September commitment into legislative action. I met with senior White House officials and told them that only adding a so-called Hyde Amendment to the health-care reform bills would fulfill the president’s promise to protect Americans from subsidizing abortion.

The Hyde Amendment dates back to the 1970s, when congressional leaders discovered that Medicaid was paying for nearly 300,000 abortions a year. This had not been an intended outcome of the Medicaid program, which was created in 1965 with strong bipartisan support. So in 1976 Rep. Henry Hyde introduced an amendment to the Health and Human Services appropriations bill prohibiting taxpayer funds from paying for abortions.

Similar amendments have been added to health-care bills ever since. Without specific language prohibiting the practice, history has shown that the courts or administrative agencies end up directing government dollars to pay for abortions.

For example, in the 1996 case Planned Parenthood v. Engler, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found that “under Medicaid, certain categories of medical care are mandatory.” The court then found that abortion “fits within many of the mandatory care categories, including ‘family planning,’ ‘outpatient services,’ ‘inpatient services,’ and ‘physician services.'” In short, the court created a mandate for funded abortions through Medicaid if the Hyde Amendment is ever eliminated.

Over the past year, language similar to the Hyde Amendment was crafted by Reps. Bart Stupak (D., Mich.) and Joe Pitts (R., Pa.) and inserted into the health-care bill that passed the House. When asked about the Stupak-Pitts Amendment in November, Mr. Obama talked around the issue. He said that “there is a balance to be achieved that is consistent with the Hyde Amendment.” When asked if Stupak-Pitts struck this “balance,” the president replied “not yet.”

That’s an odd reply. The question of abortion funding doesn’t have any Zen to it: The funding is either prohibited or it’s not.

In November, presidential adviser David Axelrod, on CNN’s “State of the Union,” also talked around the Hyde Amendment, saying that the president “doesn’t believe this bill should change the status quo as it relates to the issue of abortion.” But then Mr. Axelrod claimed that “this shouldn’t be a debate about abortion” before concluding that there were discussions in Congress about “how to adjust [the abortion language bill] accordingly.”

Apparently, his definition of “adjust” means opening up the spigot for the abortion lobby. The president’s latest proposal mirrors legislation that has passed the Senate, which doesn’t include a Hyde Amendment, and would inevitably establish abortion as a fundamental health-care service for the following reasons:

• It would change existing law by allowing federally subsidized health-care plans to pay for abortions and could require private health-insurance plans to cover abortion.

• It would impose a first-ever abortion tax—a separate premium payment that will be used to pay for elective abortions—on enrollees in insurance plans that covers abortions through newly created government health-care exchanges.

• And it would fail to protect the rights of health-care providers to refuse to participate in abortions.

The president’s plan goes further than the Senate bill on abortion by calling for spending $11 billion over five years on “community health centers,” which include Planned Parenthood clinics that provide abortions.

The bottom line is that the president wants to deploy words that sound soothing like “balance” and “adjust.” Meanwhile, the courts are rendering precedent with stark words like “mandatory.”

When confronted by House Minority Leader John Boehner about abortion funding during the health-care summit last week, the president dropped his head and looked down at the table. How revealing.

Ms. Yoest is president and CEO of Americans United for Life.

Stanek: Will Michelle promote partial birth abortion in healthcare pitches?

Posted in Abortion, Constitution, Health Care, Obama, Population Control, Racism with tags , , , , , , , , , , on September 18, 2009 by saynsumthn

Jill Stanek writes:

In a fundraising letter for her husband’s US Senate campaign in February 2004, Michelle Obama called partial birth abortion “a legitimate medical procedure.”

With Politico reporting yesterday Michelle “plans a packed autumn that aides say will include a ‘dedicated focus’ on health insurance reform,” will she be pitching mandated public and private insurance coverage of partial birth abortions?

Oh, I know pba is now illegal, but Michelle also claimed in that fundraising letter a ban against it was “clearly unconstitutional and must be overturned.” Michelle could add relegalizing pba to her healthcare pitch.

Slide 1 michelle obama pba letter-thumb-500x565
Slide 2 michelle obama pba letter-thumb-500x497

Rasmussen is reporting that a majority of Americans favor a ban against abortion in Health Care:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 48% believe any government-subsidized health care plan should be prohibited from covering abortion procedures. Thirteen percent (13%) believe such plans should be required to cover abortions, and 32% favor a more neutral approach with no requirements in either direction.

Among those who currently support passage of the legislation, 22% want a prohibition banning abortion coverage and 22% want a mandate requiring such coverage. Forty-seven percent (47%) of the plan’s supporters prefer the neutral approach, and nine percent (9%) are not sure.

Among those who oppose the plan, 72% favor a prohibition against coverage of abortions while five percent (5%) hold the opposite view.

48% Want Abortion Coverage Banned in Health Care Plan

For details of how abortion is being covered by government run Health Care- read the Washington Times article by Charmaine Yoest:Is abortion health care, or is it not?