Read the full story here:
So, where do I get the $2.2 billion figure? I get it from Jim Sedlak of the American Life League, an expert on Planned Parenthood and its federal funding. In an interview, Jim tells me yes, the Bush administration has indeed “extensively” funded Planned Parenthood, the total amount of federal funding (through 2006, the most recent figures known) being at least $2.2 billion. In Bush’s first year (2001), he approved $202 million for PP; in the last year for which there is reporting (2006), Bush gave PP $337 million – a single year funding increase of 67 percent. Sedlak notes that in 2006, PP showed a $114 million profit so did not need federal funding.
Meanwhile, Focus on the Family is duped.
Not mentioned is the fact that this isn’t directly from Bush but from part of the Congressional budget. Pro-life advocates have tried for years to cut this family planning money to Planned Parenthood and we have lost the votes. Most recently we lost a 52-41 vote in the Senate to cut this funding (see http://www.lifenews.com/nat3385.html).
If we could cut the funding, Bush would gladly sign the non-gifting Planned Parenthood budget, so it’s totally disingenuous to say Bush wants this money and directly gave it to Planned Parenthood.
What is keeping us from having the votes to defeat this PP funding? We don’t have enough pro-life members of the House and Senate. Who opposes these pro-life candidates? Oh yes, John Lofton, a third party advocate, who says any pro-life Republican or Democrat really isn’t pro-life.
If Lofton is serious about cutting this $2.2 million in Planned Parenthood funding, he would launch a vigorous campaign to up our pro-life numbers in Congress. He’s done no such thing to my knowledge and frequently attacks the strategy of pro-life groups like Focus on the Family and National Right to Life that do and that have led the fight to cut this funding (http://www.lifenews.com/nat3405.html).
So Lofton does nothing to remedy the situation that enables the PP funding. Talk about hypocrisy.
The truth of the matter is that Bush has repeatedly cut off abortion funding. He installed the Mexico City Policy to prohibit funding of abortions abroad, he has signed bills with numerous abrotion funding bans domestically, and repeatedly cut off funding to UNFPA (and expanded the Reagan year limits in addition) because it is involved in China’s forced abortion programs. To say Bush is not against abortion funding is simply not factual.
By the way, McCain takes the same position against abortion funding, while Obama does not.
[...] good friend James Sullivan at The Rule links to a WND story by John Lofton that’s pretty shocking – saying that President [...]
• Republican Party cheerleader Steve Ertelt’s response to my column is pathetic and a tissue of lies. How so? Let us count the ways:
•
• Ertelt: Not mentioned is the fact that this isn’t directly from Bush but from part of the Congressional budget. Pro-life advocates have tried for years to cut this family planning money to Planned Parenthood and we have lost the votes. Most recently we lost a 52-41 vote in the Senate to cut this funding (see http://www.lifenews.com/nat3385.html).
•
• Comment: Bush IS directly responsible because he signed into law the legislation that gave Planned Parenthood $2.2 BILLION! He could have vetoed this legislation if he was truly pro-life – which he is NOT because he thinks it should remain “legal” to murder unborn babies if they are in the womb because of rape or incest. In any given year, Bush could have sent his budget to Congress with ZERO Planned Parenthood funding. He never has.
•
• Ertelt: If we could cut the funding, Bush would gladly sign the non-gifting Planned Parenthood budget, so it’s totally disingenuous to say Bush wants this money and directly gave it to Planned Parenthood.
•
• Comment: The point is Bush could have fought the funding of PP, vetoed all bills funding PP, made a big issue of this. He NEVER Has done any of this. And he is directly responsible for all the PP-funding bills he signed because HE signed them.
•
Ertelt: What is keeping us from having the votes to defeat this PP funding? We don’t have enough pro-life members of the House and Senate. Who opposes these pro-life candidates? Oh yes, John Lofton, a third party advocate, who says any pro-life Republican or Democrat really isn’t pro-life.
•
• Comment: This assertion is a lie and Ertelt can produce no statement I’ve ever made where I’ve said “any pro-life Republican or Democrat really isn’t pro-life.” I have said and repeat it here: Pro-life means PRO-ALL UNBORN HUMAN LIFE – NO EXCEPTIONS!
•
• Ertelt: If Lofton is serious about cutting this $2.2 million in Planned Parenthood funding, he would launch a vigorous campaign to up our pro-life numbers in Congress. He’s done no such thing to my knowledge and frequently attacks the strategy pro-life groups that do and that have led the fight to cut this funding.
Comment: Most “pro-life” Congress members are NOT pro-life because they favor exceptions and believe it’s OK to murder some classes of unborn babies.
Ertelt: So Lofton does nothing to remedy the situation that enables the PP funding. Talk about hypocrisy. The truth of the matter is that Bush has repeatedly cut off abortion funding. He installed the Mexico City Policy to prohibit funding of abortions abroad, he has signed bills with numerous abortion funding bans domestically, and repeatedly cut off funding to UNFPA (and expanded the Reagan year limits in addition) because it is involved in China’s forced abortion programs. To say Bush is not against abortion funding is simply not factual.
Comment: If Bush is “against abortion funding” why has he approved giving at least $2.2 BILLION to Planned Parenthood? Why did he sign into law all the legislation that allowed this? Why did he not veto these bills?
Ertelt: By the way, McCain takes the same position against abortion funding, while Obama does not.
Comment: Wrong. McCain has also voted to give millions to Planned Parenthood and he, too, is not truly pro-life because he, too, like Bush, thinks it should remain “legal” to murder innocent, unborn rape/incest babies.
For more re: the lying lips and Republican Party cheerleading of Ertelt, visit our web site The AmericanView.com and put his name in our search engine.
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
Jlof@aol.com
A few quick points, since Lofton essentially helps me make my case…
* Bush didn’t veto the budget because he knew we don’t have the votes to rid it of the Planned Parenthood funding. We’re on the losing side on this. Lofton concedes my point that Bush would sign a budget that zeroes out Planned Parenthood funding.
* To get on the winning side, I propose electing more pro-life members of the Senate who will vote against funding. Lofton fails to demonstrate how he is doing anything of consequence to make that happen. Instead, he labels the 41 members of the Senate who voted to defeat the funding as “not pro-life.”
* Lofton says pro-life members of Congress are not pro-life because they support rape and incest exceptions. (Not all of them do and I don’t). Lofton won’t campaign for them, won’t support them, etc. So the very people who are in office or could be elected who could cut Planned Parenthood’s funding are the very candidates he claims aren’t pro-life and he won’t lift a finger to get/stay in office. See the hypocrisy here? Lofton condemns the problem of PP funding but won’t do a darn thing about it. All talk, no action.
* Lofton misstates the position of John McCain on abortion funding. As recently as April 2005, and several times before that, McCain opposed an attempt to send taxpayer money to groups that perform or promote abortions in other nations. This anti-funding rule, known as the Mexico City Policy, is expected to be one of the first to be removed under a potential Obama administration as he has voted to scrap it. During his tenure in the House and Senate, McCain has also voted against taxpayer funding of abortion at military hospitals, in the District of Columbia, in the federal employee’s health insurance plan, on Indian reservations and has supported the Hyde Amendment to ban direct abortion funding in almost all cases. Anyone can find those votes by going to the Thomas web site.