No Picture
News Briefs

‘I still wanted to make a difference’: Why pro-lifers came to D.C. to pray

January 29, 2021 CNA Daily News 0

Washington D.C., Jan 29, 2021 / 10:32 am (CNA).- Although the national March for Life is closed to the public this year, dozens of young adults gathered for a pro-life prayer vigil in Washington, D.C. on Thursday night.

 

While practicing social distancing and wearing masks, members of the group endured the January cold as they kept an all-night prayer vigil outside the U.S. Supreme Court building.

 

Organizers of the vigil told CNA that despite the Jan. 29 March for Life being closed to the public, they still wanted to take action for life.

 

As Thomas Hackett of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, the co-founder of the Catholic worker organization Tradistae, had announced the vigil prior to the decision of the March for Life to be a virtual event, he decided to continue with his plans.

 

Hackett told CNA he wanted to embrace the “penitential tradition” of an all-night prayer vigil, to “emphasize the more radical nature” of how to respond to legalized abortion.

 

“I’m certainly supportive of [the March for Life], but it does often come across more as like a youth rally, like something fun to bus parish kids out to,” he said, explaining that there’s a need to take “seriously the certain gravity of what abortion is and what it means to live in a country where millions have been killed and continue to be killed in the womb.”

 

Preceding the vigil was a Votive Mass of the Holy Innocents at St. Joseph’s Catholic Church on Capitol Hill. Attendees then made a short procession to the U.S. Supreme Court building about two blocks away. 

 

As the night continued and temperatures dropped into the mid 20s, the size of the group dwindled from roughly 30 people at the beginning to approximately eight people at dawn. Throughout the night, they prayed the Liturgy of the Hours and the rosary, and sang hymns.

 

Hackett told CNA that he had no major issues with the police or members of the military posted outside the Supreme Court, and that the vigil was peaceful the entire time. 

 

“We told them we weren’t trying to cause any trouble,” said Hackett. “And so they didn’t bother us after that.” 

 

Other people journeyed from near and far to stand for life. 

 

Mickey Kelly took the train from Philadelphia to come to the Mass and vigil, partly because he views the annual March for Life as a tradition that he wanted to continue. He had been attending the March for Life nearly every year for the past 12 years. 

 

“Even though it would be a small crowd, I just thought that I still wanted to make a difference,” Kelly said. He described his beliefs as supportive of “all stages of life, from womb to tomb.” 

 

Attending the vigil in person “also gives me a chance to recommit to the cause for life,” he said. Kelly told CNA that he would also attempt to walk the traditional route of the March for Life on Friday, from the National Mall eastward down Constitution Avenue and to the Supreme Court. 

 

“I just do my best to put what God wants me to do first, and what the world wants me to do last,” he said. 

 

Valerie Hart, who traveled to D.C. for the vigil from Orlando, Florida, told CNA on Thursday night that she had booked her flights and accommodations for the March for Life “a few months ago.” 

 

The organizers of the March for Life announced Jan. 15 that the 2021 event would be virtual. Jeanne Mancini, president of the March for Life, cited both the pandemic and “the heightened pressures that law enforcement officers and others are currently facing in and around the Capitol” as reasons for the decision.

 

Mancini asked pro-lifers to “stay home” and watch a live-stream of the event, as a “small group of pro-life leaders” would still march in D.C.

 

Hart came to D.C. anyway, as she has every year since 2017. She said she was “heartbroken” when she found out the March was closed to the public. 

 

“I just couldn’t understand,” she said. “Because all the protests that have been going on in D.C., and ours is getting canceled, basically.” 

 

Hart said it was important for pro-lifers to go to D.C. to “get their voices heard.” 

 

She told CNA that she planned on attending a pro-life rally Friday morning, one not organized by March for Life, and then would attempt to join the smaller in-person march of pro-life leaders. 

 

“I guess we’ll just walk along–I mean, they can’t stop us from walking in D.C., right?” Hart said with a laugh. 

 

“It’s important to stand up for pro-life values, to stand up for the unborn, for all lives,” she said. “It’s important that people see that we’re still here, and they can’t stop us.”

 

 


[…]

No Picture
News Briefs

Why the Mexico City Policy is so significant

January 29, 2021 CNA Daily News 0

Washington D.C., Jan 29, 2021 / 06:30 am (CNA).- On Thursday, President Joe Biden struck down bans on U.S. funding of international pro-abortion groups—an act that could have far-reaching consequences.

 

Biden on Thursday issued a sweeping presidential memorandum on “Protecting Women’s Health at Home and Abroad,” repealing the Mexico City Policy and the Trump administration’s expansion of it.

 

However, what is the Mexico City Policy, and why is the repeal of it so significant?

 

The Mexico City Policy was first instituted in 1984 by President Reagan. It is named for the location of the UN population conference at which it was announced. The policy has been rescinded by Democratic Presidents Clinton, Obama, and now Biden; it was reinstated by Republican Presidents George W. Bush and Trump during their presidential terms.

 

Under the policy, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) cannot distribute family planning funds to foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that perform or promote abortions.

 

Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), who has served as co-chair of the House Pro-Life Caucus for decades, was in office when the policy was first instituted.

 

He told CNA that existing policy—the Helms Amendment—had prohibited direct funding of abortions abroad, but stronger pro-life funding protections were still required.

 

“And the accounting trick that the pro-abortion groups were doing was that they would take the all of the U.S. funding and then tell us our money wasn’t being used to pay for abortion,” he said. “And then they would just fund abortions-on-demand, however many they wanted to do, and lobby for it.”

 

The Mexico City Policy, he said, “was all about saying if we care enough about the precious lives of unborn children who are going to be dismembered or chemically poisoned by an organization,” then “we’re not going to let bookkeeping tricks and accounting methods prevent us from as much protection as we can possibly provide.”

 

Many international pro-abortion groups that have partnered with the U.S. in the past—such as Marie Stopes International and the International Planned Parenthood Federation—aggressively promote abortion in developing countries.

 

“It is unrelenting,” Smith said of abortion advocacy by certain NGOs. “A lot of countries are pro-life, particularly in Africa and Latin America, and, sadly, we’re being forced to subsidize the lobbying and the performance of abortion by these groups.”

 

These groups work with multilateral organizations such as the United Nations and African Union to promote abortions in the developing world, he said. As an example, he noted that one NGO that received U.S. assistance wrote legislation in Kenya authorizing legal abortion.

 

The Mexico City Policy originally applied to around $600 million of U.S. international family planning funding. Critics call it the “global gag rule,” alleging that it silences recipients from referring for abortions or advocating for legal abortion.

 

However, beginning in 2017, the Trump administration not only reinstated the policy, but it also extended to more than $8 billion in global health assistance.

 

As pro-abortion groups withdrew from partnership with the U.S. over the pro-life requirements, their funding shortfall was not insignificant. The International Planned Parenthood Federation estimated in 2017 it would lose $100 million annually in funding, while Marie Stopes International estimated an $80 million funding shortfall.

 

Critics of the policy alleged that the pro-life restrictions were so broad they would hurt important global health initiatives such as AIDS relief. They argued that if NGOs forfeited U.S. foreign aid over the abortion restrictions, and the U.S. could not find suitable replacement partners, then there could be significant gaps in critical health care.

 

In August, a federal report found that the “vast majority” of U.S. partners in global health assistance accepted the new pro-life policies instituted by the Trump administration. For those which did not accept, either an alternative health provider, foreign governments, or donors stepped in to fill health care gaps.

 

Smith formerly chaired the House global health subcommittee, and in 2018 he authored a five-year extension of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). He affirmed the conclusion that there were no significant gaps in health care as a result of the policy.

 

“So there wasn’t a single dollar cut for any health initiative—not one. It was redirected, but in most cases it was accepted,” Smith said.

 

“The issue is, abortion is not health care,” he said. “It is a very violent deed, and we don’t want complicity in global abortion.”

 

The Trump administration also applied funding restrictions to multilateral organizations because of abortion lobbying or alleged involvement in abortions.

 

In 2019, the Trump administration cut funding for the Organization of American States (OAS) because of its lobbying for abortion. In 2017, it stopped funding the UN’s population fund (UNFPA) because of the fund’s partnership with China on family planning—and alleged complicity in forced abortions and sterilizations under China’s two-child policy.

 

On Thursday, President Biden issued a sweeping order that repealed the Mexico City Policy and restored funding to UNFPA. He instructed federal agencies to begin reaching out to global health partners, to inform them that the previous restrictions on abortion performance, advocacy, and lobbying are no longer in place.

 

“Now more money will be flowing to the NGOs that so aggressively promote the destruction of innocent human life,” Smith said.

 

In addition, on Thursday Biden instructed the Secretary of Health and Human Services—Xavier Becerra has been nominated for the position but not yet confirmed—to review the Trump administration’s “Protect Life Rule.”

 

That rule applied to the Title X program, set up in 1970 to subsidize family planning and contraception. The Trump administration required Title X grant recipients to not refer for abortions or be co-located with abortion clinics. The original law that created Title X said that funding could not go to “programs where abortion is a method of family planning.”

 

Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, withdrew from the Title X program in 2019 rather than comply with the new requirements. It forfeited an estimated $60 million annually in Title X grants by doing so.

 

Biden said the new prohibition on abortion referrals “puts women’s health at risk by making it harder for women to receive complete medical information.”

 

The idea of the Protect Life Rule was similar to the Mexico City Policy, Smith said: to ensure tax dollars don’t fund clinics where abortions are also being performed.

 

“We’re supporting the organization and, in this case, it’s under the same roof where babies are being dismembered or chemically poisoned,” he said.

 

The Biden administration is also withdrawing from the Geneva Declaration, a statement signed by the U.S. and 31 other countries in October stating that abortion is not an international human right.

 

Biden’s support for abortion—after he once supported the Mexico City Policy in 1984 while a senator—is “tragic,” Smith said.

 

“I’ve been in the pro-life movement for almost half a century, 48 years. This is tragic that a man who purported to be so pro-life—even during the campaign and then gave it up under pressure—will now become the most aggressive promoter of abortion on the face of the earth.”

 

“It was a core conviction, and you shredded your core conviction for political expediency. That, to me, is tragic.”


[…]