President Donald John Trump must be given credit for his shaking up the established political order in Washington, District of Columbia. His executive orders, presidential directives and presidential memoranda of the past seven days have shown that he is very committed to undoing as much of the lawless legacy of his predecessor, former President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, as possible.
To wit, President Trump has been absolutely fearless in vowing to build a border wall and restoring the rule of law at the border between the United States of America and the United Mexican States, and his demand that so-called “sanctuary cities” simply obey Federal immigration law has been met with a firestorm of opposition from those cities’ self-righteous “mayors” who countenance law-breaking when it suits their ideological purposes of social engineering. Mayors such as Rahm Emanuel of the murder-infested city named Chicago, Illinois, and Warren Wilhelm/“Bill de Blasio” of the nation’s abortion capital, the City of New York, New York, have expressed defiance of the new president in order to persist in their violations of the rule of law.
Although he does not realize it, Trump’s expressed determination to simply enforce existing Federal law has exposed an interesting fact about the hypocritical adherents of the false opposite of the naturalist “left,” namely, that leftists believe that the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973, must be used to bludgeon men such as United States Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) into accepting the daily slaughter of the innocent preborn by surgical means as “settled law” while they, the leftists, arrogate unto themselves the right to “unsettle” those laws with which they disagree. Leftist ideologues believe that immigration law is unjust and that they have no obligation to observe it. Indeed, they believe that they are duty-bound to break laws that they consider to violations of their own false belief systems.
When one thinks about it, however, the leftist belief that laws considered to be manifestly unjust must be broken is the same underlying principle that brought us to the point of a nationwide slaughter of the innocent preborn up to and including the day of birth in the United States of America. Pro-abortion leaders such as Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a founder of the National Repeal of Abortion Laws (now called NARAL-Pro Choice), and Lawrence Lader and William Baird, among others, sought to change existing law in the 1960s by using the existence of various "exceptions" in abortion legislation then on the books as the means of "liberalizing" "access" to baby-killing for all women in all circumstances. The move for decriminalized baby-killing under cover of law started at the state level, moving into the Federal court system only when pro-death advocates believed that it was propitious for them to challenge the laws of those states which prohibited or restricted "access" to baby-killing. Noting that there are other root causes that brought us to the point of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton over forty-four years ago now, it was the efforts on the part of pro-aborts to change state laws in the 1960s that made the decriminalization of surgical baby-killing on the national level a reality. This is what “immigration activists,” including many of the conciliar “bishops” in the United States of America and elsewhere in the world, and the mayors of “sanctuary cities” are trying to do now at a time when the president who failed to enforce this country’s just immigration laws is gone and has been replaced by one who is just trying to enforce the law.
This is, of course, what must happen when men are needlessly divided about First and Last Things. Men must lose all sense of what constitutes true justice when they do not view the world clearly through the eyes of the true Faith. Pope Leo XIII pointed this out in Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900:
God alone is Life. All other beings partake of life, but are not life. Christ, from all eternity and by His very nature, is "the Life," just as He is the Truth, because He is God of God. From Him, as from its most sacred source, all life pervades and ever will pervade creation. Whatever is, is by Him; whatever lives, lives by Him. For by the Word "all things were made; and without Him was made nothing that was made." This is true of the natural life; but, as We have sufficiently indicated above, we have a much higher and better life, won for us by Christ's mercy, that is to say, "the life of grace," whose happy consummation is "the life of glory," to which all our thoughts and actions ought to be directed. The whole object of Christian doctrine and morality is that "we being dead to sin, should live to justice" (I Peter ii., 24)-that is, to virtue and holiness. In this consists the moral life, with the certain hope of a happy eternity. This justice, in order to be advantageous to salvation, is nourished by Christian faith. "The just man liveth by faith" (Galatians iii., II). "Without faith it is impossible to please God" (Hebrews xi., 6). Consequently Jesus Christ, the creator and preserver of faith, also preserves and nourishes our moral life. This He does chiefly by the ministry of His Church. To Her, in His wise and merciful counsel, He has entrusted certain agencies which engender the supernatural life, protect it, and revive it if it should fail. This generative and conservative power of the virtues that make for salvation is therefore lost, whenever morality is dissociated from divine faith. A system of morality based exclusively on human reason robs man of his highest dignity and lowers him from the supernatural to the merely natural life. Not but that man is able by the right use of reason to know and to obey certain principles of the natural law. But though he should know them all and keep them inviolate through life-and even this is impossible without the aid of the grace of our Redeemer-still it is vain for anyone without faith to promise himself eternal salvation. "If anyone abide not in Me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up and cast him into the fire, and he burneth" john xv., 6). "He that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark xvi., 16). We have but too much evidence of the value and result of a morality divorced from divine faith. How is it that, in spite of all the zeal for the welfare of the masses, nations are in such straits and even distress, and that the evil is daily on the increase? We are told that society is quite able to help itself; that it can flourish without the assistance of Christianity, and attain its end by its own unaided efforts. Public administrators prefer a purely secular system of government. All traces of the religion of our forefathers are daily disappearing from political life and administration. What blindness! Once the idea of the authority of God as the Judge of right and wrong is forgotten, law must necessarily lose its primary authority and justice must perish: and these are the two most powerful and most necessary bonds of society. Similarly, once the hope and expectation of eternal happiness is taken away, temporal goods will be greedily sought after. Every man will strive to secure the largest share for himself. Hence arise envy, jealousy, hatred. The consequences are conspiracy, anarchy, nihilism. There is neither peace abroad nor security at home. Public life is stained with crime.
So great is this struggle of the passions and so serious the dangers involved, that we must either anticipate ultimate ruin or seek for an efficient remedy. It is of course both right and necessary to punish malefactors, to educate the masses, and by legislation to prevent crime in every possible way: but all this is by no means sufficient. The salvation of the nations must be looked for higher. A power greater than human must be called in to teach men's hearts, awaken in them the sense of duty, and make them better. This is the power which once before saved the world from destruction when groaning under much more terrible evils. Once remove all impediments and allow the Christian spirit to revive and grow strong in a nation, and that nation will be healed. The strife between the classes and the masses will die away; mutual rights will be respected. If Christ be listened to, both rich and poor will do their duty. The former will realise that they must observe justice and charity, the latter self-restraint and moderation, if both are to be saved. Domestic life will be firmly established (by the salutary fear of God as the Lawgiver. In the same way the precepts of the natural law, which dictates respect for lawful authority and obedience to the laws, will exercise their influence over the people. Seditions and conspiracies will cease. Wherever Christianity rules over all without let or hindrance there the order established by Divine Providence is preserved, and both security and prosperity are the happy result. The common welfare, then, urgently demands a return to Him from whom we should never have gone astray; to Him who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life,-and this on the part not only of individuals but of society as a whole. We must restore Christ to this His own rightful possession. All elements of the national life must be made to drink in the Life which proceedeth from Him- legislation, political institutions, education, marriage and family life, capital and labour. Everyone must see that the very growth of civilisation which is so ardently desired depends greatly upon this, since it is fed and grows not so much by material wealth and prosperity, as by the spiritual qualities of morality and virtue. (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)
Almost no one today understands that the “growth of civilization” “grows not so much by material wealth and prosperity, as but the spiritual qualities of morality and virtue.”
Those opposing President Donald John Trump with profane ferocity do not understand this, and Donald John Trump and those advising him do not understand this.
As commendable as President Trump’s actions on such matters as the Keystone XL and the Dakota Access Pipelines, border security, banning Syrian refugees from entering the country, easing the enforcement of the burdensome regulatory regime wrought by the so-called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Obama Care (see Andrew Napolitano Says Trump Has Committeed the Most Revolutionary Act See in forty-five years), and the withdrawal of the United States of America from the globalist Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement are, none of these can be the means of restoring true national greatness when the civil law protects grievously sinful actions, no less each of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, including willful murder.
Like each of his predecessors before him, of course, President Donald John Trump, however, he does not understand that American law has lost its primary authority and that justice has perished precisely because men and their nations severed themselves nearly half a millennia ago from the sweet yoke of the Social Reign of Christ the King as it was exercised by Holy Mother Church, thus bringing us to the point of such social decay that one is considered to be “pro-life” even though he supports the surgical slicing and dicing of innocent human beings in some circumstances and supports the chemical execution of innocent babies in all circumstances without exception. So many people, starved for decisive leadership of any type, are willing to overlook the simple fact that, no matter the new president’s efforts to restore economic prosperity and to secure the nation’s borders, there can be no true prosperity or national security if the civil law recognizes a nonexistent “right” to directly intend to kill innocent children under cover of the civil law in some cases and that it is perfectly normal and acceptable to frustrate the conception of children, no less to use the gift proper to the married state alone in all extramarital situations.
That is, far from being a triumph for the preborn, President Donald John Trump’s restoration of the Mexico City Policy according to the terms included in then President George Walker Bush’s executive order of January 22, 2001, represents yet another needless concession that there are circumstances in which innocent preborn children may be put to death lawfully with funding provided by American taxpayer dollars.
Moreover, even though President Trump’s iteration of the Mexico City Policy extends to all Federal agencies and not just to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to forbid them from using American taxpayer dollars to promote surgical abortion as a means of “family planning,” “family planning” is itself odious to God, injurious to individuals, destructive to families and fatal to the welfare of nations. Most of our social problems are the direct result of the destruction of the stability of the family, the proliferation of unwed mothers and of children sent off to pre-school and after-school “care” programs, meaning that grow up never having experienced the meaning of a stable family and thus of the true love and sense of security to be found therein. Indeed, many of Federal entitlement programs exist to provide taxpayer assistance to children who live in poverty as a result of the consequences of contraception and the unstable situations in which they live.
Here is the text of President Trump’s presidential memorandum restoring the Mexico City Policy, which extends the ban of American taxpayer dollars being provided to “family planning” agencies in foreign countries that use surgical abortion as a means of “family planning”:
MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE
THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY
FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT: The Mexico City Policy
I hereby revoke the Presidential Memorandum of January 23, 2009, for the Secretary of State and the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (Mexico City Policy and Assistance for Voluntary Population Planning), and reinstate the Presidential Memorandum of January 22, 2001, for the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (Restoration of the Mexico City Policy).
I direct the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to the extent allowable by law, to implement a plan to extend the requirements of the reinstated Memorandum to global health assistance furnished by all departments or agencies.
I further direct the Secretary of State to take all necessary actions, to the extent permitted by law, to ensure that U.S. taxpayer dollars do not fund organizations or programs that support or participate in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.
This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.
DONALD J. TRUMP (Presidential Memorandum on The Mexico City Policy.)
The George Walker Bush version of the "Mexico City" policy, as the "gag" order is called, was fraught with holes and exceptions as to make it an utter sham that convinces the average "pro-life" American that "something" is being done to save lives when the truth of the matter is that Bush's executive order that Trump has now restored permits employees of international "family planning" agencies in foreign countries to refer for abortions on their own time in any off-site location of their choosing. In other words, the "Mexico City" policy permits an employee of the International Planned Parenthood chapter in Nairobi, Kenya, for example to say, "Look, there are things I can't tell you now. Meet me at the Nairobi McDonald's after I get out of work. I can tell you more then." The employee is then free to speak frankly about surgical abortion, to recommend the killing of a child as the only "sensible" option, to recommend a specific baby-killer and a specific place for the baby to be killed.
Mrs. Judie Brown, the president and founder of the American Life League, offered the following commentary ten years ago after the United States Congress had passed a bill containing the language of the Mexico City Policy:
While many are celebrating the Congressional passage of a bill that contains the Mexico City Policy, there are those of us who are not so quick to throw a party.
The policy was contained in a piece of legislation that also provides an increase in funding for Planned Parenthood. But that's not really the worst of it.
The Mexico City Policy contains exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother ... standard fare for the pro-life politicos these days. The problem is, they fail to point out that the Mexico City Policy does not and cannot prohibit our tax dollars from paying for abortion; it can only prevent our tax dollars from paying for some abortions. Why, you may ask, did I use the word "some"?
Well, the Mexico City Policy will pay for surgical abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother in addition to paying for chemical abortions caused by RU-486, the morning-after pill and the various birth control methods that can cause abortion.
Further, it is not clear what happens when an organization agrees to refrain from paying for abortion with U.S. tax dollars, but chooses to use those dollars to pay for other "services," thus freeing up other money to subsidize the killing.
In other words, the Mexico City Policy is fraught with problems that result in death.
So when some claim that America is no longer an "exporter of death," they are really not being totally honest with the public. America is still the number one exporter and subsidizer of preborn child killing, period. Of that there is no doubt. (AMERICA'S DEADLY EXPORT)
This analysis was correct ten years ago, and it is correct today, and it is worth stressing that nothing but nothing in the restored and revised Mexico City Policy issued by President Trump forbids the use of the human pesticide, RU-486, which former President George Waker Bush refused to take off of the market, thereby retaining the United States Food and Drug Administration's decision, announced on September 28, 2000, the Feast of Saint Wenceslaus, to market the baby-killing potion during the midst of that year's presidential election.
Consider, for example, the fact that the supposed “pro-life” Governor of Texas, George Walker Bush, said on October 3, 2000, that he would not reverse the United States Food and Drug Administration’s decision to place the human pesticide, RU-486, on the marketplace after over seven years of clinical trials that began soon after then President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton issued an executive order on January 22, 1993, ordering the Food and Drug Administration “to promptly assess initiatives … [to] promote the testing, licensing, and manufacturing in the United States … [of] antiprogestins.” It was about thirty months after Clinton’s executive order that The New York Times reported women were getting pregnant deliberately in order to test the human pesticide in the Food and Drug Administration’s “clinical” trials.
This is what Bush the Lesser said in his debate with then Vice President Arnold Albert Gore, Jr., in St. Louis, Missouri:
BUSH: I don't think a president can unilaterally overturn it. The FDA has made its decision.
MODERATOR: That means you wouldn't, through appointments, to the FDA and ask them to --
BUSH: I think once a decision has been made, it's been made unless it's proven to be unsafe to women.
GORE: Jim, the question you asked, if I heard you correctly, was would he support legislation to overturn it. And if I heard the statement day before yesterday, you said you would order -- he said he would order his FDA appointee to review the decision. Now that sounds to me a little bit different. I just think that we ought to support the decision.
BUSH: I said I would make sure that women would be safe who used the drug. (2000 Debate Transcript) [Droleskey comment: Uh, Mister Former President, the President of the United States of America can make appointments to the Food and Drug Administration who could indeed overturn such a decision by means of an administrative fiat. Moreover, the human pesticide, RU-486, is lethal to babies, Mister Former President, and is not "safe" for women's bodies and is positively lethal to their immortal souls. ]
True to his cowardly word, President George Walker Bush never lifted a finger to reverse the Food and Drug Administration’s September 28, 2000, to permit the licensing and sale of the human pesticide, RU-486. Moreover, it was just six years later during his second term as President of the United States of America that the United States Food and Drug Administration permitted the over-the-counter so-called “emergency” contraceptive named “Plan B” even though it is also a poison pill that serves as an abortifacient:
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today announced approval of Plan B, a contraceptive drug, as an over-the-counter (OTC) option for women aged 18 and older. Plan B is often referred to as emergency contraception or the "morning after pill." It contains an ingredient used in prescription birth control pills--only in the case of Plan B, each pill contains a higher dose and the product has a different dosing regimen. Like other birth control pills, Plan B has been available to all women as a prescription drug. When used as directed, Plan B effectively and safely prevents pregnancy. Plan B will remain available as a prescription-only product for women age 17 and under.
Duramed, a subsidiary of Barr Pharmaceuticals, will make Plan B available with a rigorous labeling, packaging, education, distribution and monitoring program. In the CARE (Convenient Access, Responsible Education) program Duramed commits to:
Provide consumers and healthcare professionals with labeling and education about the appropriate use of prescription and OTC Plan B, including an informational toll-free number for questions about Plan B;
Ensure that distribution of Plan B will only be through licensed drug wholesalers, retail operations with pharmacy services, and clinics with licensed healthcare practitioners, and not through convenience stores or other retail outlets where it could be made available to younger women without a prescription;
Packaging designed to hold both OTC and prescription Plan B. Plan B will be stocked by pharmacies behind the counter because it cannot be dispensed without a prescription or proof of age; and
Monitor the effectiveness of the age restriction and the safe distribution of OTC Plan B to consumers 18 and above and prescription Plan B to women under 18.
Today's action concludes an extensive process that included obtaining expert advice from a joint meeting of two FDA advisory committees and providing an opportunity for public comment on issues regarding the scientific and policy questions associated with the application to switch Plan B to OTC use. Duramed's application raised novel issues regarding simultaneously marketing both prescription and non-prescription Plan B for emergency contraception, but for different populations, in a single package.
The agency remains committed to a careful and rigorous scientific process for resolving novel issues in order to fulfill its responsibility to protect the health of all Americans. (FDA Approves Over-the-Counter Access for Plan B for Women 18 and Over .)
There is no reason to believe that President Donald John Trump has any intention to rescind the Food and Drug Administration's Septenber 28, 2000, decision to market RU-486 and/or to rescind the FDA's decision to approve over-the-counter access for the Plan B abortifacient to women who are eighteen years of age and over.
Mind you, President Trump has never thought too much or too deely about pro-life issues. He is taking advice--and very bad advice at that--from advisers and representatives of various so-called "right to life organizations that either endorse or, in the case of the National Right to Life Committee, take no positon on contraception and endorse at least one, if not all three, of the usual "exceptions" whereby it is contended that it is "permissible" to directly kill an innocent preborn human being (see Pope Pius XII Slams The National Not-So-Right-Life Committee and George Walker Bush and All Other So-Called "Pro-Life" Pols.) He really thinks that the restored Mexico City Policy will save lives when it will do nothing of the sort.
To demonstrate the inherent harm of the Mexico City Policy in the version approved in it final form by President George Walker Bush on March 28, 2001, and published in the Federal Register on March 29, 2000, I ask the readers of this site to consider the contemporaneous analysis offered by the late Howard Phillips, the president and the founder of the Conservative Caucus Foundation. Though a Calvinist who rejected the claims of the Catholic Church to be the one and only true Church of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and thus did not accept the fact the Constitution of the United States of America, which admits of no higher authority than the text of its own words, is as defenseless against legal positivists as Holy Writ is in the hand of Protestants and of Modernist "Catholics," Phillips's dissection of then President George Walker Bush's restored Mexico City Policy is as applicable to the one isssued by President Donald John Trump on Monday, January 23, 2017, the Feast of Saint Raymond of Penafort and the Commemoration of Saint Emerentiana:
Excerpted from Howard Phillips Issues & Strategy Bulletin of April 15, 2001
BUSH’S "MEXICO CITY" ABORTION POLICY DEPENDS ON WHAT THE MEANING OF "IS" IS
ABORTION AND ABORTION ADVOCACY WILL STILL BE FUNDED
Previously, your editor has pointed out that President G.W.B.’s decision to restore the Reagan "Mexico City" policy, limiting the provision of your tax dollars flowing to overseas population control organizations was less significant than assumed by many well-intentioned pro-life leaders, in that, while the Bush policy does limit the direct use of U.S. subsidies to perform and promote abortion, nonetheless, the pro-abortion recipient organizations still get the money to which they are not Constitutionally or morally entitled, with these funds available to offset their other expenses, so long as the U.S. Treasury dollars are assigned to a separate bank account.
Now, in reviewing the policy as enunciated in the Federal Register (Vol. 66, No. 61, Thursday, March 29, 2001) Presidential Documents, "Memorandum of March 28, 2001: Restoration of the Mexico City Policy" over the signature of President Bush, it is clear that this is even less a pro-life victory than first believed.
"FAMILY PLANNING": YES, "ABORTION": NO --- WITH EXCEPTIONS
GWB: "The Mexico City Policy announced by President Reagan in 1984 required foreign nongovernmental organizations to agree as a condition of their receipt of Federal funds for family planning activities that such organizations would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations….
"It is my conviction that taxpayer funds appropriated pursuant to the Foreign Assistance Act should not be given to foreign nongovernmental organizations that perform abortions or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations…except as otherwise provided below...."
ABORTION FUNDING OK IF NOT "A METHOD OF FAMILY PLANNING"
"The recipient agrees that it will not furnish assistance for family planning under this award to any foreign nongovernmental organization that performs or actively promotes abortion as a method of family planning in USAID-recipient countries or that provides financial support to any other foreign nongovernmental organization that conducts such activities. For purposes of this paragraph (e), a foreign nongovernmental organization is a nongovernmental organization that is not organized under the laws of any State of the United States, the District of Columbia or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. ..."
FUNDING OF "POST-ABORTION" CARE IS AUTHORIZED
"Abortion is a method of family planning when it is for the purpose of spacing births. This includes, but is not limited to, abortions performed for the physical or mental health of the mother, but does not include abortions performed if the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or abortions performed following rape or incest (since abortion under these circumstances is not a family planning act)."
FUNDING OF POST-ABORTION SERVICES PERMITTED
"To perform abortions means to operate a facility where abortions are performed as a method of family planning. Excluded from this definition are clinics or hospitals that do not include abortion in their family planning programs. Also excluded from this definition is the treatment of injuries or illnesses caused by legal or illegal abortions, for example, post-abortion care. ..."
GWB: "SAFE, LEGAL ABORTION" REFERRAL IS PERMITTED
"([P]assively responding to a question regarding where a safe, legal abortion may be obtained is not considered active promotion if the question is specifically asked by a woman who is already pregnant, the woman clearly states that she has already decided to have a legal abortion, and the family planning counselor reasonably believes that the ethics of the medical profession in the country requires a response regarding where it may be obtained safely).…"
GWB OK’S ABORTION ADVOCACY IF "FAMILY PLANNING" PERSONNEL DO IT ON THEIR LUNCH HOUR
"Action by an individual acting in the individual’s capacity shall not be attributed to an organization with which the individual is associated, provided that the organization neither endorses nor provides financial support for the action and takes reasonable steps to ensure that the individual does not improperly represent that the individual is acting on behalf of the organization. ..."
SEPARATE BANK ACCOUNTS FOR ABORTION AND CONTRACEPTION
"The recipient may request USAID’s approval to treat as separate the family planning activities of two or more organizations, that would not be considered separate under the preceding sentence, if the recipient believes, and provides a written justification to USAID therefor, that the family planning activities of the organizations are sufficiently distinct so as to warrant not imputing the activity of one to the other."
ALL U.S. FUNDS MUST BE CLEANLY LAUNDERED
"Assistance for family planning may be furnished under this award by a recipient, subrecipient or sub-subrecipient to a foreign government even though the government includes abortion in its family planning program, provided that no assistance may be furnished in support of the abortion activity of the government and any funds transferred to the government shall be placed in a segregated account to ensure that such funds may not be used to support the abortion activity of the government."
DUBYA SAYS USAID SUBSIDIES WILL FUND CHILD-SPACING ABORTIONS
"The requirements of this paragraph are not applicable to child spacing assistance furnished to a foreign nongovernmental organization that is engaged primarily in providing health services if the objective of the assistance is to finance integrated health care services to mothers and children and child spacing is one of several health care services being provided by the organization as part of a larger child survival effort with the objective of reducing infant and child mortality." (Excerpts on Pro-Life Issues in The Howard Phillips Issues and Strategies Bulletin. This is a very good resource that contains factual documentation of the consitent Republican betrayal of legitimate pro-life policy. There is even a lengthy quotation about President George Walker Bush's 2004 endorsement of the fully pro-abortion United States Senator Arlen Specter against a primary challenge being waged by the partly pro-life and partly pro-abortion United States Representative Patrick Toomey, who was elected to the Senate six years later after Specter, having switched parties to become a Democrat three months after Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro took office in 2009, lost the Democratic Party senatorial primary in Pennsylvania a year later. Mr. Phillips's lengthy quotation of the Bush the Lesser's endorsement of Specter seemed very familiar to me. It should have been familiar as the citation he provided was to a certain author in The Remnant who is no longer associated with that publication, and can be found referenced in Blame George Walker Bush.)
Howard Phillips's analysis of sixteen years ago made it very clear that the Mexico City Policy has so many loopholes as to make any claim in its defense to be without rational foundation.
Once again, President Trump knows none of this. Indeed, he knew nothing about the annual March for Life until recently, something that he noted in an interview with the American Broadcasting Company television network (ABC-TV) that aired on Wednesday, January 25, 2017, the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul the Apostle, as he castigated the mainslime media for not covering an event that draws thousands upon thousands of people from all across the United States of America to peacefully protest and to make reparation for the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973:
January 26, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – During a Wednesday night interview with ABC, President Trump called out the media for covering a pro-abortion march but ignoring the March for Life.
ABC's David Muir asked Trump if he "could hear the voices from the women’s march here in Washington?"
"I couldn’t hear them, but the crowds were large," Trump responded. "You’re gonna have a large crowd on Friday, too, which is mostly pro-life people. You’re gonna have a lot of people coming on Friday, and I will say this, and I didn’t realize this, but I was told, you will have a very large crowd of people. I don’t know – as large or larger – some people say it’s gonna be larger. Pro-life people. And they say the press doesn’t cover them."
Muir quickly said he didn't want to compare crowd sizes.
"What they do say is that the press doesn’t cover them," said Trump.
Friday's March for Life is the 44th annual gathering demanding human rights for the pre-born. It is the largest annual American civil rights demonstration.
A recent study by Katie Yoder of NewsBusters revealed that the networks covered the 2017 pro-abortion women's march 129 times more than the 2016 March for Life. (Trump Plugs March for Life in Interviw with ABC-TV News.)
This, I will grant you, is significant on two counts.
First, President Trump admitted that he knew nothing about the March for Life or the large numbers of Americans who make many sacrifices to travel to the nation's capital to participate it, and this means that he is relying upon what he has been told by those around him. While he was given accurate information about what I long ago called the "media shutout" of the March for Life, which I used to cover annually durng my years writing for The Wanderer, the people advising him on the Mexico City Policy accept that policy's basic premise, namely, that is is a good thing for American taxpayer dollars to be sent to nongovermemntal "family planning" agencies abroad as along as they do not kill babies surgically for "family planning" reasons. Such a concession overlooks entirely the simple fact that most contraceptives abort, and most contraceptives abort most of the time while overlooking as well the fact that it is contraception and the contraception mentality that led, both socially and judicially, to surgical baby-killing on demand under cover of the civil law. Griswold v. Connecticut, June 7, 1965, led directly to Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973.
Second, the president's remarks, which he repeated at a Congressional Republican "retreat" in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, yesteday, January 26, 2017, the Feast of Saint Polycarp, has made it very difficult for the mainslime media to ignore this year's March for Life. Indeed, Trump, who might show up a the march himself even though he is not scheduled to be there, has assured that more coverage will given to the event by the fact that he has authorized Vice President Michael Richard Pence to appear live at the rally before the march. All that Ronald Wilson Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush or George Walker Bush ever did was to speak to the rally via a phone hookup, and the latter did not even do that just days after his inauguration (Karl Rove made sure that Bush the Lesser was out of town on January 22nd each year save for 2008, at which point "Dubya" met with March for Life representatives in the White House as he had nothing to lose politically for doing so in his final year of his second term).
It would be intellectually dishonest of me not to give credit where credit is due, and the president deserves a great deal of credit for highlighting the March for Life and permitting the vice president to speak in person at the rally beforehand.
<font face="times new