Politicians Still Attacking the Pro-Life Hyde Amendment

One issue we have discussed repeatedly in recent years is the strange attack against the federal Hyde Amendment from some candidates and politicians.

The Hyde Amendment is a bipartisan budget provision that’s been on the books for more than four decades. It prevents Americans from being forced to subsidize abortions with their tax dollars, except in cases of rape or incest or when the mother’s life or physical health are in jeopardy.

For years the Hyde Amendment was seen as a reasonable compromise between pro-life and pro-abortion politicians. But since 2016, organizations like Planned Parenthood and NARAL and their allies in Washington have stepped up efforts to abolish the Hyde Amendment.

In 2016 the Democratic Party approved a platform that says,

We will continue to stand up to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood health centers, which provide critical health services to millions of people. We will continue to oppose—and seek to overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment.

Last June presidential hopeful Joe Biden reversed course after supporting the Hyde Amendment throughout most of his political career.

And at a recent town hall meeting sponsored by NARAL, presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg said,

“[W]e will eliminate the Hyde Amendment and restore funding for abortion care for Medicaid patients and other federal help programs.

It’s worth noting that taxpayer-funded abortion is not very popular among Americans — especially in Arkansas, where a large number of people believe abortion ought to be either completely illegal or legal only under certain circumstances.

The increased attacks on the federal Hyde Amendment just go to show we’ve come a long way since the days when people like President Bill Clinton said abortion ought to be “safe, legal, and rare.”

Pro-Life Play Coming to a City Near You

Later this month the one-act play “Viable” will come to a city near you, courtesy of our friends at Arkansas Right to Life.

The 75-minute play features three actors and tells the story of a post-abortive woman who finds restoration and forgiveness.

This is a poignant portrayal of the many impacts an abortion has on a woman and her relationships, and it may not be suitable for children younger than 12 years old.

The play will be performed at four different locations across Arkansas. The cost is free, but a love offering will be taken to help support the performance.

Below are performance times and locations.

Springdale – Friday, September 27th

7:00 p.m  – St. Raphael Parish Hall 1386 S. West End Street

Jonesboro – Saturday, September 28th

7:00 p.m.  – Awaken Church 2101 Fowler Avenue

Little Rock – Sunday, September 29th

6:30 p.m. Covenant Presbyterian Church #1 Covenant Drive

Texarkana – Monday, September 30th

7:00 p.m. – Place TBD

Visit www.viableplay.org or www.artl.org for more details.

Scientists Trying to Edit Human DNA: NPR Report

Recently we wrote about American scientists working in China to create human-monkey hybrids.

The goal, researchers say, is to grow organs for transplant patients, but other scientists have pointed out problems with this explanation.

Here’s another story about similar research being carried out on U.S. soil:

Last week NPR reported that scientists in America now are trying to manipulate human DNA.

The scientists are using the controversial gene-editing technology CRISPR.

The goal is to eliminate certain genetic anomalies and diseases.

NPR writes,

First it was human embryos. Now scientists are trying to develop another way to modify human DNA that can be passed on to future generations, NPR has learned.

Reproductive biologists at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City are attempting to use the powerful gene-editing technique called CRISPR to alter genes in human sperm. NPR got exclusive access to watch the controversial experiments underway. . . .

But others say editing DNA in sperm raises the same troubling questions as editing DNA in embryos. Would it ever be safe to make babies that way? Would it open the door to someone someday trying to make “designer babies”? Should scientists be trying to tinker with the human gene pool in ways that could affect generations to come?

There are plenty of reasons this kind of research is unethical. Here are two:

First, after manipulating the DNA in human sperm, the next logical step is to create human embryos for testing.

In other cases where CRISPR was used to edit human genes, this meant creating and killing unborn babies in the name of “science.” This kind of “create-and-kill” research is simply unconscionable.

Second, this research inevitably treats unborn children like lab material. The children created and affected by these sorts of gene-editing experiments have zero say in what happens to them. They are at the mercy of the researchers.

As we have said many times, human beings are not research material, but gene-editing technologies like CRISPR treat them that way.

All scientific research must respect the sanctity of human life.