• Skip to main content

March for Life

  • National March
    • 2026 March for Life
    • 2026 Speakers
    • “Life is a Gift”
    • Hotel & Travel Information
    • Events
    • Sponsorships
    • 2025 March for Life
      • 2025 Theme
      • 2025 Speakers
      • 2025 Livestream
      • 2025 March Highlights
  • State Marches
    • Find Your State
    • Alaska
    • Arizona
    • California
    • Colorado
    • Connecticut
    • Georgia
    • Indiana
    • Iowa
    • Kansas
    • Kentucky
    • Maryland
    • Michigan
    • Montana
    • New Hampshire
    • New Jersey
    • North Dakota
    • Ohio
    • Oklahoma
    • Oregon
    • Pennsylvania
    • Virginia
  • Pregnancy Help Donation Drive
  • News
    • BLOG
    • PRESS RELEASES
    • IN THE NEWS
  • Education
    • Post-Roe America
    • Dobbs SCOTUS Case
  • About us
    • MISSION
    • Our Team
    • Our President
    • Impact
    • FAQs
    • Jobs
    • Internships
    • CONTACT US
  • Store
  • TAKE ACTION
  • DONATE

63 Days of Life: Pro-life 101: What is UNFPA and Should Taxpayers Fund It?

November 19, 2013 By Scott Zipperle Leave a Comment

63 Days of Life: Pro-life 101: What is UNFPA and Should Taxpayers Fund It?

At the 1984 Mexico City Conference the Reagan Administration established the requirement that the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) provide “concrete assurances that (it) is not engaged in, or does not provide funding for, abortions or coercive family planning programs.”  Concern was highest over UNFPA’s activities in China’s coercive family planning practices.  At the time the Administration reportedly held up $19 million (of $38 million allocated for UNFPA for FY1984) until assurances could be provided it was not going to these nefarious practices.  

Congress enacted the Kemp-Kasten Amendment in 1985 that left it up to the President to determine if an organization or program being funded by UNFPA contributes to coercive abortions or forced sterilizations.  From 1986 through 1993 both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush concluded that the UNFPA was involved in those nefarious practices and thus denied U.S taxpayer funds.  President George H.W. Bush even vetoed the 1989 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill because the Democratic Congress was insisting the U.S. contribute to the UNFPA.

It was not until 1993 that President Clinton, despite massive evidence to the contrary, decided it was okay to fund the UNFPA despite its involvement with coercive abortions and forced sterilizations.  Under the George W. Bush administration, the U.S. withheld funds for the UNFPA from America’s annual contributions to the United Nations due to UNFPA’s complicity in China’s one-child policy enforced through coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization, but the Obama administration and the 111th Congress resumed contributions to UNFPA.

Numerous investigations, both private and Congressional, have found that China continues to this day its practice of age requirements for pregnancy; “birth permits”; mandatory use of IUDs; mandatory sterilization; crippling fines for non-compliance; imprisonment for non-compliance; forced abortion and forced sterilization.  Just last year Feng Jianmei was dragged from her home, beaten, and forced to abort her seven month old unborn child, because it was her second pregnancy.  According to China’s one-child policy, couples living in rural areas may have a second child only if their first is a girl. And those in urban areas are strictly restricted to one child.  Anyone found breaking this law is fined up to $25,000, or forced to comply as in the case of Feng Jianmei.

The Chinese government continues to kill 13 million infants annually through their policies – With the assistance of UNFPA and American taxpayers.   China’s unborn children who are tested and found to be female are at special risk. Nor is this heinous policy limited to the unborn. Female infanticide is routine in rural China.

 

There have been recent stories that China has “let up” on their one-child policies.  Reggie Littlejohn, president of Womens Rights Without Frontiers,   has gone to China to expose this lie and she got an assist from an unexpected source:

Now a new Xinhua report confirms Chinese officials believe that the “birth policy changes are no big deal.”

 

Wang Pei’an, deputy director of the National Health and Family Planning Commission, told Xinhua that “the number of couples covered by the new policy is not very large across the country.”

 

Last week, Littlejohn explained that even if all couples were allowed two children, there is no guarantee that the Chinese Communist Party “will cease their appalling methods of enforcement.”

 

“Regardless of the number of children allowed, women who get pregnant without permission will still be dragged out of their homes, strapped down to tables and forced to abort babies that they want, even up to the ninth month of pregnancy. It does not matter whether you are pro-life or pro-choice on this issue,” she said. “No one supports forced abortion, because it is not a choice.”

 

She said instituting a two-child policy also will not end the Chinese government’s “gendercide” in which girls are selectively aborted because of the cultural value of having a boy to maintain the family name.

 

“Indeed, areas in which two children currently are allowed are especially vulnerable to gendercide, the sex-selective abortion of females,” she said.

 

Littlejohn cited a 2009 British Medical Journal study of 2005 national census data showing that in nine provinces, for “second order births” where the first child is a girl, 160 boys were born for every 100 girls.

 

Hundreds of millions in taxpayer funds have been allocated for UNFPA despite their participation in China’s brutal policy.  Cutting off funding to UNFPA will save money, but more importantly it will save lives by discontinuing U.S. taxpayer support for UNFPA.

 

For more information please visit Womens Rights Without Frontiers.
 

 

Filed Under: Blog

November 18, 2013 By Scott Zipperle Leave a Comment

64 Days of Life: Abortions for all, miniature American flags for others

In the 1996 Treehouse of Horror episode of the Simpsons, two aliens, Kang and his sister Kudos, plan to take over the Earth by impersonating Bill Clinton and Bob Dole, the two presidential candidates of that year.  At one point Kang, disguised as Bob Dole, in trying to please a divided crowd declares “abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.” 

 

 

Ironically this position really wasn’t that far from the real Bob Dole and even today abortion does seem to still garner some debate within the Republican Party.  However, for some Democratic pro-abortion politicians in the U.S. Congress they will only be happy with unrestricted taxpayer funded abortions for all.  Earlier this week, Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), along with Representatives Judy Chu (D-CA), Lois Frankel (D-FL) and Marcia Fudge (D-OH), introduced the ironically named “Women’s Health Protection Act” (WHaPA).  The WHaPA would override the tremendous success we have seen in the states of protecting women’s health while also putting limitations on abortion.  Not since the abortions for all “Freedom of Choice Act,” supported by President Obama, have we seen a bill that is so anti-mother and child.

 

 

Section 4 of the bill is loaded with prohibitions for the states:

 

Want to require that only licensed doctors perform a surgical abortion?  That would be outlawed under this bill.  Actually this bill would allow an abortionist to designate anyone, regardless of training, to perform the procedure.   This protects the unlicensed abortionist, but not the woman.

 

Want legislation that restricts the off counter use of a drug that has proven to both harm and kill women when used for a chemical abortion?  That would be illegal under this bill.  This protects the lazy abortionist, but not the women who have ended up dying from unlicensed use of abortion causing drugs.

 

Want to make sure a doctor can’t “phone in” a chemical abortion?  This legislation would restrict that – allowing presumably anyone designated by an abortion doctor to distribute life ending drugs via the Internet.  Again, this protects the lazy abortionist, but not the women who have ended up dying from unlicensed use of abortion causing drugs.

 

Want to stop future abortionists like Kermit Gosnell, who butchered two women and countless babies to death?  The “Women’s Health Protection Act” protects Kermit Gosnell, but not the woman.

 

Want to pass a law that requires an abortionist to report cases of statutory rape for girls as young (or younger) than 12?  Or at least get the permission of a legal guardian to have the invasive and destructive procedure known as abortion?  The “WHaPA” protects the predator, not the 12 year old girl or the parents.

 

Section 6 then gives Attorney General Eric Holder virtually unrestricted powers to abuse the office against pro-lifers as well as possibly legislators or elected officials who would enforce ANY law that seeks to protect a woman.

 

This is legislation only Planned Parenthood could love, and love it they do.  The bill has 36 sponsors in the Senate and 60 in the House of Representatives; however, it is clear this is the wish list of many pro-abortion folks in DC.  This bill would not only lead to more abortions, it would also lead to more deaths of both mothers and children. 

 

All I can say is “Don’t blame me, I voted for Kudos.” 

 

Filed Under: Blog

November 15, 2013 By Scott Zipperle Leave a Comment

67 Days of Life: Pro-life Song List, Part II

I had a substantive post for today planned, and then life took over. So you get more pro-life songs to get you through the weekend. The first one was sent to us after the last time we posted on pro-life songs. The song is “Can I Live?” by Nick Cannon from 2005. It is a song that is a semi-autobiographical account of how Cannon’s mother decided not to have an abortion.

Next we go waaaay back to 1986 and “Abortion” by Doug E. Fresh & the Get Fresh Crew A pro-life rap song that describes abortion as a “distortion” and states the “world’s morals are out of proportion.” When first released the song was banned from the radio.

 

And from the great year of 1976 “Adiós, mamá” by Trigo Limpio. A Spanish-language song written from the perspective of a fetus that comes to terms with the news the woman carrying it intends to have an abortion.

 

I didn’t say they were all toe tappers folks. Have a good weekend!

Filed Under: Blog

November 14, 2013 By Scott Zipperle Leave a Comment

68 Days of Life: What are pro-life riders?

Earlier I wrote of a pro-life “rider” called the Mexico City Policy.  But for those who are not up on legislative lingo the obvious question is “what exactly is a pro-life rider?”  Here is my feeble attempt to elucidate (ding ding ding – word of the day!).

For many years pro-life measures have been added to Congressional appropriations bills to prevent taxpayer dollars from being used to promote or perform abortion, protect the consciences of health care professionals, and prevent funding for unethical human embryo experiments.  Often referred to as pro-life riders, each year these provisions are included in legislation reported out of Appropriations subcommittees.  One seasoned pro-life champion prefers the term pro-life “provisions” – as opposed to “riders.”  The term “riders” gives an indication that these legislative actions are only “along for the ride.”  He tends to explain it more articulately than I, and I agree with him, so I try to use it as often as possible when talking on the subject.

Some of these measures have been in place for over thirty years.  The Hyde Amendment, for example, has been in effect since 1976.  Enacted under a Democratic Congress, the Hyde Amendment has been renewed by administrations and congresses regardless of party control. Without retaining pro-life provisions on annual appropriations bills there is no assurance taxpayer dollars will not be used to fund or promote abortion. 

Over the years these different provisions have gone through different changes.  Like the Dornan Amendment which when originally passed in 1988 guaranteed no tax dollars (federal or DC funds) can be used for abortion in DC.  When President Clinton took office in 1993 this provision was removed only to be restored in 1996 when the Republicans took over both chambers of Congress.  Subsequently a Democratic Congress and President Barack Obama once again open the door for tax funded abortions in 2009, and it was only after some outside pro-life pressure that the new Republican majority in the House restored the prohibition in 2011.

Even the granddaddy of the pro-life provisions had sad changes to it.  Originally the Hyde Amendment, passed in 1976, prevented federal funding in Medicaid for performance of ALL domestic abortions.  In 1993 pro-abortion folks, bolstered by a President Clinton once again, forced changes to the law, opening the door for some taxpayer funding of abortions.  Just recently a similar provision in the Defense Authorization added the same changes to that appropriation.

Not all of the changes have been bad ones though.  I was honored to be a small part in 2011 in codifying one of the pro-life provisions.  Thanks to the now-current Vice President of Government Affairs at Family Research Council (FRC), working closely with House Leadership and Judiciary Committee staff, the passage of the “Weldon Patent Ban” as part of the “America Invents Act” to prevent patenting of human embryos was a huge, though not loudly trumpeted victory for the pro-life movement. FRC took no position on the bill in full but praised codifying into law a major pro-life provision.

This new law made permanent the ban authored by former Congressman Dave Weldon (R-FL) that had been renewed each year since 2004 on the Commerce, Justice and State Appropriations bill to prevent the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office from issuing patents on “human organisms.” The House of Representatives, led by Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith, added the Weldon language into the bill to make this ban permanent and it was ultimately signed into law by the most pro-abortion President in history, Barack Obama.  How is that for irony?

Filed Under: Blog

November 14, 2013 By Scott Zipperle Leave a Comment

Rep. Smith Releases Letter on Abortion Coverage in Multi-State Plans

From a friend on the Hill:

Pro-life Groups:

As you know, finding out about abortion coverage on the exchanges or marketplaces created under the Affordable Care Act is extremely difficult.  In the 27 states that allow plans to cover elective abortion on the exchanges, it is almost impossible for consumers to identify whether or not the plan they are considering includes elective abortion. 

(Yester)day, Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) released information about abortion coverage in a small subset of plans called Multi-State Plans (MSPs), which are unique because their contracts are negotiated with the federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM).  There are over 150 MSPs sold by Blue Cross Blue Shield and available in 30 states and the District of Columbia. According to a letter from the Director of OPM all but two of these MSPs exclude abortion.  The two that include elective abortion are sold in Alaska.

This information may be helpful to consumers searching for plans that exclude elective abortion since generally plans that have “Multi-State Plan” in their title will not include abortion, but consumers should be aware that not all Blue Cross Blue Shield plans will exclude abortion.  They must look for “Multi-State Plan” in the title if they want to select a plan without abortion coverage. 

 As explained in the press release from Rep. Smith (attached below), there are still potentially thousands of plans being sold on Affordable Care Act exchanges that include elective abortion – contrary to the longstanding principles of the Hyde amendment.  Furthermore, the exchanges fail to provide information about abortion coverage to consumers. The letter from OPM speaks to this issue stating that only the States and HHS can improve abortion coverage transparency. Rep. Chris Smith calls on President Obama to direct HHS to be transparent about abortion coverage in Obamacare plans.  

 

New Jersey’s Fourth Congressional District

Co-Chair of Bipartisan Congressional Pro-Life Caucus

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                  Contact: Jeff Sagnip (202) 225-3765

Nov. 13, 2013                                                                http://chrissmith.house.gov

 

 

Rep. Smith says Obamacare Massively Violates Hyde Amendment, but Notes Most “Multi-State Plans” Exclude Abortion

Washington, DC—“Rollout of the Obamacare exchanges revealed that many health insurance plans throughout the nation will subsidize abortion on demand—even late term abortions,” said Rep. Chris Smith (NJ-04), Co-Chairman of the Congressional Pro-life Caucus.

“Billions of taxpayers’ dollars will now be handed out as credits to buy pro-abortion health insurance—a clear violation of the Hyde Amendment’s fundamental principle of restricting funds to abortion subsidizing health insurance plans. At its core, the Hyde Amendment has two parts. It prohibits funding for abortion and funding for any insurance plan that includes abortion except in the case of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother,” Smith said.

            “Obamacare further breaks with longstanding law by establishing new abortion surcharges and an unseemly marketing secrecy clause. The new law requires premium payers to be assessed an abortion surcharge every month to pay for abortions. But many pro-life Americans may unwittingly purchase pro-abortion plans because of a marketing secrecy clause,” said Smith.

            “For pro-life individuals seeking health insurance on the exchange in the states with Multi-State Plans available, it will be a relief to know that with only two exceptions, any of the Blue Cross Blue Shield plans with ‘Multi-State’ in their title will exclude elective abortion,” Smith said. He also noted that “in many cases Blue Cross Blue Shield Plans that do not include the words ‘Multi-State’ in their title will include elective abortion.  Since abortion coverage is not clearly identified on the exchange websites, consumers may have difficulty identifying which plans exclude abortion.”

In response to a letter spearheaded by Rep. Smith (R-NJ), the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has confirmed that all but two of the plans with “Multi-State Plan” in their title and sold on the Obamacare exchanges exclude elective abortion coverage. In a letter, OPM made this important clarification regarding Multi-State Plans, which constitute a small segment of just over 150 of the plans sold under Obamacare. Which of the thousands of other Obamacare plans cover abortion remains unknown.

“When searching the many more plans available on their state’s exchange pro-life Americans remain unable to ascertain which plans, if any, exclude abortion. It is an outrage that Members of Congress had to write to OPM just to learn whether abortion is included in the currently available multi-state plans, which are just a small subset of plans. While it is a step in the right direction to have information about this one set of plans, Americans continue to be left in the dark regarding the thousands of other plans sold on the federally facilitated marketplace and the state-run exchanges,” said Smith.

The OPM letter also specifies that only the States and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services can control whether abortion benefit information is displayed to consumers shopping in the Marketplace.

            “It is up to President Obama to direct HHS to inform consumers about abortion coverage in Obamacare plans.  His law already breaks with the decades old Hyde Amendment by allowing federal subsidies for plans that include abortion, now he won’t even give consumers the ability to make an informed choice,” Smith said.

The “Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act,” (H.R. 3279) was introduced by Smith to require prominent, transparent disclosure of abortion coverage for each plan offered on an exchange.  It also requires that the amount of the abortion surcharge be clearly identified for each plan that includes elective abortion.

 

###

 

Filed Under: Blog

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 166
  • Page 167
  • Page 168
  • Page 169
  • Page 170
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 185
  • Go to Next Page »
#WHYWEMARCH
| Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | ©2026 March For Life
DESIGNED BY FUZATI