Obama’s Priority: Abortion Funding Yes, Adoption Funding No
by Nathanael Bennett | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 3/8/12 11:23 AM
President Obama’s recent budget proposal would end a lifesaving adoption program while continuing to advocate for hundreds of millions of dollars to subsidize the abortion industry.
On December 31, 1998, Hannah Strege was born to proud parents, John and Marlene Strege. As the father of two (and soon to be three), I can tell you that every birth is a miracle, and every child is a gift from God. However, there was and is something uniquely special about Hannah. Hannah was the first baby ever delivered after having been adopted as a frozen embryo. These babies are often referred to as snowflake babies.
Snowflake babies begin their journey to an adoptive family when the in-vitro fertilization process of another couple generates “leftover” embryos. When this occurs, the genetic parents of these embryos have the option to give them up for adoption rather than allow for them to be simply destroyed. As evidenced by Hannah (and many more after her), the result can be truly life-giving, and can help couples realize the desire of welcoming a child into their family.
In recent years, the federal government has been promoting this embryo adoption program by providing funding to increase awareness of its existence. Last fiscal year, $1.9 million was used for this purpose. However, President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2013 budget proposes an end to this funding.
There is no question that we face a spending crisis, and that it is long overdue for countless federal spending programs – including some good ones – to come to an end. However, a budget is a political document that communicates the policy priorities of an Administration, and this budget reveals extremely troubling priorities. If there is not room in the budget for $1.9 million that promotes the dream of having a family, then surely other “family planning” programs are receiving similar scrutiny, correct?
The answer is no. In fact, it only takes Planned Parenthood about 36 hours to take in $1.9 million from the federal government. This exorbitant level of funding at taxpayer expense continues throughout the year and amounts to approximately $487.4 million in annual funding.
So my question is this: if this Administration deems it necessary to find $1.9 million in “family planning” funds to cut, why is it that the entire amount must be taken from the life-giving snowflake adoption program, while the abortion mill of Planned Parenthood doesn’t have a dime of its $487.4 million in funding touched? Why is it that it is more important to ensure we avoid “unwanted” children than it is to help ensure that we have more ‘Hannah’s?’
I submit to you that the answer is very simple. Priorities.
LifeNews.com Note: Nathanael Bennett is the Director of Government Affairs for the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), as well as the Main Representative to the United Nations in New York, NY for the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ).