Women in war-torn parts of the world are further victimized by rape, should Americans be forced to pay for abortions of their unborn children? Federal law for years has said no, but pro-abortion activists want President Barack Obama to issue an executive order saying yes.
“The current issue centers on rape in conflict situations. Abortion advocates are claiming that international humanitarian law requires a right to abortion in conflict or disaster situations even in countries where abortion is against the law,” says Austin Ruse of C-FAM. “The pressure for such a change is coming from outside the administration but no doubt is finding sympathetic ears in an administration that has worked hard to advance a right to abortion through the UN.”
The Helms Amendment, enacted in 1973, bars U.S. taxpayer dollars from funding abortions or motivating anyone to perform one. These pro-abortion activists want to Obama to essentially ignore the law or change it by executive order:
Nearly two dozen health, advocacy and faith groups are calling on President Barack Obama to take executive action clarifying that U.S. assistance can be used to fund abortion services for women and girls raped in the context of war and conflict.
Urging President Obama to issue another executive order overturning the provisions of the Helms Amendment, Purnima Mane, the president of Pathfinder International, a group that works on global sexual health issues, said, “With the stroke of a pen, President Obama can change. . . . Advocates say such an executive action would be in line with both the law and broader public opinion.”
But Rebecca Kiessling, a pro-life attorney who was conceived in rape, tells LifeNews that forcing Americans to pay for abortions would just victimize women in conflict areas a second time.
“With the stroke of a pen . . . ” — from this statement, I see how damaging President Obama’s executive orders really are. The rest of world seems to have the impression that he’s a dictator, not a President, and that he can very easily overturn any law of Congress.
Serra Sippel, the president of the Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE) and a key organiser of Tuesday’s demonstration, even acknowledged that for the last four decades, every single President and his administration have implemented the Helms Amendment with no exceptions. So if it was good enough for President Carter and good enough for President Clinton, it ought to be the same under the present administration, and he needs to understand the boundaries of his executive powers
The fact is, there is no way to police a rape exception because they certainly aren’t going to require a criminal conviction or anything other than a box being checked off. They use the rape issue in order to get funding for abortion on demand in all circumstances.
Rape victim mothers need real help, not abortion. Justice is served by punishing the perpetrator, not the innocent child. Nobel Peace Prize nominee Dr. Mukwege of Panzi Hospital in the war-torn Democratic Republic of Congo has the right solution — providing care for rape victims, counseling, job training, and even child care for their children conceived in rape.
The international pro-life group C-FAM agrees and it has said previously “international humanitarian law does not establish a right to abortion in cases of rape in conflict situations.” The group points out that abortions in unsanitary conflict situations would place the mother to increased health risks, and that abortion funding will divert greatly needed funds from other more pressing areas including basic medical care.
The group points out that giving a rape exception to the ban on abortion funding will further stigmatize and therefore harm children born of rape who are already vulnerable.
C-FAM is concerned that altering the Helms Amendment would discriminate “against faith-based aid organizations that will not commit abortion.” In fact, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, the umbrella organization of the Catholic Church in the United States, “was denied grant renewal for an anti-trafficking program, despite being the superior grantee, because they do not offer abortion.”
