Tags
Abortion Pills, CDC Abortion Data Collection, Hyde Amendment (1977), Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise / Project 2025 Presidential Transition Project by The Heritage Foundation (USA 2023), Protecting Life and Taxpayers Act (Proposed 2023), US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Weldon Amendment (2009)
Photo Credit: The Heritage Foundation
Goal #1: The Secretary [of the Department of Health & Human Services] should pursue a robust agenda to protect the fundamental right to life, protect conscience rights, and uphold bodily integrity rooted in biological realities, not ideology.
From the moment of conception, every human being possesses inherent dignity and worth, and our humanity does not depend on our age, stage of development, race, or abilities. The Secretary must ensure that all HHS programs and activities are rooted in a deep respect for innocent human life from day one until natural death: Abortion and euthanasia are not health care.
A robust respect for the sacred rights of conscience, both at HHS and among governments and institutions funded by it, increases choices for patients and program beneficiaries and furthers pluralism and tolerance. The Secretary must protect Americans’ civil rights by ensuring that HHS programs and activities follow the letter and spirit of religious freedom and conscience-protection laws….
Excerpt from “Chapter 14: Department of Health and Human Services” by Roger Severino from Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, Project 2025 Presidential Transition Project by The Heritage Foundation, Washington DC, USA, 2023 (p. 450)
Roger Severino is Vice President of Domestic Policy at The Heritage Foundation. As director of the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from 2017 to 2021, he led a team of more than 250 staff enforcing civil rights, conscience, and health information privacy laws. Roger subsequently founded the HHS Accountability Project at the Ethics & Public Policy Center. He holds a JD from Harvard Law School, an MA in public policy from Carnegie Mellon University, and a BA from the University of Southern California.
LEARN MORE:
- The Hyde Amendment (1977)
- The Weldon Amendment (2009)
- Protecting Life and Taxpayers Act (Proposed 2023)
Three Worlds One Vision 
❤️❤️💯
LikeLiked by 1 person
So valid
LikeLiked by 1 person
Derrick, it appears so valid until further reading reveals that the “sacred rights of conscience” applies only to conservative, cisgender, far-right Christians.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Most of “Project 2025” is very scary. 😦
LikeLiked by 7 people
It’s very scary, indeed, Dave 😦 I’ve highlighted this chapter since it covers the denial of women’s rights to bodily autonomy. After facing difficulty in selecting an excerpt, I settled on their “Goal #1” which is very ambiguous in its rendering.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I saw a vehicle parked near the library that said Showers for Humanity on it with a tagline of something like, “Respecting human dignity one shower at a time.” I respect that concept a great deal. Every person deserves respect, no matter how tiny or how old (or how homeless, in this case).
LikeLiked by 1 person
I totally agree, Betsy, every person deserves respect! Disagreement arises with the definition of personhood. Not all religions and human reproductive biologists agree that personhood begins “from the moment of conception,” as stated in the conservative “Mandate for Leadership 2025” (p.450).
LikeLiked by 1 person
And yet, if that person grows into a human, how is he/she not a human from conception, right? How do you draw the line at when he/she is not a human and then suddenly is a human? The answer is, you can’t.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You have to follow your conscience, Betsy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes. And to some extent, logic. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yet, quality of life is unimportant. Stats this year in the US: 515,000 children in foster care, with 155,000 waiting to be adopted.
LikeLiked by 3 people
So true, Rebecca. Based on the conservative call for “Adoption Reform” [Chapter 14, pp. 477-478] quoted below in its entirety, the child’s sexual orientation presents quite a problem in finding foster care.
“There are roughly 400,000 children across the nation on the waiting list for foster care and 100,000 awaiting adoptive families, and the opioid/ fentanyl crisis is putting more at risk every day. Unfortunately, many of the faith-based adoption agencies that serve these children are under threat from lawsuits, or else their licenses and contracts have been halted because they cannot in good conscience place children in every household due to their religious belief that a child should have a married mother and father.
HHS, through ACF and the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources (ASFR), should repeal the unnecessary 2016 regulation that imposes nonstatutory sexual orientation and gender identity nondiscrimination conditions on agency grants and return to the policy of maximizing the options for placing vulnerable children in their forever homes. ACF and OCR should also survey their programs to consider whether additional waivers of HHS grant conditions—waivers the Biden Administration revoked in 2021—are needed for faith-based agencies.
Additionally, Congress should pass the Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act62 to ensure that providers and organizations cannot be subjected to discrimination for providing adoption and foster care services based on their beliefs about marriage.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Wow, even traditionally families had many configurations. My father grew up without his father after the age of 9 when his father passed away. The same for my husband’s grandfather. Who get shortchanged when they are not allowed to be adopted by single parent families are the children. My heart goes out to them.
LikeLiked by 2 people
My heart goes out to them, too, Rebecca ❤
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’ve just started reading the tome and I’m concerned about what it will mean for the nation should it be implemented as quickly as they plan to.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you very much for this share, that I read twice so that it could properly sink in.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re welcome, Michele. The excerpt cited is very deceptive. I highly recommend that you read the entire Chapter 14 (pp. 449-497) to appreciate the all out assault on women’s rights to bodily autonomy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for that note! I most definitely will. 👍🏻
LikeLiked by 1 person
I downloaded the document for reading. Thank you for sharing. 🙏🏻
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excellent, Michele!
LikeLiked by 1 person
🙏🏻
LikeLiked by 1 person
The internal contradictions within the document are breathtaking. Apparently, “conscience” must be the proper conscience if it is to be honored. Yikes! Thanks, Rosaliene.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Exactly, Dr. Stein!
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Not all religions and human reproductive biologists agree that personhood begins “from the moment of conception,” This is interesting considering the excerpt above mentions following the letter and spirit of religious freedom. As an advocate for non-human animals, I think about the consciousness of whales, apes, cows, pigs, and our beloved companion animals whose brain development and cognitive awareness are well beyond those of a human embryo at conception. Some countries and legal entities have granted specific groups of non-human animals personhood status. I lean toward the belief that all life is sacred. The anthropocentric belief that a human embryo is more sacred is a religious belief that I do not hold.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JoAnna, their constrictive vision of “religious freedom” is indeed interesting. You raise an important point about the sacredness of all life and granting personhood status to other cognitive life forms.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s fascism a go-go! I read just a tiny bit of CH 14 and felt my blood pressure go up. “The next Secretary must ensure that HHS programs protect children’s minds and bodies and that HHS programs respect parents’ basic right to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children.” The audacity of pretending to “protect children’s minds and bodies” when they want to force young girls who have been raped to give birth. And what’s especially scary about all this is knowing the Dems have no plan in the face of this onslaught of authoritarianism.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Tracy, I also had a similar response when reading Chapter 14. Their desire for total control over our lives, especially female bodies, is truly scary.
LikeLiked by 2 people
WHOA Rosaliene…this is totally outrageous. Where is the mandate for men? Females are not asexual…or am I on another planet? 😲🤦🏻♀️🌎 Simply mind-blowing! 🤯
LikeLiked by 2 people
I know!!! The patriarchy is in ascendance.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Indeed they are Rosaliene. Sad. 😫
LikeLiked by 1 person
So typical of Rs, Rose. They think abortion should be outlawed but no one gives a hoot about the baby once it’s born. John Oliver did a great piece on this a year or two ago. It seems like a fundamental flaw in their thinking, but in reality, it’s the whole point, to keep women down and men in charge, and newborns be damned because that’s a woman’s concern. It makes me furious.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Exactly, Pam! This has nothing to do with protecting the unborn fetus but everything to do with controlling the womb. And they use women to achieve their goals.
LikeLiked by 2 people
ugh! Hopefully it all changes in November!!🙏🙏🙏
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m not so sure, Pam, considering that the Supreme Court has already been captured.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maybe a Judiciary Act to add a few justices to the supremes and save the day!
LikeLiked by 1 person
The right to life only seems to apply to newborns, not the hungry, poor, those shot by guns, LGBQ, the imprisoned on death row . . .
LikeLiked by 2 people
Exactly, Mary! This push back against women during their reproductive years is not about the right to life of the unborn.
LikeLike
Thank you for sharing!! unfortunately, as the world changes and the human race gathers knowledge, there are those closed minded individuals in denial to change and wisdom, prefer to remain totally in the past and their way of thinking, caring little about what impact their thinking may have on another individual… 🙂
I believe everyone is unique in their own way and have the right to determine their life and destiny, not someone else… “My will shall shape the future. Whether I fail or succeed shall be no man’s doing but my own. I am the force; I can clear any obstacle before me or I can be lost in the maze.. My choice; my responsibility; win or lose, only I hold the key to my destiny” (Elaine Maxwell)… 🙂
Hope all is well, you are not impacted by the weather and until we meet again…
May love and laughter light your days,
and warm your heart and home.
May good and faithful friends be yours,
wherever you may roam.
May peace and plenty bless your world
with joy that long endures.
May all life’s passing seasons
bring the best to you and yours!
(Irish Saying)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dutch, thanks for adding your thoughts to this issue 🙂 I share your view that everyone has the right to determine our life and destiny.
LikeLike
Rosaliene, thank you for drawing attention to this horrifying policy document. It’s truly appalling how so much attention is put on gutting the autonomy of women over their bodies, yet once children are born, no attention is paid to saving their lives from the plague of gun violence. May common sense, compassion, science, and the spirits of all those who have gone before in the fight for civil rights prevail.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re welcome, Steve. I’m so glad that you’re able to see the hypocrisy. Those who push these regulations have little concern about the sanctity of life. It’s all about controlling the woman’s right to control her own body and its biological reproductive system.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is very well stated. I find it interesting the pro-abortion advocates speak of protecting the rights of the lives of women, but do not seem to feel that the unborn’s right to life is significant.
How does that fit into people having the right to: “…life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…” The constitution is Pro-Life!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dwight, I wish I could be so optimistic about our constitution being Pro-Life, considering that our right to bear arms (as stated in our Second Amendment) has placed gun ownership above the lives of our children.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, it is a contradiction it seems. Folks get shot here in Charlotte every day it seems. But you almost never hear them call it gang violence! Teens killing teens and others as collateral damage! Very sad.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very sad, indeed, Dwight 😦
LikeLike