Senate rejects ‘morning-after’ measure

By Tom Strode - Mar 31, 2005 - comment

The Senate defeated March 17 an amendment calling for $100 million in the federal budget to be used for family planning programs that would include insurance coverage of contraception and promotion of the use of the “morning-after pill,’ also know as emergency contraception.

Senators voted 53-47 against the amendment, which was introduced by Sen. Hillary Clinton, D.-N.Y. Before the vote, Clinton said from the Senate floor the “prevention first amendment” is an effort to prevent unintended pregnancies and abortions.

Sen. Judd Gregg, R.-N.H., chairman of the Budget Committee, opposed the measure, pointing out it would have eliminated abstinence-only programs from receiving funds under the bill and would have increased corporate taxes by $200 million.

Most pro-lifers oppose the “morning-after” pill because of its abortifacient quality. It acts after conception, preventing implantation of the tiny embryo in the uterine wall.

Further Learning

Learn more about: Life, Abortion, Citizenship, Legislation

Post a Comment




Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before You Submit Your Comment (below), Read This:

Thank you for your interest in the ministry of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (SBC).

Comments are moderated to preserve the family-oriented nature of this website and in an attempt to avoid comment spam. We welcome opposing viewpoints, and we will not turn comments away as long as your views are presented with respect to everyone.

Your comments will not appear immediately and are subject to editing or deletion. We will make every attempt to check new comments in a timely manner, though there will likely be delays on the weekends and around holidays.

Please follow the these guidelines to insure your comments will be posted:

  1. Use a real name, at least a real first name. We find folks are less-rude online when not hiding behind a screen-name.
  2. Name-calling and vulgar-language will not be tolerated. Zero-tolerance is our policy. We will not spend time editing profanity. If it contains foul language, your post will be deleted. Oh, and we decide what is and what is not vulgar.
  3. Comments must be on topic. General comments (compliments, complaints, and otherwise) are best delivered here or expressed on your own personal Web site.
  4. And please, do not type in ALL CAPS. It looks like you're screaming at people.

Additionally, within Baptist polity, please recognize that many issues and decisions are addressed at a local church level. SBC denominational (national) offices have no control and desire no control over the activities of a local church. This entity is not responsible for overseeing and insuring the ethical behavior of Southern Baptist pastors or church members. If your concern involves a legal civil or criminal matter, we suggest you contact the proper local officials.

Issues involving pastoral staff or other church members, local Baptist associations or state Baptist conventions are local issues. Therefore the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission cannot and should not address such issues. While we regret we are unable to assist you, we encourage you to seek a biblical resolution of the issue at the local church level. If your question or submission pertains to a matter covered in this text, it is likely we will not acknowledge your submission.

Other than that, we welcome you and hope to see thoughtful discussions at ERLC.com