Many of us trust Focus on the Family to give us family-friendly advice on our kids' well-being. It is therefore disappointing that the organization's latest mini-magazine (March, 2007) has an article on the HPV vaccine (p. 27) that contains misleading information.
State health officials have shut down one of New Jersey's largest abortion centers after finding violations at an Englewood clinic that posed "immediate and serious risk of harm to patients." Metropolitan Medical Associates will remain closed until it corrects the deficiencies that prompted the closure, state officials said. State reports show the clinic performs more than 10,000 abortions a year.
By Dave Andrusko, National Right to Life
After you've spent nearly thirty years fighting the good fight, you might think you'd pretty much roll with the punches. But you'd be wrong.
If they want to tell me that abortion is the sine qua non--the indispensable component--of women's push for equality, I will listen respectfully and then tell them why this is hooey.
My teeth will be grinding, but I will even listen when proponents tell me that if only we open the federal spigot to pay for embryonic stem cell research, tomorrow afternoon the blind will see and late tomorrow night the paralyzed will spring from their wheelchairs.
From today's Washington Times:
The chairman of the federal panel that recommended the new cervical-cancer vaccine for pre-teen girls says lawmakers should not make the inoculation mandatory, as the District and more than 20 states, including Virginia, are considering.
Dr. Jon Abramson, chairman of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's advisory committee on immunization practices (ACIP), also said he and panel members told Merck & Co., the drug Gardasil's maker, not to lobby state lawmakers to require the vaccine for school attendance.
"I told Merck my personal opinion that it shouldn't be mandated," Dr. Abramson told The Washington Times. "And they heard it from other committee members."
Dr. Abramson said he opposes mandating Gardasil, which prevents the cervical-cancer-causing human papillomavirus (HPV), because the sexually transmitted HPV is not a contagious disease like measles and he is not sure states can afford to inoculate all students....
By Judie Brown
An enormous amount of rhetoric has flowed over the past few weeks, all dealing with Gardasil, the newest vaccine from Merck Pharmaceutical. While Merck's product has received the lion's share of media attention, let me add that a second vaccine, GlaxoKline's Cervarix, is designed to accomplish the same goals. Each vaccine is described being capable of providing women with protection from human papilloma virus.
It seems that in the rush to pressure state after state to mandate this vaccine, several of the real facts about Gardasil and Cervarix have somehow fallen off the radar screen. Well, it's time to put those facts front and center. An informed decision about anything in today's culture requires limited hyperbole and sufficient documentation.
This is especially true in the case of a vaccine that is being recommended for little girls as young as nine years of age. As the grandmother of 10, two of whom are little girls a bit older than nine, I have more than a passing interest in getting all the particulars myself and I'm certain you will feel the same once you hear the full story.
First, it isn't cheap and there are side effects. The vaccine is given as three injections over a six-month period at a total cost of $360. The vaccine can cause pain, swelling, itching and redness at the injection site; plus fever, nausea and dizziness.
A Feb. 23 article in the New York Times revealed:
Circumcision may provide even more protection against AIDS than was realized when two clinical trials in Africa were stopped two months ago because the results were so clear, according to studies being published today....[T]he final data from the trials, to be published today in the British medical journal The Lancet, suggest that circumcision reduces a man's risk by as much as 65 percent....
"If we had an AIDS vaccine that was performing as well as this, it would be the talk of the town"... [said Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases].
Speaking of vaccines, hasn't the HPV vaccine been reported to coincidentally stop about the same percentage (70) of cervical cancer? Hasn't this been why legislators around the country are promoting mandated HPV vaccines?
It seems to me legislators should also mandate male circumcision, to be fair.
[Hat tip: Cal Skinner]
[Photo, courtesy of Aids.net, is of Australian Professor Roger Short holding a circumcision device.]
The No Room for Contraception Campaign celebrates it's first birthday on February 27th, 2007!
This is part 1 of the year in review of No Room for Contraception.
If you are new to this website, it's divided into two parts: 1. The main website NoRoomforContraception.com, where you will find numerous resources, articles, links, and brochures about the harms of contraception and 2. Our blog, ContraceptionBlog.com , where you'll find informative posts by our featured bloggers, Jill Stanek, Genevieve Parker, and Britt Shankle.
Here are some links to articles that we have published on the main site within the last year.
The Role of Contraception in Increasing Abortion It's a common assumption that contraception reduces the need for abortion in the United States. Yet the history of contraception and abortion in the 60s and 70s shows this assumption to be incorrect. (click the title to read the rest of the article)
Ortho Evra Birth Control Patch: 1,000 Claimants and Counting According to Johnson & Johnson's third quarter SEC filing for 2006 , there are over "1,000 claimants who have filed lawsuits or have made claims regarding injuries allegedly due to Ortho Evra." Ortho Evra, also known as the birth control patch, is a transdermal hormonal contraceptive which is applied weekly to the skin. In addition to being a contraceptive, the patch can act as an abortifacient by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg. (click the title to read the rest of the article)
Breast Cancer and Oral Contraception October is Breast Cancer Awareness month, which is an annual campaign to build public awareness about the disease as well as to raise funds for research. What does this educational campaign have to do with contraception? It has to do with the fact that many types of oral contraceptives contain estrogen, a synthetic steroid believed to have a key role in the development of breast cancer.(click the title to read the rest of the article)
A complaint has been filed with the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts, (KSBHA), asking that Kansas City abortionist Sherman Zaremski be disciplined for failing to report the rape of an 11-year old girl that resulted in a pregnancy. Confirmation has been received that the case has been assigned to an investigator.
Operation Rescue investigations discovered that it was Zaremski that gave an abortion to the young girl in Wichita at the now closed Central Women's Services, then returned her to the care of her step- father, Robert Estrada, who continued to use her and her sister as virtual sex slaves over several years, resulting in a total of 4 pregnancies, including the birth of twins on one of the girl's 12th birthday.
Human reproductive cloning and genetic engineering are surely stuff of science fiction. And only science fiction right? Certainly, the reality of the Brave New World would never leap off the page and enter the real world.
Think again. In fact, in some scientific circles, a world where humans are cloned and genetically engineering is a foregone conclusion. There is a sentiment that just because it is possible to clone and genetically engineer humans, that it will happen. And indeed should happen.
I speak in particular about two announcements that point to the possibility that cloning and genetic engineering of humans may become a reality sooner than we think.
The first is this story from the Telegraph that states that UK may allow the genetic modification of human embryos:
Britain could become the first country to sanction the genetic alteration of human embryos, a step that a pressure group claims could pave the way to designer babies.A decade after the cloning of Dolly the sheep, the Government is opening the door to GM human embryos for research, according to Human Genetics Alert.
David King, its director, said: "In a world first, the Government has said it will allow scientists to begin developing the technology for genetic modification of human beings, although creation of actual GM babies will be prohibited for the moment. We believe the public will be horrified."
More evidence of problems with the contraceptive Ortho Evra, also known as "the patch".
According to a study published this month in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology, women who use contraceptive patches, such as Ortho Evra, may be more than twice as susceptible to blood clotting as women who take oral contraception. The study was conducted by researchers at the i3 Drug Safety group.
Posted by Genevieve Parker on ContraceptionBlog.com
A panel of professionals discussed the contraversial point of a pharmacist's right to refuse filling emergency contraception prescriptions on the basis of conscience. Here's the write-up in a Harvard Law School newspaper.
I find it interesting that those panelists who would disregard the conscience exception immediately point out that birth control is on the line here; if a pharmacist can deny Plan B to a client for moral reasons, why wouldn't he, likewise, be able to deny contraceptive dispensation on a moral basis?
This becomes a question of whether contraception & abortion rights (basically, privacy rights) trump the refusal rights of the pharmacist. If so, then one person's right to privacy limits the freedom of religion/morality of another. In the end, it seems that privacy rights aren't really confined to the private sphere of one's individual reality, especially when they coerce others to facilitate another's personal choice at the expense of his own moral character. Freedom of choice becomes freedom of choice for a very specific interest group, i.e. contraception and abortion proponents, at the expense of everyone else.
What I think is important about this discussion - outside of the question of rights - is the fact that the continuum between contraception and abortion can no longer be blurred in the public mind, and we're faced with the real question of whether contraception is fundamentally anti-life, anti-love, and anti-woman.
This article posted on Expatica gives a good sense of what a moral "bizarro world" the Netherlands has become:
AMSTERDAM - Liberal VVD faction leader Mark Rutte thinks that the Christian democrat CDA and Labour PvdA have conceded too much to the ChristenUnie on so-called medical ethical issues in the coalition accord.The leader of the Liberal party will level this criticism on Thursday during the parliamentary debate on the government statement by submitting a motion on abortion and a second motion on euthanasia.
Rutte says the new government puts too much emphasis on palliative care in the stance it has now taken on euthanasia. He fears that the government will try to somehow make palliative care into an full-fledged alternative that will make euthanasia superfluous. Rutte thinks euthanasia should remain an "independent alternative" in situations of unbearable and untreatable suffering.
Read the rest at Marlowe's Shade
Sharon is a great Pro-Lifer & terrific radio personality who broadcasts not only with NPLR.net, but also with KDIA in San Francisco, RightTalk and OnePlace.com.
The Des Moines Register Editorial Board came out today with a disastrous editorial on legislation to legalize human cloning for research in Iowa.
The title of the editorial asserts the "Stem-cell bill is NOT about human cloning" even though the editorial notes that "therapeutic cloning would be allowed" and an embryo is destroyed when its "human embryonic stem cells" (my emphasis) are extracted. It's amazing how scientists hope to get human embryonic stem cells out of embryos which are created through a cloning process that somehow isn't human cloning, isn't it?
The line that takes the cake though, is
There are some lawmakers who believe destroying a clump of cells smaller than the period at the end of this sentence is analogous to taking a human life. We have no argument to0 persuade the people who believe that.
Tomorrow night, Feb. 23, I plan to see the movie Amazing Grace on its opening night. It tells the story of William Wilberforce, an English Christian and politician who worked 20 years in this dual position to stop transatlantic slavery.
Many modernday pro-lifers have developed strategies based on Wilberforce's success, or at least gained encouragement.
Read World magazine's review of Amazing Grace here. Go to the official website here for information on theatres and showtimes.
This is another of those movies, like The Passion of the Christ, we would help most by seeing on its opening weekend. Here is the trailer:
I alluded in my column today to the New York City campaign to distribute 26 million free condoms this year. I thought you might like to see the packaging, which is designed after NYC subway lines. The photo here is from blogger Gothamist's site.
This is related to the HPV vaccine fak in that its proponents want to educate about the vaccine, not the sexually destructive behavior that leads to the need for a vaccine.
NYC stats are shocking. According to the NYC Health Department....
[Go to www.jillstanek.com to read rest of post and see YouTube video of a NYC worker distributing condoms during rush hour at a subway station.]
First we saw the TIME/CNN story that was fair (even respectful) to pro-life CPCs. And now here's ABC News with the admission that the birth of a very tiny baby creates a very big problem for pro-abortion folks. Wow.
As liberal legislators across the country promote taxpayer funded embryonic stem cell/cloning experimentation, a main argument is there are leftover embryos in in vitro fertilization clinics they can see put to good use that would otherwise be discarded.
We have always maintained the number of embryos available for experimentation is minute, and women will soon be exploited for their eggs. That day is here.
The AP/Boston Globe reported yesterday....
[Go to www.jillstanek.com to read article excerpts.]
[Photo, courtesy of Nature.com, is of "'Ripened eggs' used for cloning work"]
Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) has announced the launch of a wireless service that actively connects consumers to the people and causes they care about.
The service, Planned Parenthood Wireless will provide an impressive 10% of revenues generated directly to PPFA, transforming a simple phone call into a personal act of support. Offering a unique wireless program that enables consumers to choose where their mobile phone dollars go without sacrificing quality service, Planned Parenthood Wireless features competitively priced individual and family plans, and popular cell phones loaded with key features. The service is handled exclusively by Working Assets, using the all-digital, nationwide Sprint® network1 that reaches more than 250 million people.
In every monthly bill, Planned Parenthood Wireless subscribers also will receive information about how they can get more politically involved, including a "Free Speech" offer of up to 30 free minutes of calls a month for members to speak out on women's health issues.
Hemlock Society founder Derek Humphrey had an article on his blog about one of his acolytes who complained to some members of an local euthanasia group that medical serial killer Dr Harold Shipman ruined everything for doctors who used help patients commit suicide.
Doctors no longer help terminally ill patients to enjoy a peaceful death because of the Harold Shipman case, according to a leading consultant.Speaking in Glasgow, Simon Kenwright, a semi-retired consultant gastroenteologist from East Kent hospital, said fears of prosecution are affecting patient treatment.
In a lecture to 100 members of Friends at the end (Fate), the euthanasia organisation, he said such changes makes the need for legislation to allow assisted dying for the terminally ill more urgent.
More at Marlowe's Shade
It doesn't seem fair that legislators are focusing solely on adolescent girls to try to slow the spread the sexually transmitted disease human papillomavirus....Lawmakers around the country are introducing legislation faster than sperm swims mandating that 11- and 12-year-old girls be injected with the three-dose HPV vaccination regimen (well, maybe six, or more, since the vaccine has only been proven to last four years)....
But the feminist in me says this mandated vaccine is patriarchal. After all, women already bear almost all the responsibility for sex-without-consequences.
We're the ones who have to ingest birth control pills packed with female steroids, or transport that copper IUD with the weird vibes it sends throughout our uteruses and who knows where else, or insert that clumsy diaphragm, or wear those birth control patches that cause heart attacks. And then we end up pregnant anyway and have to get the abortions or raise the products of conception as single moms.
And now we're being asked to assume accountability for STDs, too? No.
So when the New York Post reported Feb. 16 that the city of New York has launched a campaign to distribute 26 million condoms during rush hour in subway stations, I had an idea....
Continue reading my WorldNetDaily.com column today, "Why not mandate condoms for boys?"
Apparently SCOTUS believes that it's okay to promote and endorse the religions of Judaism and Islam, but not Christianity. One can only conclude that discrimination against Christians - only, is perfectly A-okay!
Last time I checked, Christmas was a Christian holiday. With SCOTUS' refusal to review the appeals court case, Santa Claus rates higher than Jesus Christ.
Related: A predominantly Christian nation founded on Judeo-Christian values has now turned its back on the very values and faith that has made it such a great nation. A 2001 ARIS survey determined that:
76.5% of American adults are Christian (52% Protestant; 24.5% Catholic).On a side note, the push by the multiculturalist, secular progressive, liberal left, relativists to rape the nation of its few remaining values has so denigrated all faiths that I wonder if it even matters anymore.
14.1% do not follow any organized religion;
1.3% are Jewish.
0.5% are Muslim, followers of Islam.
0.5% are Buddhist.
0.4% are Hindu.
0.3% are Unitarian Universalist.
0.1% are Neopagan (Druids, Pagans, Wiccans, etc)
HT - Harry Owens.
Also at Hyscience
Associated Press, this morning:
Merck & Co. has suspended its lobbying campaign to persuade state legislatures to mandate that adolescent girls get the company's new vaccine against cervical cancer as a requirement for school attendance, the company said Tuesday....
Last month, the AP reported that Merck was channeling money for its state-mandate campaign through Women in Government, an advocacy group made up of female state legislators across the country.
The New York Times, this morning:
Reacting to a furor from some parents, advocacy groups and public health experts, Merck said yesterday that it would stop lobbying state legislatures to require the use of its new cervical cancer vaccine....
Part of the states' rush to embrace the vaccine has been instigated by Merck efforts that began before federal regulators approved the product last year....
Merck... [said] ... it would stop lobbying specifically for state mandates....
Dr. Richard M. Haupt, executive director for medical affairs in Merck's vaccine division... declined to say how much money or staff resources Merck had expended in its efforts to require use of the cervical cancer vaccine....
Merck has been a financial backer of Women in Government, a national organization of legislators whose members have sponsored some of the state laws to make the vaccine mandatory....
Debbie Halvorson, the Democratic majority leader of the Illinois State Senate, who had a hysterectomy as a result of the human papillomavirus, is the sponsor of legislation to make the vaccine mandatory. She said she would continue to press for the bill, but that it was a good idea on Merck's part to stop lobbying.
"If the people out there are thinking that Merck is doing all this, and pushing our buttons, they need to just step away," she said. "The fact that I'm doing what I'm doing has nothing to do with Merck."
Either Halvorson neglected to tell the New York Times she is a board member of Women in Government, or the Times omitted that critical piece of information. I have alerted the authors of the article, in case they were unaware.
Merck suspends campaign to make Gardasil vaccination mandatory, Wall Street Journal, 4:52 p.m. EST
[Hat tip: Dave Diersen]
Merck stops campaign to mandate gardasil vaccine use (update 3), Bloomberg, 5:27 EST
[Hat tip: Illinois Review]
To read complete stories (WSJ's is available by subscription only) to go www.jillstanek.com.
Little Amillia Taylor was born at the age of 22 weeks and six days, weighing only 10 oz. We know her exact age because she was conceived by in vitro fertilization.
Four months later, weighing four pounds, Amilliia is being released from Baptist Children's Hospital in Miami, Florida, today.
How ironic that the world's youngest known baby to survive was born in Florida, the very state so much in the news lately for standing by as babies older than this little girl are aborted alive and either purposefully killed or shelved to die.
In fact, according to Local10.com, Amillia's mother Sonja, lied to doctors about her baby's age, knowing they would not resuscitate her otherwise....
[View another photo, link to video footage, and rest of the story at www.jillstanek.com.]
John from Generations for Life has a succinct post regarding NYC condoms, minors, and the New York City Health Department:
http://generationsforlife.org/2007/0219/bad-ideas-and-good-ideas/
For those of you new who are new to this blog, Generations for Life and the Pro-life Action League have boldly led the way in addressing the issue of contraception. This past September's "Contraception is not the Answer" (CINTA) conference held by the PLAL certainly helped connect many people from across the nation (and globe), who are now working together to address the many harms of contraception.
Vote now on AOL on its poll question whether you would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned.
[hat tip: reader Marilyn]
The State of Illinois has decided to appeal Judge Coar's Jan. 22 ruling stating SOS Jesse White must begin issuing Choose Life adoption specialty license plates within 30 days, by Feb. 21.
The State is throwing away the people's money on a case that legal precedent has shown it will ultimately lose.
Last Thursday, Judge Coar suspended enforcement of his Jan. 22 order while the State prepares its appeal. The average time for appeals is almost a year.
Our attorney, Tom Brejcha, is asking Judge Coar to vacate his stay pending the appeal. Tom will take this to the 7th Circuit U. S. Court of Appeals, one step below the Supreme Court, if the judge does not.
Meanwhile, 3M, the company that provides sheeting for Illinois license plates, has submitted its final design to the Illinois Choose Life Adoption Specialty Plate Committee....
[Continue reading on www.jillstanek.com.]
Posted by Ruben on ContraceptionBlog.com
This morning I came across the commentary Abstinence and Contraceptives Don't Mix Well in the Daily Campus, the largest daily college newspaper in Connecticut.
Here are some excerpts from the commentary:
The cover story in the Feb. 26 edition of Time magazine is on the "new face of an old movement," medically-modelled pregnancy care centers that perform ultrasounds and conduct STD testing.
I read the article first from a pro-life activist's perspective (me!) and thought it exceedingly placed pccs under a microscope and on the defensive.
Would, for instance, that Time reported on undercover investigative calls to abortion mills on the hunt for misinformation, like it did pccs. Or that it had a young woman pose as a pregnant patient in an abortion mill, like it did a pcc.
Then I read the article from the abortion industry's perspective and thought they must certainly be depressed about it, likely reworking their talking points as I write. They were pathetic. Here was the worst....
[Continue reading on www.jillstanek.com.]
[Hat tip: reader Wynette.]
A WorldNetDaily.com headline story yesterday expanded on my Feb 12 blog post, "Bodies of evidence," about sidewalk counselors reporting a young father to Orlando police who brought his baby, accidentally aborted at home, to James Pendergraft's Florida abortion mill. Police refused to act.
According to Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel to WND, at least two laws may have been broken....
[Continue reading at www.jillstanek.com.]
[Photo courtesy of WND and Operation Rescue.]
It has't seemed fair that liberal legislators are focusing solely on young girls in their attempts to mandate 3 vaccinations (well, maybe 6 or more, since they've only been proven to last 4 years) to stop 4 strains (of over 100) of one sexually transmitted disease, HPV.
So when The New York Post reported Feb. 16 that the City of New York launched a campaign last week to distribute 26 million condoms during rush hour in subway stations, I had an idea.
Why not mandate that every 11-year-old boy carry a condom in his pocket?
I got this brainstorm because New York City officials offered the very same reasons for widespread condom distribution as liberals for mandated HPV vaccinations, as the article states....
[Continue reading on www.jillstanek.com.]
[Hat tip: Dr. Frank]
It is that time of the year again when we at AZRTL sponsor our annual Gala to raise money for Arizona Right to Life . This year Life Educational Corporation is co-sponsoring the event. Our guest speaker will be U. S. Congressman Trent Franks, who is well known for his life long dedication to the pro-life cause.
The event is MARCH 3, 2007 at the CHAPARRAL SUITES in Scottsdale, AZ.
From the AZ Policy Blog:
When it comes to abortion supporters, there's no such thing as "pro-choice," and Time's article on crisis pregnancy centers and their growing use of ultrasound machines proves it. Listen to what a Planned Parenthood spokesman has to say in the article:Read the rest here.
"What is really tragic to me is that a woman goes into a center looking for information, looking to be able to make a better, healthy choice, and she doesn't get all the facts. That's taking someone's life and playing a really dangerous game with it."
U.S. Senator Sam Brownback today joined 34 senators in urging President Bush to uphold and champion pro-life policy.
"President Bush has shown that he is committed to protecting the dignity of every life, from the unborn to the elderly," said Brownback. "Now that we have a Democrat-controlled Congress, I respectfully urge President Bush to remind my colleagues of his commitment to pro-life policies."
Brownback today sent a letter to the White House asking President Bush to issue a letter to the Congress reaffirming the White House's pro-life stance. The letter was signed by 35 senators, including Brownback.
Brownback continued, "A letter sent to Congress from President Bush would be a powerful reminder that the United States is a country that is committed to protecting the dignity of human life. I look forward to working with my colleagues on important life-related legislation."
Following is the full text of the letter sent to President Bush:
"We respectfully request that you issue a letter to the Senate and House Leadership, reaffirming your strong pro-life policy convictions and serving notice that you will veto any legislation that weakens present pro-life policy.The following senators joined Brownback in signing the letter: Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Pete Domenici (R-NM), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), John McCain (R-AZ), Trent Lott (R-MS), Larry Craig (R-ID), Bob Bennett (R-UT), Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Jon Kyle (R-AZ), Craig Thomas (R-WY), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Wayne Allard (R-CO), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Jim Bunning (R-KY), Mike Crapo (R-ID), George Voinovich (R-OH), John Ensign (R-NV), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), John Cornyn (R-TX), Norm Coleman (R-MN), Richard Burr (R-NC), Jim DeMint (R-SC), Tom Coburn (R-OK), John Thune (R-SD), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), David Vitter (R-LA), Mel Martinez (R-FL), Bob Corker (R-TN)."President George H.W. Bush issued such a letter on June 4, 1991 to great effect when he was confronted with a Democrat-controlled Congress. An examination of the record will show that attacks of pro-life policy in the Democrat-controlled Congress were much more vociferous prior to the June 4 letter than they were after the letter. It seems that committee chairs were more successful in holding pro-abortion provisions at bay when there was a formal declaration that their legislation had no chance of enactment if it contained pro-abortion and other anti-life measures that weakened present law or regulations.
"Issuance of such a letter now would be timely and of tremendous value in our effort to ensure that no life-related policy is weakened during the 110th Congress. We thank you for your continued leadership and appreciate your consideration of this request."
Opponents of Sen. Sam Brownback's bid for the presidency have regurgitated news reports from 10 years ago suggesting that the candidate was once a supporter of legalized abortion. In fact, the Kansas City Star today took the unusual step of republishing one such article.
Here's the CNN/Time magazine piece about CPC's that you'll probably be hearing a lot about. It is, quite frankly, an unusually positive article -- something much fairer, much more enlightening and even sympathetic than what the MSM usually does on abortion stories.
NARAL used this article in an email alert yesterday to attempt to pressure Wal-Mart to always have a pharmacist on duty to dispense Plan B, the morning after pill.
While the FDA agreed last August, under pressure from libereal feminists, to make Plan B available without a prescription to any adult woman or man over 18, pharmacies still stock it behind the counter, like cigarettes, so as to check ID.
But since the MAP can abort a preborn baby in his or her first week of life, some pharmacists won't dispense it on moral grounds.
Here's where we've crippled ourselves, and the other side knows it. Birth conrol pills contain the same hormones as MAPs and can also abort in the first 5-9 days of life. Yet many pro-life organizations refuse to "go there," as do many pro-lifers. Here's how NARAL pounced on that point in its recommended sample email to Wal-Mart's CEO:
The vast majority of Americans, including those who oppose legal abortion, support birth control. Additionally, polling shows that 80 percent of Americans think it's wrong for pharmacists to refuse to fill women's prescriptions for birth control based on their personal views.
We can either lose this battle or pounce on it ourselves to educate women that birth control pills and MAPs may abort. The other side is certainly hiding this point. Here is how one liberal webside described how BCs can work:
Most birth control pills are "combination pills" containing a combination of the hormones estrogen and progesterone to prevent ovulation (the release of an egg during the monthly cycle). A woman cannot get pregnant if she doesn't ovulate because there is no egg to be fertilized. The Pill also works by thickening the mucus around the cervix, which makes it difficult for sperm to enter the uterus and reach any eggs that may have been released. The hormones in the Pill can also sometimes affect the lining of the uterus, making it difficult for an egg to attach to the wall of the uterus.
Can you decipher that BCs may cause abortions? Clearly the other side is dishonest on this point. Why should we enable them - and fail women - by remaining silent?
Princeton University professor Robert George gave great talking points about embryonic stem cell experimentation during a lecture last week at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, according to Towers Online, Feb. 15, the most important being:
"The fact that... embryonic stem cells probably will not prove to be the therapeutic miracle that they have been hyped to be isn't fundamentally the reason we should be opposed to the use of those cells..... The reason we should be opposed is a moral reason. [Embryonic stem cell research] involves, at least for now, the destruction of innocent human life to obtain the cells."
The fact is, someday escr researchers will get somewhere. The two fundametal talking points are, according to George: 1) the definition of human being; and 2) respect owed embryos.
The article, not long, is worth reading.
Rudy Giuliani is not a social conservative by any stretch of the imagination. He supports gay marriage, abortion on demand and scientific research involving the destruction of human embryo. This didn't stop Jennifer Rubin (American Spectator column) from suggesting that Giuliani could be viewed as a social conservative:
But the commentators and consultants may have gotten the questions wrong. The better, at least the more interesting, question is whether Giuliani can establish a new description of what it means to be "socially conservative." Perhaps to be socially conservative means something more than just fidelity to pro-life and anti-gay marriage positions. Giuliani has a convincing argument that he is an ethical or cultural conservative who in the end will protect the values that most conservative Republicans hold dear. What does this mean? It means that he sees the world as a battle between good and evil, and politics as a struggle between decent hard working people and elites who have too little respect for their values -- public safety, respect for religion and public virtue.Rubin, arguing for Giuliani, redefines what is commonly referred to as a "social conservative" and thereby obliterates all meaning from the term.
Every politician claims to battle evil, seek public safety and fight for virtue. The question is: "What do they define as evil and by what standard to they seek justice?". Rubin writes,
For [Giuliani] and those he has befriended, social conservatism means defending a functioning civil society where families enjoy physical security, religious respect, and public decency.Although is sounds lofty, this definition is so ambiguous it includes every politician with presidential aspirations.
Social conservatives have been the defenders of the unborn and traditional view of marriage based upon a Judeo Christian ethic which holds high the dignity of human life and the sanctity of marriage. They seek justice for children in the womb by insisting that government step up to the plate and defend the weakest and most vulnerable from a murderous demise.
If abortion, gay marriage and destructive embryonic stem cell research are no longer part of the social conservative's view of evil, then Giuliani may well fit into the tent. Until then, he remains outside the camp.
Posted by Britt Shankle on ContraceptionBlog.com
Yesterday, on hundreds of college campuses nationwide, students were handed a Hershey's kiss with a free condom. This "Condom and a Kiss" campaign has been going on for several years and is a way for students who practice contraception or support it to spread their message and their products.
But yesterday Project Plus, the group of college kids I work with who have been actively spreading a message opposed to this mentality via posters and articles in the school newspaper, gave my alma mater a run for their contraception. Contradictory to the normally sexually spurred activities of Valentine's Day, we reached out to our peers with a message that "True Love is worth more than Contraception".
H.R. 618 has been introduced into the 110th Congress by Congressman Duncan Hunter.
Click here to read the new bill at MonthlyCallForLife.com.
The bill replaces H.R. 552. Over 64 congressman have signed on to it so far.
ProLifeNews.tv did a video interview with Congressman Duncan Hunter during the Blogs4Life Conference, which was held on the day of the March for Life in Washington D.C.
Yes, pictures of aborted babies are gruesome in the extreme. They are terrible and of very poor taste. They can be upsetting, alarming, and profoundly unforgettable. But why oh why are we more upset at the evidence than we are at the unconscionable crimes they portray?
Here's a news story of a disabled grandma in England whose efforts against the abortifacient "morning after pill" included sending photos of aborted babies to pharmacists. She has been convicted under a 1988 law (the Malicious Communications Act) because judges have ruled "she had no right to cause distress to others who might see the pictures."
Feb. 14, 7:49 p.m.
Today, the Kansas Supreme Court granted Paul Morrison's request to dismiss the appeal of Judge Clark's dismissal of the charges against George Tiller. Already, it appears the media is once again failing to report the substantive facts regarding the action today. We will see if their full stories do any better tomorrow.
As a refresher the following is important to know....
[Continue reading on www.jillstanek.com.]
[Hat tip: Reader Caron]
There are certainly polar opposite views of Republican abortion proponent Rudy Giuliani's candidacy for president:
Pro-life pro-Rudy
For me and other socially conservative, pro-life voters who are inclined to support Mayor Giuliani, however, there is one bridge he can build to make him acceptable - appoint judicial conservatives to the federal bench.... ~ Blogger Baseball Crank, Feb. 13
Pro-abortion pro-Rudy
Every pro-choice American should be rooting for Giuliani to get the GOP nomination. If an avowedly a pro-choice politician like Rudy Giuliani is able to either muscle out or weasel through the pro-life movement for the GOP nomination, the pro-life political movement is dead. Their credility has a potent or feared political force will be gone. ~ Blogger Mass Eyes & Ears, Feb. 10
I've always tended to get nervous when the other side takes my same position.
Conservative blogger John Hawkins (Right Wing News) announced today that he is consulting for presidential candidate Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA).
For those who haven't followed his efforts in the Congress, Hunter introduced the Right to Life Act, which would legally define "personhood" as the moment of conception and, therefore, guarantee all constitutional rights and protections, including life, to the unborn without utilizing a constitutional amendment. (more information here)
Hawkins' involvement in the promotion of Hunter tells me that the candidate is a consistent ideological conservative in addition to his solid pro-life record. In fact, prior to being approached by a media group connected with Hunter's campaign, Hawkins had written positively concerning Hunter, promoting his candidacy through an interview and Town Hall Column (we noticed).
Second, the utilization of Hawkins reflects the emergent influence of bloggers on the political process and the demonstrated results. During the last presidential election cycle several writers were enlisted to help publicize political campaigns through blogging efforts. Some, like Hawkins, were upfront and announced the financial incentive they were receiving. Others didn't and were heavily criticized. However, the growing practice of enlisting bloggers reflects a positive track record and the complimentary advantage blogs provide to traditional campaign marketing efforts.
Finally, press reports about Hunter have been dismissive, if not negative. There was a time when this may have proven fatal to a campaign. Hunter's media group realizes that those times are over and their candidate's position on the issues can reach voters without an exclusive reliance on MSM.
Related: Duncan Hunter's Campaign Site
What if death certificates were required for all children killed in the womb? I agree with La Shawn Barber - it's a brilliant idea:
Legislation introduced in Tennessee would require death certificates for aborted fetuses, which likely would create public records identifying women who have abortions.Note that the writer of this AP article inserts the pro-abortion mantra upfront - the identity of the mother could be revealed. Wouldn't it be refreshing if the substance of the legislation was addressed prior to finding a way to torpedo it? Here's an alternate version that is concerned with the dignity of the unborn:
Legislation introduced in Tennessee would require death certificates for aborted babies, which would create a public records identifying the individuals whose lives have been ended through abortion.I like mine better. What do you think?
Related: You can read the bill online - click here - perhaps your local representatives would be interested in sponsoring a similar measure.
Gov. Rick Perry is still drawing a barrage of criticism for signing on executive order almost two weeks ago forcing Texan parents to vaccinate their adolescent daughters against the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus.Perry rationalized, according to the Houston Chronicle, "If the medical community developed a vaccine for lung cancer, would the same critics oppose it, claiming it would encourage smoking?"
I have considered that analogy myself. It is perfect. Lung cancer is predominantly caused by a destructive behavior, cigarette smoking, which also causes a myriad of other health problems.
So to answer Perry's question, everyone would welcome a lung cancer vaccine, but wouldn't turn around and say, "Great, let's all smoke!" Because we know smoking causes other cancers like laryngeal, esophageal, stomach and pancreatic as well as health problems like heart disease and infertility.
Furthermore, this behavior endangers the health of other people who come in contact with the smoker, like babies born with low birth weight.
Interestingly, the most ardent critics of smoking are lawmakers, who have increasingly sought to discourage this destructive behavior by making it more difficult.
HPV is also the consequence of a destructive behavior, sex outside of marriage.....
Continue reading my WorldNetDaily.com column today, "The link between HPV and smoking."
Planned Parenthood's pornographic Teen Wire website, which answers such typical teen questions as, "I'm a girl who likes to fantasize that I'm a guy having sex with another guy. Is this normal?", reminds us today, Valentines Day, is also National Condom Day!
National Condom Week is February 14-21, and February 14 is National Condom Day. Condoms have been protecting people against sexually transmitted infections since the 16th century, and have been preventing unwanted pregnancy since the 18th century. And in the 21st century? Condoms are all the rage.
I'm not sure "all the rage" is a good term to use. It reminds me of all the STDs that in actuality rage from one person to the next because condoms are such inadequate protectors against VDs (what we used to call STDs - short for venereal disease - a groovy verbal blast from the past in honor of Valentines Day, I mean National Condom Day) and pregnancy.
Not that Planned Parenthood would lie. Although in my celebratory mood I'm reminded that Consumer Reports rated Planned Parenthood's condoms the two worst of 23 it tested in 2005. Not that there is a connection between that and the fact PP is the United States largest abortion provider.
Oh, don't mind me. I'm just a fuddy duddy, although not unlike PP's duddy condoms, I suppose.
Nevertheless, National Condom Day!
Chicago Sun-Times columnist Cindy Richards must surely be considered as much an embarrassment to the anti-life movement as Cindy Sheehan is to the anti-war movement. Richards does her side no favors.
Reason #1: Richards uses Valentines Day as a hook to promote abortion in her column today, tacky to say the least....
Read the other three reasons at www.jillstanek.com.
Reasoned Audacity gave the heads up that the FRC's Charmaine Yoest was invited to appear on NBC Nightly News to discuss Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's run for the presidency. The program played out something like this:
Romney has real challenges. He says he's the true social conservative in the race, opposed to abortion and gay marriage. But here was Romney in 1994:Charmaine's caution is noted, and appreciated.
Mitt Romney: I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country
And on gay rights
Mitt Romney: I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the boy scouts regardless of their sexual orientation
Romney responded on his website:
Mitt Romney: ... Of course I was wrong on some issues back at then. I'm not embarrassed to admit that.But will that be enough for Christian conservatives key to winning the republican nomination?
Charmaine Yoest: We're still looking at what he's saying and we're still paying very very close attention to the match up between actions and words.
Brendan Miniter writes that former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani may yet find support among social conservatives in his bid for the Republican nomination for President despite his position in favor of abortion, gay-rights, and embryonic stem cell research. The reason, no surprise, is the worn out argument that he will likely appoint judges "in the mold" of John Roberts and Samuel Alito "who may actually overturn Roe v. Wade."
Miniter apparently fails to understand that Giuliani's dismal position on social issues is not skin deep but reflects the twisted principles of justice to which he holds and upon which he will govern. Why will social conservatives support such a presidency?
Yes, Giuliani might nominate a Roberts or Alito (of course, neither has a proven track record in the Supreme Court). Then again, why wouldn't he choose a Ruth Bader Ginsburg?
For those who say FOX NEWS is too right-wing, this shoots that kind of to hell:
"Did Motherhood Kill Anna Nicole Smith?"
Thursday , February 08, 2007, by Dr. Manny Alvarez
I am not the first to admonish FOX NEWS that this is grossly irresponsible and inaccurate reporting on a number of levels. Not the least of which is the fact that it feeds incorrect ammunition to abortion providers to terrify women into having abortions.
Here is a response from Terri Schiavo's brother, Bobby Schindler, to an article by Steven Pinker, "The Mystery of Consciousness," appearing in a recent issue of TIME magazine.
Mr. Pinker,I found the premise of much of what you wrote in your essay, "The Mystery of Consciousness," to be very troubling. However, I wanted to respond specifically to the comment you made regarding my sister, Terri Schiavo.
You said, "And if these questions have answers, would they change our policies toward unresponsive patients--making the Terri Schiavo case look like child's play?"
Your assertion that Terri was unresponsive is patently false.
I want to first stress that my family always held that it should have made no difference whether Terri was unresponsive or not. She was a human being, a person worthy of being cared for and loved, and no one should ever have to prove whether or not they deserve to be fed. However, contrary to what you wrote, Terri was very responsive.
I urge you to watch the videos of my sister, review the more than 40 doctors' affidavits submitted to the court, fully read the autopsy report, or simply believe the testimony of my family to understand that Terri was not only responsive, but that labeling her as having been in this dehumanizing, unscientific, and lethal "vegetative" state was also erroneous.
I am reminded of what author Wesley J. Smith recently wrote regarding the media.
"They [the media] often seem to decide the story first and then fit the facts to their perception. Once the story line is determined, facts that belie their take--even very important and pertinent facts--are often ignored or barely mentioned. Then, reporters who may come late to the story rely on the earlier reports and hence, regurgitate the skewed story line, until error often becomes perceived fact. As a consequence, a materially false impression is left for people who don't follow these matters closely."
When it comes to Terri's situation, this couldn't be more accurate. I am convinced more everyday, evidenced by articles such as yours, that there exists a conscious effort by the popular media to continue to try and justify killing my sister and others like her as being the "right" thing to do.
What is so frightening, however, is that our indifferent public is, and will continue to be, persuaded by articles such as yours, buying into the rationale that it is acceptable to kill the disabled because their IQs are not high enough.
Finally, perhaps you can explain to my family, particularly my parents, what you were implying by your "child's play" comment, because I am having a difficult time trying to understand what you meant.
Surely you could not be so insensitive as to think that parents having to fight so hard to simply care for and love their innocent disabled daughter was trivial. Nor, I am sure, were you trying to suggest that forcing my parents to slowly watch their daughter die a horrific death by dehydration and starvation over a period of 13 days, was merely "child's play"?
Because I can hardly imagine that anyone with any sense of human decency or genuine compassion would describe my sister's or any similar situation that way.
I would encourage you, along with other members of the media, to remember that Terri Schiavo is not just a name to be used to further your agenda. She was a living, breathing, feeling human being deeply loved by her family and her death is a tragedy with which we continue to live every day of our lives.
Sincerely,
The AP had to positively portray the liberal agenda in its Feb. 11 article, "High-risk pregnancies rising in U. S." But it tripped up.
It does not bode well for the feminist movement that the reason for the headline was, "[p]atients are getting older, so by definition, they're higher-risk." The feminist movement has persuaded women to ignore their biological clocks and pursue careers before family.
But by expending the bulk of the article's thrust that medicine is overcoming these obstacles, the author made point after pro-life point that abortions for "life of the mother" should be history. Consider these quotes....
Continue reading on www.jillstanek.com.
[Photo, courtesy of the AP, is of "Dr. Gabrielle Fish, [who] decided to try pregnancy after her kidney transplant. The result: a healthy daughter, Madelyn, now 6."]
Faith and Action has put up a survey asking us to voice our opinion on embryonic stem cell research. From the Faith and Action web site:
At this moment, members of Congress are working to pass legislation that will force our nation to accept embryonic stem cell research. The proponents of this legislation, however, conveniently dismiss the most recent advances in science--which emphasize the potential of adult stem cells for research. Furthermore, they operate under the bias that everyone in America believes it is acceptable to harvest human embryos for the sake of research.This is simply not true. Our goal is to inform congressional leaders about the moral and ethical aspects of embryonic stem cell research as they consider this crucial issue. We also want to let them know how Americans feel about the immorality of conceiving children in laboratories only to destroy them by harvesting their cells. Please fill in the form below and take our embryonic stem cell research survey. Our representatives in Congress must know how the American people feel about the sanctity of life.
In this information age and the very complicated world in which we live today, the need for high-quality reporting is greater than ever. It's not just the journalist's job at risk here. It's American democracy. It is freedom...[As broadcasters cut budgets and air time for news] we're all left with a sound bite culture that turns political campaigns into political theater.Who said it?
A) Sean Hannity
B) Rush Limbaugh
C) Ann Coulter
D) Walter Cronkite
Ben Wren (MyManMitt) posted an exclusive interview with that James Bopp regarding his endorsement of Mitt Romney for President. Bopp has been the General Counsel for the National Right to Life Committee and many other pro-life organizations.
Although his questions are amicable, if not friendly, "MMM" gets right to the point:
MMM: Given Governor Romney's well documented statements on abortion in the past what would you say to pro-life leaders who remain concerned about Romney's commitment to the movement given his recent conversion to it?This type of interview will certainly benefit Romney's reputation among pro-lifers, as will the contrast Bopp makes later in the discussion between his candidate and the undeniably pro-abortion Rudy Giuliani. Playing up the similarity between Romney and Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush will provide political capital that is likely to be looked upon favorably by many social conservatives.Bopp: The pro-life movement is open to converts. Two of our most stalwart pro-life presidents, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, were converts. I believe that Governor Romney's conversion on the pro-life issue is sincere for three reasons. First, it was based on a real life pivot point, when Harvard researchers told him that there was no "moral issue" with embryonic stem cell research because they "destroy the embryos at 14 days." This had a profound effect on him.
Second, as Governor, he consistently pursued pro-life policies.
[snip]
Third, I have met with Governor Romney and asked him the questions that I think need answered. I am satisfied with his answers.
Hugh Hewitt argues the significance of Bopp's endorsement while slamming the MSM's anti-Romeny coverage:
His views on life have evolved from 1994, but he governed as a pro-life governor and was recently endorsed by Jim Bopp --a fact fundamental to the story of Romney's appeal to social conservatives but not mentioned in this Globe article-- which may be the most significant endorsement any Republican candidate could have received from the right-to-life grassroots as Bopp, general counsel to the National Right to Life Committee has deep ties to the pro-life community of activists across the country and great influence among them.Despite Hewitt's overly optimistic view of Bopp's endorsement, the Romney campaign must still deal with the pro-abortion baggage of his past and present (e.g., click here and here) and explain why he supports killing the unborn when the baby is conceived in cases of incest or rape. [Certainly Romney supporters will be quick to point out that his exceptions to the pro-life position are identical to those held by President Bush (yes, I'm disappointed).]
Romney also appears to oppose a Federal Human Life Amendment to the Constitution and suggests that each state decide on its own whether or not to ban child killing in the womb. "So states like Massachusetts could stay like they are if they so desire," he told the National Journal.
And, although Hewitt takes aim at the Boston Globe article, he fails to explain why Romney supports research on "excess embryos" created during fertility treatments or why pro-life organizations approach Romney's stand on ESC with trepidation:
Tom McClusky, vice president for government affairs for the influential Family Research Council, noted that Romney, after his education on stem cell research as governor led him to abandon his past support for abortion rights, now describes himself as "firmly pro-life." But the organization is concerned that Romney's position on stem cell research is not a pure "pro-life" position."I would think it's going to be a problem," he said.
On Feb. 9, a young father brought his baby in a small white plastic trash bag to abortionist James Pendergraft's Orlando Women's Center abortion mill. Pendergraft, pictured right, owns four Florida chop shops and commits third trimester abortions. His EPOC mill is where the 911 call originated that I posted yesterday.
This baby was large enough to weigh the bag down. The clinic had given the mother the labor inducing drug Cytotec to take at home, where she inadvertently delivered her baby - dead or alive, no one will ever know.
The father walked slowly to the clinic's back door with his dead baby, which is where pro-life sidewalk counselors Patte and Mary Jo met him. They didn't know what was going on so offered him a packet of pro-life materials.
Patte began trying to talk him out of the abortion, explaining even if his partner had already ingested the Cytotec pills, it was not too late to get medical help. But the father interrupted her, saying, "You don't understand, this is my baby," as he lifted the bag up for them to see....
Continue reading this story at www.jillstanek.com.
Today is Charles Darwin's 198th birthday, and a day to reflect on the scientific, social and moral heritage brought about by his theory of evolution. David Klinghoffer, in his Weekly Standard column, scratches the surface by noting Darwin's role in the modern eugenics movement, infanticide ala Peter Singer, and coerced sterilization. Add to the list abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and genocide and one might begin to wonder what the celebration of Darwin Day is all about.
HT: Wesley Smith who comments further. See also the Gospel according to Darwin.
A number of conservatives are working vigorously to find a way to make former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's dismal stand on social issues palatable for pro-life voters. Family and life issues are apparently not important to some of these Republicans, who down-play Giuliani's solid pro-abortion record and his support for gay marriage (i.e., gay pride parade-marching days). Others suggest that Giuliani could be "operationally pro-life"despite the core beliefs that have driven him to a public stand that is practically, realistically and politically pro-abortion.
Given Giuliani's charisma and highly acclaimed accomplishments as Mayor of New York, my position may not be popular, but I'm convinced social conservatives should and (eventually will) oppose his candidacy with vigor.
It is far more than just a few issues that separate Giuliani and social conservatives. Rather, we differ on the fundamental principles that should compel a governing official to seek justice by defending the lives of the unborn, oppose gross perversion of the marriage covenant and ban experimental research which destroys human life.
There are two strategies the Giuliani camp is using to pacify, obscure or deceive his potential opponents within the pro-life movement. First, he has represented his views on abortion using the doublespeak coined by Mario Cuomo and perfected by Bill Clinton. Giulini is "personally opposed" to abortion but does not believe the state has a role in protecting the life of the unborn. This despite that fact that the basis for opposition to abortion is the very reason it should be illegal. The rationale of being (personally) opposed to child killing but, as a governing official, not acting upon the same is, at best, dubious.
The second strategy used by Giuliani is to approach pro-life voters with the suggestion that he agrees with the Supreme Court nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, and is likely to select a similar justices if elected president. These are safe statements to make, especially since both judges are widely respected and do not have an established record in the Supreme Court.
However, what if he also gave accolades for a pro-abortion justice like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a former counsel for the ACLU. Would you think differently about the potential pool of judicial nominations? This is what Giulinai told Hannity and Colmes:
COLMES: Now, Roe vs. Wade -- You are pro-choice. How important is it to you as a pro-choice Republican to have a pro-choice on the court as someone...Why would social conservatives trust Giulini on life issues when he believes in the legitimacy of research that destroys human embryos and asserts that government has no role in protecting unborn children from being torn to pieces while in their mother's womb?GIULIANI: That is not the critical factor. And what's important to me is to have a very intelligent, very honest, very good lawyer on the court. And [Roberts] fits that category, in the same way Justice Ginsburg fit that category.
I mean, she was -- she maybe came at it from a very different political background, very qualified lawyer, very smart person. Lots of Republicans supported her. I expect, and listening to Senator Nelson, I expect that John Roberts will get support from a lot of Democrats.
This comment by Daniel Larison elucidates the early support Giuliani has received from many social conservatives:
Many people support him because they[recognize] his name and project their own views onto the political blank slate that he represents. I suspect that the 16% who believe in the mythical pro-life Giuliani are not going to be happy when they discover that he never was what they thought he was.Hopefully, Giuliani's very early status as the front runner for the Republican nomination for president reveals that his view are widely unknown rather than the demise of the Republican party of life issues.
NRFC is proud to welcome Jill to its blogging team! You can find the blog at www.ContraceptionBlog.com
For those who are new to ProLifeBlogs.com, where Jill also posts, here is her background.
Jill was a registered nurse at Christ Hospital in Illinois when she made the shocking discovery that babies were being aborted alive and allowed to die without medical care. Jill went public and has since become a national figure in the effort to protect both born and pre-born infants.Jill was invited by President George W. Bush for his August 2002 signing of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which will protect live aborted children from infanticide. Was also asked to his signing of invitation when he signed the signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban in November 2003, which will protect partially delivered babies from being killed by abortion (if the Supreme Court lets it stand).
In January 2003, Jill was named by World Magazine as one of the 30 most prominent pro-life leaders in the movement over the past 30 years.
Jill writes about pro-life issues as a weekly columnist for WorldNetDaily.com. You can sign up to receive Jill's columns by e-mail at her blog at www.JillStanek.com
She and husband Rich have three children and three grandchildren.
Welcome Jill!!
A new survey of over 1,000 Welsh women in their peak childbearing years suggests that more than 20% have had surgical abortions. The results of the survey also revealed that half of these aborted women were either not using contraception at all or had forgot to use their "oral contraceptives" when they became pregnant.
The survey was conducted by Schering Health Care, a U.K. subsidiary of Bayer Schering Pharma AG, which is a manufacturer of abortifacient drugs -- drugs marketed, of course, as "birth control." And, not surprisingly, the company and other pro-abortion groups believe that the study emphasizes the need for yet more of its products. For instance, Dr. Tony Calland, chairman of the British Medical Association's Welsh Council, argued that there was simply no excuse for not using appropriate contraception. "All we can do is continue to emphasise that contraception is the way forward in a relationship, even if that means the morning after pill."
With the scientific evidence more than clear that the drugs in the "morning after pill" kill unborn boys and girls, Dr. Calland's claim that this lethal chemical is "the way forward in a relationship" is ironic (and tragic) in the extreme. But the promotion of abortifacients always is. The slogan of Bayer Schering Pharma AG (formerly Schering AG) itself is "We take pride in our long tradition of turning new ideas into life-enhancing drugs."
Barack Obama, who recently won the office of Senator from Illinois, announced his candidacy for President of the United States on Saturday. He is a solid pro-abortion person who doesn't believe that religious views should influence law.
This is a 911 call unlike any other you may ever hear. It was just posted on You Tube. Made on April 2, 2005, the call was to report a baby had been aborted alive in an Orlando abortion mill. It was not clinic workers who made the call but a friend of the aborting mom, reporting clinic workers were attempting to ensure the baby's demise. It seems to me 911 operators also helped ensure the baby's demise by mishandling the call, solely because the person in life-threatening distress was an aborted baby.
Clinic workers turned the response team away at the door, and the response team complied. Rowan died in his mother's arms as she sang to him, alone in the bathroom where he was aborted. The photos you will see are of Rowan, taken in the morgue.
I interviewed and later met Rowan's mother. You can read Rowan's story here. Rowan's mother is a gentle, sensitive person who made a terrible decision under distressing circumstances.
The abortionist, James Pendergraft, is still in business.
Illinois U. S. Senator Barack Obama announced his intention to run for president at the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois, this morning, where Abraham Lincoln gave his "House divided" speech almost 150 years ago.
One of many differences between the two men is Lincoln defended all three tenants of the Declaration of Independence - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - while Obama supports only the latter two.
Pro-lifers plan not to let Obama ignore his moral lapse. We began this morning.
Liberal bloggers claimed Springfield was besieged by well-wishers and nearly shut down by police. But we were able to park one block away 30 minutes before the event.
At 15 minutes prior, we were able to walk to the front of the barricaded space, directly behind the media risers. In all fairness, the ease with which we found this press-friendly position so close to the event was likely due to the extreme cold, which dipped to -15 degrees at one point on our drive from Chicago but reached +1 by our arrival. Cameras merely had to swing around to capture us on film. (Whether or not they will show us is another matter.)
Reporters and cameras left their perch to interview and film up close. This is Mary Ann Ahern, political reporter for Chicago's NBC5, talking to Pro-Life Action League's Joe Scheidler:
There were 40 of us.
At several times during Obama's speech we began shouting, "Abortion no, Obama no!" This not only consternated the pro-abortion crowd around us but must also have had an impact near the man. An agitated Obama official appeared soon into Obama's speech, approached the police who were watching us, and simply ordered, "Remove them."
The police complied, telling us to move to a designated protesters' area a couple blocks away, but Joe simply said no, we had First Amendment rights. Joe was right, of course. There was nothing the police could do but watch us.
I found this sign humorous:
I do hope pro-lifers around the country will also remind Obama of the atrocity of his pro-abortion position when he comes their way. If so, what the Chicago Sun-Times predicted after Obama's speech today will come to pass: "[I]t is going to be a rough learning process, evidenced on Saturday with a planned protest by an anti-abortion group in Springfield - Obama is essentially pro-choice."
"Essentially"? Well, I guess that is the most we can expect from the liberal media in its description of someone who is "pro-choice" to the point of supporting partial birth abortion and infanticide.
As an aside, today's award for MSM anti-life bias goes to the Associated Press, which by word two (!) of a Feb. 8 article showed malice toward the pro-life position:
A disturbing number of U.S. doctors do not feel obligated to tell patients about medical options they oppose morally, such as abortion and teen birth control, and believe they have no duty to refer people elsewhere for such treatments, researchers say.
Congratulations, AP!
The piece was on a study conducted by University of Chicago researchers published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which found "52% of the physicians... reported objections to abortion for failed contraception, and 42% reported objections to contraception for adolescents without parental consent."
Asked NEJM, "Should physicians have the right to refuse to discuss, provide, or refer patients for medical interventions to which they have moral objections? The medical profession appears to be divided on this issue."
Not really. It is only anti-lifers who appear to oppose a physicians' right to choose.
Both ethicists quoted in the NEJM study protesting a doctor's right not to participate in the Culture of Death were themselves members of that culture.
For instance, Dr. R. Alta Charo, Professor of Law and Bioethics at the infamously liberal University of Wisconsin at Madison, "criticize[d] those medical professionals who would claim 'an unfettered right to personal autonomy while holding monopolistic control over a public good,'" stated the study.
Charo, who herself claims an unfettered right to personal autonomy - but only when it comes to abortion, previously served as a Clinton appointee to the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. After that commission expired and Bush appointed pro-life Dr. Leon Kass as chair of his newly created Council on Bioethics, Charo complained Kass was "unhappy with the enhanced degrees of personal freedom that things like the feminist movement and the reconfiguration of human families have brought to us."
Then there is Professor Julian Savulescu, Chair in Practical Ethics of the University of Oxford, who argued, according to the NEJM study, "a doctor's conscience has little place in the delivery of modern medical care."
Savulescu, who doesn't own one, has previously argued that "abortion and embryo destruction prevent a future of value, but that does not make them wrong," and "killing a fetus is like failing to conceive a baby."
Well, only if you think what is never was, or perhaps what your definition of "is" is. But I digress.
Once again we see the other side showing it is only pro-"choice" if death is chosen.
Here's an interesting Feb. 8 blog post by pro-abort Suisan:
I keep getting pictures of my soon-to-be twin nieces/nephews from my proud mother-in-law. The latest batch was ultrasound stills of them at 13 weeks. I know I'm supposed to gurgle with glee when I see proof of their existence....But I can't open more than one picture. Because they truly squick me out....
Ultrasound pictures of unborn babies make my stomach turn over.
Which is not a good reaction when the proud parents point to the picture on their refrigerator, he with his arm around her waist, she with a bright smile on her round face as they say, "Isn't it wonderful?"
And all I can think of are anti-abortion protesters.
There's a disgust and a hot rage and a feeling of nausea or maybe fear I feel when I see an anti-abortion protest, even on TV. It's like watching a lynch mob, or maybe a lynching. That hot sweat of fear behind the ears. The stomach cramps. The panic of, "I don't know what I can do. I don't know what to say. I need to go be safe somewhere else."
That's what I experience when I see an ultrasound of an unborn baby. Oh please don't make me look at this. Don't try to prove to me that you have life within you. I believe you, really, without the photographic evidence. No. No. I mean it. It's OK. I'm happy that your happy, but you don't need to show me ALL of your bodily functions, right?....
But I wonder about the synapse.
I don't.
ProLifeNews.tv is broadcasting live video from the Leaders for Life evening gathering which is being held in the House Rayburn building.
Click here to go to ProLifeNews.tv to get to the link
As reported yesterday in Illinois Review and today in WorldNetDaily.com, former Republican National Committee Deputy Chairman and National Finance Co-chairman Jack Oliver is a lobbyist for Merck, the manufacturer pressing state legislatures to make its $360 HPV vaccine mandatory.
Oliver was the highest fundraiser in RNC history.
Could Oliver's influence have been another reason Republican Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed his executive order mandating HPV vaccinations for all adolescent girls?
[Photo of Jack Oliver courtesy of The Hill.]
Mary Ann Sorrentino formerly ran an abortion mill and is now on the speaking circuit hawking her new pro-abortion book.
Sorrentino needs a speech writer or a course in marketing. Having already demonstrated inadequate promotional skills, (see previous post here), she failed again during a speech Wednesday at the University of Rhode Island, as quoted by the school newspaper (subscription may be required):
"The problem rests in the fact the woman finds herself in a situation she doesn't want to be in. My opposition would like to present that there is some happy outcome. There is no happy outcome.... Abortion is, and should be, a serious decision. If a woman has a pregnancy terminated she's going to always remember and she should."
"Always remember." Is that like, "Never forget," the Holocaust mantra?
[Photo courtesy of A 5-Cent Cigar]
I've posted a couple of comments (here and here) on the New England Journal of Medicine article, "Religion, Conscience, and Controversial Practices" on LifeEthics.org.
The majority of the docs in the survey object to abortion for contraceptive failure and nearly half object to giving 14 to 16 year olds contraception when their parents object and actually follow through on their convictions in some cases.
The authors seem to have no feeling for the history of bioethics as an outcome of the Holocaust or Tuskegee. Instead, the fuss and bother is over docs refusing to follow through on legal killing.
Meeting the parents has become a ritual trial of postmodern romance. Still, one of the key questions my father means to pose to my girlfriend when he meets her is rather unusual: If she and I marry, will she help care for my youngest brother when my parents die?
Zachary, you see, has Down syndrome. The current abilities of medicine make it quite possible, even likely, that he'll outlive my parents or at least their ability to watch over him, so someone else will eventually have to look after his needs. My other brothers and I have been helping him for nearly 12 years now, so it seems natural that this will continue. We've always cared for him and those marrying in will have to accept this responsibility. (Note to the curious: My lovely Julie agreed to this when I forewarned her of my father's planned query.)
But Zachary's dependence hardly means he is helpless. He can, for example, read and write, albeit at a low level. He'll never be a writer or an engineer, but in time he'll be able to hold down a simple job. Perhaps he'll even be able to live on his own as other people with Down syndrome do.
I doubt that will happen for Zachary, though. I don't think he will desire solitary living; he loves others and is loved too much. He's cheerful and outgoing, greeting everyone with hugs. Like the rest of the family, he loves to play soccer. He is fond of drawing, Legos and matchbox cars. His life is happy and he is a joy to those fortunate enough to know him.
Between 1985 and 1999 the abortion rate among minors has fallen by 50% and yet has received relatively little attention. According to a new study published by the Heritage Foundation, pro-life legislation is a contributing factor leading to the observed decline in abortion among minors.
Dr. Michael New, an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Alabama and the studies author concludes,
Parental involvement laws reduced the minor abortion rate by an average of 1.67 abortions per 1,000 females between the ages of 13 and 17.The details behind New's conclusions are complex and involve the use of a comprehensive multiregression analysis to examine the correlation and potential contribution of many variables simultaneously. The results provide a substantial argument for the positive benefits of pro-life legislation at the state level.Medicaid funding restrictions reduced the minor abortion rate by an average of 2.34 abortions per 1,000 females between the ages of 13 and 17.
The results of two natural experiments indicate that pro-life legislation, not changing values, is responsible for the declines in abortion.
Source:
Analyzing the Effect of State Legislation on the Incidence of Abortion Among Minors, Michael J. New, Ph.D., Center for Data Analysis Report #07-01
Over the 34 years abortion has been legal in the U. S., pro-life organizations have adapted certain philosophies.I'm thinking now of strategists who incrementally plot our legal course based on court decisions and a head count of pro-life and anti-life judges. I'm also thinking of purists who won't support legislation with compromises or exceptions. No stopgaps allowed.
The South Dakota abortion bans of 2006 and 2007 present quandaries for both these camps....
For purists, the evidence starkly suggests even a plurality of pro-life voters will only vote for an abortion ban with exceptions. Furthermore, prospects for passage of a human life amendment to the U. S. Constitution are bleak, since it would require ratification by three-fourths of the states....
As for incremental strategists, at least two national pro-life organizations opposed the South Dakota ban last year, stating the time was not ripe to trigger the Supreme Court's response to whether Roe v. Wade was indeed constitutional, since the Court is currently weighted 5-4 against us....
Continue reading my WorldNetDaily.com column today, ""Incrementalists and purists vs. the South Dakota abortion ban."
Also see bonus notes augmenting my column on page 2 of my blog. These were gleaned from a speech given by South Dakota state Rep. Roger Hunt on Feb. 3
Defenders of same-sex marriage in Washington have filed an initiative that would require heterosexual couples to have children within three years of tying the knot -- or have their marriages annulled. - WorldMagBlog via FRCBlog
News reports of prepared statements read like satire:
For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation ... The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine. If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage.What proponents claim to be a "parody" meant to challenge the concept that marriage is a tiresome strategy. Rather than engaging the propositions put forward by social conservatives a straw man argument is constructed in which marriage is redefined as procreation. Having falsely attributed a particular position to their opponents, advocates of the "procreate or else" measure promote their agenda in this manner:
Since you don't live up to what we've decided you believe, you're a bunch of hypocrites and everything else you've said about marriage is wrong. Therefore, same-sex marriage ought to be legal.I don't know whether to cry or laugh. It's a creative way to gain media attention but sadly quite illogical.
Joe Carter at the FRCBlog engages: Is marriage solely for the purpose of creation? LifeSiteNews has the details.
Laughably, The Providence Journal concealed the accurate professional identity of pro-abort Mary Ann Sorrentino in its Feb. 5 article about her new book, "The A Word: Abortion: Real Women, Tough Choices, Personal Freedom."
The liberal news organization esteemed Sorrentino as the former "director of the Rhode Island chapter of Planned Parenthood," making her sound something like the leader of a civics group. In reality Sorrentino was the executive director of Rhode Island Planned Parenthood, which operates a seond-trimester abortion mill and a feeder "express" pre-chop shop.
That aside, Sorrentino provided interesting glimpses into the mind of the enemy:
The anti-abortion movement has, Sorrentino says, gotten very smart of late, especially in the way it has controlled the language of the debate. "Partial birth abortion, that's a brilliant term but it has no medical meaning and it certainly more attention-grabbing than late-term abortion. ... 'Right to life' is a very powerful term, while 'pro-choice' sounds defensive."The anti-abortion movement is brilliant and very committed. These people aren't going anywhere," said Sorrentino.
In reality, "partial birth abortion" is both a legally and medically defined term, although it is no surprise Sorrentino lied and the reporter failed to challenge her. But since Sorrentino called us "brilliant," I'll let it go. I also found it interesting she considered "pro-choice" a defensive term.
An excerpt from Sorrentino's book could explain no better why abortion is not a revered and heralded "right." Even she as an abortion advocate could not make it sound pleasant:
Every day across America, women like these lie down on a stretcher, look up at a ceiling, and wait for the medical team to end their pregnancies. Every day this happens to people you know and love.
And here's a "duh" quote:
Sorrentino... worries that the two generations of women who have come of age since the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe vs. Wade which legalized abortion have come to take the freedom to terminate a pregnancy for granted."We want young people to have a fire in their belly about this right... ' said Sorrentino.
"Fire in the belly." Interesting Freudian slip. But why should young people trust the very people who tried to kill them before they were born, or support an effort that has resulted in the slaughter of 1/3 of their generation?
Last, a quote from the article pregnant with irony about Sorrentino's passion to push abortion:
"It is my life's work," Sorrentino said....
Responding to a barrage of criticism for signing on executive order that will force adolescent girls to receive the HPV vaccine regimen, Texas Gov. Rick Perry is quoted in the Houston Chronicle today saying, "If the medical community developed a vaccine for lung cancer, would the same critics oppose it claiming it would encourage smoking?"
I have thought of that analogy myself. It is perfect. Lung cancer is predominantly caused by cigarette smoking, which is currently a politically incorrect behavior. Lawmakers around the country have increasingly sought to discourage this behavior by making it more difficult to carry out this behavior.
So to answer Perry's question, we would welcome a lung cancer vaccine but wouldn't turn around and say, "Great, let's all smoke!" Because we know smoking causes a myriad of other cancers as well as health problems like emphysema and hardening of the arteries. Furthermore, we know this behavior has secondary consequences of endangering the health of other people who come in contact with the smoker.
So when actress Marissa Jaret Winokur and IL state Sen. Debbie Halvorson admitted they had HPV and worried others might get it, you would think they'd focus on their behavior that caused them to contract that sexually transmitted disease.
Winokur and Halvorson would be most helpful by discussing the health consequences of pre- or extra-marital sex. Here are some potential topics:
But neither one advocates avoiding a risky behavior that leads not only to HPV but to 20+ other STDs and their strains, along with unplanned pregnancy. They merely advocate trying to avoid the consequences of risky behavior. Shame on them.
Here's what I wrote about Rev. Luke J. Robinson, pastor of the Quinn Chapel AME Church in Frederick, MD in my 2007 March for Life album:
One of the most powerful speakers I've ever heard! In Martin Luther King-like cadence he spoke us of the genocide being visited on African-Americans through the "choice" of abortion. Fully one third of aborted babies are black - 500,000 lives lost each year. "They're lyin' while we're dyin'!" he intoned again and again and the crowd rippled with "Amen!" and "Tell it!" I looked around at the people in the press box and the small contingent from the main stream press looked bored and untouched. Maybe that's why - after sifting the news for half an hour this morning I have not been able to find the name of this dynamic speaker, who had already begun when I arrived at the press box. Heaven forbid that his message - and the fact that there are African-Americans who are passionately pro-life - should filter out to the populace.
Now, thanks to Joseph Slife who teaches public speaking at Emmanuel College in Franklin Springs, GA, I can share this audio sound byte:
Rev. Luke J. Robinson, March for Life 2007
Please feel free to lift this and pass it on. I would love Rev. Robinson to be heard by as many people as possible.
For more on Abortion and African-American genocide, see BlackGenocide.
More at MommyLife.
Kaiser News reports today Texan legislative guns blazed yesterday in response to Gov. Perry's Feb 2. quick-draw executive order forcing adolescent girls to receive the HPV vaccine:
ProLifeNews.tv recently did an interview with Congressman Duncan Hunter at the Family Research Council in Washington D.C. Congressman Hunter was participating in the Blogs4Life.com event which was held there, an event founded by ProLifeUnity.com, The Family Research Council & ProLifeBlogs.com.
Click here to continue reading and to view the video at NationalProLifeRadio.net
Rudolph W. Giuliani took another step toward running for president by filing a "statement of candidacy" with the Federal Election Commission, declaring his intent to seek the Republican nomination.
Appearing on Hannity and Colmes, Giuliani was asked about his position on abortion.
Giuliani: Where I stand on abortion is I oppose it, I don't like it, I hate it. I think abortion is something that as a personal matter I would advise somebody against. However, I believe in a woman's right to choose. I think you have to ultimately not put a woman in jail for that. And I think ultimately you have to leave that to a disagreement of conscience and you have to respect the choice that somebody makesGiuliani's approach is a deliberate use of former New York Governor Mario Cuomo's 1984 "personally opposed" argument for the pro-choice position, an approach that was perfected by former President Bill Clinton (i.e., "safe, legal and rare") and regurgitated by Sen. John Kerry (i.e., "I'm pro-life") during his failed bid for the presidency.Giuliani: What I do say to conservatives, because then you want to look at, ok, what can we look to that is similar to the way that we think. I think that the appointment of judges that I would make would be very similar if not exactly the same as the last two judges that were appointed.
Ramesh Ponnoru, in the Party of Death, comments,
The "personally opposed" stance had suffered from an obvious flaw: The only defensible basis for judging abortion immoral -- the conviction that it is usually the unjust taking of human life -- also seemed to be a reason to enact a general legal prohibition on it. "Personally opposed" seemed to be nothing more than an incantation designed to keep incontrovertible premises from leading to inconvenient conclusions. Cuomo did not really solve this problem, but threw up numerous smokescreens to obscure it.The statement "I hate abortion" is a judgment, a moral assertion that follows a rational presupposition that abortion is the killing of an unborn child. The fact that Giuliani is able to concede this point and yet fails to identify any moral compulsion to protect the life of a child indicates that his position is purely a political one (calculated and hypocritical) or that he has a warped sense of justice.
As anticipated, Giuliani also threw-up the vague promise possibility that he would probably nominate judges similar to John Roberts and Samuel Alito. In light of his past accolades for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg this argument is shallow and meaningless.
As conservatives consider Giuliani, there is much to be admired. He is a hero of 9/11, a noted federal prosecutor, and a two-term Republican mayor in an overwhelmingly Democratic city. Yet, the seasoned leader and charismatic politician fails a fundamental litmus test and reveals a significant ethical short-coming in his assertion that a child within his or her mother's womb does not deserve protection and can be legally killed.
HT: HotAir
The UK will soon bar Catholic adoption agencies from refusing to adopt children to homosexual couples, most likely forcing the Catholic agencies to close their doors for good. Read about it here.
As a potential pro-abortion candidate for President, Rudy Giuliani has challenges gaining the support of the pro-life community. He's already using Mario Cuomo's famous "I'm personally opposed to abortion" line despite that fact that the very reason to be opposed to abortion is the same reason it should be illegal (check our Ramesh Ponnuru's Party of Death for more on this topic).
Bill Kristol explained on FoxNews a strategy Giulinai could use tor win social conservatives:
I think if Giuliani is conservative on judges, if Giuliani says look, I served in the Reagan Justice Department with John Roberts and Samuel Alito, they're the kinds of judges I'll put on the court, I might vote differently as a legislator on abortion, but let's not have the federal courts resolve these issues, let's give them back to the democratic processes in the states -- if he makes that a very key part of his campaign -- his conservative view on judges -- I think he has a chance to overcome social conservative concerns.Kristol is not the first to use this line of reasoning on Giuliani's behalf - other conservatives are already suggesting that his stand on judges should appease pro-life critics.
I'm wondering why nobody is talking about Giuliani's support for judges like Justice Ginsburg (Hannity and Colmes):
COLMES: Now, Roe vs. Wade -- You are pro-choice. How important is it to you as a pro-choice Republican to have a pro-choice on the court as someone...More fundamentally, doesn't it strike you as irrational for Giuliani to personally believe that abortion is wrong (i.e., an innocent life is killed) and at the same time assert that abortion should be legally protected?GIULIANI: That is not the critical factor. And what's important to me is to have a very intelligent, very honest, very good lawyer on the court. And [Roberts] fits that category, in the same way Justice Ginsburg fit that category.
I mean, she was -- she maybe came at it from a very different political background, very qualified lawyer, very smart person. Lots of Republicans supported her. I expect, and listening to Senator Nelson, I expect that John Roberts will get support from a lot of Democrats.
He's pro-life (with exceptions) but is willing to include abortion in tax payer funded health care?:
The cornerstone of Gov. Mitt Romney's new universal health care law for Massachusetts is a program titled "Commonwealth Care", a plan for thousands of low-income people who could not afford regular health insurance, funded by the taxpayers.The Corner's Katherine Jean Lopez defends Romney, stating, "That's bad, but strikes me as nothing new or surprising." It seems Romney would have to break a campaign promise (in this instance) and would endanger the entire bill if he acted upon his belief that abortion is the murder.One of the stated benefits covered in Commonwealth Care is "abortions." And Planned Parenthood is written into the law, as part of the "payment policy advisory board."
Related: Romney supporters respond to skepticism. Perhaps they'll explain what's going on in this instance.
John Hawkings has a great column about Rep. Duncan Hunter, a representative who is well known to our readers for his stand on life issues:
If you're looking for someone who can represent the conservative wing of the Republican Party in 2008, California Congressman Duncan Hunter fills that bill far better that any of the top contenders who have already gotten into the race. Here's a short, but sweet primer that may help explain why that's the case.Photo: Rep. Duncan Hunter at the Blogs4Life Conference.[snip - click here]
Duncan Hunter is opposed to gay marriage, staunchly anti-abortion, and should have no problem appealing to conservative Christians. As a matter of fact, Hunter has even introduced the, "Right to Life Act (which) specifically acknowledges the personhood of the unborn." Hunter says that bill, if passed, "would allow us to have a reversal of the effects of Roe v. Wade without a constitutional amendment."
... when you compare Duncan Hunter to everyone else in the race right now, he looks very appealing.
... is Barbara Curtis' true story about her spiritual awakening, twelve kids, three adoptions and four boys with Down Syndrome. She's also written several books, one aptly titled "The Mommy Survival Guide."
We're used to these in Illinois, although Gov. Blagojevich hasn't thwarted the legislative process since last October. Get ready. Change the names, and this may be in your state's future:
AUSTIN, Texas Feb 2, 2007 (AP) -- Bypassing the Legislature altogether, Republican Gov. Rick Perry issued an order Friday making Texas the first state to require that schoolgirls get vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.
By employing an executive order, Perry sidestepped opposition in the Legislature from conservatives and parents' rights groups who fear such a requirement would condone premarital sex and interfere with the way Texans raise their children.
Beginning in September 2008, girls entering the sixth grade meaning, generally, girls ages 11 and 12 will have to receive Gardasil, Merck & Co.'s new vaccine against strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV....
Of course, the quid pro quo:
Merck is bankrolling efforts to pass state laws across the country mandating Gardasil for girls as young as 11 or 12. It doubled its lobbying budget in Texas and has funneled money through Women in Government, an advocacy group made up of female state legislators around the country.
Perry has several ties to Merck and Women in Government. One of the drug company's three lobbyists in Texas is Mike Toomey, Perry's former chief of staff. His current chief of staff's mother-in-law, Texas Republican state Rep. Dianne White Delisi, is a state director for Women in Government.
Perry also received $6,000 from Merck's political action committee during his re-election campaign.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/02/02/tx.cervical.cancer.ap/
[Hat tip: Reader Michelle P.]
When I recently wrote about Rudy Giuliani, I imagined a disastrous scenario in which conservatives became convinced that he was the only "viable" candidate to take on the Democratic nominee for President, Hillary Clinton (shudder). The pressure compounded as Giuliani supporters adopted the motto "a vote for (fill in a pro-life candidate) is a vote for Hilary" and some pro-life leaders began to point out that Giuliani pledged to nominate a strict constructionist to the Supreme Court while Clinton promised a Ginsburg clone.
Yes, it was only my imagination, an unlikely scenario given the field of evolving candidates for president and not something to dwell on. But then I visited Life Training Institute's blog where Scott Klusendorf poses the question
Suppose at the executive level, it's Rudy versus Hillary in 08. Rudy consistently says that while he personally supports a woman's decision to choose abortion and would sign congressional bills supporting that decision, he's convinced the Court overstepped in Roe. In fact, he calls the decision "an exercise of raw judicial tyranny unworthy of a Court dedicated to interpreting the law rather than making it." He cites Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Scalia as models of judicial restraint. Thus, he's fine with gutting Roe or even abolishing it. But if Congress then wants to federalize abortion rights at the legislative level, he'll support that effort even if the bill's provisions are every bit as permissive as Roe's.So, what would you do? And what will you do to ensure this is a decision you don't have to make?Hillary, meanwhile, insists she'll only appoint judges who can be counted on to uphold Roe.
What's your pick? A) sit the election out, B) pick a write-in candidate with no hope of winning, C) limit the damage by going with Gulliani, D) vote for Hillary to teach the Republicans a lesson.
Andrew St.Hilaire, the video's author, writes,
The weekend before last, I with 20 others from Washington state, travelled down to San Francisco for the 3rd annual Walk for Life West Coast. It was a powerful experience for many, and so encouraging to see 25,000 people united for the cause of Life.You'll want to visit the Walk for Life homepage for more pictures and video.
When conservatives look at former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani there is much to be admired. He is a hero of 9/11, a noted federal prosecutor, and a two-term Republican mayor in an overwhelmingly Democratic city. In fact, USA Today reports he is momentarily the leading candidate for the Republican nomination for president.
Yet, there are glaring challenges the Giuliani campaign will need to overcome if he is to be successful in swaying Republican voters. I�m talking about his stand on social issues and in particular abortion.
Giuliani has honed his position on abortion over time, representing himself as "pro-choice" with the Mario Cuomo "personally opposed to abortion" amendment (I thought John Kerry wore that one out). He also enlisted former Rep. Jim Nussle, a known pro-life legislator, to be a leader on his presidential exploratory committee (LifeNews has more).
To be clear, however, Giuliani supports legalized abortion-on-demand.
In a recent letter to Jim Lowry, Nussle suggests that "perfect" has become the enemy of the �good� and disagreement with Giuliani on certain "issues" should not preclude conservatives from supporting him.
I find Nussle�s statements hollow, even shallow, because they raise a straw-man argument as the basis for backing Giuliani and implicitly assert that his support of abortion is not a reason to reject his candidacy for the nation�s top office.
I have chosen to support Mayor Giuliani because I believe we need to embrace the ideals and the values that unite us. It is the only way we can successfully move forward as both a Party and a country.What about the dignity of human life and justice for the unborn? Aren�t these important "ideals" and "values" worthy of consideration? Or are the important ideals and values only those upon which we agree?
Considerable common ground can be found between Giuliani and most conservatives. Unfortunately, this is not enough. No candidate is perfect and will disappoint his or her constituents on any number of issues. However, there are a few principles that are foundational and must never be compromised despite profound agreement on other issues.
In his response to Nussle, the FRC�s Joe Carter gives a thoughtful explanation regarding the revelatory nature of a presidential candidate�s position on abortion:
I could not endorse anyone who fails on this key �litmus test.� Why would I hold a candidate responsible for an issue that isn't under their control? Because I am an unabashed single-issue voter -- and that issue is justice.I appreciate and agree with Joe's subsequent application because he connects a candidate�s view of human dignity to both abortion and foreign policy ( If he has no qualms with infanticide in America, why should I believe he cares about the plight of infants in Darfur?) and thereby establishes why a candidate who supports child killing in the womb, or insincerely adopts a pro-life position on particular issues, lacks the necessary moral fiber to lead this country.The justice I�m referring to is that which recognizes human dignity as the foundational principle of freedom and human flourishing.
[snip]
Because the State plays such a significant role in meting justice, we have a duty to elect politicians who have both a robust view of human dignity and the temerity to govern accordingly.
Despite his many accomplishments, Giuliani does not believe in justice for the unborn and is not a candidate worthy of the pro-life vote.
Author and veteran CNN correspondent, Frida Ghitis, writing in yesterday's Jewish World Review uses irony, pathos and a hard-edged honesty about the growing anti-Semitic forces in the world to describe the inattention to last weekend's International Holocaust Remembrance Day.
It is a well-written piece with a serious challenge for all of us to bravely embrace those convictions represented by the post-Holocaust slogans: "Remember," "Remember the Children," and "Never Again."
However, there is one brief passage of Ms. Ghitis' that has a powerful double meaning to those who mourn the overwhelming loss of life in those nations that, after ridding the world of the Nazi horrors, instituted their own by legalizing abortion.
Despite my differences with Mary Cheney on other issues, I found her quote, from today's New York Times, touching:
"When Heather and I decided to have a baby, it was not going to be the most popular decision ever," Ms. Cheney said, referring to her partner of 15 years, Heather Poe.She then gestured to her middle - any bulge disguised by a boxy jacket - and asserted: "This is a baby. This is a blessing from God. It is not a political statement. It is not a prop to be used in a debate by people on either side of an issue. It is my child."
Cheney made that statement at a college event hosted by pro-abortion Glamour magazine, which I'll be surprised to see included in its coverage.
[Photo from New York Times]
 |
| From March for Life |
LifeSiteNews adds another voice to the chorus of critics who have pointed out the apathetic media coverage of the Jan. 22nd March for Life:
Obviously, the networks believe some demonstrators are more newsworthy than others. It might just depend on whether the cause is liberal or conservative.Some estimates of the March place the crowd size above 200,000. While I'd like to see an official count I think this is certainly probable. The image above (click to enlarge), captures less then half the crowd and was created by combining a video of those standing to the north of the stage.On Monday, January 22, none of the networks sent a Washington reporter a few blocks down to the March for Life. CBS and NBC offered brief anchor snippets noting "both sides" of the abortion debate would protest on the anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision, ignoring that one side brings tens of thousands to Washington, and the other side numbers in the tens. ABC did nothing.
