June 2007 Archives

A new clinical study reportedly demonstrates that effectiveness of a stem cell treatment for juvenile diabetes. No, embryonic stem cells were not used.

There have been whispers of a possible revival of clinic blockades, also known as rescues. Thanks the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) act and similar state legislation, the penalties can be very high. Veteran rescuers with prior convictions are not likely to jump back into the fray due to the high costs - but a new generation of young people just might be willing.

But the question has to be asked "would this be productive?" That's a good question, according to a recent study on the shift towards life in our culture, clinic bombings, blockades, and other incidents during the "abortion wars" didn't help change public opinion on abortion. Despite the best efforts, clinic blockades kept the public debate on clinic access and law enforcement - and not on the unborn.

Yet, as any rescuer can attest to, closing down clinics for a day or so can save lives - I've personally witnessed many saves while I was blockading clinic entrances.

But would a revival be counterproductive, reversing the trend of people identifying themselves as being pro-life?

Yes - despite the success of blockades in saving lives, a general revival of this form of activism will be counterproductive.

That's not to say babies aren't worth saving because national strategy is more important, but even the public perception on abortion can, in my opinion, affect the abortion rate.

While many people still identify themselves as being "pro-choice," the debate over the procedure, and not the debate over clinic blockades and bombings, certainly caused many to rethink what they would personally do in a crisis pregnancy. The result is that the focus on the procedure changed hearts and minds.

So a full on revival may potentially be counter productive - but what about a limited revival?

Focusing on illegal abortions is the key to any successful but limited rescue revival. This would consist of focusing on mills that, despite Carhart, may still be performing the partial birth abortion. It would also consist of focusing attention on George Tiller, the notorious abortionists who allegedly flouts the abortion laws of Kansas. Finally, it would keep the focus on the late term abortions - something a majority of the American public has no appetite for.

Another effort the scope of the 1991 Summer of Mercy, albeit with a different focus, would possibly complement the pressure that O'Reilly and Operation Rescue have put on elected officials in Kansas. Just today 19 charges were filed against George Tiller, and without the persistence of O'Reilly and OR, would have probably have never happened.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating a rescue revival - that's something the pro-life leadership has to debate. Many unintended consequences could result from a revival gone wrong, including botching the case against Tiller, so this must be thought out carefully.

What I am suggesting if such a revival were to take place, it should center on clinics whose policies ignore abortion restrictions. That's a strategy that will save lives, create pressure to enforce laws, and keep the public debate over late term abortion on message.

Operation Rescue sends the following report and commentary concerning charges that were filed against late-term abortionist George Tiller:

Attorney General Paul Morrison has announced that he is filing 19 misdemeanor charges against late-term abortionist George R. Tiller because he used a second physician that was not financially or legally unassociated with him, as required by law.

Operation Rescue has been reporting since August, 2006, that they suspected that Tiller's association with Dr. Ann Kristen Neuhaus was an illegal one. Neuhaus was listed as a witness when Former Attorney General Phill Kline filed 30 criminal charges against Tiller last December. Those charges were dismissed on shaky jurisdictional grounds.

In his announcement, Morrison trivialized the murder of late-term children by calling the charges a "technical violations."

"While we are happy that charges are being filed against Tiller, we are guarded about this because we believe that these charges are the weakest against Tiller. There is now a pattern of illegal activity by abortionist Tiller and Kline's investigation is proven to have merit," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman.

"Now, because we have charges on the 2003 records, we insist that Morrison subpoena the 2004 and 2005 abortion records. Furthermore, in order for justice to be done, the criminal late-term abortion charges against Tiller, as supported by Psychiatrist Dr. Paul McHugh must be reinstated," said Newman.

Kline filed 15 charges alleging illegal late-term abortion were committed by Tiller for reasons such as so a woman could go to a rock concert.

"We believe the filing of charges against Tiller vindicates Kline's investigation of Tiller," said Newman. "There is a pattern of abuses and illegal activity that is going on at Tiller's mill. This is just the tip of the iceberg."

Abortions are already on the increase in England and Wales but British doctors apparently want more. Medics attending the British Medical Association (BMA) conference in Torquay voted in favor of making child killing of the unborn abortions during the first three months of pregnancy as easy to obtain as "other treatments".

Whose fault is it when aborting women die? It depends, according to abortion proponents. If the abortion was illegal, we are. If the abortion was legal, she is.

Cases in point, yesteryear's illegal abortion of Gerri Santoro and this year's legal abortion of Edrica Goode.

You've likely seen the haunting, iconic photo of Gerri Santoro, dead, naked, knees to chest with bloody bottom in the air on a hotel room floor, the result of an illegal abortion in 1964 at age 27....

Ms. Magazine called Santoro a "victim" of "butchery" by an "unskilled abortionist."...

Flash forward 34 years to these sunny days of safe, legal abortions.

On Feb. 14, 2007, 21-year-old Edrica Goode became the third woman in four years to die after an abortion at a California mill....

According to blogger World Wide Rant, "Edrica Goode died because of her own willful negligence or general stupidity." ...

You'll want to attend the upcoming Texas Right to Life Statewide Conference, particularly, since one of the main focuses will be on recent efforts in the State Legislature to reform Texas' Advance Directives Act (recall our efforts to publicize the cases involving Andrea Clark, Emilio Gonzales and others). Speakers of the conference include:

Dr. Joseph Graham, President of Texas Right to Life
Bobby Schindler, Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation
Jerri Lynn Ward, J.D., Garlo Ward, P.C.
Dr. Ray Bohlin, President of Probe MInistries
Shawn Carney, Executive Director of Coalition for Life
Shelley Orr, Restored Hearts
Rev. Laurence White, Pastor of Our Savior Lutheran Church
Stacey Emick, Legislative Director of Texas Right to Life

Tune in today to see and/or hear the broadcast from Faith and Action and NationalProLifeRadio.net

Click here to view live video from 12:00 pm till 1:00 pm

Click here to listen to the broadcast at nationalproliferadio.net

Click here to go to the Faith and Action website

That's the question Bobby Schindler asked in the case involving Jesse Ramirez, the Arizona man whose case paralleled that of Schindler's sister, Terri Schiavo, until Ramirez woke up. The Arizona Republic reports:

...Bobby Schindler of the Florida-based Terri Schindler Shiavo Foundation placed the blame on a medical establishment quick to dismiss patients with brain injuries.

Schindler is the brother of Terri Schiavo, a brain-damaged Florida woman who died in 2005 after a decades-long court battle.

"What is the rush?" he asked. "This is not the first time we've heard of cases like this where doctors want to write off the chance of recovery, and the family, when they're told this, will make a decision to end a person's life.

"In the case of Mr. Ramirez, he'd be dead now."

His siblings and parents refused to give him up for dead, and today, Jesse Ramirez is alive and conscious.

Two weeks ago, he was the center of a family battling over of whether he should live or die.

Now, he can hug and kiss, nod his head, answer yes and no questions, give a thumbs-up sign and sit in a chair.

A little over a week ago I asked our readers to pray for Jesse Ramirez and his family, specifically for a peaceful outcome involving reconciliation.

You see, Jesse was involved in a serious car accident that left him in a comma and dependent on feeding tubes for his nourishment. After only 10 days these were withdrawn and he would have likely perished without the legal intervention of his parents. With his family locked in a legal dispute, the case appeared to be headed down the tumultuous road traveled by the Schindler family in their unsuccessful battle for the life of Terri Schiavo.

On Sunday, Jesse regained consciousness and today it was agreed by all parties that he will be transferred to a rehabilitation facility:

According to several of Jesse's friends and his court-appointed guardian, he is conscious, shaking his head and answering yes and no questions.

Source: Arizona Republic

God be praised...

By Dave Andrusko, Today's News & Views

I like to think it's not often that I completely miss the coming (not to mention the arrival) of a book by a political reporter of some repute that deals directly with abortion. But such is the case with "If They Only Listened to Us: What Women Voters Want Politicians to Hear," written by Melinda Henneberger.

Henneberger has worked for Newsweek, The New York Times, and briefly for huffingtonpost.com. An op-ed on abortion, based on the findings in her book, ran June 22 in the Times under the headline, "Why Pro-Choice Is a Bad Choice for Democrats."

I imagine the headline alone was enough to set off the bloggers at huffingtonpost.com. Suffice it to say they eviscerated Henneberger with gusto, foul mouths, and a conviction that they knew where she really is on abortion that borders on omnipotence.

So, what did Henneberger say about abortion in the Times? (I can't go further; I'm hoping to pick up the book tomorrow.)

Henneberger begins with Rudy Giuliani, explaining that "a pro-choice Republican nominee would be a gift to the Democrats, because the Republican Party wins over so many swing voters on abortion alone." Her conclusion is in the second paragraph: the war on Iraq aside, "Democrats must still win back such voters to take the White House next year."

Partial Birth Abortion Ban Assists Turnaround, Alan Keyes is Misguided

A study released by Overbrook Research examines the turnaround on public opinion regarding abortion over the past 15 years.

The study cites the debate over the partial birth abortion as a significant factor in this turnaround.

For example, in 1992 30% of Missouri voters called themselves pro-life, and 43% called themselves pro-choice. By 1997, with Partial Birth Abortion taking center stage in the debate, this evened out - 36% called themselves pro-life and 34% identified as being pro-choice.

Now, some argue the ban may not stop a single child from dying. But this isn't true, not only do more people identify themselves as being pro-life, more people are choosing not to have an abortion despite their opinion on the legality of abortion. This is due in large part to the debate over the procedure and the ban itself, among other pro-life efforts.

It's true that the ban may not prevent a woman from aborting her child if she is intent on doing so, as the Court preserved other methods, but the debate surely has changed womens' minds, stopping them from deciding to do so to begin with.

The Carhart ruling itself generated a significant amount of media attention, which should result in the continuation of this trend for quite some time as states modify their laws to reflect it. This will continue the trend in changing the hearts and minds of the nation towards life, and will have a significant impact on the 2008 presidential election.

While Carhart may be imperfect, good fruit will come from it despite the its imperfections - and despite the bad intentions of the any justices who side with death but ruled in the majority in this case.

It's time to not only rewrite state laws to reflect Carhart, but it's time to use the same strategy to focus on the gruesome D&E procedure, one in which an unborn baby is torn limb from limb. No doubt this debate will continue the cultural shift towards the side of life.

The debate over the this method has shown that the strategy of focusing on a gruesome procedure is effective in changing hearts and minds as well as saving lives - a point lost on Alan Keyes, who has called for a rational debate of Carhart.

Keyes calls for a rational debate - but like a few others, he views Carhart with an irrational eye, ignoring the results the debate has had on the culture.

It's not rational to debate Carhart - it's now history and won't be overruled anytime soon, so there really isn't anything to debate about. To paraphrase the left, it's time to for Keyes and others to "move on."

h/t lifenews.com

Bad fruit
Rational debate of Carhart called for

Alan Keyes
June 24, 2007

I learned with sadness and chagrin that at the recent convention of National Right to Life, the organization's leadership decided to purge the Colorado Chapter because the chapter took to task the pro-life leaders who applauded Justice Kennedy's reasoning in Gonzales v. Carhart -- the recent Supreme Court decision on partial birth abortion. (For my analysis of this decision, please see the article "Gardeners of Evil" at RenewAmerica.us.)

Unfortunately, this news was not my first inkling of the internecine conflict the decision brought to light within the ranks of the pro-life movement. Judie Brown has been one of the critics of the decision's wicked entrenchment of the unconstitutional Roe/Casey jurisprudence. When RenewAmerica published her response to those who have taken such criticisms as personal attacks against themselves, one of the organizations coming in for criticism withheld its support from a Christian citizen mobilization effort I am involved with.

by Carlos Polo

Abortion is a crime in Peru, as in all Latin American countries except Cuba and Puerto Rico. Unborn babies are protected from the moment of conception by the constitutions of all these countries, as well as the American Convention of Human Rights, also known as the Pact of San Jose. Pro-abortion legislation has repeatedly failed to pass the region's congresses. The people of Latin America, no less than their elected representatives, are overwhelmingly pro-life. Faced with this level of popular opposition, the pro-abortion movement has long sought a backdoor way to "legalize" abortion.

A judge in New Zealand has ruled that pregnancy can be considered an "injury" in a case involving a failed attempt at sterilization. The inherent contradiction ought to be obvious but is pointed out in more detail by the Big Blue Wave.

Sign in front of George Tiller's abortion mill. Tiller, also known as 'Tiller the Killer', because of his late term abortion procedures, works out of Wichita, Kansas. He has been the subject of numerous stories on The O'Reilly Factor because of what he does.

Note the words at the bottom:

"Approved Deliveries Only"

Building with Tiller's business sign in the background

That's what Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told an audience of 10,000 at the United Church of Christ in Hartford:

"Doing the Lord's work is a thread that's run through our politics since the very beginning," Obama told church members. "And it puts the lie to the notion that the separation of church and state in America -- a principle we all must uphold and that I have embraced as a constitutional lawyer and most importantly as a Christian -- means faith should have no role in public life."

The Christian concept of faith involves an object, the person of Jesus Christ, and results in a transformation of both beliefs and actions as one enters a personal relationship with Him. Consequently, a Christian's faith is active in every aspect of life, including "public life."

One may question whether Christians have acted faithfully, but to assert that faith does not have a role in certain spheres of life is absurd.

HT: WorldMagBlog

Dutch Doctors call for contraceptive to be removed from the market

A report from the Copenhagen Post reveals that Denmark's leading birth control pill has been alleged to be the cause of the deaths of two women.

Yasmin, also available in the United States, is a third generation, low dose oral contraceptive pill

So far, Dutch authorities have recorded 40 cases of venous thrombosis among women using the drug, as well as the deaths of two women aged 24 and 17.

Oral contraceptives, as well as the birth control patch, have been associated with venous thrombosis, a serious and potentially deadly condition.

The Dutch Medicines Agency (DKMA) denied that Yasmin was any more dangerous than other oral contraceptives, but the "other" drugs are probably third generation as well. Third generation oral contraceptives have come under fire in the United States recently with the group Public Citizen calling for their removal from the market.

However, on their website, the DKMA does warn of increased blood clots among users of oral contraceptives:

Yasmin's summary of product characteristics specifies that the risk of blood clots is higher during the first year when a woman is taking contraceptive pills. In addition, it appears that in one year there are 20-40 blood clots for every 100,000 women taking contraceptive pills. By comparison, in one year there are 5-10 blood clots for every 100,000 women who are not taking contraceptive pills. Consequently, there is an increased risk of blood clots in women taking contraceptive pills.

For further reading:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7342/869?view=full&pmid=11950727

Posted on contraceptionblog.com by Ruben

In a tremendous victory for citizens and citizen organizations, the U. S. Supreme Court today created a safe harbor for grassroots lobbying from the blackout period created by the "electioneering communication" prohibition in McCain-Feingold. The opinion in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (No. 06-969, consolidated with McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life, No. 06-970) is available on the Supreme Court's website at http://www.supremecourtus.gov
and at www.jamesmadisioncenter.org along with other case documents.

"Today, the U.S. Supreme Court restored the right of citizens and citizen organizations to engage in grassroots lobbying through the use of broadcast communications," said Barbara Lyons, Executive Director of Wisconsin Right to Life. "The Court soundly rejected the attempts by Senators McCain and Feingold and their allies to silence Wisconsin Right Life's efforts to inform the public regarding an important issue pending in Congress and to urge citizens to contact their elected officials regarding that issue. This is a tremendous victory for all citizens and citizen organizations."

We have reached a state where post-conception parenthood is no longer an obligation, but an option. Frozen embryos are not creatures with a destiny, but creations at our disposal. -

Paige C. Cunningham explains how the legal reasoning behind abortion rights found its way into cases involving IVF and frozen embryos.

A California woman has filed a medical malpractice and wrongful death lawsuit against Planned Parenthood, alleging that the abortion provider contributed to her daughter's death. - CNS News

The Coalition for Life presents beingHUMAN, a powerful thirty minute program that explores pro-life activism. This exciting documentary style series gives witness to everyday people who are working to give a voice to the unborn.

June 22, 2007

Under new Guidelines on Abortion (click here) being considered by the Department of Health under the new minister Mr Michael McGimpsey, there will be a loophole in the current law which, if used to its full extent will allow for the horror of partial birth abortion.

For all ordinary people who haven't yet heard of this horror, it's a process whereby a child is aborted (read "murdered") as it is being born. If you think this is too horrific even for abortionists to stoop too, it has been going on in America for years.

Recently the Americans have passed a Bill stopping Partial Birth Abortion. However as this Bill states that babies can't be aborted if they have been born "Past the navel" or head first "Past the Chin" it is now emerging that abortion doctors may be discovering new, and even more terrible ways of disposing of these children without breaking the law.

"The pain of the partial birth abortion ban"

"Pro-lifers opposing the partial birth abortion ban say it will force abortionists to commit more torturous abortions, and this may be true. Whereas the ban prohibits breech abortions of babies delivered past the navel and head-first abortions of babies delivered past the chin, some pro-lifers say abortionists will now simply deliver a baby's legs and rip them off before proceeding, or deliver the baby almost to the navel and disembowel the baby, etc. One pro-life group opposing the partial birth abortion ban wrote in an Open Letter to Dr. James Dobson two weeks ago (emphasis theirs): The [Supreme Court] Justices raise the likelihood that with this [PBA ban] ruling, the fetus faces greater brutality. On page 30, the Justices note the objection "that the standard D&E is in some respects as brutal, if not more, than the intact D&E [PBA]." (from Pro Life Blogs)

Why do I assert that this could happen in Northern Ireland, And therefore IRELAND, under the new proposed draft guidelines from our Department of Health (hereinafter to be referred to as the Department of Hell by O'Donnell)?

http://hiddenireland.wordpress.com/2007/06/22/partial-birth-abortion-may-soon-be-a-reality-in-northern-ireland/

By Judy Zabik

Last January, Michigan Citizens for Life and their leader, Cal Zastrow, proposed the Prenatal Child Protection Amendment. It would amend the Michigan Constitution to define life as beginning at conception. As an executive board member of Right to Life - Lifespan, I met with Cal to form a coalition of pro-lifers. In order to get the amendment onto the November 2006 ballot, we had to collect almost 318,000 valid signatures in six months. Cal and his colleagues had been inspired by the highly successful 2004 Michigan Defense of Marriage petition drive that gathered over 500,000 signatures in a record 10 weeks. Subsequently, 59 percent of Michigan voters passed that amendment. After much research by doctors and lawyers, the terms hammered out for the Prenatal Child Protection Amendment were: "The right to due process, whereby no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law... and the right to equal protection of the law, guaranteed in Article 1, Section 2, vest at conception." And "A 'person,' for purposes of the Constitution and laws of the State of Michigan, exists from the moment of conception." When a local reporter and asked me why, if the amendment premise was so simple, we hadn't done this years ago, I was dumbstruck. Why hadn't we done it before then? I couldn't answer her then. I can now, however, because this is a story of sabotage by people who should have been our allies.

Fathers often find they have no say when it comes to the life of their unborn child. At best they can try to persuade the mother to have the baby, but that's the extent of their involvement.

While this is the most critical father's rights issue, it's not the only one either. Divorced fathers who do not have residential/physical custody of their children have the same difficulty in raising their children - they are free to suggest, but have little actual say in matters. (Now, sometimes this situation is reversed and a mother finds herself in this position, but more often than not it's the other way around.)

While divorce orders and agreements try to give fathers some say, it's up to the mother to honor those documents - and if she chooses not to, the best a father can do is take her to court, at great expense

And going to court doesn't guarantee a father anything but high legal bills - I took my child's mother to court recently and walked away with a decent agreement as well as a $5,000 bill from my lawyer. And guess what? Getting his mother to honor this new agreement has been difficult to say the least.

The system is stacked against fathers - for example, if a father refuses to pay child support due to denied visitation, he faces the threat of jail, a suspended drivers license, wage garnishment, and so forth. Yet if a mother denies visitation, in the short term all she faces is a slap on the wrist - if she faces anything at all - no suspended license, wage garnishment, jail, etc..

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating a father not support his child at all - but this is a common reaction when visitation is denied.

I find it interesting that many states have child support enforcement agencies, but I have yet to hear of one that has a visitation enforcement agency - and by that I don't mean the court.

(click the link below the picture to continue reading...)

Pro-lifers opposing the partial birth abortion ban say it will force abortionists to commit more torturous abortions, and this may be true.

Whereas the ban prohibits breech abortions of babies delivered past the navel and head-first abortions of babies delivered past the chin, some pro-lifers say abortionists will now simply deliver a baby's legs and rip them off before proceeding, or deliver the baby almost to the navel and disembowel the baby, etc.

One pro-life group opposing the partial birth abortion ban wrote in an Open Letter to Dr. James Dobson two weeks ago (emphasis theirs):

The [Supreme Court] Justices raise the likelihood that with this [PBA ban] ruling, the fetus faces greater brutality. On page 30, the Justices note the objection "that the standard D&E is in some respects as brutal, if not more, than the intact D&E [PBA]." That is, standard late-term D&E abortion appears to be more cruel than PBA... [N]ow these kids will suffer more horrifically with this ruling than before, as we congratulate ourselves.

However, the very pro-lifers making this argument oppose fetal pain legislation, so their argument is disingenuous. Stated one member of this group, Brian Rohrbaugh, president of Colorado Right to Life, in an interview:

... What was wrong with that [fetal pain consent] bill is it's very good to warn women that their child is going to suffer intense pain. But its evil to offer a solution and then to allow the abortion to continue...

I can only call it ruthless to withhold pain relief from someone you know is about to be tortured to death, which you can't stop...

Should Jesus' friends have knocked the sponge of wine vinegar away from Him while He was being legally but wrongfully killed?...

Continue reading my column today, "The pain of the partial birth abortion ban," on WorldNetDaily.com.

President George Bush today will strike down legislation that would have provided federal funding for research that destroys human embryos:

Pushing back against the Democratic-led Congress, Bush plans to veto a bill Wednesday that would have eased restraints on federally funded embryonic stem cell research, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.

"By vetoing a bill that expands stem cell research, the president will say 'no' to the more than 70 percent of Americans who support it, 'no' to our Democratic Congress' fight for progress, and 'no' to saving lives and to potential cures for diseases such as diabetes and Parkinson's," Pelosi wrote. "He will say 'no' to hope."

By Jason T. Christy

Jesse Ramirez, the Gulf War Veteran who remains hospitalized as a result of his injuries from a car accident on May 30, has a powerful ally on his side - the Alliance Defense Fund. Only 240 hours after a severe car accident, and then after being removed from his feeding and hydration sources, the Alliance Defense Fund stepped in to file an emergency order with the court to prevent the starvation and dehydration death of the father of three. It was after being moved from the hospital to a hospice, that the ADF received notice of Jesse's life-threatening predicament from their intake center, a group of tireless workers who "sort through hundreds of calls for help every day," according to Senior Counsel, Gary McCaleb.

The ADF came together in 1994 with the purpose of responding to the urgent needs for the legal and advocacy of religious freedom. Founded with the cooperation of great Christian leaders such as Dr. Bill Bright, Larry Burkett, Dr. James Dobson and Dr. D. James Kennedy, the ADF was concerned with the dramatic loss of religious freedom in America's court and the resulting challenges to people of faith to live and proclaim the Gospel. It was on this mission the ADF set forth and within a short time, had already funded two U.S. Supreme Court victories: Rosenberger v. Rector, involving a discrimination case against a Christian group on a secular campus and Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, a case involving the St Patrick's Parade of Boston that came under attack for excluding homosexuals. Over the years, the ADF has won case after case and built a reputation for being staunch defenders of the Bible and the Constitution.

The Ramirez Case Up to the Minute

Today, McCaleb says that Jesse Ramirez is "as good as or better than he was last week" at the time of the emergency hearing. McCaleb noted that while the court room was wrought with tension, due the severe stress and trauma that both families are under, they are "trying to be patient with each other as they try to work through this."

McCaleb says that thus far the court, under the direction of Judge Paul Katz, has been very "rational and reasonable. The judge moved it from the surrogate decision-maker question and said they would go into a formal guardianship proceeding to determine if the appointing of a guardian is in the best interest of Jesse Ramirez." McCaleb explained that the court has set aside the entire day of June 26th to hear evidence with respect to the appointment of a guardian to handle Jesse's affairs and act in his best interest.

Illegitimacy is not a politically correct or popular term nowadays. In fact, with one third babies in our country born to single women, I guess most folks think anyone who raises the term is just plain mean-spirited.

C'mon folks. As someone who grew up without a father I can tell you it is just not an easy path for anyone. Families need fathers. They just do.

So hurray for John R. Lott, Jr for this thought-provoking piece which appeared in today's Wall Street Journal:

It's Not Enough to Be 'Wanted' Illegitimacy has risen despite--indeed, because of--legal abortion.

The abortion debate usually centers on the morality of the act itself. But liberalizing abortion rules from 1969 to 1973 ignited vast social changes in America. With the perennial political debate over abortion again consuming the presidential campaign and the Supreme Court, it might be time to evaluate what Roe v. Wade has meant in practical terms.

One often misunderstood fact: Legal abortions just didn't start with Roe, or even with the five states that liberalized abortion laws in 1969 and 1970. Prior to Roe, women could have abortions when their lives or health were endangered. Doctors in some states, such as Kansas, had very liberal interpretations of what constituted danger to health. Nevertheless, Roe did substantially increase abortions, more than doubling the rate per live birth in the five years from 1972 to 1977. But many other changes occurred at the same time:

• A sharp increase in pre-marital sex.


• A sharp rise in out-of-wedlock births.


• A drop in the number of children placed for adoption.


• A decline in marriages that occur after the woman is pregnant.

With the imposition of a gag order on the case of Jesse Ramirez, I don't expect a lot of new information until after the upcoming June 26 hearing. However, we received the article below from Jason T. Christy, The Church Report, and are publishing it to remind our readers to keep the Ramirez family in your prayers with the hope that the outcome will be far different than that experienced by those who fought for the life of Terri Schiavo.

Gulf War veteran and father, Jesse Ramirez, is in the biggest fight of his life, literally. Ramirez, 36, was hospitalized with serious head injuries after a May 30 car accident. Jesse Ramirez is a devoted father of three children: Justin (17), Kasey (14) and Austin (11). His family says he enjoys spending his time away from his job at the U.S. Postal service playing video games with his children, taking them to movies and sharing stories about his time in the Navy. Jesse has worked tirelessly to keep his family together throughout his twenty-year marriage. According to court documents, Jesses and Rebecca had ongoing marital problems, and at one time, had been separated for as long as five months. Jesse always persevered, though it is reported he often suspected his wife of extra-marital affairs, including May 30th, the day of the near fatal car accident, in which police reports indicate they were arguing again.

Jay from LTI Blog did a stinging review this opinion piece in the Michigan Daily that makes outrageous yet typical arguments in favor of embryonic stem research. For example:

Article: Despite its medical benefits, embryonic stem cell research remains controversial because of the feeling that it destroys a human life. However, the pro-life argument regarding stem cell research is fraught with complications and contradictions.

Jay: It is not the "feeling" that we destroy human life that makes it controversial. It is the actual destruction of life that no one seems to be able to identify as anything other than "human" that is problematic.

Article: How, then, is it more pro-life to save an embryo that will ultimately be thrown away than to use that embryo to improve and save lives? It's counterintuitive to protect something that will never have a fully developed life over a person who already has a life but suffers from a permanent, debilitating disease.

Jay: Why will it never have a fully developed life? Oh yeah, we intend to kill it. So since we are going to be killing the life anyway, we might as well exploit it. It would be wasteful not to. How could anyone discern an ethical issue there?

In this bizarre, barbaric op-ed piece by veteran Washington political reporter and columnist, Bonnie Erbe, she pines for the good old days of thoughtless abortions, days "when no self-respecting career-oriented peer who conceived out of wedlock would have considered bringing that pregnancy to term."

Golly.

We are, of course, used to people trying to present abortion as the unfortunate lesser of evils, but rarely do we see journalists so brazenly championing abortion as a positive, wholesome, socially-responsible alternative (requirement, really) to birth. Planned Parenthood types, abortion clinic escorts, and Democrat politicians talk this way perhaps...but rarely journalists who want us to believe they are at least somewhat balanced.

"This feels like a hometown crowd," Sen. Sam Brownback reportedly exclaimed to an enthusiastic crowd at the recent National Right to Life convention:

He said the fight for "life" extended from the baby in a womb to the child threatened by violence in Darfur, to the man subjected to extreme poverty, to the woman cycling in and out of prison, and to others around the world requiring a helping hand.

"Those who disagree with us on abortion are in need of our love and prayers," he said.

Brownback admonished the audience to examine the depth of each candidate's views on abortion. Without naming names, he was inviting scrutiny of GOP front-runners Romney; Sen. John McCain, of Arizona; and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

"I've been fighting this fight for a long time and I believe in it, and I think it's the central social, moral issue of our day," Brownback said.

Related: Brownback for President

Fred Thompson addressed that National Right to Life Convention via the video above. You can read the complete transcript at the Brody File - here's a clip:

In 1994, I made my first run for the U.S. Senate. I was proud to receive the National Right to Life endorsement. I've been with you ever since. You've been with me ever since. On abortion related votes I've been 100 percent. We've had a lot of different kind of issues come up in the Senate from federal funding to stem cell research, Roe versus Wade and the partial birth abortion debate or as former Senator Pat Moynihan of New York used to say it's more like infanticide than partial birth abortion.You know one of the proudest moments I've had as a private citizen was when the President asked me to help Judge John Roberts through the senate confirmation process to become a member of the Supreme Court. Well, now he is Chief Justice John Roberts, and I'm keeping my fingers crossed, but I think he's going to go down as the best Chief Justice that this country has ever had.

Related: check out Thompson's website.

God bless you all!

Mitt Romney is personable, articulate and convincing. In this regard he makes a great presidential candidate and at the National Right to Life convention he received a standing ovation as he told the crowd about his pro-life conversion:

"I proudly follow a long line of converts," Romney, 60, told the crowd in Kansas City. "When I first ran for office, while I was always personally opposed to abortion ... I concluded that I would support the law ... the pro-choice position. I was wrong."

In her column this weekend, Goodman damns with faint praise the "genuine, bona fide scientific breakthrough" (her words, not mine) that "turned ordinary skin cells into the equivalent of embryonic stem cells...rais[ing] the possibility [of] mak[ing] stem cells without destroying human embryos."

She also amazingly asserts that scientists

don't know how to...take an ordinary cell from the human body and persuade it to become, say, a heart muscle cell or a brain cell or a liver cell.

Phill Kline delivered a "sizzling indictment" before the National Right to Life Convention:

"The soil of Kansas is stained red," said Kline, formerly the Kansas attorney general and now Johnson County district attorney.

"Abortion is sin, and sin always begins with a lie."

Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani describes his position on abortion using the "I'm personally opposed" strategy that was developed by Mario Cuomo in 1985. You see, Giuliani "disagrees with abortion", he "opposes it", and "thinks it is wrong". In fact, he feels so strong about the issue that he told a group of students in Houston that he "hates" abortion and finds it immoral.

Why does Giuliani "hate" abortion? No one feels moral outrage when a tumor is removed or a medical procedure is performed to address the health needs of another. The parallel and reference back to Cuomo indicates quite clearly Giuliani is implying that abortion is wrong because it kills a baby in the womb.

Child killing in the womb - Giuliani hates it, he recognizes the gross injustice involved when an innocent life is taken.

Yet, he believes a woman's "right to abortion" is a private matter and should be legally protected and supported by public funding. What? Legally protect the immoral practice of killing an unborn baby?

An obvious flaw in his position is the assertion that the violation of a fundamental right, the right to life, should be viewed as a private matter. Michael Gerson, writing for the Washington Post, remarks, "When morality demands respect for the rights of a human being, those protections become a matter of social justice, not just personal or religious preference."

The innocent life that deserves our sympathy, according to Giuliani, does not merit rights or justice and the supposed right to privacy he recognizes violates a more basic right to life.

The rationale of being (personally) opposed to child killing but, as a governing official, and not acting upon the same is dubious and intellectually dishonest. Although Giuliani's position on social justice is carefully crafted, it is contradictory, incoherent and exposes his low view of human life and justice for the unborn. As a litumus test, seeking justice by standing up for the sanctity of human life is fairly basic and Giuliani fails miserably.

Related:

Social Conservatives: Dump Giuliani

Vote "No" for Giuliani

Giuliani a Social Conservative? Hardly

Giuliani and the pro-life vote

Giuliani vs Hilary - What would you do?

Giuliani, Abortion and Common Ground

Without the legal intervention of his family, Jesse Ramirez would be slowly dehydrated, suffering the same fate as Terri Schiavo. Today in Arizona, a Maricopa County Court Judge ordered that Ramirez be given nutrition and hydration through feeding tubes.

"This is a darn good step toward the best decisions for Jesse," the Arizona Repubic quoted Gary McCaleb, the attorney for the family. "Yesterday he was not getting food and water. Today he is."

Judge Paul Katz also appointed an attorney to present Ramirez, whose wife Rebecca is fighting to end his life.

The story of how Jesse ended up in a comma is bizarre and involves marital disputes, allegations of domestic violence and a quarrel while driving that precipitated a rollover accident:

Rebecca told police that she was afraid for her life before the accident and had undone her seat belt to jump from the moving vehicle. Jesse's family said she told them that she had grabbed the steering wheel and he lost control.

She was banged up in the crash but had no life-threatening injuries. He suffered a broken neck and major head trauma in the May 30 accident.

Ten days later -- after a doctor told Jesse's family that if he survived, he likely would be blind and might never progress past a vegetative state -- Rebecca ordered doctors to transfer her husband to hospice and end his life by disconnecting the tubes giving him food and water.

(...)

"She said she was in fear of her life," McCaleb said. "Ten days later, she's going to say whether he lives or dies? Frankly, it's too much to ask of the wife." Rebecca did not answer calls from The Arizona Republic. When reached Wednesday afternoon by a Channel 12 (KPNX) reporter, she was surprised to hear of the suit and declined to comment.

What is clear is that a man's life hangs in the balance, a man whose family and doctors believe he has a chance at rehabilitation:

According to the affidavits filed by the Ramirez family, the doctors said that Jesse would likely be blind and could possibly remain in a permanent vegetative state. On the other hand, the affidavits say, doctors said he could possibly regain his ability to talk.

Family members felt that Jesse was responsive to people in his room and that his vital signs improve when they are there. The affidavits that Rebecca ordered that he be moved to hospice and that his food and water tubes be disconnected.

Please pray for Jesse and his family. A peaceful outcome involving reconciliation would be refreshing.

Source: Judge orders life support for crash victim, Arizona Republic

HT: Arizona Feeding Tube Case Eerily Similar To Schiavo, North Country Gazette

Update: Jesse is now headed for rehab!

I suppose I shouldn't be shocked by the decisions made by the judicial establishment in matters related to the case of Terri Schiavo. Yet, it's hard to believe that the judges who sealed her fate continue to receive accoloades:

Florida honors judges who advocate killing the disabled, elderly and vulnerable.

The alma mater of Michael Schiavo, the estranged husband who battled in the courts for years in order to secure a court order to kill his wife, is honoring retired Circuit Court Judge Susan F. Schaeffer, the judge who assigned Probate Court Judge George W. Greer to be the executioner in the Terri Schiavo case.

Colo. chapter had ripped Dobson in newspaper ads

*By Jean Torkelson, Rocky Mountain News*
*June 14, 2007 *

Colorado's anti-abortion movement is in turmoil after Colorado Right to Life was dumped by its national organization Wednesday, in large part for attacking Focus on the Family founder James Dobson.

"We got kicked out for speaking the truth," said Leslie Hanks, longtime vice president of Colorado Right to Life, one of the nation's oldest anti-abortion groups. "But we have to stand for what's right and suffer the consequences."

A report from the Administration for Children and Families released on Tuesday found that several federally funded comprehensive sex ed programs examined contained medical inaccuracies.

For quite some time, critics of abstinence until marriage policies have critiqued such programs as being medically inaccurate, and promoted CSE programs as being "medically accurate." Based upon this report, it seems like their claims about the accuracy of CSE programs were unfounded. However, I won't make the same mistake they do an paint all CSE programs as being inaccurate. But this certainly destroys the claims that such programs are in fact "medically accurate".

Here is one excerpt from the report Review of Comprehensive Sex Education Cirricula

Most comprehensive sex education curricula reviewed contain some level of medical inaccuracy. Of the nine curricula reviewed, three had no medically inaccurate statements.6 The most common type of medical inaccuracy involved promotion of nonoxynol-9, a common spermicide; three curricula had medical inaccuracies involving nonoxynol-9.7 While condoms with nonoxynol-9 (N-9) had previously been recommended for reducing the risk of HIV and other STD in the 1990s, research over the last decade has demonstrated that nonxynol-9 is at best ineffective against STDs and HIV, and at worse increases

Since these programs are supported with federal dollars, I wonder if the ACLU will threaten to sue the Government over medical inaccuracies, as they threatened over abstinence until marriage programs?

And I wonder where Dr. John Santelli's 20 page declaration on the scientific and medically inaccurate aspects of these CSE curricula is at? He had no problem writing one to address medical inaccuracies of some federally funded abstinence programs, so where is his one for these programs?

For background on the ACLU, Santelli, and medical inaccuracies regarding three abstinence until marriage programs, read the Washington Post story:

Condom Information in Abstinence Programs Called Inaccurate

h/t http://www.citizenlink.org

Whenever a new study is published that "proves" once and for all abstinence until marriage programs don't work, you hear about it on the news. Both headlines and bloglines across the nation scream "Abstinence-only programs don't work - fund Comprehensive Sexuality Education programs instead!"

But when a study shows that abstinence until marriage programs do work, all you hear are the sounds of crickets chirping...

For example, last week the study "Abstinence" or "Comprehensive" Sex Education? was released. The study found the following:

We have found that well-designed and well-implemented abstinence education programs can reduce teen sexual activity by as much as one half for periods of one to two years.

The study further criticizes the recently published Mathematica study, which is promoted by the media and the left as the be-all-and-end-all final-word-on-the-issue study proving that abstinence until marriage programs don't work. Yet, as of today, I haven't found any mainstream or alternative press stories on this new study.

This isn't a new problem, for example, contraceptive and abortion friendly organizations like the Guttmacher Institute and researchers like Dr. John Santelli are able to create headlines across the country with their studies and statements, without question as to the accuracy of their work. It's almost as if they wave a magic wand and create headlines...

Now, when a report on this issue is produced from researchers like Dr. Stan Weed, there seemingly aren't many headlines from the press or left leaning blogs.

I wonder what the Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy thinks about this study - they were pleased with the findings of the Mathematica study - I'll bet they won't be to thrilled about this study.

On that note, I mentioned Dr. John Santelli - read this summary of a report produced by the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, which criticizes two of his and his co-author's works... I've read many of his studies and cite them often in articles I write, and I find this critique to be on the money. Unfortunately, the media treats his studies as if they are infallible, and as soon as he makes statements, headlines across the nation report echo his words and conclusions.

You may wonder why pro-life advocates even use his studies, despite the problems mentioned in the critique. One reason is that using the contraception lobby's own data and research eliminates the claim of bias on our part - after all, how can they argue against their own work? ;-)

Read more at http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jun/07061304.html
h/t lifesite.net

Last held in Kansas City, Missouri 24 years ago, the 35th annual National Right to Life convention, located at the Hyatt Regency Crown Center kicks off today with a general session featuring author and acclaimed bio-ethicist, Wesley J. Smith. Mr. Smith, named one of the "top-thinkers" in bio-engineering by National Journal, will address how politics has corrupted the science of stem-cell research. His session will begin three days of workshops and session bringing together more than 1,000 pro-lifers from across the country.

Gender selection through the abortion and infanticide of baby girls has become epidemic in Asia leading to a gross population imbalance. The news follows from a recent United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) State of the World Population Report that suggests far reaching consequences for years to come.

The normal sex ratio at birth (SRB) is between 103 and 105 males per 100 females but in South Korea it is 115 and in China the gender ratio is 118.

In India, where the child sex ratio is calculated as the number of girls per 1,000 boys in the 0-6 years age group, the problem is severe. The 2001 Census shows there are only 927 girls per 1,000 boys, representing a sharp decline from 1961 when that number was 976. In certain parts of the country there are now fewer than 800 girls for every 1,000 boys

HT: Wesley Smith who writes more on the subject.

Update: I've updated the title original title, which was an overstatement.

Jill reports on a "tragic plan" "recover damages for fraudulent PBA [partial-birth abortion] fundraising" by suing pro-life organizations . A letter from a "reliable source" includes the following statement:

If such a suit is filed, it could expand to target multiple organizations. If you make sure to include Dr. Dobon's assessment (quoted just below) or its equivalent, in any fundraising effort that mentions PBA, I would then make every effort to exclude your organization from such a suit

Friends, this is one of the most discouraging developments I've ever seen. The Supreme Court upholds a ban on a notorious abortion procedure, the publicity of which serves to pull the mask off the abortion industry and strengthen the resolve of those who oppose abortion, and in response pro-lifers wage war on each other - what a twisted victory party! Even when we win we lose.

On May 23, a group of pro-life purists distributed a press release entitled, "Rift opens in Christian Right unprecedented criticism of Dobson by major ministries," to announce they had placed a newspaper ad shaming Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family for supporting the Partial Birth Abortion Ban.

The title of the release revealed the group's intent: to cause public dissension in the pro-life ranks....

At issue is strategy. Purists believe supporting legislation with compromises or exceptions is supporting abortions of babies not covered by that legislation. Purists also oppose parental notification/consent laws, abortion informed consent laws, fetal pain laws, and abortion clinic regulations, because they say those condone abortion, too....

Three weeks ago an Oklahoma bill became law prohibiting taxpayer funds from being used for any abortions except in certain cases of rape and incest. Previously, Gov. Brad Henry vetoed an identical bill with no exceptions.

Purists would have to oppose this new law because of its exception, even though the pure bill failed. So if purists had their way, taxpayers would still be funding all abortions this law stops, instead of blocking 99%. This is fanatical thinking, to be blunt, the equivalent of saying one cannot pull any victims from a burning building if all cannot be pulled out.

Some purists may sense they are boxing themselves into a corner. One friend wrote she could indeed support certain incremental legislation, providing this example: "No baby shall be killed/aborted after the second trimester by any means or it shall be considered first-degree murder."

When I reminded her she couldn't support such a law because the purist position would be it condones first
trimester abortions, she had to concede my point....

Continue reading my column today, "Purely fanatical," on WorldNetDaily.com.