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.

NJ plans a referendum to milk voters of $450 million for embryonic stem cell research:

Assemblyman Neil Cohen told The Associated Press that the plan, if approved, would make New Jersey a global leader in stem cell research, hailed by scientists as key to therapies that could help people who are paralyzed or have illnesses ranging from diabetes to Parkinson's disease.

Sen. Sam Brownback fired a shot across the bow at former Gov. Mitt Romney, challenging him to debate and asserting "I'm pro-life. He's not."

Brownback also used the occasion to announce the formation of a new website called Brownback Events featuring the Straw Poll Tour.

Brownback is indeed one of the most consistently pro-life candidates for the Republican Presidential nomiation. The Des Moines Register reports:

The Kansas Republican stumped through Sioux City, Johnston and Des Moines, touting himself as a "bleeding-heart conservative" who would be "pro-life, but whole-life" - viewing genocide in Darfur as just as great a tragedy as abortion.

"You don't stop" with abortion, Brownback told a crowd of 30 at the Coffee Company in Johnston. A broader culture-of-life stance among anti-abortionists, he said, should include efforts to stop mass murder abroad and other atrocities. "I think it draws people into the pro-life message."

Brownback has campaigned heavily on outlawing abortion, arguing that his belief - against abortions, with exception only for a mother whose life is endangered - leaves him best suited for the GOP's presidential nomination.

"Rape is terrible. Rape is awful," Brownback said to the approximately 500 conference attendees, but then asked, "Is it made any better by killing an innocent child? Does it solve the problem for the mother that's been raped?"

"We need to protect innocent life. Period."

Brownback, a 2008 presidential hopeful for the GOP, is one of the few politicians who are willing to publicly state a position against making an exception for abortion in the emotionally charged case of women who are victims of rape. Even President Bush, who is self-described as "pro-life," reportedly favors exceptions to abortion laws in three cases, generally assumed to be rape, incest, and the life of the mother.

I once imagined a disastrous scenario in which conservatives became convinced Rudy Giuliani 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 third party pro-life candidate) is a vote for Hillary" and some conservative pragmatists began to point out that Giuliani pledged to nominate a strict constructionist to the Supreme Court while Clinton promised a Ginsburg clone (actually, Giuliani is capable of the same).

Giuliani's candidacy should be unacceptable to pro-life voters. Yet, many conservatives seem to be in denial when it comes to his liberal social leanings, including his positions on abortion, homosexual marriage and gun control.

However, Politico reports that a growing number of influential social conservatives are speaking out against Rudy Giuliani, with some threatening that they will take flight from the Republican Party in 2008 if the former New York mayor is the GOP nominee.

Among them is the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins:

"Speaking as a private citizen, no, no, I could not support (Giuliani)," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, which has about a half-million members. "The 20 years I've been involved in politics, the life issue has been at the very top. How could I turn my back on that?"

Perkins said that should Giuliani win the nomination, he would vote for a third-party candidate who reflected his values. "It wouldn't be the first time," Perkins added in an interview last week.

Ben Shapiro writes with eloquence in his persuasive editorial regarding the destructive nature of American liberalism:

There is a curious void in the modern American left. That void is the empty spot where God should be. The American left -- and the Democratic Party, as its political representative -- has worked tirelessly over the course of decades to cast God from the public square, all the time disclaiming their mission by invoking "tolerance" for all beliefs.

(...)Where's God in the liberal moral equation? Nowhere to be found -- and with good reason. The American left now stands for the wholesale displacement of traditional religious morality and the utter rejection of the Divine.

A recent Gallup poll showed overwhelming liberal support for homosexual activity (83 percent), premarital sex (89 percent), illegitimacy (83 percent), abortion (67 percent) and doctor-assisted suicide (73 percent). Liberals support polygamy, adultery and cloning humans at an exponentially higher rate than conservatives. The top moral issue on the liberal agenda seems to be global warming. ("It is a moral issue, it is an ethical issue," spouts Al Gore.) Liberals seem far less comfortable discussing the moral implications of a precipitate withdrawal from Iraq.

... it is not too late. It is never too late, as long as the Divine spark smolders in the human heart -- the spark that is always ready to burst into a renewed flame of enlightened morality. And no amount of liberal obfuscation and atheistic bluster can extinguish that spark.

Attorney General Paul Morrison on Tuesday promised legal action against the psychiatrist who spoke out about the records of late-term abortionist George Tiller:

Dr. Paul McHugh, who led Johns Hopkins University's psychiatry program for 25 years, said Monday that his review of the medical records from a Wichita abortion clinic did not back up the diagnoses used to justify late-term abortions. He also said that he had not been contacted by Morrison since he took office in January.

Morrison fired back Tuesday with a stinging letter to McHugh, saying his public comments about the case threaten the integrity of the investigation and violate rules of conduct for physicians. Also, Morrison disputed McHugh's claim that he had not been contacted by Morrison's office and threatened to file disciplinary or legal actions against McHugh if he continued to speak publicly about the case.

No aspect of this case has been without great controversy and dispute. The most outrageous aspect of this mess is that killing of the unborn - up to the point of birth - continues without significant legal dispute in the once great state of Kansas.

Presidential contender Rudy Giuliani today offered 12 commitments to the American people including:

I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children.

Desperate conservatives looking for a savior might acquiesce to Giulinai's views on abortion, presented 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 opposing abortion is the very reason it should be illegal.

The rationale of being (personally) opposed to child killing but not acting upon the same is dubious and intellectually dishonest.

Why should 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? And why are some otherwise pro-life individuals supporting the one Republican candidate that stands out for his commitment to abortion rights?

Any candidate whose view of justice stoops to the low-level of Giuliani's has no chance at winning my vote.

.... according to Wesley Smith who comments on Ramesh Kumar Sharma, a former doctor who was disciplined for attempting to help a patient commit suicide. Although he was not jailed, has been stripped of his license to practice medicine and subjected to other restrictions during his probationary period.

Respected psychiatrist Dr. Paul McHugh said that even though he was scheduled to testify against abortionist George R. Tiller in the criminal case filed by former Attorney General Phill Kline, he has not been contacted in any way by the current Attorney General Paul Morrison.

Morrison claims to have been looking into Tiller case for the past six months, and says he has hired a full-time assistant attorney general to conduct the investigation.

"I have to wonder what kind of half-baked investigation Morrison is conducting if he hasn't even bothered to contact one of the main witnesses against Tiller," said Operation Rescue Senior Policy Advisor Cheryl Sullenger, who was present at the taping of Dr. McHugh's interview. "Dr. McHugh's statements seem to indicate that Morrison is pulling the wool over the eyes of the people of Kansas by simply pretending to look into the Tiller matter when he is more likely looking the other way."

During the interview, McHugh challenged Tiller's diagnoses of mental health problems and stated that he saw nothing in the records that would justify a late-term abortion under Kansas law, which prohibits abortions after 21 weeks unless the mother's live is in danger or there is a "substantial and irreversible" risk to a "major bodily function."

more from Operation Rescue

Related: Leticia writes, "Don't miss the O'Reilly factor tonight and tomorrow, and he tracks down and interviews notorious late term abortionist, George, the baby killer Tiller."

The New York Times makes an argument that Hollywood is soft on abortion:

Though conservatives regularly accuse Hollywood of being overly liberal on social issues, abortion rarely comes up in film. Real-life women struggling with unwanted pregnancies might consider an abortion, have intense discussions with partners and friends about it and, in most cases, go through with it. But historically and to this day in television and film -- historians, writers and those in the movie industry say -- a character in such straits usually conveniently miscarries or decides to keep the baby.

The Times has experts theorizing that producers don't want to alienate ticket-buyers, perhaps demonstrating that Hollywood knows more about public opinion on abortion than, say, Planned Parenthood.

Barbara's reader was shocked and so were we after hearing about this YMCA field trip in which Middle School students were taken to an abortion clinic Planned Parenthood.

At a recent National Catholic Men's Conference Sam Brownback, the Kansas senator called abortion in the case of rape and incest "killing an innocent child."

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney refused to call abortion "murder" at an event in Laconia, New Hampshire, stating that murder "means different things to different people."

If the title of this post doesn't send chills down your spine I'm not sure what will. The following is comes courtesy of Kansans for Life:

FORUM FEATURING ESTEEMED JOHN HOPKINS PSYCHIATRIST DR. PAUL MCHUGH (WHO REVIEWED TILLER ABORTION RECORDS) AND KANSAS LEGISLATORS, SET FOR:

TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 7:00 P.M., DOUBLETREE HOTEL, OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS. OPEN TO MEDIA AND THE PUBLIC.

Esteemed Psychiatrist Who Reviewed Tiller Records Says Kansas Legal Criteria Not Met for Abortion of Viable Infants

The esteemed psychiatrist who reviewed Tiller abortion records will participate in a forum for Kansas legislators and the public Tuesday evening, June 12, at 7:00 p.m. at the Doubletree Hotel at College Blvd. (110th St) and U.S. 69 Highway in Overland Park, Kansas.

Paul R. McHugh, M.D. of Lawrence, Massachusetts, is visiting Kansas today and tomorrow. McHugh was listed as a witness in the charges filed against George Tiller by former Kansas attorney general (now Johnson County, Kansas district attorney) Phill Kline.

Dr. McHugh has a thirty page curriculum vitae available on request. He attended Harvard Medical School and was the Psychiatrist-in-Chief of the Johns Hopkins Hospital from 1975 through 2001.

With the U. S. Supreme Court's term ending June 30, a decision in two historical cases, FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life and McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life, is expected to be handed down any day.

The central question is these cases is whether organizations like Wisconsin Right to Life can air legitimate grassroots lobbying ads within the blackout periods created by the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. The District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in favor of Wisconsin Right to Life in December 2006, stating that it is unconstitutional to prohibit the airing of such ads. The Federal Election Commission and Senator John McCain and other members of Congress appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court which heard oral arguments on the cases on April 25, 2007.

A broad coalition of groups representing a wide spectrum of political ideologies filed briefs supporting Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) in its case challenging McCain-Feingold's "electioneering communication" prohibition as applied to grassroots lobbying. Among the dozens of groups filing briefs supporting WRTL were the American Civil Liberties Union, AFL-CIO, Chamber of Commerce of the United States, National Association of Realtors, National Rifle Association, Alliance for Justice and the Republican National Committee

"The Court has an opportunity to uphold the First Amendment right of citizen organizations to participate in self-government by asking other citizens to petition their members of Congress regarding upcoming legislative action even though elections are occurring," said Barbara Lyons, Executive Director of Wisconsin Right to Life. "We hope that they will do so."

Some believe that there is a plot afoot to discredited embryonic stem cell research by publishing the progress of adult stem cell researchers. The very day congress was to vote on federal funding for ESC, a report was published in a British journal that shows stem cells can be made from ordinary skin.

How convenient?

These same critics appear oblivious to the successful applications involving substantive results of adult stem cell research that are continuously being reported.

On the otherhand, I recall James Thomson, the Wisconsin biologist who was the first to isolate embryonic stem cells, admitting that ESC has been oversold. One might add to that the statement by Ronald McKay, a stem cell researcher at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke who commented on the ESC hype by stating, "To start with, people need a fairy tale... Maybe that's unfair, but they need a story line that's relatively simple to understand."

Is there a plot to discredit ESC hype by publishing concrete adult stem cell research results in scientific journals? Given the systematic lack of attention successful adult stem cell applications have been given and the hype, based on hope and dreams, ESC research receives, the question seems absurd.

"Science is a gift of God to all of us and science has taken us to a place that is biblical in its power to cure," said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, arguing for the bill's passage. "And that is the embryonic stem cell research." (HT: Wesley Smith)

What in the world is she talking about? Science is Biblical in its power to cure? I suppose what she means is that science has now transcended and has godlike power to cure the sick and suffering. What she failed to mention is that the area of research she led congress to support with taxpayers dollars is that same that destroys human embryos and has produced no treatments or cures.

The hype from politicians like Pelosi has mislead the public and individuals suffering from chronic diseases into believing that a cure is around the corner. The voice of the suffering has been exploited to compel the public into supporting investigations that are speculative and unproven and that represent a significant departure from ethical standards that respect the sanctity of human life. Yet, no approved treatments have been obtained using embryonic stem cells and there are presently no therapeutic applications on the horizon.

However, the dismal track record and unattainable promises of ESC research is not the fundamental problem.

The fatal flaw of current ESC research is that scientists must "destroy" (a synonym for "kill") a human being to extract the stem cells they need. Emotionally based appeals are made to justify the practice by demeaning the unborn and undeveloped person and claiming an embryo is not as important as someone who has developed and is in need of the embryo's parts.

What is known to ESC researchers is that human embryos are fully human. This is not a controversial conclusion but one supported by contemporary human embryology and developmental biology.

To endorse the destruction of an immature human (embryo) is to presume that humans are valuable not because of what they are but rather because of changeable and subjective accidental characteristic (e.g., developmental status, capability, contribution to society, etc...) .To support the assertion that ESC research does not kill a human is to reject the premise that humanness is intrinsic, a principle on which equality and modern democracy are based.

This is hardly Biblical.

By Jim Sedlak

June 8, 2007

On June 6, we commemorated the anniversary of the D-Day invasion of Normandy and other sites during World War II. It was a bloody day in the annals of war as the allied forces hit the beaches and were met with stiff resistance from a well fortified German army. Thousands died.

On that same day, Planned Parenthood Federation of America posted to its web site its 2005-2006 annual report. Opening to page four of the Planned Parenthood report, we find that 264,943 died by medical or surgical abortion in Planned Parenthood's facilities during 2005. That's 5,095 a week - as many each week as the highest estimates of allied forces deaths on D-Day.

However, the Planned Parenthood report contains much more than a death count. It sheds revealing information about the funding of this organization - especially when taken together with historical Planned Parenthood data gleaned from previous reports.

Planned Parenthood reported a total income of $902.8 million dollars. That is a record number for the organization, but is a modest 2.4 percent increase from the year before. In contrast, Planned Parenthood reported total revenue increases of 10.7 percent, 5.7 percent and 8.9 percent in its previous three years.

On June 6, Planned Parenthood posted its 2005-06 annual report, complete with smiling babies and children it missed killing on the cover.

This morning, Jim Sedlak, VP of American Life League and an authority on PP, issued this analysis:

... [W]e find that 264,943 died by medical or surgical abortion in Planned Parenthood's facilities during 2005. That's 5,095 a week - as many each week as the highest estimates of allied forces deaths on D-Day....

PP reported a total income of $902.8 million dollars. That is a record number for the organization, but is a modest 2.4% increase from the year before. In contrast, PP reported total revenue increases of 10.7%, 5.7% and 8.9% in its previous three years....

PP... reported "excess of revenue of expenses" of $55.8 million for the fiscal year. This marks the 34th year in a row that PP has reported "excess revenue" - otherwise known as profit. Over the years, PP has reported total profits of over $700 million. It has amassed a treasure chest of assets worth $839.8 million.

A review of PP's reports through the years shows that its revenue comes from three main sources: fees charged at its clinics; donations from corporations, foundations and individuals; and taxpayer money received from government grants and contracts. A brief look at each of these in the latest reports reveals some interesting information. [PP's reported balance from page 17 of report on right; click to enlarge.]

PP's clinic income comes from fees charged to its customers. It reported a total clinic income for 2005-2006 of $345.1 million dollars. The significant thing about this year's clinic income is that it was $1.5 million less than last year. We estimate that $112.6 million ( 32.5%) comes from abortion.

We have checked our files of PP annual reports back to the 1950s, and cannot find another year in which clinic income went down. We understand that a fall of $1.5 million out of $345 million is not earthshaking. We also understand that a one-year dip may be an anomaly and not a trend. But it was a decline - the first clinic income decline in the last 50 years. It couldn't have made PP very happy.

PP's donations were reported to be $212.2 million. That figure is $3.6 million less than last year. Donations have a habit of going up and down and there is not much significance to the number other than the fact that it did go down - albeit just 1.7%.

The final category of PP revenue sources is you and me - the American taxpayer. I am sorry to report to you that PP reported receiving taxpayer funds totaling $305.3 million - a whopping $32.6 million (12%) more than last year. This means that taxpayer money now accounts for 34% of PP's income.

The bottom line is that PP is losing donations, its clinic income is down and you and I are being forced to pay more so the organization can kill our children through abortion and spread its perverted ideology throughout the land. It is really incredible when you realize that PP put every penny of the increased taxpayer money into the bank. It got $32 million extra and then reported a $55 million profit....

This year's annual report makes it clear. Average citizens are spending less and less at PP clinics. Wealthy citizens are not giving PP as much in donations as they have in the past. Only our government officials are giving more to PP and they are giving it our money....

Sign a petition against taxpayer funding of PP... at www.StopPlannedParenthoodTaxFunding.com.

Go to www.jillstanek.com to view a listing of celebrities who support PP from page 13 of the report (at bottom of post).

[Hat tip: Phil E.]

Yesterday, a major stem cell break-through was reported after researchers announced that they could manipulate mouse skin cells into embryonic-like stem cells. This is being celebrated because scientists can now (potentially) develop embryonic stem cells without the ethical concerns of destroying human life.

Today, rather than report in a manner consistent with the hype of the past, the New York Times headlines seems to downplaye the discovery: A Long, Uncertain Path for New Cell Technique.

Why?

Answer: AZPolicyBlog

MONROE, La. -- On Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit remanded back to the lower court a case involving the police punishing the use of pro-life signs in the town of Columbia.

"Pro-life speech is not second-class speech," said ADF-allied attorney Randall Wenger, who represents the World Wide Street Preachers' Fellowship, a ministry organization. "We are pleased that the court recognized that the First Amendment rights of pro-life citizens are threatened by the actions of Columbia officials."

In February 2005, the town of Columbia assistant chief of police arrested Allen Russell and threatened to arrest four other pro-life advocates standing on public property and holding signs depicting aborted children. Local police had previously expressed their displeasure with their actions, but did not arrest them. Russell was cited and subsequently jailed for two days.

The language used to describe an event or represent the position of an individual is important because it is the conduit that transmits an image of reality. Effective writers harness language in an amazing manner and provide readers an opportunity to gain knowledge and experience that would otherwise be unattainable.

However, terminology can be used fallaciously to weaken an opponents position, manipulate the opinion of readers or cast doubts and shadows on groups that would otherwise be viewed in a positive manner.

Quite often, pro-life proponents have expressed dissatisfaction with the representation given by media outlets to their position. While those who support that sanctity of human life are consistently reported using negative language, supporters of abortion are labeled with terms that evoke an impression of nobility.

In addition, the U.S. media, as compared to European news organizations, seems to have an aversion to calling an unborn child a "baby". Instead, American news reports hide the humanity of the unborn behind the mask of more sterile medical jargon.

Recently, an industry insider who works for a well-known media outlet sent me the guidelines used by his company to report on abortion:

Guidelines regarding stories and headlines on abortion:

1. Call those who oppose abortions abortion foes or abortion opponents or (in tight-count heads) abort foes. Avoid the phrases pro-life or pro-lifers, except in direct quotations.
2. Those who favor a woman's right to an abortion are abortion rights activists or pro- abortion rights or pro-choice. Avoid pro-abortion.
3. Also avoid the phrase ``when the life of the mother is at stake.'' Make it ``... life of the woman ...'' Don't call the fetus an unborn child, and don't refer to the unborn in headlines.
4. You can use abortion clinic or abort clinic in tight-count headlines.
5. Columnists have free rein in choosing their own terms to describe the issue.

All reporters and media outlets are biased. Some are honest and forthright about their basis for interpreting news and reporting events while others hold fast to the illusion of objectivity.

The Democratic controlled congress is quite active in its quest to promote embryonic stem cell research despite its ethical problems and extraordinarily low probability of success (i.e., it's a fantasy). As noted by Jill, today the U.S. House of Representatives approved legislation which would force taxpayers to fund research that requires the destruction of human life.

But it wasn't just House Democrats who today voted to approve the bill. Thirty-seven Republicans joined 210 Democrats to pass the legislation aimed at supplying federal funding for research that destroys human embryos. How did your representative vote?

The only thing stopping this deplorable legislation is President Bush's vow to veto it (although the bill is not veto-proof - contact your legislators). "If this bill were to become law, American taxpayers would for the first time in our history be compelled to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos," he said in a statement. "Crossing that line would be a grave mistake."

Now, imagine for a moment that the future will hold if Rudy Guiliani is elected to the position of President.

Click here to watch the Pro-Life Unity conference from 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm - Thursday the 7th

What with wars, rumors of wars, the Social Security crisis, and border security, to name just a few issues our elected officials should be pondering, how instead are they spending their time?

By recycling a bill President Bush has already promised to veto which would federally fund embryo experimentation.

Today the House passed S. 5, the embryo destructive research bill, by a vote of 247-176, albeit with two more pro-life votes than in January, when the tally was 253-174.

However, the change appeared due to absentees and deaths, not of heart.

The bill has now cleared both chambers and will be sent to the President to veto. An override attempt in the House would fail. Only 146 votes are needed to uphold a veto, which we already have.

Meanwhile, the front pages of the LA Times, NY Times, USA Today, and Washington Post all featured stories today about a research breakthrough that may render embryonic stem cells needless. Explained the LAT:

Scientists have succeeded in reprogramming ordinary cells from the tips of mouse tails and rewinding their developmental clocks so they are virtually indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells, according to studies published today....

"This is truly the Holy Grail - to be able to take a few cells from a patient, say a cheek swab or some skin cells, and turn them into stem cells in the laboratory," said Dr. Robert Lanza, an embryonic stem cell researcher and head of scientific development at Advanced Cell Technology Inc. in Worcester, MA, who was not involved in the research. "It would be like turning lead into gold."

Newsbusters [hat tip: jasper] was pleasantly surprised by the prominence MSM gave this research, although it noted MSM's curbed enthusiasm, always strangely undaunted when reporting the "hope" and "promise" of embryo experimentation.

Also new news since January but ignored by this liberal-controlled Congress bent on ideology over science, as reported by the Associated Press:

Thirteen young diabetics in Brazil have ditched their insulin shots and need no other medication thanks to a risky, but promising treatment with their own stem cells - apparently the first time such a feat has been accomplished.

Though too early to call it a cure, the procedure has enabled the young people, who have type 1 diabetes, to live insulin-free so far, some as long as three years. The treatment involves stem cell transplants from the patients' own blood.

"It's the first time in the history of type 1 diabetes where people have gone with no treatment whatsoever... no medications at all, with normal blood sugars," said study co-author Dr. Richard Burt of Northwestern University's medical school in Chicago.

[Photo, courtesy of the AP, shows researchers flanking a young type 1 diabetic, who wishes to remain unidentified, who no longer needs insulin, thanks to his own adult stem cells.]

WASHINGTON (June 6, 2007) -- The U.S. House of Representatives today rejected a bill, deceptively labeled as a ban on human cloning, that actually would have allowed large-scale cloning of human embryos solely for purposes of research.

The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) condemned the measure as "a clone-and-kill bill," and strongly opposed it. After the vote, NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson commented, "The House Democratic leadership tried to ram through a bill to pave the way for cloned human embryo farms, but their scam failed."

The White House issued a statement before the vote that said in part, "The Administration is strongly opposed to any legislation that would . . . permit the creation of cloned embryos or development of human embryo farms for research, which would require the destruction of nascent human life. Thus, if legislation were presented to the President that permitted human embryos to be created, developed, and destroyed simply for research purposes, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill."

In San Francisco yesterday, a federal appeals court ruled that women facing forced abortion by their governments (most notably, Communist China) can be awarded asylum in the United States. Previously, U. S. law only allowed for asylum in cases of forced sterilization.

"Both forms of persecution have serious, ongoing effects," argued the three-judge panel. "We see no way to distinguish between the victims of forced sterilization and the victims of forced abortion for withholding of removal eligibility purposes."

Here's more about the case that led to this long-overdue human rights decision.

From last night's Republican presidential candidate debate on CNN, the funniest part of which was when Rudy's colleagues backed away from him....

No doubt I will run across another dozen of these odes to the compassion and courage of Jack Kevorkian. And when the red tunnel vision passes I'll feel compelled to respond. It's an exercise in futility.

The latest of these rhapsodies of support for Kevorkian, a lighthearted piece by Lisa Birnbach in The Huffington Post, explains the why any attempts to counter the media lionization of Kevorkian is useless. Facts are distinctly NOT welcome in any discussion of Kevorkian. In fact the the less you know about him or any related subject the more qualified you are to pronounce his worthiness.

Continued at Marlowe's Shade

While some criticize the partial birth abortion ban and the Gonzales v. Carhart ruling, it seems that the ban itself served a useful purpose - it got society talking about abortion. It shifted the debate in the favor of those advocating life and put those advocating death on the defensive.

Since 1993, the issue of the partial birth abortion has helped to spur dialog and debate over abortion in general. The debate was framed in such a way as to cause people wake from their numbness over abortion and reconsider the issue.

The debate may or may not have resulted in a change of attitude towards legal abortion, but it is a strong possibility that it may have resulted in a change of behavior - and a reduction in abortion. In other words, it helped to make abortion became less of an option for some, which might be reflected in the decline in abortions (among many other reasons).

Certainly this tactic used to debate this procedure can, and should, be used with the D&E abortion method, an arguably more heinous abortion procedure. It will further the effects that the PBA ban has possibly had on changing hearts and minds on abortion. Of course it won't change everyone's hearts and minds, but it could change enough to form a majority in favor of aborting Roe itself.

The parital birth abortion ban, far from being perfect, has demonstrated that aborting Roe one "limb" at a time may well prove to be the most effective strategy to aborting "legalized" abortion alltogether.

To those who are publicly focusing on NRLC and Dr. Dobson - please, keep the divisiveness behind closed doors and fight it out in private. This public controversy only serves to detract from moving on to talking about the horror of D&E abortions.

Politics of Appeasement
By Judie Brown

June 4, 2007
A few days ago I joined with several pro-life leaders in signing an ad that focused attention on Dr. James Dobson and other Christian leaders who had celebrated the Supreme Court's decision in the Gonzales v. Carhart case. We did so because it is of specific concern to each of us that the facts contained in the actual Supreme Court decision and its ultimate impact on our struggle to end abortion are not clearly understood by some--and perhaps intentionally distorted or ignored by others.

While not surprising, it is of some concern that those who lashed out at the ad's signers are in a state of denial, and in this particular case, that condition could be more costly to the babies than anyone can imagine. Allow me to explain.

It's the first Saturday following the first Friday. MonthlyCallForLife.com is calling for all Pro-Life people to get out to their local abortion mills and pray for the unborn, that they might live today.

Click here to go to MonthlyCallForLife.com for more information