December 2007 Archives

UK Teen Pregnancy Prevention Campaign Called a Failure

Despite an increase in access to contraceptives, the UK's teen pregnancy campaign has been branded a failure.

According to a report in the Daily Star, Britain has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe:

There are now nearly 50,000 teen pregnancies a year - leaving a £150million Government drive to cut the rate by half in tatters.

Norman Wells, of the Family Education Trust, believes a new approach is necessary. He said: "The problems associated with teenage pregnancy will never be solved so long as the Government persists with its reliance on yet more contraception and sex education...What we need is a radical change away from a culture which has reduced sex to a casual recreational activity."
...
The huge Government campaign launched 10 years ago has sparked a blaze of adverts and other publicity material. There have also been various changes in contraception rules over the years, making it easier for young girls to protect themselves.

These have included facilities to obtain contraception and the morning-after pill at school without the consent of their parents.

An article in the Telegraph describes why the effort has been called a failure:

Amid a rising teenage population, the conception rate has dropped by only 11 per cent since 1998, in stark contrast to the 50 per cent target. At the same time, the overall number of teenage pregnancies has gone up to more than 47,000 a year. " The Government committed itself in 1999 to halving the teenage pregnancy rate among 16- and 17-year-olds by 2010, compared with 1998 figures.

However, by 2005 - the last year for which full figures are available - the rate fell by only 11.4 per cent. The same figures show that between 1999 and 2005 the overall number of 16- and 17-year-olds becoming pregnant increased from 39,247 to 39,804.

When girls aged between 13 and 15 were added, the total rose from 46,655 to 47,277, more than when Labour launched the strategy in 1999. (emphasis added)

Interesting - it appears that increased access to contraceptives hasn't resulted in a net reduction in teen pregnancy in the UK, despite the promises of its proponents.

In her December 9th column "The Dog Whistlers: The One Question the "Pro-life" Presidential Candidates Don't Want You to Ask ", author Christina Page claims contraception is the only way to prevent abortion:

Study after study proves that contraceptive use is the only way to prevent abortion; the places on earth contraception is most available are also where abortion is most rare.

The problem with her statement that "contraceptive use is the only way to prevent abortion" is that it simply isn't true - unless Ms. Page has made a discovery that will turn our understanding of sexual biology on its head.

This statement is so ludicrous that I'm still trying to understand why she wrote it.

Maybe the sources she relied on for this article were flawed. Maybe she hasn't actually read any studies. And maybe, it could be a simple case intentional misrepresentation of the facts.

Maybe Ms. Page is a bit confused about the birds and the bees, so let me help her out - not having sex is the best way to prevent abortion. It doesn't take numerous studies to prove the abstinence from risky sexual activity prevents both pregnancy and abortion.

In fact, consider that abortion clinics aren't full of women who abstained from consensual sexual activity at the time they got pregnant - but they are full of women who didn't.

Someone needs to remind Ms. Page, that outside of the conception of Jesus Christ (at least according to the Christian faith) abstinence from risky sexual activity doesn't result in pregnancy.

When challenged for the names of the studies she refers to in her sweeping statement, she only offered a SEICUS Fact Sheet. The problem is, this fact sheet didn't offer any support for her argument whatsoever. At this moment, I'm still awaiting the multitudes of studies upon which she based her claim - I suspect I'll be waiting quite a long time.

A review of her writings reveals that this isn't the first time that Ms. Page has made broad, sweeping - and inaccurate - statements, or that this is an isolated incident. For example, read Christina Page's Spin on "Pro-choice" Policy - Giving Credit Where Credit Isn't Due and JivinJ Responds To Page's Article on Illegal Abortions

Unfortunately, Ms. Page's writings are widely published and electronically redistributed by entities such as Yahoo News, The Huffington Post blog, and RH Reality Check. Her op-eds are published in newspapers around the country. As a result, millions of people are possibly being misled by her inaccurate statements, and she needs to issue a public retraction.

We have a new case of a young person in danger of being dehydrated to death because she is said to be in a "persistent vegetative case." Her father, who has custody, has resisted but now is wavering. We should pray for him.

We should also, in my opinion, resist the urge to emphasize the possibility that the diagnosis is mistaken and that she will improve. Even if she never improves, she should not be dehydrated to death.

Read the rest of my post on this case here, at What's Wrong with the World.

HT: Secondhand Smoke

As reported by LifeNews:

The world mourned the loss of assassinated Pakistani leader Benazir Bhutto on Thursday, but her death was more than a setback for those hoping for democracy in this war-torn nation. Bhutto was a member of an international pro-life women's movement that understood abortion causes medical, mental health and other problems for women.

The image of the Cairo conference as a clash between the United States and the overwhelming majority of world opinion on the one side, and an isolated, prudish, mysogynist Vatican on the other, was shattered in the first hours of the conference itself. On September 5, Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan -- unmistakably a woman, unmistakably Harvard-educated, and unmistakably a major political figure -- took to rostrum during the opening statements to defend the "sanctity of human life" and to condemn the Cairo draft document for trying to "impose adultery, sex education . . . and abortion" on all countries.

On her blog, Jill Stanek is seeking nominations for the "Pro-lifer of the Year". Among some possible candidates are Eric Scheidler, President Bush, and Phill Kline. As for me, I'll nominate my friends Troy Newman and David Bereit, among others...

But for a couple of weeks now, I've been meaning to proclaim Jill as "Pro-life Blogger of the Year." (If you have paid any attention to the situation in Aurora, Colorado, then you have probably read at least one of her posts on that situation.)

There are so many good posts on her blog that I won't bother to point out any particular one - just visit her site at JillStanek.com..

Who are your nominations for "Pro-life blogger of the year?"

A recent op ed in the Chicago Tribune questions why a 2006 study linking Breast Cancer to Oral Contraceptives has largely been ignored:

Not wanting to become known as the town quack, I am reluctant to write another politically incorrect column about breast cancer.

Four weeks ago, when I reported a study that found a statistical link between abortion and breast cancer, the hate e-mail poured in, denouncing me for being an ignorant, stupid, anti-science, anti-choice and anti-woman lunatic. But it also brought a message alerting me to yet another study, suggesting that premenopausal women (younger than 50) who used oral contraceptives prior to having their first child faced a higher risk of breast cancer. Yes, I know, this debate has been going on for years, if not decades, and judging by the last studies given wide exposure a few years ago by the media, the issue seems settled: Oral contraception does not significantly increase the risk of breast cancer.

I covered the pill / breast cancer issue last year, but due to time constraints as well as work on another project - which will be made public in the next few weeks - I was not able to update the article with the details of a more recent recent study. So for what it's worth, here is the article from 2006:

http://www.noroomforcontraception.com/content/view/79/41/

I feel that this article should be posted in response to the recent ProLifeBlogs article calling the National Right to Life "Judas". I hope that the "other side" will be able to be presented now that ProLifeBlogs has decided to publish such an article in the first place.

Brian Rohrbough, president of the new pro-life organization American Right to Life has recently issued a "Media Advisory". As I suspected from the inception of this new organization, ARL is going to be spending a lot of time criticizing National Right to Life.

It's interesting to note, first of all, that when you go to the American Right to Life website you'll find many cross words with NRLC but little explaining the "better" way to be pro-life. NRLC is constantly denounced by ARL as being worse than pro-choicers themselves, but yet the solutions to the "failed" stratagem of NRLC is no where to be found on the ARL website.

A wonderful Christmas story - the short version

If I had to describe the last four months of my life, it would sound like a country record played backwards - I got my wife back, my son back, and my dog back! (I don't have a truck, so I couldn't get that back ;-) )

After four years of separation and divorce, and via divine intervention, my "ex wife" and I have reconciled.

A number of miraculous events had set the stage, including the Roman Rota overturning a declaration of nullity and changes in both of our hearts towards one another - and towards God.

We used the gift of Retrouvaille to help build our relationship and tear down the walls we made over 9 years of marriage and 4 years of separation and divorce.

My wife and my son moved back to NY early in December so that we could be a complete family again.

And on this Blessed Christmas day, via two separate early pregnancy tests, our suspicions that she was pregnant were confirmed - we have been blessed with the presence of another child - and we are thrilled to say the least!

We are truly blessed this Christmas, and we hope that many others who find themselves separated and divorced will see through our story that nothing is impossible with God.

One day I'll write the long version, but for now this short version will have to do. May your Christmas be as blessed as ours is...

Ruben

The Legacy of Judas National Right to Life

Contact: Donna Ballentine, 888-888-2785

MEDIA ADVISORY, Dec. 20 /Christian Newswire/ -- The following is submitted by Brian Rohrbough, President, American RTL:

Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot went to the chief priests and said,
"What are you willing to give me if I deliver Him to you?"
And they counted out to him thirty pieces of silver.
So from that time he sought opportunity to betray Him.

In 1981, after president Ronald Reagan agreed he would sign federal personhood legislation for the unborn, National Right to Life and their longtime attorney James Bopp actually opposed that effort claiming they supported a states' rights approach. Move forward in time a quarter century to today. Notice that NRTL and Bopp have long opposed all state personhood efforts. Demonstrated below, NRTL has continuously promoted legislation that undermines the personhood of an innocent child.  In betrayal, NRTL quietly worked to oppose South Dakota's recent abortion ban referendum.  Now, like a thief in the night they are circulating a recent Bopp memo to pro-life legislators and religious organizations to oppose personhood efforts in Colorado and elsewhere. NRTL is attempting to turn pro-life officials against this legitimate effort to end abortion and enforce the God-given right to life.

The following is a message from President Bush:

Christmas 2007

"But the angel said to her, 'Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High...his kingdom will never end.'"

Luke 1:30-33

During the Christmas season, our thoughts turn to the source of joy and hope born in a humble manger on a holy night more than 2,000 years ago. Each year, Christians everywhere celebrate this single life that changed the world and continues to change hearts today. The simple and inspiring story of the birth of Jesus fills our souls with gratitude for the many blessings in our lives and promises that God's purpose is justice and His plan is peace.

At this special time of year, we give thanks for Christ's message of love and mercy, and we are reminded of our responsibility to serve. America is blessed to have fine citizens who reach out with a compassionate hand to help brothers and sisters in need. We also remember our brave men and women in uniform who have volunteered to defend us in distant lands. Many of those who have answered the call of duty will spend Christmas far from home and separated from family. We honor their sacrifice, ask God to watch over them and their families, and pray for their safe return.

Christmas is a time to rejoice and remember the birth of Jesus Christ. Laura and I pray your Christmas will be blessed with family and fellowship, and we wish you a day of glad tidings. Merry Christmas.

GEORGE W. BUSH

The fertility rate, which is the average number of children a woman would have during her childbearing years, hit a 35 year high of 2.1.

The overall rate hit a high in 1957, and then dropped thereafter, possibly due to the news and development of the pill.

How could the pill have made an impact on the fertility rate, when it wasn't approved for use as a contraceptive until 1960?

While the pill wasn't officially approved for use as a contraceptive until 1960, it was approved for use in controlling menstrual disorders in 1957. By late 1959, and prior to approval for use as a contraceptive, at least half a million women were using the pill - far more than were believed to suffer from such disorders. [1]

But the news of the development of the pill in 1956 may have had a significant impact on the public's idea of the desired number of children as well. And while the pill wouldn't be accessible until 1957, the condom industry was flourishing.

Due to limited data, it is not known just how much either the pill or condoms may have affected this rate, or if they actually affected it at all prior to the 1960s, but nevertheless it is reasonable to suspect that they helped keep it down for the past 35 years.

The new high of 2.1 children puts the U.S. fertility rate back at the minimum replacement level - and environmentalists aren't happy about it.

In a Washington Post article on the news, environmentalists expressed their concern:

But not everyone sees that as encouraging, given that the United States remains a leading consumer of increasingly scarce natural resources.

"The world is now consuming resources faster than the Earth can sustain over the longer term," said Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute. "Forests are shrinking. Fisheries are collapsing. Water tables are falling. Large parts of the world's grasslands are deteriorating. The U.S. is already disproportionately responsible for that because of our very high consumption levels."

The increase certainly can't be good news for environmentalists.

I'm sure that University of Western Australia's Professor Barry Walters, a clinical associate professor of obstetrics, who in the December edition of the Medical Journal of Australia, proposed that couples who have more than two children should pay an annual carbon tax, is not happy about it. And Toni Vernelli, who aborted her child out of concern for the planet, probably won't jump for joy about the increase.

As environmentalists increasingly focus on population levels, expect more attempts to reduce the fertility rate through abortion and/or contraception.

What a brave new world we live in, where the weakest among us are targeted in misguided efforts to protect the environment.

------------------------------------------------------------

Sources

[1] Tone, A, (2001). Devices & Desires, A History of Contraception In America (1st ed.) New York: Hill and Wang, p. 226.

FRC will host the third-annual Blogs For Life conference on January 22nd, 2008 at Family Research Council Headquarters in Washington, D.C. beginning at 8:00a.m. This event will precede the March for Life, which will mark the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision.

A webcast will be available for those who can't make it to D.C..

Speakers to include:

• Hadley P. Arkes


• Michael Illions


• Eric Schiedler


• Jill Stanek


• Star Parker

When Christmas preparation crankiness set it yesterday afternoon, I knew it was time for a break. So I went to the movies.

Luckily for folks in the Philly area, the quirky and humorous pro-life film Juno is currently playing in one theater in Center City Philadelphia, the Ritz at the Bourse. (Juno's general release date is December 14, according to Variety online.)

I will not review the film here. I will recommend seeing Juno.

If you are looking for entertainment over the Christmas holidays, and you'd like to see a very cleverly written, well-directed and well-acted PG-13 movie with heart, then Juno is for you.

Consider this little pro-life gem of a film from writer Diablo Cody and director Jason Reitman a Christmas present for pro-lifers.

For Juno has the makings of a blockbuster.

(c) 2007 Marybeth T. Hagan

Crossposting with http://www.mothermayibeborn.com

In this brief story in The Hindu, an Indian news service, Dr. Hema Divakar, Chairperson of the Federation of Obsteric and Gynecological Societies in India, decries the number of women who die each year because of legal but unsafe abortions. It is a sad and startling figure, to be sure, but the number she gives of preborn babies killed by abortions in India is much, much more so -- 11 million.

Dr. Divakar's purpose in talking about this overwhelming problem, however, is to promote emergency contraception methods. But, in doing so, she sneakingly spreads the usual misinformation about this powerful drug by denying its abortifacient properties...

It didn't take long for the virtual ink to dry for contraception zealots to claim that a study linking sex education and increased abstinence proves that sexuality education leads to more responsible behavior.

"This study expands on studies that have shown that sexuality education can delay the onset of sexual intercourse -- once again dispelling the myth that early sexuality education might increase sexual activity," explains Eli Coleman, director of the program in human sexuality at the University of Minnesota Medical School. "This study shows that sexuality education leads to more responsible sexual behavior."

Except that the study does not expand on other studies - in fact, it didn't even analyze any differences between abstinence only programs or comprehensive sexuality education programs.

Once again, contraception advocates are misrepresenting the results of a new study to further their agenda. This isn't a rare occurrence - for example, contraception advocates were quick to blame abstinence only programs for the recent increase in teen pregnancy as reported by the CDC.

Yet, at least to my knowledge, there has not been a single peer reviewed scientific analysis which explains the increase.

To top it off, the actual data from the CDC doesn't appear to be thorough enough to make any such analysis. Figures for the percentages of sexually active teens, sexually inexperienced teens, as well as recent contraceptive use are not provided - figures used to calculate why rates go up or down.

Based upon this limited data, it's not likely at this point to in time that a scientific analysis can be made. But for those pushing condoms and pills as a solution to teen pregnancy, it seems that this really doesn't matter...

Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue, takes us through a former abortion facility which was bought by Operation Rescue and is being converted into their new headquarters.

Click here to continue reading at ProLifeNews.tv

A new study, published in the Journal of Adolescent Health, demonstrates that education may be associated with an increase in abstinence. While the study does not focus on contraception, you can be comprehensive sexuality education advocates will twist the results to make it appear so.

In my opinion it is ok to teach students about their bodies, as long as it's done in the context of a biology class and free of discussion of contraceptives. There is nothing wrong with knowing how reproductive organs work - in fact, if anything, it could help prevent teens from having sex in the first place.

Some excerpts from an article in Newswise Medical News:

The study did not explore the hottest debate in sex education: whether classes should teach about contraception or focus entirely on abstinence. Students received sex education if they had either or both types of instruction, according to the study.

While the study suggests a link between sex education and sexual behavior, researchers did not design it to prove a cause-and-effect relationship between the two definitively.

The movie "Juno" will be released in six days, on Christmas, and I can't wait. I previewed it a month ago and loved it.

That means pro-aborts will hate it. "Juno" is a great story that undermines almost all their talking points....

"Juno" is the third in an unplanned pregnancy movie trilogy, the others being "Waitress" and "Knocked Up," in which a girl undergoes a crisis pregnancy but heroically rejects abortion.

Don't be thrown that "Juno's" screenwriting ingenue, Diablo Cody, is a stripper turned blogger turned movie writer. She handled the topic almost like we would, only with spice....

I have to jump to my favorite part of the movie, which pro-aborts will hate most, when Juno decides to "procure a hasty abortion."...

Continue reading my column today, "'Juno': The movie pro-aborts will hate," on WorldNetDaily.com.

My blood boiled when I first saw Planned Parenthood's "Choice on Earth" seasonal greeting cards for sale a few years back.

I found the play on the words "Peace on Earth," words sacred to those of us celebrating Christmas, to be irreverent and insulting coming from PPFA which performs most abortions in the U.S.A.

While I still find the "Choice on Earth" concept offensive, a peek at this year's batch of Planned Parenthood's "holiday cards," here, did not raise my blood pressure.

For the six different designs offered by PPFA are -- much like abortion -- uninspiring, joyless and empty.

Unlike the Divine birth which brings hope, there's a great hopelessness in touting a "Choice on Earth" that makes the denial of a birthright to the world's babies an option.

No wonder PPFA's "holiday cards" seem so hollow.

(c) 2007 Marybeth T. Hagan

Crossposting with http://www.mothermayibeborn.com

Announcing a newly formed Chapter of the PA ProLife Federation in Westmoreland County!!

With the help of Bryce McMinn, the Southwestern Pennsylvania Chapter Coordinator for the PA ProLife Federation, a Westmoreland County chapter has recently been formed.

If you would like more information please contact us at WestCty_4life at yahoo.com.

Chapter name: Westmoreland County Right to Life
Next meeting: Majesty Book Store, Westmoreland Mall - Wed., Feb 6 at 7pm
Please email us if you plan to attend, but RSVP is not required.

The Illinois abortion statistics for 2006 generated virtually no coverage when released by the Illinois Department of Public Health on November 30th. Given the recent trend of decreasing abortions in many states, including Illinois, the jump of over 3,000 abortions should raise some questions. (Check the annual totals at Illinois Abortion Statistics: 1973-Current)

The number of abortions in Illinois for 2006 reached 46,467, compared to a 2005 total of 43,409. The increase of 3,058 broke down to 2,003 committed on Illinois residents and 1,055 committed on women from out-of-state or of unknown residency.

Much like Al Gore's claim that he invented the internet, Hillary is taking credit for the reduction in teen pregnancy rates between 1995 and 2005.

"To address this important issue, my husband issued a call to action in 1995 to America's parents and leaders to join together to cut America's teen pregnancy rate by one-third over a decade. In order to help achieve this ambitious goal, I helped launch the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, and we successfully achieved a one-third reduction by 2005"

Never mind that during this period, abstinence among teens was on the rise and state restrictions on abortions were given new strength by the Supreme Court's 1992 Planned Parenthood vs. Casey decision. For example, a study by professor Michael New of the University of Alabama found that pro-life legislation, and not the influence of Bill or Hillary Clinton, resulted in significant reductions on the abortion rate among minors.

And never mind that the partial birth abortion ban, which Hillary opposed and voted against, may have significantly changed public perception on abortion and its acceptability.

Yes, folks, Hillary Clinton wants us to believe that increased abstinence and pro-life legislation did not have an impact on teen pregnancy and abortion rates. And of course, she blames the recent rise in teen birth rates on the Bush administration:

"But the report released today indicates that under President Bush's leadership, we may be falling off track"

So let's get this straight - Hillary caused teen pregnancy rates to drop by 1/3 over the span of a decade, George Bush is responsible for the recent rise in teen birth rates, Bill Clinton did not have sex with "that woman", and Al Gore invented the internet. Given these facts, how could anybody doubt that putting Hillary in the Oval office will once and for all end teen pregnancy?

To receive these and other news tips, e-mail blogblaster-at-gmail-dotcom and include the word "subscribe" in the subject line.

According to an article on theAge.au.com, a 32 week old baby was aborted because the child's mother was "distressed to the point of being suicidal" as a result of learning that her unborn child was diagnosed with dwarfism.

The doctor who performed the abortion called the killing of this child "lifesaving." While the mother may not have committed suicide, her baby was needlessly killed for its disability, so to call this a lifesaving procedure falls short of reality.

Lachlan de Crespigny and a handful of other doctors wanted to help her. So, on a Thursday afternoon in February 2000, they did as she asked. The role that Associate Professor de Crespigny played -- injecting potassium chloride into the foetus's heart -- took only a minute or two. .."It was lifesaving," he says now of the procedure that he insists he had a moral obligation to perform. "If we didn't do it and the woman died we would have potentially been charged with manslaughter and gone to jail. So in a legal sense, you could argue that we were compelled to offer it."

So the baby's heart was stopped, and presumably it was delivered the same way any other baby is delivered - the only difference being that the child was killed beforehand.

The sad thing is, both mother and child could have lived, if given the correct psychological and medical treatment.

It goes without saying that suffering from mental problems should not give someone a pass to kill another - if it does, then none of us are very safe.

Of course, many would say that denying the mother an abortion would be forcing her to carry a baby she doesn't want. Well, fist of all, Mother Nature is doing that by default, and not anybody else. If anybody is forcing something, it is the mother herself - she is forcing a deadly end upon her unborn child.

And the reality is that it is much worse to end the life of the unborn child than to deny the mother an abortion. Unfortunately, our world has been numbed to the inhumanity of abortion, and sees things the other way around.

Though the article paints the doctor in a soft light, Professor de Crespigny is no stranger to the practice of late term abortion, having performed an untold number over the past 30 years. Not only does he perform them, but he's an unapologetic advocate of them as well.

MSNBC reported it "would be putting it mildly" to say a Dec. 4 press conference had "gone awry," one the Clinton campaign arranged for the head of the pro-abortion group EMILY's List to hype Hillary.

It seems Barack Obama's people fed reporters information beforehand about his own pro-abort credentials and Clinton's duplicity.

So reporters were armed when Ellen Malcolm finished describing Clinton's pro-abort credentials and Obama's duplicity.

Bearing in mind this was an exercise to prove which candidate most championed pre-born baby killing made the face-off (pardon the pun) crazy to begin with. But we live in a surreal world.

Reporters wondered why Clinton didn't....

Continue reading my column today, "Hillary vs. Obama: Who's the biggest baby killing champion?," on WorldNetDaily.com.

Law student, and founder of the group Colorado for Equal Rights, Kristi Burton, 20, of Peyton, Colo., goes right to the root of the abortion issue -- when human life begins.

"I really believe every time in history we live in, there are people that need to be saved," Burton told the Associated Press. "In our time in history in America it is the unborn."

So Burton now leads an effort to collect the 76,000 signatures that she will need to place a measure which defines a fertilized egg as a person on the Colorado state ballot for voter approval or rejection in the November 2008 elections. (There's no mention of abortion in Burton's amendment.)

As noted in the AP story on Burton, "Similar efforts are underway in Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi and Oregon."

This post-Roe generation activist "claims no affiliation with any outside anti-abortion group," according to the AP. Burton made up her mind about the issue as a home-schooled 13-year-old, "when in 2000 Colorado voters rejected an amendment calling for a 24-hour waiting period for women seeking abortions."

Burton is a young lady with a mind of her own. Those of us who share her mindset would be wise to support her efforts.

For we're lucky to have this gutsy feminist for others on our side.

(c) 2007 Marybeth T. Hagan

Crossposting with http://www.mothermayibeborn.com

Inspiration can appear in unexpected places. Dr. Shinya Yamanaka found it while looking through a microscope at a friend's fertility clinic.

After years of searching, and at times almost giving up in despair, Yamanaka may have found that alternative. Last month, his was one of two groups of researchers that independently announced they had successfully turned adult skin cells into the equivalent of human embryonic stem cells without using an actual embryo. The other group was led by James Thomson at the University of Wisconsin, one of the first scientists to isolate human embryonic stem cells...

The rest of Martin Fackler's story in the International Herald Tribune is also fascinating. Check it out right here.

A recent and troublesome trend by environmentalists is to attach an environmental cost, in the form of a carbon footprint, to both born and unborn children.

The carbon footprint, according to CarbonFootprint.com, is "a measure of the impact human activities have on the environment in terms of the amount of greenhouse gases produced, measured in units of carbon dioxide."

While this may not seem too urgent of a trend, consider that this line of reasoning has already cost at least one unborn child their life - Toni Vernelli, as a result of her concern for the planet, aborted her unborn child ten years ago. (A few years later after having her child aborted and in an effort to protect the planet, Mrs. Vernelli was sterilized. )

Ironically, her very own child could have been the one to solve the problem of carbon emissions sometime in the not too distant future.

Then there is the University of Western Australia's Professor Barry Walters, a clinical associate professor of obstetrics, who in the December edition of the Medical Journal of Australia, proposed that couples who have more than two children should pay an annual carbon tax. The purpose of the tax, which could amount to $800 annually, would be to offset the carbon emissions of each child over a lifetime.

Interestingly enough, Professor Walter's doesn't appear to call for a tax on adults or families that have only two children. He also doesn't call for a tax upon himself - after all, Professor Walter has his own carbon footprint. Why shouldn't he pay a carbon tax, and one that's retroactive at that to cover the span of his own life?

It's interesting how these two want others to pay the price for their ideology - for Mrs. Vernelli, she made her child pay the price, and Professor Walters wants everybody else to pay the price. It seems that the golden rule here is "to do unto others as you would not do unto yourself." (Don't get me wrong, I'm not asking for either to follow their own ideology to a consistent end - I'm basically pointing out their flawed reasoning here...)

Both Professor Walter and Mrs. Vernilli advocate contraception as a solution to protecting the environment. But the production and distribution of contraceptives is not carbron free - the vehicles and machinery involved create their own greenhouse gases. Even Mrs. Vernilli's sterilization wasn't emission free, as she probably took her car to get to and from the facility where it was performed.

Additionally, some forms of contraceptives are may actually be harming the environment in other ways. Consider the situation in a mountain stream near Boulder, Colorado, where contraceptives are suspected in the mutation of the White sucker fish.

Don't get me wrong, protecting the environment is a good cause, but these people have carried it to the extreme. Unfortunately, I suspect their ideology will catch on among fellow environmentalists.

It may well be that the abortion debate is shifting from "choice/religion" versus personhood, to the environment versus personhood. If so, we had better be prepared to engage in this debate.

I posted late last week (now since taken down) on the apparent free speech violation I and at least one of our readers experienced at what appeared to be an ISU website, entitled ISUer.com. We were blacklisted and our comments rejected as "malicious or illegal" when they were nothing of the kind.

An anonymous Idaho State University person who did not identify himself as a student but who implied being an employee there (DeanofGeeks) invited us to comment at his blog:

I do not mean to spam you, so delete this if you do not appreciate it. I have started an abortion discussion at the ISU discussion blog ISUer.com. Just inviting you to present your own facts if you would like.

I also thought I'd learned the identity of this blogger, but it turns out I was wrong all 'round.

Never let it be said, I guess, that I can't admit when I made a mistake, or that I didn't own up to it. Here is the email I received today:

The Kansas Coalition for Life's video released on November 23, 2007 was the first in a series called "Bleeding Kansas: The Abortion State." As people have actually come to Kansas from every other U.S. state and some foreign countries just to have their child killed at George Tiller's late-term abortion business, we believe Kansas richly deserves the nickname "The Abortion State." "Bleeding Kansas" is a Civil War term that certainly applies in modern times since Tiller makes significant donations to various pro-abortion politicians in the state.

KCFL's second video discusses how easily the Kansas Attorney General's office was purchased. It describes the investigation into Tiller's business, revealing that babies have been killed here only a short time before birth over rock concerts, proms, and sports participation. These late-term abortions are illegal under Kansas law, but the new pro-abortion Attorney General, Paul Morrison, has no problem with them. Brief video clips from an interview with Dr. McHugh (hired by former Attorney General Phill Kline to review only a small number of Tiller's records) are included. With the ease of this office being purchased, we must ask which political office in Kansas will be purchased next?

Additional videos in the "Bleeding Kansas: The Abortion State" series will be forthcoming. We also encourage you to volunteer for KCFL. Each day, KCFL displays 167 crosses in front of Tiller's abortion business. This number represents the average number of babies killed each month at his business. A peaceful prolife witness is needed to watch the crosses while they are displayed and serve as a sidewalk counselor. People come from all over the United States to do this. There have been 315 saves due to this witness which has taken place since Mother's Day, 2004. Please visit www.kcfl.net for details.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amA5HhAMNVk

Michael Peroutka

The Institution on the Constitution is having a Christmas party, & everybody is invited! Click here to go to see the live video until 9:00 PM Eastern. Wait a few seconds for it to load please.

A month ago I wrote a post stating Fred Thompson had disqualified as one of my presidential primary picks for opposing a human life amendment or federal intervention if need be of disabled killing.

Now Mitt Romney has disqualified himself for supporting human embryonic stem cell research.

I'm so disappointed, because I was trying hard to give this pro-life convert the benefit of the doubt. Turns out he's not completely converted. A December 5 interview with Katie Couric on CBS News went like this:

Couric: So are you opposed to stem cell research?

Romney: No, I'm very much in favor of stem cell research, but in a way which I believe is moral and ethical. And creating new embryos through embryo farming or through cloning, I find to be unethical and I would not pursue that course of stem cell research.

Couric: So what kind of embryos - embryos that are created for procreation and then would be discarded? Are those the ones that you feel are perfectly fine from which to cull cells for stem cell research?

Romney: Yes, those embryos that are referred to commonly as surplus embryos from in-vitro fertilization. Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law. I wouldn't finance that with government money because it represents a moral challenge for a lot of people and I think we're better investing in places where the prospects are much better. And I think that's something like something known as alter-nuclear transfer where you create new embryo, like, entities, but they're not human embryos. And you can take stem cells from those.

No. A parent cannot authorize killing a child. A parent cannot donate his/her living child for scientific experimentation.

Romney understood this when discussing abortion earlier in the interview. He just needed to apply that logic to human embryo experimentation:

Couric: What's the biggest mistake you've ever made? How did you recognize it and what did you do to change course?

Romney: Well, I think from the political perspective, the biggest mistake I made was believing that my personal disagreement with abortion and my view that abortion was wrong, that somehow I could accommodate my personal view that abortion was wrong with a public view that other people should be able to make up their own mind, and the government wouldn't play a role. That, in my view, was a mistake....

Couric: You said you have personal views toward abortion but felt that in the public arena, another position could exist. What is wrong with that? What's wrong with having a personal view and feeling that it's the right of individuals to make these difficult choices?

Romney: Well, what I recognized is that in a civilized society that there has to be a respect for the sanctity of life - that if you put that aside, if you say, "We're gonna start creating life and then destroying it," you're, in effect, playing God. And I think a civilized society has certain rules of conduct that it live by and one of those is to respect the sanctity of life.

I don't get Romney's disconnect, but he has disconnected. And he has disqualified himself.

That leaves pretty much leaves Mike Huckabee. I really like Duncan Hunter, but he's not getting any traction.

[HT: Lifenews.com]

In case anyone needs more information on Planned Parenthood's exploitation of our children (do not watch this with your kids around):

Also, check out their website for teens: TeenWire.

While Governor Kaine just cut Virginia's federal funding for abstinence education, Planned Parenthood - which represents itself as a nonprofit - rakes in millions of dollars of our tax money - in addition to hefty donations from major corporations and income from its abortion mills.

Follow the money. Marx thought religion was the opiate of the masses. It's really quite the opposite now. Religion makes you think and question. Sex is the opiate of the masses here in America - and Planned Parenthood is one of the biggest pushers around.

Published at The Miz Report

From Alliance Defense Fund (ADF):

The anniversary of Roe v. Wade is approaching again. We have found a massive discrepancy between "support" for upholding Roe and knowledge about what the decision actually did. Polls consistently show a contradiction: one on hand, a slim majority normally support uphold Roe, yet around 80% favor at least some restriction on abortion, something Roe clearly does not allow to any reasonable degree. We thought it was high time to put the American public to the test...literally. ADF, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America and Family Research Council have teamed up to prove once and for all that "America Don't Know Roe." We contend that the more one really knows about Roe, the more likely the answer is "NO" when asked if one supports it. Enter the "Roe IQ Test." We rolled it out Monday and World Net Daily covered it Tuesday.

Take the quiz at www.roeiqtest.com.

Have a minute? Take the test - just to make sure you know everything you need to know about Roe v. Wade. The test has a key at the end which shows the right answers and substantiated sources. Then if you have another minute, come back and tell us what was your score and what did you learn.

A newly released CDC report shows that there was a 3 percent increase in births among 15-19 year olds, and a 4 percent increase among those 18-19 years of age.

It didn't take long for groups to offer explanations as to why there was an increase, despite the fact that the report doesn't offer any real explanation:

"The national policy of abstinence-only programmes just isn't working," Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, said. "In the last decade more than $1bn has been wasted on abstinence-only programmes, when studies show they don't reduce the number of teen pregnancies or sexually transmitted infections." - Cecile Richards, President, Planned Parenthood

Since a number of studies have placed the majority share of the credit for declining rates with more effective contraceptive use, it is reasonable to raise serious concerns about the $1.5 billion dollars the government has spent over the last decade on abstinence-only-until-marriage programs that prohibit information about the use of contraception including condoms.- Advocates for Youth Press Release, PR Newswire

Without detailed data that could explain why there was an increase, such as decreases in overall abstinence and contraceptive use, these statements amount to nothing more than irresponsible speculation. It is expected that these groups will make similar statements in the coming election year, in an attempt to secure increased funding for contraception related programs.

And as far as wasted money goes, these increases don't bode well for the self righteous contraception crowd. Despite the fact that contraception is available at numerous places including restroom vending machines, drug stores, health clinics, convenience stores, hotels, and Planned Parenthood, teen birth rates rose.

To top it off, these groups have the nerve to ask for further funding so that they can continue to not solve the problem of teen pregnancy.

I reported Tuesday that Hillary Clinton is giving Barack Obama heat for voting "present" on certain bills as IL state senator, seven on abortion issues, according to Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times. I know three of those were on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act package of bills.

Well, there has been such a rich development.

MSNBC reported yesterday on a press conference arranged by the Clinton campaign with Ellen Malcolm, head of the pro-abortion group, EMILY's List, to tout Hillary as the best credentialled pro-abort presidential candidate. EMILY's List raises funds for pro-abort female legislative candidates, and has a dismal record to show for it, btw. Continued MSNBC:

Malcolm hadn't mentioned Obama by name, but she said that those who vote "present" at tough times don't show a true commitment to leadership - referring to Obama's "present" votes on some anti-abortion measures while serving in the Illinois state Senate.

Does Malcolm really want to go there?

The fact is Hillary voted in favor of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act as U.S. Senator, one of the very bills she and EMILY are nailing Obama for voting "present" on as state senator. Was it not better to vote "present" than "yes"? Is that the kind of leadership EMILY wants?

This point is screaming for someone in the MSM to pick up on, particularly since the Obama and Clinton campaigns are vying for pro-abort affections.

[HT for MSNBC story: Lifenews.com]

A tip from a friend about a pro-life film sent me hunting for Juno.

I was delighted with my discovery. The humorous quirkiness of Juno, rated PG-13, appears to be matched by its heart.

The basics -- director, writer, cast and more -- on this film about a pregnant teen's dilemma and choice can be found on The Internet Movie Data Base, here.

Juno speaks for itself in the movie's trailer provided by IMDB. It spoke so clearly to me that I laughed and cried while watching it.

Treat yourself to a peek at Juno; see its 2:30 minute trailer, here.

Juno, now under limited release in the United States, counts among it mounting accomplishments three 2007 film awards. It was an Official Selection at the Toronto International Film Festival and the Telluride [Colorado] Film Festival. Juno also won the Stockholm Film Festival's Audience Award. Bet there will be more to come.

Hopefully, this pleasantly pro-life film will be opening soon in theaters everywhere.

(c) 2007 Marybeth T. Hagan

Crossposting with http://www.mothermayibeborn.com

One phrase written in a short Associated Press item "Clinton attacks Obama's record," which ran in my morning newspaper The Philadelphia Inquirer, caught my eye due to its pet peeve factor.

It's one of those words or phrases that becomes commonly used ad nauseum in reporting. This one often describes partial birth abortion, a.k.a. intact dilation or extraction.

There's sarcasm in its tone. linguistics

Here's a sentence from the AP story with my pet peeve phrase BOLDLY noted:

Among other votes, Obama voted "present" in 1997 on two bills that would have outlawed SO-CALLED partial-birth abortion and two 2001 bills on parental notification of minors seeking abortions.

Obama voted "present" in 1997 on two bills that would have outlawed the procedure THAT SOME CALL partial-birth abortion and on two 2001 bills related to parental notification of minors seeking abortions.

(c) 2007 Marybeth T. Hagan
Crossposting with http://www.mothermayibeborn.com

This is sadly worth noting only for the reason that, far too often when discussing the increased risks of maternal death from having an abortion, pro-choice folks defend to the death the disproven belief that "more women die from childbirth than from having abortions."

This new study exposes one self-controllable "major major and growing risk factor" why women die from childbirth, at least in developed nations:

Obesity behind over half UK maternal birth deaths

Interestingly,

It also found that women from poorer backgrounds were up to seven times more likely to die from pregnancy-related complications.

In the wake of Connecticut's tyrannical law that requires even Catholic hospitals to provide "emergency contraception" (i.e. abortifacient drugs) to rape victims, Rev. Deacon Tom Davis argues that pro-life advocates in other states should begin preparing even now for the political moves against freedom of conscience that will almost surely be heading their way.

Read this important advisory article in its entirety right here.

I was given this news tip yesterday, but actually Time magazine broke the story November 21, which no one apparently picked up on, perhaps because it was only posted online:

[B]ut what's clear is that the anti-abortion movement is fractured. Colorado Right to Life has a mailing list of 10,000 and a $100,000 budget but is no longer affiliated with the National Right to Life Committee - "kicked out," says [CRTL spokesman and Denver Christian radio talk show host Bob] Enyart. He explains that the NRLC has refused to back "personhood" for decades, citing the unlikelihood that it would pass muster with the U.S. Supreme Court....

And this week in Washington, the same coalition, with representatives from 12 states, plans to announce a new national splinter group - American Right to Life - which will be headed by Brian Rohrbough, whose son Daniel died in the Columbine shootings and who has been an outspoken critic of the American "culture of death."

Here's more of the scoop, provided by Leslie Hanks of CRTL and ARTL, who I called after getting the tip....

Read more at jillstanek.com.

We live in a country that revolves around rights and freedoms. We have the right to make certain choices about our lives, we have the freedom to do so. However, those rights and those freedoms come to an end when they affect someone else's rights. Our freedoms do not give us the right to take someone else's right to their own property by stealing. Our freedoms do not give us the right to drink irresponsibly, get behind the wheel of a car, and kill someone in an accident. Our freedoms do not give us the right to kill, and take someone else's right to live. That is the foundation of this country, and the foundation of our Constitution. Our Constitution is written to protect the natural, God-given rights that we possess. It also gives certain rights to States, and this is a very important aspect of our Constitution, but it is an important Civics lesson to learn that the rights of States do not come before human rights. That is why the law of the whole land, the Constitution, defends human rights for all the states to recognize. For those of us who believe that unborn children are human beings, and deserving of the right to live, we must realize how crucial the Constitution is in the debate. It is the Constitution that is written to protect human rights, and it is by the Constitution that we argue unborn children should have the right to live. Some argue that the decision should be left up to the states, but this goes against the Constitution's main point: That the role of government is to defend rights, and no state can take them away. Some argue that we should overturn Roe v. Wade, but it must be understood that overturning Roe v. Wade will not outlaw abortion, it will merely give states the opportunity to choose.

Of these presidential candidates, only ONE consistently believes in a federal ban on abortion:

Rudy Giuliani

Fred Thompson

Duncan Hunter

Mitt Romney

Mike Huckabee

John McCain

Let's investigate:

Rudy Giuliani: No. Rudy is certainly pro-choice, "I'm very, very passionate about abortion and the whole issue of abortion. But it leads me to a conclusion, which is I oppose it. That's a principle I've held forever, and I'll hold it forever. That's not going to change. But I also believe that in a society like ours, where people have very different consciences about this, it's best for us to respect each other's differences and allow for choice."

Source: Fox News Sunday, 2007 presidential candidate interviews May 14, 2007

Mitt Romney: No. "I'd love to have an America that didn't have abortion. But that's not what the American people [want] right now. And so I'd like to see Roe v. Wade overturned and allow the states to put in place pro-life legislation. I recognize that for many people, that is considered an act of murder, to have an abortion. It is without question the taking of a human life. And I believe that a civilized society must respect the sanctity of the human life."

Source: 2007 GOP debate at UNH, sponsored by Fox News Sep 5, 2007

Mitt Romney has said that he supports a Consitutional amendment, but here he seems to be indicating that he doesn't. Mitt Romney has also flip-flopped on many issues and whether he can be trusted is questionable.

Mike Huckabee: No.

In February 1995, Huckabee supported revising the GOP abortion plank to let states decide their own abortion laws.

"The issue divides strongly committed pro-life and pro-choice Republicans but is not a central issue to most other Republicans. A possible platform revision long under discussion would say the Republican Party, 'unlike the Democratic Party, does not stand for abortion on demand and is basically a pro-life party.' In the spirit of federalism, the proposed GOP revision also would replace the abortion amendment with a statement saying the issue should be left up to the individual state legislatures to deal with as each sees fit. 'That's exactly what we have looked for, and if it's left up to the states, more of them are going to put some restrictions on abortion,' Arkansas Lt. Gov. Mike Huckabee said in an interview after appearing on a conference panel yesterday." (Ralph Z. Hallow, "Conservatives Hold Fire On Abortion," Washington Times, 2/12/95)

And in an April 2006 interview with the blog "Right Wing News" Huckabee indicated that abortion decisions should be left to the States.

John Hawkins [Right Wing News]: Switching gears again, do you think we should overturn Roe v. Wade?

Mike Huckabee: It would please me because I think Roe v. Wade is based on a real stretch of Constitutional application -- that somehow there is a greater privacy issue in the abortion concern -- than there is a human life issue -- and that the federal government should be making that decision as opposed to states making that decision. So, I've never felt that it was a legitimate manner in which to address this and, first of all, it should be left to the states, the 10th Amendment, but secondly, to somehow believe that the taking of an innocent, unborn human life is about privacy and not about that unborn life is ludicrous. (www.rightwingnews.com/interviews/huckabee.php)

(From The Christian News Wire: http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/232094841.html)

Fred Thompson: No. Look at this video, where Fred agrees that he does NOT support a Constitutional amendment but supports merely leaving it to the states: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWBX1Hch1tc and merely means to abolish Roe v. Wade.

John McCain: No. "I'd love to see a point where Roe vs. Wade is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations." [ Source: Ron Fournier, Associated Press Aug 24, 1999]

John McCain does not even support overturning Roe v. Wade, much less a federal ban. However, he seems to believe that overturning Roe v. Wade DOES include a federal ban on abortion, WHICH IT DOES NOT.

Last but not least:

Duncan Hunter: YES

"I would amend the U.S. Constitution and provide blanket protection to all unborn children from the moment of conception by prohibiting any state or federal law that denies the personhood of the unborn. Likewise, I have also introduced the Right to Life Act, which would legally define "personhood" as the moment of conception and, therefore, guarantee all constitutional rights and protections, including life, to the unborn without utilizing a constitutional amendment." [www.gohunter08.com]

Duncan Hunter wrote a bill called the Life at Conception Act, that would define life at conception ensuring that the 14th amendment applies to unborn children in defending life. You can read about the bill here: http://www.prolifealliance.com/life%20at%20conception%20act.htm

He has a 100% rating from the National Right to Life, and in all 26 years of experience in Congress he has never changed his mind.

Vote for a candidate that walks the walk, and really believes in life and our human rights: Duncan Hunter.

Silent No More, a post-abortion awareness campaign, is seeking signatures of support for a letter to the American Psychological Association. Specifically, the letter seeks dialogue with the APA's Task Force on Abortion and Mental Health. Silent No More would like to hear from women and men who have experienced post-abortion consequences, as well as those who support them.

Note that the deadline for collecting signatures has been extended. Although the letter below says the letter will be delivered in time for the APA to respond by December 1, 2007, this is of course now not correct and will be corrected when the letter is sent to the APA. So anyone who is interested in signing on should do so now.

Dear Silent No More Awareness Friends,

This month's e-letter is somewhat like one we sent you this time last year! How ironic! We are once again soliciting you to be SILENT NO MORE via your signature. This time though it is on a letter going to the American Psychological Association (APA). The APA has created a Task Force to review all the existing research regarding the negative psychological consequences following abortion. Based on their evaluation of the data, they will release a report that will influence their members and the media for years to come.

After consulting with various experts of our own, we have decided to send them one letter signed by many.This is where you come in! The Silent No More Awareness Campaign needs you to join us and sign onto to the letter. The letter is below and if, after you read it, you want to sign it - please click on the email address and send us an email or send us a note stating you want your name included.

Here's the letter:

We, the undersigned, have become aware that the American Psychological Association is revisiting the topic of abortion effects on mental health.

By means of the Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion you propose to collect, examine and summarize the scientific research addressing the mental health factors associated with abortion, including the psychological responses following abortion, and will produce a report based upon review of current research.

We write to ask how we may have a voice in the deliberations of this task force. As we review the task force charge we would like to make you aware of one item of interest and make one request. First, in examining the existing scientific research, we are aware of thousands of women who may not show up in studies of post-abortion effects. Part of the purpose of our letter is to make you aware of a very large pool of potential participants in research on potential effects of abortion.

Second, to open dialogue and facilitate understanding, we would like to request a meeting with the APA Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion. Leaders of groups representing women who experience negative post-abortion consequences would like to present data to you from our own collected experience.

The undersigned represent thousands of women who report negative post-abortion experiences of various kinds as well as thousands more people who stand in support of them.

We hope to hear from you by December 1st,2007. [This deadline will be later]

Sincerely,

To sign the letter as a woman who has had an abortion - email: mail@SilentNoMoreAwareness.org and note PAS Women Signature in the subject line. List your name as you want it included in the letter to the APA.

To sign the letter as a man who has an abortion experience - email: Info@AnglicansforLife.org and note PAS Man Signature in the subject line. List your name as you want it included in the letter to the APA.

To sign the letter as someone who supports women and men in getting healing after abortion - email: Info@AnglicansforLife.org and note PAS Support Signature in the subject line. List your name as you want it included in the letter to the APA.

If you'd like to have your friends also sign on to the letter, please direct them to our website: SilentNoMoreAwareness.org - have them click on "Join Us" and fill out the form - in the comments sections - note how they want to sign onto the letter. PAS Women Signature, PAS Man Signature, or PAS Support Signature.

We want to thank all of you for being silent no more in so many ways. We are especially grateful for those who have recently come aboard and want you all to feel welcome and know you participation is important to us. We pray for each of you to embrace God's guidance as He shows you how to be silent no more.

Blessings for Life,

Georgette Forney, 800-707-NOEL

Georgette@SilentNoMoreAwareness.org

Janet Morana, 888-PFL-3448

Janet@SilentNoMoreAwareness.org

For more information see this blogsite.

Gillian Gibbons, the mild-mannered British teacher who was imprisoned and threatened with tortuous punishment for naming a teddy bear Mohammed, is finally leaving Sudan after being granted a full presidential pardon. Sudanese president Omar al Bashir cleared the teacher after meeting two British Muslim representatives.

Not surprisingly, the case had drawn two types of reaction around the world. On one hand were the appeals from many world leaders (including President Bush) for Sudan officials to back off this insanely unjust prosecution. On the other were the crazed crowds of Muslim fanatics who demanded that Allah's wrath would not be propitiated with anything less than Gibbons' execution.

One very interesting note -- Amnesty International, the supposed human rights organization who has made such waves this last year in adding the promotion of abortion to its priorities, had absolutely nothing to say about the Gillian Gibbons travesty. Absolutely nothing.

Editor's Note: Amnesty International responded (12/4) to this post with the following statement,

Your blog on Amnesty International and the teacher jailed in Sudan is completely incorrect. Before publishing this material, we wish you had contacted AIUSA for comment. You would have been told the following: AI viewed this conviction as a mockery of justice. The organization demanded her immediate and unconditional release from prison. AI considered the teacher a prisoner of conscience.

Denny responds:

Suzanne Trimel, the Media Relations Director of Amnesty International USA, writes to inform me that the organization did, in fact, view the arrest of Gillian Gibbons as "a mockery of justice and demanded her immediate and unconditional release from prison." Furthermore, the organization "considered the teacher a prisoner of conscience." This note, of course, was in response to my post yesterday.

That's good. I'm glad to hear that somewhere, somehow AI was in Gillian Gibbons corner.

Unfortunately, a search of several news stories about the Gibbons imprisonment did not show AI's protest nor was Gillian Gibbons found on a search of AI's own website. I therefore concluded that AI was completely silent on the matter. According to Ms. Trimel, and I'm sure she's right, I was incorrect and I'm pleased to post this and say so.

I just wish AI would have defended Gillian Gibbons a little more boldly, a little more loudly...more like the noise they've been making over their opposition to policemen using tasers or the new push to make legal abortion among their human rights demands.

So CNN plants numerous, known, Democrats/anti-Republicans as though they are common ordinary unaffiliated questioners in the GOP debate, then gets outed for it, then accuses its critics of stalking them.

Don't that beat all. No wonder I thought there were so many "trap questions" in that debate.

The best thing about Republicans agreeing to do the CNN/YouTube debate is that it created yet another invaluable opportunity to expose CNN's abject incompetence.

Alternative media platforms - talk radio, the Internet and this op-ed page - have spread these [the following] facts like kudzu. But the persistent media double standard is obvious to everyone but the manure spreaders at CNN: Had GOP candidates somehow been able to insert their operatives and supporters into a Democratic debate, and had, say, Fox News failed to vet the questioners and presented them as average citizens, both Fox and the GOP would be treated as the century's worst media sinners.

The Georgia Right to Life PAC released a press release yesterday afternoon endorsing Mike Huckabee for president, snubbing National Right to Life's pick, Fred Thompson.

The first paragraph is verrrry interesting:

The mission of Georgia Right to Life PAC is... pleased to endorse Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee for the 2008 Presidential primary. We appreciate and respect the pro-life positions of all pro-life candidates. We commend Rep. Duncan Hunter, Dr. Alan Keyes and Rep. Tom Tancredo for their strong pro-life positions, but find that Governor Mike Huckabee is the only candidate which qualified under Georgia Right to Life PAC guidelines. We examined three factors in our decision to endorse Gov. Mike Huckabee: the positions of the candidates on the life issues, their records on the life issues and their ability to win.

GRTL PAC left a few names off its list of commended pro-life candidates, the most telling being National Right to Life's endorsed candidate. Wow.

There's more going on behind the scenes. NRLC is actively opposing Georgia's Personhood Amendment, now working its way through the legislature, which makes these paragraphs in the release rich with coded message and a genteel southern slap of NRLC's face:

Gov. Huckabee responded to our inquiry of his position on the life issues by stating, "... I support the Georgia Personhood Amendment. I also support, and have consistently done so, the Human Life Amendment to the United States Constitution."...

As an affiliate of National Right to Life, we give grateful recognition for the role they play in protecting the unborn. "We want to acknowledge their leadership and thank them for allowing individual states to do what they believe is best for their state. Under normal circumstances we would communicate their Presidential endorsement to our 225,000 households." said Bryan Lash, PAC Director for GRTL. "While we appreciate their leadership and support, we believe that Gov. Huckabee is the strongest and most effective pro-life candidate in this race," continues Lash. "Passing a Personhood Amendment here in Georgia is our key issue in achieving our objective to extend the protections of the law to all 'persons' both born and unborn. Support of a candidate who ushered a similar amendment through his own state speaks volumes to us. Mr. Huckabee's recent surge in the polls, we believe, demonstrates that he is the pro-life movement's best hope in defeating pro-abortion candidate Rudy Giuliani...."

Ew. This is major. Read the entire release at jillstanek.com.