January 2008 Archives

By Ruben Obregon

In response to a question about animal rights during a recent town hall meeting, Presidential Candidate and Senator Barack Obama said "How we treat our animals reflects how we treat each other."

Senator Obama, a co-sponsor of the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act  in the US Senate, calls said cruelty to animals is "unacceptable on its own stead." He says that as president, he would "continue to make sure that we treat animal cruelty like the serious crime it is."  Yet Obama doesn't find unacceptable the cruel treatment of infants born alive and left to die via live birth abortions.

Now one might justify these statements by citing the fact that animal cruelty is in fact a crime, and thus Obama is right in declaring it as being unacceptable.  Yet his voting record as Illinois State Senator demonstrates that he found the legal slaughter of horses in Illinois to be equally unacceptable, on its own stead, as well. 

As State Senator, Obama had a record of supporting animal rights and opposing human rights for unborn children.  While Obama sponsored a bill to prevent the slaughter of horses for human consumption, he also opposed the passage of the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which would have prevented the barbaric practice of  callously leaving the victims of live birth abortions to die, without any attempt at life-saving medical intervention.  And as a U.S. Senator, Obama voted against banning the horrific partial birth abortion procedure.

Ironically, in his announcement for support of Universal Healthcare, Obama described the denial of medical care as "morally offensive," yet he doesn't find the denial of medical care to these infants persons equally offensive. 

The abominable practice of live birth abortions stands unopposed by Senator Obama, despite the fact that these infants are, abortion notwithstanding, U.S. citizens at birth. 

The fact that Obama views the life and rights of a newly born citizen lower than that of a horse shows a grave flaw in his character, and should disqualify him from any leadership position.  If he won't respect the youngest citizens among us, who will he respect?

What Senator Obama fails to grasp is that how we treat our children, born and unborn, reflects how we treat each other.
 
Any candidate, regardless of party affiliation, who is willing to offer greater protection for horses than for infants born alive -  legal United States citizens  - is not fit to be President.

Stumbling upon original thinking is a bonus.

It's bonus time.

For I stumbled upon a provocative commentary on abortion that was published in Philadelphia's The Bulletin on Roe's anniversary.

"On Morality, Abortion and Empires," by Associate Professor of English Andrew Harvey, first appeared here on the website of The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College in Pennsylvania.

Harvey applies history to teach readers a lesson about abortion. He begins with the sixth century Byzantine Empire mindset towards abortion as it applied to the courtesan Theodora in the historian Procopius' account. The professor writes:

At the height of his calumny, when Procopius really attacked the empress, he charged Theodora of having procured multiple abortions. This was the depth of her turpitude, the lowest of the low, the worst thing he could imagine.

Abortion matriarchs Kate Michelman and Frances Kissling ceded quite a few points to pro-lifers in a Los Angeles Times op-ed marking the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

Actually, "matriarchs" isn't quite right since Michelman and Kissling have helped facilitate the killing of their movement's progeny.

The only recruits they can now entice are young women they convince that whores are happier and that those aren't really babies despite the overwhelming evidence - in other words, stupidos.

Or those they pay handsomely for their souls - political prostitutes, sell-sex traffickers, and bottom-feeding abortion mill workers who can't get work anywhere else.

Not much to work with.

But I digress.

In a nutshell the barrennesses admitted in their column that pro-aborts are losing the battle thanks to....

Continue reading my column today, "Abortion leaders concede?" on WorldNetDaily.com.

By Ruben Obregon

For the past few days I've been reading "Population Control: Real Costs, Illusory Benefits," a forthcoming book by Population Research Institute's Steven Mosher.

What I found out in the section on AIDS in Africa stunned me.

In this chapter, Mosher details how the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) decided to integrate HIV/AIDS programs into existing family planning programs in Africa - with disastrous results.

Mosher attributes the reuse of dirty needles, including those used to inject Depo-Provera, for many of Africa's HIV infections. He also suggests that Norplant implantation and abortion by manual vacuum aspirator (MVA) may also put African women at risk.

The problem is that in many areas, needles and MVAs cannot be properly disinfected prior to being used again. (You read that correctly - needles are reused!) Additionally, local blood supplies are unsafe, and are often used as a last resort - often resulting in only a delayed death.

Mosher points out that David Gisselquist, Stephen Potterat, and their research team found that "two thirds of HIV/AIDS in Africa results from injections with infected needles or other medical exposures to infected blood."

In reviewing 22 separate studies in 2003, Gisselquist and Potterat found that:

• Injection was more associated with HIV than heterosexual sex.
• Most of those infected were in monogamous relationships
• Those who are more well off have higher rates of HIV, which is the opposite of typical STD patterns
• Clinic attendance was associated with HIV
• Infants also had high rates of non-mother to child transmission

They also found that sex related HIV cases only accounted for 25 to 35 percent of infections.

Mosher blames the situation on USAID's AIDS/SRH (sexual and reproductive health) approach.

"The reason why the integrated AIDS/SRH approach hasn't slowed the spread of HIV in Africa is because most HIV/AIDS cases on that continent are not the result of sexual contact at all. Rather they are the result of contact with HIV through dirty needles and other substandard, invasive medical procedures. More to the point, they are the result of the kinds things - Depo-Provera and other injections, Norplant insertions, IUD implantations, tubal ligations, and Manual Vacuum Aspirators (MVA) abortions - that are done to women at integrated AIDS/SRH clinics."

I find this information to be shocking, and I'm still wondering why we are funding family planning programs overseas to begin with? It seems like we have done more harm than anything.

For further reading:

Population Research Institute - Are Africans Promiscuous Unto Death?

WHO accused of huge HIV blunder

By Ruben Obregon

In a "head to head" debate in the British Medical Journal, Researchers Markus Steiner and Stephen Genuis tackle the question "Are Condoms the answer to rising rates of non-HIV sexually transmitted infection?"

While Markus Steiner argues that condoms are indeed the answer, Stephen Genuis argues that condoms are not the answer to non-HIV STDs, and that a more comprehensive approach is needed. While I disagree with the idea that comprehensive sexuality programs are the answer, he does raise some valid points of reliance on condoms alone to control disease.

Genuis points out the obvious; that condoms do not prevent skin to skin infections, which was brought to light recently with the outbreaks of USA300 MRSA among homosexual men in certain locales.

He also details that inconsistent use, mechanical failure, and compliance issues pose significant problems.

The main problem with condoms is that average people, particularly aroused youth, do not use them consistently, regardless of knowledge or education. Although condoms offer some protection against discharge related infections such as chlamydia and gonorrhoea, protection is usually compromised by compliance issues, incorrect use, or mechanical failure. (emphasis added)

Genuis also points out that only a small amount of people use condoms consistently:

In theory, condoms offer some protection against sexually transmitted infection; practically, however, epidemiological research repeatedly shows that condom familiarity and risk awareness do not result in sustained safer sex choices in real life. Only a minority of people engaging in risky sexual behaviour use condoms consistently. A recent study found that less than 8% of couples discordant for herpes used condoms for each sex act, despite ongoing counselling. Even among stable, adult couples who were HIV discordant and received extensive ongoing counselling about HIV risk and condom use, only 48.4% used condoms consistently. Irregular use of condoms will not provide sustained protection against sexually transmitted infection.

He goes on to say that behavioral changes, rather than widespread condom use, was instrumental in reducing the rates of STDs in Thailand and Cambodia:

Reports of diminished rates of sexually transmitted infection as a result of widespread condom use in countries such as Thailand and Cambodia are reinforcing the focus on condoms as the primary strategy. Careful scrutiny of the data, however, suggests that changes in sexual behaviour (fewer partners, less casual sex, and less use of sex workers) after mass educational campaigns rather than widespread condom use by ordinary citizens was instrumental in reducing infection rates.

While vilifying behavior based prevention programs is all the rage here in the US, programs which encouraged behavioral changes have been successful in reducing STD rates in Uganda, Cambodia, and Thailand.

But even the behavioral changes these programs promote have limitations - having fewer partners, instead of only having one partner, and using sex workers less often is still risky sexual activity. To improve these programs, emphasis should be placed on monogamous sexual relationships that are confined to marriage. Such programs also need to emphasize that sex has two purposes - bonding and reproduction - so that the culture of casual sex can be laid to rest along side its millions of victims.

Once again I've Marched for Life in Washington D.C. on this year's anniversary of abortion's legalization via Roe v. Wade.

It's a bittersweet experience -- bitter in that some 48 to 50 million abortions have been performed in the past 35 years and sweet because of the renewel one feels as a pro-lifer thanks to the people, places and things one sees at the March.

Because of my blog Mother May I...Be Born?, I also had the opportunity to spend the morning of the March in the company of like-minded bloggers who were willing to rise early to attend the Blogs for Life conference. It began at 7:30 a.m. For the record, nobody showed up their pajamas.

At Blogs for Life a panel of excellent speakers (more about their presentations to come in future posts) addressed assorted aspects of the abortion issue. Bloggers who spoke practiced what they preach about ProLifeUnity and generously offered tips and encouragement to those of us newer to blogging.

The event was graciously hosted by the Family Research Council.

From there I headed to the March and was energized by the tens of thousands (according to the Washington Post) or 100,000 (according to Fire Society) marchers who rallied on behalf of the unborn, their mothers and their fathers.

Baby boomers like me were widely outnumbered by the waves of young people who appear to be Marching for Life in larger numbers and with more joy every year. With them comes hope.

Before wrapping up my day at the March, I made a brief stop at a second bloggers event where websters busily covered the March, took photos and interviewed pro-life leaders. From there I walked back to the U.S. Supreme Court Building and listened to the brave women and men from Silent No More tell how they put their lives back together after abortions ripped them apart.

Marching for Life left me slightly tired and totally inspired.

The icing on my cake came during the train ride back to Philadelphia as I rustled the pages of yesterday's Washington Post.

"A Youthful Throng Marches Against Abortion" read the headline of a story that accurately captures the upbeat mood of the March.

Lo and behold! Even the mainstream media noticed.

(c) 2008 Marybeth T. Hagan

Crossposting with http://www.mothermayibeborn.com

How satisfying it would be to see my generation reckon with the consequences of the sinful and shameful legacy we created - a legacy epitomized in our Boomer president Bill Clinton whose exploitation of women was overlooked/justified/defended by women to whom the only "feminist" value became the right to kill their babies.

How refreshing and hopeful it is each year to attend the March for Life and see the youthful face of the Pro-Life movement. Why are young people turning more against "choice"? Think about it: they were once a "choice" - and it can't feel all that good to know that you are alive today because your parent spared you. It can't feel that good to loke at the absolute selfishness and narcissism of the preceding generation and to know that because of it, 25% of your peers are missing, making it that much harder to foot the bills the Boomers will rack up before they die.

Shannon sent me this link to a Cal Thomas column at National Jewish Review. Excerpts follow:

The Cost of Roe at 35

Thirty-five years after the Supreme Court unilaterally struck down state laws restricting abortion, the cost of that decision continues to increase our moral deficit, which will have far greater (and eternal) consequences than the impact from economic challenges during a possible recession.

Depending on how one counts the number of abortions per year since 1973, more than 50 million people who might have been are not. These were people who, regardless of the circumstances of the women who carried them, had the potential to contribute to the country and to the world. But now they cannot, because they are not. Would we be fighting the battle over immigration had we not rid ourselves of a generation of humans who likely would have done the work for which we are now importing illegal aliens? Actions have consequences. . .

Abortion on demand cannot be seen in isolation from social breakdown. In 1973, near the end of the Vietnam War and the approaching resignation of President Nixon two years later, the focus on self, pleasure and convenience by Baby Boomers was at its height. Marriages easily dissolved as "no fault" divorce laws were passed; cohabitation and out-of-wedlock births were on the rise; "unwanted babies" (who were labeled "products of conception" to make it easier to deny the obvious) became an impediment to the pursuit of pleasure and material gain.

Abortion was not a cause, but a reflection of our decadence and deviancy. One does not begin to kill babies until other dominos have fallen. And once they have fallen, it becomes difficult to set them aright because to do so would require an admission of something so horrible that those responsible for this fetal holocaust would have to acknowledge their sin and repent of it. Such a thing is not a character trait of this most pampered generation.

In recent years there have been signs that things may be -- if not turning around -- then moderating.. .

Politicians and judges could help bury Roe by requiring that pregnant women receive complete information about the nature of the life within them, including being required to view sonograms before electing abortion. This would follow truth-in-labeling and truth-in-lending laws by fully informing and empowering women. Such an approach would satisfy the liberal demand to keep abortion "safe and legal" and the pro-life desire to make them rare.

After 35 years of slaughtering our young, isn't it time to stop? That child born in 1973 could be a parent now. There are children who could have been born today. Thirty-five years of killing has diminished and corrupted us all. Let's summon the moral courage to stop it for our sake ... and for theirs.

Cal Thomas is brilliant. Read the entire column here.

16 year old Amy Catherine Flynn, who among other things is a STARS panelist (Students Teaching And Respecting Sexuality), tries out for American Idol. Before she does, she gives Simon a quick speech on abstinence:

Amy isn't the only Idol contestant who promotes abstinence - 2007 Idol winner Jordan Sparks is an outspoken advocate as well.

Click here for Amy's MySpace Page..

Hat Tip: idolator.com

A new study found that Ortho Evra, which has been called the 'The most dangerous contraceptive on the market', carries a higher risk for blood clots than oral contraceptives.

As a result of the new study, Ortho-McNeil, the manufacturers of Ortho Evra, sought and gained FDA approval to update the warning label.

(For some background, see my article on the numerous lawsuits and claims against Ortho-McNeil, manufacturers of the patch. )

This isn't the first study which found an increased risk of VTE among patch users. The study "Venous Thromboembolism, Myocardial Infarction, and Stroke Among Transdermal Contraceptive System Users," (PDF) published in the February 2007 issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology, found more than a two-fold increase in the venous thromboembolism rate among patch users compared with norgestimate-containing oral contraceptives

It will be interesting to see if Public Citizen petitions the FDA to ban the patch, as they previously did with third generation oral contraceptives (OCs).

After the 2007 study was released, I contacted Frits Rosendaal, MD, co-signer of Public Citizen's petition and an internationally known expert on Venous Thromboembolism (VTE), to get his opinion on it. His reply to my inquiry:

"I am not convinced that the patch is in fact less safe than oral contraceptives with a similar dose of oestrogen"

I wonder if the new study will convince him that the patch is not safer than OCs, and that it should be banned along with third generation pills?

Finally, it's time for the FDA to step in and request a recall or demand a withdrawal of Ortho Evra. A possible reason why this hasn't been happened yet is that the FDA considers blood clots to be 'acceptable risks' of hormonal contraception. I'm not sure the parents of 14 year old Alicya Brown, who is alleged to have died as a result of using Ortho Evra, agree that the risk is acceptable.

More Resources:

Read the Ortho-McNeil-Jannssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. press release on the updated Ortho Evra prescribing information here.

Ortho Evra is Harmful website

http://www.ortho-evra-deaths.com

Jill Stanek - BC patch prey

h/t: Jill Stanek

I did a mix of portraits with lots of crowd shots because I wanted you all to see what it is like to be there. To see larger photos with captions, go here.

Please pass this link on!

Click here to view the live video feed of the Blogs for Life conference

7:45 Kevin McCullough, looking very tired after driving down from NY at 2:00am, opens the conference. Thank you Kevin for making the early morning trip.

7:50 Barbara Curtis

Barbara, of Mommylife.net and author of several books, gives seven pointers for pro-life bloggers:

1. Increase your compassion
2. Study your culture
3. Serve your community (get outside of your Church)
4. Find common ground
5. Improve your communication - drop jargon, etc
6. Prepare for confrontation - make sure you do your homework
7. Trust your creator

8:15 Jill Stanek

Jill Stanek, the former nurse who helped expose the born alive abortions at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, gives tips on how to bloggers can grow their blog.

Concerning blogs, Jill notes "If you feed it, they will come"

She also makes a point that blogs must be meaningful, and that it's better to say nothing than to say something inaccurate. She also stresses the importance of hat tips and crediting authors when their material is used in a blogger's posting.

8:30 Dawn Eden

Dawn talks about how to find news tips by searching Technorati.com. She also mentions about a press release concerning the blessing of an abortion clinic.

8:50 Michelena Fredenburg

Michelelna speaks about the website Abortion Changes You as well as her personal experience with abortion healing.

9:10 Peter Shinn

Peter Shinn, one of the founders Blogs4Life and Prolifeunity.com, talks about how the Blogs4Life conference was formed. He talks about how we have to win this battle and how we have to use technology to help win this battle. Peter says that the movement needs to come together on a regular basis, and to put differences in faith aside.

9:19 Michael Illions

Michael talks about a how a prenatal screening disclosed that their unborn child had fluid in his brain (hydrocephelus), and they couldn't see his brain at all. The "counseling" that doctors gave them was to terminate the pregnancy - 10 NOs wasn't enough, 100 NOs wasn't either, and the even told him about Tiller's "services" in Wichita, KS. He details how they prepared for their son's birth and arrival at their home, and how Fr. Peter West of Priests for Life provided encouragement during this difficult time. Their beautiful child, who doctors tried to get them to abort, was at the conference as well.

9:39 Senator Sam Brownback

Senator Brownback talks about the decline in abortion and rise in birth rates and how the March For Life is largely made up of young people. The Senator mentions that the enemy is not pro-choice activists or abortion doctors, but rather death, despair and fear.

10:00am Maggie Datiles, Esq.

Maggie, Staff Counsel at Americans United for Life, discusses the overall trends in 2007. She spoke about the Oklahoma Omnibus Measure, which amended Oklahoma's definition of abortion to include the use of abortifacients and funded crisis pregnancy centers. Maggie discusses NY RHAPP, which would prohibit a state ban on partial-birth abortion, consent laws, etc.

10:20am Dr. Michael New

Dr. New on the "good news about abortion." His primary observations as follows:

1) Why study Pro-Life Legislation? First, to adopt better legislative strategies. Second, to document the real pro-life progress taking place. Third, to continually strengthen the case for pro-life political activity.
2) Declining Abortion Rates. Abortion rates are falling. Why? Well, NOT because of the election and re-election of President Clinton. More because of pro-life legislation on local levels. Also, in '92, Casey V. Planned Parenthood provided an opportunity to reconsider PP's activities constitutionally. Also, Republicans start to win more state legislature seats.
3) The Academic literature is normally insuffitient or slanted, or both.
4) Outside the literature, it is difficult, but not impossible, to find the raw statistics.
5) The only conclusion from the data is that abortion rates are down significantly.
6) Pro-life legislation does not occur in a vacuum - it is often caused by pro-life mentalities in the populace and among the lawmakers and lobbyists.
7) New also summarized a great deal of case studies.
8) Laws like informed consent and parental notification impact the bottom line for abortion numbers in a noticable, even dramatic manner.
9) Conclusion: The recent laws that have been passed are helping drive down abortion rates and ratios. In other words: "We Have Made Progress."

10:30 Judy Brown, president of ALL
1) ALL just launched a new website.
2) We focus on education, and we dont get involved in politics.
3) The internet is the wave of the future regarding education, discussion, and debate.
4) We need to be totally commited to reaching out to the American public, one person at a time.

10:48 Phil Kline

Phile Kline talks about how Planned Parenthood and the Guttmacher Institute detail their work with providing abortion and contraception services to children under the age of consent. He also spoke of the corruption and the soon to be former Attorney General of Kansas.

11:15 Congressman Chris Smith

Congressman Smith talks about Planned Parenthood and how they are "Child Abuse Incorporated." He talks about efforts to end Title X funding for Planned Parenthood. Congressman Smith also spoke about how abortion organizations are trying to hijack HIV/AIDS funding for Africa to include "reproductive health" spending.

11:32 Hadley P. Arkes

Amherst Professor Arkes spoke about people who insist that Roe v. Wade has to be overruled before anything else can be done. He spoke about how Roe can be slowly cut back with restrictions that most people find to be reasonable. Dr. Arkes also discussed how President Bush did not want to take a leadership position on abortion, but instead asked that Congress take the lead. He pointed out many times that President Bush can take a leadership position on late term abortions, one that will put the pro-abortion Democrats in a serious bind, but refuses to.

Greetings from Washington D.C. on this 35th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion in the United States

Here's a link to my commentary "Violating the rights of the unborn" published on the Opinion page in today's Philadelphia Inquirer, if you would like to read it.

The Inquirer published "Let's support a set of choices" by Melissa Weiler Gerber and Ann Fessler, opposite my essay.

Gotta run.

I'm off to Blogs4Life this morning, followed by the March for Life.

More to come on March and activities here in DC later...

(c) 2008 Marybeth T. Hagan

Crossposting with http://www.prolifeblogs.com

The FRC is broadcasting the event as it happens - click here.

From March for Life

On January 22, 1974, the first March for Life was held on the West Steps of the Capitol. An estimated 20,000 committed pro-life Americans rallied that day on behalf of our pre-born brothers and sisters.

Tomorrow is the date of the 35th March for Life in Washington DC. Last year there were over 200,000 in attendance and this year there will be more.

The event marks a sad anniversary in our nation's history, one that reflects the most despicable elements of this post-modern society. The March reflects the grass-root redemptive efforts of those with the resolve to end the barbaric era of child killing. I hope you have the opportunity to take a stand tomorrow for those without a voice by joining the March for Life.

P.S. Before the March for Life why not drop in on the Blogs4Life Conference?

Just a FYI and correction for the rss feeds...

The conference is on Tuesday, the 22nd of January. (The previous announcement and e-mail had listed Monday the 21st as the date of the conference...)

See you there!!

The Third Annual Blogs4Life Conference (blogs4life.com ) is scheduled for January 22, 2008 in Washington DC. I'm writing with some exciting news with the hope that you'll be able to attend.

The Family Research Council is providing a first class meeting facility just a few blocks from the annual March for Life, the massive pro-life event which draws tens of thousands of pro-lifers (some estimate the crowd at well over 100,000) . A morning session is scheduled before the March with over a dozen well-known pro-life speakers including Kevin McCullough, Jill Stanek, Judie Brown, Eric Scheidler, Barbara Curtis, Dawn Eden, Phill Kline, Michael New, Michael Illions, Maggie Datiles, Michelena Fredenburg, Peter Shinn and Rep. Chris Smith.

Yes, it will be action-packed and lively!

An afternoon session from Noon to 4 PM will be held in a luxurious room close to the Capitol building overlooking the March for Life. Internet access will be provided for live-blogging and a 50-inch flat screen monitor will broadcast the Rally and March for Life as it occurs. In addition, several pro-life leaders will be available for interviews and commentary.

If you plan to attend, please let us know by registering at Blogs4Life.com. Space in the afternoon session is limited and will be provided on a first-come, first-serve basis.

More Information: Blogs4Life.com

Washington, D.C. - Former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline will join Family Research Council's Blogs for Life, on Tuesday, January 22, 2008. In addition to General Kline, the conference will feature several prominent conservative voices including Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ), Amherst College Professor Hadley P. Arkes, Eric Scheidler, Michael Illions, Dawn Eden and Jill Stanek, all speaking with bloggers live from Family Research Council's headquarters.

Throughout his career as both legislator and attorney, General Kline has fought to protect women and the unborn by demanding legal and medical accountability in the abortion industry. He was recognized as "Legislator of the Year" by Kansas' developmentally disabled and mental health communities. He currently serves as District Attorney in Johnson County, Kansas.

Who: Phill Klein, Former Kansas Attorney General
Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ)
Hadley P. Arkes, Edward N. Ney Professor in American Institutions at Amherst College
Eric Scheidler, Communications Director for the Pro-Life Action League, Chicago, IL
Michael Illions, blogger for Conservatives with Attitude
Jill Stanek, pro-life blogger and speaker

Where: Family Research Council Media Center
801 G. Street, NW Washington, DC 20001

RSVP: online at www.blogs4life.com (click on "Register")

The Catholic Information Center, downtown Washington's "street parish" -- thought to be the first U.S. Catholic bookstore on Facebook -- is poised to be "Blogger Central" on the day of the 2008 March for Life, with free wireless Internet, a 15% discount for pro-life bloggers, and a tea party, plus celebrity book and DVD signings.

"Our store and chapel have traditionally been a respite stop for March-for-Life participants," noted CIC manager Kevin Jones. "This year, we wanted to do something more, so--since we already offer free wireless internet--we decided to create some special incentives to encourage marchers to show their support for the Culture of Life on the web."

The 15% discount for pro-life bloggers will apply all day on January 21-22. To receive the discount, pro-life bloggers must register in advance by e-mailing their name and blog URL to info@cicdc.org by Friday, January 18. On the day of the march, those who have registered may give their name to the CIC cashier to receive the discount on anything the store sells, including books, rosaries, jewelry, prayer cards, religious decorations, and stationery.

Jill Stanek, the person who came up with the idea of the afternoon event at 1st & Constitution in the first place, along with Americans United for Life and Defend Life, have put up the rest of the money that was needed to cover all expenses.

We are going to arrange for Pro-Life leaders to show up after 2:00 pm for discussion and interviews. You won't want to miss out on this!

The afternoon session on January 22nd is available to the public at no cost on a first come, first serve basis. Click here to sign up for either session, but make sure to specify if you are coming to one or both.

Yesterday, the Associated Press reported some news laced with hope here in The Philadelphia Inquirer.

There's a "baby boomlet" in the United States. Nearly 4.3 million babies (the highest number since 1961) were born in 2006.

Experts attributed the jump to an increasing U.S. Hispanic population that tends to bear more children, plus "a decline in contraceptive use, a drop in access to abortion, poor education and poverty," according to the AP.

Hmmm!

Today, the Chicago Tribune reports "Abortions at 30 year low."

Despite an increase in the number of women of reproductive age, the actual number of abortions also has dropped in the last 15 years, from a high of 1.6 million in 1990 to 1.3 million in 2000 and 1.2 million in 2005.

Might I add the unmentionable, that perhaps women are increasingly choosing life over abortion for their babies?

Indeed, I will.

(c) 2008 Marybeth T. Hagan

Note to readers: Hope to see you at the March for Life.

Crossposting with http://www.mothermayibeborn.com

There are five days left before the March for Life!

FaithMouse has completed its Blogs4Life 2008 masterpiece:

According to the report Abortion in the United States: Incidence and Access to Services, 2005 published by the Guttmacher Institute in the journal Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, the abortion rate is at its lowest level in over 30 years.

Noticeably missing from the report was the significant decline since 1991 in the percentage of teens who reported ever having had sexual intercourse. Evidence of the decline is detailed in a recent report provided by the Federal Interagency on Child and Family Statistics. The report shows that in 2005, the percentages of students who had reported ever having had sexual experience had significantly dropped since 1991. In 2005, the percentages of those who reported such experience were:

• 34.3 percent of 9th graders, down from 39.0 in 1991
• 42.8 percent of 10th graders, down from 48.2 in 1991
• 51.4 percent of 11th graders, down from 62.4 in 1991
• 63.1 percent of 12th graders, down from 66.7 in 1991

Furthermore, the recent report Emerging Answers 2007, which made headlines across the nation in news stories critiquing abstinence until marriage programs, also details this significant decline:

The overall decline in teen pregnancy in the 1990s reflects both a decrease in sexual activity among teens and an improvement in contraceptive use among sexually experienced teens. However, estimates of the relative contribution of greater abstinence and better contraceptive use vary with the time periods studied, the data sources examined, and the statistical methods used. Careful analyses generally suggest that about 15 percent to 50 percent of the decrease is due to fewer girls having sex, and 50 percent to 85 percent is due to better contraceptive use (Kirby, 2007, p. 30)

Increased abstinence prevents pregnancy and abortion, yet the authors of the report, all associated with the Guttmacher Institute and well aware of the impact of abstinence on pregnancy rates, chose to leave this fact out of their article.

Ignoring the contribution in the decline of sexually experienced teens only serves to overinflate the effectiveness of contraception - and given the fact that the authors are well aware of the increase in abstinence, it appears this wasn't an accidental oversight. This shouldn't be a surprise, since the abstinence until marriage message isn't a big money maker for Planned Parenthood, the parent company of the Guttmacher Institute.

Sources:

Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics (2007), America's Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2007. Federal Interagency of Child and Family Statistics, Washington, DC: Us Government Printing Office. Retrieved July 13, 2007 from http://childstats.gov/pdf/ac2007/appendices.pdf.

Kirby, D (2007). Emerging Answers 2007: Research findings on Programs to Reduce Teen Pregnancy and Sexually Transmitted Diseases, National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, Washington, DC. Retrieved November 8, 2007, from http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/EA2007/EA2007_full.pdf .

Few are as poignant as Cal Thomas in articulating the devastating impact abortion has had on the United States:

Thirty-five years after the Supreme Court unilaterally struck down state laws restricting abortion, the cost of that decision continues to increase our moral deficit, which will have far greater (and eternal) consequences than the impact from economic challenges during a possible recession.

Depending on how one counts the number of abortions per year since 1973, more than 50 million people who might have been are not. These were people who, regardless of the circumstances of the women who carried them, had the potential to contribute to the country and to the world. But now they cannot, because they are not. Would we be fighting the battle over immigration had we not rid ourselves of a generation of humans who likely would have done the work for which we are now importing illegal aliens? Actions have consequences.

Abortion was not a cause, but a reflection of our decadence and deviancy. One does not begin to kill babies until other dominos have fallen. And once they have fallen, it becomes difficult to set them aright because to do so would require an admission of something so horrible that those responsible for this fetal holocaust would have to acknowledge their sin and repent of it. Such a thing is not a character trait of this most pampered generation.

HT: Vital Signs

The Kansas Coalition for Life has released the 2008 Pro-Life Signature Ad/Petition. A signature ad is very similar to a petition in that it contains a statement and is signed by a number of people. A signature ad is published in newspapers or other publications.

The 2008 Pro-Life Signature Ad calls for the elimination of taxpayer funding of organizations that promote abortion. To see the full statement and add your name to the petition, please visit:

http://www.kcfl.net/kcfl/index.php?page=2

KCFL has also released a promotional video for the ad.

Walk Me to Midnight by Jane St. Clair is a new pro-life novel from Capstone Fiction. It is a chilling medical thriller guaranteed to keep you up reading all nightlong until you reach the horrifying conclusion. Available January 1, 2008 from Amazon and Barnes and Noble.

Q. How did you come to write Walk Me to Midnight?

First, I was with my mother, sister and father during their long deaths by cancer. I was with them when they died. They were very vulnerable, but the hospice nurses knew what to do and how to help us. That's why I dedicated Walk Me to Midnight to hospice nurses.

Second, I was doing a lot of crime writing and became very interested in forensic science. I wrote two Law and Order television scripts and one CSI that placed high in national contests. I wanted to do a pro-life thriller.

The American Family Association (AFA) has released it's Voter Guide for the 2008 Presidential Primary. The outcry must have been mighty, because the AFA rewrote it and released it again. The specific issues are designed to highlight differences in the positions of the GOP candidates.

The first edition, which only included the top 6 Republican candidates, gave the candidates' positions on the Human Life Amendment (HLA) as an indication of whether they were pro-life. Only Mike Huckabee supports the HLA.

The American Life League has generously contributed to the afternoon Blogs4Life at the Front Lines event. This contribution along with the FRC sponsorship and 1 more potential donor will allow us to offer the afternoon session at no cost on a first come, first serve basis.

Click here to go to the Blogs4Life afternoon session page for more information on this event

When the Founding Fathers wrote the Declaration of Independence more than 200 years ago, they clearly spelled out that all persons have the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," and that these inalienable rights come from our "Creator."

They would be shocked to see how a series of rogue Supreme Court Justices trampled the Constitution and divided our nation over one word: life. They deny the fundamental civil rights of unborn babies.

A bipartisan coalition of the Georgia General Assembly adopted several life saving laws for unborn babies over the past three years, and now is the time to clearly define who has the right to life.

Article one of the Georgia Constitution states, "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property except by due process of law." The Human Life Amendment (H.R. 536) declares the dignity of human life from the mother's womb throughout all phases of life.

My family and I recently watched Amazing Grace, a film about the life and work of William Wilberforce. Wilberforce, an English politician of the late 18th to early 19th century, dedicated his life to the principal that all men of every race are created equal and are equally endowed with the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Fighting tirelessly for decades against what at first seemed an impossible battle, the work of Wilberforce and his abolitionist comrades eventually led to the Slave Trade Act of 1807 and paved the way for the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833, which ended the practice of slavery throughout the British Empire.

In one of the film's many memorable scenes, Wilberforce is gambling against the Duke of Clarence. When he runs out of cash, the Duke calls for his carriage driver, a Black slave, who he offers as a part of his wager. Disgusted, Wilberforce throws down his hand and leaves the scene. How dare a man offer another man as chattel, worth nothing more than a few pounds at the market? When one people disregards the personhood of another people group, such loathsome scenes become a part of reality.

I was intimately involved in the five-year process to pass the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act, testifying before committees twice that then-state Sen. Barack Obama sat on.

Following are 10 excuses Obama has given through the years for voting "present" and "no" on on BAIPA.

10. Babies who survive abortions are not protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

Obama, the sole opponent ever to speak against BAIPA, stated on the Illinois Senate floor on March 30, 2001....

8. Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a doctor's prerogative.

An Obama spokesman told the Chicago Tribune in August 2004....

5. Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a religious issue.

During his U.S. Senate contest against Obama, Alan Keyes famously said....

And the No. 1 reason Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was....

Continue reading my column today, "Obama's 10 reasons for supporting infanticide," on WorldNetDaily.com.

Gov. Mike Huckabee is arguably the best choice for pro-life voters. Yes, he supports passage of a constitutional amendment to protect the right to life and opposes research on embryonic stem cells.

However, since his win in Iowa he's been the target of negative attacks by Republican conservatives who parrot the talking points of his political opponents. Joe Carter lays-out Huckabee's Problem:

Huckabee's Problem (Part I) -- Romney's win in MI helps clear a path for Huckabee to win SC. But I'm not so sure it matters anymore.

A large section of the GOP has made it quite clear that they will do whatever it takes to ensure that the hillbilly preacher doesn't win the nomination. Many of them--and we all know who they are--will lie about his record and his positions in order to put an end to his campaign. They know that while they may lose the trust of a few people, most will let them get away with the deceit since "that's politics."

Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund filed a lawsuit and motion for preliminary injunction in federal court Monday against a local high school after it denied a student pro-life club the same access to privileges that all other student groups on campus enjoy.

"Public schools should recognize the constitutional rights of pro-life students just as they do for all other students," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel David Cortman. "The high school is clearly engaging in viewpoint discrimination when it denies this pro-life group the right to the same privileges extended to other student groups. Schools cannot deny student clubs these privileges just because not everyone agrees with the message."

In October, a student attending Westmont High School submitted a written request to school officials requesting to start a pro-life club. The club was denied official status along with all rights, benefits, and privileges that all other recognized student clubs receive. When she informed school officials that the club's official name would be "Live Action - Pro-Life Club," The school officials also allegedly denied the club any avenue to promote the club on campus, including even telling other students about its existence because it was "too controversial."

Stephen Martin writes in the Indianapolis Star: On Jan. 22 we will observe the 35th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision on abortion. Since 1973, 50 million unborn children have been killed. Where is the shock? Where is the outrage? Where is the sadness?

By Ruben Obregon

MRSA TOUTED AS THE "NEW HIV"
 

A study to be published in the February 19 edition of the Annals of Internal Medicine found that a multi drug resistant strain of staph is common among homosexuals in certain locales, and that this infection might be sexually transmitted.
 

It appears that this strain of staph is spreading through the gay community in  San Francisco and Boston.  

According to the study, the strain, known as USA 300 Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA), is possibly being transmitted via sexual contact.  It revealed that in San Francisco, gay men are 13 times more likely to be infected than others in their community.

Forgive me if I'm late in noting this widely reported news item.

(Thought you would find it more upbeat than a post about Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's petty abortion-related bickering.)

This news about the growing movement of men who regret the loss of their children to abortions past first ran in the Los Angeles Times on January 7 under the headline "Changing abortion's pronown." LA Times' Staff Writer Stephanie Simon penned the story. It's here.

Variations of the original story were published in other newspapers.

On January 10, the story appeared here in The Mercury News of San Hose under the headline "Men aim to alter abortion debate." The Houston Chronicle ran it here on January 12, headlined "Activists hope to make abortion a man's issue, too." The next day, The Boston Globe published the story here under the original LA Times' headline. The News Tribune of Tacoma, Washington dubbed the story "Men saddened by abortion begin to speak out." Look for that version here (no date on website).

Other publications and blogs also carried or noted the story.

That's a lot of information about another aspect of abortion that many folks might have never considered. Whether or not the story meets pro-life approval, it raises volumes of awareness on the fact that abortion stings some men in ways never anticipated.

Such coverage will surely help those men who've remained silent about their abortion-related regrets. It might also make others think twice about being partners to abortion.

Media members who wrote and ran this story deserve credit.

(c) 2008 Marybeth T. Hagan

Crossposting with http://www.mothermayibeborn.com

Americans United for Life (AUL) today released its fifth annual ranking of the most and least pro-life states based on laws in the states. For the third year in a row, Michigan topped the list, followed by Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Kansas.

"These states have made great strides in protecting women and their children from the negative consequences of abortion," said Denise M. Burke, AUL's Vice President & Legal Director.

While AUL's criteria covers each state's treatment of all life issues, the final ranking depends largely on each state's enactment of prudent and well-supported laws that fence in the abortion license granted by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1973 decision, Roe v. Wade. Among the laws that AUL looks for are informed consent, parental involvement for minors, abortion clinic regulations, and funding limitations on the use of public monies for abortion.

On January 22nd, Blogs4Life will be continuing on in the afternoon on the day of the March for Life at 1st and Constitution from noon until 4:00 pm. Pro-Life Unity along with Jill Stanek and the Family Research Council have secured a room that is perfect for us to blog in and more. What's so special about this location?

Click here to continue reading at Blogs4Life.com

Thanking God this morning that perhaps now in the era of YouTube, we can begin to shine the light on the truth of Planned Parenthood:

As a former pro-abortion leader who'd spread Planned Parenthood's lies, in 1988 I read an investigative report by George Grant, called Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood. If you want all the facts, you might want to read it. I notice there's a copy available at Paperback Swap (make sure you get the right author). There is also a 2000 edition available at Amazon:

It's really time to get serious about fighting this agent of destruction in our culture. Time to stop squabbling over the meaning of specific Bible passages and enjoying our comfortable home groups and start fighting for the hearts of our youth. Many moms who read this blog have told me they were brought up with the myth of Planned Parenthood as a beneficent organization - not to mention the whole ethos of "choice" and yet, after reconsidering in light of the facts and ideas shared here and elsewhere, have rethought their position.

Roe v Wade occurred in 1973. A lot has been revealed about the development of human life and a lot has happened: 4D ultrasound, prenatal surgery to save baby's lives, Laci Peterson. It now seems self-evident that abortion is murder. But in our country today a mother has the legal right to murder her baby if she doesn't want it. If she kills the baby it's okay. If the father kicks her in the stomach and kills the baby, he goes to jail. Does it seem right that one person can hold the keys to life or death over another innocent being?

Readers, wherever you are on this issue, I ask you in the next couple weeks - as we apporach Roe v. Wade's anniversary January 22, to rethink your position. If you've always thought of yourself as pro-choice, you might want to spend some time examining the philosophical/moral/ethical issues - as well as considering the enormous amount of brainwashing that occurs because abortion is actualla Big Business in this country.

If you consider yourself pro-life, what can you do to awaken other people to this holocaust - one quarter of babies conceived since 1973 have been killed - with a much heavier toll in the black community (which makes the specter of pro-abortion black politicians - especially those who claim to follow Christ so creepy).

For starters, why not pass on this truly great YouTube video from American Life League. And thanks, ALL!

Once again, I was reminded of the need for pro-lifers to handle abortion comments with care during my recent pro-life presentation as a volunteer speaker for Pennsylvanians for Human Life.

Together, PHL's director Martha Short and I addressed five classes (six counting the group that included two classes) at Council Rock High School South in Bucks County, Pa. We spoke to seniors.

The students were curious, thoughtful, respectful and sometimes challenging in their questions. It was a wonderful exchange of ideas and viewpoints -- education at its best.

In one class, two young women's body language suggested mild hostility toward Martha and me. Such expressions from students concern us. For PHL's director and I agree that a young people might be defensive about abortion based upon a personal experience or a personal loyalty.

As the end of the class period neared, the bolder of the two cold-shouldered students raised her hand and asked us if we felt negatively towards women who had had abortions. Martha and I assured her that we did not. We explained that post-abortive women are a concern due to the problems which we know many women experience.

Then I suggested that if any of them know someone who has had an abortion, they might want to keep an eye on their friend to be sure that she is OK. And, if she seems out of sorts, then I asked them to please find help for her in the way of a trusted adult or counselor.

Both girls relaxed their faces. One smiled. The other unlaced her tightly crossed arms and legs. The ice melted.

If healing is in order, may it begin.

(c) 2008 Marybeth T. Hagan

Crossposting with http://www.mothermayibeborn.com

Bill and Hillary Clinton recently complained the press has not scrutinized Barack Obama's "poetry" and "fairy tales."

Yesterday several political pundits anticipated that any day now MSM will begin knocking Obama off the pedestal upon which they have placed him, particularly in light of the Clintons' criticism and the embarrassment of their pollsters getting the NH primary so wrong.

That day has arrived. Finally.

From ABC News today, titled, "The abortion vote the GOP is planning to use to bring down Obama":

.... Republican operatives have been examining Obama's record in Springfield, Illinois, and think they have caught Obama voting the wrong side of an abortion bill that will turn off the public "like partial birth abortion cubed," in the words of one GOP operative.

The bill would have required medical care for babies born during unsuccessful abortions - an issue no Democrat trying to win over independents and Republicans would want to spend any time discussing.

The Republican party, of course, plans on attacking whoever wins the Democratic nomination.... Whoever wins will be painted as too liberal for America.

But Obama's abortion vote, the GOP hopes, may prove to be the sort that Clinton alludes to when she suggests he has not been vetted, his having been blessed by the Gods of Fate during his 2004 US Senate campaign....

Republicans suspect Americans will find the vote indicative of out-of-the-mainstream liberal views.....

The mainstream media makes much hay about conservatives being split between candidates but none whatsoever about liberals being split - particularly abortion proponents.

Most notably, Planned Parenthood affiliates are divided between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

The rift was readily demonstrated in New Hampshire last weekend where the fight really took off over which of the two was more ardently pro-abortion. We even saw battling PPers in the same article. From the Concord Monitor, yesterday:

A glossy flier sent out over the weekend said Obama voted "present" instead of "yes" or "no" on anti-abortion legislation in the Illinois state Senate. Yesterday's letter - signed by leaders from state affiliates of Planned Parenthood... reiterated the criticism.

Obama launched an automated phone message from a Planned Parenthood official, defending his support for abortion rights Sunday....

The call was made by Wendy Frosh, chair of PP in Northern New England, who suddenly thereafter took a "leave of absence" from PPNNE and has issued an e-mail apologizing for "the confusion."

Love it.

I also love the argument, much of which revolves around Obama's fence-sitting votes as Illinois state senator for the Born Alive Infants Protection Act....

Continue reading my column today, "Obama's 'present' danger," on WorldNetDaily.com.

Day Gardner, president of the National Black Pro-Life Union, has this to say about recent accolades Barack Obama received:

I was very disturbed by an article published on January 7, 2008 in The Atlanta Journal which stated that Sen. Barack Obama garnered praise and prayers from several African-American pulpits for his landmark victory in the Iowa caucuses. I can't help but wonder... what are these pastors thinking? Of course, we all need prayer, that part was okay, but praise? I had to ask myself, do they realize what this man stands for?

Yes, blacks have continued to make great strides in breaking down color barriers and the walls of inequality and by the grace of God, some feel we have earned bragging rights with regard to our accomplishments. But, in our efforts to be bigger, brighter and best--I worry many of us have forgotten a huge part of what our struggle was all about. Racial equality was only part of it--the other part had to do with civil rights for ALL of our people.

Senator Obama doesn't care that abortion has obliterated the rights of more than 15 million black children since 1973. He doesn't care that abortion is the number one killer of African Americans surpassing deaths caused by accidents, heart disease, stroke, crimes, HIV-AIDS and all other deaths...combined!

He won't make one of his powerful speeches decrying the injustice of abortion providers as they plant killing centers firmly in black communities--making it easier to kill black children. Instead, he actually applauds their efforts! These children are denied their most basic human right -which is the right to life; a right which our ancestors so proudly worked for, marched for and many of them died for.

For those men and women who believe they are by God called to be ministers of the word, I ask them: What about God's plans for unborn children? Jeremiah 1:5 says: Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest out of the womb I sanctified thee; Psalm 139 states: Thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee for I am fearfully and wonderfully made--my substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of thee earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being imperfect...

Unfortunately, Barack Obama supports the ruthless culture of death--one that includes killing the smallest Americans--too small to flee or fight back leaving the black church to contemplate Obama or the word of God, i.e. Jesus or Barabbas.

Mrs. Clinton,

When I read of the pamphlets that your campaign distributed in New Hampshire regarding your and your opponent Barack Obama's voting records on abortion, I was tickled pink.

Your claims of being more in favor of abortion that Obama, as reported by the Associated Press here, were priceless.

I don't remember hearing other politicians brag so openly about the being responsible for playing a part in permenantly ending so many pregnancies. (There have been more than 48 million abortions performed since legalization in 1973.)

What a bold move!

You not only raised awareness about your superiority in promoting abortion, but also Obama's. As the AP noted, your rival received a 100 percent approval rating from Illinois Planned Parenthood Council for his support of abortion rights.

Obama's campaign handlers also boasted about their guy's 20 years of "reproductive rights activism in a recorded phone message from Planned Parenthood of Northern New England to folks in New Hampshire, as LifeSite reported here.

Now the public can see both your and Obama's true colors on the issue of abortion. Some African-American leaders are taking note.

As CNSNews reports, here, "Experts" like LEARN's [blackgenocide.org] Rev. Clenard Childress, who lament the loss of more than 1,400 African-American babies each day to abortion, are deeply disturbed by Obama's record on abortion. And, they are spreading the word.

No doubt, these leaders and their supporters would never vote for Obama, or you, even though you have given them the opportunity to educate folks about the damage abortion does to the black community.

So, thanks again for raising our awareness about your and Obama's undying support of the right to abort.

Although this was surely not your intent, you've given both pro-life types and other people with reservations about abortion good reasons not to jump on Obama's or your bandwagon.

Marybeth Hagan

(c) Marybeth T. Hagan

Crossposting with http://www.mothermayibeborn.com

Pro-life Women Jailed for Having Begged an Abortionist to Quit a Decade Ago - One faces five months in jail while another has been sentenced to serve eight months behind bars.

LINCOLN, Nebraska, January 4, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Pro-life activists Shari McKee and Melissa Abbink were jailed on December 28th, 2007, for speaking to Lincoln abortionist Winston Crabb on two occasions in front of his home 10 years ago. Abbink faces five months in jail while McKee has been sentenced to serve eight months behind bars.

According to Operation Rescue, in February, 1998, both were charged with violating the "focused picketing" ordinance even though neither had signs and both incidents lasted only a minute each. "Just long enough," said OR, "to plead for the lives of pre- born children as he walked from his car to his house."

After exhausting the appeals of the criminal cases, the convictions were upheld by the Nebraska Supreme Court on September 10, 1999. However, for reasons unknown, the mandate did not come down until September 28, 2005, over 6 years later.

The last two years have been spent seeking a commutation. The women's cases were brought before the Board of Pardons, which was very sympathetic, but refused to act because the Board does not review misdemeanor cases. The Board referred the cases to the Mayor of Lincoln, who has refused to act claiming he does not have the authority to grant commutations.

According to the women's attorneys, the Mayor clearly does have the authority to commute misdemeanor sentences.

"We are asking pro-lifers to write to Mayor Beutler and ask him to commute the sentences of these two women," said Larry Donlan, Director of Rescue the Heartland. "Be sure to point out that the Pardon Board says he has the authority to do so. Be polite and remember, it is a commutation that we are after, not a pardon. Like the parable of the widow, we are seeking justice for these two brave, God-fearing women. Only Mayor Beutler has that ability to grant that justice. He can do so by merely picking up the phone."

Mayor Chris Beutler
555 South 10th, 2nd Floor Rm 208,
Lincoln, NE 68508
Fax: 402-441-7120
E-mail: mayor@lincoln.ne.gov

Melissa Abbink
4420 NW 41st
Lincoln, NE 68524

Sharon McKee
1125 E. 17th St.
Columbus, NE 68601

From LifeSite yesterday:

Clinton to Obama: You're not as Pro-Abortion as Me

Planned Parenthood in Northern New England counters that Obama "was a leader and activist in reproductive rights for more than 20 years"

By John Connolly

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire, January 7, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Following her crushing defeat in Iowa, Hillary Clinton has decided to attack Barack Obama on different ground: she is claiming that he is not as committed to abortion as she is, hoping to cast doubt that Obama is pro-abortion enough to make an acceptable Democratic president.

In a recent mailing to voters in New Hampshire, Hillary criticizes Obama for voting "present" instead of in favor of pro-abortion legislature on seven occasions. The mailer claims Clinton is a person who will "stand up for women's right to choose."

Obama has received a rating of 100% from Planned Parenthood, based on his voting record as an Illinois senator.

Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said the campaign decided to send the piece because "as Senator Obama has said, 'Voting records matter.'"

"The Clinton campaign's false negative attacks were rejected by Iowa voters, and we expect that they'll suffer the same fate here in New Hampshire," said Bill Burton, spokesman for Obama.

Obama responded to Hillary's mailer with an automated call, a procedure that the Clinton campaign has cried foul over, claiming automated calls are illegal in presidential primaries.

"Hi this is Wendy Frosh, chair of the board of Planned Parenthood in Northern New England," says the call. "As people have begun to rally around Barack Obama's call for change, the false attacks have begun. He was a leader and activist in reproductive rights for more than 20 years, I know the facts. Barack has a 100% pro-choice record and has always been a champion for women's rights. Hillary Clinton's last minute smears won't protect the right to choose. But as president, Barack Obama will. Please join me in supporting Barack Obama this Tuesday. Thank you. Paid for by Obama for America."

Sheesh. Fighting over who supports abortion more. How tacky.

According to an article in the Telegraph, Britain has the highest amount of underage sex in Europe:

More children are having sex in Britain than in any other country in Europe, according to World Health Organisation figures published on Monday.

Girls outstrip boys in the numbers prepared to have sex aged 15 or younger - leading to 20 of them getting pregnant each day.
...
And more than 15 per cent of the teenagers in England fail to use contraception.

The report, to be published in the journal Archives of Paediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, highlights the continued failure of Labour's pledge to halve pregnancies among 16- and 17-year-olds by 2010.
...
In response, the Government has announced a raft of measures, including personal contraception counsellors to stop teenage mothers from getting pregnant again.

You would think by now that people would start to recognize that efforts to separate pregnancy from sex, at least among unmarried teens, have been a bust. But no, these people are calling for more of the same failed policies instead of admitting that unmarried teens, sex, and contraception are a bad combination. As long as this is the case, expect teen pregnancy to be a significant problem now and in the future.

According to the latest data (2005) from the New York State Department of Health, of the 22,915 pregnancies among 15-19 year old females in New York City, 13,670 were aborted and only 8,387 babies were born. [1]

Across of the entire state, the situation is the similar - of the 39,036 pregnancies among 15-19 year olds, 20,880 were aborted and 17,036 were born alive.

Note: figures do not account for spontaneous fetal deaths or for marital status.

And for those who deny that abortion is used as birth control, consider the astounding number of repeat abortions:

That means that out of the out of the 20,880 abortions among those aged 15-19, 5,558 were repeats - almost 27%. Of the 35,826 abortions among 20-24 year olds for 2005, 17,559 were repeats - nearly 50%!

Somebody please tell me that these figures are incorrect, or that I made a serious error in calculating the percentages - I simply find these numbers staggering and would be more than happy to be wrong...

More commentary on this data at a later date...

Sources

[1] Table 30: Total Pregnancies and Teenage Pregnancies by Type and Resident County
[2] Table 20: Resident Induced Abortion by Woman's Age

How do the presidential candidates of both parties stand on the important issues? AdvanceUSA selected ten issues and compared the candidates. Now, after extensive research and production, AdvanceUSA proudly offers its Candidate Comparisons for the 2008 caucus and primary season.

AdvanceUSA hopes these resources help you make an informed decision in the upcoming presidential caucuses and primaries. If you find these helpful, please forward our Candidate Comparison page to your friends and family across the nation (especially those in early primary states).

Click on the links below to view or print your own copies.

COMING SOON: AdvanceUSA will introduce an online, interactive version of each Candidate Comparison so readers can view the sources for the candidates' stances. Be sure to bookmark this page so you can take advantage of this feature in the future.

The Democrats
View document

The Republicans
View document

It's the first Friday of the month & it's time to Call for Life!

Every month on the first Friday we call and/or email our representatives to let them know that they need to defend life by opposing abortion and human killing research. What do I say & who do I call? Go to MonthlyCallForLife.com for everything you need to know and do.

The unborn only have us. If we don't call for them, who will?

MonthlyCallForLife.com

United we stand - Divided they die - Pass it on

From across the pond...

BBC News notes here that abortion could "become a big factor in the [U.S.] 2008 election," especially for Republicans.

While the BBC analysis suggests that social issues like abortion might play a lesser role on voters' decisions than in the 2004 election, this statement on Republicans' priorities is noteworthy:

An August 2007 Pew study found that 43% of Republican and Republican-leaning voters said social issues would be "very important" in deciding who to vote for in 2008.

Maybe that's why we heard little about pro-choice Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani in last night's caucus in Iowa.

Perhaps that's why the most pro-life of the GOP pack, Mick Huckabee, won there.

(c) 2008 Marybeth T. Hagan

Crossposting with http://www.mothermayibeborn.com