What do you think of US Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's July 29 public statement in support of embryonic stem cell research in light of the fact he considers himself pro-life?

I am disappointed in Senator Bill Frist, to say the least. His announced position in favor of embryonic stem cell research today is not only unethical but nonsensical:

I am pro-life. I believe human life begins at conception. It is at this moment that the organism is complete -- yes, immature -- but complete. An embryo is nascent human life. It's genetically distinct. And it's biologically human. It's living. This position is consistent with my faith. But, to me, it isn't just a matter of faith. It's a fact of science.

Our development is a continuous process -- gradual and chronological. We were all once embryos. The embryo is human life at its earliest stage of development. And accordingly, the human embryo has moral significance and moral worth. It deserves to be treated with the utmost dignity and respect.

I also believe that embryonic stem cell research should be encouraged and supported. But, just as I said in 2001, it should advance in a manner that affords all human life dignity and respect -- the same dignity and respect we bring to the table as we work with children and adults to advance the frontiers of medicine and health.

In the first paragraph, Sen. Frist negated his statements supporting the sanctity of life with his "but." (Definition of "but": "On the contrary; on the other hand; only; yet; still; however; nevertheless; more; further; -- as connective of sentences or clauses of a sentence, in a sense more or less exceptive or adversative")

Sen. Frist is saying faith and science are at opposite ethical ends on the topic of embryonic stem cell experimentation, and he has chosen science.

Sen. Frist rationalized his choice in the second paragraph by saying embryos should be killed "with utmost dignity and respect."

And frankly, Frist's third paragraph makes absolutely no sense.

The entire text of Sen. Frist's speech is on page 2.

Concerned Women for America included this in a press release today:

"Last week's FDA announcement on RU-486 mentioned the deaths linked to RU-486, but neglected to release information about near-fatal adverse events," said [Wendy] Wright [CWA’s senior policy director]. Under the Freedom of Information Act , CWA received public documents listing over 600 adverse events. Two OB/GYNs who assessed the reports found they included 220 cases of hemorrhage that were either life-threatening or extremely serious, 71 of which required transfusions. Also, 392 reports indicate that a surgical procedure was done, many under emergency conditions.

The head of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists added this in an email alert:

Severe adverse events reporting is purely voluntary, goes thru Danco first, then to the FDA as Danco sees fit. Who in their right mind would think that the only deaths happened in one state?!

Reported The Guardian on July 26:

Suicide is the main cause of death among young adults in China, the state media said yesterday in a report that highlights the growing pressures to succeed in love, work and education in one of the world's fastest changing societies.

Referring a recent survey by the health ministry, the paper said that suicide was the fifth most common cause of death in China after lung cancer, traffic accidents, heart disease and other illnesses....

Newspapers are filled with stories of bright and wealthy college students - almost all of them single children because of the state's one-child policy - who kill themselves because they fear that they cannot fulfill their families' aspirations....

(The Chinese are allowed only one child per family. All other pregnancies are aborted.)

Hat tip: Lifesitenews.com

Reports Newsmax.com today:

If John Roberts is confirmed, he will be the fourth Roman Catholic on the Supreme Court, an all-time high that is focusing attention on how faith might influence law on the high court....

Two of the Catholics on the current court - Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas - are abortion foes. Scalia, whose son Paul is a priest, and Thomas are sometimes seen walking together to the court after attending Mass on holy days of obligation.

But the third Catholic - Anthony Kennedy - voted with the majority in a 5-4 ruling in 1992 reaffirming the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, despite some apparent inner turmoil. The late Justice Harry Blackmun said Kennedy worried "about the attention he would get as a Roman Catholic reaffirming Roe."

The lone Catholic on the Supreme Court when Roe was decided in 1973, William Brennan, supported liberal access to abortion....

From a July 26 Associated Press story:

[Attorney General Alberto] Gonzales also said that if [Judge John] Roberts were confirmed, he would not be bound by his past statement that the 1973 decision legalizing abortion is settled law.

Roberts testified before Congress in 2003 that he considers the Roe v. Wade decision "settled law." At the time, he had been nominated for the seat he now holds on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

But in his AP interview, Gonzales said circumstances had changed. "If you're asking a circuit court judge, like Judge Roberts was asked, yes, it is settled law because you're bound by the precedent," he said. "If you're a Supreme Court justice, that's a different question because a Supreme Court justice is not obliged to follow precedent if you believe it's wrong."

Ann Coulter began her column yesterday by pulling quotes of praise and scorn on a recent Supreme Court nominee one wouldn't expect to underpin her point: Just who is John Roberts?

David Limbaugh says to let John Roberts answer the questions: "I may be going against the conservative grain here, but I am not as bothered by the prospect of questions from Senate Judiciary Committee members seeking to determine how John Roberts' judicial philosophy might guide him in considering certain specific questions of constitutional law, including abortion...."

Dick Morris thinks President Bush's pick of Roberts was a strategically "brilliant" move against the Democrats, even though "we won't know until after he takes his seat and casts his vote [whether] Roberts [will] be the reliable pro-life vote that the Christian right hopes."

My column yesterday on WND.com, "The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation's death oath," drew attention to the JDRF's exploitation of sick children for funding and loyalty oath children are forced to sign to "embrace" embryonic stem cell research or shut up about it.

The National Organization for Women recently posted an Emergency Alert with the headline, "Bush Picks Anti-Roe Nominee... Women's Lives on the Line."

In the alert, NOW included the photos of four women it said "are the faces of women who died because they could not obtain safe and legal abortions," below, the obvious inference being that a Supreme Court reversal of Roe will cause women's deaths.

First, a reversal of Roe will only take the abortion decision back to the states, not outlaw abortion.

Second, if deaths from illegal abortions were so prevalent, why did NOW have to search back to 1929 to find one (Duvall) and 1940 for another (Shirley)?

The third, Becky Bell, died in 1988 - when abortion was legal. NOW championed Becky because she was 17 at the time of her death, and Indiana, where Becky lived, had recently passed a parental notification law. Even so, Becky could have obtained a legal abortion. All that said, the post-mortem report showed Becky died from pneumonia, not related to any abortion. In fact, that she even obtained an abortion in the first place is disputed, both by her best friend and also by the medical findings.

NOW's fourth example is Rosie Jiminez. Jiminez also died after abortion was legal, in 1979. Pro-aborts blame her death on the Hyde Amendment, which banned taxpayer funding for Medicaid abortions. Pro-aborts blame us for not paying for Jiminez's abortion rather than themselves for not extending "charity" to Jiminez. Furthermore, pro-aborts admit Jiminez died with a $700 scholarship check in her pocket that she "chose" not to use to procure a so-called "safe" abortion.

NOW's latter two examples would also make the point that legal access to abortion has not stopped bottom-bottom feeding abortionists (legal abortions being the bottom-feeders) from preying on desperate mothers.

Are you sure you want to go there, NOW?

From yesterday's BellevilleNewsDemocrat.com:

(Belleville is in southern Illinois, a Democrat-stronghold, i.e., Durbin territory.)

Wendy Wright, Senior Policy Director for Concerned Women for America, Washington, DC, just forwarded the following press release, adding that Manzullo "did a great job today chairing a hearing on the forcing of pharmacies to provide morning-after-pill":

Manzullo: Pharmacists Shouldn't Be Forced to Choose Between Their Business, Beliefs

Monday, July 25, 2005

(WASHINGTON) House Small Business Committee Chairman Don Manzullo (R-IL) today said pharmacists in several states face fines and possibly the loss of their business if they refuse to dispense certain birth control drugs that are against their beliefs.

Manzullo, who held a full committee hearing on the issue today, said five states currently require pharmacists to dispense the morning-after pill even if they oppose it on moral or religious grounds. At least two bills have been introduced in Congress to carry the mandate throughout the nation, even though several other states have specifically given pharmacists the right to refuse to dispense medication if they oppose it on moral or religious grounds.

Failure to comply with the proposed federal legislation and the state mandates could cost pharmacists heavy fines and even revocation of their licenses.

"Pharmacists shouldn't be forced to choose between their business and their beliefs," Manzullo said.

Instead of creating rules to punish pharmacists and put their businesses at risk, the states should seek ways to diffuse the confrontation between pharmacists and their customers. Manzullo suggested creating a list of pharmacists who will fill certain prescriptions that doctors can share with their patients before they try to have their prescriptions filled.

"The confrontation could be avoided completely if a patient knew for sure that a certain pharmacist would fill his or her prescription," Manzullo said.

Leon at RedState.org has handsomely critiqued the biased article in this month's Glamour Magazine entitled, "The mysterious disappearance of young pro-choice women." As Leon says, the piece provides pro-lifers with encouragement in an unintended way. Here's an example, a graph from the article:

About the Democrats' quandary regarding Roberts, Pruden wrote this in his July 22 column:

The shrewder Democratic pols and their brighter liege men in the media understand what has happened to them. First they lost their domination of the media; the New York Times, The Washington Post and the television networks no longer dictate what Americans read, watch and listen to, and now they're learning what happens when you lose a succession of national elections with no realistic hope of turning things around soon.

Experience teaches even Republicans a thing or two. Borking won't be so easy this time.

I'm tired of Republicans dancing around the Roe v. Wade issue, these days as it relates to John Roberts and the Supreme Court. What are they afraid of? Can we get a pro-lifer to the Supreme Court only by being stealth about it? I don't like it. There's nothing to be ashamed of or secretive about.

Case in point: Fred Thompson yesterday on Meet the Press. Read the excerpt from his interview on page 2, and see him do the dance.

If only pro-life legislators/spokespersons would frankly discuss the contradictions with the pro-abortion position such as they all do behind the scenes, they would break a pschological logjam with the American people, particularly if they invest time educating them.

"Dems urged to reach out to pro-life voters" is the title of an Associated Press piece today reporting on former Planned Parenthood board member and current Democrat chairman Howard Dean's latest attempt to woo pro-lifers. His solution? "I think we need to talk about this issue differently," he said.

Dr. Dean et al have come a little ways since November. At that time they decided they could no longer disparage or ignore us. But in their hearts it is clear they still think of us as dogs who will wag our tails and come back to them if they only "talk differently" to us.

Hat tip: Drudge Report

Although MSM has reported for months that passage of a federally-funded embryonic stem cell bill by the US Senate is a done deal, Reuters is now reporting otherwise. Specifically note the last paragraph, which gives a helpful hint in stopping this sort of legislation in the states:

Despite a veto threat by President Bush, the embryonic stem cell bill cleared the House in May with a surprisingly broad bipartisan margin. Backers believed they had momentum in the Senate and a vote was tentatively set for this month.

But now bill sponsors say there is only the slimmest of chances that the Senate can take up the bill before breaking for its August recess.

It bogged down in a procedural morass involving a half-dozen other stem cell and cloning bills -- some written with the apparent aim of peeling away support from the House-passed legislation.

But it will be back, so remain vigilant.

As an aside, this article includes a few common mistruths. One and two are:

Bush in August 2001 allowed research on a limited number of existing stem cell lines, most of which proved unsuitable and all of which turned out to be contaminated with mouse cells. But he has opposed further research on ethical grounds.

This paragraph infers that President Bush banned new embryonic stem cell research in 2001, which he did not. He only banned federal funding. Private investors are perfectly free to finance ESCR.

Also, all embryonic stem cell lines are contaminated with mouse cells, one of its unreported problems.

A third fallacy:

There are currently about 400,000 leftover embryos.

Rand Research reported that only 2.8 percent - or 11,000 - embryos are available for donation nationwide.

This just in from Hannity and Colmes. Being interviewed was Republican U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, who in reference to Supreme Court nominee John Roberts said, "I can tell you his position, he's a pro-life person.... He's pro-life."

Jeff Berkowitz, host of Public Affairs tv show and blog host, conducted a refreshing interview with IL Republican state Rep. Mark Beaubien (pictured, right), a potential candidate for Congress. I call it refreshing because Berkowitz didn't allow Beaubien to get away with typical pro-abortion soundbites. For example:

Berkowitz: Does that mean you'd be opposed to parental notice?

Beaubien: How do you go to your father, when it's your uncle who's the one who got you pregnant? These things do, in fact, happen. Far more frequently than people realize....

Go to Berkowitz's blog to read more on how a proper interview on abortion should be conducted.

In the meantime, what was wrong with Beaubien's logic, above?

Hat tip: Reader Cal.

Here's a sadly fascinating, open diary sort of read on some truths about abortion, written by now-dueling pro-abortion women.

On July 17, journalist Helaine Olen wrote a story in the New York Times about the impact her nanny's blog had on their working relationship. (Eventually the nanny's blog got her fired.) Olen wrote:

The blog had brought odd similarities to the fore.... [W]e had enough in common - if I took her statements at face value - to make me uneasy. In my 20's I, too, felt passionately about 19th-century English literature but had long since let it go, barely able to concentrate on The New York Times, let alone Henry James. I, too, had an abortion back then. And trouble with depression? Check. Self-righteousness and inflated self-regard? Affirmative.

Well, the nanny responded to the NY Times piece on her blog, writing:

... The place in the essay where she actually has the audacity to compare us has been a sore spot since I knew this essay was going to be published. In particular, I take issue with how she flippantly mentions my abortion. I did blog about my abortion, please read my entry here. I think if you compare the vulnerable and humble way I talk about that painful experience, you might find that Ms. Olen and I are very different. I for one would never reduce another woman's abortion to a fragment defaming her in a self-serving essay. I did blog about the abortion, thereby in a sense publishing it; she had the legal right to mention it (I certainly checked). However, I pleaded with the NYTIMES in two separate emails that her use of my experience was insensitive and contradictory to the way in which I talked about it. They didnt care.

The pertinent section in the nanny's original post on abortion is:

[T]o change the political discussion about abortion in this country, we need women who have had abortions to talk about it. One in three American women between the ages of 15-44 have had or will have an abortion. About 1/3 of the childbearing women of this country. What do they have to say? What would it mean for the people who have this experience to actually inform the public discourse about it? For all the fervor surrounding this issue, there is a marked silence of note from the women who have had this procedure, made this choice.

And I am one of them. Next Tuesday will be the four year anniversary of my abortion. And I too was incredibly reticent to discuss both getting pregnant and having abortion. I think during the first year, I maybe told 6 of my closest friends. In fact, there are still people who are incredibly important to me who I have not shared this information with. And why? Yes, I was ashamed of getting pregnant. Though, I had used birth control, had been as responsible as someone can be. But I felt stupid. Also, I was deeply saddened by the whole experience. I am one of those odd woman who has always known she wants to have a child. And to not want that pregnancy, to know that I was not ready to be the mother I want to be someday, was so sad. And then there is the very precarious emotional position of learning how to mourn your own choices. I did mourn. I did feel the loss of that baby even as I was choosing to end the pregnancy. How do you explain that to other people when you have trouble understanding it yourself?

These writings are so sad. Yet both these women apparently remain pro-abortion. To convert to pro-life would be to admit to themselves what they subconsciously admit in their diaries.

Hat tip: Cal.

Several sources broke the news that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' wife Jane Sullivan Roberts is a former executive board member of Feminists for Life.

Today's LifeNews.com posts a story on her history with FFL, as does the Chicago Tribune, which dwells on the topic. (See page 2 for that.)

The online encyclopedia Wikipedia lists Jane's involvement with FFL in her husband's bio.

An added indication that John Roberts may be pro-life is that his two children are adopted.

Meanwhile, Ann Coulter wrote a sobering column on Roberts that gave me pause... until I read the aforementioned.

I don't know of any pro-life leader (not rank-and-file) who is married to a pro-abort. The two are simply incompatible.

Hat tip: Reader Mike P., Jewels of the Jungle

Yesterday, the FDA issued a warning "for doctors... to be on the lookout for rare but deadly infections in women using the abortion pill RU-486, citing two more deaths after its use," according to the Associated Press.

The danger appears to have more to do with the other pill mothers must take after RU-486 - Cytotec, aka Misoprostol.

RU-486 kills the baby, and Cytotec dilates the cervix to expel the baby.

To reiterate, RU-486 cannot be taken without Cytotec.

The problem is, Cytotec is an ulcer drug. Searle, the manufacturer of Cytotec, issued a letter warning against off-label use in August 2000 (which the FDA posted on its site) two months before the FDA approved RU-486.

Thus, under Clinton's watch the FDA ramrodded approval of RU-486, knowing that its accompanying drug Cytotec was potentially harmful to women.

Mother Jones, a liberal news organization, wrote an alarming article four years ago exposing the fact that Cytotec kills women.

That is the backdrop for today's story, which includes this:

Tuesday's action comes just eight months after the FDA warned about two sepsis cases associated with Mifeprex, also called RU-486 or mifepristone. Additional sepsis cases were reported to the agency in April and June.

The drug, sold by Danco Laboratories, is approved to terminate pregnancy up to 49 days after the beginning of the last menstrual cycle. It blocks a hormone required to sustain a pregnancy. When followed by another medicine, misoprostol [cytotec], the pregnancy is terminated.

The FDA's instructions call for women to swallow both pills, but most abortion clinics instead instruct that the misoprostol tablet be inserted into the vagina, Galson said. Studies have shown it can work that way, too [Jill note - although the FDA and Searle both warn against this - not noted in the article].

But the four sepsis deaths, all reported from California, came after this so-called off-label use. Galson couldn't say if the women had inserted the tablet vaginally themselves.

"Bush nominates anti-abortion judge to Supreme Court," is the headline in today's London Times.

A "catastrophe" to PFAW is a blessing for America:

From People for the American Way website:

Bush Nominates John Roberts for Supreme Court nomination raises serious concerns, questions

People for the American Way is extremely disappointed that the President did not choose a consensus nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor. John Roberts' record raises serious concerns as well as questions about where he stands on crucial legal and constitutional issues - it will be extremely important for Senators and the American people to get answers to those questions. Replacing O'Connor with someone who is not committed to upholding Americans' rights, liberties, and legal protections would be a constitutional catastrophe.

From National Right to Life, this evening:

WASHINGTON -- Following today's announcement regarding the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts to serve as associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, the following statement was issued by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) in Washington, D.C.

"Liberal pressure groups will insist that Senate Democrats filibuster against Judge Roberts, unless he pledges in advance to vote against allowing elected legislators to place meaningful limits on abortion," said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. "Millions of Americans will be watching to see if the Democratic senators bow to these demands."

In an interview conducted by Hugh Hewitt with Nan Aron, president of the liberal Alliance for Justice, on April 11, 2005, the following exchange occurred: Hewitt: "Do you oppose and urge a filibuster for John Roberts?" Aron: "Yes, we would." See: http://www.hughhewitt.com/nan_aron_interview.htm

In 1990, as a Justice Department official under the administration of President George H. W. Bush, Roberts wrote a brief in a pending Supreme Court case stating the Administration position "that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled...."

Additional information on the potential new make-up of the Supreme Court in relation to upcoming abortion cases is on page 2....

Planned Parenthood has rounded up media quotes on John Roberts. His nomination doesn't look at all good for the other side. Thanks, President Bush. You came through.

With impeccable credentials ... the question marks about Roberts have always been ideological. While his Republican party loyalties are undoubted, earning him the opposition of liberal advocacy groups, he is not a 'movement conservative,' and some on the party's right-wing doubt his commitment to their cause. His paper record is thin: as Deputy Solicitor General in 1990, he argued in favor of a government regulation that banned abortion-related counseling by federally-funded family planning programs. A line in his brief noted the Bush administration's belief that Roe v. Wade should be overruled.

~ Washington Post, July 1, 2005

Roberts has been floated as a nominee who could win widespread support in the Senate. Not so likely. He hasn't been on the bench long enough for his judicial opinions to provide much ammunition for liberal opposition groups. But his record as a lawyer for the Reagan and first Bush administrations and in private practice is down-the-line conservative on key contested fronts, including abortion, separation of church and state, and environmental protection....

For Bush I, successfully helped argue that doctors and clinics receiving federal funds may not talk to patients about abortion. (Rust v. Sullivan, 1991)

~ Slate Magazine, June 24, 2005

The official, who declined to be named, said appellate judges J. Michael Luttig of Richmond, John Roberts of Washington and Samuel Alito Jr. of New Jersey might top the list, which published reports say also includes several other judges and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales....

Roberts, 50, voiced opposition to abortion rights as a government lawyer. In 1991, he co-wrote a government brief in support of federal law barring federally funded family planning organizations from offering abortion-related counseling. The government argued that Roe v. Wade "was wrongly decided and should be overturned," and that the high court's ruling in the landmark abortion case was not supported 'in the text, structure or history of the Constitution.

~ Atlanta Journal-Constitution, June 24, 2005

Roberts, 50, has seen his stock rise in recent months. Widely considered one of the top appellate lawyers to argue before the Supreme Court, Roberts was first nominated to the bench near the end of the elder Bush's presidency, and the nomination died in the Senate. He was confirmed two years ago with bipartisan support, but less is known about his views than those of other contenders.

~ Chicago Tribune, June 22, 2005

Many liberals think Roberts may be a sign of what's to come. They grew nervous with his dissents challenging the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act and because of his support of the White House decision to keep the Cheney energy task force records secret.

~ The Village Voice, June 21, 2005

In the meantime, Republicans close to the preparations say that the White House has assembled research on some 20 Supreme Court candidates, with more intensive research on a handful of the most mentioned, all federal appellate judges and all conservative: ... John G. Roberts Jr. of the District of Columbia....

~ The New York Times, June 20, 2005

A former Rehnquist clerk has also been mentioned as a possible court nominee. John G. Roberts, who has been on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since June 2003, was one of President Bush's least contentious picks for the bench....

Roberts, 50, has generally avoided weighing in on disputed social issues. Abortion rights groups, however, have maintained that he tried during his days as a lawyer in the first Bush administration to overturn Roe v. Wade.

~ Associated Press, June 18, 2005

NARAL says, "If [John] Roberts is confirmed to a lifetime appointment, there is little doubt that he will work to overturn Roe v. Wade. As Deputy Solicitor General under the first President Bush, he argued to the Supreme Court that "Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled."

These are the talking points coming from DC on John Roberts:

JUDGE JOHN ROBERTS BACKGROUND

Judge Roberts is Exceptionally Well Qualified.

Judge John Roberts has the keen intellect, impartiality and temperament, sound legal judgment and highest integrity necessary in a Supreme Court justice.

He rules based on the application of existing laws and specific facts of the cases before him, rather than making new laws or creating new policies based on personal opinion.

It's not surprising that The National Journal has said that "John Roberts seems a good bet to be the kind of judge we should all want to have - all of us, that is, who are looking less for congenial ideologues than for professionals committed to the impartial application of the law."**

Judge Roberts has Extensive Experience.

Prior to his service on the D.C Circuit (often referred to as "the second highest court in the land" and the bench from which three current Supreme Court Justices came to the Court), Judge Roberts argued a remarkable 39 cases before the Supreme Court. Only a handful of the 180,000 members of the Supreme Court bar come close to that record of accomplishment.

Judge Roberts was graduated Summa Cum Laude from Harvard University in only three years. After graduating from Harvard Law School with high honors and serving as an editor of the Harvard Law Review, Judge Roberts clerked for Judge Henry Friendly on the Second Circuit and later for Justice William Rehnquist at the Supreme Court.

After his clerkships, Judge Roberts served in the Department of Justice and later as Associate Counsel to President Ronald Reagan before going into private practice.

After three years in private practice, Judge Roberts returned to the Department of Justice as Principal Deputy Solicitor General, a position in which he briefed and argued a variety of cases before the Supreme Court.

Judge Roberts Widely Respected for his Fairness.

Upon his nomination to the D.C. Circuit, 152 members of the D.C. Bar wrote to the Senate Judiciary Committee to note that Judge Roberts is "one of the very best and most highly respected appellate lawyers in the nation, with a deserved reputation as a brilliant writer and oral advocate." Signers, ranging from Democratic lawyers like Lloyd Cutler and Seth Waxman to former President George H.W. Bush's White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray, cited his "unquestioned integrity and fair-mindedness."

Anne L. Bryant and Julie Underwood of The National School Boards Association have noted that Judge Roberts "is always willing to take the time to do things right; and he is willing to support others who exhibit similar values. Above all, he personifies the qualities of an outstanding jurist with his even-temper and respectful demeanor."

In the 1995 case of Barry v. Little, Judge Roberts argued-free of charge-before the D.C. Court of Appeals on behalf of a class of the neediest welfare recipients, challenging a termination of benefits under the District's Public Assistance Act of 1982.

Judge Roberts Should be Confirmed Before the Fall Term.

Judge Roberts personifies the qualities President Bush said he would seek in a Supreme Court Justice. The American people have every right to expect the Senate to provide a fair hearing, a floor debate in which all views are heard, and a timely vote so that the Supreme Court can convene for its Fall term on October 3rd with all justices in place.

Judge Roberts was reported favorably out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 16-3, and confirmed by the Senate for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals by unanimous consent.

President Clinton's two nominations took an average of 58 days from nomination to confirmation. Over the past 30 years, the confirmation process has averaged 72 days from nomination to confirmation.

The White House has demonstrated an unprecedented level of consultation with Senators from both parties, consulting with more than 70 Senators, including every member of the Judiciary Committee and more than two-out-of three Democrats.

Personal Background.

Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., was born in Buffalo, New York, on January 27, 1955. Raised in Indiana.

He is one of four children (the only boy, and second oldest).

Judge Roberts lives in Bethesda, Maryland, with his wife Jane Sullivan Roberts and their two children.

__________

** National Journal asked that I clarify that these views were those of columnist Stuart Taylor, Jr., and not National Journal, which is a "non-partisan, non-ideological publication."

Paul Weyrich, Chairman and CEO of Free Congress Foundation, wrote yesterday that the recently titled column, "Liberals ready to abandon U.S. right to abortion," from the British newspaper The Observer, would have been more aptly named, "A few liberals...."

Even this is a positive move within the Dem Party - sure to cause more infighting.

I commented last week that the reason President Bush may be trying so hard to reach out to all Senate members for their thoughts on his Supreme Court nominee might be to disarm them, that feeding their egos might be all that is required to stop liberals from filibustering his strict-constructionist nominee.

If this is his plan, quotes of late from the self-importanced members of the Gang of 14 would indicate it is working See them purr on page 2.

The chairman of Angus Reid Consultants, based in Vancouver, Canada, states the company's mission is "dedicated to understanding public opinion and consumer attitudes in North America and around the world."

I would suggest the company work a little harder on understanding before proclaiming what we think.

On Saturday, AR released a rambling report entitled, "Americans Remain Split Over Abortion." Its first paragraph stated:

The topic of pregnancy termination remains very divisive in the United States, according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports. 52 per cent of respondents describe themselves as Pro-Choice, while 41 per cent say they are Pro-Life.

That was the end of AR's take of how America feels about abortion. But an analyzation of the Rasmussen poll itself tells a different story, indicating that in reality we are not "divisive" about abortion but really "schizophrenic":

Fifty-two percent (52%) of voters say they are pro-choice while 41% are pro-life....

Fifty-two percent (52%) of voters say that abortion is morally wrong most of the time. Thirty-six percent (36%) disagree.

Fifty-three percent (53%) believe it is too easy to get an abortion in America. Just 18% believe it is too hard, while 22% say "about right." Among pro-choice voters, 27% say too easy, 31% too hard, and 33% about right.

So, in reality, the majority of Americans think abortion is wrong and should be made more difficult to commit.

Other BIG NEWS in the Rasmussen poll that ties in to the Supreme Court debate:

Thirty-two percent (32%) say that overturning Roe vs. Wade would make abortion illegal. Forty-seven percent (47%) say it would be up to individual states to set their own laws.

Thirty-nine percent (39%) of American voters say it would be best for the Supreme Court to establish rules governing abortion. Fort-seven percent (47%) would prefer rules established by the state legislatures.

So, according to this poll, only one-third of voters still buy the lie that overturning Roe v. Wade would make abortion illegal, and more Americans than not wouldn't mind if Roe v. Wade were overturned and the abortion decision returned to the states.

A July 14 Beacon News article on Pro-Life Action League's in-progress annual 2-week Truth Tour contains a balanced and extensive discussion on kids who see graphic photos of aborted babies. Check out page 2 for excerpt.

My bottom line: Forced to make a "choice," I'd rather a child see one of these photos than be one.

Today I will be picketing with Pro-Life Action League on its annual summer Truth Tour. The picket will be near Christ Hospital all day. Would love you to join us! Click here for coordinates.

Now here's an executive order Gov. Blagojevich surely didn't read before signing... and he obviously never took the class either. Perhaps he was surfing.

Remember Blagojevich's infamous, oxymoronous words from Tuesday:

"Anytime you do what is morally right... however you get there is immaterial." [Quote source: AP]

Blagojevich's Code of Ethics: The ends do justify the means.

The Illinois Center Right Coalition has launched a new blog at icrc.blogspot.com and have commented on the Blagojevich executive order.

An editorial in today's Chicago Tribune entitled, "$10 million photo op," says Blagojevich's actions Tuesday were "incredibly devious, and they give legislators ample new reason not to trust anything he says or does."

The people, too.

A Daily Herald editorial today entitled, "Wrong way to start stem cell research," says, in part:

[R]esentment is certainly reinforced by this regrettable comment from the governor found in an Associated Press story:

"Anytime you do what is morally right... however you get there is immaterial."

So the governor has anointed himself king. And what he has deemed to be morally right, the morally wrong shall abide by via his order. If you oppose stem cell research, because of religious beliefs, or because you think it takes life, or because you are not sure embryo cells are that much superior to umbilical cord cells in doing stem cell research, or that this might be going down a slippery slope, you're irrelevant.

One positive that has come from all this is the press is verbalizing our points.

In yesterday's Washington Post, former President Bill Clinton "contended that Republicans have defined the abortion debate in a way that boxes in Democrats" and that Dems are held to a "double standard."

Rather, it is Democrats who have boxed themselves into the corner on abortion.

For instance, why did Mrs. Clinton say in January that abortion is a "sad, even tragic choice"? Why is abortion sad and tragic? What other supposedly constitutional right is considered sad and tragic?

There is ongoing debate, of which I am a part, on IL House Minority Leader Tom Cross's blog re: his part in Gov. Blagojevich's underhanded $10 mil executive order forcing IL taxpayers to fund embryonic stem cell experimentation/human cloning.

Although I differ with Rep. Cross on his part in the deal, I respect his willingness to allow open debate on his forum.

There's also quite a bit of chatter on Rich Miller's blog about this topic.

In his blog today, Jeff Berkowitz counts the number of times the media skipped over the word "embryonic" when reporting Blagojevich's $10 mil embryonic (and human cloning) stem cell experimentation executive order.

The Cook Co. GOP issued a press release less than an hour ago condemning Gov. Blagojevich for his underhanded $10 millions executive order yesterday authorizing ESCR/human cloning.

Most noteworthy is the point that they not only are taking on Gov. Blagojevich by this release, but also one of the men standing behind Blagojevich at yesterday's press conference - House Minority Leader Tom Cross.

Cross denies he knew anything about this. I find that just about impossible to believe.

Read press release on page 2.

Rich Miller graciously gave permission to post this snippet from his subscriber-only daily fax of his thoughts re: the Blagojevich stem cell executive order yesterday:

Technically, the pro-life members can say that the money had no stated purpose until the governor issued his executive order to spend it. But this was undoubtedly a secret deal cut by three Dem leaders and, perhaps, one GOP leader and, as a result, has to be the most well-hidden appropriation we've seen in a long time. If I were one of those aforementioned Dems, I wouldn't be very happy.

(You can subscribe to Miller's Capitol Fax on his blog.)

Miller is right. Both House and Senate members voting for the budget can be nailed as voting to fund ESCR/cloning by both constituents and opponents.

Apparently leadership began talking about this in April.

For pro-life Democrats to say they didn't know about this is an unacceptable excuse. They have empowered their leaders, who should not let them vote for something they didn't know about, particularly if it is concerning an issue that is so extremely close to the heart, like the pro-life issue. It is unconscionable to trick political colleagues who are supposedly on the same team to vote for something they are deeply, ethically opposed to.

Blagojevich's press release stated:

Illinois joins New Jersey, California and Connecticut in providing funding for stem cell research.

What did NJ, CA, and CN do that IL didn't? They went through the legislative process, which Blagojevich impeded. Is that ok with you liberals? As long as you get your way, damn the elected representatives of the people, damn the people?

Blagojevich's press release also stated:

"Since the federal government has chosen to stall the medical advancements that will come with stem cell research, it is up to the states to take action," said Gov. Blagojevich. "We cannot allow our citizens to suffer when relief may be available."

"The federal government's inaction presented two options for Illinois," said Hynes. "We could either refuse to acknowledge the inevitability and worth of scientific progress, or we could embrace and find a means to harness it for the betterment of our citizens. We could be timid and reactionary, or bold and visionary. We chose to be bold."

Blagojevich is blaming the federal government for IL's "inaction" on embryonic stem cell experimentation/human cloning? He says "it is up to the states"? Isn't IL's legislature controlled by Democrats?

Rather, Blagojevich thwarted our state's political process in a tyrannical move. Of all people who should be insulted, it should be Democrat legislators who have been deceived and insulted by Blagojevich's power play.

It's interesting that my two favorite IL liberal bloggers - Miller and Zorn - had nothing to say today about Gov. Blagojevich's $10 mil executive order authorizing taxpayer funded embryonic stem cell experimentation and human cloning.

Perhaps they thought it was no biggie.

Or perhaps, caught between their anti-life position and Blagojevich's tyranny, they decided not to say anything at all.

I certainly have a lot to say. First, a specific, and then on to politics.

On specifics, Blagojevich is a lying liar. His press release stated (and he also verbalized at the press conference), "The Executive Order also mandates that no funding will be authorized for research involving human cloning."

That statement is so false (or to give benefit of doubt, utterly and incredibly ignorant) that I can hardly sit still. And this is a critical point, because most Americans are against human cloning. The executive order states, "The [IL Regenerative Medicine Institute] program shall provide funding for... somatic cell nuclear transfer," which is indeed human cloning. Look it up on google, Eric. Is this ok with you?

On to politics.

Blagojevich, and surely Madigan, Cross, Jones, and Schoenberg were all in on the intent of the generic $10 mil budget line-item that was tossed in the trough with other fine pork right before the budget deadline. That's why Cross, Schoenberg, and Hynes stopped fighting for their precious ESCR/cloning bill toward the end of session or any evil strain thereof.

The line-item is an appropriation "for grants and related expenses of hospitals and universities for scientific research."

Blago et al hoodwinked their own fellow Democrats, many of whom are pro-life and would never have voted for ESCR/cloning had they known. Instead, all Dem senators are now on record as voting to publicly fund ESCR/cloning, and I fully expect this will be used against them.

When will downstate Dems wise up (or grow cahones) and revolt against Chicago Dems? Once again liberal Dems are forcing their ideology on conservative Dems. What good is it being a conservative Democrat, I want to know.

Tom Cross? He was easy to spot at the press conference, standing on the podium brushing tears from his eyes as he looked at the purposefully placed innocent diabetic children - who had no idea they were being used as part of a huge political scam.

I can only pity Rep. Cross for having been hoodwinked himself into believing ESCR/cloning can possibly help his daughter. Rather, it is adult stem cell research that is even today helping diabetics. Cross and other parents of diabetics are actually hurting their children's chances of recovery by diverting money away from research and treatment that is doing something now toward research even defenders admit is "highly speculative" and may never pan out.

Politically, Cross has fallen into the hands of the Democrats and is dividing Republicans.

Enough ranting for now.

I was interviewed this evening by ABC 7 Chicago re: Gov. Blagojevich's $10 mil public funded embryonic stem cell/human cloning executive order today. If I'm on, it'll be on the 10p news. See the ABC site for left-slanted video of Blagojevich's actions today.

Joe Morris has just sent an email alert stating that within the hour, IL Gov. Rod Blagojevich will announce that his administration has just "found" $10 million in previously unallocated money that he intends to spend on embryonic stem cell research in Illinois. Morris says CLTV will carry the announcement live.

NY Times columnist David Rosenbaum today reminds potential borkhappy senators that the words "no comment" by Supreme Court nominees on particular topics should expected in upcoming hearings and are historically based. Says Rosenbaum:

[A]s a practical matter, senators have no real recourse when a nominee declines to answer questions. They can hardly refuse to confirm the nominee on that ground alone, since so many other justices who have been noncommittal on the issues of the day have been approved.

And even as Dems threaten to act like donkeys on the Supreme nomination, a Washington Times editorial reminds them to adhere to their own standard on the timing of hearings.

The UK is debating whether to lower its abortion limit from the current 24 weeks.

The Daily Mail reports today that Britain's leading abortion provider has conducted a study that shows - shock - abortion needs to remain legal throughout the first six months of pregnancy.

The reasons given indicate that most of England's late term aborting mothers are stupid:

• "For the majority of women taking part in the study, the signs and symptoms of pregnancy were not recognised until an advanced stage." [So the morning sickness, disappearing menstruation, extreme tiredness, breast tenderness and engorgement, widening girth, and increasing abdominal movements were due to... ?]

• "A minority of those taking part were aware of their pregnancy early on, but either 'in denial' or forced to change their minds about having the baby by a change of circumstances." [We are talking about babies who are viable or 2-3 weeks from viability. Mothers who "change theirs minds" at this point could terminate their pregnancies with liveborn results.]

• "One woman told how her partner beat her with a baseball bat when he discovered she was pregnant. It was at that point she decided not to have the child." [So she decided to treat her "child" worse than the way she was treated - to dismember and kill her or him - so as to maintain a baseball bat relationship with the guy who beat her?]

Now we have the "stupidity exception"?

The White House appears to be bending over backwards to "consult" with senators on the Supreme Court nominee. (See quote on page 2 by Scott McClellan at a White House briefing yesterday.) For instance, President Bush had a a "power breakfast" with four top senators today.

These placations may make conservatives nervous and even angry. Historically, Republicans have respected Democrat Supreme nominees, even if they were godawful - like ACLU-card-carrying Ginsberg - but Democrats have not. The other side deserves snubbing and to be put in their place when we have the power to do so.

But...

Fox contributor Jeff Birnbaum made the point last night that stroking liberal senators' egos, even if President Bush has no intention of serving up any Supreme nominee other than a Scalia or Thomas clone, may smooth the path. Perhaps, it is hoped, liberal senators will grumble with his choice but not filibuster, since they feel they were part of the process.

[See page 2 for McClellan quote.]

I awoke to major computer problems Saturday and literally spent 6-8 hours a day on the phone (mostly on hold) with Dell that day, Sunday, and yesterday trying to fix them. Dell is to install a new mother board Thursday, and until then I'll do my best here.

Potential ILGOP guv candidate Joe Birkett has made parental notification an issue of his would-be campaign. See article. Sign petition at www.joebirkett.com. (Site appears to be down at the moment.)

Amy Allen/Obiter dictum said ILGOP rep Matthew Leffingwell was flat out wrong when he told The Hill that GOP state Sen. Carole Pankau is positioning herself as pro-abortion in contrast to state Sen. Peter Roskam for a potential primary competition to replace retiring Congressman Henry Hyde.

So I asked them.

Leffingwell said the quote was a mistake. Pankau told me she is and always has been pro-life with the rape/incest/life exceptions and reminded me she has always voted pro-life, which I knew. I asked her if she has a health exception. She said NO.

Ok, Amy!

Marathon Pundit reports:

Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard was just on Fox News Live and said that there may be two more Supreme Court resignations, ailing Chief Justice William Rehnquist and octogenarian Justice John Paul Stevens.

According to Kristol, Rehnquist's resignation could come today.

UPDATE 11:30 AM CDT. Drudge says rumors are rife that Rehnquist (but not Stevens) has resigned.

I'm told to look for Rehnquist's resignation when President Bush gets off the plane from Europe....

I noted yesterday that the Gang of 14 compromise I admit I fumed about may not have been a bad deal after all.

Because of the compromise, Bush's three most conservative nominees were "unfilibustered" and now sit securely on the federal bench: William Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, and Priscilla Owen.

So how can Democrats now cry "extraordinary circumstances" for a similarly tempered Supreme Court nominee? (That was a rhetorial question... I expect they'll find a way.)

As Jim Angle of Fox News reported:

Supporters of the White House say the compromise under which those judges were confirmed set a clear definition of what is acceptable and what is not.

"I think it really takes off the table the ability of the Left and the Democrats to argue on the basis of judicial philosophy that a nominee is not fit to serve on the Supreme Court." [Quote by Ben Ginsberg of Progress for America]:

Angle reported that at least two Republican members of the Gang of 14 will walk away from the compromise and support the constitutional (nuclear) option if Democrats filibuster based on whether a nominee is conservative: Senators Lindsey Graham and John Warner.

(I'm told there are actually "several" of the seven Republicans who have indicated this but don't have documentation for others.)

Closed Angle in his report:

With those two senators and others there is now enough support to change the rules to end judicial filibusters if the Democrats threaten one, prompting one Republican official to say flatly, "There is now no possiblity that opponents could deny an up-or-down vote on a Supreme Court nominee."

[See Fox video clip, "Constitutional Chaos" for entire story.]

I hear that Robert Novak just announced on CNN that Justice Rehnquist plans to announce his retirement this afternoon.

With news that Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist's retirement is imminent, Robert Novak started chatter that is getting louder: for President Bush to split the replacements of Rehnquist and O'Connor between one conservative and one liberal - no net gain for anyone; a stalemate; a compromise.

Conservatives say this is unacceptable. Patrick Buchanan says why:

Does Bush get it? He needs three seats to capture the court, that of Chief Justice Rehnquist when he retires, that of O'Connor, now open, and that of one other justice, as long as it is not Antonin Scalia or Thomas.

Bush can succeed where every Republican president in 50 years failed: to rein in this radical and renegade court and restore the Constitution to its rightful place as the highest law in the land: to be interpreted by Supreme Court justices, and not perverted to their own ideological and political ends.

To succeed will take perseverance and courage by President Bush. But if he does, he will leave a mark on history. It will be his greatest domestic achievement, for which his country will forever remember him, his friends will praise him and his enemies will be eternally gnashing their teeth. Let's get it on.

Incredibly, Joe Scheidler and the Pro-Life Action League are going before the US Supreme Court for the third time re: the RICO lawsuit the National Organization for Women brought against them 19 years ago. CWA offers a concise, informative synopsis of the ordeal.

Speaking of PLAL, its sixth annual Truth Tour is currently underway.

Not only do Socialists appear not to have a problem with Alberto Gonzalez as potential Supreme Court nominee, neither does Democrat US Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. The NY Times also ran a "Cool it on Gonzalez, conservatives" propoganda piece on July 5, meaning its editors also like Gonzalez.

Human Events has posted Q&A between Dr. John Willke and Gonzalez specifically on the topic of abortion.

Hat tip: ProLifeBlogs.com

From Concerned Women for America:

Americans lost the opportunity to have Judge Robert Bork on the bench of the U.S. Supreme Court because conservatives were not anticipating a fierce confirmation battle. Jan LaRue, CWA's Chief Counsel, says that will not happen to the next nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court because CWA and like-minded groups have been preparing for this battle for a long time. She adds that the public doesn't need to wait for a nominee to be announced to take action. Click here to listen.

A SocialistWorkerOnline.org columnist has a "glass half empty" take on Sandra Day O'Connor, the Democrats, Ted Kennedy, abortion groups, and potential Supreme pick Alberto Gonzalez. Read page 2 for outtakes....

This Ted Kennedy quote on his vision of the upcoming Supreme Court confirmation process comes from Dave Eberhart's July 5 analytical piece in NewsMax.com:

"Like sausage and legislation, the confirmation or rejection of a Supreme Court nomination is not always something pleasant to watch or be part of."

Sounds like Kennedy plans to grind up Bush's nominee - much like an aborted baby.

[Read complete column on on page 2. Source: NewsMax.com, 7-5-05.]

On page 2 read a recent email sent by National Organization for Women Winter Park, FL, President and Orlando Women's Center abortion mill "death-scort" Karen Weinberg (email address: orlandonow0330@yahoo.com). Weinberg is pictured second from left at a 2001 gay rally.

Hat tip: Readers Maureen and Patte

[Photo credit: Gay Today]

The Daily Herald reports that the National Organization for Women held five rallies around IL on July 5 to call on President Bush to appoint a pro-abort Supreme nominee. Responded Pro-Life Action League President Joe Scheidler:

"I can see why the (abortion-rights groups) are making a public show.... They're scared.... That's what we've been hoping for for 32 years. I can see why (they) are nervous wrecks."

Does anyone else see the two ironies in this section of the story?

Cyndee Kawalek brought her daughters, Dakota, 8, and Summer, 5, to the [NOW] rally. As the girls hoisted a purple sign that said "Young Feminists Mobilize," their mother explained that the girls knew they were trying to protect the rights of women.

"This is to protect the future of our country," Kawalek said. "If the courts turn (Roe v. Wade) over, what else are they going to do."

[Read complete column on on page 2. Source: Daily Herald, 7-7-05.]

Robert Novak writes in his column today:

Conservatives who have spent more than a decade planning for this moment to change the balance of power on the Supreme Court are reeling from blows delivered by two dissimilar political leaders: Edward M. Kennedy and George W. Bush. Sen. Kennedy has succeeded with the news media in establishing a new standard of "mainstream conservatism" for a justice. President Bush has put forth "friendship" as a qualification for being named to the high court.

Bush is by far the bigger obstacle in the way of a conservative court. While Kennedy's ploy presents a temporary problem, Bush's stance could be fatal. The right's morale was devastated by the president's comments in a USA Today telephone interview published on the newspaper's front page Tuesday: "Al Gonzales is a great friend of mine. When a friend gets attacked, I don't like it."

[Read complete column on on page 2. Source: Chicago Sun-Times, 7-7-05.]

In the race to replace retiring pro-life IL Congressman Henry Hyde, The Hill reported yesterday that Republican contenders, state Senators Peter Roskam and Carole Pankau, are separated primarily by one issue:

Pankau has portrayed herself as a centrist, female alternative to the more conservative Roskam, who once worked for Hyde and considers himself the heir apparent to the congressman.

Matt Leffingwell, a spokesman for the Illinois Republican Party, said the major dividing line between Pankau and Roskam was the issue of abortion, with Pankau for and Roskam against abortion rights.

How disappointing. As a state rep. and senator, Pankau has always voted pro-life, but she now thinks abortion is the issue to end her financial woes and gain momentum? How quickly she forgets....

In 2002, then GOP IL Lieutenant Gov. Corinne Wood ran as a pro-abort against two pro-lifers for governor and came in third. In 2004, Republican John Borling ran as the only pro-abort for IL US senator in a field of eight and came in 6th.

Oh, well. I expect pro-abort groups will contribute - better toward a sinking ship than elsewhere.

Cal Thomas reminds us in his latest piece that Republican presidents nominated pro-aborts Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter, and Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court, after giving assurances to conservatives they would be "ok" on our issue. About President Bush's pick, Thomas says:

Conservatives say they have learned from previous court battles and are not going to be fooled again. They will look beyond assurances that a nominee is "OK" and examine the substance of that nominee's record and philosophy. Nothing but delivery on the president's promise will satisfy them.

This is the big one, the main event. If the president does not nominate someone who measures up to his often-stated view of the court and the Constitution, he can forget about conservative support for anything he wants to do during the rest of his term. Even if he names someone who is eventually rejected by the Senate, he will get significant support from conservatives and momentum for nominating another conservative.

Hat tip: Reader George Hendrickson

[Read complete column on on page 2. Source: Townhall.com, 7-5-05.]

[Thanks to reader Michelle for providing attribution: Paul Nowak, CNSNews.com, 7-5-05.]

Yesterday on RenewAmerica.com, Matt Abbott noted that pro-aborts try to silence men because they've never had abortions, women who have never had abortions because they've never had abortions, and women who have had abortions because they've had abortions. There is obviously no one left that they would allow to speak out against it, which is the goal. Nevertheless...

As I said earlier today, the louder Democrats demand a pro-abortion/pro-gay Supreme Court judge, the more they'll turn off voters, of which they already are in need. Check out, "The Roe Effect: The right to abortion has diminished the number of Democratic voters," in today's Wall Street Journal.

Excerpt from Supreme Court nomination hearing regarding proper scope of questioning....

"[I]t is our responsibility as members of the [Judiciary] Committee... in advising and consenting, that we are challenged to ascertain the qualifications and the training and the experience and the judgment of a nominee, and that it is not our responsibility to test out the nominee's particular philosophy, whether we agree or disagree...."

[Answer on page 2.]

My column today on WND.com, "Hens, clones, foolish loans," draws attention to the $3 billion California embryonic stem cell experimentation catastrophe.

Aside from the fact that the agency overseeing grant money distribution has been accused of corruption and insider deal making...

and aside from the belated true confessions now coming out re: the promises made about ESCR before voters approved funding it...

and aside from the fact researchers now admit that cloning is indispensable to ESCR...

and aside from the fact that more women egg-layers are needed...

I didn't have room to mention that Proposition 71 didn't mandate private researchers must share any profits made with their investors - the People of California. And they're not planning to either.

Duh duh duh.

Here is Barbara Boxer's definition of "moderate." What, then, is her definition of "liberal"?

Boxer called O'Connor a crucial moderate voice, saying the first female appointed to the high court was a strong backer of environmentalism and reproductive rights.

"She has been a powerful voice for moderation," Boxer said. "This is a philosophy her successor should embrace ... We cannot go back to the dark days. Roe must remain the law of the land."

[Read complete story on page 2. Source: Associated Press, 7-5-05

What will become of the Gang of 14 if Democrats filibuster President Bush's Supreme nominee? Senators Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy are promising a filibuster, calling it an "extraordinary circumstance" if Bush picks a pro-lifer.

Lindsey Graham (Republican and one of the 14) says he doesn't think "differences of legal opinion" should qualify as 'extraordinary'."

Sounds like the Gang will shortly be unchained, in which case Republicans will have made the sweeter deal on the so-called filibuster compromise. Their most conservative picks have now been approved, and the upcoming Supreme filibuster was going to happen regardless.

I may owe someone an apology.

As Democrats push the pro-gay/pro-abortion issue as Supreme criteria, they push more voters away. But they have no choice, having boxed themselves into a corner. The abortion, gay, and environmental lobbies and unions are their only remaining financial supporters....

Leading Senate Judiciary Democrat Charles Schumer said Sunday that he intends to make gay marriage an issue in the upcoming confirmation battle over President Bush's pick to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

"All questions are legitimate," Schumer told ABC's "This Week." "What is your view on Roe vs. Wade? What is your view on gay marriage?"...

The top Democrat's mention of same-sex marriage in the same breath as his party's primary litmus test issue, abortion, raised a few eyebrows....

[Read complete story on page 2. Source: Newsmax.com, 7-5-05.]

At 4a EST this morning in Denmark, President Bush took questions on his criteria for picking a Supreme Court replacement for Sandra Day O'Connor. He repeated what he has often said:

"I'll pick people who one, can do the job; people who are honest, people who are bright; and people who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not use the bench to legislate from. That's what I campaigned on, and that's what I'm going to do."

Reassuring words.

When liberals like Senator Durbin call on President Bush to appoint a "moderate," it is code for "pro-abortion." In recent years it has also become code for "gay union/marriage tolerant."

Clearly, there is no such person as a "moderate" on abortion or gay unions/marriage. One is either pro-life and pro-heterosexual marriage (conservative) or pro-"choice" and pro-gay unions/marriage (liberal).

[Read complete story on page 2. Source: CNS.com, 7-6-05.]

Conservatives oppose Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez as Supreme Court justice candidate due to his anti-Roe history.

But there is another Hispanic who would do: Emilio Garza, a federal appeals judge from Texas. Read about him here, here, here, here, and here.

[Photo credit: Notre Dame ulumni page]

What's interesting about this July 3 UPI story, entitled "Stem cell scientists mourn Frist's change," is the first clause in its first sentence:

U.S. stem cell researchers are bracing for renewed debate and hopeful their former advocate, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., will rejoin them [emphasis mine].

"Bracing"? "Renewed debate"? Are ESCR enthusiasts feeling the heat from under the magnifying glass of truth?

[Complete article on page 2.]

Excerpt from Michael Hiltzik's column in yesterday's Los Angeles Times:

Skepticism about the potential of stem cell research was wholly absent from the campaign for Proposition 71. As a scientific undertaking, the stem cell program is unique in that its sponsors, the state's voters, committed their money without receiving the slightest bit of professional scientific counsel....

California voters received, instead, a TV campaign promising cures tomorrow for a host of diseases, some of which may never respond to stem cell therapy. The professional cautions are only appearing now, after the money is committed. The shock of discovery that "tomorrow" may be 20 or 30 years away (or may never come) could be severe....