The cover story of the March 22 issue of World magazine is on what the '08 presidential campaign "reveal[s] about American culture," with mention of me as I relate to Barack Obama.

Regarding "hope" and "change", editor-in-chief Marvin Olasky wrote:

Some Americans are chanting political mantras this year, but past elections suggest that most at some point will come to reality-based conclusions.

One of those realities will be finally unpacking Barack Obama, whom I've seen in recent days....

There's the Rezko corruption connection, which calls Obama's character into question. Then there are his beliefs, which MSM has heretofore covered up, again quoting Olasky:

Journalists wrote and spoke the most about Mike Huckabee's beliefs: A Lexis-Nexis search shows "Huckabee" and "religious right" appearing 893 times during the three months before the TX and OH primaries. Religious liberal Obama, though, typically avoided such characterization: His name and "religious left" appeared together only 28 times during that period.

That Obama is a liberal's liberal is indisputable.

And after months of conservative pounding, the message is finally resonating. Even Obama cheerleader Andrew Sullivan had to note 2 days ago, after posting a reader's email about Obama's support of infanticide:

I find Obama's absolutist position on abortion out of sync with his usual temperateness.

Yes, abortion, a relevant topic despite MSM's constant drivel that it is not. This is where my name got mentioned in the World piece:

If the race is McCain vs. Obama, the older senator will need to pop the younger's halo of humaneness. One way is to listen to Jill Stanek, the whistle-blowing nurse who saw close-up at an IL Senate committee hearing Obama's opposition to protecting even babies born alive after failed abortions: "Obama's clinical discourse, his lack of mercy, shocked me."

The Chicago Sun-Times ran a cartoon of Obama holding a sign reading, "LIVE BIRTH ABORTION," God reaching down from heaven to a baby in front of the state senator, and Obama yelling at God, "You keep out of this!"

Is McCain up to criticizing Obama (or Clinton) on abortion? Perhaps not, but GOP honchos should talk with Clarise McFarlen, a 16-year-old from Wichita, KS, who - like Obama - is of a mixed racial background. At first excited to hear of Obama's candidacy, Clarise changed her mind when she learned of his position on partial-birth abortion: "My heart just stopped. If you support killing babies, there's no way you can have true compassion."

Obama has no qualms if a baby's heart stops. But if a voter's heart stops at the mention of his name? That's a problem.

[HT on Sullivan quote: reader Jordan]

I feel as I did the day pro-abort KS Attorney General Paul Morrison was caught in an affair and forced to resign: vindicated.

It has been on the news all afternoon. NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer has been caught on tape arranging a liaison with a prostitute. He hasn't resigned yet, but that should come soon. He came clean at a short news conference, pathetically propping wife at side.

Spitzer, a rabid pro-abort, is infamous in pro-life circles....

As attorney general in 2002, Spitzer tried to scare crisis pregnancy centers out of business by launching a very public investigation accusing them of "misleading advertising and inappropriate medical counseling." Spitzer's crusade, however, was a public relations nightmare from which he quickly retreated.

Most recently Spitzer has been pushing a bill he introduced last April - at a NY NARAL luncheon, of course - called the Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act.

This radical bill would wipe out all abortion restrictions in NY. It would force doctors to commit abortions, force all hospitals - even Catholic - to commit abortion, force insurance companies to cover abortion, force employers to purchase abortion coverage, authorize late-term abortions for "health" reasons, authorize non-doctors to commit abortions, allow the over-the-counter sale of the morning-after pill to minors, and more.

And today, in honor of the National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers, Spitzer was scheduled to meet with Family Planning Advocates of New York State to promote this heinous legislation. (Click on image to enlarge.)

But alas, prevailing prostitution problems forced Spitzer to cancel.

We can only now hope Spitzer's bill peters out like he did, indeed a fitting day for that.

If Spitzer falls, the NY abortion cartel will also take a tumble.

[Photo of Spitzer and wife courtesy of Reuters]

Click to enlarge...

I have received a series of emails from a man who tried to correspond with Fr. Michael Pfleger on his support of Obama for president....

Pfleger is an infamous Chicago Catholic priest, a white guy pastoring at a south side black church, St. Sabina's. No one can touch Pflger because his people there love him and because he does do some good.

But Pfleger is a bold-faced liberal who clearly identifies with blacks more than God or his church.

In 2003 I was part of a pro-life picket when Pfleger invited pro-abort Al Sharpton to speak from the pulpit during Mass one Sunday.

Last year Pfleger had Louis Farrakhan in to speak.

Also last year Pfleger, while demontrating outside a Chicago gun shop with Jesse Jackson, threatened, "We're going to snuff out [shop owner] John Riggio. We're going to snuff out legislators that are voting against our gun laws." He got in trouble for that one.

And no surprise, Pfleger supports Obama and has for a long time. He said last January, "I think Barack Obama is in a class of his own. I think he is the best thing that has come across the political scene since Bobby Kennedy...."

As you can see above, Pfleger has also contributed to Obama. And here was his response when my email friend wrote him about Obama's support of live birth abortion among many other afronts to the Bible:

Incredible.

When Democrats wrested control of both houses of Congress in 2006, the pro-life situation looked dire. It was anticipated Dems would try to knock off all pro-life riders on appropriations bills and pass anti-life legislation to boot.

None of that happened. Then last week the Senate even passed a ban against Indian Health Services funding for abortion.

Also last week the House stripped language that had been inserted in the U.S. relief package for AIDS in Africa (PEPFAR) that would have streamed funding to abortion groups.

These days the Democrat Congress sometimes appears as or more pro-life than a Republican Congress.

I asked 2 insiders what is going on. Here's what they told me....

After Nancy Pelosi became Speaker, pro-life Dems had a private meeting with her to discuss personal and political ramifications for them of introducing pro-abortion legislation or deleting pro-life riders from appropriations bills. The meeting included respected senior pro-life party members, including James Oberstar, chair of the House Transportation Committee, and Collin Peterson, chair of the Agriculture Committee.

Since then Democrats have not pushed the anti-life agenda other than to increase funding for "family planning," i.e., Planned Parenthood, and to try to decrease funding for abstinence. They eventually bailed on the latter.

Democrat leadership is keenly aware a wrong move on the abortion issue would fracture its coalition.

How did PEPFAR language get contaminated? The chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Tom Lantos, was very sick - he died February 11 - and it is thought staffers got away with drafting extreme language that thankfully caused an uproar and was beat back.

With the infusion of pro-life Democrats in 2006, the number is now 15-30, depending on the bill. (Embryonic stem cell bills would reveal the lowest common denominator.)

Those added to the 200 pro-life Republicans are enough to defeat anti-life proposals. Senate Democrats had enough votes to delete the Mexico City Policy, which keeps abortion groups from getting international family planning $, but House Democrats did not. So it emerged unscathed.

The 2006 election additionally weeded out many moderate Republicans. Those left are more strongly pro-life.

If Hillary or Obama wins the election, we will again be in bad shape. President Bush has also been a key player by threatening to veto riders with pro-life language removed and PEPFAR with bad language. Obviously, neither Democrat will make that threat.

And if Democrats pick up more seats in the House and Senate, they'll presumably have more pro-abortion votes and dilute out the pro-life Democrats.

So the situation, while not now dire, is precarious.

On February 28 the Washington Post reported:

The Virginia Senate voted Wednesday to cut off state funding to Planned Parenthood of Virginia because it offers abortions....

Before excitement overtakes, I should warn this bill may not become law. It seems unlikely Gov. Timothy Kaine would sign it since he's a pro-abort who just rejected federal funds to teach abstinence. He would now cut off a main line to low-income contraceptive provision and compehensive sex ed? Doubtful, but pro-lifers should certainly push.

But 3 other points do make this development exciting....

1. "The decision [was] a major setback for the Senate's new Democratic majority...."

2. "The GOP-controlled House has long pushed to cut off state aid for Planned Parenthood, but the moderate Republicans who controlled the Senate until this year fought off the effort."

3. "On Thursday, however, all 19 Senate Republicans decided they would vote for the amendment...."

Democrats could not break 1 lone pro-life member, Charles Colgan, from voting with Republicans, creating a 20-20 tie broken by the GOP pro-life lietenant governor. For whatever reason milk-toast Republicans coalesced with pro-life colleagues. I expect vindictivness played a role, but I'll take it.

So in this case, 1 pro-life Democrat made the difference. Stated Colgan, according to the WP:

"It's because of my conscience, and I don't waver from that, as my colleagues found out today. I ran on a pro-life platform, and most of my constituents are pro-life."

Good for Colgan.

[HT: Thomas Peter of The American Papist; photo, circa 1970s, courtesy of Library of Virginia]

Most of you have not heard of Tim Goeglein, the White House liaison to pro-family policy groups in DC.

According to the New York Times, among other news sources:

A longtime aide to President Bush who wrote occasional guest columns for his hometown newspaper resigned on Friday evening after admitting that he had repeatedly plagiarized from other writers.

That was Tim. I have known Goeglein for several years and am sorry he plagiarized and feel bad he had to resign a high position in disgrace. But I'm not so sorry to see him gone.

Goeglein was a nice man, but it was common thought in the pro-family public policy circle that communication with Goeglein was 1-way. He disseminated information on President Bush's behalf to pro-family groups but did not necessarily return the favor....

I spoke to Tim several times about the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. It is there, but it is not being enforced.

I even had a meeting with Tim and a couple others at the White House this past December. I provided several points of evidence that babies are still being wantonly aborted alive and left to die around the county, along with actions the President could take to make the law work without any input from the Democrat-controlled Congress. I worried at the time whether that meeting was simply to placate me, and it was. Nothing ever came of it.

I do not blame the President for any of this. Tim said at that meeting, "Jill, I promise you, if the President were sitting here with us, he would say to enforce the law." I really believe that. The problem is the President was not there, and I don't think he ever knew.

There is still time in these last months of President Bush's time in office to take specific actions to make Born Alive work. Perhaps a new pro-family gatekeeper to the President will get him the information.

During last night's Democrat presidential debate, Barack Obama for the 2nd time said his biggest legislative regret thus far was voting to try to stop Terri Schindler Schiavo's husband from starving and dehydrating her to death.

According to today's Miami Herald:

He said he wished he had spoken out when Republican lawmakers tried to stop the severely brain-damaged woman's husband from removing her feeding tube in 2005.

"It wasn't something I was comfortable with, but it was not something that I stood on the floor and stopped, and I think that was a mistake.''

That vote was unanimous. This means Obama would be the sole opponent could he turn back the clock. He has earned the ranking of most liberal senator of 2007 and must lament having only ranked 16th most liberal in 2005. A vote to kill Terri would have catapaulted him.

It's really too bad Terri wasn't a horse....

As both state and U.S. senator, Obama either supported or co-sponsored measures to stop horse slaughter, particularly since there is a horse factory in IL.

Terri would also have been better off a dog as far as Obama is concerned, because he has supported a legislative crack-down on dog fighting.

Or perhaps had Terri been born a little bird, Obama would have felt compelled to save her life. On his website he states:

I believe that not only does God know when the sparrow falls from its nest, but He is also watching to see who will stop and who will pass it by, and who is kind enough to lift it back.

Or if only Terri had been a convicted murderer. In IL Obama co-sponsored death penalty reform legislation, stating, "no innocent person should end up on death row."

Or if only Terri were a rooster....

I could go on.

Bottom line: If only Terri were anything other than a helpless, defenseless, innocent human being, Obama would have fought for her to live.

by Lisa Benson for Townhall.com...

Obama's fainted ladies...

Obama talks on water...

Students for Life of America has released a YouTube video from the February 9 CPAC wrap-up in DC.

Incredibly, the Conservative Political Action Conference is trying to squeeze social conservatives out. CPAC is sponsored by the American Conservative Union and presents itself as the largest annual gathering of American conservatives....

Tony Fabrizio of Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates, Inc., presented straw poll results gathered during the conference asking, "In your opinion, which of the following is the most and second most important issue for the next Republican nominee to focus on?"

After the presentation, Fabrizio and David Keene, president of ACU, took questions. Someone asked why "social values" was not an option.

Fabrizio first said illegal immigration was a social value, then said "social values" was an option but got too low a response to post. He then spun: "When we ask them to divide up and say ok, what was more important to you, economic issues and reducing the size of government versus moral issues, it was better than a three to one margin."

According to SFL, he was referring to another slide and question, which showed at least 22% of CPAC respondents said they considered traditional values like marriage and the life of the unborn most closely in line with their core beliefs and ideology, the 2nd highest response.  This showed, contrary to Fabrizio's claim, many attendees would likely have picked "social values" as most important for a presidential nominee to focus on - if allowed.

A KS House hearing on late-term abortion legislation yesterday went as I would have it go. Bravo to House members who took on this paternal psychopath. Gloves off. From the Topeka Capital-Journal, today:

The abortion hearing began matter-of-factly. A man testified Wednesday about how he and his wife came to the decision to have her undergo the procedure.

But anti-abortion legislators, taken aback by the man's explanation, minced few words in their response.

Speaking to members of the House Federal and State Affairs Committee, Tim Mosher recounted how he and his wife came to Wichita from metropolitan St. Louis to abort their 19-week-old fetus after learning the fetus had a severe case of spina bifida.... Mosher described the fetus' lemon-shaped brain "pushed so far back in her skull she would not have survived."

Tensions quickly rose when legislators began their questioning.

Rep. Steve Brunk (left), R-Bel Aire, whose own 30-year-old daughter has spina bifida, asked how Mosher had determined what sort of quality of life the child would have. Mosher replied that his family's decision was based on the medical diagnosis they received.

"What if the doctors might have been wrong about that?" Brunk asked.

"Then that's between God and myself," Mosher answered....

Rep. Forrest Knox (right), R-Altoona, said many people live with pain and suffering.

"If your daughter had been born and faced a life surrounded by pain and suffering with a conclusion that leads to death, would you have killed your daughter?" Knox asked.

Mosher, with hands fidgeting behind his back, paused for 10 seconds before answering.

"What one person may see as horrific and demonic, I view what I did to my daughter as out of love and respect," he said.

"What I did to my daughter," very telling.

Loved the question on postnatal abortion for pain and suffering.

A few years ago I visited Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun's grave at Arlington National Cemetery and seriously got chills. He's credited with twisting the law and Constitution into a pretzel (a statement scholars on both sides of the abortion debate agree upon) to legalize abortion in 1973.

I expect to get the same chills if someday walking past the grave of Sarah Weddington, the attorney who successfully argued Roe v. Wade before the Supremes, unless she recants.

She may see that future:

Weddington told The Vancouver Sun in an interview in advance of her visit here that such a big win so early in life posed a bit of a personal dilemma.

"There were some years when I thought, 'How will I trump Roe vs. Wade?' I have finally made peace with the fact that I will never trump it."

She knows exactly how the first line of her obituary will read... "Sarah Weddington, the woman who won Roe vs. Wade.... "

Obviously, at least to the world, Weddington considers Roe the high point of her life. Now in her mid-60s, she also considers it her earthly legacy. I can't imagine the load of her thoughts, if she ever examines all facets.

Supreme death watch

Weddington can credit herself with pronouncing 50 million people dead. Ironically, there is one or two she doesn't want to die....

The bond is that these deaths and lives are self-serving to Weddington. She must be in a morbid mood. Also from the Sun:

The court has four judges against legal abortion and four in favour. One of those four in favour is 87 years old [John Paul Stevens] and another is a rail-thin survivor of colon cancer [Ruth Bader Ginsburg]....

Weddington is so concerned, she recently made a point of attending an American Bar Association meeting because she heard the 87-year-old judge was speaking.

"I wanted to shake his hand to see if he was vigorous and sharp. I was very reassured that he had a really good strong handshake."

Weddington is hopeful, however, that either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will become U.S. president....

"I do think we really do have a good chance but between now and November, a lot of different things can happen."

Apparently, Weddington is always on a death watch of some sort.

[HT: LifeNews.com; current photo of Weddington courtesy of the Vancouver Sun]

Everyone agrees we have a right to our own feelings. It is well documented that Bill Clinton thinks he has a right to his own facts, which he attempted to spout last night during his temper tantrum against a pro-lifer in Steubenville, OH. I posted that video here. Clinton's misinformation was this:

I reduced abortion... [Y]ou can't name me anybody presently in politics that did more to introduce policies that reduce the number of real abortions....

The number of U. S. abortions may have gone down during Clinton's presidency, but it was certainly not for his lack of trying to raise them. In fact, Bill Clinton availed the worldwide abortion industry and mothers greater access to abort during his tenure. I've chronicled Clinton's actions as president in a powerpoint presentation, to make it easier on the eye. Click on any slide to enlarge. I begin with Clinton's alleged but credible personal history with abortion, his flip flop, and then his actions as president:

See remaining slides on page 2.

[The bulk of my information was gleaned from National Right to Life here and here, Concerned Women for America, and The Alan Guttmacher Institute.]

At a Steubenville, OH, campaign stop for his wife earlier this afternoon, Bill Clinton "snapped hard" at a pro-lifer in the audience, according to MSNBC.

I just spoke with another pro-lifer who attended the event, Billy Valentine, a student at Franciscan University in Steubenville. Here's the backdrop.

Over 100 pro-lifers, mostly university students, were awaiting Clinton's arrival with a protest before he spoke at Steubenville High School. They were on Clinton's side of the car when he stepped out, so he saw them. Organizers wouldn't let the protesters in, saying the event was full. But a few hid their signs and were allowed in. That's when the fun began.

See transcript on page 2.

UPDATE, 2/18, 10:45a: Quoting ABC News about Clinton's tirade: "He was so angry, we, in the press, couldn't keep up with what he was saying."

UPDATE, 2/18, 12:45p: The pro-lifer having the exchange with Clinton last night, David Vogel, has emailed me with further details:

I... confronted Bill Clinton last night... after he misled people... about child protection laws, child health care and no child left behind. The question I asked Bill Clinton that he never did answer, was this:

What about abortion? What about the 4000+ children scheduled for abortion today in America, what about their lives, what about their right to life?...

While he pointed his finger at me... I... point[ed] to the sign,"ABORTION KILLS CHILDREN."

UPDATE, 2/18, 1:40p: Drudge is carrying this story near the top of the page [HT: American Papist, which links to additional media coverage, and reader Phil]. News coverage is slanted against Clinton for losing his temper, not the protester. Fox News brought up a good point, that Clinton's response was all about his administration, which is "off-message" and creating a "distraction" to his wife's campaign.

I gave you the answer. We disagree with you. You wanna criminalize women and their doctors and we disagree... I reduced abortion... Tell the truth, tell the truth... If you were really pro-life, if you were really pro-life, you would want to put every doctor and every mother as an accessory to murder in prison. And you won't say you wanna do that because you know that because you know that you wouldn't have a lick of political support. Now, the issue is who... the issue is, you can't name me anybody presently in politics that did more to introduce policies that reduce the number of real abortions instead of the hot air putting out to tear people up and make votes by dividing America.

This is not your rally. I heard you. That's another thing you need is a president, somebody who will stick up for individual rights and not be pushed around, and she won't.

Bill Clinton telling pro-lifers how to be pro-life? Ha. Why is it pro-aborts are always pushing to criminalize aborting mothers?

And he says we're the ones who "tear people up"? Ha again.

By: Valerie Ryan

magine that.  According to a January Guttmatcher Institute report for
2006 Public Funding for Family Planning, Sterilization and abortion
services, the term "family planning" does not include having a family.

It does include, however:

[C]lient counseling and education, contraceptive drugs and devices, related diagnostic tests (e.g., pregnancy, Pap, HIV, other STIs) and treatment after diagnosis (e.g., urinary tract infections and STIs other than HIV). Whenever possible, we separated out services that are not part of the standard package provided to clients seeking contraceptives, such as outreach and education activities, sterilization services (both of which we report separately), and administrative expenses....

What was this report about? It was about our tax money going toward "family planning" for low income people.

Now, I have no problems helping low income people get needed reproductive health care such as PAPs, STD testing, other diagnostic tests and treatments if needed, prenatal and postnatal care.

However, this report indicated we are spending a good deal of money for non-medical reasons.

Here are a few highlights:

• Public expenditures for "family planning" client services totaled $1.85 Billion in 2006.
• Medicaid accounted for 71% of the total spending;  The rest from other government programs such as Title X and different state appropriations.
•  6 states (CA, KY, NY, OR, PA and WA) accounted for half of all Medicaid expenditures, yet Medicaid was the single largest source of funding for 41 states.
• By the middle of 2006, 14 states had initiated income-based expansion programs providing family planning services under Medicaid to individuals with incomes well above the cut-off for Medicaid eligibility overall.
• From 2001-2006 Medicaid spending in 8 of the states with income-based expansion programs increased by 57%, compared to 18% among states without expansions.
• During 1994-2006 Medicaid spending in the 14 states with expansion programs tripled.  Spending went from $252 Million to $759 Million.
• For 2006 $43 million was spent for outreach and education activities.
• In 2006 $116 million was spent of sterilization services, 97% were spent through Medicaid.  Eight states account for half of all reported spending.
• The federal and state governments funded over 177,000 abortion procedures which cost $89 Million dollars.  191 procedures were paid for by the federal government the rest by the individual states.  (This means the government spent appx $500 for each abortion.  Guttmatcher 2007 abortion costs report said that the average cost of an abortion is $372; also appx 21% of abortions are paid for by the government.)
• Over 99% of publicly funded abortion procedures occurred in 17 states that have nonrestrictive policies.
• Medicaid agencies in some states dedicate their own funds to provide services to groups of people, such as many immigrants, who are barred from federally reimbursed Medicaid.  (Medicaid pays for Immigrants who are here legally.)
• 53,381 abortions were from 4 states that have nonrestrictive policies on government funding for abortions
• 123,272 abortions were from 13 states that are court ordered to pay for "medically necessary abortions." (Life/health of mother; gross fetal deformity; rape and incest make up 7% of abortions according to Guttmatcher. However, this number represents appx 14% of abortions.)
• 54 abortions were from 27 states that provide funding for abortion in cases of rape, incest and life of mother.
• 697 abortions were from 6 states that provide funding for abortion in cases of rape, incest and life/health of mother.

by Jill Stanek

I have watched the videos Mary Kay posted of John McCain's views of the sanctity of life in his own words, and they made my blood boil.

Then this morning Bobby Schindler emailed me an Esquire article from 2006, wherein he stated, on the isse of Bobby's sister Terri Schiavo:

I understand the frustrations a lot of Republicans feel. We're not representing their hopes and dreams and aspirations. We worry about Ms. Schiavo before we worry about balancing the budget. We're going to take up this Family Marriage Amendment again. Why?.... It's pointless...

I urge my friends who complain about the influence of the religious Right, get out there and get busy. That's what they do! Now, if we believe in the Republican party of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, the big-tent party, then we have to get out there and show that. The fact is, some of us have sat idly by while those very active people have basically set the agenda for our party....

As I recall, Abraham Lincoln did not subscribe to the big-tent on slavery, but that's an aside.

By his own words, from the videos Mary Kay posted:

by Jasper

With Mitt Romney dropping out of the race, John McCain will most likely be the Republican nominee. Reliable pro-lifer Rick Santorum had some interesting takes on McCain:

And then on social conservative issues, you point to me one time John McCain ever took the floor of the United States Senate to talk about a social conservative issue. It never happened....

I mean, this is a guy who says he believes in these things, but I can tell you, inside the room, when we were in these meetings, there was nobody who fought harder not to have these votes before the United States Senate on some of the most important social conservative issues, whether its marriage or abortion or the like. He always fought against us to even bring them up....

We're looking at the media trying to make Barack Obama the president, and make John McCain the shill for him.... I think they know that John McCain can't win this election.

I think he is exactly on target.

The liberal MSM are so corrupt, look at the way they treated Mitt Romney. The sneaks.

Plus Republicans for Choice is endorsing McCain now that Rudy is out.

With Hillary, Obama and McCain the only ones left - it looks like Mike Huckabee is too far behind - who is the conservative choice?

What are your thoughts?

by Bethany Kerr

Rachel's Park Memorial in Waco, TX, was dedicated in 2000 to help post-abortive families grieve their losses.

On February 1 or 2, Rachel's Park Memorial was vandalized last Friday or Saturday.

Of the 4,000 crosses which stand in memorial to the same number of children aborted each day in the U.S., 200 to 300 were destroyed by a vehicle, most likely a Jeep or an SUV .

Park founder Rev. Rusty Thomas reported, "The crosses were planted into the ground with steel rebar," so the vehicle doing the damage likely sustained its own damage.

Waco Police are investigating whether this was a hate crime or mischief.

See more photos of the damage on page 2.

[HT: Thomas]

In the wake of the political demise of National Right to Life's first endorsed presidential candidate, Fred Thompson, it issued a statement Monday saying what it should have said in the first place: We love every pro-life candidate.

Someone close to the situation has told me Darla St. Martin of NRLC admitted to him/her that NRLC endorsed too soon.

I appreciate NRLC's attempt to consolidate votes around one pro-life candidate, so our votes wouldn't be split and Giuliani walk away with the nomination.

But Thompson was problematic because he opposed a human life amendment to the Constitution and supported states having the right to impose euthanasia.

One revelation in all this was that the NRLC apparently abandoned support of a human life amendment to the Constitution long ago, which is troubling.

[HT: LifeNews.com]

Ouch. Marcia Pappas, president of New York State NOW, is getting skewered by her own side for skewering Ted Kennedy because he endorsed Barack Obama, which I posted on yesterday.

Here are some comments from the left-leaning Politico blog. Seems that their view of modern feminists, at least this one, is the same as mine.

This is really pathetic. The pro-choice community has been angered by the Clintons' attempt to label Obama as not strong choice, etc. This is another attempt. According to these wackadoos, anyone who doesn't support Clinton does so because they hate women. Yeah, right. Posted By: kickbuttdemocrat

Earth to NOW. Grow up now. Posted By: Mark

Reminds me of Elizabeth Cady Stanton's eruption after Congress passed the 15th Amendment giving African-Americans (but not women) the right to vote: "Sambo isn't ready for the vote" she said. It looks like 150 years later, we have come full circle. How dare the uppity Obama folks challenge Hillary? We are supposed to wait our turn - and maybe Massa' Clinton will tell us when we can come out of the field and into the massa's house. Thanks for nothing NY NOW. Posted By: Nate

I thought the basis of the women's rights movement was equality! Are they saying that Kennedy should support HRC just because she is a woman? Posted By: Me

Wow. I'm a feminist and an Obama supporter and this is just ridiculous. Incidentally, this is as good an example as any of why many young feminists do not feel represented by NOW. Posted By: Young Feminist

Get a load of this press release from NY NOW on January 11th - Psychological Gang Bang of Hillary is Proof We Need a Woman President. Posted By: Jessica

Hilarious - what idiots. This comes from the Taylor Marsh school of feminism that falls into Rush Limbaugh stereotypes. What is their opinion of Caroline Kennedy? Has she lost her right to be called a woman after her endorsement of Obama? This statement makes them look like clowns. Posted By: Vik N

I always find it ironic that when Feminists get angry, they act like teenage girls. And I'm a woman. Hillary's campaign really is Tracy Flick on steroids. Posted By: Wonk

This is sexism, plain and simple. They're arguing that you should vote for a woman simply because she is a woman.... I could care less that [Hillary's] a woman. I DO care about the fact she's polarized the democratic party and has no chance of winning the general election in November. Posted By: Larry

Well, this is a red letter day. Amanda Marcotte gets mentioned here twice. I see she also likes to wear red. Appropriate.

And there's more symmetry. This is also the same day her former boss, John Edwards, will terminate himself from the presidental race, much as he terminated Amanda for being too liberal.

Which right there explains how far left Amanda leans.

Case in point, Amanda's January 28 lambast against the March for Life, which included this gem:

[W]hy on earth are all those people standing around listening to speeches while their sex cells die unused inside them? A holocaust! Never mind the actual holocausts where people suffered and died, people with names, families, lives. You know, actual people. Once you start breathing and feeling, these supposed pro-lifers stop caring. I'd suggest they all go take a visit to the Holocaust Museum, which is in the same city as the march after all. Wonder if they could muster up some sympathy for victims of the actual Holocaust, or if real people just interest them less than potential people.

I wonder if Amanda has actually ever toured the Holocaust Museum. If she hasn't, I'd recommend she steer clear near the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Sandy, MK, Jacque, and I arrived there January 21 when it opened at 10a, and the line of pro-lifers waiting to get in - mostly teens - stretched around the building. Our ticket into the exhibit was stamped 12:45p, so we had to wait nearly three hours.

Pro-lifers understand there's quite the correlation between the Jewish Holocaust and the Abortion Holocaust.

And someday there will be an Abortion Holocaust Museum, perhaps in DC, although likely in Wichita.

And Amanda will find herself in it, as disgraced and on the wrong side of history as the Nazi prison guards who also enabled the killing of millions of innocent people.

[HT: reader Phil]

According to news sources, Rudy Giuliani and John Edwards are both planning to drop out of the presidential race today.

According to my ongoing poll, you expected this of Giuliani but thought Gravel on the Democrat side would quit before Edwards.

Color me surprised by the turn of two events following yesterday's Florida primary.

For social conservatives, our worst case scenario has evaporated, and much easier than I expected. Giuliani, the only overt social liberal, is gone. Big relief. Had he carried the nomination and then the election, the social conservative base of the Republican Party would have likewise evaporated or our status greatly diminished....

But our second-worst case scenario has come to the forefront: John McCain. I thought his candidacy was dead this summer and he kept things going for his ego.

McCain is a traitor to social conservatives and to the GOP. There is a reason moderates/independents like him. There is a reason Giuliani is anticipated to endorse him and Giuliani's followers are to flock to McCain.

It appears social conservatives will now split their vote between Romney, Huckabee, and Paul, increasing McCain's chances of winning the nomination all the more.

Am worried today, but this nomination process has been full of surprises, so I'm also hopeful.

There is trouble in abortion paradise. Factions are warring. Love it.

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL, has called on pro-abort presidential candidates and groups to reserve slicing and dicing to preborn children and not one another. Keenan wrote a public message on January 24:

Beginning in Iowa... there has been an undercurrent of speculation and innuendo that calls into question Sen. Obama's record on choice.

This has the potential to divide the pro-choice community and create tension where none should exist. Today, for the sake of our issue and our movement, I am asking that these tactics stop....

Sens. Clinton, Edwards, and Obama are fully pro-choice... have voted pro-choice; have publicly affirmed that they are pro-choice; and have taken actions that back up their pro-choice voting records and statements. All three candidates endorse the Freedom of Choice Act which would codify Roe and protect the right to choose for future generations....

NARAL... has not yet endorsed a candidate for president because there are such equally strong pro-choice contenders in the Democratic primary. We understand that other organizations have made different decisions; we respect that....

This focus on nonexistent differences between the pro-choice candidates distracts from the real goal. We must focus our fight on defeating the anti-choice Republican candidates who have called for the overturn of Roe....

We can only hope that in the future, we, as a unified pro-choice community, will be defending against anti-choice politicians, not one another.

I know elements of NOW, which supports Clinton, and Planned Parenthood, which supports Obama, have been sniping. Love it.

A word on the Freedom of Choice Act, which is extremely dangerous. FOCA would enshrine the Roe decision into federal law and overturn over 500 state pro-life laws.

[Cartoon courtesy of American Way]

Some wise guy signed me up for Barack Obama's email list, but they've been fun to read.

Yesterday's Obamagram was a note from new supporter John Kerry (which in my opinion is no positive).

Kerry thinks Obama's opponents are "swiftboating" him, I term I love, btw, as it exemplifies how bloggers can now go around MSM to get out truth:

As a veteran, it disgusts me that the Swift Boats we loved... [into] an ugly verb meaning to lie about someone's character just to win an election.... [W]e must stop the Swiftboating, stop the push-polling, stop the front groups, and stop the email chain smears.

This year, the attacks are already starting. Some of you may have heard about the disgusting lies about Barack Obama that are being circulated by email. These attacks smear Barack's Christian faith and deep patriotism, and they distort his record of more than two decades of public service. They are nothing short of "Swiftboat" style anonymous attacks....

The Obama campaign has created a place where you can find the truth you'll need to push back on these smears....

http://my.barackobama.com/factcheckaction

Hm, I wondered. Will the Obama campaign try to defend his support of live birth abortions - infanticide? Certainly they have been brainstorming to combat the coming babyboat.

Ah, but no. They are at this point ignoring it, hoping the fact that Obama is pro-abortion on steroids won't develop into something they have to address. Right now they consider it contained among conservatives. What they eventually are forced to say will be interesting.

The Family Research Council has proposed an interesting theory as to why Republican primaries have thus far appeared fickle. FRC also maintains Rudy is toast:

The lesson that some are drawing from the results of the Republican presidential voting to date is that the race for the party's nomination is wide open. The deeper lesson is that the race for the GOP agenda is anything but wide open. The Republican caucus and primary contests to date prove incontrovertibly what we and others... have been saying all along....

The simple truth is that the conservative coalition - a three-legged stool - stands when social, economic and defense conservatives work together on an interlocking agenda. The coalition collapses when any of the legs is missing. [Dick] Armey and others, especially the early enthusiasts for Rudy Giuliani, suggested the social conservative leg of the stool is dispensable, or at least that it can be appreciably shortened without impact on the greater stability of the coalition. This thesis is not only false in theory, it now has been decisively shown not to represent what the conservative coalition actually believes. The three winners of the contests to date are each emblematic of one of the legs of the stool, and each is attempting to shore up his standing with the other two "legs":

... Mike Huckabee: Social leg
... John McCain: Defense leg
... Mitt Romney: Economic leg

In Michigan, these three individuals, now leading their party's nomination race, won more than 85% of the vote....

The remainder went to Ron Paul (who represents the small, doctrinaire libertarian portion of the coalition), Fred Thompson (who has all three legs but is struggling to interest voters in them when his manner suggests his own lack of passion for them), and Rudy Giuliani (now trailing badly because each leg of the coalition has a much better option than he is). Giuliani's crushing last-place finish in Michigan only underscores the larger point: the GOP coalition is looking for coherence on all three parts of the message and the base constituency of the party is fairly evenly split among those who hold each of these legs highest when forced to choose among them.

Somehow or other, if the conservative coalition is to re-form, these three legs need their favorites to unite around the strongest themes of each, to wit: 1) the surge worked, and it is no longer business-as-usual against radical Islamic terrorism - we will take the fight to them and win for our values (McCain); 2) the government is run with all the efficiency of a bar room brawl where the sailors are bad enough but it's actually the drunken captains doing the damage, and someone with business acumen has to clean it up (Romney); and 3) moral values are indispensable to a free nation that hopes to have and keep small government, and we can't get there without some Old-Time Religion, and those old-timers, our nation's almost uniformly Christian founders, knew it (Huckabee).

Obviously, each of the three leading Republicans can lay some claim to the other two themes that are not their primary ones.... There is probably nothing they could do that would be more unifying than to rally now around a platform that embodies the coalition in full.

The message: the GOP electorate is asking its leaders to reassemble the stool, plant it firmly in the cockpit of the party, and get the plane fast down the runway and off the ground. The message to Rudy? The tailwinds have passed you by, and the party you want to lead is moving on. The race is not wide open. A unified agenda beckons the GOP to a surge of its own.

posted at 6:23 AM | Comments (2)

January 16, 2008
Obama: worst or weak on abortion?

There are polar opposite arguments ongoing in liberal and conservative camps regarding Barack Obama's position on abortion.

It's wild, and I can't quite believe these debates are occurring simultaneously.

As I've documented (here and here), our side is wondering whether Obama is the most pro-abortion senator and presidential candidate ever.

Meanwhile, the other side, driven by Hillary Clinton, is arguing whether he's weak on abortion. On Monday Clinton issued a press release again targeting Obama's "present" votes as state senator....

As a State Senator, Barack Obama voted 'present' on seven abortion bills, including a ban on 'partial birth abortion,' two parental notification laws and three 'born alive' bills. In each case, the right vote was clear, but Sen. Obama chose political cover over standing and fighting for his convictions.

"When we needed someone to take a stand, Sen. Obama took a pass," said [IL NOW prez Bonnie] Grabenhofer. "He wasn't there for us then and we don't expect him to be now."

Does Grabenhofer's name sound familiar? She is the Aurora resident who along with IL NOW vp and roommate Gay Bruhn were the frequent sole supporters of Aurora Planned Parenthood.

Speaking of, remember Steve Trombley, the infamous CEO of Chicago PP behind the Aurora PP skulduggery? How coincidental that he's on the opposite side.

According to several sources, Obama held a conference call Monday right after Clinton issued her press release. According to the Huffington Post, Trombley was on the call as an Obama defender:

... Trombley defended Obama, saying the "present" votes were part of a strategy devised by his group to protect vulnerable Democrats, and that Obama was always prepared to vote against the anti-abortion rights bills.

"We feel an obligation to defend Barack's record related to abortion issues in Illinois," Trumbley said. "Barack Obama has a 100 percent voting record from Planned Parenthood."

As I said, this is all wild. But if Obama is picked as the Democrat candidate for president, our side will still be saying he's the most pro-abortion candidate ever, but he will at that time be trying to moderate his position to appeal to moderates.

His scuffles now with Clinton over who is the pro-abort candidate of choice will come back to bite him.

posted at 11:30 AM | Comments (11)

State ranking on Life

Yesterday Americans United for Life released its 5th annual state ranking of most and least pro-life states.

Click here for criteria. AUL grades in major areas: abortion restrictions, bioethics (human embryo experimentation, cloning), end of life, and healthcare provider conscience rights.

Click here to view specifics on your state.

Michigan topped the list for the 3rd year in a row:

Abortion border fence

There is much debate betweeen those taking an incremental approach to stopping abortion and those taking a wholistic approach (all or nothing). AUL is a chief proponent of incrementalism. From yesterday's press release:

"Until all the pieces are in place to make the overruling of Roe a realistic possibility and until the truth has replaced misinformation about abortion," said Clarke Forsythe, AUL's President, "laws that put fences around the abortion license and highlight the negative impact of abortion on women are imperative. And those laws are being passed in the 50 states."

The ranking also seeks to answer the question: Thirty-five years after Roe, are we making progress to restore a culture of life in America?

"We are making progress, state by state and law by law. In states that have passed these types of laws, the abortion rates have declined by up to 20% over the past 10 years," responds [Denise] Burke [AUL's vp and legal director]. "Further, these laws highlight the significant dangers -- physical, psychological, and relational -- posed by abortion."

posted at 9:37 AM | Comments (21)

January 10, 2008
Top 10 reasons Obama voted against the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act

Here are the top 10 reasons Barack Obama has variously stated why he voted against Illinois' Born Alive Infant Protection Act when state senator....

10. Babies who survive their abortions are not protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Speaking against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act on the IL Senate floor on March 30, 2001, Obama, the sole verbal opponent to the bill stated:

... I just want to suggest... that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.

Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a - child, a nine-month-old - child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.

I mean, it - it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.

9. A ban to stop aborted babies from being shelved to die would be burdensome to their mothers. She alone should decide whether her baby lives or dies. Before voting "no" for a 2nd time in the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 5, 2002, Obama stated:

What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can't support that.

During a speech at Benedictine University in October 2004, Obama said, according to the Illinois Leader, that "the decision concerning a baby should be left to a woman, but that he does not see himself as supportive of abortion."

8. Wanting to stop live aborted babies from being shelved to die was all about politics. During that same speech at Benedictine University, Obama said, according to the Illinois Leader, "the bill was unnecessary in Illinois and was introduced for political reasons."

7. There was no proof. Also during the Benedictine University speech, Obama said, according to the Illinois Leader, that "there was no documentation that hospitals were actually doing what was alleged in testimony presented before him in committee."

6. Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a doctor's prerogative. An Obama spokesman told the Chicago Tribune in August 2004 that Obama voted against Born Alive because it included provisions that "would have taken away from doctors their professional judgment when a fetus is viable."

5. Anyway, doctors don't do that. Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times in October 2004 he opposed Born Alive because "physicians are already required to use life-saving measures when fetuses are born alive during abortions."

4. Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a religious issue. During their U.S. Senate competition, Alan Keyes famously said:

Christ would not stand idly by while an infant child in that situation died.... Christ would not vote for Barack Obama, because Barack Obama has voted to behave in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved.

Obama has always mischaracterized Keyes' rationale for condemning Obama by implying Keyes was simply making a statement against Obama's pro-abortion position, which is untrue. Keyes pointedly stated he was condemning Obama for his support of infanticide.

Nevertheless, live birth abortion must be included in the list of procedures Obama condones. Obama responded first to Keyes by saying, as quoted in his July 10, 2006, USA Today op ed:

... [W]e live in a pluralistic society, and that I can't impose my religious views on another.

3. Aborting babies alive and letting them die violates no universal principle. In the same USA Today piece, Obama said he reflected on that first answer, decided it was a "typically liberal response," and revised it:

... But my opponent's accusations nagged at me.... If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons but seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

2. Sinking Born Alive was simply about political oneupsmanship. Obama has this quote on his website:

Pam Sutherland, the president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, told ABC News, "We worked with him specifically on his strategy. The Republicans were in control of the Illinois Senate at the time. They loved to hold votes on 'partial birth' and 'born alive'. They put these bills out all the time... because they wanted to pigeonhole Democrats...."

And the #1 reason Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was:

1. The IL Born Alive Infant Protection Act was a ploy to undercut Roe v. Wade. During a debate against Keyes in October 2004, Obama stated:

Now, the bill that was put forward was essentially a way of getting around Roe vs. Wade.... At the federal level, there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe vs. Wade. I would have voted for that bill.

This was an out-and-out lie. The definition of "born alive" in the federal and Illinois versions were identical. The only difference came in paragraph (c), which was originally identical in both versions but changed on the federal level.

Illinois' paragraph (c): A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.

Federal paragraph (c): Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being "born alive" as defined in this section.

When the senator sponsoring the IL bill tried to amend IL's paragraph (c), Amendment 1 below, to be the same as the federal paragraph (c), Barack Obama himself, as chairman of the committee hearing the bill, refused, and he then also killed the bill (click to enlarge).

posted at 10:11 AM | Comments (215)

January 9, 2008
Obama: "Most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever"

Terry Jeffrey, editor of CNSNews.com, has been talking up Barack Obama's position on the IL Born Alive Infant Protection Act. He discussed them, and me, on EWTN last week and on Bill Bennett's radio show Monday. He described Obama as the most pro-abortion U.S. senator in history.

He followed that up with a Townhall.com column today, "Obama is the most pro-abortion candidate ever."

It's true. By voting against the Born Alive bill in IL, Obama demonstrated support of infanticide. A vote taken on virtually the same bill in the U.S. Senate passed 98-0 - unanimously - including one cast by Hillary Clinton.

Jeffrey wrote today....

He is so pro-abortion he refused as an Illinois state senator to support legislation to protect babies who survived late-term abortions because he did not want to concede -- as he explained in a cold-blooded speech on the Illinois Senate floor -- that these babies, fully outside their mothers' wombs, with their hearts beating and lungs heaving, were in fact "persons."

In 2004, U.S. Senate-candidate Obama mischaracterized his opposition to this legislation. Now, as a presidential frontrunner, he should be held accountable for what he actually said and did about the Born Alive Infants Bill....

[Cartoon, courtesy of the Chicago Sun-Times, was run during 2004 U.S. Senate election cycle]

posted at 12:47 PM | Comments (59)

January 8, 2008
Survivors disrupt Obama

At a NH campaign stop last night, the Survivors disrupted an Obama town hall meeting of about 1,000 people. See video above. According to the Wall Street Journal...

Barack Obama had barely begun his speech here at the Rochester Opera House when he was interrupted by about a dozen anti-abortion protesters, who began chanting "abortion is abomination" from the balcony.

Obama stopped his speech and told the rest of the crowd that "there's no need to boo," but that didn't stop them. He paced across the stage, as the protesters continued to yell and as the crowd began to chant "fired up, ready to go."

After quieting down the crowd, he told the chanting protesters that "I understand your position but this isn't going to solve anything." About two minutes after they began chanting, security tossed them out.

Obama quieted down the crowd as they cheered the protesters' departure. Free speech is "part of the American tradition, too," he said. It's not easy to "stand up in a crowd of people who don't agree with you."

Blah blah blah. Peace, love, and understanding from a man who supports aborting babies alive and shelving them to die in soiled utility rooms, suctioning the brains out of mostly born babies, and letting 10-year-old girls abort with no parental or judicial oversight.

Good for the Survivors. I think I will always find scenes such as this surreal. The angry mob is booing the Survivors because the crowd supports suctioning and dismembering preborn babies.

"Abortion is an abomination." None of the news outlets picked up on the double entendre, "Abortion is an Obamanation."

[HT: Fran at Illinois Review]

posted at 1:12 PM | Comments (87)

January 4, 2008
Iowa caucus results

Here are the Iowa caucus final results, from the Washington Post.

The big story last night for Republicans was the turnout of Christian conservatives. See the quote of the day.

A split between social and fiscal conservatives has emerged, with the former largely supporting Huckabee and the latter Romney. For now, social conservatives have shown more muscle.

That said, there are concerns with Huckabee's fiscal conservatism. Rush Limbaugh is incensed at comparisons of Huckabee to Reagan, with valid examples.

Richard Viguerie, author of Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause, called Huckabee a "Christian socialist," according to CNSNews.com....

I have gone back and forth. While Huckabee is the best of all leading contenders on the Life issue, I share the fiscal concerns. I've even switched my vote when considering my state's February 5 primary. But I awakened this morning with the question to self, "Who would I trust most with the Life issue?" And it's Huckabee. So for me, it's going to be Huckabee, despite his other political flaws.

The big story last night for Democrats was Obama's big win and Hillary's big loss, which Rush, who called in to Fox, called a "devastating and humiliating loss... the worst night of her life...."

UPDATE, 9:40a: Regarding the chart of caucus votes, while the Iowa Republican Party releases the actual number of caucus voters, caucus voters, the Iowa Democratic Party "releases an estimated number of delegates to the state party convention that each candidate will receive, based on their proportional support in the caucuses," according to the WP.

posted at 7:25 AM | Comments (142)

January 2, 2008
President Bush, please tear down Title X

Most pro-lifers wish the federal government would abolish Title X, its "family planning" program.

Title X is really a comprehensive sex ed and contraception program, and its prime recipients are Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion industry, which is why they spin and promote it:

While Title X funds cannot be used directly to fund abortion, taxpayers indirectly underwrite abortion by underwriting the abortion provider. Furthermore, Title X funds can be used inside an abortion mill.

The Democrat-controlled Congress bumped up Title X funding by almost $17 million for Fiscal Year 2008, so it will be funded at a record high this year: almost $300 million.

Now a group of 48 pro-family groups has sent President Bush a letter asking him to reinstate a regulation established by President Reagan, which Bush I continued....

That is, as the letter stated, to "clarif[y] the law that Title X recipients may not refer for abortion or combine family planning services with abortion services."

The Supreme Court upheld a president's right to make this rule in 1991.

However, Bill Clinton rescinded the regulation during his tenure, and strangely, President Bush has for 7 years not restored them.

(The more apt phrase, right, would be "commit-
ment to reproductive savagry.")

This is President Bush's final year. Even one year of this rule would be helpful, and it would grease the skids for an incoming Republican president.

Write or call the President to ask him to restore this Title X regulation:

President George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20500
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414

posted at 12:44 PM | Comments (27)

December 17, 2007
Morrison's dual affair

Cartoon by John Francis Borra, used with his permission

The Associated Press, today insinuated Kansas Attorney General Paul Morrison's downfall was due to scorned pro-lifers....

Abortion politics made ground already slippery for erring AG

Attorney General Paul Morrison's political career seemed to collapse with shocking swiftness when he announced his resignation only six days after admitting to having an extramarital affair with a former subordinate.

But his downfall has been more gradual, and it occurred against the backdrop of the intense debate over abortion in Kansas. His victory last year in the attorney general's race left hard feelings among abortion opponents, inspired them to generate a near-constant debate about his activities and watch for any indiscretions.

Morrison gave them a sex scandal.

Let me get this straight. Morrison's "downfall" had nothing to do with his clearly biased cancellation of an investigation and felony charges against Tiller?

And it was pro-lifers who launched the "near-constant debate"?

My, the AP is suffering from serious short-term memory loss. It has forgotten Morrison ran for AG solely on the issue of then-AG Phill Kline's investigation of George Tiller and Planned Parenthood for illegal late-term/underage abortions.

The AP has also forgotten Morrison's run came after the abortion industry went public to create hysteria by lying that Kline's investigation would result in the names of aborting mothers being publicized.

The AP thinks we're the obsessed ones, when Morrison went so far as to pressure his mistress to spy on Kline.

But hey, I'll take the credit. Let the abortion industry and pro-abort politicians be put on notice that in this day of the Internet, blogs, and increased transparency, they may not be getting away much longer with buying each other off.

posted at 9:14 AM | Comments (42)

December 15, 2007
Breaking news: Paul Morrison resigns

I reported December 10 that KS Attorney General Paul Morrison had been accused by a former subordinate of engaging in a two-year affair that only ended in September.

Moreover, the woman, Linda Carter, alleged Morrison asked her to spy on her current boss, Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline, and provide Morrison with inside info on Kline's investigation of Planned Parenthood for illegal late-term and underage abortions, which in itself would be illegal.

Last night the Kansas City Star broke this news:

Racked by scandal, facing multiple investigations and with calls for his resignation mounting, Attorney General Paul Morrison simply couldn't hold on any longer.

Saying the scandal was damaging his office and taking a toll on his family, Morrison announced Friday that he would resign, effective Jan. 31, just over a year after he took office....

"I've held others accountable for their actions, and now I must be held accountable for my mistakes," he said, his face grim as he read a statement outside his office. "Many people feel betrayed by my actions. And they have every right to feel that way."

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius will select a successor; there's no time frame for her decision, though several names are being tossed out as possibilities.

Just a week ago, Morrison, 53, was considered a rising star in the Democratic Party, a former Republican who easily defeated then-Attorney General Phill Kline in last year's election. Many counted Morrison as one of the state's most popular politicians and predicted a long political career.

How fast things change.

This week, his reputation was devastated by revelations of a two-year affair with Linda Carter, a former employee in the Johnson County district attorney's office, and allegations that he harassed Carter and tried to use her to meddle with the DA's office, now run by Kline. Throughout the week, Morrison seemed resolute, acknowledging the affair but steadfastly denying the other allegations.

New details about the affair and the allegations emerged throughout the week. On Friday, Harris News reported that Kline learned of the affair weeks and possibly months before it was revealed to the public, and that his investigator took a statement from Carter this fall detailing her relationship with Morrison....

Current investigations of the scandal are likely to continue. The resignation came one day after Kline won approval from the Johnson County Commission to hire a special prosecutor to investigate whether Morrison committed any crimes....

You couldn't make this stuff up, a long KS saga that started with Kline's launch as AG of an investigation into illegal abortions committed by late-term abortionist George Tiller and Planned Parenthood.

This is a breakthrough. I expect Kline will fully investigate whether Morrison tampered with his federal investigation of PP. This should lead to other revelations. Maybe we'll get to the bottom of Morrison and Democrat Gov. Kathleen Sebelius's obsession with protecting Tiller/PP... just in time for Sebelius's 2010 reelection bid? ... against Sam Brownback?

[HT: Kathy Ostrowski, Kansans for Life Legislative Director, and Leslie Hanks and ]

A Fox News commentator noted this morning that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad allows dissent on his blog, to which another responded he's more mature than American Democrat and liberal bloggers, who screen every comment and automatically delete differences of opinion.

I thought, that's for sure, pro-life bloggers can attest to that.

And I thought one reason why is liberal opinion is so often nonsensical, easy to pick apart, focusing mostly on personal attacks laced with expletives. (In fact, I have not found another blog besides this one where pro-lifers and pro-aborts engage in mostly intelligent debate.)

I was mulling that when I opened the Center for Bio Ethical Reform Midwest's latest posting of a Genocide Awareness Project tour it conducted at Temple University in Philadelphia October 30-31.

You know the drill, if you've been reading my site. CBR sets up large displays on college campuses comparing various human atrocities to abortion so as to encourage thought and discussion, like at Temple:

What grabbed my attention this time was the idiotic dissent, captured perfectly by this coarse photo:

Obviously, the fellow on the left does not have the female anatomy he advises President Bush to stay away from, and the "real man" on the right is hiding behind his sign.

Then there were the masked pro-abort cheerleaders, reminiscent of the Planned Parenthood pep rally at Aurora City Hall a couple months back.

One observer of the aforementioned wrote a letter to the editor of the Temple student newspaper:

... [T]he FLMA [Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance] did not attempt to engage in civil debate.... Instead, they chanted nonsense like, "Hey, hey, ho, ho, this sexist bulls---t has gotta go!" They also held up informative signs with messages like, "Keep Your Laws out of My Vagina!" and wore pink bandannas over their faces.

The FLMA had the chance to inform the Temple student body about their side of the abortion debate. It was a simple task, and they failed in what could have been an interesting debate, but they chose to act like screaming infants. Maybe it makes sense that they covered their faces because they should be embarrassed for their ridiculous, babyish behavior. I wanted to tell them, "Quiet down, children. Let the grownups do the talking."

It is indeed a simple task to debate abortion. But I agree: there are few grown-ups in the bunch who can handle it.

See more photos of the GAP event at Temple here.

Below is Mike Huckabee's inspired response to a CNN debate question on evolution.

Evolution ties in to the abortion debate because if evolved, human beings are not unique, with souls. Evolution means these words of the Declaration of Independence are false:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Huckabee's last words in this clip are:

If anybody wants to believe they are the descendants of a primate, they are certainly welcome to do it. I don't know how far they will march that back. But I believe all of us in this room are the unique creations of a God who knows us and loves us and created us for His own purpose.

"Created us for His own purpose." Amen.

{HT: friend Marilyn]

Pretty funny....

by Chip Bok of the Akron Beacon Journal, December 10

Typical. When a pro-abort attacks a pro-lifer, in full view of police and on videotape, the police harrass the pro-lifer.

On December 8 the group Missionaries to the Pre-born was picketing a Hillary Clinton campaign stop in Fort Madison, IA, with graphic signs.

A man later identified as Jim Mitchell got out of a pick-up truck holding a club and approached sign holder Dan Holman, yelling at him to leave his property. But Holman was on public property and refused to move. Mitchell then clobbered Holman with the club, again with police watching.

Incredibly, when an officer finally intervened, it was to tell Holman to move because he was "in a high traffice area" and "disturbing to the motoring public." The officer was interrupted by Mitchell, who continued to threaten Holman to "bust [his] head," but continued on with a threat to arrest and jail Holman!

According to an Operation Rescue press release, Holman has filed charges against Mitchell and is considering filing charges against the police. Hope he does. Their behavior was outrageous and clearly prejudiced.

Here's the video of the incident:

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

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

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

Couric: So are you opposed to stem cell research?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[HT: Lifenews.com]

While IL state senator, Barack Obama voted "present" on a partial birth abortion ban, parental notification, and a package of 3 Born Alive Infant Protection bills, for which political heat has since forever risen, thank goodness.

Yesterday the Chicago Tribune discussed Hillary's latest jab at Obama:

She also raised a new front on the issue of Obama's use of "present" votes -- rather than "yes" and "no" votes -- on legislation when he was in the Illinois Senate, including on measures that dealt with Republican-led efforts to restrict abortion rights.

"A president can't vote present. A president can't pick and choose which challenges he or she will face," Clinton said. "Instead of looking for political cover or taking a pass, we need a president who will take a stand and stand there and do whatever is necessary for their country."

Obama has defended his "present" votes on abortion-related bills in the Illinois legislature, contending it was part of a strategy fashioned with abortion-rights advocates to help give some Illinois Senate Democrats political cover and to avoid looking harsh by casting "no" votes that would create a re-election risk....

But the Tribune earlier this year found few lawmakers remembered such a strategy and many of those who joined with Obama to vote present were, like him, in politically safe districts.

Obama's campaign said he had received a perfect grade from abortion-rights advocates during his tenure in Springfield....

Oh, how I would LOVE Hillary Clinton, who voted yes on Born Alive as U.S. senator, to challenge Barack Obama on his "present" and "no" votes on Born Alive! But that's an aside. Moving on...

The Chicago Sun-Times has a different take on the strategy:

On the abortion bills, legislators who supported women's rights to the procedure were encouraged to vote "present" on bills that would have required parental notice before minors could obtain abortions and that would have barred what abortion foes call "partial-birth" abortions, a leading abortion-rights advocate said. The goal was to entice moderate Republicans and Democrats to also vote present, helping to defeat the bills.

"The poor guy is getting all this heat for a strategy we, the pro-choice community, did," said Pam Sutherland, president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council.

And liberal Tribune columnist Eric Zorn has reposted a column he wrote in 2004 when Obama's cowardly "present" votes were an issue in his U.S. Senate primary:

If "present" sounds wimpy, that's because it sometimes is.... [L]awmakers who anticipate a tough re-election challenge will vote "present" on a controversial bill they oppose so as not to give their prospective opponents a good club to bash them with.

Obama, however, was in a safe district and never faced a serious challenge for his legislative seat. He had no need to shy from hard-line stands on gun control and abortion rights....

Why would he then vote "present" instead of a resounding "no" on certain bills advanced by lawmakers opposed to abortion rights?

"To provide cover for other Democrats who were shaky on the issue in an effort to convince them not to vote `yes,'" Sutherland said. "The idea is to recruit a group to vote `present' that includes legislators who are clearly right with the issue."

Sutherland said this tactic makes the "present" vote look less like a hedge or a cop-out and more like a constitutional concern or other high-minded qualm.

So here were described opposite reasons for Obama's cowardly votes. Which was it, to give himself political cover from voting a politically unpopular "no," since most of the public, even pro-aborts, support parental notification and oppose partial birth abortion and infanticide; or to entice wobbly legislators from "yes" to "no"?

Either way, all this demonstrates that Obama is beholden to abortion special interest groups over populous opinion.

Revisiting this line from Zorn's 2004 piece was verrrry interesting:

Sutherland said this tactic makes the "present" vote look less like a hedge or a cop-out and more like a constitutional concern or other high-minded qualm.

With that in mind, here is what supposed constitutional expert Obama said on the IL Senate floor as the LONE vocal opponent to Born Alive in 2001:

... I just want to suggest... that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.

Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a - child, a nine-month-old - child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.

His argument, was, of course, absurd. I think now Planned Parenthood simply handed him his talking points.

A new Des Moines Register poll, conducted November 25-28 of 500 likely Iowa GOP Iowa caucus participants and 500 likely Iowa Democrat caucus participants, now exactly one month away, showed new presidential candidate leaders for both parties:

Democrat strategist Susan Estrich says Huckabee's rise is due to GOP weakness. I wouldn't be sure how that translates had I not read Robert Novak's column last week, which I'll excerpt next....

Estrich says Huckabee's appeal to "right tail of the right tail of the Republican party" will be out of step with mainstream America in the general. She uses Huckabee's support of a flat tax and privatizing Social Security as examples.

I disagree. Steve Forbes and President Bush began the ripening process on these issues. I'd say they're ripe, if Huckabee has the ability to overcome Democrat fear-mongering and get through to the people

Estrich, understandably, overlooked Huckabee's two true weak spots. As a liberal she's pro-illegal immigration and pro-tax-and-spend, so she either doesn't get that America is anti-both, or she's trying to ignore it. As governor Huckabee supported in-state college tuition credits to illegals and "increased the Arkansas tax burden by 47%" during his 10-1/2 year tenure, according to Novak. (On the latter it helps that he has signed the ATR tax pledge.) He also supported the recent Democrat-driven SCHIP funding increase, clearly a back door attempt to increase socialist health care in the U.S.

Excerpt from Novak column, November 26:

The rise of evangelical Christians as the motive force that blasted the GOP out of minority status during the past generation always contained an inherent danger if these new Republican acolytes supported not merely a conventional conservative but one of their own. That has happened now with Huckabee, a former Baptist minister educated at Ouachita Baptist University and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. The danger is a serious contender for the nomination who passes the litmus test of social conservatives on abortion, gay marriage and gun control but is far removed from the conservative-libertarian model of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.

A couple other interesting asides....

Here's a CBS story on Mike Huckabee's friendship with Dick Morris, which has been and may be a working relationship, according to Politico. Although Morris has noted Huckabee's rise, I thought he was a Giuliani guy.

And Andrew Sullivan thinks Obama and Huckabee's surges are related:

What do they have in common? Huckabee is a conservative whose character appeals to liberals; Obama is a liberal whose temperament appeals to conservatives.

I think Sullivan's got it wrong. As for conservatives, we're eager for a fighter who will buck the status quo.

I think both candidates are appealing to the base of their party as well as to the all-important moderates/independents who are either left- or right-leaning and who don't like animus.

Also, for all their political quirks, both Huckabee and Obama appear genuine. This is where a match-up would prove Huckabee a winner. He is. Obama is a poser.

[Photo credits: Huckabee playing bass at an October Iowa fundraiser, Los Angeles Times; Obama playing with a baby he would have rather seen killed several months prior, Scott Morgan/Getty]

HT: reader Sara; cartoon credit: Chuck Asay, Townhall.com, November 28]

I was on Adam McManus's radio show yesterday afternoon discussing my Thompson column.

McManus is a big Mike Huckabee supporter and mentioned he has been having listeners contact Iowa Right to Life to encourage it to reject National Right to Life's endorsement of Fred Thompson and instead endorse Huckabee.

I found that tidbit interesting and called IRTL this afternoon to find out if it was making the switch.

I spoke with Kim Lehman, IRTL president. She said after they started getting calls and emails from Huckabee supporters the board went into closed door session to discuss what to do.

And they decided to go neutral, "which is a tradition in a primary for us if there's more than one pro-life candidate," said Kim. Here's IRTL's strategy, again quoting Kim:

We don't want Rudy Giuliani to win. We want a pro-life candidate to win. IRTL is working toward the promotion of life, and so, as long as a pro-life candidate is in the lead, we just support that and hope everyone puts their vote behind the one candidate. Hopefully, the pro-life vote will not be split, which would allow Giuliani to win by default.

Good advice.

[Lehman photo courtesy of New York Times]

At least four points can be drawn from this Washington Post article today, with a disclaimer it was written through an MSM prism and may not accurately reflect the situation.

Pastor Harry R. Jackson Jr. [pictured right] will often exhort his congregation to "stand against" abortion and same-sex marriage....

Blacks overwhelmingly identify themselves as Democrats and typically support Democratic candidates, but optimists in the GOP think one way to become a majority party is to peel off a sizable segment of black voters by finding common ground on social issues....

In the 2004 election, there was evidence that an appeal aimed at those differences could work. President Bush nearly doubled his share of the black vote in Ohio.... But it's unlikely that the 2008 Republican presidential candidate will be able to consolidate those gains....

During the last presidential election cycle, Jackson prayed for Bush and crisscrossed the country pressing conservative social issues. Now he's pushing an issues agenda rather than "carrying the water for the Republican party," he said. "They are not reliable enough."...

[R]eligious conservatives, black and white... fear that Republican voters will nominate pro-choice candidate and former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani and are still chafing at the headline-grabbing sex and ethics scandals involving Republicans....

Other conservative black preachers raise a different issue.

"Morality is different in terms of the way we see it and white evangelicals see it," said Pastor Lyle Dukes of Harvest Life Changers Church in Woodbridge.... "[W]e also think equal education is a moral issue. We think discrimination is immoral."...

Bishop Timothy J. Clarke, leader of the 5,000-member First Church of God in Columbus, Ohio, said... he and his members care as much about health care and livable wages as they do about conservative social issues....

Stephen Peagler, 27, said he is a faithful churchgoer who believes that abortion and same-sex marriage are wrong. But... he's looking for a candidate who will address issues that are more relevant in his everyday life....

Only 5% of blacks in the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll called abortion or moral or family-values issues their top concerns for the upcoming presidential election. By contrast, more than four in 10 highlighted the war in Iraq, 38% health care and 33% the economy and jobs....

"One of the misnomers that we labor under is the line of demarcation between social issues and moral issues," Clarke said. "For us, they are almost one and the same."...

Jackson... thinks the GOP pays attention to evangelicals when it needs their votes but has not delivered when it comes to advancing their causes.... [A]fter the 2004 election, he attended a White House meeting of evangelical leaders and listened as Rove said he didn't think the church vote had won the election for Bush.

Jackson told him: "I am a registered Democrat. The only reason I am here is because I thought you were working on issues of faith and that it would be better for my folks than the promises, promises of the Democratic party."

Democrats, he said, "come to us under the cloak of darkness at the last hour, get what they want and then act like they don't know us the next day."

That got a big laugh from the conservatives, he recalled. Then Jackson said he told Rove: "You all are doing the same thing to the evangelicals."

HT: Family Research Council, which added this editorial comment:

While the Republicans experienced the powerful pull of social issues on African-Americans in 2004 because of the marriage issue, they are increasingly distancing themselves from these key issues that speak the true language of faith and bring Christian voters into the fold. If issues that are important to so many Christians, both black and white, are ignored by both parties then ultimately both parties may find they are ignored by many Christians.

While Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee "remains a distant fifth in New Hampshire, behind [Mitt] Romney, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Ron Paul [and]... fifth in national polls," according to the Chicago Examiner, he's surging in Iowa, according to a ABC/Washington Post poll released November 21, conducted November 14-18:

Are we beginning to coalesce? ABC thinks so....

Key elements of the Republican base are coalescing around Mike Huckabee in Iowa, lifting this comparatively little-known candidate to the first rank in the first state to cast votes in the 2008 presidential contest.

The surge for Huckabee is remarkable in size and intensity alike. He's attracted not just support, but enthusiastic support, from core Republican groups including conservatives, evangelicals and strong abortion opponents.

The change is notable, as well, for Huckabee's lack of advantage on most issues and personal attributes....

With sampling error, [Romney and Huckabee] are about even.

As with Romney, support for Fred Thompson... Rudy Giuliani... and John McCain... is flat. While tied with Thompson given sampling tolerances, Giuliani, the national front-runner, is numerically fourth in Iowa.

This was also in line with my observation at the FRC Washington Briefing that evangelicals were wary of Romney's Mormonism and newfound pro-life beliefs:

There was also this, the very last question on the poll, of, incidentally, "400 Iowan adults likely to vote in the 2008 Republican presidential caucus... [with]... a 5-point error margin" (click to enlarge):

That Fred Thompson claims to be pro-life but would leave the abortion decision to individual states really angers me. This is actually a pro-abortion position, simply "pro-choice" in a different arena.

Professor Hadley Arkes, crafter of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, has written an article for the December issue of First Things that could be carved up and served for discussion in many areas, which I just may do.

In the following section, he discusses the similarites between Stephen Douglas' pro-slavery position and Rudy Giuliani's pro-abortion position. But I see Fred Thompson's name next to Giuliani's every time.

As I was preparing photos for this post, I discovered something bizarre. Douglas and Thompson even look alike:

Here's what Arkes said....

During the famous debate between Lincoln and Douglas, Douglas professed to be neutral on the matter of slavery. He professed to have reached no moral judgment. And so, he concluded, people should be free in the separate territories to vote slavery up or down. But, as Lincoln pointed out, he had indeed reached a moral judgment. If he had regarded slavery as a wrong - as Douglas had regarded polygamy - he would have understood that a wrong is that which no one ought to do, that anyone may be properly restrained from doing. To say slavery is something legitimate to choose is to say that slavery stood in the class of things "not wrong."

In an eerie echo, Giuliani reproduced precisely the same argument in an interview with Charlie Rose. Rose asked, "Don't you think that abortion is a national issue?" Giuliani replied:

Sure it's a national issue. But... since it's an issue of conscience for people, a deep personal issue where some people morally believe it's wrong and some people strongly morally believe it's right. My conclusion about that is that government can't dictate and intervene and make that choice....

Honestly, I think - my own personal view is it's better off if that is left to people to choose. And then what you do is you do everything you can to correctly limit the number of abortions, encourage adoption instead of abortion. I supported the ban on partial-birth abortion when it passed and when - and the decision of the Supreme Court I agree with. I agree with parental notification, but ultimately I think this is not the area where government should be completely dictating.

Lincoln said that Douglas was trying to "blow out the moral lights" among us by teaching a policy of "indifference" - that slavery just did not matter enough to stir such divisions in the country.

In a similar way, Giuliani is teaching us, in the style of Douglas, that we should not care overly much, that we should treat as a matter of indifference a right to take a human life for wholly private reasons that need not rise beyond convenience....

Fred Thompson holds basically the same view of abortion as Rudy Giuliani. They are both pro-adoption, anti-pba, pro-parental notification, and pro-strict constrictionist judges. They both say they don't like abortion, even "hate" it.

The only area where they disagree is which governmental entity should be responsible for its legality.

Clearly the National Right to Life Committee attempted to tutor Fred Thompson between his November 4 interview on Meet the Press and November 18 interview on This Week with George Stephanopoulos.

But NRLC failed. On three major pro-life issues, Thompson continued to frankly stink. And on one he dug his hole deeper....

First, I don't understand Thompson's fixation with nonexistent state laws that would send girls and women to jail who abort. There never have been such laws, and there never will be. Thompson's insistence on bringing up this abortion industry scare tactic, unprovoked by any interviewer and all the while maintaining he doesn't want to discuss hypotheticals, only puts thoughts in people's minds that ought not to be. He needs to just shut up about that.

This was Thompson's incoherent but NARALesque response on MTP re: states making abortion illegal:

I - people ask me hypothetically, you know, OK, it goes back to the states. Somebody comes up with a bill, and they say we're going to outlaw this, that or the other. And my response was I do not think it is a wise thing to criminalize young girls and perhaps their parents as aiders and abettors or perhaps their family physician. And that's what you're talking about. It's not a sense of the Senate. You're talking about potential criminal law.

And on TW:

I think #1 that Roe vs. Wade should be overturned. We need to remember what the status was before Roe vs. Wade.... It goes back to the states..... Most of the laws now outlaw the doctors who perform these things. They don't criminalize young girls. So we really need to examine what the state law is and what it would be, and it's hard to do hypotheticals in great detail.

Thompson tried but performed little better on this issue on TW than MTP.

Second, Thompson remained adamant on TW that abortion should be a state issue, again bucking the Republican platform that supports a constitutional human life amendment. This was what got Thompson scratched off my primary presidential potentials list.

Third, Thompson dug his hole deeper on Terri Schiavo, expounding on his MTP statement to say euthanasia should also be a state issue.

Stephanopoulos prefaced this portion of the interview by stating:

David O'Steen of the National Right to Life Committee said one of the reasons they chose you is that you clarified your position on end-of-life issues, families facing the situation like the Terri Schiavo case. He said you clarified that issue for him and you may be doing so publicly. What did you say to them privately that you haven't said publicly? In public you've said this should be an issue for families and the courts but not state and federal governments.

Thompson's response:

Well, what I said was ultimately if the families can't get together its first recourse needs to be the state government. That's what I've always said. What we talked about in a little more detail is the different kinds of end-of-life issues...

I don't have a legal position other than it oughta be resolved in a state court system. People have a right to make the laws in their own state to resolve these issues. If families can't get together... then it should go to the state court mechanism. The details of the state law and the presumptions and burdens of proof and things of that nature have to be left up to those who fashion those laws which would be the same people who were involved in the Schiavo constrovery, citizens of that state.

Well, I'm just speechless. I can't fathom that O'Steen and NRLC say they were drawn to Thompson by that answer. For one thing, he is saying he opposed NRLC's support of Congress and the president's attempt to intervene in that case. And apparently Thompson would stand by as president if a state authorized the killing of two-year-olds. His logic on abortion and euthanasia demand that position.

Click on photo below to view entire interview. Thompson discusses Schiavo at 4:52, his view on states setting abortion policy at 9:15, and criminalization of mothers who abort at 10:00:

One final point. Stephanopoulos maintained Schiavo was brain dead and Thompson concurred. This is patently false. Read Bobby Schindler's press release following that interview.

Read my previous posts on Thompson's performance on MTP here and here.

[HT: for Stephanopoulos interview, Laura L.; for Schindler press release, Fran at Illinois Review]

UPDATE, 2:40p: A source has informed me Burke Balch of NRLC actually helped draft the law to attempt to save Terri Schiavo that Congress approved and President Bush signed. So Thompson was actually slapping NRLC in the face by rejecting federal intervention in cases such as hers.

On November 13, Operation Rescue reports that police at Chaffey College in Rancho Cucamonga, CA, roughed up and arrested 3 members of Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, who came on campus to get a permit to conduct pro-life outreach.

Video of the incident shows an out-of-uniform police officer pushing one of the Survivors. The officer refuses to identify himself despite repeated requests. Then the officers purposefully moved the arrestees away from the documenting eye of the video camera (what did they have to hide?) and confiscated an audio recorder they have yet to return. My bet is the tape will be erased. See the video of the arrest on page 2.

OR reports....

[C]ollege police objected to the taping. Without warning, and without identifying themselves as officers, Joey was attacked, shoved to the ground, and his audio recorder forcibly removed from his pocket. Joey saw the officers attempting to erase the recording.

The officers verbally abused and mocked the young men for their pro-life beliefs.... [A]n officer named Tran called Joey a "retard."...

Officers endangered them by transporting them without seat belts and with full heaters blasting on a warm day with the purpose of causing additional physical discomfort. They were held for two days on felony "eavesdropping" charges, even though the videotaping was being done in a public place. Later the charges were reduced to misdemeanor charges of obstructing a police officer and disturbing the peace. Joey was charged with trespassing and released.

The three Survivors were doing nothing but attempting to arrange for a pro-life outreach within their First Amendment rights....

A few pro-abort bloggers are complaining Democrat presidential candidates weren't up front enough in last night's Vegas debate about their intention to choose Supreme Court nominees based their belief that abortion is a constitutionally protected right.

Bloggers thought candidates coded this by saying they would pick nominees who believe 1) in the "right to privacy," and 2) that Roe v. Wade is "settled law."

This should indeed be a concern. Note no one is saying these days they believe abortion is constitutionally sound on The Point: preborn humans aren't constitutionally protected persons....

The other side would lose the battle today on The Point. The exact moment of conception can now be viewed under microscope. Preborn humans are now filmed. Other laws are starting to stack up against Roe that consider preborns persons and killing them murder, like Laci and Connor's Law.

So one's "right to privacy" is nullified when one kills an innocent person.

And you can't really find much more pathetic straw grasping than the "settled law" argument since the Supreme Court has overturned plenty of prior bad decisions. Dred Scott. Brown vs. Board of Education. Etc.

The lamenting bloggers apparently don't get this. Their candidates cannot argue the constitutional merits of abortion on abortion itself.

The transcript of the pertinent section of last night's Democrat debate below. Note something very telling John Edwards said:

But I want to go beyond what some others have said here, because it is so crucial, if you grew up like I did in the segregated South and you saw how important it was to have federal judges who had some backbone and were willing to stand up against popular opinion.... That's the kind of courage and strength we need in a United States Supreme Court justice.

Did Edwards just admit abortion support is not predominant American opinion?

And Obama's chatter that "the role of the court is... to protect people who may be vulnerable... those who don't have a lot of clout" makes me want to become uncivil.

Here is a sampling of the liberal blog complaints:

From National Journal's On Call:

Why can't the frontrunners say pro-choice?

What qualities would you look for in choosing a Supreme Court nominee?

Respect for country's privacy laws, Clinton said.

Obama: "Part of the role of the court is that it is going to protect people who may be vulnerable in the political process ..."

Edwards, too, with the privacy talk and discussion of protection for a judge who desegregated schools.

Where are Kate Michelman and Kim Gandy and the Emily's Listers on this issue? Why aren't they demanding more of their Democratic candidates on the choice issue? Especially with the SUPCO in flux ...

From RH Reality Check:

At the end of an often tedious debate filled with canned responses tweaked, parsed and refined from the previous tedious debates, the Democratic candidates for President were asked how they would choose a Supreme Court Justice. The question came from an undecided Nevada Democrat, and CNN's Suzanne Malveaux added her own addendum, "would you insist nominees support abortion rights?"

Each candidate affirmed in some way they would pick justices that would be fair, understand the experience of the everyday American, protect the marginalized and support the right to privacy enshrined in the United States Constitution.

At that point, right before the all important "diamonds or pearls" question, I threw a pillow at the TV screaming, "WHEN ARE YOU ROBOTS GOING TO WAKE UP?"

I'm thrilled that each candidate can offer a canned response reassuring voters what they already know, but I'm wondering when the candidates might move beyond the stump speech and help Americans understand what is really at stake with respect to the U.S. Supreme Court.

One thing is certain, those opposed to rights Americans currently enjoy understand what's at stake and they rally their base and campaign on it every where they go: "one, two, three more justices" is the Social-Con mantra.

But the Democrats can't seem to break out of their programmed responses long enough to fire up their base, or educate independent voters on what really is at stake. Instead, like a quarter in a juke box they hear Supreme Court in the question and think "R-73 ... play pro-choice privacy response."

Reproductive Rights Prof:

[A]ll seemed to avoid addressing the issue of abortion directly and instead couched their answers in terms of "privacy" and Roe v. Wade as "settled precedent."

Unlike some scholars who think equality is (re)emerging as a sounder foundation on which to base the right to abortion, the Democratic presidential candidates certainly don't appear ready to stray from Roe's doctrinal underpinnings.

[Photo credits: top, Los Angeles Times; bottom, Associated Press]

Read entire transcript here.

DODD: Obviously, as someone who's pro-choice and have been their entire public life and career, I feel very strongly about Roe v. Wade. I would not want a justice to be appointed who would even think about overturning that....

But I'd want to be careful about making sure that I'd know the person... when they make the statement that they will uphold precedent and they raise their right hand before the Judiciary Committee and make that committee, and then violate that commitment. That I find highly offensive....

BLITZER: All right, let's go through the whole panel. I want everybody to weigh in; this is an important question that was raised with Senator Biden.

Would you insist that any nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court supported abortion rights for women?

BIDEN: ... We have enough ideologues. We have enough professors on the bench.

I want someone who ran for dog catcher. I want someone - literally, not a joke.... We wanted to get someone who, in fact, knew what it was to live life. Knew what it was - not as some intellectual feat....

And by the way, the next person that is appointed in a Biden administration is going to be a woman....

Number two... I would not appoint anyone who did not understand that Section 5 of the 14th Amendment and the liberty clause of the 14th Amendment provided a right to privacy. That is the question I would ask. If that is answered correctly, that that is the case, then it answers the question, which means they would support Roe v. Wade....

RICHARDSON: I would have diversity as a prime criteria, but I would also ask my nominee, this is what I would ask. Number one, do you believe Roe v. Wade is settled law? Number two, do you support the right to privacy?...

If the answer is no to those questions, that basically say, is it settled law or not - you want to call it a litmus test, fine - those would be the judges that I would appoint to the Supreme Court....

KUCINICH: A Kucinich appointment to the Supreme Court would have a litmus test on abortion. It's a question of a woman's right to choose and a right to privacy. But a president has to do more than that. A president has to be a healer. And this has been one of the great divides in our country. And so I want to let the American people know that I'll stand for prenatal care, postnatal care, child care, a living wage, universal health care, sex education, birth control... We can make abortions less necessary if we have a healer in the White House. And we can also protect a woman's right to choose. We can do both....

CLINTON: Well, they'd have to share my view about privacy, and I think that goes hand-in-hand. Privacy, in my opinion, is embedded in our Constitution. What does it mean to have a right to free speech or the right to worship as you choose if you also don't have the right to be left alone, to have that privacy that goes with being an American. So it would be absolutely critical. And I, like Senator Biden...

BLITZER: So the answer is yes.

CLINTON: Yes, the answer is yes....

BLITZER: Senator Obama, you used to be a professor of law.

OBAMA: I would not appoint somebody who doesn't believe in the right to privacy. But you're right, Wolf. I taught constitutional law for 10 years, and when you look at what makes a great Supreme Court justice, it's not just the particular issue and how they ruled. But it's their conception of the court.

And part of the role of the court is that it is going to protect people who may be vulnerable in the political process, the outsider, the minority, those who are vulnerable, those who don't have a lot of clout. And part of what I want to find in a Supreme Court justice - and Joe's exactly right. Sometimes we're only looking at academics or people who've been in the courts.

If we can find people who have life experience, and they understand what it means to be on the outside, what it means to have the system not work for them, that's the kind of person I want on the Supreme Court....

EDWARDS: I would insist that they recognize the right to privacy and recognize Roe v. Wade as settled law.

But I want to go beyond what some others have said here, because it is so crucial, if you grew up like I did in the segregated South and you saw how important it was to have federal judges who had some backbone and were willing to stand up against popular opinion.... That's the kind of courage and strength we need in a United States Supreme Court justice.

This morning National Right to Life will announce its endorsement of Fred Thompson for president, which I reported yesterday and which is raising about as much blog and media curiosity as Pat Robertson's endorsement of Rudy Giuliani.

One bone of contention is Thompson's opposition to a human life amendment to the Constitution, which I said last week was a deal breaker for me (in the primary I should add, not if he makes it to the general).

(Thompson also opposed congressional intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, supported McCain-Feingold, and made NARALesque/Giulianiesque comments on Meet the Press of fear that making abortion illegal might see young girls sent to jail, which showed a serious lack of understanding of pre-Roe law.)

About the HLA, Ramesh Ponnuru on NRO blogged yesterday....

So is this the first time the NRLC has endorsed a presidential candidate who opposed a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution? (Romney supports it.)

On that, an NRLC insider emailed me yesterday:

Regarding the constitutional amendment, is it telling that the matter has not been on the NRLC candidate survey for who knows how long? Did anyone even notice when it was removed?...

[H]ow can we fault a national candidate for not holding a position that our own leadership has not determined to be important enough to gauge on their survey?

To be fair, that insider supported NRLC's endorsement of Thompson based on viability and that he's pro-life enough for our purposes during the next 8 years max, which is a solid point.

I'm quoted today in the Los Angeles Times on National Right to Life's impending endorsement of Fred Thompson for president....

See last paragraph....

Los Angeles Times

Key antiabortion group backs Thompson

But some activists fault the National Right to Life Committee's support of the former senator.

By Stephanie Simon, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

November 13, 2007

Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson has won the support of a major antiabortion group, but the endorsement is drawing ridicule and anger from others in the movement, underscoring deep divisions on the religious right.

The political arm of the National Right to Life Committee is scheduled to endorse Thompson this morning. Executive Director David O'Steen predicted Monday that the announcement would prompt "pro-life people across the nation to coalesce" behind the former senator from Tennessee, who is lagging in the polls in early primary states.

But Thompson is far from a consensus choice.

During his Senate career, he consistently voted the antiabortion position. But he once worked briefly as a lobbyist for a liberal group that sought to relax restrictions on abortion. In an early political race, he indicated support for legal abortion throughout the first trimester.

And most recently, he said he would not back a constitutional amendment criminalizing abortion -- a plank of the Republican platform for more than a quarter-century. Thompson said he would leave each state to make its own abortion laws.

"That's what freedom is all about," he told Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"He's saying that states can allow the killing of the unborn. That's not acceptable," said Jim Sedlak, an antiabortion activist from Virginia.

"It seems to indicate that he's not truly pro-life," said Troy Newman, a Kansas antiabortion activist.

National Right to Life board members would not comment Monday on their decision.

With 3,000 local chapters in 50 states, National Right to Life is the nation's largest antiabortion group; it publishes a monthly newsletter, funds radio and TV broadcasts and organizes local activists. Supporters donated more than $9.7 million in 2005, according to the latest available tax records. The group's political arm spent $4.4 million in the 2004 election cycle to support antiabortion candidates and causes.

Though the group has a broad reach, it is not clear how much influence its endorsement will have. Leading social conservatives have been divided this election, so each major Republican candidate can claim some level of endorsement -- but no one has a clear-cut edge.

Televangelist Pat Robertson recently endorsed former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who supports abortion rights. Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, a well-respected conservative, backs Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who opposes abortion but has not made that a priority during his career.

And the general counsel for National Right to Life, James Bopp Jr., is working for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who once supported abortion rights but now backs a constitutional ban.

"Pro-lifers are not behaving in a monolithic way," said Jill Stanek, a prominent antiabortion columnist and blogger. The Thompson endorsement, she said, surprised her as much as Robertson's nod to Giuliani. "There's something going on here," Stanek said, "that's not normal."

stephanie.simon@latimes.com

Fox News just announced the National Right to Life Committee has endorsed Republican Fred Thompson for president.

This explains why an NRLC board member entered into a heated email debate with me last week over my post saying Thompson had disqualified himself. (I also wrote a follow-up post on Thompson's disturbing comments on the Schiavo case.) At the time I didn't understand the reaction. Now I do.

Developing story.

UPDATE, 12:15p:...

Was just looking back through email exchange with NRLC board member. She sent me stuff against Romney, dating back to when he was pro-abortion, which I told her was unfair.

Hm. I wonder if there's any sort of internal battle ongoing in NRLC. NRLC's lead counsel, James Bopp, is a Romney supporter and advisor. He wrote a glowing piece on Romney earlier this year in NRO.

UPDATE, 12:44p: This just out from the Atlantic Online:

Ex-Sen. Fred Thompson has won the endorsement of the National Right To Life Committee, NRLC and Republican sources say.

Thompson's voting record is pretty much down-the-line pro-life, but NRLC has apparently overlooked his support of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation, which NRLC went to court to fight. Also, in the early 1990s, Thompson has admitted helping lobbying for a pro-choice group....

The NRLC's co-executive director, Darla St. Martin, is close with Thompson's wife/campaign adviser Jeri Kehn Thompson, but it's unclear, of course, whether the friendship played any role in the announcement....

Yes, I think it did. This is all becoming clearer. The aforementioned email exchange with the NRLC member included her sending me two articles disparaging Ann Romney for donating to Planned Parenthood in the mid 90s, what I referred to as unfair, and the question, "Why have you not mentioned Fred Thompson's wife as pro life?"

She also included a positive Chicago Sun-Times article on Jeri's conservative credentials.

Given my column last week on the importance of the pro-life position of presidents' wives, I am reassured by the fact Jeri is a strong conservative. If Thompson were to win the nomination, I would certainly support him. But he's not a top tier pro-life candidate, in my opinion.

UPDATE, 5:41p: A source has informed me Thompson made a "series of written commitments" to the NRLC. If true: 1) I hope the NRLC will make those available to bolster its endorsement, and 2) I'd like to know if it sought the same commitments from the other candidates.

There is still something odd about this.

This endorsement is getting tons of press. Just as Thompson was beginning to fade from the pro-life scene after anti-life disclosures he made on Meet the Press, NRLC has revived him, calling for the conservative pie to be cut into more pieces again.

As it becomes clearer pro-lifers are not going to coalesce around one or even two candidates, the likelihood only increases Giuliani will win the nomination.

The avalanche of criticism falling on Pat Robertson for endorsing Rudy Giuliani is so overwhelming I almost feel bad for the guy. But he did what he did, and I think it tapped into that strong emotional reaction we all have when sensing hypocrisy.

Thanks to Matt Lewis at Townhall.com for linking to my post on this topic.

Aside from much written commentary, the cartoon commentary is also expansive. Here's a sample. See 7 more on page 2:

Nick Anderson, Washington Post...

Tom Toles, Washington Post...

Henry Payne, Townhall.com...

Tony Auth, Philadelphia Inquirer...

Signe Wilkinson, Washington Post...

Henry Payne, Townhall.com...

Gary Varvel, Townhall.com...

Chan Lowe, Tribune Media Services...

I blogged earlier today that Fred Thompson lost any hope of my vote on Meet the Press yesterday by saying he opposed a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution, also a plank of the Republican platform.

Thompson also spoke incoherently on states outlawing abortions, saying,
"[Y]ou can't have a law that cuts off an age group or something like that, which potentially would take young, young girls in extreme situations and say, basically, we're going to put them in jail to do that." I have no idea what he was getting at.

Well, Bobby Schindler just emailed me that Thompson additionally answered wrong about his sister Terri Schindler Schiavo's case. I found the transcript and will post it on page 2.

Bobby alerted me that Fr. Frank Pavone just posted a YouTube video about Terri and politicians like Thompson who say Congress should not have involved itself in her slow murder by starvation and dehydration. Here's FP's video. Watch it before reading the Thompson transcript.

Meet the Press partial transcript, November 4, 2008
Tim Russert interviews Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson

MR. RUSSERT: In March of '05, the Congress, the president signed legislation allowing a federal judge to intervene, to perhaps re-insert a feeding tube in the famous Terri Schiavo case.

MR. THOMPSON: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: You've spoken about that, about the death of your own daughter. Your view is it is a family's decision to make whether to insert or remove a feeding tube.

MR. THOMPSON: Yes.

MR. RUSSERT: And that should...

MR. THOMPSON: And then, and then, obviously, in consultation with their doctor.

MR. RUSSERT: But there should be no laws involved?

MR. THOMPSON: No. I've not said that. What - I mean, you, you got to put your lawyer hat back on, you know, with this most personal, should be nonlegal consideration. If there is a family dispute, then there're courts in, in every state in the nation that you can take a dispute like that to. I said the federal government should not be involved.

MR. RUSSERT: But the government should not have gotten involved in Terri Schiavo?

MR. THOMPSON: No. Now, you know, keep in mind, now, the, the government didn't come in and say "You got to do this; you got to do that." It gave federal court jurisdiction. Federal court didn't need jurisdiction, in my opinion. These are kinds of things where the, the, the - well, you mentioned it myself, my own personal situation. Let's just say you never know when you make the right decision, what - it, it wasn't totally comparable, but it was, it was the same, it was the same general end-of-life kind of consideration. And I, I - I've resisted and, and resent, frankly, the political football thatss been made out of all that, and, and it's unfortunate. The less government, the better.

Except the whole point of the government and laws are to provide guidelines and protect us.

Up until 30 minutes ago, Fred Thompson was one of the Republican presidential candidates I would have accepted - not perfect, but pro-life.

No longer.

He said yesterday in a Meet the Press interview with Tim Russert that he does not support a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution:

As my friend Bill fleshed out in an email about this clip....

Most pro-life Republicans believe in overturning Roe vs. Wade, which kicks it back to the states, but also including federal Human Life Amendment language in the platform as an aspiration that one day there will not be abortion. Fred disagrees with this. His position is to kick it back to the states, and then let the states have abortion if they wish, but with no aspiration for a Constitutional amendment protecting human life.

This is the Stephen Douglas approach to the sanctity of life. Douglas ran against Lincoln on the platform of letting each state decide whether it wanted slavery.

The next clip from the same Meet the Press interview renders Thompson's aforementioned position unconscionable. In it he says he believes life begins at conception. Then how could he agree to let states kill preborn children?

In this clip, Russert confronts Thompson with past statements about not wanting to prohibit early-term abortions. Fred gives a meandering response and makes the Rudy Giuliani argument that young pregnant girls should not be thrown in jail. By the end of this clip, I wasn't even sure Thompson had changed his position on early abortions. I thought not, actually.

I just scratched Thompson off my list of possibilities. Am down to 3.

[HT: friend Bill]

From The Hill today, also posted on Drudge:

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) said Congress's deficit spending has become a moral issue surpassing abortion because it saddles future generations with massive debt before they're born.

"The greatest moral issue of our time isn't abortion, it's robbing our next generation of opportunity," Coburn told reporters at a breakfast meeting Thursday at the National Press Club. "You're going to save a child from being aborted so they can be born into a debtor's prison?"...

Coburn is a solid pro-lifer, so I'd be interested to hear more of his logic, although I heartily disagree. I appreciate what he was getting at, but it's still better to be born poor than not at all.

Still and all, this will be a hard topic for liberals to find anything to say about. It'll be fun watching.

On a related topic, Coburn had a great line::

Congress's failure to respond to voters calls into question its own legitimacy, he said. "If we have only 11 percent support, are we a legitimate government?" he asked, before adding, "The 11 percent who have confidence in us, what hole are they in?"

[HT: reader JP]

by Gary Varvell of Townhall.com

On that topic, Charles Krauthammer wrote a column critical of Reagan on October 26, "Taking Reagan Out of the Race," to which Mark Levin, who worked for Reagan, immediately responded, "Getting Reagan Right: Charles Krauthammer misses the crucial distinctions."

What I appreciated in Krauthammer's column was his point that none of the GOP presidential candidates are perfect, but....

... in 2007 we have, by any reasonable historical standard, a fine Republican field: One of the great big-city mayors of the last century; a former governor of extraordinary executive talent; a war hero, highly principled and deeply schooled in national security; and a former senator with impeccable conservative credentials....

Republicans have 4 1/2 good presidential candidates. All five would make fine Cabinet members: Romney at Treasury, Thompson at Justice, McCain at Defense, Giuliani at Homeland Security, Huckabee at Interior. All the team needs now is to pick a captain who can beat Hillary.

(Krauthammer as a pro-abort obviously has no problem with Giuliani, who I do agree would make a fine head of Homeland Security.)

Pictured right are Aurora Police Chief William Powell, IL Attorney General Lisa Madigan, and Aurora Mayor Tom Weisner on October 26 at Aurora's Annual Police Luncheon. Madigan was the guest speaker and "honored for her office's efforts to fight the spread of illegal drugs."

The photo is taken from the AG's website. And here we see how politics works, the "scratch-back-while-watching-back" system. Madigan is Weisner's reward for being a good pro-abort Democrat as well as a subtle reminder of the support he will lose if failing to keep Planned Parenthood Aurora's doors open....

Because of PP, amateur Aurora Democrats have now been plopped into high stakes IL politics. Those outside of IL should know Lisa's father Michael, Speaker of the House, is the 2nd most powerful politician in IL, next to Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. Some argue he's #1. It is strongly rumored - almost a given - that Lisa plans to run for governor in 2010, whether or not Democrat Gov. Rod Blagojevich runs again.

IL's abortion industry and lobby is very powerful. Blagojevich is likely the most pro-abort of all 50 governors. To potentially take him on, Lisa must contend, and she does. While her second baby's heart beats within her, Madigan is a ruthless pro-abort stalwart.

Who else bowed at Lisa's feet October 26? Aurora Democrat Alderman Stephanie Kifowit (pictured left), which explains why, in a highly unusual move, she disallowed the nonbinding parental notice resolution out of a Government Operations subcommittee last week, which would appeal to state politicians to enact a parental notification law. Kifowit has freely admitted she talked to Madigan about it Friday. Kifowit has her own political aspirations that Lisa and the renowned IL Democrat Machine would squash like a bug if she steps out of line.

And IL's Democrat Machine also explains why Aurora counsel Alayne Weingartz inexplicably and, on the surface irrationally, showed up at Saturday's protest of PP and singlehandedly disrupted the peace, threatening arrests. She has tried to shut down pro-lifers from the get-go as part of that Machine.

It explains why Weingartz is ignoring a host of ordinances to keep PP open. She might as well become an official deathscort for the place.

I often say pro-lifers should not even vote for a dogcatcher who isn't pro-life. You never know the aspirations of politicos who use low level positions as stepping stones, which is a dynamic in the Aurora PP situation. And you never know when abortion will interject itself in the strangest places, and other low level politicians will simply want to tow the line to protect their menial jobs, which is also a dynamic in the Aurora PP situation.

[HT for AG photo: Dolores W.; Weingartz photo credit: Families Against Planned Parenthood; Kifowit photo credit: Fran Eaton]

Three aldermen in the City of Aurora have introduced a parental notification ordinance so the local Planned Parenthood could not abort underage girls without their parents knowing.

The State of IL passed a parental notification law in 1995, but it laid dormant 12 years awaiting judicial bypass rules, which finally came from the IL Supreme Court a year ago. The Supremes instructed rabidly pro-abort Attorney General Lisa Madigan (she voted as state senator against IL's Born Alive Infant Protection Act) to have the injunction overturned. When she tried a delay tactic, they wrote her a directive to knock it off, which she did. The ball has now been in U.S. District Court Judge David Coar's court several months to decide whether state courts are ready to handle any need for judicial bypass.

So there is still no IL parental notification law. Back to Aurora. Madigan was asked her legal opinion on the city ordinance. In a letter stating she thought it was illegal, she also said this (click to enlarge):

What do you think Madigan was stating?

The first red flag you'll note re: this Denver NBC affiliate's coverage yesterday (click to video link) of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains' ambitious plan to build PP's new largest abortion mill in the U.S., at 50,000 sq. ft., is there are only two talking heads in the picture: a news anchor and one interviewee, a PP proponent. Hello, balance?

The interviewee is Denver Post business columnist Al Lewis, who had no business writing a pro-abortion opinion piece under the guise of reporting on the Weitz Company, hired by PP to build the mill....

It would have been fine had Lewis focused solely on the pro-life tactic of picketing PP business partners, but he didn't. When he delved into abortion advocacy, he shifted from what may very well be his forte, business, to an area of which he was obviously ignorant.

[T]he Weitz Company... is simply building a medical office building, and they're comparing the Weitz company and all this rhetoric to the companies that built the Nazi death camps, and they're saying the Weiz company has some hidden agenda to kill black people in Denver....

Why don't they protest G.E.? I think G.E. makes the lightbulbs that go in the surgical rooms where these procedures occur....

When these people come into a private neighborhood and they start protesting in front of a house, they make quite a scene. It's very disruptive to the neighborhood....

I think that they can make the project cost more, certainly. Obviously they're going to have some security in place... fences in place....

These people have figured out that they can drag companies through the mud by their association with Planned Parenthood, which, by the way, abortions is a very, very small fraction of what Planned Parenthood does. In fact a lot of what Planed Parenthood does is prevent abortions through the education of contraceptives and sex education.

Had a pro-lifer been part of this interview to make it fair and balanced, s/he would have explained that being protested is not simply a "medical office building" (where have we heard that before? hint: Aurora).

S/he would have not let Lewis get away with calling abortions "these procedures."

S/he would have explained the difference between a business that has no say whether PP buys its product, like G.E., and a business that is hired to help it.

S/he would have explained PP's history of eugenics, its unbalanced ratio of aborting blacks to whites, and that the mill in discussion will be located in a black neighborhood.

S/he would have explained protesters aren't causing PP to install security systems and fences, PP is doing so to build on its unmerited accusation that pro-lifers are violent,

S/he would have explained how comprehensive sex ed and loose distribution of contraceptives have increased the abortion business.

Finally, s/he would not have let Lewis get away with calling we pro-lifers "these people."

Lewis's column was more of the same.

At least the Denver Post has a blog for comments, which I was happy to make.

Another pro-Weitz/PP piece appeared today in the Rocky Mountain News. The Passionate Pro-lifer had this preface before excerpting quotes:

The term "Nuremberg Defense" was originally coined during the Nazi war crimes trials at Nuremberg after World War II. Nazi war criminals who were charged with genocide, mass murder, torture and other atrocities used the defense "I was only following orders" so frequently that the argument became known generically as "The Nuremberg Defense."

From the article, about a picket at Weitz vp Gary Meggison's home:

Neighbors Jim and Sarah Hopfenbeck, who were walking their dogs, passed by the demonstrators.

"We're good Christians and we support our neighbors," Jim Hopfenbeck said.

"I just ignore them," Sarah Hopfenbeck added. "His job is what his job is. If anything, this has galvanized neighbors in support (of Meggison)."

Meggison said in a telephone interview that his firm is committed to the project.

"We're more resolved than ever to build this facility and get it completed," Meggison said. "Our business is building and that's where we draw the line. These folks have crossed the line by attacking neighborhoods."

I question Meggison's understanding of the word, "attack."

Here are some photos of determined pro-lifers picketing Meggison on October 21. Remember, we're talking Denver....

It was already clear that Barack Obama, who supports infanticide and raises campaign cash on partial birth abortion fear-mongering, has psychological problems.

Now it's clear he has patriotic problems. On the heels of Obama's announcement earlier this month that he don't need no stinkin' flag lapel pin comes this video, released yesterday by ABC News, showing Obama don't need no stinkin' hand over his heart during the National Anthem either.

The video was shot last month at an event in Iowa. The only excuse I might have entertained for Obama's lack of decorum would have been had he needed to use his hands to plug his ears during the awful singing. Click on the graphic to link to video:

The man is going down. Good riddance.

[HT: moderator MK]

The criticism of Democrats exploiting children to push SCHIP continues, as well it should. This cartoon by Mike Lester in yesterday's Townhall.com was spot on:

The days of Democrats pulling this trick from their bag are waning. As Rush said yesterday....

They come up with a plan designed to fool people, to misrepresent something, to lie about the president and his proposal, they come up with the elaborate scheme to use a child, sort of like the Michael J. Fox thing, you're not supposed to attack a victim. A victim can enter the political arena, but he cannot be attacked when he goes political, and I'm not putting up with this anymore, I didn't attack the kid. I attacked the whole plan that the Democrats had to lie to the American people. And they got upset.

They used to get away with this, dragging all these injured people up on stage at their convention. John Edwards saying that Christopher Reeve would walk again, for example, if John Kerry were elected president.... [T]hey used to be able to get away with their monopoly....

Read my previous posts on this topic:

"Real SCHIP losers: Kids exploited by Democrats," October 18
"Dem exploitation of 12-year-old draws fire," October 10

Yesterday I attended a private meeting of conservative leaders during the FRC Washington Briefing, a Salt Lake City II if you will, to discuss dilemmas we face with the 2008 presidential candidates.

Instructions were given not to speak to the media, and since I am the media, I took that to obviously mean details discussed and who said what were off-the-record and, of course, I'll honor that.

There are two dilemmas....

1. Which Republican primary candidate should pro-lifers rally behind?

2. What if Rudy Giuliani ends up that nominee?

Re: #1, the FRC straw poll had confusing results, as I previously discussed here. CBS correctly detailed the confusion:

The results of the event's straw poll were especially telling: Of the 5,775 votes received at on-site voting kiosks, by mail, and online, Romney won 1,595, while Huckabee was only 30 votes behind, at 1,565.

But these baseline numbers don't tell the entire story. Voting online required only a nominal donation to the Family Research Council.... Candidates sent out appeals to their supporters to cast an online vote in the poll -- such votes turned out to generate about 94% of Romney's support.

Among people who actually paid to attend the conference, people FRC President Tony Perkins has called "influencers" within their communities and church congregations, the result was far different, and a decisive victory for Huckabee. Over 51% of those who voted at the conference chose the former Arkansas governor. Romney was a distant second, garnering just over 10% of the vote.

But even that was not the whole story, as RedState.com added:

600 attendees actually voted online.... so the 952 votes is misleading. I'm not saying Romney won... but the seeming on-site rout for Huckabee needs a little context.

Nevertheless, Huckabee came in #1 or #2 on either poll. Thanks to that, Huckabee "will get a significant bounce" FRC head Tony Perkins told CBS. How high? "He could be a first-tier candidate," said Perkins.

The sole hold-up with Huckabee's ascension to Tier One is money. If he had it, no doubt he'd qualify. Gary Bauer told CBS:

He said Huckabee, who raised only $1 million in the third quarter of the year, doesn'[t have the time or resources to compete with the top GOP candidates.

"I'm skeptical, I am," Bauer said. "I just don't see how you go from having $600,000 in the bank one year before the election and go on to leap-frog everybody else, beat Giuliani and then go on to beat Hillary Clinton. I just don't see it happening."

Here's a word picture of Huckabee's $ problem, courtesy of RedState.com (click to enlarge):

My friend Janet Folger, Huckabee's strongest supporter among pro-life leaders, dismissed that, recalling his surprise second place finish to Romney in the Iowa's straw poll, despite spending no money on advertising.

The fact is, s/he who has the most money almost always wins. Almost. I won't make a blanket statement, but that's the reality. I hesitate to use the word naive to describe those not incorporating that into the mix. I'd love this paragraph to come back and bite me.

Back to the FRC Briefing, the private meeting, and the dilemmas:

Most in the private meeting supported Huckabee. A few important figures supported Hunter.

For many well thought out and researched reasons, 3rd party chatter was put to rest.

I don't think Romney can surmount the Mormon and flip-flop obstacles among pro-life leaders, at least in the primary.

Giuliani is still anathema to everyone, despite his attempt to reach out by speaking at the Briefing.

Dobson said at the gala he pledged at the 1988 March for Life never to vote for a pro-abortion candidate again, and he is sticking to that. He would not vote for Giuliani, even in a match-up with Hillary.

Because of that, Dobson has received much hate mail during the last three weeks, he said, up to the point of withdrawing financial support from Focus on the Family. Perkins had the same answer for Wolf Blitzer of CNN Saturday. Click on image for link to video:

What makes this so awful is knowing that not voting for Giuliani will hand Hillary the election, and she is honestly a pro-life satan. Under her watch the Freedom of Choice Act would likely advance to law, undoing every pro-life state law passed since 1973. She would appoint 2-4 50-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsbergs to the Supreme Court, lurching it left for the next 20-30 years. This would also be devastating, not just to the pro-life issue but to the gay marriage issue, property rights, etc.

The magnitude of this election is almost overwhelming. Which reminds me. It's time to get ready for church.

Today House Democrats failed to override President Bush's veto of their thinly veiled scheme to codify universal health care by expanding SCHIP.

That was a relief. But their shameless exploitation of children during this debate was inexcusable and should not be given a pass.

It should come as no surprise. If liberals exploit preborn children for power and money, why not postborn?...

And this isn't new for them. Most recently liberals paraded sick children before cameras and in legislators' faces to try to force federal funding of human embryo experimentation.

But to get their way on SCHIP they went beyond the pale. I previously discussed how they used 12-year-old brain damaged Graem Frost.

But there were others. From the Washington Post, September 26:

Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) spoke of his daughter's cancer and an uninsured boy with leukemia. [Democrat House Majority Leader Steny] Hoyer spoke of his grandchildren and of an uninsured Maryland boy who died when an abscessed tooth caused a brain infection. Rep. Vic Snyder (D-AR) brought his 16-month-old son to the floor for the vote.

Republicans objected to this technique. "This bill uses these children as pawns," protested Rep. Pete Sessions (Tex.). But pawns have their place....

And Democrats were not about to let down their human shields....

They even exploited a 2-year-old. Here's one of several SCHIP ads by MoveOn.org that House GOP leader John Boehner today called "so misleading and disgusting they have no place in our nation's political discourse":

"Don't veto me"? What a great concept for an anti-abortion ad.

Gotta close with this repulsive tirade today by CA Rep. loser Pete Stark, so bitter over the SCHIP expansion veto override defeat he accused President Bush of being amused when soldiers are killed:

This trash talk and these trash ads are much of the reason the Democrat-controlled Congress is experiencing approval ratings that have now plunged twice as low as President Bush's. The latest Reuters/Zogby poll has it at a mere 11%.

[HT for MoveOn ad: Illinois Review; photo of Nancy Pelosi with young Bethany Wilkerson and her mother, featured in the above MoveOn ad, courtesy of Washington Post, October 19]

Fox News and the Associated Press are reporting Republican presidential candidate Sen. Sam Brownback plans to drop from the race tomorrow.

Brownback is scheduled to speak at the Family Research Council Washington Briefing tomorrow morning, although the AP is reporting he will announce in KS.

Brownback is very strong on the pro-life issue, but his campaign never got traction. Third quarter filing reports showed he came in 7th of the 9 GOP candidates on fundraising and only had $94k on hand, according to the AP.

Future plans? "It's widely anticipated Brownback will run for Kansas governor in 2010," reported the AP, which would be great. I think he would be a much stronger candidate for that position and well suited to challenge the rabidly pro-abort current Democrat governor and protector of late term abortionist Tiller the Killer, Kathleen Sebelius.

I will be live blogging beginning Friday from this weekend's Washington Briefing in DC, hosted by Family Research Council, billed as "the largest gathering of pro-family activists in the nation's capital."

David Brody of Christian Broadcasting Network said the Briefing "will have all the social conservative heavyweights in town and it really will, more than any other event so far this year, give a real sense as to who social conservatives will rally around."...

This is because all 8 major Republican candidates will speak, including late committer, Rudy Giuliani. (All Democrat candidates were also invited but did not respond.)

After the Giuliani campaign announced he would attend, Brody said, "And with those words, all eyes will now be on this event."

Why? FRC is conducting its first ever presidential straw poll, mentioned yesterday in the Washington Post. Dr. James Dobson will attend the Briefing and is said to be awaiting those results to help determine who he will get behind.

All of that was to get to the point that you can participate in the straw poll online and be a part of conservative decision-making on the presidential candidate by donating as little as $1 to FRC.

Go here and click on this logo:

Take the 11 question quiz on this website to determine which presidential candidate lines up closest to your convictions. I was a little surprised by the #1 and #2 candidates I picked - Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson - although not surprised by which GOP candidate came in last - Rudy Giuliani.

Of course, all Democrats scored at the bottom of the barrel. Dodd sat at the bottom of the bottom.

[HT: friend Donna]

According to a reliable source who was in the room, only 2 people of over 50 did not stand at the September 29 meeting of conservative leaders in Salt Lake City when asked whether they would support a minor-party pro-life candidate in the event Republicans put forth a pro-abort, i.e., Rudy Giuliani.

They were Darla St. Martins, National Right to Life's executive co-director, and James Bopp, National Right to Life's general counsel.

Bopp also serves as special advisor on life issues to the Romney campaign.

It is interesting that those constantly telling pro-lifers that politics is about more than one issue are now the same ones telling pro-lifers to focus on just one aspect of the pro-life issue when considering Rudy.

Do they really think pro-lifers are so stupid as to think the sole influence presidents wield on the abortion issue is judicial appointments, or are they that stupid?

[October 11 cartoon by Michael Ramirez is courtesy of Townhall.com]

From the Huffington Post newspaper, October 10:

The religious right is threatening to rebel should Rudy Giuliani win the nomination for the White House. But while the former New York City mayor's stance on abortion rights is making him a pariah within some conservative circles, it could win him favor among pro-choice advocates....

In a phone interview with the Huffington Post, NARAL's political director Elizabeth Shipp acknowledged it "would help" the pro-choice movement if a Republican proved it was possible to win the presidency while still supporting abortion rights.

"The Republican Party used to be about the conservative principles of limited government intervention in private life," Shipp said. "It seems to me if they went back to that and stood out from the rigid mainstream, anti-choice agenda, I think yeah, it would be good for the movement."

Could Giuliani be the candidate to take the Republican Party down that road? And would NARAL support him?

"I don't know yet," said Shipp. "He has said some very concerning things since getting into this race. If you have to grade him compared to everyone else you have to give him an incomplete."

Come on. The writer of this piece was incoherently hopeful in one spot. No way would a Giuliani presidential nomination "win him favor among pro-choice advocates." He either has it now or not. And he does not. The only good a Giuliani nomination would do pro-aborts is: 1) take abortion off the political discussion table; and 2) increase the odds of more trickle-down pro-abort elections since pro-lifers will stay home election day. No way would NARAL ever endorse Giuliani over any of the Democrat candidates, who all surpass him in abortion zeal.

And if the nominee is Hillary? Here is a creepy, even scary October 9 observation about her by the author of God and Hillary, Paul Kengor:

I don't know of any politician who is more uncompromising and extreme on abortion rights than Hillary Clinton.... Her extremism on abortion rights was the single most shocking, inexplicable find in my research on her faith and politics. I couldn't understand it. No question. It is truly extraordinary. Nothing, no political issue, impassions her like abortion rights. For Mrs. Clinton, abortion-rights is sacred ground.

[HT: LifeNews.com via Dr. Frank; photo courtesy of Huffington Post]

This slap on the wrist for felony kidnapping is all about abortion.

On September 15, 2006, Lola and Nicholas Kampf ambushed their 6-months-pregnant, 19-year-old daughter Katelyn ("My father chased me down our driveway and tackled me, and I had grass stains all over, and I was screaming for help."), bound her hands and feet, and attempted to kidnap her across state lines to force her to undergo a late-term abortion, all the while threatening to kill her and commit double suicide.

After Katelyn escaped at a shopping center, police found a rifle, duct tape, and rope in her parents' car.

Katelyn was white, impregnated by her black boyfriend. Her parents called the baby a "science project," according to the Kennebec Journal.

For all that, the couple was sentenced to counseling yesterday under a plea agreement with Cumberland County (ME) DA Stephanie Anderson....

Said Thomas Hallett, Nicholas Kampf's attorney, "The reality is this was a family matter from the get-go. We tried to resolve this in the best way possible. It was in the best interest of everyone not to blow this up into a big trial," as quoted by the Associated Press.

Everyone's best interest? Not so thought the kidnap victim, presumably also speaking on behalf of the intended murder victim, born in January, who didn't consider the decision in their best interest: "Its pretty much letting my parents get away with what they did," she told News Center.

Countered Hallett, "These were two parents who were absolutely torn apart by what was happening to their daughter, just torn apart. It was like a nuclear explosion going off in any family that has to face a similar situation."

They were so torn apart they wanted to tear their grandchild apart.

(Click on graphic, right, to link to news video.)

In reality, abortion poisoned this case, either making the crime seem less of a crime to law enforcement officials, or bringing with it legal headaches they preferred to avoid.

Where are those calling themselves black leaders? Racial prejudice was a strong, if not sole motivator here. The worst of hate crimes - death - was intended. But they're all pro-abortion, so they won't speak out.

Moreso, where are feminists? These parents wanted to forcibly deny their daughter her freedom of choice.

But I know feminists are all sorry about this case.

Sorry they missed out on getting some abortion pocket change.

[HT: reader Matthew Balan; photos courtesy of the AP]

Yes. Earlier today President Bush vetoed the Democrats' $30 billion expansion of SCHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Bush has agreed to increase SCHIP by $5 billion over 5 years, or 20%.

But the Democrat plan would have expanded government health coverage to include children of "poor" families making up to 400% over the federal poverty level, or $83,000. This was simply a backdoor attempt to codify universal health care into federal Americana.

SCHIP was designed in 1997 to cover children from families not qualifying for Medicaid but with annual incomes at or below 200% of the poverty level or 50% above a state's Medicaid eligibility level.

Did any of you liberals wince Saturday when Democrats shamelessly exploited that brain-damaged 12-year-old boy, Graeme Frost, to read their weekly radio address? Worse, the script they had him read was a lie. He got help via SCHIP but insinuated he would not if injured after a presidential veto of the new Democrat plan. False....

One of the best parts of SCHIP is Republicans added "unborn children" as recipients in 2002. Democrats hated that. In fact, they tried to strike that language from the just-vetoed plan to instead cover "pregnant women." Don't say semantics don't matter.

BTW, how were Dems going to pay for their SCHIP expansion? With a $.61 tax increase per pack of cigarettes. They said this tax would on one hand curb smoking and on the other raise funds. But their plan would require 22+ million new smokers in 10 years.

And since I always come back in on abortion, using the Democrats cigarette tax theory, if they really want to make abortion "rare," wouldn't they tax it rather than subsidize it? This is an analogous comparison, since poor people disproportionately smoke:

[Photo of Frost courtesy of Bloomberg; cartoon by Jerry Holbert courtesy of Townhall.com; chart courtesy of Heritge Foundation ]

My quote of the day today (see page 2) is about the unlawful arrest yesterday of 8 Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust on the Asheville-Buncombe Technical Community College campus. Unlawful because they were showing the truth about abortion with displays and literature on public property in accordance with their First Amendment rights....

According to the Citizen-Times today, "College officials said the group refused to comply with their requests and acted confrontational, shoving one of the security guards," which I knew was absolutely false. These kids are seasoned professionals, if you will, who know exactly how to respond to harrassment. They get it wherever they go.

So I was sitting here fuming at the injustice and that this wasn't caught on tape, which I recommend to every pro-lifer involved in this sort of thing or sidewalk counseling at mills, when Phil E. from Rock for Life emailed me a link to a video of the arrest. Thank goodness. Of course it corroborates there was no "shoving" whatsoever and complete compliance with officers.

Note that Survivors' questions on whether this was public property went unanswered. Because it was.

You rock, Survivors. I'm so proud of you.

_______________

Quote of day, October 3:

"It is shameful that our pro-life message was silenced because the police and college administrators gave in to prejudice. The Survivors will not remain silent - we will defend our right to freedom of speech, no matter the cost."



~ Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust spokesperson Kortney Blythe, speaking in a press release on the arrest yesterday of 8 members of her group at the Asheville-Buncombe Technical Community College campus for showing "educational displays and literature exposing the horrific nature of abortion," according to the release, without permission. For that, Tech prez Betty Young said they "disrupted the learning environment," according to the Citizen Times today.






[Photo of group member at press conference is courtesy of Citizen Times; click for enlarged group view; t-shirt says, "Would it bother us more if they used guns? Abort73.com"]

From the New York Times today (read complete article on page 2):

Alarmed at the possibility that the Republican Party might pick Rudolph Giuliani as its presidential nominee despite his support for abortion rights, a coalition of influential Christian conservatives is threatening to back a third-party candidate.

The threat emerged from a group that broke away for separate discussions at a meeting Saturday.... Participants said the smaller group included James Dobson (pictured right) ... Tony Perkins (pictured on page 2)... and dozens of other politically oriented conservative Christians....

Almost everyone present... expressed support for a written resolution stating that "if the Republican Party nominates a pro-abortion candidate we will consider running a third-party candidate"....

The participants said that the group chose the qualified term "consider" because it had not yet identified an alternative candidate, but that it was largely united in its plans to bolt the party if Mr. Giuliani, the former New York mayor, became the nominee....

A revolt of Christian conservative leaders could be a significant setback to the Giuliani campaign because white evangelical Protestants make up a major share of Republican primary voters....

But the threat is risky for the leaders of the Christian conservative movement as well. Some of its usual grass-roots supporters might still back a supporter of abortion rights like Mr. Giuliani, either because they dislike the Democratic nominee even more or because they are more concerned with other issues, like the war....

Gary Bauer... urged the group to proceed with caution. "I can't think of a bigger disaster for social conservatives, defense conservatives and economic conservatives than Hillary Clinton in the White House," Mr. Bauer said.

He added, "But I do believe there are certain core issues for the Republican Party - low taxes, strong defense and pro-life - and if we nominate someone who is hostile on one of those three things it will blow up the GOP."...

For months, Christian conservatives have been escalating warnings that nominating Mr. Giuliani could splinter the party....

Participants in the group that endorsed the resolution said they had reached their position after hearing an assessment of the state of the Republican primary from Mr. Perkins... [who] told them that Mr. Giuliani could plausibly win the primary if he carried Florida, which has many conservative Christian voters, and that now was the best chance to stop any momentum behind his campaign.

And from the Los Angeles Times today (read complete article below):

Barely three months before the voting for a new president begins, the religious right has yet to unite behind a Republican candidate, heightening concerns among evangelical leaders that social liberal Rudolph Giuliani will capture the party's nomination.

The splintering of religious conservatives, if it endures, could ease the way for New York's former mayor to emerge as the party's first nominee to explicitly support abortion rights since the Supreme Court legalized the procedure in 1973.

But the lack of a consensus choice for president is only one of the troubles facing conservative evangelicals, a powerful force within the GOP for more than a generation.

"It's low tide right now for our movement," said Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Assn.

[Photos courtesy of NYT]

New York Times
October 1, 2007
Giuliani Inspires Threat of a Third-Party Run
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 - Alarmed at the possibility that the Republican Party might pick Rudolph W. Giuliani as its presidential nominee despite his support for abortion rights, a coalition of influential Christian conservatives is threatening to back a third-party candidate.

The threat emerged from a group that broke away for separate discussions at a meeting Saturday in Salt Lake City of the Council for National Policy, a secretive conservative networking group. Participants said the smaller group included James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family, who is perhaps its most influential member; Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council; Richard A. Viguerie, the direct-mail pioneer; and dozens of other politically oriented conservative Christians.

Almost everyone present at the smaller group's meeting expressed support for a written resolution stating that "if the Republican Party nominates a pro-abortion candidate we will consider running a third-party candidate," participants said.

The participants said that the group chose the qualified term "consider" because it had not yet identified an alternative candidate, but that it was largely united in its plans to bolt the party if Mr. Giuliani, the former New York mayor, became the nominee. The participants spoke on condition of anonymity because the Council for National Policy meeting and the smaller meeting were secret, but they said members of the smaller group intended to publicize the resolution.

A revolt of Christian conservative leaders could be a significant setback to the Giuliani campaign because white evangelical Protestants make up a major share of Republican primary voters, including more than a third of voters in Iowa and South Carolina.

But the threat is risky for the leaders of the Christian conservative movement as well. Some of its usual grass-roots supporters might still back a supporter of abortion rights like Mr. Giuliani, either because they dislike the Democratic nominee even more or because they are more concerned with other issues, like the war.

In recent polls by the Pew Research Center, Mr. Giuliani has received a plurality of support from white evangelical Protestant voters despite a rising chorus of complaints from Christian conservative leaders about his liberal views on social issues.

Some players in the movement not present at the meeting may be open to Mr. Giuliani as the lesser of two evils. For example, the Christian Broadcast Network, founded by the Rev. Pat Robertson, has provided relatively generous coverage to Mr. Giuliani and his campaign.

Gary L. Bauer, a Christian conservative political advocate who was a Republican primary candidate eight years ago, said that, speaking by phone to the meeting, he urged the group to proceed with caution. "I can’t think of a bigger disaster for social conservatives, defense conservatives and economic conservatives than Hillary Clinton in the White House," Mr. Bauer said.

He added, "But I do believe there are certain core issues for the Republican Party - low taxes, strong defense and pro-life - and if we nominate someone who is hostile on one of those three things it will blow up the G.O.P."

In response to the Christian conservatives, a spokeswoman for the Giuliani campaign provided a statement from Representative Pete Sessions, a Texas Republican who supports Mr. Giuliani, saying, "Conservatives are rallying around the one candidate with the executive experience and proven leadership our country needs." Calling Mr. Giuliani strong on fighting terrorism and "fiscal discipline," Mr. Sessions said Republicans want a candidate who "can beat the Democratic nominee."

For months, Christian conservatives have been escalating warnings that nominating Mr. Giuliani could splinter the party. Dr. Dobson wrote a column declaring that he would waste his vote before casting it for either Mr. Giuliani or a Democrat who supports abortion rights, like Mrs. Clinton, of New York. Some conservatives also noted that Mr. Giuliani has been divorced twice and married three times and is estranged from his children.

Participants in the group that endorsed the resolution said they had reached their position after hearing an assessment of the state of the Republican primary from Mr. Perkins, who acts as a point man in Washington for the movement. Mr. Perkins told them that Mr. Giuliani could plausibly win the primary if he carried Florida, which has many conservative Christian voters, and that now was the best chance to stop any momentum behind his campaign.

_______________

The Los Angeles Times
Christian right is split over GOP field
Conservative evangelicals haven't found a perfect fit among the Republican presidential candidates - and that could benefit social liberal Giuliani.
By Michael Finnegan
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

October 1, 2007

WASHINGTON - Barely three months before the voting for a new president begins, the religious right has yet to unite behind a Republican candidate, heightening concerns among evangelical leaders that social liberal Rudolph W. Giuliani will capture the party's nomination.

The splintering of religious conservatives, if it endures, could ease the way for New York's former mayor to emerge as the party's first nominee to explicitly support abortion rights since the Supreme Court legalized the procedure in 1973.

But the lack of a consensus choice for president is only one of the troubles facing conservative evangelicals, a powerful force within the GOP for more than a generation.

"It's low tide right now for our movement," said Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Assn.

Opportunities for the religious right to press its agenda suffered a blow when Republicans lost control of both chambers of Congress in last year's midterm election.

Making matters worse are sex scandals besetting Republicans who have championed family values, most recently Sens. Larry E. Craig of Idaho and David Vitter of Louisiana. Their troubles -- after the sex scandal last fall involving then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) that contributed to the GOP's midterm losses -- have diminished enthusiasm for the party among many social conservatives.

Also hobbling the religious right is the decline of the Christian Coalition of America. A mobilizing force in the 1990s, the South Carolina-based group has suffered financial setbacks and now plays a marginal role in Republican politics.

At the same time, evangelical leaders are roiled in internal debate over whether to broaden their agenda beyond opposing abortion and same-sex marriage. Some argue that they have a responsibility to also fight poverty, AIDS and global warming.

"The old Christian right that automatically could be mobilized against a few issues -- that movement is being diluted," said the Rev. Joel C. Hunter, whose appointment as Christian Coalition president was cut short last year amid an outcry over his push to widen the group's focus.

In the presidential race, several of the lower-tier candidates have cast themselves as staunch supporters of the Christian right's priorities -- most obviously Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas. But few observers see those candidates' prospects as realistic. And many social conservatives have doubts about the higher-profile contenders vying with Giuliani.

"There's just no enthusiasm for this crop of first-tier candidates," said Richard Viguerie, a veteran conservative activist and author. "Not one of them is a principled conservative, so why support them?"

Leaders of Christian conservative groups are threatening to back a third-party candidate in an attempt to stop Giuliani from winning the nomination, the New York Times reported Sunday.

Some evangelical leaders hoped that former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee could be their standard-bearer. But his early stumbles have raised doubts about his capacity to rally support. And some evangelical leaders have questioned his commitment to battling same-sex marriage and abortion.

James C. Dobson, one of the country's most influential evangelicals, told allies in a recent e-mail that Thompson could not "speak his way out of a paper bag."

"He has no passion, no zeal, and no apparent 'want to,' " the founder and chairman of Focus on the Family wrote. "And yet he is apparently the Great Hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!"

Also vying for the backing of the evangelical community is Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. His heavy spending on TV ads in Iowa, where religious conservatives dominate the GOP caucuses that traditionally launch the nomination contest, has vaulted him to the front-runner's spot in polls there.

But he is still struggling to surmount guardedness toward his Mormon faith and his switch to conservative stands on abortion, gay rights and other matters after campaigning in Massachusetts as a moderate on social issues.

"He's come to a lot of those positions late, and there's a lot of concern that he's come to those positions only for political convenience," said Danielle Vinson, associate professor of political science at Furman University in Greenville, S.C.

Another Republican, former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, seems a natural fit for evangelicals: An ordained Southern Baptist minister, he has deep ties to the religious right. But Huckabee's lackluster fundraising so far has made it tough to convince many that he is a viable contender.

For Christian conservatives, a GOP loss of the White House would end eight years of advances under President Bush. He has put two conservatives on the Supreme Court, signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, imposed restrictions on stem-cell research, and put political muscle to work for state bans on same-sex marriage.

Some evangelical leaders expect Christian conservatives to rally behind one Republican alternative to Giuliani once the field of candidates narrows.

Even if Democrats take the White House and keep control of Congress, the religious right is sure to maintain significant clout within the GOP. A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll in June found that 31% of Republicans identified themselves as part of the religious right.

"This is not an auspicious historical moment for the Republican Party or social conservatives, but they will continue to be a formidable force," said political scientist Ted G. Jelen of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Giuliani has remained the leader in national polls of Republican voters in part by showing wider appeal than many anticipated, given his record on social issues (as well as his three marriages). A Gallup survey released Friday found he was the top choice among Republicans who attended church at least once a week.

As the race proceeds, a key question is whether concern among evangelicals over national security could lead many to overlook disagreements with Giuliani. Many have ranked national security as a priority since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and terrorism is the core issue in Giuliani's campaign.

Also in the mix: which candidate stands the best shot at defeating Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), should she win the Democratic nomination.

"Perhaps more than ever, electability is part of the thing that social conservatives are weighing, because the prospect of Hillary Clinton is so disturbing to them," said Gary Bauer, a conservative activist who ran for president in 2000. "They're looking for both the candidate who is closest to their views but also the candidate that they credibly think can win."

Giuliani argues that he fits that bill, even as Bauer and others continue scouting for someone else.

For now, some key evangelical leaders say religious conservatives must soon join forces to back Romney, Thompson or another candidate -- whatever his flaws -- to stop Giuliani.

Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said the early caucuses and primaries in January would show whether conservative evangelicals understood "that politics is the art of the possible, and you don't make the perfect the enemy of the good."

"Sometimes," he said, "three-quarters of a loaf is better than none."

michael.finnegan@latimes.com

Barack Obama, who never saw a reason to abort he didn't support, has not surprisingly signed a press release PP wrote for him on the Aurora situation. According to the Baltimore Sun, a few hours ago:

Today, Sen. Barack Obama became the first Democratic presidential candidate to weigh in on the battle over a Planned Parenthood clinic in Aurora.

Not surprisingly, the abortion rights supporter from Illinois said he would like to see the clinic open soon....

"I fully support Planned Parenthood's desire to open a new facility in Aurora," he said in a statement released this afternoon. "The proposed center will serve the growing population in a part of the state where access to a full range of reproductive health care services is lacking."

The statement went on to list some of the services the Planned Parenthood clinic would offer such as pap tests, contraceptive care, cancer screening and breast exams. It did not mention abortion procedures, which have drawn thousands of anti-abortion protesters to demonstrate outside the clinic....

Obama has a relationship with Aurora. When Aurora Mayor Tom Weisner ran for office in 2005, Obama came to town and campaigned on his behalf.

Obama also has a relationship with Planned Parenthood....

As an aside, Tim Russert asked Obama his favorite Bible verse in the September 26 presidential debate. Obama's answer:

Well, I think it would have to be the Sermon on the Mount, because it expresses a basic principle that I think we've lost over the last six years....

Part of what we've lost is a sense of empathy towards each other....

[W]e don't talk enough about the empathy deficit, a sense that I stand in somebody else's shoes, I see through their eyes....

That's the reason I'm running for president, because I want to restore that.

[HT: Jeff from CPLA and Dave Diersen; political cartoon courtesy of Chicago Sun-Times, March 25, 2004, on Barack Obama's opposition to IL's Born Alive Infant Protection Act.]

It is a very small world.

Back in February I wrote a post for Illinois Review entitled, "Debbie does...??" and a related WorldNetDaily column, "The link between HPV and lung cancer."

In large part about Democrat IL state Sen. Debbie Halvorson - who was pushing mandatory HPV vaccinations of preadolescent girls - this section of my post combined with my title made liberals crazy and got me mention in the New York Times...

So when... Halvorson admitted she had HPV and worried others might get it, you would think she'd focus on her behavior that caused her to contract that sexually transmitted disease.

Halvorson would be most helpful by discussing the health consequences of pre- or extra-marital sex. Here are some potential topics:

Halvorson could discuss the number of sex partners she has had throughout her lifetime and how each one increased the likelihood of contracting HPV.

If Halvorson even had only one sex partner aside from her husband, she could discuss how one can contract HPV from a sole encounter.

Halvorson could discuss whether she realized at the time her sex partner carried HPV, which most trusting, vulnerable women don't.

Halvorson could disclose whether it was her husband who passed HPV on to her after sleeping with other women, demonstrating another reason for chaste behavior outside the marriage bedroom.

More uncomfortably, if Halvorson contracted HPV through rape, she could discuss ways to avoid rape.

But no, Halvorson does not advocate avoiding a risky behavior that leads not only to HPV but to 20+ other STDs and their strains, along with unplanned pregnancy. Halvorson merely advocates trying to avoid the consequences of risky behavior.

For that a Daily Southtown columnist called me a "mean girl" spewing "vitriol" with a "shark mentality" who should "get comfortable on the sidelines" because I was "los[ing] credibility."

Ah, memories.

As it turns out, Halvorson was a board member of Women in Government, in cahoots with Merck to force the HPV vaccine by legislative fiat on us all. Americans thought this was a bad idea and shot the forced shot down in flames.

But I'm not one to say I told you so. I just told that story to tell this one.

Last week, with a scandal looming, my own IL GOP Congressman, Jerry Weller, said he would not run for reelection. I know him, and I know his aide, Jack Dusik, who embarrassed himself and could have hurt someone by losing his temper and shoving CBS reporter Mike Flannery, a really nice guy, down the stairs when Dusik thought Flannery was being too pesky after Weller's announcement:

You've likely figured out where this is going. From the Washington Post blog, September 24:

Weller's seat... is almost certain to be competitive between the two parties....

Candidates: On the Democratic side, the leading choice appears to be state Senate Majority Leader Debbie Halvorson....

Gotta laugh.

After the GOP presidential debate last night, Sean Hannity asked Gov. Mitt Romney to explain one of his answers.

Hannity: You were asked a question about abortion and the issue of - you think Roe v. Wade should be overturned, but you accept that America is in a different place right now. I wanted you to expand on that a little bit more in terms of what your opinion was....

Romney: Well, it's actually almost word for word what the President has said on the same topic, and that is that he was asked, what do you think about the Republican platform and an amendment that would make abortion illegal in all 50 states. And he said, you know, that's a nice aspiration but that's not where America is right now. We would welcome that kind of a circumstance, but that's just not where we are. And that's why as a pro-life Republican I'm in favor having the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade -

Hannity: Let the states decide -

Romney: - and as they overturn Roe v. Wade that would return to the states the right to make this decision.

You know, I got angry when President Bush said that, and I got angry when Romney said that. What a punt. For two people who say they don't rely on polls in fundamental decision-making, they sure can rely on polls.

So what if "that's not where America is right now" on abortion? Back in the day, that's not where America was at on civil rights either, or slavery.

Is abortion the killing of innocent human beings or not? That's the only question to be answered here. And on that point during the debate, Romney talked in circles:

I recognize that for many people, that is considered an act of murder, to have an abortion. It is without question the taking of a human life. And I believe that a civilized society must respect the sanctity of the human life.

If abortion is without question the taking of a sanctified human life, what else can it be but murder? If Romney supports letting the states decide, is he not by his own words helping perpetuate an uncivilized society?

Some may wonder if I'm abandoning the incrementalist political approach to abortion. I'm not. It's all we pro-lifers on the streets have, only exascerbated by weak pro-life politicians. And there they are, wasting their tremendous influence and power.

If given the choice, every pro-lifer supports a human life amendment to the Constitution and certainly would not opt for incrementalism just because "that's not where America is right now." We only opt for incrementalism because we have no choice. It's that or nothing, because that's where American politicians and the American judicial system are right now.

Wendell Goler nailed it with his follow-up question to Gov. Mike Huckabee:

Governor Huckabee, do you see any real difference between Governor Romney's willingness to allow legalized abortion in some states and Mayor Giuliani's support - effective support - for a woman's right to choose?

I'll answer that. No.

I've posted the relevant portion of this debate transcript below.

Excerpt from transcript of Republican presidential debate, September 5, 2007:

QUESTION:

GOLER: Thank you, Congressman.

Governor Romney, your aides say you see ending abortion as a two- step process: rolling back Roe v. Wade, which would leave it legal in some states; and then a constitutional amendment to ban it nationwide.

If abortion is murder, how can you live with it being legal in some parts of the country and for how long could you do so?

ROMNEY: Well, I think all of us -- I believe almost all of us in the room would say that we'd love to have an America that didn't have abortion. But the truth of the matter is...

(APPLAUSE)

... that's not what America is right now. That's not what the American people are right now. And so I'd like to see Roe v. Wade overturned and allow the states and the elected representatives of the people, and the people themselves, have the ability to put in place pro-life legislation.

ROMNEY: And of course it's our aspiration that at some point we'll see a nation that doesn't have abortion. But until that time, I certainly believe that allowing states and citizens and their representatives to fashion their own laws to protect the sanctity of life is very, very important.

I recognize that for many people, that is considered an act of murder, to have an abortion. It is without question the taking of a human life. And I believe that a civilized society must respect the sanctity of the human life.

But we have two lives involved here -- a mom, an unborn child. We have to have concern for both lives and show the expression of our compassion and our consideration and work to change hearts and minds, and that's the way in my view we'll ultimately have a society without abortion.

(APPLAUSE)

GOLER: Governor Huckabee, do you see any real difference between Governor Romney's willingness to allow legalized abortion in some states and Mayor Giuliani's support -- effective support -- for a woman's right to choose?

HUCKABEE: Wendell, I'm going to let them sort out whatever differences they have.

HUCKABEE: I would love to see us have in this country what I helped lead in our state in Arkansas, and that's a human life amendment to our state constitution, Amendment 65, that says that we believe life begins at conception, and that we ought to do everything in the world possible to protect it until its natural conclusion.

And that means that we truly value and respect, elevate and celebrate every life.

The reason this country has been extraordinarily interested in what's going on to those miners out in Utah is because even though we don't know them, they represent us in the sense that they are human beings, and we don't know their fate.

We need to show the same kind of respect for life whether a child is in the womb, or whether in a coal mine, or in a long-term care facility. It's about the fact that in our culture, the greatest testament that we can give is that we have an undying respect for every human life as having intrinsic worth and value.

(APPLAUSE)

GOLER: Thank you, Governor.

The pro-life protest against Planned Parenthood Aurora was scheduled for Saturday, August 25, at 9:00a.

But to ensure that constitutional freedom, Pro-Life Action League had to file a federal lawsuit against the City of Aurora and only got an emergency hearing Friday at 4:00p.

I spoke with PLAL's attorney, Tom Brejcha of Chicago's Thomas More Law Center, this morning.

Tom said they filed the lawsuit against Aurora ordinances that are clearly unconstitutional and subjectively enforced. There are two contentions....

The first contention is for "sign suppression." Police officers have been telling pro-lifers who were picketing and praying at the mill their signs had to remain mobile, not staked in the ground, not leaning against a tree, but constantly moving. Officers were removing the little staked crosses and even told a pro-lifer in a wheelchair he had to hoist his huge graphic sign and move it along.

Yet Eric Scheidler of PLAL took pictures of union, commercial, and political signs in Aurora certainly not in motion.

The second contention is against Aurora's ordinance stating whenever more than 100 people assemble, the group must have a permit. PLAL's lawsuit asked how could a count be anticipated for a gathering such as Saturday's?

PLAL and Tom have such chutzpah. They crack me up. Tom explained the sequence of events leading up to the federal lawsuit filing:

I had called the police commander three times with no call back. So Eric and I went to see him. He wouldn't take our visit. He said he'd call us after speaking with the city attorney.

Who was that, we asked?

Alayne Weingartz. So Eric and I went to visit her.

We explained the sign ordinance allows exceptions for signs conveying political and personal expression.

Ms. Weingartz said she didn't know that our signs fell into the political exception.

I said, "You've got to be kidding. This is the most divisive political and social issue in the country."

I asked, "What about personal expression?" She had no answer.

As for the freedom of expression, Ms. Weingartz said, "There have been a lot of complaints about your people and what they're doing."

I said, "That's the very purpose of free speech - to invite dispute and to have profound, unsettling effects on people. That's the way you open a dialogue."

She said she would call me back, but she didn't either.

So I sued them.

In court, the other side only agreed they would not enforce the permit and would not require people to carry signs. Signs could be put on the ground.

"But they didn't agree to any more than Saturday," said Tom, "So it's a live lawsuit and we will prosecute with vigor."

Tom said the ordinances are blatant violations of the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, allowing for subjective enforcement and viewpoint discrimination.

[Photos of various signs in Aurora courtesy of Eric Scheidler]

The headline of this August 26 CNN story triggered the first gag: "Obama invokes Bible in NOLA." Then came the article:

"Getting ready to talk to you today, I recall what Jesus said at the end of the Sermon on the Mount," Obama said at New Orleans' First Emmanuel Baptist Church. "He said, whoever hears these sayings of mine and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on a rock."

"The rains descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house. But it did not fall, because it was founded on the rock," he continued....

That rock, he said, was a principal of brotherhood exemplified by the church during Hurricane Katrina - but not the federal government.

"Something was wrong in America. Our foundation wasn't built on the rock," he said.

Obama blasted local, state and federal response to the storm, and touched upon ingredients necessary for the city's rebuilding, namely more employment opportunities for residents to rebuild, community-based law enforcement to tackle the city's crime epidemic, and improved health care.

As an aside, if Obama is going to invoke the Bible here, he should know the Biblical role of government: to protect, maintain order, and merit justice.

Thus, the government failed on Katrina in this way: for not adequately protecting a sinking soup bowl of a corruptly and ineptly run city built next to the ocean from a Category 5 hurricane, incidentally "the sixth-strongest Atlantic hurricane ever recorded and the third-strongest hurricane on record," according to Wikipedia.

The Biblical role of the Church is to provide compassionate care, which it did, more quickly and much better than the government. And it would have done better still were it not for the fact the government now takes so much money Americans once gave to churches, to try to do their job, which it absolutely cannot. This catastrophe showed that.

But Obama stopped reading too soon. The next two verses, Matt. 7:26-27, say:

But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.

Obama is a Biblical cherry picker and a snake. I shudder for him. He zealously supports abortion to the extent he has endorsed infanticide because he thought it would interfere with Roe v. Wade. I testified before an IL senate committee of which he was a member, and I've heard him say that, and I've seen his votes, so don't bother cutting and pasting from NARAL's website or an Obama blog attempting to contort Obama's repulsive abortion position.

Who can misunderstand Jesus on children? Matt. 18:10, 14:

Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven.... Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

Here's The Message translation of the latter part of verse 10:

You realize, don't you, that their personal angels are constantly in touch with my Father in heaven?

What a thought, one to inspire a sense of peace and justice in pro-lifers and terror in pro-aborts.

[HT: Son Tim; photo of Obama courtesy of CNN]

She had to see that title coming.

Interview with the Vampire author Anne Rice, who famously told Newsweek in 2005 she would from henceforth "write only for the Lord" after returning to her Catholic faith, has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president.

From her website, August 10:

To my readers....

My vocation at this time remains unchanged. I am committed to writing books for the Lord....This has become my life....

However, I have come to feel that my Christian conscience requires of me a particular political statement at this time....

My commitment and my vote... must reflect my deepest Christian convictions; and for me these convictions are based on the teachings of Christ in the Four Gospels....

To summarize, I believe in voting, I believe in voting for one of the two major parties, and I believe my vote must reflect my Christian beliefs.

Bearing all this in mind, I want to say quietly that as of this date, I am a Democrat, and that I support Hillary Clinton for President of the United States....

Though I deeply respect those who disagree with me, I believe, for a variety of reasons, that the Democratic Party best reflects the values I hold based on the Gospels. Those values are most intensely expressed for me in the Gospel of Matthew, but they are expressed in all the gospels. Those values involve feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison, and above all, loving one’s neighbors and loving one's enemies....

I want to add here that I am Pro-Life. I believe in the sanctity of the life of the unborn. Deeply respecting those who disagree with me, I feel that if we are to find a solution to the horror of abortion, it will be through the Democratic Party.

I have heard many anti-abortion statements made by people who are not Democrats, but many of these statements do not strike me as constructive or convincing. I feel we can stop the horror of abortion. But I do not feel it can be done by rolling back Roe vs. Wade, or packing the Supreme Court with judges committed to doing this. As a student of history, I do not think that Americans will give up the legal right to abortion. Should Roe vs Wade be rolled back, Americans will pass other laws to support abortion, or they will find ways to have abortions using new legal and medical terms.

And much as I am horrified by abortion, I am not sure - as a student of history - that Americans should give up the right to abortion.

I am also not convinced that all of those advocating anti-abortion positions in the public sphere are necessarily practical or sincere. I have not heard convincing arguments put forth by anti-abortion politicians as to how Americans could be forced to give birth to children that Americans do not want to bear. And more to the point, I have not heard convincing arguments from these anti-abortion politicians as to how we can prevent the horror of abortion right now, given the social situations we have.

The solution to the horror of abortion can and must be found.

Do I myself have a solution to the abortion problem? The answer is no. What I have are hopes and dreams and prayers - that better education will help men and women make responsible reproductive choices, and that abortion will become a morally abhorrent option from which informed Americans will turn away....

Again, I believe the Democratic Party is the party that is most likely to help Americans make a transition away from the abortion crisis that we face today. Its values and its programs - on a whole variety of issues - most clearly reflect my values. Hillary Clinton is the candidate whom I most admire....

There is so much to unpack here, the bulk of which I'll leave to commenters.

I found this from Wikipedia, an insightful aside:

Whether Rice would continue to be a supporter of causes like gay rights (her son Christopher is openly gay) was much debated; she has said that Christianity's stance on homosexuality was something she wrestled with as she considered converting. She remains a passionate supporter of the rights of homosexuals and their right to participate in religious worship.

Rice minced no words explaining how morally repugnant she found abortion. Yet, she thought since it would not stop even if illegal, we should not make it illegal - common pro-abort logic we apply nowhere else.

And her statement, "I feel that if we are to find a solution to the horror of abortion, it will be through the Democratic Party," was simply bizarre.

To start a list, it appears Rice has trouble with moral absolutes, consequences of sin, the Biblical role of government (to protect and maintain order), and the Biblical role of the Church (to extend compassion). I think I read underlying in one of her sentences she is also against military force ("Those values... [are]... above all, loving one’s neighbors and loving one's enemies.")

The only way I can see how she got to this place was to abandon the rest of the Bible for the Gospels. She is currently writing a trilogy on the life of Jesus, another insightful aside.

On the surface it would seem inexplicable for someone to think a pro-abortion political party and a pro-abortion presidential candidate would lead the way to stopping abortion. But Rice has apparently bought into the notion that comprehensive sex ed, liberal access to contraception, and socialized healthcare are the answers.

She obviously doesn't understand or believe the abortion industry is behind - and stands to gain from - all three.

Such messed up theology.

[HT: Ed Moore, Phil E.]

This month's issue of Marie Claire features an interview with Hillary Clinton. Gotta say the accompanying photo is the best ever I've seen of her. On the topic of abortion:

JC [Joanna Coles, editor-in-chief] : Next subject: abortion. Some women feel that your language is becoming much more moderate on the issue. What do you say to reassure them?...

HC [Hillary]: I've been saying the same thing for as long as I can remember: I believe abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. I do think women should have a choice but also that women should be making responsible decisions.

I think people who have been pro-choice have basically gotten lazy about it. There will be a concerted effort by the Supreme Court to try to push as far as they possibly can [last spring, the court upheld a ban on so-called partial-birth abortions], and if they go all the way and either repeal or overturn Roe v. Wade, then it will become a political issue again in the legislatures of every state, and people will find themselves having to be politically active.

When you're part of a group that cares deeply - as the anti-choice people do - you get organized, and you vote on that issue, whereas people who are pro-choice vote on a lot of different issues.

I bet a lot of people among your readers voted for George W. Bush because they concluded that he was more likeable or whatever. But if [abortion rights] is the most important issue to any of your readers, then it has to become a voting issue.

A few points.

1. How often are pro-lifers browbeaten for being one-issue voters? It appears Hillary is at least giving us credit and at most lauding the concept of one-issue voting on the topic of abortion.

2. When acknowledging some pro-aborts voted for Bush because he was likable, Hillary was acknowledging her unlikability saying, "Focus your vote on the abortion issue, not my personality."

3. And pro-aborts are lazy? Ew.

A pro-abort's analysis of Clinton's statement? From The Lizard Queen:

[H]ow on earth was that answer an attempt to "reassure" women who feel Clinton's "language is becoming much more moderate on the issue" of abortion? It felt more like a kiss-off to me.

Ew again.

[HT: Lizard Queen]

Rich Lowry at National Review said it better yesterday than I did in my "Thumbs down: Brownback" post last week:

The Brownback campaign is essentially premised on pro-life purity.... I admire those views and think they are very important.... But it's not any of the particularly whole-life issues... that are driving his campaign.

Instead, it's attacks on other candidates for not being pro-life enough, or more precisely for not being pro-life soon enough. I find this pointless. I don't believe that Mitt Romney is ever going to go back to being pro-choice. But, fine, maybe his conversion in 2004 is of too recent vintage to be believed.

Then, there's Fred Thompson. The former Tennessee senator converted to pro-life sometime after 1994. That's long enough ago to grandfather anyone in to his new position. But it's presumably not long enough for Brownback, who is running his campaign less on ideology than on chronology.

What would be long enough?....

For people for whom the pro-life issue trumps all, the imperative has to be beating the pro-choice Rudy Giuliani. A fractured pro-life field probably helps Rudy, and at this point, Brownback can only help keep it fractured....

In practical terms for pro-lifers, Brownback's campaign is balanced somewhere between pointless and counter-productive.

The campaign is also the very embodiment of a tendency toward impractical perfectionism among pro-lifers, as Brownback tries to hunt down and slay every convert to the pro-life cause. But converts are to be welcomed; pro-lifers will never prevail without them.

Sometimes a campaign can be about delivering a message over and above any concrete political considerations. But the truth is that the Brownback presidential campaign is doing the senator's moral cause no favors. If anything, say to say, his cause is being hurt by the association.

Lowry said Brownback should get out of the presidential campaign and stick to being a good US senator. He has other baggage, the foremost being he supported amnesty for illegal immigrants. He also opposed the troop surge.

I agree.

This cartoon ran in newspapers today...

... based on this exchange between Stephanopoulos, Romney, and Brownback during the August 5 Republican debate...

(See video on page 2.)

I get very aggravated with pro-lifers who won't allow politicians to convert. Lord knows the other side has welcomed an array of converts with open arms, including notorious U.S. Senator Dick Durbin, whose defection was not just accepted but rewarded. He would not be the Senate Democrats' second in command today were it not for that.

I'm not on board with Romney's candidacy. But I am on board with his conversion. We should nurture Romney, not stop him from joining ranks without first swearing an oath on his first born child.

In this case Brownback came out the loser by making it appear in calls to voters that Romney is still pro-abortion. Brownback potentially hampered our cause for his political gain. This makes me lean away from him.

This was the June 25 story on LifeSiteNews.com:

One of the most frequently downloaded iTunes in Canada, a French-language song entitled "Degenerations," vividly portrays a woman's sorrow and pain after having an abortion.

Continued LSN....

Written by the Quebec folk-rock band, "Mes Aieux" (My Ancestors), the song compares the simple, yet fruitful lifestyle of... [generations past]... to the stress and sterility of modern day life. Mirroring this idea, the music starts with a simple drum beat that gradually accelerates to an almost frantic gallop....

[T]he song describes how life becomes empty and unnatural when it is severed from one's land and heritage. Verse three, for example, shows the contrast between how, "Your great great grandmother, she had 14 kids," whereas "Your mom didn't want any, you were an accident."

The song also relates how each generation is growing increasingly hostile to life. In verse four, it addresses the present generation and specifically refers to abortion as a traumatizing mistake for a woman....

Well! Yesterday LifeSiteNews.com reported receiving an angry letter from the band's attorney:

We the members of Mes Aieux, have read the following article and are in profound disagreement with the interpretation given to our lyrics. We consider that the association of our song with the anti-choice policies on this web-site is akin to moral kidnapping. We are, in fact, and unanimously, pro-choice. This is simply bad militant journalism, and an infringement of our moral rights.... You have associated our song with your anti-choice cause without consulting us....

They requested LSN remove the photo of the group from its site, the link to their website, the article, and the YouTube link to the disputed song. LSN refused the latter two requests.

I can't decipher the disputed words to be any other than pro-life:

Roughly translated into English, they say:

"Now you, my little lady, change partners all the time
When you screw up you save yourself by aborting
But there are mornings when you awake crying
When you dream in the night of a large table surrounded by little ones."

According to LSN, which is based in Canada, "The song title is a play on words that signifies not only the passing of generations, but the moral degeneration as well."

The band just doesn't understand what its generation is experiencing. It's a sad song.

[Hat tip: Mary Kay (MK)]

One last photo from DC last week. On July 20 there was a large protest along Constitution Ave. against the Chinese Communist government's atrocities against its people: torture, and harvesting of organs from living prisoners. (Strangely, the one-child policy was not protested.)

That night, protesters held a candlelight vigil at the Washington Monument. You can see its base in the background of this photo. All those little lights you see were being held by Chinese people who sat cross-legged and meditating/praying for over an hour. It was quite spectacular. See two close-ups on page 2.

Fois gras, a sort of goose liver pate, is a delicacy originated by the French. The process of readying the liver gets animal rights activists goosy. As described by Wikipedia:

In modern foie gras production, force feeding takes place 12-18 days before slaughter. The duck or goose is typically fed a controlled amount of corn mash through a tube placed in the animal's esophagus.... [T]his force feeding procedure [creates]... an enlarged liver.... [I]ts flavour is described as rich, buttery, and delicate, unlike that of a regular duck or goose liver.

With no more urgent matters pressing, the Chicago City Council banned the sale of foie gras there in April 2006 (although it is currently reconsidering, much PETA's consternation).

All of that was to set up this rich comment received at Illinois Review on my column, "Those onerous barriers to abortion," by John Coonen of The Coffee Group:

It's a shame how few so-called leaders step out of the shadows any more to say they are pro-life.

Talk to most pro-life advocates in either party, and you'll hear the same retort: "It's a divisive issue."

Ah, brilliant rationalization for one's reticence to articulate the truth you know in your soul. Divisiveness.

And illegal immigration - is that "divisive" too? Road funding; casinos to cover our debt-load?

Or how about Foie Gras? Charging airlines a tax to fly over the land of Lincoln? Is that more your baileywick? That's where you'll take a stand and hold the Peoples' sword high?

Twirl my finger in the air, and whoop-dee-doo, Braveheart.

A divisive issue. Is that all it takes to scare off the Republican party? Is that all it takes for Democrats who are pro-life to not dare to even mention it on their websites?

What's the matter? Partisans got your tongue?...

"Hope is not a strategy" to get things done, is it? It's going to take bold, honest persuasion by some Legislators to finally end the senseless convenience-killing that's been literally robbing our society of good people.

1973 was the year. If nothing else, imagine all the young energetic and optimistic campaign volunteers you'd have to choose from if 3,500 people a day weren't being slopped into the trash cans and intermingled with other souls' earthly bodies. They'd be 24 years old today and out of college. As a campaign manager, that's the ideal age to recruit optimistic young idealists who want to change the world for the better. They're not here, folks.

Look around your next GOP convention... count how many folks you'll see who are 24 or younger. They're not here.

The trepidation of our elected leaders to address "divisive issues" for fear of electorate reprisal is precisely the evidence we have to prove two main points: Legislators and would-be legislators are far more interested in a career in politics than achieving change; and that partisanship continues to replace citizenship as the driving force in our capital cities....

Those who stood up and finally took a stand on "divisive issues" ended slavery. Those who overcame the fear of losing power and chose rather to lead the People ended fascism in Europe and obliterated a tyrannical empire in Japan.

Power and leadership are mutually exclusive, folks. Lead and you may gain legitimate power. Impose your power upon others and you may be called a leader; however the leadership is illegitimate. Run from the divisive issues and you're no leader at all....

"Pro-choice." Blah blah.

The Left's reintroduction of legislation called the Fairness Doctrine is another of their blatant attempts to squelch choice, this time by forcing liberal doctrine on Americans, payback for the failure of Air America, someone said.

This would affect the Internet, as Adam Thierer from the City Journal explained:

Scarcity-obsessed Dennis Kucinich has recently introduced plans in Congress to revive the Fairness Doctrine, which once let government regulators police the airwaves to ensure a balancing of viewpoints, however that's defined. A new Fairness Doctrine would affect most directly opinion-based talk radio, a medium that just happens to be dominated by conservatives. If a station wanted to run William Bennett's show under such a regime, they might now have to broadcast a left-wing alternative, too, even if it had poor ratings, which generally has been the case with liberal talk....

Sunstein also proposes a kind of speech redistributionism. For the Internet, he suggests that regulators could impose "electronic sidewalks" on partisan websites (the National Rifle Association's, say), forcing them to link to opposing views....

That leftist media critics start sounding so authoritarian is no surprise. In a media cornucopia, freedom of choice inevitably yields media inequality.... Overcoming that inequality would require a completely regulated media.

When Rush Limbaugh has more listeners than NPR, or Tom Clancy sells more books than Noam Chomsky, or Motor Trend gets more subscribers than Mother Jones, liberals want to convince us (or themselves, perhaps) that it's all because of some catastrophic market failure or a grand corporate conspiracy to dumb down the masses.

In reality, it's just the result of consumer choice. All the opinions that the Left's media critics favor are now readily available to us via multiple platforms. But that's not good enough, it seems: they won't rest until all of us are watching, reading, and listening to the content that they prefer.

Friend Ed Moore emailed the latest cable news ratings this morning, with this note:

... Because CNN has been around so long most assume it is among the leaders in viewership. As you can see, this is false. The numbers below are not aberrational. They are typical and have been that way for years.... Fox News shows consistently cream the opposition.... That is why they are berated and denegrated by the libs and the rest of the media.

O'Reilly and Hannity obliterate shows like Chris Mathews' Hardball, but the media does everything it can to treat Mathews as important and the others as irrelevant or fringe....

People are leaving traditional media, the networks and newspapers, in droves, mostly because of their liberal bias in reporting. The libs are fighting back with plans to regulate the media with legislation like the Fairness Doctrine, which is anything but fair. It is blatant censorship from a group who pretends to be the protectors of all things "fair."

(Click to enlarge.)

Does 2 + 2 = 4? If conservative thinking is so popular, does that not include pro-life thinking?

The New York Times expanded today on an AP story I discussed Friday, about apparent growing resolve among Catholic leadership to deny pro-abort politicians communion.

NYT brought the issue home to Rudy Giuliani, a Catholic who says he "hates" abortion but supports its legality, including taxpayer-funded abortions. NYT quoted a bishop who recently wrote Giuliani's position was "pathetic," "confusing" and "hypocritical" in a Catholic newspaper.

But Giuliani doesn't want to know if he's finally been excommunicated. NYT said Giuliani "was seen leaving Mass at a church in Washington before the Eucharist."

NYT explained Giuliani's logic by referring to the lightning-struck NH debate when he said of aborting mothers, "[S]hould government put them in jail?"

Giuliani is perpetuating abortion myth, which he as as an attorney certainly knows. Three points, from the book, The Silent Subject:

1. "Although some state laws in the 19th century allowed the prosecution of aborting women, there is apparently no reported appellate decision in American history upholding the conviction of a woman for self-induced abortion or for submitting to an abortion."

2. "At the time of Roe v. Wade, 17 states... had... laws [prohibiting abortion solicitation] on the books. But there is no known prosecution of any women ander these laws."

3. "The defense - not the prosecution - sought to have [aborting] women named as accomplices because they often were the only eyewitnesses to their abortions.... [T]he abortionist would typically allege that the woman was his accomplice in the performance of the abortion. The defense hoped thereby to make the woman's testimony inadmissible.... As late as 1968, Ruth Barnett [pictured right] - the abortionist cast as the hero in a 1994 book, The Abortionist - used this tactic, unsuccessfully, in her appeal from her conviction."

That last point is one to dwell on. It was the abortion industry, not pro-lifers, that historically tried to implicate aborting mothers in criminal abortions.

The same holds true today. It is my experience that pro-aborts, not pro-lifers, become agitated on this point when discussing future consequences of illegal abortions, nearly demanding women be prosecuted on that theoretical day.

[Giuliani photo courtesy of NYT]

Hillary Clinton has never voted or taken a specific position to demonstrate she seeks the "common ground" on abortion she promoted during the CNN Democrat presidential debate June 3:

The mildest move Clinton might have made to fulfill her hope for "common ground" would have been to support the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, which she opposed due to the "slippery slope of the legislative language that you [Sen. Rick Santorum] have carefully and cleverly crafted in this bill," although the Supreme Court determined that assertion false. If Clinton could not support the PBA Ban, there is no pro-life legislation she will support.

Nevertheless, do you, as either a pro-lifer or pro-choicer, think there is any common ground?

One last thing. It's interesting that Clinton implied at least twice during the clip above that abortion is immoral. It's this sort of rhetoric, like her "safe, legal, and rare" line, that alienates pro-abortion constituents and actually damages the movement.

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

Pro-abort blogs have been all over Sen. Sam Brownback for gesturing toward his abdomen during Tuesday's Republican presidential debate when answering Wendell Goler's question,
"[S]ince you've opposed abortion in every instance except to save the life of the mother, how you would explain to a rape victim, who does not believe that life begins at conception, why her trauma should be compounded by carrying the child to term?"

(Video can be viewed at Think Progress.)

For instance, blogged Amanda Marcotte (who you'll recall was deleted from the Edwards campaign blogosphere for her over-the-left-cliff rants)....

Gesturing vaguely towards your midsection while talking about the "life inside" might just be a nervous habit, but carefully grabbing your belly - repeatedly - while waxing poetic about the womb and its angelic resident (so much more worthy than a depraved, fornicating b****), well, it's a tad creepy. Seriously, watch it. You start to get the impression that Brownback feels he does have uterus and not until abortion is banned will it be activated and finally, after all this time, the superior sex can have the babies.

There's not much else to be said about this. Brownback shows all the familiar signs of advanced wingnutitis, but the fact that he's anti-choice alone is evidence of that.

I have to admit I winced at times during Brownback's response, a tad for those gestures, but more because there was actually much else he could have said on the rape/incest question, and frankly, he fumbled:

That would be a very difficult situation, and it is a very difficult situation. But the basic question remains. Is the child in the womb a person? Is it a viable life? And if it is a person, it's entitled to respect. And is it an innocent person?

And I think that's the thing we've got to really look at here, is, what are we doing? We talk about abortion, but abortion is a procedure. This is a life that we're talking about. And it's a terrible situation where there's a rape that's involved or incest.

But it nonetheless remains that this is a child that we're talking about doing this to, of ending the life of this child. Will that make the woman in a better situation if that's what takes place? And I don't think so, and I think we can explain it when we look at it for what it is: a beautiful child of a loving God, that we ought to protect in all circumstances in all places, here in the womb, somebody that's struggling in poverty, a family that's struggling. We should work and look at all life, be pro-life and whole-life for everybody.

I was disappointed Brownback wasn't prepared. I mean, come on, this is the basic sticking point for many people torn on this subject, and Brownback must get asked about this at least once a day.

Our most important argument is that the child is an innocent victim of the crime as well. But Rule #1 for any pro-life man speaking on this topic is he must draw in that abortion hurts women. Here are those talking points.

1. Most women who are raped do not become pregnant.

2. Most women who are impregnated by rape do not abort (75-85%)

3. Of those who do abort, the only major study done on this topic showed:

A. ~70% believed abortion would be just another act of violence perpetrated against their bodies and their children.

B. Some believed good could come from evil; their child's life might have intrinsic meaning or purpose which they do not yet understand.

C. Their sense of the value of life and respect for others was heightened. Victimized themselves, they were repulsed to think they might turn around and victimize their own innocent child.

D. Some sensed by getting through the pregnancy, they would conquer the rape, reclaim lost self-esteem. Giving birth in this circumstance would be totally selfless, generous, courageous, and proof they were better than the rapist. He destroyed, they nurtured.

4. Most people assume abortion will help a rape victim put the assault behind her and go on with life. But abortion is not a magical surgery that turns back time to make a woman "unpregnant." It is a real life event that is always stressful and often traumatic. Many women reported their abortions felt like a degrading and brutal form of medical rape. This association between rape and abortion - an invasive procedure involving the women's sexual organs - is not hard to understand. This association between abortion and sexual assault is very strong for many women, one reason why sexual assault victims are likely to experience greater distress during and after an abortion than other women.

5. Abortion covers up rape and incest. Studies show incest victims rarely voluntarily agree to abort. Instead of viewing the pregnancy as unwanted, they more likely to see the pregnancy as a way out of the incestuous relationship by exposing the crime. They also see the hope of bearing a child with whom to establish a true loving relationship, one far different than the exploitive relationship in which they were trapped.

All the above information was taken from here, where you can find footnotes.

The New York Times reported yesterday Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani is planning to affirm his pro-abortion position for strategic reasons: Many liberal states have bumped up their primary date to "Tsunami Tuesday," February 5, ahead of primaries of more conservative states. According to the NYT:

Mr. Giuliani's campaign... is eyeing a path to the nomination that would try to de-emphasize the early states in which abortion opponents wield a great deal of influence. Instead they would focus on the so-called mega-primary of Feb. 5, in which voters in states like California, New York and New Jersey are likely to be more receptive to Mr. Giuliani's social views than voters in Iowa and South Carolina.

Giuliani is gambling he can win the nomination with the minority pro-abortion GOP vote as the sole abortion supporter in a field of 10.

This means Giuliani is not just taking a personal gamble, he is gambling the entire Republican Party.

According to Time magazine, Giuliani has "decided that the reign of social conservatives is coming to an end. 'He understands that there are a lot of Republicans out there who are sick of everyone kowtowing to the single-issue extremists,' said one veteran Republican observer in Washington. 'He's breaking from the pack.'"

I wonder why MSM never considers that Democrat voters might be getting sick of their party's radical support of abortion. Nevertheless, the conservatives response, quoting the NYT:

[S]aid Phyllis Schlafly... "The Republican Party has been pro-life in its platform ever since 1976, the first platform after Roe, and I think most of the Republicans understand they can't afford to lose the pro-life constituency."

Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, the conservative magazine, said, "You can't win as a pro-choicer who is going to deliberately set on challenging the party's orthodoxy on the issue."

Abortion has emerged as the central news issue this past week thanks to an examination of Romney's pro-life conversion and Giuliani's equivocation during the debates.

Bearing in mind education is key, pro-lifers should view these unfolding events as a gift and not a threat and focus on educating the American public on what it means to be "pro-choice."

The polls are in our favor. Most Americans oppose late-term abortions. Most Americans oppose abortion for convenience - as a secondary means of birth control. Most importantly, we have the truth on our side.

At some point down the road we're going to have to decide as a group to support one of the nine pro-life candidates. We don't have to do that yet. They are all still wooing us, and we should take this time to get as many promises from them we can. But the day will come.

By HisMan (one totally sold out to Jesus Christ):

Since abortion makes no sense to any rationally thinking person, there has to be other reasons for pro-aborts' "death grip" on this so-called "death right" .

It is no secret to me what abortion truly is and why I think it is used as a means to hold political power. I state it again as posted on previous threads as follows:
"You have to realize that pro-deathers are not driven by logic. They are driven by the lust for power, perhaps abortion followers without realizing it, but its leaders and initiators, guilty as hell.

They are no different than the poor man who fantasizes about taking the rich man's watch without regard to how or why the rich man acquired the watch; while poor materially, they lack no prejudice. They feel totally justified in their position, not because of logic but in some sinister form of perverted self-righteousness not thoroughly arrived at, at having simply arrived. Perhaps this itself feeds the power demon inside them, at just being able to arrive, at joining up: "I'm in the club now and no one will every kick me out, not even me".

They reject anyone or anything in authority that would tell them how to live including God Himself and it's generally masked in the facade of women's rights. Which when you analyze it, is a very parasitical way of thinking. I mean, they kill unborn baby woman too don't they? How dare they use the issue of abortion to bolster their sense of self-hood. Again, the perverted, twisted and demented logic shows its ugly head from every angle of the looking glass. Ah, but they see in a mirror darkly? No, the light's off.

So, when they acknowledge the horror of a baby cooking video, or talk about how bad kicking a dead baby in a bag is, or allowing a baby to die in a toilet in an abortion deathatorium despite the pleas of the mother for the baby's life, they really are acknowledging the horror of abortion since to not do so would be illogical. What they fail to realize is that in doing so, they for a moment remove their masks, and their K-9 fangs show through the sheepskin, scaring even themselves. Does a werewolf know who he is?

So, I ask myself, if we disparage ourselves of the silliness and really take a deep look, what is abortion? Here's what I, HisMan, think it is:

Abortion is an affront to the creative nature of God, it negates God as Creator.

Abortion denies the power of God to right a wrong, to show forth His glory, it negates God as redeemer.

Abortion makes that which is good, the birth of human life, into that which is evil, the death of human life, and then calls it good, the very definition of blasphemy.

Abortion negates the resurrection power of God as it takes flesh that is alive in it's earthly abode (the womb) and kills it, while God takes that flesh which is dead in it's earthly abode (the grave) and desires to make it alive.

Abortion's desire is to take that which was composed from the chaotic array of elemental molecules into a symphony of life infused with an eternal soul, and turn it back to the entropy of randomness, chaos, nothingness, uselessness, decay, death.

Abortion is against all that is hopeful, all that requires faith for success; for it's solution; annihilation, it's goal; death, it's dream; breaking God's heart, it's vision, satan's ultimate power. Abortion is a counterfeit, for the clawprints of satan are everywhere to be found in its performance.

Abortion disguises hate as love, bondage as freedom, choice as maturity, sin as righteousness, political correctness as wisdom.

Abortion pits men against women, mothers against their children, fathers against God.

Yes, Abortion is satan's feeble attempt at killing God himself, for Abortion is a metaphor for satan; it is his coat of arms, his family crest, his logo, his brand, it belongs to him......for he laughs at its willing proponents as they craft their own self-destruction, mantled in self-deception."

As so truthfully stated by By Jennifer Roback Morse in her article, even women suffragists are beginning to see the light:

www.townhall.com/Columnists/JenniferRobackMorse
/2007/04/16/the_new_underground_womens_movement

"Abortion advocates never admit that women in crisis face an extremely lopsided "choice." A woman can end her pregnancy at any time. The abortion clinic provides her with an immediate solution to her "problem." She can walk in pregnant, and walk out not pregnant. Abortion counselors, assuming there are any, have no particular incentive to provide for her longer term needs, or to get to know her and her problems.

By contrast, the decision to carry a child to term has to be renewed on a daily basis. Throughout the pregnancy, the mother may have moments of fear or fatigue or indecision. Her boyfriend or her mother may be working on her to abort. If her conviction wavers, for even a single afternoon, she can get an abortion. Her child will be gone forever.

That is why workers in a crisis pregnancy center must have a whole different level of commitment than those in an abortion clinic. Pro-life counselors know perfectly well the client has a "choice," other than returning to their center, so they have to make their services appealing. Pro-life counselors get to know the woman, her life, her problems, sometimes even her boyfriend or her mother. They help clients with housing, medical care, jobs, transportation and child care. The Real Alternatives program in Pennsylvania for instance, has a mandate to assist the woman for a year after her baby is born.

The modern feminist movement is a Marxist knock-off, committed to transforming class warfare into gender warfare. Under the guise of equalizing income for men and women, the feminist movement made in-roads into the power structures of America, inroads that would have been impossible any other way. Since babies account for so much of the gender difference in earnings, Girl Marxists need to neutralize the impact of babies: hence their commitment to all abortions, all the time.

Don't be fooled by the rhetoric of the Feminist Establishment. You'll never hear this from the Main Stream Media, but pro-life women are the real champions of the most vulnerable women's interests. The Pro-life Movement is the New Women's Movement."

Rudy Guiliani, are you listening?

http://www.lifenews.com/nat3038.html

It is a trick of pro-abortion legslators to gut parental notification laws by including clergy and other family members as those allowed to give permission for minor girls' abortions.

In IL it is state Rep. John Fritchey behind this scam. This week on the news program Public Affairs, Fritchey mocked conservatives and diligent parents when he said:

I find it intellectually interesting that a number of the folks on the right who are quick to talk about the importance of church involvement in your family are now saying we don't trust a clergy member to give independent advice on this.

Pro-aborts know "clergy" can range from being against sex, drugs and rock-n-roll to practicing homosexual sex, promoting drugs to enhance religious experiences and playing Black Sabbath.  Pro-aborts legislators know the U.S.'s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, employs "clergy" as well as sponsors a "pro-choice clergy network." 

Pro-aborts know anyone can be "ordained" a clergy member in five minutes, even Fritchey, if he wants to be the one blessing a young girl's abortion. 

These people are ludicrous to endorse clergy over parents to make medical decisions for children.  Will they next sponsor bills allowing clergy to give permission for other underage surgeries, tattoos, body piercings, and aspirin in school?

The State of Illinois has decided to appeal Judge Coar's Jan. 22 ruling stating SOS Jesse White must begin issuing Choose Life adoption specialty license plates within 30 days, by Feb. 21. 

The State is throwing away the people's money on a case that legal precedent has shown it will ultimately lose.

Last Thursday, Judge Coar suspended enforcement of his Jan. 22 order while the State prepares its appeal.  The average time for appeals is almost a year.

Our attorney, Tom Brejcha, is asking Judge Coar to vacate his stay pending the appeal.  Tom will take this to the 7th Circuit U. S. Court of Appeals, one step below the Supreme Court, if the judge does not....

Meanwhile, 3M, the company that provides sheeting for Illinois license plates, has submitted its final design to the Illinois Choose Life Adoption Specialty Plate Committee.

More and more people are asking committee members about purchasing CL plates. 

CL Committee chair Jim Finnegan requests all who want to be first to order them to register through the web site, www.ilchoose-life.org.

Feb. 14, 7:49 p.m.

Today, the Kansas Supreme Court granted Paul Morrison's request to dismiss the appeal of Judge Clark's dismissal of the charges against George Tiller. Already, it appears the media is once again failing to report the substantive facts regarding the action today. We will see if their full stories do any better tomorrow.

As a refresher the following is important to know....

[Hat tip: Reader Caron]

1. After consulting with the Sedgwick County District Attorney, I filed charges against Dr. Tiller in December. In order for the charges to be filed, a District Court Judge must review the evidence submitted and find that there is probable cause to believe that crimes have been committed and probable cause to believe that the defendant (Dr. Tiller) named in the Complaint committed the crimes. (Kansas legal ethics require that I remind you that the allegations in a Complaint are mere allegations and that the defeandant is presumed innocent as a matter of law). Such a finding of probable cause was made by a Sedgwick County District Judge, how then signed the Complaint and the Complaint was filed with the Clerk. A summons was then issued for Mr. Tiller to appear to answser the charges.

2. The finding by the Sedgwick County Judge represents the second judge who has reviewed evidence in the case and found probable cause to believe that crimes have been committed. The Judge who originally issued the subpeonas to Tiller's clinic also made a probable cause finding.

3. The following day, without notification to my office Sedgwick County District Attorney Nola Foulston went to a different judge, who did not review any of the underlying evidence of the case and obtained a simple dismissal of the charges.

4. My office sought for Judge Clark to reverse his decision. Judge Clark claimed that Kansas law does not allow the Attorney General to file criminal charges, only the District Attorney can do so. In our argument we pointed out that we prosecuted numerous criminal cases in the AG's office without DA invitation, including prosecuting DA's for criminal conduct. We also pointed the judge to the following language in Kansas law - KSA 22-3103 which states:

"If the testimony taken (in an investigation) discloses probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed...the attorney general...may file such such testimony together with his complaint...and a warrant shall there upon be issued for the arrest of such person..."

It was under this direct authority afforded by Kansas statute that the Tiller charges were filed. Regardless, Judge Clark refused to reverse his earlier order.

I then apponted Don McKinney as a special prosecutor as I prepared to leave office. This appointment occured after Mr. Morrison, who initially said he would drop the investigation of Tiller, called on me to appoint a special prosecutor.

The Special Prosecutor filed an appeal of Judge Clark's decision in the form of a "mandamus" action. That appeal was filed with the authority of the Office of Attorney General.

Mr. Morrison initially said he would not interefere with the appeal but then decided to dismiss it. As Attorney General he could now dismiss the action since it was originally brought by that office. In other words, all the Kansas Supreme Court did was dismiss an action brought by the office of Attorney General at the request of the Attorney General. It did not review the merits of the case and it took the only action it could legally. All the responsibility of the recent action falls on Morrison not the court and the action had nothing to do with the merits of the case against Tiller.

One thing that is continually lacking is any media reports (except one story by David Klepper in the KC Star) about the substance of what was reflected in the Complaint against Tiller. The media should report:

1) the complaint alleges the abortions were performed on children and adults late-term as late as 32 weeks all at times that Mr. Tiller found the unborn children to be viable;

2) the complaint alleges Mr. Tiller performed the abortions based on a diagnosis that the mother would otherwise suffer - severe depression, single episode - anxiety disorder - or in other cases adjustment disorder if the abortion was not performed.

3) Kansas law only allows late-term abortion if two doctors find that there will be substantial and irreversiable damage to a major bodily function of the mother if the abortion was not performed.

4) In 2000 Attorney General Carla Stovall (who is pro-choice) issued an AG's opinion that the Kansas law allowed a mental health exception for late term abortion as long as the mental health harm was irreversiable and permanent.

The media then needs to ask and get the answsers to the following questions: are the mental health conditions listed in the complain irreversable? Did Tiller perform abortions based on this diagnosis? They need to ask Mr. Morrison - if the evidence in the complaint is true was a crime committed? The same question to Ms. Foulston.

Kansas law requires that as Attorney General I must file supporting information with the court to support the probable cause finding when I file the charges. All of the supporting evidence is in Sedgwick County and can be reviewed by the District Attorney.

In fact, she claimed she did, however, she reviewed it for evidence of crimes for which the charges were not filed. A while back DA Foulston announced that in her "limited" investigation she did not find sufficient evidence to charge Mr. Tiller with failure to report child rape. She said she reviewed the filings of my office to conclude such. She failed to tell the media that I did not file such charges and therefore, did not file any evidence to support such charges. The charges I filed all relate to criminal late-term abortion and failure to properly report the reason and basis for the abortion. In other words, as I said at the time, "the DA looked at the moon and found no evidence that it is the sun."

Yet the media reports seemed to indicate, consistent with the DA's desire, that there was not any evidence to support the charges filed. FALSE. Two judges made probable cause findings to believe that crimes have been committed. The only judges to review the case.

And now, we have two prosecutors charged with upholding the law engaged in procedural actions to prevent any review of the substance of the evidence.

Do not lose hope. Deception has always been a part of this issue and each step we take to reveal the truth is a positive step. We must keep moving forward and there are a lot of things yet to be done that are consistent with the law, our responsibilities and the truth. Stand Firm!

I issued the following statement in response to the latest action by Morrison:

The Attorney General has now sought the effective dismissal of criminal charges against a major political supporter even after two independent judges have found probable cause to believe that crimes have occurred. This is not a proper action by the state’s chief law enforcement officer. We have the fox guarding the henhouse and he has just eaten one of the hens. These charges deserved to be aired out in a court of law with the evidence presented and these procedural machinations of some to avoid there sworn duty should stop.

There are certainly polar opposite views of Republican abortion proponent Rudy Giuliani's candidacy for president:

Pro-life pro-Rudy

For me and other socially conservative, pro-life voters who are inclined to support Mayor Giuliani, however, there is one bridge he can build to make him acceptable - appoint judicial conservatives to the federal bench.... ~ Blogger Baseball Crank, Feb. 13

Pro-abortion pro-Rudy

Every pro-choice American should be rooting for Giuliani to get the GOP nomination. If an avowedly a pro-choice politician like Rudy Giuliani is able to either muscle out or weasel through the pro-life movement for the GOP nomination, the pro-life political movement is dead. Their credility has a potent or feared political force will be gone. ~ Blogger Mass Eyes & Ears, Feb. 10

I've always tended to get nervous when the other side takes my same position.

by Fran Eaton and Jill Stanek

An article in The Hill today about Barack Obama's obstruction of IL's Born Alive Infants Protection Act when he was state senator reopens an old wound, in particular, this passage....

Obama's campaign did not return calls for comment, but Pam Sutherland, president of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, said the Illinois legislation was misleading and a far cry from the Senate's legislation. Obama was aware of this difference, she added.

Sutherland noted that every medical group in the state was opposed to the state legislation, which would have opened the door to "civil suits and criminal charges" for doctors and led directly to an overall ban on abortions.

"The legislation was written to ban abortion, plain and simple," she said. "Sen. Obama saw the legislation, when he was there, for what it was."

On the narrower issue of "born alive" infants, Sutherland said, Planned Parenthood of Illinois worked last year with the anti-abortion group, the Illinois Federation of Right to Life, to pass legislation that protects infants that survive abortion procedures.

Sutherland et al are liars, which comes as no surprise to pro-lifers....

1. The IL Born Alive bill would have been identical to the federal version way back in 2003 had not Obama himself refused an amendment making it so as chair of the Senate Health & Human Services Committee.
2. Only one medical group opposed the Born Alive package of three bills, albeit a big one: The IL State Medical Society.  ISMS did not like the liability bill - separate from the Born Alive bill - that would have indeed allowed civil lawsuits if abortionists abandoned live aborted babies to die without at least assessing them.  ISMS also had a problem, as did Obama in his one-man Senate floor debate against it, with a bill that would have mandated that a separate, objective doctor from the abortionist assess the intended victim for viability.  (One of these days, let's talk about that.)
3. If Sutherland were on a witness stand she would be slapped with perjury for saying any of the three of these bills would have led to an abortion ban.  The legislation was written to ban infanticide, not abortion, as Pam well knows.  And Pam wouldn't support even that if she could get away with it.  In fact, she did until it politically got too hot for her.

The last paragraph is the wound reopener.  In 2005, we had the votes to pass Born Alive.  The pressure was stronger than ever before to do the right thing.  It would have happened. 

But IL Federation for the Right to Life and IL Citizens for Life blinked.  They compromised without needing to compromise, building a bridge to nowhere with the "help" of all people, Democrat Rep. John Fritchey, who we'll remind readers is the sponsor of the current bill to gut parental notification and has apparently threatened to introduce legislation designating Choose Life license plate funds to go toward embryonic stem cell experimentation.

IFRL and ICL agreed to add amendments to Born Alive that it would not impede on Roe v. Wade or interfere with standard medical practices, whatever those are.  These amendments were utterly unnecessary and only offered so the other side could save face.

The other side saved face all right, and now they're rubbing our faces in "it."  Lesson learned?  Don't count on it.  Until the day comes we are more concerned that the enemy respect us than like us, history will repeat.

Illinois U. S. Senator Barack Obama announced his intention to run for president at the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois, this morning, where Abraham Lincoln gave his "House divided" speech almost 150 years ago.

One of many differences between the two men is Lincoln defended all three tenants of the Declaration of Independence - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - while Obama supports only the latter two.

Pro-lifers plan not to let Obama ignore his moral lapse. We began this morning.

Liberal bloggers claimed Springfield was besieged by well-wishers and nearly shut down by police. But we were able to park one block away 30 minutes before the event.

At 15 minutes prior, we were able to walk to the front of the barricaded space, directly behind the media risers. In all fairness, the ease with which we found this press-pregnant position so close to the event was likely due to the extreme cold, which dipped to -15 degrees at one point on our drive from Chicago but reached +1 by our arrival. Cameras merely had to swing around to capture us on film. (Whether or not they will show us is another matter.)

Reporters and cameras left their perch to interview and film up close. This is Mary Ann Ahern, political reporter for Chicago's NBC5, talking to Pro-Life Action League's Joe Scheidler....

(See page two for that picture and more.)

There were 40 of us.

At several times during Obama's speech we began shouting, "Abortion no, Obama no!" This not only consternated the pro-abortion crowd around us but must also have had an impact near the man. An agitated Obama official appeared soon into Obama's speech, approached the police who were watching us, and simply ordered, "Remove them."

The police complied, telling us to move to a designated protesters' area a couple blocks away, but Joe simply said no, we had First Amendment rights. Joe was right, of course. There was nothing the police could do but watch us.

I found this sign humorous:

I do hope pro-lifers around the country will also remind Obama of the atrocity of his pro-abortion position when he comes their way. If so, what the Chicago Sun-Times predicted after Obama's speech today will come to pass: "[I]t is going to be a rough learning process, evidenced on Saturday with a planned protest by an anti-abortion group in Springfield - Obama is essentially pro-choice."

"Essentially"? Well, I guess that is the most we can expect from the liberal media in its description of someone who is "pro-choice" to the point of supporting partial birth abortion and infanticide.

Kaiser News reports today Texan legislative guns blazed yesterday in response to Gov. Perry's Feb 2. quick-draw executive order forcing adolescent girls to receive the HPV vaccine:

State Sen. Jane Nelson (R) asked Perry to reverse the order and said she would ask Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott (R) about the mandate's legality and whether the Legislature has any recourse (Houston Chronicle, 2/6). Nelson also said that the Legislature should hear testimony from doctors, scientists and patients before mandating the vaccine. "This is not an emergency," Nelson said, adding, "It needs to be discussed and debated".

Sen. Glenn Hegar (R) said he would introduce a bill to reverse the mandate (Houston Chronicle, 2/6).

Reps. Dennis Bonnen (R) and Charlie Howard (R) filed a bill (HB 1098) that would prohibit requiring students to receive an HPV vaccination to attend public schools (Dallas Morning News, 2/5).

Along with other myths and double-speak pro-abortion Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani perpetuated on Hannity & Colmes last night, as described on ProLifeBlogs.com, add this: "I think you have to ultimately not put a woman in jail for that."

All post-Roe triggers laws, like all pre-Roe abortion laws, focus solely on prosecuting the perpetrators of the crime, the abortionist and accomplices. There is no record of the prosecution of any aborting mother in the U. S. in the 20th century.

Giuliani is either ignorant on this point or attempting to prop his pro-abortion position with a lie.

We're used to these in Illinois, although Gov. Blagojevich hasn't thwarted the legislative process since last October.  Get ready.  Change the names, and this may be in your state's future:

AUSTIN, Texas Feb 2, 2007 (AP) -- Bypassing the Legislature altogether, Republican Gov. Rick Perry issued an order Friday making Texas the first state to require that schoolgirls get vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.

By employing an executive order, Perry sidestepped opposition in the Legislature from conservatives and parents' rights groups who fear such a requirement would condone premarital sex and interfere with the way Texans raise their children.

Beginning in September 2008, girls entering the sixth grade meaning, generally, girls ages 11 and 12 will have to receive Gardasil, Merck & Co.'s new vaccine against strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV....

Of course, the quid pro quo:

Merck is bankrolling efforts to pass state laws across the country mandating Gardasil for girls as young as 11 or 12. It doubled its lobbying budget in Texas and has funneled money through Women in Government, an advocacy group made up of female state legislators around the country.

Perry has several ties to Merck and Women in Government. One of the drug company's three lobbyists in Texas is Mike Toomey, Perry's former chief of staff. His current chief of staff's mother-in-law, Texas Republican state Rep. Dianne White Delisi, is a state director for Women in Government.

Perry also received $6,000 from Merck's political action committee during his re-election campaign.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/02/02/tx.cervical.cancer.ap/

[Hat tip: Reader Michelle P.]

Eric Zorn and I have continued the conversation on Choose Life license plates on his blog, which led to an important point.

Zorn said:

The argument against your proposed plate -- again an argument I do not buy -- is not that it's one too many plates, but that it contains too much self expression and implies an endorsement of your cause by the state. So your point is that Franks felt that he could help the state's legal case and/or justify denying "Choose Life" by denying less controversial plates, even though this idea clearly makes no sense. Well, as you say, if you say so.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. 

No one expected us to sue.  They expected us to either go away or continue to futilely introduce bills.

To cover himself later, Franks tried to argue Choose Life was the plate that broke the camel's back, when he decided on behalf of the General Assembly through his State Government Committee, "enough!"

But the story doesn't fly.

First, Franks' committee approved (with his aye vote) at least one plate after he said no to Choose Life: the Universal Charity plate on 5-1-03.

Second, the Senate demonstrated blatant bias.  All specialty plates bills making it past the Rules Committee in the 93rd and 94th GA went to the Transportation Committee and received unanimous approval, except two:

1. The Jr. Professional Golfers plate, sponsored by Emil, which went to Emil's executive committee and passed.

2. Choose Life, which went to Obama's infamously liberal Health & Human Services committee and was held without a vote.

They screwed up, and Coar, the judge deciding the Choose Life case, caught them.  They're going to lose if they pursue fighting this in court.

They only have two options, sink the entire specialty plates program or let Choose Life in.  We'll see how much they hate the pro-life/pro-adoption movement.

How quickly she forgets

From oral arguments during the Partial Birth Abortion Ban hearing, November 8:

Justice Ginsberg: "But up until now, all regulation on access to abortion has been state regulation and this measure is saying to the states, like it or not, the Federal Government is going to ban a particular practice and we are going to take away the choice from the states, in an area where up until now it's, it's been open to the states to make those decisions. How should that weigh in this case? And it is something new."

Justice Scalia: "The best example where government has gotten involved in overriding what the states want to do is Casey. It seems rather odd for this Court to be concerned about stepping on the toes of the states."

Created to abort

From the Argus Leader, November 4, about South Dakota's Oglala Sioux Tribe impeached president Cecilia Fire Thunder, who lost her job earlier this year after she vowed to open an abortion mill on her reservation should the abortion ban pass:

Fire Thunder said the loss of her tribal office was like a shower of gasoline on the abortion ban blaze, and she's been speaking nationally about the controversy in South Dakota.

"An Indian woman at Pine Ridge created a national discussion on women's choices. Is that exciting or what?" Fire Thunder said.

"I love it. That's why the creator put me on earth."

Thanks for the advice

From the Associated Press, November 9:

South Dakota legislators had passed the law in expectation that it would trigger a court challenge and lead to a possible Supreme Court reversal of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion. Abortion-rights leaders said yesterday that such strategies should be abandoned.

Rev. Jesse Louis Jackson was born Jesse Louis Burns on Oct. 8, 1941, to 16-year-old and unmarried Helen Burns. Helen had herself been born to teenage and unmarried Matilda Burns.

Helen became pregnant with Jesse by next-door neighbor Noah Robinson, a prosperous married man in his 30s with other children. According to laws on the books in all states, Robinson committed statutory rape against Burns. Jesse was the product of that rape.

It is most remarkable that Jackson is pro-abortion given the circumstances of his birth. He would have to counsel to abort himself....

It is too bad Jesse won't support South Dakota's abortion ban referendum, particularly since South Dakota contains the poorest counties in the country, and there is a high rape rate among minority Native Americans....

But Jesse actually does have hope and advice to offer South Dakotans considering their abortion ban, from an essay he wrote when he was still pro-life in 1977....

Continue reading my column today, "Products of rape Jesse Jackson on SD abortion ban" on WND.com.

How liberal is Barack Obama? His wife used the ban on partial birth abortion (sucking the brains out of half-delivered babies) as a scare tactic and fundraising ploy:





From: email-list@obamaforillinois.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 7:41 AM
Subject: A Message from Michelle Obama

February 17, 2004

Dear Friends:

We have all been concerned lately with the rise of conservatism in this country, especially as it relates to women. You've read the alarming news about the Justice Department's request for hospitals to turn over the private medical records of dozens of patients. This cynical ploy is designed to intimidate a group of physicians and force them to drop their lawsuit seeking to have the so-called partial birth abortion ban ruled unconstitutional.

The fact remains, with no provision to protect the health of the mother, this ban on a legitimate medical procedure is clearly unconstitutional and must be overturned. Attorney General Ashcroft and President Bush believe so zealously in their cause that the privacy rights of patients are under assault. They believe we have no federal right to privacy when it concerns our medical histories.

On March 16th, we have a chance to nominate a candidate who will be tireless in the fight to protect women. It isn't simply about the right to choose, or privacy rights. It is about pay equity, about ending domestic violence, promoting health care around the world, and letting doctors decide treatment options, not federal judges.

It goes without saying that we must win back the U.S. Senate and hold our ground as a check against the right-wing executive branch. Illinois will be a key battleground and your vote is critical.

My husband has stood up for women time and again, and I am proud of his record. He understands that casting a vote on the floor of the Senate takes greater courage than issuing a position paper. Oftentimes, a well intentioned law is in fact a flawed law. That's why it is critical we nominate someone who has faced these tough choices. That's why nominating an experienced legislator is so important in this race. It takes courage to cast a vote.

Who among the Democrats running has a proven record? Who among the candidates running for the Senate in Illinois has stood up to the right wing politicians and voted against their agenda? Who can we count on to keep the Bush/Ashcroft team from appointing the Supreme Court Justice that will vote against Roe v. Wade?

Please join me in sending a message of unity and strength by attending the Women for Obama Luncheon on February 23rd at the Hyatt Regency. Lunch costs $150 and includes remarks from our friends the Reverend Willie Barrow and Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky. To reserve your seat please call the campaign office headquarters at 312-427-6400 or log on to the Obama for Illinois Website.

I urge you to stand with me and support my husband at this event. You know the stakes have never been higher and we can't depend on untested amateurs and administrators in this fight. Barack is a fighter and he will be a champion we can be proud of.

Thanks you so much for all of your support.

Signature: Michelle Obama

From today's NY Times, on Pew Research Center opinion poll findings released Thursday:

The real import of these splits within the parties - and the problems they pose for Democrats - becomes apparent only when one seeks out the weight of the differing groups within each party.

Moderate and liberal Republicans constitute only 36 percent of the Republicans, according to Pew's findings, compared with the 62 percent considered conservative. The ideologically dominant group, in other words, is also numerically dominant.

For Democrats, it is quite different: 67 percent fall in the moderate-conservative category, while 31 percent qualify as liberals. The ideologically dominant group - certainly on abortion, less so on same-sex marriage - is the numerical minority.

The poll also found that only 31% of Americans want abortion "generally available," while 66% don't, prefering increasing degrees of stricter limits, up to and including a ban. The problems for Demcrats regarding abortion appear even worse when considering that even 33% of liberal Democrats fall into the latter camp.

The cartoonist who penned this is liberal. However, the cartoon can be taken two ways, I'm sure not Ohman's original intent. Pro-lifers know that back alley abortionists have merely moved to main street.

[Hat tip: Fran; Attribution: Jack Ohman, 7-27-06, www.comicspage.com/ohman/]

From the National Right to Life Committee:

Despite a 65-34 vote in the U.S. Senate [yesterday] to pass a bill to prohibit transporting minors across state lines for abortions in violation of parents' rights, the Senate Democratic leadership immediately erected a procedural roadblock in an attempt to kill the bill.

The Senate turned aside all weakening amendments to the Child Custody Protection Act (S. 403).... Immediately following today's vote to pass the bill, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tn.) made a routine move to allow appointment of a conference committee to work out differences with a bill already passed by the House that contains different but related provisions. This routine move was objected to, on behalf of Senate Democrats, by the assistant Democratic leader, Sen. Dick Durbin (Il.).

"Fourteen Democratic senators voted to pass the bill, but only minutes later the Democratic caucus collectively moved to kill the bill by objecting to the routine, necessary step of sending the bill to a conference committee," said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. "The Senate Democratic leadership is now obstructing legislation supported by 80 percent of the public, doing the bidding of the abortion lobby...."

The House of Representatives has passed such legislation four times since 1998. Each time it has been killed by actions of the Senate Democratic caucus....

Under S. 403, it would be a federal offense to transport a minor across state lines for an abortion without fulfilling the requirements of a parental notification or consent law in effect in the home state.

Parental notification and parental consent laws are supported by overwhelming majorities of the public -- exceeding 80% in some polls. For a sampling of public opinion polls on this issue, please click here.

Senator Frist's office will hold a press conference later today to pressure the Democrats. Calls will help.

Illinois is the abortion dumping ground of the Midwest, with no parental notification/consent law in place while all states around us have one. Illinois provides cover for America's child molesters. They are certainly thanking Durbin for his help today, and Barack Obama, too. Both voted against S. 403.

The Washington Post reports that Oglala Sioux president Cecilia Fire Thunder was fired by the Tribal Council June 29 as a direct result of her threat to open an abortion mill on the reservation should the South Dakota ban take effect. Fire Thunder did so without conferring with the Council. The Council replaced her with Alex White Plume.

A source on the reservation, Leon M., who also gets the hat tip, told me the council's action "was unbelievable but a powerful statement to the world."

Leon also corrected the Post on the vote tally: "One Councilman showed up late and voted no to impeach, but his vote was not recognized and, therefore, the vote was 9 to 4 for impeachment."

[Photo courtesy of the Washington Post]

I posted all comments received via email regarding my column, "Quit De Wining about the Santorum Spectercle," on my blog post yesterday.

Most were negative, and most swirled around the same general themes. My boiled down response is this:

I agree Rick Santorum and the GOP will learn a lesson if Santorum loses, particularly over the Arlen Specter issue.

They will learn that pro-lifers demand perfection. Santorum is with us on the pro-life issue and is eloquent in its defense. Perhaps I'm partial because he was the Senate lead sponsor of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, for which I testified. He was also a lead sponosr for the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, and who can forget how he drew Barbara Boxer out with his "toe in birth canal" questions? That debate was historical in significance.

Santorum made a tactical decision to support Specter against pro-life wishes. It is likely (actually, so they have said) he and the White House judged the GOP majority would have been jeopardized by a Specter loss and Pat Toomey win in the primary. We'll never know if they were right or wrong. We all think they were wrong. Ok, fine. Now what? They certainly had at least one of the same concerns we do if the GOP loses the majority in the Senate.

The concern is this: What if Democrats ascend to the majority? Ironically, we may now see that in the Senate with a Santorum demise. The federal court is where all pro-life legislative (laws) and legal (lawsuits) battles are won and lost. Federal judicial appointments are for life. While we will have instant gratification at humbling Santorum, what will the long-term consequences be? If Democrats assume control, it will be a cold day in Senate hell before another Alito or Roberts is confirmed.

Then, while we will have shown Santorum and the GOP a thing or two, all hope will be gone for at least the following two years of appointing a conservative Supreme. Those two years are critical. Justice Paul Stevens is 86 years old. Justice Ruth Ginsberg is a cancer survivor. I suspect both are hanging on with the opposite hope as us.

So, will babies be better or worse off if Santorum loses, if the Republican Party loses? We may feel vindicated, but will we really have won anything? I submit we will have cut off our nose to spite our face.

I also submit the following question for consideration, with all due respect and at risk of succumbing to the same fault I ponder: Is taking the perfect position against Santorum a holier than thou position, a feel good position? Jesus said to be as shrewd as snakes at the same time He said to be as innocent as doves.

I also submit it is not up to humans to humble other humans. It is up to God.

Finally, I submit that humans who demand perfection, or groveling for imperfection, demand more than even God.

I received this today from a new pro-life friend on South Dakota's Oglala rez. Apparently the Natives are restless with their president's plan to launch an abortion mill on their land and are planning a protest.

... Des Moines Register columnist Dave Yepsin says that Dem guv candidate Mike Bluoin's party of choice and pro-life waffling are messing with his prospects: "While Blouin is pro-life, he now says he wouldn't change anything in Iowa law, which is pro-choice. So I guess that makes him a pro-choice pro-lifer. No wonder neither side trusts him." Wow, he gets it.

... And vandalizing NKU prof Sally Jacobsen is not being let off the hook. Said Assistant Campbell County Attorney Rick Woeste: "We don't live in a country where we're allowed to destroy someone else's property or vandalize someone's else's property when we disagree with what they're saying.... If that were the case, we could never have political signs."

The AP is reporting that the professor and six students who defaced pro-life crosses at Northern Kentucky University earlier this month have been charged with "criminal mischief, theft by unlawful taking and criminal solicitation."

The pro-abortion professor, Dr. Sally Jacobsen, has also been put on leave. She was caught red-handed (pardon the pun) by a staff member of NKU's student newspaper.

At the time, that news organization reported: "Northern Kentucky University President James Votruba has confirmed that Dr. Sally Jacobsen said that she encouraged students to practice their freedom of speech by pulling down the crosses during her British Literature class...."

The good doctor has a sick view of the Constitution. Kudos to Northern Right to Life for pressing charges.

Most interesting about the controversy surrounding Harvard Right to Life's preborn poster campaign is what pro-abort students are saying about its "Elena" poster series. This educational effort has resulted in repeated vandalism....

From the Oh Harvard blog, February 16:

I think I have a right to not see that crap on my way to breakfast, lunch, and dinner....Ethically charged posters like that have no place in common spaces. Quite simply, if one is pro-choice, they make you uncomfortable and annoyed.... Some things aren't suited to cute posters with girly fonts and doodles. Some things don't serve a real purpose....

_______________________________________________________________

From an article entitled, "Pro-Life Posters Spark Debate: Students rip down controversial pro-life posters in protest," in the Harvard Crimson, March 6:

"I personally find the image disgusting and don't want to walk past it everyday,"” said Nichele M. McClendon '06, who said she did not tear down any posters. "It doesn't have to do with abortion as an issue or free speeh; it's about being decent and not being disgusting."

Jamie R. Smith '08... said in a phone interview that she felt the combination of a shocking picture and controversial message made the posters disagreeable to students. However, she felt that groups have the freedom to poster about causes that are important to them.

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

From an editorial entitled, "The Right To Reason: Recent campus abortion posters are purposeless," by Harvard Crimson staff writer Alexandra Atiya, March 10:

The "Elena posters" are the newest tactic of Harvard Right to Life. They feature a little fetus saying, "Oh, HI! I was just celebrating all my organs and me being 56 days alive!" I am not a fan....

They seek to cause anger, not excitement. In doing so, they reveal their antagonistic purpose, implicitly admitting that their primary function is to irritate pro-choice supporters on campus.

This kind of purposeless aggression is a hurtful and unproductive way of expressing opinions....

[I]t is simply a statement of anger to express your ideas in the way of the "Elena Posters".... [I]t's unnecessarily divisive.... [T]his deliberately flattens an intensely painful and complicated issue. It also happens to misrepresent the pro-choice members of this campus as bloodthirsty baby killers.

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

I'm reminded by this story of the recent flak created when a newspaper considered ultrasound photo ads "too graphic" to run.

The pro-life movement has apparently discovered something infuriating to pro-aborts: ultrasound photos of preborn humans.

Demonstrating creative tenacity, Pennsylvania's Face the Truth America (warning: aborted baby photo on home page of FTTA) did not quit when Trone Outdoor Advertising rejected its billboard ad concept, a live baby photo next to an aborted baby photo with the caption, "YOUR CHOICE."

The group resubmitted the ad layout with a "CENSORED" bar across the aborted baby photo, and this time Trone approved it.

"We think the 'CENSORED' bar will attract as much attention as the raw picture," wrote FTTA organizer Bob Newman in a letter to supporters. I agree.

The 14'x48' display will go up March 1 for six months at mile marker 114.7 on the westbound PA Turnpike, where 25,000 vehicles a day pass by.

Newman reports such a great response that FTTA has contracted a second billboard on the eastbound Turnpike at mile marker 114.6. For more information contact Bob at info@facethetruthamerica.com.

Three public policy organizations (Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, Concerned Women for America of IL, and Eagle Forum of IL) held a press conference yesterday in Chicago to spotlight last week’s unilateral hold-up by state Rep. William Delgado of HB4156, which would halt taxpayer funding of human cloning in IL and regulate documented gross human cloning and embryonic experimentations.

HB4156 has 51 cosponsors and enough confirmed votes to pass on the Floor of the Illinois House, yet Delgado refused to allow the Human Services Committee he chairs to even vote on it.

It seems to go that way in the IL General Assembly: Liberals hold up conservative bills in committee, rightfully fearing they will pass on the Floor; meanwhile, liberals force their own bills through committee only to see them rightfully languish on the Floor.

HB4156 with its proposed amendment would not only have stopped Gov. Blagojevich with his in-place plan to force taxpayer funding of human cloning experimentation, it would have provided controls on this unregulated research.

Delgado claimed to oppose human cloning, but he refused to let his committee vote on HB4156. Delgado also claimed public funding will force the industry to regulate, but he refused our amendment regulating the industry.

We can't help but wonder if Delgado has a conflict of interest, since he admitted in committee he has a relative in the in vitro fertilization business (which currently feeds researchers their eggs and embryos).

But Speaker Michael Madigan and Rules Committee Chair Barbara Flynn Currie refused to allow the bill to be moved to get a fair hearing.

So human cloning remains a free-for-all in IL, where in 2003 Chicago researcher Norbert Gleicher announced he had inserted human male cells into female embryos and allowed the "she-males" to live six days before destroying them.

[Photo, courtesy of NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, is of an African green monkey into which researchers on the island of St. Kitts have implanted several million human neural stem cells.]

We can also look forward to experiments conducted here as in CA, where Salk Institute researchers announced in December they had successfully implanted human cells into mouse brains. Other researchers have inserted human cells into rabbit and cow eggs. In 2004, Mayo Clinic researchers announced they had created pigs with human blood.

Thanks to Delgado and House leadership, unethical research like this will not only go on unfettered, but the people of Illinois may have to pay for it.

And BTW, one wonders what Gov. Blagojevich will hide in his budget this year? Last year it was $10 million to fund the aforementioned.

The San Francisco Chronicle headline today downplays the pro-abort violence at yesterday's March as "boisterous," but the story and photos more accurately portray the truth.

Th[e pro-life] voice was, by design, mostly silent. Marchers were urged to leave photos of aborted fetuses and signs equating abortion to murder at home. And at a rally before the march, they were urged to ignore those who might try to goad them into an argument....

Abortion rights advocates, concerned that the Bay Area movement has become too complacent, showed up en masse to protest the march. And they took a different approach. Although they were easily outnumbered by the marchers, the pro-choice supporters were loud and confrontational.

Many jeered and taunted the marchers, while others stood along the street, waved wire hangers and chanted slogans.

One group wore sheets and gowns dipped in red paint to symbolize their image of back-alley abortions....

At Pier 7, abortion rights supporters held green balloons and a variety of handmade signs that ranged from the obscene, "F -- - your agenda," to the snide, "Keep your rosaries off my ovaries." And they chanted: "March for Life, that's a lie, you don't care if women die," referring to fears of unsafe, back-alley abortions if the procedure were to be outlawed.

Note sign in first photo below, "Keep your laws off my body... and I'll keep my hands off your throat!"

As marchers closed in on the counter-protest, some softly singing "Ave Maria" or reciting prayers, police kept them in the street and herded abortion rights advocates onto the sidewalk, inserting a line of officers between the two.

From today's Statehouse Insider in the State Journal-Register:

Some lawmakers, and not just Republicans, are getting concerned about Blagojevich's "Who needs the legislature?" approach to governing.

Can't get the General Assembly to go along with funding stem cell research? Hide money in the budget and then create a program by executive fiat after lawmakers leave town.

Can't get the General Assembly to ban junk food in public schools? Get your handpicked state Board of Education to do it by writing rules that redefine junk food.

Now we have keno, which Blagojevich says he can start without the General Assembly's approval. And the fact is, there appears to be no way to stop him, short of going to court. Both House Speaker MICHAEL MADIGAN, D-Chicago, and Senate President EMIL JONES, D-Chicago, support Blagojevich on that and can single-handedly block any bills that try to stop the governor - not only on keno, but anything else.

But why worry about the possible abuse of power? The important thing to remember is that it is no longer business as usual.

From today's Bloomberg.com:

Republicans have long put Democrats on the defensive on cultural issues such as abortion, guns and gay marriage....

Because of the "lesson of 2004," Democrats are recruiting "values" candidates.

"There are some in the national Democratic leadership who think perhaps choice has become too much of a litmus test in the party, and it hurts them," [Jennifer] Duffy [congressional analyst, Cook Political Report] said....

Former President Clinton held that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare," an appeal to voters uncomfortable with abortion that didn't compromise his support for Roe v. Wade....

(To momentarily digress, Clinton's words were void of conviction and reality. The list is extensive of anti-life measures he enacted and pro-life measures he repelled. At any rate, if abortion is so great, so morally harmless, why should it be rare?)

Democrats have strayed from [Clinton's] formula and it has hurt them, [Marshall] Wittmann [senior fellow, Democratic Leadership Council] said. In the 2004 presidential election, more voters - 22% - said "moral values" were the most important issue than said the economy and terrorism, according to CNN exit polls.

Of those who chose values as the top issue, 80%t voted for Bush and 18% for... Kerry.

The problem was further documented in an August memo by Democracy Corps, a Democratic research organization. Focus groups found that most voters considered Democrats to be "liberal" on issues of morality, according to the memo. Some voters even used the words "immoral" or "morally bankrupt" to describe Democrats....

Particularly among non-college voters, "cultural issues not only superseded other priorities" such as Iraq and the economy, "they served as a proxy for many voters" on those issues, the memo said....

Yesterday, Gov. Rod Blagojevich's spokeswoman Abby Ottenhoff defended his position against a parental notification law by outrageously advocating that victims be kept trapped and silenced from receiving legal help.

According to NBC5.com, "[Ottenhoff] said the governor does not support such a notification law because he believes minors who become pregnant after they were raped by a stepfather or other relative should not be forced to tell a parent or a judge."

Why not? Does the governor really mean to say he advocates eliminating the only hope a young girl may have to escape her sexual predator? Clearly and contemptibly, the answer is yes.

Blagojevich is so consumed with maintaining his cozy relationship with the abortion industry that he has lost all sense of reason and decency. He would rather protect unfettered access to abortion clinics than protect young girls from sexual animals.

Blagojevich has a Mac-Truck-wide blind spot when it comes to abortion. As recently as September he touted his launch of the Child Lures Prevention Program, which according to his press release was to:

... help prevent child... exploitation... [because] at least 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 10 boys will be sexually abused before they turn 18, according to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The Illinois Department of Children and Family Services estimates that more than 8,000 children are sexually abused every year in Illinois.

Yet Blagojevich wants to ignore the greatest evidence of sexual abuse: pregnancy. Offering abortion in Illinois without parental notification allows a sexual predator to victimize a young girl not once but over and over.

The man is sick.

Hat tip: Rich Miller

Cross-posted at Illinoize.

The new Gidwitz-Rauschenberger alliance increases conservative gubernatorial odds to win in both the primary (even if both Brady and Oberweis stay in) and the general.

Social conservatives now have fewer to choose between in March. They will never vote for pro-gay, pro-abortion Gidwitz, no matter with whom he teams. At any rate, Rausch – according to his walk (votes) over his talk - is weakest of the three conservatives on social issues, explaining how he could tell Berkowitz yesterday, "Ron Gidwitz and I agree on 90% of the social issues that conservatives care about...." Rauschenberger is obviously not clear on the social issues we care about.

Yet even if G-R pull off a primary victory for their stand against corruption, they will still lose in the general. It matters not whether Dem-lites Gidwitz or Topinka take on Blagojevich. They will lose. They only distant hope Republicans have to retake the mansion is if a conservative wins the primary, thereby activating the base.

Neither Gidwitz nor Topinka would win because no one but party loyalists will work for them (both on the ground and passing along talking points). Without grassroots, the party will never persuade swing voters in the general

Bloggers this week have theorized that somehow social conservatives whipped into submission by a GOP establishment uncommitted to social issues can overcome the highly motivated abortion industry to sway voters from Blagojevich to JBT (or now Gidwitz).

Those dreamers have no idea. Blagojevich is a pro-abortion politician of national importance to the other side. Dreamers have no idea of their big guns and deep pockets and how much they care about this race. For specifics, see page two.

The only way to combat their power, money, lies, and distortion is via the grassroots, and that will still be uphill.

What is clear is the White House's intent on revenge against Oberweis. The WH is willing to give back the governor's seat to a Democrat dufus rather than chance an Oberweis win.

See page two for reasons why Blagojevich's retention is so important to the abortion industry.

The abortion industry has huge financial interest in keeping Blagojevich in place, the most recent evidence being the guv's Dec. 6 press release touting wife Patti'ss receipt of a "pro-choice leadership award" from Personal PAC for her "outstanding commitment to reproductive rights [$$] and contraceptive equity [$$]."

(BTW, in the last election cycle Personal PAC contributed to only one Republican (Cross). Personal PAC has given no $$ to Republicans in the current election cycle.

Note at the end of the aforementioned release all of Blagojevich's accomplishments to fill Planned Parenthood's financial coffers in IL, including forced insurance coverage of contraceptives and $2 mil in "grants" for supposed teen pregnancy prevention, to name just two.

In return, Planned Parenthood gives heavily to Blagojevich, such as in 2002 when Chicago Planned Parenthood announced an "unprecedented $1-million television advertising blitz... to boost... Blagojevich against... Jim Ryan in the race for governor," according to Crain's.

So important is Blagojevich to the abortion industry nationally, the president of NARAL and the president of Planned Parenthood National both flew in for his April announcement denying IL pharmacists their first amendment rights.

Cross posted on Illinoize.

The ILGOP thought Judy Baar Topinka's entrance into the gubernatorial primary would "dramatically recast" the GOP's prospects for recapturing the mansion.

But the ILGOP apparently did not consider that abortion proponents would oppose JBT in the general, thereby sealing the deal for Blagojevich.

Carole Marin agreed with that potential, saying Blagojevich's flagging poll numbers mean he "has to draw a clear distinction between himself and Topinka… and one of the ways to do that is abortion."

Actually, Personal PAC and Planned Parenthood will do all that for him, having already begun painting Topinka as a pro-life extremist, if you can believe that, at a November 29 press conference.

The Windy City Times reported that Personal PAC CEO Terry Cosgrove said Topinka has "intentionally misrepresent[ed] her abortion position as 'pro-choice'" by voting to "[allow] husbands of domestic violence victims to have a say, [which is] out of step with the mainstream." There will be much more of that.

Yellow Dog Democrat incompletely reported the results of the Tribune poll to make his case that any abortion debate will only take place in the Republican primary.

In actuality the Tribune/WGN-TV poll indicated a total of 42% of IL voters think there should be more or complete restrictions on abortion and 49% think restrictions should be lessened or remain the same. Thus, the divide is actually close, and abortion proponents, motivated to reelect a governor who gives them carte blanche, will work hard to sway swingers to their side.

(And while gays love Judy, signs point to gays ultimately lining up with Blagojevich.)

Here's the point. The Trib's Pearson reported the thinking of the ILGOP re: conservatives: "'I think grudgingly they may go along,' said one GOP leader. 'They badly, badly want to beat Blagojevich.'"

How badly? The ILGOP always counts on conservatives ultimately agreeing to vote for the lesser of two evils. But even if so, "going along" certainly does not indicate motivation. Because the left would be motivated for Blagojevich and the trickle-down election of other Democrats - since most pro-abort/pro-gay candidates are Dems - JBT and the ILGOP would critically need the right's motivation as well.

Thus, the ILGOP may win the primary battle but will lose the general election war, and JBT's positions on abortion and special gay rights will be why. Even if JBT gets conservative votes, the right will not be there to volunteer at phone banks, walk precincts, and stuff envelopes – to provide the umph needed to push JBT to victory.

JBT is an enigma. She and the ILGOP have only two ways to promote her, either as someone who can out-Democrat Blagojevich, or as someone who is a right-moderate. Since neither the left nor the right believes either persona, JBT will lose.

Have just received word Rep. Schock agreed to co-sponsor HB4156 and HB4157. Thanks very much.

Wow, that was fast. It was only a year ago that Aaron Schock was the homeschooled wunderkind of the conservative movement.

But I have become suspicious in recent months that the ILGOP establishment has been bottle-feeding the boy combine kool-aid when he rebuffed six (count 'em six - 9/22, 9/23, 10/24, 11/14, 11/16, 11/21) phone calls from me asking him to sign on common sense pro-life bills.

One in particular is a no-brainer, even for social-liberals/fiscal-conservatives, aka moderates: a ban on public funded human cloning that has garnered 34 House sponsors (not all are listed yet) and even has Chris Radogno's guarantee to sign on as chief sponsor it in the Senate. (Even Blagojevich lied and said he was against human cloning before he hid it in his executive order.)

Yesterday Schock confirmed he's made a left sharp turn when he stood on the stage in Peoria at Judy Baar's announcement. There is no explanation for Schock to support a pro-gay special rights, pro-abort gubernatorial candidate over three conservatives - particularly one who is from downstate - except he has bid his down home values good-bye and lurched liberal in a quest for ILGOP power and fame.

The hearts of right-wing mamas across the state are breaking today.

Bowing to political correctness, editors of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst's, college newspaper The Daily Collegian have changed the title of an article describing the recent visit of Planned Parenthood's president from "Pro-abortion group leader gives speech" to "President of Planned Parenthood gives lecture."

On November 10, PP's interim prez Karen Pearl gave a lecture at the campus to lament Judge Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court, among other things.

The article's title drew the ire of at least one alum, and sometime during the last four days it was quietly censored.

Appropriately named alum Bill Butcher wrote a reactionary opinion piece to the title, stating in part, "No one is 'pro-abortion'."

I wrote a response reminding readers that of all times when the tag "pro-abortion" was appropriate, it would be to describe Planned Parenthood, the United States' largest abortion provider.

I caught the last half of Tom Cross's bloggers' conference call today, in time to hear a question posed whether he thought abortion and gay rights would be election issues.

Part of his response included, "In our caucus, there are a good number that are pro-choice and a larger number that are pro-life."

This acknowledgement makes me wonder why so many House GOP pro-lifers act like second class citizens.

Particularly irksome is retiscense by more than a few to co-sponsor what should be a no brainer, HB4156, a ban on taxpayer funded human cloning.

The topic of human cloning provokes overwhelming negative response in the polls. How much more of a win would it be to simply support a ban on public funding?

One wimp even said h-h-h-he was afraid he would make Tom Cross angry by signing on. This is ludicrous. My experience with Cross is that he is more open to introducing and helping pass pro-life legislation than supposed pro-life House leaders are and have been.

Hardball with Chris Matthews featured Democrat National Committee Chairman Howard Dean on October 31, discussing the Samuel Alito nomination to the Supreme Court.

We increasingly see Democrat Party leadership shy away from being known as the pro-abort go-to political party. In the interview, Dean said he hesitated being labeled "pro-choice" because, "I think it's often misused. If you're pro-choice, it implies you're not pro-life."

Implies?

The Matthews-Dean exchange was very good. Surprisingly, Matthews focused on Dean's equivocation on the life issue. Read the interview on page 2.

Hat tip: National Right to Life

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

Howard Dean is chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Thank you, sir, for coming in.

I know this is unfortunate for you, but somebody in the Democratic party is putting out an attack sheet on this new justice nominee for the Supreme Court, Sam Alito....

DEAN: ... So we do not think that Judge Alito is a great nominee.

MATTHEWS: What about the husband notification? Does that bother you?

DEAN: It bothers me in the fact that the Bush people seem to insist on inserting the government into people‘s private family business. And this is a private family matter, not a government matter. To have the government insinuate itself in a relationship between husband and wife I think is a mistake.

MATTHEWS: But that was the Pennsylvania law, and that was passed by a governor, Democratic Governor Bob Casey...

DEAN: I don‘t care who it was passed by.

MATTHEWS: But it wasn't the Bush people. You said the Bush people did it.

DEAN: No, but this administration continually wants to insert themselves into family business. The Terri Schiavo case, that's the family business, not the government's business. All these abortion cases, that's a family's personal business. That's not the government's business. And we'd like to keep the government out of people's private, personal lives.

MATTHEWS: But the Democratic Party are a pro-choice party, period?

DEAN: The government...

MATTHEWS: The Democrats, your party, is a pro-choice party?

DEAN: No. My party respects everybody's views, but my party firmly believes that the government should stay out of people's personal lives.

MATTHEWS: But you are a pro-choice party? Are you not? You sound like you're against ever being pro-life. Are you pro-choice?

DEAN: I'm not against people for being pro-life. I actually was the first chairman who met for a long time with pro-life Democrats.

MATTHEWS: This is the complicated thing for people. The people believe the Republican Party, because of its record, supports the pro-life position. Does your party support the pro-choice position?

DEAN: The position we support is a woman has the right to make -- and a family has the right to make up their own mind about their health care without government interference.

MATTHEWS: That's pro-choice.

DEAN: A woman and a family have a right to make up their own minds about their health care without government interference. That's our position.

MATTHEWS: Why do you hesitate from the phrase pro-choice?

DEAN: Because I think it's often misused. If you're pro-choice, it implies you're not pro-life. That's not true. There are a lot of pro-life Democrats. We respect them, but we believe the government should...

MATTHEWS: Do you believe in abortion rights?

DEAN: I believe that the government should stay out of the personal lives of families and women. They should stay out of our lives. That's what I believe.

MATTHEWS: I find it interesting that you have hesitated to say what the party has always stood for, which is a pro-choice position.
DEAN: The party believes the government does not belong in personal...

MATTHEWS: I'm learning things here about the hesitancy I didn't know about before. We'll be right back with Howard Dean.

DEAN: You know what you're learning...

MATTHEWS: Now, you're getting hesitant on the war and hesitant on abortion rights. It's very hard to get clarity from your party.

Liberal commentator Ted Rall, who authored today's quote of the day, is also a political cartoonist. Beyond the gauche of Rall's July 28 cartoon, note his use of rape and incest to defend legal abortions. In actuality, abortion is a rape and incest perpetrator's best friend. It kills the evidence....

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.

"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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

The inference in this comment on Rich Miller's blog...

But now Stanek and her allies have given Madigan a reason to strike back at them. If Speaker Madigan makes life miserable for pro-life forces over the next few years (and I suspect he will) they have no one to blame for Madigan's opposition to them but themselves.

... is that the only way IL pro-lifers can expect to get ahead politically is by smiling sweetly and knowing our place, which is in the corner, where we quietly await any crumbs tossed our way. I'd like to see you hand that line to the unions or the Med Society or Planned Parenthood.

Will Mike Madigan lower his hand of blessing toward pro-lifers if we make waves? Get real. He's too politically smart to demonstrate passive aggression in this case.

IL Democrats/liberals do not operate in a void. The conversations being held nationally as to what to do about pro-lifers (who are no longer being ignored or disparaged, take note) are also being held here.

Not only did IL pro-lifers score huge upsets in the last election (Slone, Welch), but pro-lifers made net gains in both the House and the Senate.

Further, pro-life Dem Grunloh was in large part defeated by pro-life GOPer Reis because Madigan held up Grunloh's Born Alive and Marriage Amendment bills, rendering him impotent and vulnerable on the point of legislative ineffectiveness.

Further, downstate Dems are sick to death of the anti-gun, pro-gay, anti-life, pro-tax agenda being forced down their throats by Chicago Dems. If Mike Madigan does not want a coup on his hands (like GA rural Dems forming a bloc against Atlanta Dems), he has to placate them. Hence, the Born Alive bone this session.

Finally, if Madigan is honestly pro-life, will he let aggravating pro-lifers override his concern over the lives of prenatal children by holding up legislation that would save their lives? If so, then he's not really pro-life.

This will be interesting only to IL pols:

IL Speaker of the House Michael Madigan was subpoenaed June 17 to give a deposition on what part he played, if any (ha), to stop the Illinois Choose Life license plate legislation last year.

(Side note: Workers at Madigan's law office told the process server he wasn't in. But she smelled a rat and barged into his inner sanctum where - voila! - she spotted him and served him. She said he was unpleasant. Actually, she said he was "arrogant.")

Madigan's daughter, AG Lisa, is fighting the subpoena.

Another legislator who shall remain nameless for the moment is presently dodging and weaving the server.

For backdrop read: "Choose Life, Inc., sues to halt specialty plate distribution," 6-28-04

Polskie Radio reports today:

14 giant anti-abortion billboards have been put up in the city centre of Lodz in central Poland. All of them abound in drastic scenes, and they are displayed right next to war images [Rwanda, Yugoslavia]. The organizers think it's a good way to appeal to people's conscience.

The audio of the story quotes Marek Chorodniczy of Fronda, a Catholic magazine:

"This exhibition has been prepared in a very clever way. The pictures definitely negate the view of pro-choice circles. They shouldn't be shocked by such pictures. If they treat abortion as a normal thing, I would expect them to look at them as an ornament. However, if it does upset them, they must consider abortion a homicide."

In his piece yesterday, "Will The Real Mitt Romney Please Stand Up (For Something)?", op ed writer Doug Wrenn called MA governor and potential '08 presidential candidate Mitt Romney into account for waffling on the pro-life issue.

I'm not ready to discard Romney, because he recently took a strong and unpopular stand against embryonic stem cell research. He may be honestly transitioning from "privately pro-life" politician to one who is publicly pro-life, and if so, he needs pro-life support and encouragement.

But if the aforementioned is true, Romney needs to grow cahones, and quickly. Gullible pro-lifers are entities of the past. We will no longer accept crumbs and placations.

Wrenn stated:

[A] former Connecticut Republican state representative once told me that even pro-life Republicans soon become 'pro-choice,' or at least, very silent, because that is the only way that they can supposedly get elected and continue to get elected in Connecticut. This person told me that the pressure from so called 'pro-choice' groups in the state's capitol in Hartford creates a stifling pressure and that the pro-life groups supposedly do not give enough support to elected officials who agree with their cause, so the pro-life politicians soon quietly capitulate to the perceived pro-choice majority [emphasis mine].

Three points: 1) pro-aborts are and will always be loud bullies; 2) just because pro-aborts are loud does not mean they are in the majority - they are not; and 3) some of the blame for political wimps and capitulators rests on pro-life shoulders for not giving proper support.

Click here to see the full-page ad American Life League took out in yesterday's Chicago Sun-Times, in conjunction with the first day of the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops' spring meeting being held in Chicago.

The ad drew the ire of liberal Sun-Times columnist Carol Marin who - surprise! - also doesn't think Durbin should apologize for his "American-soldiers-are-comparable-to-Nazis" remark earlier this week.

Here's a bite from President Bush's speech at the National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast this morning, with Congressmen Nancy Pelosi (pro-abort Democrat), Chris Cannon (pro-life Republican), Hilda Solis (pro-abort Democrat), Rahm Emanuel (pro-abort Democrat), and Luis Fortuno (pro-life Republican) also in attendance:

For Hispanic Americans, a love of neighbor is more than a gospel command -- it's a way of life. We see the love of neighbor in the strong commitment of Hispanic Americans to family and the culture of life. For Hispanic Americans, families are a source of joy and the foundation of a hopeful society. We're working to support and defend the sanctity of marriage and to ensure that the most vulnerable Americans are welcomed in life and protected in love. (Applause.)....

Many in the Hispanic community understand that by serving the least of -- nuestros hermanos y hermanas -- that we're serving a cause greater than ourselves.

Later this evening, pro-abort Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) will offer an amendment to the Science State Justice and Commerce Appropriations bill that would force the U.S. to fund the United Nations Population Fund.

Reminder from congressional pro-life caucus: "Last Congress we only had a 219-216 advantage on this issue, so this is one of the closest Floor votes for us."

This is a vote on forced abortion, because UNFPA continues to give financial and technical support to the Chinese forced abortion program. The U.S. should not reward UNFPA for their human rights violations by giving them funding.

On the next page are excerpts from the most recent State Department report on UNFPA's support of the coercive Chinese population control program. It shows UNFPA is still supporting the Chinese program with materials, funding, expertise, and even helping to make the program more "efficient."

Action: Call your congressman now and tell him or her to vote no on this amendment.

3:10p update: It now appears that this amendment will be offered tomorrow instead of later today.

July 15th 2004 Letter from Secretary of State Colin Powell:

"China continues to employ coercion in its birth planning program, including through severe penalties for 'out of plan births' and UNFPA's program has not been restructured to solve the problems identified in 2002. UNFPA continues its support and involvement in China's coercive birth limitation program in counties where China's restrictive law and penalties are enforced by government officials."

State Department's Report to Congress on China's Birth Limitation Policy

"Despite several rounds of discussions with U.S. representatives, UNFPA and China decided not to make substantive changes to the proposed UNFPA fifth country program. For example, UNFPA did not condition the start of the program on the elimination of social compensation fees."

"China's coercive policies have, since the Secretary's July 2002 determination, now been codified and enforced as a matter of national law."

"This law codifies on a national basis, for the first time, China's longstanding 'one child policy' and specifies a number of government birth limitation measures that amount to coercion."

"Citizens who give birth to a child in violation of Article 18 of this law should pay a social compensation fee.... (Article 41)"

"Fees range from the equivalent of one half the local average annual household income to as much as 10 times that level. One County where UNFPA has activities, Liuyang in Hunan Province, assesses a fee of two times the average annual household income."

"Other coercive measures in place in China include cutting off state-funded education or health care benefits for 'out of plan' children, loss of employment, and imposition of a system of severe fines and penalties."

"These efforts miss the mark.... Their end result is not that couples and individuals may freely make decisions as to the number and spacing of their children. Rather in counties where the UNFPA operates, China continues to implement its coercive laws and practices."

"The UNFPA Budget for CP5 amounts to almost $8 million over three years."

"UNFPA continues to fund equipment for China, including for management information systems and data management software which are capable of tracking births."

"UNFPA is also financing improvements in the administration of the local family planning offices."

"These resources are provided directly or indirectly to the State Family Planning Comission in counties where it enforces the fines and administrative penalties such as job loss, demotion, and expulsion from the communist party."

"This as well as UNFPA's supplying equipment and supplies to the very agencies that employ coercive practices, amounts to support for not only in China's broader population-planning activities, but also specifically for the Chinese governments more effective implementation of its program of coercive abortion."

"Coercive birth limitation measures in law and policy continue in counties in which UNFPA assists China."

Michelle Malkin today synopsizes Rosie O'Donnell's announcement on The View last week that she forced her lesbian partner to stop breastfeeding "their" daughter after only one month out of jealousy. Michelle also includes anti-O'Donnell remarks from her own website.

MA Gov. Mitt Romney is to be commended for standing against embryonic stem cell experimentation (even though he failed). Yet, as this June 2 AP article reveals, Romney and other politicians who are "personally pro-life" yet publicly pro-abortion are increasingly running out of wiggle room. While pro-lifers have been exerting greater pressure for these political schiophrenics to match their walk with their talk, nervous pro-aborts now apparently want their talk to match their walk. I say, bravo. Let's get them off the fence either way.

LifeNews.com posted short bios earlier this week of the eight potential Supreme Court nominees whose names are most often bandied about, all of whom sound good.

Meanwhile, NARAL sent out a Supreme Court e-alert warning to its "Gen Pro-Choice" list today (with the slogan, "not just your mother's pro-choice movement")....

.... first asking its apparently minds-filled-with-mush young recipients to vote for one of these Supreme candidates: Cartman from Southpark, Paris Hilton, Darth Vader, the cast of O.C., or Wonkette (popular sex-crazed liberal blogger).

Then, in response to a fake letter to the editor asking if it will really matter to protest President Bush's SC pick, "Ask Genny" says:

This might be ancient history, or maybe you know where this is going...

Robert Bork was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1987. He was super-conservative and staunchly anti-choice. And let's not forget that he had the support of an incredibly popular president at the time -- Ronald Reagan. But when it came to a vote on him in the U.S. Senate, he was trounced in a BI-PARTISAN 58-42 vote. Why? Lots of reasons, but high on the list was public outcry. You do not want to be at the dinner table with my Mom when his name comes up. She will bend your ear for hours about how hard she and a whole lot of others worked to stop him from getting on the Court. And may I remind you: this was before the internet was there to help (emphasis theirs).

President Bush, the nominee, and Senate Republicans had better stock up on Bepto-Bismol to stomach what's coming, although seven Senate GOPers already demonstrated they didn't have the stamina for a lesser challenge.

Rep. Mike Castle (D-DE), who sponsored the embryonic stem cell bill in the House, bragged at a press conference Wednesday he knew precisely how members were going to vote beforehand.

Except he didn't. Hard lobbying by pro-life groups peeled away some of his votes at the last minute. HR 810 still passed, but it didn't pass with the veto-proof numbers Castle expected. Word is he felt the need to strut some braggadocio to overcompensate for what turned out to really be a loss....

John Cusey of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus writes today:

Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean continue to promote the myth that the number of abortions has increased since President Bush was elected. Howard Dean said last weekend on Meet the Press, "You know that abortions have gone up 25% since George Bush was President?", and yesterday Hillary Clinton said on CNN, "During the Clinton administration, abortions went down, and they've gone back up under the Bush administration...." This myth was first promoted right before the last election, but seems to be getting new traction as pro-abortion politicians use it as a convenient excuse to continue defending aborting unborn children at any stage of development for any reason. The problem is that the abortion industry's own numbers contradict their claims, and this fact is explained in a recent analysis done by Annenberg Political Fact Check, which runs the site FactCheck.org. The piece is "Abortions rising under Bush? Not true. How that false claim came to be - and lives on."