On Saturday came the surprising and welcome news that Chinese pro-life dissident Chen Guangcheng, his wife, and their two children had arrived in the U.S., after a “daylong and hastily arranged flight from Beijing,” according to the New York Times. Next steps, according to NYT:

Mr. Chen will be allowed to attend law school on a fellowship rather than seek asylum, which the authorities in Beijing would have considered an affront. [New York University]… officials said they had already stocked a faculty apartment with Chinese food and new furniture for him.

Pro-life Republican Congressman Chris Smith was one of a throng of supporters and reporters who met Chen at Newark Airport….

Yesterday Chen got a little R&R where all New Yorkers do, Central Park. Quoting Chen via Time:

“For the past seven years, I have never had a day’s rest,” he said through a translator, “so I have come here for a bit of recuperation for body and in spirit.”

Good interview with Congressman Smith in this clip, who never misses an opportunity to spotlight Chinese abortion atrocities…

In a press release Smith listed all of Chen’s supporters who remain at risk in China.

Among others, conservative Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin kept up the criticism of the Obama administration for its handling of the Chen situation, even as she rightfully heralded the United States as a safe harbor for endangered human rights activists such as Chen. The irony is Chen’s issue: forced abortion. The U.S. is itself no safe harbor for babies, upon whom abortion is also forced. Ironically,  WashPo itself a pro-abortion rag:

There is no better example of America’s essential role in the world and our obligation to defend human rights than Chen’s escape to America. He was not sheltered, however maladroitly, by India or Brazil or Turkey. That Chen and his immediate family will live in freedom and safety is to be celebrated and is a reminder we still lead the Free World.

There are, however, important lessons for policymakers, media and human rights activists.

First and foremost, it is a mistake whenever the administration tries to downplay human rights or shove the topic off to the side (in this case, shove Chen out of the U.S. Embassy). The supposed gains from such actions are nearly always ephemeral. The ensuing embarrassment (from trying to curry favor and avoid causing offense) to the United States winds up outweighing any improvement in the “relationship.” How much better the United States would have looked – and how much more forceful we would have appeared to the Chinese in high-level meetings – had we taken our time, insisted on protection for Chen and his family, and, if need be, delayed the meeting so as to impress on the Chinese that human rights is as important to us as currency and trade issues. In this case, the administration and the Chinese were shamed into spiriting Chen out of China by public opinion, without which Chen would never have been seen again.

And that is the next lesson: It pays to raise a rumpus over human rights.

Without human rights activists, media (in China and the United States) and members of Congress (some of whom talked to Chen by phone during a hearing), Chen would not have been rescued. It’s not “international law” or “diplomacy” that sprung Chen; rather, it was worldwide condemnation and pressure.

One reason, aside from international pressure, the Chinese government likely released Chen was to quell his influence in country. From CBSNews.com, quoting Columbia University Professor of Chinese politics, Andrew Nathan:

“Dissidents who’ve come out of China have pretty much lost their impact on China. They’ve tried to use the internet and publications and the telephone and so on to maintain networks in China, but they’re not really in the game in China,” Nathan said.

Prison, house arrest, and torture only broadened Chen’s appeal.

[Top photo of Chen and his wife Yuan Weijing arriving at their apartment via AFP/Getty; bottom photo via NJ.com]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu7srrECvOg[/youtube]

This is just one reason I’m so passionate about getting you re-elected this year. We need a President who will stand up for women’s health and stay focused on jobs and economic recovery. The dreams of all our daughters are at stake. And they’re counting on us to fight for them.

~ Erin Bilbray-Kohn, narrator of the Dreams of Our Daughters campaign video that suggests little girls require the HHS birth control mandate in order to achieve their dreams, via Live Action, May 19

Here were my top five favorite political cartoons this week, beginning with an astute observation by Gary McCoy at Townhall.com, which also applies to abortion proponents…

 by Eric Allie at Townhall.com…

 by Michael Ramirez at Townhall.com…

 by John Deering at GoComics.com…

 by Ken Catalino at Townhall.com…

It’s interesting to read familiar passages of Scripture in various versions – to gain fresh insight or to keep them from growing stale. Here’s The Message translation’s take on a passage familiar to pro-lifers, Psalm 139:13-16…

Oh yes, you shaped me first inside, then out; you formed me in my mother’s womb. I thank you, High God – you’re breathtaking! Body and soul, I am marvelously made! I worship in adoration – what a creation!

You know me inside and out, you know every bone in my body; You know exactly how I was made, bit by bit, how I was sculpted from nothing into something.

Like an open book, you watched me grow from conception to birth; all the stages of my life were spread out before you, The days of my life all prepared before I’d even lived one day.

The pro-life film 180, which includes a couple graphic pictures of aborted babies, is now being shown during mega-church worship services, according to HeartChanger.com. From a May 15 press release:

Some of the largest churches in America are equipping their members to stand up for life by presenting the award-winning movie called “180.” The powerful video, by evangelist and best-selling author Ray Comfort, uses a simple line of questioning to help eight pro-abortion individuals change their minds and become pro-life… in seconds – something that apologist Greg Koukl has called “the Colombo Tactic at its finest.”

According to Comfort, several popular Southern California churches have taken their entire Sunday morning service to show the movie then have him speak for half an hour. “It’s a great way for pastors to get their people to stand up for life – and to vote according to those convictions – because the video does all the work of changing minds about abortion,” said Comfort.

To date, “180” has been seen by over 4 million people, including 3 million views on YouTube, something that Comfort says is “unheard of for a 33-minute pro-life film.” His ministry, Living Waters, reports that the video has helped to change countless minds about the abortion issue, has saved the lives of several unborn children, and has even helped to save souls through the video’s gospel presentation.

Comfort said that the abortion issue should be a hill to die on for the Church. “However, the way to attack it is to boldly proclaim the gospel that changes the human heart,” adding that his ministry’s goal is to equip Christians to share their faith. Churches desiring to promote the biblical view of the value of life are invited to host a “180 Sunday” or to utilize the “180 Course: Changing the Heart of a Nation,” a two-part video series produced in conjunction with Kay Arthur and Randy Alcorn. The “180 Course” equips believers to talk to the lost not just about abortion but also about God.

Some people say focusing on abortion during church may hurt post-abortive mothers and fathers and intrude on their ability to worship and make church cease to be a place of respite. others say doing so may turn off seekers.

What do you say?

[Photo is of Comfort speaking at Calvary Chapel in Albuquerque, New Mexico]

The criminal code of the District of Columbia, Section 22-1001, prohibits cruelty to animals….

This statute explicitly covers “all living and sentient creatures, human beings excepted,” if a prosecutor can prove “serious bodily injury,” or if a prosecutor can prove “to an animal or indifference to animal life, that a single offense can be punished by up to five years in prison or a fine not to exceed $25,000 or both.”

A serious bodily injury includes among other things the infliction of  “extreme physical pain or mutilation or broken bones or severe lacerations.”

Now I heard your vivid description of the D&E abortion method, which I’m told is the most frequent method used for abortion after 20 weeks, and it seems clear that it follows this description of mutilating, breaking bones, lacerating, and worse, and we’ve heard very convincing evidence pain that it would inflict “extreme physical pain.

Now that fits all the criteria. I find it tremendous – I don’t even want to use the word irony – just a break from human compassion, that while we would do the right thing and prevent those things from happening… to animals, but not to human babies.

~ Arizona Congressman Trent Franks, sponsor of HR 3803, the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, in a subcommittee hearing on the bill, May 17

[HT: David D. at LiveAction.org]

Read my previous post here.

Only four days after former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline filed a blistering motion asking that two Kansas Supreme Court justices recuse themselves from deciding whether to suspend his law license, the Supremes announced yesterday that FIVE of the seven would be doing so.

Their rationale, according to the The Topeka Capital-Journal:

The five justices voluntarily stepped aside, citing the Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct rule that requires recusal when a judge “previously presided as a judge over the matter in another court.”

Without ever mentioning Kline’s motion, the five stated it “would not be possible” for them to give Kline an unbiased trial, since they had ordered the very disciplinary hearing that resulted in Kline being brought before them.

Court spokesperson Ron Keefover acknowledged the mass exodus was “unprecedented.” Former Chief Justice Kay McFarland said it was “unheard of.”

Kline attorney Tom Condit proclaimed a victory but  added in a statement the move only demonstrated the case was “irretrievably flawed.”

This is because the two left to decide Kline’s case are Sebelius appointees, and the five recusers will choose their own replacements from a lower court.

Kathleen Sebelius is the former pro-abortion governor of Kansas, now U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary. Sebelius repeatedly erected political and legal roadblocks to thwart AG Kline’s investigation of two late-abortion clinics for illegal abortions of children and fraudulent reporting to the state.

Kline’s investigation found that during a time when over 160 Kansas children 14 and younger had abortions in Kansas, late-term abortionist George Tiller and Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood each only reported one case of child sex abuse. This evidence, however, was squelched by orders from the Kansas Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Carol Beier (one of the recusers) and actions of former Attorneys General Paul Morrison and Stephen Six.

Furthermore, it was learned only last year that Sebelius’s Kansas Health Department shredded documents in 2005 that provided evidence that Planned Parenthood filed false reports to try to cover its tail after Kline launched his investigation.

On that point Condit concluded in his statement:

The recusing Justices, after reading Mr. Kline’s motion, suddenly discovered that they had previously complained about Mr. Kline’s behavior, and thus should not hear the appeal. This fact was known to them when the appeal was filed last fall – over six months ago….

The court has known its claimed reason for recusal for years and only acted four days after Mr. Kline’s motion was filed.

by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN, and Kelli

We welcome your suggestions for additions to our Top Blogs (see tab on right side of home page)! Email Susie@jillstanek.com.

• In our latest addition to the blog roll, The New Feminism, Dr. Angela Lanfranchi discusses how the pill continues to negatively affect women’s health, and how no one seems to care:
  

  The increase in incidence of these sometimes fatal ailments was judged to be tolerably low enough for the continuing promotion of the Pill. Shockingly, fatalities in women were deemed worth the risk while cases of mildly shrinking testicles were enough to end trials of a birth control pill for men.

• At National Review, Michael New explains why we should pay attention to the recent Chilean study which shows that maternal mortality continued to decrease as abortion became more restricted.

• ProWomanProLife discusses Canada’s recent March for Life in Victoria (pictured left). She notices that, despite being told the abortion debate is “over,” certain “mommy groups” are debating abortion via social media – for days – while discussing the march.
• At Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, Reggie Littlejohn shares her testimony given before the House Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights regarding the treatment of two persecuted Chen Guangcheng supporters and her ongoing concerns for their safety. Littlejohn points out they are “heroes in their own right.”
• Stand for Life discusses a Breakpoint article which claims a one minute message from the pulpit each Sunday could end abortion. One of the reasons:
  

  [I]t would dispel ambiguity and send a clear signal to every pew-sitting believer that this is a top-line priority with God, not a fine-print codicil, not “one more good thing that Christians ought to do when they have time.”

• Pro-Life Action League comments on Georgetown’s commencement address invitation to abortion-supporting HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
• Priests for Life’s Alveda King reports the increasing momentum of pro-life films like Doonby, which recently won The Frank Capra Award at the LA Life Fest.
• Another new blog, My Drop in the Ocean, asks if choosing abortion represents true freedom:
  

  In our materialistic and self-centered society, there are more versions of truth than can be counted. We as a society desire the truth, the freedom revealed through truth. People say “The truth will set you free.” Why, then, do so many people stray from the truth about the value of human life and make up their own version of what is true? In America today, abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia (all the intentional killing of an innocent person) are viewed as “rights” of people more powerful than the victims.

• Real Choice says that prior to Roe v. Wade, women’s deaths from abortion were already in decline “for decades. To argue that legalization lowered abortion mortality simply isn’t supported by the data.”