Scholarly, analytical discussion of abortion. Provides facts,
information, and opinions on abortion from a variety of sources.
Discusses the problems that cause abortions, and offers new and
innovative solutions for resolving the abortion conflict. Evaluat-
es current developments such as the confirmation of John Ashcroft
as Attorney General, the election of George Bush as President, RU-
486, partial-birth abortion, parental notification and consent,
the conviction of James Kopp, the execution of Paul Hill, the Laci
and Connor Peterson murders, Holly's Law and judicial nominations;
plus excellent explanations of early embryo & fetal development.
Examines the arguments, views, pros and cons on both sides of the
abortion debate; pro-life and pro-choice. Provides reference mat-
erial and help for crisis pregnancies. Because this web document
has no organizational affiliations to promote, and contains nume-
rous links to other web sites, it is an excellent place to start
a study of abortion. It has also evolved into a center for the
best current thinking on the topic of abortion, including evalua-
tions of the health risks and potential side effects, such as
breast cancer and PASS feelings. This site now brings all the in-
formation together in one place. You should be able to find every-
thing you need here by just continuing to read or by using links.
Go to 2004 Election Section Go to Pregnancy Resource Center
Order the powerful 732 page Print or E-book ($8.95).
(The book is best for locating specific topics and to take with.)
Posted 09/11/2000
Abortion - Certainly a very controversial subject. It seems like
I've been thinking about it forever. But how long? I can say with
certainty that I was personally involved in my more idealistic
days thirty years ago; before that time, although I'm sure there
was concern, no guidepost exists. But even 30 years is a long
time. Since then, other commitments have consumed my life - earn-
ing a living, caring for my family, and other such routine pur-
suits. But the issue has never left my mind for long, returning
to my ruminations time and again at each twist and turn in the
conflict. Over time I have come to feel like the little boy who
saw that the emperor had no clothes. But now I've come to the
stage where I have more time again, and no excuse for not speak-
ing out and sharing my thoughts. I can not in good conscience
continue to be a voice unheard, suppressing what I have to contr-
ibute to the debate. And so I am posting this to the door of the
internet. No matter who you are, I can guarantee you that if you
read this from start to finish, you will see things that needed
to be said but had never been published before this document was
produced, or that had never been said before; and had probably
never entered your own thoughts on this matter - but will enhance
your understanding of the issue. As I go back and forth from one
side of this debate to the other, you may find yourself first
agreeing, then disagreeing, and vice versa, with what I have to
say. But I hope I can lead you through this to the inescapable
conclusions I draw; and to considering the solutions I advance.
I've earned a living for over thirty years by solving complex
problems. One of the first things I had to learn was that you
can't solve a problem until you understand what the problem is.
So let's begin by looking at a couple of typical cases that exem-
plify, or demonstrate, the problem. This is simply setting the
stage, so please bear with me.
For the first example, let's imagine a teenage girl, high school
age, perhaps 15 or 16 years old. She had a boyfriend, but they
broke up. She learned all about how to do sex in class, and did-
n't think it was a big deal. After all, grown ups do it all the
time, just like smoking and drinking; and she sees herself as
being grown up - or at least she wants to be grown up. And at
first she thought her boyfriend was such a neat guy, and they'd
get married soon, and he was so insistent, and she kind of want-
ed to do it too. But now she's missed her period, and she knows
enough to think she might be pregnant. She really didn't think
very much about getting pregnant before, but now she does; and
panic starts to set in. Will she have to miss school? Probably
so. How can she face her friends when they find out? Won't people
make fun of her when she walks around school, obviously pregnant?
Probably so. And how will she be able to support and care for a
baby? There's no chance of getting back together with the boy;
and she's way too young to get married anyway. She was hoping to
go to college, but will she still be able to? And how can she
tell her parents? Will they be furious with her? What are the
consequences there? Can she get an abortion without anybody find-
ing out? Frankly, at this point she's probably also very scared.
But let's leave her for the moment with all these thoughts racing
through her head, and go on to the situation where the girl deci-
des she has to tell her parents. What will their reaction be? Un-
doubtedly, some parents would embrace her and do everything they
could to support her and get her through it. But this probably
isn't typical, and I don't want to get into passing judgments on
what the parents should or shouldn't do at this point. So let's
look at the more likely reaction. They probably would have all
the same reactions the girl had; or for sure think of those con-
sequences and tell her about them if she hadn't thought about
them herself. There might also be a physical reaction - a quick
slap to the head to send her head spinning, or worse yet a beat-
ing. The girl would probably know what to expect. But I have to
believe this would be the exception. More likely, there might al-
so be a string of verbal abuse. Anyway, she would survive this
(I don't recall hearing of any murders over this, although I'm
sure they are contemplated); and we can go on to the next step -
what additional reactions the parents may have. Well, they might
feel that it would be a loss of face for them, too, among their
friends and colleagues and acquaintances. Will people they don't
even know be talking about them? And what does it say about their
parenting skills. Have they failed as parents? There might also
be a financial burden. There will be costly doctor visits, and
time in the hospital. Will the burden of raising the child fall
on them, and are they too old to accept that responsibility?
Now let's look at one more case, an adult single woman, to be
sure we've touched most of the bases. She might already be an un-
wed mother, who can't afford to support and care for another
child. Or she might be a career woman, ambitious and on the fast
track, just testing the water sexually. Or she thought the father
was the right person for her originally - but it didn't work out
that way, and now she's pregnant. It would be really difficult
for her just to tell her parents. But how would it go over at
work? Would the men make fun of her behind her back? She'd be so
embarrassed, and would it ruin her career there? Would she have
to take time off, or quit; and then start over again someplace
else?
If we've never been involved in an abortion type decision, we've
certainly put ourselves in the other person's shoes. Obviously,
we have some very real problems here; a situation of the utmost
gravity. Also, some might say a life hangs in the balance. In
many instances, expediency and panic take over at this point. But
let's stop and consider the situation more carefully. Let's start
by listing the problems an abortion might resolve: embarrassment,
perceived humiliation, an interruption of one's education and
participation in sports, a financial burden, an unwanted respons-
ibility of caring for a child, a detour in one's career, and may-
be some physical or verbal abuse. But at this point we don't have
a single argument for not having an abortion listed; but there
may be a, or some, argument(s) in the back of someone's mind that
haven't been mentioned yet. We know there is a segment of the
population that opposes abortion, for any reason; so let's exam-
ine what arguments they might offer. Their mantra seems to be the
"Right to Life", and their organizations tend to call themselves
this or that "Right to Life" group. An unfortunate choice of
words, I think, because it can be interpreted to imply life at
some future point in time; and words can be very important in a
debate, as we shall see. But they're the underdogs at this point,
so let's be generous and help them out by changing it to the
"Right to Live". On the other side of the debate are the people
who are in favor of abortion. Their slogan is "A Woman's Right To
Choose". It's so completely awesome for its time - probably one
of the greatest slogans ever devised. They tried it out, it work-
ed, they stuck with it over the years, and the idea has carried
the day for them time and again. Very easy to understand, and the
right to life people have never learned how to deal with it. It's
a free country, and I ask you, how could anyone possibly be
against it? I'm most definitely in favor of a woman's right to
choose. But there is a problem with it, which nobody seems to
notice, and that problem is that when a woman learns that she is
pregnant there is another person in existence. Doesn't that per-
son have that same right to choose? Are we going to say that just
a certain privileged class of person has this right to choose to
live or die - and for other people? That doesn't sound fair. That
can't be right. That's not freedom of choice - that's tyranny.
Certainly the other person is not old enough to vote in an elect-
ion, but doesn't that person have the same right to be protected
by society as other children are protected? But wait, you say,
it isn't really a person, it's a fetus. If you went to Planned
Parenthood and were a little uncertain about getting an abortion,
I'm sure that they'd probably reassure you that, yes, it was only
a fetus. So would people at the abortion clinic. Anti-abortion
people would probably engage in an argument over whether a fetus
was a person; but as soon as they do that they accept the implied
position that there is something different from a person that is
called a fetus and they are probably wasting their breath because
they have already compromised their position. So are you begin-
ning to see how important language can be? S.I. Hayakawa talked
about this kind of thing in his book "Language In Thought And
Action"; but it's been so long ago, that the majority of people
probably haven't read it. He went on to head a college in the
California State College system, and later became the U.S. Sen-
ator from California.
In fact, a child is a child whether it's inside or outside the
mother, whether it's one pound or ten pounds. Size doesn't deter-
mine humanity. I don't think the people who head Planned Parent-
hood or the National Organization for Women or Emily's List are
stupid at all; and they would never go on television or to a pub-
lic forum and argue that a child is not a human being while it's
still inside the mother because they know they would be totally
humiliated and lose the debate with any knowledgeable and equally
prepared opponent. They don't want to look like fools; but be-
lieve me, they know. Instead they brilliantly talk only about
a woman's right to choose, thereby avoiding the real issue - and
lots of people buy into it; especially young people who don't
have the experience to make independent judgments. It allows
people to rationalize their actions.
Still don't agree that a child inside its mother is really a
child, and that that's not really at issue? Well, I got by that
many years ago, but maybe I can help. Years ago, when Life maga-
zine published the picture of a child in peaceful repose inside
its mother on the front cover of the magazine, it was a stunning
revelation for me, and it must have been for a lot of people;
otherwise why would they have put it on the front cover? Today
when a woman becomes pregnant it's commonplace to get an ultra-
sound of the baby to make sure there aren't any problems that
need to be addressed, and to satisfy a natural, and perhaps prag-
matic curiosity about what the baby's sex is. What do you suppose
they're looking at? Ask to see somebody's ultrasound - they'll be
proud to show you. And just think about it - does it make any
sense at all to say a baby inside its mother isn't human, but the
minute it pokes its head out it is? How totally, totally, absurd!
But if you still don't agree, ask your family doctor some very
specific questions: At what point is it possible to hear a baby's
heartbeat? When can you first measure brainwaves? How soon does
a baby start to look like a person? If you don't get direct ans-
wers, if he's being evasive, try another doctor. If that seems
like too much trouble, and you don't want to do you're own re-
search, I can tell you that 6 days after implantation in the ut-
erus the person has developed so rapidly that his heart, brain,
spinal column, and nervous system are almost complete; after 8
days the person's heart has started to beat; and although still
very small this individual has taken control of the pregnancy to
try to assure it's survival - and the mother probably doesn't even
know she is pregnant yet. Sometimes I have observant individuals
challenge the statistics I personally state. That's good, because
I know they're paying serious attention. The difference is due to
the fact that as long as two weeks can go by from the moment of
fertilization until the placenta has completely attached itself
to the uterus, at which time the woman "becomes pregnant"; and
that's often when I begin counting.
The idea that a baby is born at the time it miraculously pops out
of a woman is an archaic notion superceded by modern science. I've
included links to other related sites at the end of this document
that you can go to for more information. Of course there's anoth-
er argument, that a child isn't a child until it can survive out-
side the mother. This is equally absurd. Did you ever hear of
parents bringing a baby home from the hospital, and it got up,
walked to the refrigerator, and fixed itself a sandwich? In fact,
the child will be totally dependent on its parents and other
adults for its survival for several years. When you bring the
baby home from the hospital, please don't set it down in its room
and forget about it and come back to see how it's doing in a week.
Here are some other facts about how rapidly a child develops in-
side its mother, taken from the American Life League publications
"The First Nine Months" and "What They Never Told You About the
Facts of Life": "DAY 30 At one month old, the embryo is 10,000
times larger than the original fertilized egg-and developing rap-
idly." "DAY 35 Five fingers can be discerned...". Keep in mind
that mom probably doesn't even know she's pregnant yet. "WEEK 6
The mother is about to miss her second period and has probably
confirmed that she is pregnant." "WEEK 9 Fingerprints are al-
ready evident....". "MONTH 4 The umbilical cord has become an
engineering marvel, transporting 300 quarts of fluid per day and
completing a round-trip of fluids every 30 seconds." Note, though,
that the baby itself is completely separate from the mother, and
not a part of her body in any way - it is connected by the umbili-
cal cord, which in turn is attached to the placenta, which is the
part attached to the mother's uterus. The baby always has a sepa-
rate blood system, which may even be a different blood type from
the mother. At delivery, the placenta, and most of the umbilical
cord, are simply thrown away. The placenta transfers nutrients
and waste - not blood. The baby produces its own blood, just like
we do. Floating in the amniotic fluid, the baby is something like
an astronaut doing a space walk - actually swimming around, until
it becomes too cramped close to the delivery time. "....feel pain
for the first time...When your mom was 7 weeks pregnant". "By the
time your mother found out she was pregnant, you were: A miniature
human with arms, legs and a heartbeat". "When did you start using
your brain? Fetal electric brain waves have been traced as early
as the sixth week." "...babies as young as 22 weeks after concep-
tion , weighing only 14 oz., have survived premature birth."
".....you'll continue to develop, just like you did in the womb,
until you reach the...age of approximately 23 years!" Hardly just
a mass of cells. The aforementioned publications can be had for
the lofty price of .50 cents and .75 cents respectively.
"While giving an anesthetic for a ruptured ectopic pregnancy....I
was handed what I believe was the smallest living human ever seen.
...This tiny human was perfectly developed, with long, tapering
fingers, feet and toes...The baby was extremely alive and swam a-
bout the sac approximately one time per second, with a natural
swimmer's stroke." Paul Rockwell, M.D. Well, perhaps that's an old
quote, because they rather routinely observe babies grow within
their mother's now - but not first hand like that.
But the "Right to Live" people have found a truly bewildering
array of ways to defeat themselves, shooting themselves in the
foot, so to speak. For example, they talk about the "War on the
Unborn", the "rights of the preborn", "killing the unborn", "the
defenseless unborn", and so on. In other words they are telling
people that they still subscribe to the antiquated idea that a
child is born, or comes into the world, when the doctor delivers
it at the hospital. This might have seemed to make sense in the
Dark Ages, but we live in the 21st century, where they open
people up, take out their defective heart, and put in a healthier
model. We know what happens inside a woman every step of the
way; how the child grows, develops, and matures. It should be
obvious that a child is born when a woman becomes pregnant; de-
pending on when you define the pregnancy as beginning; and I'll
talk about exactly how I define that later. Again, the pro-lifers
are defeated by linguistics; they unwittingly accept the language
of their opposition. Then there's the "you shouldn't bring an un-
wanted child into the world" argument. The answer to this is al-
so a no-brainer. Wouldn't almost everybody prefer to be unwanted
to being dead! At least you have a chance to work at changing the
situation. Also, I've noticed mothers tend to become proud of,
and attached to, their children, once they have the opportunity
to meet them face to face.
Let's take another look at how abortion advocates use mind games
to come out on top in this debate. Say there is a public forum
discussing the issue, or a group of friends sitting around debat-
ing it. It won't go on for long before one of the "liberal"
debaters will ask, "and what would you do in the case of rape?".
If the people taking the pro-life side of the argument are new to
the issue, they may be stumped by this. If it is somebody who has
given the issue some deep introspection, they would most likely
answer that it doesn't matter, they would still oppose abortion.
Tricked again. Because people, and especially the ladies in the
discussion, will begin rolling their eyes and saying "no-way!".
All at once the pro-lifer, probably not realizing it, has been
pulled into debating a very small side issue instead of the broad
topic. Let's face it, he may be correct logically, but in today's
climate he is so politically incorrect that he will never conv-
ince a majority of people. Let it go. The response should be that
pregnancy resulting from rape is such an infrequent occurrence
that we should ignore that circumstance for now and concentrate
on making abortion illegal for the vast majority of other unplan-
ned pregnancies. He can always come back and fight the rape bat-
tle after his goals of stopping the other abortions are achieved.
So let me suggest, the next time somebody tells you they believe
in a woman's right to choose; correct them - "You mean a woman's
right to kill".
The latest slogan I've heard bandied about is "A woman's reprod-
uctive rights". Here again, on the surface of it, it's hard to be
against a woman's right to reproduce; although I think they mean
"to not reproduce". This argument has the same shortcoming as
"the right to choose", and is actually the same argument, just
stated differently. The shortcoming is that once a woman discov-
ers that she is pregnant, she has already exercised her right to
reproduce, and now there is another person who has the right to
start their own family someday - her child. This is just another
right they have dreamed up for their own purposes. Certainly
nothing exists in the Constitution or Bill of Rights about a
woman's "reproductive rights". I think this reveals a disturbing
trend - the pro-abortion activists think that by attaching the
word "right" to anything they can make it a constitutional right;
and most of the supreme court justices follow this same method-
ology. Actually, the founding fathers of this country were very
clear about the rights they held to be indispensable, in the doc-
umentary foundation they laid out and passed on to guide those
who followed them. In the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of In-
dependence they clearly state their views on life: "WE hold these
Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of
Happiness--That to secure these Rights, Governments are institut-
ed among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the
Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destruct-
ive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to
abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Found-
ation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form,
as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety...".
Wise and visionary thoughts for their times, and I think it still
rings true today. Although the pro-abortionists prefer to scoff
at this; and many of our supreme court justices believe themselv-
es to be above it; I value my heritage and don't intend to ignore
it. Besides, when you stop and consider it thoroughly, you see
that "a woman's reproductive rights" is more a statement of the
problem, rather than the solution. In the view of the Christian
Coalition of America, "....ignored the Founders' self-evident
truth of a Creator-endowed priority of right to life. The liberal
vision of a utopian society of sexual freedom and empowerment un-
dermines the moral basis for a free society. A just society can-
not be founded on the death of children. The 'choice' argument
for abortion on demand also ignores the fact that a child in the
womb is a separate individual with their own inalienable rights.
'Choice' is a diversion from a legitimate discussion of the fund-
amental issue: When does life begin?". So I guess I'm not the on-
ly one who "gets it", although I think that a world with no pre-
marital sex may be another kind of unattainable utopian vision.
Abortionists like to point out that the Declaration of Independ-
ence is not a governing document. No matter, our citizenry deem-
ed the views expressed there so important that they later put
similar language into the Constitution through amendments.
Section One of Amendment XIV (14) states: "...nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the law."
A lot of people also seem to be fooled by a purported need for
population control. This is something that seems to come in and
out of favor every few years, and organizations are formed to
study and deal with it - until they realize that it's really not
a problem at all. If you've lived all your life in the New York,
Chicago, or Los Angeles urban areas, I can see why a person would
think overcrowding is a problem; but if you've ever driven out of
the city into the countryside - say on a trip to Florida - and
seen the vast open spaces in this country; this becomes an ob-
viously exaggerated concern. Why do you think farmers and ranch-
ers have such a tough time making a living? It's because so much
food is produced that it keeps prices at a level that is diffi-
cult to derive a profit from. Any perceived population problems
are political problems - not biological ones. By this I mean the
political structure of a country must be such that it encourages
and allows people to provide for themselves; that is, creates
conditions similar to what we have in the U.S. today. This is
more a tactic to get big contributors to ante up for population
control, so they think they're doing a good deed. Then the money
is used, at least in part, to support abortion.
Then there is the argument about the health of the mother. This
ignores the fact that an abortion is almost always fatal to the
child; although I've heard of a girl who was aborted and survived
and sometimes speaks before groups. Unfortunately, a third of her
generation wasn't so lucky. There's also a group of young people
out in California who call themselves the "Survivors", for ob-
vious reasons.
Even though people in this country profess to be of one religion
or another, and go to church in varying degrees, we are still
basically a secular society and religion is more of a social phe-
nomenon of belonging than someplace people refer to to shape be-
liefs that may be in a state of conflict. The Pope is adamantly
opposed to abortion; and yet Catholics seem to form their own
opinions on this and a host of other issues. The Lutheran church
has split into two branches: one opposes abortion; the other con-
dones it. The Jewish faith is strangely quiet, considering their
own holocaust in Germany. They don't seem to want to concern
themselves with other people's holocausts - kind of like the
world ignored what was happening in Germany during World War II.
To the many wonderful young Christian conservatives who are don-
ating their time and efforts to fighting this battle; keep up the
good work. But I would like to recommend that you leave your rel-
igion at home. People of other faiths often see this as an effort
to convert them to your religious beliefs and it becomes a relig-
ious issue to them rather than a shared concern. I believe this
issue transcends separate religions - it speaks to our very hum-
anity.
But I've gotten off task. I hadn't planned to get into all that
quite yet, but it just sort of came out. I set out to try to
solve some problems. We wanted to see if we could find any argu-
ments against having an abortion, and if there were any other
ways to resolve the problems spawned by an unplanned and unwanted
pregnancy. Let's see what we have on the side opposed to abort-
ion: A child is a human being irregardless of how small or how
young, whether inside or outside the mother; and therefore has
the right to choose to live. Since young children are unable to
express their desire to live, at least until they learn to talk;
it is reasonably certain that, like most of the population, they
would prefer to live rather than be killed; and should be pro-
tected by the law and adult population until they become a legal
adult at 18. This certainly appears to make sense: how could age
or location be the determinant of whether a person is a human be-
ing, and therefore protected by the law? It seems much more accu-
rate to apply a chromosome test to determine a person's humanity;
even then there might be more than one correct result. So it
looks like the "right to live" people are right; even though
they've had their claims rejected by courts all over the country.
On the other hand, before the Civil War, a large majority of peo-
ple in the South believed that slavery was alright (some still
do); so we see an example, not so long ago, in the annals of
human history, of how a majority of people can be very wrong on
an issue.
But this does nothing to do away with the concerns we discussed
earlier; and faced by the people in an unwanted child predica-
ment. But given the conclusions reached above, it no longer seems
equitable to have our child killed to avoid embarrassment. Democ-
rats criticize Republicans for wanting to stop abortion, but not
being willing to vote for the funds and programs to deal with the
problem. I think this is somewhat warranted, though it doesn't
justify having an abortion. As the feminist movement has changed
the way we regard premarital sex, society hasn't adapted to the
resulting problems. I believe massive federal and state funding
is needed to set up programs to deal with the problem of unplan-
ned pregnancies; programs that don't include abortion. However,
I don't believe a government bureaucracy is the answer either.
I think these funds should go mainly to private and religious
organizations to set up these programs. Many of the prototypes
probably already exist in one form or another. Conservatives al-
ready advocate adoption; it just needs to be on a much larger
scale; and obviously isn't going to reach that scale until some
of the other problems are solved. Where there is financial dif-
ficulty, the government should step in and pay for the doctor and
hospital bills without much questioning, except for proof of pre-
gnancy and lack of sufficient income of the person pregnant and
her spouse (if there is one). But once the mother is out of the
hospital, I don't believe the government should continue its sup-
port, because this might encourage some girls to get pregnant.
This is where adoption can play a role, where there aren't other
acceptable options; like parents of the girl becoming caretakers,
or the girl quitting school and going to work to support the
child. Additionally, alternative schools should be set up for
girls who become pregnant, so they can continue their education
without being subjected to the scorn of their peers, and maintain
a degree of confidentiality; and this should be done on a scale
sufficient to handle everybody who wants to get into the program.
And boarding school capabilities should be provided for those who
need it, until they can get on their feet again. Expensive, yes;
but if you're going to put a stop to the scourge of abortion, you
must provide viable alternatives. Further, I would like to pro-
pose that the major faiths opposed to abortion in this country
set aside their differences to unite in common cause to form a
National Committee Against Abortion to find what they can do in
concert to eradicate this curse from our society forever, and
help lead this country out of it's nightmare. Currently we have
Catholics and Jews thinking Protestants are trying to convert
them, and Protestants and Jews thinking abortion is a Catholic
birth control issue. Get it together.
I would like to offer a suggestion that is sure to be especially
controversial, but that I think is worthy of careful consider-
ation and discussion. During a time when people have to import
children from China to adopt, and dead baby parts are regularly
marketed for profit, it seems we could allow, to some extent, the
free market system to place a value on live babies, and allow
people to purchase unwanted children in this country from single
mothers; to encourage them to bear their children instead of hav-
ing an abortion. Instead of having to pay for an abortion, girls
could get paid for having their child. After all, not too long
ago lotteries were illegal. We probably wouldn't want to encour-
age people to have children just to make money, but with 1.2 mil-
lion abortions a year in this country and 2 million people want-
ing to adopt I think there would initially be about the right num-
ber of babies to go around and keep prices within reach for most
people wanting to adopt. Scholarships might be a good means of
payment for kids wanting to continue their education. Of course,
there would probably need to be some rules and regulations; but
not to the point that it would prevent this effort from being suc-
cessful. Perhaps there would need to be a limit on the price that
could be charged - after all we don't want to start a cottage in-
dustry. But we might want to let married women into the program
if they can show that they would otherwise have an abortion be-
cause they can't afford to support another child. In addition to
providing a free enterprise solution to the problem, if there
turned out to be an oversupply, government could step in and pay
for the surplus. They could then put the unneeded children in
places modeled after Boys Town and Hershey. At Hershey they used
to make the kids get up at daybreak to milk the cows.
So, what happens to unwanted children who are institutionalized
like this? Well, at Hershey, an alumnus of the Hershey orphanage
grew up to become the CEO of Hershey Foods. All he really needed
was a chance - and to be alive. And guess what? The kids don't
have to milk the cows anymore. But the reaction of the other
alumni to the change was mostly opposition; apparently they had
found memories of getting up early to milk the cows and felt it
was a character builder. If you were to delve into this further,
you would find many other success stories. From my own personal
experience, years ago I worked with a distinguished gentleman
who was an accountant, an especially hard worker, and a graduate
of Boys Town. What I'm advocating, is a political, or structural,
solution, instead of a biological one; that our society should be
able to work out.
"Sadly, today adoption is chosen by less than two percent of the
1.3 million single women who unexpectedly become pregnant each
year. This is tragic considering that there are over two million
screened and qualified couples waiting to adopt these children."
John C. Willke, M.D.
Recently, I found out that a government official overseas had
actually tried to implement this approach:
"In 2001, as Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's new
government took power, Minister Rocco Buttiglione proposed pro-
life legislation which aimed at encouraging women in crisis
pregnancies to decide against abortion. The proposal would have
seen women choosing to carry their children to birth given funds
to off-set child rearing costs for the first year of the babies'
lives. Moreover, the law would have required the biological
father's consent for abortions in the cases of minors.
'Many women have abortions because they can't afford (a child).
We propose to help them financially,' Buttiglione said at the
time. 'Others do so because their partners abandoned them or made
them feel guilty, or because they have a difficult relationship
with their parents. We propose individual or family therapy to
support them in these difficulties.'
Source: LifeSiteNews.com, a production of Interim Publishing
Publish Date: August 12, 2004 Online at:
http://ifrl.org/IFRLDailyNews/040813/1".
Nor do I think we should let the guys off the hook just because
they're not the ones who get pregnant. They obviously played a
part in this. Given today's DNA based identification techniques
it should be easy to identify the father and hold him responsible
for helping to support the child if the girl decides to keep the
baby and she elects to pursue this course. Then if he fails to
comply off he goes to a special facility for guys in the same
predicament. Not because he's been bad, but because people have
to be held accountable for their actions and we have to get a
handle on this thing and stop the killing.
In sex education classes the emphasis should be taken off of "how
to" and placed on "why not"; and the problems that can result,
including the points I've mentioned above.
Establishment of the date of birth should also be changed by leg-
islation making it the date that a woman and her doctor agree is
the closest to the date the pregnancy commenced, or that science
can determine. If no scientific test exists to establish the sex
of the child at this early stage of development, this precludes
choosing a name; however, in lieu of this, a social security num-
ber could be assigned as an identifier for the individual. This
would then establish a legal existence, accountability, and equal
protection under the law. In other words, if no delivery of the
child was reported nine months hence, and there was no evidence
or record of a miscarriage occurring at a hospital, a missing per-
son investigation would have to be initiated. I realize this is a
radical change in the way people think about a child being "born".
But it really isn't that difficult. One of the definitions The
American Heritage Dictionary gives for the word "born" is "Brought
into existence; created". So, you see, it really does make sense.
Additionally, "fetus" is the Latin word for "young one" or "off-
spring". So something has been lost in the translation - or lack
of translation. It would be clearer and less misleading to use
the actual English terminology, rather than such a harsh sounding,
impersonal, and confusing term as "fetus". "young (y¾ng) adj.
young·er, young·est. 1. Being in an early period of life, develo-
pment, or growth. 2. Newly begun or formed 3. Of, belonging to,
or suggestive of youth or early life", from the American Heritage
Dictionary, which is the one I happen to have on my computer. So,
instead of saying "the fetus" in Latin, we would refer to "the
young one", in English. Instead of talking about the "fetal stage
of development", it would be more proper and easily understood to
say "the younger stage of development"; unless the person happens
to be an expert in Romance languages. "Youngest" would be quite
proper, too. Try it, after a while it will come naturally and
you'll start to like it. Problem is, right now, nobody else will
know what you're talking about, so there has to be some kind of
official transition. But it sure sounds a lot better than "fetus".
The media also needs to accept some responsibility and reevaluate
their role in this, as an educator of our children; intended or
not. The other night my wife rented a movie, and we watched "Home
Is Where The Heart Is". It is a wonderful movie, and I encourage
anyone who hasn't seen it yet to do so. It has a lot of good mes-
sages to convey, but I found myself wondering about the appropri-
ateness of a bedroom scene toward the end of the movie. Not be-
cause I'm against bedroom scenes per se; I think they have their
place. But this one seemed misplaced. Up until then the movie had
painted Forney (despite his name) as someone who probably would-
n't know what to do if he had the chance; or wouldn't even want
to out of respect for the girl. Not only was it out of character,
but it wasn't even a "good" sex scene; as if they were following
a formula that required them to put it in. I thought it would
have been more effective and realistic if they had just embraced
and kissed passionately, and he had blurted out that he loved her
etc., and would she marry him, but she didn't have to answer just
then. It got me thinking that the pendulum had swung too far from
sexual repression to sexual liberalness. Then I started wondering
about the episode where the two Christians kidnapped the baby....
"Even when sex isn't directly portrayed in the media, most kids
will tell you that there's a constant implication that everyone
does it, apparently without consequence." Psychologist Lynda
Madison, writing for TV Guide, June 23, 2001 issue.
The feminists so want to be the equal of men in all they do, and
I have no problem with that. But they should also take pride in
what they can do that men can't; which is to have children, the
most important role in continuing our species.
A culture that encourages sex, and then leaves women to make this
horrible decision on their own, is unfair to them, and a bonanza
for the mass killers like Planned Parenthood.
I don't blame abortion on the girls and women who go to the abor-
tion clinics. I think that in most cases we can assume that they
don't understand that they are taking the life of their child and
can't otherwise deal with the problems an unwanted pregnancy
brings. Perhaps they are also encouraged by their parents
(they've had children, they probably understand what they are
proposing). Perhaps they know their clergy condone it. The
society they live in seems to approve of it; it's thought to be
legal by some, depending on how you interpret the law, and which
law is applied, and whether you submit to bad laws. There are so
many pressures, how can they withstand them?
That's why it's also essential that we not only offer the carrot,
as I've done above, but also apply the stick, so that our society
sends no mixed signals on this issue, but very clearly says to
everybody that abortion is wrong, that abortion is against the
law, and that abortion is murder. I also propose that any legisl-
ation passed to support the above programs, and any anybody else
can come up with, include the following punishments for this of-
fense. A year of incarceration in a facility designed for that
crime for any woman convicted of having an abortion - 3 months
longer than the pregnancy would have lasted. As for the abortion
doctors, they have no excuse. They see their handiwork every day.
How could they not know? Greed has closed their eyes. They are
serial killers, who should be tried as such, retroactively, with
the expected outcome well deserved capital punishment. Over 1.2
million abortion-murders are performed in this country every year;
the latest figure I have seen is 41 million since Roe vs. Wade.
And who is ultimately responsible for this atrocity? Yes, atroc-
ity. And who knows how many worldwide? In the genocide in Rwanda,
only 500,00 were slain. In our own Civil War, about 620,000 were
killed. In Cambodia, 2,000,000. In Nazi Germany, 6,000,000 Jews
and Gypsies and the handicapped were sent to their deaths (can you
imagine a Nazi officer appearing before the Nuremberg war tribun-
al and saying "they weren't really people, they were Jews", like
we are being told by today's society that children aren't human;
or that the extermination of 6 million people was acceptable be-
cause it was legal), under Mao, in China, 20,000,000, and so on.
We have surpassed all these milestones. And who do we have to
hold responsible for saying this was legal, and opening the door
to it? Obviously, the Supreme Court, who have upheld the "right"
to abortion and cleared the way; who have had peaceful demonstra-
tors and their priest, demonstrating in a pre-approved location
outside the court, arrested, because they didn't want people to
hear their point of view. The majority of justices (Steven
Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg*, Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter,
and John Paul Stevens) couldn't even find it in their hearts or
minds to ban partial-birth abortion; a procedure where in an
otherwise normal, full term, on time, delivery, a hole is poked
in the baby's head, its brains are vacuumed out, and the remain-
ing pieces sold according to prices on a parts list (you didn't
know that?). There was a gulf so wide between these judges and
their colleagues that the minority called the decision:
"illogical" and "indefensible"; "in which the mere invocation of
'abortion rights' trumps any contrary social interest", "a parti-
cularly virulent strain of constitutional exegesis"; "inclination
to bend the rules when any effort to limit abortion, or even to
speak in opposition to abortion, is at issue"; "policy-judgment-
couched-as-law"; "visibly brutal means of eliminating our half-
born posterity is quite simply absurd"; and "Justice Scalia scof-
fed at the idea that 'a 5-4 vote on a policy matter by unelected
lawyers' should trump the will of 30 state legislatures". The
Presbyterian Theological Seminary aptly called it "Supreme Arrog-
ance". To make such a horrendous mistake is unjustifiable and in-
excusable. They have brought disgrace to the Supreme Court and to
the nation. They deserve contempt - not respect. The justices who
voted this into being are obviously unfit to sit on any court;
should be disbarred; and given the choice of resigning or being
impeached. This is another way to change the makeup of the
court, rather than just waiting for someone to retire. And it
would help to insure that future justices act responsibly, pro-
fessionally, and uphold the constitution; rather than just using
their influence to forward the latest social scheme. Given the
climate today, what better means of measuring a person's ration-
ality, objectivity, and competence, than beginning with their
views on abortion? Obviously, there is something amiss in the way
we select Supreme Court judges. There are different kinds of in-
telligence, and being erudite and having a high IQ and polit-
ical connections evidently doesn't guarantee that someone will
make good decisions.
*Ruth Bader Ginsburg - "Former counsel of the ACLU and as such
was a consistent champion of the ACLU's extremist legal agenda".
Alliance Defense Fund, February 2003.
*"As an ACLU lawyer in 1977, Ginsburg had helped draft a legal re-
port that recommended lowering the age of sexual consent nation-
wide to 12 years. Human Events was the first to report on her rad-
ical legal writings in support of legalized prostitution and ped-
ophilia (see July, 1993 issue.)" Human Events, Week of May 26, 2003
"Group of GOP Lawmakers Asks Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg To
Withdraw From Future Abortion-Related Cases
(Kaisernetwork) A group of 13 Republican members of the House of
Representatives on Thursday in a letter to Supreme Court Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked the judge to recuse herself from any
future cases relating to abortion because of her connection with
the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Los Angeles Times
reports (Los Angeles Times, 3/19).
'Defining and defending women's reproductive rights has been a
hallmark' of the fund's litigation and legislative advocacy,
according to its Web site (NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund
Web site, 3/19).
In the letter, the lawmakers -- Reps. Joe Pitts (Pa.), Dave Weldon
(Fla.), Walter Jones (N.C.), Sue Myrick (N.C.), Kevin Brady
(Tex.), Barbara Cubin (Wyo.), Paul Ryan (Wis.), Todd Akin (Mo.),
Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.), Mike Pence (Ind.), Roscoe Bartlett
(Md.), Steve King (Iowa) and Chris Smith (N.J.) -- wrote that
they are concerned that Ginsburg has 'loan[ed] her name and
presence' to the Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Distinguished Lecture
Series, which is co-sponsored by the NOW fund, because the fund
often files briefs with the Supreme Court.
The lawmakers wrote, 'As legislators, we believe your actions call
into question your ability to rule with impartiality on any case
involving abortion.' Ginsburg in a speech last week defended her
relationship with the NOW fund and said that Supreme Court
justices try to avoid withdrawing themselves from cases because
such a move could result in a tie vote on the court (Los Angeles
Times, 3/19). Source: Kaisernetwork Publish Date: March 19, 2004
Online at: http://ifrl.org/IFRLDailyNews/040319/3"
"Congressmen Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania and Dave Weldon of Florida
are among a group of Republican representatives that have written
Ginsburg in the wake of her recent speech to a women's legal group.
Their letter notes that the Internet home page of the NOW Legal
Defense and Education Fund highlights the speaking engagement and
has photographs of Ginsburg standing next to the president of the
organization.
The lawmakers' letter points out to the justice that NOW Legal
Defense and Education Fund, which was established in 1970 by the
founders of the National Organization for Women, is commonly known
to engage in lobbying on behalf of pro-abortion activists. NOW
Legal Defense regularly submits briefs to the Supreme Court on a
variety of cases.
The GOP congressmen say both the court's code of conduct and
federal law caution jurists about involvement in activities that
cast doubt on impartiality, and they say Ginsburg should therefore
remove herself from any cases related to the abortion issue.
Such conflicts of interest on the high court are troubling, not
only to lawmakers, but to citizens concerned about sanctity-of-
life and civil rights issues. A spokesman for a leading pro-life
group warns that if society fails to protect the most basic civil
right of all -- the right to be born -- then feminists and pro-
abortion groups will continue to demand the so-called 'right' to
kill unborn children." From: "Congressmen Request Justice's
Abstention After Pro-Abortion Ties Revealed", AgapePress, March
26, 2004, By: Fred Jackson, Rusty Pugh, and Jenni Parker
Online at: http://ifrl.org/IFRLDailyNews/040329/3
So, this is the caliber of person President Clinton, and the Dem-
ocrats, nominate to the Supreme Court. That's because, the only
way they can get an agenda of abortion and pedophilia approved is
through the courts. The Ashcroft Justice Department has cracked
down on pedophilia, but can't do anything about abortion because
the Supreme Court legalized it. Legalized prostitution is still
on the agenda of international feminists. I'm not going to expand
on that further, or make any effort to convince you of it, because
it's a different subject. But I mentioned it to give you an in-
sight into how these views are often associated. Abortion is the
issue that most concerns me - because it kills people.
"Top UNICEF official calls for legalized and unionized prostitut-
ion On Tuesday, a high ranking UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) of-
ficial called for the legalization of prostitution Speaking at
the annual session of UNICEF’s Executive Board, Urban Jonsson,
UNICEF Eastern and Southern African Regional Director urged that
UNICEF take actions to 'de-criminalise sex-work and facilitate
the organisation of sex-workers.' Jonsson's comments are sure to
fuel the growing suspicion that UNICEF has departed significant-
ly from its central mission of protecting poor children from dis-
ease, hunger and death. There is a feeling among many that UNICEF
has ventured more into promotion of what some see as a radical
notion of women’s rights, especially under Executive Director
Carol Bellamy." Written by Douglas Sylva, Phd., for FRIDAY FAX
June 6, 2003, Volume 6, Number 24, C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human
Rights Institute), 866 United Nations Plaza, Suite 427 New York,
New York 10017 Just so you don't think I'm making this stuff up.
And what of President Clinton, that stalwart defender of a
woman's right to kill her offspring? He's no dummy, I think he
knew the truth too, but thought his political advantage lay with
the pro-abortion crowd. Frankly, I thought the whole impeachment
business was pretty silly; trying to catch him on some technical
violation of the law. What they should have been impeaching him
for was using the federal government to support abortion. And
what happens when somebody shoots up an abortion clinic or abort-
ion doctor to try to save the children he is butchering? Presi-
dent Clinton sends out an FBI team to find the shooter, compl-
etely ignoring the serial killer/abortionist and the mountains
of evidence in the filing cabinets. To the FBI I would like to
say "Next time, just say no!". Or don't say anything and don't
do anything. Don't put yourself in the same category as the Nazi
SS. What should he do? He should pardon the person who did the
shooting, bring him to Washington, pin a medal on him in front of
the TV cameras, and give him (or her) a parade down Pennsylvania
Avenue! And then we had Vice President Gore guaranteeing every-
body he would continue the Clinton support of the abortion atro-
city.
Dick Armey, on Bill Clinton: "the most successful adolescent I
have ever known . . . (He) was basically like a prep guy saying:
'Where's the next Party? I love this job. Look at the parties.
What a great limo.'" From a column in Human Events by Marvin
Olasky, "The Week of December 23, 2002". On a more somber note:
Gary Bauer, on Bill Clinton: "For eight years Clinton ignored the
danger that was gathering around us. Now we face a very perilous
situation today." CWF - End of Day -- February 19, 2003
There is a new Civil War going on in this country, much more vio-
lent than the first one, in the 1860's, and the fatalities are
much higher. The violence is propagated almost entirely by the
side called the "Abortionists", and its savagery is so intense
that its defenseless victims are literally pulled apart while
still alive, and the remaining pieces then butchered and sold for
the highest price. The rules of engagement require that the de-
fenders can only demonstrate at distances too great to save the
victims, and if they themselves should in any way engage in viol-
ence or intimidation they are immediately arrested and thrown in-
to jail or prison with no certainty that they will ever be releas-
ed. By the time you finish reading this, I think that you will
agree with what I have just said. Worldwide, abortion is the most
catastrophic atrocity ever perpetrated by mankind.
What have we become? Is ours a sick society? We have turned on
ourselves; we mutilate and murder our own children. Where have
our values gone? As we destroy our most precious commodity, we
destroy ourselves. Our leaders hide behind slogans and phrases
like pro-choice and pro-life and refuse to debate or even discuss
what is really going on! Can it be possible this is happening in
America? Yes, it is possible, and it is happening, at the rate of
1.5 million abortion-murders each year. Who will be next, if this
is allowed to continue? Ever notice the handicapped always seem
to oppose abortion? Watch out, Stephen Hawking. Frankly, I'm a
little nervous myself, with the Clinton administration, where
might makes right. But maybe the cause could use a martyr. I'll
probably be branded as mentally unstable. Maybe that's good, be-
cause I can take an insanity plea. But where could I find a psyc-
hiatrist who would lie? When will voluntary euthanasia go to man-
datory for those swelling the social security roster? Well, it
won't happen as long as the baby boom generation can vote. But
that's the problem with our youngest citizens. They can't vote,
or even say what they think, so they can't sway the politicians;
who make decisions based on what they think the polls tell them
the masses want; instead of trying to lead based on principles.
They're obviously more interested in personal gain than what's
right.
A couple of days after the 5-4 Supreme Court decision on partial-
birth abortions I was in the barber shop and the national evening
news was on the TV. They were doing a report on preemies, and the
probability that they might have developmental problems. They
showed several children that had been born prematurely and had
disabilities. But guess what? Most people probably didn't think
anything of it, but they didn't show any children who were born
prematurely but were doing fine or even excelling; even though
their own statistics showed that that was the case for the major-
ity of premature births. So already the ultra liberal media was
beginning to move up the ladder with their killing philosophy. I
suppose a logical extension of this approach would be to include
mothers who drank or smoked or took drugs while they were preg-
nant, and ultimately to deliver only perfect, no-defect, babies.
Lately I've noticed it's become fashionable to disparage Presid-
ent Reagan's intelligence. I'm not personally aware of any anec-
dotal evidence about anything he said or did, or any other kind
of evidence, that would indicate this is true. I'm not sure how
this got started - maybe someone just says something with the
implied assumption that everybody knows that. Anyway, there were
a couple of things about him that especially impressed me.
Early one Sunday morning I set out to get a Sunday paper. There
seemed to be nobody else out and about at that early hour. When
I reached the commercial thoroughfare from my side street, I
looked to my right and there was a black limo parked about half-
way down the block, in front of a small Republican campaign head-
quarters. Reagan had been running for governor of California,
and I knew he was going around thanking the volunteers. Not
particularly enamored of such things, I turned left and walked
in the other direction. When I reached the middle of the block
across the street from the store I was headed for, I turned to my
right and looked to see if any traffic was coming. Standing just
outside the headquarters, by himself, was the new Governor of
California. For a split second our eyes met, as if he wanted
to shake my hand too; and in that instance I understood what was
meant by charisma. Later, after I had time to ponder it, I real-
ized the Kennedys had had it too.
The other trait that President Reagan had that impressed me was
that he always seemed to do the right thing, to make the right
decision. And I certainly don't remember any incidents like at-
tacking American civilians with a tank because they were defend-
ing their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms ("the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"), and burn-
ing them up in their church! Do you? Or using the full power of
the federal government in support of the abortion industry. Or
using armed force with automatic weapons to return a small boy,
whose mother died trying to bring him to freedom, to Cuba to be
brainwashed by Castro's police state like his father and the rest
of the Cuban populace (what a strange twist of fate). Or not res-
ponding when the Cuban government shot down two American planes
in international waters. Or applauding when the Russian govern-
ment shot up their own parliament building. Or creating a scandal
that rocked the nation and distracted the government for months.
But I guess it's where you put the emphasis. The church people
become a "cult" with "guns". They should apply those resources to
get illegal guns held by criminals in our big cities off the
streets. A friend of mine and his family put their mattresses on
the floor and sleep there on New Years Eve because of all the
wild gunfire; and there's somebody murdered every day. Just the
other day there was a girl shot to death in her bed from the
street while she slept. So why were they so bent on confiscating
the guns of people with no criminal record who posed no threat
to anybody if they were just left alone? Then they couldn't admit
they made a mistake, and continued to make matters worse. It
brought to mind the lynching of Joseph Smith in Carthage, Illin-
ois, June 27th, 1884. Smith was the founder of the Mormon
Church (Church of Latter-day Saints); which was also founded
in this country and has continued to thrive despite his premature
death. More recently, I was reminded of it by the disturbing
church burning scene in the movie "The Patriot". At least the
people at Waco were having children, instead of killing them -
which is the policy of the mainstream Methodist church; except in
the case of partial-birth abortion. Have you forgotten "Thou
shalt not kill?" They seem to think themselves above the ten com-
mandments. The refugee case was presented as a custody case
(Did Hillary or Janet Reno put that spin on it?). Why should Bill
pay any attention at all to what Castro has to say about it? Or
was Elian the victim of a movement to reestablish trade with
Cuba? Castro certainly knew how to play it. Maybe it was a comb-
ination of these reasons. The planes shot down were piloted by
"Cuban" Americans. The Parliament was filled with the bad guys, I
guess; kind of like Republicans.
So there is a pattern of poor judgment here, and an attack on our
rights as a free people - both figuratively and literally: the
sanctity of the church and people to worship as they see fit; the
safety of our homes; the right of law abiding citizens to bear
arms as a restraint to governments; even the sanctity of life it-
self, without which a nation can not be considered truly civiliz-
ed. When something tragic happens, I always want to look for the
root cause - not just at what is being currently reported. A lot
of today's problems have roots in the past, if only we can make
the connection. In both the Waco and refugee cases the situations
should have just been left alone. Where there was only a minor
problem at first, government intervention forced a major confron-
tation that had tragic consequences. Not only did a lot of people
- women and children - die at Waco; but it was followed by the
Federal Building bombing in Oklahoma City that caused even more
fatalities. I know most people couldn't understand the connect-
ion; but the motive for the courthouse bombing was very, very,
very clearly what happened at Waco. For instance, why do you sup-
pose the bomb went off on the anniversary of Waco? It was the
other shoe dropping. On the other hand, two wrongs don't make a
right, and I want to make it clear that I am in no way condoning
or supporting what occurred at Oklahoma City.
And it is quite possible that if Cuban Americans had been flying
their planes over the waters between Cuba and Florida looking for
refugees in trouble they would have spotted them and called for
help and the drowning never would have occurred. That administra-
tion seemed to have to impose their judgments on others; and the
most tragic and heartbreaking example of this is government sup-
port for abortion. Again, they could have just left it alone, and
so many lives would have been saved. It bothers me how people
dutifully fall in line and accept things that need to be given
more thought and questioned more thoroughly.
In contrast, President Reagan unified us and made us proud of our
government. In his acceptance speech for the Republican presiden-
tial nomination, he showed he cared about people with his deep
concern over the genocide going on in Cambodia. Ronald Reagan's
son wrote, not too long ago, "I am reminded of a challenge issued
by my father.., during his final week in office: '...When Roe v.
Wade goes - as I have faith it must - the way of Dred Scott and
'separate but equal', a new debate will rise in... our land. And
the voice that I believe must be heard and, in the end, shall be
heard over all the others is the voice of life...'. Dad's chall-
enge was that we prepare now to be part of that 'voice of life'
in the great debate ahead, and he asked: 'Can I count on you?'".
President Reagan knew that this was an issue which ultimately
could have only one possible resolution.
President Reagan cared so profoundly about the abortion issue that
while President he wrote a distinguished essay called "Abortion
and the Conscience of the Nation", which was published in Human
Life Review. There's more about that further down in the document.
I miss the days when I thought I could vote Democrat or Republi-
can; but to say you are a Democrat today - to vote for a Democ-
rat today - is tantamount to saying you favor infanticide; so
closely have their positions on this issue become associated with
the two parties. There are also some Republicans I can not vote
for, for the same reason; and to straddle or try to ignore the
issue raises serious questions about someone's qualifications to
lead this country. But, as Mary Lou Gartner stated so well, writ-
ing for LIFEPAC of Pennsylvania, "The Republican Party was born on
the principle that no human being should be considered the prop-
erty of another, and on a repudiation of the Dred Scott decision
by the U.S. Supreme Court. Abortion is the 'right-or-wrong' issue
of our times. We should parallel the words of Abraham Lincoln to-
day and say: 'The Republican Party looks upon abortion as a wrong
and the Democratic Party does not look upon it as a wrong. That's
the crucial difference between the two parties.'" I hope the
Republican Party "stays the course", and I wish African Americans
would pay a little more attention to history.
I had to become very knowledgeable about the abortion issue be-
fore I learned that not all Democrats are pro-abortion. They are
so quiet and few in number that they are totally overshadowed and
dominated by their noisier brethren. But they do have some influe-
nce in the Congress. Still, I like Ann Coulter's idea that the
Democrats should change their name to the "Abortion Party". It
better reflects the fact that the party is in the abortion indust-
ry's pocket; and totally under the control of radical leftists.
I define myself as a conservative intellectual. Conservative, be-
cause that's how I think others would classify my views. Intel-
lectual, because I develop my own ideas and opinions, and don't
accept conservative dogma. I get a lot of Republican literature
in the mail, because you have to register as something; and when-
ever they ask me my opinion, I'm very free with it, as you might
guess. But when they ask me if I'm a Republican, I always check
the no box, because I don't blindly accept whatever policy decis-
ions they come up with. Well, you know, intellectuals, thinkers,
are often thought to be strange, because they don't conform to
society's norms; and I do some strange things. For example, I col-
lect books, on the cheap, on things I'm interested in. What's
even stranger, is that when the boxes of books pile up enough, I
have no problem with letting my wife build me another barrister
bookcase. I hope that someday I'll have time to actually read
them.
Anyway, it's very interesting just to read the book club re-
views, and one of my latest acquisitions is "The Monk In The
Garden". More specifically, it's about peas, and the lifetime he
spent raising them. Apparently, this wasn't much appreciated at
the time, and there's even speculation he might have been excom-
municated if he had been a more assertive type of person. Some
time after his death, the ramblings he had recorded on his peas
were rediscovered, and today he is regarded as the father of gen-
etics. Here was someone I could identify with, because for many
years I had been an avid gardener myself. It got me outside, til-
ling the soil was good exercise, I enjoyed planting a wide var-
iety of seeds, nurturing and protecting the plants, and of course
the harvest. It's kind of amazing, actually, how quickly the
the plants grow once they spring from the seeds. By the time I no
longer had time to garden, my fruit and nut trees were mature
enough to give me a similar satisfaction. Sometimes trees are
pollinated by the wind, sometimes by bees, and some are self-pol-
linating. I've had especially good luck with peach trees. In good
years the trees are covered with blossoms, and once fertilized,
the peaches develop quite rapidly. The fleshy part of the peach,
that we eat, of course surrounds the pit, which contains the seed.
The peach seed, like my garden seeds, and Gregor Mendel's peas,
contains the complete genetic makeup, or code; the chemical blue-
print, that developed after fertilization; and would be needed
to grow a new tree (assuming that after fertilization it develop-
ed normally). So here's the point I've been leading up to: it's
basically still a seed; a seed in an egg-like envelopment; no-
body would argue that a peach is a peach tree. Please don't hate
me Judie Brown, but I believe that a fertilized egg is only a
seed until it is presented with the conditions that will stimul-
ate it to start growing. In other words, I don't believe human
life begins until the blastocyst plants itself, takes root,
securely attaches itself to the womb; and begins to receive the
nourishment that it has to have to grow. This position also makes
it much easier to find common ground with people who believe in
a variety of birth control methods, but have reservations about
abortion.
I can think of a parallel in the animal kingdom also. Although I'm
not going to pretend to be an expert on chickens, as I remember it
the hen lays the eggs, and then the rooster fertilizes them. But
even though the eggs are fertilized, when we're having breakfast
we don't say we're having chicken for breakfast - we say we're
having eggs for breakfast. The eggs would have to be sat upon, or
incubated, to turn into chickens. It's just common sense.
Or, let's look at it using yet a another analogy. Let's imagine,
for a moment, that I'm a neophyte research scientist trying
to create human life outside the womb. I have very powerful micr-
oscopes, and very tiny instruments. With the left robotic arm, I
pick up an egg harvested from my wife (in reality she would never
let me do this experiment - maybe she has more sense than I do),
and place it in a tiny petri dish. With the right robotic arm I
pick up a sperm and place it in the same petri dish. I then pick
up my miniature dish and tilt it so that the contents roll off in-
to a miniature mixing bowl. Next, I turn on the blender and mix
for ten minutes. All the elements are present that make up a hum-
an being; but at the end of this process, do I have a human being
or do I have a scrambled egg?
Let's look at it from a third angle; an entirely opposite perspe-
ctive. I'll be the experimentor, and you'll be the experimentee.
I'll have you go stand in front of a wall, about six feet from me.
Then I'll pull out a .357 magnum pistol, and shoot you through
the heart. Would you then be a living person, or a dead person?
"That's totally ridiculous", you say, "obviously I'd be dead.
What's your point?" Then I would say "Everything is genetically
present that defines you as a person, and that's what some people
use to prove that a zygote, and then the blastocyst, are people,
even though the blastocyst will never grow beyond about 100-150
cells if it never manages to attach itself to the womb; and there
are a lot more cells than that still in your body even though you
claim to be dead." "That's completely absurd", you say, not real-
ly picking up on my argument, "without my heart to pump blood to
my brain I would be considered clinically dead in short order".
"That's the point, I say, you would consider yourself dead when
your heart and brain stopped functioning. Then how can you claim
that a blastocyst that hasn't yet implanted in the uterus and has
no trace of a heart or brain is a living person, on the other end
of the spectrum?" Silence. You just sit there and ponder the turn
of events. Then, it strikes you: "Yes, you say, but the zygote is
potential human life, and that's not true of me, because I just
died!" "Well, I say, the zygote, or even the blastocyst, is far
from a sure thing. My wife was pregnant four times, and one of
those pregnancies ended in a miscarriage. At the time, the doctor
told us that 1 in 7 pregnancies ends in a miscarriage. Potential
human life is not the same thing as actual human life. Just be-
cause an egg is fertilized doesn't mean it will be able to attach
itself to the womb. It may just wash out, or not develop normally;
and, as a result, the woman will never even become pregnant. How-
ever, even though you're clinically dead, doesn't mean that all
possibility of being a living person has passed. I'll dial 911,
we'll rush you to the hospital, and they should be able to salv-
age enough living cells to deposit in a tissue bank. Then, in a
few years, we'll have you cloned. Why not, you probably won't
even remember that I shot you! Despite this, I do agree with you,
that you are a dead person, even though you could be reborn at
some future time. But, by the same line of reasoning, I do not
agree that a blastocyst is a living person, just because it might
become one someday." Crazy, huh? But I think it helps show that
this question of when human life begins is not as clear cut as
some would have us believe. There's room for some compromise here.
I think there may have to be some objectivity involved to get a
consensus to eliminate abortion, and get a majority to agree on
legislation to resolve this issue. We desperately need to get more
agreement - more people on the same page. That's why I keep coming
back to these paragraphs.
I know it's not good science, and that they're extreme examples.
But I think it's sufficient reason to send some self-proclaimed
ethicists back to their drawing boards.
For the sake of brevity in discourse I'll phrase it one more way.
Every cell in our bodies carries our complete genetic code. But
we don't call them people, because we know that they are only a
very small part of the entire entity we call a person. They lack
very important attributes, like a brain and a heart. On the other
hand, once the blastocyst has completed its attachment to the ut-
erus, which is necessary for a woman to know that she is pregnant,
stem cell differentiation takes place with extreme rapidity. I've
already mentioned how soon the heart and brain begin detectable
functioning (they may be operating earlier, but we aren't able to
measure it). Further down, I cite a reliable source, that states
that "500,000 brain cells are forming every minute". If it were-
n't for the credibility of the source it would be difficult to
believe something we can't possibly comprehend. But I did find an
occurrence in nature that was more comprehensible to me. Last sum-
mer Cardinals built their nest right outside our dining room win-
dow. What colors! I instantly grabbed my camera, thinking I would
be able to document this for several weeks. And of course the baby
birds were so cute when they hatched out, and it seemed like they
were about 50% outstretched jaw, begging to be fed. Again, it
wouldn't count as good science, but it seemed like only a couple
of days before they were physically full grown and had flopped
out of the nest. I'll never know if mamma bird found her one
chick. But it was a very visible, outside the body, demonstration
of how quickly these developmental processes can progress.
I'm emphasizing this because I don't think pro-life forces should
be squandering their time and resources trying to convince every-
body that life begins at fertilization, or in opposition to blast-
ocyst research - and this is the only way I have a chance of get-
ting them to consider my views on this matter. It just hurts their
future credibility when they are arguing against abortion in the
more urgent, crucial, and winnable, pregnancy period debate.
We should structure our strategy around a top-down approach, from
the least difficult goal to obtain to goals that will be harder
and will take longer to achieve. For example, beginning with par-
tial-birth abortion, then moving on to third trimester abortions,
then parental and spousal approval, and so on. Each decision we
can prevail in will save thousands of lives. Exactly when a human
being's personhood begins is potentially a much more difficult is-
sue to get agreement on, and intertwined with strong religious be-
liefs and practical considerations. We don't want them whispering
in the halls of Congress "you know, they believe taking birth con-
trol pills is abortion". The opposition would love us for that,
and I doubt the American public would ever buy into it; or there
would be a huge black market in birth control pills, and a lot of
very angry people. A lot of pro-life groups I follow and support,
are, I believe, making this mistake. My concern, in this case, is
also that the science follows the lead of Church doctrine. That's
not bad if they're right, but they are human beings just like you
and I. I'm well aware that because of this view several pro-life
organizations don't consider me to be pro-life. Despite this, I
haven't seen any arguments that would cause me to change my mind,
and that continues to be my opinion. They seem to me to be a bit
too doctrinaire and intolerant of the views of others. What do
you think? Part of the value of this web site is its independence.
"Poll after poll shows women are more pro-life than pro-abortion."
However, "Unless our efforts to stop abortion in America are co-
ordinated--unless we all work together as a team--the carnage will
continue unabated." Jane Abraham - President, Susan B Anthony List
Some legislation has been passed to only affect elective abortion.
"'Elective abortion' is defined......as not including the use of
drugs and devices intended for use as contraceptives...not includ-
ing cases that necessitate 'the termination of the woman's preg-
nancy to avert her death.'" The Ryan Report, January 2001
This is one way of being sure laws don't apply to birth control.
Another way to do the same thing is to pass laws against "abort-
ion-on-demand"; because no one could demand an abortion without
first being pregnant. Continuing on with this investigative reas-
oning, I think it is correct to say that all human life begins at
the moment of fertilization, but that it is incorrect to say
that a human being exists at the moment of fertilization. Let me
explain further. The blastocyst journeys down the Fallopian Tube
and into the Uterus and successfully attaches itself. It then de-
velops very rapidly into a human being, who lives to be ninety
years old. I would think it accurate to say that individual's life
began at the moment of fertilization. But if the blastocyst just
floats downstream, is unable to attach for some reason, and then
flushes out, I would say that a human life never existed, or ever
developed, and therefore can not be traced back to the moment of
fertilization. Well, think about it. It's not an easy concept.
Furthermore, since a woman doesn't know she's pregnant until im-
plantation occurs, and consequently wouldn't seek an abortion un-
til then; the only purpose of defining conception as occurring at
the moment of fertilization (some biology books define it at as
being at implantation) in a Life At Conception Bill would seem to
be an attempt to ban birth control and morning after pills accord-
ing to Catholic teaching (either pill "might" prevent implant-
ation) - and I find that disturbing.
Here, again, we see language playing an important role. The terms
pregnancy and conception can have different meanings to different
people. For instance, for someone not too into biology, or who
has had a conservative Catholic upbringing, they don't think twice
about the meaning of the word "conception" - it implies fertiliz-
ation to them. However, since 1965, the American College of Ob-
stetrics and Gynecology has held that "Conception is the implant-
ation of the fertilized ovum." Out in California pro-abortionists
are drafting legislation that specifically states that human life
begins at implantation - not fertilization; which makes absolute-
ly no sense from their point of view because it is an admission
that what they want to kill is indeed a person - but they're too
focused on their fear of losing their right to birth control pills
to see the contradiction at this juncture. Likewise, the term pre-
gnancy implies different things to different people. To me, the
beginning of pregnancy logically occurs when the mother receives
the chemical message from her child that says "I'm locked in mom",
and her body begins to make changes to accommodate that presence;
such as the cessation of ovulation that causes her to miss her
period, changes in her breasts to prepare for feeding, and so on.
Other people would consider the start of pregnancy to begin at
the same time as fertilization, even though the mother has no way
of knowing what has occurred at that point. So it's much more pre-
cise to talk in terms of fertilization and implantation. However,
implantation, beginning perhaps 3 to 7 days after fertilization,
is itself not very precise, because it can go on for a week from
the time it begins until it is complete. And if fertilization oc-
curs in the uterus, implantation will not occur at all. But at
some point beginning during the implantation period an explosion
of growth commences with such rapidity as to be difficult to com-
prehend as being possible for a living organism.
Scripture says "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you". But
even if you believe this it can not mean the moment of fertiliza-
tion, because if fertilization occurs in the womb a person can
never form and there would be no one to have ever known.
Likewise, "embryo" is another slippery and loosely used term. The
American Heritage Dictionary, which is the one I happen to have
on my computer, and also have confidence in, defines embryo thus-
ly: "In human beings, the prefetal product of conception from im-
plantation through the eighth week of development." In other
words, under this definition, you couldn't have an embryo without
a uterus to implant into, you couldn't have a person without an
embryo, and all the talk about frozen embryos, embryo farms, em-
bryonic stem cells, embryo research, embryonic people, and so on,
becomes nonsense; just as it does under my theory that the blast-
ocyst is only the seed and can never be more than that until the
placenta plants itself in the uterus and takes root there and be-
gins to send nourishment to what now very quickly becomes the em-
bryo. What is really being debated then, is what can be done with
the pre-embryonic stage (blastocyst, or seed), and not what can
be done with the embryo, or embryonic person. Without a uterus,
the blastocyst isn't going to become a person under current tech-
nology, because the placenta is a marvel of engineering that we
haven't been able to duplicate yet - as I understand it. I don't
pretend to be an expert in these things, and I keep waiting, and
looking for, the arguments that will undermine what I've said a-
bove, but it's going on three years now and I haven't found any-
thing that would even begin to unravel my reasoning. That does-
n't mean that I'm campaigning for "embryo" research though, be-
cause the advances that have been made so far with stem cells,
and which are truly remarkable, have all come from adult stem
cells, according to what I've seen; and for which it is claimed
can be turned into any other type of cell. After all, that's the
definition of what a stem cell is. Plus, umbilical cord blood
stem cell treatments are beginning to show promise, too. But no-
body is claiming that clusters of umbilical cord blood, or adult,
stem cells, are separate people.
But the truth about what constitutes an embryo is being ignored
publicly by people I know know better. The reason for this dis-
honesty, I believe, is sometimes religious, and sometimes politi-
cal. Religious to advance church teaching and curry favor within
the church; and political to gain favor with voters who by large
pluralities oppose and fear cloning. But I'm not sure these ex-
planations cover the whole spectrum of reasons; I suspect there
may still be factors involved that I don't yet understand.
As I approached the publication of my book, for which this web
site will be the centerpiece (due out in early spring of 2004, at
which time I will place an order link at the top of the document),
I felt the need to be more scientific in my explanation, so that
people wouldn't think this was just conjecture on my part. After
three failed attempts to buy a used medical textbook on half.com,
I was able to purchase the following book: "Williams Obstetrics",
20th Edition, by Cunningham, MacDonald, Gant, Leveno, Gilstrap,
Hankins and Clark; a commonly used medical textbook first publ-
ished in 1902 and updated on a regular basis since then. My edit-
ion was published in 1997. I chose this book because it was re-
commended by CBR (much more about them later). CBR uses it when
somebody in the media, or otherwise, claim that their aborted em-
bryo and fetus pictures are inaccurate or fake; by referring the
person to the book and then threatening to sue them if the alleg-
ations are repeated. So far, they haven't had to sue anybody. Of
course the book's objective isn't to make the same point I'm mak-
ing, so I have to try to work around the medical terminology and
pick out what's relevant to the issue I'm discussing:
"Early Human Development Definitions. The definitions that fol-
low are taken from Moore (1973, 1988).
Zygote: The cell that results from the fertilization of the ovum
by a spermatozoan.
Blastomeres: Mitotic division of the zygote (cleavage) gives rise
to daughter cells called blastomeres.
Morula: The solid ball of cells formed by 16 or so blastomeres.
Blastocyst: After the morula reaches the uterus a fluid filled
cavity is formed converting the morula to a blastocyst.
[According to this all you get without a uterus is a morula, and
definitely not an embryo.]
Embryo: The embryo-forming cells, which are grouped together as
an inner cell mass, give rise to the embryo, which usually is so
designated when the bilaminar embryonic disc forms. The embryonic
period extends until the end of the seventh week, at which time
the major structures are present."
So my contention is that a ball of cells, apparently 16 in this
example, does not constitute a person. Moreover, a study of blast-
ocysts described in the book used samples taken from the uterine
cavity - not grown outside it - although I won't say it would be
impossible to do that. The caption for a picture in the book says
"C. 107-cell blastocyst found in uterine cavity about 5 days aft-
er conception". The book seems to use the term conception rather
loosely, depending on what it is talking about. The 107-cell
blastocyst is then described in the text: "8 formative cells (em-
bryo producing) were surrounded by 99 trophoblastic cells." So
here we have 8 cells that some people would have us believe is a
person. Well, I'm an adherent to a philosophy that says believe
what you see with your own two eyes, and not what others tell you
that you see, and I don't buy their contention. Moreover, it's
not even an embryo yet, even though most laymen seem to think it
is.
Next, "Implantation Just before implantation, the zona pellucida
disappears and the blastocyst embraces the endometrial surface;
this is the time of apposition, when the blastocyst is composed
of 107 to 256 cells. The blastocyst becomes adherent to the endo-
metrial epithelium; most commonly, implantation takes place on
the endometrium of the upper part and, more often, on the poster-
ior wall of the uterus. After gentle erosion between epithelial
cells on the surface endometrium, the invading trophoblasts burrow
deeper into the endometrium and the blastocyst soon becomes tot-
ally encased within the endometrium--specifically, the implanting
blastocyst becomes completely buried in and covered over by the
endometrium." So here we see the blastocyst completely buried in
the lining of the uterus, but still a blastocyst - not an embrio.
"Biology of the Trophoblast Of all placental components, the
trophoblast is the most variable in structure, function, and dev-
elopment. Its invasiveness provides for attachment of the blasto-
cyst to the wall (endometrial surface) of the uterine cavity; its
role in nutrition of the conceptus is reflected in its name; and
its function as an endocrine organ in human pregnancy is essent-
ial to maternal physiological adaptations and the maintenance of
pregnancy." So, we see why the blastocyst can't become an embryo
outside the mother - it depends on the trophoblast attaching pro-
perly to the uterus to begin the flow of nutrients that will ult-
imately, and quickly, then become what I consider the first stage
of personhood - the embryo. This will not change someone's opin-
ion who wants to believe otherwise; but at least it makes me auth-
oritative in my stance, rather than seeming speculative. If I
were to be speculative, I would ask whether this process of "tak-
ing root" was an indication that the animal kingdom is descended
from the plant kingdom.
The only way I can see to get an embryo for "embryo research"
would be to remove it surgically from a woman. But I don't think
you could have "embryo farms" because once detached from either
the placenta or uterus, the child would die - so there really is-
n't any reason to be concerned about farms, that I can see. Or an
abortion would produce an embryo, if done early enough, but usual-
ly not in pristine condition, to say the least, and very dead. An
abortion is a form of surgical removal.
Of further interest, I think, is how long this adhering and inte-
grating process (my own choice of words) goes on, before the act-
ual child begins to form. The text book attempts to give a thor-
ough explanation of this complex process, during which the reader
needs to already have some knowledge of medical terminology to
understand everything. The broad answer seems to be that child
development doesn't begin immediately. So I've selected out some
phraseology, based on ease of comprehension, that gives some sense
of this process. Reading it more than once is helpful, too:
"Soon after blastocyst adherence to the endometrial epithelium,
the cytotrophoblasts proliferate rapidly and the invasion of the
surrounding decidua commences. The extravillous forward wave of
cytotrophoblasts that ultimately form the anchoring cells in the
decidua remain as individual cells or cytotrophoblasts. As the
blastocyst and its surrounding trophoblasts, which are completely
covered by decidua, grow and expand, one pole of this mass extends
toward the endometrial cavity and the other pole remains buried
in the endometrium/decidua. The innermost pole enters into the
formation of the placenta...the enlargement and multiplication of
of the trophoblasts in contact with the endometrium are alone re-
sponsible for the increase in size of the implanted blastocyst...
As early as 7 1/2 days after fertilization, the inner cell mass,
now referred to as the embryonic disc, is differentiated into a
thick plate of primitive ectoderm and an underlying layer of end-
oderm. At 9 days of development (Fig. 5-5), the wall of the blast-
ocyst that faces toward the uterine lumen is a single layer of
flattened cells. The opposite, thicker wall is comprised of two
zones, the troblasts and the embryo-forming inner cell mass. To
illustrate the next stage of development, a thin section of a
9 1/2-day fertilized ovum (Fig. 5-6) is shown; the increase in
size is from development of the syncytium". "The Embryo. The
commencement of the embryonic period is taken as the beginning of
the third week after ovulation/fertilization". So we see that ap-
parently the child's development doesn't commence until the lat-
ter part of the initial attachment process, and the attempt of
some religious groups to use science to point to fertilization as
the defining moment of personhood doesn't hold up very well under
close scrutiny - nor does the attempt to gloss over the fact that
an embryo doesn't exist until at least 10 days after fertilizat-
ion. What an embryo is not seems to be as important as what it
is. An embryo is not a catchall for all the stages that come be-
fore. An embryo is a distinct stage that occurs after initial im-
plantation; I say initial, because the attachment process and the
growth of the placenta will continue after the embryo's growth
begins. That makes sense, too, because the bigger the baby gets
the bigger and more elaborate the infrastructure nourishing it
will need to be. The book also resolves the theoretical contro-
versy over when pregnancy begins: "...6 days after fertilization,
the blastocyst begins to implant in the endometrium and pregnancy
has begun."
"A number of emergency contraceptive services are available to
women seeking to prevent an unintended pregnancy. It is important
to note that emergency contraception prevents pregnancy, rather
than terminating an already existing pregnancy. According to the
New England Journal of Medicine, these agents act by altering nor-
mal ovulation, inhibiting fertilization, or preventing implantat-
ion." Richard J. Durbin, August 25, 2003, on the "morning after
pill".
I didn't think I would ever find anything I agreed on with "tricky"
Dick Durbin; but I consider this worthwhile information. Don't
have an abortion, but don't use contraception, and don't use emer-
gency contraception - is not the message this document wants to
convey. Birth control pills, prescribed by a regular obstetrician
/gynecologist, who doesn't have a stake in doing abortions; and
emergency contraception, are quite acceptable, even recommended,
for someone who is sexually active but doesn't want to get preg-
nant - in my view. This applies to the morning after pill too, if
you really do use it the morning after - because you haven't had
time to get pregnant. I think using condoms is also a good option
to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy for those
only occasionally having sex - but are prone to failure, and de-
fects. They're certainly better than no protection at all but you
"roll the dice" when you use them. The best way to avoid STD'S,
is to have sex with someone you have a lasting relationship with,
and you know doesn't have any other sexual relationships. Abstin-
ence, I believe, is the best policy for those still in school.
After that, adults have to make their own decisions. It's not for
me to tell people how to live their lives. Every situation is dif-
ferent. And I do respect the guidelines of conservative Christian
churches on chastity before marriage, and the teachings of the
Roman Catholic church on sexuality and marriage. It may well be
that Pope Paul has the best plan - but I also realize that things
don't always work out ideally. Just don't kill the natural result
of sexual activity if your efforts at prevention don't work out.
All this does not, however, mean that I support blastocyst stem
cell research; especially since amazing results have already been
achieved using adult stem cells, there are also umbilical cord
stem cells available for the same research, and President Bush has
agreed to the use of existing stem cell lines, while no meaningful
results have been achieved using them. Although the blastocyst may
only be a seed, rather than an embryo or person, it is certainly
a much more special seed than the peach I used in my example, and
I have serious moral reservations against destroying it for un-
certain scientific research purposes. My quarrel is with those
who claim birth control and morning after pills cause abortions.
I'll throw in another bonus of information that's widely accepted
by both sides in the abortion/abstinence debate. Condoms fail 10%
of the time. So if you're having sex using a condom that could be
the first time or the 10th time; but eventually the law of averages
will catch up with you. The HIV/AIDS virus is hundreds of times
smaller than spermatozoa, so your odds of getting HIV from an
infected partner when using a condom are even greater than getting
pregnant. If you are using birth control pills it is important to
follow the dosing regimen closely to be sure they do what they are
supposed to do. If you use the morning after pill more than
occasionally, it can cause your menstrual cycle to go haywire,
and whatever results that entails (I don't have a period).
Finally, here's some information I received from LifeVoice on how
Lunelle, NuvaRing, Ortho Eva, and the birth control pill work:
"A) Thickens the cervical mucous, impeding sperm mobility;
B) Inhibits the ovary from releasing the woman's egg;
C) In case conception occurs, changes the lining of the uterus
to prevent...implanting."
I promised to give you my opinion on when human life begins. Did
you have the patience to read through the explanation above?
"My Silent Scream: My silent scream, My plea for life. This world
unseen Sentences me to die. You say 'it's my body......It's my
choice.' But I have no voice! So cry for me. And pray for me. Be-
cause humanity Has forgotten me. The love I have Is pure and
true. This beating heart Cries out to you. You ignore my cries.
You ignore the truth. Please God forgive them For they know not
what they do." Joel Messener, 16. Dammit, where's the kleenex.
Joel understands, do you?
There is a sadness and mourning in this land, for those who will
never see the light of day, for those cut apart limb by limb, or-
gan by organ; an eye, a cry; another eye, another cry; a spleen,
a scream; a liver, another scream; a testicle, a brain, silence.
Of course, the pieces are sold for profit and "research". I find
it really difficult to imagine how horrible it would be to be cut
up into pieces, how excruciating the pain must be. What kind of
person could do this and feel no remorse; again, and again, and
again? What kind of person could stand by and do nothing? Is
there no outrage at this out there!
"...we must be a voice for those who have no voice. You are that
voice." --Bishop John F. Kinney
"...we're the only voice they have." --Erik Whittington
Well, I hope I haven't offended anybody. On the other hand, I've
probably said something to make just about everybody mad. Perhaps
that's a better state than complacency. If the FBI comes and
drags me away, there may not be anybody to come to my defense.
And if people can speak disparagingly about a man of Ronald
Reagan's stature, they will probably have no mercy with me. I see
a lot of my own criticisms as being constructive in nature, al-
though they may not be taken that way. But keep this in mind - I
am not at all important in the scheme of things. It is what I
have said that is important, and that should be the focus of at-
tention. If someone characterizes me as being "that", derides me
about being "this", makes derogatory generalizations about what I
have written, or dismisses it as unimportant, etc.; they are
merely trying to distract you from what I have had to say.
Don't succumb to these mind games. Think for yourself. There is
much to discuss here. Ask yourself, are they addressing the con-
tent and the issues raised? Do your own evaluation. Decide for
yourself. Don't just accept what someone else tells you is right.
Keep in mind that just because you find something in here you
disagree with, it doesn't invalidate the whole document; it should
instead stimulate debate. There are a lot of specific things in
here to agree or disagree with, and to expand upon. I don't have
a monopoly on ideas, and it should spawn additional thinking on
this topic, and how to best implement the ideas. Remember the
central point here is that the child inside the mother is the
same child outside the mother, and vice versa. And for God's
sake, if someone starts talking to you about a woman's right to
choose, don't be simple minded about it, look at the other side
too, which is the child's right to choose; and at least say in
your own mind "You mean a woman's right to murder her child."
We're not talking beliefs or opinions here, we're talking facts
that even the pro-abortion lobby has stopped debating. This is
not just a minor disagreement in philosophy, this is an issue
similar in magnitude to slavery, but which has already had much
graver consequences. You always come back to the same fundamental
question: Is it alright to kill the child; and there is only one
possible answer - no, it is not. Only if you take a narrow, simp-
listic focus, such as the convenience of the mother, and don't
look on the other side of the controversy, the inescapable human-
ity of the child, can you come away with a pro-abortion conclus-
ion. And if there were even a shadow of a doubt in someone's mind
about their pro-abortion stance, why would they go ahead with
supporting an abortion decision when they might find out later
that they had been wrong? Make no mistake, the building blocks
of this child come from you - it is a part of yourself you are
killing; but at the same time this child is a genetically unique
person with their own separate body and their own separate
rights. Above all, keep your eye on the ball, don't be distracted
by new slogans. And when you go to vote, ask yourself, where do
the candidates stand on the most important, and most basic right
of all, without which there can be no other rights; by far the
most important issue of our lives, the right to live. Society
must be very clear on this issue, to give people the guidance
they need in difficult circumstances.
There's also another dimension to who has "the right to choose".
What about the father? It's just as much his child as hers.
Shouldn't he have a say in this too? Doesn't he have an obliga-
tion to protect his child? And what about the maternal and pater-
nal grandparents? It's certainly their grandchild, and they
surely should have an interest in the outcome of this. And make
no mistake here, it's the fate of the baby's body we're talking
about - not the mother's. Now, I'm not advocating that all these
people get together and hold a vote. It's still the responsibility
of our society to apply the laws that protect all of us from
murder. I'm trying to drive home the point that any woman who
says she's "pro-choice" really isn't in favor of the right to
choose at all. She's expressing a selfish, self-centered attit-
ude - that she, and she alone, should be able to decide the fate
of the child, without regard to the best interests of the child,
the father, the grandparents, or society at large. And a lot of
judges have taken this same nearsighted viewpoint, because they-
're not intelligent enough to get past the propaganda!
The radical left has a long history of accusing others of being
what they are, thereby shifting the stigma to others in the minds
of those who are easily manipulated. They will surely call me an
extremist, and the simple minded will accept it without question.
Are you simple minded? What could be more extreme than killing
children; executing a third of our newborns every year, butcher-
ing them, and selling their parts? Jonathan Swift's satirical
"A Modest Proposal" has become modern day reality.
I also realize some of the people I'm trying to help may say that
I'm hurting the cause more than I'm helping it, because they have
to be in control or disagree with some aspect of what I've said.
But I feel compelled to speak out, to try to do my part, because,
in the words of Congressman Henry Hyde, "Wherever and whenever
you avert your eyes from a wrong, from an injustice, -- you be-
come part of the problem.". Edmund Burke expressed a sentiment
similar to that when he said: "the only thing needed for evil to
triumph is for good men to do nothing". On the other side of the
issue, there are probably people who have a vested interest in
continuing the myth that a child is not a human being, rather
than having to admit they made a terrible mistake; they may even
be subconsciously suppressing their feelings because of post-
abortion trauma or depression, and I give references at the end
of this document that they can go to for help. On the other hand,
some of the people fighting abortion the hardest, and trying to
guide people away from it, and helping those for whom it is too
late, are women who have had abortions themselves.
Did you know that the woman in the Roe vs. Wade case had her
child and has come over to the pro-life side? A very lucky lady.
So I've just said what I thought. I'm just trying to help solve
a very serious problem. When I ask myself is a child inside its
mother a human being just the same as a child outside its mother,
there is only one logical conclusion I can come to. I can have a
different perspective from the politicians, because I'm not run-
ning for anything, and I'm not concerned about my popularity. I
feel fortunate to be a loyal American, and when my country falls
down, I hurt too; and I want to rush in and pick her up and set
her back on the right course. And maybe, just maybe, the internet
gives me the chance to do that. This is America. I believe that
we will ultimately triumph in resolving this problem. And I hope
that what I have had to say will open people's eyes to some
things, will act as a unifying force, will begin a public dialog-
ue, encourage differing theologies to find common ground and
work together, and bring a swift conclusion to this deplorable
episode in our history before many more lives have been sacrificed.
My wife and I have children of our own. For each of them, I've
placed my hand on her uterus and felt them kicking and trying to
punch their way out. As our children grew from little waifs to
adulthood, I've watched in amazement and awe at the things they-
've accomplished - things that I never could have dreamed pos-
sible.
A few years ago I was talking to a friend of mine about the movie
"Forrest Gump". He said he didn't like the movie because he did-
n't think all those things could have happened to one person.
Well, I didn't think of Forrest Gump as being a single person,
but more of a composite, a vehicle for telling a story about an
entire era; a story with many messages to convey. One of those
messages, I thought, was that no matter how insignificant or un-
wanted a person may seem, he can still make a contribution to
others. When Forrest met his son for the first time, and sat down
next to him in front of the TV; and then when he saw him off to
his first day of school; I felt great empathy with Forrest, be-
cause I had come to believe that perhaps my purpose in life, like
Forrest, was to provide a link and a stable platform to launch my
children's lives. Of course, some will accomplish more than oth-
ers, but each is their own link to the next generation; I can
hardly wait to get to know my grandchildren. So I have written
this in part to encourage people to be this link - we can not
foresee what good things may lie ahead, but we should not break
this chain that is our human family and our humanity itself - es-
pecially in this country, where life is continually improving.
When we kill our child, we kill a piece of ourselves, and we will
never know what that child may have accomplished or meant to us
and to others. And I hope I can also be the link to other genera-
tions for other families that won't mindlessly embrace this
scourge that has gripped our nation for so many years. Like For-
rest Gump said at the end of his speech before the peace rally in
Washington, D. C., "And that's all I have to say about that".
There are also sections on RU-486, Breast Cancer Linkage, Current
Events, Pregnancy Resources, What To Do About Post-Abortion Synd-
rome, a Reference Section, An Evaluation of Margaret Sanger, Com-
ments, discussions of SCHIP, CEDAW, ANDA, and Closing Remarks.
Keep in mind that by right clicking on a link, a menu will pop up
that allows you to open the link in a separate window. Then, when
you are finished examining that external site, you can close it
and this window will still be open. This document becomes more and
more informative as it unfolds; where other experts in the field
do most of the talking, and you get a more complete picture. But
it turns out I "lied" when I said I didn't have anything else to
say - I just couldn't seem to shut up.
From Other Sources
My mind was wandering one day, and it dawned on me that it seemed
to be primarily women who were advocating abortion. If this were
true, I thought, and they were responsible for this tragedy, then
had it been a mistake to give them the right to vote? This was
not where I wanted to go, because I have the utmost respect for
the women in my life; but if that was where my reasoning took me,
I was not going to shy away from it. The next day I received a
mailing from the Susan B. Anthony List, that showed statistics
that the majority of women opposed abortion. What a relief! And
as you will see from this list of references to other web sites,
women are in the forefront of the fight against abortion. Let me
quote to you some passages from the Encarta Encyclopedia about
the woman this organization chose to name itself after: "Anthony,
Susan B(Brownell)(1820-1906), outstanding American reformer, who
led the struggle to gain the vote for women. She devoted 50 years
to overcoming the nation's resistance to woman suffrage, but died
before the 19th Amendment was adopted (August 26, 1920). Encour-
aged by her father, a onetime schoolteacher, Anthony began teach-
ing school when she was 15 years old, and continued until the age
of 30. A liberal Quaker and dedicated radical reformer, Anthony
opposed the use of liquor and advocated the immediate end of sla-
very. From 1848 to 1853 she took part in the temperance movement
and from 1856 to 1861 worked for the American Anti-Slavery Soc-
iety, organizing meetings and frequently giving lectures. In
1863, during the American Civil War, she founded the Women's Loy-
al League to fight for emancipation of the slaves. After the end
of Reconstruction she protested the violence inflicted on blacks
and was one of the few to urge full participation of blacks in
the woman suffrage movement. Anthony's work for women's rights
began in 1851, when she met Elizabeth Cady Stanton. From 1854 to
1860 the two concentrated on reforming New York State laws dis-
criminating against women. Anthony organized women all over the
state to campaign for legal reforms. Anthony and Stanton became
convinced that women would not gain their rights or be effective
in promoting reforms until they had the vote, and nationwide suf-
frage became their goal after the Civil War. In 1869 they organ-
ized the National Woman Suffrage Association to work for a const-
itutional amendment giving women that right. Although the newly
freed slaves were granted the vote by the 15th Amendment, women
of all races continued to be excluded. From 1868 to 1870 Anthony
and Stanton published a newspaper, Revolution, focused on in-
justices suffered by women. To dramatize her fight, Anthony de-
fiantly registered and cast a ballot in the 1872 presidential
election and, when arrested and convicted, refused to pay the
$100 fine. She went to Europe in 1883, met women's rights activ-
ists there, and in 1888 helped form the International Council of
Women, representing 48 countries. At the age of 80 she resigned
as president of the National American Woman Suffrage Association,
but she continued to be a regular speaker at its conventions
until her death...". "Her...achievement lay in her inspiration
and perseverance in bringing together vast numbers of people of
both sexes around the single goal of the vote." Wow. Quite a
lady. And obviously someone who did her own thinking, and wasn't
much influenced by the way people told her things should be. When
asked her opinion on abortion, she replied "Child murder.". Don't
let her down, ladies.
The Susan B. Anthony List is an organization to recruit and sup-
port anti-abortion women to run for Congress. They also support
pro-life men running against abortion candidates. Click on the
highlighted link to go to their web site; it includes an "Instant
Advocacy" feature that allows you to email your Members of Cong-
ress directly from the site. "Supporters can write their own let-
ters or pick from a list of pro-life legislation". Address:
1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 285, Alexandria, Virginia 22314
"Training Pro-Life Women In The Political Arena" (and men).
If you're a pro-lifer wanting to become politically active there's
also The Leadership Institute, Steven P.J. Wood Building, 1101
North Highland Street, Arlington, Virginia, 22201, (703) 247-2000,
run by Morton C. Blackwell, President - from the Reagan era.
The American Life League is a creation of, almost an extension
of, Judith Brown. Whether it's the New York City subway system or
the corporate halls of Benton, Arkansas, Judie Brown is an a-
damant defender of life. She's involved in many different aspects
of the problem, from adoption to post-abortion trauma counseling.
"Her passion for a pro-life America continues to light the lamp
of truth about the moral and spiritual harm our country has suf-
fered, since the legalization of abortion", probably in her own
words. Affiliate organizations include the American Bioethics Ad-
vocacy Commission, Crossroads, Dentists for Life, Rachel's Vine-
yard, Rock for Life, Stop Planned Parenthood International, Why
Life, and the World Life League. In fact the word was going a-
round that Judie had been so effective that she had been added to
the FBI VAAPCON data base of pro-life "subversives", and the FBI
had been ordered to infiltrate her organization. I got this from
more than one source, and think it's probably true. Of course,
there's been no more talk of a FBI investigation since Janet Reno
and Bill Clinton left town. Judie and her helpers recently receiv-
ed a blessing from the Pope, which probably doesn't mean too much
to you if you're not Catholic - but hey, it can't hurt. I wonder
if the Pope was on VAAPCON too, and they infiltrated the Vatican
- I know he's said he's against abortion. I don't share her views
on birth control; but when did you ever agree with someone on
everything? And I think she assigns it more importance than I do.
For quite some time I wasn't really sure how to classify ALL.
What kind of an organization was it, overall? I think these words
in the March-April 2002 issue of their Celebrate Life publication
sums it up pretty well: "American Life League has an unwavering
commitment to principle and truth...education is the core of our
mission...ultimately the pro-life victory will come from cultural
...advances, and education...is the key to change". I quote them
a number of times farther down in the document. American Life
League, P.O. Box 1350, Stafford, VA 22555 Phone: 540-659-4171
"It was enough to bring ALL's Judie Brown to tears. Legatus, an
organization of Catholic business leaders, has honored her with
its 2002 Cardinal John O'Connor Unambiguously Pro-Life Award.
Cardinal O'Connor was one of Mrs. Brown's heroes and mentors.
American Life League president Judie Brown is on her way to Rome
for a meeting of the Pontifical Academy for Life. Mrs. Brown is
serving her second five-year term on the papal advisory panel."
From ALLNEWS, March 2003. It would be difficult to overstate Mrs.
Brown's importance to the pro-life cause over the years. Not only
does she run an organization with a membership of several hundred
thousand, but has probably educated many more than that through
ALL's publications, and saved countless young lives. She's impor-
tant enough within the Catholic Church to have talked directly to
the Pope, and I think that's rather unusual for a lay person.
I add things quite frequently, but I don't often take anything
out or change what's already there, because I see this as being
partly a historical document, and you will sense that my under-
standing of events evolves, too, as time goes by.
The Republican National Coalition for Life is run by Phyllis
Schlafly. There is no more ardent, uncompromising defender of the
Republican pro-life platform. Unquestionably brilliant, seemingly
indefatigable, she possesses an incredible grasp of the politics
involved. She eloquently demonstrates her staunch support in the
following passage: "I wonder if a statement of tolerance for the
views that slavery should be permitted, or that racism is O.K.,
or that handicapped people can be discriminated against, or that
America should disarm, or that taxes should be raised, would be
acceptable to those who want our Party to go on record as res-
pecting the views of those who justify killing babies." Phyllis
is involved in many different issues, more numerous than I have
time to try to understand; so I just stick to abortion with her.
SURVIVORS of the Abortion Holocaust: "Unfortunately, over time,
the Democratic Party decided to embrace every special interest
group that hated God or the family....Now the Survivors are going
to speak out against all the Democratic Party has become! .....to
speak out for the one-third of their generation murdered in the
name of choice....The Survivors made national news when they pro-
tested the movie Cider House Rules that portrayed abortion as a
compassionate act.....According to the LA Times Poll published on
June 18, 2000, 67% of Americans believe abortion is murder. But
on the other, 68% of Americans agree with the statement: 'No mat-
ter how I feel about abortion, I believe it is a decision that
has to be made by a woman and her doctor.' This is scary. There
are millions of Americans who believe it is okay to murder some-
one. Still there is hope even in those statistics. For years the
pro-life movement believed we would win the war when we were able
to convince America abortion was murder. The words 'Abortion is
murder' were rarely used because some believed they were too rad-
ical. But we have won that contest and now even Planned Parent-
hood acknowledges abortion takes a human life. Our new hope is
found in our past success. We defined abortion as murder. Now we
must strip abortion of its compassionate face. The new rhetoric
of the pro-abortion movement is found in the very question asked
by the LA Times. The statement that abortion is a decision that
has to be made between a woman and her doctor is rhetoric devel-
oped by the abortion industry. They had to surrender the humanity
of the child and when they did they made the switch to proclaim-
ing abortion a private and personal decision 'between a woman,
her god, and her doctor.'...sharing about post abortion syndrome,
the intense guilt felt by mothers who abort their child....unlic-
ensed and licensed doctors who kill their adult patients because
they are hurrying to kill as many children as quickly as they can
in their quest for more money....And they will expose the latest
lie of abortion as compassion. The Democrats have chosen to em-
brace child killing as a part of their national platform. The
Democratic Party has declared war on the pre-born child. Now the
Survivors of that abortion war are old enough to speak and fight
for themselves and they will not be silent. The Survivors lost
one-third of their generation in a war they didn't start, but
they are giving their lives to finish it." Sage to the Survivors,
Jeff White Written around the time of the Democrat Convention in
Los Angeles, summer of 2000.
"For those on the front lines of the peaceful pro-life movement,
death threats are a way of life. Jeff White, who runs Survivors,
a pro-life youth organization, received his first letter contain-
ing white powder more than two years ago. 'When I go for a while
without receiving some kind of threat, I begin to question wheth-
er or not I'm being effective.' Mark Crutcher often is concerned
for his family. 'Whenever I would go out of town, my wife receiv-
ed threatening phone calls so we knew we were watched constantly.
Once we adopted a baby, we were more vigilant. After bomb threats
my wife goes to hotels for safety.'" From "Anthrax, Abortion, and
Other Abominations", Jane Chastain, World Net Daily, as reprint-
ed in the November, 2001, "The Life Activist", Life Dynamics Inc.
Post Office Box 2226, Denton, Texas 76202 (940) 380-8800
"We did it! ...the Campus Life Tours have made their goal of 200
campuses for the year. The Survivors College team members were ar-
rested illegally over thirty times this year for courageously tak-
ing the truth of abortion to high schools and colleges. They hand-
ed out over 100,000 pieces of literature... But the team continues
to work even as the school year comes to an end. They are prepar-
ing now for the summer training camp where hopefully a new group
of young people will catch the vision for an abortion free Amer-
ica. 'The best tour experience... A young man, the captain of the
speech and debate team...proceeded to use justifications for abor-
tion such as poverty...the crowd turned against him... The stud-
ents attending the school were primarily from poor neighborhoods
and did not like the idea of having abortions because of the pos-
sibility of a child growing up poor. It was great to hear the
crowd take over for me as they grew offended and impatient with
his answers that were attempting to justify killing poor kids. It
was amazing to see an entire crowd of people see the light simul-
taneously as to why the murdering of human beings is a horrible
thing especially in the cases of the possibility of growing up in
a poor neighborhood. Many minds were changed that day, and as a
result many lives will be saved. Dan'". From Jeff White, Founder
of the Survivors, P.O. Box 332 Lake Arrowhead, CA 92352 Tel: (888)
813-9457 e-mail: info@survivors.la http://www.survivors.la/
In a period of about 2 years, they went from doing demonstrations
locally, in a fairly static pattern, to a nationwide footprint.
Other organizations do school campuses too - but not nearly as
many. The kids take a year off from school, and tour for the nine
months of the school year. In addition to getting locked up, they
have to sometimes endure abuse from the students they are trying
to reach, and the school faculty and administration. They set out
not knowing if there will be funds to pay for essentials, and the
unexpected such as vehicle breakdowns; and keep a brutal schedule
through all the adversity they encounter along the way. May, 2003
More quotes from the Survivors' experiences:
"About two-thirds of the questions we're asked are about rape, but
less than 1 percent of abortions are rape or incest related. The
pain that a woman feels for being raped isn't the bably's fault.
The baby didn't rape anyone. Getting rid of a child from rape
isn't going to help the woman heal, she's still going to remember
the pain. But maybe by keeping the baby, there can be some healing
from that.
We focus on diffusing violence rather than encouraging or inciting
violence. We go through special training to make sure that our
protests raise debate and dialogue." But, also, "their organiza-
tion had been assaulted by students and faculty in the past."
"We came to campus today to expose the horrors of legalized abort-
ion and to raise the awareness of the nation. ...we're just show-
ing reality. The images represent the truth, and the truth is that
abortion is terrorizing." Jonathan O'Toole, 03/09/2004
"I admit the pictures are terrible and shocking, but abortion is
terrible and shocking." Keith Mason, director of campus tours.
"It's like a bad car wreck. You really don't want to see it, but
you can't turn away from it." Kyle Rich, senior business major.
"I directed his attention to a picture of a 3rd trimester abortion
and said, 'Can you describe to me any situation that would truly
justify doing that to a child?' After a long pause, he simply
said, 'No' and walked away." Monica Lindsley
Concerned Women for America (CWA) - 1015 Fifteenth Street, N.W.,
Suite 1100 Washignton, D.C. 20005 Phone: 202-488-7000 "For more
than 22 years, CWA has defended human life -- in Congress, the
White House, and on the state and local levels. We also have a
leadership role in coordinating pro-family forces from the U.S.
and abroad in opposing the pro-abortion agenda at the United Nat-
ions." Beverly LaHaye, Founder and Chairman, February 4, 2003.
Traditional Values Coalition, P.O. Box 1882, Merrifield, VA 22116
-8082 - headed by Presbyterian minister Reverend Lou Sheldon.
Toward Tradition: "Bring your love of God and Country. Bring your
open mind and your critical intelligence. Bring your family".
Christians and Jews meet and work together. P.O. Box 58, Mercer
Island, Washington 98040-9809
"We will continue encouraging Jews and Christians, who are united
by common political, economic, and cultural values, to help re-
store America's greatness. Never in this nation's history has it
been more urgently necessary to promote traditional, faith based,
American principles of constitutional and limited government, the
rule of law, representative democracy, free markets, a strong mil-
itary, and a moral public culture. That is our mission, ...to be
the premier forum for communication and cooperation. Over the ob-
jections of critics we have diligently built bridges. We have pas-
sed by those who would sow dissension and have formed lasting and
profound Jewish-Christian friendships between individuals, commun-
ities, and organizations. We unapologetically promote this al-
liance because we believe it is essential to America's survival
and prosperity." "Its purpose, then, is to effectively inject our
vision into the opinion-making culture. ...further...my belief
that the survival of Western civilization depends upon victory in
the war of ideas between those who cherish America's moral, spirit-
ual and economic heritage and those who vehemently reject it. It's
up to you and to us to win this war of ideas." Rabbi Daniel Lapin
President, Toward Tradition, 9311 S.E. 36TH Street, Suite 100, P.
O. Box 58, Mercer Island, WA 98040 800.591.7579 December 11, 2002
"Some..are still bothered about their abortion(s) eight, 10, even
20 years after the fact.....studies show that the longer a person
is unaware of, or represses, the after-effects of abortion, the
greater the impact on the psyche. Some women seem to have no pro-
blems after an abortion, while others struggle for years with the
emotional scars of guilt, anxiety, anger and depression. Still
others try to solve their problems with substance abuse, promisc-
uity, broken multiple relationships, or eating disorders..Unfort-
unately, post-abortion reconciliation and healing have become a
necessary part of the abortion scene". Freelance writer Patricia
V. Fogarty, published in Celebrate Life. If you think you might
be experiencing post-abortion syndrome, one place you can call is
Rachel's Vineyard, 877-HOPE-4-ME; or click on the link. They are
planning "200 retreats in 43 states and four countries" in 2003.
"Dr. Haskell brought the ultrasound in and hooked it up so that
he could see the baby. On their ultrasound screen I could see the
heart beat. As Dr. Haskell watched the baby on the ultrasound
screen, the baby's heartbeat was clearly visible on the ultra-
sound screen. Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the
baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he
delivered the baby's body and arms. Everything but the head.
The doctor kept the baby's head just inside the uterus. The
baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his feet
were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back
of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a
'startle' reaction, like a baby does when he thinks he might fall.
The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction
tube into the opening and sucked the baby's brains out.
Now the baby went completely limp. He cut the umbilical cord and
delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan along with the
placenta and the instruments he had just used. I saw the baby
move in the pan. I asked another nurse and she said it was just
reflexes. That baby boy had the most perfect angelic face I think
I have ever seen in my life." Brenda Pratt Shafer, Registered
Nurse, testifying before a Congressional committee, on a partial-
birth abortion she witnessed in 1993.
"Babies are being slaughtered and dismembered and their bodies
sold like so much livestock. How can God's people stand by and
watch?". D. James Kennedy, Ph.d., Coral Ridge Ministries, PO Box
407137, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33340-7137, on body parts sales.
The Alliance Defense Fund seems to be an umbrella legal organiza-
tion for a number of Christian denominations and groups. They
make me very uncomfortable with their talk about the body of
of Christ. If I could afford somebody to open my mail I would
give them instructions to cut out all the references to the body
of Christ, and then give me the correspondence. But once I get
past that, depending on what projects they are currently working
on, I often end up sending a donation, because we share a lot of
the same values. They are very good at what they do. Alan Sears,
their president and general counsel, is a very impressive guy,
and probably a lot smarter than I am. They've had as many as 7
cases before the Supreme Court at one time. I've been trying to
get my daughter to do some work for them, but no luck yet. Their
motto is "Winning the Legal Battle for Family Values, Religious
Freedom, and the Sanctity of Human Life". From their newsletter:
"This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I
have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now
choose life, so that you and your children may live". Moses
"God has called you and me to live in the world we have at this
moment. We have no other choice. And what we do today--right now-
-will determine the future our children and our children's child-
ren inherit: life or death, blessings or curses. That is our duty
to the future. Sadly, our opponents scoff at such sentiment. What
you and I cherish, they disdain. What you and I honor, they denig-
rate. What you and I seek to preserve, they aim to destroy. And I
cry out to God for our country and for my children". Alan Sears
In part, this reflects my view that nobody is isolated from what
is going on. It affects everybody. I don't want to find out some
day that one of my daughters, or granddaughters, had an abortion.
On May 13th, 2002, they had their 20th ADF-Assisted Supreme Court
victory.
Overall, out of participation in 29 cases at the U.S. Supreme
Court, they now have 22 victories; and hundreds of lower court
victories. My impression is that they achieve this through fund-
ing, coordination, and input to the cases they become involved
in; rather than always litigating the cases themselves. One way
they expand their influence is through training attorneys in
their National Litigation Academy and Blackstone Fellowship prog-
rams. They have a first rate web site, and you can learn a lot
more about the organization and Alan there. PO Box 53007, Phoenix,
AZ 85072-3007, or Alliance Defense Fund, 15333 North Pima Road,
Suite 165, Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 Phone: 1-800-TELL-ADF Fax:
480-444-0025 E-mail: info@telladf.org
On the Supreme Court's partial-birth abortion decision: "As Just-
ice Antonin Scalia said in his biting dissent, this 'method of
killing a human child...is so horrible that the most clinical de-
scription of it evokes a shudder of revulsion.' Justice Anthony
Kennedy, in his dissent, declared that states ought to be free to
'forbid a procedure many decent and civilized people find abhor-
rent.' And Justice Clarence Thomas called the majority's ruling
'indefensible'; it amounts to an endorsement of 'infanticide,' he
said. Is partial-birth a 'widely accepted routine medical proced-
ure'? 'Nothing could be further from the truth,' Justice Thomas
stated. In fact it's 'so gruesome that its use can be traumatic
even for the physicians and medical staff who perform it,' he
pointed out. 'And the particular procedure at issue in this case,
partial-birth abortion, so closely borders on infanticide that 30
States have attempted to ban it.' Even the American Medical As-
sociation has disavowed this horrific, torturous form of death
for babies! Why, then, do so many of our leaders still cling to
partial-birth abortion as a 'right'? One reason is pro-abortion
fanaticism that will not tolerate any restriction on any abortion.
Another reason, sad to say, can be summed up in a single word:
MONEY. Partial-birth abortion produces an almost entirely intact
corpse -- and there's a market for such a gruesome commodity. The
sickening truth is, there's a growing demand for babies' body
parts in this country...In fact, the middlemen who 'harvest' dead
babies from abortionists and sell them to various customers make
hundreds of thousands of dollars a year plying their unsavory
trade! Furthermore, the older the pre-born baby is, and the more
fully intact the corpse, the more money can be demanded for the
'body parts' market! This makes partial-birth abortion...the body
-trafficker's favorite method for killing babies!..We cannot give
in when the Supreme Court consigns babies to torture and death in
all 50 states." Jay Alan Sekulow, Chief Council, The American
Center For Law & Justice, Post Office Box 64429, Virginia Beach,
VA 23467-4429, is currently working to pass a veto proof national
partial-birth abortion ban before the Congress adjourns for the
pre-Election Day recess in mid-October. He also points out that
"The American Medical Association's Council on Legislation voted
unanimously to support a ban on partial-birth abortion. The coun-
cil reportedly designated the procedure 'basically repulsive.'"
The American Anti-Persecution League comes to the aid of pro-life
demonstrators who have been roughed up, arrested, or otherwise
had their right to free speech impinged on. The perpetrators soon
find themselves in a very uncomfortable legal position, and sing-
ing a different tune. You can reach them at 1-888-522-AAPL. They
are currently suing the Supreme Court! Other pro-life legal help
can be found at:
Legal Center for Defense of Life, 917-984-0725, 65 Madison Avenue
Morristown, New Jersey 07960, legalctr@aol.com, "a...non-profit
organization founded in April, 1989, provides pro bono legal cou-
nsel and representation to those involved in litigation resulting
from their peaceful defense of human life; defends the free speech
rights of sidewalk counselors; helps pregnant women who are being
coerced into abortion; gives advice to those setting up crisis
pregnancy centers and shelter homes; and defends the rights of the
elderly and infirm...LAWYERS DEFENDING LIFE".
Liberty Counsel - P. O. Box 540774, Orlando, Florida, 32854
407-875-2100 or 800-671-1776 - Email: liberty@lc.org
Thomas More Law Center, 3475 Plymouth Road, Suite 100, Ann Arbor,
MI 48105-2550, tel.: 734-827-2001, fax: 734-998-4778, info@thomas
more.org "....as the ACLU and other activist organizations cont-
inue to use the courtrooms of America to impose the Culture of
Death on our society, the Thomas More Law Center will be there to
confront them! You have my word on that." Richard Thompson, Found-
er, Chief Counsel, and President This is the Michigan Prosecutor
who went after "The Doctor of Death", Dr. Jack Kevorkian, when
the other prosecutors were willing to just let it slide on by. He
almost single handedly sent Kevorkian to prison, and that's part
of why you don't hear as much about assisted suicide anymore. But
it cost him his job as prosecutor, so he went out and started
Thomas More - with financial help from Tom Monaghan's foundation.
This is the public interest law firm that keeps the trucks rol-
ling and banners flying for the Center For Bio-Ethical Reform
(which you'll learn a lot more about if you keep reading). Along
with a few other individuals in the pro-life movement, he's the
kind of attorney people would prefer to settle with out of court.
"For example, according to the principal of Abington Junior High
in Abington, Pennsylvania, the message on a student's pro-life t-
shirt, 'Abortion is Homicide. You will not silence my message.
You will not mock my god. You will stop killing my generation,'
was equivalent to the Swastika. He, therefore, ordered the honor
student to turn his t-shirt inside out. The student contacted the
Thomas More Law Center. And Edward White III, one of the Law Cen-
ter's attorneys, sent a four-page 'demand letter' challenging the
principal's decision on constitutional grounds and demanding that
the school take immediate action to provide assurances that the
student would be permitted to wear the pro-life shirt back to
school. Attorneys for the school district quickly agreed! Ed
rightly noted that far too often public school officials forget
that students don't lose their constitutional rights just because
they enter a public school ... the First Amendment does protect
student pro-life messages." Part of a Memo from Richard Thompson,
April, 2003. Attorneys like this have dedicated their lives to
taking this kind of case - to defending our basic human rights.
Americans United for Life, 310 S. Peoria Street, Suite 300, Chic-
ago, Illinois 60607-3534, Peter Samuelson, President, "Changing
Law to Protect Human Life, State by State". This organization
works to get pro-life legislation passed in the states, currently
probably the most effective means of reducing the number of abor-
tions. "Consider the following: 45 Pro-life bills were signed in-
to law in 2003, representing a 32.4% increase over the previous
year; Last year alone 558 pro-life measures were considered - a
35.1% increase from the year before... And the impact of each one
of these state laws is enormous. In fact, a recent study from
Harvard University proved that legislation - such as parental con-
sent laws - do reduce abortions. In fact, the study showed the
significant contribution that state laws made to the 17.4% de-
crease in abortions over the 1990s."
National Pro-Life Alliance, 4521 Windsor Arms Court, Annandale VA
22003 1-703-426-8061: "Abortion Stops a Beating Heart". They are
currently working at building a majority on partial-birth abortion
in the U.S. Senate, and electing federal pro-life candidates. "Un-
less we thwart the abortion industry's electoral power grab, we
could face a situation where the abortionists control all three
branches of government. We already know they own the Supreme
Court...our struggle to save the unborn faces disaster...important
pro-life bills...would be deemed 'dead on arrival' by pro-abortion
congressional leaders, who would pull out all the tricks in their
playbook to guarantee they never have to cast a single unpopular
anti-life vote. And when they do vote on the abortion issue it
will be to expand the killing of unborn children." Robert Hughes,
Legislative Director
From a newspaper ad run in local newspapers by the National Pro-
Life Alliance against the candidacy of Senator Chuck Robb (he was
defeated): "Killing late in the third trimester, Partial-Birth A-
bortion inflicts a violent death on thousands of babies every
year...the ghastly procedure, where a baby is almost entirely de-
livered, but then killed, just inches and seconds before a live
birth..thousands of partial-birth abortions take place in America
every year. No one can justify delivering an innocent baby three-
quarters of the way and then killing him instead. The procedure
is so grotesque that polls show an overwhelming majority of the
public agrees the practice should be outlawed. The American Medi-
cal Association is on public record saying the practice is never
medically necessary and should be outlawed."
If you're writing a paper on abortion, listen up, because some of
the other actions they are supporting would probably fit well in-
to that framework:
"Pass a Human Life Amendment to the United States Constitution to
overturn Roe vs. Wade and prohibit abortion, making all abortions
illegal, except to save the life of the mother". I would whole-
heartedly support such an action, but I think that approach has
some drawbacks. First of all, it shouldn't be necessary - the law
already exists against murder. Second, it would most likely be a
lengthy process, and with 4,000+ children dying a horrible death
from abortion in this country every day, we can't afford to wait.
First, a consensus would have to be built in the Congress - some-
thing we have not been able to do so far - except with regard to
partial-birth abortion. A simple majority would not be sufficient
to pass a constitutional amendment, and this effort alone could
take many years. Other exceptions would probably have to be agreed
to; for example, in the case of rape, to get it passed. But,
beyond this, it would have to be ratified by the states.
I think this would be especially difficult to do in extremely
liberal states like Massachusetts (the only state to go for George
McGovern in '72, and they keep returning Ted Kennedy to the
Senate), California (their environmental regulations are so
strict, and their price controls so tight, that they are running
out of power; and they keep returning Dianne Feinstein and
Barbara Boxer to the Senate), Vermont (same sex marriages, when
35 other states have passed laws against them), and so on.
"The elimination of all Federal (taxpayer-funded) abortions by
Medicare, Medicaid, or other public health services, and the e-
limination of funding for any group which promotes abortions."
This is one of the reasons I voted for Bush - please come through
for the country on this George!
"Protect unmarried minors from being hustled through an abortion
by requiring parental consent". It's sad to think that parental
approval and authority can be so easily ignored! ["Using data
supplied by the Centers for Disease Control, a World magazine
study shows that the abortion rate among teenagers is declining
much faster in states with strong parental consent laws. .....in
states which require the actual consent of at least one parent,
the teenage abortion rate plummeted by 55 percent." Life Dynamics
News, February 2003]
"Prohibit the torture and murder of live, viable babies by partial
-birth abortion". Personally, I think other kinds of abortion are
just as horrible.
"Save the lives of viable babies by banning all abortions in the
third trimester except to save the life of the mother." This is
an excellent intermediate step, and should be achievable quickly.
"Ending research on aborted baby parts", to stop the trafficking
and additional monetary incentive for doing abortions. There seem
to already be laws on the books to do this that have been ignored
and bypassed by the Clinton administration.
Pass "The Sanctity of Life Act -- legislation which, under Art-
icle III, Section II of the Constitution, would remove from fed-
eral courts jurisdiction over the issue of abortion -- thus over-
turning Roe vs. Wade". This is the first time I have heard of
this option, and it sounds like an outstanding and potentially
fruitful way to settle the whole issue quickly and for good. How-
ever, I don't know anything about the legalities or politics in-
volved, and can't help wondering why it hasn't been raised before.
But I think it should be enthusiastically pursued to see if it is
a viable solution.
"The Life at Conception Act, which takes the Roe decision's own
instructions to Congress to define exactly when constitutionally-
protected life begins: the moment of conception?". These people
have clearly done their homework, and put a lot of thought and re-
search into this, and should be commended for it - this is an ex-
cellent approach also, and should be vigorously pursued. It is
similar to my proposal to calculate a child's age beginning when
a woman becomes pregnant. It would ultimately require an agree-
ment on when to define the start of life for legislative purposes.
If you're a devout Catholic, or belong to the Christian Right
block, this would probably be the moment of fertilization. My con-
tention, that the fertilized egg is the seed, and life begins when
it takes hold and begins to develop past that stage; that is, when
the woman becomes pregnant; also has, I believe, the advantage of
being more easily attainable, from a political point of view, be-
cause it does not rule out forms of birth control that many people
subscribe to. Of course, that is going to be very difficult to do
- even to get a majority to agree on that. But it's a lot easier
than getting a Constitutional Amendment approved, where you have
to get "two thirds of both Houses,...or...legislatures...ratified
by...three fourths...of the...states", and the dots are just to
keep it simple so I don't have to type so much. It's from Article
V of the U.S. Constitution. I regard that as nearly impossible in
the current environment. On the other hand, the Court did say that
if the Congress would decide when life begins, that would settle
the matter. The politicians seem to prefer to avoid the issue:
"....unelected men and women on the Supreme Court have played God
with innocent human life. They have invented laws that condemned
to painful deaths without trial more than 40 million babies for
the crime of being 'inconvenient'." "....the....Life at Conception
bills declare unborn children persons as defined by the 14th Amen-
dment to the Constitution, entitled to legal protection. This is
the one thing the Supreme Court admitted, in Roe v. Wade, that
would cause the case for legal abortion to 'collapse'. When the
Supreme Court handed down its now-infamous Roe v. Wade decision,
it did so based on a new, previously undefined 'right of privacy'
which it 'discovered' in so-called 'emanations' of 'penumbrae'
of the Constitution. Of course, as constitutional law it was a
disaster." "Then the High Court made a key admission: 'If this
suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of
course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guarante-
ed specifically by the 14th Amendment.' The fact is, the 14th A-
mendment couldn't be clearer: '...nor shall any state deprive any
person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law,
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protect-
ion of the law.' Furthermore, the 14th Amendment says: 'Congress
shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the pro-
visions of this article.' That's exactly what a Life at Concept-
ion Act would do...Science is clear that human life begins at con-
ception when a new human being, genetically neither 'part' of
either parent, is formed; and Whereas The American people oppose
abortion-on-demand and want innocent human life to be protected
especially when it is most defenseless; ...It belongs to Congress
to resolve the question the Supreme Court said IT cannot resolve;
...A Life at Conception Act, by declaring unborn children are per-
sons entitled to constitutional protection, will rescue millions
of unborn children from dying through abortion-on-demand".
"...the National Pro-Life Alliance is contacting hundreds of thou-
sands of Americans...to mobilize a grass-roots army to pass a Life
at Conception Act." Why, if there was even a smidgen of doubt in
your mind, would you risk being wrong, and condemn all those peo-
ple to die? The consequences were, and are still, mind boggling.
"Overturn the Clinton Administration's FDA approval of the manuf-
acture and sale of RU-486."
"Protect pro-life medical personnel by making it illegal to fire
or discipline any doctor, nurse, or medical assistant who refuses
to assist with an elective abortion".
"Reduce hasty, ill-informed decisions by requiring a 48-hour
'cooling off' period after giving the mother mandatory counseling
on the risks and consequences of abortion and explaining adoption
alternatives" (informed consent).
"Promote alternatives to abortion by reducing the cost and need-
less, bureaucratic obstacles to adopt a child".
"Provide the father a say in the future of his offspring by requ-
iring spousal consent prior to an abortion".
"Prohibit abortions to select the sex of the child".
"Fight against the appointment of federal judges who fabricate
abortion rights".
"Flush out irresponsible judges by establishing term limits for
federal judges".
"Treat as murder a criminal assault that results in the death of
an unborn child" (I think this is done in some states now). Cur-
rently before Congress as the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act".
["This would be an important legal recognition that an unborn
child is a living human being." Beverly LaHaye, CWA, 02/04/2003]
"Make it illegal to force any medical school or teaching hospital
to teach abortion techniques".
"Organize boycotts of businesses that donate to Planned Parent-
hood and other abortion providers" (for example, through the Uni-
ted Way, although you may not want to use that example in your
report and start another controversy. The Pro-Life Alliance pro-
bably had corporations and wealthy individuals in mind who con-
tribute directly to Planned Parenthood).
"End research on aborted baby body parts".
Amen.
"President-Elect George W. Bush has vowed he will sign the Par-
tial-Birth Abortion Ban, which Congress should pass this year".
(I'm not so sure, with a filibuster a possibility, and more hys-
terical pro-abortion Senators this year than last). "The second
major issue we're concentrating on is slashing taxpayer funding
for abortion at home and abroad. The UN Population Fund finances
the Planned Parenthood Federation and the radical forced-abortion
policies of Red China - including abortions literally at gunpoint.
In a budget 'compromise,' Congress has put off the decision whet-
her or not to fund overseas abortionists until February 15 -- a
policy which President Bush can quickly end.....you and I must be
prepared to fight at each step in the budget process to complete-
ly shut off the flow of tax dollars to the abortion industry. An-
other major battle that will be a top priority in the coming year
will be stopping the French Abortion pill - RU-486. Unfortunately,
the Food and Drug Administration rushed through approval of the
deadly pill last September 28. Your National Pro-Life Alliance is
backing legislation to overturn this ruling, but we must act quic-
kly, since the abortion pill has already hit U.S. markets. Of
course, if we are to make any real progress in totally eliminating
abortion-on-demand, ultimately we're going to have to do something
about the federal court decisions. Arrogant judges have struck
down or delayed nineteen popular state laws banning partial-birth
abortion. That's why I plan to redouble our pressure for the
'Sanctity of Life Act'.....Roe v. Wade would become a dead issue.
New pro-life state laws could be passed free from judicial tyran-
ny...Right To Life Act...votes on these two bills will clearly
expose which politicians are for abortion-on-demand and which
would protect the constitutional rights of the unborn". Martin Fox
What "kind" of an organization is NPLA? I would classify them as
legislation and lobbying. An organization like ALL, which I think
has a very large membership, would lose their tax exemption if
they deviated from their educational mission and tried to direct-
ly influence legislation. But I know the two organizations talk.
There's no law against that. Why don't they have their own web
site, when they have the capability to contact hundreds of thous-
ands of people through the mail? They refer people to this web
site. But we've never met. We've never even talked. They wouldn't
know me if we passed on the street and I waved and smiled and
said "Hi". If they wanted to, they could probably figure out what
my name was, and where I lived. It would tell them nothing about
me. If they know my name, they respect my privacy. They have no
way of knowing what I will say next on this web site. I don't even
know that. But I've known for many months, through my trackers,
that they send me traffic, and it's much appreciated. Apparently,
they liked this site so much, even a year or more ago, and our
views are so similar and parallel, that they're not worried about
what I'm going to write next. I take a little pride in that, but
I'm fairly sure I couldn't do what they're doing. So it's probably
the best arrangement - they do what they do best, and I do what I
do best - without having to clear it with anybody.
"Under current federal law, as long as the baby's head is still
in the womb, the abortionist can legally 'terminate' that child -
- just inches from birth ... you and I must hold the pro-abortion
politicians accountable as they face their constituents this Nov-
ember. Why are pro-abortion extremists so determined to hide the
truth? Because they know most Americans, when told the truth,
will demand Congress outlaw partial-birth abortions. Partial-
birth abortion is so grisly that even the most militant pro-abor-
tion politicians....can't stand to talk about it -- let alone de-
fend it. They desperately want to avoid the subject. For the sake
of every innocent baby marked for death, you and I must counter
NARAL's attack and hold the politicians accountable for their pro-
abortion votes. President Clinton may be willing to be remembered
for defending these grisly abortions. But I doubt many members of
Congress -- hoping to be reelected this fall -- want to be forced
to defend such a gruesome practice. That roll-call vote will put
the spotlight directly on politicians who voted to keep partial-
birth abortions legal so they can't escape responsibility. Ameri-
cans overwhelmingly agree with you and me that late-term, partial-
birth abortions should be outlawed. Now, you and I must KEEP the
spotlight shining on the radical pro-abortion politicians -- all
the way to November. The weeks between now and November are our
best opportunity. Every single member of Congress who votes
against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban is hoping that he can just
get safely past November without too many of his constituents
knowing about that vote. Your contribution....will help shine a
bright spotlight on pro-partial-birth abortion politicians, all
the way to November. I won't beat around the bush. The more you..
.give, the more I can make pro-abortion politicians sweat. And I
really want to pour it on. I'm chomping at the bit." Martin Fox,
President, National Pro-Life Alliance, August 12, 2002 Congrat-
ulations on your new web site, Martin. And thank you for sending
that early traffic to me. During the slow summer months last year
it probably gave me just enough incentive to keep working on mine.
And perhaps I even inadvertently helped you get yours.
Another intermediate step that I think would be helpful is legis-
lation prohibiting counseling and abortion entities from having
the same parent organization (like Planned Parenthood does).
There is, obviously, at the very least, a conflict of interest
here. Counseling at the separate agency could be required before
an abortion referral is made.
"The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act ensures that any infant
born alive will be treated as a person under federal law. With the
erosion of moral law -- particularly since the Supreme Court's
Stenberg v. Carhart upholding partial-birth abortion in Nebraska
--such a distinction becomes important. In Carhart, the high court
didn't seem to care that the baby was alive and partly outside the
mother's body when it was killed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit went so far as to call it 'nonsensical' for law-
makers to base their view of abortion on whether the baby is in-
side or outside of the mother's body! The only relevant issue un-
der the law, then, is whether the mother intends to kill the baby
or not. Whether the baby emerges from the womb alive or dead is
of no consequence whatsoever! The logical extension of this think-
ing is odious: A baby could be entirely delivered, not just part-
ially, and then murdered -- and it would all be perfectly legal.
So a new law protecting live babies -- based on their location --
is, quite sadly, needed now in this country! Two nurses from a
Chicago area hospital testified that doctors sometimes induce pre-
mature labor, deliver live babies (between 16 and 23 weeks along),
and then simply allow the baby to die". "Infants born at 23 weeks'
gestation have an almost 40% chance of survival". "Dr. Alexander
warned that the Nazis' attitudes -- for example, describing the
patients they killed as 'useless eaters' -- were also taking hold
in the modern U.S. Dr. N. Gregory Hamilton, president of Physic-
ians for Compassionate Care, observes that 'the value of each
human life can be traded off in complex cost-benefit ratios. Mem-
bers of the bioethics elite have quietly convinced many of our
judges, hospital administrators and doctors that some human lives
have relatively less value, and therefore less right to equal pro-
tection.'" "Some members of Congress have already come out strong-
ly against any born-alive protection legislation. And Princeton's
bioethicist Peter Singer goes so far as to argue that parents
should have the option of killing disabled or unhealthy babies up
to 28 days old. The life of a newborn human, he says, is 'of no
greater value than the life of a nonhuman animal at a similar lev-
el of rationality, self-consciousness, awareness, capacity to
feel, etc.' So 'killing a disabled infant is not morally equiva-
lent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.'"
Taken from Rights Watch - A Publication of Christian Coalition of
America. Christian Coalition of America link.
My father died when I was two years old. From his pictures I can
tell that he was an impressive, dynamic guy. For two years he must
have been my daily companion. But I have no memories of him or
that period in my life. So if the logic stated above was adhered
to, any two year old who was bad - or who's mother was having a
bad day - could just be bagged and thrown out with the trash.
National Right To Life Committee, 1-202-626-8800,
512 10th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 2004-1401.
The American Cause, Pat Buchanan's organization. In his new book,
"The Death of the West", Pat makes a case for the extinction of
Western civilization because of inadequate birth rates (populat-
ions are actually declining in some European countries as a result
of abortion; and one third of pregnancies here are aborted), and
lax immigration laws. Another new endeavor is the Save The Babies
project. "The mission of our 'Save the Babies!' project is as
straightforward as its name: inspire, organize and mentor college
students to form active, visible, pro-life organizations on their
campuses." "Each campus pro-life club chartered by The American
Cause will be asked to do three things: Adopt a center that sup-
ports or counsels women facing an unexpected pregnancy, or a home
for unwed mothers. Choose an abortion clinic and join the side-
walk counselors, prayer vigils, or peaceful protests. Become a
voice for the unborn on campus, using flyers, letters to the edi-
tor, speaking out in forums or bringing in speakers, getting the
facts about abortion out in the open....to confront pregnancy and
the life-and-death choice that pregnancy entails.....they will be
ready to step in and save the child of a confused co-ed, and in
turn save the co-ed from a lifetime of the psychological and med-
ical problems....I believe in, and am committed to, this project.
....must do what we can to not only, in the long run, change the
law and the culture that permits abortion, but also to concretely,
in the short run, help save lives....need to re-direct and re-en-
ergize the pro-life cause."
Alan Keyes on Abortion:
"All that's left is to permit the murder of already born but re-
jected babies. With a judiciary run amok, believe me when I say
that's not far off!!!" "...you and I can still vote for our rep-
resentatives. But increasingly their power is being drained....by
an IMPERIAL JUDICIARY that is usurping Congressional prerogatives
and violating Constitutional principles. Action by the Supreme
Court goes beyond the innocent children being murdered today --
as horrid as that is. Because the logic of abortion is 'people
are disposable property.' That is the same reasoning used to
justify slavery! So now the principle that blasted the lives of
my own ancestors looms over a new generation of Americans." "...
the Court evidently sees no limit to use the laws IT can make!
'Separation of powers' is supposed to mean that laws are made by
the legislature -- by Congress -- not by the Courts. Unfortunate-
ly, right now we have NATIONWIDE LAWS being made by an unelected
group of 12 men and women!" "THE CHECKS AND BALANCES BETWEEN THE
BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT ARE BEING RIPPED APART BY UNELECTED JUDGES
'MAKING LAW' FROM THE BENCH." " ... we must have a Congress that
will assert its rights as the ONLY Constitutional body authorized
to make law. And further, WHEN JUDGES BEGIN TO VIOLATE OUR MOST
SACRED PRINCIPLES IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF CONGRESS AND LEGIS-
LATURES TO LIMIT JUDGES' POWERS AND EVEN REMOVE THEM BY IMPEACH-
MENT IF NECESSARY!!!" "...this judicial threat to our republican
form of government." "keep Congress committed to actively oppos-
ing unconstitutional judicial activism. Likewise, A PRESIDENT IS
NOT SUPPOSED TO ROLL OVER AND PLAY DEAD WHEN JUDGES ACT LIKE TYR-
ANTS. He's supposed to defend the Constitution and the liberties
of the people ... can simply announce he will issue a pardon to
every person who violates an unconstitutional 'law' forced upon
the people by imperial judges."
"It is today's Godless and distorted notion of "rights" in America
that has permitted the absurd and evil notion that the weakest
among us, the unborn, have NO human rights at all." "It is time
the leader of the most powerful nation in the world take to the
bully pulpit on behalf of all human beings subject to such fatal
moral confusion -- including the innocent unborn!" "And I humbly
suggest that our continuing wealth, and might, and stature as a
leader of nations all utterly depend on our continuing to uphold
what is right and true."
"We are an enormously diverse people, of every race, color, creed
and kind. We have gathered folks here from all the four corners
of the globe. We cannot claim a common ethnic stock, a common
racial heritage; even, these days, it is unclear that common
language will bind us. But one thing is clear - that we stand on
common ground of our claim to human rights and dignity, which we
have offered to all those people, from every corner of the globe.
Not because it is our choice, but because it was understood by
our Founders to be God's will." Alan Keyes, The Declaration Foun-
dation. Added November 02, 2000.
"Today we have laws which make it a crime to kill spotted owls,
some types of fish and even some insects, just to name a few.
It's a black stain on our nation's character that we don't offer
that same protection to the unborn." "Sometimes, men and women...
are called upon to act on ... faith even when it seems as though
their actions are doomed to failure. I have heard that call on be-
half of our unborn children clearly and urgently, particularly
over the last several months. And while I do not understand God's
plan, I know that we must do everything in our power to stop par-
tial-birth abortion before it takes another life. For the first
time in at least 8 years, our nation is turning around. I believe
we are on the verge of a great cultural renewal." "So today I am
asking you to commit yourself, your family, your prayers and your
resources to banning partial-birth abortion." Gary L. Bauer, Pres-
ident, American Values, April, 2001
"...we call upon...people to love the least of their brothers and
sisters...those still in the womb. Because of the legalization of
abortion and the performance of some 3500 abortions daily in our
country, the womb is literally the most dangerous place to be. In
Biblical Hebrew, the word for 'womb' is the same word for 'mercy'
...people...must show mercy and justice to those most in danger."
Rev. Rob Schenck, President National Pro-life Religious Council
(NPRC), June 10, 2002.
"Qui tacit consentire! He who is silent consents." Rev. Frank
Pavone, incoming President, NPRC, March 2003.
May, 2001 - Here's something else that's going on now, where you
might want to get involved. If not, you'll at least be up to date:
"President George W. Bush repeatedly stated throughout his camp-
aign that, if elected, he would return America to a culture of
life. That promise has become the rallying cry behind a new peti-
tion drive launched by Life Dynamics, Inc., a Texas based pro-
life organization.
Since President Bush's election, the media has attempted to conv-
ince him that there is no public support for him to act on his
pro-life campaign promises, said Life Dynamics President Mark
Crutcher. There is also a misconception among many Americans that
there really isn't anything the President can do about abortion.
The First Step Initiative is intended to dispel both of those
myths. Our goal is to show the President that there is actually
widespread support for his pro-life vision.
This clear, concise, seven-sentence initiative asks the President
to take two simple and innovative actions both of which are with-
in his power to do.
THE FIRST STEP INITIATIVE
Dear President Bush,
During your Presidential campaign, you often stated that you want-
ed to help America embrace a culture of life. Like millions of
other Americans, I totally support you in that effort. Toward that
end, I am calling on you to immediately appoint a Presidential
Blue Ribbon Committee whose sole mission is to provide you with a
pragmatic strategy (including an implementation plan) for prompt-
ly returning legal protection to every unborn child from the mom-
ent of conception. This panel should include attorneys, judges,
legal scholars, and public officials who are committed to the pro
-life position, as well as selected individuals from the nation's
pro-life leadership. As part of this initiative, I am also petit-
ioning you to implement a National Abortion Education Program de-
signed to encourage more Americans to adopt the pro-life position.
This campaign should consist of radio, television, and print adv-
ertising and be modeled after the government's efforts to eradic-
ate illiteracy, smoking, drug use, violence, and racism."
Conservativepetitions.com Click to sign this specific petition.
"Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation", by Ronald Reagan.
You can read it at the link above. To buy the book, click here.
"What happens ...to the moral fabric of a nation that accepts the
aborting of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience?"
-- Jesse Jackson, 1977
John McCain, Boston Globe, page A9, Jan 31, 2000: "If Roe v. Wade
is overturned and abortion outlawed, McCain said he believes doc-
tors who performed abortions would be prosecuted. 'But I would not
prosecute a woman' who obtained an abortion."
"Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women." Alice Paul,
feminist, author of the Equal Rights Amendment
"Women deserve better than abortion, and every child deserves a
chance at life. Who can argue with our message? Women deserve
better than suffering through three days of coerced labor in par-
tial birth abortion, or witnessing their own abortions by swal-
lowing RU-486. Certainly, no woman deserves to be abandoned by
those she counts on the most. Although NOW and Planned Parenthood
would have us believe otherwise, early American feminists such as
Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were vehemently anti-
abortion." Serrin M. Foster, President of "Feminists for Life,
based in Washington, D.C. Her lecture, 'The Feminist Case Against
Abortion,' has been included in an anthology on 'Women's Rights,'
one volume in a series entitled, Great Speeches in History. She
has presented her lecture at top colleges across the country and
internationally at Oxford, Cambridge and other universities,
at Senate and House briefings, and at the Parliament Buildings at
Stormont, Northern Ireland." From Celebrate Life, May-June, 2003.
"women experiencing an unplanned pregnancy deserve unplanned joy."
Patricia Heaton, Honorary Chair, Feminists for Life, May 2003.
"When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrad-
ing to women that we should treat our children as property to dis-
pose of as we see fit." Elizabeth Cady Stanton, feminist, 1873
"Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire
to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully
guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in
life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is
he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the
crime!" Susan B. Anthony on abortion
"A PRO-LIFE ACTIVIST....Anthony wrote an essay in the publication
she started, The Revolution, about the 'horrible crime of child-
murder'. She was referring specifically to the tragedy of abort-
ion. Anthony wanted to 'eradicate the most monstrous crime' but
knew a law would not suffice. 'We must reach the root of the evil
and destroy it.' SHE FOUGHT FOR MANY CAUSES....Susan B. Anthony
stood against abortion and slavery. She thought that everyone -
including the unborn - should be treated equally. SUFFRAGIST...
In 1872, Anthony, three of her sisters, and other women were ar-
rested in Rochester, NY for voting. From 1869 until her death in
1906, Anthony appeared before every Congress to ask for the pas-
sage of a suffrage amendment to allow women the right to vote. It
wasn't until 1920 that American adult women received the right to
vote with the 19th Amendment, also know as the Susan B. Anthony
Amendment." From Jennifer Bingham, Executive Director, SBAList.
"Advocacy by women for legalized abortion on a national scale is
so anti-women's liberation that it flies in the face of what some
of us are trying to accomplish through the women's movement -
namely, equality - equality means an equal sharing of responsibi-
lities by and as men and women....What kind of future do we all
have to look forward to if men are excused either morally or leg-
ally from their responsibility for participation in the creation
of life...? To talk about the 'wanted' and the 'unwanted' child
smacks too much of bigotry and prejudice. Many of us have experi-
enced the sting of being 'unwanted' by certain segments of our
society....". Chicana activist Graciela Olivarez, first woman
graduate of Notre Dame Law School, charter member of the National
Organization for Women, who "continued to practice a belief in the
indivisibility of all human rights..". Feminists for Life
Early Suffragists
On Gloria Steinem: "Ironically, after 30 years of marriage-bash-
ing, Gloria married in the summer of 2000. Early in her career,
she had said, 'You become a semi-nonperson when you get married.'
She also talked about married women being 'part-time prostitutes'
and called marital bedrooms 'settings for nightly rape.'
Steinem's own divergence from the values she lauded for 30 years
should be a red flag to any person who looks for life's meaning
in the principles she so adamantly and forcefully paraded before
women." From the book "A Different Kind of Strength", by Beverly
LaHaye and Janice Crouse.
I suppose Gloria realized time was running out to experience the
closeness that can come with marriage and family. I remember her
saying she had had an abortion. Now, unfortunately, it's probably
too late for her to have children of her own.
Roe v Wade. Jane Roe v Wade. Actually her name was Norma McCorvey.
One might suppose she was still savoring the victory and her role
in it, even after all these years; and working tirelessly for the
pro-abortion cause. So it might be instructive to check in with
her to she what she thought about the way things turned out -
sort of bring ourselves up to date. Here's what she has to say:
"Back then, I believed abortion was a woman's right to 'choose'.
And, I was a fool." "Today, I oppose abortion. Because abortion
is a lie. It always was. I know, because I told the lie that got
it all started...
...I said I was gang raped. And I wasn't.
...I said I didn't know who the father was. And I did.
...I said I hated my baby. And I didn't.
And I said the Constitution protected my right to abortion. And
it's nowhere to be found. I simply made it all up. And now, 41
million babies are dead, and counting...And abortion is legal in
all 50 states because my great big lie took on a life of it's own,
spinning wildly out of control and destroying innocent children in
its path."
"...my lawyer (Sarah Weddington) never wanted to help me. She only
wanted to use me by getting my name on that affidavit. She wanted
me to help her legalize the violent slaughter of innocent babies
in their mother's womb - just like she had killed hers....I never
signed up to become a sacrificial lamb for anyone. I was desper-
ate, scared and alone...I was just a young woman who needed help,
and I turned to the wrong people."
"I have a new mission in life -- to tell the horrible truth a-
bout abortion. And, to share God's love and forgiveness to those
who suffer abortion's devastating aftermath. I'm not afraid to say
abortion is murder, plain and simple. I know, because after Roe
v Wade came down, I went to work in an abortion clinic. And I saw
death firsthand." "I've seen the blood of a dead baby pour out
onto the floor of the operating room. I've seen the tiny parts of
babies (hands, feet, torsos, heads) pulled piece by piece from
their mother's womb. I've heard the cries and blood curdling
screams of women who just killed their own flesh and blood. And
I've seen these same women call their mom on the phone and say...
'Mom, I just killed my baby. I'm so glad you didn't kill me!'"
"I knew most of the women...were never told the truth about abor-
tion. They never knew that their babies had heartbeats, finger-
prints, functioning organs, and a strong desire to live and grow
...Instead, they were told it was 'tissue' or a 'missed cycle' or
some other bald faced lie. I never thought people could be so gul-
lible, and yet they were. But I knew better. And now, I'm tired
of the lies. It's time for the senseless killing to stop."
"A few years ago I started my own pro-life group, Roe No More
Ministry. My mission is to expose abortion for the lie that it is,
and to tell the truth to the millions of Americans who think abor-
tion is their 'choice.' Since founding Roe No More, I've tried my
best to change the hearts and minds of Americans. My public speak-
ing -- telling the truth behind my story and exposing the lie of
legalized 'choice' -- has impacted hundreds of tiny, innocent
lives." "I want to reach out to millions of vulnerable women and
scared fathers, and tell them that abortion is murder. And Roe v
Wade is a lie...I've spoken to thousands of students...all across
America....I've set out to tell the horrible truth about abortion
like no one else can....the landmark abortion case, 'Roe v Wade',
is nothing but a lie seven powerful Supreme Court Justices simply
invented in 1973....Life is precious. And it must be protected."
Like another insider, Dr. Nathanson, below, Norma has switched
sides. She's also written a book, 'Won By Love', which she says:
"..explains my 25-year journey from the poster child for abortion
'rights' to one of the most determined pro-life converts in Amer-
ica." You can contact her at Roe No More Ministry, PO Box 96451,
Washington, DC 20090-6451; or P.O. Box 550626, Dallas, TX 75355,
(214) 343-1069.
Norma recently filed an amicus brief to overturn Roe vs. Wade:
"Philadelphia, PA -- The plaintiffs in the two landmark Supreme
Court cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the two companion
cases decided on January 22, 1973 which compelled legalized abor-
tion throughout the nation, are appearing in Philadelphia on Thur-
sday, May 31, 2001, to personally file Friend of the Court briefs
with the United States Court of Appeals. In their briefs they tell
the Courts why the decisions in their own landmark cases have pro-
ven to be harmful to the rights of women and why the decisions in
their own cases should be overturned.
Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe in Roe v. Wade) and Sandra Cano (Mary Doe
of Doe v. Bolton) are filing their Friend of the Court briefs in
the case of Donna Santa Marie, et al v. Christine Todd Whitman,
et al. The Santa Marie case is a federal class action suit
brought by five women (three of whom had abortions that were per-
formed without voluntary or informed consent) who argue that New
Jersey's abortion laws violate the most important constitutional
rights of women.
Harold Cassidy, lead counsel for the Santa Marie plaintiffs, known
for his work advancing mother's rights (he was Chief Counsel,
among other cases, in the famous Baby M surrogate mother case)
stated that the underlying cases that prompted the Santa Marie
plaintiffs to file the class action suit 'demonstrate how abortion
laws are destroying the real rights of women.'"
And isn't it interesting that unless you have a connection to the
pro-life cause, you would probably never hear about this? I stum-
bled across it on the About.com pro-life forum, where I sit in
from time to time. It was posted by David A. Brown, who apparent-
ly is associated with Pro-Life Infonet.
"What does one do when 'the system' routinely injects propaganda
to slowly and carefully transform something horrible into some-
thing tolerable..."
"In a representative democracy, freedom to choose is not absolute.
System-regulated propaganda is so pervasive that individuals who
initially support certain causes can eventually fall victim to
the lies built within, with devastating consequences. Norma
McCorvey is one example; she was deceived by the feminist pro-ab-
ortion propaganda machine. Let's not forget the many women who,
seduced by 'choice', suffer from post-abortion syndrome later on."
"Women not initially receptive to the idea of legalizing abortion
became involved in the feminist movement for other reasons. Marr-
iage and childbirth were scorned and single women were encouraged
to experiment sexually with a variety of sexual partners. The at-
tainment of pleasure without consequences became a guidepost with-
in the feminist movement. Demands for equal sexual rights with
men, resulted in a rise in promiscuity. The pill was only an in-
termediate step to the 'Final Solution' that would end sexual re-
pression, and establish liberation for sexually active women. It
was not enough to control pregnancy by the easy evacuation of an
unfertilized egg (i.e., preventing a baby from being conceived);
the product of conception had to be stopped (i.e., the baby had
to be exterminated). The activists' objective was to convince
the public that 'choice' (abortion) was preferable to the alter-
native of 'forced slavery' (motherhood). If the tactics failed,
they'd resort to the courts and establish abortion 'rights' via
judicial fiat.
For abortion activists who were not comfortable enough to venture
into this brave new world where unborn babies fell victim to sor-
did linguistic misrepresentations, there was the 'crisis' of over-
population. If abortions were legal, we could eliminate world hun-
ger, poverty, and the growing epidemic of welfare mothers and dri-
fting fathers. From the vantage point of crimes against living
children, abortion was being morphed even then into a necessary
good...After 28 years, we've already learned to co-exist painful-
ly and passively...".
"We are a far cry from those naive beginnings. That's why it's so
important not to mince words. I'm not afraid to call partial-birth
abortion 'infanticide', for that's what it is. I'm not ashamed to
say that abortion degrades women, for that's what it does. As a
Jew, I'm not wrong to refer to what supporters call 'choice' as
an American Holocaust, for that's what it has become."
"Unless there is political intervention now to stop our progress-
ion into complacency....We'll be killing living children with re-
signation and acceptance, perhaps even glee, along with other mem-
bers of our society deemed unfit or inconvenient. By then deform-
ed thinking will be the norm and people will have so acclimated
themselves that they will no longer be able to distinguish the
difference in value between a living human being and a dead one."
"Maybe...fear will urge us to do what is right, and vote only for
candidates who will end infanticide forever. Please, I beg you to
remember the Holocausts. Both of them." Taken from "Between Two
Holocausts", by Bonnie Chernin Rogoff. Bonnie is a freelance wri-
ter, and founder of Jews For Life. Very cerebral stuff. It's an
excellent depiction of what's taken place, but not quite, entire-
ly adequate to explain why, in my view; for that you need to read
what Dr. Nathanson has to say below, to get more background, and
find the missing pieces.
"Why have the radical feminist messengers been so celebrated when
their messages have not stood the test of time?" From "A Differ-
ent Kind of Strength", by Beverly LaHaye and Janice Crouse.
Rather than being "oppressed", women have been in the forefront
of the battle against abortion. Would they be fighting to oppress
themselves?
Confused by the pro-death crowd about which side is telling
the truth in the abortion debate? Read the following statement:
CONFESSION OF AN EX-ABORTIONIST By Dr. Bernard Nathanson. One of
the favorite and most used tactics of the abortionists is to say
that the pro-life people are lying. But what would the motive be?
The above statement is well worth your time to read, and it's not
very long. It will give you some invaluable insights into how a-
bortion came to be legalized in America. Plus, I've added it to
my web site, so you can click to go there now, read the docu-
ment, and at the bottom of the page there's a button to click on
that will bring you back to the heading of the next section just
below. You can then continue on by either paging up or down. For
even more insights into this, click on "Replies to Comments" fur-
ther down in this document. I consider Dr. Nathanson's statement
the most important and verifiable document in the abortion contr-
oversy. It's on numerous sites around the internet, he's a very
erudite and professional man; he has written several books and
made a couple of movies; he's been a hospital administrator, and
still may be. Moreover, he's still around, speaks at pro-life
functions, and is "on call" to the pro-life movement. Currently
he "is a clinical associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology
at New York Medical College" and a member of the American Bioeth-
ics Advisory Commission. "He holds a pre-med degree from Cornell
University, an M.D. from McGill University Medical College and a
master's degree in bioethics from Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tenn. He
is a member of the American Medical Association. He has held the
position of director of gynecology at the Hospital of Joint Dis-
eases in New York, chief of obstetrical service at St. Luke's
Hospital Center in New York, and numerous other hospital staff
appointments. He has published extensively."
"--------------------
From: The Pro-Life Infonet Reply-To: Steven Ertelt infonet@
prolifeinfo.org Source: WorldnetDaily; December 20, 2002
Former Leading Abortion Advocate Remembers Myths of Illegal Abor-
tions
Washington, DC -- 'Women must have control over their own bodies.'
'Safe and legal abortion is every woman's right.' 'Who decides?
You decide!' 'Freedom of choice -- a basic American right.'
The 'pro-choice movement's' emotionally compelling slogans --
fierce rallying cries of the most successful political marketing
campaign in modern history, which made abortion-on-demand legal
in the U.S. -- have been powerful rhetorical weapons for fighting
off efforts to reverse Roe v. Wade, coming up on its 30th anniv-
ersary next month. 'I remember laughing when we made those slogans
up,' recalls Bernard Nathanson, M.D., co-founder of pro-abortion
group NARAL, reminiscing about the early days of the pro-abortion
movement in the late '60s and early '70s. 'We were looking for
some sexy, catchy slogans to capture public opinion. They were
very cynical slogans then, just as all of these slogans today are
very, very cynical.'
Besides having served as chairman of the executive committee of
NARAL -- originally, the National Association for the Repeal of
Abortion Laws, and later renamed the National Abortion and Repro-
ductive Rights Action League -- as well as its medical committee,
Nathanson was one of the principal architects and strategists of
the abortion movement in the United States. He tells an astonish-
ing story.
'In 1968 I met Lawrence Lader,' says Nathanson. 'Lader had just
finished a book called 'Abortion,' and in it had made the audac-
ious demand that abortion should be legalized throughout the cou-
ntry. I had just finished a residency in obstetrics and gynecol-
ogy and was impressed with the number of women who were coming
into our clinics, wards and hospitals suffering from illegal, in-
fected, botched abortions.' 'Lader and I were perfect for each
other. We sat down and plotted out the organization now known as
NARAL. With Betty Friedan, we set up this organization and began
working on the strategy.' 'We persuaded the media that the cause
of permissive abortion was a liberal, enlightened, sophisticated
one,' recalls the movement's co-founder. 'Knowing that if a true
poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated, we simply fabric-
ated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media
that we had taken polls and that 60 percent of Americans were in
favor of permissive abortion. This is the tactic of the self-ful-
filling lie. Few people care to be in the minority. We aroused
enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by
fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the
U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000, but the figure we
gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000.' 'Repeating the big
lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying
from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we
constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took
root in the consciousness of Americans, convincing many that we
needed to crack the abortion law.' 'Another myth we fed to the
public through the media was that legalizing abortion would only
mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then be done
legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a pri-
mary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of
abortions has increased by 1,500 percent since legalization.'
What was the result of NARAL's brilliantly deceitful marketing
campaign, bolstered by thoroughly fraudulent research? In New
York, the law outlawing abortion had been on the books for 140
years. 'In two years of work, we at NARAL struck that law down,'
says Nathanson. 'We lobbied the legislature, we captured the
media, we spent money on public relations. Our first year's bud-
get was $7,500. Of that, $5,000 was allotted to a public relat-
ions firm to persuade the media of the correctness of our posit-
ion. That was in 1969.' New York immediately became the abortion
capital for the eastern half of the United States. 'We were inun-
dated with applicants for abortion,' says Nathanson. 'To that end,
I set up a clinic, the Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health
(C.R.A.S.H.), which operated in the east side of Manhattan. It
had 10 operating rooms, 35 doctors, 85 nurses. It operated seven
days a week, from 8 am to midnight. We did 120 abortions every
day in that clinic. At the end of the two years that I was the
director, we had done 60,000 abortions. I myself, with my own
hands, have done 5,000 abortions. I have supervised another 10,000
that residents have done under my direction. So I have 75,000 a-
bortions in my life. Those are pretty good credentials to speak
on the subject of abortion.'
But something happened to Nathanson -- something profound. Just
as it happened to countless other abortion practitioners, abor-
tion facility owners and staffers. Just as it happened to Norma
McCorvey -- the real name for 'Jane Roe,' the plaintiff in the
Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion decision. These pioneers
of the pro-abortion movement have all arrived at the same conclu-
sion -- that abortion is the unjust killing of a human baby --
and have come over to the other side of the raging abortion debate
--". I'm sorry to say, Dr. Nathanson even aborted his own child.
To see the rest of the story, click here.
"....lies are the only weapons the pro-abortion forces have. But
those lies are entrenched in the minds of our young people." "We
are fighting for our nation, rescuing today's college students
from the intellectual gulag they are being held in." Jeff White,
Campus Life Tours, Survivors, P.O. Box 332, Lake Arrowhead, CA,
92352, (888) 813-9457.
How Abortions are Done
Stories about people who were aborted, but survived the procedure
People Who Were Pro-choice But Are Now Pro-life: How They Changed
Their View On Abortion
Post Abortion: Regrets of Women Who Had an Abortion
Abortion: The Number One Cause of Death In The United States
National Memorial For The Unborn
"many...in the pro-life movement know the healing effect a memo-
rial...has on the mothers and fathers of aborted babies. Thous-
ands of memorials to unborn babies, most without human remains,
dot the landscape of our nation, many of them in cemeteries. ...
with every abortion there is one dead and several wounded."
Bradley Mattes, Executive Director, Life Issues Institute, Inc.,
1821 W. Galbraith Rd., Cincinnati, Ohio 45239 (513) 729-3600, in
Life Issues Connector, January 2003.
The Blackmun Wall - Adult women killed by abortion.
Baby Parts Marketing - 20/20 & The House Hearing
Got a beef about the abortion clinic you work for? Get help at:
ClinicWorker.Com.
"For those women and their unborn babies coming into the abortion
clinic, you are at ground zero." Life Dynamics Incorporated,
Post Office Box 2226, Denton, Texas 76202 (940) 380-8800
"Without Compromise Without Exception Without Apology We're
not here just to put up a good fight. We're here to win, because
winning is how the killing stops."
"An Open Letter To The American Abortion Industry From the Pres-
ident Of Life Dynamics, Mark Crutcher
If you think you can keep on butchering thousands of defenseless
babies every day and not feel the sting of Life Dynamics you are
seriously mistaken. Whether you work at an abortion clinic, or in
the political process to keep abortion legal, what you are doing
is a crime against humanity and Life Dynamics is going to use ev-
ery legal means available to stop you. We will continue to drag
you into court, and we will continue to discourage the medical
community from being associated with you. And our undercover oper-
atives will keep on infiltrating your death camps so that all your
dirty little secrets will be exposed on our television show. As
you know, the list goes on and on. And make no mistake there's
more on the horizon. What I want to make absolutely clear to you
is simply this: You can choose to see the light or you can be for-
ced to feel the heat. But in either case, Life Dynamics will do
what it takes to protect unborn babies and their moms from you."
Women Deserve Better
"Life's Greatest Miracle", from PBS Home Video and NOVA, $19.95.
"Swedish scientific photographer Lennart Nilsson brings this mar-
vel to light....acclaimed inside-the-body story of life from con-
ception to birth. The latest advances in imaging technology show,
in awe inspiring detail, the making of a human life".
Also from PBS and NOVA, although not the bargain above, is "The
Secret Life of the Brain". "The mystery begins in the womb: four
weeks into gestation, 500,000 brain cells are forming every min-
ute. Eventually, there will be billions of cells and trillions of
links, with every cell finding its place and every link carefully
organized." You can buy either video by clicking on the underlin-
ed link. Unfortunately, I don't get a cut. Perhaps I should look
into that.
Gregg Cunningham's Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, P. O. Box 2339,
Sante Fe Springs, CA 90670, has a "tough 8 minute abortion video"
named "Harder Truth" that it provides to pregnancy resource cen-
ters. "Choices Medical Clinic (CMC), a pro-life clinic which CBR
helped found in Kansas, shared an encouraging e-mail report with
us. They've used CBR's Harder Truth video to save babies since
they opened in December 2000. Included in statistics from 2 years
of operations was this tremendous news, 'Out of the 1300 patients
seen in 2 years, 403 actually said 'if this pregnancy test is pos-
itive, I'm going to abort' or words to that effect. 335 actually
were positive. 15 actually aborted. This is a success rate of
95.7%.'" I'm sure they would share it with you too. The CBR phone
number is (562) 777-9117.
Joe Scheidler's Pro-Life Action League has at least two videos,
"Face The Truth" and "No Greater Joy". You can call them at (773)
777-2900; E-mail: info@prolifeaction.org.
Concerned Women For America has a "powerful video After the Choice
....bring the facts to women who have been systematically lied to
by the abortion industry." 1015 Fifteenth Street, N.W. Suite 1100
Washignton, D.C. 20005 Phone: 202-488-7000
I don't get a lot of comments, and people who disagree don't leave
their email address. Maybe it's because people don't want to be
published - but I would never use somebody else's statement, along
with their full name, without their permission. However, when
someone does leave a message, it usually results in a useful ex-
change of information, like what follows:
"Carol Everett wrote the book 'Blood Money' where she exposes the
intentions of the pro-'choice' industry as being centered on pro-
fit. She talks about 'abortions' being performed on non-pregnant
girls just to collect that chunk of cash. Carol herself ran 5
abortion clinics in the Dallas Tx. area. Focus On the Family did
an interview with her that they saved to tape, available to the
public. The tape is available upon request and of course they are
assisted when a donation accompanies requests." J. Ezell
Buy the "Baby Parts for Sale" video from Shop Net Daily, $24.95.
"Join Marlin Maddoux, host of the nationally syndicated radio
news talk program Point of View, for an investigation into the
multi-million dollar a year baby parts trafficking industry, which
is one of the most lucrative businesses in operation today. Yet
most Americans are unaware of its existence."
What's an abortion like? Watch a movie of one.
Baby at 21 weeks. This is not a dead baby picture. It's of compel-
ling interest because of what the baby is doing. You can click
here to go there, and then click there to come back here.
"In-utero surgery was new and rare, and therefore newsworthy.....
'The surgery on the child was over; they had to close the open-
ing to the uterus and put the uterus back.'...'no one was near the
uterus, but the uterus violently shook, so you knew this was be-
ing generated from inside. I was just in shock. The hand punched
its way out the opening, all the way up to the elbow.' As the doc-
tor reached over and put his finger to the palm of the baby's
hand, the baby grasped on and squeezed the doctor's finger... 'It
changed my life to see the struggle, the struggle for life from
inside the womb.'....In early fetal surgeries, the baby was not
given anesthetic before surgery." Taken from a LDI interview with
free-lance photographer Michael Clancy, November 2001.
Seen on a sign held by Ann Fontecchio in Fond du Lac Wisconsin:
"PLANNED PARENTHOOD DESTROYING A GENERATION ONE BABY AT A TIME"
"There's a sign on an office at ALL headquarters that reads,
'When God wants something done, He sends a baby --- and waits.'"
Jim Sedlak: "...human beings are our ultimate resource".
May 1st, 2004 - The E-book and the Dust Jacket Hardcover Books
went live yesterday, and I linked to the publisher's order site
for the book shortly after midnight. Finally, I can say with some
certainty, that the Paperback should follow shortly. As it turned
out, there will be a lot in the 732 page book that's not on the
web site; but also a lot on the web site that's not in the book;
and will have to wait for a second edition - who knows when.
Given the milestone this represents, it seems that now, approaching
four years and 100,000 visitors after the web site's inaugural day,
would be an appropriate time to stop and reflect. The salient
question has to be, what has its impact been. But even four years
may be too short a time to gage that. The true influence may be a
gathering storm for the abortion industry as all the students and
other individuals who now fully understand the issue increase in
in numbers, progress through their lives, and attain positions in
society to apply that understanding.
I've been able to tell for a long time, through my internet
software trackers, that I'm reaching my target audiences, both
domestically and internationally, private, institutional, and
governmental. But are there any more concrete indicators of
progress?
Since President Bush took office, the Federal government has
gotten involved in contributing funds to combat abortion,
something that I advocated from day one. There's been SCHIP,
funding for abstinence programs, and money, as I understand it,
made available for Crisis Pregnancy Centers. But to say this web
site planted that seed of an idea is a leap of faith I'm unwilling
to take. I'm just glad to see it happening.
Also, a ground game, with an emphasis on a top-down approach to
legislation, instead of trying to throw the proverbial touchdown
bomb, has become apparent - something I strongly advocated. That
is, a strategy to pass the easiest pro-life legislation first, and
then move on to "tougher to get agreement on" bills. First there
was the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, then came the Partial
Birth Abortion Ban, and most recently the Unborn Victims of
Violence Act. I'd like to think some people who became aware of
this web site got the message. It's certainly more productive than
pursuing the current impossibility of a constitutional amendment.
However, again, there's nothing concrete to support that.
But, I'm fairly certain most pro-life leaders have read at least
the original web site material; that is, about this far.
Especially since I sent a number of them printed copies before I
initially uploaded the web site. And I strongly suspect that the
pro-life movement comprehended the linguistics problem and started
to attack it. For one thing, I know of two pro-life leaders who
have published their own lists of suspect terminology, and how to
modify it to convey a different message - Father Pavone of Priests
for Life, and Dr. Willke of the Life Issues Institute. Witness
also, the two recent news columns that follow:
"U.S. National - AP Language Is Battleground in Abortion Suits
My Yahoo! Tue Apr 20, 4:50 PM ET
By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer
SAN FRANCISCO - An 'abortion' versus a 'procedure.' A 'baby'
versus a 'pregnancy.' 'Dismembered' versus 'disarticulated.'
In the three federal courtrooms where a controversial abortion
method has been on trial, the gulf between the two sides is so
wide that they cannot agree on basic terminology.
At issue is the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, signed by
President Bush (news - web sites) last year. In simultaneous
trials held in New York, San Francisco and Lincoln, Neb., judges
are considering whether the law violates the constitutional right
to abortion. Inside and outside the courtroom, the two sides often
have differing vocabularies, beginning with the very name of the
banned procedure. Congress and opponents of the procedure call it
'partial-birth abortion.' Doctors and activists on the other side
of the issue use the medical term 'intact dilation and extraction.'
'There is no such thing as a `partial-birth abortion,'' Gloria
Feldt, President of Planned Parenthood (news - web sites)
Federation of America, declared outside the courthouse in San
Francisco. The language reflects a fundamental disagreement over
whether the fate of the fetus or the mother's right to choose is
paramount. Much of the abortion debate involves 'the politics of
euphemisms,' said Alison Renteln, a University of Southern
California political science professor. 'It all depends on how
you conceptualize the life that is at stake,' said Renteln, whose
book 'The Cultural Defense' analyzes how courts deal with
defendants' cultural backgrounds. 'That the government and their
witnesses use the word `abortion' openly in court and the other
side is sometimes reluctant to do so says a lot.'
In the banned procedure, a doctor partially removes a living fetus
from the womb and then punctures or crushes its skull. The fetus
is then removed whole. The Bush administration has argued that
the procedure is gruesome, inhumane, painful to the fetus, and
never medically necessary. Abortion providers insist it is
sometimes necessary to preserve a woman's health.
In the courtroom, Justice Department (news - web sites) lawyers
and government witnesses freely talk about 'abortion' and
'aborting'; the abortion-rights side generally speaks of 'the
procedure' or 'evacuating a pregnancy.' The government's side
speaks of 'the baby.' The other side sometimes uses the term
'fetus,' but often refers to it as 'the pregnancy.' During the
banned procedure, the anti-abortion side says, the baby is
'partially delivered'; the other side says the fetus undergoes
'intact dilation and extraction.' On the stand in San Francisco,
Dr. Maureen Paul, the chief medical officer of Northern California's
Planned Parenthood chapter, described how in a conventional
abortion not barred by the new law, doctors 'disarticulate' the
fetus. The other side often uses the term 'dismember.'
When he signed the bill, Bush said that Americans are not ready
to outlaw all abortions, and that Congress was singling out this
one method because it is particularly violent. But in court,
government lawyers have equated all late-term abortions with
'infanticide.' Language has always been a battleground in the
debate over abortion — partisans prefer 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice'
to the neutral terms 'anti-abortion' and 'abortion rights.'
Abortion foes speak of the 'unborn child' instead of, say, the
'fetus' or 'pregnancy.'
'What you're seeing is how intense the issue is and how, over 30
years since Roe v. Wade (news - web sites), the debate hasn't
changed,' said Edward Lazarus, who in 1998 wrote 'Closed Chambers:
The Rise, Fall and Future of the Modern Supreme Court.' 'Those
supporting abortion often depersonalize it and speak of it in
terms of a woman's choice and those against abortion speak of its
cruelty.'
In one courtroom exchange last week, Planned Parenthood attorney
Eve Gartner said that because of the new law, doctors may stop
doing abortions altogether to avoid risking prosecution. 'It's
like having an elephant in the room with you, wondering if some
prosecutor is going to interpret it in a certain way or not,' she
said. Scott Simpson, a Justice Department lawyer, countered:
'There's no elephant in the room. There's a baby.'"
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040420/ap_on_
re_us/abortion_lawsuits_language
(Note that the reporter uses the "fetus" terminology rather than
baby or child. Despite that, it's a very good article.)
"ANDREE SEU One-track minds April 24, 2004 Volume 19 Number 16
Abortion lobbyists see everything as an attack on Roe vs. Wade By
Andree Seu A GUY GOES TO SEE A PSYCHIATRIST AND THE psychiatrist
shows him a series of pictures to ascertain his mental health. He
holds up a tree and says, 'What do you see?' The man replies,
'Sex.' He shows him a lake and says, 'What do you see?' The man
replies, 'Sex.' Several more pictures of assorted items are shown,
the patient responding 'sex' to every one. The shrink finally says,
'Sir, you have a problem; all you see is sex.' The patient replies,
'You're the one with all the dirty pictures.'
The old joke comes to mind as I reflect on the responses of the
Kate Michelmans and Kim Gandys and Ellen Goodmans of the world to
recent legislative developments. In the fall of 2003, Congress
passed a law prohibiting a particularly Taliban-like form of
abortion (the Partial Birth Abortion Act). But if you ask Ms.
Michelman, 'What do you see?' she says it's 'the most devastating
and appalling attack on a woman's freedom to choose in the history
of the House.' If you ask NARAL, 'What do you see?' the organiza-
tion says, 'an eroding of the protections of Roe vs. Wade.'
This March Congress passed a law acknowledging the biologically
patent fact that two victims are involved whenever a federal crime
of violence is committed against a pregnant woman (the Unborn
Victims of Violence Act). But if you ask NOW Executive Vice
President Kim Gandy, 'What do you see?' all she sees is that it's
'meant to lay the groundwork for dismantling Roe vs. Wade.' If
you ask NARAL, 'What do you see?' it sees 'a sneak attack on a
woman's right to choose.' If you ask Planned Parenthood, it sees
the anti-choice forces 'exploiting this harrowing issue to advance
their political agenda.' If you ask Laura Murphy of the ACLU what
she sees, it's that 'the Bush White House is more interested in
servicing their anti-choice political base than taking meaningful
steps to protect women from violence.' Ann Lewis, national chair
of the Democratic Party's women's vote center, sees 'a thinly
veiled attempt to create fetal rights.'
This is a one-track mind, ladies and gentlemen. This is not sound
mental health. In biblical terms we would say of these women that
'they have become callous' and 'are darkened in their understand-
ing ... because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their
hardness of heart' (Ephesians 4:17-19). Theirs is a ruthless,
take-no-prisoners logic that steamrolls every other humane concern.
All laws and lawmakers are but expendable fodder and collateral
commodities before its blind rampage. All obstacles in its path
are bulldozed by a controlling obsession whose secret name is
'Nobody tells me what to do!'
'Come, you spirits that tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here,
and fill me, from the crown to the toe, top-full of direst
cruelty!' Thus did Lady Macbeth, in dark soliloquy, call upon
devilish powers to strip her of all womanish sensibilities, that
she might not waver in her murderous course. But would not even
Macbeth's wife have relented at the prospect of puncturing the
skull of a fully formed 'fetus'?
Let's have no nonsense about legitimate differences of perspective.
This is willful blindness, and no less a pact with the three hags
of hell than that of Lady M herself. 'Are we also blind?' the
Pharisees smirkingly ask Jesus, who has just said, 'For judgment
I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and
those who see may become blind.' But the Lord does not give them
a pass on the grounds of some congenital visual defect: 'If you
were blind, you would have no guilt, but now that you say, 'We
see,' your guilt remains' (John 9:39-41).
Many of us desire to pose questions and scenarios that could
expose the pro-choice folly and let in sunshine on the subject:
'Ms. Michelman,' I'd like to say, 'suppose I am on my way to get
an abortion when I am accosted by a miscreant and the baby in me
dies. Is the assailant still prosecutable under the law (even
under a weaker substitute proposal) since the baby was not wanted
anyway-and the value of a baby is all in the wanting of it?'
But you can forget about an answer on the merits of the case. The
testy reply will come back that you are one of those 'anti-choice
members playing politics with women's lives, health, and safety,'
and are motivated by the 'intent of injecting inflammatory
rhetoric into an election year' (Kate Michelman). And this will
happen because whether you show the lady photos of trees or lakes
or dead babies, all she will see is dirty pictures. © 1996 - 2003
WORLD Magazine. mailbag@worldmag.com".
http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/04-24-04/closing_1.asp
Skip the politics
"If a candidate who supported terrorism asked for your vote, would
you say, 'I disagree with you on terrorism, but where do you stand
on the other issues?'
In fact, if a terrorism sympathizer presented him/herself for your
vote, you would immediately know that such a position disqualifies
the candidate for public office - no matter how good he or she may
be on other issues. The horror of terrorism dwarfs whatever good
might be found in the candidate's plan for housing, education or
health care. So why do so many people say, 'This candidate favors
legal abortion. I disagree. But I'm voting for this person because
she has good ideas about health care (or some other issue).'
Such a position makes no sense whatsoever, unless one is complete-
ly blind to the violence of abortion. ...we need only see what
abortion looks like, or read descriptions from the abortionists
themselves, and the evidence is clear. Abortion is no less violent
than terrorism. ...as soon as you say that a procedure that tears
the arms off of little babies is part of 'health care,' then your
understanding of the term 'health care' is obviously quite differ-
ent from the actual meaning of the words. ...it masks an act of
violence. Any candidate who says abortion should be kept legal
disqualifies him/herself from public service. We need look no
further. Support for abortion is enough for us to decide not to
vote for such a person." Received from the National Pro-Life
Religious Council, P.O. Box 61838, Staten Island, NY 10306 (202)
546-0010, and Priests For Life, PO Box 141172, Staten Island, NY
10314 888-PFL-3448, September 28, 2004, Father Frank Pavone.
Abortion has been called "terrorism in the womb".
I include what follows not because I am Catholic or expect every-
one to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church, but because
of the wisdom presented and the fact that a lot of Catholics are,
even today, confused about the standing of the life issues.
"Quotes from the Bishops' Pro-life Office and the Vatican on Vot-
ing and on the Number One Issue
(PFL) Following are quotes taken from interviews that Priests for
Life conducted recently with officials of the Vatican and of the
USCCB Secretariat for Pro-life Activities.
Cathy Cleaver-Ruse, Director of Planning and Information, Secret-
ariat for Pro-life Activities, United States Conference of Catho-
lic Bishops:
Q. Is it true to say that our bishops teach that the priority is-
sue is abortion?
A. 'Sure, that's absolutely true. The Church has taught on this
issue of abortion and its immorality since the Apostolic Age.
It's one of our longest standing moral public policy issues and
it is not like any other issue. There are no instances where it
is morally licit or justifiable. That sets it apart from other
issues like capital punishment, like just war theory and many
other social issues that are very, very important but don't have
that kind of no exceptions policy. Abortion is one of those fund-
amental issues. If the very right to life is taken away then no
other right matters.'
Richard Doerflinger, Deputy Director, Secretariat for Pro-life
Activities, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:
'What the Church has said is that because it is the first gift
from a loving God and the condition for all other human goods,
all our other rights - life itself has to be a top priority. It
is the most basic gift and if we lose the right to live we lose
everything else. Now within the whole network of issues about
life, the first priority has to be the right of each individual
at every stage simply to exist at all. To be inviolable. To be
free from direct attacks. So the church has said that issues that
involve direct attacks on innocent human life - and in our society
today, obviously abortion, which takes over a million lives in the
United States every year - issues like euthanasia for the termin-
ally ill, are primary. They are the most basic threats to human
life because they are direct attacks on life, because they attack
innocent life that's not doing anybody else harm or attacking any-
body else and because they are attacking life at its most vulner-
able and defenseless - the very stages where children and the
elderly should be able to expect the respect and protection of
their families because it is where they are weakest and most vul-
nerable.'
'What the Bishops said in their 1998 document Living the Gospel
of Life, was that this whole edifice of human goods and ways of
enhancing human life are like a house, but the other issues that
enhance the quality of life for everyone are like the walls of
the house and protecting the inviolability of life itself from
attack is like the foundation. You cannot have a house anymore if
you don't have a foundation. It's meaningless to say we are going
to enhance all these qualities of human life and say that human
life itself has no inherent worth. Those have to primary. Every-
thing else grows from that. We promote a consistent ethic of life
and at the same time there are priorities, some things are more
fundamental than others.'
Quotes from the Vatican
'I consider the right to vote as essential in a democracy. If
people neglect that basic right I think it borders on the sinful.
We have to take part in our democratic process. If we are fortun-
ate enough to have it we have to take part in it.' -- Archbishop
John Foley, President, Pontifical Council for Social Communicat-
ions, Vatican City
'Party loyalty is and must be a secondary value, albeit important,
often very important, but nonetheless, secondary. Political part-
ies have the obligation to defend the common good, and where the
political party no longer defends the common good, but rather on-
ly ideological interests, then the members of that party are obl-
iged to vote against the party. They are obliged.' -- Bishop Karl
Romer, Secretary, Pontifical Council for the Family
'All of these [other fundamental] rights presuppose the right to
life. If the right to life is not defended, the defense of all
these other rights is useless. It becomes a lie, because it would
mean that the defense to the right to work, to society, etc., ap-
plies only to some, and not to all.' -- Bishop Elio Sgreccia,
Vice-President, Pontifical Academy for Life
'Every voice matters in the public forum. Every vote counts...
We encourage all citizens, particularly Catholics, to embrace
their citizenship not merely as a duty and privilege, but as an
opportunity, meaningfully, to participate in building the culture
of life. (United States Bishops, 'Living the Gospel of Life,' n.
4)' By: Fr. Pavone Source: Priests for Life Publish Date: October
5, 2004 Online at: http://ifrl.org/IFRLDailyNews/041005/3".
Roman Catholic TV Network Airs Six-Part Series Urging Voters To
Reject Candidates Who Support Abortion Rights
(Kaisernetwork) The Eternal Word Television Network, a Birmingham,
Ala.-based Roman Catholic broadcasting service available in about
65 million U.S. homes nationwide, is airing a six-part series foc-
using on the Catholic Church's opposition to abortion rights and
urging voters to reject political candidates who support abortion
rights, the Associated Press reports. The network's Web site says
that voting for a candidate who supports abortion rights is 'vir-
tually always against church teachings,' the Associated Press re-
ports. 'To vote for such a candidate even with the knowledge that
the candidate is pro-abortion is to become an accomplice in the
moral evil of abortion,' the Web site says, adding, 'If the voter
also knows this, then the voter sins mortally,' according to the
Associated Press."
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=26093
"Key social issues put contrasts on display
(Omaha.com) On few issues are the differences between President
Bush and Sen. John Kerry more clear-cut than abortion...No accus-
ations of flip-flopping. Neither man argues that he would be bet-
ter at reaching the same goal. The candidates flatly disagree.
Bush favors restricting abortion... Kerry opposes restrictions on
abortion". October 11, 2004
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_np=0&u_pg=1673&u_sid=1227222
"Flynn letter scolds Kerry on abortion
(Boston Globe) BAL HARBOUR, Fla. -- Raymond L. Flynn, the former
mayor of Boston and US ambassador to the Vatican, injected himself
into the presidential race yesterday with a pointed letter to John
F. Kerry, his home-state senator and fellow Democrat.
Flynn, in an ad spreading across nearly an entire page of The New
York Times, chided Kerry for insisting that, if elected president,
he would appoint only people who support abortion rights to be
justices on the Supreme Court.
'Removing political correctness from that statement, Senator Kerry,
you have announced that you will only support people to the federal
judiciary who support killing unborn children,' Flynn wrote in an
open letter funded by an organization of lay Catholics he heads,
Liberty, Life and Family Inc. of Washington. The group, which
bills itself as a nonpartisan entity, says its primary concern is
preserving the civil rights of unborn children.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/10/11
/flynn_letter_scolds_kerry_on_abortion/". October 11, 2004
"In just three years President George W. Bush has restored moral
order to the White House, rebuilt our crumbling Armed Armed Forces,
enacted the largest Tax Cut since Ronald Reagan, defended our nat-
ional security from al Qaeda terrorists, and ended the gruesome
Partial-Birth abortion procedure*.
....proudly watched George W. Bush lead our nation through the
aftermath of the worst terrorist attack ever committed on American
soil...must give the President our full support now in these cru-
cil months before the election when he needs us the most. You and
I owe a debt of gratitude to George W. Bush. Like Ronald Reagan
before him, President Bush has restored our confidence in the
White House and our pride in America. In just three short years
he has:
Restored old-fashioned morals and family values to the Oval Office
that Bill Clinton so recklessly tarnished.
Re-built our Armed Forces after Bill Clinton slashed defense fund-
ing and destroyed military morale.
*Signed the crucial bill overturning the ban on the gruesome Part-
ial-Birth Abortion procedure.
Cut taxes for middle-class Americans who can't afford to turn over
half of their income to the federal government.
And he has put terrorists around the world on notice that America
will fight back...
President Bush is an inspiration and a role model our children can
be proud to emulate. But not everyone likes the old-fashioned val-
ues he believes in -- like marriage between a man and a woman, a
strong national defense, and a smaller government.
Today we have more than 120,000 members on 1,148 campuses across
the nation. Former U.S. Senator Bob Dole calls us 'invaluable.'
President Ronald Reagan hailed us as 'a vital force'.
And this year, President Bush himself personally wrote to tell me
that the outcome of this year's election will be determined by
'...the strength of our grassroots effort...Thank you in advance'.
It was CRNC field reps. in Florida who helped propel President
Bush to his narrow victory over Al Gore in 2000.
...exposing the truth about John Kerry's lies and horrific left-
wing voting record -- show your friends and family that when Pres-
ident Bush asked for your help in 2004, you said YES!" Eric Hoplin,
Chairman, College Republican National Committee, Capitol Hill Head-
quarters, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE, Suite 215, Washington, DC
20090-6353 (888) 765-3564 Somebody who keeps his eye on the ball.
"Consider these amazing statistics from the 2000 Election:
New Mexico was decided by just 366 votes
Florida was decided by just 537 votes
Iowa was decided by just 4,144 votes
Wisconsin was decided by just 5,708 votes
Oregon was decided by just 6,765 votes
New Hampshire was decided by just 7,211 votes
Four other states in 2000 that were decided by razor thin margins
include: Minnesota (2.40%), Missouri (3.34%), Ohio (3.51%), and
Nevada (3.55%)." Citizen Leader Coalition, P.O. Box 96324, Wash-
ington, DC 20090-6324, Ben Hart, President.
"Thomas Jefferson was elected president by a single vote.
Five states were admitted to the union by a single vote.
Lyndon Johnson was elected to the Senate by a single vote.
Woodrow Wilson was elected by less than a single vote per
precinct in just one state.
YOUR VOICE MATTERS! When you vote, vote your values."
American Center for Law & Justice, P.O. Box 64429, Virginia
Beach, Virginia 23467-4429, www.aclj.org.
"Several other high-profile elections in U.S. history have been
decided by the tiniest of margins. Averill Harriman's gubernator-
ial election of 1954, and George McGovern's and John Warner's
senatorial victories in 1960 and 1978, respectively, were all de-
cided by one vote or less per precinct. The presidential race be-
tween Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy in 1960 was also a neck-
and-neck contest. After all of the votes had been tallied, an
average margin of only one-half vote per precinct nationwide sep-
arated the winner from the loser!9
In the next four years, the President may make from one to three
appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court. Given the unprecedented
power of the court today, the selection of those justices could
have a profound affect on the country for decades." From the Oct-
ober, 2004, Focus on the Family "Family News", by Dr. James Dobson,
Ph.D., Colorado Springs, Colorado 80995.
I have so much information on the presidential race that I had
decided to do it last or not to do it at all. After all, I'm just
one person with other commitments and responsibilities and rapid-
ly declining discretionary time. But then I noticed I was receiv-
ing traffic looking for the presidential candidates' positions
on abortion. After all, there are probably a lot of people who
just don't have time to keep up with it until the last minute.
So I thought, since I'm still receiving information on it, why
not just put it out on my web site instead of filing it away, and
if I stick just to the candidates' stands on abortion, and don't
try to cover everything, and maybe give just a little off the top
of my head, I can still contribute. So here goes:
In the 2000 presidential race I wasn't too sure how pro-life George
Bush was, but I knew he was more pro-life than Al Gore, so I voted
for Bush. Then I followed up by watching him very closely. To my
delight, he turned out to be more pro-life than I had ever imagin-
ed possible. Not only was he pro-life, but he became the most pro-
minent pro-life leader to emerge since I had begun paying attent-
ion again in late 1999. But being a reserved politician, he isn't
very outspoken about it, like someone who is involved in just one
issue. His pro-life stance doesn't get reported very well, but he
signs all the pro-life legislation that makes it to his desk, and
when appropriate, speaks quite eloquently on the topic - for life.
If you really want to research his contribution in detail, just
click on Edit, then click on Find, and enter Bush, and you're off
to the races. Or get the book, and use its Index. It's also a
quick way to find information on other candidates. Now for Kerry.
"Partial-birth abortion involves pulling a living baby feet-first
out of the womb, except for the head, puncturing his skull and
suctioning out his brain.
Senator John Kerry voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Act every chance he got -- six times. John Kerry supports the 1973
Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion on demand -- even
as a method of birth control. John Kerry supports using tax dol-
lars to pay for abortion. Kerry said that his first executive
order would be to 'reverse the Mexico City Policy,' and thereby
give tax funds to groups that promote abortion overseas. John
Kerry, during his 20 years in the Senate, voted 79 times to sup-
port abortion. John Kerry voted against 'Laci and Connor's Law,'
which recognizes as victims unborn children who are killed or in-
jured in violent federal crimes. John Kerry voted against notify-
ing a parent before performing an abortion on a minor daughter.
John Kerry has stated that if elected president he would only ap-
point justices who support the 1973 Supreme Court decision that
legalized abortion on demand. He declared, '...I will support on-
ly pro-choice judges to the Supreme Court.' John Edwards, in his
six years in the Senate, has compiled a 0% pro-life voting record.
He voted to keep partial-birth abortions legal and he supports
tax funding of abortion." National Right to Life, 512 10th Street
NW, Washington, DC 2004, www.nrlc.org.
Listening to the second presidential debate the other evening, he
condescendingly answered the only question on abortion without
showing any understanding whatsoever of the other side of the is-
sue. Truly amazing for someone who tries to be on both sides of
every other topic. He even speaks at meetings of organizations
whose sole purpose is to promote abortion, something even Presid-
ent Clinton never did. I can also assure you, that he would veto
every pro-life bill that made it to his desk. He's "in the back
pocket" of the abortion industry.
"'There's no such thing as a 'partial birth' ...it's part of their
assault on the rights of women in America. There's nothing partial,
may I say, about their effort to undo Roe v. Wade.' -- John Kerry,
11/6/2003 ...He co-sponsored the pro-abortion 'Freedom of Choice
Act.' Kerry opposes parental notification laws. And he has prom-
ised to 'support only pro-choice judges to the Supreme Court.'...
And if John Kerry is elected, he has already promised to appoint
scores of pro-abortion judges to the nation's federal courts...
John Kerry has fought any and all pro-life legislation. And fought
to keep abortion plentiful and legal. ...life-saving bills would
be 'dead on arrival' if John Kerry were President." Jane Abraham,
President, Susan B. Anthony List, September 9, 2004.
After being locked out of my email for a week, when I got back in
I was directed to something relevant I could just copy and paste:
"Consider what President Bush has done to slow abortion's long
march: Before his inauguration in 2001, Bush spoke privately with
Colin Powell. He told the pro-choice Powell that as secretary of
state he would be expected to purge any vestiges of the Clinton
State Department's program to promote global abortion rights.
Powell agreed to follow Bush's lead.
On his first day in office, Bush authorized a ban on all U.S.
funding of international abortion rights groups, reversing Presi-
dent Clinton's executive order. He appointed pro-lifers to key
Cabinet posts, such as John Ashcroft as attorney general and
Tommy Thompson as secretary of health and human services.
In August 2002, he signed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act,
which provides for the protection of a child who survives an abor-
tion. Now, that child must be protected rather than destroyed by
a doctor or nurse, regardless of whether his or her birth was de-
sired. For decades, infants who survived abortions were left to
die.
In January 2003, Bush signed the 'Sanctity of Life' bill. Espec-
ially significant, he did not veto the Republican Senate's March
2003 ban on partial-birth abortion, which President Clinton had
repeatedly blocked. For the two years prior to that ban, the Bush
Justice Department had lent support to local efforts to prohibit
partial-birth abortion at the state level. Eventually, in November
2003, he signed the partial-birth abortion ban passed by Congress.
It was telling when a few months later at the Solemn Mass for Life
at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception
in Washington, D.C. -- the largest Catholic chapel in the United
States -- a packed throng of anguished Catholic faithful, kneel-
ing in prayer after taking holy communion, listened intently while
the presiding bishop closed the mass with a surprise message from
the Protestant president. When the Bush letter acknowledged the
ban on partial-birth abortion, the solemnity was interrupted with
a burst of applause. The most recent polls show that pro-life
Catholics will vote overwhelmingly against the Catholic Kerry and
for the Protestant Bush.
A President John F. Kerry would shape the direction of the court,
starting with the U.S. Supreme Court, filling the courts with pro-
choice appointments, and rejecting pro-life judges. Kerry would
be the most staunchly pro-choice president ever. At the 2003 NARAL
Pro-Choice America Dinner, where he described pro-lifers as 'the
forces of intolerance,' Kerry boasted that his maiden speech as a
freshman senator had been in support of Roe vs. Wade. In April
2004, Kerry took a rare timeout from the presidential campaign to
appear on the Senate floor to vote against a bill that would make
it a crime to harm a fetus during an assault on the mother. Kerry
also joined a Senate minority in voting against a ban on partial-
birth abortion.
The pro-life constituency that would be most crushed by a Kerry
victory is Catholics. No other group has so doggedly led the fight
to halt abortion, and a potential Catholic president stands poised
to undermine that progress. What Pope John Paul II has described
as the 'culture of life' could be hindered by no less than a prac-
ticing Catholic in the Oval Office." By Paul Kengor, writing in
the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Friday, October 29, 2004, in an art-
icle titled "Abortion: the swing issue? In Pennsylvania, the votes
of pro-life Democrats may prove a powerful force on Nov. 2", http:
//www.post-gazette.com/pg/04303/403349.stm.
I consider that a "short list". But he may have confused the Sanc-
tity of Life bill as the name of other pro-life legislation signed.
"I don't pay attention to 'snap' or 'overnight' polls. The contin-
uous rolling polls I count on have shown President George W. Bush
with a three to five point lead for the past month or more. In
key states such as Florida he is ahead and as of last week had an
electoral college advantage of more than seventy (70) votes." From
William J Murray, Chairman GING-PAC, October 2004, P.O. Box 77237,
Washington, DC 20013.
Democrat Party Plank on Abortion
"We stand proudly for a woman's right to choose, consistent with
Roe vs. Wade, regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly
against Republican efforts to undermine that right."
Republican Party Plank on Abortion
"The unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which
cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the
Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make it clear that
the 14th amendment's protection applies to unborn children. We
oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organ-
izations that advocate it. We support the appointment of judges
who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent
human life."
I usually avoid taking sides with respect to political parties on
this site. But the Republican Party Plank is so well written that
I couldn't resist. Thanks to the Life Issues Institute, 1821 W.
Galbraith Rd., Cincinnati, Ohio, 45239, (513) 729-3600, for pas-
sing that along in the October, 2004, Life Issues Connector, and
thereby forcing my hand.
I will start out the 2004 general election, as I have in past
years, with the SBA List endorsements, that pass my scrutiny. I
supplement the SBA's judgement with my own because after several
years of watching the campaigning fairly closely, I have addit-
ional knowledge on the background of some of the races. I also
don't like to blindly jump into primaries I'm not intimately
familiar with. I will then add on to that list from the litera-
ture I personally receive, because I certainly don't rely only on
the SBA List. Their picks are generally very good, but likelihood
of winning, issues other than abortion, personal preference,
connections, limited financial resources, and so on, exclude many
excellent candidates who I will examine afterwards. But the SBA
List will get us off to a fast start. I won't try to do it all at
one time. First I'll list all the candidates we agree on, then as
time allows I'll expand on each of them. And since I have followed
many of the incumbents in prior years, I will link to that data,
where appropriate; which occurs farther down in this web page.
Then I will provide a return link there, that will bring you back
here, if you want to continue to examine other candidates.
"The Senate is lead by a pro-life leadership, but we don't have a
pro-life majority. The House has just a slim pro-life margin. And
the pro-abortion groups are breaking fundraising records to elect
more pro-abortion candidates to Congress and to try and defeat
the President! The 'Other Side' has already raised $110 million
to try to defeat good pro-life candidates like the ones we have
endorsed." Jane Abraham, President, SBA List, July 26, 2004.
"We focus on the most hotly-contested races in the country to
preserve Pro-Life control of Congress. We target our limited
resources on these key campaigns ... our Voter Identification and
Education program is the largest of its kind, doing tremendous
work to identify pro-life voters and urge them to vote their pro-
life convictions. ... in targeted states ... battleground states
...lobbying efforts...send mail and make phone calls to make sure
pro-life voters vote for pro-life candidates... We have a tested
and proven program that works. We know if we can raise the needed
funds we will be able to identify, educate and turn out thousands
of pro-life voters that literally can make or break any close
Senate race." Jane Abraham, President, Susan B. Anthony List,
1420 King Street, Suite 550, Alexandria, Virginia, 22314.
Congressman Jim DeMint (R) (SC Senate) - Open Seat
Congressman George Nethercutt (R) (WA Senate) - Challenger
Congressman Jim Ryun (R) (KS-02) - Incumbent
Congressman Jim Gerlach (R) (PA-06) - Incumbent
Congressman Phil Crane (R) (IL-08) - Incumbent
Congressman Mike Pence (R) (IN-06) - Incumbent
Congressman Chris Smith (R) (NJ-04) - Incumbent
Congressman Scott Garrett (R) (NJ-05) - Incumbent
Congressman Joe Pitts (R) (PA-16) - Incumbent
Congressman Tom Tancredo (R) (CO-06) - Incumbent
Congressman Robin Hayes (R) (NC-08) - Incumbent
Congressman J.D. Hayworth (R) (AZ-05) - Incumbent
Congressman Henry Hyde (R) (IL-06) - Incumbent
Congressman Mark Kennedy (R) (MN-06) - Incumbent
Congressman Charles Taylor (R) (NC-11) - Incumbent
Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R) (TN-07) - Incumbent
Congresswoman Barbara Cubin (R) (WY-AL) - Incumbent
Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis (R) (VA-01) - Incumbent
Congresswoman JoAnn Emerson (R) (MO-08) - Incumbent
Congresswoman Melissa Hart (R) (PA-04) - Incumbent
Congresswoman Candice Miller (R) (MI-10) - Incumbent
Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave (R) (CO-04) - Incumbent
Congresswoman Sue Myrick (R) (NC-09) - Incumbent
Congresswoman Anne Northup (R) (KY-03) - Incumbent
Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R) (FL-18) - Incumbent
Larry Diedrich (R) (SD-AL) - Open Seat
Virginia Foxx (R) (NC-05) - Open Seat
Catherine Davis (R) (GA-04) - Open Seat
Mel Martinez (R) (FL Senate) - Open Seat
Bev Kilmer (R) (FL-02) - Challenger
Arlene Wohlgemuth (R) (TX-17) - Challenger
Lisa Marie Cheney (R) (VA-08) - Challenger
Of the incumbents, Anne Northup, Sue Myrick, Mike Pence, Ileana
Ros_Lehtinen, Marsha Blackburn, Barbara Cubin, Jo Ann Davis, JoAnn
Emerson, Melissa Hart, Candice Miller, and Marilyn Musgrave - all
supported by the SBA List in the past - were co-sponsors of the
Child Custody Protection Act, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, and
the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. In addition, Marilyn Musgrave,
Jo Ann Davis, Sue Myrick, and Mike Pence, co-sponorsed the
Informed Choice Act. Marsha Blackburn, Jo Ann Davis, Melissa Hart,
JoAnn Emerson, Marilyn Musgrave, Sue Myrick, and Mike Pence,
co-sponored the RU-486 Suspension and Review Act. I heard Melissa
Hart, Jim Ryun, and Mike Pence, speak at the 2004 March for Life,
in Washington, D.C. Marilyn Musgrave has spearheaded several
legislative initiatives, often cooperating with the NPLA on leg-
lation, ignoring the threat of a pro-abortion backlash. It seems
that once helped by the SBA List, candidates take care to remain
in their good graces. The SBA List not only contributes to candi-
dates directly, but just like Emily's List, they bundle contribu-
tions from members and then send them on. As a matter of fact the
SBA List was created to counter the activities of Emily's list,
and other pro-abortion organizations, that raise funds for, and
otherwise support, pro-abortion candidates. Congressmen Jim Ryun,
Jim DeMint, George Nethercutt, and Phil Crane, are being supported
by the SBA List for the first time this year. You may remember
Jim Ryun as an Olympic medalist. Finally, this year there seems
to be more emphasis and importance placed on backing candidates
who have strongly pro-abortion opponents. Endorsed candidates are
always the first entry:
Congressman Jim DeMint vs. Inez Tenenbaum - South Carolina
"South Carolina 4th District Representative Jim DeMint is running
for an open Senate seat vacated by Democratic Seantor Ernest
Hollings. ...is competing against South Carolina State Superint-
endent of Education Inez Tenenbaum who has been endorsed by EMILY's
List, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and the Women's Campaign Fund.
Jim DeMint is currently serving his third term in the House of
Representatives as a pro-life leader. Congressman DeMint authored
the Infant Adoption Awareness Act, providing resources to pregn-
ancy counselors and spearheaded the successful passage of the Hope
for Children Act, creating a permanent doubling of the adoption
tax relief and streamlining international adoption procedures.
DeMint co-sponored the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act in the House.
As a member of the Pro-Life Caucus...voted for the Unborn Victims
of Violence Act, and voted against government sponored abortions.
The Congressman's strong devotion to protect life and promote
adoption has led to his acceptance into the 'Adoption Hall of
Fame.'
Inez Tenenbaum is a former lobbyist for South Carolina Coalition
For Choice and worked for the abortion rights group South Carolina
Family Research Foundation. Inez opposes the Partial-birth Abor-
tion Ban Act, waiting periods, and parental consent before a minor
has an abortion. With the help of Emily's List...has raised almost
$1.8 million. This Senate seat is considered a 'Toss-Up'."
SBA-List, July 2004 Candidate Profiles. Contact DeMint for Senate
Committee at P.O. Box 12425, Columbia, SC, 803-779-4611.
"Jim DeMint is a pro-life, social conservative candidate...Jim
DeMint has been a dependable partner of pro-life social conserva-
tives in the House." Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 - GING-PAC, PO Box
77237, Washington, DC 20013.
Congressman George Nethercutt vs. Senator Patty Murray - Washington
"George Nethercutt currently represents Washington's 5th Congress-
ional District, but is now running for the U.S. Senate. ...chal-
lenging Pro-Abortion incumbent Patty Murray who has proven herself
an outspoken pro-abortion Senator. Murray has fought pro-life leg-
islation at every step.
Prior to Congressman Nethercutt's 1994 election into the House of
Representatives, he served as an adoption lawyer and trustee of a
Washington state crisis nursery. Nethercutt believes 'we must do
more to reduce the number of abortions in America. That's why I
was proud to help outlaw late-term abortions' in addition to sup-
porting the passage of 'Laci and Connor's Law' to protect pregnant
women and their unborn children. ...as Senator, I will use my ex-
perience to make it easier for good couples to adopt children. I
will fight efforts to undermine and reverse the late-term abort-
ion ban.'
Campaigns and Elections Magazine predicts a close Washington Sen-
ate race...Murray has raised $1.8 million with the help of endor-
sement funds from NOW, Women's Campaign Fund, NARAL Pro-Choice
America, Planned Parenthood PAC, EMILY's List, and Voters for
Choice." SBA-List, July 2004 Candidate Profiles.
Murray has a "patriotism problem" issue. More about that later.
Nethercutt defeated the Democrat Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neil,
to get elected to the House in the mid-nineties.
"...Senator Patty Murray, who gave bin Laden the moral high ground
over America when she asked students why the terrorist was 'so
popular?' 'He's been out in these [terrorist sponsoring] countries
for decades, building schools...infrastructure...daycare facilit-
ies...healthcare facilities, and the people are extremely grateful.
We haven't done that.' No wonder so many students lack the pride
and respect for America that you and I share. They're being taught
that terrorist are morally superior to Americans." Ron Robinson,
President of Young America's Foundation. Her remarks to that group
of students was widely publicized - Ron's reciting of it was just
the most handy one. Of course, the U.S. does do those things over-
seas. And she forgot to mention that those schools and facilities
are used to train terrorists. Many Muslim countries are now in
the process of dismantling them. Other things she gets credit for:
"In 2002, Murray wrote a bill authorizing the use of 10 million
taxpayer dollars to advertise RU-486, the abortion pill. ...tried
to obstruct the Senate vote on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
...received a lifetime 100% approval rating from the National
Abortion And Reproductive Rights League (NARAL)...actively block-
ing President Bush's pro-life judicial nominees. ...support...
late-term abortions. Who said, regarding the Partial-Birth Abort-
ion Ban, 'I hope and believe that the Court will act quickly to
strike down this law.'" Jane Abraham, President, Susan B. Anthony
List, July 6, 2004.
Congressman Jim Ryun vs. Nancy Boyda - Kansas (02)
"Congressman Jim Ryun is defending his congressional seat repre-
senting the 2nd District of Kansas. ...being challenged by Pro-
Abortion candidate Nancy Boyda who is endorsed by Planned Parent-
hood PAC and the Women's Campaign Fund. Jim Ryun is currently
serving his fourth term in the House of Representatives as a
leader for the unborn. Ryun stated, 'I will always support legis-
lation that protects the youngest and smallest members of our
society.' Congressman Ryun spoke on the floor in support of the
Unborn Victims of Violence Act claiming that the bill 'provides
long overdue protection to unborn victims, while also ensuring
justice and closure for their families.' Ryun believes 'that the
pre-born are precious lives that deserve our protection. We must
do what we can to defend them since they are not able to defend
themselves.' Congressman Ryun has an excellent rating from the
NRLC." SBA-List, July 2004 Candidate Profiles.
Congressman Jim Gerlach vs. Lois Murphy - Pennsylvania (06)
"Freshman Congressman Jim Gerlach is defending his congressional
seat in Pennsylvania's 6th District. ...is being challenged by
Pro-Abortion candidate Lois Murphy, the former in-house counsel
and 10 year chapter President for NARAL Pennsylvania. Lois is
endorsed by EMILY'S List, NARAL, Planned Parenthood PAC, and NOW.
She is also one of three endorsed congressional candidates by the
multi-million dollar group MoveOn.org. Jim Gerlach served thirteen
years in Pennsylvania's Sixth Congressional District one of the
nation's most competitive seats. Gerlach recieved 51% of the vote
in 2002. Murphy has already out raised her opponent in this last
fundraising quarter with the help of pro-abortion sponsor EMILY's
List who is proud to endorse Lois Murphy because she 'has staked
much of her career on defending reproductive freedom.' This will
be a very close race so Congressman Gerlach needs the help of SBA
List supporters nationwide." SBA-List, July 2004.
Congressman Phil Crane vs. Melissa Bean - Illinois (08)
"Phil Crane is being challenged for a second time by Pro-Abortion
candidate Melissa Bean. She is endorsed by several pro-choice
activist groups including; NARAL Pro-Choice America, Planned
Parenthood Federation of America, Illinois Planned Parenthood
Council, National Women's Political Caucus, and the Women's
Campaign Fund.
Congressman Crane is a co-sponsor of all major pro-life bills. He
has a 100% pro-life voting record and 0% rating from Planned
Parenthood. Phil Crane has received endorsements from NRLC,
Illinois Federation for Right to Life, and Family PAC.
Bean hopes to raise $1 million for the 2004 election. She is cur-
rently raising nearly equal the amount of money as Crane with
funds pouring in from senior democratic pro-abortion leadership,
including Nancy Pelosi. Illinois' 8th district is no longer a
Republican seat but a 'Toss-Up'. Pro-abortion Democratic leader
Nancy Pelosi is determined to takeover the House and defeat
Congressman Crane in order to become Speaker. Melissa Bean stated
she would vote against the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act and
'Laci and Connors Law'." SBA-List, July 2004 Candidate Profiles.
"My opponent: opposes commonsense medical liability reforms that
would stop doctors from having to leave the profession due to sky-
rocketing insurance rates opposes making President Bush's tax
cuts permanent supports abortion-on-demand wants to give ad-
dicts free needles to help them continue their illegal activity".
"The national Democrats and rich liberal special interest groups
are pouring money into my opponent's campaign. This may be the
toughest campaign I've ever faced. The liberals have really gang-
ed up to defeat me. As the senior Republican in the House of Re-
presentatives and a longtime leader of the conservative movement,
I'm a tempting target for the liberals who want to take back con-
trol of Congress." Sincerely, Phil Crane, Phil Crane for Congress
Committee, P.O. Box 8534, Rolling Meadows, Illinois 60008
Virginia Foxx - North Carolina (05)
"State Senator Virginia Foxx has been in the North Carolina state
legislature for the last 9 years. Virginia is running in the open
seat being vacated by pro-life Congressman Richard Burr. As a
State Senator, Virginia Foxx has stood out as an outspoken advoc-
ate for the unborn. ...has co-sponsored countless pro-life bills
including: Partial Birth Abortion Ban, Informed Consent, Choose
Life License Plates, Parental Consent, Woman's Right to Know, and
No Abortions Under State Health Plans. ...will continue her pas-
sion for the pro-life issue when elected to Congress and become
a much needed pro-life female voice in the next Congress." SBA-
List, July 2004 Candidate Profiles.
Richard Burr vs. Erskine Bowles - North Carolina, U.S. Senate
"North Carolina: Pro-Life Challenge to Former Clinton Administra-
tion Chief of Staff Republican Congressman Richard Burr, who has
a strong pro-life voting record in Congress, faces Pro-abortion
Democrat Erskine Bowles...This race should be close". NPLA, 2004.
Catherine Davis vs. Cynthia McKinney - Georgia (04)
"Pro-life Catherine Davis is being challenged by former 4th Dist-
rict Representative Cynthia McKinney who voted against every piece
of pro-life legislation in the House. McKinney is a former EMILY's
List candidate and if elected will continue her efforts to uphold
abortion rights. Davis is a strong anti-abortion advocate and has
been an outspoken supporter for the unborn. Catherine Davis will
be a welcome pro-life addition to Congress but she needs your help
to defeat her pro-abortion opponent in a tough November election
in this very Democratic district." SBA List September 2004 Update
"Radical Islamic groups are supporting the congressional candid-
acy of Cynthia McKinney... McKinney may be the 'Manchurian Candi-
date' of Islamic terrorism." -- Cal Thomas 07/28/04
"Two years ago the people of Georgia FIRED Cynthia McKinney...
But like Freddie, Jason, or the Poltergeist... SHE'S BAAAACK!!!
This SOCIALIST, supported by radical Islamic groups, is running
for her old Congressional seat... and she might get it back! ..so
much is at stake in the race for the United States Congress in
Georgia's Fourth District. Catherine Davis is the conservative
Republican candidate who wants to represent YOUR values on Capitol
Hill. Her opponent, liberal extremist Cynthia McKinney, is deter-
mined to win the election in November and return to the House of
Representatives, from which she was booted two years ago. Democrat
EX-Congresswoman McKinney wants you and your most cherished values
to lose on November 2nd. She's dead set on forcing you and your
family to conform to her radical Leftist agenda. Moreover, she
wants YOU to foot the bill.
If a bill will support President Bush and our war on terrorism,
McKinney will vote AGAINST it. If a bill will undermine the prin-
ciples of our Founding Fathers -- the rights to life, liberty and
private property -- you can bet McKinney will vote FOR it. But
that's not all. There are other reasons to keep McKinney OUT of
Washington, D.C.
This radical Democrat has recklessly accused President Bush of
willfully withholding information about the September 11th terro-
rist attacks. During a radio interview, she said: 'What did this
administration know and when did it know it, about the events of
September 11th? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the in-
nocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? ... What
do they have to hide?' McKinney went on to suggest that President
Bush held back the alleged information because his friends in the
defense industry would profit from a war. Like the rest of America,
we were shocked -- we couldn't believe that she would say such
dangerous and irresponsible things, especially while we're at war!
Cynthia McKinney is an embarrassment to our country. She was an
embarrassment when she was in Congress, and she's an embarrassment
now.
Incredibly, there's another example of ultra-liberal Democrat
McKinney's outrageous actions connected to the awful events of
September 11th. Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal offered New York
City mayor Rudy Giuliani a check for $10 million dollars after
the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center -- if Giuliani
would say that U.S. foreign policy played a key role in driving
the terrorists to their cowardly acts. Giuliani refused, saying,
'There is no moral equivalent for this attack. The people who did
it lost any right to ask for justification when they slaughtered
5,000, 6,000 innocent people... Not only are those statements
wrong, they're part of the problem.' But Cynthia McKinney APOLOG-
IZED for Mayor Giuliani's courageous stand, and wrote the Saudi
prince a shameless letter BEGGING for his money! At that time,
the voters declared, 'It's high time for McKinney's days in Cong-
ress to end.' It's NOT time for those days to begin again!
Catherine Davis is McKinney's conservative Republican opponent,
who wants to represent your values on Capitol Hill. She fully
supports our President's war on terrorism. She also strongly sup-
ports the Bush tax cuts. She's the polar OPPOSITE of McKinney on
all the issues.
McKinney has received THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of dollars in the
past from groups and individuals investigated for supporting Amer-
ica-HATING Islamic terrorists... she supports grossly unjust
'racial reparations'... she accuses our President of letting
American citizens DIE so his friends can make a buck... The list
could go on and on. If McKinney wins, she'll inflict even further
damage on YOU, your FAMILY and our COUNTRY." From: "Conservative
Petitions", http://www.ConservativePetitions.com/, 284 Shalom
Road, Waynesboro, VA 22980 Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 01:40:29 -0700
A little dramatic, but I'm sure you get the point. I think McKin-
ney's problem is that she actually believes the Left's propaganda
instead of seeing it for what it really is: a political ploy.
Bev Kilmer vs. Congressman Allen Boyd - Florida (02)
"Bev Kilmer is a three term Florida State Representative. Bev is
challenging a pro-abortion Congressman in a district the National
Republican Congressional Committee has called the number one
challenger race in the country this year. As a State Representat-
ive, Bev has supported many pro-life bills including a bill to
regulate abortion clinics. She also sponsored the 1st successful
'Choose Life' license tag legislation in the country. Bev is a
tough campaigner and has consistently won in a district that is
just 33% Republican. Bev is running against Congressman Allen Boyd
who has an 80% rating with Planned Parenthood Action Fund.
Congressman Boyd voted in support of RU-486 and also voted against
the commonsense Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Bev has been end-
orsed by Florida Right to Life, Christian Coalition, Governor Jeb
Bush, Eagle Forum, Speaker Dennis Hastert and more." SBA-List,
July 2004 Candidate Profiles.
Bev Kilmer for Congress, P.O. Box 10278, Tallahassee, Florida
(850) 224-0211, www.kilmerforcongress.com.
Mel Martinez vs. Betty Castor - Florida, U.S. Senate
"Mel Martinez is running for Florida's vital open Senate seat. Mel
has proven to be an outspoken advocate for the unborn as HUD Sec-
retary under President Bush and would make a wonderful pro-life
addition to the U.S. Senate. Pro-abortion University of South
Florida President Betty Castor is Martinez's opponent in the gen-
eral election. EMILY's List, an abortion rights advocacy group
has raised more for Castor than any other candidate in the organ-
ization's 19-year history! 'Castor's 30-year public record re-
flects a steadfast commitment to upholding reproductive freedom
as guaranteed by Roe v. Wade,' according to EMILY's List. Florida
is one of the closest open seat Senate races and requires pro-life
advocates support to ensure this is not a victory for the 'other
side.'" SBA List Candidate Fund September 2004 Campaign Update
"After serving almost three years in President Bush's Cabinet, I
recently made the decision to head back home to Florida so I could
run for the U.S. Senate from my home state. I've got to tell you
the truth, it was an agonizing decision. Working with President
Bush was one the greatest honors of my life. I was proud to sup-
port the President day in and day out. And I certainly did not
want to leave his cabinet without a good reason. But after much
thought and prayer, I realized there were three major reasons why
I simply HAD to run for the Senate. First, the Senate needs an-
other conservative Republican who will be President Bush's strong
ally. With such a narrow majority, the President needs more con-
servative votes that he can count on. Second, it is very important
that Republicans hold on to their majority in the Senate. Third,
President Bush needs to win Florida and win re-election.
When President Bush asked me to serve in his Cabinet he called me
'the embodiment of the American Dream.' When I was 15 years old
my parents sent me from Communist Cuba to the United States...I
arrived in America with the clothes on my back, one suitcase full
of my belongings, and a love for the game of baseball. My parents
made a great sacrifice, sending me away and never knowing if they
would see me again.
After serving in many youth, business, and community organizations,
I was privileged in 1998 to be the first Republican ever elected
Orange County Chairman, the official who acts as mayor of one of
Florida's largest counties. After the 2000 election, President
Bush called me and asked me to serve in his Cabinet.
I will vote to cut taxes. I will vote to confirm President Bush's
judges. I will support President Bush and our military in the war
on terror. I will defend pro-family policies. ...a strong sup-
porter of President Bush...ready to be his ally in the Senate. If
Democrats gain a majority in the Senate they will control the
floor agenda... Bills like the partial-birth abortion ban will
not even come up for a vote. ...a strong campaign by a conservat-
ive Hispanic Republican like me will draw new voters into the
race who will also cast a ballot for President Bush. ...keep con-
trol of the U.S. Senate and help President Bush carry Florida".
Mel Martinez, P.O. Box 621208, Orlando, Florida 32862-1208
"While most of the nation is focused on the Republican National
Convention this week, not all of the action is in New York City.
Yesterday, there were primary elections in the important state
of Florida. I am proud to report that CWF’s endorsed candidate
in the critical Senate race, Mel Martinez, scored a tremendous
14-point victory in a crowded field. As you know, Florida is a
key battleground state at the presidential level. But this year,
there is also an open Democrat Senate seat up for grabs as well.
Capturing this seat is crucial to our efforts to expand our pro-
family, pro-life majority in the United States Senate. I strongly
believe that Mel Martinez is just the candidate to win this seat
and help boost turnout among pro-family voters, including Cuban
Americans in South Florida, which will in turn help President
Bush carry the Sunshine State yet again. I also want to emphasize
how Mel Martinez won such a large victory against several veteran
candidates. Mel Martinez ran a strong campaign on values issues.
He championed the right to life and boldly defended traditional
marriage. His strong stands cost him. A leading newspaper retract-
ed their endorsement in the final days of the campaign. But the
voters ignored the liberal media and rewarded his steadfast de-
fense of traditional values. From: Gary L. Bauer Subject: End of
Day -- 9/1/04 garybauer@cwfpac.com Date: 01 Sep 2004 15:55:31
-0400 To: Friends and Supporters Campaign for Working Families
Please feel free to pass on this 'End of Day' update to interest-
ed friends and family members. If you would like to receive this
update by e-mail, you can sign up online at
http://www.cwfpac.com/cwf_eod_request.htm Campaign for Working
Families 2800 Shirlington Road Suite 930 Arlington, VA 22206
Phone: 703-671-8800 Fax: 703-671-8899 Web: www.cwfpac.com".
"My opponent on November 2 is Betty Castor, a Democrat receiving
millions of dollars from the pro-abortion organization 'Emily's
List.' News reports indicate that Castor will receive more money
from this group than 'any other candidate in...history.' I stand
on principle...I am steadfast in my support of pro-life policies.
...my campaign is bringing in thousands of new pro-family and
Cuban-American voters who will also be supporting President Bush".
Mel Martinez
Arlene Wohlgemuth vs. Congressman Chet Edwards - Texas (17)
"Arlene Wohlgemuth has been a State Senator for the last nine
years. Arlene is running in the newly re-districted 17th Congres-
sional District in Texas against pro-abortion Congressman Chet
Edwards. In 1997, Arlene killed 52 bills in the state legislature
to take a stand to get her parental consent bill on the floor for
a vote - this was dubbed the Memorial Day Massacre. On her
website, Arlene stated: 'I have consistently and tenaciously
fought for pro-life gains - parental consent, notification,
informed consent, and decreasing funding for Planned Parenthood
and other abortion providers. As your next Congressman, I will
continue our fight to extend the same protections of life and
liberty we enjoy to the unborn.' Arlene has been endorsed by
Texas Right to Life, Concerned Women for America, Eagle Forum and
more.
Chet Edwards has an 82% rating with Planned Parenthood Action
Fund. ...voted against the commonsense Unborn Victims of Violence
Act and against the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. ...won his last
election by just over 3%, and that was before the district was
redistricted to be more Republican. 2/3rds of Edwards' new dist-
rict he has never represented before. This race has been pegged
as Rep. Edwards most difficult race of his career." SBA-List,
July 2004 Candidate Profiles.
Lisa Marie Cheney vs. Congressman Jim Moran - Virginia (08)
"Lisa Marie Cheney is running in Virginia's 8th Congressional
District to unseat pro-abortion Congressman Jim Moran. Cheney is
an outspoken advocate for the unborn as an adopted child herself.
Congressman Moran has a 0% National Right to Life rating and is
endorsed by Planned Paretnhood. A Tel Opinion Research July poll
shows Moran 44%, Cheney 29%, Undecided 27%, indicating Cheney's
chance to win in November." SBA List September 2004 Update
Congressman Charles Taylor vs. Patsy Keever - North Carolina (11)
"Congressman Charles Taylor has been representing North Carolina's
11th District since 1991 as a pro-life advocate. EMILY's List en-
dorsed candidate Patsy Keever is threatening to take this pro-life
seat. Taylor has consistently voted to protect the lives of the
unborn and is a co-sponsor of major pro-life bills. Congressman
Taylor will continue his advocacy for the pro-life cause if re-
elected but needs your support to ensure his pro-life vote stays
in Congress." SBA List September 2004 Candidate Campaign Update
Greg Parke vs. Bernie Sanders - Vermont
"...the man I'm running for Congress against -- Bernie Sanders --
voted against banning partial-birth abortion 5 times! Any proced-
ure where a fully-formed baby is just inches from being complete-
ly delivered before being brutally killed by an abortionist is
not birth control! Partial-birth abortion is murder and there's
no other way to put it. But Bernie Sanders and his radical pro-
abortion allies don't care about the unborn. What's more, until
he is defeated, he will continue to support and defend partial-
birth abortion. Bernie Sanders has a grisly record of supporting
NARAL, Planned Parenthood and their agenda in Congress: He voted
NO on a bill that would have stopped the shuttling of children
across state lines in order to kill their unborn babies. He voted
NO on the Unborn Victims Act...He voted YES to allow U.S. tax dol-
lars to be used overseas to promote abortion on demand and yet
voted NO to help the United States rebuild the country of Iraq.
Congressman Sanders is heavily funded by the extreme pro-abortion
special interests. And in turn, he protects this multi-billion
dollar industry, and secures them billions in taxpayer dollars
every year. Over the years, he has been able to count on the likes
of Planned Parenthood, NARAL and others to pour money into his
campaign coffers. As the only self-avowed socialist in Congress,
Bernie Sanders' radical voting record and hard core pro-abortion
stance shouldn't come as a surprise. He even runs as an 'Indepen-
dent' because he doesn't think the Democrats are liberal enough!
I guarantee you when I get to Washington, I will vote for common-
sense laws that protect the unborn. Will you take a stand for un-
born life -- and a stand against the most liberal member of Cong-
ress? It's time to end the radical pro-abortion agenda of Planned
Parenthood and NARAL. Please help me defeat liberal socialist
Bernie Sanders, a politician who is too radical even for the Dem-
ocrat party." Greg Parke, Lt. Colonel, USAF Ret., P.O. Box 96291
Washington, DC 20090-6291
"Bernie Sanders is the most radical liberal in Congress. Bernie
Sanders voted: AGAINST funding for our armed forces, including
crucial counter-terrorism programs, and even a modest pay raise
for our troops. AGAINST encouraging faith-based charity programs.
AGAINST the 'Child Abduction Protection Act' because he thought
its 'two strikes and you're out' provision was too hard on crimi-
nals. AGAINST the partial-birth abortion ban, but voted FOR tax-
payer-funded abortions. He voted AGAINST a program that would
fight illegal drug trafficking, but voted FOR taxpayer-funded
programs that give drug addicts free needles. Bernie Sanders is
on the wrong side of every issue. ...clearly loathes the military
and will do everything in his power to weaken our armed forces...
I want to serve my country as a Member of Congress who understands
the importance of a strong and safe America. I spent four of my 22
years of service in the Middle East -- as diplomat and commander
-- where I had a first-hand view of the challenges America faces
in dealing with terrorists nations. I think the voters are fed-up
too. And I think Bernie Sanders' hatred of the military and his
opposition to the war on terrorism will be the final straw. You
seee, for 13 years, Socialist Bernie Sanders has gotten re-elected
thanks to the support of the most liberal special interest groups
in America. ...all give him a 100% liberal approval rating. Liber-
al lobbying groups that pour money into his campaign coffers --
paying for his re-election. Concerned Americans don't want to see
an extremist Congressman like Bernie Sanders sabotage President
Bush's agenda for America. Sanders votes to weaken America and
deplete our military every chance he gets. Let's stop him now.
This year. Before he can do any more damage to our national secu-
rity, to our armed forces, and to the agenda of our President.
...replace this radical Congressman with a conservative Air Force
pilot who respects the military and loves his country. America
should be strong, safe, and secure! Life should be sacred (I'm
100% Pro-Life)! America's traditional values should be upheld!"
From a letter from Greg Parke.
"Bernie Sanders introduced four separate amendments to slash cru-
cial defense and intelligence spending even deeper than Bill
Clinton's cuts. Bernie Sanders doesn't know -- or care -- how to
defend the United States of America. Bernie Sanders has turned
Vermont into a testing-ground for his radical left-wing agenda:
...believes in...homosexual marriage. ...He voted against repeal-
ing the Marriage Tax. He voted against repealing the Death Tax.
He voted to allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United
States without legal residency. And he favors a left-wing progres-
sive tax that would result in massive tax increases for average
Americans... President Bush needs the support of a unified, pro-
military, tough-on-terror Congress right now. Not the hand-wring-
ing, left-wing policies of a Socialist who doesn't think America
has the right to defend herself.
...you already know how much I love my country. I devoted 22 years
of my life to the U.S. Armed Forces. I want to defend us from rad-
ical left-wingers in Congress like Bernie Sanders who are chipping
away at our national security, our Armed Forces, and our Homeland
Defense. I am determined to get this Socialist out of Congress...
I will support President Bush and help him WIN the War on Terror!
It was an honor to serve my country - and I hope to do so again".
Another letter from Greg Parke. I really like this guy.
Claudia Bermudez vs. Barbara Lee - California (09)
"In the dark days after the September 11 attacks, all but one Mem-
ber of Congress supported President Bush in the war on terror.
Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California sided with our enemies.
When it came time to defend America, only Barbara Lee said 'NO'.
The vote in the Senate was 98-0. The vote in the House was 420-1.
Are you outraged? I know I am. That's why I'm running for Congress
...we can get Barbara Lee out of Congress and elect someone who
loves America. ...who will support President Bush ... my love for
this country comes from my father, Enrique Bermudez. With Presid-
ent Reagan's support, he led the pro-democracy forces against the
Marxist Sandinistas in Nicaragua in the 1980s. In 1991, my father
was assassinated...He paid for his dream of a free Nicaragua with
his life. But if my father's death served one purpose, it deepen-
ed my love of liberty and strengthened my commitment to freedom.
...someone who loves America and cherishes her freedoms. So imag-
ine my outrage when I see Barbara Lee sitting in Congress working
to undermine the war on terror. I can beat Barbara Lee. Barbara
Lee's lone vote against America was a NATIONAL DISGRACE! The only
ones applauding were Osama bin Laden and his terrorists allies
who want to kill Americans. Sadly, however, that vote was only
the tip of the iceberg. Barbara Lee is actively working to dis-
mantle laws that help law enforcement officials fight terrorism.
She voted against funding to improve America's intelligence capa-
bilities in the war on terrorism. She voted against critical fund-
ing support for our troops. She even voted against a resolution
commending our troops for their 'valiant service.' As someone
whose father literally gave his life fighting for freedon, my
heart breaks...Anerica deserves better. America deserves someone
who appreciates and values her country and the freedoms that make
it great. The war on terror continues...President Bush needs peo-
ple in Congress who will work with him to defend America. I know
what it feels like to yearn for freedom. My father made the ulti-
mate sacriface fighting for liberty. He didn't let his people
down. But Barbara Lee let the people of Afghanistan down, she let
the people of Iraq down, and most of all, in our darkest hour,
Barbara Lee let the people of America down! Barbara Lee made a
choice between the terrorists and the American people and she
chose the terrorists. Barbara Lee's career in Congress can only
be described as that of a left-wing radical. She opposes having
students say the Pledge of Allegiance in school. She voted against
all of President Bush's tax cuts. While I'm sure it won't shock
you that she's pro-abortion, Barbara Lee is a leader in the effort
to use taxpayer money to pay for abortions. She even voted to keep
partial-birth abortion legal. Barbara Lee is supported by left-wing
radicals in Hollywood, across the country, and around the world.
They give her awards and send her campaign contributions... After
the 9-11 terrorist attacks, Congresswoman Barbara Lee defied Pres-
ident Bush, the entire U.S. Congress, and the feelings of the
American people and cast the lone vote opposing the use of milit-
ary action against Osama bin Laden in response to the attacks.
Please...replace her extremist voice with a representative who
will put America first. I will never forget my commitment to
'defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic.'" Claudia Bermudez Barbara Lee even "voted
AGAINST the Amber Alert System".
Tim Escobar vs. Linda Sanchez - California
"The men and women of America's Armed Forces are under attack, and
not just from terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. ...liberals all
across the country have been looking for excuses to slander the
men and women who protect our freedom. Earlier this year, the
House of Representatives voted on a resolution to honor the 'val-
iant service' of our troops in Iraq. Liberal Congresswoman Linda
Sanchez voted NO! Sanchez's vote was SHAMEFUL and OUTRAGEOUS!
...there should be no doubt that we need people in Congress who
will respect our military and support the Commander-in-Chief. In
fact: Liberal Linda is actively working to dismantle laws that
help law enforcement officials fight terrorism. ...voted against
funding to improve America's intelligence capabilities. ...voted
against critical funding support for our troops. ...is tryng to
get rid of President Bush's tax cuts. ...has proprosed an outrag-
eous plan to give 'amnesty' to every single illegal immigrant liv-
ing in this country. ...wants to make partial-birth abortions
legal again. But I'm ready to protect life and support family-
friendly policies.
I think Linda Sanchez's 'amnesty' plan is an affront to taxpaying
Americans [Escobar is Hispanic too], an insult to law-abiding im-
migrants, and a disaster for America's safety and security given
the 9/11 terrorist attacks which were carried out by illegal im-
migrants hiding in our country. Sanchez supports the gruesome
practice of Partial-Birth Abortion, even though these innocent
babies are just seconds away from birth. Sanchez wants to repeal
President bush's tax cuts. ...barely won her last campaign. I will
support common-sense conservative policies like: Making the Bush
tax cuts permanent. Defending unborn life [Tim has four cute kids].
Ending the flow of illegal aliens and toughening up our borders to
prevent future terrorist attacks." For America, Tim Escobar
For more about the antics of the Sanchez sisters do a Find on
"Sanchez".
Bill Jones vs. Senator Barbara Boxer - California
"Boxer Vulnerable: Statistical Dead Heat!
It is critical that you and I do everything in our power to de-
feat Senator Barbara Boxer. That's because she is the most left-
wing member of the U.S. Senate. This is not just my opinion. The
National Journal and other rating services have ranked Barbara
Boxer as the most liberal Senator for several years running...
The good news is that California voters are sick and tired of Bar-
bara Boxer's radical voting record. Recent polls show this senate
race is a statistical dead heat and that Boxer has a high unfavor-
able rating. Also, the successful Recall of Governor Gray Davis
and election of Arnold Schwarzenegger shows that voters will not
blindly vote for Democrats any longer - especially those on the
radical fringe like Boxer. Barbara Boxer will have a tough time
defending her anti-national security votes in today's political
climate. Not only has Boxer voted against almost all military
authorizations, she's also voted against military pay raises at
least 6 times since 1993. But at the same time she's voting a-
gainst our troops, she voted to give herself a pay raise 5 times!
Boxer also voted against a bill authorizing money for port secur-
ity and first responders after the September 11 tragedy. Her re-
cord on national defense and security is simply too extreme in
this day and age. But on social issues, Boxer may be even worse:
She is the leading supporter in the Senate of cruel, late-term
partial birth abortions. And she is also a leading opponent of
the Second Amendment and doing anything to solve the huge illegal
immigration problem in our country. Boxer's fiscal record is just
as liberal. She voted 14 times to maintain the marriage penalty
tax and 11 times to keep the 'death tax.' This is why she earned
an 'F' grade from the National Taxpayers Union. Simply put, Bar-
bara Boxer is so extreme that she is literally in a league of her
own.
Less than half of California voters have a favorable impression
of her and less than half approve of the job she is doing in Wash-
ington. But don't think she will be easy to beat. She has raised
millions from various leftwing fringe groups. And California is
the most expensive media state in the nation.
I will show that Barbara Boxer cares only about what her friends
in San Francisco think - not what ordinary Californians or Amer-
icans think. I will run a positive campaign that touts my exper-
ience as California's Secretary of State for 8 years and as the
Republican Assembly Leader. And I'll remind voters that I was the
author of the popular 3 Strikes Law for Habitual Offenders. This
legislation reduced crime by over twice the national average. I
know Boxer can be beaten. She is too out of the mainstream. Every-
day on the campaign trail, I meet Independents and Democrats who
are fed up with Barbara Boxer's leftwing voting record. They say
Boxer has put the interest of her liberal San Francisco friends
above the interests of our nation. Frankly, the world is too dang-
erous these days to have a radical anti-national security person
like Barbara Boxer writing our laws in Washington, D.C." Sincere-
ly, Bill Jones, Jones for Senate, 940 South Coast Drive, Suite
190, Costa Mesa, California 92626 Phone: (714) 438-1114
From Jane Abraham, President Susan B. Anthony List, July 6, 2004,
on Boxer: "tried to obstruct the Senate vote on the Unborn Vict-
ims of Violence Act. ...militant supporter of the so-called 'March
for Women's Lives,' a pro-abortion political demonstration organ-
ized by Planned Parenthood ... actively blocking President Bush's
pro-life judicial nominees. ...vowed to vote YES to the RU-486
abortion pill...radical, pro-abortion voice...hard-core liberal..
support extreme anti-life practices, including late-term abort-
ions. ...Who says, 'there's no such thing as partial-birth abort-
ion.' ...has already received millions of dollars for the 2004
elections from the major pro-abortion feminist organizations in-
cluding EMILY's List, NARAL, and the National Organization for
Women (NOW)."
"She is totally out of touch on critical national security issues
such as restraining illegal immigration and strengthening our
military. Boxer has continually voted against military spending.
Even worse her support for much higher immigration levels and
amnesty for illegal aliens is just plain 'looney' in this post-
September 11 world. I believe the world we now live in is too
dangerous to have someone of Boxer's extreme views representing
us in the Senate. Boxer is the leading supporter of cruel late-
term partial-birth abortions. Boxer was one of a handful of sena-
tors to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act. Bill Clinton
signed this bill into law. She sponsored the 'Boxer Amendment'
which prevents the Boy Scouts from meeting at schools. Why? Be-
cause they refused to have homosexual scoutmasters and take 'God'
out of their oath. ...the recent recall has shown that the public
is reacting against the far left policies of so many Democrats in
power in California. Her leftwing voting record is too extreme
for many Democrats to stomach." Tony Strickland
"My friend, when you see another judge being filibustered by the
liberal Democrats in the U.S. Senate, I hope you will see that
Barbara Boxer is part of the problem and not part of the solution.
And when you see close votes on social issues like partial-birth
abortion, you'll see that Barbara Boxer is clearly out of touch
with not only pro-life people, but even the vast majority of pro-
choice people." Toni Casey
"...it appears that Bill Jones actually has a chance to beat the
ultra radical pro-abortionist Barbara Boxer! He is pro-life".
William J. Murray, Chairman, GING-PAC, April 20, 2004
Giuliani Endorses Jones
"It's important for all of us in America to have a senator from
California that understands the need for safety, for security,
for a strong defense. That's why it's really important that you
elect Bill Jones, for the good of California and for the good of
the country." -Rudy Giuliani, September 24, 2004
Jones also served his country in Vietnam. If you have the endur-
ance for even more specific info on Boxer, do a Find on "Boxer".
She has been a very conspicuous proponent of abortion in the Senate.
Dave Rogers vs. Patrick Kennedy - Rhode Island (01)
"I don't need Bush's tax cut. I've never worked a (expletive de-
leted) day in my life." -- Congressman Patrick Kennedy (6/26/03)
Unfortunately, the remark of a member of Congress who cares only
about himself, and not an iota about the constituency he poorly
represents. Dave Rogers ran against him in 2002, and just kept on
running, even though he was narrowly defeated on his first try.
"Like every Kennedy before him, liberal special interests have
written him a virtual blank check of support. Radical trial lawy-
ers, big Labor Union Bosses, anti-military 'peaceniks, the abort-
ion lobby, and just about every other member of the liberal coal-
ition. Up against the Kennedy name, and the Kennedy millions, I
lost on election day 2002. They spent what must have been hundreds
of thousands of dollars in negative attack ads against me -- and
ascribed public policy positions to me that I had never even tak-
en!!! Then, the lug nuts on my family's car were discovered 'mag-
ically' unscrewed in the driveway of my home! But while we were
not successful that time, I am not ending my mission until it is
accomplished. The press highlighted the fact that during Kennedy's
2002 race I first had to win a three-way primary which drained my
campaign's finances dramatically, and then I had to face off
against Kennedy's million-dollar campaign war chest. Last time
Kennedy outspent me by a 10:1 margin in the general election. This
time that won't be the case. Patrick Kennedy is wrong for Rhode
Island. ...with his approval numbers hovering at an embarrassingly
low 37%, Kennedy knows he's truly vulnerable. Now, with reports
of Patrick Kennedy's vulgar outbursts shedding even more ugliness
on an already pathetic record in Congress, he knows he's in deep
trouble. So as the Kennedys always do, they are preparing a camp-
aign to avoid talking about their liberal record and will launch
the most vicious assault ever against me. They will attempt to
'suffocate' me politically by drowning my campaign in negative
ads. Well, I am ready for it. And I am not afraid. I know I am
right on the issues. My campaign came within a swing of only nine
points from defeating Patrick Kennedy last time...
I'm a driven person intent on accomplishing my mission by going
to Congress and defending our American way of life. Patrick Ken-
nedy is the son of ultra-liberal Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachu-
setts. Just because Patrick Kennedy was born of wealth and privi-
lege into a well-known Democratic family doesn't mean he deserves
to be a 'leader'... Patrick Kennedy recently declared he 'didn't
need Bush's tax cut' and inferred that nobody else did either...I
for one am sick and tired of it. That's why I'm running for Cong-
ress...And like most taxpayers, I actually needed Bush's tax cut!
Patrick Kennedy has none of the financial problems that ordinary
people do...I chose to go into the military to broaden my outlook
on life before I ran for office....I am not intimidated...I don't
believe people should be spoon fed fame, and I think all-to-often
family money corrupts more than it helps. I'm a firm believer in
the mainstream values that built our nation. I am pro-life, I be-
lieve in the 10 Commandments, and I think that President Bush's
tax cuts should indeed be given to people who work hard each and
every day of their lives. So if you're looking for a proven lead-
er who will help President Bush continue to win the War on Terror,
modernize are military and the way we fight wars, and restructure
the federal tax code to bring fairness to a crazy system that not
one living person has ever read in its entirety, then I am your
man. I know I will make you proud when I defeat a liberal Kennedy
whose only goal in life it seems is to become a barnacle on our
political system with his presence and class-warfare rhetoric.
...this is going to be a fight to the finish. Kennedys are not
invincible, and no man's position in life is secure forever --
especially when it's not deserved. Let's send one more Kennedy
into retirement so we can get down to business." Dave Rogers
If you would like to read more about Dave's 2002 campaign, and
his decorated record as a Navy Seal, click here.
Duane A. Sand vs. Earl Pomeroy - North Dakota
"When liberal Earl Pomeroy ran last cycle, he was able to massive-
ly outspend his Republican opponent -- yet he won by a mere 2%...
in a state like North Dakota where President Bush won by almost
30% in 2000 and enjoys record support today -- it's obvious that
Democrat Earl Pomeroy is completely out of touch. ..Tom Daschle's
best friend in the U.S. Congress... rather than support President
Bush's tax cuts for you and your family, they vote against them..
Rather than protect the unborn, they defend their slaughter. And
rather than support real government reform, they turn every legis-
lative improvement into an unnecessary partisan brawl! ...even
though North Dakota and South Dakota are two of the most heavily
Republican states in the nation Liberal Democrats like Tom Daschle
have managed to pump in so much money from out of state from lib-
eral Special Interests that they have practically bought and paid
for four-out-of-four of the U.S. Senate seats and one-out-of-two
of the House seats (my liberal opponent, Earl Ralf Pomeroy). The
sheer presence of in-your-face liberals like this in federal off-
ice tips America's economic, defense, and social policies to the
far-left of the political spectrum. That's why when I ask for
help today, I'm doing more than just soliciting support for my
campaign -- I'm asking you to help me change the direction of our
great country! I am 100% pro-life, an unaplogetic defender of
your right to keep and bear arms and an advocate for a strong nat-
ional defense. America needs more leaders in Washington...who will
do what's right, instead of always looking at the polls and the
U.N. for direction on what to do next. Of course, I'm talking a-
bout fighting to lower the amount of taxes you pay, cutting back
on intrusive government regulations, keeping your second amendment
rights intact, defending the lives of our unborn children and win-
ning the war on terror! My campaign is now on the political map
and has been able to serve notice to Tom Daschle that his politi-
cal ally, Earl Pomeroy, is in deep trouble.
...over the past several months my Democrat opponent has been us-
ing his connections to Tom Daschle and to numerous liberal spec-
ial interest groups to pump money into his campaign. ...these
powerful liberals know Earl Pomeroy is one of them, and if re-
elected will continue to fight every day against President Bush...
In fact, some of his high-profile liberal donors are the same
people who fund the radical feminist, pro-abortion and extreme...
groups that are causing so much damage to this country. They must
keep trying to paint Earl Pomeroy as just another North Dakotan
who shares the same values as the people he claims to represent.
They know that if this race comes down to a fair battle for votes
strictly based on common-sense conservative versus out-of-touch
liberal beliefs -- I win hands down. Please help me prevent the
liberal elite from just waltzing into America's Heartland and buy-
ing this election." Sincerely, Duane A. Sand, PO Box 96287, Wash-
ington, DC 20090.
Duane Sand is a Nuclear Engineer, a U.S. Naval Academy graduate,
a nuclear powered submarine officer who served from 1990 to 2003,
and rose to the rank of Lieutenant Commander - before he became a
student of North Dakota politics. Like other former military men,
he wants to go to Washington to help President Bush fight the war
on terror. The Washington PO Box is a sign he has national backing.
Larry Diedrich vs. Stephanie Herseth - South Dakota
"State Senator Larry Diedrich is running... against the 2002 nom-
inee Stephanie Herseth who has been endorsed by the pro-abortion
EMILY's List. EMILY's List has already raised hundreds of thous-
ands of dollars for her campaign... Larry has been a leader in
the state legislature in South Dakota and co-sponored the Partial
Birth Abortion Ban and...a resolution urging the FDA to reconsider
its approval of...RU-486. Stephanie...has almost $1 million in the
bank...and...has received money from EMILY's List, the National
Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, Planned Parenthood
Action Fund, National Organization for Women PAC, Women's Campaign
Fund, Trial Lawyers of America and more." SBA List, July 2004.
Larry Diedrich for Congress, 2117 South Minnesota Avenue, PO Box
500, Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57101 - 605-334-8239
This battle has been underway for quite some time, as you can see
below:
South Dakota Special Election, June 1st - Larry Diedrich vs.
Stephanie Herseth
I don't have a lot of information on this race, or the time to
devote to it. But I feel I would be shirking the responsibility I
have taken on by not sharing what I do have. So here goes:
From: GING-PAC mail@govnotgod.org Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 18:17:04
Subject: Campaign Update April, 2004 - From Washington, DC
CAMPAIGN UPDATE - APRIL, 2004 THE HOUSE SOUTH DAKOTA
"Our next special election to replace a congressman will be on
June 1st in South Dakota to replace disgraced Republican Bill
Janklow who was convicted of manslaughter in a traffic accident
earlier this year. This special election is more about Tom Daschle
than it is about the actual House seat. Senator Daschle is the
Democrat leader of the Senate, but he is completely out of step
with the people of South Dakota. He is running against a strong
Republican in John Thune this year and he is using this special
election to sharpen up the skills of his political machine. If
the Daschle machine loses this election and our man Larry Diedrich
wins, it will mean that Daschle will probably lose in November.
This makes the South Dakota primary a double fight. Actually a
triple fight, because if Larry Diedrich wins, he will still have
to run again in the general election five months later. We must
win this by a large margin.
The Democrat, Stephanie Herseth, is a true left wing nut. She is
associated with the publisher of Dailykos, an ultral-liberal
Internet site on which she has run paid advertising. Dailykos
calls Americans who are working to restore Iraq 'mercenaries' and
this shocking statement about four contractors recently murdered
in Iraq was posted at their site: '... I feel nothing over the
death of mercenaries.' Herseth sounds a lot like a Ted Kennedy
clone. We have sent a check to the Larry Diedrich campaign but we
can still send more if we get the funds. As a political action
committee we can spend an unlimited amount on advertising on this
election .... BUT .... we have to have the money to spend it.
Advertising in South Dakota is cheap and we will advertise there
on behalf of Larry Diedrich if the funds can be raised. William
J. Murray, Chairman GOVERNMENT IS NOT GOD - PAC Political Action
Committee For Social Conservatives P.O. Box 77237, Washington, DC
20013 WWW.GOVNOTGOD.ORG".
Then, more from the above PAC on Mon., May 17, 2004:
"The June 1st special election in South Dakota is extremely
important to all conservatives. Senator Tom Daschle has had his
entire political machine operating to elect pro-abortion candidate
Stephanie Herseth to the vacant seat. Our man, Larry Diedrich, has
been facing an uphill battle, but he is closing the gap. South
Dakota has only one congressman, so this is a statewide race that
tests both sides, and that is why it is a must-win situation. We
can still get additional funds into this campaign if they are
received in the next few days." http://diedrichforcongress.com/
GING-PAC, June, 2004:
"Our candidate in South Dakota, Larry Diedrich, lost in South
Dakota by less than one percent in the special election for the
U.S. House held on June 1st. This race began with Diedrich back
more than 30 points. Just one week before the election he was
still running 9 points behind, but in the end we almost won the
election. President Bush did not campaign in South Dakota because
Diedrich was so far behind in the official polls. It now becomes
clear that if the President had visited South Dakota to campaign
for Diedrich, he would have won the election. Or course, the
White House had no idea at the time that this race was so close.
The winner, Stephanie Herseth, only gets to hold the seat for
seven months -- if we can knock her back out in November. Diedrich
is still running for the seat! His campaign did not stop but
continues. Herseth must face him again in five months, when
President George W. Bush, who is very popular in South Dakota,
will be at the top of the Republican ticket." William J Murray
"Diedrich was strongly pro-life; Herseth was strongly pro-abortion
and backed by EMILY's List. Herseth began the race with the
advantage of high name recognition: She is the daughter of the
1986 Democratic nominee for governor and granddaughter of former
Gov. Ralph Herseth. In 2002, she won 46% of the vote challenging
Janklow. She started this special election campaign in February
29 points ahead of Diedrich. Herseth and Diedrich will face off
again in November". Human Events, The Week Of June 7, 2004.
SBA List incumbents who were also endorsed in previous years:
Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn - Tennessee (07)
"...was first elected to Congress in 2002, serving in the same
district that former Vice President Al Gore once represented. ...
has a 0% rating with Planned Parenthood and 100% rating with
National Right to Life Committee." SBA-List, July 2004 Candidate
Profiles.
Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis - Virginia (01)
"...elected to Congress in 2000...has been a champion for unborn
children since she was elected...has also been outspoken, speaking
many times on the floor of the House and participating in Press
Conferences in support of many pro-life bills. In addition, she
has introduced the Adoption Information Act. ...has a 0% rating
with Planned Parenthood and 100% rating with National Right to
Life Committee." SBA-List, July 2004 Candidate Profiles.
Congresswoman Melissa Hart vs. Stevan Drobac - Pennsylvania (04)
"...first elected to Congress in 2000...has been a champion for
unborn children...has also been outspoken, speaking many times
on the floor of the House and participating in Press Conferences
in support of many pro-life bills. She has also introduced and
helped pass the Safe Havens Act, a bill that protects women in
crisis pregnancy situations who want to leave their newborn babies
in a safe location like a hospital without fear of prosecution.
...is facing Democrat Stevan Drobac in the November election, the
candidate that ran against her in 2002." SBA-List, July 2004
Candidate Profiles. More background on Melissa Hart.
Congresswoman Candice Miller vs. Rob Casey - Michigan (10)
"...first elected to Congress in 2002 with the help of the SBA...
replaced longtime pro-abortion advocate David Bonior. ...has been
an outspoken advocate...speaking many times on the floor of the
House...has a 0% rating with Planned Parenthood and 100% rating
with National Right to Life Committee. Unknown candidate Rob Casey
filed on March 9th with the Federal Elections Commission to run
against Congresswoman Miller...". SBA-List, July 2004 Candidate
Profiles.
Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave vs. Stan Matsunaka - Colorado (04)
"...first elected to Congress in 2002 with the help of the SBA...
has been an outspoken champion for the unborn...speaking many
times on the floor of the House and participating in Press Confer-
ences...was the featured speaker at the SBA List 10th Annual June
Tea...0% rating with Planned Parenthood. Polling indicates...a
close race. Stan Matsunaka is pro-abortion and was endorsed...by
NARAL and Planned Parenthood." SBA-List, July 2004 Candidate
Profiles. This race is especially important because Marilyn has
demonstrated fearless and principled leadership, and the opposit-
ion would like to send a message by taking her down. First term
Reps are more vulnerable. You can get more information on her by
clicking on your browser's Edit button, then click on Find, and
enter the literal Marilyn Musgrave. Then click on Find Next.
"...my opponent, liberal Democrat Stan Matsunaka, is attacking me
for introducing the Federal Marriage Amendment to keep marriage
between one man and one woman. The past two years I've taken it
on the chin from the liberal press for standing up for tradition-
al marriage. I'm proud to stand up for our values, proud to have
introduced the Federal Marriage Amendment and I hope to continue
the fight to protect the family." Marilyn Musgrave, September 15,
2004. Something like 80% of voters oppose same sex marriage, but
there's still a lot of political pressure for it, as you might
imagine. Plus, I think it's a much more difficult issue for some
people to understand, because even though the arguments in favor
of it seem simple, I believe it's a much more complex issue than
abortion.
"'527' groups have found a loophole in the campaign finance laws
that allow them to attack from the shadows, without being held
accountable for what they do or say. These groups claim to be
'nonpartisan' and not to support any candidate, but if you've
seen their ads you know this is not true. In case you haven't
seen them, you can view them on the web at www.softwarewebdesign.
com/ad/ One TV ad has an actress pretending to be me, looting a
corpse in a funeral home! Of course, the ad is full of distorted
facts and blatant lies. The most offensive ad is where the actress
portraying me is stealing money out of the wallet of a soldier
during combat! This despicable ad claims that I don't care about
our troops. Of course it fails to mention how I voted for a $2,700
pay raise for all our troops in combat zones and I increased the
benefits of our veterans by 15% (and the fact that my own son is
on active duty in the U.S. Navy). Unfortunately it looks like
these ads are just the beginning of a string of hurtful and dis-
graceful ads my opponent and his radical homosexual backers will
be running through Election Day. They will stop at nothing. In
fact, my staff has checked with the TV stations and they've bought
$1,000,000 of airtime for these horrible ads. My goal is to launch
an ad campaign that not only meets theirs, but surpasses it. We
can not allow these shadowy '527' groups and the homosexual lobby
to control the airwaves with their lies and deceptions." Marilyn
Musgrave, October 13th, 2004.
Musgrave for Congress, 5401 Stone Creek Circle, Suite 777,
Loveland, Colorado 80538 (970) 593-9060
Congresswoman Sue Myrick vs. Jack Flynn - North Carolina (09)
"...first elected to Congress in 1994. ...has been an outspoken
champion for the unborn...consistently speaks on the floor of the
House...Myrick has a 0% rating with Planned Parenthood and a 100%
rating with the National Right to Life Committee." SBA-List, July
2004 Candidate Profiles.
Congresswoman Anne Northup vs. Tony Miller - Kentucky (03)
"...first elected to Congress in 1996 with the help of the SBA
List...has been outspoken for the rights of women and their unborn
children...an adoptive mother...long time advocate of adoption...
chairwoman for the Adoption Caucus...0% rating with Planned
Parenthood and a 100% rating with the National Right to Life Com-
mittee...always has a tough re-election in this primarily democ-
ratic district. This year she will be running against Tony Miller,
Jefferson County Circuit Court Clerk and 2003 Lt. Governor Candi-
date. Miller has raised nearly $400,000...". SBA-List, July 2004
Candidate Profiles. I have quite a lot on Anne from prior camp-
aigns: More on Anne Northup.
Congressman Mike Pence vs. Melina Fox - Indiana (06)
"...elected to Congress in 2000...serves in the House leadership
as a Deputy Majority whip and was named to chair a subcommittee
during his freshman term - only the fifth freshman in the past 50
years to hold such a position...Mike has been an outspoken champ-
ion for the unborn. This is an important issue to Congressman
Pence. On his website, he states: 'The unborn child has a funda-
mental right to life which cannot be infringed. Roe vs. Wade was
legally poorly conceived and morally wrong and should be over-
turned. In support of this cause, Congress should enact a human
life amendment to the Constitution of the United States and en-
dorse legislation that makes clear that the 14th Amendment's pro-
tections apply to unborn children.' ...is being challenged by
pro-abortion candidate Melina Fox, the nominee that challenged
him in 2002. National Organization for Women PAC and the Women's
Campaign Fund have both given to the campaign of pro-abortion
candidate Fox." SBA-List, July 2004 Candidate Profiles. Despite
Mike's strong statement, I can't help being a little discouraged
that such a strong advocate doesn't understand that you're born
at the time of implantation - not whenever you happen to be de-
livered at the hospital. Nevertheless, Mike has been in the thick
of the battle in Congress. You can click on your browser's Edit
button, then click Find, enter the literal Pence and keep clicking
on Find Again to circle through Mike's exploits on this page.
Congressman Chris Smith vs. Amy Vasquez - New Jersey (04)
"Congressman Chris Smith has represented the citizens of New
Jersey's 4th Congressional District for 24 years. Pro-abortion
attorney Amy Vasquez is threatening to take away this vital pro-
life seat in November. Governor Howard Dean has endorsed Amy be-
cause of her advocacy to uphold a woman's right to choose abort-
ion. The National Right to Life Committee gave Congressman Smith
a 100% rating. Chris Smith needs pro-lifers help to ensure his
pro-life vote remains in Congress." SBA List Candidate Fund Sept-
ember 2004 Campaign Update.
Chris Smith is much more than just a pro-life advocate. He's very
much a key pro-life leader in Congress. I did a find on "Chris
Smith", and got 9 hits in this document outside this year's races.
The opposition would love to knock him out; and New Jersey, even
though it has a strong pro-life movement, is a liberal state.
Congressman Scott Garrett vs. Dorothea Wolfe - New Jersey (05)
"Congressman Scott Garrett is running for re-election in New
Jersey's 5th District. The Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund
helped Garrett get elected in 2002 and is endorsing him again to
ensure that his pro-life vote remains in Congress. Pro-abortion
candidate Dorothea Anne Wolfe has been endorsed by several pro-
choice advocacy groups and will challenge Garrett in the November
general election. Garrett needs your help defending his seat in
the House." SBA List Candidate Fund September 2004 Campaign Update.
It took Scott multiple trys and the strong backing of New Jersey
Right to Life to replace a pro-abortion Congresswoman two years
ago, and first termers are considered more vulnerable. As a matter
of fact, if you do a Find on "Scott Garrett" you can pull up quite
a lot of information in this document on that 2002 run.
Congressman Joe Pitts vs. Lois Herr - Pennsylvania (16)
"Congressman Joe Pitts is currently serving his fourth term re-
presenting Pennsylvania's 16th District. Pitts is an outspoken
advocate for unborn children and is being challenged by pro-abor-
tion candidate Lois Herr. If elected Lois makes it a priority to
ensure that women can obtain 'legal abortion at reasonable cost.'
Pitts is a co-sponsor of all major pro-life bills as founder of
the Congressional Life Forum. Congressman Pitts is one member of
the pro-life caucus that we can not afford to lose." SBA List
Candidate Fund September 2004 Campaign Update.
Congressman Tom Tancredo vs. Joanna Conti - Colorado (06)
"Congressman Tom Tancredo is running for re-election representing
Colorado's 6th Congressional District. Pro-abortion candidate
Joanna Conti is challenging Tancredo in November. Tancredo has an
excellent rating from the National Right to Life Committee. Pro-
lifers nationwide cannot afford to loose Tancredo's vote for the
unborn in November." SBA List September 2004 Campaign Update
Joanna Conti's copout line is "Women have the right to control
their reproductive lives." Now, I ask you, who could disagree
with that statement? Certainly not me. But I don't agree that they
have the right to kill their children, which is the consequence
of that line that she's succeeded in avoiding a discussion of.
On the other hand, I'm glad to see the SBA List got around to in-
cluding Tom, because I'm on several of his mailing lists and also
support him for a number of other reasons.
More from the SBA List Candidate Fund September 2004 Campaign Up-
date:
Congressman Robin Hayes vs. Beth Troutman - North Carolina (08)
"Congressman Robin Hayes is running for his fourth term represent-
ing North Carolina's 8th Congressional District. Pro-abortion can-
didate Beth Troutman who is endorsed by Planned Parenthood Action
Fund is challenging Hayes. Congressman Hayes has received a 100%
National Right to Life rating. Hayes is facing a tough re-election
in his highly Democratic District in November and needs help from
pro-lifers to ensure he returns to protect the unborn in Congress."
Congressman J.D. Hayworth vs. Elizabeth Rogers - Arizona (05)
"Congressman J.D. Hayworth is running for his 6th term represent-
ing Arizona's 5th District. Pro-abortion Democratic candidate
Elizabeth Rogers is challenging Hayworth as a pro-choice advocate
who believes abortion should always be legal. Congressman Hayworth
has received a 100% rating from the National Right to Life Commit-
tee. Pro-choice advocacy groups are targeting Arizona in an at-
tempt to get more abortion votes in Congress, help J.D. and make
sure they are not successful."
Congressman Henry Hyde vs. Christine Cegelis - Illinois (06)
"Congressman Henry Hyde has been representing the 6th Congress-
ional District of Illinois for almost 30 years. Congressman Hyde
authored the first piece of pro-life legislation in 1977, the
Hyde Amendment halting federal funding of abortions. Hyde is be-
ing challenged by pro-abortion and Planned Parenthood PAC candid-
ate Christine Cegelis in November. Hyde has been a sponsor of all
pro-life bills and an outspoken advocate for unborn children
throughout his entire service in the U.S. House of Representatives.
The pro-life cause cannot afford to lose Hyde's vital voice and
vote in Congress."
Congressman Mark Kennedy vs. Patty Wetterling - Minnesota (06)
"Congressman Mark Kennedy is currently serving his second term
representing Minnesota's 6th District. Pro-abortion EMILY's List
and MoveOn PAC candidate Patty Wetterling is challenging pro-life
champion Kennedy. Kennedy is co-sponsor and has spoken on the
floor in support of all pro-life bills. Congressman Kennedy faces
a tough re-election race against Wetterling...Pro-abortion groups
have poured their efforts behind Wetterling because of her abort-
ion rights beliefs. Congressman Kennnedy needs your support in
November in order to protect his pro-life vote in the House."
Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen - Florida (18)
"...first elected in 1989. At that time there was only one pro-
life woman in the U.S. House...remained the only two pro-life
women voices in that body until the election of five new members
in 1994. ...has been an outspoken champion on the life issue since
she was first elected. ...0% rating with Planned Parenthood and a
100% rating with the National Right to Life Committee. To date
there are two Democrats vying to challenge Congresswoman Ros-
Lehtinen...". SBA-List, July 2004 Candidate Profiles.
How strange that it took pro-life women so long to get involved
in politics, when you consider that a majority of women are pro-
life. Moreover, if you pose the life issue as a question of sup-
porting abortions right up to the time of delivery, or placing
reasonable restrictions on it like parental notification and con-
sent, 70-80% of women would take the pro-life side. Helping and
getting such women involved in politics has been the role the SBA
List has played, along with a host of other support roles. There
is also another message here. The SBA List continues support of
outspoken advocates, and moves on from those less vocal.
Dr. Tom Coburn vs. Rep. Brad Carson for U.S. Senate - Oklahoma
Tom Coburn is highly regarded by everybody except liberals. He
served six years as a congressman, then kept his pledge to step
down after that term limit, and went back to the practice of med-
icine. But when Senator Don Nicholas announced his retirement,
Tom was drafted to run for that seat. Starting from behind, he
easily won the Republican primary. It was Tom who said about RU-
486: "Never before has the FDA approved a drug intended to kill
people. The FDA's mission is to promote health, not facilitate
the taking of life. Sadly, the FDA has approved a drug that will
kill an unborn child and put mothers at grave risk." Here's what
other people have to say about him:
"In the course of my professional career in defense of families,
I have had a chance to get to know some of our nation's leading
political figures. The one who impressed me most, however, is not
a professional politician at all; he is a family doctor from
Muskogee, Oklahoma. ...he was the single best leader I ever work-
ed with on the critical moral and family issues that have been at
the heart of my own work. ...people from across the state and
throughout the nation have beseeched Dr. Coburn to become a cand-
idate...Tom Coburn is an exceptional man. I love him as a friend
and admire him as a statesman. I believe that his presence in the
United States Senate will make a significant difference for the
future of our country. ...man of deep convictions about the things
that matter most. It is my sincere opinion that if you care about
the future of the family and about the traditional moral princip-
les on which the nation was founded, you should consider helping
to elect Dr. Tom Coburn to the U.S. Senate." James C. Dobson,
Ph.D., James Dobson, Inc., 1755 Telstar Drive, Suite 203, Colorado
Springs, Colorado 80920 - (719) 531-3380, April 19, 2004 (founder
of Focus on the Family).
"Primary Victory
Pro-life, pro-family conservatives scored a major victory in last
night’s Oklahoma Senate primary. Dr. Tom Coburn – a genuine con-
servative hero whom I am proud to call a friend – won a resound-
ing victory taking 61% in a three-way race against two other well-
qualified candidates. This race will be a top priority for Camp-
aign for Working Families. We can’t afford to lose Don Nickle’s
Senate seat. But more importantly, Tom Coburn is precisely the
kind of unapologetic conservative I formed this political action
committee to support. Tom Coburn knows what he believes, is not
ashamed of our values, and will go toe-to-toe with Ted Kennedy,
Hillary Clinton and even the leadership of his own party when
necessary. We need Tom Coburn in the United States Senate and
Campaign for Working Families will do whatever we can to ensure
his election this November!" From: "Gary L. Bauer" Subject: End
of Day -- 7/28/04, garybauer@cwfpac.com, Campaign for Working
Families, 2800 Shirlington Road, Suite 930, Arlington, VA 22206
Phone: 703-671-8800 Fax: 703-671-8899 Web: www.cwfpac.com. "If
you would like to receive this update by e-mail, you can sign up
online at http://www.cwfpac.com/cwf_eod_request.htm Please feel
free to pass on this 'End of Day' update to interested friends
and family members."
"Our country desperately needs people of principle in leadership.
Leaders who can't be bought, leaders whose moral core is not neg-
otiable. Thank God, such a leader is stepping up to the plate --
Tom Coburn. Tom...knew he had a duty to leave the world a better
place than he had found it. ...a man of integrity, ability, and
great heart...in 1994, he was the first Republican since 1920 to
represent his part of Oklahoma. ...his neighbors...identify them-
selves as Democrats by a three-to-one margin. ...his medical ex-
pertise made him the single most formidable congressional advocate
for the right to life for the unborn. He was not only someone who
stood up for what was right; he was a leader, respected by his
peers. It is a tribute to the impact he had on his colleagues
that, shortly before Coburn's retirement from Congress, a fellow
congressman declared publicly, 'Tom Coburn is the greatest man I
have ever known.'
There are some good men and women in the Senate today, but too
few who know how to change things. Leadership seems timid, without
vision or courage. America needs someone in the Senate who can
inspire other good Senators to do what they know is right, and who
will resist with passion those who are corrupt and unpatriotic.
Tom Coburn can be that senator. ...all Americans have a stake in
this race. America is crying out for real statemanship, and Tom
Coburn can provide it. ...only he authentically represents the
core beliefs and values of the people of Oklahoma. Tom Coburn is
a champion of our most deeply held convictions." Alan Keyes
"...this is a must win race. As a Senator, Dr. Coburn would im-
mediately team up with Senator Sam Brownback and help lead the
social conservative agenda in the Senate. Dr. Coburn is an ext-
remely persuasive individual and I believe he will make a big
difference in Senate votes on social issues." William J. Murray,
GING-PAC, P.O. Box 77237, Washington, D.C. 20013 - August, 2004.
"Brad Carson has an extreme pro-abortion voting record and even
voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban." NPLA, Summer 2004.
Coburn for US Senate, P.O. Box 859, Muskogee, OK 74402-0859
Because he was so involved during his six years in the House, his
name is scattered throughout this document. If you want to read
more about him, just click Edit, then click Find, enter Coburn
and start clicking Find Again.
Senator Sam Brownback - Kansas
"It's about the children...and the courts are against them. Many
of our judges have apparently signed onto this radical liberal
agenda; have completely abandoned their constitutionally mandated
roles as interpreters of the law; have seized power that right-
fully belongs to elected legislators; and are now issuing rulings
that threaten to completely undermine the survival of our culture.
I believe it is the calling of every elected official to defend
our nation, its culture, and the foundations upon which it rests.
As Americans, we've been called on to exercise moral courage
throughout our history. The number of national political leaders
willing to take on tough social and moral issues is fairly small.
I am one that will. ...to support my campaign, you will be sending
a message back to those who seek to undermine our values and cul-
ture that the American people have stood by long enough while our
moral foundations have been eroded. You will be telling them that
you are exercising the kind of moral courage that has guided this
nation throughout its history and are standing with me". Senator
Sam Brownback, May 14, 2004.
"Senator Sam Brownback is the number one supporter of the social
conservative cause in the Senate. ...is 100% pro-life and pro-
family." William J. Murray, GING-PAC, P.O. 77237, Washington, DC
20013, June, 2004.
Senator Brownback was one of two Senators who came out to speak
at the January 22, 2004, March for Life rally in Washington, D.C.
Congressman David Vitter for U.S. Senate - Louisiana
David Vitter is the Republican Whip, House Pro-life Caucus. He
is running for the Senate seat being vacated by retiring Democrat
John Breaux, in a conservative state.
"...the Chairman of the Republican Party of Louisiana recently
stated, 'I cannot remember any other time that the Republican
Party has been so unified so early around a single candidate for
statewide office!' ...I'm within striking distance of capturing
this pivotal U.S. Senate seat. I'm 100% certain liberal Democrats
in Washington will pull out all the stops to prevent me from win-
ning. They'll do anything they can to take back the U.S. Senate.
...catering to nearly every liberal Special Interest group in the
nation. One more conservative vote in the U.S. Senate will help
end the legislative gridlock the liberals have been causing in
the U.S. Senate. It's a pure ideological battle...It's a battle
we cannot afford to lose. I'm sure they're already considering
ways to attack me for being a conservative who...believes unborn
children should be legally protected. ...America cannot stand to
elect another Democrat who will filibuster key legislation...win-
ning this U.S. Senate seat is a must. ...these next few months
will be full of hard-fought battles." David Vitter, Jan. 27, 2004
"...the national Democratic Party has moved so far to the left of
the political spectrum that they have almost completely lost con-
trol of the South. In fact, Lousiana is the last bastion...As
Southern Democrats have feared, liberal...Democrats...have seized
control of their party, and are intent upon moving our nation
even further toward federal government control of most of our
lives, our paychecks, and the education of our children. ...the
residents of Louisiana will get a chance to vote 'NO' on the left-
ward lurch of the national Democratic Party. They have taken con-
servative voters in the South for granted for far too long! Demo-
crats do not hold the same views of America's greatness and dest-
iny the same way conservatives...do. They want to see America be-
come more like socialist France and Germany in their foreign pol-
icy and levels of taxation. ...it's clear the national Democratic
party wants to take away our freedom of self determination by
creating a society largely dependent on government. I want to pre-
serve your freedom. I have fought for your rights as a Congressman,
and will continue this fight as a U.S. Senator." David Vitter,
April 23, 2004. This is a man we need in the Senate!
"Congressman David Vitter has a solidly pro-life record...is the
early favorite for the Republican nomination against radical pro-
abortion Republican Buddy Roemer." NPLA, Summer 2004 Newsletter.
He really rolls up his political sleeves in this subsequent letter:
"I stand behind the President and his courageous leadership in the
war on terror...while the liberal Democrats believe that appease-
ment and surrender will somehow make us stronger and keep us safe.
I am a strong and proven supporter of the brave men and women of
the United States Armed Forces...liberal Democrats believe we need
a 'permission slip' from the United Nations before we can protect
our own interests. I stand firmly against tax increases...liberal
Democrats believe that you have too much money and that they alone
know best how your hard-earned dollars should be spent. I am com-
mitted to the unborn's right-to-life, your right to keep and bear
arms and to our traditional family values...liberal Democrats sup-
port abortion on demand, draconian gun laws, gay marriages and
strict control of your religious liberty. I will be a proud con-
servative Republican U.S. Senator you can trust and be proud of
as I work to: ensure that our military has every resource they
need to win a total victory...stabilize both Iraq and Afghanistan;
stand up to the anti-American United Nations; keep our Armed For-
ces fully armed and on the attack; prevent them and their fellow
liberal Democrats from rolling back and/or slowing the vital Bush
tax cuts; control runaway government spending; change the ridicu-
lous immigration policies that contributed to the 9/11 terrorist
attacks on our nation; develop a commonsense, national energy
policy that utilizes our own resources to reduce our dependence
on foreign oil; rescue Medicare from bankruptcy and secure Social
Security; stand up against the leftist special interests in Wash-
ington who want to take away your right-to-own-and-bear-arms and
the unborn child's right-to-life. I also plan to continue to work
for...creating jobs...combating corruption, improving health care
and education and fighting crime". David Vitter, September 13, 2004
Well, that went a little far afield, but I thought it was a good
summation of the other issues, and showed his grasp of them, so I
just let it run. And we're on the same wave length, so I liked it.
David Vitter for U.S. Senate, 2727 N. Causeway Blvd., Metairie,
LA 70002 (504) 833-1163 DavidVitter@usa.net
You can find more past news on David by doing a "Find" on Vitter.
Richard Ziser vs. Senator Harry Reid - Nevada
"In Nevada, incumbent Harry Reid, who serves as the Democrats'
second in command in the Senate, has worked to block pro-life
judicial nominees, helping orchestrate the disgraceful filibuster
against the President's well-qualified appointees in the Senate.
Reid is facing a challenge from Republican Richard Ziser, who has
a much stronger platform on the pro-life issue. Having won a razor
thin margin in his previous Senate campaign, Reid is vulnerable".
Newsletter of the National Pro-Life Alliance, Summer 2004, 4521
Windsor Arms Court, Annandale, Virgina 22003 (703) 321-9200.
"From: 'Gary L. Bauer' garybauer@cwfpac.com Subject: Special
Message -- Date: 09 Aug 2004 12:18:55 -0400 To: Friends and
Supporters, Campaign for Working Families Gary L. Bauer, Chairman
I want to tell you about another great candidate we have just re-
cently decided to endorse. In Nevada, Richard Ziser is running
against Harry Reid, the Senate Minority Whip – Daschle’s top
lieutenant in the Senate. Reid has taken a very visible role
lately, leading the filibusters against many of President Bush’s
judicial nominees and opposing the federal marriage amendment. In
fact, Reid’s support for the homosexual agenda is so strong, he
is a top recipient of funds from the Human Rights Campaign – the
nation’s largest homosexual rights organization.
Standing in stark contrast to Reid’s radicalism is Richard Ziser,
a businessman who led the efforts to pass a state marriage amend-
ment to the Nevada Constitution through the ballot initiative
process. In 2002, Ziser’s marriage amendment passed with 67% of
the vote. Please feel free to pass on this 'End of Day' update to
interested friends and family members. If you would like to re-
ceive this update by e-mail, you can sign up online at
http://www.cwfpac.com/cwf_eod_request.htm Campaign for Working
Families 2800 Shirlington Road Suite 930 Arlington, VA 22206
Phone: 703-671-8800 Web: www.cwfpac.com".
Pete Coors vs. Ken Salazar - Colorado, U.S. Senate
"Colorado: Pro-Abortion Attorney General Seeks Senate Seat
Republican candidate Pete Coors has been running on a pro-life
platform...will face pro-abortion Democrat Attorney General Ken
Salazar." Newsletter of the National Pro-Life Alliance Summer 2004
John Thune vs. Senator Tom Daschle - South Dakota
Background: John Thune was the Congressman from South Dakota from
1996 to 2002. Because South Dakota has a small population, that
means they only have one Congressman and Thune represented the
entire state and is known statewide. In 2002 he ran for the Senate
against incumbent Tim Johnson. Daschle and Johnson campaigned to-
gether, meaning that John was really running against both of them
at the same time. He ended up losing to Johnson by about only 500
votes. There's a strange situation in South Dakota, in that the
Indians living on the reservations don't have a written language,
so you can't check their signatures. Also, some dead Indians
voted. But I think Johnson probably did get the most votes, be-
cause the FBI ended up there checking the voting records, and the
final results were delayed several days. The point here is how
close the election was, and I'll try to remember to provide a
link to the 2002 dialogue farther down in this web page. Daschle
is very vulnerable, because this is a conservative, Republican,
state. But he sings one song when he's in his home state, and a
completely different one in Washington, and has huge sums of money
for his campaign from out of state, liberal special interests,
whom he essentially works for in Washington. Daschle is ultra-
liberal, and has been a thorn in President Bush's side, blocking
the President's judicial nominations and pro-life legislation.
John Thune is pro-life, and has charisma. Having George Bush at
the top of the ticket will also help him. Plus, Daschle has a big
conflict of interest, ethics problem, that the liberal media, and
too polite Republicans, avoid getting into, that I will try to
enlighten you with at the end of this synopsis. Getting Daschle
out of the Senate would be a huge boost, and John Thune has a
good chance of doing it. Even Senator Bill Frist, the Senate Maj-
ority Leader, has been to South Dakota to campaign for Thune. No
conservative appreciates Daschle's double dealing obstructionism.
As Senate Majority Leader, after Jim Jeffords became an Independ-
ent in 2000, shifting control of the Senate to the Democrats for
two years, he was the primary impediment to pro-life legislation.
Today he continues to oppose and filibuster pro-life judicial
nominees, calling them "extreme". But he's up for reelection this
year, and defeating him would remove one of the major obstacles
to pro-life legislation and judicial nominations.
"Back in November of last year Thune was close to Daschle in the
polls without even having announced that he would run. Sen. Tom
Daschle led former Rep. John Thune 50 percent to 44 percent in a
poll by the Sioux Falls Argus Leader in November 2003. Senator
Tom Daschle is the incumbent, he is the Minority Leader in the
Democrat Party, and he had only a 6 point lead in the polls over
someone who had not announced. There are big issues that Daschle
will have to explain to the people of South Dakota, starting with
the Energy Bill defeated last year by Senate Democrats. That bill
would have expanded the use of corn based ethanol in gasoline and
brought millions of dollars to South Dakota farmers. It was just
one of many bills blocked by Senate Democrats". William J. Murray
GING-PAC, P.O. 77237, Washington, D.C. 20013, January 2004.
"CAMPAIGN UPDATE - APRIL, 2004 THE SENATE We have some great news
in South Dakota. Polls this month show Thune is statistically
even with Democrat Senate Leader Tom Daschle. These numbers are
staggering considering the length of time Daschle has been a
Senator. Senator Daschle is the Democrat leader of the Senate,
but he is completely out of step with the people of South Dakota.
We are going to target this race. If we knock out Daschle, the
Democrat leadership in the Senate will be in crisis mode next
year." From: GING-PAC Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 18:17:04 -0400
"I am running for the U.S. Senate in South Dakota, running to
kick Tom Daschle out of office, to remove this thorn in President
Bush's side! Forever! Every legitimate statewide poll in South
Dakota shows my race against Tom Daschle is a statistical dead
heat. There is no question Tom Daschle has to go. He's an embar-
rassment to South Dakota and to our nation. This radical liberal
has stood in the way of every part of the Bush agenda. He's op-
posed the President's tax cuts. ALL OF THEM! He opposed prescrip-
tion drug benefits for seniors. And he's blocked the President's
judicial nominees. But we can send Tom Daschle packing. ...for
America, will you help me defeat Tom Daschle?" John Thune, in a
fund raising letter. John Thune for U.S. Senate, 2908 West 11th
Street, Sioux Falls, SD 57104.
"Your action today will directly affect the balance of power in
the U.S. Senate. ...poll, by ABC News, found that Tom Daschle has
a 59% disapproval rating among South Dakota voters. ...fed up with
his petty partisan games... On pivotal issues like national sec-
urity, judicial appointments and cutting taxes, Daschle is out of
touch with both his constituency and with America. Tom Daschle is
blocking President Bush's agenda and working to lead America down
a very different path. Americans need a Congress that will stand
behind President Bush's policies, making decisions on the nation's
well-being, and not petty partisanship. Even fellow Democrats...
have chastised Daschle for being too divisive... His extreme par-
tisanship and obstruction of President Bush's agenda must come to
an end! By Tom Daschle's own admission, the success of the Democ-
rat party rests on blocking President Bush on every major initia-
tive -- from defending our nation from terrorist aggression to
confirming Miguel Estrada to a seat on the federal court of ap-
peals. His actions affect the entire nation, not just South Dako-
tans. Many South Dakotans don't know how Tom Daschle behaves in
Washington." Randy Frederick, State Chairman, South Dakota Repub-
lican Party, PO Box 1099, Pierre, SD 57501. There's a wealth of
good information on their web site too, like when I checked it on
September 11, and found out that Thune had pulled ahead in the
polls, and Daschle was resorting to more deception to try to
catch up. "Now that Thune has pulled ahead in the polls, Daschle
is in panic mode. Not only is he trying to create a facade of
false support from Republicans, he is now running an ad showing
he and President Bush hugging - in a desperate attempt to make
voters believe he has the support of the President. To think that
Daschle, who has spent the last four years attacking and obstruct-
ing the President's agenda every chance he gets, has the support
of the President is simply ludicrous. It was not long ago that
Daschle labeled the President 'a miserable failure'". But there
are a lot of pictures on the site, so it takes it a while to load.
It goes on to say: "In response to the ad, Daschle has been sent
the following cease and desist letter. Dear Sen. Daschle, It has
been brought to the attention of the Republican National Commit-
tee that the 'A Lot of People Supporting Tom Daschle Committee'
is currently running a television advertisement and that contains
an image of yourself hugging President Bush. You are using the
picture in a manner that could create the misleading impression
that President Bush supports your campaign. As you are no doubt
aware, President Bush has not indicated any support for your cam-
paign, and in fact has endorsed your opponent, John Thune. The
implication from your advertisement that President Bush supports
you is false and misleading. In the spirit of fairness and accur-
acy, please cease and desist from picturing President Bush in any
of your campaign advertisements and/or materials in a manner that
could imply that President Bush supports your campaign. Thank you
for your anticipated cooperation and immediate attention to this
matter. Sincerely, Charles R Spies, Election Law Counsel".
"Make no mistake, Tom Daschle is an extremely formidable opponent.
As you may know, I lost a grueling battle for the U.S. Senate in
2002 by just 524 votes. And Tom Daschle did everything he could
for my opponent. And there's not a single radical liberal special
interest group in Washington, D.C., that Daschle hasn't helped as
Senate Democrat Leader. So they're all beholden to him, more than
you could ever know. ...is an ultra liberal representing a conser-
vative state...do everything in his power to undermine President
Bush, to misrepresent the President's motives and to work so act-
ively to destroy the President's agenda and all that President
Bush is working tirelessly to accomplish in defending and protect-
ing our nation and in restarting the economy after September 11th.
...has compiled one of the most liberal voting records in the U.S.
Senate. ...has consistently supported pro-abortion organizations
been an obstructionist...to approving...judicial nominations. ...
in 2002 some South Dakotans thought that voting for Johnson would
keep a South Dakota Senator as Senate Majority Leader. But Repub-
licans won the majority...President Bush is extremely popular in
South Dakota...Republican turnout will be the highest in South
Dakota history." John Thune goes on to say that it will still be
a tough race and that he will need substantial financial support
to prevail because of the huge amounts of liberal funds pouring
into South Dakota.
"President Bush and I want John Thune in the U.S. Senate and are
doing all we can to help." Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader
"Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota - the top Democrat in the United
States Senate - has done more to obstruct and delay the Republican
agenda than anyone in the country. And this November, we've got an
amazing chance to end his time in the Senate. ... 'Polls indicate
that Daschle is in a close race.' The only question is whether
conservatives will seize the day. Tom Daschle is individually
responsible for blocking most of the conservative agenda... He
uses all of the arcane rules of the Senate to stop legislation
from even being considered. He slows down floor debates and com-
mittee hearings. He thwarts proposed legislation with procedural
motions. He says one thing and does another, always misleading
and always misdirecting. ...block...judges...tax cuts...is a huge
hypocrite who talks like a conservative in his home state and
then votes like a left-wing liberal in Washington. ...has consis-
tently attacked the President and his policies. Tom Daschle is
the leading liberal obstructionist in the Senate. When radical
activists want to subvert the Constitution and block one of Pres-
ident Bush's judges, they turn to Tom Daschle. And when left-wing
special interest groups want to kill one of President Bush's ini-
tiatives, they turn to Tom Daschle. ...it's time we held Tom
Daschle accountable...end the obstructionism and misleading poli-
tics that Daschle represents...defeating Tom Daschle is one of
our highest priorities.
Thune is a solid conservative with a voting record that is second
to none - Thune's lifetime vote rating with the American Conserv-
ative Union is 87% while Daschle's is just 14%. Thune worked hard
during his uears in the House of Representatives to pass tax cuts
and to strengthen national security. He was a reliable conservat-
ive vote and effectively represented the values and beliefs of
the people of South Dakota." Jim Taylor, Chairman, America's PAC.
"But in recent years, and never more than in this Congress, the
filibuster has become a tool to block an entire legislative pro-
gram that had won a mandate from the voters. All of this has been
part of a deliberate political strategy by Minority Leader Tom
Daschle. He has organized the filibusters that have blocked votes
on nearly every bill... On class-action reform, he prevailed last
year despite underlying support for the bill from 59 Senators
(and this year despite support from 62, after he demanded multiple
non-germane amendments). He has blocked an extension of welfare
reform that was signed by Bill Clinton and is one of the most
successful domestic policy efforts in the past 50 years. Mr.
Daschle is fighting tooth and nail even on bills that both sides
can agree are beneficial. Witness the struggle of Majority Leader
Bill Frist just to get Democrats to send to conference a bill
bringing corporate taxes into compliance with World Trade Organi-
zation rules. Such conference agreements used to be routine. Be-
cause of the two months of needless delay after Senate passage of
the bill, there may not be time left in this Congress to reach
a compromise with the House. That means European Union sanctions
against American businesses will continue to ratchet up each month".
From The Wall Street Journal, Opinion, Thursday, July 22, 2004,
Review & Outlook, Daschle's Dead Zone.
Senator Daschle's wife is a lobbyist who pulls down six figure
client fees. He claims there's no conflict of interest, because
she lobbies the House. But after sitting across the table from my
wife at supper for 30 years and listening to her tell me about
the trials and tribulations of her work day, I find it difficult
to believe that he doesn't know what she's working on, and doesn't
understand what he needs to do in the Senate to keep those six
figure fees rolling in. And I also assume that the clients know
that when they buy her they are also buying him. Let's be realis-
tic - there's a very obvious conflict of interest and ethical
problem here that none of the insiders seem willing to face up to.
So in addition to profiting politically, and who knows how else,
by supporting all the bizarre causes that have no place else to go
but the Democratic leadership, he profits from his wife's connect-
ions also. What follows is a little dated, but still germane.
"Tom Daschle may be the most corrupt politician in America. 'That
is outrageous, outrageous. The president ought to apologize to
the American people... We ought not politicize this war...it just
sheds grave doubt about [his] intentions... It really brings to
question [his] real motivation...'. From the well of the United
States Senate, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle accused Presid-
ent George W. Bush of being an opportunist and using the war on
terrorism for his own political advantage. The following will
forever redefine your understanding of the words 'hypocrite' and
'corrupt'.
Before Republicans won the majority back in this last election,
Daschle acted as 'obstructionist-in-chief' doing everything pos-
sible to block the Bush legislative agenda....will continue to do
everything he can to block tax cuts, block law-and-order judges
nominated by the White House and generally act to deny Americans
their full rights to constitutional representation -- the hall-
mark of our great Republic. Daschle's soft-spoken manner belies
the fact that he is a skilled and ruthlessly partisan politician.
He may well be profiting from America's war on terror. This man,
who so carefully cultivates the image of an 'honest prairie popu-
list,' is in fact a Washington operator who, thanks to the posit-
ion of his wife, Linda Daschle, is putting huge sums of money in-
to his own pocket at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer. How does
he get away with it? Simple. (1) As one of the most powerful Dem-
ocrats in America, members of his own party won't challenge him.
(2) The few Republicans and Independents that have spoken up have
been shouted down with accusations of 'partisan smear tactics.'
(3) As a liberal, Daschle enjoys the protection of a sympathetic
national media. (4) Congressional rules aimed at preventing cor-
ruption are incredibly lax. If no one else is willing to expose
and put a stop to Tom Daschle's official corruption, we will!
Tom Daschle's behavior is inexcusable and may be one of the big-
gest cases of corruption and hypocrisy ever in the U.S. Congress.
Since 1997 the wife of Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, Linda
Hall Daschle, has lobbied for some of the U.S. government's larg-
est contractors. Mrs. Daschle represents huge companies including
Boeing and United Technologies on Capitol Hill, even as these in-
terests depend on her husband's official acts in the Senate for
their federal contracts. Mrs. Daschle also represents or has re-
presented two major airlines (American and Northwest), three air-
ports, aviation manufacturing interests, pharmaceutical giant
Schering-Plough and the American Trucking Association. Linda
Daschle defends herself...by pointing out that she never lobbies
the Senate. The Daschles may disingenuously deny they talk to
each other about business, but they cannot deny that the subst-
antial income Mrs. Daschle derives from her clients also enters
the Daschle family budget. Corruption and gross conflict of int-
erest? You decide. Here are examples of the Daschle's enriching
themselves at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer...and even worse,
potentially endangering the lives of American citizens." Then it
does proceed to get worse - much worse. But I think I've made my
point, without getting into all the nitty gritty details. The pre-
ceding material was furnished by Judicial Watch, and Chairman and
General Counsel Larry Klayman, who went on to run for the Senate
in Florida. To get more information on this you can contact them
at: 501 School Street, SW, 5th Floor, Washington, D.C., 20024,
(202) 646-5172, info@judicialwatch.org, www.JudicialWatch.org.
To introduce himself, Klayman says, "My name is Larry Klayman. I
am a lawyer, and I once served as a trial attorney in the U.S.
Department of Justice. I believe passionately in the U.S. Consti-
tution, and I have dedicated my career to the fundamental princi-
ple that in the United States no one is above the law! On July 29,
1994, I founded Judicial Watch, a public interest group dedicated
to exposing and prosecuting corruption in government and the legal
profession. I suspect you have heard of Judicial Watch. We are
often in the news." And so on. Just so much more reason not to
vote for Tom Daschle.
"Minority Leader Tom Daschle has stalled important legislation
for years. The House has passed all 13 spending bills to keep the
government funded, and Senator Daschle has blocked 12 of them in
the Senate. He has also blocked key judicial appointees. We need
this guy out. Despite spending almost $20 per voter, Daschle is
behind Thune by four points." From William J Murray, Chairman,
GING-PAC, October, 2004, P.O. Box 77237, Washington, DC 20013.
Jack McMullen vs. Patrick Leahy - U.S. Senate, Vermont
"Are you as outraged as I am by the Democrats' unprecedented cam-
paign to block President Bush's nominees for the judicial branch?
Well here is your chance to do something about it. As the top Dem-
ocrat on the Judiciary Committee, liberal Senator Pat Leahy of
Vermont is the Democrats' 'Staller-in-Chief.' Leahy crafts the
delay strategies, Leahy leads the filibusters, Leahy slanders the
nominees' character, Leahy votes 'No' in Committee, and then he
votes 'No' on the Senate Floor. He objects. He schemes. He plots.
He conspires. He even broke his public promise not to filibuster
judicial nominees. And this November, Patrick Leahy is up for re-
election. The question for you is simple: 'Are you going to let
him get away with it?' If ever there was a time to show a liberal
like Pat Leahy that actions have consequences, NOW IS THAT TIME!
Pat Leahy has done everything he can to stop President Bush's jud-
icial nominees from taking the bench. I, for one, have had enough.
And that's why I'm running for the United States Senate against
Patrick Leahy. My name is Jack McMullen and I need your help. By
supporting my campaign, you can help me beat Pat Leahy and end
his bitter partisanship in the U.S. Senate. I've served in our
military and I understand how important it is to end the threat
of terrorism. I want to move forward with a principled agenda in
the United States Senate. Pat Leahy is working hard to advance an
activist agenda. Indeed, that is why he is so aggressive in his
effort to block the President's judges. Liberal Democrats like
Leahy need activist judges who have little interest in the plain
words of the Constitution or the intent of its authors. To advance
their radical agenda, they need judges who interpret the Constit-
ution in the context of current left-wing political ideology.
Think about it. So many of the controversial policy decisions of
the last three decades have been visited upon us by activist jud-
ges. Instead of letting these incredibly important issues be de-
cided by voters and elected officials, activist judges have simp-
ly created law by their own hand.
Pat Leahy knows that President Bush is nominating judges who are
dedicated to the Rule of Law and the true intent of the Founding
Fathers. Leahy knows that President Bush's judges won't go along
with his radical agenda. And that is why he is working so hard to
keep the President's nominees from being confirmed by the Senate.
It's UNFAIR. And it's OUTRAGEOUS. But you can do something about
it. By supporting my campaign and helping me get Pat Leahy out of
the U.S. Senate, we can send a message to every Democrat who wants
to obstruct President Bush's judges.
With your help, I can defeat obstructionist Pat Leahy. And you can
be sure that I will work with President Bush to get his nominees
through the Senate. After all, the President's nominees are all
highly qualified and they deserve a vote. They are known for their
character, experience, and intellect. They share the President's
philosophy (which is also mine) that judges should follow the law,
not make the law. They represent the mainstream of American law
and values. And they have all been rated 'qualified' or 'well-
qualified' by the American Bar Association. President Bush has
nominated good men and women to serve on our nation's courts.
These are honorable people with strong values and impressive re-
sumes. They deserve the courtesy of being treated professionally.
Unfortunately, that will never happen while Pat Leahy is in the
U.S. Senate. It's time to put an end to Leahy's judicial blockade
right here, and now. ...the Democrats' efforts to block the Pres-
ident's judicial nominees are unprecedented in the history of our
nation. Together we can achieve a great victory for judges who
are faithful to the Constitution". Sincerely, Jack McMullen
Congressman Rodney Alexander - Louisiana
"Back in 2002 when I first won my race for Congress, I promised
myself I would neither harden my heart nor violate my conscience
in Washington D.C. just to 'fit in'. But over these last two years
I grew completely disgusted with the left-wing agenda of the nat-
ional Democratic Party. Their liberal agenda was APPALLING to me:
-- Support of so-called 'gay marriage' -- Unrestricted abortion-
on-demand -- Special Legal Rights for homosexuals -- Burning the
American Flag -- Cutting funding for our Armed Forces -- Advocat-
ing unlimited welfare -- Opposing tax cuts for working families
Each and every day I voted my conservative conscience and repre-
sented my constituents well on Capitol Hill. Yet as I did so, I
found myself voting in complete unison with my fellow conservat-
ives on the Republican side of the aisle. Increasingly in the Dem-
ocratic caucus I would receive the cold shoulder or be spoken of
in unflattering terms behind my back...there was a steep price to
pay for being a conservative Democrat in a national party dominat-
ed by liberals. That's why as a conservative, I decided it was
time for me to make a change like Ronald Reagan did and switch
parties.
I fight for my political life and battle for re-election to Con-
gress as a Republican. I have more maturity than to care about
scoring political points with liberal Democrat Party Bosses. I
ran for office to make a difference for my district and America.
I'd rather retire from Congress before I ever have to betray who
I am and what I believe ... I couldn't care less what the liberal
Democrats from San Francisco and New York City had to say. Unlike
the liberal Democrats on Capitol Hill, I support President Bush's
actions to defend America and my family. ...it disgusts me to see
John Kerry relentlessly attacking President Bush... I have been
and always will be pro-life...I believe the Second Amendment means
exactly what it says -- that our rights to own a firearm 'shall
not be infringed'. Sincerely, Rodney Alexander (R-LA)".
Andrea Zinga vs. Lane Evans - Illinois (17)
"For the past few months we've been holding regular briefings on
the issues of interest to the people of the 17th District and the
distinctions between Mr. Evans and me.
Here's another one -- life.
I think it's a critical issue; one I get asked about in phone
calls and e-mails and in person. So I'd like to tell you where I
stand on the issue, and why. Democratic Presidential candidate
John Kerry has been quoted as being personally pro-life, but pol-
itically not wanting to impose his religious views on others. My
opponent for Congress, Lane Evans, holds a similar position.
One hundred fifty years ago the hotly divisive social issue of the
time was slavery. One hundred fifty years ago, Stephen Douglas
was Abraham Lincoln's opponent for the Senate and in a series of
debates right here in the 17th District, Douglas said he was per-
sonally opposed to slavery, but wanted to let the people decide
the issue. He didn't want to impose his beliefs on them.
Such a stand -- if you can call it a stand -- ignores one crucial
thing: humanity, the humanity of the people whose freedom would
be denied. Back in that Senate race of the mid-1800's, Stephen
Douglas, in saying he'd let the people decide whether slavery was
wrong, excluded African-Americans from our shared humanity. That
was wrong. 'The people would decide'--just not the black people.
Who among us would today deny to African-Americans the protections
and freedoms every citizen has? Stephen Douglas won the Senate-but
Abraham Lincoln won the debates.
By advocating individual freedom for every person, Lincoln both
took a stand and touched a fundamental belief of most Americans-
eventually winning the Presidency and staying constant in his be-
liefs, constant enough to lead a shredded nation through one of
the most hellish times in our history. That was leadership.
Today, as we debate abortion, the vital question is again humanity:
the humanity of the unborn child. If the child is authentically
human, then he or she is entitled to the full protection that our
Bill of Rights guarantees to all of us. To deny that child life
is to deny him or her liberty.
In fact, now that science has shown that the unborn child is a
developing life long before birth, continuing to allow abortion
becomes a grave threat to the freedom of all of us. Lincoln under-
stood that when we subject any group of people to the arbitrary
authority of another group of people, we substitute power for lib-
erty. And once that's commonly accepted, no class of people could
expect a guarantee of liberty. If we don't remain committed to
liberty for all, we can't guarantee liberty to any.
Most religions teach individual liberty; and it's also the most
basic foundation stone of our nation. So if being pro-life isn't
strictly a religious position, but is also rooted in our founding
national principles of individual liberty and rights, there's no
logic in talking about 'imposing' it on others solely as a relig-
ious belief. That's like saying your religion makes you deplore
murder or kidnapping, but since it's your religious belief, you
wouldn't want to impose on people by, say, making laws against it.
A law making everyone attend Mass -- now that would be imposing a
religious belief.
I would tell both Senator Kerry and Mr. Evans that when we advoc-
ate for the rights of the unborn, we are advocating for the free-
dom of all of us -- both the born and unborn. That's not a belief
we impose. It's a blessing we share and from the start as a nat-
ion have pledged to mutually defend.
I stand strongly for this most fundamental of American principles
--life.
Editor's Note: Andrea Zinga, an Emmy-award winning TV Reporter and
Anchor, is the Republican candidate for Congress in Illinois' 17th
District. She seeks to unseat incumbent Democrat Lane Evans, who
once described himself as the most 'anti-Ronald Reagan Congressman
in the country'". From "The most fundamental American principle --
life", by Andrea Zinga, at IllinoisLeader.com. Publish Date:
August 12, 2004. Online at: http://ifrl.org/IFRLDailyNews/040813/5
Magnificent.
Read about John Thune's 2002 campaign.
If you didn't find a candidate here are some other sources:
Compare the candidates in selected U.S. Senate Races
Key Races & Candidates Around the U.S.
Pro-Life Women of the 108th Congress
We Vote Pro-Life
Campaign For Working Families Endorsements
Election 2004: Candidates Voting Records
Recommendations from specific states
Pat Toomey vs. Arlen Specter - Pennsylvania primary April 27th.
"Liberal pro-abortion Senator Arlen Specter will face a pro-life
challenger in the Republican primary against Rep. Pat Toomey.
Toomey answered affirmatively all questions on his '02 NPLA
candidate survey, including support for a Life at Conception Act
to overturn Roe v. Wade. Pat Toomey is a cosponsor of the NPLA-
drafted Parental Notification and Intervention Act." From:
"Vulnerable Pro-Abortion Senate Seats Could Translate Into Pro-
Life Supreme Court", Newsletter of the National Pro-Life Alliance
Fall 2003.
"Pro-abortion Senator Arlen Specter will face a strong challenger
in the Republican primary this year. Specter is best known by
pro-lifers for stopping the Supreme Court nomination of pro-life
Reagan appointee -- judge Robert Bork, as well as other judicial
nominees. If Specter wins reelection, he will almost certainly
assume chiarmanship pf the Judiciary Committee, where he will be
able to block pro-life legislation. Three-term Congressman Pat
Toomey is running a strong race to de-throne the pro-abortion
Senator and has energized pro-life voters in Pennsylvania and
nationwide. Arlen Specter is widely blamed by pro-lifers for the
pro-abortion Supreme Court majority." Newsletter of the National
Pro-Life Alliance, Winter 2004.
"From: ConservativePetitions.com cons_petitions@norm.nmailer.com
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 14:57:30 -0400
'The Worst Liberal Senator' - help beat him NOW
Believe it or not, right now, you and I have the opportunity to
defeat a liberal Senator -- AND elect a 'true-blue' conservative
in his place -- even BEFORE the general election next year!
You read that right. There's a sitting U.S. Senator who has a 42
percent lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union,
which is exactly HALF the average for Republican senators.
This liberal Senator votes the WRONG way on everything from taxes,
spending, and national security, to cloning, hate crimes, and
labor law. He's a supporter of abortion-on-demand no matter the
circumstances, he advocates racial preferences, he's an opponent
of much-needed tort reform, he's a firm friend of the United
Nations' International Criminal Court... you name the left-wing
pet project, and he's in favor of it. Citizens Against Government
Waste has even listed him in its 'Pig Book' as one of the Senate's
biggest pork-barrel spenders.
Who is this bastion of old-line, tax-and-spend liberalism, who
helped slash the Bush administration's tax cuts by $250 billion
in 2001? The LIBERAL Senator we're talking about isn't even a
Democrat at all -- He's a REPUBLICAN. His name is Arlen Specter
(R-PA). That's right -- a 42% ACU rating, a staunch supporter of
every liberal cause under the sun, and even an opponent of many
conservative judicial nominees in the past (he even voted AGAINST
impeaching Clinton)... Republican Sen. Arlen Specter is NO friend
to conservative Americans. That's why conservatives all across
America need to come together to help defeat his re-election bid!
In fact, the latest issue of National Review, the leading
conservative magazine, calls Sen. Specter 'The Worst Republican
Senator' and 'one of the GOP's most liberal members.' In the cover
article by John J. Miller, the author explains why 'Pennsylvania
should get rid of Arlen Specter'; namely, that he is 'the man who
has done more to frustrate conservative goals over the years than
perhaps any other member of his caucus.'
Want a few examples of Sen. Specter's blatant liberalism? Take a
look: Specter helped the Democrats to 'bork' Judge Robert Bork;
He was the first Republican to cross the aisle to vote for
Clinton's 'largest tax increase in history'; He sponsored the
'Freedom of Choice Act' which would have forced religious hospitals
to perform abortions; He sponsored as many Democrats for federal
judgeships as Republicans; He voted to drastically reduce
President Bush's tax cut; And, he was the only GOP Senator to vote
against President Bush's educational voucher initiative in the
Washington, D.C. school district. Add it all up, and you can see
why the RightMarch.com Political Action Committee has chosen the
GOP primary race in Pennsylvania as the target for its first
official 'RINO Hunt'. (As you probably know, a 'RINO' is a
'Republican In Name Only' -- someone elected on the GOP ticket,
but who consistently votes a liberal line instead of voting
conservative. And Specter sure does qualify!) We have a chance NOW,
long before the 2004 general election takes place, to help DEFEAT
this liberal Republican in the upcoming GOP primary. This is no
ordinary primary coming up next April. Unlike past primaries in
Pennsylvania, this one pits a REAL, true-blue conservative --
Congressman Pat Toomey, who holds a 97 PERCENT rating from the ACU
-- against the aging, liberal Specter. And there's good reason
to think Toomey can pull it off:
It's a closed primary -- only Republicans can vote, which usually
benefits the conservative candidate; No matter what the issue is,
when it comes to Specter's record, there's always something that
will offend most Republicans; In past elections, fully one-third
of the primary voters voted to replace Specter, even when the only
choice was challengers who were either single-issue candidates or
no-campaign, no-name challengers; Finally, Toomey already has a
double-digit lead over Specter in his home district, even though
Specter's been in office more than five times as long.
It won't be easy, though; Specter has already raised more than 9
million dollars for his campaign. It's going to be an uphill fight.
RightMarch.com PAC wants to help even the odds in that fight. ...
as National Review noted, 'Specter votes like a Democrat until
late in his term, when he remembers that he will need at least
some conservatives on his side if he's going to win another six
years.'
And, at his age (if Specter wins a fifth term this election, he'll
be 80 years old in 2010), if he knows he's going to retire and
doesn't have to face any more election campaigns, conservatives
may not even get the one or two years of fair treatment from him
they've come to expect. He could be another Jim Jeffords...
jumping ship when we need him the most. Or even worse: should
Specter somehow leave office in the midst of his term, Pennsyl-
vania's DEMOCRAT Governor would get to appoint a DEMOCRAT to
replace him! We MUST NOT let this happen." Well, that's a lot
more than I like to get into the liberal/conservative dichotomy,
political parties, and other issues on this web site - because
I try to keep it focused as much as possible just on abortion so
I don't alienate my readers for other reasons. But the above email
gave such a complete picture of the situation I decided to print
most of it, except for the requests for donations, anyway. Now,
it's almost 2 A.M., which I don't normally let slow me down, but
I promised my mother to help her with her taxes tomorrow, so I'll
have to get back to this at a later date - because there's still
more current information to this story.
What remains of my synopsis of the Toomey/Specter candidates will
come from Human Events. Since I'm a subscriber, I will be able to
copy and paste from their web site, rather than having to manually
transcribe from the print version I receive in the mail on a weekly
basis. Human Events is a conservative paper that provides stories
you can't find reported by the major liberal media organizations.
I use this approach because it is more authoritative than making
statements myself based on what I read. I've decided that if
a contributing news source wants to sue me, I'll deal with that
afterwards. To mitigate that possibility, I try to present as
much promotional copy as is practical. In this case, if you wish
to subscribe to Human Events yourself, you can contact them at
One Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001. On the
web they're at www.HumanEventsOnline.com, and the phone number of
the Subscription Services Department is 1-800-787-7557. Done.
I only present the portions of the reports I consider relevant.
"Will Specter Chair Judiciary?
by Timothy P. Carney Posted Aug 18, 2003
Liberal Sen. Arlen Specter (R.-Pa.) is in line to chair the Senate
Judiciary Committee in 2005. This means the confirmation of the
next Supreme Court justice could be presided over by a pro-choice
senator who holds that Roe v. Wade was correctly decided and who
helped sink the Supreme Court nomination of conservative judge
Robert Bork. If voters do not oust Specter in next year's primary
or general election, the Judiciary gavel—and control over confir-
mations to the federal courts — will fall into Specter's hands
unless a few powerful GOP senators are willing to stop it. The
simplest solution to the problem would take a personal sacrifice
by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R.-Iowa). When the party's term limits on
committee chairmen force Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) to give up
the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee at the end of the
current Congress, Grassley will be next in line for that position.
To assume that role, however, he would need to surrender the gavel
of the powerful Finance Committee. But, according to a Grassley
spokesman, the Iowa senator (who faces an easy reelection this
year) is unwilling to surrender Finance, which drafts all tax law
and Medicare legislation. That leaves Specter as Hatch's heir-
apparent at Judiciary.
New Senate Republican Conference rules limit senators to eight
years as chairmen. The only other time seniority is bypassed is
if the senior senator on a committee already holds another chair-
manship. Hatch's eight years expire at the end of the current
Congress. (The few months of GOP control before the Jeffords
defection in the 107th Congress are not counted against term-
limits.) Grassley, who is serving his first full year as Finance
chairman, is eligible to run his committee until after the 2010
elections.
The single most important function of the Judiciary Committee is
to vet federal court nominees, especially nominees to the U.S.
Supreme Court. The Judiciary Chairman must be the champion of any
Supreme Court nominee. So he must be enthusiastic about all
presidential judicial nominations. Specter, however, subscribes
to the pro-abortion judicial activism of the left.
In October 1999 and then again this Spring, during debate on a
bill to ban partial-birth abortion, Specter voted in favor of an
amendment holding that Roe v. Wade, which in 1973 seized the
abortion issue from the states and elected legislatures, was
correctly decided and ought not be overturned. The amendment
passed both times. Even pro-choice legal scholars maintain that
the Roe decision — based on 'penumbras' and 'emanations' rather
than the text of the Constitution — is a prime example of shoddy
jurisprudence. Most noteworthy is pro-choice law professor John
Hart Ely, who laid out the absurdities of Roe in his 1973 essay
'The Wages of Crying Wolf: A comment on Roe v. Wade.'
In 1987, Specter grilled Federal Appeals Court Judge Robert Bork,
President Reagan's conservative nominee to the Supreme Court. In
his book Passion for Truth, Specter explained why he resisted
Bork's nomination, which was eventually voted down by the Senate.
'The Constitution has turned out to be much more dynamic than
[Bork believes]: a living, growing document, responsive to the
needs of the nation,' wrote Specter. 'Bork's narrow approach is
dangerous for constitutional government.'
The Judiciary Committee, in addition to vetting judicial nominees,
has jurisdiction over many abortion-related bills. In this
Congress, Specter has garnered a 50% rating from the National
Right to Life Committee. In past Congresses, he has hovered
between 0% and 25%. This year, Specter has voted in favor of the
partial birth abortion ban, but supported funding for abortions
on military bases and for International Planned Parenthood. Mr.
Carney is a reporter for the Evans-Novak Political Report". At
the heart of the dispute is whether the original intent of the
Constitution should be adhered to, or if judges should just make
up rules based on their personal opinions. There's a lot more on
that, that follows in this document. Apparently Specter has
swallowed the "whatever seems good today" approach, hook, line,
and sinker.
"Saturday, March 27, 2004 Toomey Catching Up: Liberal Pennsylvania
Sen. Arlen Specter has been losing ground in his race against Rep.
Pat Toomey (R.-Pa.). The two face off in an April 27 GOP Senate
primary. Toomey has closed to within single digits of Specter,
after trailing by 23 points in January, according to a new poll
by KDKA-TV in Pittsburgh and WNEP-TV in Scranton. The statewide
poll of 399 likely Republican voters puts the race at Specter,
47%; Toomey, 38%, with 15% undecided. Toomey, whose name was
recognized by only half of those surveyed, definitely has the
momentum and plenty of room to add new supporters once they learn
about his campaign. - Posted 7:26 AM"
"Arlen Dials 911: Specter is desperately reaching out to liberal
Democrats to save his re-election bid, even urging liberals to
switch their registration just long enough to vote for him in the
primary. - Posted 7:25 AM"
"Toomey Gains on Specter In Pennsylvania Primary
by David Freddoso Posted Apr 2, 2004
Conservative Rep. Pat Toomey (R.-Pa.) is closing the gap against
liberal incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter (R.-Pa.) in his bid to unseat
Specter in Pennsylvania's April 27 Republican U.S. Senate primary.
Toomey remains the underdog. But a series of polls have placed him
at least within striking distance as the campaign enters its final
three weeks. Among likely primary voters, Toomey had climbed from
oblivion to 33% in the March 31 Keystone poll, against Specter's
46%. Other recent surveys have placed him nine and ten points
behind, with Specter polling consistently below 50%.
The polls indicate that Toomey's attacks on Specter's left-of-
center voting record on issues such as abortion, human cloning,
tort reform, school vouchers, and taxes, are resonating with
Republicans. They also show Specter with surprisingly soft re-elect
numbers -- as low as 36% statewide according to a Quinnipiac poll
in mid-March. The polls also agree that Toomey has relatively low
name recognition among registered Republicans -- 51% say they have
not heard of him -- and that a large number of voters remain
undecided. While this poses a problem for Toomey, it also
demonstrates he has plenty of upside potential. He will gain some
exposure April 3, when he debates Specter on statewide television.
Toomey's campaign has $2 million cash on hand, Federal Election
Commission records show, which Toomey told HUMAN EVENTS will be
used for an advertising blitz in the closing weeks of the campaign.
'We knew that we weren't going to have as much money as Sen.
Specter, and so we've saved it for the end,' he said. A Toomey
campaign aide told HUMAN EVENTS that Toomey would also have an
extensive ground game, with over 10,000 unpaid volunteers signed
up statewide.
Specter has an impressive $9.2 million left to spend, but lacks
strong grassroots support. HUMAN EVENTS obtained two emails from
his campaign offering to pay volunteers $75 per day. Specter's
campaign manager, Chris Nicholas, did not respond to phone
inquiries.
The Liberal Republican
Specter, who has taken contributions from labor unions, pro-
abortion groups and even $1,000 from former Clinton advisor Harold
Ickes, has been a liberal Republican throughout his 24 years in
the Senate. He even voted against the impeachment of President
Clinton in 1999.
The Club for Growth, a conservative economic advocacy group, has
run ads in this year's primary noting that Specter voted with
Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry (D.-Mass.) 70% of the
time in 2002. In 2003, Citizens Against Government Waste named
Specter Porker of the Year.
Specter's treatment of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act was
typical of his style. After voting for an amendment that would
have effectively killed the pro-life bill, he then voted for the
bill itself. Similarly, in 2001, he voted with Democrats to scale
back President Bush's first tax cut by $450 billion before voting
for the tax cut itself.
Specter is taking the threat from Toomey seriously. As of mid-March
he had already spent $5 million on the race, according to FEC
records, compared to Toomey's $1 million. And although it could
be attributed to typical incumbent behavior during a tough
campaign, Specter has alerted several former staffers that he
could lose and has asked for help. One former staffer told HUMAN
EVENTS that he and others are in contact now devising ways to
help the incumbent.
Specter has also made full use of his legal and labor connections
to shore up support on the left. The Transportation Communications
International, which has endorsed John Kerry for President, sent
voter registration cards to its 3,800 Pennsylvania members urging
them to switch to the Republican Party for the primary so they
could vote for Specter and then 'switch right back after the
primary.'
A Test For Conservatives
As Toomey's campaign gains credibility in polling and fundraising,
conservatives nationwide are hoping his campaign will be a show
of conservative strength within the Republican Party. Toomey has
the support of the Conservative Victory Fund, the National
Conservative Campaign Fund, and many other conservative PACs.
Conservative publications such as HUMAN EVENTS have closely
followed the race, while National Review has had cover stories on
both Toomey and Specter.
The race is also important because if Specter wins he will chair
the Senate Judiciary Committee, becoming doorkeeper for President
Bush's judicial appointees. From that position, conservatives fear,
he could pressure Bush to nominate moderates to the Supreme Court,
or even single-handedly sink conservative nominations, just as he
helped sink President Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork in 1987.
This is particularly important because Bush may have two or more
Supreme Court vacancies to fill if he wins a second term. The court
now has six liberals and only three conservatives. Many on the
right fear that a Specter victory could set the pro-life movement
back by 20 years... David Freddoso is Assistant Editor for HUMAN
EVENTS."
The Republican establishment doesn't want to offend a sitting
Republican Senator who may become the chairman of the Judicary
Committee. No doubt, they also believe that if Specter wins the
primary he will be a shoo-in because of his name recognition and
funding, and because be will attract liberal and Democrat votes.
But Pennsylvania's other U.S. Senator, popular Rick Santorum, is
one of, if not the, strongest pro-life voices in the Senate;
together with being a social conservative like Toomey. So Toomey's
conservatism should not be a handicap in Pennsylvania. Therefore,
I support Toomey. If he wins, he will have the name recognition
he needs going into the general election - plus Republican funds.
"From: 'Austin Ruse -- C-FAM' c-fam@c-fam.org
Subject: URGENT NOTE ON PENNSYLVANIA SENATE RACE
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 08:12:22 -0800
Dear Colleague,
C-FAM does not get involved in electoral politics. But there is
one race that is vitally important this year and that is the
primary Senate race in Pennsylvania between the pro-life Pat
Toomey and the pro-abortion Arlen Specter. While we do not endorse
any candidate for electoral office, we are passing along this
voter guide information provided by the Christian Coalition. It
is a close race, only a few points separate the candidates. Every
vote will count. Yours sincerely, Austin Ruse
Christian Coalition Voter Guide on PA Senate Race
BAN ALL HUMAN CLONING
Toomey supports/Spector opposes
SCHOOL CHOICE INITIATIVES
Toomey supports/Specter opposes
PARENTAL NOTIFICATION OF ABORTION
Toomey supports/Specter opposes
NO BOYSCOUT ACCESS TO SCHOOL/FEDERAL BUILDINGS UNLESS GAY
SCOUTLEADERS ARE ALLOWED
Toomey opposes/Specter supports
TAXPAYER FUNDING OF ABORTION ON DEMAND
Toomey opposes/Specter supports
SAME SEX ADOPTION OF CHILDREN
Toomey opposes/Specter supports"
"On April 27th, Republican primary voters in Pennsylvania will
make a historic choice for the United States Senate. Will they
choose the pragmatism of the past or bold, conservative leadership
for the future? The contrast between the candidates could not be
clearer and in this race Campaign for Working Families PAC is
proud to endorse Representative Pat Toomey for the United States
Senate. Pat Toomey is a proud conservative. He is strongly pro-
life and pro-family – values no doubt learned at home. Pat Toomey
grew up in a working class family as one of six children. His
father was a union member and his mother worked as a secretary at
their church. Through scholarships, loans, and hard work, Pat put
himself through Harvard University and worked in the international
finance industry after college.
Pat Toomey: Candidate for U.S. Senate, PA (Republican)
Website: www.pattoomey.org Email: info@pattoomey.org
MeetUp: toomeyforsenate.meetup.com
Phone: (610) 439-6330 Fax: (610) 439-5002
Address: PO Box 8658, Allentown, PA 18105
Marital Status: Married (Kris)
(Prev.) Occupation: Investment Banker, Restaurateur
Education: BA Harvard University, 1984
Birthdate: 11/17/1961 Birthplace: Providence, RI
Religion: Catholic"
Key votes, at - http://capwiz.com/cwf/index_frame.dbq?url=http://
capwiz.com/cwf/e4/cinfo/?state=PA&id=111212
The complete CWFPAC writeup on the Toomey/Specter race is at:
http://www.cwfpac.com/spotlight_toomey_04.htm. (About 4 pages.)
Campaign for Working Families, 2800 Shirlington Road, Suite 930,
Arlington, VA 22206 Phone: 703-671-8800 Fax: 703-671-8899
"...the latest poll shows the race is virtually tied." Gary Bauer
- CWF garybauer@cwfpac.com Wed, 21 Apr 2004 09:21:53 -0400
"Specter Wins Pennsylvania Senate Primary
(Citizen Link - www.family.org/cforum) U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter,
often criticized by pro-family groups for his liberal views on
abortion and other traditional-values issues, appeared to eke out
a win this morning in Pennsylvania's Republican Senate primary.
In unofficial results, the 24-year incumbent garnered 51 percent
of the more than 1 million votes cast, compared to 49 percent for
his challenger, U.S. Rep. Pat Toomey. With 97 percent of precincts
reporting, Specter led 512,124 to 495,494."
I really didn't plan to get into current events. For one thing,
as I move toward getting back to earning a living, I almost cert-
ainly will not have time to keep up with it. Another reason is
that my approach has been to address the underlying logic, and
lack of it, of the controversy; and I hope it will stand the test
of time as new developments unfold. Yet another reason is that
there are several other web sites already doing that far better
than I ever could, and you can link to them above or in the refer-
ence section below. However, I received something written by
Colleen Parro for RNC/Life, about the drug RU-486, that was so
well stated that I feel obligated to pass it along.
"Oklahoma Congressman Tom Coburn was widely quoted as saying,
'Never before has the FDA approved a drug intended to kill people.
The FDA's mission is to promote health, not facilitate the taking
of life. Sadly, the FDA has approved a drug that will kill an un-
born child and put mothers at grave risk.'
Arkansas Senator Tim Hutchinson said, 'Fast-track timetables are
supposed to be reserved for drugs that will combat life-threaten-
ing diseases like cancer or AIDS. In this case, the Administra-
tion rushed a drug through that will take lives instead of saving
them.'
In addition to the fact that RU-486 kills a developing baby with-
in the first 7 weeks of life, the press has reported extensively
on directions for its use and the dangers to the mother involved
in drug-induced abortion. A report by Susan Willis for msnbc.com
(10/2/00) reveals that excessive bleeding is common. Nine percent
of women in U.S. trials bled for more than 30 days; one percent
bled for over 60 days; Four women in U.S. trials (of about 2,000)
required blood transfusions; 25 women were treated in emergency
rooms or hospitalized for complications.
The steps for procuring a drug-induced abortion using RU-486 in-
volve first, a visit to a doctor for an ultrasound to determine
the stage of development of the baby and that an ectopic [tubal]
pregnancy is not involved. The mother then receives the capsules
containing mifepristone, an anti-progesterone drug that causes
the lining of the uterus to break down, preventing the growing
baby from remaining implanted in the uterine wall. Two days later,
the mother must keep another medical appointment when she receiv-
es the drug misoprostol, a prostaglandin, which brings on uterine
contractions. She remains under supervision for about 4 hours
during which she may expel the baby. If not, she returns home,
experiencing excessive bleeding and cramping, often accompanied
by vomiting and diarrhea, until she delivers a dead baby. In two
weeks, another medical appointment is necessary to make sure the
abortion was complete. Otherwise, a surgical abortion will be
necessary. This is not easy. This is dangerous."!
"In a statement issued on September 29, Patrick Buchanan said, ..
... 'the FDA's approval of RU-486 turns a new page in America's
national tragedy. Millions more will perish, and their blood will
stain our nation's soul. I say it is an affront to all that is
right in America and an abomination before the God who authored
these unborn lives.'"
"WASHINGTON - The RU-486 abortion drug that will be sold in the
United States will be manufactured in a factory operated by the
People's Republic of China, the Washington Post confirmed . . . .
the RU-486 produced in that factory and two others is now used
for about one-half of the estimated 10 million abortions annually
in China. Many of those abortions are forced on women under the
government-enforced 'birth-quota' program. It is a public health
issue because China is a major source of impure drugs - and the
FDA cannot possibly monitor a Chinese factory effectively. It is
a human rights issue because...of the Chinese Government's popul-
ation control program which relies heavily on compulsory abortion
." Source: National Right To Life Committee Press Release
"With the FDA's approval of the marketing of RU 486 in the United
States of America, our young mothers will be subjected to chemical
experimentation and our tiniest citizens subjected to chemical ex-
termination. The abortion industry's never ending saga of seeking
cleaner and quieter ways to kill children is reminiscent of an-
other country's desire for a cleaner and quieter way to extermin-
ate its citizens.
Nazi Germany sought and found its solution in a company by the
name of I.G. Farben. I.G. Farben developed 'Zyklon B' which was
the gas used to exterminate Jews. Incredibly, this is the same
company that developed our present day RU486. Surprised! The name
of that company today is Hoechst-Celeanse. Its French affiliate
is Russeau-Uclaff, the 'RU' of RU486.
'History is a good teacher.' said Rev. Flip Benham, the National
Director of Operation Rescue. 'The same company that developed a
kinder and gentler way to kill our Jewish brothers and sisters
has now developed a kinder and gentler way to exterminate our
children.'" Source: Operation Save America
Historical note: It's not my understanding of history that the
Nazis used the gas because it was "kinder and gentler", and Rev.
Benham would probably agree. They used it to save ammunition,
manpower, time, and to avoid an explosive situation where people
were standing in line knowing the people ahead of them were being
shot; plus the effect on the morale of the people doing the guard-
ing and shooting could have resulted in discontent or a rebellion
or a loss of secrecy. They went from something very clumsy and
messy to something more efficient they called "The final solution
to the Jewish problem" (Jews were not the only minority they were
exterminating). Eventually they would execute 6 million innocent
people this way - a drop in the bucket compared to what's going
on around the world today! Today in America some people see abor-
tion as the final solution to the pregnancy problem, and choose
to ignore that they're killing millions of people to get there.
Others see it as a way to get rich, and many politicians see it
as the path to power by pandering to it. Does the truth hurt?
Similarly, feminists (excluding Feminists for Life) don't want
RU-486 out of concern for the child they won't even admit exists;
they want it because they think it will be more convenient and
private for themselves (just like the Nazis didn't want to admit
to the world what they were doing).
I saw a cartoon. It was taken from the Akron Beacon Journal. A
bottle was on a table. The label on the bottle read "Cabernet Red
Table Wine...FDA Warning: May Cause Birth Defects". Next to the
bottle was a box. The label on the box read "Smokes..FDA warning:
Harmful To Unborn Children". Next to the box was a pill bottle.
The label said "RU-486 FDA APPROVED". I didn't laugh.
"FDA Chief Fired Following Abuse of 'Accelerated Approval' Policy
...Soon after taking office, President Bush dismissed Jane Henney,
the controversial FDA director who...oversaw the fast-track appr-
oval of the abortion drug." (RU-486) "Previously, new presidential
administrations usually held on to the incumbent FDA director,
since the post was considered a scientific, not a political, pos-
ition -- a tradition Ms. Henney was all-too-ready to violate."
National Pro-Life "Alliance Executive Director Mary King....cited
numerous reports linking use of the abortion pill to cancer - a
risk the FDA is required to study for virtually every new drug,
yet bafflingly ignored its own standard procedures on carcinogeni-
city for this self-described human toxin! The long-term consequen-
ces of women who attempt another pregnancy after killing a first
child by an abortion pill were also ignored. Independent studies
have suggested a high risk of fetal deformation. Cases of uter-
ine bleeding after ingesting the abortion pill have been common-
place. In Waterloo, Iowa, during the U.S. testing trials, one
woman nearly bled to death, requiring emergency surgery and four
pints of blood. Dozens of similar cases have already been report-
ed." Taken from the Spring, 2001, LifeLine Newsletter.
"China Bans RU-486 - The chemical abortion agent RU-486, currently
being sold in the United States, is being manufactured in the
People’s Republic of China, but the Chinese government has banned
its dispensation by pharmacies at home. The Beijing Youth Daily
reported on October 10 that the State Drug Administration has ban-
ned the sale of abortion pills at pharmacies and said Beijing
drugstores had already stopped selling the drugs. Specialists are
saying unregulated use of the abortion drug could lead to incomp-
lete abortions, major blood loss, infections and impotence." Rep-
ublican National Coalition for Life FaxNotes - November 2, 2001
"'It's an amazing admission coming from a country where abortion
is a government policy,'...The Chinese government has ordered the
RU-486 abortion pill off the nation's pharmacy shelves, citing
numerous reports of women who required hospitalization because of
the drug's side effects. 'We have repeatedly called on President
Bush and the FDA to take similar action in this country'...but
thus far our pleas have been ignored.'" Judie Brown, in the Judie
Brown Report
"New coercion in Chinese population campaign: Unhappy that coop-
eration with their one-child policy is not 100 percent, Chinese
officials are cracking down even harder on the poor in the mount-
ainous region of Guangdong. As many as 20,000 more abortions,
some as late as nine months, are expected to be forcibly perform-
ed on women of the province, some as late as nine months, and all
approved births will be followed by forced sterilization. Mean-
while, discrimination in access to education and health care a-
gainst 'unofficial' children -- those born without permission --
continues throughout China.
"New Scientist magazine reported last year that a rising number of
babies born with birth defects were being seen as attributable to
RU-486 in developing countries. (See CNR vol. 2, no. 4, pg.4)"
"Deaths related to RU-486 have been reported in the U.S. (on a
Canadian citizen) and in France where the drug began." Source:
Family News in Focus Press Release 10/25/01.
Canadian woman dies in abortion pill trials: A Canadian woman's
death during the testing of the abortion pill RU-486 has prompted
the suspension of the study....." The above two paragraphs were
taken from the Issues Update section of Celebrate Life, November-
December 2001.
Here's more from the Winter 2002 NPLA Lifeline: "Even Eduardo
Sakiz, the CEO of RU-486's original manufacturer, has since admit-
ted taking the abortion pill causes 'an appalling psychological
effect' for many women." "....abortion pill...has been linked to
fetal deformation and carcinogenicity in mother's milk when women
who have taken RU-486 try to go through with a later pregnancy."
I don't know whether sound scientific evidence exists to back up
these statements. But even if they're only hearsay, and I was a
woman considering taking the pill, I'd still like to hear about
them.
Have I made my point on RU-486 yet?
From: The Pro-Life Infonet infonet@prolifeinfo.org
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt infonet@prolifeinfo.org
Subject: Family Research Council Responds to FDA RU 486 Report
Source: Family Research Council; April 18, 2002
Family Research Council Responds to FDA RU 486 Report
"Washington, DC -- -- A new letter posted on the website of the
Food and Drug Administration by the manufacturer of RU-486 raises
serious questions about the drug's safety and the FDA's efforts to
protect women's health. The letter contains information about six
women who have had adverse health affects after taking the drug -
- two of whom died. Three of the women suffered bleeding after
rupture of ectopic pregnancies, which are not aborted by the drug
and can be diagnosed by ultrasound.
Dr. John Diggs, Jr., advisory board member for Family Research
Council (FRC), sent a letter to the FDA Thursday calling for the
agency to mandate ultrasound evaluation by a qualified examiner
for ectopic pregnancy before prescription of RU-486.
In a Q & A section on the FDA's website, it says the 'FDA will
approve a drug if it determines that the benefits exceed the risks
for the approved use' and that 'when FDA approves a drug, the
labeling includes information on benefits and risks and the appro-
priate dosing regimens ... '
'What is the benefit of RU-486 that enhances women's health?' Dr.
Diggs asked. 'Medications are used to treat illnesses. Then, we
physicians make the assessment that the treatment, although risky,
has great benefit over the illness. However, pregnancy is not an
illness, but a natural, necessary, and healthy physiological state.
Without a description of the illness, it is impossible to conclude
that there is a benefit that merits the substantial risks to the
mother. Obviously, the unborn child does not benefit in any fash-
ion from this drug.'
Dr. Diggs also pointed out that the manufacturer's letter on RU-
486 does not accurately describe and mandate the technology avai-
lable to diagnose ectopic pregnancy. 'The standard of care to rule
out ectopic pregnancy is pelvic ultrasound with the possible add-
ition of transvaginal ultrasound. The vague terminology the FDA
directs to practitioners using this regimen is inadequate and does
not protect the health of women,' he said."
The RU-486 Files - Articles and Newsclippings, Books, Related Re-
sources, and Related Web Sites
From: Jennifer Bingham, Executive Director, Susan B. Anthony List
SBAList@DemocracyData.com Subject: Revisiting the Drug-Induced
Abortion Pill -- RU486! Date: 26 Aug 2002 16:30:41 -0400
During the closing days of the Clinton administration, the drug
RU-486, used for drug-induced abortions, was approved! Today, it
is a common form of abortion and even worse, at least 180 schools
nationwide have been discovered passing out this "medication" to
young female students! This MUST be STOPPED! Not only is this drug
destroying the lives of unborn children, it is detrimental to the
health of the mother. Close examination by medical professionals
tells another story as they describe the pill as a tremendous
health risk for the pregnant woman. The FDA rushed to approve the
drug-induced abortion pill, RU-486, in 2000 in a fashion that
could have severe – even fatal - side effects for women. Not only
is this destroying the lives of unborn children but it is also
putting the life of the mother at risk.
--------------------
From: The Pro-Life Infonet, Steven Ertelt infonet@prolifeinfo.org
Source: Cybercast News Service; November 21, 2002
"Bush Nominee for FDA Panel Says RU 486 Unsafe
Washington, DC -- Dr. David Hager, a pro-life obstetrician chosen
by President George W. Bush to head the Food and Drug Administra-
tion advisory committee that previously approved the dangerous RU
486 abortion drug, said Tuesday he opposed the drug because of
safety considerations and inadequate testing.
The Christian physician is under consideration by the Bush admin-
istration to head the Food and Drug Administration's Reproductive
Health Drugs Advisory Committee and has been the subject of oppo-
sition from abortion advocates who oppose his nomination. Even
though the committee's most immediate task will be to consider
issues related to hormone replacement therapy, Hager's pending
appointment has drawn criticism from groups who claim he will try
to hinder FDA approval of certain drugs and medical devices and
make abortion more difficult to obtain. Speaking at a Capitol Hill
forum hosted by Concerned Women for America, he made no secret of
the fact that he thinks the FDA flouted its normal drug approval
process in approving the abortion regimen RU-486, also known as
Mifeprex, in September 2000. 'This certainly violated the general
trend,' of drug approval, said Hager, who thinks the drug should
be withdrawn from the market until further tests can be conducted
to determine whether the drug is safe. Short of pulling the drug
from the market, he said the FDA should amend RU-486 regulations
to restrict its use to adult women and require that those prescr-
ibing the drug administer an ultrasound to determine whether
there is a uterine pregnancy. If an ultrasound doesn't show a ut-
erine pregnancy, that's a signal to check for an ectopic (fallop-
ian tube) pregnancy. According to the FDA three women have died
from using RU 486 in association with an ectopic pregnancy. Be-
cause RU-486 causes some of the same symptoms as do ectopic preg-
nancies, like bleeding and cramping, Hager and other doctors fear
that the ectopic pregnancies will go untreated, causing injury or
death. He and other critics of RU-486 say that the final FDA reg-
ulations do not track with precautions taken during the French
and American drug trials. For example, the trials did use ultra-
sounds on patients, a practice that is optional under current FDA
RU-486 regulations. And adolescents did not participate in the
two trials, yet the FDA waived the so-called 'pediatric rule'
that requires testing on children and adolescents before a drug
is approved for their use. Concerned Women for America joined the
American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists
(AAPLOG), and the Christian Medical Association, of which Hager
is a spokesman, in petitioning the FDA to halt all distribution
and marketing of the RU-486. 'FDA, in approving Mifeprex, acted
in a manner inconsistent with its statutory authorization, regul-
ations and well-established policies,' commented Dr. Donna
Harrison, speaking for AAPLOG. 'The approval of Mifeprex was.....
arbitrary, capricious [and] an abuse of discretion,' said Harri-
son. 'It must be reversed.' Two groups most responsible for in-
troducing Mifeprex to American consumers, Danco Laboraties and
the Population Council, have both defended the abortion drug,
claiming it safe and effective. 'Every aspect of the drug's manu-
facturing, marketing and distribution was reviewed by the FDA
prior to approval,' a Danco spokesperson said in April. 'We fully
stand behind the safety and efficacy of the Mifeprex regimen.'
The status of Hager's appointment was uncertain Tuesday. Hager
himself declined to comment on it, referring such inquiries to
FDA Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Bill Pierce,
who did not return calls seeking comment."
----
"--------------------
From: The Pro-Life Infonet Reply-To: Steven Ertelt infonet@
prolifeinfo.org Source: Associated Press; December 26, 2002
Bush Admin Appoints Pro-Life Doc to FDA Panel
Washington, DC -- A physician who has been criticized by pro-abor-
tion lobbyists for his pro-life views on abortion was named to a
Food and Drug Administration panel on women's health policy. Dr.
W. David Hager, a University of Kentucky obstetrician-gynecolog-
ist, was among 11 physicians appointed Tuesday by FDA Commission-
er Mark McClellan to the agency's Advisory Committee for Reprod-
uctive Health Drugs. Hager has questioned the safety of the dang-
erous abortion pill RU-486 (mifepristone) and opposes abortion.
Pro-abortion activists are concerned about Hager's appointment
because he participated in a Christian Medical Association camp-
aign this year that attempted to reverse the FDA committee's 1996
recommendation that led to RU-486 being approved. The National
Organization for Women and six other abortion advocacy groups
have called Hager's selection a conflict of interest in the name
of ideology. The Planned Parenthood Federation of America issued
a statement Tuesday calling the appointment of Hager and other
doctors on the panel 'a frontal assault on reproductive rights
that will imperil women's health.' But Hager, a part-time profes-
sor of obstetrics and gynecology, said his beliefs won't comprom-
ise his judgment. 'Yes, I'm pro-life,' he told the Courier-Journal
of Louisville, Ky. 'But that's not going to keep me from object-
ively evaluating medication. I believe there are some safety con-
cerns [about RU-486] and they should be evaluated.'
The advisory committee has not met for two years, and its entire
membership had lapsed. Its job is to review and evaluate data -
and make recommendations - on the safety and effectiveness of
marketed and experimental drugs for use in obstetrics, gynecology,
and related specialties. In addition to Hager and Giudice, the
other physicians appointed were Leslie Gay Bernitsky, a urologist
from Albuquerque, N.M.; Susan A. Crockett of the University of
Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio; Nancy Dickey, chancel-
lor of the Texas A&M College of Medicine; Scott Shields Emerson
of the University of Washington, Seattle; Michael Furman Greene
of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston; Vivian Lewis of the
University of Rochester Medical Center in Rochester, N.Y;. George
A. Marcones of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia;
Valerie Montgomery Rice of the University of Kansas Medical Cent-
er in Kansas City, Kan.; and Joseph Barney Stanford of the Univ-
ersity of Utah, Salt Lake City. --" It's very strange that they
wouldn't want anybody on this committee that didn't share their
viewpoint. They want to have the pro-life viewpoint completely
suppressed, ostracized, scorned, and ignored. The fact is they
just want abortion in any and every form and don't even care
whether it's safe for the mother.
"Just before New Year's, President Bush appointed Dr. David Hager
to the Food and Drug Administration's Advisory Committee for Re-
productive Health Drugs. Said Wendy Wright, senior policy director
for Concerned Women for America, 'The President's appointees re-
present diverse views and a variety of medical backgrounds. The
FDA advisory panels are supposed to be places of open inquiry.
One must carefully consider why Dr. Hager's critics wish to sil-
ence him.' Planned Parenthood and other groups opposed Hager be-
cause he has questioned the safety of the abortion pill, RU-486."
Taken from "Human Events, The Week Of January 6, 2003".
"Both Good Housekeeping magazine and Ladies' Home Journal have
named Hager one of the country's best doctors for women."
Life Dynamics News, February, 2003.
"As of 6:27 p.m. EST Monday, December 9, 2002 FDA Says Certain
High-Risk Drugs Can't Be Imported By OTESA MIDDLETON Of DOW JONES
NEWSWIRES WASHINGTON -- Certain approved prescription medicines,
including the abortion pill and Novartis AG's (NVS) schizophrenia
drug Clozaril, will not be allowed into the U.S. from other coun-
tries and consumers shouldn't buy them on the Internet, the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration said Monday. The FDA said these
drugs are approved for use in the U.S. with certain restrictions,
and if the products don't originate in America or are bought on
the Web, the appropriate safety information may not be included."
The article above was taken from The Wall Street Journal Online,
and identified ten drugs. I'll only quote the paragraph on RU486.
"The agency doesn't want women taking Danco Laboratories' Mifipex,
also called RU-486 or the abortion pill, without physician super-
vision." For more information you can contact: "Otesa Middleton,
Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-6654; otesa.middleton@dowjones.com".
--------------------
From: The Pro-Life Infonet Steven Ertelt infonet@prolifeinfo.org
Source: Associated Press, Pro-Life Infonet; December 9, 2002
"Bush Administration Cracks Down on Illegally Imported Abortion
Drugs
Washington, DC -- The Bush administration is ordering 10 prescrip-
tion drugs to be detained at the U.S. border if patients buy them
abroad instead of through their doctors, calling the medications
too risky for unsupervised use. Included in the FDA directive:
the dangerous abortion drug mifepristone (otherwise known as RU
486 or Mifeprex). All of the drugs at issue can cause serious side
effects and thus are allowed to sell in the United States only un-
der severe restrictions, such as curbs on which doctors can pre-
scribe them and what patients qualify. According to an FDA alert
sent to the Pro-Life Infonet, the 'FDA has determined that unap-
proved versions of mifepristone manufactured outside the U.S. are
being promoted in this country for use to end pregnancy. Due to
the risks to the safety of the user in inadequately controlled
settings, mifepristone should be considered inappropriate for re-
lease under the Personal Import Guidance.' The only approved com-
pany distributing the abortion drug is Danco Laboratories, LLC,
of New York. The Clinton administration hurriedly approved the a-
bortion drug, then known as RU 486. Pro-life groups have called
on the Bush administration to review the approval process citing
women's deaths and other severe medical complications following
usage of the abortion drug. The Food and Drug Administration not-
iced Internet advertisements for some of the drugs that entice
patients to order them directly, ignoring the safety restrictions.
It is illegal to sell prescription drugs without a doctor's valid
prescription, so the FDA is taking steps to shut those Web sites
-- and warned consumers Monday not to buy the drugs in question
over the Internet. Because some of the Web sites are foreign, the
FDA also asked U.S. Customs officials to seize shipments of the
drugs from abroad. 'This is a loophole we're seeking to plug,'
said FDA drug chief Dr. Janet Woodcock."
--
"Following the deaths of two women and hospitalization of at least
twenty more, National Pro-Life Alliance Legislative Director
Michael Muench has called upon President Bush to 'immediately re-
voke the government's approval of RU-486, the so-called 'abortion
pill'. The two recent deaths and other incidents of serious side
effects have forced even the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) and Danco Laboratories, the New York firm that distributes
the abortion pill, to issue warning letters to physicians. By the
FDA's own account, in addition to the two deaths, twenty-two other
women required hospitalization or another 'intervention to prevent
permanent impairment or damage.' Side effects suffered by women
after taking the drug include hemorrhage and severe bacterial in-
fections. One woman, age 21, suffered a heart attack three days
after taking the abortion pill. She had no prior history of heart
trouble. RU-486 is used in combination with another drug (prosta-
glandin) to carry out abortions. As still another sign of danger
- Searle, the maker of the second drug - firmly disavows abort-
ion as a legitimate use for its drug and has actively fought to
prevent its label from sanctioning such a use. Searle has also
written a letter of its own to physicians, warning against using
the drug to provoke an abortion. President Bush has stated his
opposition to RU-486 publicly." NPLA LifeLine, Winter 2003
"From: 'RFC Updates' mail@rfcnet.org
Subject: Week Ending November 7, 2003 - From Washington, DC
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 19:13:21 -0500
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE - WEEK ENDING NOVEMBER 7, 2003
CONGRESS IN SESSION
THE HOUSE
HOLLY'S LAW
On November 6th Monty and Helen Patterson wrote an open letter to
the media that would bring tears to almost anyone except the most
callous abortion supporter. The letter can be read in its entire-
ty at Congressman De Mint's Internet site. In the letter the Pat-
tersons detail how their teenage daughter Holly was killed by the
abortion drug RU-486 which was approved by the FDA under the ad-
ministration of Bill Clinton, for the purpose of murdering unborn
infants. To rush the abortion drug to market the FDA defined pre-
gnancy as a 'life-threatening' illness. The drug will cure this
'illness' by causing a miscarriage if it is taken within seven
weeks of a woman's last period. The drug was approved even though
it had caused numerous deaths in women in Europe where it was ap-
proved earlier. No American drug company would manufacture it be-
cause of liability issues. It is manufactured in China by a chem-
ical company controlled by their military.
Congressman DeMint (R-SC) has offered a bill to pull RU-486 off
the market and named it after Holly Patterson who died of bleeding
caused by the drug in September. Holly was a 17 year-old minor
when she was impregnated by a 24 year-old man. The man then as-
sisted her in obtaining the drug from Planned Parenthood, an org-
anization which has killed more human beings than the Nazis did.
So far Holly's Law (HR 3453) has 59 co-sponsors in the House. Has
your congressman agreed to sponsor this important lifesaving bill?
Contact your congressman. Senator Brownback (R-KS) will introduce
a companion bill in the Senate."
"Lawmakers To Introduce Legislation That Would Suspend FDA Approv-
al of Mifepristone for Use in Medical Abortion
(Kaisernetwork) Rep. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) -- with the support of
about 50 other lawmakers -- on Thursday planned to introduce leg-
islation that would suspend FDA approval of mifepristone for use
in medical abortions pending an audit by the General Accounting
Office, the AP/Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel reports (Sherman, AP/
Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, 11/5).
The bill, called the 'RU-486 Suspension and Review Act of 2003,'
would immediately suspend mifepristone's FDA approval and call
for the GAO to conduct an independent review of the FDA's approv-
al process of the drug, according to a release from Rep. Mike
Pence (R-Ind.), who is a co-sponsor of the legislation (Pence re-
lease, 11/4). ...lawmakers now have renewed their attempts to stop
the U.S. sale of mifepristone after a California teenager in Sep-
tember died from complications related to a medical abortion (AP/
Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, 11/5). The Alameda County, Calif.,
Coroner's Office on Oct. 31 released a preliminary autopsy report
that concluded that 18-year-old Holly Patterson died of septic
shock 'due to endomyometritis (inflammation) due to therapeutic,
drug-induced abortion.'"
Holly Patterson's death is a very sad, gruesome, and long, affair;
that has been in the Northern California papers for some time. I-
've accumulated 123,996 bytes about it on my hard drive, which
has the counter-productive effect of discouraging me from sorting
through it to tell the story in a reasonably compact format. Suf-
fice it to say, for now, that her death involved several days of
excruciating pain and severe bleeding, a trip to the hospital,
where she was given pain-killers and sent home; and a final emer-
gency trip there, where the baby parts still inside her brought
on the shock and bleeding that finally killed her. The hospital's
excuse was that these are the same symptoms seen when there are
no "complications". The lingering question in my mind has been
how many other deaths have there been that haven't been official-
ly tied to RU-486, but just reported as septic shock or internal
hemorrhaging or endomyometritis? We do know for sure that there
were two deaths in 2002, and the FDA is supposed to be investigat-
ing; but is apparently still very politicized. That's why it is
a good strategy to have an independent investigative agency, such
as the General Accounting Office (GAO), look into things. It is
only because Holly's parents have been so open about this that the
public knows about it. Perhaps some other people will come forward
now.
It's also interesting that even though she was a minor when she
got pregnant, nothing has been said about prosecuting the adult
she was having sex with. Nor does it seem the killing center she
got the abortion pill from will be held liable for not properly
supervising its use. The law only appears to work in one direction
- to protect abortion.
'The difficulty...lawyers face is that it's pretty clear that
there is one law for abortion and one law for everything else. It
makes it extremely difficult for pro-life lawyers. You take one
set of facts in the context of a civil rights dispute and the
same basic set of facts in an abortion dispute and you get two
entirely different answers. Justice Scalia said that...we have a
whole different law for abortion. That clearly seems to be the
case. ...a different field of law as far as outcome was concerned.
...First Amendment cases...what the courts have held was OK in
labor disputes but not OK in the right-to-life context... I'm not
sure how things are going to come out in the end-of-life area.
The 'end-of-lifers' haven't come up with a slogan that is as cat-
chy and clever as 'pro-choice'.' Attorney Bob Taylor sits on the
board of The Life Legal Defense Foundation (LLDF).
"Concerned Women for America: 'Did Sen. Boxer's Pressure to the
FDA Contribute to Holly Patterson's Death?' 10/14/03 1:19:00 PM
To: National Desk
Contact: Rebecca L. Riggs, 202-488-7000, ext. 126, or Kelly
Walmsley, 703-683-5004, ext. 140, both of Concerned Women for
America; Web site: http://media.cwfa.org
WASHINGTON, Oct. 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Concerned Women for America
(CWA) released to the media today a letter from Sen. Barbara Boxer
(D-Calif.) to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which may
have contributed to the loosening of patient safety standards for
RU-486, the abortion drug implicated in the death of 18-year-old
Holly Patterson last month in Pleasanton, Calif.
'Sen. Boxer's eagerness to carry water for the abortion lobby may
very well have contributed to the death of one of her own constit-
uents. Certain patient safety standards were eliminated by the
FDA, standards that Sen. Boxer insisted be eliminated,' said Sandy
Rios, president of CWA. 'What should be more important to Sen.
Boxer than the health and safety of a young girl?'
During the clinical trials for the drug, patients experienced an
extraordinarily high rate of 'adverse events' - 99 percent report-
ed some kind of complication, with 23 percent of them considered
'severe.' FDA officials wanted to limit distribution of the drug
only to doctors who met certain qualifications, including:
-- legal and professional qualifications to handle the complicat-
ion of an incomplete abortion (necessary in 5 to 8 percent of
cases, such as the situation that led to Holly Patterson's
death);
-- ability to use ultrasound to correctly determine the duration
and location of the pregnancy (an undetected ectopic pregnancy
led to the death of RU-486 user Brenda Vise in 2001);
-- completion of an approved training program on the proper use
of RU-486; and
-- admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.
It is obvious that the FDA expected patients to be treated by a
physician who would take responsibility for patient care in the
event of 'adverse events.' But when the approval of RU-486 was
announced in September 2000, the patient safety standards listed
above were eliminated, as Sen. Boxer had insisted in her letter
dated June 9, 2000.
'The letter clearly raises questions about the role political
pressure may have played in the death of Holly Patterson, and Sen.
Boxer should answer for that,' said Rios.
A PDF copy of the letter is available at:
http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/boxer-6-9-00.pdf
Concerned Women for America is the nation's largest public policy
women's organization. http://www.usnewswire.com/ 2003 U.S. News-
wire 202-347-2770/"
_________________________________________________________________
"Christian Doctors to FDA: RU-486 Abortion Drug Linked To Recent
Death, Ongoing Risks to Women
(CMDA) The Christian Medical Association (www.cmdahome.org) and
women's and obstetricians' groups this morning submitted a brief
to the FDA charging that the RU-486 abortion drug, recently link-
ed to the death of a California teenager, poses an ongoing risk
to American women and should be pulled from the shelves pending a
safety review.
'RU-486 is a dangerous and deadly drug that was wrongly fast-
tracked in the waning moments of the Clinton administration by
FDA officials influenced by intense political and ideological
forces,' explained CMA Executive Director David Stevens, M.D.
'Instead of applying its usual scientifically rigorous tests, the
FDA relied on a legally and clinically insufficient basis. The
RU-486 regimen the FDA developed is dangerously lax--even discard-
ing some safety precautions used in Europe. In practice, even the
lax FDA regimen is routinely violated. RU-486 is only allowed dur-
ing the first 49 days of pregnancy, yet abortion clinics are ad-
vertising and dispensing the abortion pill for use weeks after
this safety cut-off. The result is millions of women at severe
risk to their health and even to their lives.'
The brief, filed by the Christian Medical Association, Concerned
Women for America and the American Association of Pro Life Obste-
tricians and Gynecologists, follows a 90-page 'citizen petition'
filed with the FDA in August 2002, which called for the drug's
removal from market pending a safety review. The RU-486 drug com-
pany, Danco, recently submitted to the FDA its response to the
citizen petition, and today's brief rebutted the company's claims.
(Documents are available for download at www.cmdahome.org.)
CMA Associate Executive Director Gene Rudd, MD, an obstetrician-
gynecologist, explained, 'Abortion clinics are moving even furth-
er away from physician oversight by having women take this dang-
erous drug at home. Many women will not be able to distinguish
between the drug's typical side effects of bleeding and cramping
with symptoms of a potentially fatal situation--which apparently
happened to Holly Patterson.
'We grieve the tragic loss of every woman to abortion and the on-
going harm it inflicts on so many couples,' said Dr. Rudd, 'just
as we grieve the loss of every precious developing baby.'"
Source: Christian Medical Association
Publish Date: October 10, 2003 Online at:
http://cmdahome.org/index.cgi?BISKIT=1632990526&CONTEXT=art&art=2487
"CWA Files New Evidence Against RU-486
(U.S. Newswire) In the wake of 18-year old Holly Patterson's death
after taking the abortion drug RU-486, Concerned Women for America,
with two doctors' groups, filed a second legal document on Oct.
10 supporting the case for the FDA to withdraw its approval of
the dangerous drug.
This document responds to the attempt by Danco, the distributor
of RU-486 (brand name is Mifeprex), to rebut the medical, scient-
ific and legal arguments presented by Concerned Women for America
(CWA), American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gyneco-
logists (AAPLOG) and Christian Medical Association (CMA) in a
Citizen Petition filed in August 2002.
It bolsters the Citizen Petition's thoroughly researched evidence
that:
-- The clinical trials for RU-486 were legally and clinically
substandard.
-- The inclusion of the second drug, misoprostol, in the protocol
was unlawful.
-- The use of RU-486 and misoprostol (Mifeprex Regimen) is inher-
ently unsafe, as proven by recent life-threatening events and
deaths.
-- The approval of RU-486 under a special regulation for drugs
that treat life-threatening or serious illnesses was unlawful.
-- Web sites show that prescribers are not following the FDA's
requirements to ensure patient safety. As the FDA wrote to a
Congressman in 2000, 'If restrictions are not adhered to, FDA
may withdraw approval.'
'Women should not have to pay with their health or lives so that
abortion can be easier for the abortion provider,' stated Wendy
Wright, senior policy director for CWA. 'In its response, Danco
failed to produce medical-scientific data or adequate explanat-
ions for the evidence presented in the Citizen Petition that the
clinical trials were insufficient and underreported serious comp-
lications, that the FDA violated regulations intended to ensure
the safety of approved drugs, and that prescribing clinics are
deliberately ignoring the FDA's requirements for administering
RU-486, thereby put women at great risk.'
Danco made the astonishing claim that an immediate revocation of
the FDA's approval would violate the Constitution. CWA, AAPLOG
and CMA responded that, 'Given the situation, the Petitioners are
dismayed at the Sponsor's (Danco) insistence that its 'property
right to produce and market Mifeprex,' outweighs any concern for
the safety of the patients that the Sponsor is seeking to 'treat.''
Concerned Women for America is the nation's largest public policy
women's organization
Source: CWFA via U.S. Newswire Publish Date: October 10, 2003
Online at:
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=132-10102003 "
"FDA Launches RU-486 Investigation
(CitizenLink) The death of a California woman after taking the a-
bortion drug has focused new attention not only on its safety —
but also on a citizen's petition seeking to have it pulled from
the market.
Holly Patterson's death last month after taking the controversial
abortion drug RU-486 was indeed tragic — but from that tragedy may
come help for millions of other women.
The Food and Drug Administration has launched an investigation
into whether RU-486 contributed to the 18-year-old Californian's
death. And the hospital where she died announced last week that
it supports a citizen's petition to get RU-486 taken off the mar-
ket until it is determined if it should be permanently banned as
a safety risk.
In calling for a national investigation into the safety of RU-486,
the hospital's parent company said it supported a citizen's pet-
ition filed with the FDA on August 20, 2002, which requested that
the agency revoke its approval of mifepristone, RU-486's generic
clinical name. Hospital officials also pledged to work with Cali-
fornia's two Democratic U.S. senators — Barbara Boxer and Dianne
Feinstein — to make sure the federal investigation comes to pass.
The FDA rose to the challenge this week. White House Press Secre-
tary Scott McClellan told reporters... 'The president has always
expressed his concern that what's most important is the safety of
women,' McClellan added. 'That continues to be a priority for him.'
CWA Senior Policy Director Wendy Wright said the FDA's investiga-
tion and the hospital's endorsement of the petition carries 'a
huge amount of weight.'
'ValleyCare is the kind of hospital that is suffering the conseq-
uences of the FDA approving this drug, because they are the ones
that have to take care of these women when they suffer complicat-
ions from abortion,' Wright said. 'If it's too late for the women
to be treated, the hospitals are the ones who get blamed, when,
in fact, it's the abortion clinic's fault.'
RU-486 — trade name Mifeprex — is dangerous, Wright said, and
should never have been approved for the market.
'It is administered along with something called a prostaglandin,
which is also dangerous. So together, they put women at great
risk,' Wright said. 'On top of that, the way that Planned Parent-
hood and other abortion groups administer it, (it) makes it even
more risky for the woman.
'Even if the FDA were to put stricter requirements on how this
drug is administered, it still would not make it safe for the
patients.'
Rushed Approval
Because RU-486 was 'fast-tracked' by the FDA during the Clinton
administration, the FDA did not conduct any trials on:
the long-term effects of RU-486 use;
the likelihood that some women using RU-486 may suffer a potent-
ially fatal ruptured ectopic pregnancy;
the fact that the second drug required for administering RU-486
(trade name Cytotec), is not recommended for the purpose, and its
manufacturer says it should never be used by pregnant women; and
the evidence that the Chinese manufacturer of Mifeprex has been
associated in the past with contaminated drugs and inadequate
quality control.
Wright said Danco, the distributor of RU-486, has reported 400
complications to the FDA since the drug received U.S. approval.
These include serious incidents — one woman who died from an ect-
opic pregnancy, another who suffered a heart attack, and two 15-
year olds who contracted life-threatening infections. Another wo-
man in Canada died from a bacterial infection.
Carrie Gordon Earll, bioethics analyst at Focus on the Family,
said there is now ample evidence of the need to remove the drug
from the market.
'I don't know what more the FDA needs,' Earll said. 'Do they need
a whole trail of bodies across the country before they take this
seriously? Hopefully not.'
Strange Ties
Interestingly, pro-life activists say the death of Holly Patter-
son is not just tied to the abortion industry's desire to be tot-
ally unfettered. It is also tied — in a strange and loose way —
to the current effort to get the Senate to ban partial-birth a-
bortion.
The link? Barbara Boxer.
'We're in the final stretch of seeing the partial-birth abortion
ban finally become law, but the one hindrance, at this point is
Sen. Barbara Boxer, who intends to take up eight hours to debate
this ban, even though there's been multiple hours over almost the
last decade,' Wright said. 'She apparently doesn't feel that's
enough. She wants to delay it from becoming federal law.'
But instead of tying up PBA, Wright said, Boxer should be invest-
igating whether her own actions may have played a part in the
Holly Patterson tragedy.
'It was political pressure that caused to the FDA to drop some
of the safety requirements they originally intended to have on
RU-486 administration,' Wright said. 'In fact, some of the very
requirements that Sen. Boxer demanded be dropped may well have
played a factor in Holly Patterson's death.'"
"Behind the Holly Patterson story Brent Bozell October 1, 2003
Holly Patterson died two weeks after her 18th birthday. Blonde and
beautiful, graduating high school after three years, this young
native of the San Francisco area had her whole life in front of
her. But then she entered a Planned Parenthood clinic without her
parents' knowledge and took the abortion-drug cocktail known as
RU-486. Within a week, she was dead of septic shock, infected by
pieces of the baby she was trying to expel.
In September 2000, the Clinton administration rushed the approval
of RU-486 through the Food and Drug Administration in case Al
Gore's campaign wouldn't prevail to provide aid and comfort to
the abortion industry.
None of the liberal media's anti-corporate impulses were excited
by the plans of the abortion lobby and Danco Laboratories, the
American manufacturers of RU-486, to surpass all the usual FDA
safety procedures in a rush to profit from newly approved chemic-
al abortions. Instead, it was all an occasion for joy. On NBC's
'Today,' news anchor Sara James proclaimed: 'Abortion rights sup-
porters call it a victory over medical McCarthyism.'
Mifeprex kills the baby by destroying the nutrient lining of the
uterus. A few days later, Misopristol is used to expel the corpse
from the womb. Here's what went wrong:
1. Lobbyists railroaded FDA approval through the accelerated re-
view process known as 'Subpart H,' designed only for drugs intend-
ed to treat life-threatening illnesses where there is no safer re-
medy. Only in Washington is a healthy but unwanted baby consider-
ed a life-threatening illness. In fact, Holly's story suggests
the opposite: Terminating the baby caused a life-ending illness.
2. The FDA regulations overlooked the usual scientific safeguards
used in clinical trials. For example, while the trials used sono-
grams to determine the age of the fetus, FDA regulations have not
required an ultrasound before usage -- even though the drug is
not recommended for pregnancies beyond 49 days' gestation and it
does not terminate ectopic (fallopian-tube) pregnancies. Whether
or not Holly Patterson had an ectopic pregnancy is a crucial fac-
tor in investigating her death. In a previous case, an American
woman bled to death because of a ruptured tubal pregnancy that
wasn't distinguished from the normal heavy bleeding typical of an
RU-486 abortion.
3. The FDA failed to test the drug on adolescents like Holly Pat-
terson -- even though they represent a target market, since clin-
ics advertise it as an abortion method that increases privacy. No
doubt Holly thought RU-486 was preferable because it evaded a sur-
gical procedure.
4. The FDA normally requires that the selection of patients in a
drug trial be random, that some patients receive a placebo to
create a control group, and that participating physicians are not
told who is and is not receiving the actual medication. In the
FDA's supposedly scientific trials for Mifeprex, the selection of
subjects was not random, and no one received a placebo.
Brent Bozell is President of Media Research Center, a TownHall.com
member group. 2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc."
"The deadly truth about RU-486
Posted: September 25, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
On Sept. 17, a California teen died seven days after taking the
abortion drug RU-486, and three days after taking its prostagland-
in chaser, Cytotec. An autopsy was performed but, miraculously,
the Alameda County coroner is still investigating and said it may
take several weeks to determine what killed Holly Patterson.
The cause of death likely will be listed as septic shock, which
is one complication of an incomplete abortion. That will allow
the Food and Drug Administration to maintain that the drug, which
it rushed through the evaluation process and bent the rules to
approve, has a good safety record and has not been directly link-
ed to any deaths.
Even with the limited facts that have been made available on the
complications from the abortion pill, this is a stretch.
Since RU-486 was approved on Sept. 28, 2000, Danco, the company
that distributes the Chinese manufactured pill, has reported 400
complications to the FDA which include heart attacks, severe
bleeding, life-threatening blood clots, respiratory distress and
infection.
At least two other North American women are known to have died a-
fter taking this drug. In one, the cause of death was listed as a
bacterial infection; in the other, the cause was listed as ectop-
ic pregnancy.
However, we may never know the real death toll from RU-486 because
the cause of death usually is sanitized with one or more medical
terms that obscure the truth.
Abortion is not something that families of victims are anxious to
talk about. We know what happened to Holly because of the courage
of her family which has come forward to try to prevent others
from making the same deadly mistake.
Holly's father, Monty Patterson, was unaware his daughter was preg-
nant or that she had been given the abortion drugs by a Planned
Parenthood clinic until four hours before her death.
Holly's trouble began when she took two tablets of misoprostol,
which is given as a follow-up to RU-486 to induce contractions to
expel the dead embryo.
Cramps and bleeding are expected, but how much is too much? That
is the unknown for most patients in this process where the rules
are purposely vague and the reporting is left up to the abortion
providers.
Holly's family thought she was having menstrual cramps. Her boy-
friend took her to the hospital on Sept. 14. She was given pain-
killers and sent home. Two days later, she was rushed back to the
hospital. By the time her father was called in and told what real-
ly happened, she was too weak to write or speak and had to blink
her eyes and nod to communicate.
Here is what you need to know about this drug:
It appears that the FDA compromised the approval process, perhaps
at the urging of the Clinton administration.
It was done under the 'Accelerated Approval of New Drugs for Ser-
ious or Life-threatening Illnesses.' In order to do this, the FDA
had to classify 'the termination of an unwanted pregnancy' as 'a
serious condition.' This designation allows the FDA to approve
drugs that 'could be harmful and ineffective' prematurely.
This is unconscionable! A pregnancy is not an illness and the ter-
mination of one is not a serious condition. However, many unsus-
pecting women and girls are led to believe that, because the drug
has been approved for use by the FDA, it is safe.
Furthermore, RU-486 is so ineffective when used alone, the FDA ap-
proved it for use with misoprostol, a prostaglandin that causes
contractions but was developed as an ulcer drug. Misoprostol is
marketed under the name Cytotec. Searle, the company that manu-
factures Cytotec, was so outraged that it issued a letter to phy-
sicians saying that this was an off-label use for this drug that
was never tested or intended for the induction of labor or abort-
ion. In other words, any physician who uses Cytotec for these pur-
poses does so at great risk.
There are other indications that the FDA further manipulated the
process. Dr. Mark Louviere, an Iowa physician, reported that he
rendered emergency treatment to a woman who was a participant in
the trials. He came forward after reading a press report that
there were 'no complications among the 238 women participants' in
his state. Dr. Louviere told the Waterloo Courier, 'If near death
due to the loss of half of one's blood volume, surgery and a trans-
fusion of four units of blood do not qualify as a complication,
I don't know what does.'
What really killed Holly Patterson? It was the deliberate politi-
cizing of the FDA approval process for this abortion drug, a pro-
cess that began during the Clinton administration and sadly has
not been addressed by President Bush.
Jane Chastain is a WorldNetDaily columnist and host of the Judic-
ial Watch Report radio show, heard daily from 4 to 5 p.m. EST on
the USA Radio Network.
The deadly truth about RU-486 By Jane Chastain
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34779
E-MAIL JANE CHASTAIN | GO TO JANE CHASTAIN'S ARCHIVE
jchastain@worldnetdaily.com 2003 WorldNetDaily.com, Inc.
Contact WND Co-Located at Fiber Internet Center
Chicago Tribune - May 21, 2001: "Why all the silence about abort-
ion and breast cancer? Dennis Byrne. Dennis Byrne is a Chicago-
area writer and public affairs consultant ..... millions of women
are being deceived about this risk, or denied the knowledge of
important studies. Twenty-seven out of 34 independent studies
conducted throughout the world (including 13 out of 14 conducted
in the United States) have linked abortion and breast cancer.
Seventeen of these studies show a statistically significant rela-
tionship. Five show more than a two-fold elevation of risk. In
turn, the abortion industry says all those studies are trumped by
one study, whose methodology, critics say, is seriously flawed.
The biological hypothesis is that during pregnancy, a woman's
breasts begin developing a hormone that causes cells--both normal
and pre-cancerous--to multiply dramatically. If the pregnancy is
carried to term, those undifferentiated cells are shaped into milk
ducts and a naturally occurring process shuts off the rapid cell
multiplication. An induced abortion leaves a women with more un-
differentiated cells, and so, more cancer-vulnerable cells."
"The United Kingdom's Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecol-
ogists became the first medical organization to warn its abortion
practitioners that the abortion-breast cancer link 'could not be
disregarded.' It said that the methodology of the principal ABC
(abortion-breast cancer) researcher, Joel Brind, was sound. John
Kindley, an attorney, warned in a 1999 Wisconsin Law Review art-
icle that physicians who do not inform their patients of the ABC
link expose themselves to medical malpractice suits. He concluded
that about 1 out of 100 women who have had an induced abortion die
from breast cancer attributable to the abortion." "The American
Cancer Society Web page lists induced abortions....among elements
that may be related to breast cancer, and that the relationship is
being studied. Earlier, Dr. Janet Daling and colleagues at the
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, in a study commissioned by
the National Cancer Institute, found that 'among women who had
been pregnant at least once, the risk of breast cancer in those
who had .... an induced abortion was 50 percent higher than among
other women.' The risk of breast cancer for women under 18 or
over 29 who had induced abortions was more than twofold. Women who
abort and have a family history of breast cancer increase their
risk 80 percent. The increased risk of women under 18 with that
family history was incalculably high...'I would have loved to have
found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our
research is rock solid, and our data is accurate. It's not a mat-
ter of believing, it's a matter of what is.'" "If you want to know
more, look in on the Web page of the Palos Heights-based Coalition
on Abortion/Breast Cancer"; or to really get an in depth review
of the various studies done, click here.
"Let's look at two landmark studies, the first by Dr. H. Howe in
in 1999. Using New York state official Health Department records,
he found that aborting a woman's first pregnancy was associated
with a 1.7 times increased risk of breast cancer under age 40. If
she aborted her second or third pregnancy, her risk was increased
four fold. Worldwide attention was focused on the second study in
1994 by Dr. Janet Daling. She has a reputation, worldwide, as an
accomplished and highly respected epidemiologist. She found that
an induced abortion increased the risk of breast cancer before
age 45 by 50%. If done before age 18, it increased by 150%. If
done after age 30, it increased by 110%. If she had a family mem-
ber with breast cancer and aborted after age 30, her risk was in-
creased by 270%. All 12 women in her study with such a family
member, who aborted before age 18, got breast cancer before age
45. ...Dr. Joel Brind published a meta analysis in 1996 of the 28
legitimate studies available. His conclusion was that there was a
significant independent risk for breast cancer associated with in-
duced abortion. The reaction to these and other studies has been
convincing enough to many people, including legislators who, in
several states, have passed laws to require the abortionist to
warn the prospective abortive client that this will increase her
risk of breast cancer." Taken from an article in Life Issues Con-
nector, April 2003 issue, by J. C. Willke, MD.
Also, see "Abortion Breast Cancer Link", by Dr. Joel Brind, Ph.D.
Another source of information is the book "Breast Cancer, Its Link
to Abortion", and an associated pamphlet, by Dr. Chris Kahlenborn,
which can be obtained through One More Soul, 1-800-307-7685.
"In August, the Ann Arbor-based Thomas More Center for Law and
Justice announced that it had filed a lawsuit in California
against Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its San Diego
affiliate. The suit claims PP is in violation of the state's bus-
iness code by failing to provide women with truthful information
about the breast cancer related risks of abortion." STOPP Intern-
ational's Ryan Report, November 2001
"Mattson vs. Red River Women's Clinic: In North Dakota, Red River
Women's clinic was brought to court September 11 on charges of
false advertising. Brochures at the clinic claim that there is no
evidence to link abortion with increased breast cancer risks."
Issues Update, Celebrate Life, November-December 2001.
British Study: Half of Expected Breast Cancer Cases "Attributable
to Abortion", December 4, 2001.
February 2002: "In December, British scientists found that women
women who have abortions are up to twice as likely to suffer from
breast cancer and reported that 'up to 50% of breast cancer cases
in England and Wales over the next 26 years will be attributable
to abortion.' These findings are scarcely the first of their kind.
In 1986, four famed epidemologists, including representatives from
the National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control,
published a letter admitting, 'Induced abortion before first term
pregnancy increases the risk of breast cancer.' The Coalition on
Abortion/Breast Cancer reports that, 'Twenty-eight out of 37
worldwide studies published since 1957 have shown a positive asso-
ciation between abortion and breast cancer.' But women are not be-
ing warned of this lethal link -- even though breast cancer is the
greatest cancer killer among women aged 20 and 59. Nearly 46,000
women will die this year and 184,000 will be diagnosed. But just
as Big Tobacco had an interest in suppressing information, so now
the $3 billion a year abortion industry has a stake in enforcing
silence....Research shows that a single abortion is comparable to
the risk from lung cancer from long-term heavy smoking, but be-
cause the ABC Link touches an ideologically charged issue, the
connection is ignored.....4,000 American women unwittingly put
themselves at risk every day. Louisiana, Montana and Mississippi
now require that warning information be given to mothers consider-
ing abortion. The same should be true nationwide. Women comprise
a far greater percentage of our population than smokers ever did
...". "The American, a monthly publication of The American Cause".
"Despite all their talk about the 'constitutional right to choose,'
pro-abortion forces do NOT want information like this to be aired
in public, much less given to girls and women faced with an un-
wanted pregnancy. The simple fact is this: groups like Planned
Parenthood have a vested interest in the abortion industry that is
the biggest source of their funding - their lip-service to the
idea of 'choice' is just that! The only choice they want women to
make is to have abortions....and they desperately want to keep
valid, medically proven information about the physical dangers
that abortion presents away from them at all costs!" "We want
them to know that their choice includes the choice to NOT have an
abortion...". Bay Buchanan, March 2002 Here are some of the
facts they present: "One in every nine American women will get
breast cancer - the greatest female cancer killer between ages 20
and 59. An abortion raises a woman's chances of getting breast
cancer by age 45 by 50%. For women under 18: Risk increases 150%.
Abortion after 8 weeks raises the risk 800%. For women with a
family history of breast cancer: Risk increases 80%. In a study
by pro-choice Dr. Janet Daling, 12 women who had abortions before
age 18, and had a family history, all 12 had breast cancer before
age 45. The risk is 'incalculably high' for these teenagers, the
doctor reported. A study at Howard University showed that an Afr-
ican American woman who has an abortion has a 50% increased risk
of getting breast cancer by age 40, 180% increased risk in their
forties, and 370% increased risk after age 50. Four states requ-
ire doctors to warn women considering abortion about this cancer
link; 12 more are considering legislation. If pro-choicers want
women to make informed decisions, why don't they want us to have
all the facts? They don't because they're not pro-choice. They're
pro abortion."
"Australian attorney Charles Francis has won the first-known set-
tlement in a landmark case in which the plaintiff sued because her
physician hadn't told her that researchers have associated abort-
ion with breast cancer." From the January/February 2002 RNC For
Life Report, by way of Australian women's group Endeavour Forum.
Angela LanFranchi, M.D., F.A.C.S. 515 Church St., Suite 1 Bound
Brook, New Jersey 08805 732/356-0770 Diplomat of the American
Board of Surgery Fellow of American College of Surgeons State-
ment to the Press Population Research Institute Conference Santa
Clara, California April 5, 2002 Although I observed in my own
practice in the early 1990s an inordinate number of 30 year olds
with breast cancer who had no family history, but had abortions
as teenagers, it wasn't until 1999 that I informed my patients of
this risk. That was when a Harvard professor in charge of risk
assessment at a well known Boston clinic told me she knew abortion
was a risk factor for breast cancer and considered it in the eval-
uation of her patients. Although she chose not to publicly speak
about this issue, she encouraged me to do so. I was reluctant at
first to follow her suggestion. I depend upon referrals from ob-
stetrician-gynecologists, some of whom do abortions, and I was
worried they would stop sending me patients when they heard me
give lectures on the abortion-breast cancer link. I lecture on the
subject because it is unjust to withhold pertinent medical infor-
mation from patients that is so well documented in the literature
for over 20 years and that is in my textbooks. It amounts to child
abuse to take a teenager in a crisis pregnancy for an abortion. At
best, it will give her a 30% risk of breast cancer in her life-
time. At worst, if she also has a family history of breast cancer,
it will nearly guarantee this. As a mother, I need to be informed
of this to protect my daughter....There is overwhelming and conv-
incing evidence that abortion and breast cancer are linked, along
with a well described biologic mechanism. Twenty-eight out of 37
studies have been published and women still don't know. It's not
only embarrassment and denial that cause doctors to ignore this
data now. It is also the fear of malpractice. How can an abortion-
ist not be held liable for increasing a woman's risk of breast
cancer and not tell her? It is unfortunate, but it has become my
belief that it will be lawyers who force the medical community to
address this issue.
On May 24, 2002, the American Association of ProLife Obstetricians
and Gynecologists released a paper on the Abortion-Breast Cancer
Link which essentially reiterated and concurred with all the above
statements. I have not included their research paper here because
it would just be too repetitive. The reason I rehash as much as I
do is because I know from experience that the pro-death people
will always deny everything about anything pro-life ("It's all
lies."); and, therefore, I feel the need to build an unshakable
case - not just speculate.
"From: The Pro-Life Infonet infonet@prolifeinfo.org
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt infonet@prolifeinfo.org
Subject: Cancer Group Pulls Biased Web Page on Abortion-Breast
Cancer
Source: Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer; July 2, 2002
Cancer Group Pulls Biased Web Page on Abortion-Breast Cancer
Chicago, IL -- The president of a women's group, the Coalition on
Abortion/Breast Cancer, reported today that the National Cancer
Institute (NCI) has taken down an inaccurate web page discussing
the abortion-breast cancer research. The NCI's fact sheet has been
heavily criticized in recent months by this women's group, a pro-
minent scientist [1], at least three physicians and 28 members of
Congress, including Rep. Dave Weldon, M.D. [2] They've objected
to the agency's misrepresentation of the research, reliance on
erroneous studies, confusion of the effects of miscarriage and a-
bortion, inclusion of false statements and refusal to acknowledge
the deleterious effects of abortion on the confirmed breast can-
cer risk factor - postponement of first full term pregnancy. Mrs.
Karen Malec, president of the women's group, said, "We're delight-
ed that the National Cancer Institute has pulled its web page dis-
cussing the abortion-breast cancer link. The web page misinform-
ed women about research paid for by U.S. taxpayers and even cont-
ained lies about the findings reported in the medical literature."
[3] Early last month, 28 members of Congress sent a letter to
Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson requesting
a review of the NCI's fact sheet and calling its information
"scientifically inaccurate and misleading to the public." They
asked Secretary Thompson to check the web page "for accuracy and
bias" and to take it down until after the conclusion of the re-
view. The congressional representatives scored the agency for
having suggested that "women who have had either induced or spon-
taneous abortions have the same risk as other women for develop-
ing breast cancer, "when in fact 28 out of 37 studies worldwide
and 13 of 15 American studies report risk elevations. [Reference:
http://abortionbreastcancer.com/ABC_Research.htm] They condemned
the NCI for depending on a single study, Melbye et al. 1997, to
deny a relationship between abortion and the disease, "although
that study contains many significant flaws."[4] "In 1999, the a-
gency was accused by a scientist of publishing an 'outright lie,'"
reported Mrs. Malec, "because it said on its website that, 'The
scientific rationale for an association between abortion and breast
cancer is based on limited experimental data in rats and is not
consistent with human data.' However, the NCI had paid, at least
in part, for most of the 13 American studies done by that date,
and all but one of them had reported increased risk." Mrs. Malec
concluded, "We strongly encourage the NCI to come clean and to
tell the truth. Tell women how many studies report risk elevat-
ions. Fully disclose the strong biological and epidemiological
evidence which has been gathered since 1957 and which implicates
abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer."
The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women's
organization founded to protect the health and save the lives of
women by educating and providing information on abortion as a risk
factor for breast cancer.
References:
1. "Latest Web Page from the National Cancer Institute: A well
cooked bowl of factoids," by Joel Brind, Ph.D.; RFM News, March
23, 2002; http://abortionbreastcancer.com/Public_Policy.htm
2. U.S. Representative Chris Smith, et al. (June 7, 2002) Letter
to Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson
3. Press Release, Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer; March 20,
2002.
4. Melbye et al. (1997) New Engl J Med 336:81-5.
--"
"--------------------
From: The Pro-Life Infonet Steven Ertelt infonet@prolifeinfo.org
Source: Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer; December 16, 2002
National Cancer Institute Still Biased on Abortion-Breast Cancer
Chicago, IL -- The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer reported
today that the National Cancer Institute (NCI) has published new
statements about research examining the relationship between abor-
tion and breast cancer on a web page posted November 25, 2002.
The page is entitled 'Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer
.' This action comes after serious accusations of scientific mis-
conduct were leveled at the agency during a four year period by
more than two dozen members of Congress and six medical experts,
including Congressman Dave Weldon, M.D. and former Congressman
Tom Coburn, M.D. [1] After reviewing the NCI's new statements,
Karen Malec, president of the women's organization, commented
that: 'The NCI's failure to identify abortion among its list of
risk factors for breast cancer and its continued omission of crit-
ical facts represent a form of gross scientific misconduct design-
ed to mislead women about the safety of abortion. The agency con-
tinues to conceal the evidence that connects the delayed first
full term pregnancy effect with abortion, an effect that has been
universally recognized by medical experts since 1970. [2] More-
over, the biological and epidemiological evidence implicating a-
bortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer is stagg-
ering, but the anti-information NCI erroneously asserts that 'the
data have been inconsistent.' What risk factor, other than abor-
tion, could have as much evidence amassed against it, but still
be excluded from the NCI's list of risk factors? Thousands of
women will lose their lives because the NCI's uncaring bureaucrats
evidently lack political courage.' 'It is heartening, however,
that the spectacularly flawed study, Melbye et al. 1997, is not
being used to disprove 29 studies reporting risk elevations,' con-
tinued Mrs. Malec. [3] 'It's encouraging that the NCI did not
mislead women by confusing the effects of miscarriage with that
of induced abortion which creates the false impression that these
different biological events are one in the same. The agency also
dropped its blatant lie that the study, Tang et al. 2000, found
evidence of report bias.' [4] The lead author of the 1996 review
and meta-analysis of the worldwide research [5], Joel Brind,
Ph.D., reviewed the November web page and commented that, 'It's
a step in the right direction, but it is clear that this is temp-
orary until the agency convenes a workshop on this subject. It
remains to be seen whether they will really put in information
that is useful to the public about abortion and breast cancer.'
Malec concluded that, 'The NCI's long-standing practice of lying
and omitting crucial pieces of information makes it crystal-clear
that women can't rely on the agency's self-interested bureaucrats,
the nation's politicians and cancer organizations to protect their
lives. This barefaced scientific misconduct will not stop until
women demand to be told the truth. Women must become activists in
order to stop the lies and protect their health, as well as the
health of their sisters and daughters.' The Coalition on Abortion
/Breast Cancer is an international women's organization founded
to protect the health and save the lives of women by educating
and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for breast
cancer.
References:
1. http://abortionbreastcancer.com/Public_Policy.htm
2. MacMahon et al. (1970) Bull Wld Health Org 43:209-21.
3. Melbye et al. (1997) N Engl J Med 336(2):81-5.
4. Tang et al. (2000) Am J Epidemiol 151:1139-43.
5. Brind et al. (1996) J Epidemiol Community Health 50:481-96.
--"
Some other organizations that recognize the Abortion Breast Can-
cer Link that I haven't mentioned before are the Breast Cancer
Prevention Institute, the National Physicians Center for Family
Resources, the Polycarp Research Institute, and the Catholic Med-
ical Association. In addition, the 60 year old Association of Am-
erican Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) recently published two ar-
ticles on abortion risk in its Journal of American Physicians and
Surgeons Summer 2003, entitled: "The Abortion-Breast Cancer Link:
How Politics Trumped Science and Informed Consent", and "Induced
Abortion and Risk of Later Premature Births", which can be found
on the internet at - http://www.jpands.org/jpands0802.htm .
"In an article in the Summer 2003 issue of the Journal of American
Physicians and Surgeons, Karen Malec cites numerous studies that
identify a link between abortion and breast cancer. Malec is pre-
sident of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer. She noted that
in 1973, the year abortion was legalized in the United States,
the incidence of breast cancer was 82.6 per 100,000, and it was
considered a disease of elderly women. By 1998, the incidence of
female breast cancer had increased more than 40% to 118.1 per
100,000 -- and had become a young woman's disease.
More evidence on the abortion/breast cancer link comes from a 2002
book by the Canada-based deVeber Institute for Bioethics and Soc-
ial Research. 'Women's Health After Abortion,' by Elizabeth Ring-
Cassidy and Ian Gentiles, is based on information contained in
more than 500 books and scientific papers published over the last
20 years.
A 1996 meta-analysis of already published studies, by Dr. Joel
Brind and biostatistician Vern Chinchilli, pooled data from 28
reports. They found that there is a 30% increased risk for breast
cancer after an abortion. While this study has come in for strong
criticism, 'Women's Health After Abortion' noted that with time
it has been accepted. In 2000 a review of the study by Britain's
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists concluded that
it had no major methodological failings." Source: ZENIT Publish
Date: July 5, 2003 Online at:
http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=38329
"First U.S. Abortion-Breast Cancer Lawsuit Settled
(ABC) PHILADELPHIA: The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer an-
nounced today that the first U.S. abortion-breast cancer (ABC)
lawsuit settled for an undisclosed amount on October 17, 2003.
The case was filed in Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.
The plaintiff was a 17-year-old Pennsylvania resident when a
second-trimester abortion was performed in New Jersey without par-
ental knowledge or consent. Although she hasn't developed breast
cancer, she sued her abortion provider, Charles Benjamin, for neg-
lecting to warn her about the physical and emotional risks of a-
bortion.
Karen Malec, the coalition's president, declared, 'This settlement
will teach the medical establishment that it can no longer profit
by keeping women in the dark about the breast cancer risk. This
case also establishes that abortion providers can be sued for bat-
tery if the abortion provider performs no parental consent abort-
ions on minors from neighboring states (with parental consent
statutes), even if the state where the abortion is performed does
not have a parental consent statute.'
The plaintiff's attorney, Joseph P. Stanton, will hold a press
conference on a later date. For further details, contact his off-
ice at: 405 Old York Road, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania; phone 215/
886-6780.
The ABC link has been called 'the elephant in medicine's parlor.'
Medical experts privately say abortion causes breast cancer, but
the volatility of the issue prevents them from publicly acknow-
ledging it.
According to a National Cancer Institute (NCI) commissioned study,
teens who procure abortions before age 18, more than double their
risk. [1] Girls and women have a predominance of immature, cancer-
vulnerable Types 1 & 2 breast lobules, which aren't matured into
cancer-resistant Types 3 & 4 lobules until a term pregnancy takes
place. Abortion can increase the statistical odds of developing
breast cancer in two ways: 1) It delays a first term pregnancy;
and 2) It increases the number of cancer-vulnerable breast cells
because estrogen overexposure during a normal pregnancy stimulat-
es cell multiplication. Women don't receive protection from estr-
ogen overexposure until third trimester hormones mature their
breast tissue into milk-producing Types 3 & 4 lobules.
Scientists have proven themselves incapable of refuting the bio-
logical explanation for the ABC link. Thirteen out of 16 U.S.
studies report risk elevations. The NCI provided at least part-
ial funding for 10 studies.
Minnesota and Texas state legislators passed informed consent leg-
islation earlier this year. Massachusetts is considering similar
legislation. Five medical organizations say abortion is one of the
causes of breast cancer. [2]
The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women's
organization founded to protect the health and save the lives of
women by educating and providing information on abortion as a risk
factor for breast cancer.
References:
1. Daling et al. (1994) J Natl Cancer Inst 86:1584-92.
2. National Physicians Center for Family Resources, Catholic Med-
ical Association, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians
and Gynecologists, Polycarp Research Institute, Breast Cancer Pre-
vention Institute.
By: Karen Malec
Source: Coalition on Abortion Breast Cancer
Publish Date: October 21, 2003
Online at:
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/031022/index.
htm"
"The pro-life Women’s Injury Network (WIN) announced the victory
...WIN, a 501( c )(3) organization, helps defray the costs of law-
suits filed in connection with abortion. 'The purpose of WIN is
really to help abortion-injured women in their lawsuits and mal-
practice actions,' said Susan Marie Gertz, a Cincinnati attorney
who is the executive director of WIN. 'We do not pay attorney’s
fees' but they do pay for photocopying costs, transcription costs,
and expert witnesses. 'In many cases, attorneys will take on these
cases without charge.' Costs other than attorney’s fees, she said,
can run as high as $50,000. (Human Events, 11/17/03) Pro-life at-
torneys who represent client-victims of abortionists often do so
at great personal sacrifice. We are thankful for them and for WIN
and other organizations like it." Contact: Colleen Parro - 972/
387-3830 – E-Mail: rnclife@swbell.net Republican National Coali-
tion for Life FaxNotes - November 26, 2003
"Abortionist Convicted of Manslaughter Phoenix, AZ -- Abortion-
ist John Biskind, 75, and his former administrator, Carol Stuart-
Schadoff, 63, were convicted of manslaughter in the botched abor-
tion death of LouAnne Herron three years ago. Herron, 33, bled to
death April 17, 1998, after Biskind tore a two inch wide hole in
her uterus during an abortion. According to medical assistant
Teresa Jensen, Herron begged to know what was wrong with her as
she lay bleeding to death in a Phoenix abortion facility. 'Is
everything OK? What's wrong with me?' LouAnne Herron reportedly
asked as blood collected under her body at the A-Z Women's Center
abortion facility."
"Woman Hospitalized After Botched Abortion Phoenix, AZ--A 39-year
-old woman was hospitalized with complications from an abortion
and had to have an emergency hysterectomy." "The woman was taken
by ambulance to St. Luke's Medical Center, where a surgery team
apparently was waiting."
"Abortions at 28 weeks....involve the unpleasant business of dis-
membering a fetus measuring upwards of 14 inches" (read "child").
The preceding paragraphs were taken from the Care Net Report.
"In my book, 'Lime 5', published in 1996, I catalog 33 separate
abortionists who have been arrested or disciplined by the medical
board for sexual assault and misconduct....resulting in abortion-
ists being put in jail, clinics closing, and babies and their
mothers saved from the horrors of abortion." "...recent example.
This past year a high profile abortionist Brian Finkel was arrest-
ed on 9 charges of sexual assault. In the weeks that followed,
over 100 women came forward with stories concerning the type of
treatment they received from this man. Where are the radical fem-
inists screaming for justice? Abortion itself is apparently more
important than the physical and psychological well-being of the
women they say they represent." Mark Crutcher, President, LDI.
"....we will not back down until the last American Death camp has
been padlocked."
"Finkel guilty of sex abuse Photos by Jack Kurtz/The Arizona
Republic Dr. Brian Finkel glances back at some of his alleged
victims during Tuesday's sentencing. After the verdict, one of
the alleged victims, Rise Mayolett, is comforted by her sister,
Stefanie Abercombie, and daughter Stefanie.
Carol Sowers The Arizona Republic Dec. 2, 2003 02:50 PM
In a mixed verdict, a jury on Tuesday convicted Dr. Brian Finkel
on 22 counts of sex abuse of patients at his Phoenix abortion
clinic but acquitted him on 34 other counts, including six counts
of the more serious charge of sexual assault. The jurors were
undecided on four other counts of sex abuse. Finkel showed no
emotion as the verdict was read; a smattering of applause broke
out among some of the victims in court. The jury deliberated for
14 days on the 54 counts of sexual abuse and six of sexual assault
against the high profile doctor before delivering the verdict.
Finkel, 53, who has performed more than 30,000 abortions over the
last 20 years, had become somewhat of a national figure in the
recent years....The jury spent three months listening to a parade
of victims who testified to the intimate details of their abort-
ions and of how Finkel had allegedly twisted their nipples,
stroked their genitals and leaned over some to kiss them on the
lips. In some cases, the women, prosecutors said, were rousing
from anesthesia when they were assaulted. They also said he
treated them roughly on the examination table, ordering them to
lift their gowns to expose their breasts, or pulling them by the
ankles into the stirrups. In the closing days of the trial, Judge
Jeffrey Cates of Maricopa County Superior Court threw out one
sexual assault and five sex abuse charges for lack of evidence,
trimming the number of alleged victims to 32."
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1202Finkel02-ON.html
"LifeSite Daily News Monday January 5, 2004 Finkel Gets 34 Years
for Sex Abuse of Abortion Patients PHOENIX, January 5, 2004
(LifeSiteNews.com) - Abortionist Brian Finkel, who was in years
past acclaimed as a 'national hero' by the pro-abortion movement
for his 'courageous' stand against pro-lifers, has been handed
a 34 and ¾ years sentence for his December conviction on 22 counts
of sexual abuse. Finkel was acquitted on 34 counts, including six
counts of sexual assault. Should he serve out his sentence, 54
year-old Finkel would also be put on lifetime probation and
ordered to register as a sex offender.
A darling of the pro-abortion movement, Finkel was famous for
patrolling his now-closed abortuary in a bullet-proof vest and
holstered gun taunting pro-life picketers, calling them 'religious
racketeers,' and 'mean-spirited, hate-filled Christians engaged in
guerrilla warfare.' Reports say Finkel 'relished being on the
front lines of the abortion battle, terminating more than 30,000
pregnancies in 20 years and proud of it.' See local coverage:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0102finkel02-ON.html".
Source URL: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jan/04010506.html
"Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley commended the courage of
the 32 accusers who stepped forward to report they were abused at
Finkel's abortion clinic. 'A doctor who had abused the trust of
his patients by sexually abusing them will no longer do that
again,' Romley told the Phoenix paper.
A pro-life activist insists Finkel's case is not as rare as news
coverage would suggest. The issue of sexual assault among abortion
doctors remained virtually unaddressed until Mark Crutcher's
groundbreaking, carefully documented probe into the culture of
abortion clinics, summarized in the 1996 book 'Lime 5: Exploited
by Choice.'
Crutcher used public records and first-hand accounts to uncover
abortion's toll, focusing not on unborn children but on women and
abortion providers. When he began research for the book, however,
he never envisioned a chapter on rape and sexual assault.
'Although we had often heard rumors that this sort of thing
happened, we had no reason to believe it was widespread enough to
deserve more than a passing mention,' he wrote in the book.
'However, as more and more data came into our office, we began to
see that rape and sexual assault in abortion clinics is not
uncommon at all.'
Crutcher believes the lack of statistics by the government or by
any other organization is not an oversight, charging that the
powerful abortion industry uses 'raw political power to cover its
tracks.'
In his chapter on the subject, Crutcher refers to documented
accounts of 34 sexually abusive abortion doctors, about one-third
of the cases that his organization, Life Dynamics of Denton,
Texas, has on file.
But Crutcher believes he is in possession of just a tiny fraction
of instances, noting studies indicate only about 15 percent of
rapes are reported. Moreover, in the case of abortion-related
rape, women have even more reason to remain silent. To speak up,
they would have to reveal they are sexually active, they became
pregnant and they had an abortion, Crutcher notes.
A Senate committee on rape in America, led by Sen. Joe Biden,
D-Del., said 84 percent of women raped by a stranger don't report
it because of the stigma attached to the crime. 'For women having
an abortion, multiply the stigma factor by 10,' Crutcher told WND
in an interview last year.
Phoenix police said one of the chief obstacles to their investig-
ation of Finkel was that 90 percent of the women who have now
come forward since news of his arrest never filed a police report,
according to the Arizona Republic.
'The secrecy of abortion clinics is what protects them,' Crutcher
said. 'If a woman goes to a family practitioner, the chances are
90 percent that if something happens she'll say something. In an
abortion clinic, there's about a 98 percent chance she won't, so
it's real hard to come up with data.' He likens the situation to
a man robbed by a prostitute, who knows he can't say anything
about it for fear of his wife finding out.
But, as in Finkel's case, Crutcher said he found it very common
that when a doctor 'gets outed,' hundreds of women come forward.
'It's not like a temporary lapse of judgment,' he said. 'We're
talking about guys who do it hundreds and hundreds of times.'
Crutcher offers examples of this kind in his book. [Names of
abortionists and clinics were not used, he said, so the book would
not appear to be a vendetta against individuals. He included
footnotes with references to public records, however, so research-
ers could independently verify the reports]:
More than 160 women accused abortionist 'John Roe 497' of sexual
assault. Allegations by patients included rape, sexual abuse of
minors, attempted sexual stimulation and sexually abusive language.
California Deputy Attorney General Randy Christison described the
doctor as a predator in a white coat who used his position for
his own perverse gratification.
More than 100 female patients came forward with complaints against
'John Roe 38' after he was investigated by the Oregon Board of
Medical Examiners and the police. The abortion doctor was accused
of trying to sexually stimulate patients, using explicit sexual
language and photographing genitals during examinations.
A Los Angeles abortionist, accused of misconduct by more than 100
of his clients, allegedly raped several of them on the examination
table. The doctor, who eventually had his license revoked, aborted
the child of one of his rape victims after normal hours without
using standard equipment and personnel.
The descriptions in Crutcher's book are graphic and disturbing,
yet some of the worst examples were left out, he said, because he
didn't want to be accused of peddling pornography."
From: "MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH Top abortion doctor convicted of
abuse Researcher claims case not as rare as news coverage sug-
gests Posted: December 4, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com, Inc. Contact WND Co-Located at Fiber
Internet Center".
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35945
It seems that a lot of women have been led to think that because
abortion is legal now, it's risk free to the mother. Nothing
could be further from the truth. Christina Dunigan, the Guide to
Pro-Life Views at About.com, posts a link to a list of mothers
who have died from their abortions; it's kind of like a war memo-
rial for moms. If you're skeptical, or you'd just like to meas-
ure the magnitude, you can follow this About.com link and page
down. It will probably be a lot higher than you would guess. I
decided not to count; there just seemed to be too many of them.
(About.com changed, and that list is no longer there, so I had to
remove the link. Sorry about that. However, I just tracked down
a piece of it, and you can go there by clicking here. I hope it
will still be there for you.)
"....more women are killed, physically injured, raped and psycho-
logically traumatized under 'legal' abortion than before Roe v.
Wade in 1973." "The truth is, abortion clinics want the highest
possible number of abortions to keep the cash rolling in."
".....if you survey physicians on what they think about abortion-
ists, virtually all of them -- even 'pro-abortion' doctors -- re-
gard abortionists as losers -- the dregs of the medical profess-
ion. Legalized abortion keeps them out of jail, but they're still
regarded as scum by their fellow doctors!" Alan Keyes
"The CDC report also includes the troubling fact that in 1998,
the most recent year for national data on abortion complications,
nine women are known to have died as a result of abortion." These
numbers are generally regarded as understated, because the cause
of death may be altered to avoid problems. In California, a top
state in the number of abortions performed, to the best of my
knowledge, they don't report their statistics to the CDC - if at
all. The quote came from The Pro-Life Infonet; December 17, 2002.
Driving back from the Washington, DC, March For Life, abortion
was a common talk radio topic, given it was the 30th anniversary
of Roe v. Wade. A woman was talking about the abortion she was
practically coerced into getting when she was 19. In addition to
not being able to put the regret out of her mind for many years;
after she married and wanted to have children, she found that had
become a difficult proposition. Her tubes had been blocked by the
abortion, and the wall of her uterus had been damaged so that it
was difficult for the placenta to attach. She eventually overcame
her medical problems, and was able to have children. However, be-
cause she was still in her teens when she had the abortion, she
pointed out that her risk of someday getting breast cancer had
been increased by 600%. She had formed some type of pro-life org-
anization, because of her experience; and seemed especially know-
ledgeable in the subject. She pointed out that for some reason,
some women only had one child (based on her counseling activity).
The implication was clear. If a woman had an abortion, she might
be throwing away her one chance to have a child.
"Family of woman who died at abortion clinic files lawsuit
The Associated Press LOS ANGELES -- The family of a woman who bled
to death at a Planned Parenthood clinic filed a lawsuit against
the organization and the doctor who performed the abortion. The
suit filed in Superior Court alleges that the clinic in East Los
Angeles and Dr. Mark Maltzer are responsible for the wrongful
death of Diana Lopez, 25, of Huntington Park.
A report by the state Department of Health Services concluded that
the clinic did not follow established medical procedures during
the abortion and it did not report Lopez's death within a requir-
ed 24-hour period. Maltzer is still performing abortions at some
of the 12 clinics in the Los Angeles area, but is under investig-
ation by the Medical Board of California. The board's spokeswoman
declined to say what the probe was about.
Lopez was about 18 weeks pregnant when the abortion was performed
in February 2002. Within minutes, her cervix had been punctured
during the operation and she began to bleed profusely, according
to the state report. Doctors were unable to control the bleeding.
Lopez was taken to a hospital where an emergency hysterectomy was
performed, according to a report by the Los Angeles County coron-
er. She died of trauma from the procedure, the coroner's report
said.
The lawsuit against Planned Parenthood and Maltzer alleges that
the doctor 'worked so quickly, recklessly and negligently pulling
out sharp body parts of Diana Lopez' 19-20 week-old unborn infant
that severe, irreparable damage was done.' The suit also alleges
that Maltzer failed to accompany Lopez to the hospital, nor did
he speak with doctors there or with the Lopez family after she
died." Last modified: June 25. 2003 6:49AM heraldtribune.com Ser-
ving the Herald-Tribune newspaper and SNN Channel 6 Sarasota Her-
ald-Tribune.
http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030625/
APN/306250668
"Mother of Three Killed by Planned Parenthood Abortion, Says STOPP
International 6/24/03 9:26:00 AM To: National Desk
Contact: Erik Whittington of American Life League, 540-226-9004
or ewhittington@all.org; http://www.stoppinternational.org
WASHINGTON, June 24 /U.S. Newswire/ -- 'Diana Lopez is dead as a
direct result of another botched abortion at a Planned Parenthood
(PPFA) clinic. According to the report released by the California
Department of Health Services last week, this PPFA clinic was cit-
ed for no less than six serious health code deficiencies that lead
to this death,' said Ed Szymkowiak, national director of STOPP In-
ternational, a project of American Life League. 'It's amazing, in
light of this latest revelation and their lack of openness about
the medical standards of their clinics, that Planned Parenthood
continues to claim with a straight face that they are even remot-
ely interested in a women's health and well-being.
'Sadly, heinous acts of medical malpractice - including the death
of patients - are nothing new at Planned Parenthood,' stated Szy-
mkowiak. 'In 2001, a San Francisco court decision awarded over
$650,000 in damages to a Yugoslav immigrant whose pre-born child
suffered the loss of two limbs during a botched abortion at Plan-
ned Parenthood. That same year, Planned Parenthood agreed to pay
a New York woman $1 million because it had repeatedly insisted
she did not have breast cancer when she did. And in 2000, a Miss-
ouri woman went into a coma after a doctor at a Planned Parent-
hood clinic apparently placed an oxygen tube in her stomach in-
stead of her lungs.'
Point of reference: Other cases of malpractice at Planned Parent-
hood are documented in The Scarlet Survey, by Kevin Sherlock
(Brennyman Books, 1997)"
"Delaware high court hears abortion death case
(AP) DOVER - There is no evidence that a woman who bled to death
after a botched abortion five years ago suffered any conscious
pain and suffering, an attorney fighting a $2 million jury award
told state Supreme Court justices on Wednesday.
William Cattie, a Wilmington lawyer representing Dr. Mohammad
Imran's insurance company, said the damages awarded by a Superior
Court jury in the case of Gracealynn T. Harris are not justified.
The jury awarded the money to Harris' 5-year-old son in January
2002 after concluding that Imran was negligent and that his act-
ions led to her death." Source: Associated Press Online at:
http://www.newszap.com/display/inn_seaford/news115.txt
"--------------------
From: The Pro-Life Infonet Steven Ertelt infonet@prolifeinfo.org
Source: Elliot Institute; February 10, 2003
Abortion's Link to Premature Birth is No Mystery by David Reardon
[Pro-Life Infonet Note: David Reardon, Ph.D., is the director of
the Elliot Institute in Springfield, Illinois.]
The March of Dimes has announced a major fund raising effort to
understand and battle premature deliveries. March of Dimes medic-
al director Dr. Nancy Green told Time magazine that the 27 per-
cent rise in premature births over the last few decades 'is a my-
stery.' (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030
210-418559,00.html)
Dr. Green's claim that the rise in premature birth rates is a my-
stery reflects either a distressing ignorance of the medical lit-
erature or a calculated case of selective recall.
At least 48 published studies have shown significantly higher
risk of premature birth and low birth weight deliveries among wom-
en with a history of abortion.(1-48) One of the best, a Danish re-
cord based study (1), found the risk doubled after just one abort-
ion. Multiple abortions increase the risk even more. A doubling
of risk among an estimated one-fourth of delivering women who have
a prior history of abortion would result in a 25 percent rise over-
all. The only real mystery surrounding the 27 percent rise in pre-
mature delivery rates among the post-Roe generation of women is
why the March of Dimes has failed to call attention to this major
risk factor. Their fact sheets downplay the risk of abortion,
stating only that women are at higher risk of premature delivery
if they 'have had more than three abortions or miscarriages.'
Other risk factors such as drinking, smoking, and drug use are
also elevated by a history of abortion. The March of Dimes pro-
fesses that its position on abortion is one of neutrality. This
is a good position to be in if one is trying to gather in donat-
ions from as large an audience as possible.
But the fact that the March of Dimes encourages prenatal screen-
ing for birth defects that can only be 'treated' by abortion does
not support the claim that they are neutral. Instead, it supports
the view that the March of Dimes is encouraging eugenic targeting
of 'unfit' children that do not 'deserve to be born.' Their refu-
sal to aggressively educate the public about the role abortion
plays in heightening the risk posed to subsequent pregnancies is
another sign that their claim of neutrality is a just a veneer
over a pro-abortion, eugenic-minded 'charity.'
According to the March of Dimes, 'In 2000, hospital charges for
23,000 prematurity-related infant stays totaled $1.2 billion. The
average charge was $58,000 per baby, compared to $4,300 for a
typical newborn stay.' (http://www.marchofdimes.com/aboutus/791_6
775.asp) Treatment of these children through employer health
plans is estimated at $4.7 billion per year. One fifth of these
costs is attributable to extra cases of prematurity arising from
abortion-related morbidity. Premature birth is the leading cause
of neonatal death and is related to increased risk of cerebral
palsy, vision and hearing loss, retardation and other lifelong
health problems.
You can register your complaints about the March of Dimes coverup
by calling 1-888-MODIMES. The list of 48 studies showing abort-
ion's relationship to premature birth and low birth rate deliver-
ies compiled by Brent Rooney can be found at http://www.vcn.bc.ca
/~whatsup/APB-Major.html --". It's not too difficult to speculate
that the cause of this would be a damaged uterus resulting in in-
adequate nourishment for the baby. Not scientific, but a common
sense explanation, nevertheless; when you realize the instrument
the abortionist is using, and can not observe, is capable of cut-
ting up the infant - or poking a hole in the uterus.
"Texas First State to Warn of Abortion-Cerebral Palsy Link
HOUSTON, January 5, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Texas is the first
state in the U.S. to educate its abortion clinic patrons of the
real risk between abortion and Cerebral Palsy (CP) in subsequent
pregnancies.
In prior LifeSiteNews.com coverage of the issue, we reported on
researcher Brent Rooney's compilation of twenty-seven studies
published in major medical journals showing a significantly
elevated risk of premature birth from prior induced abortions.
Medical research indicates that pre-term birth increases the risk
of Cerebral Palsy as well as respiratory distress, asthma and
death. The studies showing the link have been published in the
Journal of the American Medical Association, British Medical
Journal, The New England Journal of Medicine, American Journal of
Public Health and others.
A 1999 Danish study of 61,000 women found a doubled risk of "very
pre-term" babies in pregnancies subsequent to a prior abortion.
Pre-term deliveries represent a significant risk factor in the
development of CP. Rooney estimates that of the approximately
800,000 women who have abortions each year in the U.S., 904
babies would develop CP as a direct result of having very low
birth weights subsequent to a prior abortion.
Despite the risks to later-born children, not to mention risks to
the mother, health authorities in Canada refuse to demand that
abortionists offer informed consent detailing such risks to women
prior to abortions."
From - http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jan/04010505.html
"Read LifeSiteNews.com's coverage of Rooney's work at:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/jul/020703.html
For a complete listing of the journals and the specific citations
see Rooney's website at: http://vcn.bc.ca/~whatsup/
Read the WorldNetDaily.com coverage of the Texas decision at:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36363".
"LifeSite Daily News is a production of Interim Publishing. NEWS
TIPS to lsn@lifesite.net or call 1-866-787-9947 or (416) 204-1687
ext. 444 104 Bond St. E., Toronto, ON M5B 1X9".
People who claim to be pro-choice like to say abortion should be
a decision between a woman and her doctor. The reality is that it
becomes a decision between a woman and an abortionist - who may
not even be a doctor. You don't have to be a doctor in every
state to do abortions, and the woman who goes to an abortion mill
for counseling probably wouldn't talk to the doctor even if there
was one. Whoever counsels her there would most likely only be in-
terested in selling her an abortion. Looked at another way, would
your family doctor recommend an abortion as a "treatment" for pre-
gnancy? If you're contemplating an abortion, you have options.
Examine those options in the crisis pregnancy center below.
Actually, there is one aspect of the above argument I would agree
with. I would support legislation that required a woman to consult
with her family physician, or an obstetrician/gynecologist; to get
their approval before having an abortion.
Some politicians like to straddle the issue by saying "I am pro-
choice. I am not pro-abortion." Then they use that equivocation
to justify voting against pro-life legislation. The fact is the
results are the same; well over a million children murdered in
this country every year. Abortion is the status quo - if you're
pro-choice you're for it by default. "Pro-choice" when applied to
abortion can only mean one thing - that you're in favor of let-
ting mothers' choose to have their children murdered for their
own convenience; despite the clever phraseology.
"Abortion clinic - now there is an oxymoron, if ever there was
one. A clinic is a place that heals, but these establishments of-
fer only one prescription to a woman with a crisis pregnancy:
death for her young one and, for the mother, a painful memory
that will last a lifetime. More often than not, she is rushed into
the procedure by a 'counselor' whose only qualification is the a-
bility to get her undressed and into the back room as fast as pos-
sible - a counselor whose only objective is to close the sale.
Often these counselors have had abortions themselves, and are try-
ing to work through their pain by 'helping' others through this
unpleasant and often unsafe experience in establishments that op-
erate with the speed of an assembly line. An article in the Amer-
ican Medical Association in 1983 reported, 'Complications follow-
ing abortions performed in free-standing clinics is one of the
most frequent gynecologic emergencies ... encountered.'
You would think that conditions would have improved in these est-
ablishments that now dot our landscape, but no. Pressure from
feminist's groups has resulted in virtually no requirements and
no oversight. As a result, these abortion mills have been left to
police themselves.
Mark Crutcher, of Life Dynamics, verified 23 deaths from induced
abortion in 1992-93 that were reported to state agencies. However,
only two of these deaths were listed by the Centers for Disease
Control, which has become highly politicized in the area of abor-
tion. Bear in mind that most deaths resulting from induced abort-
ion eventually are reported as something else: pelvic abscess,
septicemia and hepatitis (from hemorrhage and blood transfusion).
Crutcher, in his book, 'Lime 5', documented case histories of
several hundred women badly injured or killed by abortionists.
Only a fraction were reported." Jane Chastain, World Net Daily
Did you hear about the pregnant woman in England who was suffer-
ing from kidney failure, but went through with the pregnancy any-
way, and was kept alive by her son's kidneys?
"Post-abortion trauma afflicts an estimated 560,000 women in Amer-
ica. Its symptoms are depression, suicidal tendencies, alcoholism,
sexual promiscuity and repeat abortions"...."We can look back and
see the trail of death and destruction, the countless souls doom-
ed to eternal suffering, or we can look forward to a new century
etched with the perseverance and integrity of the people of God.
I prefer the latter". Judie Brown, American Life League (ALL)
The women who have the abortions are also its victims. For the
women mentioned above, the problem didn't go away after their a-
bortion - it got worse. If you think you might be suffering from
the conditions mentioned above, you can call Rachel's Vineyard at
1-877-HOPE-4-ME.
"America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance. It is not.
It is suffering from tolerance of right and wrong, truth and er-
ror, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly
so much overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broad-
minded... In the face of this broad-mindedness, what the world
needs is intolerance." Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen
From the January, 2001, Ryan Report: "...newspaper articles about
the gruesome testimony PP abortionist Robert Crist gave during a
trial in which PP challenged the legality of the partial-birth in-
fanticide law in Missouri. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch wrote the
following on May 25, 2000: 'In testimony Wednesday in St. Louis
Circuit Court, Crist said that it is not uncommon for second-tri-
mester fetuses to leave the womb feet-first, intact and with their
hearts still beating. He sometimes crushes their skulls to get the
fetuses out. Other times, he dismembers them.' Crist also cited
cases when 9 to 10 week-old fetuses were unintentionally suction-
ed into the suction bottle intact, still alive with their hearts
beating. The point PP was trying to make is that the law in ques-
tion would not only ban a late term partial-birth abortion, but
also the more routine procedures used earlier in the pregnancy
which can cause the death of a baby after it is born or partially
born (Post-Dispatch May 26, 2000)." STOPP International
I got something in the mail from the "Survivors of the Abortion
Holocaust" the other day. There was a picture of them with two
large signs at a beach community in California. The signs were at
least 5 feet tall, and 3-4 feet across. It was a distance shot,
and I couldn't quite make out the details, so I got out a magnif-
ying glass. One of the posters was of a smiling, healthy, well
dressed baby. The caption said "LIFE". The other poster had a
picture of an aborted baby - in pieces - it appeared to have been
decapitated during the abortion procedure. The caption read
"CHOICE". Another sign they carry has the message: "You Will Al-
ways REMEMBER The Child You Never Knew."
The following information was taken from an article entitled
"After 30 Years of Abortion...Are Women Better Off?", by Kristen
Panico, "Director of Education, National Organization of Episcop-
alians for Life", which was published in "Uniting For Life", Win-
ter 2003 - a publication of the National Pro-Life Religious Coun-
cil:
"...after thirty years of abortion, we are now seeing the serious
health consequences of abortion. Abortion can have a devastating
impact on...emotional and physical health, fertility, and future
pregnancies. Unfortunately abortionists and the medical community
have downplayed the health risks of abortion. Endangering the
physical and emotional health of millions of women, many we know
and love. So as you read each...point below, try to make the
data real. Think of the children who will lose their mother to
cancer because of a choice she made while she was young. Think of
the father who grieves for his miscarried child. Consider the
women suffering from a...'choice'.
43% of American women will have at least one abortion by age 45.
We all have friends, coworkers, and neighbors who have had an a-
bortion. Abortion is creating a women's health crisis.
In the US, over 140,000 women a year have immediate medical com-
plications from abortion; problems such as: infection, uterine
perforation, hemorrhaging, cervical trauma.
Abortion increases a woman's risk of breast cancer by 30%. A care-
ful study of international literature shows a woman's risk for de-
veloping breast cancer has increased dramatically since 1960. Ac-
cording to the National Alliance of Breast Cancer Organizations,
back in 1960, 1 in 14 women would develop breast cancer in her
lifetime, currently 1 in 9 women have the chance of developing
breast cancer.
After an abortion there is a higher risk of developing cervical
as well as ovarian cancer. Childbirth actually protects against
cancer of the reproductive system. The conclusion seems to be
that if we can avoid abortion, some types of cancer may be pre-
ventable.
Abortion can lead to infertility, a long-term complication that
often goes undetected for many years. Abortion can lead to in-
fections (such as pelvic inflammatory disease), as well as uter-
ine scarring. 'Single young women who have never carried a baby
to term risk experiencing greater difficulty (than any other
group) in conceiving and carrying future pregnancies to term.'
Abortion can lead to complications in future pregnancies includ-
ing: miscarriage, premature birth, placenta previa, and ectopic
pregnancy. How does this happen? During an abortion the cervix is
artificially dilated, this can weaken the muscle and cause perma-
nent damage leading to miscarriages and premature birth. The ute-
rus may be perforated and sometimes it is scraped with a knife,
both leading to scarring . When a woman gets pregnant the newly
fertilized human embryo may have difficulty implanting in the
womb because it can not attach itself to scar tissue. This can
lead to placenta previa (when the embryo attaches itself to the
lower part of the uterus near or over the cervix), and possible
future ectopic pregnancy (when the embryo attaches itself to the
fallopian tube) potentially fatal if not caught early. According
to the Centers for Disease Control: 'From 1970 through 1989 more
than one million ectopic pregnancies were estimated to have oc-
curred among women in the United States. The rate increased al-
most fourfold from 4.5 to 16.0 ectopic pregnancies per 1000 re-
ported pregnancies.'
In the twelve months following an abortion women have a death
rate 4 times greater than women who continued with their pregnan-
cies. This is a clear sign that women may be dying from abortion-
related causes. It also suggests that there is a higher suicide
rate for abortion than pregnancy. 'Although infrequently, women
do die as a result of abortion, yet abortion-related maternal
mortality is generally under-reported. One reason for this is
that codes in hospitals report only the presenting cause of death,
not the underlying reason which, for example, in the case of abor-
tion-related death, might be hemorrhage, infection, embolism, or
ectopic pregnancy.' Often staff may deliberately avoid citing a
death as caused by abortion in order to protect the privacy of
the woman. There are other causes of death as well: 'Approximate-
ly 14% of all deaths from legal abortion are due to general anes-
thesia complications.'
It is minorities who suffer the greatest number of serious compl-
ications and deaths after abortion. 'Death from legal abortion is
more common among minority women than white women, women over the
age of 35 and those who undergo the procedure during the second
trimester.'
In a recent survey, post-abortive women who were seeking counsel-
ing reported: an increased use of drugs and/or alcohol to deaden
their pain, reoccurring insomnia and nightmares, eating disorders
that began after the abortion, suicidal feelings, and even attemp-
ted suicide. Sadly, many in the psychiatric community deny any
serious emotional trauma after an abortion. Ironically, women who
have undergone abortion often fit the psychiatric profile for
diagnosing someone suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
This information is crucial because the right to choose is mean-
ingless without the right to know."
"Women's Health After Abortion," by Elizabeth Ring-Cassidy and
Ian Gentiles, "a 2002 book by the Canada-based deVeber Institute
for Bioethics and Social Research":
"Abortion's impact on subsequent pregnancies is another problem.
Injury to the cervix can lead to later spontaneous abortions, and
damage to the uterus can create problems in the implantation of
future pregnancies. Premature birth is also a result of abortion,
as 20 studies conducted between 1973 and 1999 in seven countries
testify. One or more induced abortions can lead to an increase of
up to 30% in the possibility of a prematurity. The premature
births occur not only because of the physical damage to the repro-
ductive system, but also to the infections resulting from abort-
ions.
Ectopic pregnancies, whose incidence has increased notably in re-
cent years, have also been found to have a link with abortions.
Five studies reviewed in the book find that there is anything
from a twofold to a thirteenfold increase in the risk of an ecto-
pic pregnancy following induced abortion. Increased rates of sub-
sequent infertility and spontaneous abortion have also been de-
tected among women who had abortions without previously giving
birth, the book says.
The danger to health can even reach the point of causing death.
The book notes that there are significant difficulties in obtain-
ing reliable statistics on this subject due to inconsistencies in
the registration of information. However, it cites data from Fin-
land, which maintains a careful registry of births, deaths and a-
bortion.
The maternal death rate after abortion is four times higher, at
100.5 per 100,000 women, for women who aborted than it was for
women who gave birth. This contradicts the widely repeated claim
that abortion is safer than childbirth. The Finnish data also show
that women who have an induced abortion are more than three times
likely to commit suicide within a year than women who gave birth."
"Another book that gathers many references on the subject of abor-
tion and health is Thomas Strahan's 'Detrimental Effects of Abor-
tion: An Annotated Bibliography with Commentary.' The third edit-
ion, published in 2001 by Acorn Books in association with the El-
liot Institute, contains more than 1,200 bibliographical entries
in 140 categories." Source: ZENIT Publish Date: July 5, 2003
Online: http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=38329
Studies by different people, from different countries; that is,
Canada, the U.S., and the UK; all coming to the same conclusions.
What an amazing coincidence.
"May 12, 2003 Study ties abortion to clinical depression By Sarah
Marcisz THE WASHINGTON TIMES ( http://www.washtimes.com/ . )
Women who have abortions are 65 percent more likely to experience
clinical depression than those who carry their pregnancies to
term, according to a recent study. 'It has been frequently claim-
ed that abortions have no negative psychological effects. This
study shows this is clearly not the case,' said David Reardon,
executive director of the Elliot Institute, a nonprofit, pro-life
corporation focused on post-abortion research and education. The
long-term effects of an abortion 'should be a high priority in
federally funded research,' said Mr. Reardon, who co-wrote the
study with Jesse Cougle, psychology professor at the University
of Texas, and Priscilla Coleman, human-development director at
Bowling Green State University.
In 1988, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop asked for a study on the
issue of abortion complications. Congress denied the request. Mr.
Reardon said it is past time for such a study to 'examine all in-
teractions between women's physical and mental health, including
not only reactions to abortion, but also to study PMS, postpartum
depression, menopause and more.'
The Elliot study is based on data from an Ohio State University
study funded by the U.S. Department of Labor that spans 21 years
and annual assessments from 1,884 women. The research involved
more precise methods compared with other studies, such as inform-
ation on prior psychological state, nationally representative
participants, consideration of sociodemographic factors and long-
term assessments, Mr. Reardon said. But he said the study, the
sixth in a series on the psychological effects of abortion, could
be more precise. The data underrepresent the risk to women because
'the women most likely to conceal previous abortions are the ones
most likely to experience clinical depression later on,' which
is what Mr. Reardon says he believes happened with subjects in
this study."
What follows is especially important because pro-aborts like to
claim that abortion is safer than natural child birth. I've never
seen anything to substantiate that. Either they're lying, talking
about some backward third world country in Africa, or referring
to conditions in medieval times:
"Death Rate of Abortion Three Times Higher Than Childbirth
13-Year Population Study Published in Top OB/GYN Journal
(Elliot Institute) Springfield, IL -- A study of pregnancy-assoc-
iated deaths published in the latest issue of the 'American Jour-
nal of Obstetrics and Gynecology' (AJOG) has found that the mort-
ality rate associated with abortion is 2.95 times higher than that
associated with pregnancies carried to term. The study included
the entire population of women 15 to 49 years of age in Finland
between 1987 and 2000. The researchers linked birth and abortion
records to death certificates.
The annual death rate of women who had abortion in the previous
year was also 46% higher than that of non-pregnant women. Women
who carried to term had a significantly lower death rate than
non-pregnant women. Non-pregnant women had 57.0 deaths per
100,000, compared to 28.2 for women who carried to term, 51.9 for
women who miscarried, and 83.1 for women who had abortions. The
authors, led by Mika Gissler of Finland's National Research and
Development Centre for Welfare and Health, concluded that preg-
nancy contributes to a healthy effect on women.
The study also revealed the difficulties involved in identifying
direct and indirect effects of pregnancy on subsequent deaths. An
examination of deaths from natural causes that were identified as
'not pregnancy related' revealed that women who had abortions
were significantly more likely (1.7 times) to die from natural
causes that were not attributed to pregnancy on the death certif-
icates. They were also 6.3 times more likely to die from violent
causes.
This is the second record-based study to be published in the last
eighteen months to show that the death rates following abortion
are significantly higher than those associated with birth. The
other study, published in the 'Southern Medical Journal,' linked
death records to Medi-Cal payments for births and abortions for
approximately 173,000 low income Californian women. In that study,
the researchers discovered that women who had abortions were
almost twice as likely to die in the following two years and that
the elevated mortality rate of aborting women persisted over at
least eight years.
Citing:
Gissler M, Berg C, Bouvier-Colle MH, Buekens P.
Pregnancy-associated mortality after birth, spontaneous abortion
or induced abortion in Finland, 1987-2000. Am J Ob Gyn 2004; 190:
422-427.
Reardon DC, Ney PG, Scheuren F, Cougle J, Coleman PK, Strahan TW.
Deaths associated with pregnancy outcome: a record linkage study
of low income women. South Med J 2002 Aug;95(8):834-41.
Source: Elliot Institute Publish Date: March 5, 2004
Online at: http://ifrl.org/IFRLDailyNews/040308/1"
"The Elliot Institute has compiled a 261-page book called The
Detrimental Effects of Abortion, which lists hundreds of post-
abortion studies and their results. This book has a 24-page
supplement of studies completed during 2002 and a 23-page supple-
ment for the year 2003.
High risk of death
Compared to women who carry to term, women who have abortions are:
# 3.5 times more likely to die in the following year
# 1.6 times more likely to die of natural causes
# 7 times more likely to die of suicide
# 4 times more likely to die of injuries related to accidents
# 14 times more likely to die from homicide
# The leading causes of abortion-related maternal deaths within a
week of the procedure are hemorrhage, infection, embolism,
anesthesia, and undiagnosed ectopic pregnancies.
Immediate complications
About 10 percent suffer immediate complications, of which about
one-fifth are life-threatening:
# infection
# embolism
# ripping or perforation of the uterus
# convulsions
# cervical injury
# fever
# chronic abdominal pain
# gastro-intestinal disturbances
# excessive bleeding
# anesthesia complications
# hemorrhage
# endotoxic shock
# second degree burns
# vomiting
# Rh sensitization
Infertility and other reproductive risks
# Placenta previa: After abortion, there is a seven- to 15-fold
increase in placenta previa in subsequent pregnancies. Abnormal
development of the placenta due to uterine damage increases the
risk of birth defects, stillbirth, and excessive bleeding during
labor.
# Labor complications
# Women had had one, two, or more previous induced abortions are,
respectively, 1.89, 2.66, or 2.03 times more likely to have a
subsequent pre-term delivery, compared to women who carry to term.
Pre-term delivery increases the risk of neonatal death and handi-
caps. The average hospital charge from delivery to discharge for
a premature birth is $58,000, compared to $4,300 for a full-term
birth.
# Women who had one, two, or more induced abortions are,
respectively, 1.89, 2.61, and 2.23 times more likely to have a
post-term delivery (over 42 weeks)
# Increased risk of neonatal death and handicapped newborns in
later pregnancies. Cervical and uterine damage may increase the
risk of premature delivery, complications of labor, and abnormal
development of the placenta in later pregnancies. These complica-
tions are the leading causes of disabilities among newborns.
# Ectopic pregnancy: Post-abortive women have a significantly
increased risk of subsequent ectopic pregnancies, which are life
threatening and may result in reduced fertility.
Space does not permit to elaborate on other physical health risks
following abortion such as cancer, Pelvic Inflammatory Disease,
and endometritis.
Space does not permit to elaborate on psychosocial risks following
abortion such as increased promiscuity, smoking, drug abuse,
eating disorders, and a 180% increase in doctor visits for
psychosocial reasons.
For detailed citations of each of the above listed statistics, go
to www.afterabortion.org.
Let's not kid ourselves that pro-abortion legislators care about
our right to 'choose.' They care strictly about keeping the
abortion industry happy.
By: Jill Stanek Source: The Leader Publish Date: March 17, 2004
Online at: http://ifrl.org/IFRLDailyNews/040318/5"
Additional risks.
"From: Austin Ruse -- C-FAM c-fam@c-fam.org Subject: Friday
Fax/WHO Official Admits Legal Abortion is Not 'Safe' For Women
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 11:12:27 -0700
Dear Colleague,
We report today on a conference held a few days ago in Washington
DC. Population control advocates met to plan strategy to keep
fertility rates tumbling. The meeting included some unsavory
characters like Werner Fornos who has spoken favorably in the past
of testing a drug called quinicrine that burns the fallopian tubes
of poor women rendering them sterile. Spread the word. Yours
sincerely, Austin Ruse President
FRIDAY FAX May 21, 2004 Volume 7, Number 22
WHO Official Admits Legal Abortion is Not 'Safe' For Women
At an international conference on population held in Washington,
DC last week, an official from the World Health Organization (WHO)
made an admission that undermines one of the most common arguments
for the worldwide legalization of abortion on demand. Dr. Gunta
Lazdane, European Regional Advisor to WHO on Reproductive Health
and Research, said that, 'up to 20% of maternal deaths are due to
abortion, even in those situations were abortion is legal…there
is a question whether ‘safe’ abortion is safe.'
However, international pro-abortion advocates often claim that
only illegal abortions are unsafe. Thus, to address maternal
deaths due to unsafe abortions, they argue that nations should
recognize a broad right to abortion. This reasoning is even found
in WHO’s own reports on reproductive health. If Lazdane is correct,
however, and legal abortions are also unsafe for women, then these
arguments would appear to lose much of their weight.
Lazdane was speaking at the Global Population Forum 2004, which
was organized by the Population Institute and Population 2005, an
alliance of reproductive rights groups. The Board of Directors of
Population 2005 includes former high-ranking officials of the UN
Population Fund (UNFPA), and UN Under Secretary General H.E.
Anwarul Chowdhury. Other speakers at the conference were more
typical. Alfonso Lopez Juarez, former head of the Mexican Family
Planning Association, called the Catholic Church and the 'religious
right' 'fanatics.'
Copyright, 2004 – C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute).
Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required.
Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute 866 United Nations Plaza,
Suite 427 New York, New York 10017 Phone: (212) 754-5948 Fax: (212)
754-9291 E-mail: c-fam@c-fam.org Website: www.c-fam.org".
"Abortion at 19 Caused Life-Long Infertility
(LifeSiteNews.com) At age 55, a woman finally learned the cause
of her life-long infertility -- the bony remains of the baby she
had aborted at age 19 was still lodged in her uterus. Galina
Skvortsova learned the news from her gynecologist after an
examination to determine the cause of an unrelated condition.
Gynecologist, Dr. Olga Kogan, when conducting a hysteroscopic
(camera device) exam, was startled by her finding. 'I could not
believe it', she said. '. . . The 'cannon-bone' [was] 2.5
centimeters in size, and this means that Galina had an abortion
when she was pregnant for a long time, about 4 months.' The 2.5
cm bone acted in a similar way to an intra-uterine device,
scraping the lining of the uterus, preventing the implantation of
newly-formed human embryos, according to Kogan.
In a case study published in the April 2003 issue of the journal
Fertility and Sterility, the researchers noted that fetal bone
fragments can lodge into the muscular tissue in the uterus
concealing them from hysteroscopes which are normally used to
detect remaining baby parts after abortions.
An analysis of common abortion methods reveals clearly how bone
fragments could be lost in the uterus after abortions. Abortions
after the third month of pregnancy, when bone tissue has already
formed, usually require the bones of the unborn child to be broken.
Dilation and Curettage abortions use a hook shaped knife (curette)
which cuts the body into pieces prior to evacuation. However later
term abortions require Dilation and Evacuation abortions in which
a pair of forceps is inserted into the womb to grasp part of the
fetus. The teeth of the forceps twist and tear the bones of the
unborn child. This process is repeated until the fetus is totally
dismembered and removed. Usually the spine must be snapped and
the skull crushed in order to remove the full body." LifeSite
Daily News, a production of Interim Publishing Publish Date:
August 5, 2004 Online at: http://ifrl.org/IFRLDailyNews/040806/4"
(Abortion methodology has been a much discussed topic at the New
York Congressional Partial-birth Abortion Ban legal proceedings,
which authenticate the above descriptions of late term abortions,
as described by the abortionists themselves.)
From: Colleen Parro rnclife@swbell.net
Subject: Republican National Coalition for Life FaxNotes
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:46:50 -0600
"What Happens If You Make Abortion Illegal??? – Poland did it!!!
– That is the title of a new brochure from Jack and Barbara
Willke’s Life Issues Institute. It points out the fallacy of the
argument that making abortion illegal will just 'drive women into
the hands of illegal abortionists and there will be blood running
from the back alleys.' But Poland did make abortion illegal, and
with spectacular pro-life results!
Poland, a nation of 40 million people in which abortion was legal
during 44 years of Communist rule, averaged around 150,000 abort-
ions per year. In 1993 abortion was outlawed. By 2000 the annual
number of abortions had dropped to 138! To read about these and
other exciting statistics you can order the brochure by contact-
ing Hayes Publishing Co., Inc – Phone: 513/681-7559; Fax: 513/681
-9298; e-mail: hayespub@aol.com."
I ordered the brochure. Here is more information from it:
"None of the dire predictions of back alley abortions materializ-
ed. The actual effects were almost no abortions, healthier women
and greater infant survival.
Are Statistics Accurate? The 1993 Polish law requires annual re-
ports from three separate federal agencies, hence these numbers.
All of these reports have been challenged by pro-abortion groups
and all have been shown to be accurate.
Number of abortions 1968 = 168,000 2000 = 138
Miscarriages 1955 = 59,000 1999 = 41,000
Deaths due to Pregnancy and Birth 1990 = 70 1996 = 21
Neonatal deaths/1000 live births* 1990 = 19 1998 = 9
Illegal abortions (not deaths) 1999 = 99
* Note that abortions often tear the cervix, weakening it. The
result is more premature births. Preemies die more often.
Therefore, this is an indirect measure of frequency of abortions."
(Jack Willke is a MD)
On the other hand, "Romania currently has the highest abortion
rate in the world -- 3 out of every 4 pregnancies there end in a-
bortion!" Father Thomas Euteneuer, president of Human Life Inter-
national, speaking at The Women's Center Annual Life Banquet,
February 2003.
"The San Francisco Chronicle recently reported that abortionists
in India are exploiting that culture's strong preference for
males. Female feticide has become rampant. 'In the states of Pun-
jab, Madhya Pradesh, Hariyana and Rajistan, the ratio of girls to
boys in the 6-and-younger age group is steadily dropping and is
now less than 800 girls for every 1,000 boys, official records
show. A normal global ratio shows about 1,003 females to 1,000
boys.'1 The article goes on to disclose that, 'Health workers
worry that the steady drop in female population will not only
lead to a shortage of available wives, but spur an increase in
the trafficking of women for the sex trade.' Abortion kills un-
born girls and magnifies the misery of many of their born sisters.
What a 'woman's right.'
World magazine recently reported on the real problem of depopula-
tion, brought on in part by abortion. 'The president of Estonia
goes on national TV to urge his countrymen to have more children.
Russian President Vladimir Putin warns his parliament about 'a
serious crisis threatening Russia's survival': the nation's low
birth rate. The government of Singapore is trying to reverse that
country's birth dearth by sponsoring a massive taxpayer-funded
matchmaking service.'2
The U.S. Centers For Disease Control and other observers of 'a-
bortion medicine' variously estimate that about 1.3 million 'pre-
gnancy terminations' occur each year in this country. The World
Health Organization, however, reports that some 55 million abort-
ions are committed globally each year. This stupefying number
is made all the more problematic by the fact that virtually no
country outside of the United States has a truly proactive pro-
life movement." Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Gregg Cunningham,
March 2003. However, opposition to abortion is gathering momentum
in countries like Canada and the UK. My web site gets visitors
from all over the world. Little Singapore ranks 6th in the number
of visitors.
1 "Indian Women trapped in culture of contempt,"
The San Francisco Chronicle, Dec 6,2002
2 "Population Implosion," World, Feb. 15, 2003.
On The Presidential Election
Posted 12/10/2000
Well, I've been very busy, and although I've been very concerned
about the Al Gore, George Bush, never give up presidential con-
test in Florida, to the point that I've been having mood swings
around it, I wasn't going to weigh in on the presidential race.
However, I see a chance to illustrate a point that a lot of
people seem to be missing. That is, that the same strategy that's
used to justify abortion is being used to justify the recount,
whether or not you think it should go forward. First, a slogan
has been chosen that everybody can agree upon: "All the ballots
should be counted", and it is repeated over and over again like a
mantra. But it doesn't reflect what is really going on. In fact,
all the ballots have been counted, at least once, according to
the rules established for the election by the legislature to en-
sure fairness to everyone. Then they were recounted, also accord-
ing to the same rules for everybody. That's twice. But that's
where applying the same fair standard to everybody ended. Since
then there have been recounts (until today) only in predominantly
Democratic counties. New standards for counting ballots were also
applied in these counties, like reviewing ballots by hand, count-
ing dimples, pregnant chads, and so on. Just rehandling these
cards could cause changes in some - only in those counties. Plus,
the Democrats, while saying they want to count every vote, were
doing their utmost to get thousands of absentee ballots thrown
out. So what they were really doing was trying to get Democratic
votes recounted as much as possible to try to manufacture addit-
ional votes by making up new, exclusive rules as they went along.
Dick Cheney called it vote manipulation. In the heartland, where
we've had our share of vote manipulation behind the scenes in the
past, lawyers call this out in the open outright vote tampering.
It's just like when the Democrats twist abortion around into "A
woman's right to choose", when it's really about a woman's right
to kill.
Because the voters in the Democrat counties in Florida couldn't
get the punched cards punched right, two years later they instal-
led computers for people to vote on. Well, you probably heard
what happened to Janet Reno in the primary, and this time they
couldn't blame it on the Republicans.
12/17/2000
Later, arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court, attorney David
Boies would point out that his side had not requested a statewide
recount of the undervotes; suggesting to me that they understood
it was to their advantage, and they wanted to continue, to count
only in heavily Democratic counties; and Justice Scalia would e-
licit laughter when he wise-cracked "You mean count every vote".
Also, in my opinion, the Florida Supreme Court didn't cite any
legal justifications for their decisions because they couldn't -
there weren't any. It was a party line vote, plain and simple,
especially the first time (the court was composed of 6 Democratic
appointees and one Independent). In "the final analysis", as JFK
used to say, Al Gore didn't fail to gain the presidency because
he didn't carry Florida; he lost because he didn't win in his
home state - Tennessee - where people knew him and his family
best (his father was also a U.S. Senator). But why am I so criti-
cal of the Al Gore camp? Maybe I wouldn't have been so keenly in-
terested and taken notice of the points mentioned above if he
hadn't said in the first debate that he would only appoint Just-
ices to the Supreme Court who would uphold Roe vs. Wade. That was
a fatal flaw - both figuratively and literally.
Two years later, when he "tested the waters", he found he couldn't
get the financial backing he needed for a second run, and dropped
out of the presidential race. This suggests to me that even liber-
als were frightened by the "Constitutional crisis" he fostered.
Years ago, in another close presidential contest, Richard Nixon,
running against John Kennedy, opted to not challenge the results,
even though there was ample evidence of voter fraud on a large
scale in places like Chicago (since then they seem to have clean-
ed up their act). Richard Nixon was later able to get his party's
support and run again, winning on his second try. He went on to
end the draft and end the war in Vietnam, and was a very popular
president until Watergate. Although it was never proven that he
had knowledge of what happened at Watergate, the steady drumbeat
of the media and Congress eventually was able to hound him out of
office. The issue was never whether he ordered the break-in, but
whether he found out about it later and didn't make that public,
which would have been a violation of the law. Unlike Bill Clinton
he buckled under the threat of impeachment proceedings and resig-
ned.
The recount was precipitating a constitutional crisis. Who was go-
ing to be in charge? People everywhere who were old enough to re-
member were saying that they understood now why Nixon didn't chal-
lenge the election results in his race with Kennedy, even though
everyone knew there had been widespread vote fraud in Chicago that
put Illinois in Kennedy's column - that Nixon was a wiser man than
they had realized. The issue needed to be resolved, and not allow-
ed to drag on until it threatened the stability of our democracy.
People were beginning to wonder - is there going to be violence
next? Fortunately, Gore finally acted in a responsible way, and
conceded.
01/12/2001
The confirmation hearings for former U.S. Senator John Ashcroft
begin Tuesday, January 16. You can sign an online petition suppor-
ting him at the American Center for Law and Justice web site
(you can currently sign a petition there against partial-birth a-
bortion "murder during delivery, for filling body parts orders").
He is an excellent choice for Attorney General, and has served
as attorney general and governor for Missouri. Liberal groups are
saying he favors the criminalization of abortion. I am amazed
that they would raise this issue publicly, which I had not even
known how to verbalize before. Whether or not they are able to
scuttle the nomination, they have introduced criminalization into
the public arena. I have a lot of respect for John Ashcroft and
his beliefs. Again, it is the liberals who hold the radical views,
and accuse other people who oppose their ideas as being the ext-
remists. I don't know what steps he would or could take as Attor-
ney General. Unfortunately, the Attorney General enforces the law
- he doesn't make it. "Sen. Ashcroft is a man of impeccable int-
egrity and fully committed to upholding the U.S. Constitution and
the rule of law". Jay Alan Sekulow, The American Center For Law
and Justice (a public interest law firm that focuses on constitu-
tional issues). From Colleen Parro at RNCL: "His career has been a
distinguished one and he is widely recognized as a Godly man whose
integrity is beyond question. Pro-abortion groups are in a frenzy
over the Ashcroft nomination. They will be spending vast sums of
money to build public support against his confirmation. Already
they have flooded the media with press releases attacking Senator
Ashcroft, while at the same time praising the nomination of Colin
Powell as Secretary of State because of his pro-abortion views."
He is also a honors graduate of Yale University and the Univers-
ity of Chicago Law School. My family has been involved with these
schools, and I can attest to the fact that they only accept the
very best and brightest students. Both President George Bush Sr.
and President Clinton attended Yale, and the monetary theory that
is used by the Federal Reserve Bank to manage the economy, and
the science for the atomic bomb, originated from the University
of Chicago. It is difficult for me to imagine how someone could
be better qualified to be Attorney General than John Ashcroft. I
find it especially discouraging that the people who oppose him
because of his Christian background have proven themselves incap-
able of making their own independent moral judgments. Postscript:
George Bush Jr. also attended Yale, as an undergraduate, but got
his MBA from Harvard; where he developed his delegation manage-
ment style.
From watching the confirmation hearings I would conclude that
character assassination doesn't work well when the target of the
accusations has a national forum to reply from.
01/15/2001
From the January, 2001, Ryan Report: "....Planned Parenthood was
endorsing political candidates during the last election...via PP's
political action fund, PPAF...should demand that such a political-
ly-active organization be barred from getting any of our tax dol-
lars. PPAF earmarked $10 million for a television and mail camp-
aign in seven key battleground states.....aimed at keeping George
W. Bush from becoming president......PPAF said it would reach 2.2
million households.....In addition to this national effort, state
and local PP action funds in 46 states were involved in more than
700 races nationwide. PP action funds in California alone planned
to spend $1 million on state, federal, and local races. One would
hope that the politicians who were targets of PP's intense polit-
ical involvement during the past election would have the good
sense to oppose any future measure that would result in PP getting
any more of our tax money...when the government gives $176.5 mil-
lion to PP during one fiscal year (1998-99), PP doesn't have to
rely on its supporters to come up with that amount of money to
help fund PP's non-political activities. This political activity
helps put more politicians in office who are likely to allocate
even more of our tax dollars to PP. The way to break this cycle
is to stop giving PP any of our tax money, period!"
"Planned Parenthood frequently causes restrictions on abortion to
be held up or completely overturned by the courts. This has hap-
pened once again, this time in Tennessee....The court then struck
down provisions in a 1997 state law, which required informed con-
sent and a two-day waiting period. Also declared unconstitutional
was a provision that all second-trimester abortions must take
place in a hospital, not a clinic. PP has shown that its main con-
cern is not for the welfare of women, but rather for making prof-
its. PP, obviously, doesn't like any restriction that prevents PP
from killing second-trimester babies at its own clinics. In his
38-page dissent, Justice Mickey Barker said, in part, 'Plainly
stated, the effect of the court's holding today is to remove from
the people all power, except by constitutional amendment, to en-
act reasonable regulations of abortion. Rather than leaving pol-
icy decisions regarding reasonable abortion regulation to the
General Assembly, this court has converted itself into a roving
constitutional convention, which sees itself free to strike down
the duly-enacted laws of the legislature....is contrary to nearly
200 years of legal precedent.' Republican Tennessee state senator
David Fowler, a lawyer, said he may propose that the legislature
vote to remove the four 'judicial tyrants' by the two-thirds vote
required by the Tennessee Constitution."
"According to a Los Angeles Times survey of 2,071 Americans this
summer, only 43% surveyed support Roe, more than half say abortion
should be illegal, and 57% consider abortion murder ('Americans
Narrowing Support for Abortion,' Los Angeles Times, June 18,
2000)." The Ryan Report documents the activities of Planned Par-
enthood.
On January 22, 2001, President George W. Bush, on his third day
in office, signed an Executive Order re-establishing the Mexico
City Policy, so-named because it was first enunciated by Presi-
dent Reagan in 1984 at a Mexico City population conference. It
bans U.S. aid to international groups that use their own money to
support abortion counseling, surgery, or lobbying (Planned Parent-
hood). What an explosive political situation it could create if
we were involved in killing their citizens - especially in Muslim
or Catholic countries.
On the same day President Bush sent a message to the March For
Life, gathered in Washington to protest the Roe v. Wade decision
on its 28th anniversary, which was read to the crowd by Rep. Chris
Smith, R-N.J.:
"The promises of our Declaration of Independence are not just for
the strong, the independent or the healthy. They are for everyone,
including unborn children...We share a great goal, to work toward
a day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law..
.to build a culture of life, affirming that every person at every
stage and season of life, is created equal in God's image."
On February 1, 2001, John Ashcroft was confirmed by the Senate as
Attorney General. Democrats claimed that his views were "outside
mainstream America". But then why did polls show that a majority
of Americans supported his confirmation? Why did the Senate vote
58-42 in his favor? I think the numbers tell a different story.
Some of those Democratic senators have conservative constituenc-
ies.
"Ashcroft was sworn into office by Supreme Court Justice Clarence
Thomas, a longtime friend." "A formal swearing ceremony will be
scheduled for next week..." "Ashcroft...may be the most qualified
person ever tapped for the post." (Sen. Orrin) "Hatch said he was
bothered by the work of many of the outside groups that tried to
influence the Senate's duty of advice and consent on presidential
nominations, saying they had too much pull with too many Democrat-
ic senators...'it was disgusting'". CNN
If John Ashcroft was a racist, as the Democrats claimed, why would
he be good friends with Clarence Thomas, an African American? Why
would Clarence Thomas want to swear him in?
" 'If that's the way you've got to send a message, by trashing a
person's reputation, distorting his record....that's pretty path-
etic'. Sen. Orrin Hatch 'I don't know that person' they're dep-
icting.' Sen. Trent Lott". AP
Maybe what the Democrats are really concerned about is that a lot
of laws that have been overlooked, or ignored for many years will
get enforced now. I hope that's what happens. Prosecuting abort-
ionists, for selling baby body parts; and killing, or allowing to
die, children still alive outside the mother, would probably be
sufficient to shut down most of the killing centers.
"Bush Slammed on Anti-Abortion Rule Thursday, March 08, 2001 By
Patricia Reaney LONDON (Reuters) - Family planning experts accused
President George W. Bush on Thursday of adopting a 'fascist
approach' and creating a double standard by blocking U.S. funding
for international groups that support abortion." "... the experts
warned that Bush's decision will increase maternal deaths ...".
(There's no reason to believe that. But it should decrease infant
mortality in the range of from 1 to 9 months into the pregnancy.)
"'We condemn this double standard,' Dr. Med Bouzidi, of the
International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), told a news
conference."
"Bouzidi said Bush's decision to reinstate the so-called 'Mexico
City Policy,' which bans financial support for organizations if
any of their funding -- even if it doesn't come from the U.S. --
is spent on abortion, will make a deplorable situation worse."
"'The lack of control over a woman's body will lead to more un-
wanted pregnancies and death,' he said."
"'This is totally unacceptable in this day and age,' said Sandra
Kabir of Population Concern, a group which promotes reproductive
health worldwide."
Translation - reproductive health equates to abortion. Abortion
leads to death, not pregnancy, which is a normal condition for a
woman.
Thursday, March 29th, 2001: James Kopp was arrested in France for
the shooting murder of abortion doctor Barnett Slepian, in his
Amherst, New York, home. I feel I must measure my words carefully
in discussing this, lest they be quoted out of context and their
meaning twisted. On the other hand, it would be the epitome of
stupidity for anyone to publicly criticize this little known web
site and drive traffic to it. To anybody contemplating a similar
act, let me point out a few things. First of all, you are almost
certain to be caught eventually, even if it takes over two years,
as it did in this case. If successful, you would be saving the
lives of only a few people, who you don't even know, and might not
like if you did; in exchange for the doctor's life, and, potent-
ially, your own. You would be vilified by the press, and declar-
ed mentally unstable; and after a while in jail and prison there's
a strong possibility you would slip into depression, belatedly
confirming that pronouncement. And the company you would be keep-
ing there are the people society thinks it is best not to have a-
round them - for good reason. You would also have pretty much de-
stroyed your own life, and the chance of having a family and chil-
dren of your own. The right to life people would trip over each
other to disassociate themselves from violence in general, and
you in particular. That having been said, let's get back to James
Kopp. This was not a random act of violence, but appears to have
been carefully planned over a period of time. I have to believe
he knew the risks involved, and the consequences I described a-
bove. He managed his escape well, and stayed ahead of his pursu-
ers for a remarkable period of time. Knowing nothing more about
him, I would have to say I admire and respect the sacrifice he
made. To indict him for murder, and not also indict Dr. Barnett
Slepian for murder, would be the height of hypocrisy, a clear
double and unfair standard, and a miscarriage of justice. This
will probably be denied and papered over for years to come. That
is not to say I condone his actions - one more death on top of
the 40,000,000 that have gone before is too many. I do think he
was fortunate to get caught now - I don't foresee the Bush/Ash-
croft administration asking for the death penalty, and after wat-
ching Clinton in action we all know these things can be overturned
or commuted - assuming he is guilty and convicted. It will be in-
teresting to see how this plays out. It should put abortion back
on the front burner; at least it will be harder for the press to
ignore. I think it will be important how he projects himself.
Will the media be able to stir up sympathy for Dr. Slepian, or
slant or suppress news from the trial? Will abortionists be able
to distort and capitalize on it? Stay tuned. My own opinion is
that he should have been on the FBI's least wanted, not most
wanted, list. Good luck, James, you're going to need it. And if it
eases your mind any, I want you to know that there's at least one
person out here who understands what you did, and why you did it,
and is rooting for you, irregardless of what the other right to
life people do or say. How many thousands did Doctor Slepian kill?
"In the final analysis", I think justice was done. It's the only
logical conclusion a reasonable person can arrive at. If the laws
against homicide had been enforced in the first place, there would
have been no reason for this to occur. Now, how justice was dis-
pensed, becomes the real issue.
I dropped the above paragraph into a forum at About.com. If you
are interested in pursuing the debate that ensued, click on
"Replies to Comments" below.
"--------------------
From: The Pro-Life Infonet
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt infonet@prolifeinfo.org
Subject: Kopp Admits Killing Abortion Practitioner, Pro-Life
Advocates Condemn Killing
Source: Associated Press, Buffalo News; November 19, 2002
Buffalo, NY -- A man who claims to be against abortion and is a-
waiting trial on charges of murdering an abortion practitioner a-
dmitted carrying out the deadly attack but said he meant only to
wound the man and 'the bullet took a crazy ricochet.' 'The truth
is not that I regret shooting Dr. Slepian. I regret that he died,'
James Kopp said in a jailhouse interview in Wednesday's Buffalo
News. 'I aimed at his shoulder.' Kopp, 47, said he shot abortion
practitioner Barnett Slepian with a rifle on Oct. 23, 1998, be-
cause of his outrage over abortions. Pro-life advocates say his
action mobilized abortion forces and did more to advance the pro-
abortion cause. Slepian was heating soup at his home in this Buf-
falo suburb when he was killed by a bullet that came through a
window. Kopp told the newspaper he was 'horrified' when he later
learned that the bullet glanced off a bone and caused internal
injuries that killed the doctor. 'The bullet took a crazy ricoch-
et, and that's what killed him. One of my goals was to keep Dr.
Slepian alive,' Kopp said, 'and I failed at that goal.'
Kopp became one of the FBI's most-wanted fugitives and was capt-
ured in France in 2001 after running from authorities. He pleaded
innocent to a state charge of second-degree murder and is schedu-
led to go on trial on the state charge in February. If convicted
of murder, Kopp could get 25 years to life in prison; the federal
charge carries life without parole. District Attorney Frank Clark
said he was not surprised by the admission. 'He didn't admit to
anything that we didn't plan to prove by other means in the trial,'
Clark said Wednesday. The FBI said it obtained a close match bet-
ween DNA taken from a hair found in the woods behind Slepian's
house and DNA from a toothbrush Kopp left with a friend months be-
fore the shooting. Investigators also said his car was seen in the
neighborhood, and a map found in Kopp's belongings bore directions
to a Tennessee pawn shop where the murder weapon - found buried
behind Slepian's home - was bought. Kopp told the newspaper he de-
cided to make a public confession because he believes his support-
ers have been misled, and he wants them to know the reasons behind
his actions. A few pro-life advocates claimed Kopp was innocent
and attempted to discredit the police investigation. Kopp's lawy-
er, Bruce A. Barket, said he permitted the interview before trial
because 'the sooner the truth is out the better.' He said the de-
fense would be that Kopp is innocent of intentional murder because
he 'just clearly didn't intend to kill the guy.'
Kopp said he feels sorrow for Slepian's wife and four sons. 'To
pick up a gun and aim it at another human being and to fire, it's
not a human thing to do,' Kopp said. His admission brought con-
demnation from pro-life advocates of all stripes.. 'It is incon-
sistent for anyone in the pro-life movement to take a life. One
can't in Catholic teaching go out and shoot doctors who perform
abortions or anyone else. Our ways are not the ways of violence,'
Bishop Henry J. Mansell said in reacting to Kopp's confession in
Wednesday's Buffalo News. In Texas, Kopp's stepmother questioned
why it took him so long to confess. 'He said he didn't mean to
kill but that he meant to protect unborn children. Isn't that a
contradiction?' Lynn Kopp said. 'If you did it, if you had such
intense feelings, why hide from them after you've done the deed.'
In Canada, where Kopp, 47, is suspected of shooting and wounding
three abortion practitioners, the leader of an Ontario-based pro-
life organization said Kopp's action demonstrates disregard for
life. 'He does not represent the pro-life movement or our philos-
ophy. We have a commitment to nonviolence in defense of our pro-
life position,' said Jakki Jeffs, president of Alliance for Life
Ontario. 'I would state emphatically there is no room for viol-
ence.' 'We're condemning the violent act. We're glad he confessed.
He needs to own up to it. He needs to repent and seek God's for-
giveness,' said the Rev. Robert L. Behn, executive director of
Last Call Ministries, a local pro-life group. People closest to
Kopp said he was a hypocrite because of his actions, not pro-life.
'He went off the rails. See what happens if you don't do what
Christ wants - the worst possible thing. How does Jimmy know that
poor man (Slepian) wouldn't have repented the next day?' said
Barrie Norman, a pro-life activist from Vancouver, British Colum-
bia. The Rev. Flip Benham said Kopp 'betrayed the pro-life move-
ment, unborn children and the Lord he proclaims to serve. You
never overcome the problem of murder by murdering people.'
Kopp said he chose Slepian's name from a telephone book, that he
had never read any news accounts about the doctor and that no one
in the Buffalo anti-abortion movement had recommended Slepian as
a target. He said he targeted Slepian largely because his home
had a rear window facing a wooded area, where he leaned against a
pine tree to steady his high-powered rifle. He said he scouted
Slepian's neighborhood about six times over a year.
--"
Well, it kind of played out like I predicted. I didn't come right
out and say he did it, but I probably implied I thought so. I
thought so because I could see his motivation - but I didn't want
to be his accuser. Even his (step)mother seemed to disown him.
I've already given a whole host of reasons why it's not a good
idea to go around shooting abortion doctors, some of which we have
already seen play out. I've had well over a year to think about
it since then, but after rereading what I wrote, I don't see any
reason to change it; but I will add to it somewhat. I like to fol-
low people like John Ashcroft, and President Bush, and try to
learn from them, and figure out why they do what they do and how
they do it. They're adhere to the law people, and it makes sense
because you don't want people running around making their own
laws, even if they're morally right - that kind of thing can get
out of hand in a hurry. Their approach is to first change the law
and the decision makers. Most others wouldn't make the right de-
cision about who and when to shoot, like James Kopp did. Yes, you
heard me right, I don't consider what James Kopp did to be moral-
ly wrong any more than I would grieve over somebody shooting
Osama Bin Laden. Both Barnett Slepian and Osama Bin Laden made it
their business to kill innocents, with Slepian specifically tar-
geting children. What Bin Laden has done pales in comparison to
what the abortion industry has accomplished - killing over 40
million children in this country alone at a rate of 3,000 - 4,000
a day, equaling or exceeding in a single day the devastation of
human life caused by the 9/11 attack. Deeply religious people are
often, I believe, against abortion because that's what their
church has taught them, along with their opposition to violence.
But, if you know, I mean really know, with absolute conviction,
that the child in the womb is just as much a human being as any-
one else, how can you then fault the person who strikes out viol-
ently at the abortion industry? But the pro-life movement can not
prevail through violence, because that just brings down the full
force of law enforcement on our heads. We may not be patient, but
it seems we must play a waiting game. Mr. Kopp, I feel you're do-
ing just fine so far, I still understand why you did what you did
and I respect you for it, and the sacrifices you are making; even
though I don't recommend that others follow in your footsteps.
And while we wait, the killing continues.
"Kopp Convicted of Murder in Abortion Doctor's Killing
Tuesday, March 18, 2003
BUFFALO, N.Y. — James Kopp, was found guilty of intentionally kil-
ling (Doctor Barnett Slepian).....one day after (the judge) heard
the case without a jury during an unusual single court session.
Kopp waived his right to a jury trial last week. The judge set
sentencing for May 9. Kopp faces a minimum of 15 years to life
and a maximum of 25 years to life. Instead of hearing testimony,
the judge was presented with a 35-page list of facts agreed to by
both sides — including an admission by Kopp that he fired the shot
...and then heard attorneys' arguments. In arguing for acquittal,
...said Kopp believed in the use of force to prevent abortions,
but meant only to wound the obstetrician to prevent him from per-
forming abortions. ...Shortly after the shooting, Kopp fled to
Mexico and then Ireland and was one of the FBI's most-wanted fug-
itives until his capture in France in 2001. Tuesday's verdict has
no effect on Kopp's upcoming federal trial on a charge of inter-
fering with the right to an abortion related to the Slepian shoot-
ing. A status hearing in that case was scheduled for Thursday.
Kopp is also a suspect in the nonfatal shootings of four other a-
bortion providers in Canada and Rochester between 1994 and 1997."
Associated Press It's interesting that they refer to Slepian as
an "Abortion Doctor", dropping the Ob/Gyn facade. Plus, since
Kopp got his name out of the phone book, he had to have been ad-
vertising that he did abortions. So much for the apologists.
May 9, 2003: James Kopp was sentenced to 25 years to life today.
It does not seem to be widely or prominently reported. The copy-
right message on the sole complete article I found was so dracon-
ian that I'll just put it in my own words - and his. They seem to
think they have a monopoly on the event, although there was noth-
ing so creative about what they wrote. The charge was second de-
gree murder, and the least he could have gotten was 15 years. The
judge didn't buy his argument that he didn't intend to kill Slep-
ian. A youngish looking 48 years of age, with a worried, concern-
ed countenance, he appeared somewhat missionary, and bookish, in
large oval glasses. Judge Michael D'Amico's arguments for sentenc-
ing seemed lame and not very judicious, and I found myself disil-
lusioned by their hollowness. In a rather lengthy statement before
the judge, Kopp had his day in court, and secured his place in
history. "I was innocent of murder then. I am innocent of murder
now". "Why should the safety of Dr. Slepian be put over the safe-
ty of unborn children?" "I have separated murderers from their
weapons of mass destruction. I wish I could do 10 life sentences
or 10 death penalties to save them". Well stated. Move over, Pat-
rick Henry. Vicki Saporta, president and chief executive of the
National Abortion Federation, said "A strong message must be sent
to anti-choice extremists that murdering an abortion provider is
never justifiable". Au contraire, killing someone who performs a-
bortions is always morally justifiable, to save other, innocent
lives, just as it is in war; however, as I pointed out above, it
is unwise and counterproductive, as demonstrated by this sentence.
What could be more extreme than dismembering children? But ending
it James Kopp's way obviously doesn't work. He even got very lit-
tle press coverage, or even sympathy, at his sentencing, for what
he did. Legality here overruled morality and gratitude. Justice
will not be done until abortion is declared illegal and James
Kopp is pardoned and set free. Especially so in New York state.
I've been working virtually non-stop for several weeks to get the
galley edited and to the publisher, and there's the gnawing and
ever-present anxiety of running out of money before there's any
income from the book. Fortunately, with Congress recessed, August,
2003, wasn't a big month for abortion news, and I can get back to
what there was later. But, as September starts to unfold, I feel
torn from my publishing endeavor - despite its importance - by
unfolding events that will not be historically recorded properly,
in the only way I currently have - my web site; even though they
won't make it into the first edition of the book.
The Saga of Paul Hill - I've not been too familiar with Paul's
story until very recently. The event in question occurred in 1994
when I wasn't paying much attention to what was happening in the
pro-life movement. I vaguely remember reading something about it
several years ago, that left me with the impression Paul might
have other, personal problems, too. I didn't want to get involved
in something that wasn't purely abortion related, either - like
Eric Rudolph's case where there also appeared to be other issues.
The regular media hasn't given it much attention; and, strangely,
neither have my pro-life news sources. But, in the end, it came
down to Paul conducting himself well while he was executed for
gunning down a Pensacola, Florida, abortion purveyor and his body-
guard. Now, for some of the reaction to that event.
Larry Spalding, an ACLU lawyer, had this to say: "There are craz-
ies in the anti-abortion movement who are susceptible to this type
of message, that in order to save the unborn it is necessary to
kill doctors." Excuse me, Larry, but the crazies are the handful
of abortion doctors who slaughter approximately 3500 children a
day, in this country alone, for profit, and pump some of that
money, as a cost of doing business, back into organizations like
Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation to buy
politicians to keep abortion legal; and, Larry, people without
moral principles, such as yourself, who've been duped into help-
ing them run this scam.
"His actions set the pro-life movement back years and made pro-
life people who believe killing is the wrong answer to a diffi-
cult situation look like hypocrites.
Joe Scheidler, director of the Pro-Life Action League, says no
more than a handful of people out of millions of pro-life advoca-
tes believe Hill is a hero because of what he did. 'We see the
babies as martyrs, but not Paul Hill,' Scheidler said." Steven
Ertelt LifeNews.com Editor August 20, 2003.
You're right, Steve, pro-life people do look like hypocrites. But
you've bought into the politically correct liberal argument as to
why. Well spoken Joe. Joe has saved a lot of lives from abortion
over the past 30+ years; but one at a time. The reason abortion
is still around today is reflected in these two attitudes. They
believe abortion is morally wrong, and see all the harm and grief
it causes. What they seemingly don't grasp or fully appreciate is
that the person being killed by an abortion is just as much a per-
son as the abortion doctor doing the killing - with just as much
right to go on living. They've been lulled into the "fetus" men-
tality. Joe, take a minute to reflect, look at one of your pict-
ures, and ask yourself what you see, and if its any different
from one of your own children, or what was done to it any less of
an outrage. Because I'm one of that "handful" you spoke of, and I
think you're statement sends the wrong message - that you don't
really believe that the child being aborted is an actual person -
and that hurts the pro-life movement even more than Paul's double
murder, because we're supposed to lead and not be victims of the
popular culture. I read a statement by a clergyman, who I thought
expressed it best, that to think otherwise is to be "inconsist-
ent", and many pro-lifers have been lured into the logical trap
of wanting to not appear pro-violence while ignoring the horrific
violence in the womb.
Joe devoted almost half a page in his Fall 2003 Action News to
eloquently arguing that homicide is not morally justifiable. But
like Fr. Pavone below, he leads with the conclusion he wants to
make, and his arguments end up proving the opposite for anyone
who objectively analyzes them.
My government spent 4 months eagerly preparing and training me to
kill, then took four years out of my life and sent me halfway a-
round the world (before Vietnam), so I would be there ready to
kill to protect the lives of people back home from the likes of
Osama Bin Laden and the attack on Pearl Harbor. What Paul Hill
did was no different than that - defending the lives of his coun-
trymen because he understood it was his duty to do so. He made
that ultimate sacrifice, so that others could live, just as our
troops continue to do in Afghanistan today.
"'What he did is definitely not anything that anyone I know of
supports." Tom Glessner, director of the National Institute of
Family and Life Advocates, said Hill deserves the death penalty.
'He's not a pro-lifer, as far as I'm concerned,' Glessner said.
'Osama bin Laden acted out of conviction, too.'" Washington Times,
STARKE, Fla., Sept. 3 (UPI) Now you know of someone, Tom. You
just desecrated the memory of a fallen comrade and hero. I sug-
gest you direct yourself into a different line of work, since you
seem unable to determine which side you are on.
"Obviously, some people are trying to make Paul Hill out to be
some kind of martyr. He's not; he's a murderer who deserves what-
ever punishment the state deems appropriate." American Life Leag-
ue Vice President Jim Sedlak I can't help but be angered by your
statement, Jim. Just stick to shutting down abortion clinics in
the future. Are you on vacation, Judie?
"Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life tells LifeNews.com that
Hill's actions also were not Biblical. 'Scripture, particularly
in the writings of John, teaches that we love one another by lay-
ing down our own lives, not by laying down the lives of others,'
Pavone explains." Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com Report Thursday,
September 4, 2003 That's exactly what Paul Hill did, Father Pav-
one, he laid down his life for the 32 children scheduled to be
murdered that day. Where would the Israelites have been if David
hadn't stepped up and slain the Philistine? Perhaps you should go
back to the Seminary for a Bible refresher.
Because Paul Hill was abandoned by major pro-life organizations,
he was executed. Perhaps saddest of all, none of the truly fine
public interest law firms that protect pro-life advocates and act-
ivists stepped forward to take his part. I can sort of understand
Jeb Bush, and George Bush, not acting, when not confronted by any
real pressure to do so. If we don't provide the conviction we can
hardly fault our politicians for following their political advice.
But I believe that someday they will regret not having acted. He
didn't have to be set free - just preserved until the day he could
be.
But I do feel that John Ashcroft has not lived up to my expectat-
ions for him when he took office. Once again, does power and per-
sonal gain overshadow decisions with rationalizations, even for a
very religious man? As we have just seen, the rule of law can be
carried to the point where injustice is inevitably done. Praying
in your office isn't going to offset the fact that you've still
failed to act in defense of life.
I don't advocate doing what Paul Hill did, as I explained in my
lengthy write-up above on James Kopp. If you haven't read it,
please do so. For one thing I agree that it is counter-productive.
I just believe that it is morally justifiable. To give your life
to save those of others should get a medal - not an execution. In
the Marines, if you were a Congressional Medal of Honor winner, it
was no longer necessary for an enlisted man to salute an officer.
They honored you - not vice versa. But there are people who go
even further than my position:
"Pro-Lifers Clash Over Paul Hill: Martyr or Murderer
(CNSNews.com) - The spiritual adviser to convicted murderer Paul
Hill, who killed an abortionist and a clinic escort, criticized
pro-life organizations for their unwillingness to support the for-
mer Presbyterian minister as he awaited a Wednesday execution.
The Rev. Donald Spitz, who has met daily with Hill, said many peo-
ple in the pro-life movement consider Hill a hero for killing a-
bortionist John Britton and his escort, James Barrett, at an abor-
tion clinic in Pensacola, Fla., on July 29, 1994.
Spitz said Hill would become a martyr when Florida executes him by
lethal injection Wednesday. As director of Pro-Life Virginia,
Spitz has long been an advocate for using force to stop abortions.
He chided groups that call themselves pro-life but don't share his
views.
'They're absolute hypocrites,' Spitz said. 'If an abortionist
walked into their house and was going to murder their children,
they're not going to take a human life to protect their own chil-
dren? I think they would. Yet they don't feel the lives of those
32 babies were worth protecting.
'They prefer dead babies to the dead abortionist. If you have to
choose between live babies or a live abortionist, I'd choose the
live babies. They choose dead babies and a live abortionist,' he
added. 'They seem to have a total disregard for the babies they-
're trying to protect.'
Spitz contends that Hill's actions saved the lives of 32 unborn
babies who would have been aborted on the day he carried out the
murder.
Spitz, for instance, said the Bible contains multiple references
to protecting the innocent. He said it's completely justifiable
to intervene when someone's life is at stake.
Hill has other defenders as well, including the Rev. Michael Bray
of Bowie, Md., who has written a book justifying the murder of a-
bortionists." By: Robert B. Bluey Source: CNSNews.com Publish
Date: September 03, 2003 Online at: http://www.cnsnews.com/View
Nation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200309/NAT20030903a.html
So what our legal system is telling us is that it was allowable
for John Britton to kill 32 people a day, but a crime for Paul
Hill to kill him to stop it - because the government wouldn't do
anything about it. Everybody is just supposed to ignore those 32
people per day, and pretend it wasn't really happening? So to kill
people, you just have to manipulate the law to your advantage.
What kind of justice is this, that allows people innocent of any
crime to be executed by the millions, but protects the killers,
and then additionally executes those defending the defenseless?
This is clearly not justice, or a justice system that is working.
Charlie Daniels asks the right question in his book "Ain't No Rag:
Freedom, Family, and the Flag". "Why do we stand so firmly against
giving the death sentence to some wanton killer and not say a word
about the death sentence given to innocent unborn babies by whole-
abortion?"
An incessant drumbeat of propaganda, political pressure, indoctr-
ination of our youth, legal actions, intimidation, and misguided,
ignorant judicial decisions, have so twisted and manipulated pub-
lic opinion on this issue, throughout, and at all levels, of our
society, that, incredibly, many people still fail to see what is
overwhelmingly obvious - that it was what the abortionist was do-
ing that was wrong - not what Paul Hill did to the abortionist.
Even the people who are supposed to be leading the opposition to
abortion have been pummeled into psychologically safe positions
and molded by the societal pressures brought to bear around them.
In the past I've been a supporter of the death penalty - as a de-
terrent to crime. More lately, that position has slipped to being
absolutely certain you have the right person - after a long ser-
ies of cases where DNA evidence has been used to overturn prev-
ious convictions. Now we have a case where we know they had the
right man, but they gave him the wrong penalty. I'm not going to
say there shouldn't have been some penalty, to deter people from
breaking the law. But this was basically a political execution -
for not acquiescing to the lemming-like group-think on abortion,
and a sacrifice to the political pressure and dilemma created. I
can no longer support the death penalty, after seeing it so gros-
sly misused. In the fashion of Jesus Christ's Crucifixion, he
was put to death by people more ignorant and less righteous than
he. If our government can choose not to enforce our immigration
laws, our codified election laws, the child predator laws in 50
states, and our homicide laws, then they didn't have to kill Paul
Hill. Now what we need, is a change in the law, and to put the a-
bortionists on trial in a Nuremberg fashion. And not just the a-
bortion doctors; but also those that conspired with them to run
this highly profitable abortion racket. Then we can sit back, and
watch the judges and juries, all over this country, decide their
fate. And, if the death penalty hasn't yet been rescinded, then
they are certainly deserving of it. After all, since we're a nat-
ion of laws, we're supposed to kill through the courts.
The fact is the pro-life movement missed an opportunity by not
showing the courage of their convictions. Had they all gotten be-
hind Paul, and won a complete pardon for him, which wouldn't have
been a complete impossibility with the Bushes - at some point -
there would be abortionists closing up shop all over the country.
Just putting up a strong, unified, fight, would have been unnerv-
ing to the abortion industry; and helped open the eyes of others
to the reasoned pro-life view of the matter. But, there's still a
way for them to show some backbone, instead of being gutless equ-
ivocators. A way for them to at least partly redeem themselves.
They can go talk to James Kopp - instead of treating him like a
pariah. If Paul died for the cause, the least we can do is to con-
tinue his fight.
"Paul was allowed to choose an organization to interview him on
camera the day before he was to die. Paul chose Life Dynamics."
"During his 'trial,' the judge silenced Paul by denying him the
chance to present his theory of defense: the lawful use of deadly
force to defend another. Paul was not allowed to show the court
what he truly believed - that his actions were necessary to
prevent mass murder. At the conclusion of the government's show
trial, Paul was found guilty of murder...".
"Paul seemed very much at peace. He was composed and calm and no
anger or bitterness was evident in him. He smiled frequently and
laughed easily... For the last time, he and his family had a
couple of hours together."
"The sky over the prison began to grow dark, very much like it
was scripted in an Old Testament movie. A rainbow appeared right
over the prison, then disappeared. As 6 o'clock approached,
lightening began to strike all around the prison. One lightening
strike hit the ground about 50 yards from the media satellite
trucks, causing dirt to fly up into the air. A news crewman said,
'that's a warning shot.' Regardless of people's belief in God,
everyone present seemed to have a sense that something very out
of the ordinary was happening, and people were very rattled by
it. The media organizations were unable to go live as they had
hoped to do at the time of Paul's execution. Right at 6 o'clock,
lightening struck just behind the death house. At that moment,
the lights flickered inside the execution chamber..."
"Outside, people prayed out loud, some wept, some sang, and a
bugle played taps over the backdrop of the thunder and crackling
lightening. The prison guards...lowered their heads respectfully
as Paul passed from this world. Thunder gave way to a soft rain,
and the hearse pulled away from the prison." Life Dynamics News
October 2003
"His last words were a call to arms for abortion opponents. 'If
you believe abortion is a lethal force, you should oppose the
force and do what you have to do to stop it. May God help you to
protect the unborn as you would want to be protected.' Hill's fin-
al statement was prefaced by a thunderclap outside, which echoed
just as the curtain in the glass-plated death chamber parted. Out-
side the razor-wired prison...a crowd of about 80 abortion oppon-
ents and anti-death penalty advocates gathered...enduring drench-
ing thunderstorms...Gov. Jeb Bush on Wednesday denied last-minute
appeals from those who urged that Hill's sentence be commuted to
life." John Kennedy and Bob Mahlburg, Orlando Sentinel. From
the thunder, one could speculate that I wasn't the only one angry.
You can't call it justice or a fair trial when he wasn't even
allowed to defend himself. It's also interesting to note that the
Florida court system that sent Paul to his death is the same one
that is trying to kill Terri Schiavo! Justice would be throwing
these judges in jail - not acquiescing to their decisions.
Paul Hill, a Presbyterian minister, believed that he would go to
heaven, and find his reward there. Not being knowledgeable in that
area, I suppose I should defer to his expertise. If so, I imagine
him there now, with a tiny hand in each of his, and all around
him, as far as the eye can see, a sea of innocents, a sea of hum-
anity, with Paul at its center. If not in this world, he will
have found love, and justification, in that one - as Saint Paul.
As for this one, I think that Conrad Wojnar, one of the most re-
ligious people I know - and certainly not a wimp; expressed it
best when he said "martyrdom - true martyrdom - is the complete
giving of self for higher ideals. While we may think of true mar-
tyrs in terms of long-dead saints, we'd be wrong to overlook the
examples of genuine martyrdom today." Certainly, the Roman Empire
didn't initially see Jesus as a martyr either.
"mar·tyr (mär“t…r) n. 1. One who chooses to suffer death rather
than renounce religious principles. 2. One who makes great sacri-
fices or suffers much in order to further a belief, cause, or
principle." The American Heritage Dictionary So, we see that
Paul Hill, has, indeed, attained martyrdom for the pro-life cause.
Perhaps, someday, we can build a monument to Paul Hill, and place
it in one of the cemeteries for the unborn. Or a statue, and put
it outside the Supreme Court building, facing the Washington Mon-
ument, as if beckoning to the pro-life marchers on January 22nd.
As a fellow soldier in the army of the unborn, I pledge to you,
Paul, that I will continue to work on things from this end, be-
lieving that I can do more good here, alive, than making the ul-
timate sacrifice as you did. After all, you already did that, and
I think one is probably enough. I didn't get into this to do what
others had already done, or to be told what to think or do, and
I will continue to try to make a unique contribution, to free our
country from the imprisoning thought of political correctness and
abortion for all. Well done, Paul. R.I.P., Paul Hill.
Feel free to copy this tribute to Paul Hill, and the one above on
James Kopp, and disseminate it as you see fit. You might also
credit the web site - http://www.aboutabortions.com/ .
From: Colleen Parro
Subject: Hitting the nail on the head
Date: March 29, 2001 2:05:16 PM EST
Pretty amazing for the L.A. Times!
L.A. Times, March 29, 2001
"Feminists Have No Womb for Anyone Else
By NORAH VINCENT
Ours is a country in which you are ill-advised to be a fetus.
The highest court in the land has ruled that you're a parasite,
disposable at will, even when you're almost out of the chute.
You're just an extension of your mother's whim. She can do what-
ever she likes with you. Her court-instituted right to 'choose'
trumps your right to live.
Now, taking a new leap, the courts have decided that her right to
privacy trumps your right to a clean bill of health. If you're
inconvenient, unaffordable or just plain unwanted, then you'll
soon be a biohazard on your way to the town dump. If you're all-
owed to exercise your life, you may have to live it as a vegetable
or a grotesque. In a stunning 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled that hospitals may not test a pregnant woman for drugs for
police purposes without either a search warrant or the woman's
consent. Such tests were found to be a violation of the 4th Amen-
dment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. 'The
fact that positive test results were turned over to the police .
. . provides an affirmative reason for enforcing the strictures
of the 4th Amendment,' the court said.
Never mind that other rulings on the reasonableness of drug test-
ing have allowed for the testing of a wide range of people, incl-
uding government employees and high-school athletes. In these
cases, the courts ruled, there was a 'special need.' The health
of a fetus, however, apparently is not considered to be a special
enough need to override the privacy rights of rogue mothers.
Naturally, this is considered another victory for feminism. And
so it is. For it means that once again, the law has mandated that
women need not be responsible for what happens in their wombs. The
womb, after all, is the enemy. It must be kept in its place.
It cannot be allowed to control us. We must control it in every
respect. The fact that we were born with wombs will never again
be allowed to shackle us to them or to the progeny they grow. We,
and we alone, are what matter now.
We can do anything. We can have as much sex as we want--as much
wanton sex as some men do--and we need not be concerned with the
consequences. If the unthinkable happens, if--surprise, surprise-
-nature actually takes its course and we become pregnant, well,
we'll just do what we do after we binge on too many French fries.
We'll purge. After all, if you want to stay thin after eating
everything in sight, then it's the finger down the throat. If you
want to stay barren but have as much protected or unprotected sex
as you want, then it's the doctor in your business--but not too
much in your business. Only as much as you want him.
What's more, when we're good and ready to have a child, we'll
still be totally in control of our bodies. We'll smoke, we'll
booze, we'll crack it up all night long if we take a mind to, and
it'll be nobody's business. Because the Constitution protects us.
We have a right to our privacy and our bodies, even though, when
it comes to that seventh, eighth, ninth month of pregnancy, we're
pretty sure we're not alone in them anymore.
But who cares, those babies are ours, and we can do with them
what we like. We can smoke three packs a day. We can drink motor
oil. And if that baby comes out with a brain that doesn't quite
work right or that doesn't work at all, if it has an imposed mor-
tal dependency on a narcotic, if it comes out with expensive spe-
cial needs, well, the government will pay for it. That's what
government is for: to safeguard my right to do what I like and
pick up the tab when I've done it.
I can do anything, consequences be damned. Let freedom ring, be-
cause, by God, I am woman, and this is America."
Norah Vincent Is a Freelance Journalist Who Lives in New York City
Well, I like to be able to explain everything, but I'm not sure I
can explain this. Maybe they thought it was humorous? My best
guess is that the editors were out of town, or it was very early
in the morning, and a staffer let it slip through, or a pro-lifer
saw his or her chance. Here's why. I just had an experience where
I was able to get a pro-life news release out, and they got a lot
of complaints, and threats, and will probably never do it again.
A big paper like the Los Angeles Times is going to get a ton of
flack from a very large number of feminists and abortionists. It's
not going to happen very often, so we should relish it when we
can.
From the April 2001 Ryan Report: "Planned Parenthood spent more
than $30 million in a single year on sex education programs....it
is the sex education programs run by Planned Parenthood that hist-
orically spur its business growth......the long term viability of
the organization relies on sex education programs providing it
new customers." "Without a viable sex education program, PP knows
it is only a matter of time before its empire begins to collapse.
.....should renew.....efforts to put a halt to PP's access to our
children."
"House To Debate Unborn Victims Of Violence Act By Jim Burns CNS
Senior Staff Writer April 26, 2001
(CNSNews.com) - The House Thursday is scheduled to debate the Un-
born Victims of Violence Act, a bill that would make it a federal
crime to harm an unborn baby in the process of attacking a pregn-
ant woman. Rep. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is sponsoring the legisla-
tion, which has garnered 95 co-sponsors. He says the bill would
only apply to 'crimes committed under federal or U.S. military
jurisdiction and does not affect state laws.' The House passed
similar legislation last year but it never became law. President
Clinton and many other abortion supporters oppose the bill as a
first step toward defining an unborn baby as a person -- with the
ultimate goal being to outlaw abortion.
The Bush administration, on the other hand, supports the legisla-
tion. In a policy statement sent to the House Rules Committee Wed-
nesday, the White House said, 'The Administration supports pro-
tection for unborn children and therefore supports House passage
of H.R. 503. The legislation would make it a separate federal of-
fense to cause death or bodily injury to a child, who is in utero,
in the course of committing any one of 68 federal offenses.'
Graham believes that protecting the unborn is not a new idea. 'Un-
fortunately, the laws covering federal crimes of violence such as
bombings, car jackings, and kidnappings are silent on the matter.
The legislation holds criminals accountable for their actions. It
also protects the unborn while not wandering into the divisive,
highly-charged, emotional battleground of abortion. I think it's
a reasoned approach to a very serious problem.'
The American Life League said Thursday the Unborn Victims of Vio-
lence Act is not a pro-life bill. League President Judie Brown
said the measure grants a 'schizophrenic exemption for abortion-
ists who kill the preborn.' 'Though the intention of the bill
claims to be protecting preborn persons from violence, it exempts
their greatest threat, the abortionists who butcher 4,400 little
boys and girls every day.'
Representative Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) supports the legislation because
'life is a precious thing.' 'This is an uncontroversial bill that
has passed the House before by wide margins,' he said, noting that
abortions -- protected by Roe v. Wade, are specifically exempted.
'Life is a precious thing. It was cited by Thomas Jefferson as
the very first right we should protect in the Declaration of In-
dependence. But in recent years, the law has gotten wrapped up in
technicalities and confused by radical interest groups bent on
creating and ensuring spurious rights the Constitution was not
written to guarantee or even recognize. The right to live is no
longer guaranteed. Congress is now taking an important step to-
ward reestablishing that right for all of us, including babies,'
Pitts said this week in a speech on the House floor."
April 26, 2001: The House of Representatives passed the Unborn
Victims of Violence Act 252-172 - legislation that has already
been passed in 24 states. These bills essentially make it legally
a homicide, or manslaughter, to kill a pregnant woman's child;
although the federal bill sounds much more complicated than that.
Although a White House statement referred to "unborn children",
the media insisted on referring to the child as a "fetus". I
think this terminology makes it an uphill battle for any such
legislation, because there's no way you can make the word fetus
sound like a human being. However, contrary to other news reports,
I think the bill has a good chance of passage in the Senate. What
we have here is one category of citizen, fiercely trying to deny
any rights whatsoever, even the right to live itself, to another
class of citizen, no matter what the circumstances. It's ugly -
very ugly. This sort of thing was supposed to have gone out with
slavery.
"Lawmakers who voted for the one-victim bill will have to explain
why they voted to say that, when a criminal attacks a pregnant
woman and kills her unborn baby, nobody has really died. These
groups oppose any recognition that unborn children are members of
the human family, even when their right to life is violated by
criminal attackers". NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson
"The success of this vote shows the far-reaching support this leg-
islation gained. The American people expect justice to be done;
they believe criminals should be held responsible for taking a
life. Legislators should support this bill as a deterrent to vio-
lent crime". Michael Schwartz, vice president government relat-
ions, CWA.
"Violent assailants should not be given a pass for their crime be-
cause their victim was inside a loving mother's womb. A mother or
father should not suffer a second assault of their child being ig-
nored by our justice system." Wendy Wright, director of communic-
ations, CWA.
"The Unborn Victims of Violence Act provides defense for the de-
fenseless, and follows the lead of several states that already
give legal protection to unborn children for criminal acts of
violence". Rep. Jo Ann Davis, (R-1st Va.)
"Those who do not respect the sanctity of life have built a leg-
acy upon lies. They lied to us about the gruesome practice of
partial-birth abortion, and now they are trying to tell us that
there is nothing inside a mother's womb that ought to be protect-
ed from a murderer. This is wrong. We must stand up for mothers
and their children". Rep. J.C. Watts (R-Okla.)
"The President does believe that when an unborn child is injured
or killed during the commission of a crime of violence, the law
should recognize what most people immediately recognize, and that
is that such a crime has two victims." White House Press Secret-
ary Ari Fleischer, April 25, 2003.
The pro-abortion strategy has always been to make no concessions.
They believe that to do so would cause their whole position to un-
ravel. Although each pro-life victory does weaken their defenses,
by not being willing to concede anything they put themselves in
untenable circumstances - such as unborn victims. At no stage do
they want recognition of personhood, although in the later stages
any idiot can just look at a woman's belly and tell that there is
a second person there. So the legislation they will probably get,
because they don't want to talk about it, is that that they least
want - protection of the child during the entire nine months of
pregnancy. They are well aware of this, but can't bring themselv-
es to discuss the basic issue of when life begins, and where to
draw the line - which could expand the debate to other circumsta-
nces. Colloquially stated, they have "painted themselves into a
corner". What follows, about what was said above, is just one ex-
ample of that. That is:
The Press Secretary's statement did not occur in a vacuum, but
followed considerable media coverage of the Peterson murder case
in California, which probably just about everyone has heard about
by now. It's what might be called a "layered" occurrence of murd-
er. In the first murder event you have the death of Laci Peterson,
Scott Peterson's wife. But, nested within this murder, you also
have the resultant death of the child she was carrying in her 8th
or 9th month of pregnancy - certainly quite "viable". This occur-
red in a state where the legislature, the governor's office, and
the two U.S. Senators are firmly controlled by and answer to the
abortion industry. On the other hand, California law clearly puts
the death of the child in the second murder column. Because of
the especially heinous nature of the crime, public opinion is pro-
bably behind the severest punishment possible being meted out for
this crime, as are the prosecutors, who will likely charge Scott
Peterson with a double murder. Because a second murder was com-
mitted, California law permits the application of the death
penalty for the crimes. I have to believe that abortionists will
use all there influence to prevent the child from being consider-
ed a murder victim, and thereby acquiring the legal status of per-
sonhood conveyed upon him by the process. But, if they do, they
will face a very tough scenario, because I did not use the word
"him" in the generic sense. The Peterson's knew he was a boy, and
had even already named him - Connor. As if to make the point, for
those who might doubt that they were two separate people, the bod-
ies washed up on the beach separately. First, one was found, then
the other.
"If this is murder, well, then any time a late-term fetus is abor-
ted, they could call it murder". Morris County, New Jersey, NOW
President, Mavra Stark. That's right, Mavra, murder is what it is.
(As told to Jim Wasserman, Associated Press, April 22, 2003.)
Our legal system has become schizophrenic. If the child is not
wanted, then our legal system tells us it's not a person, and can
be killed. However, if it's wanted, our legal system, in at least
24 states, says that to kill the child is just the same as kill-
ing any other person, and is murder. The two interpretations can-
't coexist much longer, in my opinion, and we are going to have a
federal law soon, too, that says you can't kill a "wanted" child.
What is more typical, and I have read several accounts of this,
is that a boyfriend who doesn't want the child will punch his
girlfriend in the stomach, or have someone do it for him, to cause
her to miscarry. After all, if the abortion doctor can do it, he
probably doesn't see why he can't do it too; especially since soc-
iety sends the message that it's not a person and can be legally
aborted. There are two cases in court, that I know of, right now,
charging the assailants. If a woman suffers emotional trauma af-
ter, herself, having an unwanted child aborted, just imagine what
the grief must be like for the woman who wanted the baby. And
just think of the danger it puts women themselves in if they can
be attacked with impunity to kill their babies. An other example:
"Actor Robert Blake is accused of murdering his pregnant wife af-
ter she refused to abort his child." Life Dynamics News April 2003
In this case, the lack of regard for the life of the child has
seemingly been extended to the mother.
"NOW also has an article posted on their website mentioning the
leading cause of death among pregnant women is murder!!!! And
they still don't even acknowledge the need for this critical bill."
Jennifer Bingham, Executive Director, SBAList@DemocracyData.com
Subject: Unborn Victims of Violence Act Introduced in the House!
Date: 5 May 2003 21:48:15 -0400
"Peterson Murders Shift Debate on Unborn Victims Bill By Jeff
Johnson CNSNews.com Congressional Bureau Chief May 08, 2003
Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - The murders of Laci Peterson and her
unborn son, Conner, have refocused the debate on legislation in-
tended to punish those who cause the death of an unborn child
while committing another federal crime. The bill was reintroduced
in the Senate Wednesday for the fourth time.
'No one should make this into an abortion issue,' said Mike DeWine
(R-Ohio), the Senate author of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act
(S. 146). 'No one looks at this tragedy in California and says,
'This is an abortion issue,'' DeWine said, referring to the Pete-
rson murders. 'There are two victims, and there should be two pro-
secutions. That's all we're saying.'
Scott Peterson, who was Laci's husband and Conner's father, has
denied killing his wife or their son. He has been charged under
California state law with two counts of murder. Had the crimes
been committed under federal jurisdiction, he could only have
been charged with murdering his wife.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said that most Americans, regardless
of their beliefs about abortion, should 'come together pretty
quickly' when a pregnant woman is attacked. 'About 90 percent of
us say, 'Put the guy in jail as far as you can put him...and do-
n't play this stupid game of ignoring the obvious,'' Graham said.
'When the bodies washed up on shore, there were two people there:
the little baby and the mother.'
The bill would exempt lawful abortions and deaths as the result
of legitimate medical treatment from prosecution. The mother of a
murdered child would be exempt from prosecution under the propos-
al. The proposal has passed the House twice by significant bipart-
isan margins but has yet to survive in the Senate.
Graham dealt with cases similar to the murders of Laci and Conner
Peterson before first being elected to Congress. 'I was a prosec-
utor in the Air Force,' Graham recalled. 'We had situations on
Air Force bases overseas and in other places where a pregnant wo-
man would get attacked, and you didn't have a vehicle to deal
with the loss of the unborn child.'
Laci Peterson's family - the Rocha family - has written DeWine
and Rep. Melissa Hart (R-Pa.), the sponsor of the House version
of the bill, voicing their support for the legislation and asking
that it be named in Laci and Conner's memory. '[T]his bill is very
close to our hearts. We have lost not only our future with our
daughter and sister, but with our grandson and nephew as well,'
members of the Rocha family wrote in their letter Monday. 'When
we heard about this bill, we immediately thought of placing a re-
quest to have it named 'Laci and Conner's Law' in their memory.'
DeWine was uncertain Wednesday morning if the legislation could
be renamed after being introduced, but the change could be made
during a conference committee if the bill is passed by both the
House and Senate.
Bill predicted to pass, but Senate fight expected
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Com-
mittee, said he is optimistic about the bill's chances in the
Senate despite the fact that it has failed twice before. 'This
time, I think, we will pass this legislation,' Hatch said, adding
that reintroducing the bill while the public is attuned to the
Peterson murder cases is important. 'I do think that what's hap-
pened there has electrified all of America against this type of
violent conduct and abusive conduct,' Hatch added. 'I'd be shock-
ed if it doesn't pass a hundred to zip.'
Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to
Life Committee, said he appreciates Hatch's enthusiasm but doubts
pro-abortion 'rights' groups will let the bill pass without sign-
ificant opposition. 'They will say that this is a scorecard vote,'
Johnson warned, noting that groups on both sides of life issues
grade lawmakers on how they vote on significant pieces of legisl-
ation.
The National Abortion Rights Action League, which now calls itself
NARAL: Pro-Choice America, has opposed the legislation each time
it has been introduced in the past. 'This legislation is an attack
on a woman's right to [abortion] disguised as an effort to protect
pregnant women from violence,' the group wrote on its website.
'This legislation is part of a deliberate, coordinated anti-[abor-
tion] campaign to undermine Roe v. Wade by endowing embryos and
fetuses with 'personhood' rights.'
Graham disputed such claims, noting that California's version of
the law has been in effect for 30 years with no effect on the a-
vailability of abortion in the typically liberal state. 'People
have been prosecuted in California for attacking pregnant women
and causing damage to the unborn child at the state level,' he ex-
plained. 'And abortion rights still exist in California.'
DeWine challenged the bill's opponents to come forward and clear-
ly state their case. 'I have not heard anybody come on the TV and
say that there should not be a prosecution under California law
for the death of [Conner Peterson],' DeWine said. 'I've not heard
anyone offended in California saying that this was not a separate
crime to kill this baby, who washed up on the shore. 'You're not
going to hear anybody go to the Senate floor, I don't think, and
say that California case shouldn't be prosecuted,' DeWine said.
'I would ask them [to] go to the Senate floor and say that.'"
"Dehumanization is always the first step in any planned massacre,
which is why feminists stubbornly cling to the word 'fetus' and
are panicked when an event like the Peterson killings puts the
lie to their contention that the unborn child is somehow someth-
ing less than human. Their defense of atrocities such as the abo-
mination that is partial-birth abortion places them on the moral
level of a concentration-camp employee.
Legality is not morality. It was legal to murder a black in 1840,
a Jew in 1944 and it has been legal to murder an unborn baby in
America for the last 30 years – in 50 more, perhaps it will be
legal to murder a Christian, a Frenchman or a feminist. But mora-
lity is eternal, and regardless of the current state of the law,
such actions will always be immoral.
As for the red-handed doctors, nurses and organizations that pro-
fit by stealing life from the unborn, better I say nothing. My
thoughts regarding them are unprintable, and, I will confess,
less than perfectly Christian.
But for once, a bright line has been drawn which prevents the sup-
porters of 'a woman's right to choose' from hiding behind tortur-
ed definitions, incomplete phrases and naked appeals to selfish-
ness, and forces the neutral majority to realize their complicity
in America's greatest shame.
Indeed, I am grateful to those few abortionettes, like Mavra Stark
of the Morris County, N.J., chapter of NOW, who are bold enough
to publicly articulate what is the ultimate position of their pro-
death camp – that a woman has a right to kill her child at any
time.
Just this morning, I held a little girl in my arms, a beautiful
little girl younger than Connor Peterson would be now, and when
she smiled at me I was able to see the pure joy that was in her
soul, even at such a young age. Wanted or unwanted, every child
is precious and if a claim on privacy can be manufactured from
constitutional penumbras and emanations, then surely an imperat-
ive to be born can be discovered in the inalienable right to life,
liberty and happiness.
I hope that the sad and tragic fate of Laci Peterson and her lit-
tle son, Connor, will help America wake up from its long, shame-
ful national nightmare. Abortion is murder. Abortion must end."
Thanks to RNCLife for passing along the article these passages
came from - "R.I.P. Connor Peterson", by Vox Day, in World Net
Daily, Posted: April 28, 2003, 1:00 a.m., Eastern Standard Time.
As Congress is set to reconvene after its Memorial Day break, the
bill is now being commonly referred to as "Laci and Connor's Law".
May 31, 2003
"Eighty-four percent believe this bill should become law. Only 9
percent disagree — including pro-abortion interest groups to which
Daschle and his liberal colleagues are loyal.
Doug Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life
Committee, said senators need to decide. 'The senators . . . are
between two conflicting forces and they're going to have to decide
whether to go with these interest groups and the position support-
ed by 9 percent of the population, or with the overwhelming sent-
iment,' Johnson said.
A spokesman in Daschle's office said the senator can't promise to
support the bill. The House passed this legislation twice before
but the Senate never brought it up because Democrats and Daschle
controlled the agenda. Hearings are scheduled for tomorrow in the
House and the Senate." By: David Brody Source: Family News in
Focus Publish Date: July 7, 2003
Online at: http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/A0026779.html
"Unborn Victims of Violence Act (S. 1019).
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tn.) has said that he wants
to bring the bill up this month -- before a month-long congres-
sional recess. But so far, Democratic leaders have been unwill-
ing to agree to a 'unanimous consent agreement,' under which op-
ponents of the bill would not be allowed to filibuster or to bog
down the bill with amendments that address entirely unrelated is-
sues.
In a letter to a constituent dated June 12, Senate Democratic
Leader Tom Daschle (SD) avoided saying whether he will support
the bill, but wrote, 'I agree with the Republican Leader that Con-
gress should consider this issue expeditiously.' Yet, behind the
scenes, Daschle and other key Democrats have been unwilling to a-
gree to allow the bill to come up in an orderly fashion. A legis-
lative alert from the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) in
Washington, D.C., issued Thursday, July 10, 2003."
"Jenny's Bill Connecticut's state senate has passed legislation
that extends legal protection to preborn children. The bill, nick-
named 'Jenny's Bill' after Jenny McMechen, a pregnant woman murd-
ered in 2001, provides a penalty of up to 25 years in prison for
anyone found guilty of murdering a preborn child while assaulting
the child's mother." Celebrate Life, May-June 2003, Issues Update
"Everyone agrees that the unlawful killing of a human being is
murder. Everyone would further agree that soliciting, aiding, a-
betting or consenting to the unlawful killing of a human being is
as wrong as murder. Murder in California and many other states is
defined as 'the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus,
with malice aforethought.' The pro-aborts had an exception added
to the definition of murder in California to permit abortion. Un-
der that provision, the definition of murder does not apply if,
'The act [killing] was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to
by the mother of the fetus.' The pro-aborts do not want you to
closely examine these laws because you will discover within them
their failure to fit in. Doesn't it seem strange that the language
commonly used to identify a party codefendant in a murder is turn-
ed around to make abortion legal in California? For instance, in
California, because of the 'exception to murder' language, a child
or woman who did not consent to the abortion performed on her can
seek an indictment for the murder of her child. The comparisons
of these abortion laws across the United States could fill many
pages. Suffice it to say that they just don't make sense...Regard-
less of how hard they try, the pro-aborts cannot make these pro-
abortion provisions fit or make sense to rational people in our
society." Ed Zielinski, General Counsel for Life Dynamics, in the
May, 2003, issue of Life Dynamics News.
Dana Cody, of LLDF, refers to "the legal fictions that now govern
American jurisprudence," and calls it "the 'abortion distortion'".
I received a letter from an anti-abortion women's group I hadn't
heard of before. Of course I filled out their survey questions
and joined up. I receive a lot of conservative mail, and I don't
always take the time to read everything. But this particular eve-
ning I had allocated to catching up on my mail, and I didn't feel
pressured to get on to the next thing. About halfway through I re-
alized I was reading something written by someone who had a unique
grasp of the political situation in Washington. Here are some ex-
cerpts:
"Liberals, feminists.....ridicule, silence -- even try to destroy
anyone who would dare oppose them." They want us "to sit down and
shut up. Any vocal opposition to their left-wing policies is in-
creasingly being condemned as 'divisive' and 'mean-spirited,'
'extreme' and 'hate-filled'". "No matter how much we're scorned
by the media or scolded by liberal politicians -- no matter what
sorts of names they call us -- we must speak out....". "Federal
courts, packed with Clinton appointees, have repeatedly overturn-
ed bans on the horrific procedure known as partial birth abortion
."
".....America is at a crossroads. I believe our nation's destiny
hinges on the combined prayers and actions of individual women
and men like you and me. I also strongly believe that one person
can make a difference......in this spiritual battle for the heart
and soul and future of America." "One by one, the victories we
win are holding the line against the forces bent on destroying the
values you and I cherish." "I look forward to hearing from you
soon." "Beverly LaHaye, founder and chairman of Concerned Women
for America. CWA is the nation's largest pro-family women's org-
anization, with over half a million members."
Thank you, Beverly, for your insightful perspective. Hopefully,
in the end, reason will prevail.
From the May 2001 Judie Brown Report: "'The truth is NOW is real-
ly history.....After years of being led by phony feminists, this
once groundbreaking organization is all but dead and buried, suf-
focating beneath the weight of its hate-based gender politics.
And among American women, the most typical response to NOW's de-
mise is 'good riddance,'' said Tina Whittington." Also in the
April issue were references to Planned Parenthood centers as
"abortion mills", "killing centers", and "deadly little chambers
of horror." Right on, Judie, I'm glad to see you're finally tak-
ing off the gloves and telling it like it is.
"Reuters:
Bush Nominates 11 for
Federal Judgeships
May 9, 5:15pm ET
By Steve Holland
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush on Wednesday offered his
first 11 choices for federal judgeships with an appeal to Senate
Democrats to 'rise above the bitterness of the past' and give them
a fair hearing.
'I now submit these nominations in good faith, trusting that good
faith will also be extended by the United States Senate,' Bush
said as he made the nominations for appeals court judges in a White
House East Room ceremony."
"'I urge senators of both parties to rise above the bitterness of
the past, to provide a fair hearing and a prompt vote to every
nominee,' Bush said. 'That should be the case for whoever lives
in this house and whoever controls the Senate. I ask for the re-
turn of civility and dignity to the confirmation process.'
Bush was hoping to put a conservative stamp on the court, saying
he picked nominees who know that 'the role of a judge is to inter-
pret the law, not to legislate from the bench.' "
All that sounded very reasonable to me. So let's look at what the
liberal party line was:
"In their first reaction, Senate Democrats said they would hold
up at least of one of the nominees, a former aide to conservative
Republican Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina."
In addition to being very partisan and hostile, that sounds very
foolish to me. I assume that Jesse, one of the most powerful and
influential senators, assured the president that he would see that
the nomination passed.
"Senate Democrats vowed to hold up at least one nominee, U.S.
District Judge and former Helms aide Terrence Boyle, because of
concerns that the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals needs greater bal-
ance."
"Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, ranking Democrat on the Senate
Judiciary Committee, declined to offer any immediate assessment
but said, 'The nominees who were selected for their qualifications
are likely to be confirmed. Those who were selected primarily for
their ideology are not likely to be confirmed.'"
I was stumped about exactly what was meant by the above paragraph
at first. And those two paragraphs are contradictory. Balance e-
quates to ideology. I think what Leahy's statement is really say-
ing is that nominees who have the right philosophy have the right
qualifications. I don't think Bush is going to submit unqualified
candidates. Those don't seem like good faith, civil statements to
me. They sound more like "mean spirited" grudges. But the follow-
ing statement really capped it off:
"Judith Lichtman, president of the National Partnership for Women
& Families, issued a blanket statement saying Bush's choices
'signaled that satisfying right-wing conservatives is more impor-
tant to him than protecting the rights and freedoms of women,
minorities, working people and others who rely on the courts for
justice.'"
Well, first of all, my own personal opinion is that just about
everybody in this country belongs to some minority. For example,
Jewish Americans, Chinese Americans, Asian Indian Americans, and
Irish Americans are all minorities; while women are a majority.
But I'll accept Judy's "political" definition for the purposes
of this discussion. Judy, how long had you had that statement pre-
pared before President Bush made his announcement? Did you think
about what you said at all? Because it makes no sense whatsoever.
"Bush's 11 choices included three women, two African Americans
and one Hispanic." That's a majority of the nominees, six out of
eleven, from the very groups you implied in your statement! One of
the nominees was a carryover from the Clinton nominations, and
"..he included a few Democrats to make the group more palatable".
On the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, May 16, 2001:
"I know that members of Congress are getting blitzed by Planned
Parenthood and other abortionists....I appeal to you to resist. I
ask you to stand with the victims, both mother and child, and
against the victimizers. When we subsidize and lavish federal
funds on abortion organizations, we empower the child abusers;
and Planned Parenthood, make no mistake about it, both here
and overseas, is 'Child Abuse, Incorporated.' Here in the United
States, for example....Planned Parenthood has been given $2 bill-
ion and performed 2.6 million abortions since 1977. That is 2.6
million girls and boys who will never know the joys and challeng-
es of living or the thrill of learning or marrying or playing
soccer or raising their own families some day. That is 2.6 mill-
ion individual dreams and talents and creativity the world will
never see....And if that is not enough, Planned Parenthood both
lobbies and litigates against virtually every child-protection
initiative, including parental notification, women's right-to-
know laws, abortion funding bans, partial-birth abortion, and, a-
gain, most recently, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act."
"International Planned Parenthood Federation, which is based in
London, is leaving no stone unturned in its misguided, obsessive
campaign to legalize abortion on demand. If they succeed, millions
of babies will die from the violence of abortion. I urge members,
please, let us not add to the body count.....Planned Parenthood's
Vision 2000 strategic plan makes it very clear that they want
family planning organizations to bring pressures on governments
to campaign for abortion on demand. They do not cloak it, they do
not disguise it." Representative Chris Smith (Rep-N.J.)
The two paragraphs above were taken from a debate over an attempt
to override President Bush's Mexico City Policy. Of course, Con-
gressman Smith had no way of knowing how many abortion referrals
Planned Parenthood has been paid for.
"Hearings were held in the past week in the House on the Born-
Alive Infants Protection Act, the bill that would preserve the
lives of children who survived abortions. The committee went im-
mediately into a markup, with the bill passing easily with a
voice vote." Hadley Arkes, Ney Professor of American Institutions
at Amherst College, July 17, 2001 8:45 a.m.
"ALL president Judie Brown is among 2,000 notable Catholics who-
've signed "A Canonical Petition to Excommunicate Culture of Death
'Catholics.'" The petition mentions 50 political figures by name,
including Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D.,
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., Gov. Gray Davis, D-Calif. and Gov. Tom
Ridge, R-Pa."
"The petition cites Item 2272 of the Catechism of the Catholic
Church: 'Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave of-
fense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunicat-
ion to this crime against human life.'" The Judie Brown Report,
August 2001
It remains to be seen if the Church will act on principle or put
self-interest first. I don't know whether it would cause these
people to modify their positions to be less radical, or hurt them
at the ballot box; but I think it would make a point with rank
and file Catholics about how seriously the Church regards this
offense. The petition is available for any Catholic to sign at: A
Canonical petition to excommunicate culture of death ‘Catholics’.
Not a Catholic? Doesn't matter, you can go to the same site and
click on the link to the amicus curiae brief, and sign that.
I copied the article below from about.com. I was going to just
include a link, but I thought it was too important to risk that
people might not go there to read it. It is the most incredibly
well thought out, reasoned, lucid, rational, articulate, coherent,
statement of policy on abortion that I have ever read. This is the
rare instance where using outdated medical terminology works to
the advantage of the pro-life cause. I was personally amazed that
something technically called an embryo or "early fetus" could be
so completely formed. But I didn't provide a link to their web
site, because it is a little gruesome. However, this doesn't pre-
vent you from copying and pasting their URL to your browser, if
you personally want to go there. So I want to share this with you:
"Fetus Pics Hit the Road
Center for Bio-Ethical Reform Starts "Choice" Convoy
Dateline: 7/27/01
From the Center for Bioethical Reform
On Monday, June 25, 2001, the Los Angeles-based Center For Bio-
Ethical Reform (CBR) launched its anti-abortion, Reproductive
Choice Campaign (RCC). The project will involve the operation of
a fleet of large, box-body trucks on whose sides will be display-
ed bill-board size, color photos depicting aborted human embryos
and early fetuses. Several of these trucks can be viewed on the
CBR Website at www.abortionNO.org. Initially, the trucks will be
operated every business day on the Freeway system in Southern
California. Routes will thereafter be added in Northern and Cent-
ral California at times as yet to be determined. A nation-wide
expansion will be undertaken before the end of the year. This is
a long-term project which will continue indefinitely.
The purpose of the RCC is to make abortion impossible to ignore
or trivialize. Public opinion surveys reveal that a large major-
ity of Americans now oppose "pregnancy termination" in the second
and third trimesters of pregnancy – especially if performed by
"partial-birth" abortion. A smaller but still substantial major-
ity support a right of abortion if it is committed in the first
trimester of pregnancy. This fact is problematic from a pro-life
perspective because The Centers For Disease Control report that
some 90% of abortions are committed in the first three months of
pregnancy.
These same surveys also disclose that public support for early
abortion derives from the inaccurate perception that the first
trimester baby is a mere "blob of tissue." In contrast, most
Americans see the mid and late-term fetus as a real "baby" whose
level of gestational development entitles it to rights of person-
hood. It is also clear that few Americans believe a suction abor-
tion to be the moral equivalent of a "partial-birth abortion."
We, therefore, conclude that it is vital to convince the public
that the first term baby is as fully entitled to rights of person-
hood as a more mature fetus and that even an early abortion is as
indefensible an act of violence as any "partial-birth" abortion.
Extensive focus group research has proven conclusively that our
pictures are the most effective means by which to achieve that
goal.
RCC is a tactic which is consistent with mainstream campaigns of
social reform. Shocking pictures have traditionally been used to
dramatize injustice sought to be reformed in the areas of child
labor abuses, civil rights for African Americans, U.S. military
involvement in Vietnam, environmental causes, etc. What has chan-
ged is that for the first time in recent history, political con-
servatives are using this tactic in an effort to reform an unjust
status quo which is being defended by political liberals.
It should also be noted that we believe it is important to prot-
ect children from exposure to disturbing photos, whether those
photos depict aborted babies or any other shocking subject. That
is why we base the trucks which exhibit our anti-abortion bill-
boards in a location that is entirely industrial/commercial in
its zoning. We will go out of our way to choose routes which min-
imize the time we must spend near residential neighborhoods. We
will concentrate the truck routes on freeways rather than city
streets. We will not knowingly drive past elementary schools,
playgrounds, daycare centers, etc.
There is, however, no operating location in which we can guarant-
ee that no child will ever see these painful images. The same
risks to children exist every time the television is turned on.
Sickening images are likely to appear, even during early prime
time. The same is true with disgusting photos on the covers of
magazines openly displayed at the checkout stands of supermarkets.
Billboards are also increasingly likely to exhibit images inap-
propriate for young children.
When NBC Television broadcast Steven Spielberg’s Holocaust movie,
Schindler’s List, in its early prime-time "family hour" slot (as
PBS recently did again), then Congressman Tom Coburn, R-Ok., ex-
pressed concern over the large numbers of children who were expo-
sed to the movie’s extreme violence, profanity and explicit sex-
ual content. His colleagues mocked him to scorn. UPI reported
that Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., believed "the film belongs on tele-
vision to educate children about one of the darkest chapters in
human history." The article said "Foley agrees it was brutal, but
truthful, telling of a ‘demonic creature who was murdering mill-
ions of Jews ….’ But he says it is a story that should be told and
remembered without any attempt to ‘camouflage … that evilness.’"
The New York Times quoted Rep. Tom Lantos, even more forcefully:
"… Lantos, a California Democrat who is the only Holocaust sur-
vivor in the Congress, said Mr. Coburn should have been more con-
cerned with the children who were killed than with young viewers’
hearing four-letter words." The Tulsa World also covered the con-
troversy. Lantos was quoted as dismissing as "petty" Coburn’s
concerns about children seeing horrifying violence. "He is dead
wrong" Lantos said. He added "When you want 65 million Americans
to watch … you don’t start at midnight. These are such petty and
certainly misplaced priorities." Lantos even questioned Coburn’s
integrity. "I think this is such a phony argument" he said. "It
is such cheap political grandstanding, my stomach turns." Rep.
Martin Frost, D-Tx., also piled-on, saying Coburn demonstrated a
"lack of compassion" toward Holocaust victims.
Now that children will be seeing our aborted baby pictures, will
those who savaged Rep. Coburn be as quick to defend our First
Amendment rights as they were to defend NBC’s? We think it un-
likely.
The Center For Bio-Ethical Reform will not submit to a two-tiered
standard for free speech: A permissive standard for the express-
ion of liberal ideology and a restrictive standard for the expre-
ssion of conservative thought.
Our photos save unborn children and disturb born children every-
where they are displayed. The question which must be answered by
our critics is simple: Do they care more about the feelings of
kids than the lives of fetuses? If so, they are not pro-life,
they are "pro-feelings." We respectfully refuse to allow people
who are not pro-life to cover-up the truth about abortion. Those
days are gone and we will not go back.
Abortion is not exacting enough of an emotional toll on American
society. The culture is in massive denial about what abortion is
and does. Social reformers must always force-feed facts into the
heads of people who are reluctant to accept evidence of their own
complicity in injustice. The Reproductive "Choice" Campaign will
be used to disturb the nation until the stress becomes unbearable.
Because the news media, entertainment media, education establish-
ment, clergy, etc. are suppressing the truth about what abortion
is and does, we will bypass these gatekeepers and take our message
directly to our target audience. The May 28, 2001 issue of U.S.
News & World Report featured a cover story about that audience.
It was entitled "Traffic." The article reported that:
Since 1982, while the U.S population has grown nearly 20
percent, the time Americans spend in traffic has jumped
an amazing 236 percent. In major American cities, the
length of the combined morning-evening rush hour has doubled,
from under three hours in 1982 to almost six hours today.
Data compiled by the California Department of Motor Vehicles sug-
gests that during rush hour, up to 50,000 people per hour will
view the pictures displayed on each of our individual trucks. The
freeway is the last place where viewers can neither turn the page
nor change the channel. We have been presented with a vast cap-
tive audience and we will take full advantage of the fact that
most will give our signs at least one curious glance. Once these
pictures are in people’s heads, they will never get them out.
Every time viewers thereafter hear the word abortion, a disturb-
ing picture will go off in their brains. Those with a functioning
conscience will eventually change their points of view.
We understand that this project will not make us popular, even
with many groups which call themselves "pro-life." We are losing
the abortion battle precisely because so many "pro-life" organiz-
ations mistakenly believe they must be "liked" to be effective.
But CBR is not trying to win a popularity contest. We are trying
to effect social reform. Social reformers are never liked. We
care less what people think of us than what they think of abort-
ion. We are willing to have them hate us if that is the price
which must be paid to have them ultimately hate abortion.
Those who retaliate against us with violence will only help focus
public attention on our project. They will thereby unwittingly
unmask the pro-abortion propensity for brutality. They will also
inadvertently help us recruit staff and raise funds. As racists
blamed Martin Luther King for creating a climate conducive to the
riots he condemned, we expect to be accused of inciting similar
unrest with our pictures. As was true of Dr. King, we also de-
plore violence but we will not be deterred by its threat against
us. We are more determined to save babies than our adversaries
are to kill them."
Postscript: "....our photos have reframed the abortion debate by
exposing 'choice' as homicide. As she shouts 'It's my body,' Ms.
Tomayo can no longer hide the presence of a second body - the one
that has been dismembered, disemboweled and decapitated."
"....the Centers For Disease Control say that 45% of women who a-
bort have already had one or more previous abortions, post-abort-
ive women are the women most likely to abort. This group is at
such high risk for abortion that we certainly don't want them to
'feel good' about the 'procedure'." InPerspective, Winter 2001
"....how else are we to teach people who don't want to learn that
abortion is an indefensible act of inexpressibly horrible viol-
ence? And even once they've learned, people often need to be
bothered into acting against injustice. Shocking pictures change
the minds of pro-aborts who still have a functioning conscience.
Among pro-life viewers, these photos create a sense of outrage
without which no one will ever be moved to take risks or make
sacrifices to end injustice." "She had seen the same pictures we
display on our trucks. Now she saw things from her baby's perspe-
ctive." "'Everyone knows what an aborted fetus looks like. We
don't need to see it.' Au contraire, Madame, you apparently do
need to see it and we've got a long way to go until 'everyone
knows what an aborted fetus looks like.' Even if 'everyone' knew
that abortion is disturbing, many must see the pictures again and
again before they become 'disturbed' enough to actively oppose
the killing......photos which will change the course of history."
"We'll make sure abortion bothers people when they head to work
and even when they try to relax and we won't stop until they stop
ignoring the plight of the unborn." Center for Bio-Ethical Reform
Greg "Cunningham Communique' June 2002 Response to Airborne RCC
is Sky High After five weekends of our Airborne RCC (Reproductive
'Choice' Campaign), we can safely say that the 30 x 100 foot ban-
ner with two labeled photos of a 10 week aborted baby is making a
big impact. Beachgoers in Los Angeles, Miami, Boston, and outlying
regions have viewed the truth about abortion - and most don't like
it. The LA Times quoted Gregg's response. '...when Americans are
killing children, they don't deserve a day at the beach.'...Media
coverage of Airborne RCC includes: The New York Times, The Assoc-
iated Press, CNN, and Fox News. We FINALLY got the LA Times to do
a story when they learned the NY Times was writing about Airborne
RCC. ...a woman e-mailed us, 'I'm listening to Gregg on the John
and Ken Show now. Terrific job Gregg!! You were articulate, calm
and determined....' Karen also e-mailed us, '....he [Gregg] pre-
sented himself clearly & eloquently....he was kind to callers and
CLEAR about his perspective....it was masterful to have research-
ed the impetus for social change throughout history...' '....I
heard part of the interview on the John & Ken radio show yester-
day. Please keep the airplane and truck banners going. Sincerely,
T.B.' This is typical of many letters we receive from people who
are counting on us to do work that no one else in the world is do-
ing." Nobody else has the incredible creativity, perseverance,
common sense, smarts, organizational skills, temperament, and just
plain guts, to do the unbelievable things this guy does! Here's
some more of the same: "Unlike most pro-lifers, we believe that
America won't reject abortion until America is forced to look at
abortion. By covering-up the horror of abortion, the pro-life
movement has helped the abortion industry make abortion relative-
ly pain-free for most Americans. When the sewers of our cities
are running with the blood of our children, we don't think Amer-
ica deserves a 'day at the beach'." You only think like that
when opposition to abortion has become a dominating force in your
life.
"....many are eager to learn from our research and to do what
changes people's minds. One student told us, 'We want you to come
to our campus, because what we're doing doesn't work.' Right now,
a Hawaiian Reproductive 'Choice' Campaign truck is being prepared
for action. Steve Holck, of Honolulu, decided Hawaii needed to
see the truth about abortion, so he spent time with us learning
how to develop a truck operation. Others from Florida to New Jer-
sey have also begun efforts to get trucks on the road.
Lucas Lee, of Texas, contacted us to get a copy of the Reproduc-
tive 'Choice' Campaign video to show his church youth group. He'd
been to our website and was impressed by the power of the imagery.
He e-mailed us a report this Monday, 'This weekend went great. Be-
tween your video, the drama we had, and the message, I think 400
high school students went home this weekend knowing that abortion
is murder.'" Lois & Gregg Cunningham in their Communique', Sept-
ember 2002. CBR phone number (562) 777-9117 What I can't show you
here is a new two part sign they have. On the left side of the
sign is one of their standard body parts pictures with the cap-
tion "Would Jesus Use Bloody Pictures To Make His Point?" On the
right side of the sign is a picture of Jesus on the cross with
the caption "HE ALREADY DID."
"...A 27 year old Alabama woman who had just seen the photos told
us 'I was in tears. I knew it was bad but I have never seen it.'
A third Alabama woman (this one 20 years old) E-mailed us on the
third to say 'I never saw an aborted baby before. I'm trying not
to cry.'
Another E-mail came in on September 4th from a 19 year old female
high school student from California. She said: 'The images prove
that the media and pro-choice people lie. We are taught that bab-
ies 3-9 weeks are really not babies and have not yet begun to
form. When I saw these pictures I was totally shocked to see that
those babies are already little people.'" Gregg Cunningham, CBR,
October, 2002
"Birmingham was a pivotal city for the civil rights movement, so
it was only a matter of time before we took our truck campaign
there. Sept. 2-6, 2002 was the week that Birmingham residents were
challenged to consider the civil rights of unborn children. Two
Reproductive 'Choice' Campaign (RCC) trucks traversed the highways
around town. The trucks also spent three days at the University of
Alabama campuses in Birmingham and Tuscaloosa, reaching thousands
of students on their way to classes. NBC posted their telecast
story on their website, opening with, 'A pro-life campaign began
Tuesday on Alabama roadways. Abortion rights groups call the cam-
paign a 'horror show'...' (September 2, 2002, nbc13.com) Pro-a-
borts don't realize how frequently they speak the truth". Cun-
ningham Communique', October 2002
"An 18 year-old completed our website survey on October 10, not-
ing, 'I'm pregnant now and the thought [abortion] had crossed my
mind, but I wanted to see what it looked like before I decided
anything, and this changed my mind'". Gregg Cunningham 11/21/2002
"'I saw 2 of your trucks this morning while dropping my 12 year
old daughter off at school. This is the first time I've seen them.
I have to say that my first reaction was shock, then disgust. At
first I thought it was too 'in your face' & was shocked that it
was right in front of a middle school. But the more I looked at
the pictures the more I realized that that is exactly what the
world needs to see. It's gruesome & disgusting, but it's reality.
Abortion is a horrible, ugly, disgusting evil in our world today.
This forces people to deal with the truth of what abortion is &
decide which side they're on. When I was in 7th & 8th grade in
Catholic school, we were shown pictures similar to the ones you
have on your trucks. When I was 19 & pregnant with no husband, it
was those images in my head that kept me from having an abortion.
I pray that you'll have the same impact on millions of young wom-
en & older women alike. Thank you for taking a stand & God bless
you & this campaign.' K.S. [E-mail] Our e-mail response to K.S.
ascertained that her 12 year-old was the child spared from abort-
ion." "The point of RCC is to force people to acknowledge the
plight of the unborn - to help them consider their tiny neighb-
ors." "There is no other pro-life project that has reached so many
people in such a short time." From "A day in the life of the RCC",
Cunningham Communique', December 2002. Also in that issue, "The
perpetrators of genocide always dehumanize the 'inferior' class
of 'beings' before they brutalize their victims." If you follow-
ed the news on Bosnia and Kosovo closely, you saw recent examples
of that. Another thing that happens, is that "the perpetrators"
get the laws changed so that what they are doing is legal and what
others are doing in opposition is illegal. A good example of this
is that if people are demonstrating too close to an abortuary the
operators will call the police. When the police come, they will
arrest the demonstrators, instead of the people inside who are
killing the children. One more point on this most recent Communi-
que'. There is picture of a GAP (Genocide Awareness Project) dis-
play on the New Brunswick Campus of Rutgers University. Although
it is difficult to make out the detail, a large picture of a
spotted owl is placed next to a picture of an aborted baby. The
caption under the spotted owl reads "IF THIS IS WRONG", and the
caption under the baby reads "CAN THIS BE RIGHT".
In CBR's glossy circular for December, 2002, there was a block of
three pictures across the center of the first page. The first
picture was of the attack on Pearl Harbor, in black and white -
lots of smoke and ships sinking. At the top of the picture were
the words "EMPIRE OF JAPAN". At the bottom of the picture were
the words "PEARL HARBOR", and just below that "2,403 KILLED -
DECEMBER 7, 1941". The picture next to it was of fire and smoke
bellowing from the Twin Towers. At the top of this picture were
the words "AL QAEDA - TALIBAN", below the picture "WORLD TRADE
CENTER", and below that "2,937 KILLED - SEPTEMBER 11, 2001". The
label atop the third picture reads "PLANNED PARENTHOOD", the pic-
ture is one of CBR's standard abortion pictures (in this case a
severed leg and two feet transposed onto a quarter coin and cover-
ed in blood), underneath the picture says "1ST TRIMESTER (10 WEEK)
ABORTED FETUS", and below that is inscribed "3,600 KILLED - EVERY
DAY". Underneath the three pictures in bold type are the following
sentences: "Despite news reports to the contrary, September 11 did
not mark the worst single-day loss of life in U.S. History. Our
Reproductive 'Choice' Campaign sign corrects this misconception."
In sake of fairness and accuracy, I should point out that Planned
Parenthood doesn't do all those abortions itself - just more of
them than any other abortion provider in this country (and world-
wide, for that matter). They go on to say: "We specifically chose
the name Reproductive 'Choice' Campaign (RCC) so that every time
our trucks with aborted baby photos roll through a town, everyone
there knows exactly what 'choice' means to the unborn child."
"Upcoming events: Feb. 8, 2003 -- Legatus Annual Conference, Los
Angeles, CA (Gregg Cunningham to receive the John Cardinal O'Con-
nor Pro-Life Award)".
"A week before Halea Maurer was born, her parents began preparing
for her death. Told by doctors that their daughter was not getting
adequate nutrition and oxygen, Anne and Ken Maurer of Elmhurst
agreed to delivery at 27 weeks. Her only chance of survival was
outside the womb, doctors said, but such an early birth would
put her at great risk too. Halea weighed in at 12 ounces -- even
less than doctors had expected.
So her parents prepared a memento box of ultrasound images and
cards from family and friends. They chose a name that is a varia-
tion of a Hawaiian word meaning 'fond remembrance'.
But Friday, Halea (which they pronounce HAL-ee-ah) was a thriving
4-month-old infant who tips the scale at 4 pounds, 6.5 ounces. 'We
don't know what we did to deserve this,' said Ken Maurer, 31, cra-
dling his tiny daughter as he and his wife prepared to take her
home from Good Samaritan Hospital in Downers Grove Friday after-
noon. 'We're so grateful.' Doctors credit Halea's survival to re-
markable advances in neonatal care, scrupulous prenatal care by
obstetricians and vigilance by the parents.
During a routine office visit, Anne Maurer's obstetrician noticed
the fetus was not growing adequately. Consultations with neonat-
ologists at Good Samaritan confirmed that the fetus was suffering
from intrauterine growth restriction, which affects 3 to 7 percent
of all deliveries. In this case, the placenta was not providing
enough nourishment, and doctors still do not know why that happen-
ed. Based on the ultrasounds, doctors were expecting a baby of 500
grams, dangerously small but at the threshold for premature babies
to survive, said Dr. Mike Fitzgerald, medical director of neonat-
ology at Good Samaritin. But Halea was 340 grams when she was de-
livered by Caesarean section on June 25, nearly 13 weeks early.
'She was small, very small,' said Dr. Vihba Thaker, a neonatolog-
ist at Good Samaritin. 'But she was active, kicking around...and
made some noises. I said she's a baby [who], if we give her care,
she will survive.'
According to the University of Iowa, Halea is the second smallest
baby ever to survive in Illinois. She also ties for sixth place on
the list of smallest babies ever to survive. Dr. Edward Bell, dir-
ector of neonatology at the University of Iowa's Department of
Medicine, said he composed the list of tiny babies based on re-
ports by doctors and parents.
In the first few critical days after birth, doctors were amazed by
Halea's vigor and the apparent normal development of her organs.
But she has still undergone a flurry of medical interventions. She
has been treated for hernias, suffered two infections, developed
anemia because of the many blood draws to check her status, and
had apnea, a typical problem in premature babies in which they
stop breathing occasionally, Fitzgerald said.
Last week, though, Halea was taken off breathing support and was
sent home Friday without any special care. 'Halea appears to be a
totally normal baby,' Fitzgerald said. In fact, Fitzgerald said
there is no indication she will suffer long term problems."
By Karen Mellen, Tribune staff reporter - taken from the front
page of the Chicago Tribune, Saturday, October 27, 2001.
One of the kids in my extended family, I can't remember which one,
was born with a double hernia, and he wasn't premature. There was
a picture of Halea with the article. I don't normally go gaga over
babies. But this was the most beautiful, most healthy looking,
baby girl I've ever seen. Her parents looked pretty pleased too.
I've personally heard of babies surviving who were only 21 weeks
old. Of course, they were probably about Halea's size. Note that
the article refers to the baby as a fetus, but it was able to
survive outside the mother.
"9.97 ounces at birth, 'miracle' baby finally goes home
ROME -- A healthy 3 1/2-month-old girl who came into the world
weighing only 9.97 ounces spent her first full day at home from
the hospital Saturday, and her doctors said they believe she is
the tiniest human on record to live so long. Doctors at Careggi
hospital in Florence sent the 'miracle' baby home Friday weighing
4.4 pounds, saying she has a nearly 100 percent chance of a nor-
mal life. 'She really had the will to live, she was strong and
lively,' said pediatrician Margarita Psaraki. Doctors said the
unidentified baby and her parents live near Florence. The medical
team nicknamed her 'Pearl.' The baby was delivered by Caesarean
section in early February during the 27th week of pregnancy. At
that stage of fetal development, some babies survive, but they
have weighed much more at birth. The previous record was set in
the 1990s by a baby in Japan who weighed 10.5 ounces at birth."
From the Chicago Tribune, Sunday May 26, 2002, page 8.
"1 of tiniest babies ever beats the odds and lives By Deborah
Horan Tribune staff reporter A healthy and relatively hefty
Michael Despain was released Tuesday from the Oak Lawn hospital
where he was born in October weighing only 12 1/2 ounces, unof-
ficially the third smallest boy to survive premature birth.
Michael, whose twin died shortly after being delivered by
Caesarean section, gave his parents a real scare only once in all
the months he was developing and gaining weight -- he suffered a
collapsed lung. After four months, Michael weighs 4 pounds 9
ounces. 'I'm nervous and anxious,' said his mother, Janet. 'But
I'm ready for him to come home.'
The drama surrounding Michael started when Janet Despain was told
at 22 weeks into her pregnancy that she was having twins, but an
ultrasound revealed trouble. The fetuses had stopped growing,
their heartbeats were irregular, and their lungs were not compl-
etely formed. They weren't receiving adequate nutrition, doctors
said, likely due to the possibility that they were sharing a pla-
centa. They were not likely to survive for long inside the womb
and they also were at risk for not surviving a premature birth,
doctors said. After a month spent deciding what to do, Janet
Despain, 28, and her husband Jeff, 31, of Monee, agreed to a
Caesarean section on Oct. 18. After the births, doctors rolled
Janet's bed into the neonatal care center, where she found Michael
so tiny that she could have held him in one hand, she said. Jen-
nifer was even tinier. Doctor's told the couple they doubted Jen-
nifer, whose lungs were less developed, would live. The parents
decided to take her off a respirator and together they held her
while she died six hours after birth. 'We decided to let her go
peacefully because she wasn't going to make it,' Janet Despain
said.
Doctors said Michael defied the odds for boys and likely survived
because he had few complications that normally plague premature
babies, such as brain hemorrhaging, heart problems and frequent
infections. He was half the size of a normal 26-week old fetus
and required aggressive support on a respirator, said Dr. Charles
MacDonald, a hospital neonatologist.
Boys are less likely than girls to survive a premature birth. Of
43 infants born weighing less than 400 grams (about 14 ounces)
who survived, only six, including Michael, were male, according
to Dr. Edward Bell, director of neonatal care at Children's Hosp-
ital of Iowa. 'We're still trying to unravel that,' said Bell,
who keeps an unofficial log of premature babies, called the Tin-
iest Baby Registry". Chicago Tribune, February 12, 2003
"As of Monday, May 5, 2003 MEDIA & MARKETING P&G Targets Tin-
iest Preemies, 'Very Pre-Term' Baby Market By SARAH ELLISON
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
The target market for Procter & Gamble Co.'s newest diaper is
small. Very small. Of the nearly half a million infants born pre-
maturely in the U.S. each year, roughly one in eight are deemed
'very pre-term,' and usually weigh between 500 grams and 1,500
grams (one to three pounds). Their skin is tissue-paper-thin, so
any sharp edge or sticky surface can damage it, increasing the
chance of infection. Their muscles are weak, and unlike full-term
newborns, excessive handling can add more stress that in turn
could endanger their health.
Tiny as they are, the number of premature infants is increasing -
- partly because of improved neonatal care: From 1985 to 2000,
infant mortality rates for premature babies fell 45%, says the
National Center for Health Statistics. Increasingly, such babies
are being born to older or more affluent women, often users of
fertility drugs, which have stimulated multiple births."
"12 oz. Miracle baby (SKY News) The mother of what is believed
to be Britain's smallest baby hailed her 'miracle' daughter for
defying doctors' expectations that she would not survive. Aaliyah
Hart was born at City Hospital, Birmingham, three months premat-
urely and weighing just 12oz.
MIRACLE OF BABY AALIYAH
The mother of what is believed to be Britain's smallest baby to-
day hailed her 'miracle' daughter for defying doctors' expectat-
ions that she would not survive. Aaliyah Hart was born at City
Hospital, Birmingham, three months prematurely and weighing just
12oz. She is small enough for her mother Lorraine to hold her in
the palm of her hand.
Prior to Aaliyah's birth on May 27, Britain's smallest surviving
baby was 15oz Dylan Coles, born in Liverpool in 2001.
Mrs Hart, a 37-year-old social worker, said doctors warned her
that Aaliyah had only a 10% chance of pulling through.
Describing the moment when she gave birth, Mrs Hart - herself on-
ly 5ft, 1in - said: 'I literally just cried and cried. I could
not believe that something so small could survive. She was so
tiny but she was so active. Her hands were going, she was her own
little person and I cried for a long time. She was surviving -
that was my main concern.'
Mrs Hart had been trying for a baby for 15 years without success.
She and husband Ricardo, 30, decided to continue with the pregna-
ncy despite predictions that the baby may not survive beyond
birth.
Consultant paediatrician Dr Jeff Bissenden said: 'I have been a
consultant paediatrician since 1980 and I've never seen a baby
that size survive. Usually, they are miscarriages but she (Mrs
Hart) pushed out this little girl who wriggled around, waved her
legs and said 'I want to live'.' Dr Bissenden said hospital staff
were also amazed at how little care Aaliyah needed, having come
off a life support machine two days after her birth." Source:
SKY News Online at: http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-
12352014,00.html Last Updated: 15:28 UK, Friday June 20, 2003
"The smallest on record is a US baby who weighed just 11 ounces
at birth." July 7, 2003 (BBC, via Irish Pro-Life News)
"DEFEND AMERICA! DE-FUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD!
Homeland Security Problem: Every year, Planned Parenthood receiv-
es $142 MILLION in federal taxpayer dollars to abort nearly 200,
000 red-blooded American boys and girls.
Homeland Security Solution: Reallocate that $142 MILLION to the
Homeland Security Department and use that money to protect Ameri-
can lives, instead of destroying them." (Title X and other feder-
al programs.) An ad run in the Washington Times by The American
Life League.
"Mrs. Brown said ... If those funds could instead be spent on the
prevention of terrorism, America would reap the double benefit of
saving thousands of Americans - both born and unborn. She sugges-
ted that even further savings could be realized by another pract-
ical suggestion: Remove the U.S. Marshals assigned to guard abor-
tion clinics and re-station them aboard passenger flights."
Taken from Action Notes, Celebrate Life, November-December 2001.
November 15, 2001: While visiting President Bush, Russian Presid-
ent Vladimir Putin remarked "Basically women are not treated as
people in Afghanistan." That is also true of young children in
the United States today.
"A hundred years from now the future may be different because I
was important in the life of a child". Sandra Kuck
"Congress never intended to subsidize abortion. The law actually
says that Title X money may not be used in 'programs in which a-
bortion is a method of family planning.'..Title X grants comprise
Planned Parenthood's second-largest source of revenue (after sel-
ling abortions)."
"Rep. David Vitter (R-Louisiana)...will offer an amendment (to an
appropriations bill)...It will prevent any Title X funds from go-
ing to any 'private grantee, delegate, or clinic that provides
chemical or surgical abortion.'" Family Voice - September/October
2001
"The rush to embrace 'bipartisanship'....forced Rep. David Vitter
(R-La.) to withdraw an amendment that would have eliminated Title
X funding of abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood." The
Judie Brown Report - December 2001
On an abortion center in Appleton, Wisconsin: "A pro-lifer who
lives in the house next to this clinic has placed two large signs
in the back yard on billboards facing the Planned Parenthood park-
ing lot and another large sign on the front lawn." From the Judie
Brown Report, December 2001 The sign pictured read "It's Not Too
Late To CHANGE YOUR MIND! WE CAN HELP... Mother & Unborn Baby
Care 733-7334 AAA Pregnancy Counseling Center 739-0039"
"The freedom of choice Planned Parenthood promotes is a choice to
kill an innocent baby." James H. Garland, Bishop of Marquette, MI.
About a World Health Organization "abortion-related conference in
Mexico City", by a spokesman for the Mexican Love Life Network,
"these leaders have arrived as messengers of death under the pre-
tense of public health".
"As horrible as this terrorist attack was, the number of people
who died in all aspects of this horrible crime is only slightly
less than the number of unborn babies killed every day by abort-
ion, in the United States alone." Conrad Wojnar, reflecting on
the terrorist attacks on 09/11/01, and expressing the realization
unspoken by many of us in the pro-life movement.
"The victims of abortion are anonymous. The horror of abortion is
invisible.....it now seems likely that more Americans were killed
by abortionists on September 11 (about 4,300) than were killed by
terrorists (about 3,000)...Assuming 3,000 deaths among the 50,000
people who worked at the World Trade Center, about 1 in seventeen
was killed. One in three unborn babies is killed by abortion every
day. On September 11, it would have been six times safer to have
been a worker in the Twin Towers than it is to be a baby in its
mother's womb." "We will do for the public's perception of abort-
ion what the press has done for people's understanding of terror."
Taken from "In Perspective", Genocide Awareness Project, Center
For Bio-Ethical Reform.
"We are proud that our country, even as it experiences attacks
from abroad, upholds our right to speak out for life. But we are
also ashamed of our country, ashamed that we kill 1.2 million of
our children each year. And we are grieved that America exports
our ideas to the rest of the world under the guise of freedom,
bringing death to children the world over." Survivors of the Abor-
tion Holocaust
"In the past year...Courts across the land have continued to deny
their protection to the unborn baby and those who speak out again-
st abortion. Committed to protecting the sanctity of human life,
The Rutherford Institute will continue to defend the free speech
rights of those who oppose abortion--and to engage the public in
a dialogue about the value of life." John W. Whitehead, Wednes-
day, January 9, State of the Nation, 2002, Rutherford Institute,
Post Office Box 7482, Charlottesville, Virginia 22906-7482.
"I will lead our nation toward a culture that values life--the
life of the elderly and the sick, the life of the young, and the
life of the unborn.....and when Congress sends me a bill against
partial-birth abortion, I will sign it into law." George W. Bush,
August 3, 2000
In case you missed it. We like the company we keep here. President
George W. Bush's declaration:
"National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 2002 by the President of the
United States of America a Proclamation
This Nation was founded upon the belief that every human being is
endowed by our Creator with certain 'unalienable rights.' Chief
among them is the right to life itself. The Signers of the Decl-
aration of Independence pledged their own lives, fortunes, and
honor to guarantee inalienable rights for all of the new country's
citizens. These visionaries recognized that an essential human
dignity attached to all persons by virtue of their very existence
and not just to the strong, the independent, or the healthy. That
value should apply to every American, including the elderly and
the unprotected, the weak and the infirm, and even to the unwant-
ed.
Thomas Jefferson wrote that, '[t]he care of human life and happi-
ness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate
object of good government.' President Jefferson was right. Life
is an inalienable right, understood as given to each of us by our
Creator.
President Jefferson's timeless principle obligates us to pursue a
civil society that will democratically embrace its essential mor-
al duties, including defending the elderly, strengthening the
weak, protecting the defenseless, feeding the hungry, and caring
for children -- born and unborn. Mindful of these and other obli-
gations, we should join together in pursuit of a more compassion-
ate society, rejecting the notion that some lives are less worthy
of protection than others, whether because of age or illness,
social circumstance or economic condition. Consistent with the
core principles about which Thomas Jefferson wrote, and to which
the Founders subscribed, we should peacefully commit ourselves to
seeking a society that values life -- from its very beginnings to
its natural end. Unborn children should be welcomed in life and
protected in law.
On September 11, we saw clearly that evil exists in this world,
and that it does not value life. The terrible events of that fate-
ful day have given us, as a Nation, a greater understanding about
the value and wonder of life. Every innocent life taken that day
was the most important person on earth to somebody; and every
death extinguished a world. Now we are engaged in a fight against
evil and tyranny to preserve and protect life. In so doing, we are
standing again for those core principles upon which our Nation was
founded.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States
of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Const-
itution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Sun-
day, January 20, 2002, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. I
call upon all Americans to reflect upon the sanctity of human
life. Let us recognize the day with appropriate ceremonies in our
homes and places of worship, rededicate ourselves to compassion-
ate service on behalf of the weak and defenseless, and reaffirm
our commitment to respect the life and dignity of every human be-
ing.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eighteenth
day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand two, and of
the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred
and twenty-sixth.
GEORGE W. BUSH
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
January 18, 2002"
"President Bush has proven again that he will not be bent by the
intellectual fashion of the day and will do what he believes
right." The Claremont Institute, on a different issue, but in my
opinion, appropriate here.
"Fetuses Are Children, Proposed Federal Rule Says Jan 31 6:19pm
ET (2002) By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a move that worried abortion-rights sup-
porters, the U.S. government said Thursday it was proposing a rule
that defines an unborn fetus as a child, saying it was meant to
allow public money to be used to provide prenatal care for women.
Both anti-abortion groups and groups supporting abortion rights
said the proposed change in the State Children's Insurance Health
Program (SCHIP), which would call a child a child from the moment
of conception, would effectively give the unborn fetus a new legal
status. 'The provision would enable states to make immediate use
of the extensive funding already available under SCHIP to provide
prenatal care for more low-income pregnant women and their babies,
' the Health and Human Services (HHS) department said in a state-
ment. 'The proposed regulation, to be published in the Federal
Register in the coming weeks, would clarify the definition of
'child' under the SCHIP program,' it added. 'At present, SCHIP
allows states to provide health care coverage to targeted low-in-
come children under age 19. ... The new regulation would clarify
that states may include coverage for children from conception to
age 19.' Abortion-rights groups have feared that President Bush,
who opposes abortion..., could seek to erode abortion rights, and
they worried that elevating the legal status of the fetus could
make it easier to outlaw abortion. HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson
denied the purpose of the rule change was to redefine the legal
status of an unborn baby. 'I said what we are going to do is pro-
vide prenatal care,' Thompson told a news conference. 'What we
are going to do is take care of poor women, to be able to provide
prenatal care...'. ... both sides of the debate ... 'We applaud
this Bush Administration proposal to recognize the existence of
an unborn child in order to allow the baby, and the mother as
well, to receive adequate pre-natal care -- a concept to which
only the most extreme pro-abortion ideologues will object,' Doug-
las Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life
Committee, said in a statement. But Regan Ralph, vice president
for health at the National Women's Law Center, called it 'bad
news.' 'It looks like cynical politics,' she said, accusing the
Bush administration of using the rule as a way of effectively giv-
ing unborn babies a legal status they currently do not have, and
thus attacking abortion rights. 'It obviously undermines the prin-
ciple of Roe v Wade (the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that effectiv-
ely legalized abortion) and suggests that women's health interests
can be overridden by elevating the status of the fetus,' she add-
ed. 'And it turns the whole idea of prenatal health care on its
head because prenatal health care is about the mother as well as
the fetus.' ... No one argues that prenatal care is a bad thing.
Women who get proper prenatal care are much more likely to give
birth to healthy babies. Earlier on Thursday the National Center
for Health Statistics reported that the U.S. infant mortality rate
fell by 3 percent from 1998 to 1999, in part due to more women
getting prenatal care. HHS estimates that 10.9 million women of
child-bearing age do not have health insurance. SCHIPS is a prog-
ram aimed at filling that gap for children, as most people in the
U.S. get health insurance through their employers." My browser
is preset to start my internet sessions at Go2Net, because I like
their arrangement of Reuters news. They select what is important,
and I don't have to be grinding my teeth together as I read it,
because Reuter's presentation of the news seems straightforward
and unbiased. I didn't post this article at first, because I did-
n't think it was that significant, even though I understood the
viewpoints. But, first of all, irregardless of it's motives, it
has to be seen as an act of compassion, helping poor women, and
their children, with important prenatal care. It's going to be
very difficult for liberals to say, somehow, that they don't think
we should give this to these women and children, and still look
truly concerned about women's health. It's a flat out lie to say
that women's health interests would be overridden - but the whole
case for abortion is built on lies in the first place. So, is it
really so important? My answer to this is - yes and no. It is be-
cause the whole pro-death movement is aimed at denying that child-
ren are people prior to the time they are delivered at the hospi-
tal (in some cases even after that). Therefore, their argument
goes, because they are not "persons", they have no rights, as
guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, the Ten Com-
mandments (Thou shalt not kill), and common sense morality. I call
this curious notion the "Inside Outside Theory of Life", or just
plain "InsideOut" reasoning. Other times, I call it "The Global
Positioning Theory of Human Life". No intelligent person should
adhere to believing that the physical positioning of a child de-
termines its humanity. But this is what the pro-aborts base their
arguments on. SCHIP is just one of the ways I proposed changing
our thinking about children the first day I uploaded this site to
the internet - "specifically applied". That is, calculating a
child's age from the moment a woman becomes pregnant. It's my un-
derstanding that Tommy Thompson is pro-life, although a lot of
pro-lifers don't count him because he doesn't hew to their party
line. I know President Bush is pro-life. So as for the motivation
part, I leave you to draw your own conclusions. That's the, "Yes,
it is important" part. The "No, it isn't important," part is that
I don't think it will make any difference in any other areas right
away. It's important to the pro-death people because they want a-
bsolutely no precedents set that suggest that a child has any
rights while still being carried by its mother. Their purpose is
to deny all rights to the child, while giving the mother all
her rights plus special rights to boot. But, it is a first step,
and, as they say, "The longest journey begins with a single step."
Following are instructions, from Colleen Parro, in the Republican
National Coalition for Life FaxNotes - March 12, 2002, about how
you can personally help things along:
"SCHIP Comments Needed Now - Finally, the Department of Health and
Human Services on March 5, 2002, published the regulation saying
that the term 'Child' means an individual under the age of 19 in-
cluding the period from conception to birth 'for the purpose of
eligibility under the State Children’s Health Insurance Program
(SCHIP).' States are free to cover unborn children but can still
choose not to. Please act now by taking advantage of the public
comment period, which ends at 5 p.m. on May 6, 2002. Your comment
can be as simple as this: It is simply common sense that unborn
children are human beings who should be eligible for health care.
That is what pre-natal care is all about. No fax or e-mail com-
ments will be accepted. You must comment only via mail or hand
delivery.
INSTRUCTIONS:
Please refer to file code CMS-2127-P.
Mail one original and three copies.
Send them to the following address only:
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Department of Health and Human Services
Attention: CMS-2127-P
P.O. Box 8016
Baltimore, MD 21244-8016
You may read the regulation as it appears in the Federal Register,
March 5, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 43) [Proposed Rules] by visiting
the Federal Register Online at (you can Copy and Paste - )
http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fedreg/frcont02.html , or ask
your Congressman to send it to you. How important is it that we
all comment favorably on this new regulation? Here is what Kate
Michelman had to say in a recent communication to the supporters
of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League
(NARAL): 'The Bush Administration recently proposed funding to
recognize fetuses as children ‘from conception’ – a step toward
making abortion illegal. This is a clear message to women: a wom-
an’s right to choose is not safe.' The abortion industry is pull-
ing out all the stops to pressure the Bush Administration to with-
draw the regulation. Please help now!" Note that she says "abor-
tion industry". That's who's really concerned the most. But Col-
leen's still using the "unborn" terminology. I just have no in-
fluence. The letter that I wrote follows.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services:
I am writing to comment on the new SCHIP regulation (CMS-2127-P)
that says that the term "Child" should apply to an individual
starting at conception. I favor the new regulation, because, ob-
viously, the physical positioning of an individual shouldn't be
a determinant of its personhood. That is, a person still being
carried by its mother is just as much a person before it is de-
livered as after it is delivered. Good pre-natal care makes for
a healthier baby, and will probably result in less cost to SCHIP
over the long-term.
You could probably write one just as good. Or you could copy this
one. The main reason I provided it is that I think the preventive
medicine and probable cost saving factors are good points to make.
"Unborn Babies Now Covered By Federal Insurance Program
Thursday, October 03 @ 20:59:15 EDT
Summary: Under a new rule adopted by the Bush administration re-
cently, states can extend health care coverage to unborn children
through a federal program.
Under a new rule adopted by the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS), low-income pregnant women can now qualify for
health care coverage for their unborn babies from the moment of
conception. HHS head Tommy Thompson says the new rule 'represents
a speedy new option for states that want to do more to ensure that
women get critical prenatal care that will increase the chances
that their children are born healthy.' He called this a 'common-
sense, compassionate measure.'
The rules will impact the State Children’s Health Insurance Pro-
gram (SCHIP). States can add unborn children to their coverage if
they wish. No woman or state is required to participate in this
new health care option. Pro-abortionists are angry because they
view this as a back-door way of deeming an unborn child to be a
human being—something abortionists argue against. Douglas Johnson
with the National Right to Life Committee has applauded the Bush
administration for this effort, but he believes this new health
care coverage will be blocked at the state level by pro-abortion-
ists." Traditional Values Coalition
On the other hand, "The advocates of granting legal standing...
have gained support from constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe, a
Harvard Law School professor. Mr. Tribe argues that the leap isn't
as great as it might appear: Courts recognize corporations as
juristic, or legal, 'persons'; that is, they enjoy and are subject
to legal rights and duties. 'The whole status....is what needs to
be rethought,' says Mr. Tribe. '...can certainly be given stand-
ing.' The push is to extend the legal definition of 'persons' to
Pan troglodytes....' In a speech in Boston and a later law-review
article, Mr. Tribe agreed, 'Clearly, Jerome was enslaved.' But
Mr. Tribe says there's no need for constitutional protections on
that score. The 13th Amendment already forbids slavery. Mr. Tribe
notes that nowhere does it state that only humans are covered; the
status itself is forbidden, he argues. Likewise, the Eighth Amen-
dment bars cruel and unusual punishment. Legal standing....could
make it easier, not harder, for courts to balance conflicting in-
terests, he says." Mr. Tribe, of course, was arguing for the
rights of chimpanzees. But, if the arguments are good enough for
chimps, wouldn't they be good enough for humans, too? My source
for the quotes was The Wall Street Journal, April 25, 2002, and
the columnist was Wall Street Journal Staff Reporter David Bank.
But it's good to see the animal rights people getting involved,
because it wasn't always so. PETA (People for the Ethical Treat-
ment of Animals) has filed a brief before the Supreme Court in
favor of the Pro-Life Action Network, which has been accused of
violating the RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organiza-
tions Act) in NOW v. Scheidler; a ridiculous claim to compare pro
life organizations to organized crime - but that's how these peo-
ple think (if you can call it thinking at all). According to the
Life Legal Defense Foundation, NOW has painted themselves into a
corner on this one, because it's since been proved that NOW's wit-
nesses lied, and got paid for it, in a prior trial. It will be in-
testing to see how the Justices work around: "fraud, perjury, and
misconduct!"
"CBR's Genocide Awareness Project visited the University of
Louisville (U of L) April 10 and 11, 2002...students and profess-
ors...visited the exhibit. As always, pro-aborts tried to confuse
people by sidetracking them. But The Courier-Journal (April 11,
2002) quoted CBR's Southeast Region Director Fletcher Armstrong's
response to the question of whether men should be involved in a
female issue, 'I assume people who owned plantations in the 1800's
said people who didn't own plantations shouldn't have any say a-
bout slavery'. 'What do you think about abortion in the case of
rape?' was the question of a disabled man riding a motorized chair
posed to CBR Canadian Intern Gillian Long. She initially thought
this was another person seeking to justify abortion in rape cases.
She gave him our pro-life response and he surprised her by reply-
ing, 'I am a rape victim baby. My mother had me and raised me.'"!
Taken from the Cunningham Communique', June 2002.
"...we discussed abortion and euthanasia, and I noticed that many
of the eight-graders who labeled themselves 'pro-choice' were
horrified when they learned the truth about these practices. It
made me realize how much the 'pro-choice' position is against
human reason and how much it relies on tired rhetoric to succeed."
Erin Campbell, Ave Maria Law School in Ann Arbor, Michigan, in-
terning with the Life Legal Defense Foundation in Napa, California
(707 224 6675), through ADF's Blackstone Fellowship program, pub-
lished in the fall 2002 edition of "Lifeline".
"FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 14, 2002 Charles Pickering Nomina-
tion Defeated Statement of NARAL President Kate Michelman
Washington, DC — 'The Senate Judiciary Committee today rejected
the nomination of Charles Pickering to the Fifth Circuit Court
based on his activist opposition to .... reproductive rights.'
'Pickering's defeat offers President Bush the opportunity to ....
nominate a judge for the Fifth Circuit who reflects....broad sup-
port for a woman's freedom to choose.......As a Mississippi state
legislator, Pickering called for a constitutional amendment to
make abortion illegal. He also led Republican Party efforts to
include the first anti-abortion plank in the National Party Plat-
form, one that called for a constitutional amendment not only to
reverse Roe v. Wade but ban abortion....NARAL will continue to
closely monitor the records of all nominees and will continue to
oppose those whose views threaten the right to choose.'" From the
"NARAL Online Newsroom". So there you have it, "direct from the
horse's mouth", so to speak - why the Charles Pickering nomination
was defeated. Let me reiterate: "The Republican party was formed
based on the principle that no person is the property of another
person"; and I would classify that as a paraphrase, because I do-
n't know the precise words or the original author - but the mean-
ing remains the same.
"The Democrats claim no foul play here, but their arguments are
shallow and transparent. Senator Daschle had the audacity to sug-
gest that Justice Owen was 'unqualified'. Consider: she graduated
top of her class from Baylor Law School, earned the highest pos-
sible score on the Texas Bar Exam, and received the highest rat-
ing - 'well qualified' - from the liberal's own American Bar As-
sociation, the 'gold standard' for judicial ratings. And her re-
cord on the bench was exceptional! Truth simply has no meaning to
the man!
Senators Leahy and Schumer insisted the nominee was 'too extreme'
and 'way out of the mainstream'. How then, Senators, did the good
judge garner 84% of the vote in her 2000 election to the Texas
Supreme Court? And by the way, what would either of these guys
know about mainstream?
The Feminists put a face on the real objection to the genteel
judge from Texas, calling her 'an anti-abortion zealot.' So what
exactly did this dignified lady do to bring such wrath upon her-
self? ...the crime that sunk her nomination was that Priscilla
Owen strictly interpreted a Texas statute requiring parental not-
ification prior to minors obtaining an abortion. In short she ap-
plied Texas law as it was intended and as directed appropriate by
the US Supreme Court. She did so with the support of over 80% of
Texans, and over 80% of Americans.
It was the first time in history that the Committee rejected a
nominee to this Court who had the ABA's highest rating. But the
Committee Democrats knew they had to do the dirty work - just as
they had to do it with an earlier nominee, Judge Pickering. The
full Senate would have confirmed both these individuals. So much
for 'extreme'!
And the President learned a nasty lesson. Last year, in the name
of bi-partisan cooperation, President Bush gave California Senat-
ors Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer almost equal voice to the
selection of federal district judges in their state. In return
Feinstein personally met with Owen before the vote, commenting:
'I've met Priscilla Owen, I've talked to her, and I like her very
much.' She then pulled the dagger from her purse and killed one
of the President's top judicial nominees. So much for pacts with
the devil." From: The American, September 2002
There was a lot more written about the Owen nomination from every
source imaginable, and this was the most concise way I found to
present it. But let me point out that the Texas law she upheld
was about parental notification - not parental consent. The idea
behind such legislation is - that if you have, for example, a 12
year old girl, going in for an operation, its a good idea for her
mother to go in with her. Almost everybody agrees with that.
On "the liberal, left-wing leadership in the Senate...politiciz-
ing the judicial process and launching a...battle to block men
and women appointed by President Bush to fill open federal judge-
ships. According to the Wall Street Journal, Leahy is 'already
responsible for a judge shortage on the federal courts... .' It
also says that Leahy is obsessed with defeating President Bush's
judicial nominees and that he has endorsed tactics 'even members
of his own party assert are blatantly un-Constitutional.'...Pres-
ident Bush has publicly stated he intends to nominate judges
who believe in following the law passed by our elected represent-
atives - not in writing new laws themselves...the liberals have
decided to pull out all the stops in defeating the President's
nominees. They don't want any conservatives sitting as federal
judges. The fact is, the liberals have decided to politicize the
judicial process and get left-wing judges appointed who will make
decrees from on high and force on us policies that were defeated
by the voters. The hypocrisy of the liberals is disgusting. When
the Republicans controlled the Senate, it was Senator Leahy who
said in 1997, 'Those who delay or prevent the filling of these
vacancies must understand that they are delaying or preventing the
administration of justice.' He also said, 'I would like to believe
that ... no Senator is imposing an ideological litmus on judicial
nominations.' But now that he's the Chairman of the Senate Judic-
iary Committee, he's bottling up President Bush's judicial nomin-
ees. And according to Senator Mitch McConnell, the liberals have
established a litmus-test they are using against anyone they think
doesn't support their radical left-wing agenda of abortion-on-de-
mand and gay rights. Even the liberal Washington Post recently
criticized Leahy. They wrote, 'delays are particularly objection-
able when nobody will even come forward to make a case against
the nomination... If there is no case, the Senate should move to
a vote.' But in spite of that, Leahy continues to stall. It is
commonly acknowledged that there is a vacancy crisis in the U.S.
federal court system; Whereas, President Bush has nominated more
judges and nominated them more quickly than any president in his-
tory - almost 100 in his first year in office...11 of the Presid-
ent's first nominees had to wait for over a year for a Senate
vote, and many are still waiting... urge in the strongest terms
that the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee stop playing
political games and without further delay begin to give all nomi-
nees a timely and fair hearing." U.S. Justice Foundation, August
13, 2002
"Republicans last night filed a cloture motion to end the debate
on Justice Owen and vote on her confirmation tomorrow. Though
Justice Owen is widely thought to have the backing of a simple
majority, her nomination lacks the 60 votes needed to end a fili-
buster.
Mr. Daschle's vow to block from a full Senate vote Justice Owen's
nomination to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is another
indication that 'the judicial confirmation process is broken,'
said Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican. Mr. Cornyn, a member of
the Senate Judiciary Committee, served on the Texas Supreme Court
for three years with Justice Owen. Next month will mark the sec-
ond anniversary of Mr. Bush's nomination of Justice Owen....Mr.
Cornyn will mark the occasion next week by holding a hearing en-
titled 'Judicial Nominations, Filibusters and the Constitution:
When a majority is denied its right to consent' to evaluate why
five of the 11 people Mr. Bush nominated to the federal courts in
May 2001 still haven't been confirmed. 'The U.S. Senate needs a
fresh start,' Mr. Cornyn said. 'The process has become increasing-
ly bitter and destructive and does a terrible disservice to pres-
idents, senators, nominees and the American people.'
'The delays in the Senate confirmation process deter good people
from seeking to serve on the bench and create a vacancy crisis in
the federal courts that harms the American people,' Mr. Bush said.
'I call on the Senate to perform its constitutional responsibil-
ity to hold timely up-or-down votes on all judicial nominees, no
matter who is president or which party controls the Senate.'"
From a column by By Charles Hurt, THE WASHINGTON TIMES, 04/30/03.
"May 2, 2003 Bid to end filibuster of Owen falls short
By Charles Hurt THE WASHINGTON TIMES http://www.washtimes.com/
Senate Democrats yesterday blocked a vote on the nomination of
Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, the second of Presid-
ent Bush's judicial nominees to be filibustered. In a 52-44 vote,
Republicans fell eight votes short of the 60 needed to break a
Democratic filibuster against Justice Owen's nomination to the U.
S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Democrats already have a filib-
uster lodged against Washington lawyer Miguel A. Estrada, Mr.
Bush's nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia.
'This is unjustified obstruction,' said Majority Leader Bill Frist,
Tennessee Republican. 'Our colleagues on the other side of the
aisle are denying the Senate its constitutional right to give ad-
vice and consent.' 'This obstructionist tactic is an injustice
and unfair to this good woman and unfaithful to the Senate's own
obligations,' Mr. Bush said in a statement.
'Senate Democrats are now simultaneously filibustering two well-
qualified nominees to the U.S. courts of appeals,' Mr. Bush add-
ed. 'The Senate has a constitutional responsibility to exercise
its advice and consent function and hold up or down votes on all
judicial nominees within a reasonable time after nomination.'
Mr. Bush first nominated Justice Owen to the federal bench two
years ago this month. Her nomination was killed in the Judiciary
Committee controlled by 11 Democrats last year, though she had
the support from a majority in the full Senate. The president re-
nominated Justice Owen in January after the November elections
gave Republicans control of the Senate. Her nomination passed out
of the judiciary panel in March on a straight party-line vote.
Democrats charge that Justice Owen is an extreme conservative un-
fit for the federal bench because of her rulings in favor of a
Texas law requiring that parents be informed when their minor
daughters seek an abortion. Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York
Democrat, rose on the Senate floor yesterday and spoke about the
importance of blocking Mr. Bush's nominees. 'I'm proud of this
moment,' he said. 'I think it's so important.'
Republicans found and released a long list of statements from
Democrats who in the past argued against filibustering to prevent
a vote on a nominee. 'I find it simply baffling that a senator
would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination,' Minori-
ty Leader Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, said on Oct. 5, 19-
99, when President Bill Clinton was trying to get his nominees
through.
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Texas Republican, went over to
the Senate after yesterday's vote to lend his support to his fel-
low Texan, Justice Owen. 'The Democrats have imposed a glass
ceiling over her,' said Mr. DeLay, who vowed to make a public is-
sue out of what he called Democrats' obstructionism. 'We have a
saying in Texas,' he said. 'It's 'Don't mess with Texas.''"
"Bush also named Dr. Elias Zerhouni...as his nominee to chair the
National Institutes of Health...'Dr. Zerhouni shares my view that
human life is precious and should not be exploited or destroyed
for the benefits of others,' Bush said." Chicago Tribune, 3/27/02.
It's obvious President Bush would sign pro-life legislation, but
we have to get it to him so that he can.
In response to the New York Attorney General's ideologically and
politically motivated attacks on, and harassment of, abortion al-
ternative pregnancy centers in New York, in return for substant-
ial campaign contributions by pro-abortion organizations, the fol-
lowing petition is being circulated by an affiliate of Expectant
Mother Care; Spitzer Counter-Attack Response Center, 224 E. 237th
Street, Bronx, NY, 10470-9916: "Whereas the topic of abortion has
caused and continues to cause pain and division since the Supreme
Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision; and, Whereas abortion propone-
nts such as yourself claim to be in favor of 'choice' for women;
and, Whereas the only alternatives to abortion in America are of-
fered at pregnancy help centers such as you have targeted in your
recent subpoenas; and Whereas these centers lack the financial re-
sources to defend themselves thus giving the impression that the
purpose of your subpoenas is to bankrupt them so as to close them
down and remove alternatives to abortion in the state of New York;
and, Whereas the lone complaint cited by your spokesman is scarcely
grounds for subpoenas directed at (currently) twenty four organi-
zations; and Whereas the allegations in your subpoena are more ac-
curately applicable to abortion clinics in New York; Therefore, I
PETITION you as the attorney general of New York to: Cease and de-
sist from your one-sided partisan attack on these pregnancy cent-
ers. And, Subject abortion clinics to the same rigorous standard
you claim to be impartially upholding in your attack on pregnancy
centers." It's Gestapo tactics being used against charitable org-
anizations offering free assistance to pregnant women and cutting
into the profits at the killing centers.
"NYC mayor demands more abortion training Within days of entering
office, New York City mayor, Michael Bloomberg issued a plan to
make abortion training mandatory for OB/GYNs in the city's eleven
public hospitals. National director for Stop Planned Parenthood
International, Ed Szymkowiak, comments, 'You would think under
the current conditions in New York City that he could find a bet-
ter use for the city's money.' The National Abortion and Reprodu-
ctive Rights Action League (NARAL) of New York applauds the prop-
osal, which the group claims to have authored during the mayoral
campaign." Issues Update, Celebrate Life, March-April 2002 That
is, the mayor wants to train the doctors in how to kill their
patients.
So we see pro-abortion organizations developing the perfect kill-
ing environment - mandated by government. Doctors forced to per-
form abortions, and women prevented from seeking alternative, and
free, pregnancy counseling because it has been outlawed and shut
down. Is this the environment, spread across the country, that you
want to live in? It is for Planned Parenthood and NARAL - as many
babies killed, and as much money made, as possible. No interfer-
ence, and no opposing opinions. Is this your view of America? And
if you decide to protest outside an "abortion clinic", you go to
jail, just like in Monopoly. There's a Catholic priest, serving
time in prison, for praying outside an abortuary in New York.
Planned Parenthood of New York City, Inc., alone, had $89,975,411
of income in 1998, according to the April 2001 Ryan Report, which
gets its information from reports the various affiliates are re-
quired to file.
According to Chris Slattery, of Expectant Mother Care in New York
City; NYC is considered the abortion capital of the world with 80
or more abortion centers/parasites (my descriptive terminology),
and nearly half of all pregnancies ending in abortion.
"Fr. Norman Weslin was released from prison on April 3, 2002, af-
ter serving his entire five-month sentence for praying in front
of an abortion facility in western N.Y....He was in excellent
spirits and told Ed (Szymkowiak) his case would soon be up for
appeal. He laughed when Ed asked him what would happen if he were
to win the appeal, since he had already served the sentence. Ed
joked that maybe they'll give him five months credit toward his
next conviction....received over 1700 letters of support....Fr.
Weslin was right back out at the scene of his 'crime' on April 6,
2002, praying outside a Buffalo abortion clinic...while Fr. Weslin
was in prison the injunction that put him there was found uncons-
titutional by the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. When Father
Weslin directly asked the local police on April 6 if his behavior
was legal, the police replied, 'yes.'" Ryan Report June 2002 As
I recall, the judge would not release Father Weslin despite the
2nd Circuit decision. How could he do that? You've got me on that
one, I don't understand that either. Father Weslin must be a very
dangerous man. My letter was one of the 1700 he received.
"Care Net is under attack by the National Abortion Rights Action
League (NARAL). NARAL has even gone on record as saying they plan
on publicizing, legislating, and litigating against Care Net with
the intent of shutting us down. In NARAL's 60-page action kit for
abortion activists, they explain how they plan on destroying us.
There is no hidden agenda here. NARAL is very explicit about its
priority: putting Care Net out of business. In the liberal bast-
ions of California and Maryland, NARAL activists are filing their
very own lawsuits against our pro-life centers simply because we-
're offering women a choice they don't: LIFE." Mike Reid, Presid-
ent, Care Net, in a January, 2003, letter. Care Net is a network
of crisis pregnancy centers.
From: Gary Bauer garybauer@mail.cwfpac.com
Subject: End of Day -- 5/23/02
To: Friends and Supporters of the Campaign for
Working Families, Gary L. Bauer, Chairman
Date: Thursday, May 23, 2002
The Poll You Won't Hear About
CBS News just completed a poll on America's attitude toward abor-
tion, but you won't hear Dan Rather talk about it. Why? Because
the data once again punctures the myth that American voters are
"pro-choice." The poll instead showed two voting blocks that are
virtually identical in size. Thirty-one percent of the country
believes abortion should be generally available. Thirty percent
believes it should not be permitted. In the middle are 37% who
believe it should be available, but only under strict limits. CBS
doesn't break down this group any further, but we know from other
data that many people would permit abortions only for extremely
rare circumstances. In short, there is a working majority in the
country composed of people who are either clearly pro-life or who
favor tighter restrictions.
From: Gary Bauer garybauer@mail.cwfpac.com
Subject: End of Day -- 6/20/02
Date: 20 Jun 2002 16:07:53 -0400
To: Friends and Supporters of the Campaign for Working Families
From: Gary L. Bauer, Chairman
Date: Thursday, June 20, 2002
Partial-Birth Abortion On Agenda!
Congress has finally gotten around to addressing the horrific pro-
cedure of partial-birth abortion. Rep. Steve Chabot of Ohio is in-
troducing the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2002. The reason
for the delay was that Rep. Chabot and other pro-life members did
not want to give moderates and liberals a reason to vote against
the legislation without addressing the issues raised by the Supr-
eme Court when it struck down Nebraska's partial-birth abortion
ban two years ago. The law Rep. Chabot is proposing will tighten
the definition of what constitutes a partial-birth abortion in
order to answer the Court's concern that the Nebraska law was
"too vague." Rep. Chabot's bill will include its own series of
findings based on the extensive legislative hearings held on par-
tial-birth abortion and on the judgment of the American Medical
Association that the procedure is "not good medicine." Former
Surgeon General C. Everett Koop even testified that partial-birth
abortions are "never medically necessary to protect a mother's
health or her future fertility."
My friends, this is a battle we must win. Support for abortion on
demand peaked in 1992 when 34% of Americans agreed with the state-
ment "abortion should be legal in all cases." After the debates
over partial-birth abortion, the level of strong pro-abortion
sentiment fell to 22% by 1997. As the truth about abortion and
the abortion industry is made known, the American people move our
way. I will do everything I can to insure that this ban passes
and we will keep you posted as the legislation moves forward.
From: "Jennifer Bingham, Executive Director" Executive.Director@
sba-list.org Subject: The Partial Birth Abortion Ban was introd-
uced yesterday! Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 16:00:52 -0400 DATE: June
19, 2002 FROM: Jennifer Bingham, Executive Director SUBJECT: The
Partial Birth Abortion Ban was introduced yesterday! Yesterday,
Congressman Steve Chabot introduced the Partial-Birth Abortion
Ban of 2002 that prohibits the partial-birth abortion procedure
unless it is necessary to save the mother's life. This bill also
defines the process of partial-birth abortion.
Click here to e-mail your Congressman to support this critical
bill. Click here for more details on Partial Birth Abortion.
I'm sure you remember when former President Bill Clinton vetoed
the federal ban passed by the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses
-- DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS SUPPORT A BAN!
As you know, there is no medical or moral reason for any woman to
ever have this procedure, or for any child to suffer such a cruel
death. In addition to these medical groups, the overwhelming maj-
ority of Americans, both Republicans and Democrats, men and women,
and many who consider themselves "pro-choice," agree that partial
birth abortion is closer to infanticide than abortion, and has no
place in our civilized society. Please e-mail your Representative
to ask them to support a ban on this barbaric termination of a
child which is minutes from their first breath. Americans must
take a stand on this issue and get their Representatives to pass
this ban! We need your help today. Please e-mail your Congressman.
Thank you in advance for your help! Sincerely, Jennifer Bingham
Executive Director Susan B. Anthony List.
From: "Jay Alan Sekulow, Chief Counsel" jaysekulow@aclj.net
Subject: I will NEVER give up!
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 13:11:15 UT
You and I have a NEW WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY to ban partial-birth
abortion for once and for all ...
This week the House of Representatives is voting on a new piece
of legislation called the Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2002 -
Rep. Steve Chabot of Ohio has introduced H.R. 4965, the Partial-
Birth Abortion Act of 2002 designed differently from the Nebraska
state ban overturned by a slim majority of the Justices on the
Supreme Court of the United States. I strongly believe that this
well-written law COULD survive the legal challenge, and stand.
Better crafted than the Nebraska bill, H.R. 4965 addresses some
of the concerns of the high court. This could be the statute that
wins a fifth vote from the Supreme Court ... and finally OUTLAWS
partial-birth abortion!
WE HAVE A CHANCE TO END THE INFANTICIDE - this most horrible form
of baby-killing...in which the baby is allowed to be almost tot-
ally born (feet first, leaving only the head in the womb, in ord-
er to keep the operation technically "legal") ... and then the a-
bortionist punctures the baby's skull, suctions out the brains...
...and in many cases, sells the baby's dead body to a "harvester"
who markets it to the scientific and academic research fields!
It is ghastly. It is an ABOMINATION. And yet it happens over and
over and over again - entirely under the cloak of "legality"!
WOULD YOU JOIN ME TODAY IN DOING EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO STOP IT?
Our legislative office and other attorneys from our staff have
worked to provide Congress with thorough research, input and re-
view of this new bill - and believe it will withstand any consti-
tutional challenges. This is a strong piece of legislation - one
that can be defended in the courts. In fact, we are already pre-
paring for an onslaught of federal court challenges from the pro-
abortion lobby that will come if the bill is passed by the House
and the Senate and signed by the President. For the sake of unborn
babies, we will defend it all the way to the Supreme Court if ne-
cessary!
"With babies dying every day, thank God we have another chance to
save them. Dear Friend, Sometimes you just know what's right. It
doesn't matter if it's popular, doesn't matter if others will ever
agree with you. You just know. That's the kind of deep-down pas-
sion I feel about the horror that is still going on in this coun-
try -- the torture-murder of babies as they're born -- antisepti-
cally known as 'partial-birth abortion.' I intend to keep on
fighting for the preservation of life -- opposing with every re-
source at my disposal the vicious dismemberment and destruction
of babies in the process of being born -- and the outrage of cal-
ling it 'legal.' ...we have a new window of opportunity -- the
Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2002 pending in Congress....we have
continued to work with members of Congress in an effort to craft
new legislation that would....pass muster with the courts....The
language of the bill will be a crucial factor in court. ....the
real battle will come in the Senate. With much effort on our part,
we could secure a majority in the Senate to pass the bill and get
it to the President's desk for signing. In other words, America
is poised for adoption of a nationwide ban on partial-birth abor-
tion...I am praying that you are gripped by this outrage - and
this opportunity! ... You and I are the voice for millions of un-
born children. ... I can't help but feel that it will be worth
every penny ... every hour of labor ... every prayer prayed ...
if we can save the lives of unborn children and eradicate this
evil from our land. Please help us today. Stand up for life...
It's important that we have ... petitions quickly on the desks of
Congress as they return from their August recess. So your voice
will be heard. Your heart for children, your commitment to common
-sense morality, will be felt in Washington. ...we can't walk away
from what has become a defining issue in our society. For the sake
of unborn babies, we can't back down on partial-birth abortion --
especially when we could see a federal ban passed into law! I do
appreciate you...I thank God that He led you to stand with me and
planted in you a deep-down dedication to what is right, no matter
the odds, the difficulties, or obstacles. In the midst of a conf-
lict like this, your friendship, support, prayers, gifts, and
steadfastness encourage me. Thank you so much for your role in
protecting life...Your brother...Jay Alan Sekulow Chief Counsel"
July 23, 2002, The American Center For Law & Justice, P.O. Box
64429, Virginia Beach, VA 23467-4429
"EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUD-
GET WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503 July 23, 2002 (House Rules)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY (This Statement Has Been Co-
ordinated By OMB With The Concerned Agencies.) H.R. 4965 -
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2002 (Rep. Chabot (R) OH and
152 cosponsors) The Administration strongly supports enactment of
H.R. 4965, which would ban a certain type of late-term procedure
commonly known as 'partial-birth abortion,' except in cases where
the life of the mother is endangered. Partial-birth abortion is a
procedure that is not accepted by the medical community and that
30 States have attempted to ban. The Administration believes that
enactment of H.R. 4965 is morally imperative and constitutionally
permissible to prohibit this very abhorrent form of abortion."
From: "Jennifer Bingham, Executive Director" Executive.Director@
sba-list.org
Subject: House Passes Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act tonight!
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 21:45:55 -0400
A PRO-LIFE VICTORY!
The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Partial-Birth
Abortion Ban Act (H.R. 4965) on Wednesday, July 24 by a wide
margin and with bipartisan support. The bill, sponsored by
Congressman Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), passed by a vote of 274-151.
Congress has approved national bans on partial-birth abortion be-
fore, but each time the bill was vetoed by President Clinton.
AND A CALL TO ACTION! WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT MORE THAN EVER!
Now that this commonsense ban has passed the House, we must en-
courage Senator Tom Daschle to bring the bill before the Senate!
With a pro-life President in the White House, the bill will sure-
ly be signed into law - but the bill much reach his desk first!
That's where you can help. Please click the link below to e-mail
Senator Daschle to ask him to bring the Partial Birth Abortion
Ban before the Senate for a vote before the August recess.
http://www.sba-list.org/pbaban - Click Here
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) is closely allied with
the pro-abortion lobby, which vehemently opposes the bill. Daschle
could prevent a vote on the House-passed bill.
That is why WE MUST keep the pressure on!
Thank you in advance for your help!
Sincerely, Jennifer Bingham Executive Director Susan B. Anthony
List
The petition reads: "I am writing to express my strong opposition
to partial-birth abortion and to urge you to bring the Partial-
Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2002 up for a vote in the Senate. There
is no medical or moral reason for any woman to ever have this pro-
cedure, or for any child to suffer such a cruel death. The Amer-
ican Medical Association, the 600-member Physicians’ Ad hoc Coal-
ition for Truth (PHACT) as well as our nation’s highly respected
former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, all agree that partial-
birth abortion is never medically necessary. In addition to these
medical groups, the overwhelming majority of Americans, both Rep-
ublicans and Democrats, men and women, and many who consider them-
selves 'pro-choice,' agree that partial birth abortion is closer
to infanticide than abortion, and has no place in our civilized
society. I urge you, in the best interests of women and their
children, to vote in support of an immediate vote and end to par-
tial-birth abortion. Please support the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Act of 2002 (H.R. 4965) introduced by Congressman Steve Chabot and
passed by the House. I would appreciate a prompt reply to my
letter."
=================================================================
From: The Pro-Life Infonet infonet@prolifeinfo.org
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt infonet@prolifeinfo.org
Subject: New Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Receives Strong Biparti-
san Vote
Source: Pro-Life Infonet; July 24, 2002
New Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Receives Strong Bipartisan Vote
Washington, DC (ProLifeInfo.org) -- With another lopsided bipart-
isan majority, the House of Representatives approved a rewritten
bill that bans partial-birth abortions. The House voted 274-151
for the partial-birth abortion prohibition and turned back 187-241
an effort by pro-abortion Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) to send the
bill back to committee and add a health exception that would re-
sult in a ban on no partial-birth abortions. Nine Republicans
voted against the ban and 65 Democrats voted for it. The pro-abor-
tion motion to recommit to change the bill to a phony ban had 19
Republicans voting for it and 41 Democrats voting against it.
"We commend Congress for persevering in this long fight to protect
the unborn from a monstrous death," said the Family Research Coun-
cil in a statement.
President Bush supports the ban. He said in a statement it strong-
ly supports the bill, saying it is ``morally imperative and con-
stitutionally permissible to prohibit this very abhorrent form of
abortion.''
However, the bill is unlikely to see the light of day in the Sen-
ate thanks to pro-abortion Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-
SD). Daschle, who previously voted for the ban, signaled he would
not support the bill that passed in the House, and is not likely
to make any effort to find space on the legislative calendar to
take it up in the Senate.
"If there was a clean up-and-down vote on the bill passed by the
House, the Senate would approve it," said Douglas Johnson, legis-
lative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC).
"If the ban on partial-birth abortion does not reach President
Bush for his signature, the blame will rest squarely on the Senate
Democratic leadership."
However, some pro-life members of the Senate may work to force the
issue. "We do think that partial-birth abortion is a procedure
that should not be allowed to stand," pro-life Senate Minority
Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) said Wednesday.
Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ), encouraged the House to pass the
ban saying, "I believe it's time for a serious reality check and
a serious compassion check."
Members who spoke in favor of the partial-birth abortion ban inc-
luded pro-life members Myrick (R-NC), Barcia (D-MI), Linder (R-
GA), Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Jo Ann Davis (R-VA), Hart (R-PA),
Pickering (R-MS), Sullivan (R-OK), Cubin (R-WY), Forbes (R-VA),
Pitts (R-PA), Barr (R-GA), Ryun (R-KS), Sensenbrenner (R-WI),
Miller (R-FL), and Mark Foley (R-FL), who has a mixed record on
abortion.
To see how your member voted on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban,
go to
http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2002&rollnumber=343
To see how your member voted on the pro-abortion attempt to add a
health exception, go to
http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2002&rollnumber=342
=================================================================
"The House voted overwhelmingly yesterday, 274-151, to ban the
gruesome, inhumane practice of partial birth abortion. Sixty
Democrats joined all but 7 Republicans to vote to end the proced-
ure. No decent society can explain away a 'procedure' that allows
an unborn child in the 7th or 8th month of development to have
their skull punctured and brains extracted because someone
'chooses' it for them. And no word in our Constitution could pos-
sibly allow it. Let's hope Tom Daschle's Senate can also find the
moral instinct to say 'no' to this hideous practice." Gary Bauer
Thursday, July 25, 2002, Campaign for Working Families End of Day
From: Gary Bauer garybauer@mail.cwfpac.com
Subject: End of Day -- 7/22/02
Date: 22 Jul 2002 17:14:19 -0400
To: Friends and Supporters of the Campaign for Working Families
From: Gary L. Bauer, Chairman
A Win For Life
According to numerous press reports, the Bush administration has
decided to cut off funding to the United Nations Population Fund.
Thirty-four million dollars had been appropriated for the fund
this year, but federal law allows the president to withhold tax-
payer dollars from any program of coercive abortions or forced
sterilizations. The U.N. Population Fund has been complicit in
China's policy of forced abortions for years, but the previous
administration willingly turned a blind eye to the obvious. This
is a victory for the pro-life cause. Denying taxpayer funding for
pro-abortion programs overseas is precisely the kind of action we
should expect from a pro-life administration. The President re-
sisted intense pressure from pro-abortion lawmakers and the abor-
tion industry in making this decision. And in doing so, President
Bush took a clear step toward ensuring that not one dime of your
hard-earned money is spent overseas promoting the destruction of
innocent life.
From: The Pro-Life Infonet infonet@prolifeinfo.org
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt infonet@prolifeinfo.org
Subject: Bush Administration Withholds UNFPA Money
Source: Associated Press; July 22, 2002
Bush Administration Withholds UNFPA Money
Washington, DC -- The Bush administration will not pay $34 mill-
ion it earmarked for U.N. family planning programs overseas, an
initiative aimed at controlling population but one that pro-life
groups charge tolerates abortions and forced sterilizations in
China. Administration officials, lawmakers and interest groups
that monitor the issue said Sunday they have been told the decis-
ion is now final. One administration official, speaking on condi-
tion of anonymity, said an announcement is likely from the State
Department on Tuesday, but added the timing could change. White
House officials said privately that pro-life advocates have for
months quietly encouraged the administration to permanently deny
money to the United Nations Population Fund. The White House has
kept the politically delicate decision a closely guarded secret.
It has refused to divulge it even to allies in Congress, such as
the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus. More than a dozen administrat-
ion officials, inside the White House and out, declined to com-
ment Sunday or did not return phone calls on the matter, so the
reasoning behind the decision was not clear. The president has
already signed into law the foreign aid bill that contains the
$34 million. But when he did so in January, he noted in an accom-
panying statement that it gives him ``additional discretion to
determine the appropriate level of funding for the United Nations
Population Fund.'' Two administration officials said Bush is now
likely to channel the $34 million to family planning organizations
run by the State Department's Agency for International Development
that are not directly involved in abortion.
"... U.S. money being withheld by President Bush because of con-
cerns about coercive abortions. President Bush last year signaled
his intentions to withhold the U.S. contribution, said Michael
Curtis, a spokesman for Nielson. The Bush administration announc-
ed its decision Monday, saying some of the U.N. money went to
Chinese agencies that carry out ``coercive programs'' involving
abortion." From: The Pro-Life Infonet Source: Associated Press;
July 24, 2002
"'BORN-ALIVE INFANTS PROTECTION ACT' bill has just passed the U.S.
House of Representatives, and is now before the Senate. Sponsored
by Sen. Rick Santorum and other brave leaders in Congress, this
bill will protect innocent little babies from being killed or al-
lowed to die minutes after they are born alive. This inhumane pro-
cedure involves inducing labor and actually delivering a live
baby, then deliberately allowing it to die by starvation or dehy-
dration. This means that precious little babies are being ...
thrown into garbage cans ... left to die from botched abortions
... discarded as 'medical waste' ... and abandoned to die shiver-
ing on cold hospital tables. ...President Bush...has promised to
promptly sign the bill when it reaches his desk. We must work to
quickly pass this legislation -- because America has now crossed
the line from abortion ... to infanticide." Dr. Jerry Falwell,
Liberty Alliance, P.O. Box 190, Forest, VA 24551
I heard what follows in a short clip on the radio. I said to my-
self, "Self, just go online and copy the story from there into
About Abortions". Well, it wasn't that easy. I had to eventually
go to an admittedly conservative news service just to find it; and
even they didn't get it right. Oh well, I'll just quote the parts
they did get right. It's a very important victory for the pro-life
side, and maybe that's why it's being downplayed in the news. I
wasn't even aware it had been brought up in the Senate - let alone
passed. If they could get this through the Senate, I think it
augurs well for the banning of partial-birth abortions as well -
"Bush Signs 'Born-Alive Infants Protection Act' Into Law By Jeff
Johnson CNSNews.com Congressional Bureau Chief August 05, 2002
(CNSNews.com) - President Bush Monday signed....the 'Born-Alive
Infants Protection Act' (H.R. 2175) during a trip to Pennsylvania,
to mirror laws already on the books in more than 30 states. 'This
important legislation assures that every infant born alive, inclu-
ding an infant who survives an abortion procedure, is considered
a person under federal law,' he said. Attending the ceremony were
Gianna Jessen, a young woman who survived an attempted saline a-
bortion in 1977 and Jill Stanek, a nurse who alerted Congress a-
bout infants who were born alive but then allowed to die... 'To-
day, through sonograms and other technology, we can clearly see
that unborn children are members of the human family as well. They
reflect our image, and they are created in God's own image,' Bush
said. 'The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act is a step toward the
day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law. It
is a step toward the day when the promises of the Declaration of
Independence will apply to everyone, not just those with the voice
and power to defend their rights,' he added. The bill was introd-
uced in the 107th Congress by Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), chairman
of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, in re-
sponse to reports of infants being allowed to die...The law prov-
ides that 'In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or
of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various ad-
ministrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words
'person', 'human being', 'child', and 'individual', shall include
every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive
at any stage of development.' It defines the term 'born alive' as
'the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of
[a human being], at any stage of development, who after such exp-
ulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation
of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles,
regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regard-
less of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of
natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.'"
One nurse, in one hospital (Christ Hospital, Oaklawn, Illinois),
had the courage; against intimidation that would ultimately result
in her firing, and seemingly overwhelming odds, to defend these
kids - all the way to Congress. Thanks Jill, and congratulations
on your victory! You made a difference, and a very important one!
"You might not have heard the news, for the Times and Post and the
networks have not thought it something useful for us to hear: But
for the first time since Roe v. Wade, the Congress will have en-
acted, and a president will have signed, a bill that marks a limit
to the 'right to abortion.' ...the Democrats in the Senate per-
mitted the reading and the passage of the Born-Alive Infants
Protection Act... no one except a crazed zealot would profess any
doubt about the 'human' standing of the child at the point of
birth. ...the bill planted premises that ran deep...prepares an
even firmer ground for revisiting the bill on partial-birth abor-
tion and insisting that the courts take a sober second look. The
child marked for an abortion is recognized now as an entity that
comes within the protection of the law. Congress surely has the
authority to pronounce on the meaning of terms in the federal
code, which Congress, and only Congress, can legislate. ...the
term 'person,'... The bill is spare -- and truly momentous.
For it provides a predicate that can be built into the founda-
tion now of every subsequent act of legislation touching the mat-
ter of abortion: that the child marked for abortion is indeed a
'person' who comes within the protection of the law. The irony,
though, is that this bill could be enacted only on terms that bar-
red its sponsors from proclaiming, or even explaining, the things
that made it such a landmark. Congressman Jerry Nadler (D, N.Y.)
had the wit to see that the Democrats would embarrass themselves
by voting against the bill....the Democrats in the House and
Senate clearly hated it. The Democratic strategy was just to go
along -- to avoid embarrassing themselves by voicing their oppos-
ition, and by giving the pro-lifers the argument that they evid-
ently wanted. The price of passing the bill in the Senate was es-
sentially to give the Democrats what they wanted. The bill was
introduced for its formal 'readings' without explanation or fuss,
by Harry Reid of Nevada, hardly a pro-lifer in anyone's reckoning.
In this style, the bill was 'passed' late on a Thursday night, at
the end of a cluttered legislative day, and just before the Senate
would turn to a resolution honoring the musician and statesman
Paderewski. ...there would be no roll call, and so no Democrat
would be compelled to record a vote, either for or against. In
fact, there were probably very few senators in the chamber when
the bill was passed, in a perfunctory way, by a voice vote...no
voice would be sounded to explain the significance of what was
done." Reprinted from an article in the National Review by Hadley
Arkes, July 31, 2002. I don't know that I'm ready to acknowledge
that it was that significant; after all, the other side isn't go-
ing to just roll over and play dead because of this. But I do
think, and hope, that it may mark a turning point. Thanks also to
The Pro-Life Infonet for emailing me the above excerpt. See more
on Hadley Arkes in the following article. It's neat to see the
tie in, which I didn't notice at first. Otherwise, Hadley Arkes
would have remained a mysterious person on this web site. It also
certainly does add to and emphasize the significance.
--------------------
From: The Pro-Life Infonet infonet@prolifeinfo.org
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt infonet@prolifeinfo.org
Subject: A Little-Noticed Pro-Life Victory
Source: TownHall; August 13, 2002
A Little-Noticed Pro-Life Victory by Marvin Olasky
Professor Hadley Arkes a dozen years ago made a terrific proposal
to revive the faltering pro-life movement -- and his efforts fin-
ally paid off last week, although hardly anyone noticed. In 1990,
when many pro-lifers were still hoping for the home run -- a con-
stitutional amendment to ban abortion -- the Amherst political
philosopher proposed bunting for a single: Have Congress go on
record as supporting the right to life of any child who is born
alive following an "ineffective" abortion. That's what now has
happened, and the Austin American-Statesman was typical in giving
the result one paragraph in a roundup of the Aug. 5 news: "Bush
Signs Fetus Status Law. President Bush signed a bill that declares
a fetus that survives an abortion procedure a person under federal
law." That description would be laughable were it were not so sad.
Sometimes it's hard to avoid talking back to a newspaper: "The
creature protected by that newly signed Born Alive Infants Pro-
tection Act could not possibly be a fetus. The abortion procedure
has expelled him from the womb. He is born. He's a person. What
else could he be?" But some judges in recent years did not grasp
that elementary fact, and some doctors and nurses sadly left born
-alive survivors of abortion to die in cold steel pans. Ironical-
ly, the reluctance to come to grips with reality made passage of
the Born Alive Act possible: Democrats agreed not to oppose the
bill, and Republicans agreed not to give speeches about it. Demo-
crats did not want to alienate their virulent pro-abortion back-
ers when a high-profile discussion of just-born life turned to an
examination of the same life several minutes earlier, but they
also did not want to go on the record for infanticide. For a time,
it seemed that President Bush might sign the bill into law with-
out comment. He came through on Aug. 5, though, saying, "Today,
through sonograms and other technology, we can see clearly that
unborn children are members of the human family. ... They reflect
our image and are created in God's own image. The Born Alive In-
fants Protection Act is a step toward the day when every child is
welcomed in life and protected in law. It is a step toward the day
when the promises of the Declaration of Independence will apply
to everyone, not just those with the voice and power to defend
their rights." The president also thanked by name individuals who
had made the act possible, including Arkes, who never gave up on
the idea. I remember Hadley speaking at meetings of pro-life lead-
ers, displaying his Jewish intellectual style amid a coalition of
somber evangelicals and Catholics. With a mischievous glint in his
eyes, he would pepper his talks with humorous, Damon Runyonesque
remarks, and then arch his eyebrows like Groucho Marx. The lines
that could have come from "Guys and Dolls" kept Arkes' arguments
from becoming arcane. The force of his logic was hard to dispute.
He spoke then and has continued speaking about the "animating
principle" behind what Congress (even if through a silent scream)
has enshrined in law: "The child marked for an abortion is recog-
nized now as an entity that comes within the protection of the
law." The next legislative step, of course, is for Congress to
extend protection from the fully born to the three-fourths-born
by passing a partial-birth abortion bill that will withstand jud-
icial challenge. That should happen soon, and President Bush will
sign it into law. Steps to help young women make better-informed
choices between life and abortion also are needed. The president
referred to the power of sonograms, and the administration and
Congress should work together to help pregnancy centers purchase
the equipment that will allow more women to see pictures of the
babies they are carrying. So Arkes' content and style have led to
one victory and paved the way for bigger efforts. Unsurprisingly,
none of the nation's news pages (judging by a Lexis-Nexis check)
mentioned him the day after President Bush signed his bill into
law, and most were like Austin's newspaper in almost entirely ig-
noring the development. But future historians should notice, and
some abortion survivors certainly will.
The Pro-Life Infonet is a daily compilation of pro-life news and
information. To subscribe, send the message "subscribe" to:
infonet-request@prolifeinfo.org. Infonet is sponsored by Women
and Children First (http://www.womenandchildrenfirst.org). For
more pro-life info visit http://www.prolifeinfo.org and for ques-
tions or additional information email ertelt@prolifeinfo.org.
--
"Judge Reverses Self, Allows Woman to Proceed With Abortion By
Jessica Cantelon CNSNews.com Correspondent August 05, 2002 (CNS
News.com) - The Pennsylvania judge who last week prevented a pre-
gnant woman from having an abortion at the behest of the woman's
ex-boyfriend has reversed himself. The latest order, issued Mon-
day by Luzerne County Judge Michael Conahan, effectively gives
the woman the legal ability to proceed with her plans to abort
her child. In his ruling, Conahan admitted that his previous ord-
er, blocking the abortion, had 'inflicted significant and extreme
emotional distress' on Tanya Meyers, who is about ten weeks preg-
nant with ex-boyfriend John Stachokus' child. Conahan also cited
several legal precedents in writing that 'neither an ex-boyfriend
nor a fetus has standing to interfere with a woman's choice to
terminate her pregnancy.' Stachokus' attorney, John P. Williamson,
is 'currently working furiously to protect the life of the child
and the mother,' according to a spokesperson for Williamson. The
lawyer was busy Monday working on an appeal of Conahan's decision.
However, any appeal would be moot if Meyers obtained the abortion
before the appeal was filed. 'Unfortunately, it seems that the
courts continually side with whoever chooses to terminate, whe-
ther it's destruction of human embryos [or] whether it's the de-
struction of an unborn child,' stated Serrin Foster, president of
Feminists for Life, a group that describes itself as simultane-
ously 'pro-women and pro-life.' 'Whatever the scenario is, who-
ever wants to kill wins,' she added." "Erik Whittington of the
American Life League said the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade
decision and other court precedents render the unborn child 'a
slave to his or her mother's wishes regardless of the father.'
Whittington said there is a lack of legal resources available to
people trying to prevent abortion. On the other hand, abortions
are a 'big money-making industry,' he said, that ensure an 'end-
less amount of cash' for pro-abortion activism. While he does not
expect Stachokus to be able to file an appeal before Meyers goes
through with her abortion, Whittington said the public debate over
the issue would continue. 'You're going to see in the public how
ridiculous abortion rights is because a father has no say in his
child's life, and that's just totally ridiculous,' Whittington
said. Fathers' rights organizations are weighing in as well.
'I think that this is just a good illustration of the enormous
barriers that fathers have placed between them and the relation-
ship with their children,' stated Dianna Thompson, executive dir-
ector and co-founder of the American Coalition for Fathers and
Children. She refers to 'the plight of the father' as 'the next
civil rights movement.' 'Oftentimes fathers do try to be respons-
ible, but they have no choices,' Thompson added. 'So therefore it
makes it extremely hard for them to be the men and fathers they
want to be.'"
"Nicholas DiGiovanni had done the same thing himself in 1999. A
judge issued an injunction forbidding the abortion. But a higher
court reversed the ruling, and DiGiovanni's girlfriend aborted his
child. A high-powered pro-abortion activist group backed his girl-
friend in court. 'They were fighting ruthlessly to kill my child,'
he said." The Judie Brown Report - September 2002
What follows isn't really about abortion, but it does have a human
interest factor and a happy ending:
--------------------
From: The Pro-Life Infonet infonet@prolifeinfo.org
Subject: Couple in Abortion Dispute Marry in Vegas
Source: Times-Leader; September 6, 2002
Couple in Abortion Dispute Marry in Vegas
Las Vegas, NV -- A man and woman from Pennsylvania involved in a
highly publicized court battle about abortion recently married in
Las Vegas. A clerk in the Clark County Courthouse's marriage lic-
ense bureau confirmed Thursday that John Stachokus, 27, and Tanya
Meyers, 22, exchanged wedding vows Aug. 24. Reached at home Thur-
sday, Meyers said she wondered why the media are so interested in
her "love life" before hanging up on a reporter. Family members
of the bride and groom declined comment. Meyers became pregnant
during the couple's 10-month relationship. Stachokus argued Meyers
had wanted the child, but changed her mind when they broke up.
But, according to her mother, Meyers still was unsure if she would
have the abortion. Soon after the ruling, Meyers miscarried.
--
What follows is not a happy ending:
"Father Kills Self In Front Of Planned Parenthood Clinic
Thursday, October 03 @ 19:43:13 EDT
Summary: A father who was grieving over his girlfriend’s abortion
of their baby boy, stood in front of the Planned Parenthood clinic
in Overland Park, Kansas and killed himself on September 10.
Brad Draper, 44, shot himself in the head in front of the Overland
Park, Kansas Planned Parenthood clinic on September 10. He died
later in the hospital. Draper was grieving the killing of his un-
born baby son by his girlfriend at the clinic. Draper published
an obituary for his boy in the local newspaper in June, 2002. In
his obituary, he said: 'Zachary Duncan Draper was beautiful as his
mother, loved by God and others. My little baby boy didn’t make
it to his Daddy’s arms. I never got to hold and kiss him, tell him
stories or read him rhymes. I love you Zachary and look forward
to seeing you in heaven.' According to the family, Draper had seen
ultrasounds of his son and was very excited to be a father until
his girlfriend had the abortion without telling him. Family memb-
ers say he killed himself on what would have been his son’s due
date." TVC - Traditional Values Coalition
"From: Jennifer Bingham - Executive Director Executive.Director@
sba-list.org Subject: Legislative Update Mon, 5 Aug 2002 15:36:51
-0400 CHILD CUSTODY PROTECTION ACT (H.R. 476) Passed the House
with bipartisan support! On April 17, 2002 the United States House
of Representatives overwhelmingly PASSED the commonsense Child
Custody Protection Act (H.R. 476) by a vote of 260 to 161! The
Child Custody Protection Act would make it a federal offense to
take minors across state lines in order for them to obtain abort-
ions. Currently, more than 30 states have laws requiring consent
or notification of at least one parent, before an abortion can be
performed on a minor. Status: PASSED in the House of Representat-
ives on April 17, 2002. Next stop will be the Senate! ACTION NEED-
ED Click here to e-mail your Senator to encourage support of the
Child Custody Protection Act. http://www.sba-list.org/CCPA
THE MURRAY AMENDMENT – STRIPS THE BAN ON ABORTIONS IN MILITARY
HOSPITALS Passed the Senate! On June 21st, 2002 the Senate vot-
ed to allow military abortions at military hospitals not only a-
broad but in the United States too! Not only does it turn milit-
ary hospitals into abortion clinics, but it also allows for fed-
eral funding to provide for abortions by subsidizing the cost of
the building, properties, materials, etc. That means your tax
dollars could be responsible for abortions in military facilities.
The Susan B. Anthony List members generated over 11,000 letters to
their representatives asking them to stop this amendment. Status:
PASSED in the Senate. ACTION NEEDED Click here to contact your
Congressman and Senators to ask them to support the continuation
of this ban on abortion in military hospitals. http://www.sba-lis
t.org/military ABORTION NON-DISCRIMINATION ACT (ANDA) (H.R.
4691) Introduced in the House On May 9, 2002 the Abortion Non-
Discrimination Act (ANDA) was introduced. In July, the Health
Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee conducted a
hearing on the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act. ANDA addresses the
need for comprehensive anti-discrimination protection for health
care organizations that choose not to provide abortion. Currently,
there are cases pending in courts around the country in which
hospitals are being sued because they elected to stop providing
abortion services at their hospitals. Status: Introduced in the
House. ACTION NEEDED Click here to contact your representative
to urge them to support Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (ANDA)...
The Partial Birth Abortion ban will resurface soon in the Senate".
"The National Pro-Life Alliance has drafted legislation to give
parents the right to prevent an abortion from being performed on
their teenage daughter. Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) has
introduced the bill, called the Parental Notification and Inter-
vention Act [H.R. 1489] in the House of Representatives. ...would
prohibit any physician from performing an abortion upon a minor
or incompetent without giving four days notice to both parents.
Either parent or a guardian would then have the legal right to
stop the abortion from taking place at any time. Furthermore, no
judge could bypass the parental notification without clear and
convincing evidence of the danger of physical abuse from a minor's
parent if they are notified. This bill builds on the success of
states that have protected parental involvement and have seen a
dramatic drop in the teen abortion rate.
Parental Involvement Laws Enjoy Massive Public Support The Amer-
ican people overwhelmingly support restrictions on abortion such
as laws requiring parental notification for minors before obtain-
ing an abortion. According to a 1996 Gallup survey, 74 percent of
Americans were in favor... In a 1998 CBS/New York Times poll, 78
percent favored parental intervention. In a Los Angeles Times sur-
vey conducted in 2000 the figure rose to 82 percent. This trend
has translated into legislation in many states nationwide. Rough-
ly 41 states have passed laws...there is also a legal precedent
for such legislation from the Supreme Court. In the 1992 case of
Planned Parenthood v. Casey the Supreme Court upheld Pennsylvania-
's parental consent law...States that have enacted laws to protect
parental involvement have experienced significant declines in the
teen abortion rate".
"Currently, without a federal law in place, even in states with
parental notification, parents are frequently left completely in
the dark because a child abuser or offender will evade the law by
simply taking the young girl to another state without such a law
and obtain an abortion there. Also, state laws are many times
struck down or rendered ineffective by judges who exploit a loop-
hole by granting 'judicial bypass' to minors so routinely that
the law is rarely actually enforced. According to Michael Muench,
Legislative Director for the National Pro-Life Alliance, 'The Mus-
grave bill drafted by NPLA would...close loopholes that exist in
some state laws. The fact is, if you ask people if they think it's
right that the same fifteen year old girl who can't even get her
ears pierced without her parent's approval can walk into a Plan-
ned Parenthood clinic and get an abortion, the overwhelming major-
ity of people take the pro-life side. This bill will stop judges
from handing out judicial passes to children like candy, it will
stop pedophiles and sex offenders from hiding their crimes by
crossing state lines, and it will provide parents with the right
to stop their daughters from killing their grandchild...Popular
Support for Parental Intervention Makes Victory Achievable This
bill is the next logical step to undermine Roe v. Wade until we
can overturn it completely by passing a Life at Conception Act,
...This is another issue on which the pro-abortion puppets of the
death lobby find themselves at odds with the American people.'...
Making abortionists who violate this Act guilty of a felony. Pro-
viding a clear standard for granting the judicial bypass."
"Planned Parenthood Sues to Stop All Parental Involvement Making
matters worse, Planned Parenthood is suing in states like Alaska
to overturn parental consent laws which forbid abortions to be
performed on minors without their parents approval. Martin Fox,
President of the National Pro-Life Alliance was quick to point
out that 'Not only do abortionists refuse to report sexual abuse
of minors, they apparently do not believe that this abuse is of
any concern to the parents of the child either. It's an abominat-
ion for Planned Parenthood to have unfettered access to minors
while shutting out parents". National Pro-Life Alliance, Spring
2003 communications, all of the uncredited above.
"Florida's 'Choose Life' license plate ... Anyone can apply for a
statewide specialty plate upon presenting a sufficient number of
signatures, paying an application fee, and presenting a marketing
plan. Over thirty specialty plates currently exist. The additional
private fee paid over and above the cost for a standard plate goes
toward supporting the sponsor of the plate. The additional private
fee from the 'Choose Life' plate is distributed to organizations
that promote adoption. The 'Choose Life' plate is the most popular
specialty plate in Florida. It continues to break sales records.
In less than two years, the private fees have generated over one
million dollars that would be dedicated to promoting adoption.".
Taken from "The Liberator". There are a handful of other states
that have similar laws, and abortionists don't like it one bit.
Because of a precedent set in federal court by a win for Liberty
Counsel's Mathew Staver on July 12th, 2002, it should be easier
for pro-lifers in other states to move forward on this. Given it's
success in Florida, I think this is worth pursuing in other states
too. Does your state have a similar law yet?
"For years the side that wants to be described as 'pro-choice'
has fought any attempt to promote the choice of life." Gary Bauer
"Louisiana Choose Life License Plate Ruling Appealed Again Baton
Rouge, LA -- The legal battle over Louisiana's plan to issue lic-
ense plates bearing the motto 'Choose Life' is heading to the
nation's top court. Two weeks ago, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals refused to reconsider its March ruling throwing out a pro-
abortion lawsuit that challenged the 'Choose life' legislation.
Like other specialty plates, the 'Choose life' plate costs $25
more a year than a regular license plate. Money raised by the
plate is earmarked for organizations that help mothers choose a-
bortion alternatives. The 'Choose life' plate has a picture of a
baby wrapped in a blanket in the beak of a brown pelican, the
state bird. Now, attorneys for the abortion supporters who filed
the suit are asking the New Orleans-based appellate court to halt
the effect of its ruling while they try to persuade the U.S. Sup-
reme Court to hear their case." Baton Rouge Advocate; August 23,
2002
"Eight states have already initiated the Choose Life plate with
many others in the process of getting it approved. Recently Jill
and Russ Amerling of Ocala, FL, originators of the concept, pre-
sented a seminar in Chicago on the merits and the process of
bringing a Choose Life License plate to our state." Ed & Virginia
McCaskey, Illinois Choose Life, P.O. Box 586, Grayslake, IL 60030
Illinois Federation For Right to Life and CWA IL are involved too.
"Alabama Choose Life Plate Closer to Getting Approval
Montgomery, AL -- Pro-life advocates are close to getting 'Choose
Life' license plates displayed on vehicles in Alabama. Through
August, 897 motorists had put up $50 each to order the tags. The
state will start printing the yellow tags emblazoned with 'Choose
Life' if a total of 1,000 orders is received by Nov. 30. 'We're
on the home stretch,' said John Giles, state president of the
Christian Coalition. Giles said proponents of the tags have sent
posters and bulletin inserts to churches to make sure the goal is
reached. Florida became the first state to issue 'Choose Life'
tags in August 2000, and 34,000 have been sold so far, said Russ
Amerling, publicity director for Choose Life Inc., a Florida-bas-
ed pro-life group that promotes the tags. Legislatures in five
other states have approved the tags. The tags are on cars in Haw-
aii and Mississippi, have been held up by court suits in Louisi-
ana and South Carolina and have not yet gone into production in
Oklahoma, Amerling said." Associated Press; October 1, 2002, via
the Pro-Life Infonet. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia denied
a request to overturn, or even to consider, a request to overturn
the Louisiana law, so Louisiana has the go ahead on its plates. I
didn't at first think this license plate issue was worth includ-
ing here, but I've "changed my tune". It works, it raises money
for women with crisis pregnancies, it turns a car into a moving
billboard - I want to encourage people to push for this kind of
program in their states, and to buy the plates.
"The following states should have the Choose Life license plate
bill before their legislature in the 2003 session: Texas, Calif-
ornia, Arkansas, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New
Hampshire, Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Georgia, and possibly West
Virginia, Indiana, Illinois and Maryland." Ryan Report Sept. 2002
"--------------------
From: The Pro-Life Infonet, Steven Ertelt infonet@prolifeinfo.org
Illinois Secretary of State Candidate Supports Choose Life Plate
Source: RFM News; October 8, 2002
Springfield, IL -- The effort to make available Choose Life Adop-
tion Specialty Plates in Illinois received a boost when Kristine
Cohn, the Republican candidate for Secretary of State, announced
she would endorse the initiative. "We are fully behind the Choose
Life adoption license plate program," said Charlie Stone, Cohn's
campaign manager. "It's a worthy effort. Everyone knows someone
who is adopted and when elected Cohn will do everything in her
power as Secretary of State to ensure the issuance of these
plates will one day become a reality."
Jim Finnegan, who has spearheaded the Choose Life Adoption Spec-
ialty Plates effort in Illinois, appreciates Cohn's support. "I
was amazed how many people have an adoption story in their life.
How sad it is some adoption agencies cannot meet the demand or
financial responsibilities, in order to increase the number of
children made available for adoption. This program could change
the lives of so many," said Finnegan. "There are one million par-
ents seeking to adopt from a group of slightly more than 50,000
children. Ms. Cohn's endorsement of this program makes sense."
"Let me reiterate. This is not about abortion. It's about adop-
tion and giving women greater choice," said Finnegan. "Anyone who
attempts to make this into an abortion issue is mistaken and is
not familiar with the pending legislation."
SB2426 has been pre-filed by state Senator Patrick O'Malley (R-18,
Palos Park). One of the legislation's' co-sponsors is Peter
Roskam (R-20, Glen Ellyn). The Choose Life Adoption Specialty
Plates also has the support of influential community leaders, in-
cluding Ed and Virginia McCaskey and Father John Smyth of Mary-
ville.
----"
Of course you don't have to wait to buy a pro-life license plate
until your state approves one. If you're a demonstrative type of
person you can buy one now from Victory Won, and then buy one
from your state when they come out with them. If you're not sure
how demonstrative you are, you can just buy the frame. I try to
think of everything. I don't want to let anyone off the hook. If
you don't happen to like their messages, you can design your own;
and then buy both the frame and the plate. So many options!
"Pro-Life Group Calls on Daschle to Bring up Partial-Birth Abort-
ion Ban Washington, DC -- Concerned Women for America of South
Dakota is launching a new TV commercial in South Dakota today en-
couraging Sen. Tom Daschle's constituents to call on him to sche-
dule a vote on the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, which already pas-
sed in the House. 'Tom Daschle holds the reins on the Senate cal-
endar,' said Sandy Rios, president of Concerned Women for America.
'The Partial Birth Abortion Ban has passed in the Senate twice,
and we feel it will easily pass again if Sen. Daschle listens to
his constituents and schedules a vote.'" Pro-Life Infonet 8/26/02
"Partial-Birth Abortion Ban ... take whatever action is necessary
to force a debate and vote ... even if it means shutting down the
Senate to get their attention. The fact is, the American people
are universally sickened by this barbaric practice, in which un-
born babies are partially delivered and then killed. ... National
Pro-Life Alliance has already ordered ... additional nationwide
mailings, bought airtime for TV ads and scheduled special target-
ed mailings into the states of swing Senators. Your National Pro-
Life Alliance plans to bury the Senate with telegrams in the days
before the vote ... will launch an all-out assault against the a-
bortion apologists in Congress. Through our hard-hitting TV ads
in target states, press conferences and earned media -- as well
as an aggressive nationwide telegram blitz -- your National Pro-
Life Alliance will hold the politicians accountable for how they
stand on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban. There's an old saying a-
round Washington, that when the politicians begin to feel the
heat they begin to see the light...pledge to build massive grass-
roots pressure in support of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban over
the coming days ... This is a fight that you and I must win!"
Martin Fox - President August 27, 2002
Obviously, none of us believe the U.S. Senate can be relied on to
"do the right thing". This begs the question, what's wrong with
some of the people in the Senate? Shouldn't they be leading, and
we following, especially on such a basic, common sense, proposal?
Time and again, legislation passed overwhelmingly by the House
has been left to die in the Senate. How can they be so out of
touch with their constituencies? And it's not just on abortion.
The House has passed Social Security Lockbox legislation by over-
whelming margins more than once, to see it die in the Senate for
fear of a filibuster. So the government has plundered a trillion
dollars of our retirement funds, and continues to do so, while
telling us we have to do something about Social Security because
it is going bankrupt. This is worse than what Enron did to their
pensioners. So are people going to pay in to Social Security for
40+ years to find out its mostly been stolen because of the Sen-
ate's inaction and politicians' ineptitude? It obviously is not
in safe, responsible, trustworthy, and honest, hands. Then there-
's the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act, apparently a pet pro-
ject of Senator McCain to get back at the conservative Christians
who opposed him in his bid for the presidency. I was uncertain
then, but now I see that they were right. I won't pass judgement
on the entire bill, but McCain added provisions that are blatant-
ly discriminatory and obviously unconstitutional. They are, of
course, being challenged in court by a number of legal organizat-
ions. President Bush, apparently, signed it assuming that the ob-
jectionable portions would be cut out by the courts, and the
worthwhile parts would remain - in typical, "don't make unnecess-
ary waves" Bush fashion - which is hard to criticize, since it
did get him elected, and he's going to need a repeat performance.
"A bill was passed in 2001 by a lopsided 407-2 vote in the House
of Representatives that would stop Social Security funds from
being spent on other things... There was no action on this bill
in the Senate." The Seniors Coalition
Jeff Hollingsworth characterized the U.S. Senate as "a 'Roach
Motel' Good bills get in - but they can't get out!" That should
be equally applied to good judicial nominations.
Democrat Senators like to accuse the Republican administration of
spending the Social Security surplus. I can't say for sure how
much of that is, or isn't, going on. But I can say some other
things for sure. First, the Clinton administration did the bulk
of the spending. Second, the Democrats created a problem for the
current administration by not raising the debt ceiling after the
9/11 attack. Third, it was Democrat Senators who blocked the lock
box bill in the Senate. Fourth, if the Social Security surplus
had been invested conservatively, like other pension plans, in-
stead of being spent on other government projects, the day when
it would run out would have been pushed significantly further in-
to the future. I would favor investing it mostly in long term gov-
ernment treasury bonds, high quality corporate bonds, and a small
percentage in common and preferred stocks. Fifth, the Bush Admin-
istration has been purposely ignoring the issue, irregardless of
what they may be doing with the money, and needs to get behind
protecting the retirement savings contributed to the Social Secu-
rity Fund; by getting behind the lock box legislation and begin-
ning payments to repay what the government has already taken out.
I've been puzzling over the proposal to allot a portion of Social
Security contributions to private accounts for some time. Frankly,
it doesn't make any sense, because we already have two types of
IRA accounts, Keogh accounts, 401K plans, and so on; that provide
the same benefits. If funds are diverted from the Social Security
fund, it will only hasten the day when that plan becomes inadequ-
ate. It may appeal to younger workers now. But as mostly unsoph-
isticated investors, they are likely to wake up someday to find
their stock accounts worthless, and no Social Security to fall
back on. Besides appealing to naive younger workers, I think the
impetus behind it may be for companies to get out of paying Soc-
ial Security taxes, and for wall street investment firms to reap
the windfall of new accounts. A better plan is to allow 5 percent
of that incoming contribution flow to be professionally managed
and invested in stocks through the Social Security system itself.
Americans' retirement savings are not the place to be looking ev-
en for emergency funding. Otherwise, Social Security itself will
soon become an emergency. Plus, obviously, a lock box would be
popular - and good politics. The reason it is necessary to return
the surplus taken out of Social Security, and already spent on
other government projects, and conservatively invest it is funda-
mentally - abortion. With 1.5 million live births per year termi-
nated by abortion over a 31 year period, the U.S. is finding that
it has the same problem countries like Japan are facing: insuffi-
cient younger workers to contribute to the support of retirees.
"Under Congress' own laws, a corporate CEO would go to jail for
using such dubious accounting methods and raiding the employees'
pension fund to pay company expenses. Yet that is what Congress
has done to Social Security Trust Funds." Senator Peter Fitzgerald
According to the Council for Government Reform, "nearly $1.5
Trillion..." has been "stolen from the Social Security Trust Funds".
"It is a bad day when America's most fundamental freedom - the
freedom of speech, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution - is
threatened by irresponsible acts of Congress. Unfortunately, that's
the situation today and for many days ahead. The 'campaign reform'
legislation passed by Congress, also known as the Shays-Meehan/
McCain-Feingold bill, restricts the fundamental right of free
political speech by banning issue-based advocacy ads 60 days from
a general election and 30 days from a primary." "SLF is vigorous-
ly opposing this 'clear and present danger' to our freedoms. We
are legal co-counsel for U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) in a
lawsuit filed against this unconstitutional legislation. Judge
Kenneth Starr, former Independent Counsel, is part of our legal
'dream team' also. He calls this lawsuit - officially known as
McConnell v FEC, FCC - 'the most important free speech case in
decades.'" "House Majority Whip Tom Delay (R-TX) made it clear:
'Americans must band together through likeminded organizations to
make their voices heard. Any attempt like McCain-Feingold to
stifle political speech and prevent criticism of our government
must be defeated.'" "...various non-profit organizations...are
party to the lawsuit". "Our Founding Fathers knew well that Amer-
ica would always be threatened by enemies 'both foreign and dome-
stic.' They framed the U.S. Constitution to be a sturdy safeguard
of our freedoms.... In a real sense, the future of free speech,
free and open elections and free political debate is at stake.
Our...brigade of plaintiffs, including...some 70 other individuals
and organizations, committed...against 'campaign reform' legisla-
tion that threatens to end free political debate. Moreover...this
legislation actually works to protect incumbent politicians from
criticism and hard questions. ....That's why SLF is pressing its
challenge of the unconstitutional 'campaign reform' law". Taken
from the Freedom Fighter, Vol. 6, No. 2, Summer 2002, "Published
by the Southeastern Legal Foundation, founded in 1976", 3340
Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 2515, Atlanta, Georgia 30326-1088 (404)
365-8500, "a nonpartisan public interest law firm".
"Former Independent Counsel Ken Starr is a man who chooses his
words judiciously. So we should all take heed when he calls a law
enacted by Congress 'the most dangerous threat to free speech
since the late 1700s.'" "...is the culmination of a two-year bat-
tle to save free political debate and to protect the right of Am-
ericans to openly criticize elected officials." "As Phil Kent,
SLF President, told FOX News during a televised discussion of the
legal proceedings, 'Millions of Americans who make their individ-
ual voices heard by supporting organizations...will be effective-
ly silenced by this brutish new law.' ...the chilling impact will
soon be felt across the nation. 'As Senator McConnell told a
group of SLF supporters in Washington recently, the new law basic-
ally makes it illegal to criticize Congress and elected officials,'
notes Kent." From the Freedom Fighter, Vol. 6, No. 3, Winter 2002.
SLF is serving as the "tip of the sword", so to speak.
"Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny." Edmund Burke, via SLF.
"05/02/2003 18:56:04 EST Sides Pleased by Campaign Finance Ruling
By LARRY MARGASAK Associated Press Writer
Challengers and supporters of a new campaign finance law found
something to like in a 1,700-page court ruling that struck down
much of the statute. But both sides agree that any jubilation or
disappointment may be temporary, since the nation's final arbiter
- the Supreme Court - will have the last word.
Two House sponsors of the law that was partially struck down Fri-
day said they'll ask the court to place the ruling on hold immed-
iately. Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass., said, 'The reality is, the
decision may confuse some of the issues related to the bill.
Therefore I think an injunction, until the Supreme Court makes a
decision, would be the proper step to take at this point.' Rep.
Christopher Shays, R-Conn., the co-author, agreed. Both said they
were pleased the court didn't strike down all the bill's restric-
tions on the use of soft money - the big, unlimited corporate and
union donations to political parties.
'This case has always been headed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and
I look forward to leading the effort to make our case there,'
said Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who fought the legislation in
the Senate, led the court challenge and pronounced himself grati-
fied with Friday's ruling.
In a 2-1 decision, the court panel struck down most of a ban on
use of the unlimited contributions. The court also ruled unconst-
itutional new restrictions on election-time political ads by spe-
cial-interest groups and others but said more narrow limits in
the legislation were constitutional.
The chief Senate sponsors of the legislation, Republican John
McCain of Arizona and Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, said they
were pleased with the ruling overall but added it could 'create
serious loopholes that undermine the law's effectiveness.' 'We
thought the court might strike the whole thing down. ... This is
is better than I expected,' Feingold said.
Several Democratic presidential candidates, rather than declare
victory, expressed their disappointment. 'We'll look for a better
result from the Supreme Court,' said Sen. John Kerry of Massachu-
setts. 'I'm disappointed that any aspect of this well-crafted law
would be struck down by the court,' said Sen. Joseph Lieberman,
D-Conn. Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, said he wasn't surprised the restr-
ictions were struck down. 'The bans they put in there were noth-
ing but incumbent protection tools,' said Ney, who backed an alt-
ernative that would have limited soft money but not banned it.
Marc Racicot, chairman of the Republican National Committee and a
challenger of the law, said he considered the ruling 'a positive
first step in addressing our concerns regarding equal access of
all Americans to engage in protected political speech.'" Found at
http://www.go2net.com/ , powered by InfoSpace, Inc.
From: The Pro-Life Infonet Source: Washington Times; August 21,
2002 "Abortion Oppresses Women [Pro-Life Infonet Note: The fol-
lowing is from Pia de Solenni in 'Women Deserve Better' in the
July/August issue of Family Policy, a publication of the Family
Research Council.] When she published 'The Female Eunuch' in 1972,
Germaine Greer advocated a life based on sexual license as the
path to personal fulfillment. Greer practiced what she preached
in 1972. As a result, she could no longer have a child because
her several abortions left her sterile and suffering from other
gynecological health problems. Almost 30 years later at age 50,
she wrote 'The Whole Woman.' While not completely changing her
pro-choice stance, Greer argues that abortion is a sign, not of
liberation, but of oppression. Anecdotal evidence and personal
testimonies increasingly portray a situation that is anything but
pro-woman. Despite the incidents of malpractice and abuse, the
$90 billion abortion industry remains largely unregulated. 'Cur-
rently, veterinary clinics in the state of New York are required
to follow more guidelines than abortion clinics. For instance, a
woman who decides to have an abortion will be attended by a clinic
worker who may not even satisfy the criteria necessary to handle
her dog at an animal hospital.'"
"Our deepest national conviction is that every life is precious,
because every life is the gift of a creator who intended us to
live in liberty and equality. ...We value every life... There is
a line in our time, and in every time, between those who believe
that all men are created equal, and those that believe that some
men, and women, and children, are expendable... There is a line
in our time, and in every time, between the defenders of human
liberty, and those who seek to master the minds and souls of
others." President Bush (Jr.), September 11, 2002
"The radical pro-abortion lobby is at it again. They are seeking
to crush the pro-life movement in America by any means necessary,
including using the full weight and power of the federal govern-
ment. The latest attempt comes from New York Senator Charles
Schumer, who during deliberations on the bankruptcy reform bill
inserted language that specifically targets pro-life activists.
Now, I support efforts to reform bankruptcy laws, but what exact-
ly does abortion have to do with it? This is yet another attempt
to twist federal laws against those involved in peaceful protests
trying to save innocent lives. Thanks to pro-abortion Democrats,
we have laws designed to protect access to abortion clinics that
would have effectively prevented the sit-ins of the civil rights
movement. Laws written to tackle the mafia are now brought to bear
against pro-life activists. Yet, when evidence is presented that
Planned Parenthood conspired to protect potential child molesters,
nothing is done. My friends, this is why it is so important for
people of faith to remain engaged in the political process. We
must elect more pro-family, pro-life conservatives to public off-
ice who will defend the sanctity of life, preserve traditional
marriage, and end government harassment of pro-family, pro-life
activists." Gary L. Bauer, Friday, September 13, 2002 I haven't
said anything about the bankruptcy bill language up until now, be-
cause it doesn't affect a lot of people - mainly little old lad-
ies who are habitually addicted to praying outside abortuaries.
That's not the real language in the bill, but they're a nuisance,
I guess. "Laws written to tackle the mafia", of course, refers to
RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act), in
NOW v. Scheidler, currently, as I speak, before the Supreme Court.
Do you see what I mean when I say these people have no, and make
no, sense (defined in the dictionary as "A capacity to understand",
or "Normal ability to think or reason soundly; correct judgment:
Come to your senses.")?
"Indiana's Women's Right to Know Law Upheld by Federal Court
Indianapolis, IN -- A federal appeals court Monday revived a pro-
life state law requiring women to be presented abortion informat-
ion in person from an abortion practitioner at least 18 hours be-
fore an abortion. Women seeking an abortion in Indiana currently
are allowed to get information about abortion and its risks be-
forehand over the phone. Women in Indiana will now get the infor-
mation, as well as facts on fetal development, in person.
'This is a major victory for women,' states Indiana Right to Life
executive director Mike Fichter. 'The information required by In-
diana law is basic, common sense information that any woman seek-
ing an abortion has a right to know, and there is no other way to
deliver this information properly than by face-to-face interact-
ion.' ...a 1995 law...required women in Indiana to make two trips
to the abortion facility -- the first to receive the required in-
formation and the second to undergo the abortion.
The law requires women seeking an abortion, except in the case of
a medical emergency, to be counseled about the risks and alterna-
tives to abortion. They also are to be offered the chance to see
pictures or drawings of a fetus at the same stage of development
as their own. The person performing the abortion, a referring
physician, physician's assistant, nurse or midwife can provide
the counseling, which includes information of adoption alternat-
ives. Similar laws in other states have significantly reduced the
number of abortions. About 16 other states have Women's Right to
Know laws." Source: Indianapolis Star, Pro-Life Infonet; Septem-
ber 17, 2002
From: "Legislative Alert - SBA List" SBAList@DemocracyData.com
Subject: Pro-Life Victory Yesterday in the House!
Date: 26 Sep 2002 14:39:13 -0400
The U.S. House of Representatives voted 229 to 189 in favor of the
Abortion Non Discrimination Act (ANDA), rejecting opposition by a
number of pro-abortion advocacy groups. This necessary legislation
clarifies existing laws to protect health care organizations in-
cluding hospitals, doctors, nurses, and health care plans that
choose not to provide abortion, allowing these organizations or
individuals to set their own abortion policies according to their
organizational consciences.
"Still, 189 Members of Congress would allow hospitals, doctors,
nurses, pharmacists and other medical institutions and personnel
to be forced to be involved in abortions! Among them are 24 Re-
publicans. They are: Bass (NH); Gilman (NY); Leach (IA); Biggert
(IL); Greenwood (PA); Miller, Dan (FL); Boehlert (NY); Horn (CA);
Morella (MD); Bono (CA); Houghton (NY); Ose (CA); Castle (DE);
Johnson (CT); Shays (CT); Frelinghuysen (NJ); Kelly (NY); Simmons
(CT); Gibbons (NV); Kirk (IL); Sweeney (NY); Gilchrest (MD);
Kolbe (AZ); and Thomas (CA). 37 Democrats voted for the bill. The
votes of pro-life Democrats are essential to the passage of pro-
life legislation because they provide a counter-balance to the
too-large number of RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) who support
the agenda of the abortion industry." RNC For Life Report, Sept-
ember/October 2002 - No. 46
"Mrs. Morella, who has led pro-abortion forces throughout her
seven terms in Congress, was defeated by a pro-abortion Democrat.
Penny Pullen, president of Life Advocacy Alliance, commented in
her November 11 Life Advocacy Briefing that Morella’s defeat 'and
her absence from the Republican Caucus should provide both a sal-
utary freshening and a useful lesson to those Republicans who
think voting like a Democrat will spare them electoral problems.'"
From: Colleen Parro Subject: RNC for Life FaxNotes - 11/15/2002
About Abortions editor's note: This is important legislation be-
cause suits are being brought by pro-abortion advocates to force
people and organizations to perform abortions. It still has to
make its way through the Senate, and my gut feeling is that it
won't get brought up this session. However, I have been follow-
ing this issue, and if I decide it warrants more attention I will
pull in more information on it from my hard drive.
"U.S. House to Decide: Should Hospitals and Other Health Care
Providers be Forced to Perform Abortions Against Their Will? On
or about September 25 or September 26, the U.S. House of Repre-
sentatives is expected to consider a critical bill to protect the
right of hospitals, doctors, nurses, insurers, and other 'health
care entities' from being coerced into participation in abortion.
The Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (ANDA), H.R. 4691, sponsored
by Rep. Michael Bilirakis (R-Fl.) is necessary to clarify and
strengthen a law enacted in 1996 (the Coats-Snowe law, 42 U.S.C.
238n) to protect the conscience rights of those who choose not to
cover, pay for, or otherwise participate in the killing of innoc-
ent, unborn children.
Since Congress' enactment of the 1996 law, pro-abortion groups
have been actively engaged in a concerted campaign to coerce hos-
pitals and other health care providers, both religiously affili-
ated and secular, to provide, facilitate, or pay for abortions.
Although the 1996 law was passed to prevent any 'health care en-
tity' from being forced to perform, train, or refer for abortion,
it has been attacked by pro-abortion activist groups and narrowly
construed by the courts.
Stronger conscience protection is urgently needed. For example,
the Alaska Supreme Court has demanded that a private, non-sectar-
ian hospital perform elective late second-trimester abortions,
despite the hospital's policy against performing elective abort-
ions. At the behest of abortion rights groups, the New Hampshire
attorney general derailed a hospital merger when it became clear
that the hospital would no longer perform elective abortions.
Pressured by a pro-abortion group, the Connecticut state govern-
ment refused a certificate of need to a proposed outpatient surg-
ery center because it declined to perform abortions." From a
"Congressional alert from the National Right to Life Committee in
Washington, D.C., issued September 16, 2002."
"This bill would protect hospitals and facilities from having to
choose between killing babies and being shut down by an activist
judge. That is exactly what is happening to an Alaska community
hospital even as I write this!" Beverly LaHaye, CWA, Feb. 4, 2003
"... a bill that would allow hospitals and other medical facilit-
ies to exercise their conscientious objection to being involved
in abortions on their premises. Currently, doctors, nurses and
other medical personnel are protected under a 'conscience clause.'
The bill described...would extend that protection to medical fac-
ilities and pharmacists as well." RNCLife, Tuesday, 24 Sept. 2002
For a more detailed discussion of the legal issues, you can go to
a web site maintained by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
"The legislation states that the federal government should not
discriminate against medical professionals or medical institut-
ions that refuse to perform, participate in, support, or fund a-
bortions. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
(AAPS) supports this legislation as well as the Catholic Health
Association, Catholic Medical Association, and other pro-family
groups." Traditional Values Coalition, Friday, September 13, 2002
"Increasingly in recent years, pro-abortion groups have been act-
ively engaged in a concerted campaign to coerce hospitals and ot-
her health care providers, both religiously affiliated and secul-
ar, to provide, facilitate, or pay for abortions. Typical of
these efforts is the 'Hospital Provider Project' of the Maryland
affiliate of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action
League (NARAL). As that organization explained, 'The goal of the
Hospital Provider Project is to increase access to abortion serv-
ices by REQUIRING Maryland hospitals to provide abortion . . .'
(capitals added for emphasis) It appears that some organizations
that call themselves 'pro-choice' are now reluctant to openly de-
fend their coercive campaigns". NRLC, September 23, 2002 Also,
"On its face, H.R. 4691 applies only to 'induced abortions.' The
term 'abortion' has appeared in numerous federal laws (such as
the Title X authorizing statute and the Hyde Amendment); the term
has been consistently construed in federal law to apply to delib-
erate interruption of pregnancy after implantation. Therefore,
the bill covers abortions whether induced by surgical means or by
abortion-induced drugs such as RU-486, but it does not cover
'morning-after pills,' whether with respect to victims of rape or
otherwise." Douglas Johnson, NRLC Legislative Director
--------------------
From: The Pro-Life Infonet Steven Ertelt infonet@prolifeinfo.org
October 15, 2002
No More Pro-Choice Movement by Richard M. Doerflinger
[Pro-Life Infonet Note: Mr. Doerflinger is Deputy Director of the
Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, U.S. Conference of Catholic
Bishops.]
"Once there were basically two sides to the abortion debate. One
side said that, whatever the moral status of unborn life may be,
a woman and her physician must be free to make a choice about a-
bortion. The other side said that, whatever value the struggle for
greater freedom may have in other contexts, responsible freedom
for women and physicians must stop short of destroying the life
of an innocent child. Not surprisingly, these sides called them-
selves 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' respectively.
Those were simpler times. For however useful these labels once
were, it's becoming ridiculous to refer to abortion advocacy
groups as 'pro-choice.' This was already clear to anyone follow-
ing the debate on U.S. funding of the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA)
a few months ago. President Bush ultimately decided not to give
this group any funds this year, because it helps the Chinese gov-
ernment implement a population program that uses coerced abortion
and involuntary sterilization. His decision was greeted by howls
of protest from pro-abortion groups, who ditched their commitment
to women's 'reproductive freedom' to defend their allies in the
population control movement.
More recently the coerced-abortion agenda has come home to guide
domestic policy. When the House of Representatives debated a mod-
est measure called the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (ANDA)
last month, the idea that each individual should have 'freedom to
choose' whether to be involved in abortion was denounced as heresy
by 'pro-choice' groups. ANDA builds on a law that Congress passed
in 1996 to protect medical residency programs from being forced
by government bodies to provide abortions or abortion training.
It clarifies and extends that law to make sure that this protect-
ion covers the full range of health care providers, so everyone
can make his or her own conscientious decision whether to partic-
ipate in abortions. But to hear pro-abortion spokespersons talk,
you would have thought that abortion was about to be declared a
capital crime. If women can only get abortions from those actual-
ly willing to provide them, they seemed to say, there will be al-
most no abortions - an interesting comment on how widely accepted
abortion is in the medical profession!
Pro-abortion groups opposed every aspect of this bill -- includ-
ing its effort to extend the conscience protection now enjoyed by
doctors to cover other health professionals, such as nurses, who
are mostly female. In opposing this modest step toward equal
treatment, abortion advocates managed to promote an agenda that
was anti-life, 'anti-choice,' and anti-woman all at the same time.
Fortunately most House members ignored their tirades and approved
the bill, which now goes to the Senate.
One bumper sticker produced by pro-abortion groups says: 'Against
abortion? Don't have one.' That slogan always ignored the unborn
child, who has no opportunity to choose not to 'have one.' But
now women and doctors may join the child in having their choice
disregarded, unless pro-life legislators are vigilant.
Against abortion? If you're in China, have one anyway. If you're
a health professional in the U.S., perform one anyway. Oddly,
that is now what being 'pro-choice' is all about."
--
"A 16-year-old asked a federal judge for a restraining order to
prevent her from being forced to submit to an abortion that her
parents wanted her to have, and suddenly we had silence from the
people who call themselves 'pro-choice.' If people truly support
'the right to choose,' they would be rallying in support of this
girl and others who choose life. The fact that they only support
women who choose abortion shows the utter inaccuracy of them cal-
ling themselves 'pro-choice.' If they had the capacity for hon-
esty, they would admit they are pro-abortion." LDI News, May 2003
"More Democrat Disarray As I write this, we are waiting for Sen-
ator Robert Torricelli of New Jersey to hold a press conference
to announce that he is dropping out of the Senate race. The de-
tails are unclear, but this looks like a desperate attempt by
Daschle & Co. to retain control of the Senate by dumping Torricel-
li. Potential replacements may include Bill Bradley, but reports
indicate that he is not interested. This could easily end up in
the courts if the New Jersey Democratic Party tries to get around
state laws. The real story, however, is that for the first time
this year, Democrats look like they are in serious jeopardy of
losing the Senate.
In addition to Torricelli, veteran liberal Tom Harkin of Iowa was
forced to accept the resignation of his campaign manager this
weekend after it became obvious that the Harkin campaign had en-
gaged in "Watergate" tactics. Harkin staffers infiltrated and re-
corded a private campaign meeting held by Republican Greg Ganske
and then leaked the recording to the media.
Don't miss the larger picture. What we are witnessing this year
is a battle for two branches of government. If Tom Daschle loses
his grip on the Senate, the Democrats will lose their strangle-
hold over our courts." From: Gary L. Bauer, Chairman, Campaign
for Working Families 30 Sep 2002 17:57:18 EST
I jumped right on this one:
Torricelli Will Not Run Again, Will Not Resign
By Daniel Walker Guido
CNSNews.com Evening Editor
September 30, 2002
(CNSNews.com) - "Sen. Robert Torricelli, a New Jersey Democrat
dogged by ethics questions, said he will not run for re-election
at an afternoon news conference. Democratic officials said they
would announce a new candidate within 48 hours... Polls showed
him trailing his Republican challenger, Douglas Forrester, by 13
points. The senator was being pressured to end his campaign, seen
as not having a chance, by New Jersey and national Democratic
leaders. Democrat Party strategists were said to be very extreme-
ly concerned that the party would lose its one seat advantage in
the Senate unless Torricelli quit the race and is replaced by an-
other Democrat who has a better chance of winning. .....only 36
days remain before the election. State election law mandates 48
days must remain for a party to replace a candidate." If one
candidate's not winning, replace him with another one? These
guys want to do Florida all over again. Change the rules in the
middle of the game. Rules are for other people - and parties; we
don't have to pay any attention to them. "I will not be respons-
ible for the loss of the Democratic majority in the United States
Senate. I will not let it happen. There is just too much at
stake," Torricelli said. No kidding? Imagine Torricelli in tears.
But guess what - they get to go before the state's attorney gen-
eral, who's a Democrat. It's so childish. It's such a fiasco. If
he'd died of a heart attack, it might make sense to do that - but
not because the first candidate was losing. Are these the people
we want running our country? But the most stunning thing is that
the Democrats don't seem to have considered the possibility, until
now, that they might lose control of the Senate; which partly ex-
plains why they've been giving President Bush's judicial nominees
such a hard time. It's the same way they approach defense issues:
"Oh, that could never happen." Mitch Bainwol, who's the executive
director of the Senate GOP campaign committee, had this to say a-
bout their actions: "This is a cynical attempt by party bosses to
manipulate democracy". I Quit! So There! Can you imagine this go-
ing on all over the country, because it looks like a candidate is-
n't going to win? "The laws of the state of New Jersey do not con-
tain a 'we-think-we're-going-to-lose-so-we-get-to-pick-someone-
new' clause," "No man has the right to rewrite the law simply be-
cause he is losing in the latest public opinion polls." Doug
Forrester Sounds like he's got himself a new campaign issue.
"Torricelli missed the legal deadline to drop out. In addition,
ballots in many of the state's 21 counties have already been
printed and samples mailed. Democrats would need approval from
the court to replace Torricelli... The state Supreme Court issued
an order saying it would hear the case first instead of waiting
for a lower court to act." NJ Senate Race Goes to Court By Jeff
McKay CNSNews.com Correspondent October 01, 2002 "Lautenberg -
reportedly loathed by Torricelli - was heavily favored by national
Democratic leaders, specifically Sen. Tom Daschle, who lobbied
Governor Jim McGreevey (D-NJ)." Lautenberg Replaces Torricelli;
Case Heads to Court By Jeff McKay CNSNews.com Correspondent Octo-
ber 02, 2002 "Lautenberg is a supporter of abortion rights and
staunch opponent of the death penalty. The former business execu-
tive brings two major strengths to the bid: statewide name recog-
nition and a huge reserve of personal wealth. John Carbone, an
attorney representing the state's 21 county clerks, said any
change would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. 'If we go be-
yond Wednesday of next week, Tuesday of next week, it's not going
to be doable no matter how deep the pockets,' Carbone said." By
JOHN P. McALPIN Associated Press Writer, 10/02/2002 15:21:58 EST.
"The New Jersey Supreme Court Wednesday decided the Democratic
party can replace Sen. Robert Torricelli on the November ballot
with former Sen. Frank Lautenberg. Republican officials have ind-
icated they will appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court."
CNSNews.com, Wednesday, October 02, 7:23 PM EST And, by the way,
the NJ Supreme Court is composed of four Democrats, one independ-
ent, and two Republicans.
"Torricelli, Lautenberg: Does EITHER One REALLY Want To Work for
the People of New Jersey? 'The fact of the matter is the years
spent in the Senate have been a large personal inconvenience and
effort.' -Frank Lautenberg, The Associated Press, August 26, 1999"
"Is this truly the kind of dedication and determination we want
representing New Jersey in Washington? Service in the United
States Senate is an honor and a privilege, not a personal inconv-
enience. Hang on, New Jersey - there are just 35 more days, and
help is on the way!" Bill Pascoe, Forrester Campaign Manager
From the Forrester web site minutes after the court decision. Doug
seems to be right on top of things.
"NewsMax October 07, 2002 Crime Pays Supreme Court Lets N.J. Dems
Break the Law It's OK for Democrats to violate the law and sub-
stitute Frank Lautenberg for crooked Sen. Robert Torricelli on
the November ballot, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, which
refuses to intervene or explain its failure to act. In a
Quinnipiac University poll released Monday, Lautenberg led For-
rester 49 percent to 45 percent with 4 percent undecided. A poll
by Research 2000 in Rockville, Md., published in the Sunday Record
of Bergen County had Lautenberg at 46 percent and Forrester at 40
percent. Forrester told Fox News Channel on Monday afternoon that
his campaign strategy was not to be ahead in opinion polls before
the election, lest the Democrats tap yet another "nominee."
Meanwhile, the National Republican Senatorial Committee is trying
to block Torricelli, whose campaign said he has about $5 million
left in his Senate campaign fund, from giving the money to the
Democrat party to use for Lautenberg.
Forrester's filing Thursday to the U.S. Supreme Court said the
state court violated Article I of the U.S. Constitution, which
gives state legislatures the sole power to set the time, place
and manner of elections. The filing also contended that the state
court ruling violated federal law governing absentee ballots for
the military, some of which have already been mailed in New Jer-
sey, and the rights of military personnel who might vote absentee.
'Mischief' Nationwide
The state court action 'opens the doors of American elections to
considerable mischief,' Forrester's filing said. 'If such tactics
are allowed to stand, voters in every election will face uncert-
ainty, as candidates who appear to be losing drop out of the race
on the eve of the election and are replaced by individuals who
have not undergone the rigors of the nomination process.' New
Jersey voters have made their choice, the filing said. 'That
choice was taken away from them by Sen. Torricelli and the Democ-
ratic Party, and the New Jersey Supreme Court has amended the law
to endorse their partisan manipulation,' Forrester's lawyers arg-
ued in his request." So our Supreme Court falls through its butt
to avoid the controversy. Less than noble, to say the least.
"Lautenberg Retracts Promise for 21 Debates A spokesman for Demo-
cratic U.S. Senate candidate Frank Lautenberg has retracted Laut-
enberg's promise, offered just yesterday, that he would meet his
Republican opponent Doug Forrester for 21 debates in different
New Jersey counties before Election Day. Asked whether his boss
intended to honor the 21-debate pledge, Lautenberg spokesman Tom
Shea told WABC Radio's Steve Malzberg, 'Absolutely not.' But on
Saturday, during an impromptu encounter between the two candidates
in Oldbridge, N.J., Lautenberg seemed to unequivocally agree to
the 21-debate schedule. 'If you go on the ballot I'd like to chal-
lenge you to 21 debates in 21 counties,' Forrester told Lauten-
berg, as the two stood only inches from each other with reporters
looking on. While Lautenberg refused to respond directly to the
Republican's invitation, NBC News reporter Arnold Diaz, who wit-
nessed the exchange, asked the 78-year old ex-Senator seconds
later, 'Mr. Lautenberg, are you going to do the debates if you're
the candidate?' 'Of course,' Lautenberg responded without hesita-
tion, in comments captured on videotape and broadcast nationally
on 'Fox News Sunday.'
Reacting to Lautenberg's debate flip-flop, Forrester told Malz-
berg, 'I'm very unhappy to hear that they're back-peddling so
fast.' The Republican complained that Lautenberg had already nix-
ed an invitation to appear with him earlier on 'Fox News Sunday,'
saying, 'It was going to be our first joint appearance and lo and
behold he doesn't show up.'" NewsMax.com - Sunday, Oct. 6, 2002
The Democrat argument went something like this: "The voters should
have a choice of candidates." True. But it ignored the fact that
the voters didn't have a choice because the Democrats had forced
their candidate to resign because he was losing - so they could
remedy the situation by trying someone else; which was against
New Jersey law under 51 days before the election. But their
friends in the New Jersey Supreme Court went along with it and ig-
nored the law. Then you are no longer a nation of laws. The party
in power makes the rules, as they go along, to their advantage.
That's the world the Democrats want. Backed by a gutless, polit-
icized Supreme Court, that becomes tyranny, and for those of us
who look at the bigger picture, at the consequences, that's not
at all amusing. Let me quote to you from someone who understood
the "big picture" as well as anyone:
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.
We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be
fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or
one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and
our children's children what it was once like in the United
States where men were free." Ronald Reagan said that.
Douglas Forrester is not pro-life. But neither is Frank Lautenberg.
I don't want to get into the complexities, but Forrester's posi-
tion seems more fluid than Lautenberg's; in an attempt to straddle
the issue. He would probably continue to finesse the issue in the
Senate, but I think he might be open to some compromise. Lauten-
berg would reflect the no-compromise, pro-abortion, liberal Demo-
crat position. Forrester at the very least could provide the mar-
gin necessary for pro-life forces to regain control of Senate bus-
iness. Senator Rick Santorum has endorsed him. Rick is a lion of
the pro-life movement. Doug would make it easier for President
Bush to get his judicial nominees approved. We don't have to have
ideological purity here to help the pro-life cause. We should sup-
port, and vote for, Forrester (who ended up losing to Lautenberg).
Of course, the Republican party regained control of the Senate in
the 2002 midterm elections. For those who are more interested in
the political dimension of the abortion controversy I will be up-
dating the Election Section below with the details of those races
as I have time to do so. The 107th Congress reconvenes on Monday,
November 11th. Conservative Republican Trent Lott will be setting
the agenda in the Senate; instead of radical Democrat Tom Daschle,
the abortion industry, and the labor union bosses. I would imagine
the Homeland Security bill will be the first issue to be dealt
with, but between that and voting on the budget it seems there
should be room for some pro-life legislation which has already
been passed by the House - the Partial Birth Abortion ban & ANDA.
The judicial nomination "logjam" should start to clear up too.
"Incoming Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott has already promised
a vote on the Partial Birth Abortion Ban." Jane Abraham President
SBA List - 11/11/2002
"And what was the pro-life promise Lott had made? When asked about
the partial-birth abortion ban that has repeatedly passed both
houses of Congress by large bipartisan majorities, and that Pres-
ident Bush has vowed to sign, Lott said, 'I will call it up, we
will pass it, and the President will sign it. I'm making that com-
mitment--you can write it down.'" From Human Events, the week of
November 18, 2002
"Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott continues to pass the word
that he will quickly bring up for a vote a ban on partial-birth
abortions. Good for him! Even though the usual 'nervous Nellies'
are getting weak-kneed at the prospect, trust me, my friends. If
there is a vote in the Senate next year to ban this hideous proc-
edure, it will pass easily - at least 65 to 35!" Gary Bauer,
Campaign for Working Families, Wednesday, November 20, 2002
As it turned out, the Republicans chose to wait for the 108th Con-
gress to take control of the Senate, and Trent Lott stepped down
as Senate Majority Leader.
"'This Republican Congress was elected because of the pro-life
vote, and they need to heed that vote,' said (Family Research
Council President Ken) Connor. 'We know the abortion issue was
the number two issue that prompted voter turnout in Minnesota,
the number three issue in Missouri, and we know 76 percent of
self-identified religious conservatives in Georgia voted for
Saxby Chambliss. In no small part, the favorable outcome of this
election for Republicans is a consequence of motivated pro-life
voters who turned out to the polls.'
President Bush has indicated his support for all of the pro-life
bills supported by leading pro-life groups." From: The Pro-Life
Infonet Source: Washington Times, Washington Post; Nov. 12, 2002
"Democrats may be forced to shut down operations as a party and
re-enter politics under a different name. The party formerly known
as 'the Democratic Party' will henceforth be doing business under
the name 'the Abortion Party.' That would have the virtue of
honesty. Love of abortion is the one irreducible minimum of the
Democratic Party. Liberals don't want to go to war with Saddam
Hussein, but they do want to go to war to protect Roe v. Wade. In-
asmuch as George Bush rather than Barbra Streisand will be picking
our federal judges, even now liberals are sharpening their char-
acter assassination techniques. People for the American Way--re-
presenting Americans up and down the Malibu beachfront--are al-
ready lining up lying Anita Hills...Liberals love to lie. The on-
ly moral compass liberals have is their own will to power." "What
a miserable party. I'm glad to see their power end, and I'm sure
they'll all be perfectly comfortable in their cells in Guantanamo.
As Jesse Helms said on Ronald Reagan's election in 1980: God has
given America one more chance." From a very hard hitting, sarcas-
tic, and entertaining column "Party of Adultery and Abortion Takes
a Hit", by Ann Coulter, in "Human Events The Week Of November 11,
2002" - Inside Washington. Read her new book "Slander".
"Senate Judiciary Cmte Approves Pro-Life Judical Nominees
Washington, DC -- Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee
yesterday did what they refused to do before on several occasions
by sending two of President Bush's pro-life judicial nominations
on for Senate confirmation votes despite strong opposition from
pro-abortion groups. The committee, on voice votes, sent the ap-
peals court nominations of U.S. District Court Judge Dennis Shedd
and University of Utah professor Michael McConnell to the full
Senate after having delayed the two men before the midterm elect-
ions. Shedd has been nominated for a seat on the 4th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., and McConnell is up for the 10-
th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. Approval of both is
likely during the Senate's last-minute rush to clear pending nom-
inations.
Kate Michelman, president of the National Abortion Rights Action
League (NARAL), admits her group's opposition is based solely on
McConnell's so-called 'extremist' view that unborn children de-
serve legal protection. In 1996, McConnell signed the 'Statement
of Pro-Life Principle and Concern,' which said, 'We seek an Amer-
ica in which every unborn child is protected in life and welcomed
in law.' Other co-signers include Dr. James Dobson, founder of
Focus on the Family, and fellow academics Hadley Arkes of Amherst
College and John DiIulio, Jr., of Princeton University.
In a nod to the Republicans, who won control of the Senate and the
committee next year, outgoing pro-abortion Senate Judiciary Chair-
man Patrick Leahy (D-VT) did not call for a roll call vote on
either of the nominations in the committee, which has 10 Democrats
and nine Republicans. It was the first time he had not called for
a roll call vote on an appeals court nominee since Democrats took
over the Senate in June 2001.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the incoming Senate Judiciary chairman,
called Shedd a 'decent, honorable, fair-minded person' and urged
his confirmation as a nod to pro-life Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC).
The 99-year-old Thurmond had asked for Shedd's confirmation be-
fore his January retirement after a 48-year career. Shedd is a
former aide to the senator. Pro-abortion groups have denounced
McConnell, who is pro-life, saying his lifetime of work for pro-
life causes makes him too biased to be a judge. 'I trust that
Professor McConnell will not seek to undermine women's reproduct-
ive rights,' Leahy said. Hatch said McConnell would make a fine
judge on the regional courts that are one step below the Supreme
Court.
'This is long overdue,' said John Nowacki, director of legal pol-
icy at the Free Congress Foundation. 'After 18 months, Senator
Leahy has run out of excuses to keep stalling. Shedd and McConnell
deserve an up-or-down vote in the Senate, but it's a shame that
it took last week's election losses to prod the committee into
action.' In a 1994 Michigan Law Review article, McConnell wrote,
'...Abortion is an evil, all too frequently and casually employed
for the destruction of life...'
The GOP gains power in the Senate when the 108th Congress begins
in January, and plans to bring back appeals court nominees that
the committee voted down this year. Pro-life Sen. Trent Lott (R-
MS), the incoming Senate majority leader, said earlier that an-
other Bush nominee, pro-life U.S. District Court Judge Charles
Pickering, would be renominated next year. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutch-
ison of Texas, the new Senate Republican Conference vice chairman,
said Thursday that Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen
would be renominated by the White House as well. Owen drew praise
from pro-life groups for upholding Texas' parental notification
law by refusing to allow teen girls to have abortions without
parental knowledge or involvement." From: The Pro-Life Infonet
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt infonet@prolifeinfo.org Source: Assoc-
iated Press; November 14, 2002 So we see that the Democrats are
beginning to give second thoughts to automatically supporting the
agenda of the abortion industry, as perhaps not being a winning
strategy, in spite of the huge amounts of money donated to their
campaigns by abortion supporters like Emily's List, Planned Par-
enthood, NARAL, NOW, People For the American Way, Catholics for
a Free Choice, and so on; which again suggests that they're not
really stupid - just immoral, unethical, and dishonest. McConnell
and Shedd had already been reviewed by the committee, but appar-
ently the Democrats thought it unwise to reject their nominations
just before the elections. What I learned from this was that al-
though the election of Jim Talent gives the Republicans a Senate
majority, the makeup of the committees will not change until the
108th Congress convenes next year (2003); so we shouldn't expect
any more judicial nominees to be released for confirmation until
then.
"I hope the DNC will 'get it' and understand that their current
stance on abortion is no way to run a majority party. Democrats
For Life of America believes that a return to being a 'party of
inclusion' and respecting 'the individual conscience of each Ame-
rican' may be the only way for the Democratic Party to make any
gains in future elections." Kristen Day, Executive Director of
Democrats For Life of America, November 14, 2002, via Infonet.
"White House Pressures Congress to Keep Military Abortion Ban
Washington, DC -- Pressure from the Bush administration has prom-
pted Congress to ditch an effort to remove the federal ban on per-
forming abortions at military hospitals, all of which would be
funded with taxpayer dollars. During consideration of the Fiscal
Year 2003 defense authorization bill, pro-abortion Senators Patty
Murray (D-WA) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) offered an amendment to re-
peal the law that prohibits performance of abortions at U.S. mil-
itary medical facilities. Pro-life groups opposed the amendment
but it passed in June. National Right to Life legislative direct-
or Douglas Johnson told the Pro-Life Infonet, 'Secretary of De-
fense Rumsfeld threatened the entire bill with a veto unless the
pro-abortion provision was dropped, so the pro-abortion senators
dropped it.' The pro-abortion provision was removed from the final
version of the military spending bill prior to Senate approval
yesterday. Pro-abortion Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Sen.
Carl Levin (D-MI) agreed in House-Senate negotiations to remove
the provision following Rumsfeld's lobbying. The House in May vot-
ed 215-202 to reject a similar amendment. The updated bill, which
authorizes $393 billion in spending for defense programs in 2003,
was given final approval by the House on Tuesday and now goes to
President Bush, who is expected to sign the measure now that the
pro-abortion provision has been lifted." Source: Pro-Life Info-
net; November 14, 2002 - Steven Ertelt infonet@prolifeinfo.org
"Votes on Taxpayer-Funded Abortions Expected This Week - When the
House Armed Services Committee Total Force Subcommittee Committee
meets tomorrow, Wednesday, May 7, 2003, Rep. Loretta Sanchez will
likely offer her usual amendment to allow elective abortions to
be committed at taxpayer-funded military hospitals located on tax-
payer-supported military installations." From: Colleen Parro,
rnclife@swbell.net, RNCLife FaxNotes - May 6, 2003.
"A law since 1996, this ban on military abortion has protected the
very nature of the military, to save life, not take it. When the
Clinton administration lifted the ban on 'privately' funded abor-
tions in military base hospitals in 1993, all military doctors re-
fused to perform abortions at their field hospitals. Military
doctors are not interested in taking lives! We cannot allow our
armed services to be 'hostage to abortion politics'. From: Jenni-
fer Bingham, Executive Director, SBAList@democracydata.com, Date:
12 May 2003 12:49:48 -0400".
"On May 22, 2003, the House passed H.R. 1588, the National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004 by a vote of 361-68. As you
know, Representative Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) offered an amendment
to allow women in the military or dependents of armed forces mem-
bers to obtain...abortions... I supported this amendment, although
it failed to pass by a vote of 201-215." Representative Judy
Biggert, (R-IL), May 23, 2003.
"I support Roe v. Wade." Judy Biggert, Town Hall Meeting, Monday,
August 4th, 2003. Judy Biggert also voted against H.R. 1997, Laci
and Connor's bill, also known as the Unborn Victims of Violence
Act, which had 136 Cosponsors, and passed the House 254 to 163,
February 26, 2004. You can see how other members of the House
voted on the bill at http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll031.xml
"House Defeats Bill That Would Hurt Pro-Life Protestors
Washington, DC -- A bankruptcy bill died in the House of Repre-
sentatives on Thursday, as a group of pro-life lawmakers upset
with how the law would apply to pro-life protesters led a bipart-
isan revolt against the measure. A group of pro-life lawmakers
opposed the measure because of a provision aimed at preventing
pro-life protesters from using bankruptcy to avoid paying court-
ordered fines when convicted of unlawful protests. Pro-life Rep.
Chris Smith, a New Jersey Republican who heads up the House Pro-
Life Caucus, said a core group of about 45 pro-life Republican
lawmakers refused to back the bill because of the controversial
language. Others joined the opposition after seeing the measure
was headed for defeat, he said. Smith said lawmakers could re-
write the bankruptcy bill minus the controversial provision --
which was added to the measure by pro-abortion Sen. Charles
Schumer (D-NY) at the request of pro-abortion organizations --
when Republicans control both the House and the Senate in the next
session of Congress. 'We'll be back next year and we'll do an-
other one,' he said.
'(The Schumer amendment) effectively says, 'If you are a pro-life
protester and you wind up with a money judgment against you for
engaging in what we regard as constitutionally protected speech
and activity, you are not going to be able to discharge that debt
in bankruptcy,'' Family Research Council president Ken Connor ex-
plained. 'The effect of that is to create a disfavored class for
purposes of punishing politically incorrect speech, because the
only group that is being singled out for this kind of treatment
is pro-life protestors.' Peaceful pro-life protests are more of-
ten declared illegal than other political protests on other iss-
ues in part because of the FACE legislation passed by Congress
during the Clinton administration. Although some labor unions al-
so opposed the bill because of the free speech protest concerns,
one Harvard legal analyst said the FACE bill makes the Schumer a-
mendment most onerous for pro-life advocates. Pro-life advocates
flooded the offices of Republican lawmakers with hundreds of
phone calls in recent days expressing opposition to the legislat-
ion". November 14, 2002 - Steven Ertelt, The Pro-Life Infonet
"2002 General Election analysts have attributed the success of
Republican Congressional and U.S. Senate candidates to the fact
that many of them are pro-life, many of whom are pro-life with-
out discrimination against any babies for any reason. It should
not go unnoticed that The Knights of Columbus bought full-page
pro-life ads in major newspapers across the country, including
USA Today, the week before the election. The ads featured a 4”x5”
black and white photograph of a beautiful baby in utero on an
otherwise blank page. Underneath the picture were the words, 'If
you ever feel your vote doesn’t count, remember someone’s count-
ing on you.' Below that, at the bottom of the page, appeared the
words, 'Vote Pro-Life this election.'" From: Colleen Parro Sub-
ject: Republican National Coalition for Life FaxNotes - 11/15/02
"Passage of Pro-Life Legislation Not Assured -– Despite all the
cheering from conservatives over the results of the election, and
despite the fact that pro-life voters greatly influenced the out-
come of a number of the most hotly-contested races in the country,
and while there will be a Republican majority in the House and
Senate in 2003, there will not necessarily be a pro-life majority.
In addition to the pro-abortion Democrats in the House, the number
of pro-abortion Republicans is still uncomfortably large. And, too
many Republican House Members justify abortion for one reason or
another. In the Senate, it takes 60 votes to pass a bill. Rep-
ublicans Arlen Specter (PA), Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins (ME),
Lincoln Chafee (RI), Ted Stevens (AK), Ben Campbell (CO), and Pete
Domenici (NM) usually vote against pro-life legislation. Because
of that, it is essential that pro-life citizens keep in touch with
their representatives, letting them know their views as pro-life
bills are introduced and informing them of the reasons they should
vote our way." Colleen Parro, RNC for Life FaxNotes - 11/15/02
"Polls conducted even by liberal news organizations show that the
country is behind the Republicans now because the majority of Am-
ericans share the basic values of the Republican Party. They ex-
pect Republicans to govern like Republicans. A USA Today/CNN/Gal-
lup poll taken immediately after the election showed how deeply
the conservative vision of public policy has taken hold in this
country. Fifty-one percent of respondents said they believed the
'political views' of the Republican Party were 'about right,'
while 10% said they were 'too liberal.' In other words, 61% be-
lieve the Republican vision is either right where it should be or
not right enough." "Human Events, The Week of November 18, 2002"
Put another way, most people don't agree with the radical, bizar-
re, unrealistic, viewpoints of most Democrats, and see through
their efforts to twist the truth, the facts, and reality. I pine
for an intelligent, honest exchange of ideas on what is best for
our country; but other motives prevail.
"Washington, DC -- In a nod to retiring pro-life Sen. Strom
Thurmond at the close of his 48-year Senate career, the Democrat-
ic-controlled Senate on Tuesday approved the nomination of a for-
mer Thurmond staffer to a U.S. appeals court. The 55-44 vote to
agree to the promotion of U.S. District Court Judge Dennis Shedd
to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va...Overs-
hadowing the vote on Shedd was the imminent departure of Thurmond,
the oldest and longest serving senator ever, who retires in Jan-
uary. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) told senators that Shedd should be
confirmed to show how much Thurmond, R-S.C., has meant to the
Senate. The soon-to-be centenarian - whose career spanned a conv-
ersion from Democrat to Dixiecrat to Republican - used what is
expected to be his final speech to the Senate to call for Shedd's
confirmation. Thurmond's 100th birthday is Dec. 5.
'I rise today to express my strong support for the nomination of
Judge Dennis Shedd for the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals,' Thurmond
said in his shaky, hesitant voice. 'Judge Shedd is a man of great
character who will make an outstanding addition to the federal a-
ppellate bench. He possesses a high sense of integrity, a thorough
knowledge of the law and a good judicial temperament. I want to
assure my colleagues that Judge Shedd is committed to upholding
the rights of all people under the Constitution. This fine man is
truly deserving of such a fine honor and he will serve the people
of the 4th Circuit with distinction.'
Shedd's confirmation was the 100th judicial nomination of Presid-
ent Bush's to get Senate approval, leaving 30 federal appeals and
district court nominees still unconfirmed by the Senate this year."
From: The Pro-Life Infonet Source: Associated Press; 11/19/2002
A historic speech, and a historic confirmation that never would
have been if the elections hadn't turned out the way they did.
The Democrat's strategy had been to not confirm the higher rank-
ing judgeships if there was any suspicion of pro-life sentiments.
Now these nominations can move forward for confirmation. Strom
Thurmond is an extraordinary individual. Asked whether he opposed
term limitations when he was 93, he said that he didn't; he only
planned to run for one more term. Only recently has he started to
look his age. If I recall correctly, he married (for the second
time, 8 years after his first wife died) at age 66, to a very at-
tractive Southern woman in her 20s, and they've had 5 children.
I think his oldest son is an attorney or prosecutor for the state.
In 1948 he ran for President. Later he led a migration of conser-
vative Southern politicians who switched to the Republican party.
Even before that, they had voted with the Republicans on many is-
sues.
"He is almost surely the only present-day office-holder who can
say that in his first race for office--running for the Edgefield
County Board 77 years ago--he received the vote of Civil War vet-
erans....participated in the D-Day landing on Normandy, having
waived his deferment as a state circuit judge to join the Army at
39 shortly after Pearl Harbor. (By the end of the war, Thurmond
had won 17 decorations, including the Purple Heart, Legion of
Merit, and the Bronze Star for valor.)....and later became a res-
erve general....carried his state....as a write-in candidate (in
1954, becoming the only person in history to become a U.S. senator
through write-ins)...included speaking for 24 hours and 18 minutes
on the Senate floor (the record for filibusters)....governor from
1946-50....A strong defense and strict construction of the law
and the Constitution were the issues that most motivated the South
Carolinian throughout his career. ....was a key player in Ronald
Reagan's rebuilding of U.S. military forces. Four years after his
own presidential bid, he campaigned vigorously as a Democrat-for
Eisenhower ('I served under him during the war and considered him
a great leader')." John Gizzi, Inside Washington, Human Events,
The Week Of December 9, 2002
"....he resigned from the bench and volunteered for the 82nd Air-
borne, the bravest of the brave. On D-Day, he crash-landed in a
glider in France, hours before the Higgins boats hit the beach,
and helped liberate Ste. Mere-Eglise. Days later he was photo-
graphed driving a military vehicle that had lately been the prop-
erty of the Third Reich. Decorated for wounds and valor, he was
with the Army unit that liberated Buchenwald. He was Lt. Col. J
Strom Thurmond." Patrick J. Buchanan, in Human Events, Week of
December 16, 2002. Strom was raised a segregationist. "But as
segregation died in Dixie, Strom adjusted. He courted black vot-
ers, hired black staffers, urged the nomination of black Judges."
If you were going to clone somebody, Strom Thurmond would be a
good place to start.
"Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri...took a tremendous step toward reign-
ing in our out-of-control courts. Following the 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals ruling banning the Pledge of Allegiance, Rep. Akin in-
troduced legislation specifically prohibiting the federal courts
from hearing any claim that the Pledge violates the First Amend-
ment. This was a bold move to reassert the authority of the leg-
islative branch over the judicial branch. Congress does have the
power to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts, but unfor-
tunately it is rarely used." From Campaign Watch, Fall 2002
--------------------
From: The Pro-Life Infonet, Steven Ertelt infonet@prolifeinfo.org
Source: Fox News Channel; November 21, 2002
"Michigan Court May Tackle Question of When Life Begins
Plymouth, MI - By the end of the year, the Michigan Supreme Court
may take up a case that has already reignited the age-old debate
of when life begins. The case involves Jaclyn Kurr, who was 17
weeks pregnant when she stabbed and killed her boyfriend, Antonio
Pena, in October of 1999, after he punched her in the stomach.
She later had a miscarriage. Found guilty of manslaughter, Kurr
is now serving a prison term of five to 20 years. During her
trial, Kurr's attorney, Gail Rodwan, argued that her client had
the right to defend herself and her baby, under a statute in
Michigan called the defense of others law. It says, in part, that
a 'person has the right to use force or even take a life to de-
fend someone else under certain circumstances if a person acts in
lawful defense of another.' 'Mr. Pena struck her in the stomach
with his fist and that was what prompted her defensive action -
the fetus is not in a position to protect itself,' Rodwan told
Fox News. But during Kurr's trial, the judge barred the jury from
considering this argument after hearing medical testimony from a
physician that a baby before birth isn't viable until 22 weeks,
which Kurr's baby was not. The judge concluded that in order for
Kurr to present a 'defense of others' theory, there had 'to be a
living human being existing independent' of Kurr. Last month, a
state court of appeals overturned Kurr's conviction on the grounds
that the jury was not properly instructed on the 'defense of
others' theory. The case has been appealed to the Michigan Supreme
Court, which is weighing whether to take the case and delve into
the controversy of when a baby actually becomes viable. 'It is go-
ing to open up the entire question of what is an embryo, what is
life? When does it begin?' said John Mayoue, a Georgia attorney
who specializes in rights of unborn children. He said he's concer-
ned that Michigan may set a dangerous precedent if the court de-
cides a mother has the right to kill in order to protect the un-
born.
But Kurr's attorney said the case has nothing to do with abortion.
'We are not addressing abortion questions,' Rodwan said. 'We are
addressing a very narrow issue when a pregnant woman is assaulted,
does she have the right to protect the [baby].' There is also a
law on the books in Michigan prosecuting criminals who kill or in-
jure an unborn child as a result of a violent crime against the
mother. Congress has attempted to pass a similar pro-life law on
the federal level. The House passed the bill, but it didn't make
it out of the Senate. Michigan may soon reconsider this controv-
ersy if the state Supreme Court decides to hear Jaclyn Kurr's
case. Until then, Kurr remains behind bars. Her fate, and the
possibility of a new trial, are still up in the air."
--
President George W. Bush, in a letter to Deryl M. Edwards, The
Liberty Alliance, November 26, 2002:
"I believe that all unborn children should be welcomed in life
and protected by law. Over the years, I have championed compass-
ionate alternatives to abortion, such as helping women in crisis
through maternity group homes, encouraging adoption, promoting
abstinence education, and passing laws requiring parental notifi-
cation and waiting periods. Every child who is born is valuable
and must have the full protection of our laws. I recently signed
into law the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. I also support
the Child Custody Protection Act, which would prohibit minors
from crossing state lines to avoid their home state's laws and
and undergo an abortion. This legislation would protect the health
and safety of minors and guard the rights of parents to particip-
ate in the medical decisions of their minor daughters. My admin-
istration strongly supports the enactment of H.R. 4965, which
would ban partial-birth abortions, except in cases where the life
of the mother is endangered. Partial-birth abortion is a late-term
procedure that is not widely accepted by the medical community
and that 30 states have attempted to ban. To prohibit this abhor-
rent and brutal practice, I believe that enactment of this bill
is morally imperative and constitutionally permissible. My Admin-
istration also supports H.R. 4691, which protects hospitals and
health care professionals from being forced to perform or other-
wise participate in abortions. I am pleased the House approved
this important legislation and call upon the Senate to follow
their lead. People on both sides of this issue can agree that we
should do everything we can to reduce the number of abortions in
America. As President, I am committed to the goal of building a
culture that respects life -- the full spectrum of life, from the
unborn to the elderly."
"Bush OKs funds for religious charities Executive order avoids
Congress By James Gerstenzang Tribune Newspapers Philadelphia-
Circumventing Congress, President Bush used his executive powers
Thursday to make it easier for religious groups to obtain federal
funds to perform charitable services. Bush's action puts into ef-
fect key elements of his faith-based initiative, a cornerstone of
his agenda of 'compassionate conservatism' and a proposal he un-
veiled days after taking office. The initiative was blocked by
Congress' failure to agree on the extent to which religious groups
could mix their religious message with their charity work while
accepting government money. Under Bush's new order, groups that
hire workers based on the individual's religious beliefs will not
be barred from receiving federal money, as they have been in the
past. 'When the federal government gives contracts to provide
social services, religious groups should have an equal chance to
compete,' Bush said in a speech to several thousand religious
leaders and other representatives of religious charities. 'When
decisions are made on public funding, we should not focus on the
religion you practice; we should focus on the results you deliver.'
In a setting that mimicked a bill-signing ceremony, Bush sat at a
small desk behind a sign reading 'Compassion in Action' and sign-
ed an executive order he said would direct federal agencies 'to
follow the principle of equal treatment' in awarding social serv-
ice grants. Later, back in Washington, he also ordered such agen-
cies as the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the depart-
ments of Housing and Urban Development and Health and Human Serv-
ices to remove any regulations that might block religious non-
profit groups from qualifying for federal aid." "'I recognize
that government has no business endorsing a religious creed, or
directly funding religious worship or religious teaching,' the
president said. But, he said, 'government can and should support
social services provided by religious people, as long as those
services go to anyone in need, regardless of their faith. And
when government gives that support, charities and faith-based pro-
grams should not be forced to change their character or compromise
their mission,' he said. Los Angeles Times", December 13, 2002
Perhaps I'm missing something here, because I haven't heard anyone
else say anything about it, but I think this may open the door to
government financial support of CPC's (Crisis Pregnancy Centers)
and shelters for pregnant mothers. For example, the $61 million
that goes to Planned Parenthood under one Title X program, of the
Public Health Service Act, could be redirected to the CPC's and
homes for pregnant women. It seems to be mostly faith-based groups
that have strong enough moral convictions to run these programs,
and it would surely fall into the family planning category - they
just wouldn't be killing the children. The Vitter amendment would
stop abortion providers from getting money from the program any-
way. The CPC's just need to learn how to apply for the funds now.
Here's some information you could use; if, for example, you wanted
to start an abstinence program: U.S. Department of Health & Human
Services, 200 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20201.
I got that off their main web site at: http://www.hhs.gov/, which
is a lot easier than going to Washington. You could probably get
their local office, through there, too, if you wanted to. Next, I
went to their Grants & Funding page at: http://www.hhs.gov/grants
/index.shtml. From there I linked to The Center for Faith-Based &
Community Initiatives, at: http://www.hhs.gov/fbci/funding.html.
Then on to How to Get Money for after school programs, and I'm
not sure whether I'm on the right path there: http://www.after
school.gov/cgi-bin/htgmsrch.pl. Finally, I ended up at Abstinence
Education, which describes the funding: "These grants enable
states to provide abstinence education. If it is appropriate,
the state can choose to support mentoring, counseling, and adult
supervision to promote abstinence from sexual activity, with a
focus on groups of individuals that are most likely to bear chil-
dren out of wedlock. Funds may be used for abstinence education,
mentoring, counseling and other activities that promote positive
behaviors." Then it talks about how the states go about applying
for the grants. So, under this course of action (there may be
other approaches), you would be applying to the state; perhaps
even prodding them to apply. I didn't want to take the time to
create the actual links, so if you want to go to the pages, copy
and paste the urls together - making sure to leave off the end
of sentence punctuation. If you can't at least do that, you'll
never be able to get the grants anyway.
"Funding History Social Security Act, Title V, Section 510, 42
U.S.C. 710. Grants in FY 2001 $43,475,153; FY 2002 estimated
$42,663,396; and FY 2003 estimated $50,000,000. Range of financial
assistance: from $13,501 to $5,764,199; average of $806,028."
So that's the money we're talking about. It should be inspiring.
"More Information Health Resources and Services Administration,
Maternal and Child Health Bureau (301) 443-2204
http://mchb.hrsa.gov/programs/adolescents/abstinence.htm".
"Potential Partners Public and private health organizations, re-
creation programs, community-based organizations, faith-based or-
ganizations, and local education agencies."
"Additional Information If you are an individual or local entity
that is interested in more information about this program, con-
tact your state. State contact information can be found at:
http://www.mchb.hrsa.gov/programs/blockgrant/directors.htm.
Then there are additional links, and other information also. The
web page the above came from is:
http://www.afterschool.gov/cgi-bin/htgmview.pl?pid=3.
I would suppose it takes a lot of persistence and determination
and cutting through government red tape to get the funds. But
somebody probably worked very hard to make those funds available
to us. They're there to be used, and I hope you can become one of
the users. After all, it's our tax money. And I just recently
learned that PP gets more money from Medicaid than it does from
Title X. Now, back to my publishing endeavor.
On that same day, President Bush said "The founding ideals of our
nation and, in fact, the founding ideal of the political party I
represent, was and remains today the equal dignity and equal
rights of every American". "This is the principle that guides my
administration." Based on his past statements and actions, I feel
confident he didn't mean to exclude the "unborn" from those
"equal rights" he spoke of.
--------------------
From: The Pro-Life Infonet Steven Ertelt infonet@prolifeinfo.org
Source: Population Research Institute; December 6, 2002
"How Population Control Promotes Abortion in Pro-Life Countries
By Steve Mosher
[Pro-Life Infonet Note: Steve Mosher is the director of the
Population Research Institute.]
How does the international population control lobby impose abort-
ion on sovereign nations? The case of Peru is instructive.
The British aid agency, known as the Department of International
Development (DFID), and headed by an abortion activist by the
name of Clare Short, recently offered Peru a $24 million dollar
grant entitled 'Improving the Health of the Poor: A Human Rights
Focus.' Belying its attractive title, the grant has little to do
with either the 'health of the poor' or 'human rights', and every-
thing to do with promoting population control and abortion. Even
more troubling, the DFID grant would completely bypass the Peru-
vian Ministry of Health (PMOH). The funds would instead go to a
private conglomerate set up for this purpose, a conglomerate that
would include non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that collabo-
rated with the politics of ex-president Alberto Fujimori, who
launched genocidal sterilization campaigns in Peru throughout the
1990's. The DFID 'pre-selected' NGOs (Manuela Ramos, Flora Tris-
tan, Demus, and Care Peru) promote the morning-after pill, a che-
mical that induces an abortion [an opinion, not a fact], and which
is illegal in Peru. Health officials in Peru also note that these
NGOs 'maintain an ongoing antagonism to the MOH.' The DFID itself
has a history of promoting abortion in Peru. For example, DFID
has funded a program to introduce Manual Vacuum Aspirators (MVA)
into 27 hospitals and 15 health centers 'as a cost effective way
of treating uncomplicated abortion.' Unfortunately, MVAs are used
to perform abortions in poor regions, and are so substandard that
they are not used in America for any purpose.
Peru's Minister of Health, Dr. Fernando Carbone, has quite right-
ly raised questions about DFID efforts to bypass his agency,
which has a constitutional mandate to oversee all health matters
in the country. He has asked DFID to direct its grant through the
proper channels to ensure that the grant 'complies with Peru's
national laws and government priorities.' Although Clare Short
has yet to formally respond to Dr. Carbone's request, one of her
allies, the so-called Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE),
which concentrates on promoting abortion under the guise of 're-
productive health,' has falsely accused him of rejecting the grant.
For CHANGE, under the auspices of the 1994 International Conference
on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo, 'reproductive health
services--means providing women and men with information and means
--to gain access to--abortion services' in Peru. According to
CHANGE, 'Extremists in Peru' have undermined reproductive rights
by refusing a five-year DFID grant 'intended to improve reproduc-
tive health services in the country.' CHANGE claims that Dr.
Carbone, rejected the DFID project 'because it intended to promote
health rights, including sexual and reproductive rights, and fost-
er civil society participation in health programs.' If the DFID
grant has not been rejected by the Peruvian Ministry of Health,
why would CHANGE report that it had? The CHANGE report appears to
be part of a systematic campaign designed to undermine the efforts
of Dr. Carbone and others at the Ministry of Health to move Peru's
public health sector towards a policy which recognizes basic health
services as an integral component of public health, and away from
the anti-natal and abusive policies of the past.
Throughout the 1990's, the Peruvian Congress recently reported,
former President Alberto Fujimori's genocidal sterilization cam-
paigns resulted in the involuntary tubal ligation of over 300,000
women. The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) provided instr-
umental technical support for the campaign. Peru's Health Minis-
ter, Fernando Carbone, recently told PRI that, while the PMOH
does not oppose voluntary 'family planning,' its understanding of
the term does not simply mean limiting family size but recogniz-
ing and caring for family health in its entirety of every person,
from conception to natural death.
It is unclear whether Clare Short will comply with Peru's request
that her agency's grant respect the democratic and constitutiona-
lly established position of Peru's Ministry of Public Health
to govern the public health sector in Peru. Short is known for
aggressively promoting abortion rights worldwide and is publicly
committed to increasing foreign aid for abortion and 'reproductive
health services.' She has in the past sought to obliterate the
sovereign rights of nations by establishing abortion as a basic
human right at the UN at the expense of basic health care. Ms.
Short has in the past accused PRI of making 'wild accusations' a-
bout the UNFPA's involvement in China's coercive population cont-
rol program. We stand by our earlier remarks, which have been
verified by the Bush administration's cut-off in funding to the
UNFPA. And we ask Ms. Short to cease her attempt to undermine
Peru's public health sector, not to mention its fledgling democ-
racy, by promoting abortion in Peru in violation of Peruvian law."
--
These people are quite willing to bring down a government just so
they can sell abortions (and sterilizations).
"From: 'Austin Ruse -- C-FAM' c-fam@c-fam.org
Subject: Friday Fax/UN Committee Calls for Unfettered Access to
Contraceptives for Children
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 18:29:47 -0700
Dear Colleague,
Today we report on how out of control UN committees are. The UN
Committee on Children has called for complete unfettered access
for children to all manner of contraceptives, with the rights of
parents completely ignored.
Spread the word. Yours sincerely, Austin Ruse President
FRIDAY FAX June 13, 2003 Volume 6, Number 25
UN Child Rights Committee Calls for Child Access to Contraceptives
Last week, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child
sought to weaken parents’ authority to guide their children’s ac-
cess to contraceptives and other sexual and reproductive services
and information.
At the conclusion of its current session in Geneva, the Committee
released a general comment on adolescent health in which it as-
serts that all countries that have ratified the Convention on the
Rights of the Child (CRC) should 'strictly respect the right to
privacy and confidentiality, including confidential advice and
counselling on all health matters,' and 'that access to informat-
ion on sexual and reproductive health be accessible regardless of
prior consent from parents or guardians.'
The Committee exists to guide nations’ implementation of the Con-
vention on the Rights of the Child, a document that has now been
ratified by every country on earth except Somalia and the United
States. After a country ratifies CRC, it must submit periodic re-
ports to the Committee, which then determines if the country is
in compliance with the Convention. The Committee has the ultimate
power to interpret the CRC document, and to establish what legal
obligations the Convention creates for ratifying nations.
Many scholars of international law worry about the broad inter-
pretive powers possessed by the Committee. For instance, Brigham
Young University law professor Richard Wilkins has frequently
charged that the Committee, through its radical interpretation of
the CRC document, has in effect created new legal obligations
never imagined by nations when they ratified the original Conven-
tion. In this case, the CRC document nowhere mentions that child-
ren have a right to such reproductive and sexual services without
their parents’ knowledge or consent.
The current general comment builds upon other controversial Com-
mittee interpretations of CRC. For instance, in a general comment
on HIV/AIDS issued in 2002, the Committee said that states are re-
sponsible for providing children with 'confidential sexual and re-
productive health services, free or low cost contraception, cond-
oms and services.' The Committee also showed 'particular concern'
for '…taboos or negative or judgmental attitudes to sexual activ-
ity of girls, often limiting their access to preventative measur-
es and other services. Of concern also is discrimination based on
sexual orientation.' Free contraceptives and sexual orientation
are not mentioned in the original document.
The Committee has also informed individual nations that they must
comply with these interpretations. For example, the Committee has
told Grenada that it should increase '…its efforts in promoting
adolescent health policies and counselling services, as well as
strengthening reproductive health education, including the promo-
tion of male acceptance of the use of contraceptives.' The Commi-
ttee has told Djibouti to '…provide access to information about
sexual and reproductive health, and that services in this area be
user friendly and address the concerns and need for confidential-
ity of adolescents.'
Copyright – C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute).
Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required. Catholic
Family & Human Rights Institute 866 United Nations Plaza, Suite
427 New York, New York 10017 Phone: (212) 754-5948 Fax: (212) 754
-9291 E-mail: c-fam@c-fam.org Website: www.c-fam.org"
Austin and Douglas didn't seem to think it was necessary to ex-
plain what I would guess is as obvious to them as it is to me.
But since I don't know how sophisticated my audience will be, I
will elaborate. Pro-abortion groups have taken control of this UN
Committee and are using the UN to mandate worldwide reproductive
health services (abortion), and creating the conditions that will
make it seem "necessary". They couldn't care less about the wel-
fare of the children, or their parents. They want to eliminate
parental authority so that they can perform the maximum number of
abortions on the children. Forgive me, Austin, for stealing you-
're thunder.
"Pro-life groups want the United States to send a strong message
opposing abortions, but abortion supporters claim that view is
detrimental to the reproductive health of women. Catholics for a
Free Choice, an so-called Catholic pro-abortion organization that
rejects the Vatican's pro-life stance, has led the campaign to
drum up opposition and decry the Bush administration." "'Since
the Bush administration came into office, we've seen a very pro-
grammed and strategic effort by the U.S. delegation to roll back
the language of these agreements,' said Ellen Sweet, a spokeswoman
for the International Women's Health Coalition... 'We are expect-
ing more of the same at this current meeting,' Sweet said. 'The
United States is going to lead the attack on words like 'reprod-
uctive rights' and 'sexual rights.' These are all terms that the
United States sees as adding up to abortion.'"
"An organization that supports the Bush administration's pro-life
position and has applauded its efforts to stress abstinence over
abortion downplayed Kissling's accusations. Austin Ruse, presid-
ent of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, said the
agreement reached by 179 countries in Cairo was anything but un-
animous in 1994, and deep divisions remain today in the United
States and abroad. 'The Bush administration is not the Clinton
administration and has no obligation to uphold the pro-abortion
positions of the Clinton administration,' Ruse said. 'The Bush
administration is not rejecting the entire Cairo document, only
the parts of the document that endorse abortion.' In addition, he
said more countries are following the lead of the United States
under Bush's leadership, which is shifting the focus on populat-
ion control from abortion to abstinence. 'A lot of governments
all over the world are rallying to the Bush administration for
leadership on these issues'...Ruse said. 'The Bush administration
will lead the negotiations and it will win.'" Something you pro-
bably wouldn't hear about elsewhere, that's going on. I quoted
from The Pro-Life Infonet, which got it from Cybercast News Serv-
ice; December 11, 2002, "Abortion Advocates Bash Bush Admin at
Population Summit". Austin Ruse heads a NGO (Non-Governmental
Organization) at the UN; which is apparently based in Canada. They
seem to be able to participate in a lot of what goes on, and hear
about, first hand, what they're not allowed to be included in. So
they're in a good position to monitor, report on, and influence
event outcomes.
"This country is coming to the climax of the greatest moral crisis
of its existence,...The terrorist movement we are fighting against
disregards the worth of innocent human life. . . . For us to be
morally consistent in that fight against terrorism, we ourselves
must adopt a principle of respect for life and reject the idea
that it is ever justified, with malice aforethought, to take the
life of another human being." Alan Keyes, Sarasota, FL, by way
of Bradenton Herald and The Pro-Life Infonet, December 8, 2002,
in a fund raising address to the Manasota Solve Crisis Pregnancy
Center, founded by Helen Cadoret "26 years ago".
"To: Friends and Supporters of the Campaign for Working Families
From: Gary L. Bauer, Chairman Date: Friday, December 20, 2002
Lott Throws In The Towel
After days of endless apologizing, Trent Lott has thrown in the
towel and resigned as Senate Majority Leader. Late last night he
began making phone calls to GOP colleagues to let them know his
decision. Also over night the White House began a more concerted
push to replace Lott with Senator Bill Frist who will now emerge
as the 'frontrunner.' Frist is a savvy media personality, but he
angered many conservatives by interfering in Republican primaries
around the country, virtually always in favor of the moderate can-
didate over the conservative. And he was a staunch supporter of
former Surgeon General Satcher who was pro-abortion. I hope a more
reliable conservative - Nickles or Santorum will throw their hat
in the ring." To me, this doesn't sound good. We've gone from a
man who promised to pass the partial-birth abortion bill to one
from the "moderate" wing of the party; where "moderate" may well
mean liberal and RINO (Republican In Name Only). Senator Lott, of
course, resigned because of a remark he made that was seized upon
by the liberals and media as being "racist" and "segregationist".
"Back when they supported segregation, Lott and Thurmond were Dem-
ocrats. This is something the media are intentionally hiding to
make it look like the Republican Party is the party of segrega-
tion and race discrimination, which it has never been. In 1948,
Thurmond did not run as a 'Dixiecan,' he ran as a 'Dixiecrat'--
his party was an offshoot of the Democratic Party. And when he
lost, he went right back to being a Democrat. This whole brouhaha
is about a former Democrat praising another former Democrat for
what was once a Democrat policy. Republicans made Southern Demo-
crats drop the race nonsense when they entered the Republican
Party." "Thurmond went on to reject segregation, become a Repub-
lican, and serve his country well as a U.S. senator." Ann Coulter
writing for Human Events, "The Week of December 23, 2002". Today,
Democrats seem to accomplish segregation through pushing welfare.
Someday, soon, I hope, support for abortion will be considered
just as reprehensible as slavery and segregation; or even more so.
Will President Bush's desire to hold the political middle ground
hurt the anti-abortion cause? Bill Frist seems to be his man.
"Several members of the Senate quickly lined up behind Tennessee
Sen. Bill Frist, a doctor who normally votes pro-life but receiv-
ed significant criticism from the pro-life community for backing
the confirmation of a doctor who performed abortions as Surgeon
General during the Clinton administration. According to National
Right to Life, in a 1998 letter to constituents, Senator Frist
wrote, 'As a physician, my professional ethics are grounded in
preserving life, and I am opposed to abortion.' Tennessee Right
to Life PAC Director Sherry Holden said Frist had told her organ-
ization he was pro-life. 'He said he's against abortion, period'".
The Pro-Life Infonet Source: Associated Press December 20, 2002
"Time magazine (Nov. 11, 2002) ran a 10-page cover story 'Special
Report: Inside the Womb,' featuring beautiful pictures of babies
in the womb at all stages of development." "Newsweek magazine
(Dec. 9, 2002) ran a cover story about the 'New Virginity.'
Chastity and virginity are starting to catch on. And now the new
Miss America, Erika Harold, is speaking out strongly for total
abstinence before marriage." Joseph M. Scheidler, Dec. 23, 2002
Then the June 9, 2003, issue of Newsweek had a cover story "Should
a Fetus Have Rights? How Science Is Changing the Debate". I got a
copy of this one from the drugstore. Journalistically, I would con-
sider it a courageous thing to do, although I don't know that you
can say they're on a crusade for either side. I'll probably com-
ment on it eventually, to give my perspective, since I didn't get
interviewed for it (humor intended). But I won't want to sound
critical, since it's great any time the topic gets mainstreamed
in an ostensibly neutral way, and it's not easy to give an unbias-
ed account if you have a strong opinion. They wrote quite a lot,
most of which I've read once, and I think an assessment would take
more time than I have to give before I send my book to the publ-
isher. But it will probably be done by the time the book comes
out, so if you happen to be interested in what my opinion was,
you'll need to come to the web site for it.
Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute -- (CEDAW Information,
or the "Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimina-
tion Against Women", a new vehicle for promoting abortion world-
wide - including in the U.S., if it is ratified by the Senate. At
this writing it has already been ratified by a Senate committee.)
"Since President Carter signed CEDAW in 1979, President Bush has
no authority to veto it. The Senate vote will be the final word
on CEDAW. If CEDAW passes, this UN document will become US law,
superceding all current US laws that conflict with it. Ratificat-
ion requires a two-thirds majority, and informal headcounts in
the Senate suggest that CEDAW may be approaching the 67 votes
necessary for passage." Further information can be found at:
Eagle Forum, http://www.eagleforum.org/ , Concerned Women for
America, http://cwfa.org/library/nation/2000-09_pp_cedaw.shtml ,
Focus on the Family,
http://www.family.org/cforum/research/papers/a0020975.html , and
National Right to Life,
http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/LegUpdates/july152002letter.html .
"FRIDAY FAX December 27, 2002 Volume 6, Number 1
Douglas A. Sylva, Ph.D. now writes every issue. He has taken the
Friday Fax to a whole new level of professionalism. Today we re-
port on the UN negotiations on 'family planning' recently complet-
ed in Bangkok, Thailand, where a wonderful effort was once more
turned in by the Bush Administration. Spread the word. Yours
sincerely, Austin Ruse President
US Attacked for Pro-life Stance at UN Conference in Bangkok
According to a US State Department official, the US delegation at
last-week’s UN population conference in Bangkok was confronted by
a 'horrendous disinformation campaign' about its positions and
motives. Eugene Dewey, US State Department Assistant Secretary
for Population, Refugees and Migration, said that 'It disturbs me,
the disinformation campaign which has been perpetrated by some
participants of this conference.' Most of the administration’s
critics have claimed that the US sought to undermine the worldwide
consensus achieved at the 1994 International Conference on Popul-
ation and Development (ICPD). International Planned Parenthood
Federation (IPPF) Director-General Steven Sinding stated that he
was 'deeply frustrated that a single country can hold up consensus
in reaffirming a fundamental international commitment to women’s
health.' However, Dewey asserted that such statements spread 'the
lie that the US is trying to pull back or to overturn the ICPD
plan of action. This is absolutely false.' Instead, in Bangkok,
the US attempted to align itself with the many serious reservat-
ions placed in the original ICPD document by pro-life countries
that feared that some language in the document could promote a-
bortion. The US officially supports some aspects of ICPD, includ-
ing its commitment to the idea that all family planning programs
must be voluntary. Many critics also argued that the US administ-
ration possesses an unfounded fear that phrases such as 'reprod-
uctive health services' are euphemisms for abortion. UN Population
Fund (UNFPA) Executive Director Thoraya Obaid bluntly stated that
'The phrase ‘reproductive health services’ is not code for the
promotion or support for ‘abortion services.’' But, when the US
attempted to include such a clarification in the Bangkok document,
in order to resolve the issue, it was defeated. And, although
Sinding asserted that ICPD 'does not promote abortion,' he also
admitted that 'It is heartening to learn that 17 countries in this
region have reviewed their abortion laws' in order to provide
'safe and legal abortions.' An observer present at the negotiat-
ions in Bangkok told the Friday Fax that the conference, official-
ly called the Fifth Asian and Pacific Conference, appears to have
been orchestrated by UNFPA, its chief non-governmental partners,
and members of other national delegations, in order to embarrass
the Bush administration and to call into question its commitment
to the well-being of women. For instance, the pro-abortion group
'Catholics' for a Free Choice (CFFC) placed advertisements in
newspapers in Europe, Asia and the United States showing a woman
and infant underneath a headline stating that 'The Bush administ-
ration has picked its next target.' The US was not cowed by this
criticism. It supported calls from some developing countries for
natural family planning, and argued for abstinence training as one
of the strategies to slow the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Dewey told the
conference that 'The United States supports the sanctity of life
from conception to natural death,' a statement that closely mir-
rors recent remarks made by President George W. Bush.
Copyright – C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute).
Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required. Catholic
Family & Human Rights Institute 866 United Nations Plaza, Suite
427 New York, New York 10017 Phone: (212) 754-5948 Fax: (212)
754-9291 E-mail: c-fam@c-fam.org Website: www.c-fam.org"
"From: 'Austin Ruse -- C-FAM' c-fam@c-fam.org
Subject: Friday Fax/Internal UN documents show financial misman-
agement at UNFPA Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 11:15:11 -0800
Dear Colleague,
I am happy to announce the release of a new C-FAM report that is
sure to help all those around the world who seek to stop UNFPA
from its harmful mission. 'The United Nations Population Fund:
Assault on the World's Peoples' is the most thorough investiga-
tion of UNFPA ever published. C-FAM research director Douglas A.
Sylva spent six months looking closely at all aspects of UNFPA,
and was even able to analyze internal documents that show wide-
spread financial mismanagement. If you are in your government and
seek to defund UNFPA, order this report from us today. If you are
a journalist, radio talk show host, whatever, you will want to
report on this new White Paper. All activists will also want cop-
ies. Spread the word. Yours sincerely, Austin Ruse President
Action item: Order a copy, or ten or twenty, of this new block-
buster report. The cost is $5.00 per copy (please add $2.00 for
shipping and handling. Send your check or money order to C-FAM,
866 UN Plaza, Suite 427, New York, New York 10017. We also accept
credit card orders.
_________________________________________________________________
FRIDAY FAX January 3, 2002 Volume 6, Number 2
Internal UN documents show financial mismanagement at UNFPA
An investigative report just released by the Catholic Family and
Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) and the International Organizat-
ions Research Group (IORP) has found widespread financial and
programmatic mismanagement within the United Nations Population
Fund (UNFPA). 'The United Nations Population Fund: Assault on the
World’s Peoples' reports that internal UN audits show that UNFPA
does not monitor the quality or reliability of the reproductive
goods it ships to poor countries. The report also unveils little
known internal UN audits that accuse UNFPA of failing to account
for up to 50 per cent of its funds for the years 1998 and 1999.
UNFPA is the chief organ of population control and abortion prom-
otion at the United Nations and has come under severe criticism
from the United States, one of UNFPA's chief donor countries. In
recent months UNFPA was accused by the US government of aiding
and abetting forced family planning programs in China and subseq-
uently lost all US funding. Efforts to de-fund UNFPA are ongoing
in the British House of Commons and House of Lords. This new re-
port is expected to fuel efforts to strip UNFPA of its funding,
which has decreased almost $200 million over the past ten years.
Report author Douglas A. Sylva, C-FAM research director and dir-
ector of IORP, reports that 10 million condoms sent by UNFPA to
Tanzania were later discovered to be faulty by the AIDS-beleaguer-
ed nation. Sylva uncovered UN reports that showed UNFPA could not
account for its money because it did not follow the routine book
keeping practices necessary to keep track of it. UN auditors also
discovered that, during the same period of time, 75 per cent of
the UNFPA programs investigated 'failed to deliver all of their
planned outputs,' while 25 per cent 'fell significantly short.'
There were numerous cases of fraud, and frequent breaching of Uni-
ted Nations financial regulations at both UNFPA headquarters and
at numerous UNFPA county offices. The UN auditors concluded that
these problems of mismanagement have grown worse over time.
The C-FAM report, the second in C-FAM’s White Paper Series of in-
vestigations, also establishes how UNFPA secretly promotes abort-
ion. UNFPA distributes crude medical devices called manual vacuum
aspirators, devices that UNFPA’s non-governmental partners use to
perform illegal abortions throughout the developing world. The re-
port also chronicles how UNFPA integrates its activities with pro-
abortion NGOs, including the International Planned Parenthood Fed-
eration, and how these organizations have developed strategies to
allow for UNFPA to help them increase access to abortion.
The report corroborates accounts of UNFPA involvement in coercive
population control programs in China, Vietnam and Peru. In fact,
documents written by one of UNFPA’s population control allies and
acquired by C-FAM show that UNFPA provided essential demographic
expertise to the Chinese government, even setting up a population
research center affiliated with the Chinese Family Planning Com-
mission, the agency that is responsible for implementing China’s
forced-abortion and forced-sterilization program.
Copyright – C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute).
Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required.
Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute 866 United Nations
Plaza, Suite 427 New York, New York 10017 Phone: (212) 754-5948
Fax: (212) 754-9291 E-mail: c-fam@c-fam.org Website: www.c-fam.org"
"From: "Austin Ruse -- C-FAM" c-fam@c-fam.org
Subject: Friday Fax/UNFPA Competence Challenged by UNFPA Board
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 11:25:09 -0700
Dear Colleague,
We report today on trouble for UNFPA at their Executive Board meet-
ing this week. Five months ago, C-FAM and our International Org-
anizations Research Group issued a White Paper on UNFPA that ex-
posed massive accounting and program tracking irregularities at
UNFPA. These charges, though based on UN documents, were hotly
denied by UNFPA and her allies in the EU [the EU even established
a permanent office to debunk C-FAM's charges]. It seems the exact
same questions that we raised in our report are now vexing UNFPA's
Executive Board.
Spread the word. Yours sincerely, Austin Ruse President
Action Item: Many of you have asked for a copy of our UNFPA White
Paper called "Assault on the World's Peoples." I am happy to re-
port it is now available on our website at
http://www.c-fam.org/iorg.htm Down load it, translate it, get it
around everywhere, especially to your elected leaders.
_________________________________________________________________
FRIDAY FAX June 20, 2003 Volume 6, Number 26
UNFPA Competence Challenged at Executive Board Meeting
United Nations Population Fund Executive Director Thoraya Obaid
faced a series of pointed questions this week at a meeting of the
UNFPA Executive Board, many of them from the population control
agency’s most loyal allies. Obaid’s top donor countries were con-
cerned with the adequacy of UNFPA’s management and financial re-
porting. The United Kingdom, Sweden, Benin, Denmark, the United
States, Ireland and Canada all questioned whether UNFPA had the
analytical ability to determine if its programs were successful.
As an example of UNFPA’s continuing oversight problems, a major
UNFPA statistical document released this week at the meeting con-
tained a serious mistake, a mistake acknowledged by Obaid in her
comments to the Executive Board. According to the document, UNFPA
spending on reproductive health and family planning in 2002 had
dropped significantly, from $119 million to $104.9 million, when
in reality such spending rose to almost $130 million. The docu-
ment, which relied on the incorrect figure for its analysis of UN
FPA activities, was thereby rendered largely useless.
Issues regarding financial and programmatic mismanagement at UNFPA
were first raised by C-FAM and the International Organizations Re-
search Group (IORG) in their investigative white paper on the a-
gency, 'The United Nations Population Fund: Assault on the World’s
Peoples.' Citing UN audit documents, the paper reported that UNFPA
had lax quality control standards, even shipping 10 million faulty
condoms to Tanzania, and that it possessed little capability to
measure the outcomes of its programs.
At the time, some officials within the European Union showed host-
ility towards the report. In February, Claus Hougaard Sorenson, a
high ranking member of the European Commission’s office for Devel-
opment and Humanitarian Aid said, 'these allegations have very
little factual basis and in many cases have distorted information
or used it out of context…. The UNFPA Executive Board has dealt
with the allegations on financial issues appropriately and decis-
ively.' However, these appear to be the same allegations now rai-
sed by a number of EU member states.
At the Executive Board meeting, the European Commission (EC) con-
tinued to exhibit a desire to protect UNFPA from criticism. In a
statement to the Board, the EC representative claimed that, 'In
the last 12 months, the Commission has become the target of a cam-
paign aimed at…discrediting the EC and our partners such as UNFPA.'
This 'campaign' appears to be a reference to the presentation of
the C-FAM/IORG paper to the European Parliament, which seemed to
draw the ire of the EC. In an internal memo obtained by the Fri-
day Fax, the EC even declared that it had established an office
to monitor the activities and publications of C-FAM and IORG.
This renewed debate regarding UNFPA’s financial competence comes
at a critical juncture for the population control agency, as its
allies in Washington DC gear up for a major push to have its US
funding restored.
Copyright – C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute).
Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required."
(It's hard to ignore accounting fraud, because then you become
culpable too. And, yes, some members of Congress are trying to get
funding restored to the UNFPA from the U.S. This is definitely
Dead On Arrival if they can't explain where the money is going.
Colloquially speaking, no one in their right mind would touch it
with a ten foot pole.)
From: "Austin Ruse -- C-FAM" c-fam@c-fam.org Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003
"Dear Colleague,
We report what may be good news today. The United States Agency
for International Development (USAID), one of the largest aid a-
gencies in the world, is moving tentatively away from population
control and fer