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 (yľng) 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.