Thompson to Run?

It is being widely reported that Fred Thompson will file the paperwork necessary to form an exploratory committee in a precursor to a presidential run. One story quoted an unnamed source saying that the former Senator will make an announcement on or before July 4th .

Personally, I hope he runs. He's one of the few people who could meet the requirements conservatives are looking for and still give Hillary or Obama a run for their money.

Thompson's albatross is campaign finance reform but conservatives may be willing to overlook this because of his record on issues like abortion.

For now, we wait.

LA Times On Future Abortionists

This article, "Aspiring Abortion Doctors Drawn to Embattled Field," originally appeared on the 22nd in the LA Times and ran in the Chicago Tribune yesterday.

It always amazes me how abortionists and "future" abortionists manage to compartmentalize how they feel about doing abortions.

Warren Hern, a well-known late-second and third trimester abortionist, was quoted in the article:

"'We are hard-wired as a species to protect small, young, helpless creatures," he said. "The fetus is not a baby, but it's close. Some are very close. It's difficult.'"

Hern was the author of the 1992 instructional paper that started the debate over partial-birth abortion. In it he famously wrote, "the sensations of dismemberment flow through the forceps like an electric current."

I'm still not sure when abortionists in general believe that magic moment occurs when the unborn baby suddenly becomes a baby. Is it birth? If so, why? Babies are born all the time at different stages of pregnancy. Frankly, I don't understand how an unborn baby at 32-weeks gestation is different from the already-born baby who reached only 29-weeks gestation.

I certainly haven't figured out how doctors who learn all about life, death and everything in between can believe that a entity with it's own unique human DNA and fitting the definition of "alive" can be anything other than an unborn baby.

But no one said being pro-abortion was logical.

Memorial Day

My maternal grandfather was a POW during WWII and years later, he still suffered health problems from the effects of torture and deprivation.

Several other family members have served our country in the military as well: my mother, my father, my brother, my paternal grandfather, and several uncles. To each of them and to all of you who have served, I say thank you. Without your untold sacrifices, we would not be the country we are today.

We would not be free without you.

Globe and Mail Reports on Funerals for Children Who Die through Miscarriage

Yesterday, Canada's The Globe and Mail reported on a new trend: funerals for children who die in early miscarriages. And strangely, a number of women claiming to be pro-choice are among those holding funerals for their little ones.

Now, I say "strangely" because it does seem like a bizarre twist in pro-abortion/pro-choice logic. If an unborn baby is not a person and is only "potential" life, then are you mourning the loss of the child or the anticipation of having a child? And if the child was only "potential" life, why cremate the remains or bury the tiny body? To what purpose does this signify?

Besides the obvious, publicly mourning the death of an unborn child by holding funerals or cremating the remains may reflect more on the existence of post-abortion syndrome and whether the syndrome will one day be recognized as legitimate. If a woman who claims to be pro-choice feels like she can mourn the loss of her child, why can't the woman who has had an abortion regret it and grieve over the loss of her child?

500 Visitors

Today, lauraechevarria.com reached a goal of 500 visitors. I started the site in 2006 but wasn't happy with the layout or template so I pulled the site, revamped it and reintroduced it on April 9th of this year. I am grateful to everyone who has visited and hope the site will reach the goal of 1000 within the next month.

Thank you.

Jack Kevorkian to be Released in June, Offered $50,000-100,000 for Speaking Engagements

According to UPI, Jack Kevokian, aka "Dr. Death," will be released in June after serving over eight years for assisting in the death of a man with Lou Gehrig's disease (ALS). Already Kevorkian has received offers for speaking engagements and, according to his lawyer, several groups have offered anywhere between $50,000 and $100,000 to speak.

Kevorkian will be on parole for two years but speaking engagements are not a violation of his parole.

Kevorkian's lawyer wouldn't name the groups but even so there can't be many and I'm not sure how long Kevorkian could make his notoriety last for that price. After speaking for pro-death groups, I can't see him doing motivational speeches for IBM.

From Chimp to Person Revisited

My LifeNews.com column on animal rights vs. human rights has prompted some interesting e-mails.

In one I was told that "...from a strictly biological perspective animals are SUPERIOR to human beings." And that, "the next time you think yourself 'exceptional,' seriously consider how long you would survive on a planet devoid of all those creatures you distain so highly...a matter of mere weeks. On the other hand, if every human magically disappeared tomorrow, the Earth's animals would not only have cause for celebration...they could easily exist into infinity."

Somehow, the fact that our ecosystem depends on animals magically makes animals superior. Huh-- who would have guessed?

And then I received an e-mail that argued that this wasn't about animal superiority-- I misunderstood that moral equivalency is about animals and humans having the same right to life, etc. not necessarily that animals are superior. Philosophers apparently cannot agree on one thing that makes all humans superior and one thing that makes all animals inferior.

But the fact that only humans engage in the kind of self-flagellation evident in the first e-mail should say something about our superiority. A cat does not have the same right to life as an unborn baby. Because we are human, we are superior, period. Contrary to the implications of some of the ad hominem attacks, I am not a animal hater. I strongly believe that because of our superiority, we have an obligation to protect species, recycle, and in general do what we can to watch over what we have been given.

But bears, lions, chimps and dolphins do not wax long and hard on the purpose and meaning of life. They have not sent members of their species to the moon nor do they long to know more about the stars above their heads. They do not go around advocating the advancement of other species and they don't seek to better the world around them.

Not all humans are intellectually superior but our abilities as a species place us high above all other species on the planet.

There should be no question: we are unique.

Gallup Poll Shows Labels Do Not Reflect Beliefs

Gallup released its annual Values and Belief survey results and found that 49 % of those surveyed considered themselves "pro-choice" while 45 % of respondents call themselves "pro-life." However, when respondents were asked about when or if abortion should be legal, a majority were conservative in their response. Twenty-six percent agreed that abortion should be legal under any circumstances (the current status of abortion in the U.S.) and 15 % said it should be legal under most circumstances.

Forty percent agreed that abortion should be legal in a few circumstances and 18 % said it should be illegal in all circumstances. This is a total of 58 percent.

When asked about partial-birth abortions, 72 % of respondents agreed that it should be illegal versus 22 % who agreed that it should be legal and five percent who (strangely) cited "no opinion" about this heinous procedure.

While 53 % do not want to see Roe overturned, this is a considerable change from only two years ago when 63 % said they did not want Roe overturned.

Most Americans know little about the actual Roe decision and how broad it was in it's scope. Yet, significantly, 16 % said that they would only vote for candidates who share their opinion on abortion (Gallup does not break this down into pro-life v. pro-abortion in the summary). While that number may not seem very large, 6 in 10 said that a candidate's position on abortion is one of many important issues they consider when voting. Only 23 % said they did not see abortion as a "major issue" in how they voted.

LifeNews.com Column

The latest column for LifeNews.com has posted. I'll be doing something later today on more polling data but I hope you take a moment to check out the column and read more about how animal rights dehumanize us.

Poll Shows Americans Oppose Majority of Abortions

A recent poll conducted by Ayres, McHenry and Associates, Inc. and commissioned by the Ethics and Public Policy Center and the Judicial Confirmation Network showed that many Americans reject the status quo of abortion on demand.

Most Americans are ill-informed when it comes to the facts on the issue. Most people don't realize there are 1.3 million abortions a year or that more than 90 percent of all abortions are done for reasons such as the mother not being married or not ready to have a child or that a child would interrupt her plans for a career or education-- just to name a few.

When asked whether abortion should be legal or illegal in the following circumstances, the percent of respondents who wanted abortion to be illegal were:

doesn't like the gender of the child 79 %

thinks the child would interfere with her education or other career plans 72 %

has all the children she wants 64 %

feels she is not ready to have a child 63 %

is not married 62 %

When is comes to overturning Roe v. Wade, opinions on Roe changed when respondents were told that Roe means that states can't restrict abortion even for the reasons listed above and that overturning Roe means that states could pass laws that would address this by permitting abortions for some reasons and not for others. Forty-three percent favored reversing Roe (versus 35 % who favored this at first) and 48 % said that they would not favor reversing Roe.

It's only a matter of time before the majority of Americans realize that abortion groups have sold them a bill of goods. Because of its very nature, most Americans shy away from indepth discussions of the issue and, for many, this means they know the "facts" of abortion about as well as they understand quantum physics.

Many thanks to Dave Andrusko, editor of NRLNews, for putting this information out.

My Apologies

I apologize for not posting yesterday. My computer has been slowing down over the last fews weeks and it was only today (um, Thursday) that I figured out what was wrong but I spent a good portion of the day fixing the problem. I will be posting something later today (Friday) but wanted to apologize for my inconsistency this week.

Jerry Falwell, RIP

Dr. Jerry Falwell is credited with involving conservative Christians in the political process. This is wrong. Dr. Falwell should be credited with getting conservative Christians back into the political process.

For years conservative Christians were just as active as anyone else when it came to politics. But an entire generation in the 60s and 70s grew suspicious and weary of the world (think: no prayer in public schools) and pulled away. As a result, an entire subculture developed around traditional Christianity with it's own language, music, merchandise and schools. But many Christians of this same generation were content to sit by and let the world do its own thing.

In college in the late 80s and early 90's, there were those of my generation who lamented the lack of involvement by many of those who had come before and we were determined not to make the same mistakes. We wanted our voices to be heard, our opinions acknowledged and our votes to count. Dr. Falwell reopened that door and many of my generation stepped through.

Regardless of his perceived gaffes, Dr. Falwell helped a new generation reenter the arena of politics. Thank you, Dr. Falwell, God bless you and and may you rest in peace.

New Column Launches

My new opinion column posted over the weekend at LifeNews.com.

I'm excited about this opportunity to work with Steven Ertelt, CEO and editor of LifeNews.com, and present opinion to the many people who read LifeNews.com or listen to LifeNews.com reports on the radio.

LifeNews.com currently has over 150,000 visitors a week and over 200,000 people rely on LifeNews.com every week to present up-to-date information on pro-life issues.

This first column is both personal and political so I hope you get the chance to read it.

New Column

After a number of edits, I've submitted my first column for LifeNews.com. We're still finalizing the appearance of the column so be sure to look for it early next week. Visit LifeNews.com on Monday for more information.

New Column to Unveil on LifeNews.com

Very soon I will be submitting my first weekly column to LifeNews.com, the pro-life news source that has been around for several years now.

LifeNews.com currently receives about 150,000 hits a week and my column is the first opinion column for the site. I will let you know when this first one posts but be assured I will continue posting material here on a daily basis.

Maintenance Issues

Subscribers to "Laura Echevarria" may experience delays in receiving e-mails of posts. The company that handles the subscriptions has been experiencing technical glitches and it hopes to have these resolved by May 9 or May 10. I apologize to everyone affected by this.

Thank you.

"The Abortion Debate Brought Home"

Sunday, the LA Times ran an opinion piece called "The Abortion Debate Brought Home" by Dan Neil, who writes a column for West magazine.

He opens his piece with, "My wife and I just had an abortion. Two, actually." From that point, Neil, who is "pro-choice," criticizes pro-lifers, the Supreme Court for upholding the federal ban on partial-birth abortions and, on a personal note, offends parents of children with disabilities and, specifically, parents of children with autism.

Neil explains that their third attempt at in vitro was successful and four of the five implanted embryos began to thrive. Two boys and two girls. Of course, doctors immediately suggested aborting two of the four-- in medicine, this is euphemistically referred to as "reduction" which bizarrely sounds like an exercise class at the Y.

After genetic testing to determine if any of the children could be candidates for abortion because of a disability, the testing showed all four to be perfectly normal. Yet, the Neil's decided to keep the girls. Asked how they made this decision, Neil writes, "Partly, it was a matter of how the fetuses were arranged. Partly, it had to do with other factors. Some studies show offspring of older fathers (I'm 47) run a higher risk of autism and males are four times as likely to be autistic."

Neil watched the doctor perform the abortion, writing that he sat holding his wife's hand, "watching the ultrasound as a needle with potassium chloride found its mark, stopping the heart of one male fetus, then the other, hidden in my wife's suffering belly."

I have sympathy with their desire to be parents, but that's where it ends. As a woman who has battled infertility, has had one miscarriage and is mother to two children with autism, my sympathy runs a little short with someone who thinks he somehow deserves children only on his terms.

More of "From Chimp to Person"

Yesterday's post mentioned The Great Ape Project. I pulled their declaration from the website and it includes, ironically, a call for the right to life for "non-human great apes":

We demand the extension of the community of equals to include all great apes: human beings, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orang-utans.

The community of equals is the moral community within which we accept certain basic moral principles or rights as governing our relations with each other and enforceable at law. Among these principles or rights are the following:

1. The Right to Life

The lives of members of the community of equals are to be protected. Members of the community of equals may not be killed except in very strictly defined circumstances, for example, self-defense.

2. The Protection of Individual Liberty

Members of the community of equals are not to be arbitrarily deprived of their liberty; if they should be imprisoned without due legal process, they have the right to immediate release. The detention of those who havenot been convicted of any crime, or of those who are not criminally liable, should be allowed only where it can be shown to be for their own good, or necessary to protect the public from a member of the community who wouldclearly be a danger to others if at liberty. In such cases, members of the community of equals must have the right to appeal, either directly or, if they lack the relevant capacity, through an advocate, to a judicial tribunal.

3. The Prohibition of Torture

The deliberate infliction of severe pain on a member of the community of equals, either wantonly or for an alleged benefit to others, is regarded as torture, and is wrong.

Nearly 4,000 unborn children are aborted every day. These children are genetically unique, individual human beings and yet they are denied their right to life. However, in several countries around the world, animal rights activists are campaigning to make primates equals of humans and extend the right to life (as well as several other rights) to animals such as chimpanzees and orangutans.

May I point out yet again-- what a wacky world we live in!

From Chimp to Person

In Vienna, Austria, animal rights advocates want to have Hiasl, a 26-year-old male chimpanzee, declared a "person" under the law.

They argue that by declaring him a person, he can receive donations and have a court-appointed guardian to watch out for his interests.

Austria isn't the only country considering conferring such status on animals. According to the Associated Press:

Spain's parliament is considering a bill that would endorse the Great Ape Project, a Seattle-based international initiative to extend "fundamental moral and legal protections" to apes.

Here in the United States, corporations are routinely given "personhood" status under the law for a variety of reasons. But it is because the U.S. Supreme Court denies such a legal status for unborn children that these children are denied legal protection. Instead, under the law they are considered non-persons.

What a wacky world we live in.

"Hate Crimes" Bill

Yesterday, the National Day of Prayer, the Democratically led House extended "hate crimes" legislation to include homosexuals and other specified groups. The bill passed by a 237-180 vote.
It is not often that I speak on these issues-- there are others much more knowledgeable about these bills than I am. My area of expertise is with regard to right to life issues. However, that said, I have two major problems with the "Hate Crimes" legislation.

First, it subverts the Constitution. Our laws are required to treat all Americans equally. No one is to get special treatment because doing so would create a caste system in America which is something our Founding Fathers were trying to prevent. The grand experiment we call democracy began imperfectly but we have, by far, managed to achieve something unique. Hate crimes bills treat some individuals as if they are more important than others. For example, a white man is attacked, beaten and left for dead. The perpetrator is caught and sent to prison for X number of years. A gay white man is attacked, beaten and left for dead. His perpetrator is accused of committing a hate crime because of who the victim was rather than the intent of the criminal. Additional time is added to the perpetrator's number of years in prison even though both men were beaten equally severely (in some cases, state penalties for the original crime-- in this example, the beating-- are more severe than the penalties of the hate crimes legislation).

Let us also not forget that if it is shown that the sexual orientation of the victim was the reason for the crime, the law penalizes such actions with appropriate penalites (ever heard of the KKK or neo-Nazi's, anyone?). The concept of a hate crime is not new but "hate crimes" legislation that gives certain victims a greater status than others is new.

Second, by its very nature, such a law must include the dreaded concept of the "thought police." And criticism could be, and probably would be, interpreted as "hate." If, for example, you say that it is a sin to be gay, some jurisdictions may consider this a hate crime. And before some of you say, "Oh, come on!"-- what fairytale world are you living in? There would be little standing in the way of local law enforcement from fining or imprisoning individuals and pastors or closing down churches because of perceived "hate crimes." And because groups like the ACLU have lobbied so heavily for hate crimes legislation, I have a hard time believing that they would jump to defend a pastor who would dare to say "gay" and "sin" in the same sentence.

The Case of the $65 Million Pants

Most people outside the Beltway generally feel that those of us who live or work inside the Beltway are out of touch with the rest of the country. While not necessarily true, it's hard to argue against this view when you hear of stories like the judge who is suing a dry cleaners for a missing pair of pants. He is asking for $65 million dollars.

To be perfectly honest, I think most of us inside the Beltway think that the word "litigious" is too mild for this plaintiff.

The family that owns the dry cleaners, the Chungs, are immigrants from South Korea who came here looking for a better life. Instead, they've spent the bulk of their time defending themselves from a customer who, as a judge, ought to know better.

Roy Pearsons, the plaintiff, is a D.C. administrative hearings judge who took the signs "satisfaction guaranteed" and "same day service" a little too literally. The cleaners misplaced a pair of pants the judge needed and he demanded the cost of the suit-- $1000. But a week later, the pants were found so the Chungs refused to pay. Pearson decided to sue. And because of D.C. law, Pearson can ratchet up the claim based on the number of defendents and a fine of $1,500 per violation per day. Pearson came up with $65 million.

Oh, and he's also asking for rental car expenses since he doesn't own a car and will have to rent one to drop off and pick up clothes at a different dry cleaners. (What? He hasn't heard of the Metro?)

Pearson claims that he represents all customers affected by "satisfaction guaranteed" and "same day service" signs. However, the judge in this case, D.C. Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz, has said that the case is about one plaintiff and one pair of pants.

If all this isn't ridiculous enough, the pants, which match Pearson's inseam and have a tag that matches his claim ticket, have been hanging in a closet in the Chungs' attorney's office for over a year.

1-year-old Dies in Tennessee After Being Left in Car

Tuesday, a father took his kids to school and was supposed to take the youngest to daycare. However, probably out of habit, with his mind somewhere else, he didn't and his youngest--one-year-old Timothy Reid--was left in the car for seven hours as temperatures rose to nearly 90 degrees.

Returning to his car later in the day, Robert Reid found his son unresponsive and little Timothy was pronounced dead at the scene. The interior temperature of the car was 142 degrees.

I cried, as I always do with tragic stories such as these. It is likely that Timothy became unconscious fairly quickly in the heat but that doesn't make the tragedy any easier to bear. A young life was lost and a father will forever live with "what-if" and "why-didn't-I."

I write this as a reminder that all life is precious, whether an unborn child, a one-year-old, or a grandmother diagnosed with cancer. Timothy Reid was, and is, irreplaceable.

The Pope Made Them Do It?

Ah, the criticism comes in. The point has been raised that the Supreme Court majority in the ruling on the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was comprised of Catholics.

This was quickly followed by the ubiquitous "separation" of church and state criticism. I say ubiquitous because it seems that any time you hear that moral values of some kind have been applied to an issue by any form of government, in many liberal corners the validity of asserting those values is not judged by the logic of them or their persuasiveness. Rather, their validity is judged entirely by whether the person or persons instrumental in creating or promoting the arguments for them are "religious."

I am not Catholic. I am tired of seeing Catholicism and evangelical Christianity bashed simply for the sheer sake of bashing. Whether you believe in "moral values" or not, you likely live by at least some of the Ten Commandments and the teachings of Christ (the Golden Rule anyone?). Whether you believe in God or not doesn't mean that those of us who do should leave our faith and beliefs at the church steps as we walk out the door.

However, if Catholicism was truly the reason for the Court's ruling, we would have likely seen a ruling with much stronger language and the Court's reasoning would have been different. Instead, the Court's ruling is narrow and confined to the law presented before the Justices.

Using the faith of the Justices to discount and criticize the ruling is a shoddy, bigoted and lazy excuse for an argument.