New Hampshire's Parental Consent Law Repealed

In another sad display of pro-abortion extremism, New Hampshire's Democratic legislature pushed through legislation repealing the state's parental consent law (the law never took effect because of court challenges). The governor signed the bill yesterday.

According to CNN, the complaint by pro-abortion groups was that the bill didn't have a "health" exception. Ah, ye old "health" exception-- with "health" defined so broadly you could drive a truck through it.

In 2003, one judge in the court challenge defied the conventional wisdom of the majority of states and the Supreme Court and declared the law unconstitutional because of the lack of a so-called health exception. Governor Lynch agreed with the court's assessment and signed the bill. Talk about political cover-- one court out of probably hundreds claims the bill is unconstitutional and the governor uses this as his reason.

So now, parents in New Hampshire will find out about their minor daughter's abortion if a) she tells them about it, b) they get a call from the hospital telling them their daughter is having emergency surgery to save her life after an abortion or c) they get a call from the morgue asking them to come and identify the body.

Supporters of the legislation in the N.H. legislature plan on reintroducing the legislation-- maybe in January '08. Let's pray they are successful.

Over 700 Visitors

Many thanks to everyone who feels that this site has something to say--especially about abortion and right to life issues. We marked 700 visitors today.

McCain-Feingold and the U.S. Supreme Court

First, let me apologize for not posting. We were out of town for a few days and I'm playing catch-up.

Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law was hurtful to citizen groups and was a violation of the first amendment.

This is a tremendous victory for the cause of free speech!

Wisconsin Right to Life challenged the law because of provisions stating that groups can't air the name of a candidate within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election. Ads that included the name of a candidate didn't have to be election oriented-- they could have been concerning legislation and contacting members of Congress on pro-life issues but the campaign reform law did not discriminate between the types of communication.

Of course, presidential candidate and author of the bill, John McCain, was disappointed but presidential candidate Mitt Romney hailed the ruling saying that the free-speech rights of pro-life and other citizen groups should not be abridged.

In a statement, Romney said, "The law trampled the basic right of the American people to participate in their democracy. Today's decision restores, in part, to the American people a right critical to their freedom of political participation and expression."

Separation of Church and State?

Because Catholic Bishop Thomas Tobin criticized Rudy Giuliani in his column, published by the newspaper for the Diocese of Providence in Rhode Island, the pro-abortion group Americans United for Separation of Church and State are calling on the IRS to investigate. They claim that they believe that such criticism violates the use of non-profit resources for political speech.

I say that they're worried that if all the Catholic Bishops did the same, we might find a very powerful and motivated block of voters-- some of them not seen before.

Could you imagine how powerful-- how pro-life-- that block would be?

City of Philadelphia Reverses It's Newly Official "Pro-Choice" Status

Just last week, the city of Philadelphia officially declared itself to be a "pro-choice" city. Catholic News Service reported that today's vote rescinding the "pro-choice" resolution of last week was 13-4. The original vote in favor of the resolution was 9-8. The resolution read in part, "Being a pro-choice city means defending the right to choose a legal and safe abortion as a final but critical option for women."

Pennsylvania's late governor, Robert P. Casey, was a vigorous defender of the right to life and to have Philadelphia declare itself "pro-choice" was to deny the legacy of Casey and others just like him who work every day all over the state to give women the information they need to choose life for their unborn children.

I'm glad to see that Philadelphia is again the City of Brotherly Love that welcomes everyone--including the unborn child.

The New York Times Slips Up

Just when I think we've earned enough respect to at least be treated as a player in the world of the mainstream media, it sometimes throws a sucker punch to the pro-life movement.

The New York Times Fashion section ran an article Sunday about the lack of abortions in movies such as "Waitress" and "Knocked Up." Lamenting Hollywood's hesitancy to show "real-life women" who would seriously consider an abortion, the reporter, Mireya Navarro, writes at one point, "Many conservative bloggers have claimed 'Knocked Up' as an anti-choice movie, in part because the movie never presents abortion as a serious option."

Oooh, did you catch it? Right there-- "anti-choice."

Ouch.

NY Times editors may feel that the pro-life movement is "anti-choice" but the term doesn't belong on the pages of the Gray Lady. It is polemical and feeds into the pro-abortion side's desire to debate anything but abortion. It also, more importantly, defines us from the view of our opposition.

Now see, I can say "pro-abortion" because, as an opinion writer, I'm allowed.

The New York Times needs to issue a correction-- at the very least.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research a "Gift from God"?

Leave it to Nancy Pelosi to make something so profoundly wrong into something profoundly wrong and sacrilegious. Calling science "a gift of God to all of us" and then in the same breath saying that science has given us embryonic stem cell research that is "biblical" in its power to cure, Nancy Pelosi really went over the top with her attempts at whitewashing.

And I'm not sure what she means by "biblical"-- does she mean miraculous? She must because it would be a miracle for embryonic stem cells to cure anyone at this point. No one is being treated with embryonic stem cells-- nil, zilcho-- no human trials at all.

All of the research we've been seeing about the successes in stem cell research are concerning stem cells retrieved from ethical sources such as umbilical cord blood or the patient's own stem cells. And yup, we have them in our own bodies-- one of the richest sources of stem cells? Right in your sniffer. That's right, way up in your nose is one of the richest sources of stem cells in your own body.

Next time we hear Pelosi or some other pro-abortion politician invoke God's blessing on the destruction of these little ones, be sure to duck-- the lightning is probably on its way.

9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Grants Asylum Because of Forced Abortion

It's rare (okay, make that never) that I agree with the 9th Circuit, however, in this instance, it has been a long time coming that we recognize that China's forced abortion policy is grounds for asylum.

The 9th Circuit decision concerned a man named Zi Zhi Tang who was sent to Guam in 1991 by his Chinese construction company. In 2002, Immigration officials told Tang that his work visa expired. Tang applied for asylum citing a 1980 forced abortion performed on his wife who was then his girlfriend.

An immigration judge ordered the couple deported because he decided that the abortion wasn't forced since she didn't go into hiding after receiving the order for the abortion. The appeals court instead found that an official order for an abortion could be considered force.

It is common to hear stories of women who flee an order for an abortion only to have Chinese government officials imprison family members in an effort to force the women to return. Because of this, it's understandable why Mrs. Tang might not have gone into hiding.

This ruling will help in recognizing the need for asylum for women fleeing forced abortions.

S.5 Heads for a Veto

Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed S.5 with a vote of 247-176. By passing S.5, the Democratic leadership has set things up for a veto.

President Bush has promised to veto the bill and if the Senate votes to override, the House will do the same but yesterday's vote was 35 votes short of the margin needed for an override.

Something tells me that we've not seen the last of this legislation even if it doesn't make it past the veto.

And if anyone asks what's the big deal about electing pro-life members of the House, this is why. And if someone says the presidential election is no big deal, point to this and tell them to think again.

"Clone and Kill"

H.R. 2560, the so-called "Human Cloning Prohibition Act" was defeated Wednesday in the House. The legislation bill would have outlawed cloning for reproductive purposes but would have legalized cloning for research. The bill was introduced by Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Co.) in a manner designed to push it through as quickly as possible.

Douglas Johnson, federal legislative director of National Right to Life, commented, "The House Democratic leadership tried to ram through a bill to pave the way for cloned human embryo farms, but their scam failed."

He also noted, "Any statement in any news story claiming that the bill would have banned 'cloning a human being' is false. Successful use of the cloning process called 'somatic cell nuclear transfer' (the same cloning process that created Dolly the sheep and thousands of other mammalian clones), utilizing human genetic material, will produce an embryo of the species Homo sapiens, which biologically is a human being. A journalist who asserts that this bill 'bans the cloning of a human being,' when the bill clearly permits the mass creation of human embryos by cloning, has embraced the position that a human embryo is not a human being -- which is, to say the least, taking one side's position on a hotly disputed subject."

Today, June 7, the House is set to vote on S.5, legislation that would mandate federal funding for embryo-killing stem cell research. The White House has promised a veto. For more information visit the NRLC website at www.nrlc.org.

600 Visitors

Yesterday, lauraechevarria.com hit a grand total of 600 visitors since its re-launch on April 9th. Many thanks to everyone who believes this site has something to say about politics and the debate over values, especially the right to life.

Be sure to keep an eye on LifeNews.com for my column this week. It's in the final edits. I apologize for missing last week's column-- I was away from my computer most of the week dealing with a car problem at the dealership. Unfortunately, my laptop is no longer young and spry-- it's absolutely useless away from the house.

This week's column is about Jack Kevorkian and I've planned next week's to be about the stem cell vote this week.

Kevorkian Says "No" to Future Assisted Suicides?

Besides the obvious love Mike Wallace apparently has for Kevorkian (two-thirds of the way through the interview Kevorkian had to ask Wallace to get tough with him), the 60 Minutes interview on Sunday was probably the most positive portrayal of assisted suicide I've seen in the mainstream media in a long time.

Kevorkian went to prison because of Thomas Youk. Youk, who had Lou Gehrig's disease (Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis or ALS), had written to Kevorkian asking for his "help" and, because of his condition, Kevorkian decided that Youk should be the test case for active euthanasia. Kevorkian gave Youk a series of injections: first Seconal to knock him out, then one to paralyze his muscles (so he couldn't breathe) and then a third, potassium chloride, to stop his heart.

Of course Wallace painted all of this in the best possible light. Kevorkian comes across as the long-suffering hero, the compassionate murderer to paraphrase Wallace. Even Youk's family is grateful to Kevorkian for his services.

I don't disagree that Thomas Youk had advanced in his condition to the point where he had difficulty with controlling his muscles and was afraid of choking to death because he couldn't swallow. But where was his physician in all of this? Did 60 Minutes even contact his doctor to get his opinion of Youk's condition? What about the many people with ALS who lead very full lives even up to the end?

Youk, like many other Americans with debilitating, chronic or terminal conditions, was likely depressed. But because he wasn't twenty and perfectly healthy, he was automatically a candidate for euthanasia.

Kevorkian has vowed not to assist in any more suicides as part of his probation but he's promised before not to do them so we'll see whether he keeps his promise this time.

Kevorkian Released Today

Jack Kevorkian, aka "Dr. Death," was released today. Sentenced to prison for his role in the suicide of a patient with Lou Gherig's disease (as shown on CBS's "60 Minutes"), Kevorkian has never shown remorse for his role in approximately 130 deaths.

Although Kevorkian is barred by his parole agreement from involving himself in any more suicides, as I mentioned a few days ago, it is being widely reported that several groups are willing to pay anywhere from $50,000-100,000 for him to speak.

More amazing is how quickly Kevorkian has recovered from all that ailed him in prison. His attorney claimed that his client's release was necessary for a variety of medical reasons but Kevorkian's early release was (obviously) declined every time.

Although seen as one of the faces of the assisted suicide movement, I think his release may actually hurt rather than help their cause because Kevorkian comes across as less than compassionate-- which is a cornerstone of the pro-death argument.

Sadly, many people are buying into the assisted suicide mentality and many are pushing to have it legalized and, just like pro-abortion groups, they hope to one day have it normalized.

As Burke Balch of National Right to Life has repeatedly said: the right to die may one day become a duty to die.