LifeNews.com Column

This was posted earlier in the week but we were out of town and access to a computer was so-so. Here it is and I am working on one for tomorrow.

LifeNews.com Column

This is from last Saturday but it did not post immediately at LifeNews.com so I waited to post it here. Because of a death in the family, my wait caused an extended delay since I didn't have time to post this week. My apologies.

New LifeNews.com Column

Here's the latest at LifeNews.com

LifeNews.com Column

I'm trying to back into the swing of things by posting as much as possible. Here is my latest column for LifeNews.com:

Once again, the political season brings out the strangest behavior in people.

Normal, ordinary citizens seem to morph into voters with "The Rage" at the mere mention of the candidate they oppose.

Where have we gone wrong as a nation? Have we lost our sense of etiquette? Have we no manners when we disagree on the issues?

I fear our problem runs deeper than that.

Over the years, certain candidates and their friends in the media have become very adept at manipulating the facts regarding a candidate's record on an issue. As a result, people vote and react with their "feelings."

No longer do we find facts easily at our disposal. If you want to learn about a candidate, you—not the local news reporter—you will have to be the one to sift through records and web sites to figure out where a candidate stands. Manipulation and propaganda rear their ugly heads during these elections and the whitewashing of a candidate's record is just part of the business for some.

As hard as it is—it seems—to find the truth, it is out there. Take for instance, a recent article that appeared in National Review. Written by National Right to Life's Legislative Director Douglas Johnson, the article addresses the deliberate campaign to mislead American voters about Barack Obama's record on abortion. Johnson wrote:

The Barack Obama 'messaging machine' is now in full overdrive mode, seeking to mislead religiously committed Americans into thinking that Obama has a middle-of-the-road position on abortion policy and will promote 'abortion reduction.'

. . .

One important part of the 'faith outreach' sales pitch has been to insist that Obama would promote "abortion reduction" policies — that is to say, policies that would have the practical effect of reducing the number of abortions performed, without actually restricting abortion directly. This spiel was really a public relations strategy cooked up at a liberal think tank called Third Way, where veteran pro-abortion activists develop 'messaging' strategies to help pro-abortion politicians camouflage their positions. The Third Way 'Culture Program' (responsible for the 'abortion reduction' strategy, among other projects) is directed by Rachel Laser, whose previous job was with the Health and Reproductive Rights group at the National Women's Law Center, and who before that worked for Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, a major abortion provider.

But despite such efforts, more and more Americans are learning that the real Barack Obama is firmly committed to an agenda of sweeping pro-abortion policy changes that, if implemented, could be expected to drastically increase the numbers of abortions performed.

Once again, we see a candidate with a 100 percent approval rating from groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood whitewashing his record. Barack Obama claims to want to decrease the number of abortions in the U.S. but the policies he promotes such as pushing for the passage of the Freedom of Choice Act, reversing Mexico City Policy and appointing justices to the U.S. Supreme Court—who would broaden the scope of Roe v. Wade—would have the opposite effect.

Is Barack Obama that naïve?

No, he's not.

He's well aware of the fact that what he says and what he would do are poles apart. But Barack Obama is banking on the millions of American who do not know his record. He's banking on the millions of Americans who blithely accept what a politician says he will do. He's banking on the fervor of the mass media to give him a pass on this issue.

We must work now, right now, to protect the most vulnerable among us from the roll back of pro-life policies.

On November 5th, it will be too late.

Latest LifeNews.com Column

My LifeNews.com column I sent in early last week has been posted.

LifeNews.com Column Up

My latest LifeNews.com column is up. It's about Douglas Kmiec's account of Barack Obama meeting with religious leaders and Obama's comments regarding abortion.

LifeNews.com Column

My column over at LifeNews.com posted. The past two weeks have contained a great deal of discouraging news but as I point out, there is a lot of good to read between the lines.

New LifeNews.com Column

The latest column will probably post later today. As soon as it does, I'll provide a link on my website.

Working on the Latest Column for LifeNews.com

Look for it-- it's going to be about abstinence funding, teens and abortion, STDs and Great Britain's confusing policies. And if all of that sounds too loosely connected, don't worry, I'll make it work.

LifeNews.com Column on Barack Obama

My latest LifeNews.com column is about Barack Obama's position on abortion.

I highly recommend that you sign up for the e-mail news alerts available through LifeNews.com. Steven Ertelt, editor and CEO of LifeNews.com, ensures that the internet news source covers pro-life news not often seen in the mainstream press. LifeNews.com is supported through donations and the e-mail service is free.

LifeNews.com Column Posted Today-- The NYTimes on Fetal Pain

My LifeNews.com column on fetal pain posted this morning.

LifeNews.com Column on Barack Obama

My LifeNews.com column posted today.

Here is a portion of it:

As a lawyer who taught Constitutional Law, it’s disingenuous for Mr. Obama to say that we should pass laws that “prohibit” abortion only if there is an “exception for the mother’s health.” He knows that such laws would not prevent a single abortion because of the Court’s definition of health.

But Mr. Obama wants Evangelical Christians to believe he’s not pro-abortion and he wants our votes.

Well, as one of those Evangelical Christians Mr. Obama is trying to court, I say phooey.

Really, does he think we are idiots or uneducated dolts?

Mr. Obama please don’t insult us. We know when someone is trying to pull the wool over our eyes. We are very much aware of the scope of Roe v. Wade and its companion ruling, Doe v. Bolton. We’ve been working in the trenches for years now with our Catholic brothers and sisters trying to change the law to protect unborn children. If we voted for you, we would be rolling back the clock on everything the pro-life movement has accomplished.

So our answer is no. Thank you for your time but we’re not interested.

LifeNews.com Column Published Yesterday

My latest column ran at LifeNews.com yesterday:

When I was a spokesperson and the director of media relations for National Right to Life, a rule we followed when speaking to the press was to never criticize another pro-life group publicly. There were a few rare exceptions but for the most part we followed this rule to the letter because there were several reasons for doing so:

Criticism can quickly degenerate into name-calling and turn into a he said/she said or she said/she said (or a he said/. . .ah, you get the idea) situation. Even after it’s over and all those involved are friends again, the incident never dies.

In today’s world, the Internet, blogs, and 24-hour media coverage mean that criticisms will come back over and over again. They resurface when they are least wanted and when more important things are at stake.

Remember, come August 2008, a Republican candidate will be nominated. Our hope is that he will be pro-life and listen to what we have to say.

If some pro-life groups and representatives have been criticizing his supporters the whole year prior, the press will drag that out at every opportunity. How helpful is that?

Throw your support behind your favorite, play up his strong points but be careful criticizing other pro-life groups or your favorite’s fellow pro-life Republicans—one of them may end up as his running mate or he may end up as someone else’s running mate. And it’s very difficult to recant very public and very critical statements of a candidate, his supporters or his running mate.

Everyone forgets about the also-rans but as the election heats up they dig up everything they can about a candidate. Good grief, Bill Clinton’s underwear was a topic of discussion—enough said.

When other groups started in on NRLC over legislative priorities or, just like in the last two weeks, endorsements of political candidates, I used to think it had to be worse with the pro-abortion groups. It just had to be.

We have the truth on our side. Yet despite this, our human failings sometimes get in the way.

One thing always gave me comfort when others criticized my organization and sometimes even me personally since I was a spokesperson: it has to be worse among our opponents.

However, staffers at pro-abortion groups must be dancing with joy when we criticize each other.

If we’re giving each other a black eye, we’re not giving them one. Planned Parenthood, NARAL, National Abortion Federation, Catholics for a Free Choice—they and their colleagues in dozens of other groups probably feel like throwing a celebratory party every time we go at each other.

How does that feel knowing that we are making them feel better about themselves? That we are making them happy?

Criticizing other groups distracts us from our goal: saving lives. When we criticize another group or their spokespersons, we’re not talking about the issues. We’re not describing an abortion or talking about how many babies have died. We are not saving lives when we argue.

What we do is not about wealth, it’s not about politics, it’s about the mothers of unborn children, women who are hurting emotionally and physically from abortion. This is about the men who have seen fatherhood slip from their grasp because of abortion. This is about the medically dependent and disabled. It’s about the terminally ill and the elderly.

It’s about life.

Do I agree with the National Right to Life endorsement? I’m neutral at this time. As a writer on these issues, I don’t want to throw my hat in anyone’s ring. That said, about a month ago I made a $25 donation to the Huckabee campaign and I plan on donating to a couple of other campaigns.

I do know the likely reason why the NRLC endorsement was done and why it was done at this time—and I respect the organization’s decision and have no arguments against it.

It may seem like the 2008 election has been around since 1980 but we still have a whole year to go. My advice is to play nice, no hitting, no swearing and I’ll be on the computer writing should anyone get into a fight. Just in case, bandages can be found in the first aid kit in the pantry should anyone have need of one.

LifeNews.com Column

My next LifeNews.com column has been turned in and it is a critical look at . . .criticism. As pro-lifers, we should be criticizing the pro-abortion groups. Instead it seems as if election cycles are opportunities to also criticize each other. Be sure to look for it this week.

On a side note, I want to apologize for not writing lately. We've had some medical issues crop up with our middle child, Peter, who is autistic. If you would like to know more about what is going on, please feel free to visit my autism blog at http://www.copingwithautism.blogspot.com/

Thanks.