Sam Brownback looks likely to vote for Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius for HHS Secretary.
Now he may be wanting to get her out of Kansas but the rest of us don't want her!
National Right to Life notes how the Sebelius nomination moves the Obama abortion agenda forward.
During the latest debate, Barack Obama again muddied the waters about his record on abortion. Douglas Johnson from National Right to Life noted in his analysis:
In the debate, Obama said that the state BAIPA "would have helped to undermine Roe v. Wade." To evaluate this claim, one must examine the actual language of the BAIPAs. The original 2001 bill was only three sentences long; the third sentence was as follows: "(c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law." As recently as August 19, 2008, the Obama campaign issued a memo in which it singled out that sentence as "Language Clearly Threatening Roe." This claim is consistent with Obama's 2001 argument that a "previable fetus" should not be regarded as a person, even when born alive.
Read the entire analysis from National Right to Life's Legislative Director Douglas Johnson.
Factcheck.org released a report declaring that Obama was wrong and NRLC was right.
NRLC has the latest in a white paper the Federal Legislation Department has produced.
Here is the CBN Interview that also aired on CNN. This comes to you by way of Newsbusters.
First of all, let me apologize for not posting earlier today. I started a new job today (amazingly, writing doesn't pay all that well). I promise that I will try not to collapse under the weight of existing obligations as a writer and my new responsibilities. I will also continue posting on a daily basis but I may not get to comment on events of the day until evening.
National Right to Life and Family Research Council sent out a press release today about the Obama campaign's "adjustment" to comments Barack Obama made about his record on abortion and National Right to Life's (accurate) portrayal of it.
Here are the opening paragraphs to the NRLC press release:
NRL Update: Monday, August 18, 2008
Obama Cover-up on Born-Alive Abortion Survivors
Continues to Unravel After Sen. Obama Says NRLC is "Lying"
By Douglas Johnson
NRLC Legislative Director
WASHINGTON (August 18, 2008, Noon) -- Senator Barack Obama's four-year effort to cover up his full role in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions continues to unravel.
In the most recent developments, Senator Obama himself, in a videorecorded interview Saturday night with David Brody of CBN News (subsequently broadcast on both CBN and CNN), said three times that National Right to Life was "lying" in asserting that he had voted against a state bill virtually identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. He did not directly address newly uncovered documents that had been released by NRLC on August 11 -- documents that proved that he had done exactly that, contradicting four years of the Obama cover story.
In response, on Sunday, August 17th, we issued a challenge to Obama to either declare the newly discovered documents to be forgeries and call for an investigation of the forgery, or admit that he had misrepresented his record on the live-born infants legislation (not just once, but for four years), and apologize to those he's called liars.
We don't have an apology yet. But now there is this, in a news story posted on the New York Sun website on the evening of August 17th: "Mr. Obama appeared to misstate his position in the CBN interview on Saturday . . . [Obama's] campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate . . ."
You will find the rest of the release here.
I'll be conducting a workshop at National Right to Life for the Right to Life Academy, National Right to Life's intensive college student program on right to life issues. I will try to post something at lunchtime but my day is not my own so I am apologizing in advance for any late posts.
LifeNews.com is reporting on the seven minute speech via video that John McCain gave to NRL Convention attendees.
Pro-life stalwart, Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey, was slated to introduce the video.
The Orlando Sentinel recently reported that, prior to her death by starvation and dehydration, Terri Schiavo was "brain dead." This is wrong.
Terri's brother Bobby Schindler contacted the reporter who wrote the story and was told to speak to Mr. Dana Eagles. This is what Terri's Foundation reported in their News Alert:
Bobby kindly informed Mr. Eagles that using the phrase "brain dead" to depict Terri's condition was patently false, explaining that the term "brain death" is an authentic medical diagnosis and not an accurate term to describe a person in Terri's condition.
Mr. Eagles was also informed that a recent press release had been issued by Terri's Foundation to alert the media that using this offensive expression to describe Terri was inaccurate. Bobby also offered to send Mr. Eagles Terri's medical documents proving that no doctor, including those paid by Michael Schiavo, ever diagnosed Terri as being "brain dead."
The next day this email was sent to Bobby Schindler:
Dear Mr. Schindler:
I reviewed your complaint with our state editor, Bob Shaw. We've considered the arguments you made in our phone conversation, but we've consistently used the term "brain-dead" in connection with the Terry Schiavo case, and we see it as a valid brief description. I appreciate your calling us about it and letting us know your point of view.
Best regards,
Dana Eagles
Orlando Sentinel
Bobby subsequently responded to Mr. Eagles, informing him that if the Orlando Sentinel has been consistently using the term "brain-dead" to describe Terri, they have been consistently wrong. Mr. Eagles was also told that portraying Terri this way was not simply a "point of view" - his or anyone else's. Medical facts remain medical facts and, as such, are not open to the interpretation of an individual reporter or newspaper.
It was only after a May 31 letter by Attorney David Gibbs from the Gibbs Law Firm sent to the paper asking for a correction that the Orlando Sentinel admitted to making an error in the story that reported Terri as being "brain dead."
When I was director of media relations at National Right to Life, I had a similar run-in with the Orlando Sentinel. NRLC's convention one year was hosted by Florida Right to Life and it was held in Orlando. The Sentinel sent a reporter to the convention who spoke at length with NRLC President Wanda Franz, Ph.D. The article that came out the next day asserted that NRLC had only recently broadened its scope to include euthanasia. The article also made an error about partial-birth abortions. I had Deputy Press Secretary April Holley contact the reporter (since she at one time had been a lobbyist on these issues for NRLC) and explain that NRLC had always had a policy opposing euthanasia. The reporter and his editor refused to budge and said that if we wanted a correction they needed proof.
I mean, really, an organization doesn't know it's own history and the Sentinel knows it better? Come on.
When we returned to Washington, April went through archived copies of NRLNews from 1973 and 1974 and pulled articles on assisted suicide and euthanasia that included a clear representation of the organization's stance on those issues. She also Fed Ex'd to the Sentinel editor copies of NRLC Board Resolutions from those years. We got the correction-- several days after the initial article ran and only after a ridiculous amount of work on April's part.
The correction from June 1998 reads:
******************** CORRECTION PUBLISHED JUNE 30, 1998 ********************* A reference to ``partial birth'' abortion in a June 20 story about the National Right to Life Committee may have left the misimpression that the procedure is performed only during the third trimester of pregnancy. It can be performed during the second or third trimester. Because of a reporter's error, the same story incorrectly indicated that the committee has only recently taken on euthanasia as an issue. The committee considers opposition to euthanasia a ``core belief'' and has held workshops on the matter since 1973.
The Sentinel needs to get the chip off its shoulder, deal in facts, and stop promulgating such blatant media bias. As Bobby pointed out, none of Terri's doctors ever diagnosed her as being brain dead-- it's certainly not the place of The Sentinel to disregard the truth and promote such misinformation.
I'm not sure whether I should even give the following the time of day, let alone a posting...
American Right to Life is a start up pro-life group that is highly critical of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act because, they argue, "It doesn't save a single life."
They just released a press release offering $10,000 to National Right to Life (my former employer, of which they are also highly critical), if NRLC's General Counsel, James Bopp, Jr., can name a U.S. Supreme Court justice who has written in either a ruling or dissent that an unborn child has a right to life.
I have several points to make and, as per my usual standard in writing, my criticism will be leveled at the facts. I try not to engage in personal attacks-- I feel that it's a useless waste of energy. We should be fighting the pro-abortion groups--not each other.
1. NRLC has been the backbone and national "face" of the pro-life movement since 1973 when Roe was decided. It's oldest affiliate is Virginia Society for Human Life which was founded in 1968.
2. NRLC has taken a pragmatic approach to overturning Roe. It was not until the 1980s that any movement could take place in promoting protective legislation. While Roe still exists, nearly all protective legislation promoted by National Right to Life has passed the ultimate test-- the U.S. Supreme Court.
3. Regarding Supreme Court appointments: anyone recall the Reagan nomination of Robert Bork to the U.S. Supreme Court? 'Nuff said.
4. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was an overwhelming success.
And contrary to ARTL's assertions, the legislation did save lives and changed opinion. For the first time ever, Americans read about an actual abortion procedure in the newspaper. Major national newspapers ran the medically accurate line-drawings. I personally spoke with one woman who claimed to be "pro-choice" but when she saw the line drawings she could not believe that such a thing could happen in America. It made her rethink her position on abortion. She also sent NRLC a donation so the group could keep running the line drawings in newspapers.
5. The debate, passage and Supreme Court approval of the PBA legislation took over ten years(!)-- NRLC led the fight to see this pragmatic and should-be-obvious-to-anyone-with-a-conscience legislation passed.
6. Working at NRLC was not a cushy job. I loved it-- don't get me wrong --I truly loved it and the people-- but it was not cushy. During major events in the timeline of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, staff would literally sleep in the office and stay up at all hours copying factsheets and position papers. Our salaries were comparable to those on the Hill with the average entry level position beginning at $21,000 when I was hired. Long nights, lack of sleep, sleeping in the office, staying late and eating cold pizza were done as acts of love for those unable to speak for themselves. To imply otherwise insults all of those in the pro-life movement. BTW, the president of National Right to Life, Wanda Franz, Ph.D., is uncompensated for her position. The Board of Directors is also comprised of volunteers.
7. Until 2001, when NRLC moved into it's "new" Art Deco Era building with it's modest exterior and interior, the organization was housed in a rather run down building on 7th Street. The carpet outside my office had duct tape covering holes and rips and there was duct tape in the other halls as well. We shared internet access between offices and had to check with an ajoining staffer's office to make sure we wouldn't kick somebody else off the internet when we logged on (yup, we had dial-up until 2001).
In the winter, the heater system would overwork itself so that the heat in the building was stifling and we were all running fans to cool down. In the summer, the air conditioner sought to turn our offices into freezers and many of us used space heaters to keep warm. The owners said the system was set automatically-- they couldn't do anything about it.
It was only after significant negotiations with the building owners that we were allowed to install a satellite system in the late 1990s so we could watch the news or C-SPAN coverage of floor debate in the House or Senate.
8. NRLC is not in this for the money or prestige. NRLC is in this debate to save lives and believes this is best done with an incremental approach. If anyone has a better idea-- great, make it work. When you truly outlaw abortion by withstanding all of the Supreme Court challenges, I'll be there cheering you on. Otherwise, don't criticize the good people in the movement who have effectively held back the pro-abortion tide and advanced the right to life for the last 35 years.
Today, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which is a special affiliate of Planned Parenthood, released the abortion numbers for 2005, the most recent year available.
Abortions have been steadily on the decrease-- down to just over 1.2 million-- which is great news. However, 1.2 million a year is still far too many.
Of course, pro-abortion groups are claiming that access to contraception has helped to curb that number. They also claim that the increased use of drug-induced abortions, such as RU-486 (13 percent of all abortions), have curbed the number of sidewalk counselors contacting women in need by putting abortions into doctor's offices instead of abortion clinics.
According to National Right to Life's Randall K. O'Bannon, Ph.D., the director of Education and Research for the group, "Today's numbers confirm what we have known for years, if women seeking abortion are fully informed about the risks surrounding abortion, the development of their unborn child, and public and private assistance available in their area, they are more likely to reject the idea of abortion. Women's Right to Know laws, parental involvement laws, bans on partial-birth abortion, all of which continue to be enacted by the states, not only help women facing crisis pregnancies, they also raise the public's awareness about abortion and the humanity of the unborn child."
I agree that the continuing education of Americans in general and specifically the help given to women in need have made a huge impact.
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.
My last post explained how National Right to Life would have gone about finalizing the endorsement of Thompson from an internal perspective.
Personally, I am holding off on endorsing anyone. I think it's still too early to make any kind of judgments regarding who the most viable candidate will be. I do understand why others have made endorsements but as a writer I feel I need to hold back.
In the interest of full disclosure, I did make a $25 donation to Mike Huckabee and plan on donating to a couple of other pro-life candidates as well. We have a long haul in front of us and it makes better sense for us to focus on the Democratic candidates than who among the Republican frontrunners is more pro-life.
The Democrats have a strong chance of winning with one of their candidates and we have to make sure the American people know that each candidate vehemently supports abortion on demand.
Yes, there are varying degrees of pro-life among the Republican candidates. Some have come to the issue late in the game, others are more politically correct in their approach. Still others have been trusted friends of the movement for their entire political careers. But the enemy is in the other camp. Let's use our ink to expose the lies and misstatements of the pro-abortion left.
Earlier this week, my former employer, National Right to Life, endorsed Fred Thompson for president.
And the fur has begun to fly.
Yesterday, Paul Weyrich, the president of the Free Congress Foundation, claimed that the Thompson, in essence, bought off the National Right to Life Committee.
Weyrich told The Washington Times, "I think in all probability the Thompson people were engaged with the National Right to Life people in financial dealing."
Weyrich then went on to say that the Republican Party has funded National Right to Life in the past-- which is true, in part. The Republican Party made a sizable donation several years ago but the organization has received larger donations from private individuals before so that doesn't amount to any kind of smoking gun.
Relative to the organization's budget, the donation was a small percentage. Appreciated? Yes. The promise of future donations a bribe to the organization's leaders or board members? No, never.
I may not work for National Right to Life anymore but I believe in the group and the leaders. I know these people. They are like family.
They would not take a bribe for an endorsement.
National Right to Life is not some fly-by-the-seat-of-the-pants organization. It's board is comprised of representatives of all 50 states and let me tell you that if board members disagree with an idea another board member or staffer proposes, they will politely, but firmly, say so and then a discussion follows. A decision is made only with a majority of the board in agreement. The endorsement of Thompson was made after very careful and methodical consideration. And it received acceptance from the board representatives of all 50 states.
Does this mean that NRLC doesn't like the other candidates or doesn't think them pro-life enough? No. It means that the group sees Thompson as the best possible winnable candidate in a field of several very good ones.
Oh, did I mention that Weyrich is a Romney supporter?
Charlotte Allen, who by the way is a very funny writer even when the subject is depressing, wrote an excellent opinion piece on living wills for the Washington Post this past weekend.
I wholeheartedly agree with her but I would go one step farther, if you are thinking about signing a living will, please visit the National Right to Life homepage at http://www.nrlc.org/ and search for the Will to Live Project. National Right to Life lawyers spent ages constructing these documents so that they conform to the requirements of living wills for each state but with one major difference: the Will to Live makes an assumption for life in its wording. In other words, it assumes you want to live unless you specify instances where you do not want extraordinary measures taken. A living will on the other hand often makes an assumption of death unless you list situations where you want to live. Even so, many states, such as Virginia, allow doctors and hospital ethical committees to override a patient's or family's wishes so be aware of what your state laws are. Even with a advance directive, you may find that your wishes will matter little.
Today, the United States Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision upheld the federal ban on partial-birth abortions. It has taken 13 years to get to this point.
In the early 1990s, a paper was presented at a conference of abortionists by Martin Haskell, an Ohio abortionist who was one of the developers of the partial-birth abortion. In this paper, Haskell described the technique in full detail.
In 1995, members of the new Republican Congress (most notably Congressman Charles Canady of Florida) began work on introducing legislation that would ban the procedure. The National Right to Life Committee, where I worked for 10 years (from 1994-2004), was the leading force in working to pass the ban.
A hearty thank you goes to Douglas Johnson, NRLC's federal legislative director. Mr. Johnson spent thousands of hours crafting op-eds, position papers and letters to members of Congress as well as sending countless corrections to the news media. He and his staff lobbied unceasingly for passage of the legislation and worked to help other states pass similar bans.
It has been a long time coming but this brutal procedure that bordered on infanticide is now banned.
