Robert P. George on DOM and the Link to Abortion

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal featured an opinion piece by Robert P. George on traditional marriage. George is the professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University and founder of the American Principles Project. He writes about the dangers of redefining marriage:

If marriage is redefined, its connection to organic bodily union—and thus to procreation—will be undermined. It will increasingly be understood as an emotional union for the sake of adult satisfaction that is served by mutually agreeable sexual play. But there is no reason that primarily emotional unions like friendships should be permanent, exclusive, limited to two, or legally regulated at all. Thus, there will remain no principled basis for upholding marital norms like monogamy.

Now before anyone gets excited and argues that gay marriages would be monogamous, Professor George is talking about the basis for marriage in general. His major argument is that marriage is designed to have the potential for procreation. Not that every marriage will result in children or that every sexual act in marriage will result in children but that the institution of marriage is designed for the creation and rearing of children. He also points out:

Candid and clear-thinking advocates of redefining marriage recognize that doing so entails abandoning norms such as monogamy. In a 2006 statement entitled “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage,” over 300 lesbian, gay, and allied activists, educators, lawyers, and community organizers—including Gloria Steinem, Barbara Ehrenreich, and prominent Yale, Columbia and Georgetown professors—call for legally recognizing multiple sex partner (“polyamorous”) relationships. Their logic is unassailable once the historic definition of marriage is overthrown.

Is this a red herring? This week’s Newsweek reports more than 500,000 polyamorous households in the U.S.

Now all of these arguments are to point out the dangers of the Supreme Court ruling against California's Proposition 8 that is likely to go before the Court following a federal lawsuit that was filed.

Professor George notes the relationship between a potential decision creating a "right" to gay marriage and the "right" to abortion created in Roe v. Wade:

By short-circuiting the democratic process, Roe inflamed the culture war that has divided our nation and polarized our politics. Abortion, which the Court purported to settle in 1973, remains the most unsettled issue in American politics—and the most unsettling. Another Roe would deepen the culture war and prolong it indefinitely.

Some insist that the Supreme Court must invalidate traditional marriage laws because “rights” are at stake. But as in Roe, they are forced to peddle a strained and contentious reading of the Constitution—one whose dubiousness would undermine any ruling’s legitimacy.

Professor George, as always, writes well-reasoned, informative articles and opinion pieces. This one is no different and certainly makes the case that our generation could see another Roe ruling.

By removing decisions like abortion from the democratic process, the Court created an issue that troubles America's very core and divides us today--over 35 years later.

If Sotomayor is confirmed, would they have the votes to do it again with the definition of marriage?

Nancy Pelosi Tries to Sidestep Questions on Abortion in Health Care Reform

John King does a great job trying to nail down an answer from Nancy Pelosi on this issue.

Nurse Forced to Participate in an Abortion Against Her Beliefs

Alliance Defense Fund is representing a nurse in Brooklyn who claims that Mount Sinai Hospital forced her to participate in an abortion against her beliefs and wishes. Other hospital staff in supervisory positions allegedly lied to the nurse about the seriousness of the situation.

Contact Your Representative

It is imperative that you contact your representative and tell him or her to say no to abortion in any Obama Care plan. Please call 202-224-3121 and tell the operator the name of your representative in Congress. If you don't know, just tell the operator your zip code. Please call.

Can Barack Obama Become Pro-Life?

First Things looks at whether the Commander-in-Chief can be converted.

Obama Administration Plans to Rescind Conscience Clause

The Times-Picayune is running an AP story about the administration's plans to reverse a Bush administration rule that protected doctors and nurses who refused to perform abortions because of moral reasons.

Big surprise.

Those impacted the most by this decision will be Catholic hospitals.

Family Research Council has more.

Edward Verastegui on Barack Obama and Abortion

As the star of Bella points out, minorities are aborted at a shocking and astonishingly high rate. Electing Barack Obama would make these numbers climb.

For those of you who haven't use your Spanish since 10th grade, the video is subtitled:

National Right to Life on Barack Obama

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.

ABC Covers Obama on Abortion Very Well

This ABC News report from Jake Tapper does a really good job covering the facts about Barack Obama's position on abortion, the truth about Doe v. Bolton and Obama's comments to Relevant magazine.

Can Catholics Vote for Obama?

Okay, I'm not Catholic so I cannot speak for Catholics. However, I have great respect for the Catholic faith and recognize that many of us protestants owe a great deal to the Church Fathers. Having worked with many Catholics over the years, I have seen what can happen when truly committed Catholics work to effect change-- it's fascinating and humbling.

What is concerning to me is the large number of Catholics who are willing to see all social issues as equal (and we protestants have the same problem going on as well). There are some issues, whether you are Catholic or not, that should be seen as non-negotiable. Abortion is one of those issues.

Katherine Jean Lopez, NRO Editor, addresses this issue--as a Catholic--in her column syndicated through United Media.

Barack Obama on Abortion

I promised quotes yesterday from Barack Obama on abortion. Here you are:

"And there’s a lot at stake in this election, especially for our daughters. To appreciate that all you have to do is review the recent decisions handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States. For the first time in Gonzales versus Carhart, the Supreme Court held—upheld a federal ban on abortions with criminal penalties for doctors. For the first time, the Court’s endorsed an abortion restriction without an exception for women’s health. The decision presumed that the health of women is best protected by the Court—not by doctors and not by the woman herself. That presumption is wrong."

"I have worked on these issues for decades now. I put Roe at the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught Constitutional Law. Not simply as a case about privacy but as part of the broader struggle for women’s equality."

"There will always be people, many of goodwill, who do not share my view on the issue of choice. On this fundamental issue, I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield."
Speech before Planned Parenthood Action Fund, July 17, 2007

"On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that."
Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, April 27, 2008

Q: What is your view on the decision on partial-birth abortion and your reaction to most of the public agreeing with the court's holding?

A: I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don't make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy. And I think that's where most Americans are. Now, when you describe a specific procedure that accounts for less than 1% of the abortions that take place, then naturally, people get concerned, and I think legitimately so. But the broader issue here is: Do women have the right to make these profoundly difficult decisions? And I trust them to do it. There is a broader issue: Can we move past some of the debates around which we disagree and can we start talking about the things we do agree on? Reducing teen pregnancy; making it less likely for women to find themselves in these circumstances.
2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, MSNBC, Apr 26, 2007

Ah, the lovely non-answers you get from pro-abortion candidates.

The fact is a "health" exception in any abortion legislation would be defined by the U.S. Supreme Court very broadly to include anything that could impact a woman's health-- whether it's her age, circumstances, family or monetary issues. In 1973, the Court felt that any and all of these could be defined as "health" and this has not been redefined. Of course the person, by law,who gives the green light for the abortion is the abortionist.

Barack Obama is not stupid but his words would indicate a severe ignorance of abortion law--especially for a lawyer who claims to have made Roe the "center" of his lesson on "reproductive rights" when he "taught" Constitutional law.

But keep in mind Barack Obama is not stupid-- he knows exactly what he is saying. He is deliberately using words of assurance before large audiences. But read the first quotes-- those are the ones spoken before abortion activists. They are the ones you need to pay attention to because they are the most truthful and representative of his true position on the issue.

American Right to Life-- Not Sure It's Worth the Time

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.

Edwards Endorses Obama

In a not-so-surprising move, it is being reported that John Edwards is endorsing Barack Obama.

Edwards comes across as personable and folksy but he's just as pro-abortion as other leading Democrats. Don't be deceived-- Edwards wouldn't endorse Obama unless he agreed with him on core Democratic issues-- including abortion.

In 2003, John Edwards spoke before the NARAL Pro-Choice America Dinner that was held that January to mark the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Edwards said:

It's an honor to be here. . .to celebrate the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. . . .The right to choose is an essential ingredient to real equality in America. Until we recognize that fully, finally, without any equivocation, we can never reach the promise of America.

. . .

And so you have my word tonight that I will help lead a fight to pass a federal freedom of choice act so that your right to choose is guaranteed and protected no matter what the [U.S. Supreme] Court does.

Barack Obama's comments on abortion and the so-called right to choose match so closely with the words of John Edwards they could be interchangeable.

Beware, a vote for Barack Obama will roll back the work accomplished on the right to life. There is no way anything Barack Obama says can be construed as pro-life. If elected, I guarantee his first days in office would include executive orders overturning pro-life policies established under previous administrations.

Planned Parenthood and NARAL will likely walk into his office within the first month with a laundry list of legislative issues they want addressed.

And he will make those legislative goals part of his top priorities.

Shvarts' Project Still Not Shown

The Yale art student who claimed to have attempted to impregnate herself then induced "miscarriages" by taking herbs, is still not talking and has not conceded to Yale's demand that she admit the project is faked.

Which begs the question: was her op-ed in Friday's Yale Daily News the truth? Did she really attempt to impregnate herself? It certainly is possible that she could have done so using the method she describes.

But taking herbs to cause a miscarriage is less predictable. And Shvarts' may not have been pregnant in the first place-- she never took a pregnancy test so she doesn't know.

But in the spirit of relativism, Shvarts' claims that because of this ambiguity, the blood in her art project carries the meaning we attach to it-- yada-yada-yada.

What crock.

This young women likely put herself through potentially damaging acts in an effort to create "art." Yale was right to pull this project-- but I surely hope someone is seeking real answers in an effort to help Shvarts.

Yale to Pull Art Project Unless Student Admits It's False

Yale University announced today that it will pull Aliza Shvarts' art project unless she admits that it is fiction.

According to FoxNews.com, Yale stands "by its claim Monday that Aliza Shvarts fabricated a shocking work of 'creative fiction' in detailing how she constructed her senior art project."

As I've noted in the two previous posts, Shvarts claimed that she impregnated herself with donated sperm and then caused "miscarriages" by taking herbs and drugs. She then collected the blood and material from the "miscarriages" for her "art project."

Then, Thursday, when university officials questioned her, she admitted that it was all made up-- a narrative that comprised part of her art project.

Then, on Friday, in an opinion piece for the Yale Daily News, Shvarts then claimed that she did do what she originally claimed except that she never took a pregnancy test and she took herbs on the 28th day of her cycle to bring on her menstrual cycle. She claims to have done this for nine months.

Now, if you can get past the ridiculous language of her opinion piece, (As an aside, why do so many students insist on wrapping the most basic claims and opinions in forty-cent words when a dime a dozen would work? Maybe it's because the most outlandish and assinine claims come across as more serious and learned when wrapped in silk versus cotton? Seriously, I thought her opinion piece was trite. Anyway,. . .) you'll discover that, as the Preacher said, "There is nothing new under the sun." Shvarts project is just a gross way of expressing the same modern feminist jargon everyone from Betty Friedan to Kim Gandy has espoused in some fashion.

On the plus side, Yale investigated and found that a step in the art project approval process was skipped. I know that as a speech communications major, I had to write an original piece of work 45-55 minutes long, memorize it and perform the speech before the faculty for approval before I could perform before the public. From the FoxNews account, it sounds like the faculty approval part was skipped.

Yale administrators are certain that Shvarts' claims of intentionally aborting herself over and over again are all part of Shvarts' "performance." They are insisting that she tell the truth and admit that no human blood was used for the project otherwise they will cancel the showing.

Let's all pray that her "narrative" is just that-- a piece of gross and crass fiction-- and that this young woman hasn't sacrificed her health and sanity for the sake of "art."

Yale Art Student Lied About Lying

The Yale University student who claimed to have impregnated herself with donor sperm just so she could induce "miscarriages" for her art project now claims the project was real-- despite whatever she told Yale authorities.

However, the facts as she now tells them are different from what was originally told to the press yesterday. According to FoxNews.com, the student, Aliza Shvarts, now claims that she did attempt to impregnate herself but took herbs on the 28th day of her cycle to begin menstruating. She apparently did not take a pregnancy test at any point during these repeated attempts and does not know if she ever became pregnant.

Even though it is not known if she became pregnant, Ms. Shvarts "art" project should be shelved. And I think this student needs serious psychological help. Putting herself through these attempts at self-impregnation and then inducing menstruation (or abortion-- we don't know) is cause for concern.

As a woman who has suffered a miscarriage, I find it extremely offensive that this student thinks my grief-- and the grief of millions of women like me who have lost a child from miscarriage or induced abortion-- is subject to her bizarre and sick sense of "art."

And regardless of what she asserts, this project was obviously contrived to shock and incite controversy.

It is possible that these new claims are part of a new "narrative" for her "performance art" and if it is, again, a lie, I think Ms. Shvarts needs to have her project pulled and both she and her "project" advisor need to understand that performing or acting for an audience willing to suspend disbelief is different from deliberately setting out to deceive the audience.

Lying is not art. It's lying.

Yale has a responsibility here and I hope they recognize it.

Yale Art??

I was quoted in a LifeNews.com article today about a Yale Art student who claimed to have artificially impregnated herself and then induced more than one abortion just for an "art project." She then filmed her "miscarriages" for her senior art project which is set to go on display.

Well, it turns out-- she lied.

She reportedly told three university officials that she did not do what she claimed to have done. According to a Yale press release, this is "performance art."

No, it's not.

It's sick.

Millions of women in this country have miscarried or have had abortions and grieve over their losses. I, for one, am incensed that this "art" student felt that those losses are subject to what amounts as a cruel joke purportedly done for the sake of "art."

Regardless of Yale's justification, this project is offensive to many and it's crude and crass.

It needs to be pulled.

Google Discriminates

I have to weigh in on the lawsuit against Google's AdWords. According the CNSNews article posted at Crosswalk:

A pro-life Christian organization [the Christian Institute] in Britain wanted to offer another option [to abortion clinic ads] -- but Google turned it down, saying that because its ad linked to a Web site containing "abortion and religious-related content," it was not permitted.

I had the identical experience.

Blogger, of course, is part of Google so it seemed natural to run a set of ads on AdWords featuring what my site was about. Repeatedly, if I used the words pro-life or abortion in the ad, I would get the little editorial policy guideline malarky telling me I couldn't run the ads because they contained abortion information. But since I am a fledgling (read: limited funds) columnist, writer and, first and foremost, a mom to special needs children, my response was not to fight it but to change my ads to read "conservative commentary" and then eventually pull them altogether in favor of press releases. The press releases cost me the same amount but generate more traffic to the site. And I figured fighting Google would be difficult and costly with U.S. law on their side.

In addition, Google's U.S. policy must be a little different from their U.K. policy or they stretched their policy in not accommodating me-- my website is not overtly religious. Not that I'm not but I tend to be very linear in my thinking and so I stick to the political aspects as much as possible. I will appeal to a person's religion or sense of fairness but it's not particular overt because of my writing style and background working for a non-sectarian organization. I also tend to write with less of the polemics than one might find on another commentator's site for the same reasons.

Google's notes on it's editorial policy never mentioned religious content only the fact that I couldn't run an ad that mentioned abortion. Of course, this didn't make sense considering all of the abortion ads I see but I chalked it up to a subjective editorial policy based in bleeding heart liberalism wrapped comfortably in capitalism.

As for the religiosity of being pro-life: contrary to popular liberal belief, opposition to abortion is not solely a Catholic view, it is however a catholic view. There are many non-religous individuals and atheists who believe in the right to life.

Google needs to leave the stereotyping to the fanatics and run the ads.

CNS News is reporting that, during a townhall meeting yesterday, a Pastor Leon Forte asked Barack Obama about evangelical Christian concerns regarding Obama's more controversial positions. Mr. Obama took this to mean gay marriage and abortion.

This is Mr. Obama's partial response involving his answer on abortion:

Now, I think what you may be referring to, though, when you say controversies, probably has more to do with two issues, which is abortion and gay marriage, which has become, I think, how people measure faith in the evangelical community. And, you know, I think that there are genuine differences of opinion in this area. . . .

And on the issue of abortion that is always a tragic and painful issue. And I think that in the past we have made some mistakes, I think, people who are pro-choice, in not focusing on the fact that there is a real moral element to this. And I think that is how it is experienced by women. It is never an easy decision and I don't think women make those decisions casually.

I think it is always tragic, and we should prevent it as much as possible by making sure that young people are engaging in responsible behavior and that we are encouraging the kinds of good decisions that prevent unwanted pregnancies and that we are encouraging adoption as an alternative. But I think that at the bottom line is that in the end I think women, in consultation with their pastors, and their doctors, and their family, are in a better position to make these decisions than some bureaucrat in Washington.

We have 1.2 million abortions a year. Less than 10 percent are for rape, incest, the life of mother or for fetal disability. About half of all abortions are repeat abortions and a woman can get an abortion for virtually any reason at any time during her pregnancy.

In the WWJD tradition, I have a hard time believing that Jesus would endorse or approve of the deliberate killing of unborn children.

Uh-Oh-- In McCain/Obama Matchup, Obama Pulls Some Pro-Life Voters

In an article from LifeNews.com, polling in key battleground states suggests that voters who consider themselves pro-life are deceived by Barack Obama's record on abortion on demand.

Let's be clear-- Barack Obama is just as pro-abortion as Hillary Clinton. He has worked hand-in-hand with pro-abortion groups. He even opposed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. What more to voter's need to know?

In Wisconsin, a Survey USA poll shows that a Obama vs. McCain race has 60% of pro-life voters going to McCain and 32% to Obama. Eight percent are undecided. In that state, a Clinton/McCain matchup has 65 percent going to McCain and 27 percent to Clinton, with eight percent still undecided.

In Virginia, it was 64% of pro-life voters for McCain to 30% for Clinton but in a McCain/Obama matchup, the pro-life percentage drops from 61 for McCain to 36 percent for Obama.

In Iowa, pro-lifers support McCain in a McCain/Clinton matchup, 64 to 28. But against Obama, the percentage of support McCain enjoys among pro-lifers drops to 54 percent versus Obama's 37 percent.

The pro-life voting increment--meaning the advantage the pro-life vote consistently gives a candidate--generally ranges in the 2 to 4 percent range. This can effectively change the course of a race and put a candidate over the top for a win.

If some pro-lifers are under the mistaken belief that Barack Obama is not as bad as Hillary on abortion, they are in for a very rude awakening should he become president.