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.

Henry Hyde, RIP

Former Congressman Henry Hyde died today at the age of 83.

On November 5th, President Bush awarded the former Congressman the Presidential Medal of Freedom saying Hyde was a "towering figure in Washington" who "walked with kings and kept the common touch."

In 1996, Congressman Hyde rose before his colleagues and spoke at length about the need to ban partial-birth abortions. His eloquence as a speaker, especially on this issue, could not be surpassed.

He said toward the end of his speech:

One of the great errors of modern politics is our foolish attempt to separate our private consciences from our public acts, and it cannot be done. At the end of the 20th century, is the crowning achievement of our democracy to treat the weak, the powerless, the unwanted as things? To be disposed of? If so, we have not elevated justice; we have disgraced it.

This is not a debate about sectarian religious doctrine or about policy options. This is a debate about our understanding of human dignity, what does it mean to be human? Our moment in history is marked by a mortal conflict between a culture of death and a culture of life, and today, here and now, we must choose sides.

I am not the least embarrassed to say that I believe one day each of us will be called upon to render an account for what we have done, and maybe more importantly, what we fail to do in our lifetime, and while I believe in a merciful God, I believe in a just God, and I would be terrified at the thought of having to explain at the final judgment why I stood unmoved while Herod's slaughter of the innocents was being reenacted here in my own country.

This debate has been about an unspeakable horror. . . .We are not talking about abstractions here. We are talking about life and death at their most elemental, and we ought to face the truth of what we oppose or support stripped of all euphemisms, and the queen of all euphemisms is "choice" as though one is choosing vanilla and chocolate instead of a dead baby or a live baby.

. . .

Let the innocence of the unborn have the last word in this debate. Let their innocence appeal to what President Lincoln called the better angels of our nature. . . .

Make it clear once again there is justice for all, even for the tiniest, most defenseless in this, our land.

I was privileged to have been in the presence of this great man on several occasions. He will be greatly, greatly missed. But we have had the honor of having known him and he was a voice for the voiceless.

Thank you Congressman. It is my hope and belief that the chorus you hear now is one of comprised of millions of young voices testifying to your work on their behalf.

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.

I Am Not Endorsing Anyone--Yet

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.

National Right to Life Endorses Thompson

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?

Go See "Bella"

I am looking forward to seeing the movie "Bella." Many of you may have heard about this uplifting movie from some of the grassroots groups promoting it. Using the go-to-the-grassroots advertising philosophy of The Passion of the Christ, the producers of Bella have had limited advertising dollars but are relying on word of mouth and screenings of the movie to promote it.

In one moment, a life can be changed forever, this film looks at the choices we make when we are confronted with that pivotal moment. The film opens this weekend in select cities. For more information, visit Metanoia films.

Thanks for supporting this worthy project.

Charlotte Allen on "Good Death"

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.

Kevorkian Speech Postponed

Citing security concerns, the University of Florida has asked to have Kevorkian's speech postponed until January. According to the North Country Gazette, Kevorkian's speech will be moved to January 15, 2008.

Kevorkian will be paid $50,000 to talk to students about the euthanasia and assisted suicide. The University of Florida is the alma mater of Judge Greer who ordered the removal of food and fluid from Terri Schindler Schiavo in order to cause her death. Understandably, the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation is asking for people to sign petitions saying, "It is unacceptable for the University of Florida to give a platform to Jack Kevorkian, a man who willfully helped take peoples lives, some of whose only ailment was depression, and pay him $50,000 to spread his violent message of 'mercy killing' to the students of the University of Florida."

Amen.

The Light Is On

In a column for LifeNews.com this week, I address an article that appeared in Salon.com:

In the September 25th issue of the online magazine Salon, neurologist Robert Burton takes issue with an important—and to most people encouraging—article that appeared in the Archives of Neurology. The title of Burton’s piece suggests the direction he is headed: “The Light is On, But is Anybody Home?”

The former chief of neurology at Mount Zion-UCSF Hospital and the author of "On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not," Burton is writing a series for Salon on the human brain.

The Archives of Neurology article questioned the received wisdom about patients diagnosed to be in a so-called persistent vegetative state (PVS). To the amazement of researchers, the brain of a woman, the victim of a car accident and said to be in a PVS, responded in a manner indistinguishable from fully conscious volunteers.

. . .

Burton has little use for the study. The study’s “conclusions are not beyond a doubt,” he wrote. “There are plenty of questions about whether this young woman is conscious and capable of choice.”

Burton goes on: “Are we now to believe that an fMRI can tell us the level and nature of a patient’s consciousness even when the patient can’t respond? Putting aside for a moment the very considerable questions of fMRI methodology, and interpretation, are we ready to accept technology as the final word in assessing mental states?”

I'm curious about what Burton would suggest as an alternative. Currently, the same patient could be diagnosed with PVS by one doctor and semi-conscious by another. Such a diagnosis is based on what we know about the brain in general (which could fill a thimble) and what technology can tell us about a specific patient's brain. Why wouldn't we use everything at our command? The status quo is based on a subjective and interpretive response to medical data-- in other words, an educated guess.

I Like Mike

Mike Huckabee is highly thought of in the pro-life movement and with good reason-- he has consistently worked to protect human life and has been a great friend to the movement. For this reason alone I like him a great deal.

But after his comments about Hillary Clinton, George Soros and MoveOn.org, I have to say he's moved up several notches in my estimation.

The Washington Times reports today that "Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee gets uncharacteristically angry when talking about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's failure to condemn by name the billionaire backer of Moveon.org's attack on Gen. David H. Petraeus. 'If you can't get your lips off the backside of George Soros long enough to use those lips to say it's wrong to declare a sitting general ... guilty of treason,' the 2008 Republican presidential hopeful said, 'how would you ever expect to have the support of the very military you might have to send into deadly battle?'"

Mike Huckabee's criticism of Clinton, MoveOn.org and George Soros is right on the money (no pun intended). Like most extreme left-wing liberals, Soros is willing to throw millions of dollars at anything that moves as long as it opposes all things perceived to be conservative in principle or thought.

Way to go Mike!

Laws of Morality-- Steinberg is Wrong

In what is aptly named "Opening Shot," Chicago Sun-Times columnist Neil Steinberg wrote in yesterday's paper, "If a platoon of Iranian mullahs set up camp in Aurora, determined to force suburban women into purdah, we would whip ourselves into an alarmed froth and nothing else would matter to us until the threat had been repelled.

"Yet, a gang of homegrown fundamentalist bullies are allowed to waltz into Aurora and block the opening of the $7.5 million Planned Parenthood clinic there, aided by the pants-wetting politicians running the city. . ."

Well, let's review. The company constructing the building is a direct subsidiary of Planned Parenthood and flat-out lied when asked in paperwork who the tenant was supposed to be. Aside from that small minor detail there is also the NIMBY principle. No one-- whether pro-abortion or pro-life-- wants to wake up in the morning knowing that right down the street or around the corner there is an abortion clinic. The reasons may be different (moral objections for pro-lifers and property values for pro-abortion sympathizers) but the NIMBY principle applies to both.

Later, Steinberg claims, "This isn't about morality-- every woman is free to believe that abortion is wrong and not have one." Woe, back the train up. This is about morality. Pro-lifers don't sit around thinking up new ways to keep women in the kitchen or barefoot and pregnant (What decade of feminist ideology is Steinberg living in? Get a grip!)-- we oppose abortion on moral grounds because a human life is taken-- gone, snuffed out, never to be repeated.

Abortion is a moral issue.

Barry Manilow versus Elizabeth Hasselbeck

Wow. In Barry Manilow's world, The View should be about one view and one view only.

Manilow, it is said, demanded that he be interviewed by everyone on the show but Elisabeth Hasselbeck. Hasselbeck is known for her conservative views on the Iraq war and her belief in the right to life. Manilow is a huge contributor to Democratic candidates, (the FEC reports that he has already maxed out contributions to the major Democratic presidential candidate campaigns). Manilow, who is very pro-abortion, said he considers Hasselbeck "dangerous and offensive."

This isn't the first time liberal extremists have tried to cut out any conservative influence in the media.

It seems that somewhere in the world of the left, there is a campaign being promoted among leftist extremists that they will refuse to be interviewed, watch or be watched or be involved in any other way with a media outlet or representative that is considered "conservative."

I say go ahead. Take your ball and go home. If you can't play nice, don't play at all.

900 Visitors

Lauraechevarria.com has hit a landmark of 900 visitors. As presidential campaigns heat up and I get back into the swing of things now that school is in session, I hope to give you more reasons to stop by. Thank you to everyone who has visited and please be sure to bookmark the blog.

Culture, Etc

Today's "Culture, Etc." section of the Washington Times contains a quote from the article I wrote for Spring 2007 Human Life Review called "Personally Opposed, But". I'm sorry to say that my subscription to the Times expired recently and I haven't renewed it yet so it was a friend who brought the quote to my attention earlier today.

Of course, I may cause a small skirmish with my pro-life Democratic friends but I firmly believe that unless something significant happens, the leadership in the Democratic party will continue to support abortion on demand without exhibiting any qualms (unless a poll, near election day, tells them otherwise).

You can find the Culture, Etc. blurb here. If you are interested in reading the entire article, please e-mail me at laura@lauraechevarria.com and I will be happy to send you the full article in MS Word (be warned, it was around 5,000 words).

"In the Blink of an Eye"

Canadian disability rights activist Mark Pickup (www.humanlifematters.blogspot.com) was sent a link to one of the most moving videos I’ve seen in a very long time. Dr. Rachamim Melamed-Cohen was diagnosed with Lou Gehrig’s disease 14 years ago and, at the time, was told he had 3-5 years to live. The video, In the Blink of an Eye, can be found at http://www.aish.com/movies/blinkofeye.asp

Since his diagnosis, Dr. Melamed-Cohen has written 9 books—six of them just by moving his eyes. Dr. Cohen is a vehement opponent of euthanasia and “mercy killing.”

In 2002, on Torah.org, Rabbi Yisrael Rutman profiled Dr. Melamed-Cohen and quoted him as saying,

"What is mercy-killing?" he asks. "For whom is the mercy? Is it for the person with an illness? Or is it for the family, so that they should not have to suffer? For the medical establishment, to reduce expenditures? For the insurance companies? Mercy means helping others to live, and with dignity. Helping people to cut their lives short cannot be called mercy."

All the best to Dr. Melamed-Cohen and may God grant him many more years.

Senate Democrats Oppose Helping Women and Children?

It shouldn't be surprising but, yesterday, Senate Democrats defeated an amendment that was designed to help financially challenged and uninsured (not necessarily poor) pregnant women by insuring their unborn children through S-CHIP (The State Children's Health Insurance Program). The S-CHIP program was designed 10 years ago to provide health insurance coverage to children whose parents made too much money to be on Medicaid but made too little to pay for health insurance themselves.

Since 2002, President Bush has allowed states to cover unborn children under the program and this had the win-win benefit of covering the mother as well. The way S-CHIP was written into law, it was designed solely for children under the age of 18. By law, the only way to insure the pregnant mother (if over the age of 18) was to insure her unborn child.

Democrats opposed this and have been fighting to rewrite the legislation to insure the pregnant woman but not her unborn child.

Of course, this defeats the whole point of a childrens' health insurance program. It also allows Democrats to set up a loose and poorly designed experiment in universal health care. Yesterday's vote had less to do with insurance coverage than it did with abortion politics.

"Personally Opposed, But"

An article I wrote for Human Life Review is finally available. It is appearing in the Spring issue which was delayed because the Human Life Foundation had to move their offices.

The article is a review of the Democratic Party's attempts to appear more "moderate" on the abortion issue and specifically some of the tactics and approaches they have and are taking.

Currently, I'm working on transcribing some statements from Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and unfortunately they spoke at length. I'm hoping someone will have already finished the work for another purpose and post the results on the internet. So far, that hasn't happened so I keep working on it myself and trolling the internet on occasion to see if someone else has done the job and finished first.

Tom Marzen, R.I.P.

Tom Marzen recently passed away and he will be greatly missed by the movement. While at National Right to Life, I spoke with him on many occasions about assisted suicide and euthanasia issues-- especially in connection with disability rights.

Tom was counsel for the National Center for the Medically Dependent and Disabled and lent his credentials and expertise to a variety of related issues. Extremely intelligent and knowledgable, Tom was the kind of person you could rely upon to succinctly explain legal rulings and precedent and actually make it interesting and understandable.

Tom will be greatly missed and my prayers are with his family.

My Most Abject and Humble Apologies

We had additional illness in our family so it has taken the better part of the last two weeks to get back on schedule.

I humbly apologize and barring severe allergic reactions (my daughter) requiring emergency visits and the like, I should be back on track.

Many thanks for being patient.

Slacking Off

Many apologies for not posting this past week. I haven't felt well and it was everything to stay on top of writing assignments. I promise to rectify this situation over the course of the next few days.