On January 21st, Justin Taylor who blogs at "Between Two Worlds," interviewed Robert P. George for his blog. The interview was mentioned on Christianity Today's website in commentary about Barack Obama and abortion.
George sits on the President's Council on Bioethics and is the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University. He is also an author. His latest book, written with Christopher Tollefsen, is Embryo: A Defense of Human Life.
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.
Excellent commentary at Catholic Online from Saturday, the 26th, on Mike Huckabee's presidential run. Even though Huckabee is a former Southern Baptist minister, he appeals to many Catholics because of his social conservatism on issues such as abortion and his social justice approach to other issues-- such as how America should help the poor.
Unfortunately, Huckabee is being branded by the press and many in the Republican Party: he's not a "true" conservative or shrill voices insist he will turn our nation into a theocracy (which is ludicrous). All of this simply because he is an Evangelical Christian who doesn't always walk lock-step with the Republican establishment.
Evangelicals like Huckabee for much the same reasons as Catholics. The Republican Party needs to listen to what both groups are saying. They may not make up the whole of the party but, come election time, a defection could make a significant dent.
Thank you to every visitor who has visited my website and blog. Overnight LauraEchevarria.com hit 1700 visitors since it went up in April 2007. I appreciate everyone who agrees or disagrees with me and feels that I have something to contribute to the world of politics-- and in particular to the issue of abortion.
Keep a look out for great things in 2008. I'll be writing for some new outlets and more actively promoting my website.
Also, in the next few days, I will be posting the transcript of Barack Obama's speech given before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund in July 2007.
With stunning results, Barack Obama has won the South Carolina primary. At 9:23 p.m., the Associated Press is reporting that Barack Obama has received 55 percent of the vote while Hillary Clinton has received only 26 percent. John Edwards has hovered most of the evening around 18-20 percent and the last update was 18 percent. Ninety-six percent of precincts are reporting.
Mr. Obama is making his victory speech at this moment.
The reason for the two-to-one difference in the votes is in part the response of the African-American community but also what the press has been calling the "Billary" factor. Bill Clinton has been campaigning on his wife's behalf and the fur has been flying. Negative campaigning can backfire-- South Carolina stands as evidence.
My prediction: John Edwards will withdraw soon and will throw his support behind Barack Obama.
The New York Times editorial page ran an editorial today about the decline in the number of abortions. Using the numbers recently released by the Guttmacher Institute (which used to be the research arm of Planned Parenthood), the NYT argues that it's not pro-life educational programs or abstinence programs causing the decline. Instead, the Times argues, it's better access to contraception and better sex-education.
Well, that would mean fewer pregnancies in the first place.
However, the numbers Guttmacher released showed that the ratio of abortions is 22.4. This number represents the number of abortions for every 100 pregnancies that ended in abortion or live birth. The ratio has shown a significant decline consistent with the lower overall abortion numbers and the lower rate. Increased contraceptive use can't explain this away.
More and more women are rejecting abortion and it's not because they have better access to contraception. It's because they are listening to the message that their babies are alive and that abortion is not the answer to their problems. An increase in the number of crisis pregnancy centers and an increase in the use of ultrasound have greatly contributed. More and more states are enacting protective legislation as well.
We are finally seeing the results of years of hard work by pro-lifers.
Accept it NYT, the numbers can't lie.
Today, Mike Huckabee picked up the endorsement of Arizona Right to Life PAC. From the Huckabee campaign press release:
According to Arizona RTL PAC leaders, the endorsement is based on Huckabee’s strong pro-life record and ongoing activism on behalf of the right to life movement.
Members of groups from Georgia and Tennessee supporting Fred Thompson have endorsed or joined the John McCain campaign. Also endorsing McCain was the national co-chair of Veterans for Thompson.
According to the press release from the McCain campaign:
Major General James E. Livingston, USMC (ret.), recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor and former National Veterans Co-Chairman for Fred Thompson, joined over 100 former general and flag officers to endorse John McCain for President of the United States.
Barack Obama has set out to woo the Evangelical vote-- that's me folks, I am a part of the Evangelical vote!
Now, we are not a homogenous bloc of voters no matter what liberals believe. We differ on a number of issues but there are fundamentals that a vast majority of Evangelicals agree on and abortion is one of them.
This week, Candidate Obama's interview with Christianity Today was posted online and he spoke with CBN and Beliefnet this week as well.
Christianity Today asked him about abortion and he replied, in part:
I don't know anybody who is pro-abortion. I think it's very important to start with that premise. I think people recognize what a wrenching, difficult issue it is. . . .Ultimately, women are in the best position to make a decision at the end of the day about these issues. With significant constraints. For example, I think we can legitimately say — the state can legitimately say — that we are prohibiting late-term abortions as long as there's an exception for the mother's health.
For Mr. Obama, a lawyer who has taught constitutional law, to claim that a "health" exception is needed but declare that he is not pro-abortion is disingenuous at best.
Here is what I said in a previous post about Mr. Obama and his claim that we need a "health" exception in relation to abortion laws:
Now we all know that when a pro-abortion liberal refers to a "health" exception (especially an attorney who made Roe "the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught Constitutional Law,") they also likely know that Roe had a companion decision handed down with it the same day. And he, or she, knows how health was defined by the Court in that decision. The companion ruling was Doe v. Bolton and it defined health from a legal standpoint. This is what the law means when you say “health” in relation to abortion:
"all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the well-being of the patient."
Under Doe, a woman can have an abortion for any reason. The only one who has the right to judge her reasoning? The abortionist.
I have one thing to say to Mr. Obama: Sir, Evangelical Christians are not stupid. We know when someone is trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
Today, the Romney campaign announced the addition of nine lawyers to his Romney for President Advisory Committee on the Constitution and the Courts. These lawyers were all members of Lawyers for Thompson and will now join the Romney Presidential campaign as advisors.
According to the press release, the advisory committee is, "chaired by Professor Douglas W. Kmiec, former constitutional legal counsel to President Ronald Reagan, [Kmiec] has been advising Governor Romney on the important legal issues confronting the country today."
Thompson supporters aren't running to any particular candidate but this move is significant and may be indicative of a bigger wave that will move to Romney.
Yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle gives a decent summary of the Republican presidential candidates' stands on abortion. Romney, Giuliani, McCain, Huckabee and Paul are all mentioned.
Read the transcript of Clinton's entire July 17th speech before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.
Please note that, to my knowledge, this is the only transcript available of this speech. If you quote it, please acknowledge that you pulled it from this site. By acknowledging this site as the source, you will help cut down on misquotes of this speech (some of which are already out there in cyberspace).
Thank you.
Just as I did for Hillary Clinton's July 17th Planned Parenthood speech, I've been working on the Barack Obama transcript for the speech he also gave before the group. You can watch the speech at www.imoneinamillion.com. I'm nearly done with the transcript but thought that I would post a quote. It is appropriate, in light of yesterday's anniversary, to point out how pro-abortion this man is--especially as we mourn the loss of life caused by Roe v. Wade.
Unapologetically pro-abortion, Barack Obama even defended the horrific partial-birth abortion technique:
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.
Now we all know that when a pro-abortion liberal refers to a "health" exception (especially an attorney who made Roe "the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught Constitutional Law,") they also likely know that Roe had a companion decision handed down with it the same day. And he, or she, knows how health was defined by the Court in that decision. The companion ruling was Doe v. Bolton and it defined health from a legal standpoint. This is what the law means when you say “health” in relation to abortion:
"all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the well-being of the patient."
Under Doe, a woman can have an abortion for any reason. The only one who has the right to judge her reasoning? The abortionist.
As reported by CNN, Fred Thompson announced today that he is leaving the race for the presidency. In an e-mailed statement, Thompson said, "Today I have withdrawn my candidacy for President of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort. Jeri and I will always be grateful for the encouragement and friendship of so many wonderful people."
My biggest complaint about the Thompson campaign is that when they finally entered the race, the splash they made upon entering didn't create a ripple-effect big enough to sustain the campaign. The campaign needed more energy and more visibility to keep it going.
That said, it is reported that Thompson's mother is ill and that can be hard on anyone. It's possible that, behind the scenes, her illness was taking a toll on the campaigner and the campaign-- and that's understandable. Running for the presidency is an 80 hour a week job-- and that's just to run. If your mother is ill too? That's more than enough for anyone's plate.
Speculation is that Thompson may endorse McCain but, according to CNN, Thompson has not contacted any of the other campaigns about an endorsement. So, for now, we guess and wonder where his endorsement will go-- and if it will help.
You will likely read this or something like it on virtually every conservative and/or pro-life website today but I'm going to say it too: Roe is the worst Supreme Court decision in history.
Why?
Three main reasons:
1. Roe has caused the deaths of approximately 50 million unborn babies since 1973. That number is staggering but real.
2. Roe has yet to be overturned. Other horrible decisions (e.g. Dred Scott) have been overturned. Today, these rulings are generally referenced only by lawyers and remembered by the rest of us when we are helping our kids study for a history test.
3. Roe was an exercise in "raw judicial power." Written more as a defense of doctor's rights than anyone else's, the decision was based not in law but in convoluted and distorted reasoning.
Roe has helped no one; it has killed millions of children and harmed their mothers. It's time this Supreme Court decision was tossed into the dustbin of history.
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.
I just received an e-mail from someone at Britannica Blog who thought I would be interested in a recent post on autism and presidential politics. She was right. I have to say that although my focus on this blog is more traditional right to life issues, there is a convergence for me on autism, the right to life and the elections.
Let me explain--
Autism is not a condition that can be screened for before birth. That said, I have seen some pretty obnoxious comments on the internet. Things along the lines of "if these people know their kid is going to have a disability, why don't they have an abortion?" My concern is that most insurance companies in a vast majority of states (last I checked, 42 of them) do NOT cover therapy for children with autism. Our insurance company does but that's because the employer is based in Washington, D.C. and purchases its insurance package from the state of Maryland-- which is one of eight states that DOES require insurance companies to cover services for autism.
The monthly total for our sons' two hours/each a week private therapy is approximately $4400. No, that's not a typo.
Currently, research is focusing on genetic causes for autism and my fear is that the day will come when we will be able to screen for autism just like Down syndrome. And just like Down syndrome, approximately 90 percent of those babies testing positive will be aborted.
The very fact that parents can go bankrupt paying for services their insurance companies do not cover could encourage parents to turn to abortion.
This is very much a right to life issue. Thus far, autism has played a minor role in the presidential race and certainly abortion, as the larger issue, has played a much more significant role.
But with 1 out of every 150 children being diagnosed with autism, the impact of this issue in the next presidency, and on the pro-life cause, cannot be understated.
Just as I transcribed Hillary Clinton's July 17th speech before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, I am hard at work finishing the transcript for Barack Obama's speech. I'll be posting highlights tomorrow.
My LifeNews.com column ran yesterday but anyone receiving LifeNews.com e-mails received it early today.
Here it is:
The January 11th Washington Post ran an article reporting on a new method of harvesting stem cells from embryos. Researchers at Advanced Cell Technologies (ACT) in Massachusetts claimed that their technique of removing only one stem cell from an eight-celled embryo should allow them to qualify for federal funds that have been designated for ethical stem cell research.
Their reasoning is that the majority of the embryos involved in the experiments survived after the single cells were harvested.
Well, let’s look at the facts.
First, federal funding is based on Hippocrates’ admonition to “do no harm.” While researchers used a technique that is often used in infertility treatments to test the health of embryos before implantation, the only way to know for certain if the embryos in the experiment were harmed would be to bring the embryos to term by implanting them in a woman’s womb.
That would be unethical and illegal.
Second, while studies have not been done on the survival rate of embryos in infertility clinics that have been biopsied, one study published in July showed that parents who have had the embryos biopsied before implantation have a 30 percent lower chance of giving birth. According the Post, one source noted that the studies that have been done have had flaws.
So no one knows for certain if the embryos would be okay or not but the researchers are asserting that because the technique is identical to that used in infertility clinics and a majority of those embryos survive to become full-term babies, they should receive federal funding.
Third, from a practical perspective, other researchers and scientists in the know described the technique of harvesting just one stem cell as very difficult.
Kathy Hudson, director of the Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University commented to the Post, “Embryo biopsy is tricky and requires extraordinarily good hands and technical skills. And even in the best hands, embryos are sometimes lost.” Embryos that survived the biopsy were then allowed to grow for five days to assure researchers that the embryos were alive before they were frozen.
Mmmm -- the idea behind the federal policy is to “do no harm.”
Let’s see -- you take an embryo, remove one-eighth of it using a fallible technique, use an unregulated industry as a source for your claims, freeze the embryos indefinitely after verifying that the majority survived and continued to grow for five days (84 percent)—and you want to claim “no harm?”
I think these researchers are missing the point. Living human beings designated for research were experimented upon with the hope that they would survive and grow. Of course, after the experiments, the embryos couldn't be implanted (because they were designated for research) so they were frozen -- a kind of embryo limbo.
It’s an interesting way of defining the concept of “do no harm.”
Malcolm Muggeridge, the British journalist, once said, “Either life is always and in all circumstances sacred, or intrinsically of no account; it is inconceivable that it should be in some cases the one, and in some the other.”
President Bush promised Americans that federal funding would not be used to fund research that destroys or harms human embryos.
The results announced by ACT may, in a very narrow sense, abide by the letter of President Bush’s stem cell research funding policy. However, the research ignores the spirit of the policy and violates the principle behind it, which is that human life is sacred regardless of its stage of development.
Mmmmmm, McCain's win in New Hampshire was little surprising. But then the state isn't exactly known for being a hotbed of conservatism. That said, McCain had a nice showing and it puts him back in the running. McCain isn't a liberal but his biggest liberal-like issue will likely be his baggage over McCain-Feingold. Thompson has a similar problem but at least his name isn't on the legislation. Also, National Right to Life seems to be willing to overlook this with Thompson-- as evidenced by the organization's endorsement of him.
NH gives McCain a boost. Anytime a candidate is low-man-on-the-pole everyone wants bury his or her campaign. But a strong showing in a primary state early on can put that candidate back on track and prevent people from claiming his campaign is over. Media commentators were all but calling the McCain campaign dead. NH gives him a "comeback."
Can McCain pull off a nomination? I don't know. More people are leaning toward Thompson; Huckabee seems to be our underdog candidate. Who knows? In the world of politics things change as quickly as you can send a text message. We have about eight months until a nominee is picked-- anything can happen between then and now.
