Freedom of Choice Act Reintroduced in Response to SCOTUS Decision on Abortion

The day after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, liberal Democrats in Congress reintroduced the Freedom of Choice Act (known as FOCA).

FOCA would nullify all state and federal laws on abortion. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act? Gone. State laws that require parents to be notified if their daughter is planning on getting an abortion? Gone. What about reflection periods that require an abortionist to give a woman information about abortion, then allowing her time to review her decision in light of the information? Gone.

According to a National Right to Life Committee Alert:

The bill flatly invalidates any "statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action" of any federal, state, or local government or governmental official (or any person acting under government authority) that would "deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose" abortion, or that would "discriminate against the exercise of the right . . . in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information." This no-restriction policy would establish, in Senator Boxer's words, "the absolute right to choose" prior to fetal "viability."

The no-restriction policy would also apply after "viability" to any abortion sought on grounds of "health." The bill does not define "health," but in past abortion cases the Supreme Court has sometimes used the term to apply to any physical or emotional consideration whatsoever, including "distress." The bill also prohibits enactment of objective criteria for "viability" that would be binding on abortionists.

The Freedom of Choice Act goes far beyond anything we have seen thus far. If you thought there were too many abortions already and that abortion on demand is an industry in this country, just imagine what it would be like if there were absolutely no restrictions on abortion-- ever. That is just how sweeping FOCA is.

Democratic Presidential Candidates Criticize Court Abortion Ruling

The Democratic presidential candidates vying for their party's nomination met last night in a debate at South Carolina State University. But there was little true debate, for the most part the candidates were complimentary, friendly and united in many of their opinions. This includes their joint opinion that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (PBABA) was wrong.

To top this, several candidates said they would not impose a litmus test on Court nominees but then added that any appointees would reflect their views on abortion on demand.

Oh, wow-- that's not a litmus test?!

(If you want to read an informative--but very graphic--article in .pdf detailing the testimony of abortionists in the lower court rulings on PBABA, click here.)

Joe Lieberman on Iraq Withdrawal Provision

Today, Senator Joe Lieberman addressed his fellow senators and I would wager that more eloquent arguments for staying in Iraq have yet to be heard.

I don't agree with Mr. Lieberman on a lot of things but I admire his loyalty and his stick-to-his-guns attitude in the face of opposition, even from his own party. Mr. Lieberman argued that pulling out of Iraq would leave a leadership vacuum that would allow insurgents the freedom to do as they wish.

He argued that pulling out would have the opposite effect of what Senator Harry Reid hopes for: it would not endear us to to the citizens of Iraq. They would not look kindly upon us for leaving their country war torn and in turmoil which is what would happen should we leave. Senator Lieberman stated:

Do my friends really believe that this is the way to convince Iraqis, and the world, of the goodness of America and Americans? Does anyone in this chamber really believe that, by announcing a date certain for withdrawal, we will empower Iraqi moderates, or enable Iraq's reconstruction, or open more schools for their children, or more hospitals for their families, or freedom for everyone?

Mr. President [Senate President], with all due respect, this is fantasy.

Regardless of opinion on whether we began this war as a just war, we must finish what we started and do it fully and completely. We cannot walk away and leave Iraq open to Al Qaeda, insurgents or even to the extreme religiosity posed by some religious leaders who would turn Iraq into a religious state. We made a commitment and we must see it through.

McCain-Feingold

As I write this, attorneys are arguing their points on McCain-Feingold before the U.S. Supreme Court.

When McCain-Feingold was being argued in Congress, proponents poo-pooed assertions that the legislation would curb free-speech on issue ads that ran before an election or primary. Groups like National Right to Life and the James Madison Center for Free Speech argued that the language of the bill would hurt citizen groups interested in promoting or criticizing legislators by name when it came to pending legislative issues.

Of course after McCain-Feingold passed this is exactly what happened.

In the article I mentioned yesterday, James Bopp, Jr., who is lead counsel for Wisconsin Right to Life in today's appearance before the Court, wrote:

In 2002, Congress adopted the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law. As part of this new law, Congress prohibited corporations and labor unions from running 'electioneering communications' — i.e., advertisements naming a candidate, including incumbent officeholders seeking reelection, broadcast to the candidate’s constituents — within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. Touted as necessary to eliminate 'sham' issue ads that were really intended to elect or defeat a candidate, it is now apparent that the story of McCain-Feingold is itself replete with shams. This so-called “electioneering communication” prohibition is simply the latest permutation of the ancient and persistent impulse of government officials to quash criticism of their actions.

This is what is before our highest Court: can we as citizens criticize our leaders? I think our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves that this is even in question.

McCain-Feingold Goes to Court

Tomorrow, oral arguments will be heard in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life. There is an excellent article detailing the problems with McCain-Feingold on the National Review website. The article is by James Bopp, Jr. who is lead counsel for Wisconsin Right to Life and is general counsel for the James Madison Center for Free Speech.

McCain-Feingold is a serious curb on the free-speech rights of us all. Please check out Mr. Bopp's article.

Al Gore Returns?

Rumor has it that Al Gore is secretly pulling together advisors for a possible presidential campaign.

Will he run?

If he does, he will certainly have the upperhand on Hillary and Barack Obama. Mr. Gore is looked upon by liberal Democrats as the president-who-should-have-been and some have gone so far as to call him Mr. President. This puts Mr. Gore squarely in the realm of hero-worship and this is something Hillary and Obama can't touch.

Is the hero worship reasonable? No-- but this is irrelevant, the hero-worship exists anyway.

Mr. Gore is a liberal's liberal. His pro-abortion position is secure despite his apparent flip-flopping on the abortion issue from his days in the Senate. If he became president we would certainly see the most liberal governing policies adopted. We would likely see the White House become a testing ground for eco-fuels, recycled products and carbon credits regardless of their effectiveness.

Mr. Gore would happily lead our country into its most liberal and detrimental age yet. The fact that he has the greatest chance of winning-- should he run-- should alarm us all.

Reid on War?

Last week, Senator Harry Reid stated that the U.S. had "lost" the war in Iraq. This week Mr. Reid sees fit to criticize President Bush for his unwavering stance on the war. He sees this as a weakness that the new Congress needs to address by showing Mr. Bush "the way" to change the war in Iraq.

I'm not sure what Mr. Reid is thinking. Why "change" anything about running the war since he has declared it lost? The real goal is to pull troops out as quickly as possibly regardless of the impact in Iraq and the Middle East. Welcome to Cut and Run-- the most consistent liberal war philosophy since Vietnam. If we can't win a war quickly and with few casualties, Democrats want to run as far and as fast as they can.

No one likes war. But sometimes it is the only defensive recourse in an imperfect world.

We went to war because we thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Since huge caches of WMDs weren't discovered, we have heard repeatedly that this was an unjust war. But just as in WWII, our knowledge of Hitler's atrocities were not fully realized until Allies began liberating concentration camps. What of Hussein's mass graves and the human cost before the war? Yes, this war hasn't been as neat as liberals would like but we can't cut and run now. To do so would leave a leadership vacuum in Iraq which would quickly fill with the strongest-- not necessarily the best for Iraq and the stability of the Middle East.

Democratic Representative Juanita Millender-McDonald Dies

According to the Associated Press:

Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald, a seven-term congresswoman from southern California, died early Sunday of cancer. She was 68. Millender-McDonald died at her home in Carson, said her chief of staff, Bandele McQueen.

The congresswoman had asked for a four- to six-week leave of absence from the House last week to deal with her illness. McQueen couldn't immediately provide details on what form of cancer Millender-McDonald had, but said she had been receiving hospice care.

My deepest sympathies to her family and may she rest in peace.

Gratuitous Violence

In journalism, a news topic that can be used over and over again for several days is a story that has "legs." The news media have certainly found that the story of the VA Tech shootings has "legs." I have no objection whatsoever to honoring the students and faculty who were injured or killed. I don't object to trying to find out why this happened. My beef is with showing the killer's video diatribe over and over again.

The pro-life movement had it's name blotted just a few years ago when mentally unstable individuals decided to kill in the name of protecting life (the irony is obvious here). It doesn't take much to incite someone who is on the edge of reason-- a "cause," whether genuine or warped, and a weapon. The VA Tech shooter referred to the shooters in the Columbine High School killings as if they were the victims. To show admiration for such an act certainly showed Cho's instability. Allowing his diatribe to air unchecked could serve to incite another to copy Cho's actions. Unfortunately, it is becoming all too obvious that such potential for violence can remain within the confines of the law until it is too late.

It's time for the media to accept the role they play in our national dialogue on this issue. They need to take responsibility by being more circumspect in what they air. They can start by refusing to air Cho's rants and instead honor his victims by using more thoughtful content.

Partial-Birth Abortion

In many instances, the news media is using qualifiers to decribe yesterday's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the ban on the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Many news outlets have been using words and phrases such as the "a ban on so-called partial-birth abortions" or something along the lines of "a ban on what opponents refer to as partial-birth abortions."

Regardless of how it's whitewashed, I find it hard to believe that there are those who can still support partial-birth abortions. Over at Writes Like She Talks, Jill is appalled that Cathy Cleaver Ruse of Family Research Council objected to the use of the partial-birth abortion technique in cases where the woman's mental health was listed as the reason for the abortion. And Jill connects the dots and concludes that, in wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, how can we not be concerned about a woman's "mental" health?

Jill apparently is unaware of the fact that, regarding abortion, mental health is not the same as well, mental health. We are not necessarily talking about defined mental problems or someone who is need of a stay in a hospital in order to cope. We're likely not talking about someone who is on medication for depression. Instead, we are talking about "health" as defined by the law in Doe v. Bolton, the companion ruling to Roe v. Wade. In determining whether a woman "qualified" for an abortion, the Court in Doe wrote: "The medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors--physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age-- relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health." The abortionist determines what is the qualifying factor. And if the qualifier isn't physical then it is mental.

And, remember, he gets paid for doing an abortion, he doesn't get paid for not doing one.

News articles and even statements by leaders of abortion groups have been very revealing over the years: the majority of partial-birth abortions are done on healthy mothers of healthy babies. In addition, if a woman were truly in dire circumstances, this would be the last abortion procedure she would want. It takes three days to do. The first two days, the abortionist inserts expanding laminaria into the opening of the cervix (the opening leading to the uterus) so he can perform the abortion on the third day. This is certainly not a time-sensitive, life-saving procedure.

Supreme Court Upholds Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act

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.

Political Grandstanding

As our world gets smaller through the use of technology, we see less substance and more grandstanding in news coverage and then most of that is being presented to us in bites.

Yesterday, we saw dozens of people killed and injured in the VA Tech shootings. And all that is bad and good about instantaneous news was immediately recognizable. Because of our accelerated form of news gathering, we often see politicians and lobby groups spouting the most inflammatory comments they can in an effort to make the news. The anti-gun lobby starting pointing its fingers yesterday, even though we still didn't have details-- such as who the shooter was or a confirmed count of those injured or killed.

And the strangest thing of all were some of the comments left on student webpages or blogs where VA Tech students logged on to note that they were okay or that a girlfriend had been injured or that the whereabouts of a well-liked teacher was unknown. The comments I'm referring to weren't the ones left by well-wishers but by reporters trolling about the internet looking for students to interview about their experiences.

Welcome to the world of the soundbite.

Virginia Tech Shootings

Our thoughts and prayers are with the families, friends and students of Virginia Tech.

John Kerry Keeps the Door Open

Over the weekend, John Kerry made several comments that, in the world of politics, quickly became rumor of a possible 2008 run.

Kerry and his wife have been touring the country promoting their new book on environmentalism. At one book signing, Kerry was apparently asked if he would run again and his reply indicated that he was leaving it open in the "years" or "months" to come.

Of course, Kerry throwing himself into the fray will not change the Democratic line-up. All of the candidates are cookie-cutter liberals.

S.5 and Ronald Reagan

Over at DailyKos, "Avenging Angel" suggests that S.5 be named "The Ronald Reagan Life Legacy Act" in an effort to force Republicans to vote for the measure or look bad for voting against it.

The idea that the late President would even entertain the idea of supporting S.5 is ludicrous. Those of us who have read President Reagan's essay "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation" or any of his Proclamations declaring the sanctity of human life know that Mr. Reagan would never have permitted research using human embryos. He would have been first in line in defense of these tiny humans, arguing that as Americans we can do nothing less than defend the vulnerable and the weak.

Study Shows Hope for Diabetes Patients Using "Adult" Stem Cells

While the Senate voted yesterday to fund embronic stem cell research, researchers from Brazil reported on a study that used stem cells retrieved from diabetes Type 1 patients that were then "returned" intraveneously back into the same donor patients. Many of the patients then had remarkably long periods where they lived insulin free and had blood sugar levels within normal ranges.

The report can be found in the current issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Senate Votes to Kill Embryos

In a vote that was not unexpected, the Senate voted 63-34 in favor of Senator Harkin's bill, S.5. The bill would mandate that federal funds be used for stem cell research that requires the destruction of human embryos.

President Bush promises a veto and the final tally was short of the 2/3rds needed for an override of a presidential veto. However, it moves us one step (or one election) closer to taxpayer funds being used to destroy vulnerable human beings.

They may literally be a "clump of cells" but human embryos require only time, nourishment and a safe place to grow until they develop into the newborns we ooh and ah over. All of the genetic material that makes each of us unique is present at the moment of fertilization.

And should you think that this type of legislation is the pinnacle achievement, think again. Many advocates of this research assert that this is only the beginning. Cloning and stem cells culled from older embryos and fetuses are next on the list.

Senators Harkin and Specter's Fuzzy "Facts"

During debate yesterday in the Senate, Senators Harkin and Specter apparently made assertions about stem cell research that, for lack of a better turn of phrase, could be called deceptive.

According to the Family Research Council, Senator Harkin claims that S.5 has "tighter" ethical guidelines than the President's policy on embryonic stem cell research. How Sen. Harkin thinks that deliberately killing human embryos somehow makes for better ethics is unclear.

Senator Specter claims that the 400,000 embryos currently frozen in storage will be destroyed--they should be used for research. However, a Rand Institute study determined that only 2.8 percent of the 400,000 embryos in storage have been slated for research. The rest are not scheduled for destruction or donation but are being saved by their parents. Rand also estimates that finding all of them useable and then using all of the 2.8 percent available would yield only 275 new cell lines. Far less than what proponents claim. Obviously the next step would be to create human embryos for the express purpose of destroying them for research. And if you think that's a stretch, the BIO lobby has been pushing for federal funds to create embryos for research since day one.

Give them an inch. . .

White House Announces President Will Veto S.5

The White House announced today that the President will veto S.5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. S.5 would use tax dollars to pay for the intentional destruction of human embryos in order to further embryonic stem cell research.

To date, there are no patients benefitting from stem cell research derived from human embryos. However, there are over 70 diseases and conditions that can be treated using stem cells from ethical sources (e.g., umbilical cord blood).

The White House is sending a clear message that our tax dollars should not be used for ethically questionable research but will our Senators be listening?

Senate Likely to Begin Debate on Embryonic Stem Cell Research Funding Tomorrow

Please contact your Senator to let them know that you oppose taxpayer funding of human embryonic stem cell research.

The vote will likely occur on Wednesday so there is still time. Call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121.