My latest LifeNews.com column is about Barack Obama's position on abortion.
I highly recommend that you sign up for the e-mail news alerts available through LifeNews.com. Steven Ertelt, editor and CEO of LifeNews.com, ensures that the internet news source covers pro-life news not often seen in the mainstream press. LifeNews.com is supported through donations and the e-mail service is free.
The following release was sent out earlier this afternoon. You'll find the link to the Barack Obama transcript in the column to the right of this post.
Transcript of Barack Obama's Planned Parenthood Speech Made Available
MEDIA ADVISORY, Feb. 27 /Christian Newswire/ -- Today, a full transcript was made available of Barack Obama's July 17th, 2007 speech before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund (PPAF).
"Many American's see Barack Obama as a kind and compassionate candidate," stated political writer Laura Echevarria, who transcribed the July speech. "However, Mr. Obama's compassion does not extend to our most vulnerable members of society- -unborn children."
A recent Survey USA poll showed that in some key battleground states, some voters who considered themselves pro-life said they would vote for Barack Obama over John McCain if such a match-up occurred in the general election.
In Mr. Obama's July speech, he said,
"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."
A link to the completed Obama transcript can be found at www.lauraechevarria.com or it can be e-mailed in response to queries sent to laura@lauraechevarria.com.
Laura Echevarria is the former director of media relations for the National Right to Life Committee (1997-2004). She is currently a writer focusing on opinion and politics as well as a columnist for LifeNews.com, the pro-life internet news source that reaches over 250,000 people through web and e-mail each week. Other opinion can be found at her website at www.lauraechevarria.com.
The Associated Press reports that William F. Buckley, Jr. passed away at his home in New York.
Buckley founded National Review, one of my favorite news magazines, and was a regular contributor as well as a syndicated columnist. His passing was not unexpected but is, nonetheless, a little shocking. He was the kind of man you thought might live forever if he set his mind to it.
The columnist, editor, and commentator was 82 years old. He goes to be with his wife Pat who died last year.
May he rest in peace.
In light of last Thursday's post and an article in Sunday's LA Times, "They're Republican red and true blue to Obama," I think it's important now to start yelling from the top of buildings that Barack Obama is not pro-life and is not sympathetic to the pro-life cause. He would not appoint strict constructionist judges-- in fact, in July he quoted Ruth Bader Ginsburg several times in his speech before Planned Parenthood activists.
If you want to see what Barack Obama said before those Planned Parenthood activists, I have finished the transcript. A friend of mine, who is also an editor, kindly proofed it.
If you have any questions, please feel free to e-mail me at laura@lauraechevarria.com
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.
Sunday, Students for Life released the following press release regarding the confrontation that occurred in Ohio when Bill Clinton was asked why he supported abortion:
STEUBENVILLE, OHIO - Agitated after being greeted by over a hundred pro-life students at a rally in Steubenville tonight, Clinton lost his temper yet again after losing his cool at an Obama supporter in Canton, Ohio. This time, Clinton lashed out during his speech at the pro-life students:
"I gave you the answer. We disagree with you," Clinton said. "You wanna criminalize women and their doctors and we disagree. I reduced abortion. Tell the truth, tell the truth, If you were really pro-life, if you were really pro-life, you would want to put every doctor and every mother as an accessory to murder in prison. And you won't say you wanna do that because you know, that you wouldn't have a lick of political support. Now, the issue is who, the issue is, you can't name me anybody presently in politics that did more to introduce policies that reduce the number of real abortions instead of the hot air putting out to tear people up and make votes by dividing America. This is not your rally. I heard you. That's another thing you need is a president, somebody who will stick up for individual rights and not be pushed around, and she won't."
Clinton's heated response came after being questioned on his support of abortion-on-demand. The outburst is on YouTube and is also being reported by MSNBC.
"Perhaps pro-abortion politicians will finally realize that they can't hide their views from pro-life students," said Billy Valentine, one of the Franciscan University of Steubenville Students for Life members who helped organize the protest of over 100 students. "Our generation is pro-life. It is amazing that these pro-abortion politicians think that they can continuously support the killing of millions of unborn children and no one will express their dissatisfaction. They think they don't ever have to answer questions about their pro-abortion policies or the money they receive from pro-abortion lobbying organizations. This generation will no longer tolerate these types of politicians, their rhetoric, or their pro-death policies," said Kristan Hawkins, Executive Director of Students for Life of America.
What Bill Clinton and other pro-abortion politicians--including his wife-- fail to realize is that pro-lifers see the mother of an aborted child as a victim of abortion as well. No one wants to make the mothers of these children criminals.
As for reducing the number of real abortions, the Clinton administration did very little to address abortion. In fact, nearly all abortion related policies established by his administration promoted abortion on demand. His administration even tried expanding abortion on demand through the failed Clinton Health Care Plan (which was headed, of course, by Hillary Clinton.)
So much for reducing abortions.
In my book, which is currently the equivalent of a hefty paperweight since a publisher hasn't picked it up, I address Clinton's record:
On his third day in office, Bill Clinton “issued executive orders overturning the pro-life directives of the Reagan/Bush Administrations, thus making abortions easier to obtain and putting the Administration on a course of promoting abortions worldwide.” These executive orders included ordering U.S. military facilities overseas to provide abortions and restoring U.S. funding to abortion organizations in foreign nations. “His administration declared abortion to be a ‘fundamental right of all women,’ and ordered U.S. ambassadors to lobby foreign governments for abortion.” The Clinton Administration also ordered “appointees to facilitate the introduction of RU486 in the U.S.”
One of President Clinton’s first acts in office was to establish a task force to develop a health care reform plan. First Lady Hillary Clinton chaired the taskforce that intended to “’mainstream’ abortion on demand as ‘ordinary’ health care and ultimately lead to officially sanctioned infanticide and involuntary euthanasia by rationing care.” The Clinton Health Care legislation eventually died.
How this man can say-- with a straight face-- that he sought to reduce abortions is a question for the ages.
Yesterday, Mitt Romney officially endorsed John McCain for president and released his delegates.
His delegates are now free to back the nominee (whomever that may be) if they choose.
My LifeNews.com column on fetal pain posted this morning.
The following was reported by the Winnipeg Free Press just a few hours ago:
Doctors wanting to pull life support from an 84-year-old Winnipeg man have not only been ordered not to, but to do everything necessary to keep him alive.
In issuing an order to continue an injunction preventing doctors from taking Samuel Golubchuk off a ventilator and feeding tube, Justice Perry Schulman of Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench said if Golubchuk was allowed to die before a full trial is held on the issue “no relief at trial could adequately compensate him or his family for the loss. . . .
Meanwhile, Schulman, to ensure there is no question by doctors and nurses what his order means, also ordered that his decision be added to Golubchuk’s medical chart.
And after lawyers for the doctors asked the judge whether they also have to treat Golubchuk for other medical issues which might arise, Schulman ordered them not to put a do not resuscitate order on the patient and to continue to give him all necessary treatment.
A full trial is to be held but for the time being Mr. Golubchuk's life will be spared.
Please be sure to visit the Samuel Golubchuk website for more information about what you can do to help.
Futile Care Theory is the underlying issue in the Samuel Golubchuk case. Mr. Golubchuk is an 84-year-old man who was disabled a few years ago in a fall. Despite his disability, this man, who is an Orthodox Jew, has led a full and active life.
In October, Mr. Golubchuk was hospitalized because of a bout with pneumonia. And although he recovered, he was weakened and has been in the care of the hospital. Since then, he has remained on a feeding tube and has had the "on-again, off-again" help of a respirator.
The problem is that because Mr. Golubchuk is elderly and likely will not improve with treatment, doctors are intent upon removing his feeding tube which would cause him to die from starvation. His family has been told that Mr. Golubchuk is "in the process of dying" even though he has improved and recovered from the pneumonia. His family has said that Mr. Golubchuk's religion forbids the removal of his feeding tube which would actively cause his death.
In a story by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation,
Bill Olson, a lawyer representing one of the doctors, countered that technology is the only thing keeping Golubchuk alive.
He said Golubchuk was treated for weeks to see whether his condition improved, but when it didn't, doctors decided to withdraw life support.
"No doctor I know has ever tried to play God. They take very seriously their ethical obligation to only afford that which they honestly believe would be appropriate, beneficial care to the patient," said Olson.
"And in this case, they concluded nothing more they could do would be any potential benefit and the condition he's in is irreversible."
Olson said physicians have the sole right to make decisions about treatment, even if it goes against the patient's religious beliefs. [italics mine]
Manitoba's College of Physicians and Surgeons recently approved policy that gives doctors the final say in whether treatment should be stopped or withheld-- regardless of whether the patient or the family disagrees, "as long as certain criteria are met."
Eschewing the concept of dum vita est, spes est (where there is life there is hope) doctors are placed in a situation where treatment is continued only if it is determined that the patient can improve-- not whether the patient's current state of health can be maintained. This, folks, is futile care theory.
The following article can be found in Jewish World Review. I encourage you to read the whole article. This case is an outrageous example of how the Culture of Death has influenced medical thought:
"In Canada, the Schiavo case with an outrageous twist"
By Jonathan Rosenblum
An elderly Orthodox Jew is on life support. His children have adamantly opposed his removal from the ventilator and feeding tube, on the grounds that Jewish law expressly forbids any action designed to shorten life. If their father could express his wishes, they say, he would certainly oppose the doctors acting to deliberately terminate his life. The director of the ICU told the children that neither their father's wishes nor their own are relevant, and he would do whatever he decided was appropriate. . .
Be sure to sign the online petition to save Samuel Golubchuk. The family is also in need of funds to help pay for lawyers. You can get more information and send a donation by visting the Samuel Golubchuk website.
For Barack Obama, it was a sweep. And Mrs. Clinton may want to think twice about her campaign.
McCain won Virginia, Maryland and DC also although his margin wasn't as wide as Obama's in the state of Virginia.
I have to admit that I had to think long and hard about how I voted. Huckabee better represents my beliefs in a number of areas but realistically, in a general election, McCain would pull in more independent voters. And if the Democratic nominee is Obama then in a McCain/Obama matchup, McCain has a much better chance of winning.
If I thought my vote would jeopardize McCain's standing, I would have likely voted for him. But voting for Huckabee let me say to McCain that I prefer a candidate with conservative opinion on issues like abortion and stem cell research. Mr. McCain needs to know why many who vote Republican still hesitate to throw our hat in the ring.
As I said in last night's post, we are not so "easily led".
Here in Virginia we have a split in GOP types between voters in more liberal Northern Virginia, which is basically a suburb of Washington, D.C., and, by and large, the rest of the state. Many voters in the state of Virginia went for Huckabee and thousands in Fairfax alone (part of Northern Virginia) went for McCain. As happens in these instances, this split leans toward the very large population in Northern Virginia.
Right now, half the vote is in and the numbers are 47 to 45 in favor of McCain. CNN is cautiously projecting McCain the winner in Virginia.
I think most us conservative/evangelical Christians voting in Virginia would support McCain but many of us voted for Huckabee to make our voices heard.
We will not go quietly into that good night.
And contrary to liberal belief, we are not "easily led" by the GOP establishment. Huckabee better fits our beliefs but we recognize that McCain will likely be the nominee. We would hope that the McCain campaign pays attention to numbers like tonight's and the primary concerns of this voting block.
I'm finishing up a project this afternoon and after that I'll be finishing up my LifeNews.com column which is on the New York Times fetal pain article. Unfortunately, we've had illness in the family for the last few days and that always rearranges schedules.
The Barack Obama Transcript has been delayed for the moment although it is still in the final stages of being checked. However, the person checking it for error is on deadline for other projects and has had to set it aside for the moment. I expect he should be able to continue working on it in a day or so. I'll post it and make it available as soon as we can verify that it is error free.
Today's issue of "Today's News and Views," a daily pro-life commentary written by NRLNews Editor Dave Andrusko, will be about the article on fetal pain that ran in yesterday's New York Times.
Dave is an excellent writer and a friend, I hope you will take a moment to visit the Today's News and Views page at National Right to Life's website. Dave always provides interesting insight to pro-life issues in the news.
Annie Murphy Paul writes in today's New York Times about fetal pain. It is a very informative article and provides much food for thought to anyone who is a skeptic regarding an unborn baby's ability to feel pain. Paul provides comments from researchers and scientists expressing both pro and con opinion.
You will likely need to sign up with the New York Times to access the article--but it's free.
Obama won Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington state-- he also won in the Virgin Islands.
Huckabee won Louisiana and Kansas; McCain won Washington state.
Even with these wins, McCain still has a significant lead in the number of Republican delegates. Barack Obama has a slight lead in delegates over Hillary Clinton but she has more superdelegates which puts her ahead.
As I mentioned before the Kansas win by Huckabee yesterday, McCain's real test will be whether he can appeal to the party base. For conservatives, there is still a choice in candidates. Right now, it looks like McCain still has some fences to mend with this voting block.
One of the worries conservatives have about McCain is his on-again, off-again relationship with them. He has been more than willing to snub conservatives in the past. This may endear him to independents but frustrates his party. He has been called a maverick and the moniker fits him-- the conservative branch of the party has found him to be unpredictable.
As of this writing, the Chicago Tribune announced that Huckabee has won Kansas but I don't know the percentages yet.
UPDATE:
CNN is reporting 79% of Kansas precincts in with 62% voting for Huckabee, 22% for McCain and 11% for Ron Paul.
Okay, I know, I know. I can hear social conservatives across the country groaning about the likelihood of a McCain nomination.
On the plus side, the strong possibility that McCain will be nominated means that he has some fence-mending to do with conservatives.
For example, McCain spoke at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) yesterday assuring the audience of his conservative credentials. He also apologized for not attending last year.
McCain also sent a letter to the Federalist Society assuring them that he will only nominate judges who will interpret the Constitution not create law.
Going on record about conservative policies will help McCain but the real test will be to see what happens in the next few primaries. Will Romney conservatives think McCain is the better candidate or will they throw their support behind Huckabee?
If Huckabee left the presidential race, I predicted that Huckabee voters would be more likely to give their votes to Romney than McCain. However, Romney's announcement that he's putting his campaign on hold throws a monkey wrench in the works.
Many, many conservatives don't like McCain. McCain appeals strongly to independents, undecideds and even liberals. The press likes him.
I think this is one of his problems.
When liberals and the press have nice things to say about you and your record, conservatives take a few steps back and prepare to run in the other direction.
Huckabee said that he would vote for McCain should it come to that. This may sway some Huckabee supporters to support McCain down the road should he win the nomination.
Personally, Hillary and Barack are what we're working against. I disagree with those Republicans who are saying they will campaign for Hillary or Obama if McCain wins the nomination. McCain may not be our ideal but another Hillary or Barack Obama he is not.
