Tuesday, November 30, 2004

What Is Personhood?

A column appeared last weekend in the Christian Science Monitor, written by Professor Linda Layne. In it she challenges the conviction of Scott Peterson for the death of his son, Conner. Ms. Layne is a cultural anthropologist and offers a bizarre, if popular, notion of humanity.

Professor Layne protests that she is appalled by the horrible death of Laci and Conner. But she objects to a law which grants full personhood to a fetus still in the womb.

She argues that a preborn child’s status depends upon the choices made by the mother. If the woman chooses to develop a relationship with her baby while he is in the womb – then the “process” of personhood begins. In fact, she actually uses the phrase, “begins the work of constructing a person.” She goes on to say that this involves changing personal habits, telling others that she is pregnant, seeking medical care – maybe giving the baby a name. People who support her – like strangers who greet the baby in grocery stores – also participate in this “construction” process.

She argues that it is only upon birth that this “construction of personhood” is complete. Until then, the baby is not a separate entity, is “not yet an individual”.

High-sounding academic analysis. But if you think about it – this explanation of humanity is just plain incoherent. There is nothing inherent in the human being which entitles her to respect or legal protection. No notion of natural rights which spring from God’s special attention to the human being. Our very nature is now a matter of whim; some of us are human persons, some not – depending upon the private choices of the mother and those around her.

Unfortunately for America, some version of Professor Layne’s view now dominates our legal system. Leftist judges have blithely deconstructed the founding philosophical and moral principles which gave rise to an American Republic. There is no God, and therefore, no such thing as “natural rights”. This means that our rights have become a matter of legal whim, of judicial edict.

That is a dangerous world, one far different from the one in which our Founding Fathers labored.

Monday, November 29, 2004

More Pro-Life Legislation From Congress

There was some good news for the pro-Life movement in the closing days of the current Congress. Legislation was sent to the president which protects private healthcare providers whose conscience and sense of professional integrity won’t allow them to perform abortions. Apparently the new law will apply to both individuals and institutions like religious hospitals.

The Abortion Lobby is pretty upset – screaming about how laws like this interfere with a woman’s “fundamental right” to kill her child in the womb. But what about the risk to the eternal souls of those who perform abortions – with the full knowledge that it is wrong?

In another part of the omnibus spending bills rushed through the closing days of Congress, language was included which prohibits the patenting of human life. While this might seem an odd topic for congressional action – don’t forget all the companies being built around the promise of miracle cures as a result of cloning technologies. This is the heart of the embryonic stem cell debate – turning tiny new humans into multi-billion dollar natural resources. Take the next step: what if companies begin engineering new babies, with specially-designed stem cells? While this ban on patenting is only a small step toward combating the trend of turning human beings into commodities – it is a step nevertheless.

But not all recent news is good news.

In the wake of California’s $6 billion venture into the business of cloning and harvesting stem cells from innocent new life – a procedure which kills the baby – other political leaders want in on the action. The State Controller of Illinois wants to issue a $1 billion bond for similar efforts in that state. And Wisconsin’s governor is looking for ways to pump more money into embryonic stem cell research.

This big money is in search of miracle research that, despite two decades of effort – has failed to produce a single treatment.

Friday, November 26, 2004

Idaho Democrats Defy Mainstream Values

Awhile ago, for Governor Cecil Andrus offered his take on Idaho elections in the Idaho Statesman. I read with fascination his claims to be “pro-Life”, and his argument that Idaho Democrats needed to separate themselves from national Democrats like John Kerry on crucial moral questions such as gay marriage and abortion. I couldn’t resist the temptation to respond. The Statesman website still has my full response, if you’d like to read it.
[Just click here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041122/NEWS0503/411220304/1052/NEWS05 ]

It was hard not to spend most of my space challenging Andrus’ lamentable record as governor. But it was more important to set the record straight about Idaho Democrats.

The simple fact is that Idaho Democrats are in complete harmony with their national compatriots on the crucial issues facing Idaho families. Of the twenty-three incumbent Democrats now holding legislative office, only three House members supported the Marriage Protection Amendment this past session.

The record of incumbent Democrats on abortion is even worse.

Idaho Chooses Life was able to endorse only one Democrat in the state for legislative office this year – Rep. Chuck Cuddy of Orofino. He has a 100% pro-Life voting record, going back to the Ban on Partial Birth Abortions in 1998. Now that Cuddy, the last pro-Life Democrat, is gone - Idaho Democrats have finally achieved their goal of ideological purity.

The average Pro-Life Score for the twenty-three incumbent Democrats on major pro-Life issues is just 18%, well below an “F” grade. Without Cuddy’s contribution, the average drops to 13%!

We’re not even talking about votes to end legalized abortion. These voting records are based on consensus issues like Parental Consent for teenage abortions.

And it is at least ironic that he even raises these issues – since it was during the Andrus years that Idaho Democrats made the tragic decision to reorganize their party around the politics of death.

The voters of Idaho obviously understand this sad truth all too well. No amount of money or organizing or manipulation of “the message” is going to undo that damage.

Thanks Be to the Name of the Lord

Today is the Grand Opening of the great holiday season in America. Thanksgiving Day, Christmas and even New Year’s represent a pageant of Life and our acknowledgement of God’s great and wondrous gifts to each and all of us.

We all know the story of the first Thanksgiving – in which our nation’s founders held a feast to acknowledge and celebrate God’s protection and provision during their first perilous years on the continent. And, of course, the preeminent holiday of the calendar is the joyful marking of Christ’s birth; and who is He but the Author of Life?

This day, then, is an appropriate moment for us, as a pro-Life community, to reflect upon the great blessings we have received this year.

We are grateful for the President’s re-election. While there has been carping about failures in one department and another – I believe the President is due tremendous credit for engaging the culture in a profound realization of abortion and its impact on this culture. Slowly he is chipping away at the presumption that abortion is right – or even necessary. Our great blessing here can best be understood by considering the dark turn this nation would have taken in four years under the leadership of John Kerry.

I am grateful to you – for your prayers, your time and your financial support. Your emails help me know you’re listening, that you appreciate the work of this ministry. Without your active participation and encouragement in this struggle, I don’t know that I’d be strong enough to continue. Thank you so much.

We have much to be grateful for this day – and I pray for the Lord’s mighty blessing on you and your family this day.

Wednesday, November 24, 2004

Roe II & Parental Consent Reach Supreme Court

Earlier this month, attorneys for Norma McCorvey – the woman for whom “Roe” is named – will be pressing the United States Supreme Court to hear her petition to reverse the landmark abortion case.

In October, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Norma’s petition. But in doing so, one of the judges on that appeals court took the opportunity to upbraid the Supreme Court for its judicial activism in the area of abortion. Judge Edith Jones wrote:

“…[T]he court’s constitutional decision-making leaves our nation in a position of willful blindness to evolving knowledge and should trouble any dispassionate observer – not only about the abortion decisions, but about a number of other areas in which the court unhesitatingly steps into the realm of social policy under the guise of constitutional adjudication.”

It is comforting to realize that such a person is a sitting judge on an appeals court. But the problem continues, of course, that there are such few clear thinking persons on the bench.

Thus, we must ask for your prayers on behalf of Norma’s petition. As part of her case for reversing Roe v. Wade – Norma is presenting 5300 pages of affidavits from women who have been emotionally or physically maimed by abortion.

Another case making its way to the Supreme Court is a petition from Idaho’s Attorney General, Lawrence Wasden. Wasden filed an appeal with the high court on Monday in the Parental Consent case. The state is pressing the justices to over-turn the decision by three judges in San Francisco which struck down Idaho’s protection for teenage girls considering an abortion.

The radical judges of the 9th Circuit ruled that Idaho’s “health exception” was too narrow.

Wasden expects to learn whether the Supreme Court will take the case sometime in February.

Tuesday, November 23, 2004

U.N. Debate Reveals Media Bias

We have talked about the pending vote in the United Nations on a Human Cloning Ban – which many people expected to take place by the end of last week. However, LifeNews.Com is reporting that the vote has been postponed, largely because of intense parliamentary maneuvering by Belgium and other nations that want to avoid a ban on so-called “therapeutic” cloning. (This is the type of cloning that some scientists want to use in order to create a big manufacturing system for embryonic stem cells).

As an interim measure, Italy announced that it was going to seek passage of a resolution condemning all forms of human cloning. This would have moral authority – but would not involve the complications of calling for an actual treaty. It is also, apparently, easier to get such a vote.

The vote on the Italian resolution has been scheduled for February.

In the meantime, the United States and the other sixty nations pressing for a complete ban would be free to continue the wrangling over a formal treaty.

A fascinating subplot in this story is the media treatment. A headline from the Associated Press says, “U.N. Abandons Idea of Anti-Cloning Treaty”. If you read the story carefully, the reporter uses unnamed sources to help Americans conclude that the fight is over. In fact, one could easily conclude from reading the AP story that the UN actually supports human cloning for research purposes – even though no vote has yet taken place.

The United States still supports an international treaty – and three times as many nations support a total ban as are on board to defend destructive “research” on defenseless new humans. There is plenty of reason to think that the ever-tenacious George Bush will press this matter to a vote sometime this winter.

Just as importantly, the media coverage allows us a peek into how alternative political and cultural realities are created for us.

Monday, November 22, 2004

Some Victory in the Specter Concessions

Well, in all honesty, it was pretty predictable. Senate Republicans have decided to maintain the order of the body by allowing Senator Arlen Specter to assume the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Despite tens and tens of thousands of calls and emails and letters from folks all across America – the guys running the show in Washington decided that it was better to keep Specter than to accommodate the deep anxiety of an American public just fed-up with an out-of-control judiciary.

There are parts of this story we will probably never know. The deal making, the strategy behind leaving Specter in place as the new chairman was obviously a high-level matter.
Some members of the Senate did not distinguish themselves as champions of principle. One could see individual senators jockeying for personal ambition – rather than making sure the Republic was served.

But the concessions wrested from Specter were fairly important. And, I would hazard to say – pretty extraordinary. Not only did fellow Republicans insist that Specter reassure the American people about his future role in dealing with President Bush’s nominees to the federal bench – they made him put it in writing.

The public outcry over Specter no doubt strengthened Bush’s hand in dealing with judicial appointments; it comes as icing on the cake – Tom Daschle’s defeat in South Dakota.

So here is the crux of the matter. I think it is likely that Specter and a majority of senators will be fairly tame when it comes to President Bush’s nomination of Clarence Thomas to succeed William Rhenquist as Chief Justice. There will probably even be a degree of cooperation with the President on the appointment of a new Associate Justice; I assume that person will be a likely pro-Life vote.

But then – then, we get down to cases. Will Bush nominate another pro-Life justice to take Sandra Day O’Connor’s place? Will he appoint the fifth pro-Lifer to take Ginsburg’s place?

There have been many games played over many years, through a number of Republican Administrations when it comes to that fifth vote. It may be that this whole Specter spectacle won’t become clear until we reach that moment.

For now, I think we should take some consolation in having wrested the concessions from the Washington power-brokers we have. And thanks for your help in contacting Senator Craig these past couple weeks.

Friday, November 19, 2004

Women’s “Study” Just So Much Socialist Pap

“Woe is you”. That is the message being pumped in the state’s media outlets by the Feminist Lobby. For the past several days, news stations have been dutifully reporting a so-called “study” of women’s plight in Idaho and America.

According to the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, based in Washington, D.C., Idaho women rank 39th in the nation on something called the “Composite Political Participation Index”. They rank 48th in employment and earnings. They rank 40th in the nation on something called the “Social and Economic Autonomy Index”. Even more chilling – at least to these socialists – is the “F” grade they give the state on “Reproductive Rights”.

Strangely enough – this same outfit somehow determines that Idaho women rank 15th in the nation on their “Composite Health and Well-Being Index”. Or maybe that’s not so strange.

Let’s look at their claims for “Reproductive Rights”. Idaho flunks because we have a Parental Consent Law protecting teenage girls from the predators in the Abortion Industry. And these feminists are very upset that Idaho taxpayers don’t pay for abortions.

The Idaho Women’s Network – which played a key role in developing the “study” – believes that we don’t have enough abortion providers in the state. The women of Idaho are also portrayed as poor victims of the white, male “oppressor” class because there is not a wide-open adoption policy for lesbian couples.

From our perspective, Idaho’s “poor” showing on these various socialist policy questions is a matter of celebration. And it may explain why they had to confess that Idaho women ranked fairly high in terms of general “well-being”.

But, of course, this is the kind of pseudo-intellectual pap which makes the liberal media swoon. Put a few numbers on a chart, and suddenly you have an “objective” study of how traditional values are betraying the desires and rights of women. Great headlines and sound-bites.

These news reports are just lazy journalism in the aid of a radical political agenda.

Thursday, November 18, 2004

FDA Moves to Protect Abortion Pill – Not Women

In the past four years, the Food and Drug Administration has received 676 reports of serious health complications related to using the Abortion Pill – RU-486. Three of those cases resulted in the death of the girls using the drug, including 17-year old Holly Patterson. There were also 17 potentially fatal cases where women were unknowingly using the drug to kill a baby growing in the fallopian tube.

Those ectopic pregnancies are clearly a violation of the legal safeguards prescribed by the FDA. Abortion providers are required to exam women before giving Abortion Pill prescriptions, to ensure that the baby is lodged in the womb.

In response, the FDA has announced that it will require expanded warnings on the labels of RU-486. But it simultaneously rejected calls by Monty Patterson, the father of Holly, to pull the drug from the market altogether.

Frankly, this is a sorry response to an emerging health threat to women and girls. And it clearly demonstrates the politicization of medicine, and the willful failure of our federal and state governments to adequately protect women from the health consequences of abortion. It looks like the FDA is more interested in protecting the interests of drug makers and the Abortion Industry than it is American women.

A partial response to the dark politics of RU-486 is the introduction in Congress of legislation known as “Holly’s Bill” - or the “RU-486 Suspension and Review Act”.
According to LifeNews.Com, the legislation has some 80 co-sponsors in the U.S. House.

That, of course, is a fine suggestion. But the initiative should be coming from the Bush Administration. A little presidential leadership in this area would be a grand thing – for it was, after all, presidential politics which drove legalization of RU-486 in the first place. In his desperate bid to win the presidency for Al Gore, Bill Clinton forced the FDA to rush approval in the fall of 2000.

One must wonder if these men still believe the death toll is a reasonable price to pay for their ambition.

Wednesday, November 17, 2004

National Catholic Vote Breaks Republican

We spoke several times during the fall campaign about how the Catholic voter would respond to the first Catholic presidential candidate since John Kennedy. In the 1960 campaign, Kennedy won 78% of the Catholic vote.

But Catholic World News is reporting that exit polls found that President Bush carried 52% of the Catholic vote nationwide. This is a five-point jump from the 2000 campaign, in which Al Gore won a majority of the Catholic vote. The percentage was even higher among practicing Catholics (56%).

In the crucial states of Ohio and Florida, the Catholic vote was even more crucial to Bush’s re-election. Bush won 57% of the Catholic vote in Florida – which translated in 400,000 new votes over 2000.

Nationwide, 42% of Latino Catholics supported GW – which may portend long-term structural changes in national politics.

While we applaud the strong vote for Bush, the underlying dynamics of the Catholic vote is even more important. In the face of vague national leadership from the Catholic hierarchy on the question of how the Catholic Church should deal with pro-abort politicians who claim to be Catholic – this data is quite significant.

There is no doubt that it was Kerry’s rabid pro-abort politics which explains his loss of the Catholic vote. All things being equal, Kerry should have easily won a majority of Catholic voters. But a strong majority of such households determined that the immorality of abortion was of greater concern than a common heritage and culture.

This has tremendous possibilities for the pro-Life movement. While one would hope that Christians would be nearly unanimous in supporting pro-Life candidates, we must be content, for today, with real progress.

And, let me just remind you of the need to call Senator Craig about the Specter chairmanship. His Boise number is 208-342-7985.

Tuesday, November 16, 2004

U.N. Vote on Human Cloning Later This Week

LifeNews.Com reports that the United Nations is likely to vote on a total ban of human cloning later this week. We ask for your prayers on behalf of this resolution.

Those international forces supporting human cloning – and the panacea of human embryonic stem cell research – have been stalling, hoping to see a major reversal in policy by a new American Administration. But with the re-election of George Bush, that hope has evaporated. Now the socialists running Old Europe are faced with an up-or-down vote on whether the international community will turn its back on the moral principles guiding scientific research since at least the Holocaust – or whether the world will officially embrace a “brave new world”.

As you know, John Kerry made a major campaign issue of embryonic stem cell research – hoping to appeal to the self-interest of many Americans. He strongly supported “therapeutic” cloning, in which tiny humans are cloned so that their stem cells can be harvested. This is the same policy being pushed by France, Belgium and other sophisticates at the United Nations.

The United States, Costa Rica and sixty-three others nations oppose such research. And, at one time, so did all the nations of Europe. In 1949, the international community adopted the Nuremberg Code as a result of our dark experience with Nazi medical experimentation on human beings. The very first article of this code says that no medical research can be performed on a person if that person lacks the capacity to give legal consent. And article 5 states that no human experiment should be conducted where there is reason to believe death or injury might occur.

Let’s pray there is enough moral clarity left at the U.N. to defend human dignity; to hang onto the lessons we paid so dearly to learn.

Monday, November 15, 2004

Gay Rights Group Defends Specter

The national fight over Arlen Specter’s ascension to the throne of the Senate Judiciary Committee has taken on new urgency in the past few days. First Specter issued a public challenge to President Bush’s authority to appoint conservative jurists to the federal bench. Then, when folks out here in the Red States began to object to Specter’s rise to crucial power of America’s future – Specter began to issue public statements that he had been “misunderstood”. That his arrogant threat had been “taken out of context”. He will be a loyal Republican, he pleaded with Senate colleagues.

Blah, blah, blah.

Now it comes out that Arlen Specter promised the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette last month that he would use his new position of power to block any Bush appointee he deemed as “too extreme”. He also told them that he believed the “right” to an abortion to be “inviolate”.

To make matters clearer – the Family Research Council has just reported that Planned Parenthood and the Log Cabin Republicans have launched a counter-campaign to ensure that this radical Republican gains a choke-hold on the confirmation process. Since 1996, Specter has received over $30,000 from pro-gay marriage/pro-abortion groups. Even more telling – Specter received $2000 from Senator John Kerry to fund his re-election.

Given the immense power of the committee system in the U.S. Senate – the vote to confirm Arlen Specter as the new chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee may be the most important pro-Life vote Senator Larry Craig will make in coming years.

I urge you to take just a moment, today or tomorrow, to call Senator Craig’s Boise office and leave a message. Urge him to oppose Arlen Specter. That number is 208-342-7985.

Friday, November 12, 2004

Australian Officials Begin Asking Questions About Abortion

In the painfully shallow public debate over abortion and its consequences, a speech by Australia’s Health Minister comes as a light in the darkness.

Australia’s Tony Abbott has issued public calls for mandatory pre-abortion counseling for any woman seeking an abortion. He has previously called the practice of abortion in that nation as “epidemic”, and believes that many women and girls undergo abortion without fully understanding the consequences.

He called it “vital” that the government ensure all mothers are able to make an informed choice.

And then he touched upon one of the great secrets of the abortion plague: Abbott said he believed many mothers are being railroaded into choosing abortion by boyfriends, parents, husbands – even society itself, which has created a “culture of convenience”.

These comments come as several members of the government are raising questions about the policy of Medicare funding for abortions. Those public payments are available when, in the opinion of a medical practitioner, “continuing with the pregnancy would pose a significant risk to the physical or mental health of the mother.”

Obviously, both Australian and American policy makers have only asked half the question regarding health benefits for mothers. What about the physical or mental health of the woman in the event she participates in the killing of her own child?

And with this whole tragic problem in mind – I’d like to remind our listeners that we have available, free of charge, a superb booklet on the risks and alternatives to abortion. Our informed consent booklet will give you the facts about abortion. Phone numbers to get help. You can download a copy from our homepage (http://www.idahochooseslife.org) Or call us at 208-344-8709.

No questions, no hassles. Just the truth you need to know before making a decision.

Thursday, November 11, 2004

Victory for Many SE Idaho Pro-Lifers

Let’s resume our review of the election’s impact on the upcoming Legislature.

A number of strong pro-Lifers were re-elected by the generous people of Southeast Idaho. We are grateful that Stan Williams, Dennis Lake, Mel Richardson, Ann Rydalch, Bart Davis, Jack Barraclough, Mack Shirley, Don Burtenshaw, JoAn Wood and Lenore Barrett will return to Boise this winter – to help us defend the innocent, vulnerable children of the coming generation. These folks have a proven record of compassion for mothers faced with difficult pregnancies. Thank you.

The big disappointment, of course, from Southeast Idaho is the loss of Evan Frasure to liberal Democrat Bert Marley. From our point of view – this was a black and white contest. Frasure is committed to protecting women and children – Marley has proven he could care less.

I am told that Senator Marley strongly objected to the printed material Idaho Chooses Life sent into District 29. Rather than respond to the substance of our analysis and defend his votes against preborn children and their moms -- Marley whined that he was being unfairly attacked by a Boise group at the last minute.

Ann Coulter’s pithy observation comes to mind: “Whenever liberals become hysterical but refuse to give you particulars, they are up to no good.”

I assure you, Senator Marley has been up to “no good” for many years in Boise. He supports Planned Parenthood funding with your tax dollars. He opposed efforts to pass a fetal homicide statute – like the national Laci & Connor Law signed by President Bush. And he did, indeed, tell the Idaho Statesman that he didn’t have strong feelings about abortion one way or the other.

Unfortunately, Marley’s dissembling once again hoodwinked the voters. Our children will pay the price.

Wednesday, November 10, 2004

Please Call Sen. Craig: Stop Arlen Specter

We have more legislative districts to review – but I want to go to another, more pressing topic today.

Idaho pro-Lifers are in a unique position to strike a blow for the nation. Week after week I have been warning about the state of our federal judiciary. I have also predicted that judicial appointments will be the President’s chief domestic challenge during the second term.

In that context, it is imperative that you take a moment to call or write Senator Larry Craig. Let me explain why:

You may have already heard the infamous public statements from Senator Arlen Specter, the pro-abort “Republican” from Pennsylvania. On Wednesday morning, about the same time President Bush was receiving the concession from John Kerry, Arlen Specter gave an interview to the AP. Here is the opening paragraph from that news story:

“The Republican expected to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee next year bluntly warned newly re-elected President Bush … against putting forth Supreme Court nominees who would seek to overturn abortion rights or are otherwise too conservative to win confirmation.”

Specter also declared that the current Supreme Court lacked “legal giants”.

All of which is to say that Arlen Specter is a dangerous person to put in charge of the confirmation process for new federal judges. Specter’s radical pro-abortion politics, as well as his arrogance are on full display.

Idaho’s Larry Craig is a member of the Judiciary Committee. He will have a confidential vote on who serves as the next chairman of this pivotal panel. I am asking you to call his Boise office and urge him to oppose Arlen Specter. Craig’s office number is (208) – 342-7985.

America’s future is at stake.

Tuesday, November 09, 2004

Legislative Returns from the Magic Valley

One of the real bright spots for Idaho families came in District 22 – comprised of Boise and Elmore counties. The current senator for this district is Fred Kennedy, a liberal Democrat who spent the past two years battling us at every turn. His darkest moment, perhaps, came when he supported Republican Senator Joe Stegner’s motion to “strongly endorse” the State of Idaho’s partnership with Planned Parenthood.

Thankfully, Sen. Kennedy decided not to seek a second term.

That set up an open contest between James Alexander, the Democrat, and Tim Corder, the Republican. Most observers thought Corder had no chance to win, in part because of a huge fundraising advantage for the Democrat. Alexander raised over $27,000 as of mid-October – compared with just $8600 for Republican Corder. The Democrat got big money from Blaine County Democrats, a few business pacs and the Trial Lawyers.

But the Bush victory in Elmore County pushed pro-Lifer Tim Corder to a strong 55/45 victory last week – meaning that the babies of Idaho have gained a new voice. Pro-Lifers Rich Wills and Pete Nielsen also won strong re-election victories.

Frances Field, Sharon Block and Bert Stevenson won strong victories in the Magic Valley. And pro-abort Republican Tim Ridinger was defeated by an honest Democrat up in the Blaine County area.

In one of the most interesting races in the state – Speaker Bruce Newcomb was challenged by political newcomer Warren Yadon. Yadon worked hard and doorknocked across the district. Yadon is to be commended for running hard against big odds and big money; Newcomb is arguably the most powerful politician in Idaho. Yet, Yadon gained thousands of votes and forced Newcomb to run an actual campaign.

Monday, November 08, 2004

More Legislative Results

Let’s continue with our review of legislative elections around the state.

In Southwest Idaho, Senator Monty Pearce won a smashing 60-40 victory over liberal Democrat Bob Barowsky. Part of Monty’s victory, contrary to the dire predictions of Statesman columnist Dan Popkey, came because of the strong contrast between the two candidates on major social issues. Either through bad advice from Democrat handlers, or because he really shares the socialist vision of Idaho Democrats – Bob Barowsky took a position in support of tax-funding of Planned Parenthood, opposed a Marriage Protection Amendment and supported abortion-on-demand.

This is just crazy. The district this guy sought to represent includes Adams, Payette and Washington counties. Do Idaho Democrats really believe that New Plymouth and Council families want gay marriage and tax-funded abortions?

It is a bizarre phenomenon across the state: the last pro-Life Democrat in the state of Idaho, Chuck Cuddy, was narrowly defeated by Republican Paul Shepherd last week. The great advantage the Democrats in Idaho now have is monolithic, socialist, thinking about the great questions of the day. The difficulty is that there are now too few of them in the Legislature to handle even basic legislative work. It is a pathetic situation only Vladamir Lenin would appreciate.

We were also gratified to see Gary Collins, Gerry Sweet, Bill Sali and Shirley McKague win big last Tuesday.

Pro-abort Democrats won two senate seats in Ada County: Kate Kelly won a strong win in District 18, largely because she was able to outspend Dave Baumann by some $70,000.
And Democrat David Langhorst defeated pro-Life Republican Graham Paterson, giving Democrats 3-of-8 senate seats in Ada County.

Friday, November 05, 2004

Legislative Elections in Northern Idaho

There is more than the President’s resounding victory to celebrate this week. Quite a number of strong pro-Life champions won legislative victories in Tuesday’s election.

In northern Idaho, Senator Marti Calabretta was defeated by Republican Joyce Broadsword. While we don’t believe Ms. Broadsword is a strong advocate of pro-Life values – we are certain that Senator Calabretta was a leader in the pro-abortion movement in Idaho. During her previous stint in the Idaho Senate, Democrat Calabretta fought to get Idaho’s “Trigger Law” repealed. This would have automatically reinstated Idaho’s anti-abortion statutes in the event of Roe’s demise. In this last session, Senator Calabretta voted to support tax-funding of Planned Parenthood.

In that same district, Rep. Dick Harwood won a resounding return to the Legislature – overcoming a long-standing smear campaign by area media. He is one of the most sincere champions of preborn children in the Idaho Legislature.

And Phil Hart easily beat-back a write-in effort by Wayne Meyer – the pro-abort Republican that Phil Hart already defeated once this year.

Unfortunately for Idaho’s preborn children, pro-abort Republicans John Goedde and Dick Compton will also return to the Idaho Legislature for at least two more years.

There was also a crucial contest in Lewiston. Republican Joe Stegner hung on to win yet another turn at defending legalized abortion. We can only surmise that the Democrat in this race, Mike Naccarato, managed to wage a pretty pathetic campaign. We endorsed Paul Smith of the Constitution Party, hoping that people of faith in that community would welcome a morally-responsible choice for a change. Despite little funding, Mr. Smith earned the votes of hundreds of his neighbors.

We’ll brief you on more legislative races next week.

Thursday, November 04, 2004

A Time for Thanksgiving

Without doubt, the nation received a tremendous reprieve this week. Even as reports surfaced that Chief Justice William Rhenquist did not return to work as promised, the fate of the nation swung back and forth as one state or another counted its vote.

It is time for us all to give thanks to the Lord that we have avoided the disaster of a Kerry presidency. Particularly through the federal judiciary, Kerry’s legacy to America would have been long, devastating and nearly impossible to fix. Any worldly hope for rescuing our children from abortion in our lifetimes would seemingly be a dim one indeed.

Yet, amazingly, the heartland of America rose up in dramatic fashion to choose the politics of Life.

A Bush second term promises progress in the crusade to restore preborn children to the human family, to protect women and girls from the scourge of an abortion history. As I’ve said before, the primary domestic battle of a Bush second term will be appointments to the federal judiciary.

In that vein, it is encouraging that Republicans gained some ground in the United States Senate, as part of the strong Bush victory. The glorious defeat of the chief abortion advocate in the Senate, Tom Daschle is a real blow to the Abortion Lobby.

We should also be encouraged by the strong victory in Florida for a Parental Notification Amendment to the state constitution. By a margin of 65%, voters rebuked the leftist agenda of their imperial judiciary.

A major disappointment on the national scene comes from California. Voters approved, by a vote of 59% to 41%, a measure to spend some $6 billion on embryonic stem cell research, leading to the death of untold thousands of tiny humans. I fear this will become a dark trend within the nation’s medical community – unless we can muster the political will to push a measure through Congress banning such practices in this nation.

Wednesday, November 03, 2004

Dark Developments in Medicine

I’d like to direct your attention to ominous developments in the field of medicine.

The New Scientist is reporting that medical researchers at the University of Louisville have developed a transplant regimen using tissue from aborted babies. Robert Aramant says that he and his colleague have “shown the way” to reverse eye disease. They have had such success with hard cases, that they have already received approval from the Food & Drug Administration to expand their dark research into less severe eye treatments.

Of course, the scientists admit that some people will be uncomfortable with the notion of turning dead babies into some kind of commodity – but they dismiss us as just so many pathetic fools, encumbered by outdated notions of right-and-wrong.

Meanwhile, in England, The London Times reports that the government has given permission to a fertility clinic to begin genetic screening of embryos for various genetic dispositions toward cancer. The Times reports that the decision sets the groundwork for a much broader range of screenings.

While this may strike the ear as some kind of medical advance – the consequences are barbaric. What happens to those embryos deemed “less than perfect”? They will be destroyed, of course.

It is also disturbing to see clear evidence of a re-emerging ideology within medicine which believes that mankind is perfectible – by man himself. The human race has already had multiple experiences with this modern “Tower of Babel”, and suffered immeasurably. If this trend is allowed to continue, we will surely reap the whirlwind.

Tuesday, November 02, 2004

America In the Valley of Decision

Today is, of course, a monumental moment in the nation’s history. Will we proceed deeper into the darkness of “man-as-his-own-god”, or will we act rationally by working to conform our society to the natural order? Will we choose to protect ourselves from the threat of Islamic terrorists? Will we choose to protect our children from the carnage of the Gay Rights Agenda? Will we choose life for God’s defenseless ones?

There is, of course, the presidential race. It is of immense concern to the pro-Life movement on several levels: Whatever his faults, President Bush has engaged in a dialogue with the American people about the Culture of Death. That conversation needs to continue. Equally important is the future of the federal judiciary. While it will be difficult for Bush to undo much of the damage done through many administrations – I am relatively confident he can at least brake the slide. A Kerry presidency, on the other hand, will do damage seemingly impossible to recover from.

Other crucial contests are being waged across the nation as well:

In South Dakota, abortion has been a keystone issue between Republican John Thune and Democrat Tom Daschle – the effective cheerleader for the Culture of Death in the United States Senate. Weekend polling showed Thune with a 3 point lead heading into today.

Mel Gibson launched radio ads condemning the embryonic stem cell ballot measure being voted on in California. This would use $3 billion in tax dollars to harvest stem cells from defenseless human embryos.

And Florida voters will be deciding whether to amend their constitution to ensure that parents are notified before their daughters get an abortion. The amendment is necessary because of outrageous ruling by that state’s Supreme Court. Polling from this past weekend by Zogby found 68% of voters supported the amendment. Just 25% of respondents were opposed to parental notification.

Please join me in praying for the nation today. And by all means – please vote. Your nation needs you.

Monday, November 01, 2004

Pro-Life Issue Dominates National Debate

Well, we have all nearly arrived at the momentous crossroads which will determine the fate of the next generation of preborn children. The choices we make tomorrow as a state and nation will determine not just their fate – but the tone and quality of our society.

There is no doubt that abortion, and the related questions of cloning and embryonic stem cell research, have been at the heart of this presidential election. In fact, one might argue that abortion has been second only to the battle against Islamic terrorism in the national debate. If you think about it, that is rather odd – given the fact that various feminists and judges and media pundits have repeatedly declared the issue “settled”.

It is obvious that The People will not let abortion become a matter of legitimate behavior.

From a political point of view, many GOP operatives have long wanted the issue to go away, especially here in Idaho. That is largely due to their lack of moral vision, rather than political reality.

In fact, if George Bush wins re-election tomorrow, he will owe his second term to a pro-Life community which has chosen to invest him with their most fervent hopes.

Even the biased Time magazine conceded in mid-October that a majority of Americans were pro-Life, and that they formed the backbone of Bush’s base. There has been much made of Bush’s gains among black Americans this election cycle – but two different polls found that Bush’s pro-Life values were the primary explanation. In fact, one poll found that black Americans were even more likely to consider themselves pro-Life than society at large.

The supreme test of a second Bush term will be judicial appointments. Let’s pray he gets the opportunity to prove his mettle.