Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Supreme Court Hearing Today

The U.S. Supreme Court will hold oral arguments in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood today. This case involves a New Hampshire parental notification statute – and the demand by Planned Parenthood and its cohorts in the Abortion Industry that there be a “health” exception to the law.

I’m going to pause here – because we toss these legalisms around too often. What the Abortion Industry is arguing is that parents should not be notified in cases where the girl’s “health” might be threatened. And who decides? The abortionist making the dough. And what constitutes “health”? Anything: Economics, emotional angst, or even life-threatening conditions. And in those serious cases – don’t we want parents to be informed that their daughter is in serious trouble?

But of course – such language and laws are not in the least related to a girl’s actual health. They are the elephant holes through which all abortion restrictions can be undermined.

That is the issue before the Court. It is the first abortion case taken by the Court since its disastrous ruling in the Partial Birth Abortion case of 2000. And as of today – Sandra Day O’Connor, patron saint of “undue burden” and “exceptions” is still on the Court. If she is able to vote, it is unlikely that the families of America will prevail. However – if Samuel Alito is confirmed before the actual vote is taken, then Chief Justice John Roberts could order a new hearing for his benefit. Alito could also vote on the basis of tapes and briefs.

Meanwhile, LifeNews.Com reports that a new poll in New Hampshire, conducted by Research 2000, finds a plurality of state residents support the parental notification law.
Perhaps that will make some small difference to the legal high priests who have done so much to undermine self-rule in this nation.

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Abortion Leads to ‘Gendercide’

Ever notice the strange, disturbing turns feminism has taken in the past decade or so? I’ve commented repeatedly on the tragic abandonment of young girls. Once a girl reaches the age of about 13 or 14 – she is pretty much on her own. Sexual activity, according to Planned Parenthood, is to be encouraged, nurtured. Consequences like babies or STDs are to be disposed of discreetly.

Once, feminists argued that it was wrong to treat women as mere sexual objects. As human beings, they were entitled to respect and dignity. This is, in fact, a Biblical truth. However, the new and improved version of feminism teaches girls to become the equals of males by practicing an ethic of sexual predation. Women will become equal to men by practicing the same kind of sexual license that men have often been guilty of in modern times.

Another fruit of the abortion/feminism culture is the actual destruction of women as babies.

A recent report by a United Nations researcher, Theodore Winkler, claims that abortion has resulted in the birth of some 200 million fewer females worldwide than there should be – if the natural order had not been interfered with. He is quoted as saying that, “We are confronted with the slaughter of Eve, a systematic gendercide of tragic proportions.”
His findings were printed in a new book entitled, Women in an Insecure World.

Among the fruits of this growing gender imbalance – particularly in nations like India and China – is the growing industry of sex trafficking. Women and girls are kidnapped so they can be sold on the black market in many parts of the world.

So one wonders – when will the supposedly “pro-woman” feminist crowd wake up and smell the coffee? And if the leadership of this misguided movement simply cannot overcome their ideological imbalance, we must work harder to educate American women about the growing and deadly dangers of the modern feminist movement.

Monday, November 28, 2005

Catholic Bishops Continue to “Study” Integrity Crisis

A “task force” of Catholic bishops has been working on the growing problem of pro-abort politicians who claim to be Catholic. The integrity crisis within the Church hit a real crisis during last year’s presidential campaign, in which John Kerry ran as a “good Catholic” while espousing abortion-on-demand. He was the first Catholic presidential candidate since Kennedy – but the first Catholic candidate to lose the Catholic vote because of his politics.

Nevertheless, church officials have been reluctant to impose any kind of discipline of politicians claiming the Catholic mantle. The American life League has taken out full page ads on several occasions calling on American bishops to enforce Church teaching on abortion, by denying pro-abort public officials from receiving holy communion.

The task force was formed last year and continues to fool around with finding a “solution” to this grave problem. Recently this group, led by Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, D.C., met with officials of the Republican and Democratic parties.

While many are skeptical, it is possible that the new Pope Benedict XVI, will push the matter. As a Cardinal, he issued a letter to American bishops urging that pro-abort Catholic politicians who persisted in denying Catholic teaching on the sanctity of human life “must” be denied communion. In response to that letter, issued last year, Cardinal McCarrick led bishops into producing a statement which said that such politicians were cooperating with evil. But they would not discipline politicians like Kerry. Instead, they claimed the issue needed more study.

The next bishops’ meeting is scheduled for next June. There is an expectation that some kind of new document on abortion will be presented by the McCarrick task force.

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Catholic Church in Canada Retreats in Face of Abortion Threats

There was a quite a crisis for the Canadian pro-Life movement last week, as volunteers and activists prepared to attend a national convention in Montreal. Just a day before the event was scheduled to begin – priests at St. Joseph’s Oratory, the Canadian national shrine, announced that they would not let the event take place at their church. The priests had been receiving threats from pro-abortion and pro-homosexual activists.

Numerous attempts to gain a reversal of the last-minute surrender met with stubbornness from the rector, Father Jean-Pierre Aumont.

While news reports are vague about the exact nature of the threats being made – one news source quotes the Montreal police as saying that the Police Department did not advise St. Joseph’s to cancel the meeting – and that they were confident police could provide adequate protection.

Jim Hughes, President of Campaign Life Coalition Canada, told LifeSiteNews that “This decision to cancel the contract at this last minute is a great capitulation by the Catholic Church in the face of opposition to its pro-Life, pro-family teachings.”

Even as delegates traveled across the country, organizers scrambled for a location. Fortunately, the good people at La Bible Parle – a French speaking evangelical church, came forward. Senior Pastor Jeff Laurin, told the media that he had hired security and made arrangements with Montreal Police to protect pro-Lifers.

We’ve been unable to find any reports of vandalism or harm to any pro-Lifers attending. The only damage so far is to the integrity of the Catholic Church.

IN CLOSING today, let me pray the Lord’s blessing on you and your family as we gather tomorrow to thank Him for His mighty goodness.

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Missouri Judge Changes His Mind

I’m afraid I’ve been offering hard news lately, so I’m happy to report on a good development.

Remember me talking a week or so ago about the Missouri judge who had blocked a new law upholding parents’ rights? The Missouri legislature, under the able and passionate leadership of Governor Matt Blunt, enacted a law which makes it a tort to bring a girl across state lines to get an abortion. Unless, of course, you are the girl’s parent or legal guardian.

This law has Planned Parenthood up in arms. They have usurped the privileges of parenthood in many places – and are quite convinced they are more enlightened than you and I. In fact, they sued to stop the law in Missouri from taking effect.

For a time, it seemed that they had succeeded in using the courts to once more trump self government. Circuit Judge Charles Atwell issued a temporary restraining order about two weeks ago. This is the case in which he wrote that he thought the law had probably violated Planned Parenthood’s right to counsel Missouri’s children.

In that first order, he said it was probably unconstitutional to allow parents to sue another adult who brings their daughter across state lines for an abortion.

I can’t account for it – but apparently this judge has changed his mind. One can only assume that Judge Atwell is under intense political pressure, for his ruling clearly violates his own ideas about how the world should work. Atwell now says that the law is constitutional, though he approved the law with “substantial trepidation”.

A further clue about his political agenda came in the addenda to his ruling. He continued the restraining order until Missouri’s Supreme Court could review the case; even more disturbing is his requirement that no one could be investigated for disciplined for possibly violating the law.

Nevertheless, we must be grateful for this progress, and trust God to see the law is upheld and enforced.

Monday, November 21, 2005

Jim Sedlak to Speak at Christmas Dinner

I’m excited to announce our upcoming Christmas Dinner & Auction at the Community Christian Center in Garden City. We’ll meet again for a great dinner and fellowship on Friday evening, December 9th.

This year, we will have as our special guest speaker Jim Sedlak, Executive Director of Stop Planned Parenthood International. He is officed in Washington, D.C. and has spent much of the past 12 years, since his retirement from IBM, leading the national effort to defang Planned Parenthood.

Without doubt, Jim is one of the nation’s premier experts on this dangerous organization and a key strategist in the battle to stop tax-payers’ subsidy of Planned Parenthood. It is a real honor to have him with us. If you’d like to attend, the cost is just $10 per family. Call us, toll-free, at 877-341-LIFE for more information.

And, finally, with Christmas quickly approaching, you might want to order pro-Life Christmas cards. Without doubt – the message of Christmas is Life. We have cards available to you for just $7.50 per package of 10. The proceeds will help support this ministry.

May the Lord bless you

Friday, November 18, 2005

Planned Parenthood Works the Church

Planned Parenthood has launched an outreach campaign to pastors and church leaders in key Bible Belt states this past month. We’ve seen stories about campaigns underway in Kentucky and Tennessee. Apparently this is part of a larger effort to legitimize the organization and its message of sex education in various Christian communities.

In Tennessee, thousands of letters were sent offering to bring Planned Parenthood staffers into the congregations to help educate folks about sex.

And in Kentucky, Planned Parenthood is bringing its national “chaplain” to Lexington, hoping to meet with area clergy about the mission and history of America’s largest abortion chain. Their “chaplain” is a guy named Ignacio Castuera – apparently an ordained United Methodist minister from the Watts section of Los Angeles.

His position on abortion? “It is always a tragedy – but I don’t think it’s a sin.”

Apparently, Minister Castuera is having trouble. One pastor, Bill Henard of Porter Memorial Baptist Church, is quoted as saying that Planned Parenthood’s message is “hypocrisy … for them to say that they’re not anti-Christian when they oppose basic Christian values of the family.”

When asked about the resistance to his visit, Castuera actually had the audacity to compare himself to Jesus: “The closer Jesus got to the cross, the smaller the crowds got. This is pretty close to the cross because people have to take derision, ostracism, all that.”

My goodness – is there no limit to the self-deception and sacrilege? Soon we will see Planned Parenthood begin making money from “holiday cards” which mock Jesus’ birth by joyfully proclaiming “Choice on Earth”.

May the Lord heal these people. And may He protect congregations from any leaders out there who are feeling wobbly about the fundamentals of Christ’s message to us.

Thursday, November 17, 2005

Winmill Weeps for Criminals; Sentences Preborn Children to Death

I have disappointing, disturbing news to report to you today. We have learned that Idaho Federal Judge Lynn Winmill has imperiously denied the State’s motion for reconsideration of his deeply flawed ruling in the Parental Consent lawsuit. That means Idaho’s daughters remain completely defenseless to the tauntings and seductions of Planned Parenthood. Fathers and mothers stand powerless on the sidelines, not even entitled by this liberal Democrat to know that their daughter is killing her baby.

Idaho Chooses Life Alliance filed a 12 page brief supporting the State’s motion. In it, we clearly demonstrated that Winmill had ignored a U.S. Supreme Court ruling directly related to the issues at play here. In his latest decree, Winmill simply ignored the case. He refused to even address the issues we raised – and published a 5-sentence order. So, that’s that. No reasoning, persuasion; just a raw power play by an unaccountable federal judge.

Who suffers for this abuse of power? Our daughters and families. And hundreds of preborn children who might have survived the threat of abortion if parents had been empowered to intervene.

What makes this matter even more difficult to accept is a recent column by Dan Popkey in the Idaho Statesman. Popkey reports on a speech Winmill gave to the City Club of Boise around the time he issued his ruling defending abortionists. Winmill’s speech was all about the tragedies surrounding the death penalty. He shared his deep concerns about the cost and possible injustice about sentencing murderers to death; he also expressed concern for Idaho’s system of electing judges. No doubt!

This liberal Democrat holds immense power over our lives because he cannot be held accountable. His political and moral philosophy was on clear display: Mercy for criminals, death to preborn children. How sadly perverse.

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

The Conservative Chattering Class and Alito

I have been watching the confirmation process surrounding Judge Samuel Alito with great interest. The politics and dynamics are just fascinating – particularly when you contrast the whole thing with the way Harriet Miers was treated.

I am especially interested in the way the pack of conservative leaders have responded differently to Alito – and have willingly overlooked a series of signs and omens which ought to cause at least some concern. Yet our leaders have remained steadfast in their support of Alito. I’m not saying that they are wrong – in fact, we have no choice but to support President Bush – but it is a very curious thing that questions continue to arise about Alito. But no one on our side is really asking.

Let me give you an example of what I’m talking about. Sen. Chuck Schumer came out the other day and offered some positive comments about Alito after a private meeting. And then another pro-abort Democrat, Joe Lieberman, came out and said he believed Alito understood and respected the right to privacy in the Constitution. That is the lynch pin of the whole abortion debate. In fact, there have been several comments made suggesting that Alito would be unlikely to overturn Roe v. Wade if confirmed.

But what criticism or skeptical questions have been raised by those who so crucified Harriet Miers? Nary a word.

And then there is the case of Sen. Sam Brownback, a pro-Life Republican. Senator Brownback met with Alito and said he is very comfortable with the new nominee – and likes him because he has a long judicial track record. What is very curious here is the fact that in 3-of-4 abortion cases in which Alito has written opinions – he has sided with the Supreme Court’s pro-abortion precedent. Where is the cause for celebration in this track record?

Of course, Alito’s defenders would insist that in those cases, Alito was bound by Supreme Court precedent. Without the principle of precedent – our court system would be even more chaotic than it is already. So perhaps this view is correct. But my point is that, for all the “track record” present, we really don’t know much more about Alito’s views than we did in the Miers case.

I guess our talking heads share something with the liberal pundits: there is a certain pack dynamic which sometimes does harm.

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Reviewing the California Disaster

Generally speaking, last week’s election results in Idaho and the nation were of no particular comfort to conservatives. With the exception of the Texas Marriage Amendment vote – there is cause for a fair amount of concern. We’ll talk more about Idaho local elections later. Today, I’d like to confront the disappointing news from California.


As you may know, pro-Lifers forced a ballot vote on a constitutional amendment which would require parental notification in cases where a girl is seeking an abortion. An amendment to the state constitution is necessary because of rulings by the California Supreme Court, suggesting a constitutional right to kill preborn children.

The measure, Proposition 73, failed on a 47% - 53% vote.

Frankly, this is a rather distressing result. It is difficult to spin a “positive” silver lining from this set-back. I’m told that a California millionaire put up the money to gather the signatures, but that the pro-Life community largely failed to run an actual campaign. Some in the pro-Life community reportedly felt that the vote would simply take care of itself. While one would like to believe that most people still retain enough moral sanity to support such a minimal protection for girls – obviously, this was a tragic and foolish error in judgment.

Some have blamed the general electoral disaster Arnold Schwarzenegger suffered at the polls – in which the left was highly mobilized by powerful special interests. Others point to the high dollar propaganda campaign waged by Planned Parenthood to defeat the measure:

They called themselves the “Campaign for Teen Safety”, and ran a fortune of media designed to persuade people that their choice was between the health and safety of teenage girls – or some draconian, black & white “Leave It to Beaver” world that existed only in television land. Planned Parenthood was largely held blameless during the fight, and allowed to position itself as the true defender of our daughters – against the evil “parent class”.

You may sure that we will see at least the shadows of this message imported into Idaho.

And in the meantime, we may also be certain that the girls of California will be waiting a long time before sanity returns to their worlds – if ever.

Monday, November 14, 2005

Break Up of 9th Circuit Before House

We have talked a great deal in recent days about the crying, desperate need for action on the judicial front. I’m sure many of you share my deep frustration – in particular with the very liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

There is a glimmer of hope with legislation introduced in the House of Representatives last month by James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin. This Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee is sponsoring HR 4093, the “Federal Judgeship and Administrative Efficiency Act of 2005”.

It specifically seeks to break up the 9th Circuit by creating a new 12th Circuit Court of Appeals. This new circuit would include Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. Left in the 9th would be California, Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands.

When introducing the legislation, Sensenbrenner offered the following observations:

“Realigning the 9th Circuit has been considered form some thirty years – the time for action is now. The House supports a modernization of the 9th Circuit. It is no longer a question of if, but when.”

The primary argument advanced by Sensenbrenner is the mammoth size of the 9th Circuit. It has 47 judges – almost twice the number of the next largest circuit. It rules over some 56 million American citizens, which is 25 million more than the next largest circuit.

Those are all great arguments. But the overriding reason to rebuild this abomination is the terrible impact California liberals are having on Idaho families. Most of those 47 judges come from and through California. That means people like Barbara Boxer are having an immense influence on the families, economy and law here in Idaho.

Our understanding is that Congressman Mike Simpson is already on board with this legislation. We need to encourage the rest of the delegation, particularly Senators Crapo and Craig, to expend every effort to get this legislation enacted.

Friday, November 11, 2005

More Judicial Attacks on the Family

Earlier this week we talked about the latest outrageous ruling by the pontiffs of the 9th Circuit – who ruled that public schools have more rights to form our children’s sexual ethics than we do. But as bad as the 9th Circuit is, it is abundantly clear that our national judicial crisis extends far beyond those enthroned in San Francisco.

In yet another court – this time, a state court, more destruction of parental rights is underway.

Missouri Circuit Judge Charles Atwell has issued a temporary restraining order against a new Missouri law which would prohibit any adult, other than a parent or legal guardian, from taking a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion. According to LifeNews, Atwell said that he put the temporary in place so he could have more time to examine the issues raised by Planned Parenthood. But he went farther when he wrote that he believed the law to be unconstitutional because it probably violated the rights of abortion businesses to talk to teenagers about abortions.

This is another moment for pause. If I understand the article correctly, abortion businesses – that is, Planned Parenthood – have constitutional rights. In fact, they apparently have not just the constitutional right to be in the abortion business – they have a constitutional right to talk with our daughters about abortion. Even more bizarre – it would seem logical to conclude from this preliminary ruling that Planned Parenthood’s rights to talk with your daughter trump your right to raise and protect your daughter.

I can only describe this reasoning as creeping evil – a clear form of insanity. Each of us must become involved in combating this terrible judicial threat to our families and communities.

Thursday, November 10, 2005

‘Mr. Death’ Endorses Democrat Candidate for Governor

Now here is some creepy news. Michael Schiavo, the pseudo husband who fought for a decade to end his ill wife’s life has now entered politics. It seems that the poster boy for the Death Culture has offered a public endorsement of the Democrat candidate running for Governor in Virginia.

Virginia’s gubernatorial race always receives a tremendous amount of national press interest because of its proximity to the nation’s capitol and the fact that it occurs during an off election year. That means a lot of national party money is spent, and virtually every hired gun on both sides comes in to earn a little extra dough just in time for Christmas. That is why some $40 million has already been expended between the two candidates.

But I digress. Into this intense partisan squabble comes Michael Schiavo. He released a statement endorsing the Democrat, saying that he had witnessed first hand the abusive power that a governor can wield. He once again accused Governor Jeb Bush of political grandstanding for his noble fight to save Terri Schiavo’s life.

Michael Schiavo’s endorsement came after he heard of a debate between the Virginia candidates. The Republican candidate, Jerry Kilgore, said that he would “not agree to the forced starvation of any individual” if they had not had a say in the matter.

The American Spectator magazine has called Michael Schiavo, “America’s most admired widower this side of O.J. Simpson”. That seems appropriate, although I would have preferred the word ‘notorious’. It is certainly strange that Schiavo would attempt to intervene in this election.

But the darker aspect is the fact that the Democrat candidate would welcome the blessing.

It is an unmistakable marker of our society’s coarsening.

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Carter’s Extraordinary Repentance

There was an extraordinary story last week, carried by the Washington Times and some national newswires. Former Democrat President Jimmy Carter offered some rather amazing statements on abortion.

“I have never felt that any abortion should be committed – I think each abortion is the result of a series of errors,” Carter said. His remarks came during a breakfast chat with reporters in Washington, D.C. He went on to say more: “I’ve never been convinced … that Jesus Christ would approve abortion.”

And then he said that he thought national Democrat leaders were hurting the party by “overemphasizing the abortion issue”.

All I can say is … wow. Okay, I’ll say more, but we need to pause a minute. Jimmy Carter has become even more liberal since leaving office than he was in the White House. Some have concluded he is a de facto socialist.

But these are extraordinary remarks.

Of course, one naturally turns to the Carter years to see what evidence exists that he held these views when his opinions really matters: And the sad fact is that Carter was arguably the first pro-choice president. He and Mondale specifically ran as defenders of the Roe decision, just 3 years after that decision was handed down.

After his election, Carter appointed a panel to consider alternatives to abortion. His study group came to the conclusion that the only alternatives to abortion were “suicide, motherhood or madness”. While Carter could be applauded for appointing the panel – he allowed its crazy conclusions to stand. And Carter also allowed the Democrat National Party to support public funding of abortions in the 1980 Platform.

But everyone deserves a chance to repent, and we welcome his message to the Democrat Party.

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

Yet More Outrage from the 9th Circuit

Yesterday we engaged in a frank discussion of Planned Parenthood as an organization dedicated to changing the world to reflect their values. And only a person living on an isolated mountain top could fail to notice their tremendous progress.

But to be fair – their progress in corrupting the culture and our children has not been a solo project. They could never have gotten so far without the active partnership of our federal courts.

The latest outrage comes from the socialist judge sitting on the 9th Circuit who once tried to ban God from the Pledge of Allegiance. Judge Stephen Reinhardt recently wrote an opinion for a 3 judge appeals panel in a lawsuit brought by parents against the school district in Palmdale, California.

The parents were outraged by a sex survey given to elementary children. These children were asked to answer questions about how often they thought about sex, whether they had sexual feelings, whether they touched their private parts and so on. Parents were naturally outraged that these surveys were done behind their backs. Thus, the lawsuit.

This would be just another outrageous story if it weren’t for the unbelievable ruling by this committee of leftist lawyers. Are you ready? Judge Reinhardt and his cohorts have declared that parents – all of us – have no right to be the exclusive teacher of our children’s sexuality. He also ruled that parents have no right to override the decisions of school officials who choose to teach our kids about sex.

Just unbelievable. Once again, the state makes advances upon our children. The government will be co-parents, well, more than equal partners with us in raising our children. At least in the most sensitive and important areas.

It is imperative that we begin forcing our congressional delegation and candidates to lay concrete plans for impeaching people like Judge Reinhardt. His abuse of power threatens not only our system of government – but our very families.

Monday, November 07, 2005

Planned Parenthood Exposed

Is Planned Parenthood a “social change agent”?

That question might seem rather silly to those of you who long ago came to really understand the goals and methods of this nefarious organization. But for many less vigorous souls – it may actually be a provocative question.

Life Decisions International, the pro-Life movement’s leading authority on corporate funding of Planned Parenthood, recently exposed an article written by a national vice president of Planned Parenthood. In it, Michael McGee admits that “we have sold the public on the notion that individuals have the right to decide when and whether they want to have children. Changing the world to reflect our vision takes courage … and enormous commitment.”

McGee goes on to state that Planned Parenthood pioneered the concept of “social marketing”. That is their term for describing their role in the cultural and values battles which have been waged with great intensity since the mid-1960s.

Among their cynical tools in this cultural battle are our own children. In the article, McGee admits to using teenagers to advance Planned Parenthood’s pro-abortion agenda. He confesses that they are simply more effective at convincing other teenagers about abortion and sexual experimentation than even the adults at Planned Parenthood.

“Activist teens can create a buzz about [Planned Parenthood’s social agenda] ….” writes McGee.

This is very disturbing stuff. We are not talking about an organization which passively sits around, waiting to answer the phone calls of distressed women. That is the manufactured photo Planned Parenthood shows lazy legislators during sessions at the Capitol. No. We are talking about a dangerous organization that seeks to remake society, and is blatantly proud of using our children to do it.

Douglas Scott, President of Life Decisions International offers a sober challenge:

“We can sit by and let the Planned Parenthood philosophy flood our society, or we can help repair the damage already done. Not only should we choose to repair the damage, we need to strengthen society so it can resist Planned Parenthood.”

What will we choose? Will we continue to support politicians for office who vote to fund this organization with our tax dollars?

Friday, November 04, 2005

Roe Is Legally Vulnerable

With the nomination of Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court, it may be well to be begin a sober conversation about the mechanics and practicalities of reversing the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. Assuming that new Chief Justice John Roberts votes like his predecessor, William Rhenquist; and assuming that Alito is confirmed to replace Sandra Day O’Connor – we have presumably moved a bit closer to reversing the decision which legalized abortion in this nation.

But even with an extra vote, it appears that we will still be one vote short of reversing Roe. However, it does seem likely that various restrictions, like an end to Partial Birth Abortions, may be within reach. If the Senate does not dawdle, we might even soon see a serious tightening of the nefarious “health” exception created by the Supreme Court back in the time of Roe.

With John Paul Stevens at 85 years of age, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s health failing – it is realistic to begin talking about Roe being overcome.

In fact, I read a fascinating article while back about the implications of these court changes, and the legal underpinnings of Roe. One pro-choice law professor was quoted in the article as saying that “Roe was terribly reasoned.” Scott Powe added, “I think there’s some requirement under the Constitution that if you cannot explain a decision and its relationship with legal materials, it’s not a valid decision.”

Jack Balkin, a Yale Law School professor, concurred that Roe is vulnerable. The rights outlined in the decision have never been codified by Congress – a situation radically different from the fallout of the important Brown v. Board of Education decision. “[The civil liberties articulated in] Brown truly [became] law – really becomes something everyone’s on board with – after the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” Balkin said.

Ironically, these pro-choice scholars believe Roe v. Wade continues to come under such intense scrutiny and controversy because of the imperial method by which the Supreme Court imposed it on the nation. And, despite some 35 years of best effort – the Abortion Lobby has yet to persuade America that it should embrace the mechanized destruction of our inheritance.

Thursday, November 03, 2005

Pro-Life Community Must Push Past Miers

The Miers debacle must now be pushed behind us. Regular listeners know that I defended the President’s pick of Harriet Miers – largely on the basis of my regard for him and his proven record on pro-Life issues. But I certainly understood the skepticism and anxiety of others within the pro-Life movement. After all, many of those were on hand when David Souter was sold to the pro-Life community as being someone we could trust.

All of that is now history. She has withdrawn and the President has turned to a man with a long judicial record. By all early accounts, Samuel Alito answers those critics who convinced themselves that Miers was not qualified or conservative enough.

Alito is a graduate of Princeton and Yale Law. He has served for some fifteen years on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, reported to be nearly as liberal as our own 9th Circuit.

Now the burden is upon us. Many national pro-Life leaders demanded a brawl in the Senate – and now it seems certain we will have one. Immense grassroots pressure must be brought to bear on members of the Senate, particularly some in the Republican Caucus, to support the President’s choice. It is unclear that we have the votes to win this confirmation battle – despite the fact that Alito was once unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate to the Court of Appeals.

Already the pro-abortion movement is howling and organizing. They have amassed millions to defame a nominee like Alito – and the pro-Life movement must respond with vigor.

But our defense must begin with prayer for the intense battle ahead.

Lawyer Switches Parties to Beat Kline

We have discussed the courageous work of Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline numerous times on this program. He is the man pressing a case in the Kansas Supreme Court to get preborn children recognition and protection under that state’s constitution. He is also the hero pressing Planned Parenthood for an accounting as to how it deals with teenage girls likely to have been sexually victimized – as the laws of Kansas require.

Those stands have brought Kline media scrutiny – like the recent story by GQ Magazine, which describes Kline as “the most aggressive abortion litigator in the land”.

It has also engendered serious political opposition from the Abortion Lobby.

Johnson County District Attorney Paul Morrison recently announced that he was leaving the Republican Party so he could run against the Republican Kline in next year’s general election.

In his announcement, Morrison said he was running against Kline because the pro-Lifer had gotten off-track by going after the abortion industry. He argued that Kline is misusing his office by pursuing a conservative social agenda. “I will uphold the law for everybody in this state, rather than pursuing a narrow agenda that serves the interest of only a few,” Morrison said.

Now let’s see. This guy says he will “uphold the law” by continuing a common practice among attorneys general around the nation – to wit, ignoring hard evidence that the abortion industry regularly thumbs its collective nose at laws like parental consent or laws requiring reporting of suspected cases of child sexual abuse. I guess this newly minted Democrat believes there are laws and then there are laws. Certain laws – specifically those protecting our daughters – are simply too unimportant to enforce.

While we don’t have the privilege of supporting Phill Kline with our votes – we do have the obligation to uphold him in prayer. Perhaps some of you out there might even be in a position to support his re-election with financial donations.