Tuesday, January 31, 2006

AUL Sues Walgreens

You may have heard already about the action taken by Walgreens against four of its own pharmacists because they would not dispense the so-called “Morning After Pill”. These pro-Life pharmacists are aware of the scientific evidence which proves that this potent drug regimen can cause the destruction of a new human life.

Now you won’t hear that from your local Planned Parenthood propaganda agency; and probably not from your local media either. But the simple truth is that the “Morning After Pill” can cause abortions by preventing the fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. These folks regularly get away with denying the truth about emergency contraception because much of the medical profession has been politicized to the point that it is party to manipulating the very language. Under pressure from the Abortion Lobby, the definition of ‘pregnancy’ has been largely adjusted to include only life after he or she has implanted in the mother’s womb. From conception to that implantation – the new human being is in some kind of limbo.

But these pharmacists have retained their integrity. And for that - they have been fired.

Ann Polka, a spokeswoman with the Belleville Catholic Diocese in Illinois, is urging customers across the country to boycott Walgreen’s until it rectifies the situation. And Americans United for Life has just filed a law suit on behalf of the pharmacists.

AUL is alleging that the company violated the Illinois Rights of Conscience Act by trampling on the civil rights of these brave gentlemen.

I ask for your prayers on their behalf.

Monday, January 30, 2006

New Study Finds Great Progress for Pro-Life Movement

As Idaho’s legislative session begins to intensify, it is important for us to consider new research coming from the Heritage Foundation on the long term impact of pro-Life legislation enacted by the states over the past decade or so.

Professor Michael New of the University of Alabama has just published a detailed study of the impact of efforts like Parental Consent Laws and Informed Consent Laws on the rate of abortions. It is an encouraging report.

In 1992, there weren’t any states with enforceable informed consent laws – laws which required that women and girls be given detailed information about the risks and alternatives to abortion. By the year 2000, 27 different states had laws in effect.

And in 1992, only 20 states were enforcing parental consent or parental notice laws; by 2000 32 states were using such legislation to protect girls from the deceptions and seduction of the Abortion Industry.

Those numbers alone testify to the progress the pro-Life movement is making in a majority of states. Despite a hostile judiciary, citizen legislators and activists continue to press for reasonable restrictions around abortion-on-demand. And we’re winning.

Professor New finds that these laws are leading the way toward reductions in the abortion rates of America. The most effective strategy is the elimination of tax-funding for abortions. The next more potent is Informed Consent. If a woman in a crisis situation is able to find help, loving alternatives – she will choose life.

Overall, the number of abortions dropped by some 18% during the 1990s – in large part because of the state-by-state efforts to restrict Planned Parenthood’s easy manipulation of women and girls.

Friday, January 27, 2006

Symms Helps Deceive Voters

Things are heating up in Idaho’s 1st District Primary. Former state senator Sheila Sorensen has just announced the support of former U.S. Senator Steve Symms. For those of us familiar with Sheila’s long record as a legislator – this was something of a surprise.

Steve Symms is remembered as the guy who won an upset victory over liberal Democrat Frank Church in 1980. To the best of my knowledge, Symms voted along pro-Life lines while in Congress.

So why did he come out for a liberal Republican? Why does he use his remaining credibility to help deceive voters into believing the pro-abortion Sheila Sorensen is a “conservative”?

To be honest, I don’t know.

Maybe he’s been in Washington, D.C. too long – now he’s a lobbyist for a slew of big money interests. But it is probable that Symms is misusing political labels. What, after all, is a “conservative”? Too many people, including Symms, seem confused. The definition is intentionally confused by many politicians in Idaho – because there are actually three kinds of Republicans in various offices. There are liberals who should actually be in the Democrat Party; there are Libertarians who like low taxes – but who support maximize personal freedom to the point of supporting abortion on demand, homosexual marriage and legalized drugs. And then there are traditional Republicans – those folks who want limited government, but one with a moral center. They support lower taxes and the right to life. They support traditional families and the vision of the Founding Fathers – who knew that self-government required a moral vision.

But even looking at this from Symms’ more Libertarian perspective – one has a hard time understanding his decision to support Sheila Sorensen, since she is neither a fiscal or social conservative. Maybe there are personal issues at play; maybe the motivation is financial – but Symms’ endorsement certainly makes no sense from any kind of principled perspective.

Thursday, January 26, 2006

Pro-Aborts Demonstrate Weak Support at Capitol Rally

The Abortion Lobby worked hard to respond, for the first time in my memory, to the annual March for Life at the State Capitol this past weekend. Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and the Idaho Women’s Network decided they would muster their forces to show legislators and the media their political and social strength in Idaho.

It has been quite some time since they have done this sort of thing, and the first I can remember where they attempted to show public support for abortion around the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

On Saturday afternoon, some 450-500 people braved the cold to stand in front of Idaho’s Capitol pleading for the lives of preborn children, pleading with legislators to use their power to save women and girls and preborn children from the scourge of abortion.

The next afternoon, Sunday, perhaps 60 or 70 defenders of abortion gathered on those same steps to demand that “family planning” expenditures by the government be increased. They demanded that pharmacists who object to dispensing abortion-causing drugs be fired from hospitals and drug stores. And they demanded that our children be taught about sex in our public schools, preferably by agents of Planned Parenthood. In no way should children be taught the “nonsense of abstinence”.

What the various speakers did not address is the growing body of evidence showing abortion to be harmful to women and girls. Planned Parenthood representatives did not tell the handful of supporters – or the media – that just 1.5% of all abortions performed against preborn children are done in cases of rape or incest. Nor were they confronted with the fact that abortion is legal in Idaho up until the moments after birth.

But then – truth telling is not characteristic of the Abortion Lobby.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

San Francisco March for Life a Great Success

While pro-Lifers were marching this weekend in Boise and Coeur d’Alene, similar marches were being held in San Francisco and Los Angeles. Surprised? I am. I guess from my vantage point, all the news from these two burgs is bad. They lead the nation’s effort to turn its back on our religious, historical and moral foundations. But obviously God has a remnant.

I read with great interest of the San Francisco Walk for Life West Coast in the San Francisco Chronicle.

The paper reports that thousands marched from Justin Herman Plaza along the water front. Many of the marchers carried signs proclaiming the truth that “Women Deserve Better Than Abortion”. Another prominent message was simply, “Choose Life”.

They were met by hundreds of counter-protesters. Planned Parenthood fans lined the streets, taunting the pro-Lifers with coat hangers – symbolizing the great mythology of the thousands of women supposedly killed each year before Roe by “back alley” abortions. One young woman, about 8 months pregnant, had her exposed belly painted with the words, “My baby is pro-choice”.

Now there was a show-stopper for me. In this woman’s mind, apparently, her baby is conscious and able to think. So far so good. But in her world view, this innocent human being does not hold an instinct for life; he would gladly sacrifice himself so his mother could enjoy her life without the burdens and inconvenience of caring for him.

The scary part? I bet she really believes it. It occurs to me that our society is rapidly losing the ability to even think clearly.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Pro-Life Republican Leads Ohio Governor Race

There is a fascinating race for governor underway in Ohio – which has, I believe, implications for Idaho.

Ken Blackwell is a Republican candidate for governor. In fact, he is the leading candidate for governor. What makes this important a story for us is that he is a Republican in the tradition of Ronald Reagan – both a fiscal conservative and a social conservative. And, just like Reagan, he has a knack for speaking his mind.

A story I read in City Journal tells the story of a speech Blackwell gave to Ohio retailers. In a state where Republican legislators have become as enamored of big spending plans and tax increases as liberal Democrats – Ken Blackwell threatens the status quo in a big way. The Republican majority has increased spending in Ohio 20 percent faster than the growth of personal income in the last decade. After telling business leaders that he wants to impose budget and tax cuts if elected, he is confronted by a woman who tells him that she is all for the tax cuts – but doesn’t like his other ideas, especially his ideas about ending abortion.

Blackwell is reported to have told the woman, “I am not just an economic being. I have a wider set of beliefs that I follow. With me, you’ll always know what you are getting. You’ll always know where I stand.”

In addition to cutting taxes, Blackwell supports traditional marriage between a man and woman; school choice and the right to life.

Oddly enough, the Republican establishment in Ohio doesn’t support Blackwell; an especially unfortunate turn, since he is one the nation’s only black conservative leaders.
But he is battling them in a public way: Responding to the Country Club GOP criticism that he is simply too conservative to win in a 50/50 state like Ohio, Blackwell rightly claims, “People don’t want 50/50 leadership”.

That sentiment no doubt applies to the families of Idaho’s 1st CD as well.

Monday, January 23, 2006

Court Battle in Missouri Over Cloning Deception

I’ve been meaning to talk with you for some time about the scandal rocking the medical community as a result of false claims made by South Korean researcher Hwang Woo-suk. This professor has been lionized over the past several years for his “breakthrough” research into human cloning. Awards, articles, media attention all swarmed around him as the “miracles” of human cloning unfolded with ever-bigger hype.

The South Korea government was so impressed with the financial return and prestige points it might gain on the international stage that it reportedly invested some $40 million in stem cell research run by Professor Hwang.

Hwang claimed he had successfully cloned human embryos and created patient-specific stem cells that would miraculously solve the problem of immune system rejection issues.

Unfortunately for the many companies and interest groups hyping embryonic stem cell research as the greatest medical breakthrough ever – he made the whole thing up.

His public disgrace has caused tremendous tumult within the whole biotech industry.

Of immediate interest is a fascinating battle being waged in a Missouri courtroom by attorneys for the “Bioethics Defense Fund”. The attorney waging war is a former counsel with Americans United for Life. Proponents of stem cell research are trying to get a measure on the 2006 ballot which would amend the state constitution to protect scientists who kill babies to collect their stem cells.

The Bioethics Fund filed suit – claiming that the proponents are engaging in a massive deception effort. They want to use a ballot summary claiming that the amendment would “ban human cloning” – even as they would use cloning to produce embryos for their stem cells. They want the ballot title and description changed in order to make sure voters understand that they would be creating constitutional protections for “clone and kill” researchers in their state.

“This case is about truth in the democratic process, which should not be sacrificed by those with financial incentives to change the meanings of words for political advantages,” said Dorinda Bordlee, Executive Director of the Bioethics Fund.

Hearings were held last Thursday in Cole County.

Friday, January 20, 2006

Great News From Supreme Court

There is much to celebrate in this week’s Supreme Court ruling on the New Hampshire parental notification case. The court’s unanimous ruling is a direct rebuke to the 9th Circuit and Idaho’s District Judge Lynn Winmill.

The central issue in the case was the question of “severability”. That is a high-falutin’ legal term which means that as much of a law as can be preserved ought to be preserved – even if a judge thinks there are constitutional problems with some portions of that law. This legal doctrine has the effect of imposing a kind of curb on judges drunk with their own power. Essentially this doctrine pays deep courtesy to the legislative branch of state and federal governments by acknowledging their proper role in writing law.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly told lower courts that judges ought to respect the work of the legislative branch. They ought to bend over backwards to uphold as much of their work as possible, to be as surgical as possible in crafting justice. Idaho federal magistrate Mikel Williams took those constitutional directions to heart back in 2001 when he upheld most of Idaho’s Parental Consent Law. Because of his humility – hundreds of girls were spared an abortion history, hundreds of babies lived during the four years that Idaho’s law was in effect. Williams did so even though he struck down two parts of the law because he felt they violated previous Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution.

But Judge Winmill did not. He struck down the entire law. Perhaps this ruling will serve to check Winmill’s discretion in the future. One can certainly hope that he will, under this unanimous reaffirmation of previous rulings, take greater care in dealing with the Idaho Legislature than he has up to this point.

We can also celebrate the fact that the Supreme Court did not use the New Hampshire case to expound further on its various preposterous rulings around “health exceptions” and “undue burden”. The unanimous ruling was on the narrow grounds of severability and legislative intent. It ordered the 1st District Court of Appeals to revisit the case and narrow the scope of its proposed remedies to only those instances where a constitutional issue is at play.

The bottom line for the families of New Hampshire is that parental notification will be enforced in a majority of cases. The bottom line for America is that the pro-Life cause made some modest gains with this ruling – while avoiding further O’Connor-inspired disaster.

Thursday, January 19, 2006

Women Begin Turning Their Backs on Abortion

A quiet story appeared on MSNBC last month that is news worth celebrating. The National Center for Health Statistics conducts surveys on a number of health care questions. They just completed a major project, which involved interviews with some 7600 American women over a two year period. The questions involved abortion and several other questions related to sex and reproduction.

They found that more women are choosing to give their babies life, compared with a similar study in 1995. More specifically, more women with unplanned or unwanted pregnancies are choosing not to commit abortion against their babies.

In 1995, for every 100 pregnancies, about 26 were ended by abortion. In the most recent study – that number was down to 24 per 100 pregnancies. That may not sound like a big deal – but it translates into thousands of children alive today. Federal researchers “suspect” that the data may mean attitudes are changing about abortion.

But Susan Wills of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops says there’s no big mystery here: “It shows a real pro-Life shift.” She thought that the increasing availability of ultrasounds may be having an impact.

I think that is true- but there is more to the equation. We are slowly winning this struggle because of the realities of abortion. With greater technology, it is becoming irrational to deny the humanity of preborn children. But the devastating effects of abortion are an open secret – regardless of the conspiracy within much of the medical and legal community. Women know others who suffer, who haven’t been able to have children, women who have contracted breast cancer. And then there is the steady work and love of the pro-Life movement. Pregnancy centers and Life Chains and work in the legislatures of this nation are helping to educate women and to provide viable alternatives to abortion.

And you are the folks who make those efforts possible through your time and generosity.

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

More Research Shows Grave Risk to Abortion

Earlier this month we learned of a new study tracking the after-shocks of abortion on women. The research was conducted by a pro-abortion professor in New Zealand. His research followed the health histories of 1,265 children from their births in the 1970s.

He found that women who had abortions were twice as likely as those who had never been pregnant to suffer major depression as a result. In addition, the risk of various anxiety disorders increased by a similar rate.

Professor David Fergusson said that his study, just published in the Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychology, is “strongly suggestive of a link between abortion and developing mental illness.”

He went on to say that his research raises significant questions about the health risks of abortion – a major component of its justification. The question needs to be studied anew: “Does abortion increase psychological distress or alleviate it?”

His research found that women who had at least one abortion were twice as likely to abuse alcohol and three times as likely to be dependent on illicit drugs over those who had no abortion history. This is, of course, not the first time that research has uncovered such devastation.

Along the way, Professor Fergusson gained an education in the realpolitik of abortion: He expressed frustration in one media interview with the fact that four medical journals refused to published his results. He persisted because he correctly believes that it would be morally and scientifically irresponsible to not publish the results simply because they are controversial.

Fergusson is quoted as saying that, “abortions are the most common medical procedure young women face. By the age of 25, one in seven have had an abortion. The research into the costs and benefits have been very weak. It verges on the scandalous that a surgical procedure so common has been so poorly researched and evaluated.”

So when will our legislators and courts force the Abortion Industry to come clean with women? Not until you and I demand such basic decency.

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Hispanic Voters Not Well Served by Democrat Leaders

A recent national poll of Hispanic voters confirmed what many in the political community have long suspected: American Hispanics are strongly pro-Life and family-centered. John Zogby, one of the nation’s best pollsters, conducted a national study for the Latino Coalition.

He found that 57% of Hispanics interviewed described themselves as “pro-Life”, while just 27% claimed to be “pro-choice” on the question of killing children in the womb. Hispanics were specifically questioned on the matter of parental consent before a girl was able to get an abortion: again, 57% favored that kind of public policy – while 36% were opposed.

Many politicos believe that President Bush’s pro-Life politics helped him a great deal in the 2004 elections – where he secured a record high percentage of the Hispanic vote.

I am particularly interested in these numbers because of the growing strength of the Hispanic community in Idaho politics. Unfortunately for preborn children – of all races – these values are not yet clearly evident in Hispanic voting patterns. By all measures that I’ve seen, Idaho Hispanics are still voting in large numbers for Democrat candidates who don’t share their fundamental moral values. Much of this can be attributed, I believe, to the quality and politics of the Hispanic community’s leadership. In Idaho it is overwhelmingly Democrat.

I saw this first hand in the 2003 legislative session, when we pressed to get preborn children covered by the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Our legislation would have provided for prenatal care for babies in the womb – regardless of race or their parents’ legal status. I asked for help from the Idaho Migrant Council – because Hispanic babies would be greatly cared for by the President’s program. Despite the obvious benefits, my plea for support was turned down. The leadership simply didn’t want to get embroiled in the abortion debate – even from such a arm’s length distance.

Hopefully Hispanics in Idaho will begin demanding greater accountability from their leadership in the future.

Planned Parenthood Has New President

Planned Parenthood of America – the huge death machine financed in large part by this nation’s taxpayers – has a new president. Cecile Richards was named last week by their Board. Ms. Richards is the daughter of former Democrat Texas governor Ann Richards.

Planned Parenthood’s new president is 48, married and the mother of three children.

Ms. Richards is also a former deputy chief of staff for Congressman Nancy Pelosi – the radical Democrat House Leader from San Francisco.

Upon her selection, Jim Sedlak issued a statement. Mr. Sedlak is Executive Director of Stop Planned Parenthood – a special project of the American Life League. Jim blasted the organization for the selection, and predicted that Ms. Richards’ appointment will mean an even greater focus on political action for the organization.

“The appointment of Cecile Richards as president confirms that the organization’s focus is not on health care, but rather on political advocacy,” Sedlak said. “[Her] entire background is that of political activism, with absolutely no health care experience.”

While Jim was in Boise last month for our annual Christmas Dinner, he pointed out those wishing to understand Planned Parenthood needed to take a close look at their “Vision 2025” – a statement of long-term organizational goals made public in 2000.

“The ten goals enumerated in that document had nothing to do with women’s health care – and everything to do with political activism,” said Sedlak. “The appointment of such a radical political operative to head the organization is a logical compliment to their long term organizational strategy.”

This appointment raises the political stakes and the highly questionable practice of Congressional funding for this radical political organization. We expect Planned Parenthood of Idaho affiliate to resume their panhandling at the Legislature.

How many Republican legislators will support their demands?

Friday, January 13, 2006

SD Panel Makes More Recommendations

We reported a few days ago the tremendous progress being made in South Dakota in battling the scourge of abortion. Last year legislators there passed 5 separate bills restricting abortion. They also appointed a task force to make recommendations on other strategies that might be used to save preborn children even as we continue to labor under the oppression of Roe v. Wade.

That report has just been made public, and I’d like to review their recommendations. There may be ideas there we might be able to use to save Idaho babies.

In an introduction to their 17-page report, panelists declared that a human being comes into existence at the moment of conception; and that abortion terminates the life of a “unique, whole living human being”. They also found that the decision to undergo an abortion is rarely, if ever, voluntary or informed because women do not receive information about the procedure and are being pressured to commit abortion.

Those are very provocative and insightful statements. Given the fact that abortion fans have consistently shrouded evil in the cloak of “choice” – it is more than interesting to pause for a minute to carefully consider the rhetoric. How free and voluntary is the choice to abort? Don’t we know from our own life experiences that a woman would not make such a decision unless under duress? After all, it is such an abnormal thing for a woman to destroy her own baby; God simply did not make us that way. Fear, a mistaken belief that one has only a single choice or pressure from others – these are the kinds of dynamics which lead to the destruction of the innocents.

Our job is to find ways to reach out.

Reaping the Natural Consequences

Some predict that God will judge this nation for the millions of innocents slaughtered under judicial blessing. I believe that judgment has already begun – if we but have the eyes to see.

In recent commentaries I have talked about the Philippines, where fear grows that restrictions on the number of children will eventually produce the kind of social havoc beginning in China. That nation is witnessing the fruits of man’s foolishness: a social crisis is building because there are now not enough brides for the blossoming manhood of that communist nation.

Much the same is happening in India – another nation under the spell of Planned Parenthood’s anti-person religion. A recent article in the English paper, The Independent, estimates that some 10 million Indian girls have been killed by abortion over the past two decades by families determined to ensure a male heir. Population studies have found that the number of girls has been falling steadily for the past 20 years, relative to the number of boys.

Daughters are considered a liability in India because of the customs of dowry and because the girl becomes a kind of property of the groom’s family.

Isn’t it more than ironic that the feminist movement is cooperating with such customs to produce the ultimate gender discrimination?

And in this nation, the effects of legalized abortion are becoming clear – at least if you want to see the evidence. The Washington Times reports that America is rapidly aging. In the next 25 years, America will look more like Florida than a nation of vigorous producers. A demographic tsunami, if you will.

And who will be left to support the elderly? And even if the survivors of the abortion age are willing to support us – for how long? How long will it be before they start to search for ways to lighten the burden?

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Is Liberalism a Mental Disorder?

I was listening the other day to Michael Savage. While he is often right – I can usually listen for only a few short bursts. Anyway, he made reference to his now-famous line, “Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder”. Let’s face it: its punchy, memorable and has the ring of truth.

But I take his comment more seriously than others might. I have spent a great deal of time pondering my own recovery from liberalism – trying to figure out how I thought the solutions I once fought for made any sense, even to me. For the most part, I can’t honestly tell you. But I remember that I was certain I was right. Right about abortion, homosexual rights, Planned Parenthood, redistribution of income, whatever. Praise God, that is more than a decade behind me.

What interests me now about Michael Savage’s pithy indictment is the measure of truth behind it. It is clear that the policy solutions offered by modern liberalism suffer from a kind of irrationalism which defies explanation.

Take the borders. Liberals are fighting tooth-and-nail to maintain open borders in the name of race – despite the fact that we are in a life-and-death struggle with a global terror movement. There is a self-destructive quality to this commitment to illegal immigration which must be defined as a form of insanity.

Or look at the fanatical commitment to “family planning”. We will no doubt have another round of public debate this session as Planned Parenthood seeks more of your money to “solve” the problems of unwanted pregnancies, teenage pregnancy and so forth. One would almost think that these were brand new suggestions given the way legislators respond to their pleas. Yet these so-called solutions have been tried for decades now. The results are clear: greater teenage promiscuity at lower and lower ages. Greater rates of sexually transmitted disease among our children. The loss of one-third of a generation to abortion. Millions of post-abortive women carrying destructive burdens of guilt and remorse. Yet don’t confuse liberals with the facts.

While liberalism may or may not be a “mental disorder” – it is at least a profound learning disability.

Monday, January 09, 2006

What Kind of Session Will We Have?

Today is the opening day of the Idaho Legislature. What kind of session will it be for the families of Idaho? Will the overwhelmingly Republican lawmakers see fit to protect the sanctity of human life and the institution of marriage? It will take months to determine the answer to those and other questions – but the future is not so much in the hands of 105 lawmakers as it is in yours.

There are genuine Republicans in the Idaho Legislature. By that I mean folks who are Republicans because of the principles laid out in the GOP Platform. But there is a crucial segment who are there simply because they like the prestige, the power, the little ego boosts a title adds to their lives. They run as Republicans because that is what is required to get elected.

Those are the folks most likely to be affected by constituent mail, phone messages and emails.

Do you think that teenage girls ought to get their parents involved in the decision to abort her baby? That seems a no-brainer to me. Not only is the life of the baby at stake – but the life and soul of the girl. The data is overwhelming: girls with an abortion experience are at serious risk. But to get Idaho’s Parental Consent Law back into effect, we will need your active help. An amendment must be enacted by the Legislature in order to overcome the rulings of federal judge Lynn Winmill.

And do you believe that a woman has the right to know about the risks of abortion before she proceeds? Do you think she has a right to know what options are available to her? Again, that seems inarguable to me. How can a person make responsible, intelligent choices without having basic information? Again, Idaho’s laws are currently a mess. We will need your help to get the Legislature engaged in finding solutions.

But for today, what we need most is your prayer support. May the Lord bring this Legislature to a place of righteousness. And may He bless our efforts to defend His little ones.

Friday, January 06, 2006

South Dakota Legislators Model What It Means to be “Pro-Life”

As we quickly approach another session of the Idaho Legislature, it is well to look at the possibilities available to state legislators as they spend months spending your money.

South Dakota, along with Mississippi, has led the nation in containing the scourge of abortion. Even as the nation continues to endure the oppression of legalized feticide – pro-Life legislators in these states have been aggressive in limiting the number of abortions performed on preborn citizens.

Both states have just one abortion provider. In South Dakota, that is run by Planned Parenthood in Sioux Falls. But the cultural and political climate in South Dakota is so pro-Life that no doctor in the state will perform abortions; Planned Parenthood must fly in an abortionist from Minneapolis once a week.

And just a year, the South Dakota legislature passed 5 separate pro-Life measures. One is a strong “Right to Know” law – which requires the abortionist to tell women at least two hours before an abortion that the so-called “procedure” will “end the life of a whole, separate, unique living human being”. Women and girls must also be informed of the health risks they may endure if they go through with the abortion.

Not content with the progress they have made – legislators in South Dakota created a 17 member task force to recommend additional measures which the Legislature might pursue to help women and reduce abortions. That report is due soon, and will likely result in further protections for preborn children.

I review these matters in order to provide you with a healthier perspective by which to judge the work of our Legislature – particularly because of its Republican domination.

Will they deliver this session on the pro-Life promises of the Republican Platform? We’ll see. But you can safely put money on the proposition that they will deliver only if they know you are paying close attention.

Thursday, January 05, 2006

Dangers of RU-486

I mentioned the other day that Congress will hold hearings on RU-486. I’d like to get into the major developments which are driving this belated investigation into Bill Clinton’s deadly deal with Planned Parenthood.

First there was the article published in the New England Journal of Medicine, raising serious questions about the health risks associated with the Abortion Pill – or RU-486. This was followed by an article in the Annals of Pharmacotherapy.

The article is written by Drs. Margaret Gary and Donna Harrison. They went through the databases at the Food & Drug Administration and discovered that over the past four years, there have been 607 “adverse events” reported to the FDA by women using RU-486. Some involve outright fatalities.

The authors of the study have called upon the FDA to research the allergic and fatal septic reactions being reported. They are also urging that strict rules be in place to require ultrasounds to be used by outfits like Planned Parenthood before women and girls are given the drugs. This is the only way to make sure that the baby is not too old for a chemical abortion; and to make sure that the baby is not lodged in the fallopian tube. These kind of chemical abortions could prove fatal to the mother.

At least five women have been confirmed killed by using RU-486 in the United States and Canada since Bill Clinton cut his dark deal with Planned Parenthood. In the waning days of this administration, Clinton forced the FDA to legalize the drug; in turn, Planned Parenthood spent millions trying to ensure Al Gore’s election.

It is clear babies and women are paying the price for Democrat ambition and Planned Parenthood’s greed. Congress and the Bush Administration should long ago have acted against this tragic expansion of the abortion industry.

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

What Will Alito’s Confirmation Mean?

We spoke yesterday of the impending struggle over the Alito nomination to the Supreme Court. But what’s at stake with the nomination?

As reported, we are gaining confidence in Alito’s pro-Life value system and judicial integrity; there is every reason to believe that he will join Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia in supporting a major overhaul of the Roe v. Wade era. Assuming he can escape the liberal lynching being planned – what will Alito’s confirmation mean for the whole abortion plague in America?

A recent article by University of Alabama law professor Bryan Fair predicts that Justice Anthony Kennedy will become the decisive vote on abortion cases. That role has previously been exercised – to the great detriment of millions of preborn children – by Sandra Day O’Connor.

Professor Fair believes that the Court will, upon Alito’s confirmation, become about evenly divided on legalized abortion. Four justices will vote on the pro-Life side: Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Thomas and Scalia. And four, Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter will defend abortion to the death. By this professor’s analysis, this leaves Kennedy working the middle.

Kennedy, appointed by Regan in 1988, was supposed to be a “pro-Life” vote. But he has already voted to uphold the basics of Roe v. Wade. Then, in 2000, he sided with the pro-Life wing of the Court to uphold a Ban on Partial Birth Abortion.

Professor Fair predicts that Kennedy will be the decisive vote on the Partial Birth Abortion case working its way to the Court – as well as the New Hampshire parental consent law. Real progress might come – since the infamous “health” exception will be at issue in both.

But at the end of the day, we will need at least one more opening for President Bush to be rid of the Roe scourge.

Battle Formations Gather Around Alito

With the glow of Christmas still warming our hearts, it is time to turn our minds to the work ahead. And this month brings us public hearings over the Judge Alito nomination to the Supreme Court. It will undoubtedly be chock-full of drama, misinformation and hysteria.

The Abortion Lobby is loaded for bear. They will unleash a wave of television, radio and press releases, with the goal of goading their Democrat pals into staging some kind parliamentary putsch.

The focus of their attack will be a memo written by Alito while he served in the Reagan White House. In 1985, Alito outlined what he called a strategy which would “advance the goal of bringing about the eventual overruling of Roe v. Wade and, in the meantime, of mitigating its effects.” Democrats were quick to seize upon the peek into Alito’s actual feeling about abortion with words like “stunning” and “extreme”.

But they have yet to fully express themselves on the matter. They’re saving themselves for CNN interviews.

The left wing group, People for the American Way – a mislabeled outfit if ever there was one – called the memo a “smoking cannon”. And pro-abort Republican Arlen Specter said he intended to make the memo a “central line” in his public grilling of Alito.

In preparation for the battle, the Abortion Lobby has been gathering all its fellow travelers. Just last week, the Washington Times reported that the Environmental Lobby had been persuaded to weigh-in against Alito’s nomination. Contrary to what you might think, this is a fairly unusual turn of events, according to the Times. The Sierra Club has not opposed a supreme court nominee since 1987 – the infamous Bork case.

Sierra will be joined by Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the National Environmental Trust. While the environmental lobby is undoubtedly powerful, they are apparently having a difficult time producing evidence for their contention that Alito “cannot be trusted to protect” the environment.

We will need to begin alerting our prayer chains as we near this crucial struggle with the Left.

Monday, January 02, 2006

May 2006 Be a Time of Good Will

Blessings to you and yours as we enjoy a day of new beginnings.

I know that the Christmas Season is now officially over. But I’d like to savor it with you a bit longer. I ran across a great story about Henry Wadsworth Longfellow the other day that I’d like to share.

The great poet had suffered the loss of his beloved wife, then his best friend, followed by the serious wounding of his son at the Civil War battle of New Hope Church, Virginia. Nevertheless, as Christmas season came, he began work on this poem:

“I heard the bells on Christmas Day,
Their old familiar carols play….
Of ‘peace on earth, good will to men.’
And in despair I bowed my head:
There is no peace on earth, I said.
For hate is strong and mocks the song
Of ‘peace on earth, good will to men.’
Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
God is not dead, nor doth He sleep
The wrong shall fail, the right prevail,
With peace on earth, good will to men.
Till, ringing, singing on its way,
The world revolved from night to day,
A voice, a chime, a chant sublime,
Of peace on earth, good will to men.”

As we enter a new season of legislative battle with the evils of abortion, I think it is important to celebrate the knowledge that our God does not sleep, His justice does not slumber. He sees the suffering and the carnage. He will bring us victory over this scourge – because His heart breaks for the destruction of His little ones.

So in this time of cynicism and challenge, let us go forth in the sure faith of Longfellow.