Delaware
Conservative
Bloggers
Alliance
DCBA Logo
Delaware Blogs

Catholic Blogs

Conservative
Blogs

Catholic
B-Team
Catholic B-Team Bloggers Logo

Prolife Blogs
Friends

"I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate."
--Romans 7:15 (RSV)



Catholics Against Rudy

Main

April 25, 2008

Damon Wayans: Abortion Man

Some pro-lifers are calling for this video to be removed from YouTube, but I think that would be a mistake. This video, whether intentionally or not, shows how abortion is really about keeping men from having to deal with the consequences of their actions. Far from "choosing" abortion, many women who have had abortions state they felt pressured into aborting a child they would have liked to have kept.

Abortion is the irresponsible man's best friend: a loophole in case the girl he's using get pregnant. This video shows that and that abortion is one more manifestation of violence against women.

April 14, 2008

Idaho Becomes First State to Criminalize Coercing a Woman to Have an Abortion

Idaho Becomes First State to Criminalize Coercing a Woman to Have an Abortion

Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter signed a bill into law on Thursday that makes Idaho the first state to legally forbid individuals from forcing a woman to have an abortion.


House Bill 654 criminalizes any physical harm or threats used with the intention of inducing an abortion.

Thanks to the new law, "a woman or girl wronged by a predator or abusive partner would not have to wait upon the mercies of some prosecuting attorney to seek justice - even after an abortion. In fact, the language of the law allows a woman to seek civil damages even if she doesn't undergo an abortion," explained an Idaho Chooses Life web report.

"We currently have laws that protect a woman's right to choose abortion but virtually nothing that protects a woman from being forced into having an abortion. Predators, abusive boyfriends and angry mothers and fathers have been violently coercing women into getting abortions for years," stated Brandi Swindell of Engage the Culture in a March testimony to the House committee looking at the bill.

Planned Parenthood, that "champion" of women's rights, opposed the bill.

Planned Parenthood of Idaho expressed disappointment over the enactment of the new law on their website. Instead of the anti-coercion legislation, the Planned Parenthood encourages more programs dealing with domestic abuse, increased contraceptive distribution, and the development of "comprehensive sex education" programs.

Would have been bad for business, no doubt....

April 11, 2008

Why Pro-Lifers Shouldn't support the Susan G. Komen Foundation

Komen Gave Planned Parenthood Abortion Businesses Over $700K Last Year

A new report from a Planned Parenthood watchdog finds chapters of the Komen Race for the Cure breast cancer group gave affiliates of the national abortion business over $700,000 last fiscal year. The enormous amount should be a red flag to pro-life advocates, one leading activist says.


Figures from STOPP International show Komen chapters giving $711,485 from April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2006 to Planned Parenthood affiliates.

If you've been a donor in the past, ask the Komen Foundation to stop funding abortion. And note, this is just one year of funding. Who knows what's happened in the past or is still going on.

March 31, 2008

Terri Schiavo, RIP

The Official Website of The Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation

Today is the third anniversary of the starvation death of Terri Schiavo, whose only crime was not to die as quickly her husband, who had moved in with another woman and fathered two children with her while using money set aside for Terri's care to get legal permission to kill her. Visit the above site to learn more about the truth of this case and how to prevent situations like it in the future.

February 27, 2008

Barack Obama: Most Anti-Life Presidential Candidate Ever?

Barack Obama Would Take Back Vote Helping Terri Schiavo Avoid Euthanasia

Senator Barack Obama debated his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton on Tuesday night and said his biggest mistake was voting with a unanimous Senate to help save Terri Schiavo. Terri is the disabled Florida woman whose husband won the legal right to starve her to death.

When asked his biggest mistake, Obama said that trying to save an innocent woman's life, trying to prevent her from being starved to death, was a big mistake. (Take note, too, that this bill passed the Senate unanimously.) As the article linked above points out, it's not the first time he stated that either.

As Hube points out today, and I mentioned before, Obama opposed a bill that would defend the right of children born alive after an abortion attempt to live.

In my earlier post linked above, I also take note that Obama said he would not intervene militarily in Iraq, even to stop a genocide of innocent Iraqis.

So, to sum up:

* He opposes saving innocent people from being starved to death
* He opposes requiring that innocent children who are already born be saved
* He opposes trying to save the lives of innocent genocide victims

He also supports the death penalty. Who would Obama grant the right to life to?

February 8, 2008

Delaware Pro-Life Convention Information

Delaware Pro-Life Convention Information

Agenda:

Keynote: Pastor Luke Robinson – Warns of Black Genocide by Planned Parenthood

Luncheon:
Byron C Calhoun, MD, FACOG, FACS, - Exposes Premature Birth Link to Abortion

Banquet:
Phil Klein, Esq., former Kansas City Attorney General – Suing Planned Parenthood for 107
Offenses

Outstanding sessions by prominent pro-life personalities: Debbie Vinnedge, Paul Byrne, MD,
and more….

Sign up information at the link above.

January 30, 2008

This could end very badly...

Artificial letters added to life's alphabet - tech - 30 January 2008 - New Scientist Tech

Two artificial DNA "letters" that are accurately and efficiently replicated by a natural enzyme have been created by US researchers. Adding the two artificial building blocks to the four that naturally comprise DNA could allow wildly different kinds of genetic engineering, they say.


Eventually, the researchers say, they may be able to add them into the genetic code of living organisms.

This just strikes me as something with potentially awful, unforeseen consequences. As Mark Shea is fond of saying, the history of the human race can be summed in two sentences "What could it hurt?" followed by "How was I supposed to know?" This falls into that category.

Hat Tip: Slashdot

January 22, 2008

35 Years of Legal Infanticide

fetus.jpgToday is the 35th anniversary of the handing down of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases, which combined to legalize abortion for any reason up to the moment of birth. It's amazing that a Supreme Court that in the past has upheld the constitutionality of segregation, slavery, and forced sterilization could sink even lower, but with these decisions it did. It now became enshrined as a constitutional right that one person could kill another for no better reason than convenience or a whim.

It's commonly believed that Roe v. Wade allowed abortion in later trimesters (itself a medically meaningless distinction) for health reasons. Those who believe this are unaware that Roe referred to Doe v. Bolton for its definition of health, and Doe defined health so broadly that even something as innocuous as "having stretch marks would bum me out" grants medical permission for an abortion.

This is the great shame of our time: that one person can determine the worth of another. And that's what the pro-life movement is about: the fact that all humans have the same innate worth, regardless of age, disability or other excuses some would use to deem them less worthy of life. Denying that other human being have less dignity than others has been used to justify a great many evils over the years: slavery, the Holocaust, and segregation to pick just a few.

A final note to Catholics: today is "a particular day of penance for violations to the dignity of the human person committed through acts of abortion, and of prayer for the full restoration of the legal guarantee of the right to life." (As is every January 22nd, unless it falls on a Sunday, in which case it's transferred to January 23rd.) (Hat Tip: Amy Welborn) Personally, I'm fasting and may stop by an adoration chapel to say a rosary. (Pray the pro-life mysteries of the rosary.)

January 18, 2008

Abortion rate continues to drop, but still a ways to go

Omaha.com Nation/World Section

The most comprehensive study in years of abortion in America underscores a striking change in the landscape, with ever-fewer pregnant women choosing abortion and those who do increasingly opting to avoid surgical clinics.

The number of abortions has plunged to 1.2 million a year, down 25 percent since hitting a peak in 1990, according to a report being released today — days before the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion.

The abortion rate has fallen to its lowest level since 1974, the first full year after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized the procedure nationwide.

The annual rate has been falling steadily since 1981, paralleling a sharp decline in the number of abortion providers.

Since abortion on demand is still the law of the land, much of this decline is likely due to a choice of life, the only truly valid choice. The article says that pro-choice advocates are claiming this decline is due to increased use of contraception, but given that there has also been an increase in the birthrate recently, a likelier explanation is that women are choosing to keep the children they have conceived.

However, 1.2 million abortions is still 1.2 million innocent lives ended; 1.2 million people who never got the chance to grow up, to live, to play in a field, to love, to have children of their own. We all need to continue to work to remind women of the wonderful gift they have been given and help them understand that even if they can't handle this gift, there is someone who would be glad to receive a "re-gift."

But the good news is, more women are choosing life, and while their pocketbooks may be lighter, they are richer for it.

Hat Tip: The Corner

January 13, 2008

Quote of the Day

"Personally, I'm opposed to the death penalty, but we have to keep it legal. Otherwise, we'd be trying to carry out executions in an alley with a coat hanger." -- Right Wing Duck on IMAO

Available on t-shirts, pins and coffee mugs!

January 11, 2008

Obama a radical on abortion

ABC News, "The abortion vote the GOP is planning to use to bring down Obama" :: Infanticide :: ProLifeBlogs

.... Republican operatives have been examining Obama's record in Springfield, Illinois, and think they have caught Obama voting the wrong side of an abortion bill that will turn off the public "like partial birth abortion cubed," in the words of one GOP operative.

The bill would have required medical care for babies born during unsuccessful abortions - an issue no Democrat trying to win over independents and Republicans would want to spend any time discussing.

Those who call themselves "pro-choice" often say that they believe abortion should be allowed because the "fetus" is merely a "leech" living off the mother's body. But here we have a case where a child is born, and Obama believes the child should be left uncared for until they die. And given his willingness to allow genocide, we have to wonder if Obama values human life at all.

January 6, 2008

Book Review: Can a Catholic Be a Democrat? by David Carlin

David Carlin is a former Democrat member of the Rhode Island House of Representatives and is currently a professor at the Community College of Rhode Island as well as a faithful Catholic. A life-long member of the Catholic Church, he grew increasingly disturbed by what he saw as an increasing pro-secular and anti-Christian perspective starting to dominate the Democrat party.

He begins by chronicling the history of the secularist takeover of the Democrat party, beginning with the destruction of the local party machines which helped keep the party from being too ideological as they would have to appeal to a wide variety of voter across the country. With the destruction of these machines, they lost the ability to keep people easily in the Democrat fold come Election Day and so the ability to raise money grew in importance. As money grew in importance, the Party had to rely more and more on the very wealthy for support. With their money came their influence and their ideology, which pushed the Democrats to oppose traditional values driving out many Catholics and Southern Protestants who had formerly been a significant portion of their coalition. (I spoke a little about this effect and how Mike Huckabee is emblematic of it here.) He also feels the commitment of the new elites of the party to supposed "civil rights" movements like gay rights is merely a "penance" for their seeking to steer the Democrat party towards more of an oligarchic position, to promote their own wealth, which he feels has steered the Democrats away from their traditional support for the poor. This was an interesting history to read.

The next section of the book deals with the incompatibility of Catholic belief and Democratic policies. First he explains why Catholicism is incompatible with the secularist agenda now pushed by the Democrats. Then he demolishes the many excuses used by Catholics to attempt to justify their continued support for Democrats. My favorite was his tearing down of the "personally opposed, but..." line taken by so many Democrats, including our own Senator Biden, by showing how their argument can be used in defense of white supremacy:

I have a duty to represent all my constituents, not just Negroes. I'm duty-bound to represent my racist constituents too, and they favor a regime of white supremacy. Personally, I'm opposed to racism, but... ... I've taken a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. In Plessy v. Ferguson the U.S. Supreme Court has declared that racial segregation is a constitutionally protected practice. Therefore, it's my duty to support and defend the institution of racial segregation.

He also does an effective job defusing the arguments of Catholics who support pro-abortion candidates using the "seamless garment" metaphor of the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin. He shows not only that most of those fail to actually account for abortion in the seamless garment but also that they misinterpret what the Cardinal was actually urging.

Surprisingly, in his summary, Carlin acknowledges he is still a registered Democrat and actively advises and supports many Democrats. He makes a valid point that, living in Rhode Island, there isn't much difference between the two parties, so there's no real point in switching. He also admits that it might be just an inbred bias against the Republican Party given that his family is Democrat for generations back or that he's just too old to change.

One criticism of the book I'd have is that he seems to accept as fact that the GOP is dominated by the rich and looks out for business interests. (Although he is generous and honest enough to admit that those who argue that a strong economy is better for the poor than government welfare programs have a strong case.) Besides the fact the Republican Party is on the correct side of the moral debate, one of the reasons I am a Republican is because their economic policies will help the poor more than those of the Democrats. As the trope goes, "the best welfare program is a job," so we need to support policies that will create jobs. Unfortunately, the Democrats propose policies such as increased governmental regulation, higher taxes, higher minimum wage, protectionism, etc that will destroy jobs.

Carlin closes his section on the future of this secularist-Christian divide that serves as a warning for Democrats that also works as a good closing for this review:

Once upon a time it was the most natural thing in the world for a Catholic to be a Democrat. In the foreseeable future, unless the Democrats drastically change their present anti-Catholic course, it will be the most natural thing in the world for a Catholic to be a Republican.

January 4, 2008

Court mulls death penalty for child rape

Court mulls death penalty for child rape - Yahoo! News

The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether a state can execute someone convicted of raping a child, one of the few remaining crimes that does not require the death of the victim to result in capital punishment.

I do oppose the death penalty, but a ruling that would declare the death penalty for child rape unconstitutional would seem to be an exercise in legislating from the bench more than an exercise in constitutional review. The 8th Amendment reads:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Given the constitutionality of the death penalty, which the defendant's lawyers don't seem to be contesting, I find it hard to believe that the crime of sexually molesting a child is not deserving of a harsh sentence. (Especially in this case where the victim was the perpetrator's stepdaughter. I can't imagine the trauma a young girl being raped by a father figure would go through.)

The Supreme Court banned executions for rape in 1977 in a case in which the victim was an adult woman.

I wasn't aware of this, but without having read the original decision, I find it difficult to believe that this isn't a case of judicial overreach. We may not like executing someone for rape, but it's certainly a severe crime where the desire to execute someone for it is understandable. Given that, it seems that under our Constitution, that's a legislative question more than a judicial matter. Matters relating to the application of moral questions, to the extent they belong to the government at all, are properly reserved to the Legislature, rather than the judiciary.

December 26, 2007

Lest you begin to believe that those in support of abortion "rights" aren't really pro-abortion...

...I present to you Joyce Arthur of Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada who is "Cranky That Jamie Lynn Spears Didn't Choose Abortion":

"It certainly shows any young women watching these movies or following these celebrities that the best option is to have the baby and it glorifies that choice," said Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada in CP report.

"But it (abortion) is just sort of being totally ignored, as though no one would ever even think of doing that. But abortion is a very commonly resorted-to option for women, especially unmarried teenaged girls," opined Arthur.

Imagine that: glorifying giving of yourself so that someone else might live. Arthur, and those like her, are just sick. Abortion is commonly supported with the argument that the woman can't afford to take care of a child especially when the child's father has abandoned the mother. Well, the obviously doesn't apply in this case, since in addition to her sister's wealth, the younger Ms. Spears has had a successful career herself. But any reason is a good reason to have an abortion for some; they're just usually more circumspect about voicing that opinion than Arthur was.

Most support the notion of "No Child Left Behind" (regardless of their feelings on the law that bears that name); some, it seems prefer "No Child Left Unaborted."

December 22, 2007

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair Becomes Catholic

BBC NEWS | UK | Tony Blair joins Catholic faith

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has converted to the Catholic faith.

His wife Cherie is a Catholic and there had been speculation that he would convert to Catholicism from his Anglican faith after leaving office.

Mr Blair's official spokesman confirmed he had converted on Friday night and said it was a private matter.

As has been rumored for years, (I discussed almost exactly six months ago), Mr. Blair has become a Catholic. While certainly glad to have him (and anyone reading this who's not Catholic; talk to a priest today!), given some of his stances on issues (see my link in this paragraph), hopefully he'll spend some time recognizing the wisdom of Church teaching in these areas and work to undo some of the damage his past support for policies in opposition to Church teaching has caused.

December 20, 2007

Passing Debt on to the next generation

An argument you frequently hear against government deficit spending is that it's not proper to pass our debt on to the next generation. As a general principle, this is certainly true. Unfortunately, those making this argument are often expressing disagreement with what the money is being spent on, rather than on the total amount of spending. As a contemporary example, witness the Democrats who argued so fervently against deficit spending when they were out of power, but are now quite eager to expand the deficit to cover their pet projects.

However, there are circumstances when deficit spending is not only proper, but necessary. For one example, think of a new government building. If that building will be used for the next 50 years, it's completely appropriate to pay for that building over a 50 year span. Even though we're passing that debt on to the next generation, the debt is attached to a building they will still be using. An even more extreme example is war debt. It was less than a year that the United Kingdom finished paying off its World War II debt. Had they not passed the burden of paying for World War II on to their children and grandchildren, those generations might not have their own nation to support. Those generations clearly enjoy the benefits of the debt their parents and grandparents ran up, so it's not inappropriate for them to bear some of the responsibility for it.

As a final point, why are so many of those who are quick to argue that it's wrong to pass a burden on to the next generation so eager to support the supposed right of a woman to make sure a member of that generation doesn't exist? If it's wrong to make the next generation bear our burdens through a financial debt, why is it acceptable to make them bear our financial or psychological burdens by paying with their lives through abortion? Speaking for myself, and most would no doubt agree, I'd rather be in debt than dead.

December 7, 2007

Presidential Candidates' Religions

Presidential candidates' religions - Yahoo! News

The saddest thing about this list? There are no Catholics who agree with the Church's position on the rights of the unborn. The best we can get out of them is a "personally opposed, but...." copout. (Don't think it's a copout? Imagine someone saying they were personally opposed to rape, but thought it should be left to an individual's choice.)

December 3, 2007

Our Lady of Guadalupe Novena for Life

Priests forLife - Novena Prayer for Life to Our Lady of Guadalupe

Oh Mary, Mother of Jesus and Mother of Life, We honor you as Our Lady of Guadalupe.

Thank you for pointing us to Jesus your Son,
The only Savior and hope of the world.

Renew our hope in him,
That we all may have the courage to say Yes to life,
And to defend those children in danger of abortion.

Give us your compassion
To reach out to those tempted to abort,
And to those suffering from a past abortion.

Lead us to the day when abortion
Will be a sad, past chapter in our history.

Keep us close to Jesus, the Life of the World,
Who is Lord forever and ever. Amen.

The feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe is December 12th, so the novena begins today. Pray for the unborn and those dealing with decision to abort, past and present through the intercession of the patroness of the pro-life movement.

November 16, 2007

Ten Myths about Stem Cell Research

The Ten Great Myths in the Debate Over Stem Cell Research

November 13, 2007

"Why Fred?"

For those (like me) who asked the above question, National Right to Life explains their endorsement of Fred Thompson for President:

National Right to Life endorsed Fred Thompson based on three factors: his commitments on life issues, his record on life issues and his ability to win.

UPDATE: An alternate take:

The reason the National Right to Life Committee is endorsing Fred Thompson is that they figured the best way to preserve life is to not piss off Fred Thompson.

October 12, 2007

Former Bush Strategist: Giuliani will lose Catholic Vote in 2008, and with it the election

Political expert examines the Catholic Vote for 2008

If the United States presidential race comes down to candidates Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton, the Catholic vote will swing to Clinton. That's the claim of Steve Wagner, a chief political strategist who helped George W. Bush win the majority of Catholics' votes in the 2000 and 2004 elections. He has argued that appealing to Mass-going Catholics is a key factor in a presidential candidate's electoral success.

Hat Tip: New Advent

October 11, 2007

This should help convince pro-lifers not to vote for Giuliani...

In a phone interview with the Huffington Post, NARAL's political director Elizabeth Shipp acknowledged it "would help" the pro-choice movement if a Republican proved it was possible to win the presidency while still supporting abortion rights.

"The Republican Party used to be about the conservative principles of limited government intervention in private life," Shipp said. "It seems to me if they went back to that and stood out from the rigid mainstream, anti-choice agenda, I think yeah, it would be good for the movement."

Could Giuliani be the candidate to take the Republican Party down that road? And would NARAL support him?

"I don't know yet," said Shipp. "He has said some very concerning things since getting into this race. If you have to grade him compared to everyone else you have to give him an incomplete."

The National Abortion Rights Action League (who won't even use the "abortion" in their name since they recognize people don't like abortion) recognizes that a pro-abortion Republican winning the Presidency would be a good thing for their movement, so, ipso facto, it would be bad for those who defend innocent life. We must work as strongly (or even more strongly) against Giuliani as we would any pro-abortion Democrat.

Hat Tip: The Corner

October 10, 2007

Twenty-Seven Percent of Republicans Would vote 3rd party if Rudy is the Nominee

Rasmussen Reports™: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a mid-term election.

If Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination and a third party campaign is backed by Christian conservative leaders, 27% of Republican voters say they’d vote for the third party option rather than Giuliani. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that a three-way race with Hillary Clinton would end up with the former First Lady getting 46% of the vote, Giuliani with 30% and the third-party option picking up 14%.

I don't believe that Giuliani would actually lose one out of four Republican voters come November 2008. Many of them will change their minds; some will look at the third party candidates and say "Who are these guys" and stick with the Republicans; others will be unable to vote that way once they're actually in the voting booth. But even if a third of that total goes through with their threat, then Giuliani will face tough odds in the general election. Losing one of out ten of his base voters is a tough hurdle for any candidate. If the GOP is serious about winning, they can't take the risk of choosing someone who so alienates a significant percentage of their base.

Hat Tip: The Corner

October 1, 2007

Why pro-lifer's can't support Giuliani even if he's the GOP nominee

The Campaign Spot on National Review Online

“Once a pro-choice candidate is elected, the pro-choice forces within the Republican party will know that our votes are a given and that means we will have no real influence… The pro-life voters will be to Republicans what black voters have become to Democrats — a reliable constituency that must be humored but never taken seriously because their votes are guaranteed.”

We pro-lifers can't allow ourselves to be treated the way Democrats treat the blacks: useful on Election Day, ignorable at other times. We have to show that we're more than willing to walk away unless the right to life is defended by the Republican Party or we'll walk down the road to irrelevancy.

September 15, 2007

Food and water must be provided to those in vegetative states

The Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the approval of Pope Benedict issued a response to questions from the American Catholic Bishops concerning artificial nutrition and hydration for patients in vegetative states.To almost no one's surprise, the answer came back that food and water must be provided to patients in such a condition. To starve someone to death, when food can safely be provided is just murder. The text of the document:

First question: Is the administration of food and water (whether by natural or artificial means) to a patient in a "vegetative state" morally obligatory except when they cannot be assimilated by the patient’s body or cannot be administered to the patient without causing significant physical discomfort?


Response: Yes. The administration of food and water even by artificial means is, in principle, an ordinary and proportionate means of preserving life. It is therefore obligatory to the extent to which, and for as long as, it is shown to accomplish its proper finality, which is the hydration and nourishment of the patient. In this way suffering and death by starvation and dehydration are prevented.

Second question: When nutrition and hydration are being supplied by artificial means to a patient in a "permanent vegetative state", may they be discontinued when competent physicians judge with moral certainty that the patient will never recover consciousness?

Response: No. A patient in a "permanent vegetative state" is a person with fundamental human dignity and must, therefore, receive ordinary and proportionate care which includes, in principle, the administration of water and food even by artificial means.


September 13, 2007

There are no Pro-Life National Democrats

Pro-Life Democrat Bob Casey Casts Strange Votes for Abortion Funding

Democrats who take a strong stand against abortion are few and far between -- especially in the United States Senate. When Bob Casey defeated Rick Santorum for a Pennsylvania seat in the Senate pro-life advocates hoped Casey would vote the same as his predecessor; but, Casey cast his first pro-abortion vote last week. ... Boxer's amendment overturns the policy that President Reagan first instituted and President Bush revived in 2001 that protects taxpayers from funding groups that perform or promote abortions overseas.

Pro-life groups strongly opposed the Boxer Amendment, but it was adopted on a 53-41 vote. Just 20 minutes later, pro-life Sen. Sam Brownback offered an amendment to undo the Boxer amendment but senators defeated it by the same margin.

Casey voted for the Boxer amendment and but also for the Brownback amendment -- taking a seemingly contradicting stand on the abortion funding issue.

On Monday, as David Freddoso of National Review notes, Casey said on the Senate floor that he had made a mistake -- but not because he voted to fund foreign abortions and abortion advocacy.

He said that, on the pro-life Brownback amendment, “it was my intention to vote ‘nay.’ Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome of that vote.”

In other words, he feels so strongly about funding these groups that he asked that his vote be changed so that he could be recorded as supporting funding groups that support abortion. He argues that since it's illegal to spend this money on abortion directly, his vote does not support abortion. The problem with this, as the linked article points out, is that money is fungible; that is, it can be easily moved from one budget line-item to another. So giving money to a group to spend on budget line item 13.A.3, which you support, can free up money for them to spend more money under line item 17.C.2.a, which you vehemently oppose. The thing is, as former Auditor General and State Treasurer in Pennsylvania, Casey should (and likely does) know that.

Here's an example: would you give money to the Ku Klux Klan to support, say, a food for the poor drive? Of course not, that would free up some money for them to pursue their hateful activities and give them some positive publicity that might make them look good in the eyes of more people than they already unfortunately do. Instead, you'd give the money to a worthy charity who would help feed the poor without all the baggage that the KKK brings.

Similarly, we shouldn't give money to any organization who supports, performs or promotes abortions, even if that money won't be going directly to their abortion advocacy: it still will make them look better and free up money to spend on the slaughter of the unborn.

This is just one more example of how pro-life Democrats inevitably cave on the issue of the right to life of unborn children when they reach national office. They'll campaign as pro-lifers but when the rubber hits the road, they line up with those seeking the death of innocent children. Whether they're deliberately lying to us, or simply caving under pressure from the rabidly pro-abortion Democrat party, the result is the same: there are no pro-life Democrats at the national level. If you want to defend the right to life of unborn children, the Republican Party unfortunately offers the only option, and a shaky one at that.

September 10, 2007

Quote of the Day

The Roman Catholic Church holds that abortion is the deliberate killing of a human being. Catholic liberal politicians since Mario Cuomo have said they personally accept the doctrine of their church but nevertheless believe in a woman's right to choose. This is silly. There is no right to choose murder. Either these politicians are lying to their church, or they are lying to us.

-- Michael Kinsley

August 24, 2007

Amnesty International Loses U.S. Bishops' Support

Read the full article

The U.S. bishops condemned Amnesty International's recent decision to support abortion, and said that it will only work with organizations that promote the right to life from conception to natural death.

...
"In promoting abortion," said Bishop Skylstad, "Amnesty divides its own members -- many of whom are Catholics and others who defend the rights of unborn children -- and jeopardizes its support by people in many nations, cultures and religions who share a consistent commitment to all human rights."

The bishop said that while the "essential work of protecting human life and promoting human dignity must carry on ... we will seek to do so in authentic ways, working most closely with organizations who do not oppose the fundamental right to life from conception to natural death."

"True commitment to women's rights," he continued, "puts us in solidarity with women and their unborn children. It does not pit one against the other but calls us to advocate on behalf of both."

Now, will they apply this logic the Democrat Party and pro-abortion Catholic politicians as well?

August 16, 2007

Some would call this assisted suicide...

Man kisses ailing wife, hurls her from balcony

A man threw his seriously ill wife four stories to her death because he could no longer afford to pay for her medical care, prosecutors said in charging him with second-degree murder.


According to court documents filed Wednesday in Jackson County Circuit Court, Stanley Reimer walked his wife to the balcony of their apartment and kissed her before throwing her over.

The body of Criste Reimer, 47, was found Tuesday night outside the apartment building, near the upscale Country Club Plaza shopping district.

July 24, 2007

"Population Control" always seems to lead to dead women

Secondhand Smoke: India's Shame: 30 Bags Found Stuffed with the Bodies of Female Babies and Fetuses

Thirty polythene bags stuffed with the remains of female foetuses and newly born babies have been found in a dry well near a private clinic in the east Indian state of Orissa, police said yesterday. ... Despite laws banning sex determination tests, the killing of female foetuses is still common in India, where the preference for sons runs deep. Infanticide is also practised in some areas. The government has said that around 10 million girls have been killed by their parents--either before or immediately after birth--during the last 20 years.

This pattern repeats itself around the world. In India, a 2000 census reported that there were 1000 men per 927 girls among children. The ratio is even worse in China, with 20% more boys than girls. The average birth ratio in the rest of world is 106 boys for 100 girls, but boy are more likely to die in youth than girls so the ratio evens out by adulthood.

The obvious practice of sex-selection abortion is wrong for a number of reasons. First, there's the obvious horror of abortion, the murder of the innocent. Next, we see that girls are being targeted due to many cultures' preferences for boys. In addition, a surplus of boys leaves a number of sexually frustrated boys who will sublimate their sexual energies into other activities either out of frustration or in an attempt to draw attention to themselves to attract women. (There's a reason so many Islamic terrorists are excited about the prospect of 72 virgins in the afterlife; it's because they aren't getting any here. Even though abortion is generally proscribed in Muslim countries, polygamous societies have similar issues: the most attractive men get more women, leaving fewer for the not so attractive. A different cause then sex selective abortions, but the supply of women is reduced just the same.) As I read remarked somewhere in the past, war has historically been the means of keeping excess male population to a minimum.

Population control negatively impacts women, by targeting them for elimination through abortion. (India outlaws sex determining tests, but has had little success in enforcing such a law.) And, as it leads to surplus male population, it can lead to a less stable society. It's bad news both in the present and in the future.