Friday, December 29, 2006

Pro-Family Advocates Cast Doubt on Guttmacher's Reported Premarital Sex Stats

(AgapePress) -- A pro-family group is expressing skepticism about the accuracy of a new report that says 95 percent of Americans have had premarital sex. A study by Lawrence Finer of the Alan Guttmacher Institute finds that 99 percent of Americans had sex by the age of 44, and 95 percent had done so before getting married.

The "reality-check research," as Finer calls it, was based on interviews of more than 38,000 people, some 33,000 of them women, in 1982, 1988, 1995 and 2002 for the federal National Survey on Family Growth. The study purportedly examined how sexual behavior before marriage has changed over time. According to Finer's analysis, even among those individuals who abstained from sex until at least age 20, four-fifths had had premarital sex by age 44. The study also found women, even those born decades ago, virtually as likely as men to engage in premarital sex.

For the rest of the article, please click above title.

Thursday, November 16, 2006

What The Election Means For Religious Conservatives

By Deal W. Hudson
November 15, 2006

In a national conference call with religious conservatives, Sen. Sam Brownback said that President Bush squandered the mandate of the 2004 election by pursuing social security reform when he could have taken action on an important social issue, such as the federal marriage issue.
He also rejected the idea that the election represented a repudiation of social conservatism because the Democrats who were recruited to beat incumbent Republicans were precisely that, social conservatives! Six of the Democrat freshmen are pro-life -- the biggest group since the eighties.

Pro-abortion Republicans, Brownback pointed out, were the biggest losers. A dozen of them are not coming back and that represents about half their total. Congressional Democrats, as a result of who won, are slightly more conservative than before, while Republicans are significantly more conservative.

Patrick Hynes, author of In Defense of the Religious Right, asked Sen. Brownback what religious conservatives can learn from their five losses on ballot questions: Arizona's same-sex marriage amendment, California's parental notification initiative; Oregon's parental notification initiative; Missouri's embryonic stem cell and human cloning initiative; and South Dakota's abortion ban.

Sen. Brownback stated that in Missouri, social conservatives were out-spent 20-to-1 and every major Republican state office holder, including the governor, supported the measure. Nevertheless, the measure only passed with 50.3 percent of the vote.

Regarding South Dakota, Sen. Brownback suggested that going for the full ban with no exceptions for rape and incest may have been a mistake. Nevertheless, he applauded the initiative as a courageous effort to launch an important national debate.

Sen. Brownback agreed that the failure to pass the same-sex marriage amendment in Arizona is of great concern. Arizona, he said, became the first state in the country to reject such a ban by democratic means. Sen. Brownback echoed a previously expressed sentiment that religious conservatives need to work especially hard in the interior west Sunbelt region to counter a vibrant libertarian sentiment.

There was a significant, but not a huge change, in the religiously active vote. Here are the overall numbers for the 2006 mid-term election:

Among voters who attend church at least once a week (45% of the electorate), 53% voted Republican and 43% voted Democrat. (Down 5 points for the GOP from 2004 and up 4 points for the Democrats.)

Among those who attend church "occasionally" (38% of the electorate), 59% voted Democrat and 39% voted Republican. (Up 5 points for the Democrats from 2004.)

Among those who say they never attend church (15% of the electorate), 67% voted Democrat and 30% voted Republican. (Up 5 points for the Democrats from 2004.)

Also on the conference call was Michael Schwartz, chief of staff to Sen. Tom Coburn, who stressed that the "election was not Democrats vs. Republicans but Republican promises vs. Republican performance, and corruption and the failure to deal with critical issues -- immigration, Iraq, energy -- led voters to lose confidence in the Republican Party."

Drew Ryun, coalition's director for the American Center for Law and Justice, reported that the Republican National Committee attributed this drop in support to the fact that Republicans did much less to reach out to religious conservatives than in 2004. "You cannot make the promises the Republican Party made in 2004 to conservatives then take no real action on them and expect conservatives to continue to vote you back into office," he said. Ryun, whose father, Congressman Jim Ryun (KS), lost his election, thinks this election proves that without the full support of religiously active voters, the GOP becomes a minority party.

"The silver lining to this election," Ryun said, "is that conservatism did not lose, but a Republican Party that forgot its base did." For Ryun, and everyone else who spoke on the call, the 2006 election should be a wake up call to Republican leaders who take the Evangelical and conservative Catholic vote for granted.

Martin Gillespie, director of Catholic Outreach at the RNC, read a list of pro-life legislators who lost their seats, including Sen. Rick Santorum (PA), Sen. Mike DeWine (OH), Cong. Ann Northrup (KY), Cong. Melissa Hart (PA), and Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick (PA). They lost, in part, because the "Catholic vote" moved strongly towards the Democratic Party in key states: 20 points in Ohio, 11 in Pennsylvania, and 9 in Michigan.

These are numbers of self-identified Catholics and not only Mass-attending Catholics, who consistently manifest more support for candidates representing a pro-life, pro-family position. The all-important breakdown between self-identified Catholic voters and religiously active voters is not yet known.

Gillespie noted that the issue of moral values, which was the number one concern of voters in 2004, moved to number five in importance, below Iraq, terrorism, corruption, the economy, and immigration. (web site)

Gillespie, who lead the RNC Catholic Outreach in 2000 and 2004, echoed Ryun in noting that fewer GOP resources were put behind courting the religiously active voter. (web site)

The good news is that Republicans are well positioned to take back the House in 2008. Several seats were gifts to the Democrats (DeLay, Foley, and Sherwood), and it will be exceedingly difficult for Democrats to get re-elected to these seats in two years. If new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi faces a dilemma such as letting the Democrats go wild, they will alienate the general public; if she holds them in check, they have a problem with their base. As one commentator put it, "She will retain the majority only if she is smart and the Republicans are stupid."

Finally, it should be said that religious conservatives will be haunted by the loss in South Dakota's abortion referendum for the next twenty years. This loss will be cited in 2008 as a reason for softening the pro-life plank in the Republican platform. For the first time in 34 years, voters were asked to decide whether killing people is right or wrong. This was in reputedly one of the two or three most pro-life states in the nation, and they chose death.

On a side note it is sad, but instructive, that on the first day of the annual Conference of U. S. Bishops meeting in Baltimore, president Bishop William S. Skylstad (Spokane), issued a four-page letter condemning the war in Iraq but uttered not a word about the voting results on the gay marriage ban in Arizona, the fetal stem cell referendum in Missouri, or the abortion referendum in South Dakota.

Religious conservatives have supported the GOP steadily since Ronald Reagan was first elected in 1980. But neither Evangelical nor conservative Catholics have ever become anything like a reliable voting block comparable to African-American support for the Democratic Party. The reason is obvious: The religiously active voter has to be won over with each election, by each candidate and each party platform. From a religious perspective, that is as it should be, since a person's faith should dictate political choices rather than vice versa.

The addition of religious conservatives to the GOP since the Goldwater era is what has given Republicans the electoral edge over the past thirty years. The pressure is on Republican leadership to blame the "Religious Right" for the 2006 election losses. It is doubtful, however, they will succumb to the temptation to ignore what Sen. Brownback and so many others see in the election results: A clear and decisive commitment to the social issues of religious conservatives appeals to the majority of American voters.


Deal W. Hudson is the director of the Morley Institute for Church & Culture. This web site will be updated on a daily basis, and we invite your recommendations for improving its content. You can reach my staff and me at the following address:


Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.

Thursday, November 02, 2006

Outside Money Fuels Battle on Abortion

H/T to Marti

Published: November 2, 2006
The fierce battle over abortion in South Dakota has cost some $4 million, much of that from places other than South Dakota.

National Battle Over Abortion Focuses on South Dakota Vote (November 1, 2006) That is what the two largest political groups campaigning on the issue say they have collected in the months leading up to next week, when voters there will decide whether to uphold a ban on nearly all abortions in what would become the most restrictive such law passed in the nation in at least 14 years.

Vote Yes for Life, a group that has pressed for approval of the law, said on Wednesday that it had received $2.15 million in cash, as well as contributions of $39,000 in goods and services. The South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, which has urged voters to reject the provision legislators adopted in February and the governor signed in March, said it had collected $1.8 million since late June, as well as in-kind contributions of less than $50,000.

All along, each side had said its efforts were being driven by South Dakota natives, but had complained that the other side was being pressed on and heavily financed by well organized national organizations from Washington and elsewhere.

As a deadline for filing financial data to state officials arrived this week, both sides issued news releases that show they have received money from outside South Dakota.

The South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families said that of the $1.8 million, less than $160,000 — about 9 percent — came from South Dakota; the campaign got 738 contributions from state residents, it said. The rest — more than 10,000 donations totaling more than $1.6 million — came from elsewhere. Vote Yes For Life, meanwhile, said that 65 percent of its money came from inside the state.

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Proposition 85 Video

H/T to Jean of Catholic Fire

Proposition 85 - Diana Lopez: My daughters' secret abortion

Charges expected in baby's death at abortion business

H/T to Marti

Posted: October 29, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2006
A lead investigator into reports that a baby was born alive at a Hialeah, Fla., abortion business, then killed, has told WND he believes charges will be filed in the case, and that announcement could come as early as a mid-November.

"My goal is to see that charges are filed," said Hialeah Deputy Chief Mark Overton yesterday. "The evidence reflects that this was a homicide. We're moving forward with that mindset. I believe our evidence has indicated (and) I think we have probable cause to bring charges."

The investigation was launched in July after investigators, on a tip, went to the "A Gynecologists Diagnostic Center" abortion business and discovered the remains of a baby in a red biohazard bag.

A search warrant issued in support of that case noted that the tipster provided the name of the little girl's mother, who had intended to have an abortion, and police officers met with her.

"The complainant advised on Thursday, 20 July 2006, at approximately 9:30 a.m. she arrived at the clinic for a pre-scheduled abortion. At approximately 2:30 p.m. the Complainant gave birth in the recovery room of the clinic. The complainant observed the baby moving and gasping for air for approximately five (5) minutes.

"The staff began screaming that the baby was alive; at which time. Ms. Belkis Gonzales cut the umbilical cord, threw it into a red bag with black printing. Ms. Gonzales then swept the baby, with her hands, into the same red bag along with the gauze used during the procedure," the search warrant said.

Overton told WND that the police department is awaiting confirmation of its plans from the local state's attorney's office.

"They're waiting for all the medical examiner's reports officially to be typed, and also an opinion from a neonatal specialist," he said. "We'll be getting together and meeting. I hope that we'll be filing some type of charges, unlawful killing charges."

He said the state of Florida has a law defining a live birth, and he's already contacted the local federal prosecutor about potential federal charges under the Born Alive Infants Protection Act of 2000 should the state not follow through.

"We've already put things in motion," he told WND. He said he expects the next step to be taken by authorities by mid-November.

Authorities earlier had confirmed to WND that the baby was born alive, but part of the investigation focused on whether the infant was at 22, 23 or 24 weeks, which involves the girl's viability, or ability to live outside the womb.

At the time the body was found, a lawyer for the owner of the abortion business partly owned by Gonzalez issued a statement that no crime was committed, and an 18-year-old had had an abortion without complications.

"My clients run an abortion clinic. It's a legal business," Regina DeMoraes-Millan told television station WFOR-TV in Miami-Fort Lauderdale at the time. "Right now police are just investigating a 9-1-1 call."

A spokeswoman for Operation Rescue, a pro-life activist organization, said the charges apparently could be second-degree murder. Abortion business co-owners Gonzalez and Siomara Senises both were working in the clinic when the 18-year-old arrived for the abortion, according to spokeswoman Cheryl Sullenger.

Affidavits used to obtain the search warrant reported that an anonymous caller on July 22 reported the baby's live birth, and death. However, a search of the clinic that day revealed nothing.

The documents indicate another witness told police that a "doctor" had drowned the baby before disposing of the body.
Then on July 28, another anonymous call came in, with the informant telling police the baby's body had been in the red plastic biohazard bag – along with the caustic chemical chloride – on the roof of the clinic "for the expressed purpose of causing the accelerated decomposition of the body in an apparent attempt to destroy evidence."

That anonymous call also told police the body had been retrieved and was then inside the clinic. Officers who arrived with a search warrant found the remains.

Sullenger said the medical reports in the case will be key, since in Florida it is illegal to do abortions in clinics after 24 weeks.

Assistant State Attorney Kathleen Hoague has told reporters that she also is focusing on medical reports, because at 22 weeks, "you're talking about a fetus that could be aborted legally."

But Operation Rescue chief Troy Newman noted that in the end, the baby's age doesn't matter.
"If she was born alive, as the mother and the police informant say she was, then that baby deserved every protection under the law that any other person has, regardless of her age," he said.

Newman was getting impatient. "I don't understand why there would be any equivocation in this case. If a litter of puppies had been tossed in a bag and thrown up on a roof to die, no one would rest until the perpetrators were brought to justice," he said.

The clinic is question remains closed, however many of the same principals are operating another abortion business several miles away, officials said.

At the time the body was found, a spokeswoman for Florida Right to Life told WND that babies' bodies in an abortion clinic are just "business as usual" for the industry.

Spokeswoman Linda Bell said there are very few protections for the mother, and essentially none for the unborn children, as a "result of legalized abortion in our nation."

Hialeah investigator Det. Tony Rodriquez expressed immediate concern about the situation, too.
"In 24 years in law enforcement, I have never seen a case like this," he had told reporters.

Teenage abortion waivers not rare

H/T to Marti

By Kathleen Chapman

Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

Sunday, October 29, 2006

WEST PALM BEACH — An agonizing secret has brought more than 100 teenage girls to the juvenile courthouse.

Many are top students, high school athletes, responsible kids with part-time jobs and college scholarships...

For the rest of the article,

Thursday, October 26, 2006

Nicaragua poised to outlaw all abortions

H/T to Marti

Most parties back the measure, which church leaders helped draft. Medical and rights groups denounce it.
By H├ęctor Tobar, Times Staff Writer
October 26, 2006

Nicaragua's legislature is expected today to approve a tough law that outlaws all forms of abortion, including those procedures intended to save the life of a pregnant woman.

The measure has been supported by most major political parties ahead of the Nov. 5 presidential election, as they seek to win over voters in this overwhelmingly Roman Catholic country. Leaders of the Catholic Church in Nicaragua helped draft the bill and have mobilized followers to support it.

Medical associations in the country and international human rights groups have strongly criticized the proposal.

Since the late 1980s, two other Latin American countries have adopted similar measures — El Salvador and Chile. At least 34 countries, mostly in Africa and the Middle East, prohibit all abortions, without exception, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights, a U.S.-based nonprofit advocacy group.

The new law would establish prison sentences of six to 30 years for women who abort their pregnancies and the doctors who perform the procedure.

Leaders of the leftist Sandinista National Liberation Front and the ruling right-wing Liberal Alliance have said their representatives will vote for the proposal. The two groups control all but one seat in the 92-member legislature.

"The current law allows a small door in which abortions can be performed, and we are trying to close that door," said Dr. Rafael Cabrera, an obstetrician and leader of the Yes to Life Movement. "We don't believe a child should be destroyed under the pretext that a woman might die."

Cabrera and other backers of the law argue that medical science has advanced sufficiently to allow doctors to bring a fetus to the point of viability without endangering a woman's life.

But on Tuesday, doctors with the Nicaraguan Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics told a Managua news conference that the measure would endanger women and make doctors reluctant to perform life-saving procedures.

"When a woman arrives at a hospital with vaginal bleeding … we're going to be afraid to do anything," said society President Efrain Toruno, according to the newspaper El Nuevo Diario. "If we treat her we could be prosecuted, and if we don't we could also be prosecuted."

Women's groups in Nicaragua charge that the proposed law is a cynical preelection ploy that panders to the influence of the Catholic Church. The text of the law, they note, is almost identical to a church proposal drafted this year.

Outgoing President Enrique Bolanos fast-tracked the bill, using his authority to present emergency legislation to the National Assembly.

"The worst message of this proposed law is that the lives of women don't matter to this president, or to the government or the church," said Marta Maria Blandon, Central American director of Ipas, a U.S.-based reproductive rights group.

Ipas estimates that 32,000 illegal abortions are performed in Nicaragua each year, many under unsafe conditions. Only 24 abortions authorized by law have been performed in the country in the last three years.

In 2003, a 9-year-old rape victim received an abortion under the current law's provisions.

Nearly all Latin American countries outlaw abortion, but most, including Nicaragua, allow the procedure in cases of rape and to preserve the life of a pregnant woman. Many countries, including Mexico, are working to make abortion more accessible to women who qualify for such exceptions.

"We see this proposal as part of a backlash," said Luisa Cabal of the Center for Reproductive Rights. "This not only goes against a regional and international trend, it would be a human rights violation in itself."

Ambassadors from some of the countries that donate millions of dollars in aid to Nicaragua, including Sweden and Finland, wrote to the legislators this week urging them not to rush to approve the measure. Nicaragua is one of the poorest nations in the hemisphere and depends heavily on foreign aid.

Jose Miguel Vivanco, executive director of the Americas division of U.S.-based Human Rights Watch, said approval of the law could lead to lawsuits in international courts. Nicaragua is one of many Latin American countries to recognize the authority of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, based in Costa Rica.

But domestic pressures to approve the measure are strong.

An antiabortion rally this month organized by church groups attracted thousands. Many carried placards that read: "Don't support candidates who favor abortion!"

Only one of the four leading candidates in the presidential election has come out against the law — Edmundo Jarquin of the Sandinista Renovation Movement, a dissident faction of the Sandinista Front.

Presidential candidate Daniel Ortega of the Sandinista Front, who holds a large lead in most polls, has spoken out in favor of the measure. Ortega, who is seeking to return to the office he held in the 1980s, in September signed a declaration drafted by evangelical leaders that declared the existing abortion laws in Nicaragua are "a pretext to legalize all abortions."

The Sandinista Front ruled Nicaragua for a decade after leading a successful revolution against dictator Anastasio Somoza in 1979. The leftists were known as pioneers of Latin American feminism.

Ana Maria Pizarro of the Autonomous Women's Movement said the Sandinistas' backing of the tough new antiabortion law had caused a private split among the party's top female leaders.

"The position of the party leadership is hypocritical and opportunistic," Pizarro said. "They've created a crisis within the women's movement of the Sandinista Front."


Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Parents- No Right to Know

H/T to Marti

Dear NewsMax Reader:

Please find below an urgent message from our sponsor on YES on 85. They have some important information to share with you.

Thank you.

Young teen girls having hush-hush abortions...

Bill O'Reilly, Patricia Heaton, Ben Stein, Tom McClintock,
Dr. Laura and Laura Ingraham say, "Fight for your parental rights."

A Critical Message from
Don Sebastiani
Winemaker and former California State Assemblyman

You'll find this hard to believe, but in California and some other states, a parent can answer the telephone and hear these words:

"Your 13-year-old child died earlier today while having an abortion at Planned Parenthood.
We need you to come in and identify her body."

Imagine how shocked you would be if, as a parent, you received that call. You wouldn't even be able to sue Planned Parenthood, because in California they are allowed by law to perform hush-hush abortions without notifying parents of minor girls.

That's right - in California, parents currently do not have a right to know if their 13-year-old child goes to have an abortion. Hard to believe, I know.

Let me introduce myself. I'm Don Sebastiani, Winemaker and former California State Assemblyman, and we desperately need your help with the YES on 85 campaign. Proposition 85 is The Parents' Right to Know and Child Protection initiative.

Just 14 days from today, California voters will vote on Proposition 85.

I'm sending you this time critical message today because Prop. 85 MUST PASS.

That's because Prop. 85 would require an abortionist to notify in writing a parent or guardian at least 48 hours before performing an abortion on a minor girl.

If YES on 85 wins, it will restore parents' rights, protect our children and end hush-hush abortions on minor girls.

And based on the success of similar parental notification initiatives in other states, we know that a victory for YES on 85 will greatly reduce teen pregnancies and abortions in California.
Tom McClintock,
California State Senator

Tom McClintock strongly supports YES on 85:
"Your 16-year-old daughter cannot use a tanning bed or get her ears pierced without your written consent. But she can undergo a surgical abortion without you even being notified. Proposition 85 restores your right to know what is happening to your own child. Please join me and vote YES on 85."
California's Legislative Analyst Office wrote that:

"Based on studies of other states with parental involvement laws, we estimate that the reduction in abortions to minors in California could be up to 25 percent..."

This would save an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 moms, babies and families from abortion each year in California.

Saving that many lives from abortion would be equivalent to opening 100 pro-life pregnancy centers.

This is tremendous! We can pass Prop 85, but we need your help.

Remember, 12, 13 and 14 year-old girls are able to get abortions behind their parents' backs in California. It's mind-boggling. This must be stopped.

Consider this. Although a girl occasionally dies from "legitimate" abortion, complications such as excessive bleeding and permanent sterility are much more common.

If your child had to be rushed to a hospital emergency room because of complications from an undisclosed abortion, guess who'd be on the hook for the hospital bill?

You might be surprised to know you'd be stuck paying that bill - not the abortionist.

This is more than unfair. It's intolerable. It's unconscionable. It's outrageous.

And remember, this kind of tragedy can strike any family - even the best of families. That's because many of the girls who have these types of abortions were molested or seduced by an adult predator. And those predators are everywhere.

Thousands of adult predators are forcing minor girls to undergo abortions, while parents think their children are in school or at the mall.

That's why Prop 85 must pass and why we so desperately need your help today!
Bill O'Reilly,
TV News
Bill O'Reilly Supports
Parental Rights:

"There are politicians who don't want parents to know their little girls are having an abortion. But parents have a right to know what their children are doing. That's a fundamental parental right in this country."
A study of 46,000 pregnant minors in California
found that 71 percent were impregnated by men
with an average age of 22.6 years old.
And California's abortion policy lets these statutory criminals get off scot-free! Thank God, we have the chance to end these horrors. Prop 85 will help stop the exploitation of thousands of girls every year!

Abortionists conspire to let statutory rapists get away with their crimes

I'll tell you more about that later - including undeniable and shocking proof of Planned Parenthood's complicity in doing abortions to cover up crimes!

And I'm sure you feel the same way I do. My blood boils when I think about how the abortionists keep parents in the dark about their child's abortion.

But Planned Parenthood - the largest chain of abortion centers in America - is spending unheard of sums to defeat Proposition 85 because hush-hush abortions are good for their business.

Unfortunately, Planned Parenthood is outspending us in this critical battle, literally a cultural war, over parents' rights and underage teen abortions.

We can't surrender this crucial battle because of shortness of funds .

Abortionists are outspending us

If the abortionists outspend us during the campaign, they may beat us at the polls. And that's why I'm sending you this time critical appeal for an emergency donation just two weeks from Election Day. I'm appealing to you for a generous gift to help us fight Planned Parenthood and pass Proposition 85.

And I need your help TODAY because the election is just 14 days away. Please forward this time critical message to everyone on your e-mail list.

Your gift will be put to immediate use to beat the abortionists and pass Proposition 85.
Patricia Heaton
Patricia Heaton Supports
Parental Notification:

"As a parent, I can't think of anything more important than the welfare of our children. Those of us in California are all too aware of horror stories of sexual predators: older men who prey on our children. It is our responsibility to stop deviants like these who would pressure a young girl into [an abortion] to cover up crimes like statutory rape. Sexual predators will no longer be able to hide and continue their crimes. And parents will not lose their daughters to abortion complications."
Abortionists turn purple with rage
Make no mistake: Planned Parenthood HATES Proposition 85 with a passion. The idea that parents should be notified before a minor child has an abortion makes abortionists turn purple with rage. It makes them so angry, steam comes out their ears.

That's because abortion is big business. Planned Parenthood and other abortionists will surrender huge sums if Prop 85 passes. But if Prop 85 goes down, the abortionists will pop champagne corks in celebration. It's that simple.

Planned Parenthood is working around the clock to fight Prop. 85. They recently enlisted Hillary Clinton to record a "No on 85" message to call into 250,000 homes.

This is your chance to tell Planned Parenthood and Hillary to take a hike.

Tell them: "No more hush-hush abortions on minor girls!"

Please join the YES on 85 team and help us defeat Planned Parenthood and other abortionists. Are you ready to help make sure that we defeat the abortionists? I hope and pray you'll join our team. Please prayerfully consider this time critical message and rush an emergency gift to help us pass Proposition 85 on November 7th.

There is no limit to how much you can give. But we certainly welcome gifts of all sizes.

Your generous gift to YES on 85 will help pay for critical "GET OUT THE VOTE" printing and mailings in the final days before the election. It will help with calls to registered voters, email reminders to large e-lists, to run YES on 85 radio ads, for distribution of DVDs with powerful YES on 85 videos, distribution of yard signs, critical web site updates including new endorsements (some audio and video endorsements) that need to be added to the official YES on 85 web site each day.

A $10,000 gift would be a tremendous blessing that will help us reach thousands of voters with our time critical YES on 85 message. Please consider giving a large gift like this. A gift of $5,000 or $1,000 would work miracles (and help put the fear of God in the abortionists). Would a gift in that range be possible?

Or, please consider making a gift of $500, $250, or $100. A gift in that range would make a big, big difference. But if that gift amount isn't possible, please try to send a gift of $75, $50, or $35. Please send whatever you can.
Ben Stein
Ben Stein Supports
Parental Notification:

"Current California law allows an underage girl to receive an abortion, a potentially life-threatening procedure, without her parents ever knowing. This just doesn't make sense. All parents have the right to know if their child is receiving a major medical procedure."
Planned Parenthood Caught on Tape
Shocking tapes expose hush-hush abortion policies
Earlier I promised to give you undeniable and shocking proof of Planned Parenthood's complicity in using abortion to cover up crimes. I'm going to give you that information. It's another reason why the YES on 85 campaign is so crucial.

You see, Planned Parenthood abortionists have been caught on tape offering to help a 13-year-old girl and her 22-year-old "boyfriend" cover up his crime.

Let me give you some quotations from actual Planned Parenthood employees, which were captured on audiotape:

"If you come in with your older boyfriend, we're not going to say you can't be with him"
"Your parents will not know about anything"
"If they find out that he's 22, he can go to jail"
"We're not the police, hon"
"As long as you're 12 years and older"
"We don't have to tell your parents anything"
"In the state of California, the parents have no right"
This small sampling of quotations is typical of what we found on the extensive "undercover" audiotapes which Life Dynamics recorded when they called more than 90 California abortion centers, most of them operated by Planned Parenthood. It proves their complicity.

You see, in California, intercourse with a minor is a criminal offense, especially if the perpetrator is an adult. Yet these shocking tapes expose Planned Parenthood and other abortion centers not only of hiding crimes - but also of denying parents' the right to know about "medical procedures" that can kill, maim, or cause permanent mental injury to their children.

I can still hardly believe so many of the abortion centers told the caller posing as a 13-year-old girl that her parents did not need to know and it was no problem for her 22-year-old boyfriend to bring her in for a hush-hush abortion.

It's outrageous - even for abortionists to stoop so low!
That's why I'm asking for your immediate help to put a stop to Planned Parenthood's conspiracy!
Dr. Laura Schlessinger
Dr. Laura Schlessinger Supports
Parental Notification:

"Parents - without your knowledge, a teacher, a neighbor, an older boyfriend, a sexual predator can legally take your daughter for a secret abortion. That's wrong. Parents have a right to know."
Please help me blow the whistle on Planned Parenthood
In one tragic case, which is fairly typical, an adult soccer coach in his early 20s seduced a 13-year-old soccer player and got her pregnant. He forced her to go to the local Planned Parenthood, where he paid for her abortion.

And Planned Parenthood even obliged the soccer coach after the abortion by giving his 13-year-old victim an injection of Depo Provera - a powerful birth control drug - so he could continue committing this criminal act! Planned Parenthood kept everything under wraps.

The truth about this soccer coach's outrageous abuse of this teen girl came out when a conscientious teacher learned of if and blew the whistle.

Well, I'm blowing the whistle and asking for your immediate help to put a stop to Planned Parenthood's conspiracy and to help us pass Proposition 85.

Let me remind you of perhaps the biggest reason why you should rush a big gift to help pass Proposition 85. If Proposition 85 wins, the number of abortions on minors will immediately drop like a stone, and so will teen pregnancies. Guaranteed. That's because many other states have observed a big drop in teen abortions and pregnancies after passing similar parental notification laws.

It's only common sense. Teens are more likely to engage in reckless conduct if they know they can have an abortion to "cover their tracks."

Based on patterns in other states that have passed parental notification laws, we can expect a drop of 5,000 to 10,000 abortions in California following the passage of Proposition 85. And we can expect to see a big drop in out-of-wedlock teen pregnancies as well.

This is HUGE!

Thousands of lives and souls will be saved. Think of the headaches and heartaches that will be avoided.

Planned Parenthood loathes and dreads Proposition 85. It would cut deep into their lucrative abortion business. Make no mistake: Planned Parenthood doesn't care about the girls - only the almighty dollar. If Planned Parenthood cared about the girls, they'd report statutory rapists to the authorities. But that's unheard of.

Planned Parenthood hopes you'll ignore this appeal.

Please don't do that. Please rush your gift to help us pass Proposition 85. The vote will take place in a matter of days, but there's still time to reach more voters with our time critical YES on 85 message.

Simply use the hyperlink below!
Laura Ingraham

Laura Ingraham Supports
Parental Notification:

"In California, a minor child must have a parents' permission to take an aspirin in school, or to have her ears pierced, or to go on a field trip. But a girl as young as 12 years old can obtain a surgical abortion without any parental consent or notification. So please vote yes... that requires parents of girls under 18 years of age to be notified at least 48 hours before their daughter is allowed to have an abortion."
Your gift will help us make history in California.

Please forward this time critical message to everyone on your e-mail list. And please donate as generously as you possibly can. Your sacrifice will be a tremendous blessing at this critical hour. It's literally a matter of life and death for vulnerable girls and their babies. And remember: parents' most basic rights are at stake.

Yours for Parental Rights,

Don Sebastiani
Former California State Assemblyman, and
Supporter of YES on 85

P.S. Planned Parenthood's conspiracy to keep the knowledge of minors' abortions from parents must end. Proposition 85 would require abortionists to notify a parent or guardian 48 hours before performing an abortion on a minor girl. Planned Parenthood is desperately working to defeat Proposition 85 and they are currently outspending us. That's why we need your help. We can beat the abortionists, but time is running out. Please give the largest gift you can possibly send - possibly the widow's mite, but please send something - to save girls and their babies from hush-hush abortions. Please make a sacrifice today and rush your gift right by the fastest possible method. Thank you, and God bless you!

Once again, you can help us end this atrocity once and for all by using the hyperlink below!

This e-mail is never sent unsolicited. You have received this NewsMax News Alert because you subscribed to it or someone forwarded it to you. To opt out, see the links below.


For information on advertising at, please contact
Corrine McNurlin via e-mail or call 888-766-7542.


If this News Alert has been forwarded to you and you would like a subscription, please visit:

Sign up for NewsMax e-mail alerts today!

To remove your e-mail address from our list or to modify your profile, Go Here.

We respect your right to privacy. View our policy.

This e-mail was sent by:
4152 West Blue Heron Blvd, Ste 1114
Riviera Beach, FL, 33404 USA

Hospital admits to burning aborted babies in waste incinerator

H/T to Marti


Coat hangers painted on South Dakota's pro-life signs

H/T to Marti

Abortion opponents say their message is reaching people, provoking reactions

Posted: October 24, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2006

Vandalized pro-life sign

Signs erected around South Dakota encouraging support for the state's Referred Law 6, which was approved by the Legislature and signed by the governor last winter, have been vandalized in recent days, some with suggestions of horrific violence.

"The people who did this do not stand up for women like me," said Kayla Brandt, a spokeswoman. "Vandalism like that reminds me that the pro-abortion movement didn't care about me when I was facing an unplanned pregnancy. And they still don't care about women like me now."

Officials with VoteYesForLife, who are campaigning in support of the state law, which effectively bans abortions, said hundreds of signs around the state have been vandalized with spray painted words and images of coat hangers.

Property owners where the signs were located were encouraged to file police reports, according to campaign spokeswoman Kimberly Martinez.

"We want to keep our eye on the goal," she said. "When this happens it usually means you're being effective, and getting the message to the people."

Planned Parenthood, which runs the only abortion business in the state, and others are staging an $8 million campaign to try to convince the almost 800,000 voters in the bucolic state to overturn the work of their Legislature and governor.

In a statement out of Washington, D.C., leaders with the American Life League said the abortion supporters "have taken the low road."

"We're disgusted with the illegal and destructive activity that is taking place," said Phil Eddy, outreach coordinator for ALL. "Unfortunately, we should not be surprised at these incidents considering the fact that the vandals are wreaking havoc in the name of abortion – the epitome of violence."

Eddy and other pro-life activists have seen first-hand the vandalism as they work on the scene to protect the state's Women's Health and Human Life Protection Act.

"Abortion advocates know they are losing the battle and are resorting to vicious means to try and dissuade public opinion away from the truth," said Eddy. "In Rapid City and Sioux Falls alone, we have seen hundreds of Vote Yes for Life signs defaced, burned and stolen.

"We have seen pro-life volunteers' cars vandalized and wooden crosses on church property destroyed. We have seen both a Catholic high school and Catholic church spray-painted with pro-abortion slogans. Most troubling is the fact that not one pro-abortion group, or media outlet, has publicly condemned these attacks."

Eddy said one of the more outrageous incidents occurred when a number of the Vote Yes for Life signs were vandalized with images spray-painted with a stencil. The top of the stencil had an outline of a baby in the womb (approximately 10 weeks of age) complete with an umbilical cord. Under the baby's outline was the two-word slogan – "Eat Babies."

"These desperate and downright dangerous tactics certainly prove that abortion proponents recognize that, despite their propaganda campaign, the truth is winning," said Eddy. "It is time to move forward with this momentum and vote yes on Referred Law 6 to protect every child from the violence of abortion."

The estimated 800 or so abortions done in the state each year – all by abortionists flown in from out of state since no physician in South Dakota will perform the procedure – are relatively insignificant to the precedent that could be set, officials say.

Abortion opponents note they know of representatives from campaigns in about a dozen other states who have been watching the situation, to see if they could and should launch their own statewide campaigns.

The longterm goal goes way beyond overturning Roe vs. Wade, officials say, because that would simply lift federal restrictions on abortion limits, and turn that responsibility back to the states.

The plan has been endorsed by the 17,000-member Christian Medical Association as well as a Democratic organization

South Dakota's Referred Law 6, which was approved by state lawmakers last winter and signed into law by the governor, simply bans abortions. But it was referred to a vote of the people under the challenge procedures in that state and South Dakotans on Nov. 7 will be making a life-or-death decision on what pro-life organizers call the best legislative proposal on abortion since the 1973 Blackmun ruling in the U.S. Supreme Court struck down state limits on the fatal procedure.

Lawmakers in South Dakota spent months researching the issue before approving the ban, which was challenged by Planned Parenthood, the biggest provider in the U.S. abortion industry and recipient of $272 million in federal funds this year.

Lawmakers attached a 72-page report to the legislation that outlined the state of medical knowledge, citations of ethics experts, the studies showing the impact of abortion on society, and other information, and then in a bipartisan effort, approved the law.

Monday, October 23, 2006

Remember in November: Judge Alito's Confirmation to U.S. Supreme Court Was Held Up Over Abortion Debate

By John Calvin Long, 2/6/2006

The Democrats agreed not to filibuster any more potential judges up for vote. But they talked for days and days presumably to delay Samuel Alito's appointment as long as possible. I honestly didn't understand why they did this since they knew he already had enough Senators who had decided he was worthy of the position and would vote in his favor.

When I go to the dictionary and look up the word filibuster it says, "The use of obstructionist tactics, especially prolonged speech making, for the purpose of delaying legislative action." To me, it's like they're saying, "We promise not to be verbose, we're just gonna talk for a long time."
You know, I'm just a simple man, but from all I can see, they've lied again. The older I get, the less patience I have for liar's and deceivers. This is an election year and I hope you don't have a short memory when November 7 comes around. I wish I could say "I wonder why it took so long for the Senate to vote for this good man," but I already know the answer. And I can sum it up in one word - abortion.

I love this quote from Senator Dianne Feinstein, "If one is pro-choice in this day and age, one can't vote for Judge Alito. I am very concerned about the impact he would have on women's rights, including a woman's right to make certain reproductive choices." Did you hear what she said? A woman's right to certain reproductive choices. What she means is abortion.

To the Senate Democrats, if a judge won't bow down at the altar of abortion then he's not worthy to sit on the court. The implication is simple, if you're pro-life you're not worthy to serve in the courts or to be elected to office. I think many of you reading my words are finally realizing that elections matter.

So this November let's elect people to office that hold certain truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, first and foremost being the right to life.

John Calvin Long, the executive director of the Hawaii Right to Life, can be reached via email at reports the real news, and prints all editorials submitted, even if they do not represent the viewpoint of the editors, as long as they are written clearly. Send editorials to

Friday, October 20, 2006

Dakota divided as abortion vote tests US opinion

H/T to Marti

By Holly Yeager in Sioux Falls, South Dakota

Published: October 19 2006 19:25 Last updated: October 19 2006 19:25

Abortion-rights activists in South Dakota took many by surprise a few months ago when they said voters should decide the fate of the state’s new abortion law, the most restrictive in the US.

Now, with a referendum on the November 7 ballot, their campaign has become the frontline in the long-running national debate on abortion.

A victory here would show that even in a conservative Midwestern state, the public will not tolerate a near-total ban on abortion. But a defeat would signal just how difficult a challenge campaigners face in trying to protect a woman’s right to abortion.

While they bristle at the attention, the South Dakota activists are counting on residents of this old frontier state to prove them right.

“I don’t think South Dakota likes being in the limelight,” says Jan Nicolay, co-chair of the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, formed to fight the abortion law, as a light snow falls outside the group’s slipshod Sioux Falls office.

“We’re a pretty independent, proud group of people,” she adds, hoping that independent streak will help voters reject what she sees as government meddling in an individual decision.

The law, passed with broad support by the state legislature and signed by Governor Mike Rounds in March, makes it a crime to help a woman abort a pregnancy at any stage, including in cases of rape and incest. Women would not face charges but doctors who perform abortions could be sentenced to five years in prison. The only exception in the law is to save the life of the mother.

The central message of the campaign to repeal it – taped on the office window, printed in voter guides being mailed out this week and mentioned frequently by volunteers making telephone calls to voters – is a simple one: “This law simply goes too far.” The referendum has prompted vigorous public debate, with television and radio advertisements, lawn signs and newspaper inserts. Neither side will discuss how much money has been spent, and how much of their firepower is coming from outside the state. “It’s a very divisive issue,” says Jack Billion, Democratic candidate for governor, who backs repeal of the law. “It pits family versus family.”

A recent poll showed opponents of the law with a slim lead, and abortion-rights activists hope victory here could discourage other states from moving to adopt similar bans. But if their repeal effort fails, they will take their battle to the courts.

A court challenge would be welcome news for some anti-abortion activists, who see the strict South Dakota law as a good opportunity for the US Supreme Court – with President George W. Bush’s two appointees, John Roberts and Samuel Alito – to overturn Roe vs Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that legalised abortion.

The Vote Yes for Life campaign is based in a warehouse on the outskirts of Sioux Falls. Outside, a bumper sticker declares, “The Killing Stops Here”. Inside, a home-schooled teenager stops by to volunteer. There are hundreds of lawn signs to be distributed and DVDs that feature women who regret their abortions, and one who became pregnant after she was raped. “I am here to say that true compassion does not come from abortion but from giving life.”

Rushing between appointments, Leslee Unruh, who is leading the campaign, mentions an abortion she had nearly 30 years ago and the support she received from other “post-abortive” women who say they regret their decisions. She has tried to expand the traditional debate on abortion beyond its effect on the unborn to its effect on women.

“We’re not going to be silenced,” she says. “It doesn’t matter if we win or we lose. We are educating people that abortion hurts women and we’re not going to stop.”

She shakes her head when asked whether the state can make such decisions for others. “Don’t get pregnant then, if you don’t want a child,” says Mrs Unruh. But maintaining legal access to abortion should not be an option. “We need to be protected. Abortion harms us, physically and emotionally.”

South Dakota voters drew national attention two years ago when they surprised the political pundits and voted out Tom Daschle, Democratic leader in the US Senate. This year, voters’ positions on the abortion question are difficult to predict, frequently crossing gender and party lines.

Sharon Rons, a Democrat who owns her own small business, said she would vote to keep the law. “I don’t think abortion should be a form of birth control,” she says, adding that the decision to end a pregnancy “could haunt women for the rest of their lives”.

But some Republicans say they will oppose it, perhaps a reflection of a libertarian strain that runs through the sparsely populated state. “I just don’t feel that somebody else should make this decision for a woman,” said one Republican pensioner.

“We are responsible people,” said Mrs Nicolay, a Rep­ublican and former member of the state legislature. “We can make our own decisions.”

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006

Clinic shuts down after abortionist disappears

H/T to Marti

Posted: October 19, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006

Joseph Scheidler of Pro-Life Action League

Another abortion clinic, this time in Illinois, is closed after sheriff's deputies hauled the "medical equipment" and office supplies out of the building during a court-ordered eviction.

It brings to about a dozen to number of clinics shut down in the United States in just the past few months.

Officials say the owner of the building, retired abortionist Aleksander Jakubowksi, ran his abortion business at the site for years, then when he retired last year handed the business over to abortionist Louis S. Myers, who rented the building from Jakubowski.

But it was Jakubowski himself who demanded the eviction of the Suburban Gynecology Clinic in suburban Chicago when Myers, who has a record of disciplinary action with the state, just vanished.

"I don't know what happened to them," Jakubowski told reporters.

The building now is up for sale.

Joseph Scheidler, national director for the Pro-Life Action League said he was pleased the facility was closed, and noted that the abortion industry appears to be moving backwards.

Nearly a dozen abortion businesses in Illinois, Ohio, California, Alabama and Florida have been closed recently over a variety of issues, including workers without medical licenses performing medical procedures, the misuse of drugs, babies allegedly killed after being born alive, and now a disappearing abortionist.

"For one thing, they can't get abortionists. They're getting old. There are just not new people coming into the abortion industry. Most of the young obstetricians and gynecologists, they don't want to get into that," Scheidler told WND.

He said the constant protesting by pro-life interests definitely is a factor, but even more is a negative connotation the society of physicians gives abortionists.

During medical school classes, he said he's been told by doctors, any student that seems to have the most trouble would be referred to as the "abortionist."

"We rejoice that yet another abortion mill has closed its doors," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. "We pray that Myers is permanently out of the killing business and that the building will be bought by someone, preferably pro-lifers, who will use the space for some good purpose."

He said he was encouraging activists in the Chicago area to buy the Aurora, Ill., building and "turn it into a crisis pregnancy center."

Just weeks earlier, Ohio state regulators uncovered a dozen health code violations, including a serious situation that endangered the life of a patient, and shut down an East Side Cleveland clinic.

Operation Rescue officials say of the dozen clinics shut down, several have reopened following compliance with rules. But the actions have included:

The closure of a clinic in Omaha, Neb., where the land was purchased from underneath the business and the owners couldn't find another facility to rent.

The closure of the clinic that formerly operated in the building that now houses the Operation Rescue headquarters in Wichita, Kan.

A facility in Birmingham, Ala., was closed because of a suspended license.

One business in Montgomery, Ala., was closed when authorities found the abortionist didn't have hospital privileges.

A business in Hialeah, Fla., where an investigation continues into allegations a baby was born alive, then killed and placed on the roof of the building to avoid detection by police, was shut down.

Five clinics owned by a Florida abortionist when his license was suspended all were closed, although several of those reopened later.

And another case involved a business in Daytona Beach, Fla., where the abortionist said he didn't want to meet the required rules.

Hope from the heartland for women and babies

H/T to Marti

Posted: October 19, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

The historic South Dakota law that ends abortion on demand is described in its opening paragraph as "An Act to … reinstate the prohibition against certain acts causing the termination of an unborn human life. …"

By the passage of this bill, artfully crafted by a bipartisan majority of the South Dakota Legislature and signed by Gov. Mike Rounds, we have the hope of beginning to reverse a tragic epoch in the way we treat women and babies.

The Legislature acted on the twin findings of a task force that found irrefutable scientific proof that abortion hurts women and life begins at conception. In passing this bill, the Legislature sought to protect women and save the lives of hundreds of children every year. The good citizens of South Dakota will have the opportunity to ratify the legislation in November by voting "yes" on Referred Law 6.

While this seems on the surface simply to be the right thing to do, those who profit from abortion, such as Planned Parenthood, are directing their formidable national resources against the success of the effort. Their strategy seems to be to confuse and frighten the voters. But South Dakotans are not easily manipulated.

One thing that the opponents of the legislation will not admit to is that there are limited exceptions for abortion in instances of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. This means that abortion will no longer be used as a method of birth control, which most people object to. Instead, it will be used only in situations where women have been the victim of abuse or are at risk of losing their lives. Once South Dakotans know this, they will overwhelmingly vote yes for life.

Hollywood elites such as Jane Fonda and Robin Williams have given money to "enlighten" the heartland about the virtues of abortion. Groups such as the National Organization for Women are working in South Dakota to reverse the ban. One wonders why leading feminists support an act that so harms women and makes them more subject to exploitation by men. Where are the real women's advocates when you need them?

In a more tragic act of misguided morality, a small group of South Dakota ministers recently weighed in at a press conference. These ministers are supposed to represent Christ in South Dakota, yet they argued that protecting women from exploitation and saving the lives of babies is not a simple matter of right and wrong. I am sure that many of their parishioners were shocked to see their ministers echoing the Planned Parenthood position. Thank God for the hundreds of faithful ministers in South Dakota who have endorsed the campaign.

What the South Dakota Legislature did is not radical. The Legislature is standing in our great historic Western legal tradition. It was paganism, like that in ancient Rome, that practiced abortion on demand. This was always rejected throughout history wherever Christian values were followed.

Christ honored women and did more to exalt women than anyone in history. We must also seek to protect them from sexual exploitation, including abortion. Christ valued children and tenderly blessed them. We, too, must love them into the world, because all life is created in the image of God.

This is the hope we have from the heartland – the simple, common decency that South Dakotans have always exhibited. There is no confusion here – only the hope of the end of this most egregious exploitation of women and loss of precious human life. For the sake of women and babies, I urge a "yes" vote on Referred Law 6.

Every Woman's 'Power to Choose' is in Danger with Republicans in Charge

H/T to Marti

By Mazie Hirono, 10/16/2006 5:32:25 PM
Hawaii’s women have been fortunate in matters of choice and reproductive rights. In 1970, our state was the first in the nation to make safe, medical abortions legal. That brave action by the Hawaii legislature came three years before the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Roe V. Wade made the same rights available to women across the country.

Today, every woman’s power to choose is in danger. While Republicans and Far-Right pressure groups have not yet been able to overturn Roe v. Wade, they continue to chip away at this fundamental right by calling for limits on our reproductive freedom.

We need to remain vigilant, to continue to see through the slogans and political spin that anti-choice activists employ to cloud the issue. We must ensure that the public recognizes that phrases like “partial birth abortion” and “parental notification” are rhetoric aimed at turning choice into a wedge issue.

The opponents of our right to choose will try to soothe us with smiles and reassuring words, but by staying focused on the real question before us, we will recognize their position for what it is: an attempt to impose their narrow views on our basic right to control our own bodies.

I have been a champion of choice my entire political and professional career, and I will continue to fight for our rights in Congress. The women of our state and our nation deserve no less.

Mazie Hirono is the Hawaii Democrats' congressional candidate for the Second Congressional District. reports the real news, and prints all editorials submitted, even if they do not represent the viewpoint of the editors, as long as they are written clearly. Send editorials to

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

NRLC's name being used on the Internet to advertise Abortionists

Population Group Says 300 Million Americans Is Not Enough

Population Research Institute wrote:
Date: Monday, October 16th, 2006
Subject: "300 Million Is Not Enough"

Population Group Says 300 Million Americans Is Not Enough

FRONT ROYAL, Va.—Contradicting what many experts have been saying, the Population Research Institute (PRI) believes that the United States is suffering from insufficient population growth even though the U.S. Census Bureau says the American population will reach 300 million tomorrow. “When you look at the projections that show our population aging rapidly over the next few decades, when you see our economy and government programs such as Social Security risking bankruptcy, you can see that the United States’ annual 0.9% population growth rate is not enough,” said Steven Mosher, President of PRI. “America’s baby boomers didn’t have many children on average, and as a result, our country faces a gray dawn. Even our currently high immigration levels haven’t made up the difference.”

“According to United Nations figures, the percentage of the American population 65 or over will rise from 12.3% today to 20.6% by 2050. The proportion of Americans 80 or over will rise from 3.6% to 7.3% of the population,” said Joseph A. D’Agostino, Vice President for Communications at PRI. “Our worker-to-retiree ratio is already at a dangerous 3-to-1. By 2050, it will be 2-to-1. And those retirees will be living much longer than they do today thanks to beneficial improvements in health care. We’ve been trying to make up for our low birthrate through lots of immigration, which has created its own problems. But if Americans won’t create the next generation, then it must be imported.”

The birthrate of the United States is 2.0 children per woman, slightly less than the replacement rate of 2.1. Without immigrants, the birthrate would be even lower. As we have noted previously, the United States’ population density is 31 people per square kilometer, well below the world average of 48 and far below those of most Western European nations. Americans continue to leave rural areas for large metropolitan areas, creating the illusion that America is becoming overpopulated. Yet only 4.7% of American land is built up.

For more information including an audio clip, go to To schedule an interview, call Joseph D’Agostino at 540-622-5240 ext. 204. E-mail:

Population Research Institute,
1190 Progress Dr.-Suite 2D,
P.O. Box 1559,
Front Royal, Va. 22630 USA

Scalia Gives ACLU an Earful

October 16, 2006

by Pete Winn, associate editor of

The Court's top conservative confronts the American Civil Liberties Union face to face — not that his insights changed any minds.

Delegates to the American Civil Liberties Union's (ACLU) annual conference in Washington, D.C., heard from a conservative icon Sunday night — Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Speaking to an audience of 1,500 civil libertarians during an hour-long debate with ACLU President Nadine Strossen, Scalia spoke out about abortion, same-sex marriage and religious freedom.

The conservative justice told the left - leaning lawyers group there is no basis in the U.S. Constitution for abortion or homosexual rights — and that controversial issues should be settled through the democratic process, not through the courts.

"What democracy means," he said, "is that, on controversial issues — even stuff like homosexual rights, abortion, whatever — we debate with each other and persuade each other and vote on it."

Scalia said America decides such questions by majority rule - either through legislatures or constitutional amendments in the states. "(The) Bill of Rights was adopted by the majority," he said, "which is why it is proper in a democracy to have a Bill of Rights, because the majority adopted it." Scalia said our forefathers never included abortion or homosexual activism in the Bill of Rights. "Nobody ever thought that they had been included in the rights contained in the Bill of Rights," he said, "which is why abortion and homosexual sodomy were criminal for 200 years."

Scalia said it isn't the job of a judge — or the court — to decide if abortion or homosexual activism is a good idea or a bad idea. "It is my job to say whether the Bill of Rights have taken it out of the realm of democratic debate," the justice said. "Just because you feel strongly about it, it isn't necessarily in the Bill of Rights."

Taking a firm stance on religious freedom, Scalia said it was clear that, throughout our history, no one thought the Constitution's First Amendment prevented the government from fostering religious practice, or being favorable towards religion. "Our history is full of (appeals to religion)," Scalia told the lawyers. "The same Congress that proposed the First Amendment, directed George Washington to issue a proclamation of thanksgiving to God, 'for all His favors to the Republic.' "

In response to Strossen's defense of the ACLU's vision of the Constitution as a living — or evolving — document, Scalia said the question is whether we can live with an evolving Constitution. "Once you say it evolves and it doesn't depend on what the people thought they were doing when they adopted it, somebody's going to have to decide how it evolves," he said. "Why in the world would you want nine people from a very uncharacteristic class of society — to wit, lawyers — to decide how the Constitution evolves?

"It would mean whatever they think it ought to mean."

Did Scalia change any minds? Probably not, given the audience.
Today, the ACLU's Gay and Lesbian Rights Project said it will continue to press for same - sex marriage. While the lawyers did say they will file only a few challenges if voters in nine states enshrine the definition of marriage in their constitutions next month as the union of one man and one woman — that doesn't mean the group is changing its stance on gay marriage.

The goal now is to educate the nation on "the equality issue" — to try to create an atmosphere in which legal challenges in favor of same-sex marriage may eventually work. The plan is to train gay activists to take arguments in favor of same-sex marriage to every forum they can — from formal debates to presentations at the local Rotary or Kiwanis clubs. "People's attitudes change significantly for the better when they know a gay person, and . . . know what it's like to be gay," said the ACLU's Paul Cotes. "That's what we need to be doing, is having those conversations."

Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said the announcement only goes to show the ACLU isn't about to give up pushing a liberal agenda. "They see the Constitution as something that they think the court should use to impose 'new and enlightened' values upon the American public," he said. Hausknecht added that it was good to see Scalia articulate for everyone why conservatives oppose the idea that the courts should be utilized to create "rights" that ought to be dealt with through the democratic process.

Saturday, October 14, 2006

On Tuesday, November 7, we should vote for...

Now that I have your attention, hello, fellow pro-lifers! I’ll finish the rest of the title for this article in a moment, but a few words first.

Fact: Even though abortion is legal throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy for any reason whatsoever, over the past four decades pro-lifers have developed an intensive infrastructure of help for women with untimely pregnancies. NO WOMAN HAS TO RESORT TO KILLING HER UNBORN CHILD AS A WAY OUT OF A “PROBLEM” PREGNANCY, THANKS TO THE SUPPORT THAT WE PRO-LIFERS PROVIDE.

Fact: Even though handicapped children are threatened by academics like Peter Singer at Princeton, who think that a handicapped newborn baby does not deserve to be considered a human being, WE PRO-LIFERS AFFIRM THE HANDICAPPED, CHERISHING THEIR INNOCENCE AND THE JOY THAT THEY BRING TO A SOMETIMES HOPELESS WORLD.

Fact: Even though the elderly are increasingly treated as burdens instead of the delightful people that they are, WE PRO-LIFERS CHERISH NOT ONLY THE WISDOM OF THOSE WHO CAN TEACH US YOUNGER FOLK HOW TO LIVE, BUT ALSO THEIR ENTHUSIASM FOR DOING PRO-LIFE WORK. (Why is it that someone twice my age has more energy than I do? Thank God for them!)

Fact: THE ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2006, IS CRUCIAL FOR THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT. We cannot afford to turn back the progress that pro-lifers have made in the country. This election should not concern economic matters (the economy is stronger now than it was when terrorists killed our people on September 11). This election should not concern foreign policy (terrorism against the unborn, the handicapped, and the elderly is as bad as that against our born citizens). This election is about restoring the right to life. Therefore, to finish the statement above:

On Tuesday, November 7, we should vote for the pro-life movement!

Jeff Koloze, Ph.D.
President, Clark County Right to Life

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Euthanasia Blues

Euthanasia Blues

Court won't rethink 'Mary Doe' abortion case

By Bill Mears
CNN Washington Bureau

Adjust font size:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court rejected an appeal Tuesday from a Georgia woman seeking to reverse a 1973 Supreme Court ruling giving her the right to an abortion.

Sandra Cano was part of the original series of landmark rulings from the high court legalizing the medical procedure. The justices without comment refused to reopen the case.

Cano, a resident of Atlanta, Georgia, was "Mary Doe" in the Doe v. Bolton appeal that was a companion argument to the more famous Roe v. Wade, both decided on January 22, 1973.

While the "Roe" opinion grounded first-trimester access to abortion in a constitutional right to privacy, Doe v. Bolton loosened medical requirements for those seeking to terminate a pregnancy.

Cano stated in her appeal that she had never wanted an abortion in the first place, had been living in an abusive relationship, and had been forced by her attorney to fight the abortion option in court.

The high court several years ago rejected a similar legal appeal from Norma McCorvey, the "Jane Roe" of Roe v. Wade. McCorvey, a resident of Texas, also sought to overturn the case that gave her the right to an abortion.

Since the McCorvey rejection, Sandra Day O'Connor, who generally supported access to abortion, has retired from the bench, replaced in January by Justice Samuel Alito. The change did not appear to make a difference in the latest challenge.

The Supreme Court denied several other legal appeals Tuesday. Among them:

In a victory for the federal government, the justices refused to intervene in the ongoing clean-up of Libby, Montana, which is contaminated by asbestos. W.R. Grace & Co. must continue paying a $54 million bill on a Superfund site run by the Environmental Protection Agency. At issue was whether federal officials have legal authority to order private companies to pay the entire costs of eliminating toxic waste sites.

Three smaller tobacco companies will be allowed to continue pursuing a lawsuit against 30 states that wanted them to be part of a $206 billion financial settlement over tobacco-related lawsuits. The Supreme Court decided not to intervene at this stage of the legal fight. At issue was whether the federal government has legal authority to intervene in state efforts to make all tobacco companies accountable for their marketing and advertising efforts on the dangers of smoking.

Next month, the justices will hear an important abortion appeal dealing with the federal ban on a late-term procedure critics call "partial birth." Three federal appeals courts have ruled the ban unconstitutional because it does not include a health exception to protect pregnant woman who suffer a medical emergency.

Thursday, October 05, 2006

Ms. Magazine Ignored Petitions From Women Who Regret Abortions

by Steven Ertelt Editor
October 4, 2006

Beverly Hills, CA ( -- In an election-year effort to rally abortion advocates, Ms. Magazine plans to include the names of women who have had abortions and are happy about the decision in its next issue. However, Ms. is coming under fire from women who tried to tell the magazine's editors they regret their abortions.

Georgette Forney, the head of a national group for women who wish they could undo their abortion decision, says she knows of many women who submitted petitions to Ms. saying their abortion decision was something that plagued them the rest of their lives.

Forney told that the womens magazine ignored their comments.

"Silent No More women from across the country submitted petitions to Ms. Magazine asking that their voices be included in the 'We had abortions,' campaign," Forney told in exclusive comments.

"But, the magazine did not even extend the courtesy of a response," Forney said.

Forney, who had an abortion herself at age 16 and strongly regrets her decision, said a magazine "that is supposed to be all about women" is leaving out the voices of perhaps millions of women who don't agree abortion is pro-woman.

She said the refusal to include any comments from women who regret their abortions shows outreach efforts like the Silent No More Awareness Campaign are making a dent in the argument that abortion is a panacea for women with an unexpected pregnancy.

"Obviously Ms. Magazine's providing only a venue for voices that support [abortion] illustrates the effectiveness of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign," she said.

Knowing that the magazine planned to have the feature story on women having abortions, Luana Stoltenberg, the Iowa leader of another post-abortion group, Operation Outcry, wrote the editors about her own abortion experience.

Stoltenberg, who has been interviewed by numerous mainstream media outlets and writes eloquently about her abortion regret, received a curt reply from Ms. magazine senior editor Michele Kort.

"[J]ust because you had a negative experience and post-abortion regrets does not mean that the choice to have an abortion should be made illegal—or extremely difficult—for the millions of women who still would make that choice," the editors wrote her.

Stoltenberg responded by saying Ms. magazine is doing a disservice to women by ignoring those who know their abortion destroyed their lives.

"Your response shows no compassion whatsoever," she responded. "Why am I being told to be tolerant and know your side but you refuse to listen to my side?"

"How is it that you can profess to care about all women and refuse them the information to truly be educated and informed about the ‘choice’ they could make?" Stoltenberg added. "That doesn't seem caring at all to me. It seems that you are driven by your agenda and not by your concern for women."

Ms. magazine is also coming under fire for using the abortion petition as a fund-raising tool.

The magazine is owned and operated by the Feminist Majority Foundation, a pro-abortion group, and women who sign the online petition are urged to make a donation to the organization.

In a poll on the Ms. magazine story sponsored by AOL, 109,735 people responded and 51 percent said they thought it was a "bad idea." Just 24 percent felt the story was a good idea and 25 percent had mixed feelings.

Ms. magazine has been urging its readers to respond to the poll.

ACTION: Express your views to Ms. magazine: Ms. Petition, 1600 Wilson Blvd. Suite 801, Arlington, VA 22209, 866-444-3652. You can also email Ms. magazine senior editor Michelle Kort at

How To Counter the Ms. Magazine Abortion Petition

Hat tip to A Catholic Mom in Hawaii for posting the following:

By now you probably have read
THE ARTICLE about the petition being prepared by Ms. Magazine. As Amy puts it:

Ms. magazine is running the names of 5,000 women who are boasting they had abortions. Why? Because - as Ann Coulter argues - abortion is the holiest of sacraments for the left.

In response and to counter that blatant display of disregard for life, AMY is preparing a Petition to send to Congress. The following is from her blog:

So now I'm asking you, my readers, fellow bloggers, fellow pro-lifers, to do something very simple:

Help me create a petition that will put the one in Ms. to shame. Email this post to every man and woman you know. Email your names and cities/states to me. I'll compile them and send a petition to Congress - a petition with the names of people who think women (and their unborn children) deserve better than an abortion.

I want to get more than the 5,000 signatures Ms. is boasting it has.

The heading of the petition will read:

We, the undersigned, believe that life begins at conception, and that the dignity and life of every human being must be respected from conception to natural death. We believe abortion is a grave immoral act and constitutes murder of a human being, and that women and unborn children deserve better. Therefore, we urge our government and representatives to hear our voices as we oppose America's current abortion laws.

So be sure to email
Amy your name, city and state and to forward the blog link to every man and women who stands for life.

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Women Sign 'We Had Abortions' Petition

HT to Marti

Oct 03 2:29 PM US/Eastern

AP National Writer


At a pivotal time in the abortion debate, Ms. magazine is releasing its fall issue next week with a cover story titled "We Had Abortions," accompanied by the names of thousands of women nationwide who signed a petition making that declaration.

The publication coincides with what the abortion-rights movement considers a watershed moment for its cause. Abortion access in many states is being curtailed, activists are uncertain about the stance of the U.S. Supreme Court, and South Dakotans vote Nov. 7 on a measure that would ban virtually all abortions in their state, even in cases of rape and incest.

"All this seems very dire," said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, which publishes Ms.

"We have to get away from what the politicians are saying," she said, "and get women's lives back in the picture."

Even before the issue reaches newsstands Oct. 10, anti-abortion activists have been decrying it. Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, wrote in a commentary that when she saw a Ms. announcement of the project, "the evil practically jumped right off the page."

Ms. executive editor Katherine Spillar said more than 5,000 women have signed the petition so far _ heeding its appeal to declare they are unashamed of the choice they made. The magazine itself had room for only 1,016 names, she said Tuesday, but all of them will be viewable online as Ms. encourages other women to continue adding their signatures.

Ms. says it will send the petition to Congress, the White House and state legislators.

The signatories include Ms. founder Gloria Steinem, comedian Carol Leifer, and actresses Kathy Najimy and Amy Brenneman, but most are not famous names.

Tyffine Jones, 27, of Jackson, Miss., said she had no hesitation about signing _ although she lives in a state where restrictions on abortion are tough and all but one abortion clinic has been closed.
Jones said she got an abortion 10 years ago _ enduring harassment from protesters when she entered the clinic _ in order to finish high school. She went on to become the first member of her family to graduate from college, and hopes at some point to attend law school.

"I wanted to do something bigger with myself _ I didn't want to be stopped by anything," she said in a telephone interview.

Another signatory, Debbie Findling of San Francisco, described her difficult decision last year to have an abortion after tests showed that she would bear a son with Down syndrome.

"I felt it was my right to make the decision, but having that right doesn't make the decision any easier," she said. "It was the hardest decision I've ever made."

Findling, 42, is married, with a 5-year-old daughter, and has been trying to get pregnant again while pursuing her career as a philanthropic foundation executive.

She says too many of her allies in the abortion-rights movement tend to minimize, at least publicly, the psychological impact of abortion.

"It's emotionally devastating," she said in a phone interview. "I don't regret my decision _ but I regret having been put in the position to have to make that choice. It's something I'll live with for the rest of my life."

Findling strongly supports the Ms. petition, and believes women who have had abortions need to be more open about their decisions. She has written an essay about her own experience, and plans to include it in an anthology she hopes to publish next year.

Ms. mounted this kind of petition drive when it was first published. Its debut issue in 1972 included a manifesto signed by 53 women _ many of them well-known _ declaring that they had undergone abortions despite state laws outlawing the procedure.

The next year, the Supreme Court issued its Roe v. Wade decision establishing abortion rights nationwide. Some abortion-rights activists are concerned that Roe could be overturned, either by the current court or if President Bush has the opportunity to appoint one more justice.

Smeal said Ms. staffers called the women who signed the petition to verify their information and be sure they were willing to have their names in print.

"The women thanked us for doing this," Smeal said. "They wanted to tell their stories."


Tuesday, October 03, 2006

New Supreme Court Term Opens Today

HT to Marti

Oct 2, 7:22 AM (ET)


WASHINGTON (AP) - A new Supreme Court term opens Monday with eyes on its leader, the junior justice, the oldest and the man in the middle as abortion, race and other familiar issues resurface.

President Bush's two conservative appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, give opponents of abortion and affirmative action reason to hope the high court will move in their direction. It was only a few years ago that a different mix of justices seemingly settled some of these questions in high-profile cases.

The outcome of new challenges to a type of late-term abortion, called partial-birth abortion by opponents, and the use of race in assigning students to public schools will "tell us a little bit about the soul of the Roberts court," said Steven Shapiro, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Roberts has talked about seeking greater unanimity on the court, but the results in these cases are unlikely to produce anything close to a consensus.

The retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor leaves Justice Anthony Kennedy, in his 19th year on the court, as the most likely vote to swing between the court's four liberals and four conservatives.

"All eyes are on Kennedy," said former Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr.

At 86, Justice John Paul Stevens is the leader of the court's liberal wing and shows no signs of slowing down. Last term, he wrote the opinion in the year's biggest case, striking down Bush's plan to try some suspected terrorists before military commissions.

Stevens was the most prolific of the justices last year, writing 27 majority opinions, concurrences and dissents. Stevens marks his 31st year on the court in December.

Important cases on the environment, the size of jury awards, prison sentences and immigrants also are on the calendar, along with a heavier-than-usual dose of business cases.

Legal disputes stemming from the Bush administration's treatment of terrorism suspects, warrantless monitoring of Americans' communications and efforts to invoke national security claims to stop lawsuits could reach the court by the time the term ends in June.

The justices' work will get off to an unusual start. The traditional opening day, the first Monday in October, coincides with Yom Kippur, the Jewish day of atonement.

The court will convene briefly to issue orders and swear in lawyers to the Supreme Court bar, but hear no arguments in cases. Arguments are scheduled Tuesday in two cases. Two of the nine justices - Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer - are Jewish and are not expected in court Monday.

The abortion question before the justices this term is whether the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act is invalid because it does not allow for the procedure to protect the health of the mother

The court struck down a similar Nebraska law in 2000 on those very grounds. In addition, in a rare unanimous ruling in January, the justices reaffirmed that a state could force girls under age 18 to tell their parents before having an abortion, provided there was an exception for medical emergencies.

There are differences between the current case and the one from Nebraska, including the greater deference paid by the court to acts of Congress, that could lead to a different outcome. On the other hand, some justices are uncomfortable overturning earlier decisions, which could favor invalidating the federal law.

But the major difference this time is the change among the justices, said Randy Barnett, a Georgetown University law professor.

O'Connor was part of the 5-4 majority in the 2000 case. Her place has been taken by Alito; people on both sides of the issue expect him to side with abortion opponents.

Kennedy was in the minority six years ago, writing a vehement dissent in support of the Nebraska law. "There are certainly enough votes to flip the issue if Justice Kennedy continues to take the same position," Barnett said.

The new lineup could be a major factor in the public school diversity cases from Seattle and Louisville, Ky. At issue is whether school districts can use race as a factor in determining who gets into oversubscribed schools.

Both systems based their slightly different policies on their desire to have the racial makeup of schools approximate that of the districts as a whole.

In 2003, O'Connor was the deciding vote in upholding the constitutionality of affirmative action in public universities; Kennedy dissented.

Both Roberts and Alito worked as Justice Department lawyers during the Reagan administration, which sought to limit affirmative action. Alito has said he saw the value of diversity in the classroom when he taught a college seminar on civil liberties.

In the court's ruling in June on Texas congressional districts, Roberts described the use of race to apportion voters to one district or another as "a sordid business."

For Supreme Court's new term: rise of a new centrist

HT to Marti

Click here for the article.

Monday, October 02, 2006

Thomas More Law Center Asks U. S. Supreme Court to Review Honolulu's Ban On Pro-Life Expression

HT to Marti

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review its case challenging the constitutionality of the City and County of Honolulu’s ordinance that prohibits the flying of pro-life aerial banners over the beaches of Honolulu. In July of this year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of this ordinance, prompting the Law Center to seek review of the case in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Law Center filed the petition on behalf of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (“CBR”), a California-based pro-life organization, and its executive director, Gregg Cunningham.

Robert Muise, the Law Center attorney handling the case, commented, “CBR’s large aerial banners depicting images of aborted fetuses, although controversial, present a powerful message and communicate ideas that are rhetorically inexpressible. The constitution protects free speech, and in this case, speech that shows abortion is a violent act committed on innocent human life.”

Added Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, “If the pro-life movement is to succeed in banning all abortions, it must convince people that human life begins at conception and that every abortion does in fact result in the destruction of innocent human life.”

The federal lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the Honolulu ordinance on several grounds. Foremost is the allegation that this law violates the free speech rights of CBR and its executive director. According to the petition filed with the Supreme Court, this ordinance is unconstitutional because it is a total ban on a certain form of speech, and it completely forecloses an effective medium of communication for CBR.

The lawsuit also challenges this ordinance under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution because Congress, through the FAA, has acted to preempt any state or municipal law that regulates banner towing and aerial advertising flight operations. The Law Center is asking the Supreme Court to review the Supremacy Clause issue in particular because the Ninth Circuit’s decision conflicts with a decision rendered by the Colorado Supreme Court, which held that such local ordinances are federally preempted and therefore unenforceable.

Muise commented further, “Because we have a decisional split and conflict between the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Colorado Supreme Court on a federal question that has national implications, it is very likely that the Supreme Court will grant review of this case.”

CBR’s Airborne Reproductive Choice Campaign, which consists of large, colorful pictures depicting graphic images of first-term aborted fetuses displayed on banners towed behind aircraft, has attracted a great deal of national attention and controversy. CBR estimates that by displaying one banner for approximately five hours over a populated area, they are able to communicate their pro-life message to hundreds of thousands of people. CBR’s banners have flown over many states throughout the United States, and CBR wants to take its daring project to Hawaii, which is home to some of the most heavily visited beaches in the world.

Standing in CBR’s way at the moment is a local ordinance enacted by the City and County of Honolulu that prohibits any banner towing flight operations in Honolulu. This lawsuit is seeking to remove this obstacle.

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at Thomas More Law Center.