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.