Thomas More Society Notches New Victories in Ongoing ND88 Proceedings

     

Sparks flew in St. Joseph County Circuit Court yesterday (Thursday, September 16) as the Thomas More Society won several key victories against the prosecution in the case of the "ND88," the individuals arrested in connection with President Barack Obama's appearance at the University of Notre Dame Commencement in 2009.

Thomas More Society special counsel Tom Dixon beat back efforts by the county prosecutor to force all defendants to return to South Bend one week prior to their trials, which the court denied "in the interest of justice." Dixon also defeated efforts by the prosecutor to deny each defendant his or her own individual jury trial by consolidating the cases. Chief Judge Michael Scopelitis also ruled for the defense in holding that the prosecution must turn over documents related to a woman arrested but not prosecuted for holding a pro-life sign on Commencement Day, even as many others around her holding pro-Obama signs were not arrested. Chief Judge Scopelitis took under advisement the issue of whether Society attorneys will be able to depose Bill Kirk, Notre Dame's former vice president of residential life who was in charge of campus security.

"We remain hopeful that Notre Dame will bring these ill-starred criminal misdemeanor proceedings to an early end, urging the county prosecutor to drop the charges," said Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society, also present in court on Thursday. "The longer Notre Dame presses these ND88 prosecutions, the more estranged the University will become from pro-life movement."

Earlier this year, Kirk was removed from his post with the University after it became public that, as recently as January 2010, Notre Dame has not filed charges against gay rights and anti-ROTC activists who protested on campus without permission, unlike the way Notre Dame treated the 88 pro-life demonstrators who were arrested and charged in May 2009. The Thomas More Society contends that Kirk's testimony could shed light on what prompted the University's differential treatment of protesters and help prove that the ND88 were victims of "viewpoint discrimination," in violation of the First Amendment, as campus police who made the arrests were exercising statutory authority vested in them by state law. Notre Dame's president Fr. John Jenkins has maintained that all protesters were and are treated equally.

Contact: Stephanie Lewis

Source: Thomas More Society
Date Published: September 17, 2010

Mothers Refusing Prenatal Testing to Protect Babies with Down

     

It seems indisputable to me that the medical elites and many in bioethics wish to wipe people with Down syndrome off the face of the earth using the killing tool of eugenic abortion–or if that doesn't work, infanticide or medical neglect.  This has led to a counter movement to value our brothers and sisters with Down into the human community. For example, as I reported here, the late Senator Ted Kennedy and Senator Sam Brownback passed a law through Congress, signed by President Bush, requiring that genetic counseling for mothers whose fetuses have tested positive for Down, dwarfism, and other genetic anomolies, not be directed to any particular outcome.  The senators believed the law was necessary because studies showed that women were often pushed toward the abortion option.

Another method of push back is for women to refuse testing altogether.  Their thinking is that they are going to love their baby come what may–gee, unconditional love, what a concept!–and they worry about being tested because of the pressure they will come under to abort.

One such mother has written a story in the NYT about her decision not to receive such testing, even though she already gave birth to one child with Down and the chances are greatly increased that she will do so again.  From "Why Prenatal Testing Harms as Much as it Helps," by Amy Julia Becker:

For this pregnancy, I have had two ultrasounds, and I have agreed to a fetal echocardiogram. But I declined the blood tests that screen for chromosomal abnormalities. I declined the amniocentesis. I didn't return my insurance company's calls when they wanted to assign a nurse to guide me through this pregnancy. I'm not opposed to having information about our baby ahead of time. I want to know everything we could know in order to care for this child well. If there is a physical problem, if I need to deliver with specialists on hand, if our baby is at high risk of complications, I want to know about it, and the tests we have chosen should provide that information. And although I declined, I'm not opposed to prenatal testing. There are benefits to knowledge. According to Dr. Brian Skotko of Harvard Medical School, studies have demonstrated the helpfulness of prenatal diagnosis. Women who know ahead of time that their babies have Down syndrome are able to celebrate their arrival into the world, and often these women feel better prepared for the challenges they might face as a parent.

That's what happened with Sarah Palin.  She says knowing ahead of time helped her prepare to welcome Trig with open arms (which, as I have written, is one reason why I think she generates so much hate from certain quarters). But pre natal testing, which could be so beneficial, clearly has a darker side–the targeting of those deemed deficient:

On the other hand, the way these tests are administered, the way information is provided to women and the way our culture talks about and conceives of individuals with chromosomal abnormalities contribute to my concern that prenatal testing more often serves to devalue all human life and to offer parents and doctors an illusion of control. When a friend of mine, who has a daughter with Down syndrome, declined amniocentesis for her next pregnancy, her doctor shrugged and said, "Well, if it happens again, don't blame me." Another friend, upon receiving the results of her amniocentesis, was asked, "When would you like to schedule the procedure to terminate?" Peter and I have participated in a program through the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in which medical students meet families with a child with a disability. These doctors in training have told me that before they met Penny, they thought Down syndrome was the worst possible thing that could happen to a child. A medical-school professor at the University of North Carolina offered validation to their report when he said to his class, ''In my opinion, the moral thing for older women to do is to have amniocentesis, as soon during pregnancy as is safe for the fetus, test whether placental cells have a third chromosome 21, and abort the fetus if it does.''

That last bit reminded me of a speech I once gave at a medical school about the urgency of seeing all human beings as possessing equal moral worth in the medical system.  Afterwards, a soon to be doctor said to me, "I do genetic counseling.  What should I do when a fetus has tested positive for Down?" his implication being that there only is one right decision.  I suggested that perhaps he should bring in families of people with Down to help explain to the woman or couple what life is really like for families with such children.  He looked at me as if I were from Mars.

Becker concludes:

Even as maternal age increases, the incidence of children born with Down syndrome is decreasing. Studies show that 85 percent to 90 percent of women with a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome choose to terminate their pregnancies. We declined prenatal testing not because we assume this baby in my womb has the typical 46 chromosomes. We declined prenatal testing because we would welcome another child with Down syndrome.

We hear so often, as in AIDS, about how prejudicial attitudes of medical professionals hurt patients.  That problem is clearly true with regard to Down and other genetic conditions that can be diagnosed prenatally.  Because women know that they would be expected to abort, they are instead of opting out of beneficial testing.  That's not their fault. It's that of the medical professional–and of a culture that too often rejects human exceptionalism.  We all have a lot of work to do cleaning up our prejudicial act.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith

Source: Secondhand Smoke
Date Published: September 20, 2010

New Report Reveals Suspended Abortionist's Replacement is Worse

     

Operation Rescue has uncovered information that the notorious Ghevont W. Wartanian is doing abortions at Gynecare Center in Severna Park, Maryland, in the place of suspended abortionist Romeo Ferrer, whose medical license was suspended last week for his part in the abortion-related death of Denise Crowe.
 
"We thought that Ferrer's abortion mill would close with his suspension, but as far as we know, it never missed a day of business," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. "In fact, as bad as Ferrer was, it looks like he replaced himself with someone even worse, if that is even possible."
 
The Gynecare abortion mill is an affiliate of the National Abortion Federation, a cartel of notoriously troubled abortion clinics that attempt to persuade the public they are safe by publishing so-called "guidelines" for abortion clinics.   Apparently those standards to not include competent licensed physicians that have not killed people with their substandard and negligent practices.
 
Wartanian has a long and sordid history of malpractice suits and wrongful deaths reaching back decades, and was involved in a 2001 Maryland scandal that led to reforms in the way the Board of Physicians disciplines doctors. But through it all, Wartanian has escaped discipline.
 
Operation Rescue's new report detains Wartanian's legal woes and his history of incompetence that has led to the deaths of at least two wanted babies.
 
The Gynecare abortion mill is an affiliate of the National Abortion Federation, a cartel of notoriously troubled abortion clinics that attempt to persuade the public they are safe by publishing so-called "guidelines" for abortion clinics.   Apparently those standards to not include competent licensed physicians that have not killed people with their substandard and negligent practices.
 
"If it is too dangerous for Ferrer to be practicing medicine, why is this guy still in business?" asked Newman. "Today, with the release of our special report, we are sending a letter to the Maryland Board of Physicians asking them to conduct a new review of Wartanian's competency and take appropriate action to protect the public from him. Enough people have died at the hands of Ferrer and Wartanian. The public needs the peace of mind that these quacks will not be allowed by the state to hurt anyone else."

Contact: Troy Newman

Source: Operation Rescue
Date Published: September 20, 2010

Help stop UN attack on conscientious objection to abortion

     

At the Human Rights Council in Geneva, top United Nations officials have called for the policing of nations worldwide to "address the refusal of physicians to perform legal abortions".

Ban Ki Moon (pictured), the UN Secretary General, and Navanethem Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, have launched a report "on discrimination against women, in law and practice, and how the issue is addressed throughout the United Nations human rights system".

The report recommends the creation of a new office to focus on laws and practices that discriminate against women. This means the appointment of a special rapporteur who, in addition to following up on genuine rights, would also follow up on recommendations such as attacking doctors' conscientious objection to abortion.

Pope Benedict got to the heart of the matter in Westminster Hall yesterday when he highlighted the worldwide attack by governments on conscientious objection. Ban Ki Moon and Navanethem Pillay are exploiting their UN roles to step up this attack and to push for a global right to abortion.

Last June the same pair of UN officials pushed through the Human Rights Council an ideologically-driven pro-abortion report with the aim of attaching legalized abortion to the Millenium Development Goals. Governments and concerned citizens worldwide must heed Pope Benedict's timely warning and stop this latest report in its tracks.

Please contact the foreign ministry in your country, urging your government to reject the Ban Ki Moon/Navanethem Pillay report, because abortion is not a human right, but conscientious objection is.
Supporters in the UK should contact the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO)

Contact: John Smeaton

Source: SPUC
Date Published: September 18, 2010

SFLA: North Carolina Governor Refuses to Investigate Fed. Funding of UNC Abortions

     

Students for Life of America (SFLA) has criticized the governor of North Carolina for failing to investigate the use of federal funds to pay for abortion coverage in the University of North Carolina's insurance plan.

North Carolina Governor Beverly Perdue thanked Students for Life of America in a letter for notifying her office of the concern, but did not indicate that any action would be taken, saying only, "I understand you are also communicating with the University of North Carolina system about this issue." SFLA revealed last month that federal funds are being used to pay for abortion coverage in the UNC health insurance plan, in which students are automatically enrolled.
 
"It is ridiculous the Governor of North Carolina has refused our request for an investigation," SFLA executive director Kristan Hawkins said upon receiving Perdue's letter. "The fact that there could be federal funds at stake in this issue should deeply trouble any public servant. The citizens of North Carolina, most especially the students in the UNC system deserve to know the truth."

LifeSiteNews.com attempted to contact Governor Perdue's office for further comment on the response, but calls were not returned.

In response to the student group's efforts, the University of North Carolina has said they would allow students to opt-out of the abortion-covering health care; however, SFLA's Hawkins expressed concern that funds from students opting-out would nonetheless end up paying for other students' abortions.

SFLA says it will continue to demand that abortion be removed completely from the UNC System's health care policy and is investigating the use of federal funds to pay for parts of the plan.

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: September 16, 2010

As Pharaoh's Heart Is Hardened, The Christians Of Rockford Stand Strong

     

The city of Rockford and local pro-abortion forces seem driven in an almost obsessive way to shut down and stop pro-life efforts to help mothers and children at Rockford's abortion mill.

This editorial is written as a thank you to the hundreds of brave and faith-filled Christians who have stopped, dead in their tracks, the schemes to silence pro-life efforts.
 
We won't even go into the well-documented non-actions taken by the city concerning assaults against pro-life citizens that the city has refused to prosecute.

A homeless man hit by an abortion clinic worker's car and the numerous code violations by the abortion facility have been ignored by the city legal department.   These are some of the things pro-life citizens have to deal with when they are opposing the killing of babies and the culture of death in Rockford, IL.
 
Some in the city of Rockford have had two agendas that you, the pro-life citizens of Rockford, have been able to stop.
 
The first on the agenda was the bubble zone that Alderman Karen Elyea proposed and which was, to our knowledge, supported by the city legal department and the ACLU.  It looked as if it were a smoke-filled back room decision.   It might have gone through had the pro-life citizens of Rockford not said, "NO".
 
Pro-lifers began praying and followed up with countless phone calls and emails that flooded the aldermen's and mayor's offices.  Then pro-lifers  filled the city council chamber and spilled over to the hall outside at the council meeting and demanded the rights of sidewalk counselors, to offer help to mothers and children in need, not be interfered with. First amendment rights to free speech and assembly have been and are being suppressed by the city legal department for too long.
 
Because of the efforts of Rockford pro-life citizens, the bubble zone was burst.
 
Not to be stopped that easily, the city legal department saw another chance to interfere with Rockford's pro-life citizens offers of help in the form of free ultrasounds.   Pro-lifers worked for a month with the Rockford police department at the highest levels to gain approval for a mobile ultrasound to offer help to mothers in need in Rockford.   It was approved by the Rockford police department.
 
Then the city legal department decided to strike.  Using some vague ordinance accusing the mobile ultrasound vehicle of "soliciting business" on the streets of Rockford, the city legal department ordered the unit out of the city.  But they forgot two things:
 
The first was the love of Rockford pro-lifers that motivates their desire to help mothers in need no matter how hard Wayne Webster, the abortion mill landlord, seemingly working with the city legal department, tries to stop them.

The other was that Rockford pro-lifers actually looked at the city ordinance for themselves. The ordinance was found that clearly shows the mobile ultrasound is not a business but a charity.

Source: Stephenson County Right to Life
Date Published: September 20, 2010

Abortion Groups Praise Newly Named Head of UN Women’s Agency

     

The appointment of former Chilean President Michelle Bachelet as Under Secretary General of UN Women has garnered praise from several abortion advocacy groups.

The United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women, commonly known as UN Women, was established on July 2nd when the General Assembly unanimously approved a resolution that consolidated four UN bodies on women's issues.

The creation of this super-agency for women's issues is largely attributed to the lobbying efforts of the Global Campaign for Gender Equality Architecture Reform (GEAR), a coalition of abortion proponents. Not only was the GEAR campaign instrumental in founding UN Women, the organization reportedly had a heavy hand in the selection process of the new under secretary general, providing the secretary general a list of questions for candidate interviews.

Charlotte Bunch, a founding member and leading advocate of the GEAR campaign, calls Bachelet a "top notch choice" who was one of GEAR's "dream candidates." Additionally, Bachelet's appointment received praise from the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, who said that Ban ki-Moon's choice "sends a clear message to the global community that women's rights and equality will be considered at the highest level of deliberation on international human rights."

Bachelet was viewed as the front-runner when UN Women was established. As president of Chile, Bachelet supported the possibly abortion-inducing "morning after pill," and she was the honorary co-chair of the recent UN-backed pro-abortion Women Deliver conference in Washington, D.C.

The secretary general's short list for the head of the new organization was laden with abortion advocates. Rosario Manalo was one of the longest serving members of the controversial committee that oversees the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). During her tenure, the CEDAW committee pressured more than 90 nations to liberalize their abortion laws.

Another candidate, Geeta Rao Gupta, was president of International Center for Research on Women (ICRW). Rao Gupta delivered ICRW's highly controversial paper at the 2007 Women Deliver conference that laid the scholarly foundation for the ongoing campaign that claims the Millennium Development Goals cannot be reached without international abortion rights. Rao Gupta is a senior fellow at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Radhika Coomaraswamy, a candidate who is now the UN's Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict, successfully campaigned for legalized abortion in her home country of Sri Lanka. As the UN's Special Rapporteur on violence against women, she addressed Nicaragua's ban on abortion by saying that "acts deliberately restraining women from having an abortion constitute violence against women by subjecting women to excessive pregnancies and childbearing against their will, resulting in increased and preventable risks of maternal mortality and morbidity."

UN Women will be funded by the combined budget of the four agencies that are being merged, approximately $220 million, to which all 192 member states contribute. The GEAR Campaign has announced that it is lobbying to increase funding to $1 billion within a few years.

This article reprinted by LifeSiteNews.com with permission from www.c-fam.org

Contact: Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D. and Nicholas Dunn

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: September 16, 2010

Senate Committee Held Hearing on Embryonic Stem-Cell Funding

     

The legal challenge over the federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research resulted in a Senate hearing today (Thursday).

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, held an appropriations sub-committee hearing on the government's role of funding the controversial research.

Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., co-author of the Dickey-Wicker law, and one of several witnesses who testified today, said the government should not be involved in subsidizing controversial, life-destroying research with taxpayer dollars.

Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Penn., a cancer survivor and proponent of embryonic research, said, "We are not dealing with human life. If it would be turned into human life, no one would suggest using them for medical research."

"In my opinion," Wicker responded, "the body of scientific evidence developed since 1995 has served only to strengthen the argument in favor of Dickey-Wicker.

The Dickey-Wicker law – which is at issue in the pending legal challenge –prohibits tax dollars to be used "in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded or knowingly subjected to risk of injury…"

"This debate involves profound ethical and moral questions," Wicker said. "This is a matter of conscience for me and millions of Americans who are deeply troubled by the idea that their taxpayer dollars may be used to destroy another human life when there are other proven techniques out there available."

Source: CitizenLink
Date Published: September 16, 2010

30 Governors Applied for Abstinence-Education Funding

     

The National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA) just released its report on which states applied for Title V abstinence-education funding.  An encouraging three out of every five governors elected to apply for Title V abstinence education by the Aug. 30 deadline.

Prior to the deadline, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services held back the results of a pivotal abstinence study, which featured results contrary to the Obama administration's policy of "zeroing out" all abstinence-education funding.

As a result of public pressure, the taxpayer-funded survey –"The National Survey of Adolescents and Their Parents" – was released in time for wavering governors to re-apply for critical funding for their states' abstinence programs, which end on Sept. 30.

States that participated in the 2009 Title V abstinence-only education program were:

Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma,  Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington and West Virginia.

Of those states, only five elected not to reapply:

Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada and Oklahoma

Compared to 2009, there were eight new states that applied for the FY2011 funding:

Delaware, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York and Virginia

The state chapters of Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice were outraged after learning that Republican Govs. Bob McDonnell of Virginia and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota opted to forego the government-preferred Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP) funding for the abstinence-only funding option.

Victoria Cobb, president of The Family Foundation of Virginia, did not mince words when defending McDonnell's decision.

"Despite the rhetoric from the economic loser in this decision – Planned Parenthood – recent studies have shown that abstinence education effectively helps teens postpone risky sexual behavior," Cobb said.

Planned Parenthood of Virginia would have been a substantial recipient of PREP funds.

Tom Pritchard, executive director of the Minnesota Family Council, equally defended Pawlenty's decision. He told the Star Tribune, "It's better to spend no money on sex education if it's going to have a condom message. You are pouring fuel on the fire."

The pro-abortion groups were not the only ones that went after the governors. Liberal, sex groups like Sexuality Information Education Council of the U.S (SIECUS) – a fringe, Kinsey-rooted policy organization –fought against Title V funding and lobbied the Obama Administration to zero out abstinence funding.

The Huffington Post, a liberal website, also tried besmirch the governors for opposing President Obama's "comprehensive sex education" program.

Bruce Gordon, communications director for Pawlenty, said, "The governor has consistently prioritized abstinence amongst family planning options."

Stacey Johnson, spokesperson for McDonnell, the McDonnell's decision was consistent with his past support of abstinence-only education, as proven when he opposed the decision of his predecessor, Gov. Tim Kaine, of eliminating the funding.

Chad Hills, CitizenLink's abstinence and sexual health analyst, applauds the 30 governors who listened to put sound public policy over politics.

"It's encouraging to know that several governors realize the importance of upholding the highest expected standard for sexuality within their public and private schools," Hills said. "However, I was surprised that the governor of Indiana rejected these funds. Parents and teens support the message of abstinence, and citizens are encouraged to thank the governors who opted to make their decisions based on principle and the will of the people –not on political correctness."

Contact: Catherine Snow

Source: CitizenLink
Date Published: September 16, 2010

Rape - no exception for abortion

     

An international pro-life speaker and attorney, who is the product of rape, is working to end abortion and the myths that lead some people to make exceptions.

Had abortion been legal at the time she was conceived, Rebecca Kiessling says her birth mother would have terminated the pregnancy. But following her birth and adoption, Kiessling did not learn the complete truth about her past until she was 19 years old and met her biological mother for the first time.

"[She was] happy to meet me; however, she described the horrible details. It was truly a worst-case scenario -- that's how I was conceived," she shares.

After that meeting, Kiessling admits she felt ugly and unwanted, but it made her think about abortion and the people who condone it in cases of rape.

"It's pretty cold-hearted to say to someone like me, 'I think that your mother should have been able to abort you.' I would never say to someone, 'If I had my way, you'd be dead right now.' But that's the reality of it," she laments. "I understand people want to be people of compassion and that they've been misled to think that in order to do so, you have to make the rape exception."

The pro-life speaker decides that mindset is based on three fallacies. The first is that most rape victims would want an abortion, but Kiessling points out that "only about 15 to 25 percent...choose abortion."

The second fallacy is that a rape victim would be better off with an abortion, but the attorney contends, "That couldn't be further from the truth" because having an abortion after being raped makes a woman "four times more likely to die within the next year. They have a high murder rate, higher rate of suicide, domestic violence [and] depression," she reports.

Finally, Kiessling says people are told the child is simply not worth the trouble, but she hopes her story can dispel that myth by helping people understand that "a baby is not the worst thing that could ever happen to a rape victim -- an abortion is."

Contact: Chris Woodward

Source: OneNewsNow
Date Published: September 17, 2010

Pro-Abortionists Feel Walls Closing In

As the results of Tuesday's final round of primaries streamed in, they amplified a constant motif of the 2010 off-year elections: this truly is the year of pro-life female candidate. Two more pro-life women prevailed in Republican senatorial primaries, adding new names to an already impressive roster.

    
     Kelly Ayotte

Kelly Ayotte, the former state attorney General prevailed in a cliff-hanger in New Hampshire. In Delaware Christine O'Donnell outdistanced her pro-abortion Rep. Michael Castle opponent by 6% to fill the seat once occupied by Vice President Joe Biden.

    
     Christine O'Donnell

Already on board are two pro-life Republican women-- in California and Nevada.

Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, is taking on an entrenched three-term pro-abortion incumbent, California Democrat Barbara Boxer. Sharron Angle, a former member of the Nevada state assembly, is competing against pro-abortion Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Worth noting is that all 17 current female senators are pro-abortion.

    
     Carly Fiorina

And, of course, this doesn't even address the separate campaigns by female pro-life gubernatorial candidates.

Writing in the Baptist Press, assistant editor Michael Foust reminded his readers this morning of a column that ran a few months ago by National Review senior editor Ramesh Ponnuru. Writing in the New York Times, Ponnuru observed, "Kellyanne Conway, a Republican pollster, says that her surveys have found that voters respond more positively to the pro-life message when it comes from women." Pro-life women, Ponnuru observed, "won't be suspected, or credibly accused, of opposing abortion because they want to keep women in their place."

In addition, in Part One today, I wrote about additional sets of polling data that paints an unrelievedly grim picture for Democrats. Politically, they are burdened down by anchors, ankle chains, and albatrosses, While the dreadful state of the economy is always mentioned as the greatest burden, as we have discussed many times, what was pivotal in pealing off Independent voters from Democrats was the monstrosity known as ObamaCare.

    
     Sharron Angle

POLITICO ran yet another in a lengthy series of stories today, filling in the details that document how Democrats are either explicitly distancing themselves from ObamaCare or espousing only the most back-handed support.

"Democratic candidates are spending three times more advertising against the health reform law than they are in support of it," writes Sarah Kliff. The headline is actually more accurate: "Democrats spend on anti-health-reform advertisements."

In fact, an earlier story written by another reporter last week is more revealing. "At least five of the 34 House Democrats who voted against their party's health care reform bill are highlighting their 'no' votes in ads back home. By contrast, party officials in Washington can't identify a single House member who's running an ad boasting of a "yes" vote -- despite the fact that 219 House Democrats voted in favor of final passage in March." (Emphasis added.)

The single specific example Kliff cites today is the "tepid support" of Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wi.), whose "support of health reform briefly [is] sandwiched between other legislative accomplishments" in a television advertisement.

Contact: Dave Andrusko

Source: NRLC
Date Published: September 16, 2010

More Pro-life Primary Victories in New York

    

Pro-life candidates (not all of them Tea Partiers) won big Tuesday night in GOP primaries, putting them in competitive or underdog races against pro-abortion challengers in the upcoming November 2 election especially in New York. Here is a look at some of the political landscape for the pro-life movement in the Empire State.

Senate Races: Pro-life Carl Paladino, who won the GOP nomination for New York governor, was not the only Tea Party win to put a pro-life candidate on the state ballot. Pro-life and Tea Party-backed senate candidate Joe DioGuardi beat out his fiscal conservative pro-abortion challengers David Malpass and Bruce Blakeman with 41.6 percent percent of the vote. Malpass came in second with 37.6 percent, followed by Blakeman at 20.7 percent.

DioGuardi served as a GOP Congressional representative from 1985-1988 and has been a certified public accountant for 22 years. DioGuardi also had greater name recognition owing to his daughter Kara being a former judge on the popular TV talent show, American Idol. DioGuardi also received an enthusiastic endorsement from New York State Right to Life for his campaign.

His primary challenger, David Malpass, had the star-power of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani behind him, who is also pro-abortion. Malpass, however, tried to focus on the economic problems of the state in the campaign, touting his credentials as an economist. Questions on social issues, such as abortion, nevertheless came up.

Blakeman, the first to enter the race, also tried to dodge the abortion question, but finally told the New York Daily News, "I have an explanation, but I believe it's a woman's right to choose."

DioGuardio will go on to challenge U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who filled the seat after President Barack Obama appointed Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State.

Also: Less vulnerable than Gillibrand is entrenched incumbent pro-abortion U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, a Democrat, who is also running for re-election this year, and has a massive $23 million war chest.  Jay Townsend won the GOP primary for that Senate race over Gary Berntsen, 55 percent to 45 percent. Both candidates are pro-life and said they wanted Roe v. Wade overturned in debates. Townsend's war chest is pitifully small compared with Schumer: just under $11,000 to take down a sitting pro-abortion Senator. Nevertheless, the communications consultant told the Associated Press he was not fazed, and the election would be a "a referendum on his record…not his war chest."

Toss-Up in NY-23: So far no official winner yet in this year's GOP primary race for NY-23, which captured national interest last year as a slew of Tea Party insurgents, fiscal conservative groups, and pro-life and pro-family PACs rallied to Conservative party candidate Doug Hoffman in the special election. In last year's race Hoffman effectively snatched GOP support from pro-abortion, pro-same-sex "marriage," non-conservative Dede Scozzafava, who was nominated by party bosses. Yet Scozzafava stayed on the GOP ballot after suspending her candidacy and endorsed Democrat Bill Owens, who snatched the congressional seat from Hoffman by several thousand votes.

This time around, the pro-life Hoffman is running as a GOP candidate and is contending with Matt Doheny, who has some anti-abortion positions, but believes abortion should remain legal in the first trimester of a woman's pregnancy. However, North Country Radio reports that Doheny maintained he would be an effective pro-life vote in Congress, saying he is "against federal funding for abortions," partial-birth abortion, and will vote "the way [the North Country's right-to-life community] want[s] at the end of the day."

By contrast, sitting U.S. Rep. Bill Owens, a Democrat, is solidly pro-abortion.

Doheny so far is ahead by 612 votes, but more than 2000 absentee ballots still need to be counted. It is possible that a recanvassing effort of the district could help Hoffman (last year's recanvassing gained Hoffman some uncounted votes). Overall, he will need to have a 2 – 1 edge in the absentee ballot count to pull off a win, making it likely that Doheny will be the ultimate winner.

Unlike last time, Hoffman did not have big national pro-life, conservative groups injecting themselves into the race – the main difference being that last year the national health care reform debate was in the media spotlight, and Republicans were looking for every vote they could get.

This time, Tea Party leaders are poised to buck Hoffman for Doheny if he loses the primary. The Syracuse Post Standard reports that Mark Barie, chairman of the Upstate New York Tea Party (UNYTEA), had harsh words for the way Hoffman conducted his campaign, saying it was "unorganized" and "failed to take advantage of Doug's tremendous popularity."

Hoffman will be still running on the Conservative party ballot, and plans to continue campaigning even if he loses the primary. But Barie told North Country Radio that UNYTEA will "throw Doug Hoffman under the bus" if Hoffman's candidacy would result in a win for Owens, which would further entrench the incumbent pro-abortion Democrat in a historically GOP district.

Contact: Peter J. Smith

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: September 16, 2010

False 'Promises' of Destructive Embryonic Stem Cell Research Discussed in Senate Hearing

     

This morning, the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee will hold a hearing titled "The Promise of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research."

Penny Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America, said, "The problem with the 'promise' of destructive embryonic stem cell research is that it is simply a dead end street, especially when compared to the successes seen with adult stem cell research.  Clinical trials using adult stem cells have proven far more successful and have made significant strides in treating Leukemia, brain tumors, breast cancer, anemia, and especially autoimmune diseases.

"To harvest embryos and destroy life as part of a research process that has little hope of living up to promised success is wrong.

"The Obama administration has already said they are exploring all possible avenues to make sure that they can continue funding this destructive research.  President Barack Obama and Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada) are determined now more than ever to push for the destruction of innocent human life for the sake of scientific study that, in fact, has very little 'promise.'"

Contact: Demi Bardsley

Source: Concerned Women for America
Date Published: September 16, 2010

Down to the wire: Pro-life help needed to block taxpayer funding of human embryo research

     

Pro-taxpayer funded embryonic stem cell research supporter Sen. Tom Harkin held a stacked (only 1 opponent allowed) pro-escr hearing today and said this,  according to Bloomberg:

    Congress will intervene if a U.S. court rules that federal funding for research using human embryonic stem cells is illegal, Senator Tom Harkin said….

    Harkin, an Iowa Democrat and lead author of legislation to authorize federal dollars for the research, said he will take steps to work around any court setback for the policy established by President Barack Obama in March 2009.

Yes, that is indeed what Harkin said. Start listening at minute 23 on this video from today's hearing.

This is good, meaning it appears unlikely legislation will be introduced in the Senate to force taxpayer funded escr until the court has made its decision whether Obama's executive order is legal under current law.

One of our side's talking points to congresspersons, which I'm told has resonated, is to let the court finish its work before they act, particularly since a decision on the Administration's request for a stay could come as early as next week. The entire court case is expected to be decided this fall.

Our goal at this point is to get the autumn congressional clock to run out before the pro-escr legislation can be introduced.

Here, tentatively, are the remaining days the US House and Senate will be in session before recessing to campaign for the November elections. In other words, these are how many days we have to fend off this legislation:

September 16
September 21-24 (3-1/2 days)
September 28-30 and October 1 (3-1/2 days)
October 4-8 (4-1/2 days – as of now. News reports indicate Congress may scratch this week)

Don't be discouraged by headlines like this, but don't blow them off either:

    

In actuality, word is there is a debate raging among Democrats on the House side whether to introduce Diana DeGette's pro-escr legislation. Read the 2nd paragraph of the aforementioned article and you'll see the headline is merely DeGette's wishful thinking, her continued bluff:

    Rep. Diana DeGette of Denver said Democratic leaders in the House are looking favorably on the idea of moving a bill quickly to the floor in time for a vote before Congress recesses Oct. 8….

    "The fact that people are running against these hard-right Tea Party candidates really will help them because the vast majority of Americans are for stem-cell research," said DeGette, a longtime champion of the research….

DeGette is talking out of her butt, 'scuse me.  In actuality voter concern for fiscal responsibility has resulted in a stunning reversal in support for taxpayer-funded escr over the past 18 months. Now 57% of voters oppose it.

Your senator and congressperson need to hear from you. Refer to this 2010 ESCR Whip List for Rs and Ds to make your calls. The yellow highlighted names are the people to target 1st. The Democrat highlighted names are listed on the Cook Report as vulnerable.

One other point in our favor. DeGette's legislation in the House, and Specter's companion legislation in the Senate, are comprehensive. They allow funding for clone and kill and even for the creation of chimeras (animal/human combinations). They only ban implanting clones in uteruses.  Even pro-escr legislators in the past have opposed this sort of all-encompassing legislation, as the linked Whip List indicates. (Asterisked names previously opposed this fairly identical legislation, what we call the "Phony Cloning Ban.")

Needless to say, it appears likely the next session of Congress will be less amenable to this legislation, which DeGette knows, which is why she's in a hurry.

Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation Changes Name; Hones Mission

     

The Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation has changed its name to the "Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network".

"This new name better reflects the purpose of our organization -- to continue to develop and update our network to help families protect their loved ones from a very aggressive anti-life agenda taking control of our nation," said Director of Development, Suzanne Vitadamo.

The Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation was originally founded in the year 2000 by the parents and siblings of Terri Schiavo. In that year, the Foundation's mission was working towards protecting the life of Terri Schiavo, a woman with profound cognitive disabilities.

Schiavo relied on a feeding tube to provide her with nutrition and hydration following a significant brain injury in 1990. Her husband sought out Florida's circuit court for the authority to remove her food and water in order to cause her death. His bid was successful and ended in Terri Schiavo's death by marked dehydration on March 31, 2005.

Following Schiavo's death, her surviving family reorganized their Foundation, started in her name, to assist the families and loved-ones of other significantly disabled people. Their goal was to create a network of professionals and volunteers who could provide support as well as resources.

In partnership with attorneys and physicians along with tens of thousands of supporters across the country, the Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network offers counsel, legal guidance and critical support providing the tools for families to protect their loved ones, never forgetting that all life has value and dignity.

The additional work carried out by the Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network is primarily to raise awareness of the challenges facing people who have become vulnerable because of physical and cognitive disabilities, chronic illness and advanced age.

Terri's Network provides valuable education, resources and outreach for families, loved-ones and caregivers of vulnerable citizens. It is the mission of the Network to challenge the notion that some lives are not worth living and to protect the inherent life and liberty interests of those most at risk.

The Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network includes a new logo and new website that can be seen at the same web address: www.terrisfight.org.

Contact: Bobby Schindler

Source: Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network
Date Published: September 16, 2010

Stop Harvesting Organs after ‘Cardiac Death,’ Say MDs

      

A group of doctors have called on the medical community to cease harvesting organs from patients whose hearts have stopped pulsating, saying that doctors are misleading families to believe that the patient has died when in fact their loved one is still alive.

The story was featured Wednesday on the cover of Canada's National Post.

"A longstanding tenet of ethical organ donation [is] that the nonliving donor must be irreversibly dead at the time of donation," explain the eight paediatric intensive care specialists, writing in Pediatric Critical Care Medicine.

The doctors say that the public's "underlying assumption" when they agree to donate organs is that "they are giving permission to have their organs removed after they are dead."

But the authors observe that "death" has been redefined in the last few decades to meet the demand for more organs.  They say organs were originally taken from "cadaveric donors who died in the conventional way, irreversibly losing all electrical and mechanical activity from the heart (circulation) and all brain function, despite medical efforts to save them."

But "this method of organ procurement created a problem for organ transplantation." "If the patient died in the conventional way then, at the time of irreversibility, so did most organs."

The notion of "brain death" was created in 1981 in order to harvest more organs, they say.  Then in 1991 the Pittsburgh Protocol was developed to allow doctors to harvest the organs of adults after a person's heart has stopped for a certain period.

The Protocol involves removing the person from life support for 30 to 60 minutes.  If the patient's heart continues to beat after that time, they are returned to the ICU, but if it stops for a prescribed period (around 2 minutes, though ranging from 75 seconds to 10 minutes depending on the jurisdiction), the organs are harvested.

"No efforts are made to assess the patient's brain function at the time of organ removal," the authors explain.  "The claim is that circulation has irreversibly stopped after 2 mins of observation."

But this ignores the many reports of the "Lazarus phenomenon," where a patient's heart starts again 5 to 10 minutes after CPR is performed.  Such instances suggest that "the heart function and circulation may not be irreversibly stopped in DCD ['Donation after Cardiac Death'] patients at the time of organ procurement."

The authors also point out that doctors' desire to prolong lives through organ transplants can "foster physician and institutional bias" for the cardiac death criteria.

While opposing the notion of "cardiac death", the authors accept organ harvesting following "brain death".  Opponents of "brain death" point out that organs can only be harvested when the organ's functioning continues, meaning that the donor is still showing signs of life.  They say that if the person is truly dead, the unpaired vital organs cannot be transplanted.  In particular, "brain death" has allowed heart transplants, but the heart is only useful if it is still beating in the donor.

Akin to the "Lazarus phenomenon" noted by the authors, there have been numerous instances of patients recovering following a declaration of "brain death".

The National Post interviewed Dr. Ari Joffe, the sole Canadian author of the controversial document, from Stollery Children's Hospital in Calgary.  "I think that we're being less than entirely honest about when the patient is truly dead," he said. "We're not trying to deny the parent the choice to donate … The point we're making is 'what if they're almost dead and we're not sure if they're dead, and it's not at the point of irreversibility yet?'"

Contact: Patrick B. Craine

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: September 15, 2010

2010: Could it become the year of the pro-life woman?

     

Many political observers already were calling this the "year of the pro-life woman," but Tuesday's primary results added two more pro-life female nominees to a record pro-life lineup that could dramatically reshape the nation's abortion debate this November.

Although no pro-life women currently are in the Senate, the primaries now have produced four pro-life female nominees, all Republicans: California's Carly Fiorina, Nevada's Sharron Angle, New Hampshire's Kelly Ayotte and Delaware's Christine O'Donnell. Although O'Donnell begins the general election campaign as an underdog, Fiorina and Angle are running neck-and-neck with their opponents while Ayotte is at least a slight favorite in her race.

The Senate has not had a pro-life female since former Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R.-N.C., lost her re-election bid in 2008. All 17 current female senators are pro-choice, including all four Republicans.

There also could be three new pro-life female governors this fall: in New Mexico, where Republican Susana Martinez is in a tight race; in South Carolina, where Republican Nikki Haley is favored to win; and in Oklahoma, where pro-life Republican Mary Fallin is the favorite to defeat Democrat Jari Askins, who says she supports abortion only in the "hard" cases.

Experts say the nation has never seen so many pro-life women in so many prominent races.

For years, the pro-life community has had a goal of having more female pro-lifers in key political positions, something that would provide a unique voice in the abortion discussion. Although it is often assumed women are more pro-choice than men, polls show that is not the case. A 2010 Gallup poll showed 49 percent of men and 48 percent of women consider themselves pro-life -- a statistical tie. The two sexes have largely paralleled one another on that question in the Gallup poll for the past decade.

"The culture sees women as a natural authority on this issue," Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, told Baptist Press. Her organization seeks to elect pro-life females. "When men speak, people can hear the intellectual argument, but they want to hear if there is female support for the position."

People have a tendency to assume female politicians are pro-choice, she said, but this year "those assumptions are wiped off the table."

Most of the Senate's floor abortion debates have pitted pro-choice women against pro-life men; Sen. Barbara Boxer, D.-Calif., who is pro-choice, sparred several times with former Sen. Rick Santorum, R.-Pa., who is pro-life.

Dannenfelser remembers watching former Rep. Patricia Schroeder, who is pro-choice, debate the late Rep. Henry Hyde, who was pro-life.

"The floor debates were so false, because there were women on one side, men on the other," Dannenfelser said. "At the end of Patricia Schroeder's finger was always Henry Hyde's nose, and she would say, 'How dare you pretend to speak for women. You can't possibly know.' And he could have been right all day.... He and others said to me, 'We've got to have women doing this.'"

Ramesh Ponnuru, a senior editor at National Review, wrote a New York Times op-ed underscoring the importance of having female pro-life voices.

"Kellyanne Conway, a Republican pollster, says that her surveys have found that voters respond more positively to the pro-life message when it comes from women," Ponnuru wrote. "Pro-life women won't be suspected, or credibly accused, of opposing abortion because they want to keep women in their place; they can therefore talk about the issue less defensively than male pro-lifers sometimes do."

Following is a quick summary of the four Senate races involving pro-life women:

-- California: Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, is trying to unseat Boxer, an incumbent who is seeking her fourth term. The race is considered a toss-up.

-- Nevada: Angle, a former member of the state assembly, is running against Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has a mixed record on abortion and has voted with the pro-choice community on several significant bills. The race is considered a toss-up.

-- New Hampshire: Ayotte, the former state attorney general, is running against pro-choice Democrat Paul Hodes to fill an open seat. Ayotte is slightly ahead in several polls.

-- Delaware: O'Donnell, a former marketing and media consultant, is running against pro-choice Democrat Chris Coons to fill the open seat vacated by Vice President Joseph Biden. Coons is the favorite.

Contact: Michael Foust

Source: Baptist Press
Date Published: September 15, 2010

Judge Betrays Public Safety, Allows Unsafe Abortion Mill to Reopen

      

Yesterday, a Louisiana judge lifted the emergency suspension order issued by the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, (LDHH), last week allowing an abortion mill to reopen that was deemed to pose an immediate threat to the health, welfare, or safety of patients.

State Judge District Judge R. Michael Caldwell ruled that the Hope Medical Group for Women, a seedy abortion mill in Shreveport, can reopen for business even though it has not fixed the problems that made it a danger to the public. In doing so Caldwell chose to disregard a new state law that gives the LDHH the authority to close unsafe clinics on an emergency basis.

The abortion mill is opened today and taking patients.

Bruce D. Greenstein, Health Secretary for the State of Louisiana told reporters that he is disappointed by the ruling. He issued the following statement blasting the ruling:

The findings of the Department's survey included several egregious safety violations and at least one resulting in immediate jeopardy. The Department's conclusion was that women visiting this facility would have their health and safety compromised.
So, today, we are very disappointed that the judge would put the special interests of this abortion facility over the health and safety of women. This order was signed without any notification to us and without any effort to hear from medical professionals about the risk to the facility's clients posed by the violations our inspectors found. We will continue to fight to protect Louisiana residents and to shut down activities that put women in harm.

A September 1, 2010, press release issued by the LDHH stated the following concerning the conditions at the Hope Medical Group abortion clinic:

Several violations were noted during a recent investigation of the facility, including the facility's failure to ensure that a physician performed and documented a physical exam on each patient prior to a procedure, failure to properly monitor vital signs of patients under anesthesia, failure to have proper procedures in place for administering anesthesia and failure to have properly trained professionals performing certain medical procedures related to the administering of anesthesia.
"Judge Caldwell showed a gross disregard not only for the law, but for the lives and safety of women by allowing this abortion clinic to reopen under conditions that the Health department has already said presents an immediate health and safety threat," said Operation Rescue spokesperson Cheryl Sullenger. "This ruling is a betrayal of his oath to uphold the laws of Louisiana."

A hearing is scheduled for September 21, when a decision will be made on whether to uphold the clinic's suspension.

Contact: Troy Newman

Source: Operation Rescue
Date Published: September 15, 2010

Massachusetts Abortionist Sentenced to Jail for Abortion Death

      

Abortionist Rapin Osathanondh, 67, was sentenced to six months in jail today after pleading guilty yesterday to one count of manslaughter in the 2007 abortion-related death of 22-year old Laura Hope Smith.

Osathanondh will serve three months in a county jail after which he will likely be paroled. He must then serve nine months under home confinement with an electronic monitoring device, and three years of probation. In addition, Osathanondh is barred from practicing medicine and teaching, according to a plea agreement that was reached after a day of in-court negotiations.

Also settled was the civil suit filed by Smith's mother, Eileen Smith. Osathanondh agreed to pay the family a substantial sum of money as a punitive measure.

"Today, justice was done," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman, who helped advise Eileen Smith after her daughter's death and encouraged her to file complaints with the medical board and prosecutors. "Our condolences and prayers continue to be with the Smith family, who showed such an amazing strength of faith and courage throughout this ordeal."

"This conviction is an object lesson to prosecutors across the nation that abortionists can and should be held criminally accountable to the law for the sake of justice and public safety. There are abortionists out there right now who are endangering the lives of women who should be joining Osathanondh in jail. We hope today's sentencing will encourage prosecutors to file criminal charges against abortionists who are breaking the law. Leaving these kinds of cases to the medical boards and civil courts is simply not good enough."

Osathanondh admitted in court to behaving in a wanton and reckless manner that endangered Smith's life. He failed to properly monitor Smith while under anesthesia and did not call for emergency assistance in a timely manner when she suffered complications. He was also found to have lied to cover up his negligence by claiming he administered emergency care that was never done.

"Osathanondh lawyers need to stop saying that he gave Laura 'good care' because he has now admitted in court that he did not, and she died as a result. It doesn't get any worse than that," said Newman.

Earlier, Osathanondh surrendered his medical license and closed his two abortion offices. A sign from his Hyannis office where Laura died now hangs as a memento at Operation Rescue's national headquarters in Wichita, Kansas.

Contact: Troy Newman

Source: Operation Rescue
Date Published: September 14, 2010

Berwick Pretends to Change Spots on Rationing

      

It is very clear that the Obama Administration knows its approach to health care is unpopular.  Thus, the short term Medicare head, Donald Berwick–who Obama gave a recess appointment to so he wouldn't have to testify in a Senate Committee about his rationing views–pretended that we can expand coverage, while not raising prices and not cutting care in a speech yesterday.  What a joke.  From the Associated Press story:

The nation's health system can't be transformed by rationing medical care, President Barack Obama's new Medicare chief said Monday in his first major speech.  Dr. Donald Berwick's appointment earlier this summer without Senate confirmation was contentious because some Republicans accused him of being willing to deny care to save on costs. Since then, the administration has kept Berwick out of the limelight, turning the otherwise well-known medical innovation guru into something of a mystery man in Washington.

Berwick broke his silence Monday, telling an audience of health insurance industry representatives that pushing back against unsustainable costs cannot and should not involve "withholding from us, or our neighbors, any care that helps" or "harming a hair on any patient's head." Berwick also said he doesn't think federal bureaucrats have all the answers when it comes to remaking the system. "A massive, topdown, national project is not the way to do this," he told a conference hosted by America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry lobbying group.

"Some Republicans accused."  No, he said it himself.   As the story points out:

Republicans have seized on previous comments from Berwick, such as this one from an interview last year: "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care – the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. And right now, we are doing it blindly." They say that raises questions about what Berwick really thinks of rationing. Berwick's supporters counter that rationing already takes place, through actions of insurance companies, and all he wants is to bring the medical decision-making process into the open.

That's not the same thing at all as "not harming any hair on a patient's head," and in fact, endorses explicit rationing. Besides, Berwick is also on record as applauding NICE and the NHS's top-down, rationed care approach, as I pointed out at this SHS post, in which he extolled the NHS for "planning supply," (e.g. rationing) and "redistributing wealth," and also stated:

'I am a romantic about the NHS; I love it,' and 'the NHS is not just a national treasure, it is a global treasure.'"

It's melting down!  People are denied important medical services.  Hospitals are filthy.  People are left waiting in ambulances before going into the ER.  Cancer patients and others are denied efficacious treatment based on QALY quality of life bean counter analyses. (Just do a search on this site under "SHS Meltdown" to see scores of stories I have carried here.) 

Berwick can pretend to change his spots.  But we know what he really believes.  And next year, when his temporary appointment ends, he will most likely be out of a job.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith

Source: Secondhand Smoke
Date Published: September 14, 2010