Obama--in above his pay grade

He's running for President, and the question of when a human life begins is "above his paygrade." Read this great op ed from today's Boston Herald:

‘Pay grade’ unartful dodge
Smart money shouldn’t be on Obama

By Michael Graham Wednesday, August 20, 2008

“Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade.” - Sen. Barack Obama, on “When does a baby get human rights?”

In 1948, they had Harry Truman and “The buck stops here!”

In 2008, they’ve got Barack Obama and it’s “above my pay grade.”

This is definitely not your grandfather’s Democratic Party.
Certainly not mine. My grandfather, Ray Futrell, was a lifelong FDR Democrat, the kind who would proudly rather vote for a wife-beating, syphilitic drunkard than for a Republican. In fact, he would find the previous sentence entirely redundant.

My grandfather helped push Patton’s tanks across Europe, and one reason for my grandfather’s unshakable party loyalty was his belief that Harry Truman saved his life by dropping the A-bombs on Japan.

If Truman hadn’t made the call - if he’d demurred that such a profound life-and-death decision was “above my pay grade” - my grandfather believed that he and untold thousands of Americans would have died invading the Japanese mainland.

I miss my grandfather, but I’m also glad that he isn’t around to witness the tragic descent of his beloved Democratic Party.

Watching Obama with the Rev. Rick Warren this past weekend, answering questions - or, more accurately, not answering - about his most basic beliefs was simply embarrassing.

Obama supports partial-birth abortion and voted against the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act.” When he got the invitation to an evangelical forum hosted by a pro-life pastor, he had to know that issues regarding life and the law were going to come up.

And his prepared answer to the most fundamental question about public policy and abortion (“is the fetus a human being?”) is that it’s “above my pay grade?”

There are certain sentences that should never appear on the lips of the Leader of the Free World. “That Vladimir Putin, what a great guy!” is one of them. “I did not have sex with that woman” is another.

But on the very top of the list of statements about our nation’s laws that should never be spoken by a guy whose job it is to sit next to the Big, Red Button is “That’s above my pay grade.”

With all due respect, Sen. Obama, being president is above your pay grade. And the voters are starting to figure that out.

Politico.com reported yesterday that 75 percent of Americans believe that John McCain can “handle the job of commander in chief.” Only 50 percent feel the same about Obama. A whopping 42 percent told pollsters they believe Obama is simply not up to the task.

Who can blame them? Obama wants the difficult duty of taking on Iran and North Korea, but he can’t even handle Rick Warren or the Clintons - the latter having commandeered Obama’s own convention in Denver next week and forced their way into a pro-Hillary roll call. Having been routed by the Clintonistas, Obama wants a chance to lead against al-Qaeda? Please.

Leaders don’t pass tough questions to the next “pay grade.” They don’t need five minutes to answer yes-or-no questions about the surge or Russia’s invasion of a democratic neighbor.

Politicians flip-flop on taxes and FISA and the Second Amendment to meet the political needs of the moment. They try to explain away the votes they’ve already cast, like Obama’s extreme pro-abortion voting record. Or they courageously cast 130 non-votes of “present” in the Illinois legislature and pass the buck that way.

That’s not leadership, that’s politics. And Barack Obama is 100 percent pure politician.

He is certainly no Harry Truman.

When Does Life Begin Mr. Obama?

Good clip of Presidential candidates answering the question, "At what point is a baby entitled to human rights?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mem_xEcZHVY

Obama on Born-Alive Abortions

Worthy of a read, apparently Obama doesn't think federal abortion laws exist. Ready to be President? Eek.

Obama Facing Attacks From All Sides Over Abortion Record
By RUSSELL BERMAN, Staff Reporter of the Sun August 18, 2008
http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-facing-attacks-from-all-sides-over-abortion/84059/

WASHINGTON — When it comes to his abortion record in Illinois, Senator Obama is taking flak from all sides.

Senators McCaina and Obama come together with Saddleback Church pastor Rick Warren in the first joint appearance of candidates Obama and McCain in the 2008 presidential campaign at the Saddleback Civil Forum on Leadership and Compassion on August 16 in Lake Forest, Calif. First, Senator Clinton accused him of lacking political backbone in voting "present" on a bill that, according to abortion rights advocates, undermined the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade. Now abortion foes are targeting him from the right over the same question: They say his opposition to legislation aimed at protecting infants born alive after a botched abortion demonstrates his extremism on the flash point social issue.

The conservative attacks have intensified in recent days, with opponents of legalized abortion sending out missives against Mr. Obama and a YouTube video circulating that casts his position on abortion as more extreme than even the most stalwart supporters of a woman's right to choose, including Mrs. Clinton and Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts.

The presumptive Democratic nominee responded sharply in an interview Saturday night with the Christian Broadcast Network, saying anti-abortion groups were "lying" about his record.

"They have not been telling the truth," Mr. Obama said. "And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying."
He added that it was "ridiculous" to suggest he had ever supported withholding lifesaving treatment for an infant. "It defies common sense and it defies imagination, and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive," he said in the CBN interview.

At issue is the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, a bill in the Illinois state Senate that sought to protect against bungled abortions by requiring that a fetus that survived an abortion be defined as a person. Fearing that the legislation could be interpreted more broadly to protect fetuses that were not yet viable — thus threatening Roe v. Wade, abortion rights advocates pushed for an amendment that explicitly limited the scope of the bill to infants "born alive."

"Nothing in this section," the added sentence reads, "shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this section." A federal version with that added clause passed Congress unanimously in 2002, with the support of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Kennedy, among others. Mr. Obama said in 2004 and again on Saturday that he would have supported the federal version.

During the Democratic primary, Mrs. Clinton's campaign criticized Mr. Obama for voting "present" — instead of "no" — on the "Born Alive" bill in Illinois, which did not contain a provision protecting the Roe v. Wade decision.

The dispute flared again last week when a leading opponent of legalized abortion, the National Right to Life Committee, posted records from the Illinois Legislature showing that Mr. Obama, while chairman of a Senate committee, in 2003, voted against a "Born Alive" bill that contained nearly identical language to the federal bill that passed unanimously, including the provision limiting its scope.

The group says the documents prove Mr. Obama misrepresented his record.

Indeed, Mr. Obama appeared to misstate his position in the CBN interview on Saturday when he said the federal version he supported "was not the bill that was presented at the state level."

His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate, and a spokesman, Hari Sevugan, said the senator and other lawmakers had concerns that even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law. Those concerns did not exist for the federal bill, because there is no federal abortion law.

In 2005, the campaign noted, a "Born Alive" bill passed the Illinois Legislature after another clause had been added that explicitly stated that the legislation would have no effect on existing state abortion laws.
Told of the campaign's explanation, the legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, Douglas Johnson, was dubious. "These are newly manufactured and highly implausible excuses," he said. "There is no way that the bill would have had any effect on any method of abortion." Mr. Johnson said the version Mr. Obama voted down clearly applied only to fetuses that emerged from the womb alive.

In addition to the outrage from abortion opponents, a five-minute YouTube video now making the rounds highlights Mr. Obama's opposition to the legislation. The clip, which has been viewed more than 230,000 times, features a testimonial from Jill Stanek, a former nurse who spearheaded the push for the bill in Illinois after witnessing a live infant discarded and left to die at the hospital where she worked. Ms. Stanek appeared at the White House ceremony in 2002 when President Bush signed the federal bill into law.

The McCain campaign yesterday added its voice to the criticism of Mr. Obama. "Americans can differ on the issue of abortion, but Senator Obama's extreme record on this issue and his willingness to misrepresent that record should concern any American who believes that we should be working towards a society where there are fewer abortions, not more," a spokesman for Senator McCain, Brian Rogers, said.

Sorry ...

I apologize for being MIA lately, the House has been really busy trying to finalize some legislative business before the month long "recess" where the Members aren't in DC to vote. As soon as we're out next week, I'll be catching up on lost time ... thanks for your patience!

Noteworthy Commentary

I just stumbled upon this great article written by Joseph Farah at WorldNetDaily. Thought it was worthy of a link.

Members on the House Floor

I mentioned in the previous post that on Wednesday night, Members of the House got together for a Special Order Hour devoted to the topic of federal de-funding of the abortion industry. I encourage you to watch some of their speeches--most are one to two minutes in length--especially if you didn't know that your taxpayer dollars are subsidizing the abortion industry.

The following are the YouTube links (thanks to Autumn for posting!!):

Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) and part 2 and part 3
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and part 2
Rep. Hensarling and Rep. Bachmann Colloquy
Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA)
Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA)
Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN)
Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ)
Rep. Bill Sali (R-ID)
Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH)
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH)
Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO)

Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Providers and the House

Last night, Members of the House of Representatives went to the House floor during a "Special Order Hour" (time given to Members who have reserved it to discuss a specific issue). The Republican Special Order was granted to Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) who chose to highlight the depravity of the abortion industry--and how our taxpayer dollars support it. Pro-life Members of the House joined Rep. Smith to discuss how the federal government needs to stop funding the abortion industry. Specifically, the tax-exempt "non-profit" organization Planned Parenthood who has raked in profits of over $700 million through the years. (Note: Due to the Hyde Amendment, federal funds can not directly pay for an abortion, but it doesn't prohibit the federal government from giving hundreds of millions of dollars to organizations like Planned Parenthood every year for "family planning purposes"--thus supplementing their already inflated funds.)

I wanted to link to a great article today that highlights one of the real pro-life fighters in the U.S. House today. She is a woman of great integrity, and fights for freedom daily. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is only a freshman Member, but she's effectively stood up against Democrats ten times her senior--and done it with grace. This article highlights much of Ms. Bachmann's House floor speech from last night, where she called Planned Parenthood the "Wal-Mart of big abortion."

See previous posts for more on Planned Parenthood and their latest profits ...

Mr. Wallis Needs to Come to Washington

Most people know that the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision legalized abortion and that the country is more-or-less split in the abortion debate. (Many polls show that the American public is still hovering around 50/50—with plenty of middle ground positions to discuss)[1],[2]. What people are less clear about is what place the pro-life debate has in modern America, and in politics.

Being pro-life isn’t just about believing that abortion is wrong. I know pro-lifers who cover the spectrum—from those who believe that oral contraceptives are just as harmful as the abortion pill, to those who believe that abortions in the case of rape and incest are acceptable.

What many people don’t know is that the battle between pro-lifers and pro-aborts doesn’t just exist during election years or when it’s politically “convenient.” There are many who work around the clock to advance the cause of life, or advance the cause of “choice.”

What people don’t see, including Jim Wallis (evangelical leader and editor of Sojourners) who was interviewed in a recent Newsweek article, is that there are people fighting on these issues day in and day out. Unfortunately, Mr. Wallis’ misdirected opinion would lead most to believe that the debate consists of name calling only—“baby killer” … “misogynist”. Side note: I’ve never thought to call someone a baby killer.

The Newsweek article focuses on how the “reproductive rights” debate should be restructured to actually decrease the number of abortions in America—a goal that everyone can get on board with. Immediately, I take offense with the term “reproductive rights”—as what they really mean is the right to abortion. We already have reproductive rights in this country. We, as American women and men, have the freedom to maintain full control over our reproductive future. Need I list the things that, in a ten minute drive to your nearest CVS, you can obtain to prevent pregnancy if you so choose? I think that you’re all smart enough to get that much. Contrast our “reproductive rights” with those of women in China or Ghana and you’ll realize that we are blessed to be free to choose whether or not we have sex in this country. What they are talking about here is the right to obtain an abortion.

The article claims that “NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood (PPFA), both committed to supporting a woman’s right to choose, say they’re just as committed to preventing unintended pregnancies in the first place.” As someone who receives mailers from both of these organizations (for opposition research), I can tell you that this is pure rhetoric. The goal of NARAL and PPFA is to expand “reproductive rights” to make abortion, cheap, easy and common. Lest we forget that abortion is lucrative for PPFA—they reported $1.017 billion in income in the last fiscal year. As much as PPFA might claim to be in the business of reducing unintended pregnancies by increasing the sale of birth control, their annual report shows that while dispensing 230,000 more contraceptives than the previous year, they performed approximately 25,000 more abortions than the previous year.

The article goes on to mention pro-lifers (namely pro-life Democrats) who support “legislation that targets the reduction of unintended pregnancies”—notice, they do not say “reduction of abortions”, because they can’t support a platform which would cost them essential campaign financing from PPFA and NARAL. The “pro-life” legislation that NARAL’s policy director refers to would actually send additional taxpayer funds to organizations such as Planned Parenthood. I would argue that you can’t reduce abortions by funding abortionists.

David O’Steen, of the National Right to Life, refers to real pro-life legislation that is aimed at directly decreasing the number of abortions in America. The legislation that he refers to would require women to have an ultrasound prior to an abortion—a method proven to change the heart and mind of the expectant mother. The legislation that he’s referring to is H.R. 5032, the Ultrasound Informed Consent Act (sponsored by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH). The bill would amend the Public Health Service Act to require that, prior to the woman making the final decision to have an abortion, the abortion provider perform an obstetric ultrasound on the pregnant woman, explain the results, display the ultrasound images so the woman may view them, and provide a medical description of the ultrasound images, including the dimensions of the baby and the presence of external members and internal organs, if present and viewable. The bill includes a medical emergency exception and the bill prohibits penalizing the physician or the woman if the woman refuses to look at the images.

If as Mr. Wallis suggests, being pro-life crosses party boundaries and we can all agree on reducing abortions, then why is there only one Democrat cosponsor of this legislation among the total 65 cosponsors?

Now, I’ve gotten myself off on a tangent. Circling back to Mr. Wallis’ interview, I take even greater offense to his response to the first question posed to him. “This divisive battle occurs every four years and never in between. Nothing changes, people win or lose elections and then it goes away. The debate is narrow, just pro-choice and pro-life. Right now we’re shouting at each other.”

Mr. Wallis: What rock are you living under? Have you forgotten about the thousands of people who volunteer daily and give their time and money to support crisis pregnancy centers, or those who adopt babies who were scheduled for abortion? Have you forgotten about the student organizations that fight on college campuses year round to spread the message of life? Have you forgotten about the people who fight tirelessly on both sides of the debate at organizations like National Right to Life, Family Research Council, PPFA, Marie Stopes International, and IPAS? Have you forgotten about the Congressional staffers in D.C. who remain vigilant everyday to ensure that the sanctity of life isn’t undermined by omissions or harmful language in legislation before Congress? I guess he didn't consider them.

No matter how much Mr. Wallis believes that pro-aborts can “hold to their pro-choice principles and still commit to abortion reduction”, there will always be a fundamental divide between those who believe that killing an unborn child is a legit choice and those who do not. He goes on to complain that politicians aren’t talking about “reducing abortions”, and he’s absolutely right. Democrats don’t talk about reducing abortions, they talk about “reducing unintended pregnancies.” Read: more birth control—don’t address abortion. Rep. Jordan, and the 64 Republican cosponsors of H.R. 5032 are talking about reducing abortions—but Mr. Wallis must not be talking about them. Maybe he just doesn’t know about them.

Finally, I would question any “evangelical leader”—as Mr. Wallis claims to be—who doesn’t support taking away a woman’s right to choose. Mr. Wallis, we aren't talking about a woman’s right to take contraceptives, to receive family planning, or to give her baby up for adoption. We are talking about a woman’s right to choose to end the life of her child.

[1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/27628/Public-Divided-ProChoice-vs-ProLife-Abortion-Labels.aspx
[2] http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

"Wicked Witches of the West"

This weekend, I decided to visit the Body Worlds 2 exhibit at the Maryland Science Center in Baltimore. The exhibit uses a scientific preservation method, known as plastination, to preserve human bodies for display. I had seen the exhibit before, but wanted to bring others with me to see it again. For those of you who have seen the exhibit, it's not for everyone. If you're squeamish or don't like "blood and guts", I would suggest that you not go.

There is one room of the exhibit that I found difficult to see the first time I visited and equally as hard to see the second time. A disclaimer hangs in front of the entrance to the area of the exhibit which holds preserved unborn babies reading "these infants died of natural causes." Upon entering the area--separated from the rest of the exhibit by black curtains--babies aged one week to eight months are preserved to show the anatomy of an unborn infant. In the center of the room is a table with several small glass tubes holding embryos aged one week through eight weeks--showing the miraculous development that takes place in the first eight weeks in the mother's womb.

As I stood there, looking at the clearly defined hands and feet of the eight week old embryo, it struck me that at this stage, a woman can take a pill to destroy this life. During this thought, a woman approached the other side of the display.

"I bet the pro-lifers just love this." In a high-pitched mocking tone she continued, "Look! You can see the little hands and the little feet. God, they must love this!" Her husband who stood beside her replied, "You sound like the Wicked Witch of the West," to which she quickly snapped back, "Pro-lifers are the Wicked Witches of the West."

I knew that it was not the time, nor the place, for me to engage this woman in a dialogue--especially since she had made our point for us. This baby had hands and feet--and a brain, eyes, a liver, and a beating heart. So, what was her argument? I'm not sure that she knew.

Obama's hypocrisy

This blog is not intended to be political in nature, but it's hard to seperate politics from my everyday life. That being said, I'd like to highlight an ad that you may be seeing on TV in the coming days.

The Family Research Council, who I work with often in my day job, is a nonprofit organization "dedicated to the promotion of marriage and family and the sanctity of human life in national policy." They recently released an ad, featuring Tony Perkins, their President, with his infant son Sam (I'm partial to the name). The ad highlights a speech given a few weeks back on Father's Day where Senator Obama claimed that “We need fathers to recognize that responsibility doesn’t just end at conception.” (Senator Obama was speaking about the problem of absent black fathers.) Mr. Perkins asks the question in the ad: If Senator Obama claims that fatherhood begins at conception, then when is a baby considered his child? Senator Obama has no problem with abortion--ending pregnancy--and destroying the "products of conception." But then he turns around and tells men that they become fathers at conception. Which is it Mr. Obama? When did your little girls become your daughters?

For more on the story, check out this New York Times blog post.

Planned Parenthood Hits Suburbia--a MUST read!

Nothing says it better than the first three words in this Wall Street Journal article on Planned Parenthood--"flush with cash." That's right, Planned Parenthood (PPFA) reported a record $1 billion in annual revenue in its most recent financial report--with approximately a third of that money coming directly from the federal and state governments. PPFA finished the year with a surplus of $115 million. Interestingly, the federal government gave $337 million in taxpayer dollars to PPFA last year. Don't taxpayers have a problem with their tax dollars going to line the coffers of an organization which ends the year with surplus? (forget the fact that they are the number one abortion provider in the nation ...)

Furthermore, according to the article, PPFA is going to start using their surplus funds to "green" their clinics ... which leads to my next question, are American taxpayer dollars going to start paying for sustainable bamboo flooring in abortion clinics?

By putting new PPFA clinics into malls and wealthy suburbs, PPFA plans on becoming the "Lens Crafters" of the "family planning" industry. Sarah Stoesz, a head of operations for PPFA, believes that it's important to be in "places where women are already doing their grocery shopping, picking up their Starbucks, living their daily lives." For anyone who has heard the complaints lately from many in the African American community--calling PPFA a racist organization which targets poor black women--this seems a genius media ploy. Look! We are moving into suburban communities now!! Rest assured that PPFA is targeting the middle-class and wealthy just as much as the poor!!

Just a few more notes about the article: I would advise you all against going to the "crass-and-sassy Web campaign aimed at teens"--as it's softcore porn (http://www.teenwire.com/). I can only pray that we don't allow our sex education to get so out of control that sex educators tell my sweet nephew to visit this website when he's in fifth grade. I wouldn't want him looking at it when he's fifty. Speaking of my nephew, the president of PPFA's Massachusetts affiliate--where said nephew lives--can't wait to "green" up her clinic by building with "recycled and eco-friendly material." While I applaud her effort to save the planet, maybe she should stop commiting infantacide first.

Abortion clinic operator is charged in felonies by San Diego County D.A.

In my time debating pro-aborts, I've often heard the argument that if we would just remove regulations on abortion and provide adequate government funding for abortion, rates of maternal mortality would decrease. Interestingly--as a side point--The World Mortality Report: 2005 reveals that in countries where abortions are performed most freely, we see the highest rates of maternal death. That fact aside, this sad story was in the LA Times on Saturday, highlighting a woman who was performing abortions on women without a medical license. Preying on women in the Hispanic community, the woman performed abortions and prescribed drugs to pregnant women.

In the state of California--where abortions are funded by the state government through Medi-Cal. Kinda shoots their argument outta the water, no?

The Greener Side of Me

For those who know me well, know that I'm definitely a bit "green"--in other words, I attempt to be conscious of the earth around me. I attempt to eat as organically as possible and I pay attention to how my actions affect the environment. That being said, I know my priorities. Recently, a friend of mine shared a t-shirt concept with me that she had stumbled upon. I thought that it warranted a post here.


Yes, I know that you can do both--save trees and babies. But I still think that it's witty and clever. Hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

Another Survivor

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal printed an op-ed on Gianna Jessen--a woman who is a 31-year old survivor of a saline abortion--and the candidacy of Obama. For those of you rolling your eyes thinking, Sarah, who we elect for President should be based on more than his/her position on abortion, I ask you to read this op-ed.

But you're right, who we elect for President is about far more than his/her position on abortion. It's about extremism and the fundamental principles that guide his/her decisions. Read this op-ed, and let me know if you still want Sen. Obama leading this country into the future.

Baby Survives Abortion (and will live to learn what his parents tried to do to him)

Please brace yourself for this post--as I'm having trouble writing about it.

News out of the U.K. yesterday tells the story of a little boy who survived the most barbaric practice still legal in many western countries--a medical abortion.

Finley Crampton, a wide-eyed pudgy baby boy, survived a medical abortion procedure, which his Mother and Father procured from a hospital, when he was only eight weeks in utero.

I'm shocked into silence when I read this statement from Finley's Mother, "Deciding to terminate at eight weeks was just utterly horrible, but I couldn't cope with the anguish of losing another baby." Ironically, she was willing to cope with the anguish of killing her unborn child, but not with the thought of allowing him to die of natural causes, should that be his destiny.

The Mother goes on in her story to say, "At first I was angry that this was happening to us, that the procedure had failed. I wrote to the hospital, I couldn't believe that they had let me down like this. They wrote back and apologized and said it was very rare." Interestingly, I think that a woman who puts out a hit on her husband--and found out that it was unsuccessful--would have a similar response.

Finally, Finley's Mother comments on his appearance saying, "I just couldn't believe that this child had got through it all and looked so perfect." All that I can say is that I hope and pray that one day, when Finley is old enough to understand what his parents attempted, that he won't be angry or hurt--but have the strength and heart to help other victims of this barbaric procedure that some in America hold as such a fundamental right.

Recent Advances in Adult Stem Cell Research (and other alternatives to embryonic stem cell research)

In light of tomorrow’s hearing on Stem Cells in the Health Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, I wanted to provide you with some good news in the way of research—just from this past month. Thanks to our friends at the U.S.C.C.B for compiling the research!

OVERALL SUCCESS
“Stem cells mature,” Beacon Journal (Akron, Ohio), April 6, 2008, www.ohio.com/news/17332904.html

STEM CELL SOURCES
“Stem cell therapy in rats improves Parkinson’s: study,” Thomson Financial News, April 7, 2008, www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2008/04/07/afx4859467.html

CORD BLOOD
“Valuable blood discarded,” Beacon Journal (Akron, Ohio), April 6, 2008, www.ohio.com/news/17332894.html

BONE/CARTILAGE
“Skin cell jab to cure tennis elbow by regenerating damaged tendon,” (London) Daily Mail, April 7, 2008, www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=557897&in_page_id=1774

EYE/EAR
“Treatment helps child see,” The Examiner (Missouri), April 20, 2008, www.examiner.com/a-1350610~Treatment_helps_child_see.html

HEART
“Final Data From the Bioheart Seismic Trial Suggest Safety, Efficacy of Autologous Stem-Cell Therapy for Treating Congestive Heart Failure,” PRNewswire, April 1, 2008, www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=ind_focus.story&STORY=/www/story/04-01-2008/0004784459&EDATE=TUE+Apr+01+2008,+02:49+PM

“When a needle in the heart can help,” Houston Chronicle, April 4, 2008, www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5676836.html

“Heart Derived Stem Cells Develop Into Heart Muscle,” ScienceDaily, April 23, 2008, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080423101822.htm

SICKLE-CELL ANEMIA
“Promising quest for cure,” Baltimore Sun, March 30, 2008, www.baltimoresun.com/news/health/bal-te.sickle30mar30,0,6112155.story

Bella

According to LifeSiteNews, Bella (one of my favorite movies) is the number one pre-sale romantic movie on Amazon.com. The mainstream film, which is available on DVD now, earned the “People’s Choice Award” at the 2006 Toronto International Film Festival—even with its pro-life themes. Producer Leo Severino said of the sales, “We beat Pride & Prejudice and Atonement.”

The handsome star of the movie, Eduardo Verastegui (aye papi), will be on Fox’s Neil Cavuto either tonight or tomorrow, as well as on the O’Reilly Factor. Tomorrow morning, Eduardo will also appear on the Today show at 10 a.m. I encourage you to watch his interviews—he’s not just great to look at, but a great voice for the pro-life movement.

AND, if you haven’t seen the film, go rent it now!!

Senator McCain on Judges

During a visit to Wake Forest University yesterday, Presidential nominee Senator John McCain gave a speech on the disarray of the U.S. courts and about the kinds of judges that he pledges to nominate, should he win the Presidency.

The status of the Supreme Court, and the status of the courts around the country, is of critical importance to the pro-life movement—and vital to the selection of our next Commander-in-Chief.

Currently, there are six Supreme Court judges over the age of 70. With lifetime appointments, there may be an opportunity to replace some of them in the next administration—likely two or three.

As it currently stands, the Supreme Court is relatively split with four conservative judges, four liberal judges, and one judge who leans toward the center. Of the six judges over the age of 70—likely to retire—four of them are liberal judges.

Why is this important? Our next President may have the opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court Justice to sway the bench—making it more liberal or conservative. As an opponent of Roe vs. Wade, this is an important opportunity.

During his speech at Wake Forest, Senator McCain expressed his intent to nominate “strict constructionists” (strict constructionists favor a strict reading of the Constitution, especially of the elastic clause, in order to limit the powers of the central government.) He told the crown that, “...the duties and boundaries of the Constitution are not just a set of helpful suggestions. They are not just guidelines to be observed when it’s convenient and loosely interpreted when it isn’t.”

Frustrated by the “presumption” of federal judges to resolve policy questions “that should be decided democratically,” McCain pledged to nominate judges in the mold of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts.

He went on to say, “In federal and state courts … there are still men and women who understand the proper role of our judiciary. And I intend to find them and promote them … My nominees will understand that there are clear limits to the scope of judicial power.”

In the case of Roe vs. Wade, the court has already sided in the favor of liberals. The hopes of many liberals is to continue the tradition of nominating judicial activists to legislative from the bench on social issues that have the power to change America, and not for the better. It was done in 1973, when most laws against abortion in the United States were found to violate a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Story of Jill Stanek

I had the honor of meeting Jill this week, and having an opportunity to talk to her about her experiences. Her blog, http://www.jillstanek.com/, is the premier pro-life blog--getting thousands of hits a day. I encourage you to visit her blog daily, and read her updates. It will change your view on the issue, whichever side you happen to fall on. This is Jill's bio:

"I was a registered nurse in the Labor & Delivery Department at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, in 1999 when discovering babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in the soiled utility room.

"Went public when hospital leaders said that they would not stop. The disclosure immediately grabbed the attention of legislators and media.

"Was asked to testify before a U.S. House committee in 2000 and 2001 for the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.

"Was fired in August 2001 by Christ Hospital for reasons related to my public outspokenness to its abortion practices.

"Was invited by President George W. Bush for his August 2002 signing of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which will protect live aborted children from infanticide. Was also asked to his signing of invitation when he signed the signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban in November 2003, which will protect partially delivered babies from being killed by abortion (if the Supreme Court lets it stand).

"Was named by World Magazine in January 2003 as one of 30 prominent pro-life leaders over the past 30 years, an honor more deserved by innumerable others, but appreciated nonetheless."

Reasons to Defund Planned Parenthood

Brit Hume on Planned Parenthood racism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d46Je-zhiQ&eurl=http://jillstanek.com/