January 18, 2006
Abortion to Die by 1,000 Cuts After Today's Supreme Court Ruling
By an astounding 9-0 ruling, the probable last major Supreme Court ruling written by outgoing Supreme Court justice, Sandra Day O'Connor, and affirmed by her eight fellow justices, handed the abortion industry and their radical supporters a defeat, one of many future defeats to be handed down by the Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito Court with the help of Justice Kennedy and any future Republican court nominees.
Today, the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously in the Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood case that the New Hampshire law which required that parents be informed before their teenage daughers' unborn babies could be killed, a position supported by the overwhelming majority of the American people. Indeed, the United States House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a related measure numerous times reflecting the 80% support by the American people.
Last April, the "Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act" -- authored by Florida Republican Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen -- passed by the huge margin of 270-157, with 54 Democrats voting for this commonsense bill. When the Senate finally passes this bill (named the "Child Custody Protection Act" by Nevada Republican Senator John Ensign,) it will be a violation of federal law to transport a minor girl across state lines for the purpose of procuring an abortion, if this is done to evade a parental notification or parental consent bill, like the New Hampshire law, that is in effect in the girl's home state.
What the Supreme Court actually did today is to force the First United States Court of Appeals in Boston to revisit the New Hampshire law which they struck down in its entirety. The justices said that the circuit court went too far by permanently striking down the entire law which requires a parent be told before a daughter ends her pregnancy.
But this is just the beginning. It is anticipated that the Supreme Court will announce this Friday that it will consider the ban on the gruesome abortion procedure called partial-birth abortion, which has been struck down by three different federal courts. Surely, the Scalia/Thomas/Roberts/Alito Supreme Court, especially without Justice O'Connor, will overturn these abominable decisions.
Then the majority of justices will probably rule on an anticipated new law called "Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act" requiring that women be told their unborn children will feel pain during an abortion among other provisions. Then possibly, an anticipated bill called "Holly's Law" named for Holly Patterson who died after taking the RU486 abortion pill -- as other women have died from taking the same killing pill -- taking the abortion pill off the market, will be considered by the U. S. Supreme Court sometime in the future.
In other words, it is expected that the heinous practice of abortion will begin to die by a thousand cuts by state legislatures and the United States Congress, and the United States Supreme Court will go along with these legislative restrictions decided by the people's representatives. It is tragic that over 40 million children have been killed after the abominable 33-year-old (next week) Roe v. Wade decision, the most infamous Supreme Court decision, by far, in American history.
Posted by Jim Backlin at 11:12 PM
January 12, 2006
Supreme Court to hear partial-birth abortion case
It is expected that the United States Supreme Court will soon announce that it will decide whether or not the decision by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals -- agreeing with the ruling by three federal courts that the ban on the cruel practice of partial-birth abortion -- was unconstitutional.
The ruling by these federal courts is just yet another example among many tyrannical decisions by activist judges overruling legislation passed by an overwhelming majority of the United States Congress. The Bush Administration has asked the United States Supreme Court to make a ruling on the decision by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Partial-birth abortion is defined as any abortion which the unborn baby is delivered "past the baby's navel ... outside the body of the mother." Or when the unborn baby is being born head-first, "the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother." President George W. Bush signed this compassionate bill into law, the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act," in November 2003.
Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whose place Judge Samuel A. Alito will take in late January, actually voted for this gruesome partial-birth abortion procedure to continue in the Stenberg v. Carhart decision striking down Nebraska's ban on partial-birth abortions on June 28, 2000.
It is expected that when Judge Alito is confirmed, there will be 5 votes to uphold the 2003 ban on partial-birth abortions passed by the United States Congress along with the votes of Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts. They are also expected to uphold such legislation as the Laci and Connor Peterson Act/"Unbor n Victims of Violence Act" (stating that there are 2 victims when a pregnant woman is assaulted or murdered); parental-consent for minors' abortion bills and other commonsense pro-life legislation passed by the United States Congress.
Posted by Roberta Combs at 03:56 PM
January 09, 2006
Classy pro-abortion activists
Abortion Advocates Disrupt Pro-Life Press Conference on Samuel Alito
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Abortion advocates disrupted a press conference on Thursday by pro-life women's groups seeking to express their support for the Supreme Court nomination of Samuel Alito.
Alito, who has said there is no right to abortion in the Constitution, would replace pro-abortion Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, something abortion advocates don't want to happen.
As Family Research Council vice president Connie Mackey addressed the press conference, NARAL and a group of angry abortion advocates tried to disrupt her speech and the press conference. [...]
"Pro-abortion protesters barged into the press conference wearing 'blood'-spattered shirts and chanting, 'Bush and Alito will outlaw abortion and women will die," she explained.
Posted by Drew McKissick at 11:16 AM
January 03, 2006
Politicians Deceived Voters in California, Massachusetts and New Jersey on Embyronic Stem Cell Research
First the facts. There have been zero successes in the field of human embryonic stem cell research. On the other hand, there have been countless successes in treating some 65 diseases with the help of stem cells from unbilical cord blood research. Just how unsuccessful human embryonic stem cell research has been was revealed with the explosive news just before Christmas that media darling South Korean scientist Hwang Woo-suk has been conducting corrupt and deceitful embryonic stem cell and cloned embryo research. Indeed the research -- by one of "Time" magazine's most influential people durng 2004 -- has been a total failure.
During recent years, pro-abortion politicians in the states of California, Massachusetts and New Jersey actually encouraged their citizens to vote for billions of dollars to fund research in this utterly failed field of stem cell research which has produced no successes. A majority of California voters voted to waste over $3 billion in such research. Unfortunately, a majority in the United States Congress are attempting to force Americans to waste federal tax dollars on human embyronic stem cell destruction research.
However, it was encouraging to see that left-wing Democrat Senators ended their filibuster -- late in the first session of the 109th Congress -- of the commonsense cord blood stem cell research legislation which almost unanimously passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a margin of 434-1. As Senator Sam Brownback said in a speech before his legislation finally passed the United State Senate, the Democrat filibuster against the cord blood stem cell bill was cruel to thousands of patients who could start receiving treatments and benefits immediately upon the enactment of the National Cord Blood Bank which was established by this bill.
It is time for Congress to end its flirtation with the immoral practice of human embryonic stem cell research and its attempt to fund such destructive research.
Posted by Jim Backlin at 02:01 PM
November 16, 2005
Unborn child Pain Awareness Act
Congressman Chris Smith, (R-NJ), has sponsored the "Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act," H.R. 356 (with 127 co-sponsors) in the U.S. House and Senator Sam Brownback, (R-KS), has authored the same bill, S. 51 (with 34 co-sponsors) in the Senate.
Call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at 202-225-3121 or you can go to http://www.cc.org/contactcongress.cfm and call your Congressman and urge him/her to co-sponsor and vote for H.R. 356 (House) and S. 51 (Senate), the "Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act".
October 31, 2005
Hey West Wing: America is 53% PRO-LIFE, not 60% Pro-abortion
Hollywood just can't stop lying. Last night on NBC's "West Wing," its left-wing writers tried to hoist on its television audience the lie that America is pro-abortion. At least twice during the show, both the Republican and Democrat presidential candidates -- who were each pro-abortion -- mentioned the lie that Americans are 60% pro-abortion.
The only problem for Hollywood's perennial liars is that America is at least 53% pro-life according to a January 2005 poll by the "Los Angeles Times." Nearly 55% of Americans who responded to the poll said they were against ALL abortions except for rape/incest abortions (less than 2% of all abortions.) And 12% favored making ALL abortions illegal. Mirroring the views of this American pro-life majority, the mother of Judge Samuel A. Alito, President Bush's new Supreme Court nominee, said today in response to a media question at her doorstep, "Of course he's against abortion," dumbfounded at such a question.
To my knowledge the major television networks, CBS, ABC and NBC have never mentioned the gruesome total of unborn babies killed in their mothers' wombs: 43 million and mounting, since the worst decision by the Supreme Court by far -- in 1973 -- in American history: Roe v. Wade. It was encouraging to hear Judge Andrew Napolitano on Fox News tonight -- a friend of Judge Alito -- say that Judge Alito will overturn Roe v. Wade when the opportunity presents itself. Who knows, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy might even change his mind and vote with Justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito to overturn this heinous decision.
Incidentally, regarding the "West Wing's" premise this season -- a pro-abortion Republican presidential nominee running against a pro-abortion Democrat presidential nominee -- that too is dubious. Should that unlikely event happen in 2008, there will be an immediate third party pro-life presidential candidate who will gain the votes of the millions of Democrat, Independent and Republican pro-life voters, probably surpassing the success which H. Ross Perot had when he began his Reform Party. At one point during the summer of 1992, Perot was actually beating President George H. W. Bush and Governor Bill Clinton in the national polls. That was until Perot began talking about some crazy plot against him and his family and he sunk to his final total of 19% in the polls destroying the reelection campaign of President Bush 41.
October 05, 2005
The slippery slope keeps gettin' slipperier
.Next Up in the Netherlands: Euthanasia for Babies
Paris (CNSNews.com) - Four years after becoming the first nation formally to legalize euthanasia, the Netherlands is set to amend its legislation to provide for the euthanasia of newborn babies, under certain circumstances.
In 2001, the Dutch government passed a law allowing doctors to end the life of adult patients at their own request.
The new directive, which will be debated in parliament later this month and most likely approved without a vote, will extend the regulations to incorporate what is known as the Groningen Protocol.
Under these guidelines, parents can give consent for children to be killed, if they are suffering from severe pain and are terminally ill.
"This is dangerous because the question is, what will be the next extension?" said Bert Dorenbos, chairman of Cry for Life, a pro-life organization in the Netherlands.
September 22, 2005
Nickle and Diming Legal Abortion Out of Existence
For those of us who have been fighting for the past several decades to overturn America's most infamous, by far, Supreme Court decision, the Roe v. Wade decision, until we do that we are determined to nickle and dime "legal" abortion out of existence. And the pro-life movement has indeed had some great successes.
We pro-lifers helped Congress pass the ban on the gruesome partial birth abortion procedure and some of us had the privilege to witness President George W. Bush in the Ronald Reagan International Trade Center building, appropriately enough, sign the bill into law in November 2003. The U.S. House of Representatives passed it overwhelmingly, 254-163, and the U.S. Senate passed it by an equally impressive 61-38 margin.
Then pro-life activists helped Congress to overwhelmingly pass the "Laci and Connor (Peterson) Act," officially called the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act," which recognizes unborn children as victims when they are killed or injured during the commission of federal and military crimes. And President George W. Bush had the privilege of signing this bill into law during 2004.
But passing these two historic bills is just the beginning to reduce the abortion abomination in the United States of America -- with a death toll of close to 45 million innocent unborn children -- since 7 dictators on the U.S. Supreme Court somehow in 1973 found a legal right in the U.S. Constitution among the imaginary punumbras and emanations to murder unborn children.
The pro-life movement is pressing Congress to pass legislation further restricting abortion during the 109th Congress. It is anticipated that the "Child Custody Protection Act" sponsored by Senator John Ensign, R-NV, and Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-FL, -- which will "prohibit taking minors across state lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents on abortion decisions" -- will pass sometime this year or next year.
Also before the 2006 congressional elections, it is expected that the "Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act" sponsored by Senator Sam Brownback, R-KS, and Congressman Chris Smith, R-NJ, will pass Congress. This bill would require abortion providers to notify women who want an abortion 20 weeks after fertilization that the evidence suggests their unborn child feels pain and they have the option to obtain anesthesia for their unborn child in order to reduce or eliminate pain. It is expected that President Bush will sign both of these bills into law before the November 2006 election.
Assuming that soon-to-be Chief Justice John Roberts is the Scalia/Thomas justice which President George W. Bush promised America during both the 2000 and 2004 campaigns, we are still 2 Supreme Court justices short of overturning Roe v. Wade. And that is why most of us pro-life activists have labored in the vineyards for these past decades to rid America of it's own terrible Holocaust. We pro-lifers have no doubt that President Bush will do the right thing in replacing Justice Sandra Day O'Connor with yet another Scalia/Thomas justice.
August 26, 2005
No JAMA: Unborn Babies Really Do Feel Pain
In the August 24th edition of the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA,) a fraud "study" on the pain felt by unborn babies -- written by pro-abortion activists with ties to the abortion industry -- purports to show that unborn babies do not feel pain before 29 weeks (7th month.)
On today's "700 Club" on the Christian Broadcasting Network, it was reported that Dr. Kanwaljeet S. Anand, a pain researcher at the University of Arkansas said in a document accepted as expert by a federal court, "It is my opinion that the human fetus possesses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation, if not earlier, and that pain perceived by a fetus is possibly more intense than that perceived by newborns or older children." It is grotesque that JAMA would have accepted such a study in their journal.
As he did in the 108th Congress, Congressman Chris Smith, (R-NJ), has introduced H.R. 356 (which now has 123 co-sponsors)called the "Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act." Senator Sam Brownback also reintroduced the same bill, S. 51 (which now with 34 co-sponsors.) This bill "would require abortion providers to notify women who want to have an abortion 20 weeks after fertilization that the evidence suggests their unborn child feels pain and they have THE OPTION to obtain anesthesia for their unborn child in order to reduce or eliminate the pain."
As Congressman Chris Smith has said, this legislation would not require anesthesia and it specifically protects the doctor's right to inform the woman of all the risks to her according to his or her own best medical judgment. Congress even requires pain to be minimized when livestock are slaughtered. In last year's Zogby Poll (April 15-17), 77% of the American people favor "laws requiring that women who are 20 weeks or more along in their pregnancy be given information about fetal pain before having an abortion." Only 16% oppose. It is time for Congress to immediately pass this vital legislation.
August 23, 2005
Senate Should Cancel Human Embryo Destruction Vote
Christian Coalition of America, in a press release this week, urged Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to cancel the vote on the Human Embryo Stem Cell Destruction bill scheduled for this autumn. Exciting recent new developments in adult stem cell research have justified such a cancellation.
An international team of American and British scientists said last week that embryonic like cells -- called cord-blood-derived-embryonic like stem cells or CSEs - have the ability to transform into any kind of body tissue, just as embryonic stem cells do. They also claim that they could be mass-produced using technology derived from NASA. On Monday, Harvard scientists announced potential long-term successes from research fusing adult skin cells with embryonic stem cells leading to the creation of useful stem cells without first having to create and destroy human embryos.
The human embryo stem cell destruction bill called the Castle/DeGette bill passed in the U. S. House of Representatives earlier this summer, unfortunately before these exciting new stem cell developments were announced. The vote total in the House for the Castle/DeGette bill fell far short of the number required to overturn President Bush's promised veto.
It is hoped that with these new developments in promising stem cell research, conservative Democrats and off-the-pro-life-reservation Republicans -- such as the Senate leader who changed his mind on human embryo stem cell destruction the day before the Senate recess --will spare the nation months of gut-wrenching debate. Indeed, it is in their political interests. A majority of the American people (52%) in a published poll during May oppose federal funding for this gruesome research while only 36% of the American people support such funding.
Not only has such human embryo stem cell destruction research produced no results whatsoever -- after hundreds of millions, possibly billions, of dollars spent and years of futile research -- but with this newest research from the British/American and Harvard studies, such unethical research is now unnecessary.
August 22, 2005
The stem cell debate
This sort of blows the whole notion of needing to destroy unborn babies for scientific stem-cell research out of the water.
Umbilical Cord Blood Produces Ethical Embryonic Stem Cells
London, England (LifeNews.com) -- British and American researchers have produced embryonic-like stem cells from umbilical cord blood. The news is a breakthrough that could have serious ramifications in the debate between adult and embryonic stem cell research.
August 15, 2005
A pro-life majority
Well, well. We know have the second major poll, (by "mainstream media" outlets no less), that confirm what pro-lifers have been saying....they're a majority.
Majority of Americans Oppose Most Abortions, CBS News Poll Shows
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A new CBS News poll finds a majority of Americans oppose abortions in all or most circumstances. The poll follows on the recent surveys showing most Americans believe abortions should either be illegal or happen in a very limited set of circumstances.