Category archives: Abortion

FRC Action Webcast: A National Townhall on Health Care Reform

by Krystle Gabele

September 11, 2009

Here’s the full program of last night’s FRC Action webcast:

If you are reading this in an RSS Reader, you may need to click through to the post to view.


  • Tony Perkins, President, FRC Action
  • Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.)
  • House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio)
  • Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.)
  • Ken Blackwell, former Ohio Secretary of State
  • Doug Johnson, National Right to Life Committee
  • Bishop Harry Jackson, Senior Pastor, Hope Christian Church
  • Wesley J. Smith, Senior Fellow in Human Rights & Bioethics, Discovery Institute
  • Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel
  • Mark Kellen, M.D., President, Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
  • Kathryn Serkes, Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
  • Dr. David Prentice, FRC Senior Fellow for Life Sciences, FRC
  • David Christensen, Senior Director for Congressional Affairs, FRC
  • Tom McClusky, Senior Vice President, FRC Action

Resources mentioned:

Obama, Reason, Revelation and Abortion

by Rob Schwarzwalder

August 19, 2009

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all. Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. - Barack Obama

Then-Senator Obama made this statement during his speech to Jim Wallis’ “Call to Renewal” conference in 2006. Note two things:

(1) He effectively denies the commonality of natural law and the conscience the foundation of the universal values he commends and links opposition to abortion only to the revelation of Scripture.

(2) He also suggests that opposing abortion cannot be justified by our “common reality.”

As the first point, is the President prepared to argue that no “self evident truths” exist? Is the assertion that all men are created equal and have rights endowed to them by a Creator too culture-specific for Mr. Obama? And is the validity of these assertions determined simply by the number of people who agree with them?

As to the second point, is the “common reality” determined by the 50 percent plus one? If so, did the “common reality” of the Japanese military state in the 1930s surely justify the rape of Nanking?

Mr. Obama calls for our being amenable to reason. Yet he is unreasonable in refusing seriously to interact with the irrefutable scientific evidence that personhood begins at conception and, if so, that every person has value independent of his or her mother from that moment and therefore possesses and should obtain a legally-recognized right to life.

Perhaps the German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer captured it all most clearly:

Destruction of the embryo in the mother’s womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed upon this nascent life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder.

Ethics (New York; Macmillan, 1965), pp. 175-6.

A Love for Life: Christianitys Consistent Protection of the Unborn

by Robert Morrison

July 24, 2009

A Love for Life:

Christianitys Consistent Protection of the Unborn

By Dennis DeMauro

(Wipf and Stock Publishers, 163 pp.)

What were you, Bob, before you were a Lutheran? Thats the question Fr. Ed Bryce asked me many years ago. Father Bryce was the head of the Catholic Bishops Pro-Life Office. Father, I replied, I was a Democrat. We both laughed. But that answer was completely true.

I had not only been a registered Democratic voter, but I was also a candidate for my state legislature and a state party staffer. In those long-ago days before Roe v. Wade, the terms pro-life and pro-choice had not yet been coined. When I ran for the New York State Assembly, I had a real dilemma. I wanted to talk about taxes, education, and political corruption. But various groups wanted to talk to me about abortion. Thats because New York State had been one of the first states to liberalize abortion. The year was 1970.

By 1971, however, millions of New Yorkers were shocked by what they saw. Encouraged by widely respected Terence Cardinal Cooke, the Catholic Archbishop of New York, the state legislature had repealed its narrow approval of abortion up to six just months. New Yorks pro-abortion governor, Republican Nelson Rockefeller, vetoed the repeal, and so the Empire State continued as an abortion magnet for distressed young women from all over the Eastern Seaboard.

As an unchurched young man whose main interest was politics, I saw the abortion issue as a small stormlike a tornadoon the horizon. I just hoped it would veer and not touch me. Soon, however, it became clear that there would be no avoiding it.

How I wish I had had Dennis DeMauros fine bookA Love for Lifethen. It would have saved a great deal of yelling and arguing for me as first my respected campaign managerJoe Zeichner, my former civics teacherand then my dear friend and contemporary, Victor Cipolla, pulled me in one direction then in the other.

Joe described himself as a proud Jewish atheist. Joe knew he was a lot more liberal than I was, but he gave of himself unstintingly to get me elected. Victor wasif you can imagine ita young Sicilian-American who seemed like a Catholic version of Che Guevara. Both Joe and Victor knew I was just a WASPWhite Anglo-Saxon Protestant. That was more a sociological term than a witness to my Christian belief.

As my two closest campaign aides fought over the issueand fought over what my campaign would say about the issue, I felt stirring within me a deeper conviction. Our liaison to the state Democratic Party was good man even if he was more than a little cynical. Morrison, he would cry in exasperation, Im not trying to get you into Heaven, Im just trying to get you to Albany! Such jaded comments actually helped me decide. I began to realize that I would make decisions about my political life, but more importantly, about my own soul that would shape me. I was only twenty-seven, but I sensed that this time my decision really mattered.

When I told Joe that I had resolved to come out against abortion, he was shocked. Whats the matter with you, he asked in a tone of genuine disbelief. I countered:

Joe, youre the one who taught me the prayer your father the rabbi taught you. Remember, when you drove us to Albany, you said I needed to say a shehechayanuthat beautiful prayer for the first time you do something? The prayerwhich I remember with affectionis this: Blessed art Thou, O Master of the Universe, that Thou hast preserved us in life to savor this experience for the first time.

Preserved us in life. Thats what God does for us every moment that we live. And He gives us the gift of life. This much I learned from my historical study of Thomas Jefferson. Young Jeffersons writings had made him a favorite to draft the Declaration of Independence. When I read his earliest public papers, I could see why. The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time.

Dennis DeMauro understands all of this only too well. His great short book is subtitled:

Christianitys Consistent Protection of the Unborn. Chapter by chapter, he shows how the early Church stood uncompromisingly for the childs right to live the life God alone can give and take away. In those early days of pro-life activity, the liberal media tried to advance the idea that opposition to abortion was only a Catholic thing. Although half of my family was Catholic, and dearly loved, none of my Protestant relativesincluding those closest to mewas against abortion. Mine would be a lonely decision.

DeMauros chapters on the biblical teaching of Luther and Calvin are especially strong. He shows how the great Reformers differed on many things with the Church of Rome and on some things they differed from each other. But on the sanctity of life of unborn children, all branches of the Christian family stood together.

DeMauro also shows how, gradually at first, but then with increasing speed, liberal Protestant church bodies have departed from their historic roots. It might even be argued that as they adopt ever more liberal views of Scripture, these religious groups depart from the Bibles clear commands.

Yet even in what used to be called Mainline Protestantism, there are renewal groups dedicated to reclaiming the genuine heritage of their great denominations. Presbyterians Pro-Life, Anglicans for Life, and important United Methodists like Stanley Hauerwas and Paul Stallworth are carefully tending the flickering candle. They valiantly witness for life in the midst of largely hostile church bureaucracies. God bless them for it!

DeMauro describes the great course correction of the Evangelical churches in the mid- to late 1970s, powerfully aided by such important figures as Billy Graham, Dr. C. Everett Koop, Francis Schaeffer, and of course, Chuck Colson and Dr. James Dobson. Rev. Dr. Richard Land of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the 15 million-member Southern Baptist Convention deserves special, honorable mention. He and his brothers helped bring that great ship back onto her true course.

Im especially grateful to Dennis DeMauro for telling the story of Lutherans for Life.

When I came to faithfinally at age 30I had to choose a church. Because The Lutheran ChurchMissouri Synod had always maintained a strong biblical stance in defense of life, and because my military LCMS military chaplain preached Gods Word in all its power and purity, the decision to join this church body was really like a decision to go home.

About that state election: I lost, thank God. The man who would later act as Hillary Clintons chief fund-raiser in New York State found out that I was anti-abortion. He cut off every penny of the $25,000 that had been promised to my campaign by the state Democratic Party. I soldiered on, expecting to win anyway. I was shocked when the election returns showed me losingand by a wide margin. What Id prepared my whole life for was gone in an instant. Or so I then thought.

Dennis DeMauro is a serious scholar and dedicated pro-lifer. He ends his book with an eloquent appeal to pro-choice Christians. He strikes exactly the right tone in appealing to these separated brethren.

DeMauro concludes his work with a chart most fitly labeled Headcount. He shows convincingly how the vast majority of the worlds Christians defend the sanctity of life.

This listing reminds of the hostile reporter I once encountered in Connecticut. Aware that I was a Lutheran working with that states Catholic bishops to defend life, the journalist asked me accusingly: What percentage of the Catholic Churchs funds go to pro-life activities? I smiled and answered: A hundred percent.

Tony Perkins interview with Sen. Orrin Hatch on health care

by Jared Bridges

July 20, 2009

On this week’s Washington Watch radio program, FRC President Tony Perkins interviewed Senator Orrin Hatch (R - Utah) about the president’s proposed heath care overhaul.

You can find the audio of the interview here, but below is a transcript:

TONY PERKINS: Well, there is no shortage of problems with the Obama administrations bill on healthcare reform. From the massive cost to the accelerated timetable, I mean this thing is being pushed through. And this is a massive change in public policy and it is vastly expensive. And consider, this is probably about 16% or 17% of the nations economy and were talking about changing this overnight. And another concern for many Americans is the fact that this issue, if it goes through as it is presently proposed, taxpayers will be forced to fund abortion in this country for the first time in over three decades. And one of the Senators thats been leading the charge on this to make sure that Americans are not brought into the process of funding abortion is Senator Orin Hatch of Utah, who introduced an amendment last week to keep abortion out. His amendment was defeated by one vote but, he continues to bring attention to this issue and other aspects of healthcare reform. And he joins me now by phone from Capitol Hill. Senator, thanks for joining us.

SENATOR HATCH: Well, it is nice to be with you. This is a crucial time for our country because what they are trying to do on healthcare.

TONY PERKINS: Not only that but you have been involved in the hearings for the Supreme Court nominee Sonya Sotomayor. I mean, you have been running back and forth. I mean they are intent on getting something out on this healthcare, are they not?

SENATOR HATCH: Well, they are. You know, they are talking about a bill in the House that will be well over a trillion dollars. Well, frankly, when you get rid of the budget gimmicks, it is one and a half trillion to two trillion dollars additional on top of the two and a half trillion dollars were already spending on healthcare in this country. And they dont seem to care about how much it is going to cost. Its just awful. And they use budget gimmicks to try to get the…, theyre trying to pretend that the costs are really lower. But theyre not lower.

TONY PERKINS: I want to get into a little of the agenda here. My guest is Senator Orrin Hatch, from the state of Utah. He is on the Health committee which has been overseeing this healthcare discussion. Its kind of been a one-sided discussion. The votes are such that the Republicans have little chance of changing anything. But you brought up something in the committee, this was expanded to include Planned Parenthood, the nations largest abortion provider. You tried to prohibit that from occurring or at least keeping clear that they could not perform abortions with tax dollars. That amendment was shot down. What, are taxpayers going to be on the hook for paying for abortion under this measure?

SENATOR HATCH: Oh, if they get their way. Now when the House committee was debating what they call the Mikulski Amendment, to expand womens health services, the author of that amendment told committee members that her amendment which would define Planned Parenthood clinics and other entities as quote essential community providers unquote would not require plans to cover abortions. My amendment simply added this language to Title I of the legislation before the committee so taxpayer dollars are not used to finance abortions except in very rare circumstances. My amendment failed by a vote of eleven to twelve in the committee. And it would have prohibited federal dollars from being used to pay for abortions unless the life of the mother was in danger or the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. Now essentially my amendment would have imposed the Hyde Amendment on all the health coverage options that were created through this bill. Of course this is language that Congress has included in Labor HHS appropriations bill since 1976. And it is my understanding that abortion coverage will be included in this bill because my amendment failed unless it is specifically excluded. Now more specifically based on prior administrative and legal interpretations of federal statutory law, unless abortion is specifically excluded, the Secretary of Health and Human Services could mandate coverage of abortion as both and essential health care benefit and as necessary for meeting minimum qualifying coverage.”

TONY PERKINS: And that is Kathleen Sebelius who is known, who is well known for her position, being supportive of abortion.

SENATOR HATCH: Well, it is Barack Obama. And its the whole egghead group down there at the White House as well. But Sebelius is a part of it.

TONY PERKINS: Well we know where she will come down if she has the opportunity to make this decision.

SENATOR HATCH: Thats right.

TONY PERKINS: Oh, and youre absolutely right. And thats the position weve held and we are asking our listeners, our supporters across the country to contact their senators and let them know that abortion needs to be specifically prohibited under any government plan. Our tax dollars should not go to underwrite abortion.

SENATOR HATCH: Let me tell you how bad it is, as a result of what theyre doing. Beginning in 1973, that was the year of Roe v. Wade, the federal tax payer was paying for 300,000 abortions per year until the Congress passed the Hyde Amendment in 1976, which specifically prohibited coverage of abortion. In other words, the taxpayers wouldnt have to pay for it. In the past we have always included language to prohibit taxpayers dollars to fund abortion and we did this when we were creating the CHIP Program, the Tricare, FEHBP. We also have very stringent restrictions on the funding of abortion. But when the federal Medicaid statute, just so you know how bad they are, when it was passed, nowhere in the statute did it say that abortion would be covered, but the administrators running the Medicaid program deemed abortion to be covered. And as the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals explained it, quote because abortion fits within many of the mandatory care categories, including family planning, out-patient services, in-patient services and physician services, Medicaid covered medically necessary abortions between 1973 and 1976—300,000 abortions paid by the federal tax payers per year until Henry Hyde and lot of the rest of them. Well, I wasnt here at that time but they put through the Hyde Amendment, and we have maintained it ever since. So, I offered my amendment this time because I believe it is important to make it perfectly clear that the tax payer dollars will not be used to fund abortions in the new programs being created in the so called health education, labor, and pensions senate bill except in very limited circumstances, as I said the life of the mother, or the result of rape or incest. The Democrats did accept an amendment presented by Senator Tom Coburn, who has done a great job, very similar to the one that I vowed which prohibited federal dollars being spent on assisted suicide, mercy killing, or euthanasia. But they wouldnt accept our amendment. I feel very confident, in spite of the protestations that some of them said, its an effort to try to open up federal funding of abortions.

TONY PERKINS: I think youre absolutely right and thats why we appreciate the fact that you are there. You are willing to raise this issue. I know your staff has been excellent to work with on this matter. And one final question. I know you have to go Senator, and so I appreciate you joining us. This thing is being rushed through, so rapidly, I want to get your thought on this right now. What do you think is going to happen? What should the American people be doing right now?

SENATOR HATCH: Well, theyre going to try to put both the House bill through and the Senate bill through before we go on recess. Now if the Health bill in the Senate, the Senate health bill, becomes law and its a one-sided, partisan Democrat bill, every vote counted was 13 to ten, I believe it was, on an absolute partisan vote, if that health bill becomes law Americans will not only see American bureaucrat step in between them and their doctors but theyll see their health care costs rise. And theres a strong possibility they could lose their coverage.

TONY PERKINS: Its amazing that were going forward with this. I appreciate you raising these issues Senator. Well continue to do it on the outside. But well encourage people to contact their senators, their congressmen and express their concern over the lack of financial integrity in this measure but also the fact they would be forcing taxpayers to pay for abortion and other objectionable practices.

SENATOR HATCH: Can I say one other thing on the Mikulski Amendment? She said right in open forum that her amendment would not expand abortion services. But when I asked if she would add language prohibiting abortion, she said no. That says it all.

TONY PERKINS: It absolutely does. In fact if folks want to see that they can go to our website Weve got that clip of you up there bringing up this issue and weve highlighted that because that tells the whole story, just like you said. Well, Senator Hatch thanks for being with us. Thanks for your leadership. We look forward to visiting with you again real soon.

SENATOR HATCH: Thanks for your leadership Tony. We appreciate the Family Research Council and people like you who really back us up and help us on these matters. Thanks a million. I hope that people listening will really get involved and raise cain about it

Is Planned Parenthood Bending the Rules?

by Krystle Gabele

June 30, 2009

Lila Rose of Live Action Films exposes an Alabama Planned Parenthood clinic of “bending the rules” of mandatory reporting for sexual abuse.

Posing as a 14-year old, Rose told a counselor at the Birmingham clinic that she was pregnant by her 31-year old “boyfriend” and needed a secret abortion to avoid her parents finding out about her relationship with an older man. The counselor, then proceeded to tell her that the OB-GYN, Dr. Desiree Bates, “sometimes bends the rules a little bit,” and mentioned that everything will remain confidential.

Bending the rules on sexual abuse…there are laws strictly prohibiting this practice in Alabama (and around the country for that matter). According to Alabama Code 26-14-3, health care professionals are REQUIRED to disclose suspected cases of sexual abuse to state officials immediately. In this case, a 31-year old sleeping with a 14-year old is Statutory Rape, which is sexual abuse.

This Planned Parenthood clinic also violated, yet another obvious law (Alabama Code 26-21-3), in which a parent must sign the consent to allow an abortion for a minor to take place. The counselor informed Rose that a signature from an older sister over 18 would suffice for the parental consent.

Rape of a Minor — No Joke!

by Sherry Crater

June 18, 2009

The furor over David Lettermans outrageously crude comments regarding the 14-year- old daughter of Gov. Sarah Palin being knocked up by New York Yankee Alex Rodriquez has quieted down. Governor Palin accepted the apology of the 62-year-old Letterman on behalf of young women like her daughters who want to draw the line, in her words, with men who joke about sexual exploitation of girls.

After much prodding even the National Organization for Women (NOW), certainly not fans of Sarah Palin, had a statement on this situation. NOWs website said: Comedians in search of a laugh should really know better than to snicker about men having sex with teenage girls (or young women) less than half their age.

Letterman may have dodged a bullet in the Palin incident. However, his lewd sexual comments exposed again the hard, ugly truth that criminal sexual abuse of underage girls by older men is occurring in communities all across America. Adding insult to injury, the abuse is actually being covered up by some who claim to help young women.

Consider the findings of a young student at UCLA, Lila Rose, who did some investigative reporting on Planned Parenthood clinics around the nation. Equipped with a hidden camera and posing as an underage girl impregnated by a much older man, Lila produced videos and audio tapes of her interviews with Planned Parenthood personnel.

Lilas work exposed sexual abuse, including unreported statutory rape, as well as other blatant violations by Planned Parenthood of state statutes that were intended to protect young girls.

Above is a video of Lila posing as a 13-year-old girl going to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Indianapolis, IN for an abortion because she is pregnant by her 31-year-old boyfriend. The counselor violated Indiana law by not reporting the apparent statutory rape of a minor girl. Further, she went on to coach the young girl on how to conceal an abortion and get around parental consent laws by going to a surrounding state for an abortion.

For more examples of criminal violations of law by Planned Parenthood go here.

Sarah Palin was rightsexual exploitation of young girls is no laughing matter. There is nothing funny about it.

Pro-Life Profs Marching: Why not go in Drag?

by Robert Morrison

June 16, 2009

Hes a very serious scholar. The German professor Uwe Siemon-Netto holds advanced degrees in theology and sociology. He is director of the Center for Lutheran Theology and Public Life. So I was not prepared for his answer when I asked him how he organized a protest demonstration outside Planned Parenthood in St. Louis. We needed to attract attention, he said, so, why not go in drag? I burst out laughing. He meant, of course, not seminary professors dressed up as women, but learned profs marching for life in their full, flowing academic gowns. And what a public display they made! They took part in the Forty Days of Life movement during the last Lenten season. Dr. Siemon-Netto wanted especially to show Ph.D.s demonstrating their concern for unborn children. These Lutherans processed from Concordia Lutheran Seminary, where pastors are trained for The Lutheran ChurchMissouri Synod (LCMS). Monsignor Theodore Wojcicki from the Catholic Kenrick Glennon Seminary of the Archdiocese of St. Louis brought with him almost the entire faculty; they were joined by a Dominican monk from the Aquinas Institute and a Jewish convert to Catholicism.

One hundred years ago, you would never have seen Lutherans and Catholics marching together in Saint Louisor in any other part of the U.S. But they have been brought together by the strongest ties of Christian solidaritythe need to protect Gods gift of life.

Uwe Siemon-Netto has written extensively for German publications as well as those in the U.S. His book The Fabricated Luther disputes the idea popularized by William L. Shirer in his best-selling Rise and Fall of the Third Reich that Martin Luther paved the way for Hitlers anti-Semitism.

Uwe is a strong voice for the unborn. He rejects the idea of collective guilt of Germans for the Holocaust. But he does talk about collective shame of any people who allow the slaughter of innocents to go forward in their name. This is especially a problem for citizens of a democracy, Dr. Siemon-Netto says. Thats because in a democracy, we as voters, as decision makers, are the prince referred to by Paul in Romans 13. We are the national sovereigns.

I had heard about Dr. Siemon-Nettos work for a number of years. A mutual friend had arranged a lunch in Washington several years ago, but our German friend had a heart attack that very morning. I thank God he has been spared to continue his great work.


Obama at Notre Dame

by Family Research Council

May 18, 2009

Sunday’s speech and the reaction of the Notre Dame community, and Catholics and others worldwide, will be the subject of much comment in the coming days. Some quick thoughts and first impressions:

Without doubt, Obama was eloquent, charming, and seemingly at ease. He had the advantage (a faculty and administration behind him, and the media framing it as the man of reason versus the rabble in the street, with, obligingly, Randall Terry performing that role as if on cue), and he seemed once again to know it. The students, who prepare for this day with years of labor and the love (and labor and cash) of their families behind them, were respectful and, as students tend to be around our rock-star President, wowed by his skill with words, his symbolic meaning in transcending our historic racial divide, and his graceful humor.

As for his speech, it was un-Barackesque in one sense - he came down from Olympus, where pay grades are seldom referred to at all, and made it plain that on the issue of human life, he does in fact disagree with those who stand for its sanctity. But he was Barackesque in striving to minimize those differences, in implying that there is “demonization” of opponents afoot (not from him, of course, just unnamed others), and suggesting that, to borrow an irritating catchphrase from a recent era in U.S. Catholic politics, he is all about “dialogue” with those who disagree with him.

There is the rub. Obama is a man of many mellifluous words, but he is also a man of many unambiguous actions, and every action he has taken to date has been a forthright dismantling of the culture of life and the wall of separation that has existed between taxpayers and abortion. A complete list would include all of his key personnel in White House domestic policy, HHS, State and the Justice Department. His policy enactments include rescinding the Mexico City policy that kept the international abortion industry out of the federal Treasury, rescinding the Bush conscience regulations designed to protect medical and health research personnel from having to participate in or facilitate abortion, eliminating all but a smidgeon of abstinence funding for the pregnancy centers that deal directly with women in need, lifting the ban on the use of District of Columbia funds to pay for abortion in his proposed budget, providing federal funding for experiments that rely on killing embryonic humans in fertility clients, and sending Planned Parenthood an additional $10 million federal love note, matching what they spent to elect him last year.

The President’s efforts to spur “dialogue” involve a low-level White House meeting where groups — including, for the record, FRC — are asked to come in and help craft a plan to “reduce the need for abortion.” To be credible, that plan would have to begin with reversing every decision Obama has made on abortion to date. But note the phraseology, which suggests a fundamental disagreement. Who speaks of a “need for child abuse”? Or a need for white collar crime? Or a need for bribery of public officials? If there is a need for something, just how wrong is it? Planned Parenthood and its allies secured this language in the Democratic Platform last year because they did not want any suggestion from their party that the act of abortion is a moral wrong. But if it is not a moral wrong, then it is hardly something that needs to be reduced, particularly if, as Planned Parenthood insists, it is physically safe and negligible in its mental health implications.

President Obama and his administration have extraordinary message discipline when it comes to these matters. That discipline will be on display again soon in the health care debate when the Democrats on the Hill insist that they are deferring that question to some other body (likely an HHS commission that will likewise pronounce itself for “dialogue”) for resolution. Is there any chance that an Obama-endorsed, government-financed health plan will exclude abortion and taxpayer participation in it? As a state legislator, Obama stood out as a man so concerned about protecting abortion in all circumstances that he led opposed laws to provide care for infants who survive the procedure.

Yesterday Notre Dame gave a high honor to such a man. He spoke eloquently. But the Jesuit fathers who taught me in high school and even a few of the Holy Cross priests who taught me at Notre Dame impressed on me to pay attention to what men do, not just what they say. They cited the Good Book on knowing people by their fruits. With Obama, that begins with what is being done to the fruit of the womb.

Obama’s Grim Fairy Tale

by Robert Morrison

May 7, 2009

President Obama is offering up a new version of the old fable of the stone soup. You’ll recall the Brothers Grimm fairy tale where the strangers come to town, offering nothing but a stone in the bottom of their kettle. They persuade the townspeople to add some potatoes, carrots, and soup bones, just for “garnish.” Soon they had a feast-for free.

In 1976, candidate Jimmy Carter came to Iowa. He said he “didn’t like abortion.” And he pledged to reduce “the need for abortion.” This at least was something.

To most people, the Republican candidate wasn’t even offering a stone. President Ford never mentioned abortion, or the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion-on-demand. He let the First Lady, Betty Ford, speak out, offering her strongly pro-abortion views.

The Republican Party actually condemned Roe v. Wade in its 1976 platform. But President Ford ignored that fact, and a biased press played up Mrs. Ford’s vocal support. In her memoirs, Betty Ford praised her hubby for “letting me do all the talking about abortion. That was wise of him,” she said. It was wise only if Ford didn’t need Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Liberal journalist Elizabeth Drew praised Carter for wrapping “a liberal policy stance in conservative rhetoric.” Carter went on to win the election. He named hundreds of judges to the federal judiciary, but not one pro-lifer.

He did, however, name the pro-life Joe Califano as Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, the predecessor to HHS. Carter also supported and signed the Hyde Amendment, which banned federal funding of abortion, something Ford had allowed to go forward.

Obama is using Carter’s successful rhetoric without even a scintilla of Carter’s significant concessions to pro-life sentiment. Under Obama, we are being forced to pay to promote abortions around the world. We may be forced to pay for abortion-on-demand in his health care takeover. Pro-life doctors and nurses could be forced to take part in killing unborn children-or, more likely, killing their careers rather than compromise their conscience. Obama’s rhetoric is appealing, rather like that nice hot stone soup. But his common ground is as lacking in substance as that empty kettle. The morning after, we’ll awake to find it was only “some enchanted evening.”

U.S.A.F. Airman Convicted under Unborn Victims of Violence Act

by Chris Gacek

May 4, 2009

It appears that the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) (UVVA) has produced its first conviction. This took place over the weekend pursuant to a court martial at the Elmendorf Air Force Base near Anchorage, Alaska.

United States Airman 1st Class Scott Boie of Milton, Wisconsin, was sentenced on Saturday, May 2nd to nine years, six months in prison after he was found guilty of attempting to kill his unborn child. Boie was tried by a military court made up of ten member of the United States Air Force. The ten panel members convicted Boie late Friday night.

After Boie’s wife, Caylinn, told him that she was pregnant, Boie requested that she get an abortion. After she declined to do so, Boie used his computer to gather information about abortion inducing drugs. Boie discovered that the anti-ulcer drug, misoprostol (Cytotec), could be used. Misoprostol is the second drug in the RU-486 (mifepristone) abortion regimen and is widely used in some countries like Brazil as a cheap abortifacient. (For more information on mifepristone and misoprostol - download and read this FRC pamphlet (PDF): LINK.)

With the help of a fellow serviceman Boie obtained misoprostol and crushed some of the tablets which he placed in his wife’s food. A miscarriage followed one week later. His wife thought the miscarriage occurred naturally, but learned from a friend that her husband had attempted to kill their child. My news accounts do not reveal how Caylinn Boie’s friend learned this. Mrs. Boie confronted her husband about the miscarriage while covertly taping their conversation. Scott Boie confessed to her that he had attempted to kill the baby, and the recording of this confession was played in court.

Boie was also dishonorably discharged, demoted to E-1, and assessed a “total forfeiture of all pay and allowances.”

Congratulations should go to all those who worked to enact the UVVA and to President George W. Bush for signing it.