NARAL wants Rudy

The national pro-abortion lobby, NARAL, is saying that a Giuliani Presidency would be good for the pro-abortion "movement."

From Huffington Post:

NARAL's political director Elizabeth Shipp acknowledged it "would help" the pro-choice movement if a Republican proved it was possible to win the presidency while still supporting abortion rights...

As mayor of New York City, Giuliani had a pro-choice record, which has come under intense scrutiny since he entered the presidential race. In the GOP debates this past May, Giuliani said "it would be okay" to repeal Roe v. Wade, before adding, "But ultimately, since it is an issue of conscience, I would respect a woman's right to make a different choice." In recent weeks, a coalition of prominent Christian conservative figures has threatened to support a third-party candidate should Giuliani win the Republican nomination.

NARAL has yet to announce an endorsement in the 2008 race. But Shipp acknowledged that Giuliani is the lone Republican in the field who could potentially win the organization's support. [Emphasis added]

There's more to Life than just judges

From today's National Review Online:

Douglas Sylva on "We need a president to do more than just appoint the right justices." The Money Quote:

The “Pro-life, Pro-family” voting contingent require a candidate who sees threats as they do — as the pervasive efforts of cultural and social elites— and who is vigilant, and active, and courageous in response to these threats...

President George W. Bush has been that champion, and his administration has proven just how much more there is for a conservative president to do to than to select judges, even Supreme Court justices.

For years now an effort has been underway at the United Nation, for instance, to reinterpret international law in the hope of creating a universal right to abortion on demand. Various forces at the U.N. also seek to redefine the family, to establish complete sexual autonomy for adolescents, to create a worldwide right to homosexual marriage, to depress world fertility rates, and to legalize cloning in order to create human embryos for medical research...

More specifically, on his very first day in office, Bush reinstated the Reagan-era “Mexico City Policy,” which restricts federal funding from non-governmental organizations that perform or promote abortions in foreign countries. His enemies erupted in anger, naming the Mexico City Policy the “Global Gag Rule,” and claiming that Bush would be responsible for killing women who would not have recourse to legal abortions....

Would Giuliani have taken any one of these important actions? Not caring much about these issues, would Giuliani have even known about the threats? It is time for Rudy to acknowledge what pro-lifers already know only too well: that they need a president to do more than just appoint the right justices. Executive-branch neutrality is not acceptable. Rudy has to tell “Pro-life, Pro-family” voters whether or not he can be this sort of president, and he can start by promising to continue George W. Bush’s fight — his entire fight for life and family — at the United Nations.

The unnecessary Bush cheering aside, I think this is spot on. And for the record, I don't believe Rudy knows about pro-life issues and frankly I don't think he cares either.

Dobson keeps pressure on pro-abort Giuliani

Dr. James Dobson continues to flay abortion supporter Rudy Giuliani, this time attacking the idea that Giuliani would be elect "constructionist" judges.

From Hannity & Colmes:

But you're taking Rudy's word on his intention to appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court, and I would like to remind you that he has a terrible record in New York of appointing judges. He appointed some of the worst possible judges.

I've already reported on Rudy and judges: what Rudy means by "constructionist" isn't what the pro-life community means.

Pro-life community flexes muscles

Rassmussen has just release a poll that shows 27% of Republicans would vote for a third-party pro-life candidate over Rudy Giuliani.

If Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination and a third party campaign is backed by Christian conservative leaders, 27% of Republican voters say they’d vote for the third party option rather than Giuliani.

That's the ball game, folks. Thanks for coming to Yankee Stadium.

If 27% of Republicans don't vote for him in a general election, that is enough to sink any hope he has of beating Hillary Clinton.

Good. I don't want a pro-choice Republican killing babies under the GOP banner.

Additionally, Dr. James Dobson reiterates his opposition to pro-abort Giuliani in a New York Times Op-Ed:

REPORTS have surfaced in the press about a meeting that occurred last Saturday in Salt Lake City involving more than 50 pro-family leaders. The purpose of the gathering was to discuss our response if both the Democratic and Republican Parties nominate standard-bearers who are supportive of abortion. Although I was neither the convener nor the moderator of the meeting, I’d like to offer several brief clarifications about its outcome and implications.

After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous...

I firmly believe that the selection of a president should begin with a recommitment to traditional moral values and beliefs. Those include the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage, and other inviolable pro-family principles. Only after that determination is made can the acceptability of a nominee be assessed.

The other approach, which I find problematic, is to choose a candidate according to the likelihood of electoral success or failure. Polls don’t measure right and wrong; voting according to the possibility of winning or losing can lead directly to the compromise of one’s principles. In the present political climate, it could result in the abandonment of cherished beliefs that conservative Christians have promoted and defended for decades. Winning the presidential election is vitally important, but not at the expense of what we hold most dear.

One other clarification is germane, even though unrelated to the meeting in Salt Lake City. The secular news media has been reporting in recent months that the conservative Christian movement is hopelessly fractured and internally antagonistic. The Los Angeles Times reported on Monday, for example, that supporters of traditional family values are rapidly “splintering.” That is not true. The near unanimity in Salt Lake City is evidence of much greater harmony than supposed. Admittedly, differences of opinion exist among us about our choices for president.

That divergence is entirely reasonable, now just over a year before the national election. It is hardly indicative of a “splintering” of old alliances. If the major political parties decide to abandon conservative principles, the cohesion of pro-family advocates will be all too apparent in 2008.

Dobson hit a home run.

Catholics join attacks on pro-abort Rudy

St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke announced that he will deny Presidential Candidate, and self-proclaimed Catholic, Rudy Giuliani communion if he tries to celebrate mass in St. Louis.

From the STLtoday:

Of the six Catholics running for president, only Republican Sen. Sam Brownback has a legislative record on abortion that meets the church's approval. Along with Republican Rudy Giuliani, Democrats Sen. Joseph Biden, Sen. Christopher Dodd, Rep. Dennis Kucinich and Gov. Bill Richardson all have public records that are inconsistent with church teaching on abortion rights.

"It is a cause of concern for me and for all bishops to find ourselves in this situation," Burke said in an interview last week.

Asked if he would deny Communion to Giuliani if the former New York mayor approached him for the sacrament at the Cathedral Basilica, Burke said: "If the question is about a Catholic who is publicly espousing positions contrary to the moral law and I know that person knows it, yes I would."

In an interview earlier this year, Burke said of Giuliani: "I can't imagine that as a Catholic he doesn't know that his stance on the protection of human life is wrong. If someone is publicly sinning, they should not approach to receive Holy Communion."

(H/T: Andrew Sullivan)

Rudy, babies, and Christian leadership

Cheers to Dr. James Dobson, Tony Perkins et. all for their public announcement that they will not support a pro-abortion Republican nominee for President. Often these figures serve only as GOP cheer leaders, which marginalizes the pro-life, pro-family agenda.

Tony Perkins on Hardball last night (via NRO's The Campaign Spot):

...the vast majority of social conservatives came to the Republican Party because of the life issue and the other social issues. If the party leaves those issues, I think it's unreasonable for them to demand that they stay in the party. And I don't think they will.

...We are not going to sit down at a table and negotiate away the protection of human life and shake hands and get up and go forward. That's not going to happen on my watch.

...We're simply saying that there is a line which we won't cross. That is, we will not be supportive of a candidate who supports abortion.

Amen to that Tony.

Additionally Marc Ambinder calls into question Giuliani's definition of "strict constructionist" judges:

By the way: as Giuliani as has said, his "strict constructionists" might well preserve Roe v. Wade, which means that Giuliani employs the phrase to describe judicial orientation, rather than outcomes, which is how the phrase plays in politics.

CFAC attack on Ritter get's national attention

Christian Family Alliance of Colorado has gotten national attention for their petition drive to force Governor Bill Ritter to respect Article V Section 50 of the Colorado Constitution which prohibits "direct" and "indirect" use of state funds to provide abortions.

Ritter has announced he intends to restore state funding to abortion groups like Planned Parenthood, in direct violation of the Colorado Constitution. Colorado State Senator Scott Renfroe (R - Eaton) has joined with CFAC in this important fight. Last legislative session, Renfroe's SB07-143 was the first legislation ever introduce in the Colorado Assembly to ban abortions in Colorado.

From WorldNetDaily:

"The reality is that Bill Ritter has never backed down from his promise to put money into Planned Parenthood," Mark Hotaling, the director of the Christian Family Alliance, told WND.

He explained that the budget the state currently is operating on was established mostly by the former governor before he left office.

Especially, he noted the state's "family planning" money was committed to other organizations that are operating under contracts already in existence. Ritter, when he made the statements about having taxpayers support Planned Parenthood's operations financially, meant it, and he still means it, Hotaling said.

"The governor had to appease the radical left of his party, and made certain promises. One of them he made repeatedly was to restore money to Planned Parenthood," Hotaling said."The reason he couldn't to do last legislative session was the timing of grants and the lack of funds in the state family planning fund," he said.

"But there's nothing to prohibit him from doing it in the next session, when more money can be put into the fund."He said the public needs to rise up and let the governor know of its opposition to taxpayer funding for the abortion industry.

More:

Joining in the Colorado Family Alliance campaign is state Sen. Scott Renfroe, who told WND that he's "gravely concerned" about Ritter's announced plans.

He said he's asked the governor, "How are you going to do this, and uphold the constitution and the will of the people?" "I guess time will tell if he does do something," he said.

Renfroe told WND that a campaign letter has been sent to constituents seeking support. "I am saddened and appalled that Gov. Ritter assumes that part of our tax money already belongs to Colorado's largest abortionist," he wrote. "And with pro-abortion liberals in control of the State Legislature, our only hope is to turn to the good sense and actions of citizens … to help stop this injustice."

Interesting perspective on "pro-life" and Huckabee

K-Street Mole for Huck has an interesting take on what it means to be "pro-life" as opposed to "anti-abortion" and how that plays out with Mike Huckabee.

While I don't necessarily agree with this take, its certainly worth reading.

The highlights:

Anti-abortion means you believe that abortion is killing a human person with a right to life, and therefore abortion should never or very rarely be legal.


Pro-life means you believe the same thing as someone who is anti-abortion. But it can mean so much more:


- Pro-life means you support the local crisis pregnancy centers and maternity homes that help women in desperate situations give life to their babies. It's more than a bumper sticker - it is time or money shared to give life to individual persons in need.


- Pro-life means you don't support the death penalty whenever there is any reasonable doubt that the person is guilty of pre-meditated murder. (Yes, I know a jury already decided the person was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. But can you really expect a dozen people with no knowledge of legal standards or scientific/evidentially methods of proof to decide to acquit an accused when loved ones of the victim are clearly grieved before them, on the basis of "reasonable doubt"?)


- Pro-life means society gives people the means to be healthy and stay alive. Stay-at-home parents and people too sick to work need access to healing professionals just as much as employees, children and seniors. (The best way to do this is highly debatable by people of goodwill, but a pro-life person agrees this should be the goal.)


- Pro-life means you don't believe you are entitled to carry on activities that endanger the lives of others. You are not entitled to blow carcinogenic smoke into other people's lungs, you are not entitled to sell food or products that carry health risks without at least informing customers about the hazardous contents, and you are not entitled to drunk or reckless driving.


Some Republicans may bristle at some of these aspects of being pro-life. Particularly the last one -- according to some, this is supporting a "nanny state." No. A nanny state tells you that you can't eat Doritos or smoke in your own house. A pro-life state says that Frito Lay has to tell you what is in those Doritos and says you can't smoke in public places where other people have to breathe your exhaust fumes. A nanny state pays for your condoms and Cialis. A pro-life state tells insurance companies they can't refuse to give ongoing necessary treatment to people with chronic conditions like multiple sclerosis or Lyme Disease.


Huckabee is not just anti-abortion. He is pro-LIFE. That's why I think he deserves the votes of all pro-life citizens, regardless of party affiliation. Let libertarians sulk about smoking bans - if you are a pro-family traditionalist, a social-justice Christian, or anyone else who believes that the number one duty of government is protecting our right to life, Huckabee is your man.

I can't say that I support "social-justice," it sounds a lot like socialism with a populist/religious veneer.

Pro-Life Movement gets boost

From the Fort Collins Coloradoan:

Ritter trying to 'sneak in' abortion view
Erik Rush

Although I'm not a one-topic crusader columnist, every now and then a political issue gets my hackles up so badly I feel I would be grossly remiss if I didn't address it.

The phenomenon of the "pro-life" vs. "pro-choice" issue is one in which I think many conscientious (non-ideologue fringe dwellers) folks are a little too lukewarm on. Leaving religious convictions aside for the moment, I know it was consoling to think that our legislators had everything in hand as far as medical ethics go, having been lulled into an erroneous belief that the subjects in question were simply blobs of undifferentiated cells.

It's become apparent to more and more Americans over the years that abortion is about the lucrative industry of killing babies in nauseatingly brutal and inhuman fashion; hence the "partial-birth" (in reality, full-term) abortion debates within the last few years.

Colorado Constitution Article 5, Section 50, was passed via ballot measure by the people of the State of Colorado to ensure that our tax dollars would never be used for the "direct or indirect" support of abortion mills.

It recently came to my attention (and to that of Colorado pro-life organizations) that Gov. Bill Ritter, in an effort to pay back some of the far-left supporters who helped get him elected, intends to circumvent this law and "indirectly" funnel Colorado taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.

It should be no surprise: "I will restore the funding to Planned Parenthood and other agencies," Ritter stated on his campaign Web site.

How, one wonders — without doing it illegally?

Depending on how familiar one is with the machinations of politics, this process can be likened to the laundering of money by organized crime. When dollars change hands enough times and no one is paying attention to the paper trail, when the government cuts a check, all looks to be above board.

The Christian Family Alliance of Colorado (www.ChristianFamilyAlliance.com), which has the support of Greeley Sen. Scott Renfroe, one of our state’s pro-life champions, is mounting a grassroots effort to stop this abomination in its tracks.

If you’ve been paying attention to the media of late, you’re aware it was a bipartisan grassroots effort that killed the U.S. Senate’s abysmal and dangerous immigration bill. Nationally, it was a major wake-up call that the voters, not special interests, still hold the lion’s share of political power in America.

There’s no reason to assume that this won’t hold true concerning Ritter’s designs, in spite of pro-abortion liberals controlling the state Legislature.

Timing is important, as well, according to CFAC literature: “… we think Ritter believes he will be able to sneak his pro-abortion scheme into action this summer when he hopes others will not be paying attention.” It’s a tactic we’ve seen played out at the federal level many times.”

This time, let’s show Ritter that the citizens of conscience in Colorado are indeed paying attention.

For more information on how you can help in this effort, contact: Mark Hotaling, director, Christian Family Alliance of Colorado, P.O. Box 13528, Denver, CO 80201; telephone (970) 556-0097.

Erik Rush is an author and columnist who works in advertising. Send e-mail to opinion@coloradoan.com

Senator Scott Renfroe introduced the first legislation banning abortion (SB07-143) in the history of the Colorado General Assembly last session. Renfroe is a pro-life champion and I'm glad to see he is supporting the Christian Family Alliance of Colorado.

I hope the Christian Family Alliance of Colorado can make some positive steps for the pro-life movement here in Colorado.

Romney speaks out of both sides of his mouth

From National Journal's Hotline and the Boston Herald:

Boston Herald's Ross reports Mitt Romney owns stock in 2 companies involved in embryonic stem cell research, biomedical firms Novo Nordisk and Millipore corp, "both of which use human embryos to research cures for chronic diseases." In his "public actions," Romney has "occupied a middle ground on stem cell research," supporting "using excess embryos created at fertility clinics, but he has opposed cloning or creating new embryos solely for experimentation."

Romney's "assets are held in a blind trust created after he was elected" Gov in '02. The manager of his trust, Brad Malt of the firm Ropes & Gray, "said Romney had no way of knowing how his funds were invested." While many candidates sell stocks held in blind trust, Romney didn't do so before WH '08. "Candidates can also set restrictions on their investments when a blind trust is created, but Malt said Romney did not take that step in 2002."

Romney's financial statement shows he owns between $100K and $250K in Novo Nordisk, "a Denmark-based company engaged in research projects involving embryonic stem cells" (8/15).

Romney has claimed that his election year conversion to the pro-life cause is a result of studying embryonic stem cells, and how his opposition to embryonic stems cell research was the catalyst for his pro-life conversion.

Romney opposes embryonic stem cell research, but has no problem making money off the destruction of human life.

Romney on Abortion: Reminder

"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country." Mitt Romney, 1994


"I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose." Mitt Romney, 2002.

Harvey fights for the un-born

As we speak the Colorado State Senate is debating the Long Appropriations Bill which sets the Colorado state budget.

State Senator Ted Harvey (R - Highlands Ranch) just ran an amendment to the Long Bill that would prevent Governor Ritter from funding abortion-provider Planned Parenthood, which would be a direct violation of Article V, Section 50 of the Colorado State Constitution.

The amendment failed, but Harvey deserves a pat on the back for standing up for the un-born children of Colorado.