The questioning period in the Elena Kagan confirmation hearings began yesterday, and some disturbing revelations concerning Kagan’s adamant pro-abortion ideology are already rising to the surface. Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee (and even some Democrats) have already expressed their concerns about Kagan’s utter lack of judicial experience and her apparent penchant for judicial activism. The leading Republican on the Committee, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, unhesitatingly expressed his reservations in Monday’s opening statements:
“Kagan has never tried a case before a jury. She argued her first appellate case just nine months ago. She has barely practiced law, and not with the intensity and duration from which real understanding occurs.”
On the matter of judicial activism, Sessions added the following:
“[T]hroughout her career, Ms. Kagan has associated herself with well-known activist judges. These judges don’t deny activism; they advocate it. And they openly oppose the idea of a judge as a neutral umpire.”
Orrin Hatch, a Republican and Senior Senator from Utah, quipped, “Will the Constitution control her, or will she control the Constitution?”
Indeed, Kagan’s admiration of her former boss, Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, is not unknown. At the time, she proved to be particularly fond of his “living Constitution” approach to judicial theory, saying: “For in Justice Marshall’s view, … [i]t was the role of the courts, in interpreting the Constitution, to protect the people who went unprotected by every other organ of government – to safeguard the interests of people who had no other champion. The Court existed primarily to fulfill this mission.” Unfortunately, history has shown us that this understanding of legal theory does not embrace the least protected of us all – the unborn.
The delicate nuances of abortion jurisprudence highlight the problems with Kagan’s deficiencies. Kagan has spent the bulk of her career taking strongly opinionated positions on several matters of law and policy in the manner of an ideologue – a clear contrast to the neutrality expected of those on the bench. During her time as an advisor to the Clinton Administration, she was instrumental in providing political cover for Pres. Clinton after he vetoed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997. While Kagan’s recommendation appeared to suggest a compromise, the proposed “Daschle ban” was in reality a phony policy meant to be used as a political red herring. It worked.
While recalling that controversial ploy, Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, had this to say:
“[The Daschle ban] had only one purpose, which was to provide political cover for pro-abortion senators who might otherwise feel compelled to vote to override President Clinton’s veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. It was not a real ban, but a completely hollow political construct – all exception, no ban.
“The Daschle ploy served its political purpose, which was to provide enough of a smokescreen to prevent the Senate from overriding Clinton’s veto.”
In yesterday’s questioning period, pro-abortion Senator Dianne Feinstein asked Kagan a series of questions concerning Roe v. Wade. Kagan asserted her belief that both Roe and the accompanying case, Doe v. Bolton, require that state regulations on abortion make exceptions for the health of the mother. Of course, Roe and Doe leave the matter of “maternal health” open to very wide interpretations, even to the point where a physician could claim that a mother would suffer from mental stigma if she were to give birth. “Maternal health” has become the catch-all excuse to legitimize abortion on demand.
While serving in the White House, Kagan sought to expand the reach of the “maternal health” exception. A media alert sent today by Americans United for Life reveals that Kagan “argued that a woman should have access to a partial-birth abortion if her doctor felt it was the best procedure for her health – regardless of whether she actually ‘needed’ an abortion at all.” Kagan’s ambitious and impassioned view on abortion policy combined with her proclivity for judicial activism provide for a gloomy indication of what may soon appear on the legal horizon.
Its a miracle, and a huge win for proponents of adult stem cell use! The AP is reporting that in Italy, dozens of people who had been blinded as a result of chemical burns to their eyes had their sight restored after adult stem cell therapy. From the AP:
"The treatment worked completely in 82 of 107 eyes and partially in 14 others, with benefits lasting up to a decade so far. One man whose eyes were severely damaged more than 60 years ago now has near-normal vision...
"In the study, published online by the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers took a small number of stem cells from a patient's healthy eye, multiplied them in the lab and placed them into the burned eye, where they were able to grow new corneal tissue to replace what had been damaged. Since the stem cells are from their own bodies, the patients do not need to take anti-rejection drugs."
Not only do they not have to worry about anti-rejection drugs, patients who undergo adult stem cell therapies are not troubled by the moral and ethical dilemma of destroying small humans, embryos, for scientific research. Also unlike embryonic stem cell research, treatments with adult stem cells have yielded real results:
"Researchers followed the patients for an average of three years and some as long as a decade. More than three-quarters regained sight after the transplant. An additional 13 percent were considered a partial success. Though their vision improved, they still had some cloudiness in the cornea.
"Patients with superficial damage were able to see within one to two months. Those with more extensive injuries took several months longer.
"'They were incredibly happy. Some said it was a miracle,' said one of the study leaders, Graziella Pellegrini of the University of Modena's Center for Regenerative Medicine in Italy. 'It was not a miracle. It was simply a technique.'
"The study was partly funded by the Italian government."
I'll tell you what the miracle is. Its a miracle that the Italian government funded a study involving only the use of adult stem cells. Here in the U.S., research with adult stem cells is only in the preliminary stages while after only two months in office, President Obama ended the ban on embryonic stem cell research. Since March 2009, there has been little to no success with embryonic cells. Hopefully the American science & research community will take this hint from our Italian friends!
Enrico Filippini, Katie Hudson, Laura Schaefer, Maria Dogero, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, Tommy Valentine, Danny Cannon, Rebecca Herr, Mary Crnkovich, and Megan Roberts pose for a quick picture in Congresswoman Bachmann's office.
Today, on what would have been her seventeenth birthday, family and friends of Codi Nicole Alexander of Gaithersburg, Maryland, are remembering the beautiful and all too short life of a very special young woman.
Kind, warm, and considerate, Codi was a devoted daughter to Lisa and Bruce Alexander, a helpful older sister to Taylor, Chase, and Brandon, an honor roll student, and talented soccer player. A community leader even as a high-schooler, Codi had recently been elected to the Parish Council at St. Rose of Lima Catholic Church in Gaithersburg, Md., where she also ministered as an alter server, and as Challenge Club leader—leading younger girls in their faith formation.
Codi was also a vibrant and compassionate young leader in the pro-life movement. At school and in her daily life, she was known for never backing down from a debate on Life, and could hold her own—even when she was the lone pro-life advocate in the classroom. Every January, she commemorated and challenged Roe vs. Wade by participating the March for Life. Her beautiful face always stood out in the crowd as she fought against the injustice of abortion.
Last August, Codi’s life was cut tragically short when, on her way home from her job as a lifeguard, she was hit by a car while riding her bike. Five days later, on August 10, 2009, Codi passed away.
With her death, Codi proved to be just as selfless, just as enthusiastic, and just as loving of her brothers and sisters as she had been in life. She left her organs to save others suffering from physical illness, and she left her legacy—to save unborn children from abortion.
Codi understood, with a wisdom and grace beyond her sixteen years, that the fight for Life must be fought on multiple fronts, and that the biggest gains to be made were in the political arena—where pro-life women leaders could enact laws to save lives. This why, a couple of months before her death, at the Susan B. Anthony List June Tea, Codi was ecstatic to meet so many like-minded people, all concerned with protecting the lives of the unborn. A beautiful young leader herself, Codi stood out of the crowd with passion and authenticity in her convictions.
The Codi Alexander Teen Pro-Life Leadership Fund was established in Codi’s honor. The fund will specifically be used to reach out to young teen girls, ages 13-19, and to provide training. This training will teach them how to articulate the pro-life message, learn how to defend their position, and give them the tools to make a difference for the unborn and women. Moreover, the goal of the Fund will be to inspire young women to take a leadership role in their schools, their communities, and the pro-life movement as a whole.
Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels recently told The Weekly Standard that the next president "would have to call truce on the so-called social issues. We’re going to just have to agree to get along for a little while."
Later, when asked by The Weekly Standard's John McCormack whether or not he would reinstate the Mexico City Policy (banning U.S. funding to groups that provide or promote abortion overseas), Daniels replied "I don't know."
In an Fox News op-ed, Frank Cannon, SBA List Treasurer and President of the American Principles Project takes on Daniels' claim that protecting Life must take a back seat to economic issues.
Mitch Daniels, a man not given to making many national headlines, finally did so with a remark that the next American president will need a truce on the “so-called social issues” while he deals with the economy. Ever since the Indiana Governor’s comment appeared in a magazine piece in which he was touted as potentially that next president, the “truce talk” raced through the blogosphere like an electric current.
Daniels is no obscure political figure in a heartland red state. He has been a quietly effective and unusually popular Republican governor with a well-earned reputation for cost-cutting and health care innovation. With a federal debt approaching $13 trillion, Daniels is apparently seen by many as just what Washington needs.
The “truce” comment might have been a one-day story were it not for Weekly Standard blogger John McCormack, who caught up with Daniels shortly after the magazine piece appeared. To clarify, he asked Daniels if he meant that social issues would be de-emphasized if he became president, or if he would actually refuse to act.
Would Daniels, for example, reinstate the Reagan-era Mexico City policy (banning U.S. foreign aid to groups that provide or promote abortion overseas)? The policy has been suspended and reinstated by executive order by successive Democratic and Republican presidents for the past 20 years.
Daniels’ stunning answer to McCormack’s question: “I don’t know.”
The reply would have been careless for any prospective GOP candidate for the White House; for a reputed social conservative, it was something much worse. It had the feel of a planned surprise – a flight from orthodoxy meant as a symbolic message that a whole array of issues are about to be shelved. Restoring the Mexico City policy would require only a presidential executive order, a stroke of the pen. Presidential pens are not a heavy lift.
The Hoosier governor’s truce talk is wrong on so many levels. It needlessly demeans one portion of the conservative coalition – the “ethnic, Catholic (and, more recently, evangelical) blue collar” vote that Ronald Reagan led into fealty with the GOP’s traditional hawks and economic conservatives. And social conservatives are not just a portion of that coalition – they hold views on issues like federal abortion funding and protecting the definition of marriage that represent a significant majority.
Second, calling for a truce on social issues is a little like asking the kid being pummeled by the schoolyard bully to stand down. All the kid is doing is holding his hands in front of his face to ward off the blows. Social conservatives did not launch campaigns to exploit the definition of marriage for their own gain, whatever that would mean. Instead, they have only fought to preserve the natural and perennial status of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. They have faced, and in most cases defeated, judicial elites who have sought to impose same-sex marriage on the populace.
The long-term battle over the sanctity of life issue has had the same character. The Supreme Court attempted to resolve it in 1973 by judicial fiat, nullifying the laws of all 50 states. In the four decades since, the courts have gone further and limited laws designed to guarantee parental consent and encourage informed consent. And in the past year alone the Obama Administration has subverted federal abortion funding restrictions by rescinding the Mexico City policy, approving local public funding of abortions in the District of Columbia and, most egregiously of all, designing a national health system that will provide tax credits for plans that cover elective abortions.
Social conservatives are, by and large, resisting public policies handed down from on high by unelected judges. In many cases, they are rallying for causes the elites thought they could resolve by undemocratic means. Since the passage of the Obama health plan, five state legislatures have voted to bar coverage of elective abortions in their insurance exchanges. Believing they had largely won the battles over public abortion funding three decades ago, pro-life Americans are fighting again for the same principle in battles they did not seek.
At the end of the day, Mitch Daniels’ truce talk is a profound insult to the public’s intelligence. Defenders of life in the womb and the marital bond cannot sit back while yet another administration tells them to take a pounding because “bigger issues” like excess government spending deserve all the attention.
When millions of these social conservatives are asked the question sometime next year whether they will support Mitch Daniels or anyone like him who derides their concerns and counsels surrender, they won’t be answering, “We don’t know.”
Frank Cannon is the President of American Principles Project and Treasurer of the Susan B. Anthony List.
The Wall Street Journal’s recent Life and Style piece,
titled “The Breeders’ Cup: The Case for Having More Kids,” provides a refreshing analysis of parenthood and parenting methods. While recent studies
have suggested that people with children are less happy than those without,
Bryan Caplan breaks down the statistics, showing that the single and childless
are the least happy in society, and not parents.
An interesting Gallup poll conducted in 2003 among parents
and childless adults over the age of 40 suggests that while parents might be
more stressed for a time, they find the experience overall to be worthwhile and
satisfying. When asked the question “If you had to do it over again, how
many children would you have, or would you not have any at all?,” only 24% of
childless adults would choose to be childless again, compared to 91% of parents
who would choose to have children again.
Caplan also states that the primary reason that parents are
less happy than their childless counterparts is from the added stress that they
place on themselves, financially and otherwise, to produce a smart, successful
adult. He references numerous studies from different time periods, indicating
that parenting methods and income are of negligible importance when determining a child’s
future success, but that a peaceful and harmonious atmosphere is more important
as the child grows. The studies all suggest that instead of putting too much
pressure on the child and themselves, parents can be much happier, and their
children equally as successful, if they simply relax and enjoy their time
together. Then, if parents lighten up and stop making drastic and unnecessary
financial “investments” in each child, they should be able to afford and enjoy
more children.
Pro-life advocates in Alaska have successfully fought off a court challenge from Planned Parenthood to block a parental notification measure from going on the ballot this August!
Alaskan pro-lifers started a campaign last year to gather enough signatures to put a measure on the ballot requiring doctors to inform at least one parent before performing an abortion on a minor. They did so successfully, and then-Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell certified the signatures in July 2009. However, Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest filed a lawsuit, claiming the summary of the measure on the petition was confusing and misleading. An alliance of attorneys organized by the Alliance Defense Fund defended the measure, saying the errors could be easily fixed. Earlier this month, the Alaska Supreme Court agreed, and ruled that the measure will be placed on the ballot on August 24th, 2010.
In California in 2008, Planned Parenthood did the exact same thing – they filed a lawsuit saying the language in the petition summary for a parental notification measure was misleading. This argument was also struck down and the initiative was allowed to move forward. Public opinion polls found support for the measure as late as October 2008, but pro-abortion groups managed to defeat it 52%-48%.
Alaska would be the 37th state to implement a parental notification measure. But pro-lifers in Alaska face an uphill battle. Planned Parenthood will probably use the same tactics they used in California and will pour money into the battle. If Planned Parenthood had their way, a 17 year old would need a parent to get acne medication, but a 13 year old girl would need no parental notification or consent whatsoever to get an abortion.
It’s time to stop Planned Parenthood’s war for unlimited, unrestricted abortions.
During his first term in office President Obama has earned the title of the most pro-abortion president in the history of the U.S. and here is why:
- Personally placing multiple pro-abortion politicians into office (ex. The Supreme Court, Health & Human Services, the Justice Department, the State Department). - Overturning the Mexico City Policy and forcing taxpayers to fund pro-abortion groups in other nations. - Overturning the limits on embryonic stem cell research put in place by pro-life President Bush. - Starting the process of overturning pro-life conscience protections President Bush put in place to make sure medical staff and centers are not forced to do abortions. - Authorizing the spending of taxpayer funds for embryonic stem cell research that kills days-old unborn children. - Issuing a new order for the U.S. military requiring all military hospitals and health centers to stock the morning after pill. - Signing Obamacare into law and giving the pro-life community a non-binding executive order, thus allowing for the federal funding of abortion.
(A complete list of President Obama’s abortion record is several pages in length and can be found here.)
This long road, paved by “choice” and [false] “hope,” becomes shorter by the day as the November 2010 elections draw near. If his declining approval rating and the surge in pro-life candidates seeking office are any indication, this road which President Obama has crafted will likely come to an end in 2010.
Lifenews.com exposed the decline in popularity of the most pro-abortion president to date:
“Overall, 42% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of Obama's performance in office, the new Rasmussen Reports survey shows. Those are the lowest ratings yet recorded for Obama as 57 percent of likely voters now disapprove.
"The president’s approval rating has held steady in the 46% - 47% range for six months and it remains to be seen whether this new low is merely statistical noise or the start of a lasting change," pollster Scott Rasmussen said.
Looking at the most passionate voters either way, some 24 percent of Americans strongly approve of the job Obama has done while a larger 44 percent strongly disapprove.
That gives Obama a -15 percent overall rating and a -20 rating from Americans who are most passionate about his presidency.
Just 48% of Democrats strongly approve of Obama's job performance while 75% of Republicans strongly disapprove. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 12% Strongly Approve and 52% Strongly Disapprove -- a bad sign for Obama and his pro-abortion allies heading into the mid-term elections.
In 2008, Obama won 53%-46% over Sen. John McCain, who had the backing of pro-life organizations. That means Obama has dropped 22 percent from then in the eyes of American voters.”
These declining approval ratings only help the pro-life men and women who are tirelessly campaigning for Congressional seats across the country. Women in particular are running for office in record numbers – a true testament to the uproar of authentic, pro-life feminism against the pro-abortion president and Congress. With your help, these pro-Life candidates will become the voice for the voiceless in November.
The decline in President Obama’s approval ratings are signs of the resurgence in the pro-life movement for 2012, as the American public has realized the importance of having their values protected and respected by the leader of the free world.
It looks like American women may soon have another way to kill their unborn children. Yesterday Reuters reported that the FDA Advisory Board unanimously approved uripristal acetate, to be marketed in the US as “Ella” by Watson Pharmaceuticals, as a safe and effective “emergency contraceptive.” Ella is being billed as a pumped up morning after pill that can “prevent pregnancy” up to 5 days after intercourse, 2 full days longer than the traditional morning after pill (Plan B). Lifenews reported on a study published by the Lancet which compared the two drugs, that for the group that took the drug between 3-5 days after having sex, only women taking the traditional morning after pill became pregnant.
The reality is that Ella is more than contraception, and does more than “preventing pregnancies.” Like Plan B, one of the ways in which the drug works is by interfering with the lining in the uterus. Ella blocks the hormone progesterone, making implantation of the embryo impossible. Since the drug is meant to be taken up to five days after intercourse, it is likely that conception has already taken place and that the use of Ella will effectively cause abortion. Ella goes even further than Plan B though, because it is more chemically similar to RU-486, the abortion pill.
According to the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG), the medical literature has established that Ella “has the ability to destroy established pregnancies as well as prevent implantation.” The drug’s effects on the uterine lining threaten the ability of the embryo to survive if already implanted. Because of the drug’s abortifacient properties and similarity to RU-486, AAPLOG has recommended that it have the highest black box warning, a type of warning that appears on the package insert for prescription drugs that may cause serious adverse effects, if approved for sale.
Besides causing abortions, there is also a concern with the effects of Ella on women and on babies who survive the drug. As AAPLOG pointed out to the FDA, “ulipristal’s potential effects on women who used the drug off-label (with an unapproved purpose, dosage, etc.) and upon ongoing pregnancies are essentially unexamined and untested." There is also little information on the effects of the drug on women who take it multiple times, and The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use studied the drug and admits there is not much known about how the drug would affect a woman who did get pregnant. The adverse events reported during clinical trials of the drug are also similar to those of mifepristone (RU-486), such as increased infections, ovarian pain, ovarian cyst formation and bleeding disturbances. The approval of Ella in the US would essentially be taking the next generation of RU-486, which is known to present health risks for women (13 women have died from taking the drug), and making it even more accessible.
Ella is currently marketed in Europe under the brand name ellaOne by prescription, and if the drug makes it through the final stages of FDA approval it will be available by prescription in the US. However, since Plan B also started out as a prescription only drug and is now available over the counter, there is a scary possibility that it could be approved for over the counter sales sometime in the future.
Ella is not the next great emergency contraception option, as heralded by pro-abortion feminists, but rather the next scarily convenient abortion option. In some ways the pro-abortion reaction to the drug is ironic. The arrival of Ella has pro-aborts suddenly clamoring about the insufficiencies of current contraception options. According to Dr. Christiane Northrup of the Huffington Post, “contraceptive failures happen even in ideal users. That means that there will always be a role for the morning-after pill. Ella does this job particularly well.” This is strange for those who are used to pro-aborts generally glorifying the effectiveness of contraception, to the point of claiming that contraception reduces the need for abortion. A pro-lifer who does not advocate increased contraception, for whatever reason (and there are good ones), will often run into criticism saying that they are not helping their own cause. The fact is, contraception does not always work. And when it doesn’t work, women who think they have acted responsibly, women who have done everything society has told them to do to avoid pregnancy, think that they do not deserve to be pregnant and turn to abortion. According to Planned Parenthood’s own research arm, the Guttmacher institute, typical use of the Pill has an 8.7% failure rate, and 54% of the women who have abortions have used contraception the month they became pregnant. Far from contraception preventing abortion, in their efforts to create perfect contraception, pro-abortion feminists have conflated abortion and contraception in Ella.
This week Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal (R) is expected to sign an ultrasound bill into law. Senate Bill 528, which would require women seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound at least two hours before the procedure, was passed in the the Louisiana House of Representatives by a vote of 79-0.
LA State Senator Sharon Broome, (D-Baton Rouge), a longtime pro-life advocate and sponsor of the bill, emphasized how important it is that women be fully informed before undergoing abortion. The new law requires that a woman either be given the option of viewing the ultrasound, or hearing a
description and getting a copy of the ultrasound
image.
Congratulations, Louisiana, for having two amazing pro-life leaders!
Today, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report showing from 2002 to 2009, Planned Parenthood spent $657,100,000 in federal funds.
What have they been doing with that money?
In 2007 alone (the most recent year for which there is data available) Planned Parenthood Federation of America reported that its abortion clinics conducted over 305,000 abortions—compared to a meager 4,912 adoptions referrals and 10,914 prenatal clients reported the same year.
"The GAO report is one more piece of conclusive evidence showing that, while Planned Parenthood claims to offer women choices, it only offers one: abortion," said SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser.
"The name ‘Planned Parenthood’ is a misnomer. These findings reveal, once again, that under the guise of ‘helping women,’ Planned Parenthood’s core mission is the promotion of a procedure that holds devastating consequences for women and the unborn. Time and time again voters have said they do not want their tax dollars supporting this industry, yet Members of Congress defy their constituents by voting to channel tax dollars to abortion providers, like Planned Parenthood. Women, the unborn and the American people deserve better than this."
Have you heard about the Republicans' newly launched website called "America Speaking Out"? Members of the Republican leadership created the site to give the American people a chance to share their national policy ideas with Members of Congress by telling them which issues matter most.
The America Speaking Out website contains forums where citizens can voice their ideas and concerns. Currently in the "Life" section, radical, pro-abortion groups have taken it upon themselves to submit suggestions, such as: "the sanctity of life should support whatever of woman wishes to do with her body. Without this right freedom is meaningless."
The majority of Americans are pro-life, so we need to make sure our voices are heard.
Support this "comment" on the America Speaking Out Site:
Abortion is not healthcare. Any bill that replaces or changes the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act must ensure that no federal funds go toward elective abortion, must prevent any federal agency from mandating abortion, and must protect the conscience of healthcare workers. Its easy to get involved!
1. Click the link to the site, then click the "thumbs up" on the website.
2. You will be asked to create an account if you do not already have one. Then you can place a final "thumbs up" vote to take abortion funding out of health care.
3. You can also comment on our post, send a link to your friends, and put it on your Twitter and Facebook.
Pro-lifers, now is your chance to tell Republican leadership that we must continue to fight the expansion of abortion through healthcare reform. Don't let the pro-aborts out-vote us on our pro-life post. It is important to vote as soon as possible so that, together, we can send the clear message that protecting unborn American lives should be a legislative priority. The Republican Leadership cannot help but pay attention if our idea gets overwhelming support in a short span of time. Vote Now!
This Sunday's New York Times included an incredible op-ed piece from National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru. Juxtaposing this election cycle with 1992 and the so-called "year of the woman" (because so many women candidates succeeded at the ballot box), Ponnuru shows who will usher in 2010's Year of the Pro-life Woman.
WHEN President George W. Bush signed the bill banning partial-birth abortion in 2003, supportive legislators gathered around for a photograph. All of them were men. Nancy Pelosi, then the House minority leader, called the image “a slap in the face to women across America.”
My fellow pro-lifers winced at the picture — both because it offered Ms. Pelosi a political opportunity and because it reflected an enduring political weakness of our movement. American women are just as likely to be pro-life as American men, but few pro-life women have gone into politics.
The Gallup organization recently concluded that “abortion polling since the mid-1970s finds few remarkable distinctions between men’s and women’s views on the legality of abortion.” It has found that 48 percent of American women consider themselves pro-life, while 45 percent consider themselves pro-choice.
There are many millions of pro-life women, but there are only 13 in the House. The Senate has no pro-life women. Even Kay Bailey Hutchison, the Texas Republican who votes with pro-lifers on many issues, says she favors Roe v. Wade. All of the women who have served on the Supreme Court have supported Roe, too.
Pro-life women have not even found representation among Republican first ladies, all of whom in the post-Roe era have been pro-choice. One reason that Sarah Palin’s nomination for vice president in 2008 was so immediately polarizing is that she instantly became the most prominent pro-life woman American politics has ever produced.
Sarah Palin is about to get some company. Two pro-life women won Republican nominations for the Senate this week. A Tea Party favorite, Sharron Angle, and the former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina are running for the Senate from Nevada and California, respectively.
A third pro-life woman, Susana Martinez, became the party’s nominee for governor of New Mexico, and a fourth, Nikki Haley, a South Carolina state legislator, is expected to be a gubernatorial nominee in her state. If they win their primaries, Kelly Ayotte, the former attorney general of New Hampshire, and Jane Norton, the former lieutenant governor of Colorado, will also be pro-life Senate candidates in November.
None of these candidates is a single-issue pro-lifer. But these women have not been shy about discussing the issue, either. Neither Ms. Fiorina nor Ms. Haley would have been likely to get Ms. Palin’s endorsement — valuable in a Republican primary — without firmly opposing abortion. Likewise, Ms. Angle would not have been able to unite populist conservatives and beat the party establishment’s candidate had she been pro-choice.
The number of pro-life women running for office has increased, perhaps paradoxically, because of the social changes of the last few decades. The first generation of women to become active in politics strongly identified as feminist and considered abortion rights central to their feminism. Pro-life women were more likely to be full-time homemakers. Their invisibility on the public stage contributed to an impression that the vast majority of women were pro-choice.
These days socially conservative women are likely to have careers, too. The growing number of Americans who consider themselves pro-life suggests that fewer people, of either sex, consider access to abortion to be crucial to women’s economic success. The pro-life stance generally wins Republicans votes in general elections, because pro-lifers are more likely to vote on the issue than pro-choicers are.
That advantage is likely to be more pronounced for pro-life women running for office. Kellyanne Conway, a Republican pollster, says that her surveys have found that voters respond more positively to the pro-life message when it comes from women. Pro-life women won’t be suspected, or credibly accused, of opposing abortion because they want to keep women in their place; they can therefore talk about the issue less defensively than male pro-lifers sometimes do.
Pro-life women can also soften the message: Ms. Fiorina has said, “I myself was not able to have children of my own, and so I know what a precious gift life is.” It’s hard to imagine a male politician making that comment. These women will make it easier for pro-lifers to discuss the issue in the terms we want to discuss it: as a plea for justice for a vulnerable group.
Some of these pro-life women are bound to win their elections, and that will surely change the tenor of the national conversation about abortion. For instance, previous abortion debates in the Senate have pitted Ms. Boxer against Rick Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania. Next time the gender divide won’t be so stark.
Political journalists called 1992 “the year of the woman” because so many female candidates won Senate seats that year — including Barbara Boxer, who was elevated from the House. All those women supported abortion rights. “We have been waiting for our 1992,” says Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the Susan B. Anthony List, which encourages pro-life women to run for Congress. Her wait is coming to an end.
After a stint in prison for assaulting a police officer, Arturo Rojas may find himself behind Connecticut’s familiar closed bars once again - this time for assaulting his pregnant girlfriend. According to LifeNews.com and the Waterbury Republican American newspaper, the 41-year-old man left his girlfriend shaking and crying in her apartment while she attempted to call for emergency help. Rojas returned to the scene after authorities had arrived and admitted to repeatedly punching the unnamed woman in the stomach. Rojas stated that he “[messed] that [woman] up. She is stupid and won't get an abortion.”
Sadly, Rojas is preceded by a growing list of men who have begun attacking and killing women who choose to preserve Life over abortion. The Memphis Commercial Appeal newspaper reported a similar case in which a police officer, Chancy K. Jones, shot and killed his mistress after she refused to have an abortion. Phyliss Malone, the late mistress of former officer Jones, requested money for the child’s care after she became aware of her pregnancy. Jones admitted the following allegations in his five-page police report:
"So when I asked her about going to get an abortion done, she cursed and said hell no she wasn't gonna do that. She was determined that she was going to tell her (Jones' wife) and come to my house. I asked her not to do it. She said 'Bye, Chancy.' That's when I pulled out a pistol and I shot her,"
Both Rojas and Jones are currently charged with their respective cases: Rojas with “third-degree assault, disorderly conduct and interfering with an emergency phone call” and Jones with first-degree murder.
According to Medscape Medical News, “Pregnant homicide victims are more likely to have been killed early in the pregnancy, which can make it difficult to identify the pregnancy and link it with the homicide…Pregnant homicide victims are more likely to be killed with a gun…Pregnant teenagers (aged 15-19 years) were more at risk.” Deanne Williams, American College of Nurse-Midwives Executive Director, furthers this argument by stating “what pregnant women do not know is that instead of facing joyful celebration at the announcement of pregnancy, too many face violence and death. We have got to do a better job of identifying this problem and helping the women and their partners not end up with such a horrific outcome."” Violence against a pregnant woman is a violent crime against her and her innocent unborn child. Many have attributed the painfully large number of men using violence against pregnant women to the man’s lack of “choice” with regards to the pregnancy – once again proving that “choice” comes with consequences.
In late May, Senator Roland Burris offered an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill, in the Armed Services Committee, to allow elective abortion to be performed on domestic and international military bases. This is a drastic change from current military protocol.
If elective abortion is permitted on military bases, your tax dollars will be used to facilitate abortion including paying abortion practitioners, purchasing abortion equipment, and funding facilities where abortions are performed. Americans made it clear to Congress during the health care debate that they do not want their tax dollars to to fund abortion in any way, shape, or form . Congress did not listen then, so let’s remind them again, loud and clear, that your hard earned money should not go toward abortion.
Not only do you not want your money facilitating the death of an innocent, unborn child, but military doctors don’t want to be involved in this terrible practice either. When abortion was permitted on military bases for a short time during the Clinton Administration, military doctors would not participate.
World Magazine's recent expose titled “The Thirty Years War,” discusses, in gruesome detail, the appalling results of China’s one-child-only policy. In 1979, China’s powerful communist government established a policy to reign in its burgeoning population, allowing only one child to be born per family. If a woman is caught with an “unauthorized pregnancy,” she is often coerced or forced to undergo an abortion. Mass sterilizations are commonplace, and “undesirable” newborns are frequently abandoned and left to die. Among these “undesirables” are the deformed, the disabled, and the female. Most families desire healthy sons, and this attitude has led to a huge disparity in the populations of men and women. In 2005, it was reported that China had over 32 million more men than women under the age of 20.
Isn’t it ironic that abortion, often debated as a “woman’s right to choose” here in America, is deliberately used to take away women’s choice in China and numerous other countries? Women are being systematically singled out and exterminated in the womb, while many self-proclaimed “feminists” in the United States Congress (I.E. Barbara Boxer, among others) continue to defend the procedure used to do it. While many Americans find the issue of gender-selective abortions to be irrelevant, it most certainly is not. In fact, Columbia University released a study in 2008 reflecting a strong “son-bias” in American births as recently as the year 2000. Some states such as Oklahoma have enacted laws to combat gender-selective abortions, much to the chagrin of pro-choice women’s rights groups. One might wonder why these groups, which supposedly seek to promote gender equality, would get so up in arms about a bill that would protect against gender discrimination in the womb.
In addition to females, children with disabilities and deformities also become targets for termination and abandonment. Sadly, these practices are not restricted to China. A 2006 study by the National Down Syndrome Cytogenetic Register in the United Kingdom reported that 92% of women that receive a prenatal diagnosis for Down ’s syndrome choose to abort their child. The statistics for American births are just as disturbing, where an estimated 90% of babies diagnosed prenatally with Down’s are aborted. New statistics continue to emerge which suggest that children with even moderate deformities, such as a cleft palate or deformed feet, are being aborted at increasing rates.
These statistics send a strong message about the way that abortion has shaped societal attitudes. Rather than creating equality for women, abortion has merely enabled people to discriminate against women in vivo and act upon the widespread “son-bias.” Abortion also allows discrimination against the disabled and deformed, harkening back to the eugenics movement and the euthanasia efforts of early Nazi Germany. Abortion itself sends the message that there is nothing inherently sacred about human life. By removing the sanctity of life, it is then left up to debate what a human life is worth, and what lives are worth more than others. Is a grown woman’s life worth more than a developing child? Is a man more valuable than a woman? Are the disabled as valuable as everyone else? These questions, when left open to debate, lead to dire social consequences, as seen in China and other countries today. Without the basic right to live, all other rights simply fall by the wayside. It is essential for a civilized society to respect all human life equally, from conception to natural death.
What an amazing night for pro-life women across the country! Without a doubt, last night victories were the greatest affirmation of the Susan B. Anthony List mission since our organization's founding and truly telling of the resurgence of authentic, pro-life feminism--feminism true to our formother's belief that the rights of one group can never be advanced on the broken backs of others.
Check out SBA List President Marjorie's op-ed on Fox News this morning.
Primaries in 11 states are over. In recent weeks several articles have attacked particular voices and groups unabashedly supporting the “pro-life feminism” of candidates such as California GOP Senate primary winner Carly Fiorina.
Even Ms. Magazine's blog gets in on the action with an entry titled, “Sarah Palin is Not a Feminist.” The articles I've seen are packed with lots of ad feminum shots at Governor Palin and the organization I oversee as president, the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, and then there's some harrumphing over the perceived lack of gratitude shown to the feminist foremothers of the 1960s, and lists, lots of lists.
What's on these lists? Well, there are lists of the things you apparently have to do or say or believe in order to be an honest-to-goodness feminist.
You have to support the authors’ particular wish-list of government programs or budget items for one thing. And, according to one commentator, Jessica Valenti, you simply must spend some quality time engaging in “a structural analysis of patriarchal norms, power dynamics or systemic inequities.”
But when they really get down to brass tacks, each of the articles insists upon one thing: feminism, whatever else it might include, must include a virtually unqualified support for abortion rights.
The success of pro-life women, like Fiorina, in last night’s primaries makes it clear that this is a risky gambit in the year 2010. Those who hazard it are speaking into an American culture in which the majority of the public, including the majority of women, now self-identify as “pro-life.”
Poor women and women of color (in whose name older feminists often presume to speak) are more reluctant to turn to abortion than their wealthier sisters. In our time, opposition to abortion figures so prominently in our society that it nearly brought down the entire health care bill.
Still, abortion rights-feminists are entitled to give their argument a try. But so are pro-life feminists.
Once the idea of feminism escaped the universities and books and reigning newspapers which gave it life, it became the public property of millions of American women. These women are free to decide, over time and through their lived experiences, where their interests really lie. In other words, the business of defining feminism is not a monopoly; it is a competition of ideas.
Pro-life feminists like Carly Fiorina think that women don’t view the right to abort their child as the linchpin of their freedom or their happiness. Rather, they wish to bear the children they conceive, while maintaining the realistic possibility of getting an education and working to help support their families.
Tuesday’s wins in California and Nevada reveal that this message resonates with a majority of women.
It’s surprising, really, that abortion-rights feminists are so unequivocal in their insistence that “pro-life feminism” is an oxymoron. After all, the pro-life feminist argument relies upon feminism’s better angels. It is a communitarian argument for one thing.
The pro-life feminist looks out for the interests of other people affected by her decisions. She refuses to take terrible advantage of another vulnerable group - the unborn - in order to advance her own case. She makes the “both/and” argument: both the woman and the unborn child deserve respect.
Secondly, the pro-life feminist relies upon empirical and scientific datum. She makes a rational argument about when life begins or about the psychological or physical harm some women suffer after abortion; she is not shouting down or pressuring her opponents, or belittling them personally.
Finally, she insists that what women alone are capable of doing – bearing and mothering children–– merits more respect than it presently receives. Abortion rights have unburdened men from the fathering role. His freedom from sexual responsibility is premised on the woman's choice to abort or not.
It is no coincidence, suggests the pro-life feminist, that 37 years after women were granted the “right to abortion,” the number of women and children living without the presence or the support of the father is at an all-time high. She thinks it’s no accident that elite jobs are regularly populated by women who, often with regret, felt pressured, with no support available to them, to avoid parenting in order to advance in their career.
Pro-life feminists should not demonstrate a lack of gratitude for the feminists who went before us with their just demands for equal opportunity, and their analysis of the ways in which public and private institutions and customs devalued women.
But neither should abortion rights feminists be deaf to pro-life feminists’ logic, nor to their observations about women’s lived experience of freedom over these last several decades.
Abortion rights feminists should stop the name-calling and recognize their pro-life sisters’ efforts to move feminism in a more inclusive, responsive, and rational direction.
"Feminism.” Claim the term or don't. But if you do, don't assume you've got proprietary rights to define its meaning. You will be hugely disappointed this November.
Marjorie Dannenfelser is President of the Susan B. Anthony List, a nationwide network of over 280,000 pro-life Americans dedicated to advancing, mobilizing and representing pro-life women in the political process.
A Pro-Life legislative measure which is gaining traction throughout many of the states is commonly known as “the ultrasound bill”. Basically it is a measure aimed at aiding the decision making process of women who are considering abortion. The bill makes it a requirement for abortion clinics to give their clients the option of viewing an ultrasound of their unborn child before making the decision to go through with the abortion. If the client does not wish to see the ultrasound, they are free to sign a waiver declining their option to do so.
Choice is the operative word here in every instance. With the ability to see an ultrasound, women can now choose to avoid the situation which so many women have unjustly experienced since Roe vs. Wade, that situation being their abortion doctor telling them their child is “just a blob of cells” and believing that what they are terminating is not really human. An ultrasound definitely enhances the accuracy and completeness of information a woman takes into account while considering abortion. In addition to this the measure leaves room for any woman to choose to not view the ultrasound. No woman is forced by law to subject herself to more psychological turmoil. Also, the vast majority (82% in Florida for instance) of abortion clinics already perform an ultrasound before performing abortion procedures and include this cost in the abortion fee so complaints of the bill monetarily penalizing women are relatively unfounded.
The ultrasound bill presents itself as a measure which serves to really test if a person is truly in favor of choice or if they are simply interested in protecting unmitigated legalized abortion, as provided by Roe vs. Wade. At its heart, it seeks to help women be more accurately informed about making a decision with a dizzying amount of consequences. It cannot be painted any other way. Ultrasounds are tools which aid doctors performing medical procedures (hence why so many abortion clinics already use them!) In the end, an ultrasound doesn’t show anything except what is truly inside of the pregnant womb: a developing human life. Why would anyone claiming to be pro-choice or pro-woman have a real, fundamental issue with such a measure?
Currently, Florida and Louisiana are in the midst of intense debate concerning this measure. The Louisiana State Senate has already approved the bill which is now expected to be ratified by the House and sent to Gov. Jindal’s desk for approval. In Florida the bill has already made it to the desk of Gov. Charlie Crist (also Independent candidate for U.S. Senate) as of yesterday where it faces the imminent threat of veto in light of Crist's hostility to the bill.
If you are either a Florida or Louisiana resident please act in support of this bill so that the truth of Life in the womb may reach more and more women in crisis. If you are not in these states please consider making an effort to make your own state legislature aware of this measure, especially through your state right to Life organizations. Info about Louisiana bill ACTION ALERT OPPORTUNITY FOR FLORIDIANS
The Susan B. Anthony List is dedicated to advancing, mobilizing and representing pro-life women in the political process.
Its connected Candidate Fund increases the percentage of pro-life women in politics.
Today, on what would have been her seventeenth birthday, family and friends of 
