pro-life

Out of power in both houses of Congress and the White House, one would think that like the Republican Party, the Pro-Life Movement is in the wilderness and without leaders. However, this couldn't be further from the case... In fact, the Pro-Life Movement is more united then ever. Case in point: the Susan B. Anthony List Campaign for Life Dinner held earlier this month in Washington, D.C.

Podcast Show Notes

Will Russia send bombers to Cuba and Venezuela? (Hat Tip: Don Surber.)

No more enemy combatants: another clue Obama doesn't get the War on Terror. (Hat Tip: Surber.)

Obama snubs Brazil. (Hat Tip: Hot Air.)

Obama helps stimulate the economy---of Switzerland. (Hat Tip: Instapundit.)

Judd Gregg, former Obama Commerce Secretary choice shows how Geithner's lying.

Speaker Pelosi: What? Me? Partisan.

A look at  top 10 Senate RINOs. (Hat Tip: Club For Growth.) Card Check: government control of small business.

Senate Democrats who are undecided on card check. (Hat Tip: Club for Growth.)

Senator Nelson currently no. (Hat Tip: Hot Air.)

Chris Dodd's suspicious pardon for a friend.

New York Congressman cheats taxes. (Hat Tip: Red State.)

Obama carbon tax increase on the average family: $4,000.

Governor Sanford warns of Zimbabwe style collapse.

Nothing has changed: lobbyists rule the roost in DC.

National Tax Day Tea Party.

Education policy by thuggery. (Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin.)

Coming to America: Islamic Mortgages. (Hat Tip: The Corner.)

Second Amendment update.

Democrat Science experts: unfertilized embryos.

The madness of anti-Gender Idenity discrimination laws.

Attacking Christian and Muslim parents in Great Britain.

Illinois approves its own version of the Freedom of Choice Act.

Pro-Life bills make their way through the legislative process in Missouri and Virginia.

Brave new world: using aborted children to make up for organ donation shortages.

15 strangest college courses.(Hat Tip: Outside the Beltway.)

Click here to listen, click here to download.

After the Republican defeats in 2006 and 2008, many people both inside and outside the party are attempting to sideline and remove the social conservative principles and even the members who hold them the most important in the party. Although I am not a social conservative myself, I do not agree that social conservatives should be caged up and belittled. Social conservative principles are just as important to the survival of the Republican party and this nation as fiscal conservative and “national defense conservative” principles. The party and its philosophy is big enough for all of us.

This attempts to make a solid, comprehensive case for the future of the “pro-life” movement that can appeal to both older Americans who have been involved with the pro-life movement and young Americans who are looking for new over-arching principles that are free of what has so far turned them off from the pro-life movement. It does deviate from traditional pro-life principles in some major ways, but it does so to try to create a broad “umbrella platform” that can be applied to a range of issues and excite a new generation of pro-life advocates.

The single line motto used to promote this “Full Life” or “New Pro-Life” or “Always Life” movement is: “Always for Life, from conception to natural death, and every day in between”.

The principles of this “Full Life” movement:

• “Every life must be protected because there is incredible potential in everyone, no matter how poor or troubled a beginning” This is the argument against abortion. Provide here real-life examples of great people who came from backgrounds that are typically prone to high abortion rates, and ask the reader to imagine if these people had never been born. Children are never a burden on our economy or society in the long run as Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama may believe.
• “Every life deserves to grow up in a home where they are wanted and loved, even if it is not the home they were born into” This is the argument for adoption as an alternative to abortion. We must make it a priority to invest in this nation’s adoption programs to not only streamline the laws and regulations, but also find creative ways to finance their expanded size and scope. The long term goal would be to establish a full ecosystem of private charities and even businesses that can carry out the full range of needed services under sufficient regulation and oversight. There may be some problems because out of all of the principles, this one may require the most taxpayer money and government regulation in order to create and sustain this system. Also, there is the problem that in order for adoption to be considered by pregnant women instead of abortions (even if illegal), they will need a large amount of care and incentive during their pregnancy. If incentive for having the child is not provided, then they may resort to dangerous means to abort. However, if too much or the wrong kind of incentive is given, then some women may end up abusing the system for selfish means (repeatedly having children for free health care, for example). This is a problem currently unresolved, and open for discussion.
• “There is no One-Size-Fits-All health care, while the best care is able to target differences between genders, ethnicities, cultures, and religions” This is the argument for privatized health care. The only way to ensure quality care to each citizen of this vast and diverse nation is to have a privatized system, where both businesses and charities are able to target all types of people and adapt in real-time as demographics change. When big government advocates point to countries in Europe as examples of centralized health care, they ignore the fact that America is tremendously larger and more diverse than any of these countries, and that prevents centralized systems from ever working here.
• “Even when a life is taken in foreign conflicts, we must make sure that no others are taken along with it” This is the argument for greater investment in our military to improve the accuracy of our weapons and our intelligence gathering. The Full Life movement is not an anti-war movement because it recognizes that oftentimes conflict is unavoidable, especially when dealing with fanatical non-state terrorists. What we are determined to do is work with our military to greatly improve our ability to hurt only the people who deserve it, and minimize or even eliminate collateral injuries or death to innocents, especially those innocents being used as human shields. Some may at first think this principle seeks to blame the military for deaths and therefore reduce funding for it, but that is very much the opposite because it instead turns the pro-life movement into an investment in our military power for the sake of the noble goal of greater accuracy and precision.
• “When we send our men and women into danger, we must make sure they are protected as much as possible” This is another argument for greater investment in our military to fully equip our warriors with defensive gear. We will not tolerate inadequate funding of our entire military of the bullet-proof vests, armored vehicles, and reinforced barracks. Yes, this is a stab at those politicians who resisted funding our troops during the recent wars and who may do so again in the future. But we can now reinforce our past position with this new over-arching Full Life movement.
• “Our law enforcement is a powerful force for life, not death, when properly trained and equipped” This is the argument for greater investment in our many law enforcement agencies. Although police sometimes have a bad reputation when it comes to protecting life, the solution is to increase training, the amount of personnel, and the equipment they have, instead of cutting their funding in any way. This seeks to eventually equip law enforcement with non-lethal means to subdue suspected criminals, but only when that non-lethal means is proven to be effective in the field. We cannot rush to force technologies on our police if those technologies are not as effective as the current lethal tools, all in the name of reducing unnecessary deaths. This is because when we improperly equip our police with non-lethal tools before they are proven effective, we likely will be trading the death of a suspected criminal for the death of the police officer. But when a viable non-lethal option is developed, we should make it a top priority. The question of what kind of a role the federal government may have in helping local law enforcement agencies is currently unresolved, and open for discussion.
• “There is rarely a life that is truly lost to society, even if they committed horrible crimes” This is the argument against the death penalty across the entire nation. Argue that even convicted criminals have a chance at spiritual redemption and contributing back to society. This does not mean they can ever be free citizens again, and in fact just replaces capital punishment with life in high security prison without any chance of parole. Whether the life-in-prison inmates spend their days sitting around their cell or are put to work doing menial labor in some way is left open for debate on the state level. This may be controversial to many conservatives who have favored capital punishment as a method of deterrent, but they should hopefully see this as a sufficient compromise to advance the pro-life movement. This can appeal to many wavering young Americans who are turned off by what they see as a hypocrisy within the pro-life movement of allegedly fighting for life at conception but then not caring about that life after birth. Removing this hypocrisy as they see it is a major step.

The above principles are really just a rough start to what could become a powerful platform. There are likely some issues which I have neglected to cover (such as the role of contraceptives, the teaching of abstinence, how pregnant minors are to be dealt with, how any exceptions for abortion in cases of danger to life of the mother if such cases even exist). Even if you disagree with some of these, please promote and recommend the article to bring in more discussion and debate.

And I will finish with a disclaimer that may surprise some. Although I have tried very hard to lay out convincing arguments for a greater pro-live movement to re-invigorate conservative ideals and appeal to young people, I myself am not pro-life. I am in fact pro-choice (although mild compared to what the rest of society seems to be), in favor of capital punishment (since I agree with a “eye for an eye, life for a life” in principle), and never want any children of my own (even abstaining from sex to make sure that happens). However, despite my traditional beliefs on the matter, I have tried to come up with arguments and a platform that could even convince me to join a pro-life movement.

Cross-posted at RedState.

In a move worthy of the worst backroom machinations in Lansing or Washington, the Republican Chair of the Missaukee County Board of Commissioners (Michigan), Susan Rogers, is working the phones feverishly to kill a proposed resolution supporting Sanctity of Life Sunday.  Sanctity of Life Sunday was established as an annual remembrance of the disastrous January 22, 1973, U.S. Supreme Court Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton rulings.

MissaukeeCounty is, arguably, the most pro-life county in the State of Michigan.  The voters of MissaukeeCounty have a right to expect their elected representatives to reflect their values, especially on an issue as important as the sanctity of life.  According to sources, the Commissioners don't want to be "put on the spot" regarding such a supposedly controversial issue.  This is not the first time Susan Rogers has shown her true colors as a Republican in Name Only (RINO).  In September of 2007, Rogers voted for one of the largest property tax increases in MissaukeeCounty history.  Don't let Susan "RINO" Rogers get away with her continued betrayal of basic Republican principles and values.  Please, call the following Republican Missaukee County Commissioners, who appear to be wavering on this issue, and urge them to support the resolution regarding Sanctity of Life Sunday...  The Honorable Dean Vivian, telephone number 231/775-7067.  The Honorable Star Hughston, telephone number 231/825-8137.  The Honorable Hubert Zuiderveen, telephone number 231/328-2017.  The following is the resolution, which will be introduced at the Missaukee County Board meeting on Tuesday, January 13th...  WHEREAS, the Missaukee County Board of Commissioners remembers and laments the January 22, 1973, U.S. Supreme Court Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton rulings, and  WHEREAS, we recognize that millions of unborn children have been needlessly aborted since that date, and  WHEREAS, no woman should be forced to choose between living in poverty or giving birth, between caring for their newborn or losing their job, nor should they feel pressure to abort an unborn child because they have nowhere to turn for support, and  WHEREAS, the citizens of Missaukee County have an opportunity to mourn the ongoing devaluation of human life, which is partially rooted in the unwise, previously stated, U.S. Supreme Court rulings, and  WHEREAS, the Missaukee County Board of Commissioners recognizes the enormous commitment of Wexford-Missaukee Right to Life to advocate for the preservation and protection of human life from conception to natural death, and  THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Missaukee County Board of Commissioners hereby acknowledges January 18, 2009, as Sanctity of Life Sunday in Missaukee County.

“Never be bullied into silence. Never allow yourself to be made a victim. Accept no one’s definition of your life, but define yourself.”

 - Harvey Firestone, American Industrialist

Abortion has weighed on this country for 35 years, not only because it is a very emotional issue, but also because abortion touches on so many other issues as well.  It is not just about Female Reproductive Rights, the Rights of the Unborn, the Right to Privacy, etc. It is also about Male Reproductive Rights, Parental Rights, Rule of Law, and Personal Responsibility. I do not believe there is a solution that could possibly please all the people all of the time, but I do believe there is an abortion position that does the least amount of violence to all of these rights and principles. Here I present a grand unifying theory on the power of abortion, reproductive rights, and parental rights that does just that. I call it the Pro-Rights abortion position.

The 10th Amendment states:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The authority and power to decide whether a woman may or may not have an abortion is not a power granted to the United States Federal Government, nor is is a power prohibited by the Constitution to the States. Therefore the Power to decided whether a woman may or may not have an abortion is one that is reserved to either the States respectively or to the People. The question then is whether it is the States or the People to which this power is reserved.

The 14th Amendment states:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The key word there is 'born'. As a practical matter we do not abort children a day before they would naturally be born because it is obvious the child is capable of surviving outside of the womb. A child that is capable of surviving outside the womb should be considered the same as having been born, with regards to citizenship, because it is capable of doing so. A fetus should achieve citizenship as soon as it is able to survive independent of the womb.

Accepting that the word 'born' implies "an ability to survive independent of the womb", the 14th Amendment becomes clear that until such time as a fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb, they are not a citizen of the United States. If the unborn is able to sustain it's own life outside of the womb then it is indeed a citizen, and the state's interest is clear as it has a responsibility to protect the child's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If the fetus cannot sustain it's own life then it is not yet a citizen, and has no rights that the state is authorized to protect. As such, the Power of Abortion is the People's until such time as the unborn is capable of being born at which time the Power of Abortion is accorded to the States. Functionally this means that the Power of Abortion is the people's during the First and Second Trimesters, and the state's during the Third Trimester.

During the First and Second Trimesters which People have the Power of Abortion? As the fetus is not considered a citizen before the Third trimester it can only be considered property during the First and Second Trimesters, but whose property?

Each of us owns our own body. This is a self evident truth that our country is built upon.  No man can own another, no government owns any person. Our bodies are our own. Our organs cannot be taken from us unless we give consent for them to be taken by signing up as an Organ Donor, our blood can not be taken unless we decide to donate it, and we own our genetic material. The fetus is made up of equal amounts of genetic material from a man and a woman and as such they have joint ownership of the fetus.   It is the consenting act that results in impregnation that represents the deepest of social bonds. Throughout human history humanity has acknowledged that both man and woman bear equal responsibility to the life they are bringing into this world. In all other respects, both the man and the woman have equal say over the fate of their child. Why should decisions regarding abortion be any less? All people own their genetic material. It is from that ownership and the bond represented by the consenting act that reproductive rights can be derived.

As it stands now a woman can unilaterally abort a fetus thereby dissolving the deepest of social bonds and the responsibility that goes with it without ever informing the man. She is, for all intents and purposes, destroying his genetic property without his consent.  This violates the reproductive rights of half the population. All men and women are created equally. The fetus is equally the genetic property of both the man and the woman under a bond made willingly.

If the fetus was conceived in the course of rape then the rapist by default has forfeited his right to determine the fate of the fetus and the woman should be able to exercise the Power of Abortion as she will. However, if the fetus was conceived with the consent of both parties, then it should follow that it would need to be aborted with the consent of both parties. The man should be informed that the fetus exists and his consent should be gained before an abortion is performed. To do otherwise would deny men reproductive rights.

The state has an interest and duty in safeguarding the genetic property rights of both the man and the woman as it would for any property rights issue. Should a dispute arise between the man and the woman as to whether or not the fetus should be aborted it would fall to the state to arbitrate as it would any other property dispute. If their genetic material were not bound as one there would be no issue. People are free to dispose of their property as they wish. In the case of a fetus, however, the properties are bound together. Destroying the property of one is destroying the property of the other. The state does not have an interest in allowing any citizen to destroy the another citizen's property. A woman aborting against the will of the man is as much a violation of his genetic property rights as a man perpetrating trauma to a woman's stomach to induce miscarriage would violate hers.

In the case of a minor the rights of the legal parent or guardian necessarily supersede the rights of the potential father. A parent's or guardian's permission is required for every other medical procedure, not to mention relative inconsequential matters such as a school trip. It makes no sense that a parent would not have authority, in regard to their under aged teen, over the very significant medical procedure of abortion. It is in the State's interest to support and respect the integrity of the family unit, as the family is the foundation of our society. A minor should be required to have the consent of at least one parent before an abortion can be legally performed.

Should complications arise and the unborn were to pose a threat to the life of the potential mother, then her own vested interest in life and liberty takes precedent over rights of any parents, guardians, or potential fathers.

There are three types of amendments to the Constitution that would alter this argument. Those amendments would need to redefine what a citizen is, to redefine a citizen's natural ownership of their body, or to outlaw abortion specifically. The likelihood of any one of these amendments being passed is slim at best. It is a reality that a significant portion of America would oppose each of these measures, ensuring that none of those amendments would pass. 

The Pro-Rights Abortion position is consistent with the Constitution as written.  Above all else, this nation is a nation of the Rule of Law, before which all people are equal. This Pro-Rights Abortion position would bring our nation closer to that ideal.  It treats Men's and Women Reproductive Rights as the same, with no double standard. It places responsibility square on both parties, being both fair and unfair to both equally. It treats abortion as a Private Issue between the potential father and potential mother, until the fetus itself satisfies conditions for citizenship. It respects the Rights of Parents to raise their children as they see fit.

The Pro-Rights Abortion Position does not address whether or not it is life or whether or not the woman has a choice. Viewing the issue though an emotional lens will not satisfy either side of the argument and ensures deadlock on the issue. The Pro-Rights solution views abortion as a matter of citizenship and property rights. In doing so it offers something to like for both Pro-Choice and Pro-Life advocates.

Granting both women and men the same reproductive rights would be logically consistent for Pro-Choice advocates, extending choice to everyone. Here to for, men have been disfranchised from their reproductive rights. What reason would they have to deny men suffrage in regards to the power of abortion?

This argument should also appeal to Pro-Life advocates by firmly restricting Third Term abortions and by making abortions harder to obtain during the First and Second Trimesters. The Pro-Rights position is also a Pro-Family abortion position because it maintains that any abortion decision should be made by the family, whether parents to be or between parent and child. The Pro-Rights position also encourages a culture of responsibility, because both parties could not be sure if the other would be willing to have an abortion and they may find themselves stuck with their choice. America offers freedom, but not freedom from consequence.

We have not been able to resolve the abortion issue in this country because the majority of Americans are uncomfortable with the pure implementations of both of the existing positions. Much of the debate over the Power of Abortion in this country has been about where to draw the line in between those two positions. The Pro-Rights position navigates the middle, where most Americans happen to stand on the issue, by seeking to do the least amount of violence to the many Rights and Principles the issue touches upon. Because of that it is my belief that the majority of Americans would be able to live with a Pro-Rights solution just fine, and the country would be able to gain consensus on the issue.

- John A. Brill

Cross Posted at Redstate

Ozark Guru - Also read: Commentary: Obama's Abortion Extremism -- Follows is a flashback to a post by Peter J. Smith, LifeSiteNews.com, which addressed Barack Obama position on abortion and Freedom of Choice Act!

Barack Obama, the . . pro-abortion nominee of the Democratic Party, has plans to reward the allies that helped him . . . by making total unrestricted abortion in the United States his number one priority as president. "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," Obama said in his July speech to abortion advocates worried about the increase of pro-life legislation at the state level. The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is legislation Obama has co-sponsored along with 18 other senators that would annihilate every single state law limiting or regulating abortion, including the federal ban on partial birth abortion. The 2007 version of FOCA proposed: "It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman." Obama made his remarks in a question-and-answer session after delivering a speech crystallizing for abortion advocates his deep-seated abortion philosophy and his belief that federal legislation will break pro-life resistance and end the national debate on abortion. (see transcript) "I am absolutely convinced that culture wars are so nineties; their days are growing dark, it is time to turn the page," Obama said in July. "We want a new day here in America. We're tired about arguing about the same ole' stuff. And I am convinced we can win that argument." Besides making abortion on demand a "fundamental right" throughout the United States, FOCA would effectively nullify informed consent laws, waiting periods, health safety regulations for abortion clinics, etc. Furthermore, medical professionals and institutions that refused abortions also would lose legal protections. FOCA would expose individuals, organizations, and governments - including federal, state, and local government agencies - to costly civil actions for purported violations of the act. . . . Obama has won the crucial endorsement of abortion activist Frances Kissling, . . . saying Obama . . . would better use the bully pulpit of the presidency to accomplish their aims and end the culture wars over abortion. See related links: Sen. Barack Obama's July 17, 2007 Speech to Planned Parenthood (transcript) Senate version of FOCA House version of FOCA Editorial: The Hope of a Sophist: The Rhetoric of Barack Obama Obama says Sermon on the Mount Supports Same-Sex Unions

With a few sketchy reports about a very possible breach between McCain and Palin over how and how hard to attack Obama, Palin unleashed a flawlessly executed attack of a speech on abortion yesterday in Johnstown, PA. Over at Hot Air, Allah Pundit referred to it as "one of the most red-meat social con speeches you’ll ever read." While the campaign flails about (although the ACORN ad is an improvement), Palin has taken a sturdy, fundamental approach with four steps: Relate, Attack, Contextualize, Inspire (seasoned with blue-collar Dem political hat tips). Here's the speech:

Mike Huckabee has been hosting vertical day on the HuckPAC blog where candidates for office, distinguished guest and ideas talk about how to move our country forward vertically: upward, that is. Huckabee explains the concept of Vertical politics, taking America up and not down. The Governor explains in a brief You Tube video.

Representative Sam Graves (R-MO) explains why illegal immigration poses a threat to our nation's security.

A Candidate for the Texas House of Representatives Brian Walker talks about the preciousness of human life. Indiana Congressional Candidate Luke Puckett relates a personal story to explain his pro-life position.

Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) urges passage of the Child Custody Protection Act which protects children and parents from those who would abscond with minor children to take them across state lines to get abortions in contravention of their home state laws.

Want to talk tax reform? The original sponsor of the Fair Tax (H.R. 25) Rep. John Linder (R-GA) shows up with a post on his tax proposal.

Senator "Big" John Cornyn (R-TX) gives the answer to America's energy problems: All of the Above.

What makes this HuckPAC event interesting is that Huckabee sought posts from regular citizens. Eight were chosen. My favorite is from Brian Donegan who has a great post with some thoughtful ideas for education reform.

Mike Huckabee didn't get to be as active as he wanted in this Vertical Day due to being delayed in leaving Africa. His Daughter Sarah has a positive note on the folks behind HuckPAC, and they definitely deserve some praise.

They've managed to bring together a very distinguished guest list of posters with some fabulous posts on the issues. It represents a job well done by the Governor and all the folks at HuckPAC.

I read this on the CAIR website today in an article titled Muslims: Keep Political Promises:

Studies of American Muslim voters conducted by The Pew Research Center (in 2007) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (in 2006 and 2008) reveal an interest in issues common to many Americans and a strong shift in political allegiance.

Muslims are highly concerned about education, civil rights and liberties in America, health care policies, jobs and the economy, relations with the Muslim world and immigration. Muslims also believe that anti-Americanism in the Muslim world is a serious problem, and that anti-Muslim prejudice in our nation is a threat to American Muslims. Interestingly, a large majority of the community is more conservative than the general American public, with 59 percent believing the government should do more to protect morality in society.

In the past, Muslims traditionally leaned Republican after finding a common set of ethical values, such as opposition to abortion. Today, Muslims are 49 percent Democrat, 36 percent independent and 8 percent Republican. This shift away from the GOP has been precipitous. As recently as 2006, a full 17 percent of Muslims self-identified as Republican.

Conservatives are conservatives, regardless of religion, cultural or ethnic affiliation. The GOP should be seeking ways to realign with conservative Muslims instead of alienating them. The party had a golden opportunity when Barack Obama campaign staffers favored throwing two Muslim rally attendees under the bus over having a "publicity moment".

As with so many things, both the RNC and McCain campaign have been completely tone-deaf on this important topic. This is why I now donate to individual candidates who share my values via Slatecard rather than donating uniliterally to the RNC. Please visit a great anti-fascist Muslim blog, Muslims Against Sharia. And enjoy these two wonderful videos called Sleeper Cell, and A Land Called Paradise, created by Lena Khan.

SLEEPER CELL:

A LAND CALLED PARADISE:

cross-posted at Lagomorphic Tendencies