It was important for everyone on both sides of the abortion debate to see John Kerry giving Kate Michelman a peck on the cheek just prior to nominating the leading pro-abortionist in North America for a kind of secular canonization.
While, for the record, sponsors of the April 25 "March for Women's Lives" insisted the gathering was non-partisan, in fact it was a love fest with the presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee who returned the favor with lavish words of praise.
For example, Michelman, the retiring President of NARAL, was described by Kerry as "one of the great modern day civil rights leaders in the United States."
And, picking up the theme of the day, Kerry repeatedly promised variously that, “We will not turn the clock back in this country,” "We cannot go backwards today,” as well as other iterations of the same lame observation.
What really intrigued me was Kerry's insistence that President Bush's position on abortion and his judicial appointments were "extremist."
This from a man who unequivocally told the Associated Press (back when there were other Democrats still competing for the party's presidential nomination),
"And I am proud that I am the only presidential candidate to pledge that I will support only pro-choice judges to the Supreme Court."
One measure of who is in the mainstream and who is not is public opinion polls. On the eve of the march, Zogby International polled 1,209 individuals to determine their view on abortion. The results were a direct repudiation of the kinds of people, including John Kerry, who attended the march.
A remarkable 56% of respondents took a pro-life posture. According to Zogby, 18% said abortion should never be legal, another 15 % said legal only when the life of the mother is in danger, while another 23% said legal only when the life of the mother is in danger or in cases of rape or incest.
To repeat, 56% said abortion should either never be legal or legal only in situations where the mother's life is in danger or in cases of rape or incest.
Only 42 percent of those surveyed agreed with one of the following statements about legal abortion: legal for any reason in the first three months (25%), legal for any reason during the first six months (4%), or legal for any reason at any time during the woman's pregnancy (13%).
This is very significant. Only one in eight Americans toe the abortion-on-demand line.
Moreover, without going into elaborate detail, more people self-identify as pro-life (49.1%) than do "pro-choice" (45.3%). Especially strong sentiments come from the Hispanic community (72.1% consider themselves pro-life versus 26.6% who consider themselves pro-choice). While this is reassuring, what about the younger generation?
The Zogby poll found a nearly ten point gap in the 18-29 year-old-category. That is, 51.6% identified as pro-life as against only 41.8 who told the pollster they considered themselves pro-choice.
What did the "March for Women's Lives" prove? That with limitless money, a year to prepare, and boatloads of sympathetic media coverage, pro-abortionists can bring a lot of people together in Washington, D.C. every 12 years or so.
We do it every year--and not just in Washington, D.C. When numbers are compared, it's important to remember that while 100,000+ pro-lifers routinely come to D.C. to commemorate the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, tens of thousands of other pro-lifers are gathering in state rallies around the nation.
So don't be intimidated by the usual pro-abortion hype. You are on the winning side in this arduous battle.
Note to Democrats: it's not too late to draft someone—anyone—else
April 27th, 2004 11:45 AM
Related Info:
Grilled to Order What we’d Like to ask when Bush and Cheney take the hot seat
Up, Up, Up With People They feel fine. 'Rapture ready' crowd predicts end of the world Say What?
WASHINGTON, D.C.— With the air gushing out of John Kerry's balloon, it may be only a matter of time until political insiders in Washington face the dread reality that the junior senator from Massachusetts doesn't have what it takes to win and has got to go.
As arrogant and out of it as the Democratic political establishment is, even these pols know the party's got to have someone to run against George Bush. They can't exactly expect the president to self-destruct into thin air.
With growing issues over his wealth (which makes fellow plutocrat Bush seem a charity case by comparison), the miasma over his medals and ribbons (or ribbons and medals), his uninspiring record in the Senate (yes war, no war), and wishy-washy efforts to mimic Bill Clinton's triangulation gimmickry (the protractor factor), Kerry sinks day by day.
The pros all know that the candidate who starts each morning by having to explain himself is a goner.
What to do? Look for the Dem biggies, whoever they are these days, to sit down with the rich and arrogant presumptive nominee and try to persuade him to take a hike.
Then they can return to business as usual—resurrecting John Edwards, who is still hanging around, or staging an open convention in Boston, or both.
If things proceed as they are, the dim-bulb Dem leaders are going to be very sorry they screwed Howard Dean.
“Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, noted that the last time abortion rights supporters rallied in Washington, the nation elected her husband to the presidency just six months later.
" ‘We didn't have to march for 12 long years because we had a government that respected the rights of women,’ she said. ‘The only way we're going to be able to avoid having to march again and again and again is to elect John Fonda-Kerry president.’”
Sunday's New York Times Sunday Magazine.
An article very much worth reading chronicled in elaborate detail President Bush’s brilliantly conceived and executed grassroots campaign to win a second term.
(The address for the article is www.nytimes.com/2004/04/25/magazine/2 5GROUNDWAR.html.)
A couple of hours later at Dulles International Airport my wife and I ran across a number of women preparing to board flights to go back home. One of their tee-shirts read, “March for Women’s Lives.”
Last week we wrote in anticipation of the rally assembled by a ton of pro-abortion organizations that would take place April 25 on the Mall. There were reportedly 1,400 sponsors, including the ACLU and Planned Parenthood.
In the bigger picture, it may not mean much, but it’s instructive that the foul language often on display was mentioned only in the Washington Post’s account.
But then again, if the intent of reporters was to clean up the rally-–make it appear to be a wholesome, family gathering–-it wouldn’t help to detail some of what was uttered.
The article that runs in today’s New York Times offered two interesting insights in consecutive paragraphs.
First, “The march came at a difficult time for the abortion rights movement, after months of legislative setbacks.
The movement's leaders hoped to use the march to rouse voters who are sympathetic to their cause, to galvanize younger women and to build support among minorities.”
In other words, thanks to your faithfulness, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act are now law.
But it's important not to overlook that the other reason these laws passed is that they are mainstream proposals supported by a huge majority of Americans.
Put another way, the Movement, led by National Right to Life, has put forward an agenda of which both the American public and elected officials overwhelmingly approve.
One of the most important lesson pro-lifers will ever learn is that once a heretofore reluctant elected official decides to vote for a protective measure, he or she finds it much easier to do so the next time around.
The second insight in the Times article today came immediately afterward. “In fact, there was a changing-of-the-guard tone to much of Sunday's program.
Ms. [Gloria] Steinem, noting that she is now 70, declared proudly that by her estimate, ‘more than a third of the women in this march are women under 25.’
“Kate Michelman, soon leaving her post as president of Naral Pro-Abortion America, one of the sponsors of the march, took the stage with her granddaughter and declared, ‘It's your generation that must take the lead.’"
Indeed, the fate of millions of unborn children does rest in the hands of young people. This is as obvious as it is important.
But it is the pro-life Movement that is winning the fight for the hearts and minds of younger people. Public opinion polls tell us that, day-to-day conversations tell us that, the growth of campus pro-life organizations tell us that.
Pro-abortionists can trot out the usual Hollywood celebrities, but that doesn’t change what is, from their perspective, a grim truth.
The American people have turned a corner in a debate that extends back more than thirty years.
The can have a hundred marches, but as long as we continue to gently and lovingly make the case for life, it is only a matter of time before we carry the day for unborn children and their mothers.
China is faced with the same problem as other countries who have aborted their future children, only on a much larger scale.
Faced with a population ageing at an unprecedented rate, China has been warned it may grow old before it has a chance of reaching widespread prosperity.
"Today's great powers became affluent before they became ageing societies," say the US demographers Richard Jackson and Neil Howe in a new study.
"China may be the first major country to grow old before it grows rich."
The proportion of over-60s in the population will rise from the current 11 per cent to 28 per cent - and possibly even as high as 32 per cent - by 2040, the year when communist leaders are confident that fast growth will have brought China close to challenging the economic power and strategic size of the United States.
"In Europe, the elder share of the population passed 10 per cent in the 1930s and will not reach 30 per cent until the 2030s, a century later," say Jackson and Howe in their paper for Washington's Centre for Strategic and International Studies. "China will traverse the same distance in a single generation."
By then the country will have almost 400 million elderly people who, unless broad pension schemes are started soon, will have no support. Although China has a healthy national savings rate of 40 per cent, households provide only a tiny proportion of savings and most are invested in dwellings.
Few people qualify for social security and attempts at setting up new pension funds have led to an "empty account" syndrome, where contributions are siphoned away by official institutions to meet the unfunded obligations of state-owned enterprises.
Most rely on traditional old-age insurance in the form of children. But the one-child policy enforced since 1978 has led to the so-called "4-2-1 problem" where one child will be expected to support two aged parents and four grandparents.
The emerging gender imbalance, resulting from selective abortion of females, also means that daughters-in-law, who do the actual caring for the elderly, will be in short supply.
Those healthy enough to continue work will find job-hunting tough. Many Chinese heading into retirement would have missed out on secondary and college education during the 1966-76 Cultural Revolution.
"As elders, they may find themselves competing with teenagers for sweatshop jobs," the authors say.
The warning in the paper titled The Graying of the Middle Kingdom is partly a job application by its funders, the huge US funds manager Prudential Financial Inc. Like insurers worldwide it seems to be eyeing a role in helping China set up a universal pension scheme in time to avert the crisis.
But it adds to warnings by Chinese demographers that looming population imbalances could bring social turmoil.
It also comes as the Chinese Government published details of unemployment, showing that despite recent 9 per cent economic growth, job creation was still far from soaking up the country's pool of surplus workers.
Amid growing worries about the lack of Al-Quaida targets in the US, a consortium of companies plan to ask the federal government on Monday for $400 million to help prepare an application to build a Nuclear reactor.
The group, which has named itself Bullseye Deathstar Developments, includes Exelon Nuclear, Entergy Nuclear, Constellation Energy and EDF International North America, a subsidiary of Électricité de France.
The initial announcement by the consortium drew criticism from Islamic fundamentalist groups, who complained about lack of information about the site of the future reactor.
However, according to people involved with the consortium, Bullseye Deathstar Developments will argue that the full location information on the new reactors will be provided to all terrorist groups via the national press and that large red bullseye targets will be added to the chrome reactor domes.
"The country needs a diversity of targets.” an executive involved in the Bullseye Deathstar Developments group, who asked not to be identified said. "This is an effort to provide a nuclear option." he said.
In an astounding reversal of foreign policy, the US yesterday offered to send aid to their “friends and allies” in North Korea.
The offer, following the tragic train collision last week, which resulted in thousands of injured, was welcomed by Kim Jong II and Donald Rumsfeld in a joint statement.
“This opens a whole new chapter in our relationship.” Rumsfeld told Lolo Laroche.
“The Korean Peoples Republic welcomes help from the fascist American imperial aggressors.” Kim Jong II said.
“In exchange for this help Korea has put back by a generous 48 hours, the date of the planned Nuclear Armageddon, the date on which the united forces of freedom and equality will annihilate the evil stinking forces of capitalist domination through nuclear terror the like of which the world has never seen.”
A million abortion rights supporters rallied Sunday in the nation's capital, protesting the policies of the Bush administration and its conservative allies and vowing to fight back to defend women’s rights to abortion.
Speaker after speaker criticized that President Bush and his allies in Congress were trying to impose an Islamic fundamentalist agenda on abortion and family planning programs, both at home and abroad.
"We are determined to stop this war on women," said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority, a sponsor of the march.
Gloria Steinem, one of many feminist icons who turned out Sunday, said, "We are here to take back our country."
In parallel developments, rumors hit the press that the Bush administration also intends to introduce compulsory veils for women the reintroduction of the burning of witches and the stoning of adulterers along with the already planned surgical removal of thieves limbs.
A spokesman denied that the measures were in any way influenced by the Islamic code.
“As far as women and their status is concerned, the president has certainly been impressed by what he’s seen in Iraq, but to say that this has anything to do with these measures is clearly ridiculous. President Bush has never had any respect for women.”
Attack levels raised in Switzerland, Austria and Luxembourg following German threat Warning
Following comments by the German foreign minister this week, Switzerland, Austria and Luxembourg put their armed border forces on top security alert until the 1st of May.
The countries, who had not realized that Germany was still a threat, were shocked into action by comments by Joschka Fischer, the German foreign minister. Commenting on European Enlargement on the 1st May, Germany’s foreign minister Joschka Fischer declared "It's a historic moment. [the 1st of May] will be the first time in modern history that Germany will be the center of Europe…, without us threatening anybody."
The French foreign minister Michel Barnier, said however that France was “Not worried.”.
“There are only a few days before the 1st of May, and if the Germans do try anything, well we always have the Maginot Line to protect us.” He said.
Ed: Joschka Fischer did actually say that... Amazing huh ?
If at the beginning we took all the time necessary to rebut the factual errors and unsubstantiated assertions associated with Sunday’s pro-abortion “March for Women’s Lives,” we’d run out space before we'd even begun to discuss the subject for today. Let me just say this: contrary to the lyrics of the sheet music off of which they are all singing, the vote to uphold Roe is not 5-4 but 6-3.
Ergo, Roe doesn’t “hang by one vote.” Two pro-Roe justices would need to be replaced by two who found its legal logic appalling and unsustainable.
But to return to the march/rally, which will take place in Washington, D.C., it’s supposed to gin up a Movement that is sputtering. Based on an article about the march that appears in this week’s Newsweek, there is, from the pro-abortion perspective, a trifecta of discouraging developments.
We learn that there is a “hostile administration in the White House,” while “control of the Supreme Court [is] up for grabs” this November, and pro-lifers have just passed two pieces of legislation. Isn’t that enough to warrant “sounding the alarm”?
But it goes beyond all that, as we discussed yesterday. The Abortion Establishment is very uneasy about the direction young people are taking. As if one cue, one of the volunteers working in D.C. conceded to Newsweek, “We're the first generation to be more pro-life than our parents."
If anyone is going to “sound the alarm,” who better than NARAL’s Kate Michelman. I suspect Michelman sees herself as a kind of Paul Revere figure, forever sallying forth to announce, “The Pro-Lifers [and the End] are Coming.”
In her interview with Newsweek’s Debra Rosenberg, Michelman was up to a verbal gallop before Rosenberg was able to turn on her tape recorder. “One of the purposes of this march is to excite a generation of women to mobilize on behalf of their right to choose, for themselves and their future but also for their daughters and their granddaughters,” she said.
Why the need to “excite” women, you might ask. “This younger generation of women doesn’t really believe they’re going to lose their right to choose,” Michelman complained, for the ten billionic time. “They don’t know what it was like not to have a right.”
Interestingly, the logo for the march is "Choice, justice, access, health, abortion, global family planning." The only thing missed is pari-mutual betting.
To her credit, Rosenberg says, “The official march logo refers to choice and justice and access and health and global family planning and oh, yeah, abortion is in there. There’s a lot going on. Is that a deliberate effort to broaden the appeal? Do you think it’s confusing?”
After Michelman offers a confusing 158-word-long answer, Rosenberg responds (again to her credit) with, “So that’s not to say that the abortion [issue] itself couldn’t draw a crowd on its own anymore?”
Michelman’s answer? “No, no, no. Not at all.” Well, maybe, maybe not.
Michelman is stepping down from NARAL (“NARAL is strong,” she says. “It can go on without Kate Michelman”) so that she can “bring all that I’ve done all of my life to bear on this presidential election, to work for John Kerry in any capacity that he thinks I could be of value to him.”
The leadership of the pro-abortion movement is inextricably interwoven with the national Democratic Party. Like white on rice, as a friend used to say.
And it’s no accident that Michelman should tell Newsweek that the efforts behind this march (which go back a year) are at least in part grassroots–“old-fashioned shoe-leather organizing strategies,” is the way she described one phase of the campaign. Attempting to co-opt the language of the Pro-Life Movement makes it sound as if they have much more support from regular Americans than they have, or will ever have.
But Newsweek also ran another story this week that talked about how grassroots, shoestring-budgeted pro-lifers are making the Planned Parenthood behemoth stand up and take notice. That, of course, is ultimately why we are able to pass the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act without massive resources or a sympathetic media. We have people working in every county in this nation to restore the right to life to unborn children, in season and out.
By contrast the Abortion Establishment is in possession of one of the world’s great Rolodexes. It can count on the support of a host of powerful organizations, ably supplemented by a press corps that most often sugarcoats its questions and gives pro-abortionists the benefit of every doubt.
While none of us are treating the march as if it isn’t important, all of us will be buried in hype about how the “sleeping pro-choice giant has been awakened.”
My guess is that, in truth, most of the people coming out of hibernation are those who heretofore had taken no position on abortion. They’ve been aroused by the ugly details of the incredible brutality of partial-birth abortion which have gradually worked their way into public consciousness.
Repulsed by the violence and cruelty, they will instinctively seek out and join those generous souls who are working night and day to bring abortion to an end. And that is you!
MY DAUGHTER turned 6 months old last week. Veronica loves to roll across the living room, and drink from her sippy cup, and splash in the bathtub, and laugh at Daddy's fish lip faces, and yank really, really hard on Mommy's hair. She kicks and squeals and wails and gurgles and bounces and greets us each morning with a smile that could melt Antarctica.
Looking back at photographs from the past half-year, we are astounded at how fast she has grown. First week home, first nap in her crib, first Halloween, first solid food, first Christmas -- the Kodak moments seem to multiply exponentially.
But perhaps the most priceless pictures we will ever have of our firstborn child are the ones that were taken before she was born: black-and-white sonograms with close-ups of tiny knees and elbows, two curled feet, a waving hand, and a beating heart.
For almost three decades, ultrasound technology has provided parents with a miraculous window to the womb. This common diagnostic technique uses harmless sound waves, sent by a hand-held transducer rubbed over the mother's belly, which bounce off the developing unborn child. Echoes from the waves are converted into sonograms, which can be seen on video and captured in print. The latest advances produce amazing three-dimensional views. Ultrasound is an innovation that not only affirms life, but also saves lives. Those who believe in protecting the unborn can do more good, more immediately by helping to spread this technology across the country than by counting on fair-weather politicians in Washington. Crisis pregnancy centers, armed with ultrasound machines donated by the non-profit National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, have convinced an untold number of parents to say no to abortion. NIFLA's "Life Choice Project" empowers the centers with legal advice, technical support, and all the equipment and training necessary to be converted into medical centers that can perform ultrasounds.
Anecdotal evidence of ultrasound's persuasive powers has been steadily accumulating since 1983, when two government researchers published an article in the New England Journal of Medicine on pregnant women who underwent ultrasound tests while considering abortions.
Viewing their unborn children early in pregnancy, before movement is felt by the mothers, may "influence the resolution of any ambivalence toward the pregnancy itself in favor of the fetus," wrote Drs. John C. Fletcher, then of the National Institutes of Health, and Mark I. Evans, then of George Washington University Medical School. "Ultrasound examination may thus result in fewer abortions and more desired pregnancies."
Fletcher and Evans wrote that one woman who had been beaten early in pregnancy was given the test to see whether her child had been injured in the womb. When she saw the image of her child moving on the screen, she said: "I feel that it is human. It belongs to me. I couldn't have an abortion now." Another woman, 10 weeks pregnant, said after her ultrasound exam: "I am going all the way with the baby."
Pregnancy centers from Joplin, Mo., to Denver, Co., report that many women and their partners leaning toward abortion change their minds after ultrasound exams. Dorothy Wallis of the Care Pregnancy Clinic in Baton Rouge, La., reports that 98 percent of women who have ultrasounds choose to carry to term.
NIFLA president Thomas Glessner told me before the holidays that his group's goal is to equip one-third of the nation's pregnancy centers with ultrasound machines and trained staff. Imagine someday being able to prevent as many abortions as occur in this country -- an estimated 1.5 million per year. "I believe it can happen," he said. But not without help. The program costs tens of thousands of dollars per center. Tax-deductible donations can be made on the Internet (www.nifla.org) or by sending checks to NIFLA/The Life Choices Project, P.O. Box 42060, Fredericksburg, VA 22404.
If you are a parent or grandparent who has been moved to tears of joy by ultrasound -- I know you are out there and I know you are legion -- make it a New Year's resolution to join this life-saving crusade.
Friday April 23, 2004 2:01 PM By MIKE GLOVER Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrat John Kerry was shifting his attention to women voters, underscoring his support for [b]abortion rights [/b]days before tens of thousands of people stream into the nation's capital for a women's rights rally.
After three days spent discussing the environment, the Democratic presidential candidate scheduled a rally Friday with leaders of women's groups to [b]compare his stand on abortion with what he says are President Bush's extreme anti-abortion positions[/b].
A spokesman for Bush's re-election campaign declined to comment.
[b]Kerry supports abortion rights [/b]and has said [b]he would nominate only Supreme Court justices who support his position[/b]. Bush approves of abortion only in cases of rape or incest or when the pregnancy endangers a woman's life.
Bush recently signed two pieces of legislation that have alarmed abortion rights advocates. The first bans the procedure that critics describe as ``partial-birth'' abortion; the second established new protections for the unborn by making it a separate crime to harm a fetus during an assault on the mother-to-be.
While abortion is a hot-button social issue that divides the electorate, it has not been front and center in the presidential race thus far. [b]Kerry has added a line to his stump speech warning that expected openings on the Supreme Court in coming years could jeopardize the right to an abortion. [/b] [b]``If you need any motivation let me give you three little words - the Supreme Court,'' Kerry says at every stop[/b].
Kerry's rally on Friday comes ahead of Sunday's march in Washington, organized by groups such as the National Organization for Women, NARAL Pro-choice America and the Planned Parenthood Federation.
After the rally, Kerry speaks and takes questions at the annual convention of the American Society of Newspaper Editors. Bush addressed the group earlier in the week.
Focusing on abortion rights was a switch in message for Kerry, who spent much of the week attacking Bush's environmental record.
He capped that effort Thursday with an Earth Day speech in Houston, where he labeled Bush ``the worst environmental president in history.'' Kerry also argued Bush hasn't done enough to drive down gasoline prices, and said consumers are paying billions of dollars more for fuel while the president is chummy with big oil producers.
In making that point, Kerry criticized a meeting in which, according to a broadcast report, Bush and Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan discussed increasing oil production to drive down prices as the Nov. 2 election nears.
``I don't know if it was a deal, I don't know if it was a secret pledge, I don't know if it was just a friendly conversation among friends,'' Kerry said. ``The fact remains that whatever it was, the American people are getting a bad deal today.''
Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt rejected Kerry's assertion.
``John Kerry delivered a deliberately false attack today, the basis of which has been refuted,'' he said.
Let me see if I get this straight. Pro-lifers in massive numbers assemble in our nation’s capitol without fail every year for 30 years and there is so little chatter in newsrooms you can hear a pin drop.
But let the pro-abortion crowd tell its buddies in the media that it is going to put on a march “too big to ignore,” and there is no hoopla so outrageously self-congratulatory that it can’t be repeated uncritically. Which brings us to Sunday’s “March for Women's Lives."
If you happen to read the Washington Post story last week, written in that breathless "can-you-imagine-that?" tone that pro-abortion sycophants habitually adopt, you’d come away convinced that the “four cramped rooms in a downtown Washington office building” house an operation that is the very epitome of controlled energy, undying dedication, and an organization so sophisticated that it puts the major political parties to shame.
And the march does have an impressive number of co-sponsors. They are the usual suspects except for one: the NAACP, “which for the first time in its 95-year history,” the Post tells us, “endorsed an abortion rights march.” That is truly sad.
Surprisingly, a much different profile appears in this week’s "Newsweek" magazine. The title of the lead article is “Generation Ambivalent.”
So, while there’s plenty about organizational minutiae, the real gist of the story is explained in the article’s subhead: “On the eve of the biggest abortion-rights march in a decade, organizers try to attract a younger crowd.”
To her credit Debra Rosenberg gets right to the point. Near the end of the first paragraph, she writes, “Some of the volunteers reminisced about marches of years past. But Laura Kopp, 18, had little to be misty-eyed about. An intern at a nearby law office, the Antioch College freshman acknowledges that not all of her peers find abortion rights an easy sell. ‘We're the first generation to be more pro-life than our parents,’ she says."
Of course the bulk of the story is how “abortion-rights leaders are aiming to change that”—they vow to use the rally to “inspire a new wave of young abortion-rights activists.” But the story includes such discouraging information (from the pro-abortion perspective) as the discomforting fact that for years the percentage of college freshmen supporting abortion has eroded steadily.
Naturally, the kneejerk reaction is to attribute this to younger women taking legal abortion “for granted.” But, again, to Rosenberg’s credit, she provides the counter-view.
“Some disagree with the abortion-rights movement entirely. ‘They just assumed we'd be on their side,’ says Boston College student Kelly Kroll, 21, a former president of American Collegians for Life.”
When added to the recent passage of two pieces of pro-life legislation and the presence of a “hostile administration in the White House,” and, given that control of the Supreme Court “is up for grabs,” it has pro-abortion leaders “sounding the alarm.” The “alarm” is sounded (as it is every two years) by outgoing NARAL President Kate Michelman.
“‘This generation of women doesn't really believe they're going to lose their right to choose,’ says Kate Michelman, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, one of seven groups sponsoring the march.” But regaining the momentum isn't quite like flipping on a switch.
“Motivating the next generation may not be easy,” Rosenberg writes. At “Hillary Clinton's famously feminist alma mater,” Wellesley College, “only 55 students plan to board buses for Washington."
Some female college students simply have too many irons in the fire. Others say they’re supportive but have no use for “old-style political activism.” One told Newsweek, "I would never hold a sign that said MY BODY, MY CHOICE or anything like that.”
On Friday, we’ll take a follow-up look, including a look see at some of the questions that Rosenberg asked Michelman in an interview at NARAL headquarters. It’ll be worth your while to stop by.
The venue for the Eleventh Annual Proudly Pro-Life Awards Dinner changed from the historic Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York City to the Historic Willard Inter-Continental Hotel in Washington, D.C. The new location made it easier for members of Congress to attend last night, but not at the expense of losing anything that makes this celebration so special.
The dinner itself was, as always, delicious. The fellowship was, as always, a source of joy. And the messages from Vice President Richard Cheney, Master of Ceremonies Ben Stein, and Honoree Pat Boone, alternatively brought the audience to tears and to their feet.
The Proudly Pro-Life Awards Dinner is that magically special night in which the National Right to Life Educational Trust Fund honors leaders in the right to life movement. In accepting his award Mr. Boone joined an illustrious list of stalwarts.
Previous recipients include:
Archbishop Renato Martino Dr. James Dobson Mrs. Arthur DeMoss John Cardinal O'Connor Gov. Robert Casey Congressman Henry Hyde Senator Bob Smith Congressman Christopher Smith Congressman Charles Canady Judge Robert Bork Mr. Virgil Dechant of the Knights of Columbus Senator Jesse Helms Mr. Wellington Mara of the New York Football Giants Mr. Thomas S. Monaghan Bishop James T. McHugh Mr. Lawrence Garvey Fr. Frank Pavone
The Trust Fund has also paid special tribute to: Pope John Paul II Mother Teresa President Ronald Reagan
My assignment at these great dinners is to capture the "feel," the atmosphere of the gathering, using words and photos. I will go over my notes and try to paint a vivid picture in the coming weeks.
For now, just hours after the wonderful dinner climaxed, I have only impressions. The strongest recollections include the calm, measured, unyielding-in-their-deter mination remarks of pro-life Vice President Richard Cheney.
Even some pro-lifers may not know how delighted we were when pro-life President George W. Bush announced that he had chosen Mr. Cheney as his running mate.
Mr. Stein’s all-out, all engines running embrace of the cause of life reminded me yet again that his passion for unborn children is second to none.
He is in the best sense of the term a true believer who has dedicated a significant portion of his life to championing the cause of life.
And Mr. Boone was his usual quietly inspirational self. He has that special knack for not only choosing the most relevant passages from Scripture but also applying their principles to our present battle against the evil of abortion in a uniquely moving way. Every time I hear him, I come away refreshed and renewed.
Yet I would be grossly amiss if I did not also at least briefly discuss “I gave you up.” The song is a haunting lament, written from the perspective of a woman who, tragically, has aborted her baby. Sung by Mrs. Diane Derrick Kimble, it reminded us in an unforgettable way why we are concerned about both mother and unborn baby.
Last night was a great evening. In a small but significant way, the NRLC Educational Trust Fund was able to express the gratitude of all pro-lifers for these great champions of life.
Thank you, Vice President Richard Cheney, Pat Boone, and Ben Stein.
Considering this is a man who is in prison precisely because he went beyond merely taunting authorities to actually videotaping an assisted suicide and then having it air on "60 Minutes," it’s not surprising that Jack Kevorkian remains as defiant as ever.
As explained yesterday, Kevorkian recently gave an interview to the Daily Oakland Press on the eve of the fifth anniversary of his conviction for second-degree murder and illegal delivery of a controlled substance. Whereas in many previous assisted suicides Kevorkian had been coy about his involvement, this time he videotaped himself actually injecting Thomas Youk, who had Lou Gehrig's disease, with lethal drugs in 1998. Kevorkian was sentenced to 10-25 years in prison.
The headline, naturally, was that he expected to die behind bars. "There's no doubt I expect to die in prison," said Kevorkian. "All the big powers, they've silenced me. ... So much for free speech and choice on this fundamental human right."
The American people came off no better than the “big powers.”
”The American people are sheep,” a defiant Kevorkian said, according to the Associated Press. “They're comfortable, rich, working. It's like the Romans, they're happy with bread and their spectator sports. The Super Bowl means more to them than any right."
But phone-in vitriol wasn’t all that Kevorkian had to offer. Last month he also penned a two-page “Open Letter to Michigan Legislators” in which he resurrected one of his favorite ideas.
According to Stephen Huber, writing in the Daily Oakland Press, "Suicide proponent Jack Kevorkian wants state legislators who advocate lifting Michigan's 158-year ban on capital punishment to permit the condemned to undergo medical experimentation before death. “
After explaining his opposition to the death penalty, Kevorkian (according to the newspaper) ”wrote that he felt compelled to ‘insist that certain reasonable, logical, moral and compassionate modifications’ be included in any statute that would give the penalty more benefit than simply revenge. He proposes, as he first did in 1958, that the condemned undergo lethal injection and--if they choose--permit their bodies to undergo medical experimentation.”
Kevorkian, over the years, has offered a whole slew of ghoulish proposals. But that, and his assisted suicide killing rampage, doesn’t prevent the likes of the Daily Oakland Press from finding redeeming qualities in “Dr. Death.”
In an editorial that appeared a week ago Monday, the paper first gently chided the 75-year-old pathologist. “While Kevorkian certainly put a spotlight on a serious issue, his outspoken and uncompromising approach actually may have gotten in the way of more progress in legalizing assisted suicide, including in Michigan.”
However, in the convoluted logic that is the trademark of Kevorkian supporters, the paper then did an abrupt turnabout. ”At the same time, the publicity he generated for the problem also certainly made assisted suicide less necessary, to some degree.” Excuse me? “In Oregon, only about 30 people a year have taken advantage of it,” according to the editorial.
Three quick points.
#1. To those behind the Oregon measure to legalize assisted suicide, Kevorkian’s out-of-control personal crusade was their worst nightmare.
#2. As anyone who had no stake in the debate could see, Kevorkian’s behavior was anything but “empowering” to the people he helped kill themselves. Early on some of the more perceptive observers came to the conclusion that Kevorkian played on the fears of women who worried that they might become a “burden” on others.
Writing in the New Republic, for example, Stephanie Gutmann observed,....”[I]n a chart like the one compiled by Kalman Kaplan, director of the Suicide Research Center at Columbia-Michael Reese Hospital in Chicago, we see that most of the Kevorkian women were not diagnosed terminal and had not been complaining of severe or constant pain. We see conditions like breast cancer (for which there is now great hope), emphysema, rheumatoid arthritis and Alzheimer's (a condition that usually burdens relatives more than the people who have it). Reading the case histories it is clear that many of these women's lives were messy and unattractive.
“But in all-too-typical female fashion, the patient often seems to have been most worried about the disease's impact on others. Is it possible that a certain type of woman--depressive, self-effacing, near the end of a life largely spent serving others--is particularly vulnerable to the ‘rational,’ ‘heroic’ solution so forcefully proposed by Dr. Death?”
#3. The number of assisted suicides in Oregon is a mystery, regardless of what “official” figures say. There is no penalty if physician involvement is not reported to the Health Department. The criteria for “who qualifies” is as vague today as it was when the law was first legalized in 1997. And worst yet, if possible, the reason cited by most people whose deaths are assisted is fear of a loss of autonomy. This isn’t, nor was it ever, about people in “intractable pain.”
Kevorkian roamed largely unchecked for nine years, participating (as he eventually admitted) in the suicides of 130 people. He wasn’t–and isn’t– a “hero.”
By HOWIE CARR a Boston Herald columnist and syndicated talk-radio host, has been covering John Kerry for 25 years
February 5, 2004 -- BOSTON
ONE of the surest ways to get the phones ringing on any Massachusetts talk-radio show is to ask people to call in and tell their John Kerry stories. The phone lines are soon filled, and most of the stories have a common theme: our junior senator pulling rank on one of his constituents, breaking in line, demanding to pay less (or nothing) or ducking out before the bill arrives.
The tales often have one other common thread. Most end with Sen. Kerry inquiring of the lesser mortal: "Do you know who I am?"
And now he's running for president as a populist. His first wife came from a Philadelphia Main Line family worth $300 million. His second wife is a pickle-and-ketchup heiress.
Kerry lives in a mansion on Beacon Hill on which he has borrowed $6 million to finance his campaign. A fire hydrant that prevented him and his wife from parking their SUV in front of their tony digs was removed by the city of Boston at his behest.
The Kerrys ski at a spa the widow Heinz owns in Aspen, and they summer on Nantucket in a sprawling seaside "cottage" on Hurlbert Avenue, which is so well-appointed that at a recent fund-raiser, they imported porta-toilets onto the front lawn so the donors wouldn't use the inside bathrooms. (They later claimed the decision was made on septic, not social, considerations.)
It's a wonderful life these days for John Kerry. He sails Nantucket Sound in "the Scaramouche," a 42-foot Hinckley powerboat. Martha Stewart has a similar boat; he no-frills model reportedly starts at $695,000. Sen. Kerry bought it new, for cash.
Every Tuesday night, the local politicians here that Kerry elbowed out of his way on his march to the top watch, fascinated, as he claims victory in more primaries and denounces the special interests, the "millionaires" and "the overprivileged."
"His initials are JFK," longtime state Senate President William M. Bulger used to muse on St. Patrick's Day, "Just for Kerry. He's only Irish every sixth year." And now it turns out that he's not Irish at all.
But in the parochial world of Bay State politics, he was never really seen as Irish, even when he was claiming to be (although now, of course, he says that any references to his alleged Hibernian heritage were mistakenly put into the Congressional Record by an aide who apparently didn't know that on his paternal side he is, in fact, part-Jewish).
Kerry is, in fact, a Brahmin - his mother was a Forbes, from one of Massachusetts' oldest WASP families. The ancestor who wed Ralph Waldo Emerson's daughter was marrying down.
At the risk of engaging in ethnic stereotyping, Yankees have a reputation for, shall we say, frugality. And Kerry tosses around quarters like they were manhole covers. In 1993, for instance, living on a senator's salary of about $100,000, he managed to give a total of $135 to charity.
Yet that same year, he was somehow able to scrape together $8,600 for a brand-new, imported Italian motorcycle, a Ducati Paso 907 IE. He kept it for years, until he decided to run for president, at which time he traded it in for a Harley-Davidson like the one he rode onto "The Tonight Show" set a couple of months ago as Jay Leno applauded his fellow Bay Stater.
Of course, in 1993 he was between his first and second heiresses - a time he now calls "the wandering years," although an equally apt description might be "the freeloading years."
For some of the time, he was, for all practical purposes, homeless. His friends allowed him into a real-estate deal in which he flipped a condo for quick resale, netting a $21,000 profit on a cash investment of exactly nothing. For months he rode around in a new car supplied by a shady local Buick dealer. When the dealer's ties to a congressman who was later indicted for racketeering were exposed, Kerry quickly explained that the non-payment was a mere oversight, and wrote out a check.
In the Senate, his record of his constituent services has been lackluster, and most of his colleagues, despite their public support, are hard-pressed to list an accomplishment. Just last fall, a Boston TV reporter ambushed three congressmen with the question, name something John Kerry has accomplished in Congress. After a few nervous giggles, two could think of nothing, and a third mentioned a baseball field, and then misidentified Kerry as "Sen. Kennedy."
Many of his constituents see him in person only when he is cutting in on them in line - at an airport, a clam shack or the Registry of Motor Vehicles. One talk-show caller a few weeks back recalled standing behind a police barricade in 2002 as the Rolling Stones played the Orpheum Theater, a short limousine ride from Kerry's Louisburg Square mansion.
The caller, Jay, said he began heckling Kerry and his wife as they attempted to enter the theater. Finally, he said, the senator turned to him and asked him the eternal question.
"Do you know who I am?"
"Yeah," said Jay. "You're a gold-digger."
John Kerry. First he looks at the purse.
Howie Carr, a Boston Herald columnist and syndicated talk-radio host, has been covering John Kerry for 25 years.
"This was the first time I've ever seen babies this small, and I've been in neonatology for 30 years," said Dr. Perla Castor. "And I thought, are we really going to try to save these kids?"
From "The Town Talk," a newspaper in Alexandria, Louisiana. Dr. Castor delivered what Guinness World Records recently confirmed to be the world's smallest surviving twins.
************************* *************
No doubt it's the dad in me, but I take enormous pleasure in reading stories about preemies who beat the odds. Last month Guinness e-mailed Christus St. Frances Cabrini Hospital to officially notify the hospital that Chloe and Courtney Smith (now four) were the smallest/lightest twins ever to make it.
According to the newspaper, at birth the twins weighed a combined 25.5 ounces (just over a pound a half). Two sets of twins held the prior world record: 30.33 ounces.
"They not only broke the record, they shattered the record," said a jubilant Jimmy Touchet, the hospital's public relations coordinator.
The girls were delivered March 1, 2000, months early, by Caesarean section at Rapides Women's and Children's Hospital. Immediately taken to Cabrini's Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, doctors held out little hope for Courtney and Chloe.
"They each weighed as much as a can of Coke," Theresa Slater, Cabrini's Children's Miracle Network director, told The Town Talk. "And, they were just a little longer than a fountain pen."
Carmen Smith, the girls' mother, said, "We were told not to expect them to live." Then, "after about a week and a half, they told us all the things we could expect to go wrong."
But as the weeks rolled by, none of that happened. "We were very thankful," she told The Town Talk. "Our prayers were answered."
Dr. Castor clearly is still amazed, four years later. "The whole thing was different," Castor told the newspaper. "Having this baby, that for all practical purposes should not have survived. ... I tell parents and staff that most premature babies have peaks and valleys. But theirs were just peaks all the time."
Today, while small (they each weigh 24 pounds), the girls have "no developmental delays and no physical disabilities." They attend special prekindergarten classes.
And, of course, not by any stretch do all babies born very prematurely fare so well. But Courtney's and Chloe's experience reminds us again that each situation is different, and that the preferential option must be to aggressively care for such little babies.
Congratulations to the Smith family. Congratulations to the Christus St. Frances Cabrini's Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. And congratulations to The Town Talk for its wonderful March 21 story.
Jack Kevorkian remains one of the eeriest people I’ve ever encountered, with views on issues (that never received the scrutiny his assisted suicide rampage did) that are shared by at most .001% of the population. Yet during a frenzy of 130 assisted suicides, Kevorkian easily escaped conviction even though he admitted his involvement both at his trial and to reporters.
Five years ago last Monday, Kevorkian was convicted of second-degree murder and illegal delivery of a controlled substance in the death of Thomas Youk. He was sentenced to 10-25 years in prison.
Kevorkian telephoned a local Michigan newspaper and the interview was run in the paper the Sunday before the anniversary. Tomorrow we’ll talk about what “Dr. Death” (as he came to be known) told the Daily Oakland Press. Today I’d like to run Liz Townsend’s story written just after the conviction.
Many people do not know the strange saga of Jack Kevorkian. It is a cautionary tale if ever there was one.
************************* *
Kevorkian's Nine-Year Euthanasia Crusade Leads to Murder Conviction By Liz Townsend
After nine years, 130 deaths, and six trials, "Dr. Death," Jack Kevorkian finally faces jail time for killing a desperate man who came to him for "help" and found only death. Thomas Youk's death by lethal injection, administered directly by Kevorkian and nationally televised on 60 Minutes, led to a second-degree murder conviction March 26. But Youk was only one of many people who died to advance Kevorkian's euthanasia crusade.
"We believe the verdict should have been premeditated murder, but we're very elated by the second-degree verdict," said Diane Coleman of the disability-rights group Not Dead Yet, according to the Associated Press. "We want to see Jack Kevorkian imprisoned for life. It's clear he has no respect for people with disabilities."
An Oakland County, Michigan, jury convicted Kevorkian, 70, of second-degree murder and illegal delivery of a controlled substance. It was the first time a jury convicted Kevorkian of charges directly related to a death, and also the first time Kevorkian acted as his own lawyer. Of his four previous assisted suicide trials, three ended in acquittal and one ended in a mistrial.
Kevorkian was convicted in November 1998 of minor charges of resisting arrest and obstructing justice when he scuffled with police officers who wanted to question him when he dropped one of his victims off at a hospital. He paid a $900 fine. The prosecution's case in the latest trial consisted almost solely of a videotape of Kevorkian injecting Youk, who had Lou Gehrig's disease, with lethal drugs on September 17, 1998. The tape was broadcast on the national television show 60 Minutes November 22.
During an interview with Mike Wallace, Kevorkian admitted he wanted prosecutors to put him on trial again. "I've got to force them to act," he said. "They must charge me. Because if they do not, that means they don't think it was a crime."
Prosecutor David Gorcyca, who was elected in 1996 based largely on his promise not to "waste taxpayers' money" on Kevorkian trials when it seemed impossible to get a conviction, could not ignore the clear videotaped evidence of a crime, according to the Detroit Free Press.
"Dr. Kevorkian has even begged and sometimes taunted me into prosecuting him," Gorcyca said after the jury's verdict was announced, the Associated Press reported. "Today a jury of his peers granted him his ultimate wish."
The seven-woman, five-man jury spent 12 1/2 hours deliberating after the trial. Assistant Oakland County Prosecutor Dan Lemisch told the Free Press that the jurors took time deciding between first- and second-degree murder. "They never thought there wasn't a crime," Lemisch said.
Kevorkian is free on a $750,000 bond until his sentencing on April 14. The maximum sentence for second-degree murder is life in prison; the drug-delivery charge could bring up to seven years.
Kevorkian's attorney David Gorosh began representing him again when Kevorkian withdrew as his own lawyer while the jury was deliberating. Gorosh said he will ask the judge for probation, according to the Free Press.
Pro-life and disability-rights groups acknowledged that although this conviction is long overdue, the fight against assisted suicide and the "quality of life" ethic is far from over. "The conviction of Jack Kevorkian should come as a relief to people with disabilities," said Burke Balch, director of NRLC's Department of Medical Ethics. "The danger is great that any so-called 'right to die' would quickly become a 'duty' to die."
"If this had happened sooner, there are 130 people who would still be alive," Not Dead Yet's Coleman told the Detroit News. " [Kevorkian is] a symbol. But when you get right down to it, he's not the scariest part of this. The scariest part is the people who seem a lot more mainstream than he does. Their agenda is the same. They're just more polite."
Some euthanasia proponents began to distance themselves from Kevorkian the moment his conviction was announced. They made sure to draw distinctions between Kevorkian's notions of "assisted suicide" and their own.
"We now know the unacceptable limits and we now, as a society, can move in the direction of those acceptable limits," George Eighmey, executive director of Compassion in Dying of Oregon, told the New York Times. "Let's move in the direction of the more moderate Oregon model, instead of the Kevorkian model."
Others continued to support Kevorkian. "He's a martyr," said Faye Girsh, president of the Hemlock Society, the Detroit News reported. "He's acted in a great American tradition of civil disobedience. It was so clearly not a crime."
Prosecutors used a risky strategy for this trial, dropping a charge of assisted suicide when Judge Jessica Cooper ruled that Kevorkian could introduce emotional testimony about Youk's condition under that charge. In his three previous acquittals, " jurors have been so moved by the suffering of Kevorkian's patients that they are unwilling to convict him," according to the Free Press.
The prosecution team formally charged Kevorkian with first- degree murder along with the drug-delivery charge. (During the trial, Cooper ruled that the jury could also consider second-degree murder or involuntary man-slaughter during their deliberations.) "This is a terrible disease, but those things are not the issue," Assistant Prosecutor John Skrzynski told the Free Press. "The law does not recognize mercy killing as a reason to kill somebody."
Without the assisted-suicide charge, Cooper refused to allow Youk's widow or other relatives to testify solely about his condition. Kevorkian tried to convince the judge to allow him to enter evidence about Youk's suffering, but she would not.
Kevorkian's defense lasted only 10 minutes with no witnesses, according to the Washington Post, compared to the prosecution's four hours and three witnesses. Judge Cooper repeatedly asked Kevorkian if he was sure he wanted to act as his own lawyer, even prodding him to answer or object to the prosecutor's case.
“This man is attempting to convict you of murder," Cooper told Kevorkian at one point, according to the Free Press. "You need to respond to him."
Kevorkian insisted on remaining as his own lawyer, trying to use his own brand of "logic" to convince the jury to ignore the law. " [H]e scrawled a confusing logic equation on a blackboard, intending to prove that if a law does not necessarily equate homicide with murder but does equate euthanasia with homicide, then 'therefore euthanasia is not necessarily murder,'" the Post reported.
Skrzynski relied on the death videotape and medical facts for his case. He told jurors in closing arguments that evidence of Youk's disease should not affect their decision. "It would be hard for you to disregard Tom Youk's medical condition when you look at the videotapes back in the jury room...but his medical condition is not what is at issue here," Skrzynski said, according to press reports.
"The law does not look at the victim and say, 'Does the victim have a quality of life that's worth protecting?' The law protects everyone. The law applies to everyone."
Kevorkian used his closing argument to depict himself as a courageous crusader for the right to assisted suicide. "There are certain acts that by sheer common sense are not crimes," he said. "Just look at me.... Honestly now, do you see a criminal? Do you see a murderer? . . . If you do, then you must convict. And then, take the harsh judgment of history, and the harsher judgment of your children and grandchildren if they ever come to need that precious choice."
Skrzynski rejected this view in his rebuttal, according to press reports: "He came like a medical hitman in the night with a bag of poison to do his job. This is not about assisted suicide. Thomas Youk did not kill himself."
The Kevorkian saga began in June 1990, when 54-year-old Janet Adkins, in the very early stages of Alzheimer's disease, killed herself reportedly with Kevorkian's help. Kevorkian's method of death then was a self-made "suicide machine" that would deliver lethal drugs with the touch of a button.
Kevorkian "acknowledged helping more than 130 people die since 1990," according to the Free Press. Dr. L.J. Dragovic, Oakland County's chief medical examiner, said that only 16 out of 69 victims he autopsied were terminally ill - - and five "showed no an atomical evidence of disease at all," Reader's Digest reported.
After a 1992 temporary assisted suicide ban, three trials that ended in acquittal, one mistrial, and various court cases, a permanent ban on assisted suicide went into effect in Michigan September 1, 1998. Voters rejected assisted suicide in a November referendum, and the law is on the books today. Kevorkian waited only 16 days after the law went into effect to videotape himself killing Youk.
Ed Rivet, legislative director of Michigan Right to Life, said he felt profound relief after Kevorkian was convicted. "It's been a long road - - a nine-year odyssey to jail Kevorkian," he told NRL News. "It was just a matter of being patient and waiting for justice to play out, to wait until the system finally worked."
Rivet added that outrage against Kevorkian's actions has energized people to find other ways to manage pain and to give comfort to the suffering. "There's been a real shift in the public mindset," Rivet said. "People realize that it's OK to say no to assisted suicide; it's OK to say no to Jack. Everybody in the state is now focused on alternatives such as hospice care."
An editorial in the Washington Post succinctly described what was so heinous about Kevorkian's actions. "This is a man who has aided in the deaths of many people whom he did not know and had not previously treated and whose mental competency to decide to die he was in no position to assess," the editorial stated.
"Whatever one thinks of assisted suicide, there is something demonic about a freelance death peddler who seems - - as Dr. Kevorkian has over the years - - to be so energized by such morbid work. That juries kept acquitting him and that he acquired a kind of popular following should not obscure the fact that Dr. Kevorkian's crusade, despite his medical degree, had nothing to do with the practice of medicine," the Post concluded.
LONDON (Reuters) - A British filmmaker behind what is being billed as the first pictures of an abortion ever shown on television defended her documentary Monday as a powerful stimulus to moral debate.
"My Fetus," to be broadcast by Britain's Channel 4 on Tuesday, includes footage of an abortion being conducted on a woman who is four weeks pregnant, as well as images of aborted fetuses that are 10, 11 and 21 weeks old.
"It's still a subject that is taboo and not discussed openly and I wanted to kick-start debate by allowing both sides of the argument to actually look at what an abortion is," 34-year-old filmmaker Julia Black told Reuters.
"Abortion is a legal procedure in Britain and is the world's most common surgical procedure, so I thought we should look at the images and then carry on the debate." Channel 4 said it was sensitive to criticism that the program might offend and shock, but insisted it was about educating and feeding debate on an issue that has sparked strong emotions across Europe and the United States.
"The point is that abortion is an incredibly common procedure, but we don't see the images and we should have the debate with the full knowledge of what is involved," a spokeswoman said.
"We are not just broadcasting this footage gratuitously. A warning will be shown prior to the show and there will be a helpline after."
Between 1996 and 2000, an average of 170,000 abortions were carried out each year in England and Wales, according to the British Pregnancy Advisory Service.
An anti-abortion group that saw a preview of the program said it failed to give a complete picture.
"Nothing was mentioned of all the possible psychological or physical effects, some of them long-term, on women of having abortions at any stage," a spokeswoman from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children said.
"Although some people from the anti-abortion side were featured, this was principally an attempt to make an abortion seem easy, normal, good...Her film could have addressed the humanity of the unborn child more successfully."
Black, who is pro-choice and had an abortion when she was 21, said both pro-choice and anti-abortion voices were generally in favor of the images being shown.
"Pro-life groups often use such images to promote their side of the debate, but this program is about letting viewers decide for themselves," she said.
Below is a brilliant analysis of Pope John Paul’s remarkable statement on the dignity of patients diagnosed to be in a persistent vegetative state [PVS], written by Richard Doerflinger.
Already, the Pope’s subtle and brilliantly crafted argument is under siege by those determined to caricature his message, turn it into something it’s not, or insist it is a “radical” departure from previous Church statements. None of these spurious charges is within hailing distance of the truth.
But, truth be told, there is one paragraph that provides the interpretative key to unlock all that the Pontiff said in a lengthy speech delivered to an international congress on “Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State: Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas.” It is found in a mere 79 words in an essay Mr. Doerflinger wrote for “Life Issues”:
“He [the Pope] insisted that each and every human being has inherent dignity. Even the patient in the so-called ‘vegetative’ state, who cannot visibly respond to us, is no ‘vegetable’ but a human person loved by God; and ‘the value of a man’s life cannot be made subordinate to any judgment of its quality expressed by other men.’ That patient, and his or her family, deserve the love and support of the entire community so they will not face their burdens alone.”
In his “Life Issues” essay, Doerflinger gives the reader invaluable background that (a) explains why some so hysterically attacked the Pope, and (b) demonstrates that the Pontiff broke no new ground.
First, we’re reminded that there is a cadre of so-called “bioethicists” who issue pronouncements as if they came from Mt. Olympus. They have decided that there are a number of categories of cognitively-impaired people, such as those diagnosed to be in a PVS, whose lives are purposeless, meaningless, and therefore pointless. The “problem” is, if these helpless people are fed, hydrated, and given even minimal care, they don’t readily die!
What to do? The first order of business is to make starving and dehydrating patients sound palatable. How?
Steal a page out of the Nazi’s playbook. Turn them into something unrecognizable in order to justify the unconscionable.
Many dredged for euphemisms, but it was Daniel Callahan, founder of the hugely influential Hastings Center, who hit pay dirt in 1983. Callahan wrote that “a denial of nutrition may in the long run become the only effective way to make certain that a large number of biologically tenacious patients actually die.”
Indeed for this growing army of “super-annuated, chronically ill, physically marginal elderly,” Callahan wrote, denial of food and water “could well become the non-treatment of choice.” That's the grim background.
Second, as Mr. Doerflinger carefully points out, the Pope’s statement is “no radical change” in Church policy. “Since 1992, for example, the U.S. bishops’ Committee for Pro-Life Activities has urged a strong presumption in favor of assisted feeding for these patients. To be sure, the Pope’s statement is especially strong. But he knows that, even as medical science increasingly urges us not to dismiss these helpless patients, medical ‘ethics’ has tragically moved in the opposite direction.”
He adds, “Science is joining with morality to urge us not to make easy assumptions about these patients – not even, said the Holy Father, the assumption that they cannot feel the suffering of a death by dehydration.”
The irony is that at the same time bioethicists are becoming more and more insistent that the “biologically tenacious” should die, more and more physicians are coming to realize (as Mr. Doerflinger writes) that they “don’t know whether they can reliably diagnose” conditions such as PVS, ”predict its outcome, or estimate how much sensation and consciousness remains in these patients.”
Give his enormous stature, Pope John Paul’s speech holds the potential to profoundly change the worldwide debate. “With the Pope’s statement, the Church’s teaching authority has rejected each aspect of the theory that opposes assisted feeding of patients in a persistent vegetative state,” Mr. Doerflinger writes in National Right to Life News. “The Pope’s speech marks a new chapter in the Catholic contribution to efforts against euthanasia by omission.”
Once upon a time, back in the dark ages (pre-ultrasound technology), unborn babies and their defenders could easily be besmirched. Bereft of hands-on (or, in this case, eyes-on) information, many Americans fell victim to the siren call of those who whispered that the out-of-sight, therefore out-of-mind unborn child was nothing more than a blob of tissue.
Given this blanket of ignorance, our resistance to abortion was on the public agenda, but only at the margins. Now, thanks to a confluence of events, the fate of the unborn child has forced its way onto center stage.
Two items reminded me of this today. First, there was an e-mail from a gentleman volunteering his services. He began this way: “Dear _______. Defense of the defenseless is indeed a noble thing. Thank you.”
To an extent that I can not recall previously, good folks are e-mailing me, asking “how can I help?” No longer can they tolerate being on the sidelines. Their voices, added to a glorious chorus, are making an already beautiful sound louder and louder.
The second item is a column I read written by Cathy Cleaver Ruse, Esq., director of planning and information for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities. The title, appropriately, is, “Recognizing the Child.”
Her analysis of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, recently signed into law by President Bush, is superb. Midway through, she raises a point that I too seldom address.
“Abortion advocates hold up Roe as if it were the standard by which all other laws should be judged,” she write, “forgetting that legal abortion is the uncomfortable exception, not the rule, when it comes to the way the law treats unborn children.”
Ms. Ruse lists some of the many areas where the law recognizes unborn children. “Most states allow legal recourse for prenatal injuries and recognize fetal homicide as a crime,” she points out. “Unborn children can inherit property, be represented by a guardian, sue for a wrongful death if their father is killed. They are considered human subjects protected from harmful research, and can qualify as recipients of state-funded health insurance.”
In other words,“Abortion is the glaring exception here,” she writes. "It defies logic that on Monday a child can inherit property or file claims in court and on Tuesday he disappears in the eyes of the law if an abortion choice is made.”
This insight reminded me of something else I recently read: Settling a particular case does not settle the principle. For a time, Roe seemingly “settled” the issue of the unborn vis a vis abortion. But even as that decision was under constant siege, the unborn, outside the abortion context, still possessed rights, as Ms. Ruse reminds us.
Abortion supporters are caught in a pincer-like grip. They are squeezed on one side by the unraveling of the rationale for abortion, and on the other side by the schizophrenia inherent of a situation where an unborn child can “file claims in court” one day but “disappear in the eyes of the law” if he’s aborted the next day.
Ms. Ruse likens the “logic” of abortion to the Emperor's new clothes.“[T]he abortion lobby stands in fear of the day when this logic is revealed to be just as insubstantial.”
And that day, once barely discernible on the horizon, is closer than any of us know.
With the recent releases of Fight Night 2004 and NFL Street, EA Sports has definitely diversified its once exclusive sports games for the general public.
However, their most recent video game, Terrorism Live 2004, upset not only Congress, but the entire American public.
The concept of the game is strikingly similar to most EA Sports titles; however, instead of taking control of a sports team, players can run their own team of terrorists.
Will Osama be the next in the unlucky EA Sports cover curse? Well you know what they say, if it's in the game, it's in the game.
“I cannot believe we didn’t think of this concept earlier,” said head EA Sports software engineer Hideki Rojovi.
“Not only can you choose from over 32 well known terrorist groups, including Al-Qeada, but you can build your own team through a fantasy draft and take them straight to the top!”
The exclusive 120 year dynasty mode allows users to take their favorite team through the ups and downs of running a militant group of terrorists. The gamer must try to recruit young terrorists, much like NCAA Football, and also involve the youngsters in dangerous tasks so they progress in skill.
Not only are each of the tasks more difficult than the last, but funding for these tasks tends to become a problem year by year.
“Well, the first task is relatively simple, hijack a plane,” said Rojovi. “Then, the player is hit with a series of suicide bombings and blowing up of embassies which require serious dollars. Obviously, some members of your team will be better fit for certain tasks than others and this is where recruiting an elite team is important.”
Each terrorist is rated on a scale of 99 on the following traits: knowledge, speed, agility, weaponry, espionage, strength, guts, aggressiveness, kick power, throw accuracy, and break tackle. Combined, these traits average out to an overall rating for the terrorist.
Here is an exclusive screenshot from Terrorism Live 2004. What kind of horseracing game were they trying to make?
Osama Bin Laden is the games overall best player with a score of 99.
“I started a fantasy draft in my preview of the game, and with the third pick, took Osama,” said video game journalist John Bernstein. “I know he’ getting old and weak, but his 99 knowledge and 98 espionage sets him apart from the rest, I’m going to franchise tag him as soon as possible!”
Congress has temporarily delayed the release of Terrorism Live 2004, which was set to hit stores September 11th, 2004.
“This game demoralizes America and makes us look like imperialistic idiots!” said Iowa Senator Tom Harkin. “I mean, to let our children play this game and build a team to eventually destroy America...it is simply terrible. I’m not sure how this game made it past the FCC.”
EA Sports told reporters that the game was initially programmed to be a horseracing game and a couple of numerical errors were to blame.
EA also claimed that the name, Terrorism Live 2004, was a typo.
For the moment, Shaq’s fiery expletives have been censored with soap bubbles. Sources close to the O’Neal family report that Shaq’s mother rinsed her son’s mouth thoroughly with soap after the Lakers superstar used foul language during a press conference.
Ahh, the gentle catharsis of bitter soap lathering in your mouth...
O’Neal’s mother decided to take matters into her own hands after Shaq repeatedly disregarded the NBA’s fines for profanity and vowed to “speak his mind.”
“I washed his mouth good,” said Lucille Harrison, Shaq’s mother. “And if it happens again, he gonna get hit. And I told him so. If he keeps ‘speakin his mind,’ I’ll keep spankin his behind, he can count on that.”
Reportedly, Ms. Harrison grabbed O’Neal by the ear shortly after he lashed out at reporters. She took him into the Lakers locker room and used conventional liquid body wash soap to create a rich lather in her son’s mouth.
“[expletive], man, you know how much that soap burns your mouth?” O’Neal told reporters at a taped press conference. “My mom is [expletive] crazy! That [expletive] tastes like [expletive]!”
Shaq's mom put her mean face on when Shaq wouldn't stop cussing.
Throat cultures taken directly after Ms. Harrison disinfected her son’s mouth showed no evidence of bacteria. It is unclear, however, whether or not the cleansing of O’Neal’s oral cavity will eliminate his virulent language permanently.
Behavioral experts believe that it may take many, many repeated soap treatments before O’Neal ceases swearing.
“This kind of thing takes time; he won’t become conditioned instantly,” said Geoffrey Loomis, professor of psychology at Yale University. “You have to apply the soap every time he curses. And when he doesn’t swear, sometimes you should wash his mouth out anyway… just for kicks… just to keep him on his toes.”
League commissioner David Stern has yet to announce whether he approves of Ms. O’Neal’s “alternative punishment.”
Let’s discuss three items. First, judging by a story in the Washington Post and information found on PBS’s website, tomorrow night’s edition of “Innovation” promises to be as educational as it is dramatic.
Looking at other programs that “Innovation” has aired on this topic, evidently it has already given lots of attention to embryonic stem cells. But Tuesday night’s segment (titled “Miracle Cell”) “showcases some of the doctors and patients involved in experimental trials in regenerative medicine, which aims to harness the natural ability of the body to renew and heal itself,” according to the Post.
The article goes on,“Their stories are amazing: Cardiac patients who recover rapidly after their own stem cells are implanted into their hearts; people with spinal cord injuries who have some feeling restored in their bodies.” If you go to www.pbs.org/wnet/innovation/about _episode6.html, the results of experiments using stem cells taken from everything from a patient’s own nose to bone marrow stem cells is even more remarkable.
But this is not news to you. As we have written repeatedly in this space and in National Right to Life News, there is a lengthening list of breakthroughs using stem cells from multiple, unobjectionable sources, including a patient’s own body and from stem cell-rich blood found in umbilical cords and placentas. There is no need for researchers to explore the ethically explosive terrain of embryonic stem cell research.
Second, there was a time once when a few questioned the extraordinary potential that a debate over partial-birth abortions had to reorient the way we look at killing unborn babies. If they have followed the legal challenges to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act taking place in three courtrooms, any doubts they may have had were removed.
In at least one court, abortionists were twisting uncomfortably in their chairs. Not, you understand, because the presiding judge was unfair, but merely because he refused to allow them to roll out the usual battery of euphemisms to shield partial-birth abortion’s ugly reality. Riveting reading.
Third, veteran British pro-abortion figure Julia Black is scheduled to air a film later this month in which Black will show images of aborted babies at 10, 11 and 21 weeks. This particular “visual vocabulary” is unnerving some of her soulmates because, according to abortion advocate Zoe Williams (writing in the Guardian), at 21 weeks, “the embryo is very identifiably human.”
Black says her purpose is to make society "re-examine its views on abortion," according to Williams. But this is a “milky, faux-impartiality” that Williams believes borders on “attention-seeking, which is a childish impulse to bring to the debate.”
Having said all that, Williams finds a silver lining: airing actual abortions “could, indeed it must, force pro-choicers to defend their position.”
“Pro-choicers simply will not call themselves pro-abortionists,” Williams complains. The use of “pro-choice” (“standard-issue terminology”)is the default position because “those of us who are in favour of abortions have never thrashed out a rational justification.”
Williams then hammers her fellow abortion advocates for falling victim (so to speak) to a sense of ambiguity. But if a woman has any reservations, Williams writes angrily, Don’t have one!
“And the rest of us, without those reservations, with full confidence in the legitimacy of terminating inchoate foetuses, should for God's sake attest to that publicly and stop colluding in this taboo, “Williams concludes. “We give our opponents more power with our shuffling evasiveness than gory footage of abortions ever will.”
For the Zoe Williamses of this world, the difficulty is that the overwhelming percentage of women who abort ARE ambivalent. They do sense–correctly–that what they have done was to take their child’s life, and they are, in many cases, inconsolable.
Judging by at least some of the comments made by abortionists at the aforementioned trials, while they cushion their consciences in a blanket of euphemisms and denials, in their heart of hearts they grasp the horror of what they do. Subconsciously, I believe, they live in fear that someday they may have to come to grips with what they are doing to helpless babies.
No, truth be told, Ms. Williams occupies a lonely perch. Abortion is horrific, and those who traffic in the deaths of unborn babies and the misery of their unhappy mothers know it best of all.
Like many of you, I suspect, there are so many demands on my time that there's not a lot of opportunity to read books. Magazine articles, newspaper stories, endless web publications, and ever-growing amounts of e-mail--yes. But ploughing through all that leaves precious little time for more leisurely reading.
Yesterday, however, an extended wait in the doctor’s office offered me the opportunity to make a serious dent in a book I’d wanted to crack open for weeks: “Bush Country,” by author and New York Post columnist John Podhoretz.
Podhoretz is an unabashed admirer of President Bush. The book thoughtfully lays out the case why he believes Mr. Bush “has earned a place in the pantheon of great American chief executives,” to borrow from the dust jacket. At the same time Podhoretz outlines his case for presidential greatness, he hilariously examines why Mr. Bush simultaneously is “driving liberals insane.”
Unless you run across this stuff, you might not know that their loathing for him extends far beyond conventional policy differences. As they did to his father, they accuse President Bush of everything from soup to nuts, often in conspiratorial language that ranges from the merely bizarre to the completely unhinged.
In many ways the most intriguing chapter is the first. Podhoretz digs up the roots of the odd notion that President Bush is unintelligent.
On its face this is a real head-scratcher. President Bush, after all, earned a B.A. from Yale and an M.B.A. from Harvard (and, by way, scored a 1200 on his SATs).
What’s fascinating is now that Mr. Bush has overcome his earlier habit of occasionally mangling words--the shaky basis for the meanspirited putdown--his enemies simply re-tooled their allegation. President Bush, they airily insist, is not “intellectually curious.”
None of this is remotely true, as Podhoretz and a number of other authors have amply documented. The President is a highly intelligent, incredibly focused man. His prodigiously disciplined style of governance is a product not only of his temperament but also a reflection of a keen insight into the labyrinthine legislative process and the Chief Executive’s unique powers.
As pro-lifers, many of us have followed Mr. Bush’s career in public office carefully, going back to when he was governor of Texas and before. None of us doubted his resolve, his intellectual heft, or his commitment to the cause of unborn babies and the medically dependent.
What we appreciated then and now is Mr. Bush’s uncanny capacity to reach out to ordinary people–those tens of millions of men and women who go about their daily lives with only a half-cocked eye on politics. Checking in as they do only periodically, the citizenry senses in Bush steely determination, firm convictions, but also a willingness to treat those who disagree with him agreeably.
That is not an attitude returned in kind by his opponents, as Podhoretz documents in excruciating detail. That most assuredly includes abortion advocates.
It’s fascinating to me how frequently pro-lifers overlook how much closer the overwhelming percentage of the American people is to our position than to the death peddlers'. As I’m sure many of you have, I’ve learned in other contexts (especially in lengthy dialogues with sincere skeptics) that there is a vast number of people who are imprisoned, so to speak, in a “personally opposed” cell.
That is where President Bush’s genius comes in. By his initiatives he erects a kind of half-way house for those whose minds are tired of pro-abortion cant but who have yet to completely free their minds.
In a sense, he is echoing great counsel: “Come, let us reason together.” Like a compassionate teacher, Mr. Bush is patiently asking Americans a series of probing questions.
Each one of these offers them a way to begin to escape the “personally opposed” trap. It can be as a gentle and unassuming as saying to the states, go ahead, if you want, and include the unborn in your prenatal care programs beginning at conception.
It can ask people necessarily harsh questions: is it acceptable to you that abortionists plunge surgical scissors into the backs of nearly-delivered babies, suck out their brains, crush their skulls, and deliver dead what was minutes before a vibrant, living member of the human family? Or, if a pregnant woman is criminally assaulted and her unborn child is injured or killed, do you really believe there has been only one victim?
But ultimately, these and many other inquiries are all variations on a theme: do you believe there are any circumstances in which unborn babies deserve legal protection? If your answer is no, why? If your answer is yes, why?
To borrow a metaphor from someone whose name now escapes me, these various strands will not automatically weave themselves into a meaningful whole. They require “the loom of an argument” to give them meaning.
That is what President Bush, along with you and I, are doing. Contrast this with the “logic” of abortion, which grows ever more threadbare by the day.
By gentle persuasion and with a sympathetic ear, the President is gradually reconfiguring the debate over the status of unborn children. As a result, everyday and in every way, the emotional and intellectual timbre of the debate is changing.
And that is in large part due to the work of pro-life President George W. Bush.
WASHINGTON, D.C. - In recent months since being named the Democratic nominee for the next presidential election John Kerry has recently admitted that he feels bad for calling President Bush many things, but not the one thing he should have all along.
Kerry said, "I've called Bush "Extreme And Out Of Touch". I've said he is "A Leader Of A Band Of Crooked Liars". I've called his Anit-Gay Amendment "Divisive", I've called his bluff with Clarke AND I've even called for numerous debates with him"
He finished, "Hell, I've been calling myself an "Underdog" against him all this time. I firmly believe that the American Public wants the truth and they want people to say what they (the public) are thinking. So what I really should have been calling him all along is an ASSHOLE."
Bush was unavailable for comment. White House Officials said he was currently detained.
It has lately been uncovered that President Bush's detainment was caused when he "accidentally" got his big toe stuck in the White House's Presidential bathroom's shower drain.
According to the Department of Labor, jobs increased by more than 300,000 in March, prompting elation in the Bush administration, In a related story, sources report that half of the 300,000 jobs were filled by illegal aliens, and most of the rest were participants in the Halliburton "Employee For A Day" program.
On the eve of the beginning of the Pakistan-India cricket showdown, India’s first tour of Pakistan since 1989, Pakistan test-fired an intermediate range surface-to-surface ballistic missile, capable of carrying a nuclear warhead deep into rival India, the military announced.
"It reflects Pakistan's resolve to maintain minimum credible Nuclear deterrence as the cornerstone of its sports policy," a military statement said.
The test was the first of the locally-built Shaheen II or Hatf-VI missile, which can carry warheads up to 2,000 kilometers (1,240 miles).
"By the grace of Allah, all the planned technical parameters were successfully validated during the test fire," the statement said. “Pakistan is now set to win the cricket tournament.”
Pakistan and India are currently mending ties after coming to the brink of conflict two years ago.
Sports analyst Mohammad Afzal Niazi said the latest test indicates the two countries continue to harbour suspicions, despite the recent thaw in cricket diplomacy.
"It is clear that both India and Pakistan have indicated that in their assessment, which appears realistic, the peace process is still too preliminary for either side to delay or suspend their military preparation," Niazi told AFP. “If India dares win the tournament, the whole of the middle east could be pushed to the brink of a nuclear war.”
PeopleCanChange.com, the Christian group offering counselling and advice to gay men who want to be straight, yesterday launched two new websites, MostPeopleChangeBack.com and ChristiansCanChange.Com.
Bernard Igot, who set up PeopleCanChange.Com explained to Lolo Laroche why the organisation saw the need for two new websites.
“When we set up PeopleCanChange.Com the idea was to support people who, like us, felt so uncomfortable living a sinful homosexual lifestyle that they would do anything to become straight.
We also wanted to make as much money as possible out of counselling them.
A whole group of us got together and looked at how and why we had become straight and when we realised how similar our paths back to God has been we synthesised a method and put extracts on our website for everyone to share.”
“Over the years, however, a couple of sub themes have come up.
The first is that most of the people who switch from gay to straight end up switching back again.
Sooner or later all the guys in the self help groups end up shagging together, or the married guys end up sneaking off to a gay bar for a bit of a kiss and a cuddle…
So we went through the same process; analysed the common experiences and set up MostPeopleChangeBack.com to help people who have become straight to switch back to being gay with a minimum of fuss.
Another thing that came to light was that the reason most people want to change from Gay to Straight is the intolerance and bigotry shown to gays within the Christian church.
Seeing as it seems people can’t really change their sexuality, the answer, if everyone wants to live a happy life, as God surely wants, is for people to change their religion instead.
That’s the program that ChristiansCanChange.Com offers, helping intelligent gay men to dump Christianity and switch to a different religion which offers them intelligence and tolerance.
As faithful readers know, currently there are three trials taking place across America, litigating pro-abortion challenges to the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Even though I was busy putting the finishing touches on the April issue of National Right to Life News, I was able to read quite a bit of the transcripts this week. Believe me, at the first opportunity, I shall read them in their entirety.
Reprinted below is just one example of the remarkably brutal comments offhandedly delivered by abortionists. Their callous insensitivity to what they are doing to helpless babies is a powerful reminder of the evil we can do when we rip away the humanity of an entire category of human beings.
Testimony from the three lawsuits challenging the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. The following excerpts, from the case being heard in New York City, are taken from information provided by Ms. Ruse.
************************* ***********************
Day Two, March 20. The following begins with an excerpt from the testimony of abortionist Dr. Amos Grunebaum.
THE COURT [Judge Richard Casey]. Doctor, you mentioned earlier today that you believe in full disclosure to your patients as to the procedures and the various possibilities that are available. THE WITNESS. Yes, I do. THE COURT. And that you spell out for the woman just what is entailed in a D&E that involves dismemberment, correct. THE WITNESS. Yes, I do. THE COURT. You also spell out that if you are doing an intact D&E or D&X or partial-birth abortion, whichever term is used, that entailed a partial delivery, and then the procedure you described of inserting the scissors in the base of the skull and using a suction devise to remove the brain. THE WITNESS. Yes, I do. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ THE COURT. And that some of them desire that [a partial-birth abortion] because after the procedure if they want to see or hold the dead fetus, is that correct? THE WITNESS. Yes. THE COURT. I believe you mentioned also take pictures, is that correct? THE WITNESS. Yes. That is part of our common policy -- it changed about ten years ago -- that we take pictures. THE COURT. This is part of the grieving process? THE WITNESS. Absolutely. We have been told by grieving counselors to take pictures of all dead fetuses and babies -- specifically babies, but also fetuses -- so there is a memory of the baby by the mother.
DAY THREE: Excerpts from direct examination of abortionist Dr. Timothy Johnson by an attorney for the National Abortion Federation (NAF):
Q. Do you have an opinion, Dr. Johnson, as to which of the two D&E variations, the intact or the dismemberment variation, may best facilitate the extraction of the fetal skull during an abortion procedure? A. I think that the intact procedure is actually developed in part to deal with the problem of the fetal skull. When one does a D&E, technically one of the challenges is to remove the fetal skull, partly because it is relatively large, partly because it is relatively calcified, and it is difficult to grasp on occasion. So one of the common technical challenges of a dismemberment D&E is what is called a free-floating head or a head that has become disattached and needs to be removed. This can lead to more passages of instruments through the cervix. And technically it is difficult to grasp the head; it is round, it slips out of the instruments that we generally use. Either those instruments or the head can be extruded outside the uterus and cause perforation. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ Q. Did you make any observation of the way the physician performing that intact D&E effected the incision into the skull? A. In the situations that I have observed, they either -- actually, the procedures that I have observed, they all used a crushing instrument to deliver the head, and they did it under direct vision. Q. Thank you, Doctor. THE COURT: Can you explain to me what that means. THE WITNESS: What they did was they delivered the fetus intact until the head was still trapped behind the cervix, and then they reached up and crushed the head in order to deliver it through the cervix. THE COURT: What did they utilize to crush the head? THE WITNESS: An instrument, a large pair of forceps that have a round, serrated edge at the end of it, so that they were able to bring them together and crush the head between the ends of the instrument. THE COURT: Like the cracker they use to crack a lobster shell, serrated edge? THE WITNESS: No. THE COURT: Describe it for me. THE WITNESS: It would be like the end of tongs that are combined that you use to pick up salad. So they would be articulated in the center and you could move one end, and there would be a branch at the center. The instruments are thick enough and heavy enough that you can actually grasp and crush with those instruments as if you were picking up salad or picking up anything with -- THE COURT: Except here you are crushing the head of a baby. THE WITNESS: Correct. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE COURT: An affidavit I saw earlier said sometimes, I take it, the fetus is alive until they crush the skull? THE WITNESS: That's correct, yes, sir. THE COURT: In one affidavit I saw attached earlier in this proceeding, were the fingers of the baby opening and closing? THE WITNESS: It would depend where the hands were and whether or not you could see them. THE COURT: Were they in some instances? THE WITNESS: Not that I remember. I don't think I have ever looked at the hands. THE COURT: Were the feet moving? THE WITNESS: Feet could be moving, yes. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ THE COURT: If you are all finished let me just ask you a couple questions, Dr. Johnson. I heard you talk a lot today about dismemberment D&E procedure, second trimester; does the fetus feel pain? THE WITNESS: I guess I -- THE COURT: There are studies, I'm told, that says they do. Is that correct? THE WITNESS: I don't know. I don't know of any -- I can't answer your question. I don't know of any scientific evidence one way or the other. THE COURT: Have you heard that there are studies saying so? THE WITNESS: I'm not aware of any. THE COURT: You never heard of any? THE WITNESS: I'm aware of fetal behavioral studies that have looked at fetal responses to noxious stimuli. THE COURT: Does it ever cross your mind when you are doing a dismemberment? THE WITNESS: I guess whenever I -- THE COURT: Simple question, Doctor. Does it cross your mind? THE WITNESS: Does the fetus having pain cross your mind? THE COURT: Yes. THE WITNESS: No. THE COURT: Never crossed your mind. THE WITNESS: No. THE COURT: When you have done D&Es or when you have done abortions, do you tell the woman various options that are available to her? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: And do you explain what is involved like in D&E, the dismemberment variation? Do you tell her that? THE WITNESS: We would describe the procedure, yes. THE COURT: So you tell her the arms and legs are pulled off. I mean, that's what I want to know, do you tell her? THE WITNESS: We tell her the baby, the fetus is dismembered as part of the procedure, yes. THE COURT: You are going to remove parts of her baby. THE WITNESS: Correct. THE COURT: Are you ever asked, Does it hurt? THE WITNESS: Are we ever asked by the patient? THE COURT: Yes. THE WITNESS: I don't ever remember being asked. THE COURT: And although you have never done an intact D&E, do you know whether or not the incision of the scissors in the base of the skull of the baby, whether that hurts? THE WITNESS: Well, I guess my response would be I think that the baby feels it but I'm not sure how pain registers on the brain at that gestational age. I'm not sure how a fetus at 20 weeks or 22 weeks processes and understands pain. THE COURT: You have never done one of these procedures but did you ever ask what -- you say you know about it clinically, did you ever ask one of those who perform them whether it hurts the fetus? THE WITNESS: No, sir. THE COURT: When you describe the possibilities available to a woman do you describe in detail what the intact D&E or the partial birth abortion involves? THE WITNESS: Since I don't do that procedure I wouldn't have described it. THE COURT: Did you ever participate with another doctor describing it to a woman considering such an abortion? THE WITNESS: Yes. And the description would be, I would think, descriptive of what was going to be, what was going to happen; the description. THE COURT: Including sucking the brain out of the skull? THE WITNESS: I don't think we would use those terms. I think we would probably use a term like decompression of the skull or reducing the contents of the skull. THE COURT: Make it nice and palatable so that they wouldn't understand what it's all about? THE WITNESS: No. I think we want them to understand what it's all about but it's -- I think it's -- I guess I would say that whenever we describe medical procedures we try to do it in a way that's not offensive or gruesome or overly graphic for patients. THE COURT: Can they fully comprehend unless you do? Not all of these mothers are Rhodes scholars or highly educated, are they? THE WITNESS: No, that's true. But I'm also not exactly sure what using terminology like sucking the brains out would -- THE COURT: That's what happens, doesn't it? THE WITNESS: Well, in some situations that might happen. There are different ways that an after-coming head could be dealt with but that is one way of describing it. THE COURT: Isn't that what actually happens? You do use a suction device, right? THE WITNESS: Well, there are physicians who do that procedure who use a suction device to evacuate the intercranial contents; yes.
The UK Conservative party, in a desperate attempt to prove themselves more progressive than New Labour on social issues yesterday presented a radical new agenda for Gay men and Lesbians within the UK.
The policy review, a direct response to New Labour’s plans to introduce gay marriages within the next year were presented to the press by the party’s spokesman on LGTB (Lesbian, Gay, Trans-Gender and Bisexual) affairs, Anne Widdecombe.
“The Conservative Gay Policy review shows that we are a modern forward looking party.” Anne Widdecombe told us.
The choice of Widdecombe as policy spokesman was seen in itself to be a huge move forward for the Conservatives.
Widdecombe who is an ex-Gay man who has changed sex in order to become a Transgendered Lesbian is one of very few UK citizens to fulfill all criteria of all LGTB categories.
Under the policy review, the compulsory burning of books containing gay characters is to be made voluntary whilst pillars of Conservative policy towards the gay community: forced electro-shocks for Gay men and out-of-town stoning of Lesbian women are to be suspended for a six month test period.
However Peter Touchall of the Stonewall Gay rights movement told me that the policy change was “Unlikely to go far enough to make the gay community swing.”
Navigating 1001 Guide for the Technologically Challenged
By Joseph Landrum
Ok, we all know that, nowadays, the first place anyone looks for information is on the Web. What not everyone knows, however, is how much tremendously helpful information is housed at NRLC’s web page.
This TN&V is intended as a primer to navigating NRLC’s web page, found at www.nrlc.org. Because there is so much to be found there, we wanted to provide you with some help on how to begin.
A couple of caveats. First, except for a reference to articles available from NRL News, I am only discussing the resources available from the Education Department. NRLC’s web page is chock-full of materials from all departments. This will be addressed in a subsequent issue of NRL News.
Second, to the computer-savvy, some of this might seem overly simplified. But not everyone is as at home on the Information Highway as the typical 15-year-old is and could get lost. I will walk you through the process click by click, AND give you the final “address” in case you miss a step.
Finally, there is a great deal of free material! Chapters (and individuals) often have limited budgets. Okay, here we go.
At the top of the educational resources list are short fact sheets, one, two or four pages each, that deal with particular topics such as Planned Parenthood, abortion statistics, RU 486, or the economic impact of abortion. The fact sheets can be an excellent place for those who need a fact or figure in a hurry: students beginning their research, pro-lifers writing letters to the editor, or those responding to a friend who is not yet on our side.
To find these fact sheets (as we will with everything discussed in this article), begin at the NRLC home page–www.nrlc.org.
At the very top are six categories (“Home,” “Issue Info,” etc.). Click on “Issue Info,” and, under that, “Fact Sheets.” In the middle, about half way down, you’ll see “Fact Sheets” again. Just click on and you will be in a position to download. Choose the title you want, and up it pops. The “address”? http://www.nrlc.org/onlinebro...
Looking for information on the development of the unborn child for biology class, or to respond to a confused fence-sitter? No problem.
From www.nrlc.org, again click on “Issue Info.” When you do, you’ll see a number of categories. Choose “Abortion.” From there click on “Diary of an Unborn Baby,” which you will see over to the left.
Here you’ll find prenatal photos, a description of the basic milestones of fetal development, and sources for further reading. Never underestimate the power of a photo, and never assume that the person you are talking with knows that the heart of a child begins beating 18 days after conception.
The address is www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/fetald evelopment.html.
Psychology students will be interested in information on the psychological effects of abortion, as will those pointing out the concern the pro-life movement has for women before AND after abortion. From the home page–www.nrlc.org-- click on “Issue Info,” and then “Abortion.” (Getting easier, isn’t it?) Click on “Some Medical Facts.”
Scroll down to “Psychological Complications.” You are now at www.nrlc.org/abortion/ASMF/asmf14.html, an excellent overview of possible complications and references to medical journals.
There are also a vast number of more recent NRL News articles dealing with this (and all other subjects). Just click on “Stay Informed” and then on “NRL News.” The current issue of the newspaper will appear.
But it’s now even easier to research the contents of NRL News. As you scroll down the right side, you’ll find the paper indexed by subject back to December 1997!
Click on the Index for 2003, for instance. Under the heading “Abortion: Post Abortion Trauma,” you can find a number of entries. The first one, which ran in the January 2004 issue, is titled “Evidence that Abortion Does Real Damage to Women." The address for that article, written by NRLC President Dr. Wanda Franz, is www.nrlc.org/news/2003/NRL01/franz .html.
Another excellent resource on post-abortion syndrome now out of print but available on our web page is “Karen’s Story.” To find this, begin at the home page, click on “Issue Info,” and then “Factsheets.” Next click on “Brochures.”
There you will find a number of Life Cycle publications now available only here. Click on “Karen’s Story” (or whichever Life Cycle you wish to see), and it will appear on your computer screen ready to be downloaded free.
Find yourself in a chat room or chatting the old-fashioned way, face to face with a real live person, who doesn’t share your convictions? Start at the home page. Click on “Issue Info” and then “Abortion.” Scroll down to “How do pro-lifers respond to the claims of abortionists?”
Here you will see the basic arguments in the debate, and pro-life responses. You are at www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/aborti onresponses.html.
Finally, one of the more important links on our web page is to the “Option Line.” This is for women who need assistance choosing life for their unborn child or those who need to get them this information right away. From our home page (www.nrlc.org, remember?), scroll down to a little box on the right under the ultrasound picture of an unborn baby, where it says “Are you pregnant and think abortion is your only option?”
Once you click here, you’ll see another box on the right that says “Pregnancy Centers on-Line.” This takes you to www.pregnancycenters.org where you can locate a pregnancy center near you, send an e-mail to a pregnancy counselor, or dial the toll free number (1-800-395-HELP) and be connected to the nearest pregnancy center.
The NRLC web page has proven to be a valuable asset in disseminating information. Make use of its valuable resources in your pro-life efforts.
Looking for something you can’t find? Send an email to education@nrlc.org, or call 202-626-8829.
John Kerry is coming under increasing criticism from various leaders of the Catholic Church for his public position and voting record on abortion. The controversy has escalated to the point that it was featured in the April 5, 2004 issue of TIME magazine--showing a two-thirds page photo of Kerry on Ash Wednesday complete with ashes on his forehead.
The core of the argument is that Sen. John Kerry proclaims himself to be a practicing Catholic while he also proudly espouses his strong and unyielding support for the continuation of abortion on demand. In effect Kerry is trying to be on both sides of the fence at the same time – implying Catholicity while appearing at NARAL functions and maintaining an almost perfect abortion rights voting record in the United States Senate for the past 20 years.
The Catholic Church’s position on abortion is clear and unambiguous. Abortion is wrong! Not only wrong, but it is a serious sin for anyone who knowingly has an abortion, procures an abortion, performs an abortion, or assists in an abortion. This includes those who advocate, promote, and vote for the continued legalization of abortion on demand and governmental funding of abortions.
Catholic Church leaders have consistently defended the Church’s position on the sanctity of innocent unborn human life. However, church leaders are now also increasingly stating that “Catholic” politicians who publicly support abortion may face some consequences regarding their participation in the sacraments. In February, during a campaign trip to Missouri, newly installed Archbishop Raymond Burke publically warned Kerry “not to present himself for Communion.”
Boston’s newly installed Archbishop Sean O’Malley, who is Kerry’s own archbishop, has also spoken out on the issue. According to TIME, “O’Malley has said that Catholic politicians who do not vote in line with church teachings ‘shouldn’t dare come to Communion.’”
In addition, the TIME article quotes a Vatican Official, who is an American, “People in Rome are becoming more and more aware that there’s a problem with John Kerry, and a potential scandal with his apparent profession of his Catholic faith and some of his stances, particularly abortion.”
All of which begs the question: what is required for one to call himself or herself a practicing Catholic? In the eyes of the Catholic Church, if you want to call yourself a Catholic, then you must accept Catholic Church teaching on doctrinal and moral issues. Picking and choosing beliefs on major moral issues – especially the fundamental issue of the sanctity and protection of innocent unborn human life – will not be well-received by the Catholic Church. Common logic dictates that it is impossible to be on both sides of the fence at the same time.
In a shocking turn of events yesterday, al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, the suspected mastermind behind the attacks on the U.S. on September 11th, 2001, turned himself in to U.S. authorities without incident in Afghanistan.
Bin Laden had reportedly been suffering “severe emotional distress and humiliation” after learning that he had been openly and repeatedly mocked by working-class Americans for the past two and a half years.
“There’s just no need to get personal,” bin Laden said in a prepared statement read by his attorney yesterday. “This is a holy war rooted in a deep and lasting hatred of American values and interference in Middle Eastern affairs. I just don’t see how wearing a T-shirt calling me a ‘goat fucker’ solves anything.”
According to sources, it was around 2:00 pm Friday when a senior al-Qaeda official delivered an intelligence report to Bin Laden that provided a detailed account of everyday America’s humorous verbal and visual attack on the Saudi-born al-Qaeda leader.
The report, gathered by al-Qaeda operatives throughout the U.S. over the last two and a half years, is said to have contained an assortment of novelty items and printouts of e-mail attachments poking fun at bin Laden, who was previously unaware of the extent to which he was ridiculed by the average working-class American.
Bin Laden reported in his statement that he was most humiliated when he learned that a large number of American truck-owners had placed vinyl stickers on their vehicles that depict a young child urinating on the words “Bin Laden.”
Above: An example of the strong anti-Bin Laden feelings that made the terrorist leader "feel really bad about myself". Inset: a child urinating on his name.
“The thought of automobiles driving around with pictures of a cartoon boy urinating on my name is terribly humiliating,” the statement read. “I just can’t imagine leading any kind of jihad knowing that these pictures are out there for anyone to see.”
The “Calvin” stickers, as they have come to be known due to the urinating child’s resemblance to the character from Bill Waterson’s comic strip “Calvin and Hobbes,” are reportedly popular among working-class Americans due to their affordability.
“Shit, yeah, I’ll put down $3.95 for one of those stickers,” said Indiana resident Ed Stoner. “It’s not only hilarious, but it also sends the message to that goat fucker bin Laden that his acts of terrorism can’t shake the foundation of American toilet humor. It just can’t be done.”
In addition to the harsh psychological effects of Americans’ teasing, bin Laden’s decision to surrender was reportedly also influenced by the recent doubling of the reward for tips leading to his capture, pushing the new prize up to a whopping $50 million.
“I just can’t help but think of what would happen if that money fell into the wrong hands,” bin Laden said in his statement. “I mean, if they already have T-shirts with my face in the middle of a big bulls-eye, just think what they could do with $50 million.”
But while the main focus of blue-collar America’s self-described “rude ‘n’ crude” attack has been on bin Laden, the sticker and T-shirt companies that have fueled the humorous war show no signs of relenting now that the al-Qaeda leader has surrendered.
“Bin Laden was the big fish,” said Randy Jones, spokesman for Patriot’s Paradise, a large producer of patriotic U.S. novelties. “But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t still a bunch of little guppies swimming around out there. Now we’ve just got to figure out who’s the next biggest threat to America and then just you watch how quickly the U.S. novelty industry can bring them to their knees.”
Jones then added: “I just hope it’s that guy from Korea. I can draw a hilarious caricature of that little bastard. What’s his name again? You know, the little guy with the glasses. Man, that’d be good for business.”
Same-sex divorce: all of a sudden things aren’t so gay
Social conservatives opposed to gay unions have called on homosexuals experiencing marital difficulties to stay together in a bid to stem alarming increases in the rate of gay family breakdown. Anti-liberal group Focus on the Family today released research which shows that gay divorce rates have soared since the ban on gay marriage ended.
“While we think homosexuality is innately evil, we were impressed at the way the gay community achieved a divorce rate of 0%,” said Focus on the Family founder James Dobson. “It certainly compared favourably with the straight community, where 1 in 4 marriages now end in divorce.”
But Mr Dobson says that since San Francisco started allowing gay marriages in February this year as many as 10 of the same-sex unions have ended in separation.
Dobson blames the increase in gay divorce rates on a decline of traditional values in the queer community. “In the old days,” he said, “when gay people got married, it was for life. Even though they had to marry a person of the opposite sex, it was for life.” “These days homosexuals seem to think they can just give up on dysfunctional relationships that make them unhappy like straight people can now.”
Mr Dobson called for a return to the traditional practice of pressuring people into unfulfilling arrangements just for the sake of preserving narrow-minded, conservative ideology.
The call has also been backed by Sydney’s Archbishop George Pell, a prominent opponent of homosexuality. “Even though I deplore gay marriage, Catholic doctrine also forbids divorce,” the Archbishop explained. “Besides, in these difficult questions I generally take any position which will cause the maximum amount of impracticality and distress to ordinary people. So if you’re in an unhappy gay marriage you should cop it just like straight Catholics have to.”
As I’ve mentioned more than once in this space, I was born and bred a Democrat. For years I actively worked within the party, hoping to shed some light in places that had grown very dark. Like millions of other Democrats, eventually I parted ways with the party of my youth when pro-abortion militants gained unquestioned sway.
At about the same time I was recruited into the greatest Movement for social justice of our time. When I enlisted, my loyalty shifted from party to whichever candidate best promoted and supported the cause of life.
The toll exacted on the Democratic Party for its pro-abortion militancy has been immense, and it continues chasing away wonderful people. But it has not always been so. People who’ve not been in the Movement for decades have no way of knowing that, especially in the early days, a large percentage of our elected pro-life officials was Democrats.
Today, there is still a substantial contingent of pro-life Democrats in the House of Representatives, and their votes are often critical in passing pro-life legislation. In the Senate, pro-life Democrats are scarce. There were only three on the critical vote on the Feinstein single-victim substitute to the unborn victims of violence act, but that was two more than the total margin of victory.
Likewise, there are still states where the Democratic Party is not a wholly-owned subsidiary of NARAL and Planned Parenthood. Being able to pass bi-partisan legislation is immensely satisfying and hugely important to the long-term health of the Movement.
But, to come full circle, at the national level–especially when it comes to leadership positions and presidential candidacies–the Democratic Party has no use whatsoever for pro-lifers. The hemorrhaging continues.
One of the latest Democrats whose conscience would no longer allow him to stay in the party is Georgia Senator Zell Miller. What makes his story all the more poignant is that at the same time his party was selling out lock, stock, and barrel, he was undergoing a change of his own in the opposite direction.
The following is excerpted from his new book, “A National Party No More, the Conscience of a Conservative Democrat.”
************************* ************
The Conscience of a Democratic Leader Moves Him to Oppose Abortion
Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Al Gore and Dick Gephardt, to name a few, started their political careers opposing abortion. Over the years, they all changed their positions to pro-choice. My own evolution on this issue has been just the opposite. Personal experiences again reshaped my thinking...
So, there was a time, when the question of abortion came up, I automatically answered that a woman should make that decision about her body. Without a shred of soul-searching, I supported the Roe v. Wade decision by the Supreme Court. I said, “Leave it to the woman, her God, and her doctor.”
But over time, I came to realize that this is a much more complicated issue than that. Even from my first political stance on abortion, I qualified whole hearted support based on how the law should be applied to minors. I took the position that parents should be notified and consent obtained before a minor could proceed.
Also, I took the position that public funds should not be used for the procedure. About the same time, I modified my stance again, viewing abortion as appropriate only in the first trimester. Then as governor, I signed a state law in 1997 outlawing the terrible procedure of partial-birth abortion.
Still, I stuck with my position of supporting abortion, but with all these qualifications. I was personally comfortable with those positions. Further, polls showed the majority of the American public was in favor of abortion, but with some qualifications.
I can accurately date the genesis of my evolving beliefs on abortion back nine years to when my great-grandchildren began to arrive. I began to seriously wrestle with where I was on the real question. I began to pray earnestly for God’s guidance....I know how richly blessed we are that they [the great-grandchildren] were not four of the 42 million who have been aborted over the past thirty years, that they are alive....
I believe the thinking of many Americans is changing on this subject. New science and technology can now show the heart of the unborn baby beating in the mother’s womb. I saw it on the front page of Newsweek, no less. I remember my grandson, only twenty, carrying a sonogram around to show off his yet unborn, but so alive daughter. It gave new meaning to the old Roberta Flack song, “The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face.”
I know it is wrong to take these lives. For me, it is no longer a political issue, but a moral one, as it should have been from the beginning. I hope someday Roe v. Wade will be reversed. I will support justices to the Supreme Court who I think will do that, but I will not use this issue as a litmus test. I have come to believe that when some rail about having that “choice,” they really are saying a woman should have that “comfort.”
The most poignant sight for me at this year’s annual pro-life march and demonstration in Washington, DC, was the large number of women holding signs saying they regretted their abortions.
One of the most encouraging signs I’ve seen...is the growing percentage of teenagers and college-aged Americans who are more conservative about abortion rights than those of a generation ago.... I believe this is a national trend. Support for abortion rights has steadily dropped for a decade, from 67% in the early 1990s to 54% in 2003. A New York Times/CBS News poll found out that “among people 18-29, the share of whom agree that abortion should be generally available to those who want it” was only 39%, down from 48% in 1993....
Twenty-six states have fetal homicide statutes and I am a cosponsor of such a bill in Congress [the recently passed “Unborn Victims of Violence Act”]. Ultrasound technology has proved the unborn baby is human, and abortion has become the moral and ethical issue my mother--that strong woman--always maintained it was.
Although I have been a small part of this great Movement for a quarter of a century, I am humbled by how little I understand about the pain of abortion. The vivid ache of an unexpected stillbirth, yes, but not the torment that so often follows (sometimes on the heels of, sometimes years later) participation in the decision to deliberately take a child’s life.
My “expertise” is even more limited because I am a man. I can emphasize and sympathize and console and even (to an extent) commiserate with an aborted woman. I cannot see this experience through the same prism. There is an emotional terrain that I have never and can never explore.
At least at some level, however, I can begin to grasp the bitter regret and abiding remorse that a man experiences when he irresponsibly fathers a child whose life he then cannot protect. Every time I read such an account, the agony is so real it’s as if I am reading about this for the first time.
A friend forwarded me a powerful front-page column that appeared in a newspaper in Iowa over the weekend. I will refer to the author by his first name, Herb.
As he is the first to admit, Herb’s story is hardly novel. The daughter that he has chosen to call Pilgrim “was the result of the carelessness and irresponsibility of two young adults in Southern California about 41 years ago.”
Thinking they were in love and in possession of “all the answers,” they were “not unlike many other couples of the early 1960s,” he writes. They talked “in general terms about someday getting married, but it was something we would do after we had accomplished our great goals in our lives we believed were waiting for us to conquer. We both reached our goals, but at a cost so great that it destroyed our relationship, the life of our daughter and put a terrible void in our psyches.”
When Pilgrim’s mother became pregnant, the facade of maturity and love collapsed, “to be replaced with accusatory and sarcastic comments, and finally Pilgrim's mother declaring she was going to have an abortion -- and that she wanted me out of her life.”
Here it is more than 40 years later and Herb can still recall the specifics as if they took place the day before. How the mother no longer wanted him to be around. How she told her parents of her pregnancy. How they “readily agreed to Pilgrim's mother having an abortion.” How only days after he saw Pilgrim’s mother--“the mother of our child”-- for the last time, Pilgrim was aborted.
Herb tells us that he sobbed uncontrollably, brokenhearted, mourning the loss of “the two beings I loved the most, Pilgrim and her mother,” his inability to have any say “to what happened to our daughter,” and because he “realized that Pilgrim had been senselessly and wrongfully aborted." His behavior had so tarnished his own moral integrity that he fights self-loathing to this day.
He has a grown son of his own, he writes, but there is still a permanent void in his heart that no counsel that he “get on with your life'' can fill. He wonders how many of these well-meaning people “have any idea that healing for both the fathers and mothers of aborted babies is a never-ending process, and that all the healing in the world does not mitigate the fact a child that had the right to be born was not allowed to have a life.”
Why did he choose to bear his soul now? We can only hazard a guess that something triggered in him the sense that it was “alright” to grieve for his lost daughter.
We learn that he has written her a letter, “telling her how much I love her, and that I hope someday to see her and feel her arms around my neck.” He tells us that he has forgiven Pilgrim’s mother, “and in turn, I am hoping Pilgrim's mother will forgive me for my part in the pregnancy.”
He began his column with this question: “What do you tell an unborn daughter that was aborted 40 years ago by its mother?” He is the father of a daughter that “I have never seen or held her in my arms. The two of us never had the opportunity to share the song of a sparrow, throw pebbles across a pond, to hold hands while looking at a sunset. I never had the chance to see her play soccer, softball, or basketball, or to watch nervously with her mother by the screen door as she left to go on her first prom. I wanted to be able to do all these things; however, I did none of them.”
But if his initial paragraph is almost too painful to read, his conclusion holds out genunine hope, both for him and for others:
“I writes this story to give the reader the opportunity to know that fathers of unborn children should have rights regarding their unborn children, and that many of us men are almost just as permanently affected and scarred by the abortion of their children, as are the mothers of these babies. I hope that any couples contemplating abortion read this article and rethink their position.”
“They owe that at least to their baby,” he concludes. “Goodbye, Darling Pilgrim, I love you, -- Dad.”
It was important for everyone on both sides of the abortion debate to see John Kerry giving Kate Michelman a peck on the cheek just prior to nominating the leading pro-abortionist in North America for a kind of secular canonization.