Why the Media, Abortion Advocates and the Left Hate Governor Sarah Palin

(This is an article I wrote for Nevada LIFE, www.nevadalife.org, yesterday.)   Last night's brilliant speech by Pro-life Governor Sarah Palin showed us why she has been so vilified and subjected to some of the ugliest vitriol in the 5 days between last night's speech and her acceptance of pro-life Senator John McCain's call to run for the Vice Presidency of the United States. Why the pre-speech savaging of Governor Palin? For years the abortion feminists-who have hijacked the woman's movement, have followed and promoted the advice given by National Abortion Rights Action League co founder Larry Lader (a man) to women that a woman's fertility kept her from breaking through the glass ceiling. Abortion was needed for women to advance and to achieve equality with men. In this mindset a woman's fertility and children were obstacles to be overcome. Just last year Supreme Court Justice and radical feminist and former counsel for the ACLU Ruth Bader Ginsburg made this clear in her dissent to the Supreme Court's ruling upholding the constitutionality of the partial birth abortion ban. Ginsburg argued that women's "ability to realize their full potential, the Court recognized, is intimately connected to 'their ability to control their reproductive lives.' ... Thus, legal challenges ... center on a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature." The "Casey Court described the centrality of 'the decision whether to bear ... a child,' to a woman's 'dignity and autonomy,' her 'personhood' and 'destiny,' her 'conception of ... her place in society.'" Ginsburg was making the leading abortion feminist argument that partial birth abortion and abortion are necessary to fulfill a woman's potential and to achieve or protect her equal standing in society. Without abortion there's no equality and women cannot reach their full potential. Children are obstacles and expendable in the pursuit of these ends. That has to be news to women like Governor Palin. Abortion advocates say this another way. They argue that abortion is a fundamental right "without which all other rights are meaningless." The exercise and enjoyment of those rights depend on abortion. Incredibly, this argues that a woman's distinctive reproductive nature wars against her and that she must be liberated from her body and her children to become equal with men! She must become like men to be equal with men! That's been the message for the last 40 years from the abortion feminists. It explains in part if not in full, the abortion feminists' and media's hatred and reflexive opposition to Palin. Governor Palin's life and success repudiates all of that. She didn't need abortion. Her large family and children did not stop her from reaching her potential-not even a Down syndrome child, whom she calls her "perfect child." The exercise of Palin's incredible gifts were not and are not contingent on destroying her children or being free from commitments. Her fertility has not hindered her and she has not had to become or pretend to be a man to succeed. That is anathema to the abortion and mainstream media establishments and the nihilists on the left. Her life and success loudly proclaim that 50 million abortions were in no way necessary for women to reach their potential or equality with men. How can they live with themselves for being responsible for so many abortions and being responsible for leading so many women to think abortion was necessary? We may see a change of tone and strategy from her opponents after last night's speech. But we can still expect more opposition by the very women who say sexism has kept a woman from being president.

Attack On Palin's Daughter Shows Profound Difference Between Campaigns

(This is an article I wrote for Nevada LIFE, www.nevadalife.org) earlier this week.)   The profound differences between the Obama and McCain campaigns on abortion and what it means in real life are becoming clearer as abortion advocates and the nihilists on the political left stoop to attack Governor Palin's family and make sport of her pregnant 17 year old daughter. Early this year, Senator Barack Obama said that if one of his daughters became pregnant, he would not punish her with a child-Obama's grandchild. He would have his grandchild aborted. Governor Palin's daughter is pregnant, but the Palin family has embraced their daughter's child in utero. "Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support." The Obama campaign believes that certain human beings are expendable and that there is a constitutional right to do so. This shouldn't surprise anyone. In 2003, Illinois State Senator Barack Obama voted a second time against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. On another occasion he voted present. The bill would have recognized these helpless born alive infants as persons. Obama refused to do so. Nurse Jill Staneck testified for that bill. Staneck told how she comforted one baby who was born during abortion, but who was left to die in a soiled linen closet. The child had been rejected and aborted by his parents for having Down syndrome. They refused to hold him and the hospital refused to care for him. Obama had every chance to see that children like these were protected and recognized as persons after birth by supporting the bill. But he didn't. He was the only Senator to speak out against the bill. He did it two times. Governor Palin's fifth child Trig was born in April, 2008. Little Trig Palin has Down syndrome. Governor Palin and her family have embraced Trig's humanity and welcomed him into their home instead of treating Trig as medical waste. She said "we knew through early testing he would face special challenges, and we feel privileged that God would entrust us with this gift and allow us unspeakable joy as he entered our lives." "We have faith that every baby is created for good purpose and has potential to make this world a better place. We are truly blessed." This too illustrates the fundamental dispositions toward human life of the two campaigns. Palin, a busy executive (governor), wife and mother of 5, still has room in her world to embrace her Down syndrome child and her grandchild in utero. Those children are seen as punishments, expendable and obstacles to be overcome by Obama and his abortion supporters. We are in a culture war. There will be fighting for many years that will grieve our nation. No issues are more important than the right to life. When anyone is expendable, we all become negotiable. It's a war we have to win for all of us. It is clear where the candidates stand.

McCain Picks Outspoken Pro-Life Woman Governor To Be VP!

(This is an article I wrote for Nevada LIFE, www.nevadalife.org, last week.)   Pro-lifers are ecstatic this morning with John McCain's choice to be his Vice-President. If there was any doubt about John McCain's pro-life commitment, his historic selection of outspoken pro-life, pro-family Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate erases them all. Palin, the 44-year-old governor of Alaska, is strongly pro-life and is a member of Feminists for Life of America. But don't expect self appointed women's leaders to embrace her. She's not their kind of woman. But it's clear that she's a lot more like America's women than the abortion feminists. Palin is the youngest and first female governor in the state of Alaska. She won election to the gubernatorial seat in 2006 by defeating the incumbent governor and then defeating a former Democratic governor in the general election. Early this year, Palin gave birth to her fifth child Trig Paxson. Trig has Down syndrome. It's estimated that 80-90 percent of all Down syndrome children are aborted. After Trig was born, Palin said "we knew through early testing he would face special challenges, and we feel privileged that God would entrust us with this gift and allow us unspeakable joy as he entered our lives." 'We have faith that every baby is created for good purpose and has potential to make this world a better place. We are truly blessed." In their eyes, she said, "he's absolutely perfect." Debbie Joslin, the president of Eagle Forum Alaska told LifeNews.com "I can't help but remember Governor Palin's campaign slogan 'Take a Stand." "Her choice to value life in a very personal way speaks volumes and gives those of us in the pro-life community in Alaska cause to believe that we truly do have a pro-life leader in charge of our state." Joslin also said "when so many in our culture have chosen to devalue the lives of those who face special learning disabilities, Governor Palin shines as a great positive role model." (see Lifenews.com for more pro-life info about Governor Palin and her son Trig.) Pro-lifers can be confident that the McCain ticket is solidly pro-life. The contrast between the two campaigns couldn't be more stark or more clear. Just two weeks ago, Barack Obama spoke of "caring for the least of these." This came at the same time when Obama was exposed for refusing to support and was instead opposing legislation to protect new born children born during an abortion. The unborn child is the "least of these," the weakest members of our society. Down syndrome children are the most vulnerable because they are targeted for death by abortion. Palin's embrace of her unborn child mock's Obama's use of these words of Jesus. McCain has picked a woman running mate who truly embraces the weakest and least of our society. Shame on Obama for refusing to stand up for children born during abortion, treating them as medical waste and refusing to admit them as members of our society. McCain's pick of Palin is historic. It comes on the eve of the 88th anniversary of a woman's right to vote. Governor Palin is successful, telegenic, a governor, has a track record of public service and, is the mother of five children. She is a pro-life feminist in the tradition of Susan B. Anthony and the early feminists. She is a threat to the abortion feminist movement that has hijacked the woman's movement. Expect her to be savaged by the very women who say sexism has kept a woman from being president. The good news for pro-lifers is that after 35 years of legal abortion, 48 million abortions, and years and hours of hard work, pro-lifers are within one vote of overturning Roe. John McCain's rock solid pro-life record and his choice of outspoken pro-life Governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate means we have an excellent chance of seeing pro-life policies continue and Roe being overthrown.

Pro-lifers WOULD Walk If McCain Changed Pro-life Views

I have never heard of Margaret Hoover, the pro-choice Republican I just saw interviewed by Laura Ingraham on the O'Reilly Factor, but she is absolutely wrong to say that evangelical pro-lifers will not abandon McCain in numbers to impact the election if McCain changed his views on abortion. Many of those pro-life evangelicals and pro-life Catholics who vote republican do so only because of Republican candidate's opposition to abortion and the culture of death.  They hold their noses at other republican policies.  To abandon the pro-life view would be suicidal.  This is one pro-lifer who would sit out the election if McCain changed his pro-life views.  Fortunately he won't. 

Hoover also said abortion wasn't a big issue and that it wasn't in the last couple elections.  She even said if a VP candidate supported partial birth abortion it wouldn't matter.  Ingraham was right, the pro-life issue made a huge impact in 2000 and 2004.  If Bush had not been pro-life, Al Gore or John Kerry would have been president.  It's incompetence that she said it wasn't an important issue.

If the republicans had treated the other part of the base as well as they have treated pro-lifers-the fiscal conservatives, they would be a dominant party.

No Reason To Clone Around With Human Animal Hybrids

This is an update I wrote for Nevada LIFE on the human animal cloning attempts in Britain two months ago, but forgot to post here.  There's good news for those like me who oppose cloning and embryonic stem cell research.  Scientists have discovered a technique which gives them the same kind of stem cell as they say they need with embryonic stems which does not require cloning or killing embryos.  It allows them to extract our stem cells and revert them back to an embryonic like state.  This may make the whole embryonic stem cell and cloning issue go away.  Meanwhile, adult stem cell research is going ahead full steam.  Here's the update I wrote for Nevada LIFE.

Recent events demonstrate the necessity of a bill submitted to Congress to ban human-animal hybrids.

In April, British lawmakers voted overwhelmingly against legislation to ban scientists from creating human-animal hybrids for embryonic stem cell research. The House of Commons voted 336-176 to defeat a ban on creating human animal hybrids by cloning- that is, using the process the created Dolly the sheep by inserting human DNA into an emptied unfertilized animal egg to create a human-animal hybrid embryo for research.

The Commons also voted against a ban to prevent using sex cells-gametes (sperm and egg) of humans and animals to create "true" hybrids through fertilization by 286 to 223. Scientists will be allowed to create hybrids using human sperm with animal eggs, and animal sperm with human eggs.

These things happen when we encroach on the sanctity of human life. Human life becomes regarded as a commodity or natural resource for certain groups of people to exploit for their benefit.

British researchers and lawmakers argue in part that human animal hybrids are necessary for embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research will require cloning and human cloning requires human unfertilized eggs. There's a shortage of human eggs, so animal ones will have to do.

Lawmakers also argued that this is necessary to keep the UK a leader in embryonic stem cell research. Last year I asked a Stanford researcher making this same argument in a lecture at UNR if we should make unethical research on humans legal if leading researchers threatened to leave, were leaving or had left the United States to do unethical research on humans elsewhere. He should have said "of course not."

This is evil stuff. It is monstrous and self evidently so. If researchers are able to create these kinds of animal-human embryos, the 14 day limit that they can be grown to will disappear. There's no principle to stop them from going farther. There are many who would like to modify humanity with non human DNA to increase our capabilities and capacities. There are undoubtedly many who would like to grow human animal hybrid fetuses and birth them for body parts.

This is also unnecessary. Non-embryonic stem cell research is working very well and scientists now have stem cells with the alleged powers of embryonic stem cells which do not require human cloning or embryo killing. And scientists, the biotech industry and their cadre of bioethicists for hire should know better. It's unthinkable to do unethical research when all other alternatives have been exhausted. The more than 70 cures, treatments and benefits, the more than 1000 human trials using adult stem cells, the stem cell sources in amniotic fluid, umbilical cord blood and the new technique which reprograms cells back to an embryonic like state is proof that we have NOT even begun to exhaust the alternatives and that we should not be going forward with speculative research which has not come close to living up to its hype, and which tampers with human life!

And more non-embryonic results will keep pouring in. This week the journal Cell Stem Cell said that scientists have "use d drugs to help turn brain cells from an adult back into embryo like stem cells" without destroying human embryos. This week we also learned that by using this new stem cell reprogramming technique- supported by President Bush when the Congress refused to go along-researchers at John Hopkins University "have established a human cell-based system for studying sickle cell anemia by reprogramming somatic (body) cells to an embryonic stem cell like state." Wesley Smith notes that "This is precisely the kind of experiment for which we were told that cloning was required."

What do the results mean? It means that there's no need to clone, kill more human embryos or create human animal hybrids for stem cell research to succeed. It also means that the Bush stem cell policy and pro-life objections are vindicated. Our resistance forced researchers to look elsewhere, to areas that have actually produced success.

To stop this monstrous activity from occurring or going forward in the United States, pro-life Congressman Chris Smith has introduced the Human-Animal Hybrid Prohibition Act of 2008, HR 5910 "to prohibit human-animal hybrids." Click here to read the details of the act. Those details tell us what is at stake and what ugly plans some scientists have in mind. It would prohibit human animal hybrids and provide punishments of not more than 10 years in prison and/or a fine of which ever is greater, $1 million, or 2 times the gain from this activity.

This is alarming, but not alarmism because many in the scientific and bioethical communities have objected to the restraints of this bill for years.

The bill is in committee. It's not clear if it will make it out of committee, but we'll be monitoring its progress. The pace of scientific discoveries using alternatives to embryonic stem cell research and cloning may silence this research before it gets far off the ground. That's the good news and hopefully the news that will end these threats to humanity.

Roe Shocked Nation Like CA Court's Gay Marriage Decision

Just two months ago, Americans got a taste of how shocking the Roe v. Wade decision was 35 years ago when the California Supreme Court struck down California's law defining marriage as between one man and one woman that was passed, even in California, with overwhelming support.

That act of raw judicial power in California was similar to the way the United State's Supreme Court struck down abortion laws in all 50 states in its notorious Roe v. Wade decision.

Abortion advocates have spread the myth that the Court was just following popular opinion and public sentiment when it handed down Roe. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Pro-life senior statesman Dr. John Wilke MD, notes that there was a flurry of legislative activity regarding abortion in state legislatures before and while Roe was being heard and ahead of Roe's decision in January, 1973. There were huge elections over abortion in 1972 in places like New York. If the Court was expecting to follow public opinion, they would have awakened in shock the day after those elections.

Wilke says that in April of 1972 New York legislators overturned New York's permissive abortion law. But it was vetoed by Republican Governor Nelson Rockefeller. In the November elections, so many abortion supporting New York legislators were thrown out of office in New York-ground zero of the abortion movement-that the legislature had the votes to override Rockefeller's veto.

Wilke also says that after Colorado and California legalized abortion in 1967, 17 states had laws permitting abortion. Only four states had liberal abortion laws, twelve had laws generally restricting abortion to rape, incest, life of the mother and severe fetal deformities of the unborn. Florida was forced by court order to permit abortion. Thirty-three other state legislatures debated abortion, but rejected it. Referendums in Michigan and N. Dakota were defeated.

The tide was turning against abortion, not toward it, when the court stepped in. (Abortion, Questions and Answers, Love Them Both, Revised, pp. 33-35)

It's easy to see how shocking Roe was in 1973. It was as shocking as yesterday's decision which over turned an initiative voted on by Californians only eight years earlier, just as Roe invalidated abortion laws across America passed by their elected officials

That's why the 2008 presidential election is so critical to our cause and other causes. The courts are out of control and are anti- life and anti-family. The next president will pack the lower courts and make nominations to vacancies in the Supreme Court. With the two oldest justices being fervent abortion supporters, the next president will impact another generation of abortion in America.

Pro-lifers have clear choices for President in 2008. Senator Barrack Obama supports abortion on demand. He is supported by the leading abortion organizations and even opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act when he was an Illinois state legislator. Not even NARAL Pro Choice America was willing to oppose that. But Obama did. Obama has promised to appoint justices who will uphold abortion.

Senator John McCain is pro-life, has a consistent pro-life voting record on abortion and has promised to appoint justices like Justices Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito.

The stakes are high and getting higher with each election. We are one justice away from the overturn or severe limitation of Roe. Or we are one president away from another series of bad judicial appointments and decades more of waking up to more shocking Supreme Court decisions.

Why So Many Christians Vote Pro-Life

Here's an article that I submitted to a local Christian Newspaper with slight changes.  It's to address the effort to water down the importance of the pro-life Christian vote.

Years of polling show that Christians are decidedly pro-life and that their pro-life convictions have a powerful impact on elections.

That impact explains the continuing efforts to water down the importance of abortion to make it just one issue among many for Christians. If abortion becomes just one issue among others, it makes it easier to support candidates who are not pro-life but agree with pro-life Christians on other important issues.

There are many pressing issues Christians are concerned about, but it's not hard to understand why abortion is the leading, if not single, issue for so many.

Why are so many Christians pro-life?

1. The Unborn Is Our Neighbor. Ultrasound and intra-uterine photography leave no doubt what the unborn is. The unborn is one of us- a someone, not a something; a unique, complete, tiny human who fully shares our humanity. The unborn's self-evident humanity makes him our neighbor, and Christians are fulfilling the great commandment when they love their unborn neighbors as themselves. When they advocate for their protection, they are fulfilling the Golden Rule.

2. Abortion arguments are offensive because they make the right to life and the value of human beings conditional upon the possession or exercise of certain characteristics. Humans who do not immediately possess these arbitrary criteria are regarded as human non persons and expendable.

But Christians are told that humans have a nature. They are created in God's image. Our status as bearers of God's infinite nature is not conditional; it is not earned, and it is not achieved. It is inherent and belongs to us from the moment of our conception.

Abortion arguments are offensive because the arbitrariness of those arguments undermines universal human rights. Which characteristics determine who has rights and value and who does not? To what degree must we possess these unfair and arbitrary measures? And who gets to decide what these characteristics are and the degree to which we must possess them? God is God, we are not.

Christians are also opposed to the arbitrary abortion arguments because the Bible warns them against partiality and favoritism.

3. Christians have a special love for and obligation to the weak. The Bible is filled with exhortations to help, love and provide protections for the weak.

The unborn is the weakest member of our society. And just as Christians are moved to help the weak, the unborn's exceptional helplessness moves them to protect her with greater urgency. The unborn's weakness doesn't make her expendable. It requires special love and protection. Jesus says that Christians are loving and serving Him when they love and serve the weakest among them. When Christians love and defend the unborn, they believe they are loving and serving Jesus.

4. Christians are moved by the deep wounds and alienation that burden women and men who have participated in abortion. Christians are moved to help women in crisis and see women and men be healed and released from the pains that come from abortion. That's why there are over 3000 Crisis Pregnancy Centers with post abortion ministries run in large part by Christians.

5. Abortion has a wide and destructive impact on America. Christians are keenly aware that when any humans become expendable, the rest of us become negotiable. Abortion has not only taken 50 million innocent lives and wounded millions of women and men, it has led to a coarsening and disregard for human life.

These are just some reasons why many Christians are so pro-life and why abortion is their fundamental political voting issue and not just one issue among many.

Post script. This does not intend or pretend to speak for all Christians, define Christian beliefs on abortion or question the faith of Christians who support abortion or vote for those who do. That's why the words "so many" are used. Nor does it mean that every pro-lifer is or has to be a Christian. Many of these principles are self-evident and being a Christian is not necessary to hold them. The above addresses the attempt to water down the Christian pro-life vote and explains why so many Christians vote pro-life.