The Left Backs DeLay Into Corner

As we feared, the liberal jihad against House Majority Leader Tom DeLay seems to have accomplished one of its major goals: protection of the federal judiciary.

LifeNews.com is reporting that House leaders have determined that they will not hold hearings on whether federal judges abused their authority by ignoring congressional subpoenas as well as key provisions of the federally-enacted “Terri’s Law”. That law required federal courts to hold a fresh trial in the Terri Schiavo case; yet federal courts simply reviewed the record amassed by the Florida state judge intent on ending Terri’s life.

Following Terri’s painful demise – many leading Republicans announced that they would hold courts accountable.

“The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior,” Tom DeLay said in the first couple days after Terri’s death. “…the House will look at an arrogant and out-of-control judiciary that thumbs its nose at Congress and the president.”

But following weeks of pounding by the Left and their lap-puppies in the nation’s media, Tom DeLay now seems content to let the matter simply fade away.

Rep. Bob Inglis, a South Carolina Republican, told reports this week that many lawmakers don’t want to hold hearings unless it can be proven one of the judges did something illegal.

Now wait just a minute: How can the Congress take notice of judicial misconduct if it refuses to holds hearings and an investigation?

Oh - now I get it: No hearings, no uncomfortable need to take action.

But the question lingers: Will surrender to the Left on this Schiavo matter help DeLay keep his job? And even if it does – who will be left to stand against the courts in order to protect the Republic?

Update on Planned Parenthood’s Protection Racket

I want to update you on the work in Indiana to protect young girls from sexual predators, and efforts by the Abortion Industry to protect those who prey on young girls. But first, a few facts:

• Among girls 15 and younger who become pregnant, between 60% and 80% are impregnated by adult men;

According to research compiled by Life Dynamics International, there are a wide array of problems facing girls who become sexually active prematurely – even if they dodge a pregnancy:

• Girls involved with adult men are more likely to have multiple sex partners,
• run away from home,
• be lured into prostitution,
• abuse drugs and alcohol,
• drop out of school and become involved in physically abusive relationships

– all behaviors which can quickly ruin a young girl’s life.

These are some of the reasons that all states have laws designed to protect the childhood and innocence of our daughters. Yet many on the Left believe that such laws are arcane nods to a gentler age. They are more concerned with establishing a child’s right to abortion than they are in guarding the long-term spiritual and physical health of girls.

Hence the raging legal battle in Indiana. That state’s Attorney General has been after the abortion records of 73 girls, all under the age of 14, who received abortions at the hands of Planned Parenthood. He wants to know if there is information in those files which would allow him to find out if these girls were the victims of adult sexual abuse – a felony in that state.

Planned Parenthood is battling the effort in court, claiming they are somehow immune to any state laws which require reports of suspected child sexual abuse.

A hearing was held before Marion County Superior Court Judge Kenneth Johnson last week. A ruling on the state’s motion is expected soon.

Meanwhile, in a similar battle in Kansas, the legislature there has passed a bill which prohibits abortion clinics from destroying fetal tissue DNA that could be used to prove paternity – and hence aid in the prosecution of child predators.

By all accounts, the abuse of teenage girls has become an epidemic in this nation – with Planned Parenthood playing a critical role in concealing evidence and protecting criminals. To make matters even more outrageous – most of that illegal conduct is paid for by America’s taxpayers through Medicaid and Title X monies.

So one must ask: Where are the courts willing to enforce state laws protecting America’s daughters? Where are the Members of Congress driving to investigate the abuse of tax dollars, to hold the Abortion Industry accountable for its abuse of public funds?

Senate Rules Change a Good Beginning

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved, or I should say, “re-approved” two of President Bush’s nominees to the federal bench last week – setting the stage for a Senate floor showdown that could come as early as this week.

Texas Supreme Court Judge Priscilla Owen and California Supreme Court Judge Janice Rogers Brown were recommended by the Senate Judiciary Committee to the full Senate. They have been there before. Owen is being considered again for appointment to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals; Brown is a nominee for the U.S. Circuit of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The vote was 10-8 in each case, with all Democrats voting no.

Following the vote, Majority Leader Bill Frist said, “In the last Congress, these highly qualified women were blocked by a partisan filibuster when Democrats refused to give them an up or down vote. Soon, all 100 senators will have to decide if these highly qualified candidates will get a fair up or down vote on the Senate floor.”

That comment seems all but certain to mean that Frist is actually going to pull the trigger on rules changes needed to restore some sanity to the judicial confirmation process.

At the same time – while we applaud this uncharacteristic show of determination by Senate Republicans – it is important to realize that this rule change is only one of the crucial changes needed to overhaul the gross imbalance between the branches of government.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council got it right when he argued last week that Congress must begin reasserting authority over the Courts. The Constitution grants the legislative branch a role in confirmation, as well as impeachment and funding. In addition, there is a specific clause in that document which allows Congress to set boundaries on the federal judiciary.

Given the current crisis, created by a liberal conspiracy over many decades, it is imperative for the Congress to use all means available to restore a republican form of government.

Komen Foundation is Partner in Victimization

The Susan G. Komen Foundation is launching its annual spring campaign to raise awareness about breast cancer and big money. These “race for the cure” events are going on all around the nation. The Boise event is scheduled for Saturday, May 7th. The sponsors read like a “who’s who” of responsible area corporations – Albertsons, Ford, American Airlines, St. Alphonsus Hospital and many others.

The pro-Life community across the nation is becoming more aggressive about holding this foundation and their supporters accountable for their role in perpetuating the problem they claim to be working so hard to solve.

For many years, the Komen Foundation has remained silent about the connection between abortion and breast cancer; that has been lamented by many pro-Lifers who would like to support genuine, honest efforts at addressing a grave and epidemic problem for American women and their families. Things have become more intense, however, following revelations that the Komen Foundation is a substantial donor to Planned Parenthood – America’s largest abortion provider. That makes it an actual partner in the victimization of our mothers, daughters and wives.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the connection between breast cancer and abortion will eventually be acknowledged by every reputable medical entity in the country. But the politics are so thick that the body count will be exceedingly high before we get there.

Did you know that the rate of breast cancer has increased by 50% since abortion became legalized? Did you know that it is now the leading killer of women between the ages of 35 and 54? And did you know that 23 separate scientific studies have found the ABC link?

And isn’t it odd that Komen Foundation literature reports that women in and around Ada County have the highest breast cancer rate in the state? Is it a coincidence that Ada County is also the Abortion Capitol of Idaho?

Clueless in America

Politicians are often accused of speaking out of both sides of their mouth – cynical manipulators of the public. Perhaps the new chairman of the Democratic Party fits into this category; but I am beginning to wonder if Howard Dean doesn’t suffer from even deeper problems.

Earlier this month, Dean told fellow Democrats reading USA Today that his party must stop “speaking down” to pro-Life voters. As a token of his new tolerance, Dean has formally invited former Democratic congressman Tim Roemer of Indiana to join the official speakers list at the DNC. Dean went on to say that he thought Democrats must do more to “reach out” to the so-called “values voters” who gave President Bush his majority in the last election.

Sounds promising, I suppose. Perhaps there might be mainstream opportunities, like Parental Consent, in which Democrats might fight loose of their matrons at Planned Parenthood. But then… the very next day… I read that Dean is addressing a homosexual group in West Hollywood. During that gathering of the “Access Now for Gay & Lesbian Equality”, he says Democrats will make a campaign issue of the Terri Schiavo tragedy.

He is quoted as saying that, while the Democrats need to be disciplined about waging war against Bush’s plans for Social Security, “we’re going to use Terri Schiavo later on”.

I kid you not.

It could be that Howard Dean and the socialists who elected him as their leader are cynical – but I am inclined to think they are simply clueless. They see no problem trying to simultaneously appeal to middle class voters while pandering to radical homosexual activists bent on redefining American society. They see no problem “reaching out” to pro-Lifers while preparing to blast efforts aimed at saving Terri Schiavo’s life.

I wish former Congressman Roemer read this column: If he truly is pro-Life – then he should get out of that party while he still has a functioning mind

“No, I Won’t Help You Get an Abortion”

I ran across a powerful column by Dr. Samuel Nigro in a recent edition of the Journal of American Physicians & Surgeons, which I’d like to share with you. Our regular listeners know that I am often pretty tough with today’s medical community – not just those who practice abortion, but the many who tolerate it within the ranks.

Therefore, it seems fair that I say something nice when the opportunity arises.

Dr. Nigro’s article is called, “No, I Will Not Help You Get an Abortion”.

He tells the story of a woman, a Navy wife, who came to him in the 1960s and asked for his certification that an abortion was necessary to preserve her health. As he writes about it – the answer was swift in coming: “No, I will not help you get an abortion, and I don’t know any doctors who will either. I think you are going through a crisis mode that will pass.” The woman yelled at him for awhile – and stormed out.

About a year later, she returned. He didn’t remember her, as she was carrying the bundle. The woman insisted that she hold her baby. “Is something wrong?” he asked. No, she said – but you must hold this baby. So he did. After a few minutes, she told him of her earlier visit.

Dr. Nigro handed her the baby and she smiled – “He is just wonderful” the mother said.

The good doctor tells this story because he wants to remind his medical colleagues, and the rest of us, for that matter, that America prospered for more than 200 years before Roe v. Wade legalized the murder of little children. And, he argues, doctors owe their patients compassionate care which sees beyond the moment.

If you’re ready to get involved – call us at 1-877-341-LIFE.

Update on ESCR

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that more powerhouse firms are looking into making substantial investments in embryonic stem cell research programs. The Journal claims that larger companies, like Johnson & Johnson and General Electric, are being lured into the morally-charged swamp of killing human embryos for their stem cells by the ever-growing promises of advocates. Dollars signs seem everywhere – as the wonders of magical cures to dramatic diseases translate into desperate people willing to pay anything for hope.

But there is no clear indication yet that these corporations are willing to invest private funds into hard research. They seem more inclined to let taxpayers carry the load of translating a political agenda into effective treatments for diseases like Parkinson’s or paralysis.

And the reports on that front are mixed.

Our friends in Washington State have rejected a bill that would specifically legalize embryonic stem cell harvesting; the Washington Senate voted 26-23 to kill legislation that would have sanctioned the destruction of tiny human beings on the promise that the rest of us might someday benefit.

And in the very liberal Maryland legislature, a proposal to use tax money to finance embryonic stem cell research died under threat of a filibuster. The Democrat controlled legislature was poised to lead their state to compete with California and New Jersey, but the Republican governor and Republican members of the Senate fought a rear-guard action that delayed a vote until adjournment.

While the developments in Washington and Maryland are welcome news, the broader trends portend a difficult future for preborn children. For the pro-Life movement to win the battle to protect preborn children from becoming a caste of involuntary research subjects, we are going to have to become more aggressive in helping average folks understand the grave moral implications – as well as the lack of meaningful results.

For those unimpressed with the immorality of human destruction for research, the more practical arguments may prove effective. There have been repeated successes with adult stem cell therapies – but to date not a single successful treatment using the cells of destroyed human embryos.

Will Frist Confront Senate Democrats?

Predictions are now running high in the national media that Senate Majority Bill Frist is about to pull the trigger on changing Senate rules. After years of frustration and successful blackmail by Senate Democrats on the crucial question of judicial appointments, it appears that Frist is finally going to act.

The Washington Post reported last week that Frist is “all but certain” to press the matter to resolution. If so, it will be the most courageous showdown in Washington since the days of Newt Gingrich. Senate Democrats have threatened to retaliate over a change in filibuster rules with a complete shutdown of the Senate.

The risks for all sides are fairly significant, and some GOP Senators are already running for cover – including the ever-wobbly John McCain of Arizona.

But inaction, and continued acceptance of a Democrat veto over judicial appointments, represents a grave threat to the republic and the Republican Party.

Hugh Hewitt wrote a powerful analysis of this situation in the Weekly Standard. He writes that the “vote on …ending the filibusters could wind up being the most important vote having to do with domestic politics in a generation….Outside the war on terrorism, there are few issues the base of the Republican Party deems more significant than the selection and confirmation of judges.”

That is right on the money. On many levels, the GOP faithful are watching this battle with keen interest. Is the national leadership able to handle the demagoguery of the socialists running the Democrat party? Are they up to the challenge of defending America’s families against the daily charge of socialist judges intent on remaking society?

Polling data and election results – like the defeat of Tom Daschle last year – demonstrate clearly that America is hungry for principled, courageous leadership. Failure to defend the country at this crucial hour will eventually result in great damage to the Republican Party.

Special Mother’s Day Gift Now Available

I’d like to remind our listeners of the fast-approaching celebration of motherhood. Mother’s Day is about three weeks away – on Sunday, May 8th.

I can’t think of a holiday more germane to the pro-Life movement – with the exception of Christmas. This day offers us an opportunity to lift up motherhood as a most honored vocation. We celebrate those women who choose life for their children. Whether a woman keeps her baby in difficult circumstances, or chooses adoption – we commend those women and girls who sacrifice self in order to share with God in the wonder of creating and sustaining new life.

And since we’re on the subject of Mother’s Day – take a look at our homepage. You’ll see a special offer we’ve created to help you honor the mothers in your life, while supporting the pro-Life movement.

We have developed a set of special “Italian Charms” which honor motherhood – and the Gift of Life. We’ll send you one for a gift of $25 or more.

This gift idea is a tremendous way to honor motherhood.

Montana Legislature Shields Women From Abortion Truth

The Montana Legislature has passed legislation making it more difficult for pro-Lifers to reach out and help women heading to kill their preborn babies.

The Billings Gazette reports that the Montana Legislature will make it a crime for pro-Lifers to approach women on their way into abortion clinics. This liberal paper characterizes the pro-Lifers as “protesters” – which is rarely the case.

Most pro-Life people who feel led to work at abortion clinics are not there to protest, per se. They are there to reach out to mothers one last time. They offer information about the health risks of abortion, they offer phone numbers of public or private agencies willing to help them with choosing life for their children; they offer prayers and the hand of friendship in the moments before it is too late to spare the mother and child.

With the passage of this new law – such efforts of love will become increasingly difficult.

The legislation was sponsored by a Republican senator, Jim Shockley of Victor, Montana. In debate, he argued that his proposal would merely protect the freedoms of women who choose abortion.

But fellow Republican Joe Balyeat of Bozeman countered that the measure would limit freedom of speech.

Pro-Lifers will be barred from even handing anti-abortion literature to those entering or leaving an abortuary. It also prohibits a person from coming within eight feet of a patient within 36 feet of an abortion facility entrance.

What is disturbing about this legislation is that it is yet another block to providing women with vital information about the risks of abortion. The shroud of secrecy surrounding this heinous practice is all that maintains its continued acceptance by many Americans.

Owens Vetoes MAP Bill

We spoke yesterday about the scheme of Planned Parenthood to greatly expand their take from the public treasury here in Idaho. But they have been active in other states as well this winter.

In Colorado, they have been seeking to expand funding for the “Morning After Pill” or Emergency Contraception. This drug works, when it works, by essentially causing a chemical abortion. Early in the pregnancy, before the new life can implant in the mother’s womb, this super-hormone regimen changes the chemical balances of the womb so that it becomes hostile to the baby.

Planned Parenthood has also been pushing for a new law in Colorado, requiring all hospitals in the state to inform and provide access to the “Morning After Pill” for all women claiming to be victims of rape. That has created a real problem of conscience for Christian hospitals in the state – which have opposed the bill on the grounds that it would force them, as an institution, to participate in a system of abortion.

Last week, the Governor of Colorado, Bill Owens, vetoed this legislation. He cited “freedom of religion” as the primary basis for his rejection.

“It is one of the central tenets of a free society that individuals and institutions should not be coerced by government to engage in activities which violate their moral or religious beliefs,” Governor Owens wrote in his veto message.

Planned Parenthood & Co. were outraged by the notion that their agenda was rejected; but the Catholic hospitals of the state were elated that they would not be forced to cooperate with evil.

The most troubling aspect of the bill was the requirement that Catholic hospitals refer women to abortion providers. Owens believes that this requirement would be unconstitutional.

One of the more important issues in this fight has been the definition of ‘pregnancy’. Planned Parenthood and their allies in the medical profession have simply redefined the term to exclude any new life which has yet to implant in the mother’s womb. That period of a week or so is simply erased from consciousness or consideration. That is the dark sleight of hand which allows abortion advocates to look the camera in the eye and proclaim that no killing has occurred.

Society Reaps the Rewards of “Easy Sex”

Last week, Rebecca Poedy of Planned Parenthood proffered a guest opinion to the Idaho Statesman. Her goal was to persuade Idahoans that the Legislature acted foolishly in not approving her scheme to provide her organization with some $15 million in new tax funding to expand “family planning services”.

She dismisses those of us who opposed her bill as “religious zealots”. While I appreciate the compliment – I’m pretty sure she didn’t intend it that way. It is more likely that she simply sought to marginalize us, to trivialize our grave concerns with the whole “religion of contraception” preached by Poedy and the rest of Planned Parenthood.

In her column, Poedy attempts to deceive the public by claiming that Planned Parenthood’s legislation would not pay for abortion. The truth is, their plan would pay abortions caused by the use of the “Morning After Pill”. In addition, she fails to mention that the bill would have paid Planned Parenthood to provide abortion counseling and referral.

Planned Parenthood claims that their legislation would be a “win-win” situation for Idaho taxpayers because we would save money by reducing the number of live children brought into this world – who might need some kind of public service. Ending the lives of needy children is not a cost-cutting measure I am willing to support.

In addition, Planned Parenthood ignores the experience of other nations who have dived full-end into their prescription for society. Great Britain, for instance, greatly expanded its “free contraception” services in 2000; lawmakers were promised that such an investment would solve virtually every social ill known to man. Yet the data is coming back: teenage pregnancies are up, abortions are up and the spread of STDs has reached epidemic proportions.

The BBC reported just last week that demand for treatment of STDs at the nation’s sexual health clinics has overwhelmed capacity. Even after receiving an extra L300m last year to expand services, 34% of clinics reported that they regularly turn away people seeking treatment for STDs.

Yep – a real bargain.

Frist Backs Off “Judicial Accountability”

Our hopes for a Congressional backlash against the federal and state judges who ignored a congressional subpoena and an Act of Congress in the Schiavo case are quickly dimming.

On the heals of Terri’s death, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist was quoted by LifeNews.Com as saying that those judges needed to be subject to congressional scrutiny. He echoed Congressman DeLay’s concerns about the failure of judges to protect Terri’s life in the face of federal law requiring protection of federal witnesses.

But just a week later, Frist appeared to reverse himself – saying that he now believed that the judges involved were fair. While admitting that the federal review of the case “was not as complete as we would like”, he nevertheless defended the legitimacy of their exercise of power by declaring the court system to be “fair and independent”.

That retreat certainly does not bode well for any concerted effort to restore the balance between the branches of government.

Only Tom DeLay and Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania seem steadfast in seeing a grave problem with the federal judiciary. And Congressman DeLay is now under fierce pressure from the liberal media.

Christian leader Gary Bauer wrote a column last week defending DeLay against this wave of negative press – arguing that DeLay is being targeted because he understands the looming crisis of self-governance in America.

In a news conference last week, DeLay confessed that, “The failure is to a great degree Congress’. The response of the legislative branch has mostly been to complain. There is another way… and that is to reassert our constitutional authority over the courts.”

Such clarity is desperately needed as we edge closer to major battles over Bush’s nominees to the federal bench. In fact, such clarity is necessary for there to even be a battle over Bush’s nominees.

Darwinism & The Culture of Death

I ran across a column by Chuck Colson, head of Prison Fellowship. He asks the provocative question, “To What Does the Embrace of Darwinism Lead?” Great question, but it is a topic that comes, perhaps, generations too late.

Even in Christian schools, children are dutifully taught about the unproven tenets of evolution – of man’s unmooring from a spiritual reality. Our existence is dogmatically held to be nothing more than a cosmic accident. Any hint that mankind is more than just a collection of cells, drawn from the physical atoms of the wandering universe, is treated as a sweet, romantic tale. Or worse – a matter of psychic delusion.

The intellectual leaders of our modern culture make it clear that any meaning associated with human existence is the meaning we ourselves give to it. “And what man giveth – man taketh away”.

Look at Terri Schiavo: There was a time, and for a long time, when the conviction was certain that human beings like Terri deserved our care because she was a human being, with a spark of the Divine. We had no right to destroy her because she made in His image. But no longer. Now, the measure of a human being is more likely to be convenience and utility to the whole.

Abortion and embryonic stem cell research were once unthinkable for the same reasons.

A related note – we are preparing a post-session report on the Idaho legislature. If you’d like to help get the word out to folks in your church or Bible study – give us a call, and we’ll ship you a supply of our new Life Letter. It’ll tell you how your legislators voted on issues like Planned Parenthood funding and the Parental Consent bill. The toll-free number is 1-877-341-LIFE.

Maryland Joins the Hunt for Biotech Bucks

In recent weeks, Maryland has been working to join the quest for big bucks from the biotech industry. It, too, wants to lure new labs and companies into its borders with the promise of a $23 million annual appropriation to help finance embryonic stem cell research. The measure has already passed the House of Representatives there on a vote of 81-53. If passed by the Senate, Maryland could join California, New Jersey and Wisconsin in using tax money to buy a stake in the high tech world of human experimentation.

The Republican governor, Robert Ehrlich, has expressed a measure of skepticism, raising hopes that he might actually veto the legislation.

Meanwhile in California, where voters approved a plan to spend some $6 billion on embryonic stem cell research, serious ethical and practical problems have begun to emerge.

One of the more interesting involves the necessity of collecting thousands of eggs from the state’s female population.

The Bedford Stem Cell Research Foundation has paid 20 women about $4000 each to begin taking fertility hormones to increase their output of human eggs. But that is just the beginning of the costs involved; this company claims it spends about $25,000 for each donor to finance counseling, child care, travel and medical care.

The need to harvest tens of thousands of viable eggs from women has created a strange alliance between some feminist groups and the Christian community. In testimony before the California legislature, the Pro-Choice Alliance for Responsible Research expressed grave concern about the implications of Proposition 71 for California women. Essentially, thousands of women in that state will be the first human subjects of this bizarre and troubling research effort.

The Duty to Inform Women About ABC

Even though we were unable to get very far this legislative session with the Informed Consent issue – the debate generated by HB196, introduced by Rep. Ann Rydalch, has been intense. The Idaho Statesman issued a blistering editorial against the bill – even without hearing expert testimony.

What has drawn particular criticism is the requirement of Rydalch’s bill that women considering abortion be told about the impact such a decision would have on their long-term health. Abortion fans like the Idaho Statesman are especially worried about the specific requirement that women be informed that an abortion history increases the odds of contracting breast cancer later in life.

As we press this battle to provide women and girls with first-class information the breast cancer issue will continue to be a flash point. There has been so much disinformation about this issue that even some pro-Lifers are confused about the difference between sound medicine, rational science, and a politically-correct agenda imposed by many in the health care industry.

Now comes an important article by Andrew Schlafly, general counsel for the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons. This attorney argues in a recent edition of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons that doctors have a common law duty to inform women of the link between abortion and breast cancer. He asserts that most doctors understand that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer.

Breast cancer lawsuits have now become the most common type of malpractice cases in the nation – with the average award ranging to $200,000 in punitive damages for failure to diagnose breast cancer.

In that context, the State of Idaho may have a heightened moral and legal duty to ensure that our wives, daughters and sisters understand the connection between breast cancer and abortion.

Zogby Poll Finds America Not What Media Described

Even though Terri Schiavo is no longer with us, her legacy and the lessons continue to unfold. I suspect that her life and her death will continue to have a tremendous impact on American culture for some time.

In the closing weeks of her life, many media outlets spent a considerable amount of ink and air time discussing various aspects of her impending death. A number of media organizations commissioned polls to find out how Americans felt about her situation. Most were blatantly crass and manipulative: “Should Terri Schiavo be allowed to die?”

In fact, some, such as that done by Newsweek, uncovered overwhelming support for the killing of Terri Schiavo. Something like 76% of Americans were reported to favor her death. It wasn’t until you dug into the questions and the set-up paragraphs to the poll that you discovered how agenda-driven these “public opinion studies” really were.

And there is no doubt that these various polling operations, designed to create public opinion rather than reflect it, had an impact. In the closing days of her life, you could sense that various politicians were uncertain how far to press the matter.

But now we have a poll, done by John Zogby, which makes a lot more sense – and seems to be an actual reflection of the public’s response to Terri Schiavo’s tragic situation.

Here is a key question: “If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive – should or should they not be denied food and water?” Given all the media hype, it may surprise you to learn that 79% of those interviewed said the person should not be denied food and water.

While such data comes too late to save Terri – we can pray that it might infuse various cultural leaders with a degree of courage to stand their ground in the next battle.

Yet Another Case of Judicial Usurpation

We have seen plenty of judicial tyranny lately, but here is another case.

There is a battle raging in Washington federal district court over whether the government should be forced to pay for the abortion of a Navy wife. In fact, a federal district court judge already issued an order forcing the Navy to pay for the abortion – despite a federal law prohibiting taxpayer funds to pay for abortions for military personnel unless the mother’s life is at risk.

The federal judge simply ignored the law, because he thought it unfair.

In this particular case, the baby was diagnosed with a serious fetal deformity. Doctors disagreed about how long the baby could live after birth.

No doubt, some listeners are sympathetic with aborting a baby that might only live 2 or 3 years after birth; but I won’t debate that with you now.

Today, I’d ask you to focus on the principle of a federal judge simply ignoring clear, precise federal law – and ordering an outcome he felt was preferable. There is no indication in the article I’m reading, from the Navy Times, indicating that the judge justified his ruling by manipulating the Constitution. The federal government is seeking to recover the money and is appealing his ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

That decision could have tremendous impact on federal efforts to restrict the abuse of taxpayers. It is also a very serious attempt by activists to further broaden abortion rights through judicial abuse of the Congress.

Perhaps this situation will help propel Senator Rick Santorum’s bid to hold federal judges accountable in the Terri Schiavo case, where federal law and Congressional subpoenas were ignored.

Stallings Misrepresents Democrat Party

On the day that Terri Schiavo died, State Democrat Chairman Richard Stallings published a guest opinion in the Idaho Statesman in which he attempts to defend his party as the party of “family values”. His task is made more difficult by the fact that he chooses to attack Republican office holders who used their power to defend Terri Schiavo’s life.

Stallings specifically attacks Congressmen Otter and Simpson for supporting “Terri’s Law’. Stallings called their vote “reckless” and “hypocritical”. That is pretty harsh rhetoric – especially on a national tragedy like Terri Schiavo’s demise. And the timing of Stallings’ piece couldn’t have been worse.

Personally, I am saddened by the new, more militant Richard Stallings evident in this guest opinion. I have known him to be a fairly conservative, pro-Life Democrat. It seems that the years have worn down the values he once held dear; or perhaps he must simply bury those values now that he has chosen to lead one of the most liberal state parties in the nation.

Later in the editorial, Mr. Stallings’ exuberant defense of his Idaho Democrat Party is just so false as to be ridiculous: He writes, “Idaho’s Democratic Party stands for life in a much broader sense, recognizing the sanctity of all human beings at every stage of their lives.”

Let’s review the facts, the record of the Idaho Democrat Party. Over the past 6 years, the pro-Life rating of Idaho Democrats in the Legislature is a paltry 13 on a 100-point scale. In just the past two weeks – they have managed to drive this average even lower. Every Democrat in the Legislature supported a massive funding scheme for Planned Parenthood of Idaho.

At the same time, the Democrats in the Idaho Legislature were nearly unanimous in opposing Parental Consent for teenage abortions. 18 Democrats voted against HB351 – and only Sen. Bert Marley (D-McCammon) supported Parental Consent.

I understand that national and state Democrats are on a mission to convince voters that they, too, have values; they’ve even begun expressing the notion that abortion might not be the best idea in all circumstances. I presume that is why Richard Stallings has reemerged as a leader of the Idaho Democrat Party. He will help legitimize the new PR campaign – at least so long as he doesn’t write such opinions too often.

But ultimately, Democrats will have to deliver the goods. They would have to be willing to defend parental authority in cases where a girl is looking at an abortion.

Planned Parenthood Faces Suit for Protecting Predator

The Cincinnati Post is reporting on an important lawsuit being brought against Planned Parenthood in Ohio. Parents are suing the abortion provider for performing an abortion on their 13-year-old daughter without their knowledge or consent. Ohio has a parental consent law.

The suit claims that if Planned Parenthood had followed the law, by obtaining the permission of at least one parent, the abortion would never have taken place.

The actual documents in the case are under a court-ordered seal of privacy to protect the girl and her parents. But apparently attorneys for the parents have released some briefing materials to the press.

Their little girl was impregnated by a 21-year old man. He called Planned Parenthood to make arrangements for an abortion of his child – but was told only the girl could make an appointment. The predator then pressured the girl to do so. He drove her to the abortion clinic, even though she didn’t want to go.

Once at the clinic, the predator told Planned Parenthood he was the girl’s stepbrother; this was enough, according to the lawsuit, for the abortion mill to proceed without contacting the girl’s parents.

The parents’ attorney, Thomas Condit, has said, “The conduct of Planned Parenthood in providing a safe harbor for the man’s sexual crimes against a minor child and for aiding and abetting his goal of pressuring the girl into aborting her child, was extreme and outrageous conduct that goes beyond the bounds of decency….”

The girl’s tormentor is already in prison for the criminal abuse of the girl. Now we will see whether Planned Parenthood once again escapes responsibility for its role in this widespread criminal system.