FaxNotes - May 23, 2008

FaxNotes

MICHIGAN ABORTIONS PLUMMET

SENATE VOTES MORE $$$ FOR PLANNED PARENTHOOD

Abortion kills babies.

To: Friends of RNC/Life

Abortion kills babies. That’s a fact. Those in the pro-life movement who take a clear and unequivocal approach to ending legal abortion in this country are doing a great job, as evidenced by the letter below, written by two of the most prominent leaders of the pro-abortion movement. They are losing and they know it.

We are entitled to a sense of satisfaction (for a moment or two) upon reading it before we get back to the business of working to rebuild a culture in which every innocent unborn life is protected from the moment of conception/fertilization—no exceptions—no compromise. What we need is strong and uncompromising leadership that will refuse to support candidates for public office unless they commit to taking proactive measures to accomplish that goal.

Nobody said this would be easy, and after 35 years, some of us may feel discouraged at times, especially in light of the current political climate. But minds and hearts are changing, thanks to our efforts on all the varied pro-life fronts. And, when people change their minds to a pro-life perspective, that change is reflected in their voting patterns. The day the pro-life movement unites behind the candidates who share our goal and refuses to support those who do not, we will win this battle.

In the meantime, if you need a bit of a lift, read this letter.

Pro-Life Group Backs Thompson Despite

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200711/

Cybercast News Service
Rejection Of GOP Platform
By Fred Lucas

Citing a pro-life voting record and electability, the nation's largest pro-life organization endorsed Republican Fred Thompson for president Tuesday.

The endorsement by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) comes
just weeks after Thompson said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he
opposes "criminalizing" abortion and that he does not support the call for a pro-life amendment to the Constitution in the Republican Party platform.

...

"We could not endorse Fred Thompson based on our criteria" in a primary or general election, Colleen Parro, executive director of the Republican National Coalition for Life, told Cybercast News Service.

"All I can say is our criteria for endorsement is a candidate who supports a human life amendment to the Constitution and will work for it - someone who will support every issue with respect to life, including embryonic stem cells and end-of-life issues," she added.

The Republican Party platform has included a pro-life plank since 1984 that supports a "human life amendment" and endorses "legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children."

...

Read entire article: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200711/

Bob Novak on Thompson's Interview on Meet the Press

A Major Abortion Blunder

By Robert D. Novak

Thursday, November 8, 2007; A27

Fred Thompson was well into a prolonged dialogue about abortion on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday when he said something that stunned social conservatives: "I do not think it is a wise thing to criminalize young girls and perhaps their parents as aiders and abettors." He then went further: "You can't have a [federal] law" that "would take young, young girls . . . and say, basically, we're going to put them in jail."

Those comments sent e-mails flying across the country, reflecting astonishment and rage from pro-life Republicans who had turned to Thompson as their best presidential bet for 2008. No serious antiabortion legislation ever has included criminal penalties against women who have abortions, much less their parents. Jailing women is a spurious issue raised by abortion rights activists. Interviewer Tim Russert did not bring it up in his questioning. What Thompson said could be expected from NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Continue reading article.

FRED THOMPSON A THREAT TO THE PRO-LIFE PLANK IN THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL PLATFORM

Pro-life Republican voters who had hopes that Fred Thompson might be their man to support for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination had their hopes dashed yesterday when Mr. Thompson appeared on “Meet the Press.”

The Republican Party Platform has supported a Human Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution since 1976.

Pro-life Americans want legal protection restored to innocent human beings from the moment of conception.

That protection will not be restored simply by overturning Roe v. Wade, which is all Mr. Thompson supports. If the issue were slavery rather than abortion, his approach would be to allow states to be either slave or free, regardless of the fact that black people are human beings not to be treated as property. Thompson admits that he knows a human being exists at the moment of conception and abortion is the taking of a human life. The fact that he opposes protecting those lives at the federal level is shocking and reveals a mindset that, contrary to his rhetoric, considers the unborn child nothing more than the mother’s property and unworthy of protection under the law.

A transcript of the interview can be seen below.

Fred Thompson Opposes Human Life Amendment
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjeyLcj69lU

TIM RUSSERT: Let me ask you about an issue very important in your party's primary process, and that's abortion. This is the 2004 Republican Party platform, and here it is. We say the unborn child is a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution. We endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortion. Could you run as a candidate on that platform promising a human life amendment, banning all abortions?

FRED THOMPSON: No.

RUSSERT: You would not?

THOMPSON: No. I have always -- and that's been my position the entire time I've been in politics. I thought Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. I think this platform originally came out as a response, particularly Roe v. Wade, because of that. Before Roe v. Wade, states made those decisions. I think people ought to be free, state and local levels, to make decisions that even Fred Thompson disagrees with. That's what freedom is all about. And I think the diversity we have among the states, the system of federalism we have where power is divided between the state and federal government has served us very, very well. I think that's true of abortion. I think Roe v. Wade hopefully one day will be overturned and we can go back to the pre Roe v. Wade days.
RUSSERT: Each state could make their own abortion laws?
THOMPSON: Yeah. But to have an amendment compelling going back even further than pre Roe v. Wade, a constitutional amendment to do that, I do not think would be the way to go.

Fred Thompson Would Not Ban Abortions
www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-b1xQNRA4g

TIM RUSSERT: We went back to your papers at the University of Tennessee and read through them. This is what you said back in 1994 as a candidate. Here is the first one. I'm not willing to support laws that prohibit early term abortions. I'm not suddenly upon election as a Senator going to know when life begins and where that place ought to be exactly. It comes down to whether you believe life begins at conception. I don't know if my own mind if that is the case, so I don't feel law ought to impose that standard on other people. So, you yourself don't know when life begins?

FRED THOMPSON: No. I didn't know then.

RUSSERT: Do you know now?

THOMPSON: My head has always been in the same place. My public position has always been the same. I've been 100% pro-life in every vote I've ever cast in service as a United States Senator.

RUSSERT: Your for allowing states to have pro-abortion rights. And you yourself, and I have ten different statements from you, saying that you would not ban abortion, it's a woman's right, and you would not ban it in the first trimester.

THOMPSON: You've just said two different things here. You know it's a complex issue concerning whether or not you're going to have a federal law, whether or not you're going to have a federal constitutional amendment, those kinds of things. Nobody's proposed a federal law on this. Nobody's recently proposed a federal constitutional amendment. I had an opportunity to vote on an array of things over eight years, whether it be partial-birth abortion, whether it be Mexico city policy, whether it be transporting young girls across state lines to avoid parental notification laws, all that. 100% pro-life. But let me finish on my point, and my legal record is there, and that's the way I would govern if I was President. I would take those same positions. No federal funding for abortions, no nothing that would in any way encourage abortion. When I saw -- again, all consistent with what I've said. People ask me hypothetically, okay, you know, it goes back to the states. Somebody comes up with a bill and they say we're going to outlaw this or the other. And my response was I do not think it is a wise thing to criminalize young girls and perhaps their parents as aiders and abettors and perhaps their family physician. And that's what you're talking about, it's not the sense of the Senate. Your talking about potential criminal law. I said those things are going to ultimately be won in the hearts and minds of people. I'm probably a pretty good example of that. Although my head and my legislative record's always been the same, when I saw that sonogram of my little now 4-year-old, it's changed my heart. It's changed the way I look at things. I was looking at my child when I saw that. And I knew that, and I felt that, and that's the way I feel today. And I think life begins at conception. I always -- it was abstract to me before. I was a father earlier when I was very young. I was busy. I went about my way. One of the maybe few advantages you have of getting a little bit older.

RUSSERT: So you believe life begins at conception, and that's taking of a human life?
THOMPSON: Yes, I do.

RUSSERT: You would allow abortion to be performed in states if chosen by states for people who think otherwise.

THOMPSON: I do not think that you can have a law that would be effective and that would be the right thing to do, as I say, in terms of potentially -- you can't have a law that cuts off an age group or something like that which potentially would take young girls in extreme situations and say, basically, we're going to put them in jail to do that. I just don't think that that's the right thing to do. It cannot change the way I feel about it morally, but legally and practically, I've got to recognize that fact. It is a dilemma that I'm not totally comfortable with, but that's the best I can do in resolving it in my own mind.

Fred Thompson Opposes Federal Marriage Amendment
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl5o-q35YA8

TIM RUSSERT: And also with gay marriage, according to the Associated Press, Thompson favors a constitutional amendment that bars judges from legalizing gay marriage, but also leaves open the door for state legislature to approve the practice. So, if a state said we want to have gay marriages in our state, you would be okay with that?

FRED THOMPSON: Yes. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Nobody ever thought that was contested until recently. We've had a couple of judges in a couple of states decide to turn all that on its head, so we've had, again, a judge created problem. I would support a constitutional amendment that addresses this judge created problem and say judges can't do that. But at the end of day, if a state legislature and a Governor decide that that's what they want to do, yes, they should have the freedom to do what Fred Thompson thinks is a very bad idea.

Verizon Rejects "Unsavory" Abortion Messages from NARAL

FYI - from the New York Times

Verizon Rejects Messages of Abortion Rights Group
By ADAM LIPTAK

Saying it had the right to block “controversial or unsavory” text messages, Verizon Wireless has rejected a request from Naral Pro-Choice America, the abortion rights group, to make Verizon’s mobile network available for a text-message program.

The other leading wireless carriers have accepted the program, which allows people to sign up for text messages from Naral by sending a message to a five-digit number known as a short code.

Text messaging is a growing political tool in the United States and a dominant one abroad, and such sign-up programs are used by many political candidates and advocacy groups to send updates to supporters.

But legal experts said private companies like Verizon probably have the legal right to decide which messages to carry. The laws that forbid common carriers from interfering with voice transmissions on ordinary phone lines do not apply to text messages.

Continue Reading New York Times article

40 Days For Life in Your Community - Starting Tomorrow, September 26th!

Pro-lifers across the nation will participate in the 40 Days for Life campaign beginning on September 26th and running through November 4th.

For information on how you can join 40 Days for Life, please visit the links below.


http://www.40daysforlife..com/splash.cfm

http://www.40daysforlife.com/about.cfm

Kaisernetwork.org: Pope Benedict XVI Says Abortion Could Threaten Future of Europe

Pope Benedict XVI Says Abortion Could Threaten Future of Europe, New York Times Reports

Pope Benedict XVI on Friday during a visit to Vienna, Austria, said abortion could threaten the future of Europe, the New York Times reports. The pope urged European governments "not to allow children to be considered as a form of illness" and to provide incentives to couples who have children in an effort to reverse the continent's declining fertility rate (Fisher, New York Times, 9/8). According to Reuters, the average total fertility rate in European Union countries is about 1.5 children per woman (Pullella, Reuters, 9/7).

Benedict said that the "fundamental human right ... is the right to life itself," adding, "This is true of life from the moment of conception until its natural end. Abortion, consequently, cannot be a human right -- it is the very opposite." The pope proposed that rather than legalize abortion, governments create a "climate of joy and confidence in life ... in which children are not seen as a burden, but rather as a gift for all" (AFP/Yahoo! News, 9/7).

According to Reuters, Benedict's speech could have implications in the 2008 U.S. presidential election, in which abortion is expected to become a major campaign issue. In addition, the speech put the pope on a "collision course" with Amnesty International, which recently affirmed a new policy on abortion that supports a woman's right to the procedure under certain circumstances, Reuters reports (Reuters, 9/7).

Follow-up on Brownback Amendments to the State/Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill

The roll call votes on the Brownback Amendments reveals the usual suspects among Republican Senators – those who almost always side with the pro-abortion Democrats. Voting against Senator Brownback’s efforts to protect the taxpayers from being coerced into paying for abortions were:

Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe (ME), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Richard Lugar (IN), Gordon Smith (OR), Arlen Specter (PA), Ted Stevens (AK), and John Warner (VA)

John Warner has announced that he will not run for re-election. Gordon Smith is said to be vulnerable to a challenge. Ted Stevens is under investigation due to charges of corruption. Opportunities are emerging to replace these people with candidates who respect life, or at the very least, respect the rights of American taxpayers from being forced into complicity with abortion through their tax dollars.

Last night the Senate voted to pass H.R. 2764 as amended, Dept. of State/Foreign Ops Approps by a vote of 81-12. The Roll Call vote is posted here: http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00325#position

As you know, Senator Brownback successfully offered an amendment to reinstate the Kemp-Kasten provision (regarding forced or coerced abortions). That amendment was agreed to by a vote of 48-45. Roll Call posted here: www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00318.

Unfortunately, the bill contained language that greatly undermined the Mexico City policy. This language makes international family planning “in-kind” contributions available to foreign organizations that promote and/or perform abortions. Senator Brownback offered a second amendment to strike this language but it failed 41-53. Roll Call vote is posted here: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00320.

Senator Boxer offered an amendment to provide both “in-kind” and cash grants and contracts to foreign organizations that promote and/or perform abortion. The Boxer amendment was agreed to by a vote of 53-41. Roll Call is posted here: www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00319.

Leader McConnell submitted a statement regarding these important issues for the record reiterating his desire to reinstate the Mexico City Policy so that the President can sign the Foreign Operations Appropriations measure into law. As you’re all aware, the President has issued a veto threat towards any amendments that undermine the Administration’s pro-life policies.

J.C. WATTS: Dogfighting barbaric? So is abortion

Sen. Robert Byrd, the West Virginia Democrat, referred to this act as "barbaric." In case you missed it the first time, he repeated it. Again. And again. And yet again.

Byrd acknowledged that he's witnessed one execution in his life, but wouldn't mind seeing another "if it involves this cruel, sadistic, cannibalistic business."

Continue reading this article here.