Fight Back Against Bad Science. Fight Back Against Obama's ESCR Policies.

Barack Obama's reversal of President Bush's regulations on stem cell research is, any way you look at it, very bad news. For it confirms 1) Obama's immorality (Human embryos are killed in ESCR.); 2) Obama's arrogant unfairness (He will be using your taxes to commit these horrors.); and 3) Obama's cruelty (His policies reward the worst science and ignores the most progressive and promising. Thus, he dooms untold numbers to further suffering and death who might well have been helped had the millions gone, not into the black hole of failed ESCR experiments, but toward the development of yet more cures and treatments found through adult stem cell and direct programming research.)

Responding to Obama's bad news play and seeking to keep the University of Nebraska Medical Center from jumping into the mess our President has created is an organization I've been pleased to work with since its inception, the Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research.

Chip Maxwell, Jessica Moenning, Justin Nabity and others with NCER are busy in the media, on the road, and behind the scenes trying to persuade Nebraskans to do the right thing in this area -- the right thing for the sanctity of human life which just happens to be the best thing too for the creation of truly beneficial treatments and cures.

It is an organization that deserves our help more than ever: prayers, financial contributions, invitations to speak, encouragement, and publicizing to friends, family and churches the excellent, important work they are doing.

You want to help fight Obama's callous, unscientific and very costly policy? Great. Use the information posted here on Vital Signs to fuel your letters to editors, to politicians, to hospital administrators, to pastors urging them to help, and to the folks in control of our universities.

And regarding that last target group, let me defer here to our pro-life colleague, Greg Schleppenbach of the Nebraska Catholic Conference who also serves on the Board of Directors of NCER.

...It apparently wasn't enough for (President Obama) to open up funding for ESCR, for some reason (political I suspect) he felt compelled to also rescind Bush's order requiring funding for "alternative methods" of stem cell research.

No matter what one thinks about Obama's decision to open up more funding for ESCR, to simultaneously reduce funding for ethical alternatives is indefensible. It is particularly troubling given that pioneers of embryonic stem cell and cloning research (e.g. James Thompson and Ian Wilmut) have moved their research enterprises away from ESCR and are now focused on direct reprogramming, a new technique that produces the functional equivalent of embryonic stem cells without producing or destroying human embryos...

In Nebraska, officials from the University of Nebraska Medical Center are gleeful about the President's new policy and plan to expand the ESC research currently conducted at the Med Center. This expansion can be stopped by a vote of the University's Board of Regents. Last Friday, I and a group of pro-life leaders attended the Regents' meeting to urge them to do just that. My statement to the Board is attached. Five of the Board's eight members have expressed some level of opposition to expanding ESCR at the Med Center and so we are hopeful that they will prohibit expansion of ESCR. Those five members are: Howard Hawks and Randy Ferlic from Omaha, Tim Clare and Jim McClurg from Lincoln and Bob Phares from North Platte.

It is critically important that you make your voice heard to the Board of Regents. You can do this very simply by signing an online petition sponsored by the Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research. This website also has a link with all the contact information for the Regents and a map to determine which Regent represents you. So in addition to signing the online petition, please consider sending a quick e-mail to your Regent asking him to "please prohibit any expansion of embryonic stem cell research at UNMC."

Nebraskans Respond to Obama's Renewal of ESCR Funding

It's not very often we can praise the Daily Nebraskan (UNL's student publication) for publishing a thorough, well-balanced article dealing with pro-life matters. But I'm pleased to say that Teresa Lostroh's article detailing the local response to Barack Obama's reversal of President Bush's stem cell policies was, indeed, a fine example of old-school journalism. Give the facts. Give various sides their due. Let the reader make his own inferences.

In particular, Lostroh is to be commended for including in her story a critical issue missing from most MSM reports on the matter; namely, the breakthrough work in "direct programming" that, unlike embryonic stem cell research, shows tremendous promise and kills no one.

Reagan, Religion and the Cold War

The Wall Street Journal printed this weekend a brief excerpt from James Mann's new book, "The Rebellion of Ronald Reagan: A History of the End of the Cold War" that deals with the deep sincerity of Ronald Reagan's religious faith and his boldness in promoting the ideals of that religion in his meetings with Soviet leaders.

Yes, the article has a whiff of condescension about it, but yet it provides a fascinating, endearing look into the life of this century's greatest U.S. President.

Another MSM Chief Expresses Worry About Obama's Performance

Hmm again.

Yet another famous liberal is expressing public concern with the Obama administration. Like Camille Paglia (see previous post), Howard Fineman, Newsweek's senior Washington Correspondent and columnist, doesn't want to blame the President himself. After all, he's so smart; so judicious; such "an industrious overachiever."

And yet, Fineman is worried enough to sound off (in a Newsweek column entitled, "A Turning Tide?") about Obama's poor showing thus far.

Luckily for Obama, the public still likes and trusts him, at least judging by the latest polls, including NEWSWEEK's. But, in ways both large and small, what's left of the American establishment is taking his measure and, with surprising swiftness, they are finding him lacking.

Et Tu, Camille? Renowned Liberal Excoriates Obama Administration. (But, Of Course, It's the Staff's Fault.)

Hmm. When even airhead liberals like atheist Camille Paglia start freaking out over the Obama administration's display of brashness and ineptitude, you know you've got big problems in the White House. Of course, Paglia doesn't blame the Anointed One Himself. (That would be a kind of blasphemy that even she isn't ready for yet.)

She figures the fault is in the hired help.

Free Barack!

Yes, free the president from his flacks, fixers and goons -- his posse of smirky smart alecks and provincial rubes, who were shrewd enough to beat the slow, pompous Clintons in the mano-a-mano primaries but who seem like dazed lost lambs in the brave new world of federal legislation and global statesmanship.

Heads should be rolling at the White House for the embarrassing series of flubs that have overshadowed President Obama's first seven weeks in office and given the scattered, demoralized Republicans a huge boost toward regrouping and resurrection. (Michelle, please use those fabulous toned arms to butt some heads!)...

Today's Posts

Ironic (And Dangerous) Details About the Increase in Female Drinking

Assembly-Line Abortionists: Women Deserve Better Care Than This

Obama's ESCR Decision Is Even Worse Than You Thought

The Obama Administration: Capitalizing on the Crisis

Amateur Hour at the White House?

Ironic (And Dangerous) Details About the Increase in Female Drinking

This story in the Washington Times describes a study done by Loyola Marymount University that young women are drinking more, drinking more dangerously, and drinking for the wrong reasons.

For instance, the study (which looked at results obtained from women at LMU and the University of Washington) concludes that young women are drinking "in pursuit of intimate relationships and positive attention from their male peers" -- even though the male peers really don't want them to!

Other items from the story to sadly note: binge drinking is up 22 % in college women (that's more than twice the increase for men); a Harvard University's School of Public Health caution that women were "far more vulnerable to alcohol than men;" and this very troubling find -- "The American Medical Association has advised college campuses since 2006 to warn women about the hazards of spring break after surveying 644 young women to find that three-fourths of them 'use drinking as an excuse for outrageous behavior.'"

Assembly-Line Abortionists: Women Deserve Better Care Than This

As mentioned last week ("Key Pro-Life Bills Before the Nebraska Legislature" and "Nebraska's Pro-Life Legislative Day: A Review"), I wanted to let you see more of the pro-life testimony given before the Nebraska Unicameral's Judiciary Committee last Thursday. Specifically, I asked Greg Schleppenbach to send over his remarks made in favor of LB 594. I hope you respond to it appropriately by contacting your State Senators and asking them to vote FOR this bill and FOR LB 675.

Senator Ashford and Members of the Judiciary Committee:

My name is Greg Schleppenbach and I am here on behalf of the Nebraska Catholic Conference to urge you to support LB 594. The Conference represents the mutual interests of the Catholic Bishops of Nebraska.

To understand the impetus and objective of this bill it is necessary to understand the nature of abortion practice. According to Nebraska’s Annual Abortion Report, ninety-nine percent of abortions in Nebraska take place in two abortion facilities. One of these facilities does an average of 12-15 abortions in one day, the other does an average of 20 or so in one day.

In this setting, women receive a standardized recorded message to satisfy informed consent requirements and only see the abortion doctor during the 10 minutes or so he is doing the abortion. There is no meaningful doctor-patient relationship in this assembly-line practice of abortion; a practice that turns abortion doctors into mere technicians and their patients into customers.

It is clear from reading the Supreme Court’s abortion rulings (Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton and its progeny) that this practice of abortion is not what the justices had in mind. They explicitly rejected the concept of abortion on demand (which comprises ninety percent of abortions). Chief Justice Burger in his concurring opinion in Doe said the Court expected that “the vast majority of physicians [would] observe the standards of their profession, and act only on the basis of carefully deliberated medical judgments relating to life and health.”

In Roe the Court said “[T]he abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician. If an individual practitioner abuses the privilege of exercising proper medical judgment, the usual remedies, judicial and intra-professional, are available.” Roe v Wade 410 U.S. 113, 166

It’s also clear that this low standard of care is contrary to the informed consent standards of the American Medical Association. The AMA says “informed consent is more than simply getting a patient to sign a written consent form. It is a process of communication between a patient and physician that results in a patient’s authorization…to undergo a specific medical intervention.” And the AMA puts the responsibility for this communication process on the physician, “not a delegated representative.”

The assembly-line practice of abortion has compromised the standard of care for counseling and screening of patients presumably to reduce costs and maximize profits. As a result, women are suffering from avoidable physical and psychological complications that may have been prevented or minimized if the proper pre-abortion screening standards had been met. You need not oppose legal abortion to conclude that women deserve better than this.

LB 594 tries to restore some semblance of a doctor-patient relationship and increase the standard of care in the practice of abortion. The bill clarifies the duty of physicians to screen for risk factors that even abortion advocates acknowledge place some women at higher risk of post-abortion complications. It would bring the practice of abortion more in line with the ordinary practice of medicine where patients receive personalized counseling based on their individual risk profile, not a standardized recording. And LB 594 will help protect women from being pressured into unwanted, unnecessary and dangerous abortions. Please vote to advance LB 594 to General File.

Obama's ESCR Decision Is Even Worse Than You Thought

This morning Chip Maxwell and others are pointing out that Barack Obama's revocation of President Bush's rules on embryonic stem cell experimentation turns out to be more despicable than what was suggested in the initial headlines. For not only did Obama make it open season on human embryos...not only did he open up your purse strings to finance such monstrosity...but he even went so far as to drop funding for the most promising, most uncontroversial line of scientific research of all.

Here's a brief commentary from Wesley Smith from over at First Things.

We all know that President Obama rescinded the Bush funding restrictions for ESCR. But that isn’t all he did today. He also rescinded Executive Order 13435 of June 20, 2007.

The Administration didn’t publicize this part of the President’s nasty work, but the now dead 2007 Bush order explicitly required funding for “alternative methods” of stem cell research—such as the new induced pluripotent stem cells (IPSC), a process that changes skin or other cells such as hair follicles into pluripotent stem cells without making or destroying embryos. IPSCs offer so much promise—and all without the ethical contentiousness of human cloning and embryonic stem cell research. Indeed, these alternative methods are one of the few areas in which people who are pro-life and pro-choice, conservative and liberal, pro and anti-ESCR can agree upon, the very type of policy that this president said he wanted to pursue.

I can think of only two reasons for this unwarranted action, for which I saw no advocacy either during the election or in the first weeks of the Administration: First, vindictiveness against all things “Bush” or policies considered by the Left to be “pro-life”; and second, a desire to get the public to view unborn human life as a mere crop ripe for the harvest. Wait, there’s a third potential reason: both of the above.

So much for taking the politics out of science!

The Obama Administration: Capitalizing on the Crisis

Jonah Goldberg is in fine form today. Check it out here in the Los Angeles Times:

..."Rule 1: Never allow a crisis to go to waste," White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told the New York Times right after the election. "They are opportunities to do big things." Over the weekend, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told members of the European Parliament, "Never waste a good crisis." Then President Obama explained in his Saturday radio and Internet address that there is "great opportunity in the midst of" the "great crisis" befalling America.

Numerous commentators, including me, have pointed to this never-waste-a-crisis mantra as ideological evidence that Obama's budget priorities are a great bait-and-switch. He says he wants to fix the financial crisis, but he's focusing on selling his long-standing liberal agenda on healthcare, energy and education as the way to do it, even though his proposals have absolutely nothing to do with addressing the housing and toxic-debt problems that are the direct causes of our predicament. Indeed, some -- particularly on Wall Street -- would argue that his policies are making the crisis worse.

But the real scandal isn't those policies, even though they're bad enough. The real scandal is that this administration thinks crises are opportunities for governmental power-grabs...

Well, now we have the president, along with his chief aides, admitting -- boasting! -- that they want to exploit a national emergency for their preexisting agenda, and there's no scandal. No one even calls it a gaffe. No, they call it leadership.

It's not leadership. It's fear-mongering.

Franklin Roosevelt said that all we have to fear is fear itself. Now Barack Obama all but admits that all he has to fear is the loss of fear itself.

In other realms of life, exploiting a crisis for your own purposes is an outrage. If a business uses a hurricane warning, for example, to price-gouge on vital supplies, it is a crime. When a liberal administration does it, it's taking advantage of a historic opportunity...

Amateur Hour at the White House?

The following editorial from the San Francisco Examiner asks (and then succinctly answers) the question, " Is it amateur hour at the Obama White House?"

It was embarrassing enough that President Barack Obama insulted British Prime Minister Gordon Brown last week by handing him 25 movie videos as the chief executive’s diplomatic gift to the visiting representative of America’s most important ally. Compared to Brown’s gifts, which included a pen holder made of wood from a British warship that helped stamp out the slave trade, Obama’s gift, in the words of The Telegraph, looked like the kind of thing the White House might hand out to the visiting head of a minor African state. Even worse is the context in which this huge diplomatic gaffe took place — a six-week succession of miscues, oversights, miscalculations and outright errors that suggest things have gone seriously awry in the White House.

* Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tells a European Union gathering that American democracy has been around a lot longer than European democracy. This no doubt particularly surprised the Dutch, whose republic commenced years before the U.S. won its independence. Somebody should tell Clinton about Athens, too.

* White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orzag say Obama will sign the $410 billion omnibus spending bill because it is last year’s business, even though the bill requires the presidents signature now to become law. This despite promising before the election a line-by-line battle against waste. Obama has or soon will sign bills containing more than 17,000 earmarks.

* Catastrophe would result from delays in passing the $787 billion economic stimulus bill, according to Obama, who then took a four-day shopping trip with his family in Chicago before signing the emergency legislation.

* Obama’s first commerce secretary nominee is forced to withdraw, as are his first choice for Health and Human Services Department secretary and several of his picks for top White House policy positions, due to assorted tax and other ethical problems that should have been caught during the transition process.

* Attorney General Eric Holder calls Americans a nation of cowards for allegedly not talking enough about race issues. Even the president is forced to publicly disavow Holder’s assertion.

* Treasurer Secretary Timothy Geithner is touted as the only man who can fix the banking system, but, weeks after his controversial nomination is confirmed, crucial details of his plan remain a mystery, along with who will fill numerous senior positions within his department.

The president remains personally popular, but nothing so erodes public confidence as the perception of ineptitude. Policy differences are one thing, but Americans won’t accept incompetence in the Oval Office.

Today's Posts

What Makes Chiropractors Faint, Installment #11

The TelePrompter: Barack's Security Blanket

The New York Times Being Hypocritical? Oh, Say It Ain't So!

U.S. New & World Report Column: "Why Embryonic Stem Cells Are Obsolete"

Obama Isn't Pro-Choice. He Is Pro-Abortion.

The Reason Behind Obama's Chintzy Diplomacy? He Was Tired, Poor Thing.

Trashy, Tragic and Terrible: Leroy Carhart's Abortion Business

Bellevue Abortion Mill Opens Again

What Makes Chiropractors Faint, Installment #11

Here's a little something to enliven a dreary Monday.

The TelePrompter: Barack's Security Blanket

Following up on a Vital Signs blog post from three weeks ago ("Psst; The Great Orator Uses Cheat Sheets!"), here's an item from Carol Lee over at Politico, "Obama's Safety Net: The TelePrompter."

President Barack Obama doesn’t go anywhere without his TelePrompter.

The textbook-sized panes of glass holding the president’s prepared remarks follow him wherever he speaks.

Resting on top of a tall, narrow pole, they flank his podium during speeches in the White House’s stately parlors. They stood next to him on the floor of a manufacturing plant in Indiana as he pitched his economic stimulus plan. They traveled to the Department of Transportation this week and were in the Capitol Rotunda last month when he paid tribute to Abraham Lincoln in six-minute prepared remarks.

Obama’s reliance on the teleprompter is unusual — not only because he is famous for his oratory, but because no other president has used one so consistently and at so many events, large and small.

After the teleprompter malfunctioned a few times last summer and Obama delivered some less-than-soaring speeches, reports surfaced that he was training to wean himself off of the device while on vacation in Hawaii. But no such luck...

Obama has relied on a teleprompter through even the shortest announcements and when repeating the same lines on his economic stimulus plan that he's been saying for months — whereas past presidents have mostly worked off of notes on the podium except during major speeches, such as the State of the Union.

The New York Times Being Hypocritical? Oh, Say It Ain't So!

James Taranto in the Wall Street Journal's "Best of the Web" points out the hypocrisy of the New York Times (yes, I know that's a full time job in itself) in this fine post about filibusters. (The passages he cites from the Times I print in bold.)

"A Time-Honored Procedure" -- Oh, Wait! That Was Last Term!

Four years ago, when Republicans had a majority in the Senate and Democrats were using filibusters to block votes on President Bush's judicial nominees, the editorialists at the New York Times were aghast at the threat to "a time-honored Senate procedure that prevents a bare majority of senators from running roughshod." They also faulted the GOP for hypocrisy, since during the Clinton administration Republican senators had filibustered some presidential nominees (though not for the bench).

Now the Democrats are in the same position as the Republicans then: They hold the White House and a Senate majority shy of 60 votes. Predictably enough, the New York Times is now aghast that the Republicans may use a time-honored Senate procedure that prevents a bare majority of senators from running roughshod:

Republican senators have fired off an intemperate letter threatening--you got it--filibusters if Mr. Obama's nominees are not to their liking. Mr. Obama should not let the Republicans' saber-rattling interfere with how he chooses judges.

Arguments about procedure are often made cynically, and there are times when that is appropriate: The job of a lawyer in court, for instance, is to further the interests of his client; it is up to the judge to safeguard the integrity of the court's procedures. One could argue that the Times, as an advocate for liberal ideology, is not obliged to be overly concerned with procedure.

But imagine if a lawyer asked a judge to show favoritism toward his client in procedural rulings "because, your honor, my client is just right." Any competent judge would laugh at such a silly argument. Yet that is exactly the approach the Times takes here:

A filibuster can be an appropriate response when it is clear that a particular nominee would be a dangerous addition to the bench.

So a filibuster is fine to block a judge the Times doesn't like, but outrageous to block one it does like. There is nothing more to this argument than that the ends justify the means--in which case why bother making an obviously phony argument about the means?

U.S. News & World Report Column: "Why Embryonic Stem Cells Are Obsolete"

Here's an intriguing column, "Why Embryonic Stem Cells Are Obsolete," that, surprisingly enough, appeared in one of the MSM's main magazines, the U.S. News & World Report. Written by cardiologist Bernadine Healy (photo at left), the former head of the National Institutes of Health and the American Red Cross, the column explains why Barack Obama's reversal of President Bush's policy on ESCR may be wildly popular with the politically-correct crowd, but that it doesn't have scientific correctness behind it at all.

Scientists may be growing impatient, but President Obama has been rightly taking his time in addressing a campaign promise to lift the ban on federal funding for research using new lines of stem cells to be taken from human embryos. Even for strong backers of embryonic stem cell research, the decision is no longer as self-evident as it was, because there is markedly diminished need for expanding these cell lines for either patient therapy or basic research. In fact, during the first six weeks of Obama's term, several events reinforced the notion that embryonic stem cells, once thought to hold the cure for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and diabetes, are obsolete. The most sobering: a report from Israel published in PLoS Medicine in late February that shows embryonic stem cells injected into patients can cause disabling if not deadly tumors...

His experience is neither an anomaly nor a surprise, but one feared by many scientists. These still-mysterious cell creations have been removed from the highly ordered environment of a fast-growing embryo, after all. Though they are tamed in a petri dish to be disciplined, mature cells, research in animals has shown repeatedly that sometimes the injected cells run wildly out of control—dashing hopes of tiny, human embryos benignly spinning off stem cells to save grown-ups, without risk or concern...

Even as the future of embryonic stem cells has dimmed, adult stem cell research has scored major wins evident just in the past few months. These advances involve human stem cells that are not derived from human embryos. In fact, adult stem cells, which occur in small quantities in organs throughout the body for natural growth and repair, have become stars despite great skepticism early on. Though this is a more difficult task, scientists have learned to coax them to mature into many cell types, like brain and heart cells, in the laboratory. (Such stem cells can be removed almost as easily as drawing a unit of blood, and they have been used successfully for years in bone marrow transplants.)

To date, most of the stem cell triumphs that the public hears about involve the infusion of adult stem cells. We've just recently seen separate research reports of patients with spinal cord injury and multiple sclerosis benefiting from adult stem cell therapy...

Obama Isn't Pro-Choice. He Is Pro-Abortion.

And, as if there wasn't already plenty of proof of that, Obama's callous decision to attack the "conscience rules" established by President Bush seals the matter.

..."By his rule issued today, President Obama is utterly refusing to enforce these conscience protection laws, resulting in a situation where doctors may be forced to participate in abortions and patients may be forced to have their babies delivered by doctors who perform abortions," Matt Bowman of the Alliance Defense Fund explains.

"Whatever happened to the so called 'right to choose?'" he asks. "The Obama administration is quite simply collaborating with Planned Parenthood and their allies to allow pro-life medical professionals to be punished for their beliefs, with the punishment to be funded by your federal dollars."...

The Reason Behind Obama's Chintzy Diplomacy? He Was Tired, Poor Thing.

Barack Obama loves to spend other people's money. He is, after all, a Democrat. But Obama is more generous with your dough than even the Kennedyesque spenders of the past few decades. In fact, he's so busy shoveling out the billions over this past month that he's exhausted. Poor thing.

The Sunday Telegraph (U.K.) quotes "one of Mr Obama's most prominent African American backers, whose endorsement he spent two years cultivating" as explaining the new president's flaw is over-confidence that he can manage "the flood of things" coming at him.

He said that on several occasions the president has had to hurry back from eating dinner with his family in the residence and then tucking his daughters in to bed, to conduct urgent government business. Matters are not helped by the pledge to give up smoking. "People say he looks tired more often than they're used to," the strategist said. "He's still calm, but there have been flashes of irritation when he thinks he's being pushed to make a decision sooner than he wants to make it. He looks like he needs a cigarette."

But was it really not having a smoke that was behind Obama's unbelievably chintzy, disrespectful gifts to the visiting Prime Minister of Great Britain?

That's what his aides are saying, trying to calm down a storm of resentment that has erupted in the U.K. (not to mention the storm of embarrassment for red-faced Americans at the way a visiting head of state of such an important ally was treated).

For the details of just how remarkably stupid were the Obama's gifts to Brown, check out this Power Line post.

Trashy, Tragic and Terrible: Leroy Carhart's Abortion Business

As mentioned in the post below, the Carhart abortion mill is again open for its grisly business. Therefore, we're back to sidewalk counseling, offering the clients information about abortion and its alternatives, neither of which is available from Carhart's uncaring staff. No, they're only interested in the profits that can be made from lying to women, exploiting their distress, and capitalizing on their baser desires.

Our attempts at conversation there are hindered not only by distance and traffic noise (the usual obstacles in sidewalk counseling) but also by junked vehicles and huge commercial trash bins. The place is as unkempt and ugly a mess as could be imagined -- and no one in their right mind would be going in there for any kind of medical attention, let alone an invasive, dangerous surgical procedure.

And yet they do. At least 18 just this morning.

The culture of death is not on the horizon. It's here

Bellevue Abortion Mill Opens Again

Because the notorious Leroy Carhart re-opened his abortion mill in Bellevue yesterday (yes, he does abortions even on Sunday morning), Claire and I will be sidewalk counseling this morning. Therefore, blogging will be a bit late.

In the meantime, I print a portion of Larry Donlan's (Rescue the Heartland) report of yesterday's action there along with one of the photos he took of the place.

Saturday March 7th, 2009 marked the re-opening of Leroy Carhart's late-term child-killing center in Bellevue, NE., which was closed due to a fire at that facility a couple of months ago. It was a dark and rainy morning, with a chill in the air ironically appropriate to the occasion. In terms of being ready to "serve" the twenty or so victims, they seemed to be "shooting from the hip". The staff spent much of the early morning dragging in medical equipment such as an ultrasound machine along with boxes and boxes of medical and office supplies.

I don't know how the inside looked, but the outside was as trashed out as ever, still carrying that touch of Carhart professionalism. For instance, practically blocking the main entrance to the parking lot was a large, rusted-out old truck. Both front tires were missing with the wheel on the driver's side resting inside a large pot hole, giving the mill that "salvage" look. Right next to it, connected to the mill by a long extension cord, sat a generator that purred away all morning making one question if they even had electricity. I've often wondered how anyone could patronize such a junk yard posing as a "health clinic", but that never seems to matter much to mothers intent on destroying their children...

Sidewalk counselor Mary Adam talked with a young Hispanic couple who were very receptive, agreeing with practically everything she said. They even agreed to accompany Mary to A Woman's Touch, the pro-life pregnancy center next door where they were given an ultrasound and positive, loving care in their time of need.

So, in the end, the sun did shine on that bleak, dismal morning in March as one tragedy was averted, a life was saved, and heaven rejoiced.

Today's Posts

Nebraska's Pro-Life Legislative Day: A Review

You Gotta' Be Kidding Department: Joel Hunter is Surprised At Obama's Abortion Moves?

Brownback and Roberts Feel "Honored" by Sebelius Pick?

The Democrats' New War on Rush: The Opening Salvos in Their Campaign for "Fairness Doctrine"

Obama's Budget Adds More to the National Debt Than All Presidents Combined!

Nebraska's Pro-Life Legislative Day: A Review

Just a few observations about yesterday's Pro-Life Legislative Day organized by Nebraska Right to Life at the State Capitol and the afternoon's session of hearings before the Judiciary Committee concerning LB 675 (A Mother's Right to See Her Unborn Child Act, an ultrasound bill) and LB 594 (Women's Health Protection Act).

Copies of my testimony on those bills, by the way, were posted yesterday on Vital Signs blog and I'm going to try and get copies of a few others for posting next week. Anyhow, on to a few highlights of the day.

* Julie Schmit-Albin and the NRL team did a terrific job in setting up the day, giving attendees detailed information packets, sharing tips on how to best engage their respective State Senators, and introducing us to the pro-life bills under consideration that day. The latter was done with a session featuring Julie, Nebraska Catholic Conference's Greg Schleppenbach, State Senators Cap Dierks and Tony Fulton, and National Right to Life's Mary Spaulding Balch.

* Next on the schedule was an opportunity to meet our various Senators. Tanya Cook, representing District 13 where I live, wasn't around yesterday so I talked instead with a young aide in her office.

* The hearings later on that day were also full of interest. Testifying for LB 675 were Senator Fulton, Greg Schleppenbach, Mary Spaulding Balch, nurses from the Lincoln CPC and A Women's Touch CPC, a Lincoln CPC client, Al Riskowski from Nebraska Family Council, Dave Bydalek from Family First, John Lillis from Nebraskans for Life PAC, and myself. Opponents included reps from Planned Parenthood, Methodist Hospital, the ACLU, et al.

* Particularly interesting among the opponent testimonies was Planned Parenthood's patently absurd claim that not a single mother to which they had shown an ultrasound had ever decided against an abortion; Methodist Hospital's admission that "emergency contraception" (which they are into big time) does cause abortions; and a pitiful performance from the ALCU which included the remarkable assertion (when a senator pointed out that the assembly-line approach of abortionists certainly did not represent a doctor/patient relationship) that Americans are well satisfied with "drive-through doctoring!"

* The media reports, sparse as they were, tended to paint the hearings in a typically pro-abortion hue. What else is new? But judging from the questions of the senators, I think there's a chance these bills might at least make it out of committee and onto the floor.

Again, my deepest appreciation to Senator Cap Dierks, Senator Tony Fulton, all of the bills' co-sponsors, Nebraska Right to Life, National Right to Life and the Nebraska Catholic Conference for the superb efforts expended to draft and pass these bills.

But now for your part -- please e-mail, write or call soon your State Senator and ask them to get behind LB 675 and LB 594. In particular, the Senators on the Judiciary Committee need to hear from their constituents (and others) about the importance of voting to put LB 675 and LB 594 onto the Unicameral floor for a vote. Those Senators are: Ashford, Lathrop, Christensen, Coash, Council, Lautenbaugh, McGill, and Rogert.

You Gotta' Be Kidding Department: Joel Hunter is Surprised At Obama's Abortion Moves?

In this Washington Post article about the Obama administration's move to rescind George W. Bush's "job protections for health workers who refuse to provide care they find objectionable" (better stated, workers whose consciences prohibit them from being involved in abortions), reporter Rob Stein quoted preacher and author Joel Hunter, senior pastor of the Northland Church in Longwood, Florida.

Hunter, an evangelical liberal in the mold of Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo (see previous Vital Signs blog posts 1, 2, 3) was recently named to Obama's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, no doubt in gratitude for the help Hunter provided in smoothing Obama's way into the neo-evangelical fold before the election.

Hunter's quote really scales the heights of irony. Speaking of Obama's move against conscience clauses, Hunter said, "This is going to be a political hit for the administration. This will be one of those things that kind of says, 'I knew it. They talk about common ground, but really what they want is their own way.' "

As if there wasn't a pile of evidence before the election demonstrating how radical and far-reaching was Barack Obama's "own way" on abortion. Oh no, Hunter knew all right. But, as he has the habit of doing nowadays about a great many things, Hunter turned away from the plain truth. He preferred the lie.

So, will Hunter now resign from Obama's Advisory Council? Will he repent and publicly decry the savagery, deceit and audacity presented by our new president? Will he dedicate himself now to fighting the public evils his friendship with Obama helped unleash on America?

Yes, well; I doubt it too. But we can (and certainly should) pray that he does.

Brownback and Roberts Feel "Honored" by Sebelius Pick?

Jill Stanek's latest article? Yeah, it's one you shouldn't miss for in it she weighs in on the alarming pro-abortion record of the gruesome gal who will be our new Health and Human Services Secretary, the damage (and it's substantial) that Kathleen Sebilius can now wreak on American culture, and on the greatly disappointing reaction to the pick from pro-lifers Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts.

The Democrats' New War on Rush: The Opening Salvos in Their Campaign for "Fairness Doctrine"

Barack Obama’s administration has uncovered a new Public Enemy No. 1.

Forget Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Obama and the pampered poodles on his staff are going after the real Mr. Big - Rush Limbaugh and his Excellence in Broadcasting network.

Does something seem a little . . . off, shall we say, about the moonbats’ newly rediscovered obsession with El Rushbo? From the War on Terror to the War on Talk Radio...

How long did it take Nixon to come up with his enemies’ list? At least three or four years. This Barack guy, he moves fast.

Howie Carr's column in the Boston Herald is a good one. Even his criticism of Limbaugh's program in recent years is pretty accurate. It describes part of the reason I seldom listen to him anymore. (Of course, the greater reason is that I prefer music on my car radio. Always have. Driving in modern America is stressful enough.)

All that aside, the issue lurking behind the Democrat's new war on Rush is the opening salvos in their campaign for the "Fairness Doctrine." You can bet on it.

Obama's Budget Adds More to the National Debt Than All Presidents Combined!

Looking at the Obama revolution, Stanford professor of economics Michael J. Boskin is worried. Very worried. And, as you read his detailed examination in this superb Wall Street Journal article, you will be too.

It's hard not to see the continued sell-off on Wall Street and the growing fear on Main Street as a product, at least in part, of the realization that our new president's policies are designed to radically re-engineer the market-based U.S. economy, not just mitigate the recession and financial crisis.

The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end...

Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents -- from George Washington to George W. Bush -- combined. It reduces defense spending to a level not sustained since the dangerous days before World War II, while increasing nondefense spending (relative to GDP) to the highest level in U.S. history. And it would raise taxes to historically high levels (again, relative to GDP). And all of this before addressing the impending explosion in Social Security and Medicare costs...

Key Pro-Life Bills Before the Nebraska Legislature

I'm blogging light this morning (and, yes, I remember that I didn't blog at all yesterday) but sometimes other duties overwhelm even those 2-3 hours of the early morning I usually take for Vital Signs blog.

Today those "other duties" require my presence at the State Capitol in Lincoln for the Nebraska Right to Life's Pro-Life Day at the Unicameral. Among other things I will be testifying before the Judiciary Committee in behalf of LB 675, A Mother’s Right to See Her Unborn Child and LB 594, The Women’s Health Protection Act.

Those remarks (which are limited to 3 minutes) relevant to each are printed below. And tomorrow I'll give you the story of how things went. Until then...

Statement in Support of LB 675, A Mother’s Right to See Her Unborn Child. Presented to the Nebraska Unicameral’s Judiciary Committee on March 5. (Made by Denny Hartford, Director of Vital Signs Ministries)

Good afternoon, Senators. My name is Denny Hartford and I speak today in favor of LB 675 and I urge you to please move it onto the floor of the Unicameral for a thorough discussion and vote. I do so as a pastor and as the Director of Vital Signs Ministries who, in nearly 30 years of pro-life service, has talked to thousands of people involved in making (or having already made) abortion decisions. I speak too as the founder of the AAA Center for Pregnancy Counseling in Omaha, an outreach that has been serving women facing unexpected and otherwise problematic pregnancies since 1985.

LB 675 is an excellently-conceived and well-written legislative proposal, one that reflects compassion, justice and respect for a woman’s ability to make informed decisions. Indeed, that’s the key purpose of the bill – giving women considering an abortion more and better information about everything (and everyone) involved. It is a bill designed to better empower women, to give them fairer and more respectful treatment, to give them all the facts (not propaganda or commentary) but simple and salient facts about abortion in a visual form. To oppose this bill is to show disrespect for women, to be patronizing towards their abilities to make sound decisions or worse, to reveal an ulterior social ideology which prefers the abortionist’s profits over a women’s freedom and dignity.

For again, what LB 675 presents is the opportunity for a woman considering abortion (a procedure regarded by most Americans as the taking of an innocent human life and a procedure that leaders of both political parties say they want less of in America) to see exactly what she is about to terminate. And that ultrasound is not a propaganda film; it is not a video from Rush Limbaugh, James Dobson or Mother Angelica. It’s just the scientific visualization of the preborn boy or girl that the woman is carrying. It is reality, unencumbered with musical soundtrack or philosophic subtitles.

True feminists must agree that a woman can handle this. She can handle the truth. It is in her best interests (short and long term) to get the whole story about abortion before making that irreversible decision. And it is a matter of clear justice for the state to guarantee her this. I urge you therefore not only to vote LB 675 out of committee, but that you would do whatever you can to give Nebraska women a fair deal by passing LB 675 into law.

Statement in Support of LB 594, The Women’s Health Protection Act, Presented to the Nebraska Unicameral’s Judiciary Committee on March 5. (Made by Denny Hartford, Director of Vital Signs Ministries)

Once again, Senators, good afternoon. My brief presentation here is in behalf of LB 594, The Women’s Health Protection Act, a just and common-sense legislative proposal designed to better protect Nebraskan women from surrendering to coerced abortions, to strengthen existing legislation already passed by the Nebraska legislature regarding a women’s right to fully know about abortion before making that traumatic, irreversible decision, and to remove some of the obstacles which historically have made it nearly impossible for a woman to hold abortionists liable for those physical and emotional damages which proper medical screening and explanations could have avoided.

As a pastor and a pro-life activist whose leadership of Vital Signs Ministries has involved talking to hundreds of men and women suffering from various ill effects of abortion, including a great deal of guilt and emotional trauma, I understand all too well the significance of this line from the Supreme Court ruling in Gonzalez vs Carhart, “It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound when she learns, only after the event, what she once did not know.”

Senators, LB 594 seeks competently and compassionately to eliminate at least some of that unnecessary suffering by better empowering women in our state to know (and know more extensively) exactly how abortion might affect them.

You know, when my wife has been in the hospital or even in a doctor’s office for outpatient medical procedures, the staff go to great lengths to insure that she fully understands what she’s going to experience. Several times different medical workers read to her the details of the procedure, talk to her about possible side effects and post-op care – they even require her to repeat, using her own words, what she is expecting to undergo in the procedure.

This is all great. It reflects high standards of integrity and professional responsibility. It shows that authentic medical professionals understand that full and unbiased information be given to the patient, that she retain control over her medical care.

Abortionists should not be exempt from these standards.

Again, LB 594 is a good, common-sense bill, one which empowers and protects women. I encourage you to do what you can to see it become law here in our state.

Today's Posts

Senator Coburn on Obama's Revocation of Conscience Clause: You'll Have to Send Me to Jail

Are You "Carbon Fasting" for Lent?

Hey, Big Spender!

RNC Chairman Caves In, Disses Rush on TV

Senator Coburn on Obama's Revocation of Conscience Clause: You'll Have to Send Me to Jail

Barack Obama wants to revoke the "“conscience clause” regulation instituted by George W. Bush, meaning that the new administration could declare war on doctors, nurses, administrators, pharmacists, and so on who refuse to participate in such evil acts as abortion.

Well, Tom Coburn, Oklahoma's Republican Senator and a principled OB/GYN physician is telling Obama that he, and many others will joyfully go to jail before they cave in to such a sinister, totalitarian and unconstitutional act.

This is a terrific preemptive salvo launched by Senator Coburn and it should be followed up by doctors, nurses, clergy and everybody else. Write your Congresspersons, Senators and the President, letting them know how despicable and socially damaging a revocation of the conscience clause rule would be. Acting now to stop such a horror from ever getting out of Pandora's Box is a far more effective policy than trying to stuff it back in there.

And a note thanking Senator Coburn is in order too.
172 Russell Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
Main: 202-224-5754
Fax: 202-224-6008

Are You "Carbon Fasting" for Lent?

Frank Furedi, writing in spiked!, describes the new "carbon fast" established for Lent by Ed Miliband (Britain’s energy and climate change minister) and those oh-so-progressive, eco-minded bishops of Liverpool and London. Sigh. You couldn't make this kind of stuff up if you tried.

...The carbon fast is a semi-conscious attempt to turn environmentalism into a caricature of a religion. The idea of original sin has been reinvented as a wicked act of ‘carbon emission’. There are a number of ways that the green sinner can gain absolution. Those with lots of money can win redemption by purchasing ‘carbon offsets’; the rest of us will have to go through various rituals: recycling garbage, avoiding disposable nappies, using reusable bags, all of which provide proof of our sacrifice and faith. Those most committed to the faith will go further, of course, and stop eating meat and having babies. Those who refuse to embrace any of the above rituals are stigmatised for their moral depravity and denounced for committing crimes against the planet. The main purpose of the carbon fast, it seems, is to make people feel guilty about the fact that they have a life...

Increasingly, environmentalism is less about managing nature than pursuing a moral crusade to manage, and alter, human behaviour. There was a time when standards of behaviour were judged according to moral codes based on religion or on secular philosophy. Such moral ideals sought to provide guidance for those who wanted to lead a good life. Ideas about right and wrong were closely linked to our sense of humanity; acts were judged according to a robust system of human meaning. In the twenty-first century, however, moral disorientation means we find it increasingly difficult to give meaning to moral concepts. In a desperate search for moral coherence, many politicians and religious leaders have embraced environmentalism as a provisional solution to the problem...

Hey, Big Spender!

When Barack Obama met with TV anchors at a White House lunch last week, he assured them he likes being president. "And it turns out I'm very good at it," he added. Well, not exactly. What Obama is actually very good at is campaigning. He did it for two years as a presidential candidate, and it's pretty much what he's been doing in the six weeks since he was sworn in.

It's working. Despite the bad economy he inherited, the political circumstances, for Obama at least, are favorable. He's popular, as new presidents usually are. He talks about "hard choices" but hasn't made any. With large Democratic majorities in Congress, he's free of worry about rebellion on Capitol Hill. Despite glitches in picking his cabinet, his cool demeanor is unshaken. He governs campaign-style, largely with speeches and announcements. No wonder he enjoys being president. Accountability comes later.

But there's a problem. Candidates don't have to deal with reality. They talk about the wonderful things they can accomplish as if advocating them is the same as achieving them. They live in a world of political make-believe in which everything from reconciling conflicting interests to paying for costly programs is easy.

That's the world Obama continues to inhabit. Like a candidate, he's a quick-change artist, constantly switching roles. Twice last week, he insisted he doesn't favor "big government." Then he proposed a budget that would vastly expand the size and reach of the federal government, add $600 billion to the deficit, and produce a one-year shortfall of $1.2 trillion (or more). This prompted House Republican leader John Boehner to proclaim, quite accurately, that the "era of big government is back."

That wasn't all. For Obama, a spending spree and fiscal prudence are practically synonymous. He conducted a "fiscal responsibility summit" a few days after pushing a $1 trillion "stimulus" bill through Congress, not a cent of it offset by cuts in spending programs. Following the summit, Obama declared a "consensus" was emerging between Democrats and Republicans on some issues--his issues--and could be forged on others. He was dreaming...

(Fred Barnes, "The Return of Big Government," The Weekly Standard, March 9)

(The cartoon, by the way, wasn't a part of the article. It comes from the talented pen of Mike Lester, syndicated editorial cartoonist, illustrator and author of several children's books.)

RNC Chairman Caves In, Disses Rush on TV

If you were disappointed when the Republican National Committee chose Michael Steele as their chairman, a fellow whose conservative credentials were considerably less rock-ribbed than others and one who tended to retreat from certain controversial issues when faced down by, say, a pushy liberal TV pundit -- well, Steele's irresponsible dissing of Rush Limbaugh on CNN's D. L. Hughley show Saturday night ("Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh, the whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it's incendiary, yes, it's ugly") -- isn't going to improve your mood.

The RNC loves to talk like a conservative organization when it sends fund raising letters to your house but, in truth, it loves its big tent philosophy way too much to get serious about promoting those conservative ideals. And then they not only wonder why that big tent remains so boring, so irrelevant, so empty; they actually do what they can to drive those thorough-going conservatives (the ones who put up the yard signs, who write the letters to the editor, who organize their churches and civic groups, and, yes, who listen to Rush) out through the flaps.

Rush's response was, not surprisingly, spot on. And it included a review of how he had personally come to Steele's aid on a number of occasions, making Steele's slur seem particularly odious. Anyhow, the whole transcript is right here and it makes for invigorating reading. But, I'll print a couple of samples below.

...Michael Steele, you are head of the RNC. You are not head of the Republican Party. Tens of millions of conservatives and Republicans have nothing to do with the RNC and right now they want nothing to do with it, and when you call them asking them for money, they hang up on you. I hope that changes. I hope the RNC will get its act together. I hope the RNC chairman will realize he's not a talking head pundit, that he is supposed to be working on the grassroots and rebuilding it, and maybe doing something about our open primary system and fixing it so that Democrats do not nominate our candidates. It's time, Mr. Steele, for you to go behind the scenes and start doing the work that you were elected to do instead of trying to be some talking head media star, which you're having a tough time pulling off...

You are chairman of the Republican National Committee. That is your job. To run the Republican establishment bureaucracy and prove you can defeat Democrats and elect Republicans, to come up with a new primary system that eliminates Democrats participating in ours and choosing our candidates and getting the grassroots revved up again. This is how you're going to be measured, not by how entertaining or cute you are on talk shows. By the same token, I'm not in charge of the Republican Party, and I don't want to be. I would be embarrassed to say that I'm in charge of the Republican Party in the sad-sack state that it's in. If I were chairman of the Republican Party, given the state that it's in, I would quit. I might get out the hari-kari knife because I would have presided over a failure that is embarrassing to the Republicans and conservatives who have supported it and invested in it all these years...

Today's Posts

"Before We Get Started..."

On Diagnosing Barack Obama's Narcissism

Despite Obama's Blather, Lobbyists are Looting America

Senator Bob Casey: Another "Catholic" Democrat Voting for Abortion

"Life is Cheap on Britain's Streets." But Could There Be a Change in the Wind?

Former Miss North Dakota, Freelance Journalist Roxana Saberi Being Held Incommunicado In Iran

Women's Tennis Association Takes Action Against Anti-Semitism

Before We Get Started...

You'll see from the next post ("On Diagnosing Barack Obama's Narcissism") that I've been thinking about matters psychological this morning and it prompted me to remember one of my favorite psychiatrist cartoons.

On Diagnosing Barack Obama's Narcissism

There's a brief article making the e-mail rounds concerning the over-the-edge narcissism of Barack Obama. The brief article quotes a Dr. Samuel Vaknin who we're told "has written extensively about narcissism" but there's no explanation of who Dr. Vaknin is or even references as to where these quotations come from.

However, just a cursory internet search brought me to a lengthy article by Dr. Vaknin at a place called Global Politician which "is the first in a series of articles examining Obama's psychological makeup in minute detail."

But hold on a sec.

For my search also took me to Dr. Vaknin's own web site and, though it's clear the fellow is immersed in the subject of narcissism and has written a couple of books (apparently self-published) about the topic, I couldn't find where he received his Ph.D or in what field.

What I did discover at the bottom of his long web site is that he is "certified in Psychological Counseling Techniques by Brainbench." Huh? Brainbench turns out to be simply an employment consultant company.

Also there at the bottom of Dr. Vaknin's web site you can find links to his other web sites (about 10 in all) including The World in Conflict and Transition (Politics, Cultures, Economies, and Societies Of the Balkans, Middle East, and Central and Eastern Europe); Philosophical Musings and Essays; The Silver Lining - Moral Deliberations in Films; Poetry of Healing and Abuse: My Poems; and perhaps the only one I'd be tempted to check out, Buy Handmade Folk Ethnic Embroidery from Macedonia.

The guy has diverse interests anyhow and that's certainly good. After all, thinking about Narcissistic Personality Disorder all the time can really do a number on you.

Oh, yeah; one more thing you might want to consider in evaluating how authentic are Dr. Vaknin's diagnoses of Barack Obama's psychological problems. There towards the bottom of that long web site, Dr. Vaknin provides a link to an interesting legal disclaimer: "In publishing this Web site, the author makes no representations concerning the efficacy, appropriateness or suitability of any products or treatments. Use this site at your own risk. The author of this Web site, is not a mental health professional and has no relevant background or training in psychology or psychiatry."

Yes, well. I was beginning to suspect that.

However, do any of these discoveries mean that we don't have to worry about our new president being narcissistic? That he may indeed be just as full of himself as are the MSM reporters who cover him?

Of course not. But Obama's naive egoism has been on public display ad nauseum for two years now. It's yesterday's papers: the two autobiographies, the preening, the messianic rhetoric, the Brandenburg Gate, the use of the royal "we" -- and on and on. You don't need a Brainbench certification to understand that Barack Obama is an insufferably narcissistic bore; you only need to review the record (as NiceDeb did here clear back last summer) or take a look at the nearest newsstand.

Despite Obama's Blather, Lobbyists are Looting America

John Hinderaker at Power Line:

Barack Obama has a remarkable ability to utter howlers with a straight face, but this one from today's radio address, talking about his proposed budget, stretched even his flexible standards of truth: "These steps won't sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business. I know they're gearing up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is this: So am I."

As Obama well knows, lobbyists all over Washington are lighting cigars with $50 bills at the prospect of having $3.7 trillion worth of spoils to divvy up. Obama must think the American people--his supporters, anyway--are complete idiots.

Senator Bob Casey: Another "Catholic" Democrat Voting for Abortion

Here's a letter from the Catholic Bishop of Scranton, Pennsylvania, Joseph F. Martino, to one of those Democrat politicians who (remarkably) claims to be pro-life but yet votes pro-abortion, Senator Bob Casey. My congratulations to the bishop for the well-written letter. May many, many other clergy (Roman Catholic and beyond) start to get serious about opposing those politicians who are, with their convoluted, crass, and cowardly promotion of abortion and its attendant evils, blaspheming God and destroying America.

Dear Senator Casey,

It is a matter of deep concern that your recent vote against the Mexico City Policy is continually misrepresented by your staff as a pro-life vote intended to promote “contraception and other family planning that avoid unintended pregnancies” (Times-Tribune, February 6, 2009).

The Mexico City Policy is, first and foremost, about abortion, not about family planning. First put in place in 1984, the policy required all non-governmental organizations that receive federal funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortion services abroad. The policy required such organizations to agree as a condition for receiving U.S. foreign aid dollars that they would “neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.” The policy included exceptions for abortions done in cases of rape, incest or life-threatening conditions.

Furthermore, the Mexico City Policy did not take funds away from family planning; its effect is quite the opposite. Tom McCluskey of the Family Research Council reported the following: “. . .The Mexico City policy halts U.S. family planning funds from going to foreign . . . [NGOs] that perform abortions or ‘actively promote’ abortion as a method of family planning in other countries. . . The effect of President Obama rescinding the Mexico City Policy is that now millions ($461 million in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008) of dollars are taken away from family planning groups that do not promote abortions, and delivered into the hands of organizations that are the most militant in promoting abortion as a population-control method—especially in countries that find abortion objectionable on moral grounds” (my emphasis).

Contrary to the claims of your staff, the absence of “Mexico City” regulations insures (1) that money is taken away from family planning, (2) that abortion is promoted as a method of family planning, and (3) that countries that have moral and cultural objections to abortion are encouraged to abandon their policies against it.

Finally, it is never permissible to use immoral means such as artificial contraception to achieve a good end, namely, the reduction of unplanned pregnancies. In fact, the mistaken view that artificial contraception may be used to regulate population growth and the size of families has led to countless evils in America and abroad, including the attitude that having and raising children is a burden to be avoided. This attitude has contributed mightily to the acceptability of abortion as a means of contraception both at home and abroad.

My letter of January 30 urging you to rescind your vote on the Mexico City Policy was in no way mistaken regarding the nature and the effect of President Obama’s order to rescind America’s long-standing policy to avoid using U.S. tax dollars to support organizations that promote abortion abroad. It is imperative that this fact be made known to the public. It is also imperative that there be utter clarity when it comes to the teaching of the Church on matters that pertain to the taking of innocent life and the special responsibilities that fall to you, Senator, as a lawmaker to oppose abortion and other clear evils.

In closing, I refer you to the words of Cardinal Francis George, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, to President Obama urging him to retain the Mexico City Policy. The Mexico City Policy . . . has wrongly been attacked as a restriction on foreign aid for family planning. In fact, it has not reduced such aid at all, but has ensured that family planning funds are not diverted to organizations dedicated to performing and promoting abortions instead of reducing them.

Once the clear line between family planning and abortion is erased, the idea of using family planning to reduce abortions becomes meaningless, and abortion tends to replace contraception as the means for reducing family size. A shift toward promoting abortion in developing nations would also increase distrust of the United States in these nations, whose values and culture often reject abortion, at a time when we need their trust and respect (January 23, 2009).

Sincerely,
Most Reverend Joseph F. Martino, D.D., Hist. E.D.
Bishop of Scranton

"Life is Cheap on Britain's Streets." But Could There Be a Change in the Wind?

I first met Stuart Cunliffe 16 or 17 years ago when Claire and I were in Manchester, England speaking in behalf of Christ-centered pro-life ministries. Stuart was working with a new group called IMAGE, an evangelical organization committed to pro-life education, direct assistance to women and families faced with an unexpected pregnancy, chastity promotion, and more. It was a group very much in line with the values of Vital Signs Ministries and we quickly became fast friends with Stuart, Jim and Christine Fidler, Sue Dray, Dr. Greg Gardner over in Birmingham, and others. And fast friends we remain.

We're proud to say too that IMAGE has gone on to have a terrific impact for the Kingdom there in Great Britain. And as Vital Signs blog and other sources share the good things they're doing, I'm sure the impact of IMAGE will go beyond even the borders of the U.K.

And speaking of an impact which goes beyond borders, I must return to Stuart Cunliffe and tell you about his new blog, Diary of a WIP (Work in Progress). It's interesting, informative, and inspirational -- and it will make a nice addition to your bookmarks so you can check it out with regularity.

To whet your intellectual appetite, here is the latest essay from Diary of a WIP.

Life is cheap on Britain's streets. There aren't enough prisons to hold all the prisoners. The land is awash with drugs. The Government is mired in sleaze. The rate of unwanted teenage pregnancies is out of control. There is an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases. Each year the number of abortions beats the previous year's record.

Dr John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, appealed in the Daily Mail a couple of weeks ago for England to wake up and remember how Christianity has been at the heart of the history of this nation.

Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester, said in the Sunday Telegraph: "It is time for a movement of Christians that will put the Christian case vigorously in public debate, that will remind the nation of its Christian heritage, that will make a difference where there is human need and, yes, that will commit itself to prayer in schools, hospitals, prisons, workplaces, Parliament and the streets so that people may experience again the blessing of God on this country."

Eighty Christian leaders met recently in the House of Lords to consider the moral and spiritual implications of the financial crisis. They felt strongly that the financial situation is primarily the result of the pursuit of moral choices and values that do not accord with the word of God; that God is calling all churches in Britain to a season of prayer and fasting for the nation; and that the Christian church should reach out to those who are already suffering as a result of the financial crisis.

Today, this very day, Christian leaders are meeting in Westminster to seek God for the way forward. It was hoped to have a thousand Christian leaders present. A series of seven prayer nights have just been held across London to pray for the capital and the nation.

Can it be that something is beginning to happen? Turn off the television for a minute. Switch off the news bulletins on the radio. Listen carefully. Can you hear a rustling in the undergrowth?

Can it be that God is not finished with the homeland of John Wesley, George Whitefield, William Carey, David Livingstone, Florence Nightingale, Lord Shaftesbury and William Wilberforce?

Millions of Christians are not yet marching in Britain's streets. But then, it might not take millions. The Bible is full of stories of a valiant few who, under God, have "subdued kingdoms, worked righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, became valiant in battle, turned to flight the armies of the aliens."

Can it be that the tide is beginning to turn?

Pray with me and dare to hope.

Former Miss North Dakota, Freelance Journalist Roxana Saberi Being Held Incommunicado In Iran

Roxana Saberi, a former Miss North Dakota and a top ten finalist in the Miss America pageant, turned her attention to journalism and has been a successful freelance reporter living in Iran, filing stories and pictures for the BBC, National Public Radio and other media. According to her father, she was also writing a book about Iran and had planned to return home, after living in Iran since 2003, this year.

But Saberi has been arrested and is being held incommunicado by Iranian police. In a phone call from Saberi to her father on Feb. 10 (the last anyone has heard from her), she said the arrest was for buying a bottle of wine but just this morning Iranian officials finally announced there's more involved. "Foreign ministry spokesman Hassan Ghashghavi did not confirm or deny whether Roxana Saberi, 31, was being detained by the Iranian authorities, but said her activities were 'illegal'."

A few minutes after that Feb. 10th call, Saberi had phoned her parents again and asked "Please don't do anything because they'll release me in two days." She had already been detained 10 days by that point. And there's been nothing since then save this terse, unhelpful response from Iran this morning.

The Associated Press reports, "Human rights groups have repeatedly criticized Iran for arresting journalists and suppressing freedom of speech. The government has arrested several Iranian-Americans in the past few years, citing alleged attempts to overthrow its Islamic regime. The most high-profile case came in 2007, when Iran arrested four Iranian-Americans, including the academic Haleh Esfandiari. The four were imprisoned or had their passports confiscated for several months until they were released and allowed to return to the U.S."

Saberi earned a double major in French and Communication in 1997 from Concordia College in Moorhead, Minnesota; earned a Master's Degree in Broadcast Journalism from Northwestern University in Chicago; and in 2000, Roxana earned another Master's Degree in International Relations from Cambridge University in England.

Women's Tennis Association Takes Action Against Anti-Semitism

I've been remiss in filing a follow-up to the anti-Semitic fiasco created by the United Arab Emirates when they refused a visa to Israeli tennis player Shahar Peer, thus eliminating her from the Dubai Tennis Championships. It's a story which prompted first a news post here on Vital Signs and then an action-oriented post designed to urge the Women's Tennis Association to do the right thing and get tough with the UAE.

Well, bless their hearts; they did.

The WTA ended up fining the organizers of the event $300,000 (more than double any previous fine), declaring that a portion of it will be used for Peer and her doubles partner, Germany's Anna-Lena Groenefeld, to make up for the prize money they might have won at the tournament. The rest will go to a charity chosen by the WTA and Peer.

"I think what we hope with this decision is that we're sending a very clear message that we're not going to tolerate discrimination of any kind," tour CEO Larry Scott told The Associated Press. "We wanted to send a clear signal that this is the most egregious action the world of tennis has seen in recent history. And we felt that it should be at least double what the previous highest penalty was."

Also, the tournament organizers will be required to put up a $2 million "performance guarantee" before hosting the next Dubai Tennis Championships.

Commendations are in order to the WTA.