Exposing the Bias
The latest effort by the radical pro-abortion's to affect public opinion arrives in the form of a pseudo-scientific study regarding "fetal pain" published in the August 24, 2005 edition of the journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). For a detailed examination check out NRLC's website on fetal pain.
The readiness of the mainstream media to announce to the world the findings of a so-called independent study that disproves the argument that the unborn child (whom the pro-aborts will always refer to as 'the fetus"), once again reminds all of us of their inherent and visceral bias against the unborn child, the pro-life movement and telling the truth.
Note that there has never been any unbiased reporting on the causal connection between breast cancer and induced abortion.
Note that there has been an uncanny silence about the harmful effects of the abortion drug RU-486 and the number of women that have died after taking the medication.
Note that there has been little if any coverage by the mainstream media of the thousands of abortions done on teen-age girls who were made pregnant from older adult men who took them for their abortion in order to keep the crime a secret.
Note that there is little if any coverage of new polls that reveal the mood of the nation becoming increasingly pro-life.
The institutional bias of the mainstream media, the bureaucrats in government, those in secondary and higher education and those in the legal and medical professions has been a significant roadblock in getting the message to the American people. However, the cracks are beginning to show. The rise of the alternative media, that is, talk radio, the internet websites, blogging and email provide an opportunity for those of us who truly care about America and her future to act for the benefit of all.
"Now is the time for all good people to come to the aid of their country. " I'm sorry but how many of you have ever even heard of this line. Yet it is so true.
We need you to stand up for life, to make a stand, to get involved now.
Contact JAMA and tell the editors that the journal should star reporting the truth and not be a propaganda machine.
To the credit of some journalists,
the effort by JAMA to promote this pro-abortion tripe was exposed. The lead author -Susan J. Lee, a medical student once worked for NARAL , one of the major pro-abortion organizations in the country, the same group that launched the lie-filled ad against Judge Roberts a few weeks ago. The article is nothing more than a pro-abortion promotion piece. There is no real scientific information and the authors include a prominent San Francisco abortionist.
The good news is that we are catching them at the lies and calling them on it. With the new media, the message can be heard.
The bad new is that they are still killing babies every day.
Examine your life.
Join us to stop the killing.
Join us for the AZRTL Conference
This is just a reminder to mark your calendars for September 9, 10 2005 and plan to join Arizona Right to Life
for its annual State Conference
at the Chaparrel Suites Conference center in Scottsdale, AZ located at North Scottsdale and Chaparrel Roads. The conference begins Friday night at 7:00 pm with a concert and talk by Jeff Steinberg
. The next day will feature Alvida King as our keynote speaker, together with Dr. Jackie Chadwick, Kristen Day, Tom Marzen, John Mark Reynolds, Dr. Clinton Leonard, who will address subjects as diverse as stem cell research, end of life issues, and the political challenges facing both political parties.
As always there will be tables from members of the pro life community providing information and opportunities for greater involvement in the most important civil rights work of our time.
The cost is quite modest and for what you get is the best bargain of the season. For only $60 (early registration) you get a concert on Friday, continental breakfast and a full lunch and some top notch speakers on the most salient issues of the day.
So please join me for an exciting and motivational weekend in beautiful Scottsdale as we strive to build a culture of life for our children and our country.
Embracing the Truth
Now that NARAL has pulled its false ad regarding Judge Roberts, we once again are reminded how important truth really is to the process and the eventual outcome of a given situation. With the Democratic leadership stun from the fallout of its opposition to such a stellar candidate, the fallback position had been to keep the support for Roberts as low as possible and therefore signal to the White House not to choose a more conservative candidate for any future vacancies. The public chastisement of NARAL for their blatant false advertising has done nothing to help this strategy. The outcome will be, absent any surprises, that Judge Roberts will be confirmed and the White House will have protected its ability to nominate someone of the caliber of Luttig, Alito, Garza, Jones or even Owen. The efforts by the left to discredit Roberts have failed.
This brings us back to the notion of "truth" and embracing the truth. For anyone involved in the pro-life movement, the first truth is that opposition to abortion, euthanasia, and assisted suicide is not predicated upon any particular religious tenant. Those who believe in God and those who do not believe in God can agree that killing innocent human beings is a bad thing to do. The basis for this position in American jurisprudence is found in our Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution. So no one need apologize for arguing a pro-life position from the basis of law. We may separate all that is into two categories - person or property. The law requires that we respect the inalienable rights of persons and the first right is the right to life. This explains why the law is currently in crisis at all levels. There is a major incongruity in the law that allows for the killing of unborn infants. This "permission" to kill came from the Supreme Court in its 1973 ruling called Roe v. Wade. What is seldom said in any discussion on Roe is that a Court does not have the authority in law, in other words, cannot "give" permission or "create" a right that causes harm to an innocent human being. It may have the power, primarily through acquiescence by the other branches of government and the people, but such actions violate the natural law.
The truth is that we all know it is killing. Modern technical advances in ultrasound clearly show the child in the womb. Genetic research proves the unique conception of each person. Only the truly deceitful would ever argue in 2005 that abortion does not take the life of a human being.
So the abortion lobby has been forced to avoid this issue and talk about the concept of "choice." It is after all so 'American' - so 'freedom' sounding. And it allows people to avoid getting involved in a major political and civil rights issue. Since most people are busy enough trying to get by each day, the last thing anyone needs to hear is that they must do something to protect the common good. No offense - but that is a reflection of human nature.
Here is where the truth applies once again.
The stories abound of women being harmed by abortion. For years it was difficult to get the word out. However, with the advances in alternative media distribution via talk radio and the internet, the documented stories of women dying or being seriously injured from abortion and RU-486 abortions are getting more notoriety. Soon, the mainstream media will be unable to ignore the truth.
Abortion hurts women.
It is sad to think that 32 years of legal abortion has killed over 40,000,000 human beings just in the U.S. alone. The tragedy of abortion is not simply that a mother has killed her child, or that a society has adopted a culture of death. It is also the ripple effect - the long term impact that an evil will have on the future generations. The long term damage of the Holocaust on Europe is still seen today. The systematic killing of human beings affects a culture - any culture. Only the truth will set us free. Only a recognition of what we have done and what we need to do will provide us with hope for tomorrow. Only a willingness to embrace the truth will give us the peace that each one of us needs to be truly free.
NARAL's outrageous lies and the Media that propagates them
The latest in the battle over the soul of America and the destiny of this country focuses on an advertisement being placed by NARAL on mainstream media outlets in the Northeast in an effort to influence pro abortion Republican senators from Maine and Rhode Island.
The problem with the advertisement is that is is a series of out and out lies and fabrications. Now you and I know that NARAL, NOW and Planned Parenthood are notorious for fabrications and distortions. They have built an empire on deceiving the American people. They have had the help of the mainstream media for the last 40 years. Only now with the rise of alternative news operations, the rise of talk radio and the internet have the American people been able to separate fact from fiction. Ironically the abortion lobby is still living in its own dream world and does not realize that we can see that the "emperor has no clothes."
I will leave it to the release obtained from NRLC to identify the lies. I have predicted that the pro-abortion extremists would attack Roberts because he will be a justice who will interpret the Constitution and not create law. I will also say that the attacks by the extreme left only solidify my opinion that Roberts will be sympathetic to the pro-life perspective as it relates to the Constitution. If he is as brilliant as everyone professes, then he will agree that Roe is bad law and not found in the Constitution.
Meanwhile former Planned Parenthood president Gloria Feldt spoke on the O'Riley Factor and justified NARAL's deception. So what else is new. More on that later.
NARAL Falsely Accuses Supreme Court Nominee Roberts
Attack ad says he supported an abortion-clinic bomber and excused violence. In fact, Roberts called clinic bombers ÂcriminalsÂ who should be prosecuted fully.
August 9, 2005
Modified: August 9, 2005
An abortion-rights group is running an attack ad accusing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of filing legal papers Âsupporting . . . a convicted clinic bomberÂ and of having an ideology that Âleads him to excuse violence against other AmericansÂ It shows images of a bombed clinic in Birmingham, Alabama.
The ad is false.
And the ad misleads when it says Roberts supported a clinic bomber. It is true that Roberts sided with the bomber and many other defendants in a civil case, but the case didn't deal with bombing at all. Roberts argued that abortion clinics who brought the suit had no right use an 1871 federal anti-discrimination statute against anti-abortion protesters who tried to blockade clinics. Eventually a 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court agreed, too. Roberts argued that blockades were already illegal under state law.
The images used in the ad are especially misleading. The pictures are of a clinic bombing that happened nearly seven years after Roberts signed the legal brief in question.
NARAL Pro-Choice America released a new ad focusing on John Roberts, President Bush's nominee to fill Sandra Day O'Connor's vacant Supreme Court position, called "Speaking Out," on August 8. NARAL said it plans to buy half a million dollars worth of airtime in coming weeks on national cable networks, as well as well as on networks in Maine and Rhode Island.
NARAL Pro-Choice America TV ad, "Speaking Out"
Announcer: Seven years ago, a bomb destroyed a women's health clinic in Birmingham, Alabama.
(On screen: Footage of bombed clinic)
(Tex on screen: New Woman/All Women Health Clinic; January 28, 1998)
Emily Lyons: When a bomb ripped through my clinic, I almost lost my life.
Announcer: Supreme Court nominee John Roberts filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber.
(On screen: Footage of Roberts; image of April 11, 1991 brief from Bray v. Alexandria)
(Text on screen: Roberts filed court brief supporting clinic protestors)
Emily Lyons: I'm determined to stop this violence so I'm speaking out.
Announcer: Call your Senators. Tell them to oppose John Roberts. America can't afford a Justice whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans.
The ad shows images of a bombed clinic before a woman identified as Emily Lyons appears on screen, saying "I nearly lost my life." An announcer says, "Supreme Court nominee John Roberts filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber".The announcer then urges viewers to "call your Senators" and "tell them to oppose John Roberts" because we "can't afford a Justice whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans."
A False Implication
In words and images, the ad conveys the idea that Roberts took a legal position excusing bombing of abortion clinics, which is false. To the contrary, during the Reagan administration when he was Associate Counsel to the President, Roberts drafted a memo saying abortion-clinic bombers "should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law." In the 1986 memo, Roberts called abortion bombers "criminals" and "misguided individuals," indicating that they would get no special treatment regarding requests for presidential pardons. Reagan in fact gave no pardons to abortion-clinic bombers.
The 1986 draft is on file at the Reagan library. The White House furnished a copy to FactCheck.org. (See "supporting documents" at right.)
Seven Years Earlier
The ad fails to mention that the "court briefs" it mentions are actually from nearly seven years before the abortion clinic bombing talked about in the ad. The woman in the ad, Emily Lyons, was injured by a bomb blast at the New Woman/All Women Health Clinic in Birmingham on January 28, 1998 that also killed an off-duty police officer. The bomber was Eric Rudolph, who was captured in May 2003 after a five-year manhunt. Rudolph pleaded guilty and in July 2005 was sentenced to two consecutive life terms without parole.
The brief that Roberts signed, and on which the NARAL ad is based, is from another matter entirely. It is dated April 11, 1991. Furthermore, it is from a civil lawsuit brought by abortion clinics against protesters who were blockading the clinics. Bombing was not an issue.
Supporting Anti-abortion Groups?
The ad contends that Roberts "filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber." Indeed, Roberts' name appears on the "friend of the court" brief in Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic that the ad shows. But what Roberts was supporting wasn't violence or bombing or even the behavior that was the subject of the lawsuit - blockades of clinics. In fact, Roberts went out of his way to say that the blockaders were trespassing, which is a violation of state law. What Roberts argued was that a federal anti-discrimination law couldn't be used against abortion blockaders because they weren't discriminating against women Â they were blockading men, too.
Roberts was serving as Deputy Solicitor General in the administration of George H.W. Bush. He was one of six Justice Department officials who submitted the brief on behalf of the United States government.
The case began as a lawsuit against protestors who hold "antiabortion demonstrations in which participants trespass on, and obstruct general access to" abortion clinics by blocking the entrances and exits. Lawyers for abortion clinics took the position that the protesters conspired to violate the civil rights of women. There was no disagreement that the protestors had committed a state crime by protesting on the private property of clinics. Upon appeal, the question was whether the protestors also violated federal law by intentionally denying women equal protection under the law and prevented them from exercising their constitutional right to interstate travel.
In Roberts' brief, and in oral arguments he made in person before the Supreme Court, the government argued that a particular part of U.S. law (Section 1985(3) of Title 42, which derived from the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871) applied only to conspiracies to deprive people of civil rights due to racial discrimination, not gender discrimination. They also argued that the protestors did "not aim their anti-abortion activities exclusively at women" but "at anyone, whether male or female, who assists or is involved in the abortion process Â doctors, nurses, counselors, boyfriends, husbands and family members, staffs, and others." The court, in a 6-3 decision, ultimately agreed with much of the government's argument, saying that "the characteristic that formed the basis of the targeting" for protest "was not womanhood, but the seeking of abortion," which is entirely voluntary. The court also found that the protestors did not engage in a conspiracy to deprive women of their civil rights.
To be sure, anti-abortion protestors saw the court's decision as a victory. It made them subject only to state actions for simple trespassing on the clinic's private property rather than for federal claims involving civil rights violations, at least as long as the protests stayed non-violent and didn't raise charges of assault or inciting to riot. But the ruling and the argument that led to hardly excuses violence, as the NARAL ad falsely claims. Nowhere in Roberts' court brief or oral arguments does he defend or excuse acts of violence.
Guilt by Association
The ad uses the classic tactic of guilt by association, linking Roberts with "violent fringe groups" and a "convicted . . . bomber" because he made the same legal arguments as they did in the case. But, contrary to the ad's message, Roberts didn't argue in favor of them or their actions.
The "fringe group" in question is Operation Rescue, a zealously antiabortion group that had a history of staging confrontational protests around the country, and which the lawsuit was aimed at stopping. Originally led by Randall Terry, Operation Rescue protesters would stand in front of local abortion clinics, sometimes screaming "Mommy, mommy," waving crucifixes, and pleading with pregnant women to turn away. They sometimes pressed against car doors to keep pregnant women from getting out. Hundreds would go limp to make it more difficult for police to clear them away. More than 40,000 people were arrested in these demonstrations over four years.
Although these methods in some ways mirrored the non-violent tactics used earlier by civil-rights activists, some saw Operation Rescue's actions as relying on the threat of violence, at least. In his dissent, Justice Stevens, describes the protests as instances where Âthe duly constituted authorities are rendered ineffective, and mob violence prevails.Â Justice OÂConnor, in her own dissent, spoke of "the threat of mob violence" raised by the blockaders.
The ad also links Roberts to a "convicted clinic bomber." That refers to Michael Bray, one of those named in the lawsuit. (His wife's name came first alphabetically, which is why the case is called Bray vs. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic in the first place). Bray himself had been convicted years earlier, in 1985, of conspiracy and possessing unregistered explosive devices in connection to a series of 10 bombings at abortion clinics in Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and Washington D.C. He eventually served just under 4 years in prison. In 1993 he wrote a book titled A Time to Kill , which argues that killing abortion providers is morally justified.
Whatever one thinks of Bray, Terry, or Operation Rescue, it is misleading to say that Roberts supported them. He was not their attorney; the protestors had their own attorney, Jay Alan Sekulow, for that. Roberts argued the government's position.
NARAL would have every right to say that Roberts argued for a legal result with which they disagreed. They could also say accurately that many persons, including three Supreme Court justices, also disagreed and saw a threat of "mob violence" going unchecked because of that position. But it is false to suggest that Roberts supported the actions of "violent" groups or clinic bombers because he argued that a law aimed at the Ku Klux Klan could not be used against those who blockade abortion clinics.
Footnote: Soon after the Supreme Court ruled in the case, Congress passed a new law specifically aimed at the blockaders. The 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinics Entrances (FACE) act, signed by President Clinton, makes it a federal crime to use force, "threat of force," or "physical obstruction" to injure, intimidate, or interfere with anyone "obtaining or providing reproductive health services." That act in part gave rise to state legislatures and court systems creating so-called "buffer zones" that force protestors to stay a certain distance away from health clinics, which the Supreme Court has allowed to stand.
--by Matthew Barge
"Rudolph gets life for Birmingham clinic attack," CNN.com, 18 July 2005
Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health, U.S. Supreme Court, 506 U.S. 263, 13 January 1993
Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners, Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health, U.S. Supreme Court, 11 April 1991
Oral Argument, Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health, U.S. Supreme Court, 16 October 1991
Oral Argument, Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health, U.S. Supreme Court, 06 October 1992
National Organization for Women v. Operation Rescue, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 914 F.2d 582, 19 September 1990
Guy Taylor, "Court won't rule on clinic buffer zones," Washington Times, 19 April 2005
Michael Powell, "Randall Terry Fights Gay Unions. His Son No Longer Will, Washington Post 22 April 2004: C1.
"Lessons from my sister"
Bobby Schindler spoke at St.Thomas the Apostle parish hall on August 4, 2005.
He addressed the many issues dealing with his sister's death and the lessons learned from this whole tragedy.
ARTL thanks Bobby for coming to town and teaching us on the importance of keeping God at the center of our lives.
Senator Sam Brownback paid a short visit to the Valley yesterday and stopped at the Arizona Right to Life office to meet with some pro-life leaders and supporters who took time from their day to speak with the Senator on a variety of issues, including the Roberts' nomination, embryonic stem cell research and the issue of funding pro-abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood.
We appreciate the Senator's dedication to the pro life cause. We will continue to support those in congress who stand for the protection of the weak, the defenseless and the oppressed, in other words, the unborn child and her mother.
Senator Frist's reversal of position on destructive embryonic stem cell research is another clear example of why Washington should not be in the funding business. Clearly the senator from Tennessee is not aware of the fact that not one single dollar spent on destructive embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) has saved a life. Everything thus far is "blue sky' and all theoretical ( "Blue sky" means that there is no evidence the idea will work, pan out, deliver - but there is all this speculation and promise and if it works - wow).
compare that with the research on adult stem cells and the lives saved are already in the tens of thousands.
Just an aside - with this change of position - vanishes whatever slim hope Frist might have entertained in running for president.
All the hype about ESCR is just that - hype. And it is all about trying to reduce the humanity of the unborn child. Realizing that the next generation of Americans is more pro-life than their parents, the various powers that support the abortion are trying to focus on the single cell human to reduce the natural concerns we have for our fellow human beings. Stressing the so-called helping arguments, the idea is to misdirect and confuse the public.
While it may confuse politicians and media folks, the truth is that ESCR has not saved anyone and is only a financial boondoggle for those who want government pork.
Sen. Frist should know better. Yet considering how he botched the confirmations of the appellate judges this spring, it is not unusual for the confusion to once again raise its head in Washington.