Friday, July 28, 2006

Clarifying the subject of stem cell research

In our continuing effort to provide "clarity" to borrow a phrase from Dennis Prager, this column has addressed the confusion propagated by the media regarding the position of both the pro-life movement and the Catholic Church on stem cell research. Recently Fr. Thad Pacholczyk spoke in Denver on this very subject. Fr. Pacholczyk is from Tucson and spoke last year in Phoenix on the same subject. I recommend you read anything and everything written by Fr. Pacholczyk on this issue. He is one of the leading experts in the country.

Making Exceptions

Over the years there have been many political candidates who claimed to be pro-life. Some embraced the position of major pro-life organizations. Others articulated a sound appreciation on the importance of acknowledging and respecting the life of the unborn child from the moment of conception. Then there are those who try to create their own terms and their own spin on what it means to be pro-life. They do this in order to have the wiggle room when confronting different groups. Many are simply trying to get the support of the group they are addressing.

I remember in 1976 when Jimmy Carter was running for president and he addressed the Iowa pro-life democrats prior to the Iowa Caucus. He spoke to them eloquently about his Christian beliefs and how abortion was wrong. They did not press him to sign on the dotted line but swooned over the prospect of a pro-life Democrat candidate (which as an aside was a lot more common in those days than is now). He won the primary and went on to win the White House against a pro-abortion Gerald Ford. But Carter was one of those "personally opposed" politicians who did not allow his so-called personal objections to abortion prevent him from embracing a pro-abortion ethic.

We had the same thing happen in 1980 when the late Barry Goldwater was in a battle for his political life with real estate developer Bill Schulz. Schulz had the momentum and the money. He was younger than Goldwater who was not pro-life. But he contacted Arizonans for Life, the political action committee and wanted our endorsement. Only if he signed on the line stating he would support a human life amendment which was the unity amendment language of NRLC would the group consider such a move. He agreed and asked for the document to brought to his home where he signed it. The PAC endorsed him and he won by a very small margin, the victory could be attributed to the pro-life support. But Barry Goldwater was not a man of his word. He reneged on his promise after six months. Integrity was not his strong suit.

So when we look at candidates, look at their record and their history. The good news is that we do have "conversions," people who come to recognize the humanity of the child and the importance of protecting the child. They are the first to realize that their past pro-abortion position was wrong and are willing to go the extra mile.

Then there are those who try to and sometimes do use us. Their actions generally expose their motivations.

But when it comes to exceptions to permit abortion, with today's modern medical procedures, there are no situations where one needs to intentionally kill the child to protect the life of the mother. And it is never permissible to kill a child simply because the child was conceived through an act of violence against the mother. A candidate for public office who thinks that there should be exceptions for rape and incest does not fully embrace the pro-life message. He cannot claim to understand completely what being pro-life is all about. There is never a good reason to kill an innocent child. Certainly the means by which he or she came into being is not an acceptable reason to kill him or her. Love is the only viable response to a conception occurring from rape or incest; love for the mother, and love for the child. As for the perpetrator of the foul deed, punishment is the required response.

A society is judged by how it treats the most vulnerable of its members. The child conceived in rape should not be killed but loved. The woman victimized by violence should not perpetrate more violence to another innocent but should stop the cycle of violence by embracing life and love. Such an action will underscore the fact that she and her baby have a right to life and she will be the hero to her child for giving him or her life.

Arizona Right to Life works to educate candidates on understanding this message and why one must be consistent if one is to be truly pro-life. It is not consistent to say abortion is wrong, BUT it is ok for rape and incest. It is illogical and candidly panders to our more base instincts. Such laws were of modern vintage and primarily in the South.

Modern science shows us the miracle of life.
Our moral heritage compels us to respect the right to life of every human person.
Our legal existence as a nation held these truths to be self-evident.
There are no exceptions.
Either every innocent human person has a right to life, or none of us do.

So when a candidate claims to be pro-life but wants to have a rape exception, challenge him or her or that point. Explain that such a position is not pro-life. Make it a teaching moment. For remember, we seek to change hearts and minds so that all may embrace the truth.

Thursday, July 27, 2006

Len Munsil - class act

Everyone who has read this blog know that I support Len Munsil for governor.
I have known him all of his adult life and he is a man of integrity and honor.
I hope everyone who reads this blog will support him and work for him. He wants to address the real issues and is the only Republican candidate who can unseat the current governor.

His "performance" during the debate last week highlighted his qualifications. Now his comments on the current crime problem further reveal his approach to problem solving. He is not interested in the pettiness of the reporters' questions as some of them shill for Janet. He won't lower himself to personal attacks. He simply asks serious questions about the efforts of those in positions of power.

The press may ignore Len Munsil but the people of this state want someone who can do the job with honor.

Since Janet was complicit with the situation that led to a 14 year old ward of the court going to Kansas to have a late term abortion of her 28 week old unborn baby, I suspect that her approach to crime is politically tinted. At one time the law held that killing an unborn child to be a felony throughout this country. In Arizona the law still on the books holds abortion to be a crime, albeit unenforceable. Yet Janet Napolitano supports abortion. She supports the killing of unborn human beings and she opposes efforts by the people to put even minor restrictions on such behavior.

Len Munsil, on the other hand, respects the sanctity of all human life, born and unborn. As governor he will protect all the children from those who would cause them harm. Further he would protect mothers from being victimized by predatory abortionists who prowl through the state seeking the ruin of lives.

So as you become more aware of the ongoing campaign, tell your friends and co-workers to support Len Munsil for governor..

Using language effectively

There has been a lot of discussion in the media about stem cell research. Much of the conversation has been about the use of federal funds for research. Those in support of such funding use the terminology “stem cell research" and as such do not differentiate between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells. Perhaps it would also be appropriate to add the word "human" to the equation, as it would seem from the debate that many forget that the embryo is a human being and not simply a cluster of cells.

Human embryonic stem cell research is, by its process, destructive to the nascent human life. In the process of removing the stem cells, the human embryo dies. As the medical textbooks state, each human being begins his or her life at conception or fertilization. From a single cell, each one of us began his or her life. This amazing event and the ensuing journey of this “being” are dismissed by those who would capitalize on an approach to science where the “ends” justifies the “means.”

Destructive human embryonic stem cell research is morally wrong. What makes the efforts by those in the political and scientific community even more frustrating is that there are current avenues of research using adult stem cells that are presently saving lives. Further there is current research not being reported in the popular press revealing that very small embryonic-like stem cells have been found in placental cord blood. These stem cells replicate that which scientists think human embryonic stem cells can do.

Ask yourself – why won’t the media report on this discovery? What is the interest in not reporting that there are viable and valuable alternatives to destructive human embryonic stem cell research?

The answer is because it ultimately relates to abortion.

The pro-abortion elements in this country want to focus the debate on the earliest stages of human life and development. They think – erroneously – that the American people will dismiss the pro-life arguments when the subject at hand is the small human being whose appearance does not “look” like a baby. But the American people while they may not be following the full complexity of the debate are not going to fault President George W. Bush or other office holders for exercising their conscientious duties.

Yet it is not enough for those of us who are pro-life to appreciate that consideration. We have our work before us to explain to the public why destructive human embryonic stem cell research is wrong. We must be able to explain whay it should not be funded by the government. We cannot simply ignore the issue or resist efforts to answer the serious questions being asked.

The first point, however, is to remember that we are talking about human beings. Human embryos are human beings. They are still persons. To quote an old children’s book, “A person’s a person, no matter how small.”

Friday, July 21, 2006

Invited to White House

I had the distinct pleasure of being invited to the White House to hear the President discuss his policy on stem cell research on Wednesday, July 19, 2006, in the East Room. The invitation came at the last minute on Monday, and I flew into Washington D.C. on Tuesday evening on the late flight, which was an hour delayed because of weather conditions over the Midwest.

The flight was interesting, because that evening on the plane, I had an interesting conversation with a gentleman recently admitted to the bar, discussing these current issues. I learned once again that we in the pro-life movement have a great deal of work to do in explaining to the public the facts, and addressing the misconceptions and misunderstandings held by public on this issue. simply put, they are not aware of the incredible work happening within the pro-life community. This gentleman, a very kind and considerate fellow, who was involved in helping amputees from the war, had no idea that the pro-life movement was involved operating crisis pregnancy centers, and assisting women and children after their babies were born. He was not aware of the thousands of small operations throughout the country reaching out and offering hope and healing to women, both prior to and/or after the abortion experience. It is this kind of one-on-one conversation that is necessary in order for us to dispel the prejudicial image created by a media that hates us and wishes us ill.

On Wednesday I arrived at the White House, and had the pleasure of visiting with Johnny Ericson-Tada, an eloquent spokesman for the disabilities community. I saw at least eighteen families with children who were at one time in theri lives "frozen embryos." It was powerful to see the President standing there with moms and dads holding their children as he spoke about the value of the human person, the importance in our Constitution that we recognize the right to life of every human being, and how that right to life is founded in our founding documents, including specifically the Declaration of Independence.

The President said that "boys and girls are not spare parts." Never a truer statement was made. The room was filled with members of the pro-life community, members of the scientific community, ethicist, politicians, and administrative heads of departments, who were all intimately involved in the stem cell research issue. The press was there in all its glory, and it was humorous to hear them constantly telling people to sit down so they could get pictures of the president. The President's remarks were warmly received as he told the audience that he signed the bill to ban the creating of human fetuses for the sole purposes of harvesting the organs.

Bush also received applause as he praised those who would adopt these unborn children, known as "Snowflake Babies,." and have them implanted in their wombs and bring them to term.

The press has tried to make this a wedge issue among pro-lifers, and separate those who would otherwise support the President. In future blogs I will comment on effects of this strategy..

I was very pleased to represent Arizona Right to Life at the White House on July 19, 2006. It was an honor to shake hands with the President of the United States, but it was also an honor to stand with those men and women who have been involved with the pro-life struggle, some for thirty-five years. I was happy to see Jack Wilkie, one of the founders of the National Right to Life Committee and a father of the pro-life movement, present in support of the President's actions. It was also exciting to see the next generation of vibrant young pro-lifers also present and a reminder to the press and this country that the pro-life movement is made up of persons from all backgrounds, all nationalities, all races, all cultures, all creeds and all ages. The one common component is that we believe in the dignity of every human being from conception to the moment of natural death.

President holds the line for life

On Wednesday, July 19, 2006, President Bush exercised his first veto of his administration. He sent back a fatally flawed bill passed by Congress dealing with embryonic stem cell research. This bill crossed the moral and ethical lines by allowing for the destruction of human life. The measure did not meet the publicly stated criteria announced by the White House five years ago. So the president, with the support of the pro-life community, acted to defend innocent human life and vetoed the bill.

During the last five years there has been a constant barrage from throughout the media attacking the pro-life movement and attempting to divide pro-lifers on the subject of embryonic stem cell research. In order to confuse the public, those elements within the media who are hostile to the pro-life movement have misstated, failed to report of otherwise confused the issue.

So, let us approach things quite simply and candidly by noting the following information:

The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act passed by the Congress would have compelled all American taxpayers to fund questionable research that relies on the intentional destruction of human life (human embryos), through the derivation of embryonic stem cells. The current policy in place permits funding for research that uses embryonic stem cell lines that were created prior to August 9, 2001. Those human lives (human embryos) have been already destroyed. What the President was hoping that Congress would do was to pass legislation that would allow scientific research to continue without violating certain fundamental ethical principles. He directed in his speech at the East Room at the White House yesterday for Secretary of Human Services and the Directors of the National Institute of Health to find ways in which one could pursue scientific research without violating fundamental principles regarding the respect and the dignity of human life.

As the President stated, destroying human life violates fundamental principles upon which this country was founded. Further, the President believes that the Government has a responsibility to use the people's money responsibly in supporting important research that respects moral boundaries and recognizes that current research within those moral boundaries are acceptable. The work that has been done in advancing adult stem cell research and research involving cord blood are just two examples. Indeed, there is current research that supports studies that adult stem cells can mimic the properties of embryonic stem cells.

A current report from the University of Louisville announced that scientists have discovered that certain kinds of adult stem cells that can changes into brain, nerve, heart, muscle and pancreatic cells. This ability to take on the characteristics of other cells is the primary "selling point" for the consideration of using embryonic stem cells. Unfortunately, the use of embryonic stem cells requires of the destruction of unborn children in their earliest stages of life. Scientists from around the world are confirming the University of Louisville's breakthrough. Dr. Mariusz Ratajczak, a leader of the research team and director of the stem cell biology program at the University's James graham brown Cancer Center explained, "A lot of people report the presence of embryonic-like cells in adults." At the University of Illinois, researchers have identified similar embryonic-like stem cells in the umbilical cord. And the researchers in Germany, and the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, have also found similar properties.

As someone who attended the President's speech in Washington D.C., I found strong support within the scientific community to focus on those ethical approaches to stem cell research. I had a short conversation with Dr. Jorge Garcia, an ethicist from Boston College, who discussed the importance of focusing on these moral and ethical issues, and avoiding those questionable ethical scientific methods, which could lead the scientific community down a terrible slippery slope.

I also had the opportunity to talk with two gentlemen who were very much connected with the research being done on these VSELs (Very Small Embryonic-Like cells) that Ratajczak grew in his lab two years ago. It would appear that if the scientific community was to focus on this particular area there may common ground where both the pro-life community and the scientific community could agree..

When one considers the number of lives saved by the current adult stem cell research, one can ask the serious question as to why we should spend precious resources on speculative measures. Dr. Stephen Emerson, chief of hematology and oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, explained to reporters, that if the VSELs and the stem cells can act like the specimens they found in mice and other scientists can duplicate the process, the discovery goes from “very important to "incredibly important."

It is unfortunate that Senator McCain did not understand this, and voted in favor of SB-812. Unfortunately he was not alone. Senator Frist, Senator Hatch, and others failed to observe the important connection between avoiding this type of funding and focusing on funding which will advance and enhance the protection of human life. An appropriate letter to Senator McCain expressing your sentiments is very timely. It should also be phrased in such a manner as to encourage him to have his staff do more research into this area, so that he might correct his misunderstanding, and support legislation that will, in the long run, provide ethical opportunities for the scientific community along with the Federal Government to find cures for diseases which affect our human society.

Thursday, July 06, 2006

More on the September Conference

First of all thanks to prolifeblogs for highlighting the conference.

Now why should you attend this particular conference? Especially if you are from out of town or out of state.

Well, lets look at the line up of speakers.

Scott Klusendorf, Life Training Institute
Janet Folger, Faith2Action
Janet Morana, Priests for Life
Austin Ruse, CFAM
John Mark Reynolds, Biola University
Jim Sedlak, Stop Planned Parenthood
Martin Gillespie, RNC
Jacque Chadwick, University of Arizona
Melanie Welsch, Refuge Clothing

If you haven't heard these folks, then you are in for a treat. If you have, then just think - you can hear them again and get the latest in what is happening on the different pro-life fronts..

And all in the warm friendly setting of Scottsdale, Arizona.

Seriously, at AZRTL we are hoping to offer this conference to our fellow pro life friends from around the country as place where you can get refreshed, renewed and come away with new ideas on how to end the killing and provide hope to a wounded nation.

Imagine the opportunity to speak one on one with these dynamic speakers.
Consider how much you will learn and contribute to the cause.
Make close friends with pro-lifers from other states.
Realize that you are not alone.

And there is a bonus

You can always talk to me.

so check out the website.

I'll see you there.

U.S. Senate to Vote on Key Pro-Life Issues: Human Embryo Research and Parental Notification for Abortion

This is a congressional alert from the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), issued July 6, 2006. For further updates on congressional developments, visit the Legislative Action Center at the NRLC website.
Please note the alert has been edited.

Some very important pro-life votes during the 2005-2006 Congress will occur during July.

On June 29, the Senate reached a unanimous agreement to consider three bills dealing with the use of human embryos and fetuses in stem cell research and other medical research.

In addition, the Senate will soon act on legislation to protect the right of parents to be involved in the abortion decisions of their minor daughters. These votes may occur any time after July 10.

HUMAN EMBRYOS The Senate agreed to consider H.R. 810, a bill to require federal funding of research using stem cells obtained by killing human embryos. This bill, which is strongly opposed by National Right to Life and Arizona Right to Life, would overturn President Bush's pro-life policy against federal funding of any research that requires the killing of human embryos. H.R. 810 passed the House of Representatives on May 24, 2005, by a vote of 238 to 194. Under the agreement reached by the Senate on June 29, the Senate will vote up-or-down on H.R. 810, with no amendments in order. If 60 senators vote to pass the bill, it will be sent to President Bush, who has repeatedly vowed that he will veto it. If fewer than 60 senators vote for the bill, it will be dead for the year.

The Senate agreement also provides for votes on two worthwhile bills, both sponsored by pro-life Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa): S. 3504 and S. 2754. Each will require 60 votes to pass.

S. 3504, the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act, would make it a federal offense for a researcher to use tissue from a human baby who has been gestated in a woman's womb, or an animal womb, for the purpose of providing such tissue. Some researchers have already conducted such "fetus farming" experiments with animals -- for example, by gestating cloned calves to four months and then aborting them to obtain their kidney and heart tissues for transplantation.

S. 2754, the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, would require the National Institutes of Health to support research to try to find methods of creating pluripotent stem cells (which are cells that can be turned into any sort of body tissue) without creating or harming human embryos. All senators should be encouraged to vote against H.R. 810, and in favor of the ban on fetus farming (S. 3504) and the ethical-alternatives bill (S. 2754).

Action item: Tell your senators that you are in favor of research, but not the kinds of research that require the killing of human embryos.

Guidance on how to send messages to your senators appears below.

PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT In addition to the bills described above, the Senate is expected to soon turn to the Child Custody Protection Act (S. 8, S. 403), which would make it a federal offense to transport a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion, if this is done to circumvent a state parental notification or parental consent law. To see a complete list of Senate cosponsors of this bill, click here.

About half of the states have laws in effect to require that a parent must be notified or give consent before an abortion can be performed on a minor daughter. (Because of U.S. Supreme Court requirements, these laws also give the girl the option of going to a state judge to waive the requirement.) These laws are often circumvented when minors cross state lines into neighboring states that do not have parental involvement laws. Indeed, some abortion clinics actively advertise in neighboring states, using avoidance of parental involvement requirements as a selling point.

The Child Custody Protection Act, sponsored by Sen. John Ensign (R-Nv.), would make it a federal offense to transport a minor across states lines to obtain an abortion, if this circumvents a state parental notification or consent requirement.

All senators should be urged to support the Child Custody Protection Act, and to oppose all weakening amendments.

(The House has already passed its own version of parental notification legislation, the NRLC-backed Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, on April 27, 2005, by a vote of 270-157.)

Different Ways to Communicate with Members of Congress

NRLC Website
To communicate quickly and effectively with your senators' offices, you can use the NRLC Legislative Action Center on the NRLC website at This resource will help you easily send messages to your two U.S. senators in opposition to federal funding of embryo-killing research, and in support of parental involvement legislation. Once you are at the Legislative Action Center, click on the latest Action Alerts that deal with the issues discussed above. You will be shown suggested e-mail messages (which you can easily modify) to send to lawmakers, with different appropriate messages for sponsors and nonsponsors of the bills.

You can also communicate with your senators by calling their Washington, D.C., offices through the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121. If you are unsure of who represents you, just give the operator the name of your state, and you will be connected to the correct offices. It is very helpful to also call the local in-state offices of your senators. Those numbers are available on the NRLC website's Legislative Action Center under "Elected Officials," at

Faxed Letters
If you prefer to fax a letter, you can use the tab "Elected Officials" ( to find the fax numbers of your senators (for any who choose to publish a fax number). You can also obtain such fax numbers by telephoning your senators' offices (see above), or by referring to congressional websites such as

U.S. Mail
You can communicate with your senators by U.S. mail at the following address. However, delivery of U.S. mail to congressional offices is often delayed by security-related processing, and therefore your letters probably would be received too late to be counted. Senator _______ U.S. Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Additional Resources

For additional resources on research involving human embryos and children in utero:

For additional resources on federal parental and state parental involvement laws and legislation:

Monday, July 03, 2006

Arizona Right to Life Conference September 22, 23 2006

Remember to mark your calendar for September 22, 23 2006 for the Arizona Right to Life Conference.

Check the website for all the important information.

This promises to be a very special meeting.

More later.

Understanding the meaning of Independence Day

As we continue our conversation regarding the meaning of the Declaration of Independence, we need to consider that the times during which the document was written constitute a changing from one mindset as to the role and purpose of government to another. This new attitude toward government had its seeds in Magna Carta and now in the New World found the fertile soil for its full growth and development. Aside from the notion that all men were created by God, something pretty much of a given in those days, the concept of equality was still something being considered. Some still held to the class system and the notion that all was preordained, despite one’s best hopes and desires. Yet in America there was a sense that if a man could exercise his wits and ingenuity, there was allowed for him opportunity to succeed, and the recognition that with success came a place at the table.

Thus the history textbooks dramatize the birth of colonies that were populated by the excess of Newgate prison and other debtors’ jails. A chance for freedom was worth whatever the risk. The opportunity to make something of oneself gave the person hope.

This is the genesis then of our founding document: that men might have the opportunity to make something of themselves. The Declaration addresses the wrongs dome against the colonies because these wrongs affected their ability to make something happen in this new world. The complaints by these young Americans addressed the whole notion of respect for freedom. Further the writers were not asking for license or anarchy, but for an order that allowed for the flowering of a new society.

Thus do we see that the roots of our own right to life movement are found in this acknowledgement of the Creator’s hand in giving us life, in seeking His will that we might live in liberty so as to truly and freely choose to love Him, and to have the opportunity to exercise the talents, skills and gifts He gave to each of us in order to discover who we are so that we could be happy.

But there is a condition for this to happen. We must recognize it in each other. We must accept the fact that these rights rest in every person. We must revere and protect each person so he or she can exercise these rights. Thus becomes the role and purpose of government.

Unless we respect all human life, we respect none. Unless we acknowledge the right to life of every person, none of us can claim the right. It is an all or nothing proposition.

Our founders knew this. Even as they failed to address the issue of slavery, they knew this. Our history reminds us that each person is entitled to due process in application of the law. History sadly notes those times when man’s inhumanity to man destroyed the systems that were designed to insure these protections.

Only when Roe v. Wade is seen for the cancer in the law that it has become, only when this generation excises this cancer from the body politic, only when all persons are protected in law, only then will the ideals of this Declaration have the chance to be fully lived.

Sunday, July 02, 2006

Remembering the American Ideal

As we all prepare for the 4th of July with fireworks and friends and family, it is only fitting that we thank Almighty God and our Founding Fathers for the ideals set forth in our Declaration of Independence.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident” states this charter which crystallized the beginning of the nation, “that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Those of us in the pro-life movement acknowledge this foundation stone of this nation and the government that was formed to defend and protect the lives and property of its people.

Unfortunately many have forgotten this history or have chosen to re-write it because it does not conform to their view of the world. They would make criminal the very purpose of government and prevent those who hold life precious from participating in the marketplace of ideas.

It is sad to consider that even in their imperfect ways the founders recognized the ideal they sought. Yet this generation of Americans, with all the material wealth at our disposal, with all the technology at our fingertips, with all the knowledge we have discovered of the mysteries of life, cannot see fit to welcome a helpless child into the world.

Have we as a culture, as a society become so selfish that”openness” to life is not even a consideration? Have we become so jaded that we have lost hope in the future?

If one were to only look at the secular media, one would get the impression that the entire world, form Europe to Asia to the U.S. has bought its ticket on the Titanic. Yet just below the surface, quietly humming without the fanfare and glare of celebrity lights and reality TV is a counter-culture coming of age. In the hearts and minds of these young people one sees both an awareness of the problem and a willingness to engage to make a difference.

Now of course the first people they must challenge are their peers. The last 40 years have had a major negative impact on the family. From fear of commitment to a lack of purpose, there have been too many young people to whom there has been given no direction. Yes the hunger to know gnaws at their very being. A new campaign to offer hope and healing must be the flagship of the pro-life movement of tomorrow.

Second there must be an unwavering call to speak the truth and to show the truth so that the nation may face the truth of what abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide really are.
With the advent of G-4 ultrasound, there is no longer any excuse to see the humanity of the unborn child.

Efforts should be made to get these pictures on television. The Internet allows for their wide distribution, and no conversation about the evils of abortion should omit a reference to these incredible images.

Presenting the harm that abortion does to women is another essential tool in the education of the culture. The recent deaths of women due to the use of RU-486 must be given more attention. When people realize that Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers are in the business for money, power and to influence the culture, they will be less likely to believe the propaganda pouring out of their lackeys in the media. For example how many people know that Planned Parenthood has filed lawsuit after lawsuit to prevent women from being given access to information, or to prevent notification to parents, or seek tax dollars in order to kill the children of poor women?

Recently many people have lamented over the huge donation Warren Buffet gave to the Bill Gates Foundation. Yet all the money in the world does not compare with one human life. Remember that. And as the old Jewish saying goes, “he who saves one life has save the entire world.” And when we realize that life and love are more powerful than death, we will not be afraid.

Rest assured that as we celebrate the nation’s birthday, “ a nation conceived in liberty," we at Arizona Right to Life will not take that liberty for granted, but will exercise our freedoms to defend and protect the most helpless of God’s children and the mothers who bear them.

God bless you and May God bless America.