Tuesday, October 24, 2006

When statistics become personal

During the last week I have been attempting to assist a young lady who is pregnant outside of marriage. She contacted me after running way from her father who wanted to force her into having an abortion. Se contacted me because another lawyer with whom she spoke told her that her Parent could make her have the abortion. After I assured her that such advice was erroneous, I asked her what she wanted to do. She told me she knew the life within was a baby and she wanted to have the baby.

We discussed the justified anger of her parent upon learning of the information. I explained that no one can ever force you to have an abortion .We discussed the father’s history and the efforts he might make to trick her or persuade her to change her mind.

We stayed in contact the next few days. I learned that she and the father were going to parenting classes. She picked out a name for the baby. Then last weekend the boy’s family sensed something was wrong. She created a fight between herself and the boyfriend. She did not go to school today.

As so today I received a frantic call from the mother of the boy who is the father of this baby. She told me that she was supposed to the children to parenting class, that the father told her not tonight, and she could not contact the girl. She had a bad feeling.

Today the young girl and her baby joined a tragic group of people.

And the girl who was talking so sure about her baby and her future will have to live with the knowledge of the events of this day for the rest of her life.

We speak about the 3- 4,000 babies killed every day in this nation. Yet for one little child, it is not just a statistic.
For that baby, the numbers are very real.

And another life has been snuffed out by the demons of fear and convenience.
Another daughter has been scarred by the selfish actions of her father.

And the angels mourn at the tragedy of it all.

So what are we going to do about it?

What are we going to do to stop the killing?

Vote on November 7.

Support Arizona Right to Life.
Make a donation today in memory of that littel baby.

And pray for the mother.

Sunday, October 22, 2006

Voting Pro-life

Whatever your political persuasion, whatever your place on the political landscape, ask yourself what kind of politician supports a policy that allows for the wholesale killing of children?

Ask yourself, when the politician tells you he or she supports the “right to choose,” what does he or she mean by that?

Ask them to finish the sentence - choose to do what?

And if they tell you they do not know – then look at them and tell them that you are not stupid, that you know what their kind of “choice” means – choice means a dead baby and a wounded mother.

Then tell them that you will only vote for people who will protect life – all life – especially all innocent helpless unborn human life.

Then cast your vote for the children’s sake – vote for those who have no vote.

Be a voice for those who have no voice.


Attacking Kyl and Graf – those extremists!

It seems that NARAL has decided to weigh into the CD 8 race supporting extreme pro-abortion Gabrielle Giffords over pro-life Randy Graf. Well it makes sense to me. After all with Kolbe the abortionists held the seat. Now there is strong reason to believe the seat will be won by the resolute and popular Randy Graf, who served the area as a state legislator. So NARAL is sending out a mailer describing Kyl and Graf as “anti-choice” because they are against people “choosing” to “kill” their unborn babies – as if Arizona did not know. Arizonans know that Kyl and Graf are pro-life. The voters like their position on the life issues. True there are some who do not want laws to protect all human beings from the moment of conception through natural death. Those people have a lot to learn and lets leave it at that.

But if NARAL wants to point out how “extreme” it is to defend women and children, then have at it. I guess all those police and firefighters who save lives every day are extremists. I guess the soldiers in harms way protecting our freedom are “extremists.” I guess anyone who will choose life over death is an extremist. – But then they are my kind of extremist.

Conspicuous silence in East Valley Tribune

Today’s (Sunday) East Valley Tribune was conspicuously quiet about the governor’s race. In fact it seems like the fix is already in between the smaller but generally more balanced Tribune and the very liberal to the point of nausea Arizona Republic. With the Republic its obvious bias against all things conservative has been a given since 2000. In the 2002 governor’s race, the Republic was claiming two weeks before the general election that Salmon was 15 points behind. For those who don’t remember, Salmon lost the general election by less than a percentage point. So it seems that one of the state’s newspapers has decided to simply avoid talking or writing about the most important statewide news story in favor of such fascinating stories as the power and influence of the Indian tribes, light rail and a party on a parkway.

A review of Sunday’s paper would have reflected nothing about the governor’s race. No story about Len Munsil and his bid to defeat the current pro-abortion extremist governor. No story about his plans to address the border, his plans to improve education, nothing, nada, nyet.
There was a story about the Senate election, perhaps in a feeble effort to actually make that seem like a race. Pro-life Jon Kyl is leading pro-abortion Jim Pederson and it isn't even close. However, it is pretty pathetic when Pederson has spent over 8 million dollars of his own money and the best he can do is get on television and claim that he is for adoption, while at the same time telling us he favors a woman’s right to choose. Choose what? Well, isn’t that nice. He thinks it is perfectly fine to kill babies through the ninth month of pregnancy but he is in favor of adoption. Normally I reserve comment, and let the facts speak for themselves. But in this case I will make an exception in describing Pederson and his contempt for the women and children of Arizona. - What a jerk!
But the bottom line is that there is nothing about the most important election facing Arizona and the impact that election will have on the future of this state.
The establishment wants Napolitano in order to stay in a position of power.
Electing Len Munsil would overthrow the power brokers of this state.
Electing Len Munsil might actually return some power to the people and with some power perhaps some rights.

CACTUS ALLIANCE formed - Check it out

Several of the more conservative political blogs in Arizona, including this one, have gotten together and formed an alliance, CactusAlliance.com. Sort of the online antithesis to the local liberal print media conglomeration. It contains the most recent articles from all member sites. Be sure to check it out, and if you have a conservative blog you may want to join it. Members include Prolife Blogs, Lighthouse Blog, Birthfirst, Arizona Growler, AZ Watchtower, Sonoran Alliance, Jakubczyk on Life, and AZ Knights for Life.

Friday, October 20, 2006

You never know when

How is it that out of the blue you are placed in a teaching moment?

If there is ever a reason to brush up on your knowledge of pro-life information and referrals, it is because you never know when you will have a teaching moment.

now those who know me will say that I live for teaching moments - what with 11 children and all their friends who constantly come over the house. But what about the time when you are tired and coming home from work and just before you leave the co-worker asks to talk to you ion the parking lot....

you have to be ready.

One other thing.... In the morning when you ask for opportunities to do the Lord's will, expect that He will give you something to do.

Now I think He was also mentioning that AZRTL could use a little help prior to election day to help get the message out to our friends. Call the office 602-285-0063 or email Julie@azrtl.org for more information.

Staying focused - Keeping your eye on the prize

If people sit around and complain, nothing gets done.

If people work at making a difference, then things get done.

Here is what is happening.

Everywhere I go, there is a new wind blowing. The young people are concerned and engaged. Last night at ASU a young man, disabled and in a motorized wheelchair told the speaker that he was glad to be alive. He said that had he been conceived just seven years later, he could have been diagnosed as having the disability and killed.

Remember that this is not just fun and games. Every time we engage in the debate, in the battle, in the arena, a life may be at stake.

Last week I got a call from outside of Maricopa County. A 15 year-old girl was desperate to know what her 'rights' were. She was referred to me. What was her problem? Her dad had scheduled an appointment for an abortion. What were her rights, she kept asking. She was scared. I tried to calm her. He cannot force you to have an abortion, I told her. We talked. Then I talked to the boyfriend. And then to family members. Was there support? Who could help her? You will have to talk to your dad. We will be there for what ever you need. I gave her some referrals for the various agencies that could help.

We agreed to stay in touch. I spoke with family members this week. Things are still tense but much better.

Pray for her.

and me.

Showing the truth about abortion

Espresso Pundit makes an excellent point in asking the folks at the Arizona Republic if they can show graphic pictures of pigs being treated cruelly, then why not show pictures of unborn human beings after they have been killed.

And then there was the sound of silence......

New York Opinion shows bias against people of faith alive and well

This is a very disturbing opinion out of the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court. I read the opinion and it is amazing how totally secular and anti-religious the courts have become. I always knew it was bad but this opinion confirms the fall.

Aside from the absurdity of the New York State law compelling businesses to provide ancillary products in connection with insurance, the notion that religious organizations are now compelled to place their employees in the near occasion of sin is revolting. Of course the slippery slope is that if the state can compel this under statute, what about compelling insurance coverage for elective abortions?

This case will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Napolitano Disses Catholic Voters

Come to think of it, Janet Napolitano does not have much respect for the Catholic voters either. She totally ignored the Arizona Catholic Conference candidate questionnaire and refused to answer the 12 questions asked to gauge the candidate’s position on issues important to the Catholic community. Now what could be her reasoning for refusing to answer these simple questions?

Is it possible that she knows that her views on abortion, homosexuality, marriage, education and other issues are NOT consistent with Catholics who practice their faith?

Is it because she knows that only through confusion can she hope to get the vote from those who if they truly knew her position on these issues would reject her?

Perhaps that is why she refuses to debate Len Munsil.

Bishop’s booklet continues to make news.

Here is an update on the new booklet put out by Basilica Press written by the Most Reverend Thomas J. Olmsted, Bishop of Phoenix.

As reported in an article by Dexter Duggen, the Arizona Republic initially ignored the October 7, 2006 launch of the publication at the diocesan center while at the same time running a news service article about other voter survey publications. But then that is typical of the Republic. The paper has been an apologist for the Napster (the current governor) and has a deep and abiding hatred for all things Catholic.

The story is circulating throughout the internet.

The booklet is making national news.

But in some circles the booklet has been banned.

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Update on the bishop's book

Thanks to John Ellenwood of NW Tucson Right to life for getting me this link to the Bishop's booklet at Basilica Press.

This booklet is must reading for anyone looking to understand the role of the person in the modern world. And while it is titled "Catholics in the Public Square." it actually applies to all persons. As John Ellenwood noted, "It is a refreshingly clear moral document."

Monday, October 09, 2006

Bishop Olmsted's Booklet - clarity at last

For Pro-life Catholics in the Diocese of Phoenix, Saturday October 7, 2006 was a wonderful day. After morning mass at St. Mary's Basilica, the DCCW, Knights of Columbus and Catholics United for the Faith sponsored a legislative seminar and unveiled the release of "Catholics in the Public Square, " a booklet written by Bishop Thomas Olmsted outlining the way to properly form one's conscience in order to act consistently with the Faith in the public square and in the world of politics.

Public reaction was interesting. Some media outlets chose to ignore it. But for the 400 people who attended the morning event at the Diocese of Phoenix, the excitement and the appreciation for the bishop to have taken the time to write this booklet was demonstrable.

Ron Johnson, executive director of the Arizona Catholic Conference was largely responsible for the effort to print 100,000 copies in order to freely distribute the booklet to Catholics throughout the state. He was responsible for the ACC voter guide as to candidates' positions on important Catholic issues. This guide will assist voters in the upcoming General Election on November 7, 2006.

It should be noted that none of the Democratic candidates for the statewide or congressional posts even bothered to respond to the ACC request. The ACC represents the three Catholic dioceses. This failure by the current governor and Attorney general show a complete lack of respect for the Catholic vote in Arizona. These politicians apparently do not care about the Catholic vote. Perhaps they think they have it and do not need to answer surveys which ask their position on issues concerning Catholics. If they do not care about the Catholic vote, then Catholics ought to respond in kind.

Any person wanting a copy should contact the diocese or any local Catholic parish

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Its all about the grassroots

Rather than feel gloomy about the state of the state, the country, and the world, do something to make a difference.
Volunteer to help Arizona Right to Life at the State Fair.
Volunteer to help your favorite pro-life candidate get elected or re-elected.
Offer to come by the office and help get out mailings to the membership.
Visit your local hospital and offer to sit with an elderly person who has no family.
Read the latest pro-life tract and explain it to a person who does not get it and always in charity.
Above all, pray.

Remember the words of a great saint.

Pray as if it depends on God.

Work as if it depends on you.

Now lets make a difference!

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Complicity with Death – Janet Napolitano and the world of abortion

I often wonder why certain politicians seem overly fascinated with defending the status quo on the subject of abortion. Some have bought into the whole canard that somehow protecting the right to kill unborn children empowers women and gives them equality with men. Some want it legal so they can have it as a backup means to birth control. Others seem to reflect a deep seeded hatred for the role of women as child-bearers –that, somehow it isn’t fair that women should have to bear the burden. Then there are some who are so selfish so as to want it available in the oft chance that they will have need of it fro themselves or a family member. Finally there are those who want abortion as a tool of population control and as a means to curtail the growth of certain ethnic groups and races.

So why does someone like Janet Napolitano want abortion to remain legal?

If she studied her biology in high school, she knows the “fetus” is a human being from the moment of conception.

As a law student she should have studied the case law that provided support for the protection of the infant “in ventre sa mare” and the statutes passed by the various states protecting the life of the unborn child. She also would have read the dubious arguments attacking the humanity of the unborn child. Yet if she was like the many feminist law students I recall in my days at the university, she may have had a resentment toward the law and toward those men who wrote the laws that protected women and children. She may have been like so many women who knew but did not care that the child was human but only cared if the child was wanted. Perhaps she had a misplaced sympathy for those children who grew up in poverty or neglect, whose lives were not perfect as the American dream.

But Janet Napolitano embraced abortion throughout her legal and political career. She was a part of a liberal law firm and acted as one of the attorneys for Anita Hill when the pro-abortion and pro-homosexual liberals were trying to destroy Clarence Thomas. You will recall that liberals do not like people to leave the liberal plantation. And when Clarence Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court, it was not enough that as an African-American, he had achieved so much. He was not one of them. He was a conservative. He was a Christian. He had to be destroyed. And so the left took out one of the most disgusting plays from the racial playbook and Janet Napolitano was in on the ground floor advising Anita Hill.

Thomas survived the “lynching” as he called it and now sits on the Supreme Court. Napolitano continued her law career until Clinton offered her an appointment as a U.S. Attorney in Arizona. A shrewd appointment, because it would give her the cover as a prosecutor and provide her with access to the criminal justices system and all the confidential information that includes.

When she was elected attorney general after defeating Tom McGovern in a close bitter dirty race, we all knew she was following the Bruce Babbitt advance track for government advancement. What many of us did not know was how badly she was going to wreck the attorney general’s office and permit a series of scandal-ridden events to detract from the important work being done by that agency.

I have not the time to address the CPS scandals and the problems in juvenile court. But I will recall that event seven years ago in the fall of 1999 when a 14 year-old girl and her unborn child were made pawns of a pro-abortion mindset that has infected the legal system and this country.

Today an event such as this one probably would not even make the Arizona Republic. After all the paper continues to run interference for Janet and her minions. But in 1999 they saw a story and actually wrote about it. Here is what happened.

A 14 year-old ward of the court was pregnant. She had been in the custody of CPS since the age of five (another failure of our state foster case and adoption system). She had been a run away. In fact she used to run away a lot according to the state. She was pregnant. The state wanted her to have an abortion. She did not want an abortion according to her relatives. Then she was picked up again and now she was over 20 weeks along. The authorities wanted her to disclose the father. She refused, alternating stories between being in love with him and having been assaulted. He court appointed lawyer them files a motion to allow her to go out of state to have a later term abortion. The state does not object. The state is represented by the attorney general’s office. Janet is the attorney general. The juvenile court judge William Sergeant grants the motion and the state begins to make arrangements to transport her to California for this later term abortion (makes you wonder how many other abortions were approved by the juvenile court). At this point someone balks. Not a judge, not a lawyer, not a caseworker at DES. No the person who balks is someone involved in the process. An unknown who makes something very wrong known to the world – and who created a national firestorm.

The public outcry over the idea of sending someone out of state to kill her child on the state’s dime was too much - even for the Arizona Republic. They reported the story. The public reaction was loud and clear. They opposed it. People offered to adopt the child. Agencies offered to take her in through and after the pregnancy. One politician offered her a scholarship to college if she would reconsider. But we will never know if she ever knew of the offers of aid. Because at first Janet’s office refused to even ask the judge to reconsider. When the pressure did not subside, the AG’s office filed a motion to reconsider. After a few days the judge ruled again in favor of killing the child. The AG’s office said it was over. The public pressure soon even found its way to the governor’s office. After at first ignoring it, Governor Hull told Napolitano that if she did not appeal the ruling, the governor would appoint special counsel. Napolitano relented and filed an appeal. The case was argued before Appellate court judge Michael Ryan who reversed the lower court ruling and sent the case back with a mandate to answer some serious questions. It looked like the child’s life would be spared.

But in a move that defied the law, the rules of court, the mandate issued by Judge Ryan, and all common sense, the state attorney general Janet Napolitano, agreed to the unprecedented request to argue an appeal of Judge Ryan’s ruling BY TELEPHONE on a SUNDAY morning WITHOUT any BRIEFS or WRITTEN ARGUMENTS or RECORD for the Supreme Court to review. That the Court agreed to even take it was unbelievable. But that Janet agreed to allow it to happen and did not object but went out of her way to accommodate the court appointed lawyer who was pushing for the abortion, violated her duty to the people. All she had to do was object to any expedited appeal. All she had to do was argue that the rules had to be followed. All she had to do was argue that Judge Ryan’s order s were reasonable. She could have demanded briefs be filed and an in person argument be made before the court. All the mother and baby needed was time.

You see the girl by this time was 28 weeks pregnant. No one in California would do the abortion now. Even the notorious Planned Parenthood would not do a late term abortion. The only abortionist in the country who would be delighted to kill the baby for a huge fee was an abortionist known as George Tiller. His office is in Wichita Kansas. Now Planned Parenthood was helping Janet behind the scenes. Their employees arranged for the flight to Kansas. They told the AG that they had to have her on the plane by Sunday because the abortion is a three-day procedure. Janet had to look like she was fighting to protect the girl and the baby and then lose at the Arizona State Supreme Court. Then everyone could be upset at the State Supreme Court.

So on a Sunday morning when most people were getting up for church, the State justices were hearing by telephone without any record, with a directive to get them an answer in an hour, a case about a 14 year old ward of the court and whether the lower court judge’s ruling should be upheld as within his discretion or whether the appeals court judge was correct to reverse the trial court.

One additional wrinkle: one of the justices was Stanley Feldman. Justice Feldman was the lawyer for Planned Parenthood when he was in private practice. He argued for the reversal of Arizona’s laws criminalizing abortion. To his credit and consistent with the canons of judicial conduct, he offered to recuse himself, that is, to not hear the case and get a replacement. Did Janet accept this offer? Did Janet realize that he would rule against the state? Did Janet want to lose so the baby would die?

The AG did nothing to remove Feldman from the case. They did not accept his offer to recuse himself.

The court ruled 3-2 against the state, reversed the appellate court ruling and returned it to the juvenile judge. The girl was on a plane that same day. Within the next three days she would undergo an abortion and her baby would be dead.

Janet meanwhile launched an investigation as to how this information became public. With a vengeance she sought to uncover the hero who refused to go quietly into that good night. “A climate of fear,” was how one DES employee referred to her reign. She knew that she could not have something like this go public again.

As I recall these events, I am amazed at the “blood lust” and how it was fueled by the pro-abortion elements in the city. Former abortionist and current convicted felon Brian Finkel lost no time getting his personage on the news and in the papers as he attacked pro-lifers who wanted to save the mother and her baby. The attitude by so many in the legal system was utter hatred at being exposed to the public scrutiny. Even after the baby was killed the Republic, never a friend to the unborn, called for an investigation to root out the leaks.

Years later, one sees the same anger and hatred toward pro-lifers and those who work to offer alternatives to abortion. Why?

Why is it so hard to love a child?

Why does that child or any child pose such a threat to these people that they want the children dead?

And how is it that these same people claim to care about the state, or the nation, and yet can without any pangs of conscience embrace the killing of children?

There were many lives affected by that one child who lived only briefly before being legally executed with the sanction of the state. His or her life offered many people many choices. These choices will ring through eternity. You too have a choice. On November 7, 2006, election-day, you can choose those who support and want to protect all innocent human life or you can choose to back those who view abortion as a means to solving unplanned problems permanently. And while you are thinking about it, remember this, that little child who was killed in that Wichita abortion clinic, would be six years old and sitting in a first grade class.

But because of Janet Napolitano, that child is dead.

Sunday, October 01, 2006

Remember - Janet Napolitano is very pro-abortion

Kudos to Intellectual Conservative for posting a very timely article about the pro-abortion extremism of Janet Napolitano, current governor of Arizona who is standing for election in November 2006. Her Republican challenger is Len Munsil, former president of Center for Arizona Policy and strong pro-life advocate.

The Napster, you may recall, was attorney general in 1999 when the 14 year old ward of the state was sent by plane to Kansas for an abortion. She was 28 weeks pregnant.

More on this later.