Top GOP Senator Slams White House’s ‘Absurd’ Refusal to Release Sotomayor Docs
By Dawn Eden | July 2, 2009
In a move that Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, called “absurd,” the White House today refused to release documents relating to Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s involvement with the pro-abortion Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF).
Judiciary chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) had joined Sessions in requesting the documents, which included minutes from the PRLDEF’s board of directors’ meetings during the 12 years that Sotomayor was a board member there.
The Associated Press reports:
White House Counsel Greg Craig told Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, that board meeting minutes and other papers detailing the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund’s activities while Sotomayor was an outside adviser aren’t relevant to her nomination.
Sessions responded that the White House was wrongly minimizing the level of Sotomayor’s participation in PRLDEF’s leadership:
“Judge Sotomayor served in senior leadership roles at the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund for 12 years,” Sessions said, including chairwoman of the organization’s litigation committee and vice president of the board of directors.
“Given these leadership positions, it is not ‘unusual’ that the committee would want to know more about her role in the organization,” Sessions said.
Indeed, only yesterday, PRLDEF President Cesar Perales told the Associated Press that Sotomayor’s “role” was to “set policy.” Given that the PRLDEF’s “policy” during Sotomayor’s tenure was that abortion was a “fundamental right”, and that it aggressively pushed this policy with six pro-abortion briefs to the Supreme Court, the American people have a right to know just how well Sotomayor fulfilled her role at that radical organization.
RELATED: For in-depth background on Judge Sotomayor from AUL’s legal team, including evidence of how she would be worse on life issues than retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter, visit Sotomayor411.com.
Topics: SCOTUS | No Comments »
Print This Post
Ohio Supreme Court Ruling in Teen-Abuse Case Enables Abortion Clinics to Hide Rape Evidence
By Dawn Eden | July 2, 2009
In a decision yesterday ignoring the health and welfare of young girls, the Ohio Supreme Court has allowed Planned Parenthood to hide records that may effectively demonstrate it broke the law by failing to alert parents of their young daughters’ abortions and failing to notify law enforcement officials of suspected sexual abuse.
Dr. Charmaine Yoest, AUL President & CEO, stated: “The American public is rightly outraged by Planned Parenthood’s blatant disregard for the welfare of young girls and their penchant for prioritizing profits over compliance with the law. Parents everywhere should be outraged that this court is now protecting a business that thrives on exploiting the most vulnerable.”
Americans United for Life filed an amicus brief in the case arguing that permitting Planned Parenthood to conceal their records and practices undermines statutory rape laws, exacerbates the harmful consequences of sexual abuse, and allows the perpetuated exploitation and coercion of young girls. AUL’s amicus brief, filed on behalf of U.S. Representatives from Ohio, John Boehner (House Minority Leader), Steve Chabot, Jim Jordan, Bob Latta, and Jean Schmidt, is available on AUL’s Web site.
Denise Burke, AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs stated: “This is just one of many instances around the nation where an abortion clinic has failed to abide by the law. By failing to demand that Planned Parenthood hand over important records — records that would be available to the plaintiffs in any other type of proceeding — the court has left young girls increasingly vulnerable and unprotected.”
The case, Roe v. Planned Parenthood, is a civil action filed against Planned Parenthood for failing to abide by the state’s parental involvement law, which at the time required that a parent be notified before a minor obtains an abortion. Despite the fact that the Plaintiffs’ 14-year-old daughter had an abortion, which was initiated and paid for by her 21-year-old soccer coach — who subsequently was convicted and served time for the sexual abuse — Planned Parenthood failed to alert the parents of the abortion or law enforcement officials of the suspected sexual abuse.
Mailee Smith, AUL Staff Counsel,stated: “The Ohio Supreme Court completely ignored the legislature’s protective intent in passing Ohio’s parental involvement laws. If the courts will not enforce the laws, we cannot effectively protect young girls from sexual abuse and their welfare remains at risk.”
Topics: Abortion, Parental Involvement | 1 Comment »
Print This Post
Ohio Supreme Court Supports Regulation of Dangerous Abortion Drug
By Dawn Eden | July 2, 2009
Pro-life forces won an important battle yesterday when the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that abortion providers, under a state law regulating the administration of RU-486, must strictly comply with the FDA-approved protocol for the dangerous abortion drug.
The ruling came in Rogers v. Planned Parenthood, a challenge by Planned Parenthood to a 2004 state law requiring that those administering RU-486 comply with the FDA-approved treatment protocol for the “abortion pill” and, consistent with the drug’s safety and efficacy data, restrict its use to pregnancies at or under 49 days gestation. In short, the law simply requires abortionists to abide by the rules approved by the FDA when it first made RU-486 available in the United States in September 2000.
Dr. Charmaine Yoest, AUL President & CEO said, “We applaud the Ohio Supreme Court for cutting through Planned Parenthood’s self-serving rhetoric that it did not need to follow the protocol tested and approved by the FDA when administering RU-486. For far too long, Planned Parenthood and its enablers have thought themselves above the law. Today the Ohio Supreme Court put a decisive end to that.”
Americans United for Life (AUL) filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of several U.S. Representatives supporting the State and the law. AUL’s amicus brief, filed on behalf of House Minority Leader John Boehner (OhioH) and nine U.S. Representatives — Roscoe Bartlett (Md.), Dan Burton (Ind.), Steve Chabot (Ohio), Trent Franks (Ariz.Z), Jim Jordan (Ohio), Robert E. Latta (Ohio), Joseph R. Pitts (Pa.), Jean Schmidt (Ohio), and Chris Smith (N.J.) — is available on our Web site.
AUL Staff Counsel Mailee Smith said, “The fact that Planned Parenthood readily admits to routinely disregarding the FDA-approved protocol and actually argued it was entitled to dispense RU-486 in an untested and dangerous manner is appalling. It is further confirmation that Planned Parenthood is not the protector of women’s health and welfare it holds itself out to be.”
Planned Parenthood argued the law was unconstitutional and that its requirements were unclear. The state of Ohio and AUL argued that the Ohio law is definitive in its requirement that abortionists can use the RU-486 drug regimen only in the way in which it was tested and approved by the FDA, as is clearly laid out in the manufacturer’s label that accompanies the drug.
The case will now return to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals for a decision of whether the statute, as interpreted by the Ohio Supreme Court, is constitutional.
Topics: Abortion, Abortion Pill | No Comments »
Print This Post
Keeping the Founding Fathers’ Legacy Alive
By Charmaine Yoest | July 1, 2009
It’s nearly Independence Day, and, here in the Yoest household, that means a road trip! Friday afternoon, Jack and I are filling up our black Suburban and taking our ‘Penta-posse’ — our five kids — to Charlottesville, VA, for our 14-year-old son John’s all-star baseball tournament. How wonderful to spend July 4th in a city steeped in American history near the University of Virginia (my alma mater!), which was founded by Thomas Jefferson just a few miles from his Monticello home.
|
But although the calendar — and the heat index — says it’s July 4, in my heart it feels like late November.
Independence Day has always been a kind of early Thanksgiving for me. I think about the sacrifices made by the Founding Fathers and their families, and of the blood shed by patriots so that America could be free, and I am so very thankful to be able to raise my children in the greatest country in the world.
The Founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
In naming three inalienable rights as endowed by humanity’s Creator, the Declaration’s authors were recognizing something unique and beautiful about being human. Taken together, those rights enable all the goods necessary for human flourishing.
More than that, the order in which the Founders listed the rights carries special meaning; it reveals the way one right flows from another. The right to liberty — the freedom to thrive — flows from the right to life, and from that liberty flows the ability to seek the happiness that will give one’s life meaning and purpose.
I’m so honored to be working with the AUL team to further the understanding that the right to life enshrined in our Declaration extends to all humanity and includes the unborn.
The right to life is the foundation of all the freedoms we enjoy as Americans. This is what we must teach our children on this family holiday, so that they and their children and their children’s children may continue to live in a free country long after you and I have left this world.
|
My friend and AUL colleague Bob told me today about a wonderful Fourth of July tradition in his family. Every year, he and his wife host a barbecue that is highlighted by having one of the children present, usually his own daughter, read out loud the entire Declaration of Independence.
Jack and I like that idea so much that we are adopting this as a Yoest family tradition. I think we’ll have Helena, our 12-year-old who has a dramatic flair, read the Declaration of Independence before we watch the fireworks after John’s baseball game. If you’d like join us in that tradition, click here for a printable copy of the Declaration.
Wishing you and your family a happy and healthy Fourth,
Charmaine, and the Yoest family
P.S. On Monday, the AUL team will be back at the job of defending the right to life, all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. For the latest news on President Obama’s high-court nominee, visit Sotomayor411.com. It’s a one-stop resource we’ve created to share in-depth background and analysis from our legal team on Judge Sotomayor, including detailed information on why she is worse on life issues than retiring Justice David Souter.
Topics: AUL, Abortion, Legal Program | No Comments »
Print This Post
New Study Confirms Abortion Dramatically Raises Premature-Birth Risk
By Dawn Eden | June 29, 2009
European newspapers are reporting that a new review of 75 scientific studies shows that women who have had a pregnancy terminated by abortion or miscarriage are far more likely to give birth prematurely in subsequent pregnancies. The findings were presented at the 25th annual meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology in Amsterdam.
The Mirror (U.K.) gives details:
A single termination raised the risk by 20%. Two or more increased the chances by 90%.
And women who have had more than one abortion double their risk of having a “very” premature baby - classed as being born before 34 weeks.
Lead researcher Dr Robbert van Oppenraaij said: “It can be concluded that a history of abortion is associated with an increased risk for premature delivery and very premature delivery.”
He added more research was needed as the findings showed only an association between abortions and pre-term delivery and not necessarily a direct link.
This is not news for pro-lifers, and should not really be news to the medical community; similar results were reported in a prominent American study in 2003 (download it here). However, there is great resistance in the scientific community to studying the effects of abortion, and there is likewise resistance in the media to reporting the results of such studies when they do not present abortion as a healthy “choice.” A survey of 162 research scientists last year found that “one-fourth of the respondents no longer included controversial topics (for example, ‘abortion’ and ‘emergency contraception’) in their research agendas, and four researchers had made major career changes as a result of the controversy.”
RELATED: Americans United for Life works towards informed-consent laws requiring abortion providers to tell patients about possible complications and other unforeseen outcomes — just as doctors are required to do before conducting any other medical procedure. Informed-consent laws also give a woman the opportunity to see her unborn child via ultrasound — to insure she is aware that it is a child, and not, as Planned Parenthood calls it, a “tissue of pregnancy.” AUL Staff Counsel Mailee Smith describes the necessity for such regulations in “Informed-Consent Laws: Protecting a Woman’s Right to Know.”
Topics: Abortion, Studies | No Comments »
Print This Post
for Life! New Details on Sotomayor: She’s Worse than Souter
By Charmaine Yoest | June 29, 2009
 |
Thanks to your support, this past week saw AUL at the center of two national news stories, including an outstanding victory for life.
- The Associated Press, CBS News, and dozens of other media outlets across the country spotlighted Sotomayor411.com — our one-stop resource for background on Judge Sotomayor’s record on our life issues — and our campaign showing she would be “Worse than Souter.”
- In a case that featured heavy AUL involvement, the Fourth Circuit upheld Virginia’s partial-birth infanticide law. What’s more, the arguments our legal team presented to the court featured prominently in its decision.
These and other AUL success stories testify to the power of our pro-life advocacy to influence minds and hearts.
But we must reach higher.
With the Sotomayor confirmation hearings set to begin on July 13, we need “all hands on deck” to show the Senate and the nation that Judge Sotomayor’s radical record — including her longtime participation in a pro-abortion advocacy group — makes her unfit for the highest court in the land.
AUL is not only America’s oldest national nonprofit working exclusively to promote life. We also have the largest and most experienced team of pro-life attorneys working to defend life in law.
We have already been meeting on Capitol Hill with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to brief them on Judge Sotomayor’s agenda and urge them to ask her the tough questions.
But to do that takes long hours of legal research and lots of legwork on Capitol Hill.
That’s why I’m asking you to stand with us. Our fiscal year ends on June 30, and we must close strong. Over the last few months we’ve been able to hire new attorneys – Bill Saunders, a Harvard-trained expert in life issues, and Mary Harned, former Chief Counsel on the Judiciary Committee to Senator Tom Coburn – and we plan to bring in even more expertise to keep the focus on life in these challenging times.
 |
We only have 48 hours left before we close out our books for the year. We need your support now to make sure Congress hears your opinions about Judge Sotomayor! Join our support team today. By acting before midnight, Tuesday, June 30, you further enable us for the confirmation battle which begins just two weeks from today.
When U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, a pro-life Republican from South Carolina, asked Judge Sotomayor if she believed the unborn had any rights whatsoever, she told him she had “never thought about it.” We need to get the Senate Judiciary Committee to think about the consequences of confirming a Supreme Court justice whose radical record shows she would vote to overturn all legal protections for the unborn.
Will you join us? Make your donation today and be part of this historic effort to protect and defend the hard-won victories of the pro-life movement.
Thank you for supporting our work and and standing with us For Life!
Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D.
President & CEO
Americans United for Life
P.S. If Judge Sotomayor makes it to the U.S. Supreme Court, she will have the power to read a fundamental right to abortion into the Constitution. Send your donation by midnight tomorrow, June 30, and help us make sure the Senate Judiciary Committee calls her to account for her radical record.
Topics: AUL, Abortion, Amicus, In The News, Legal Program, Media Appearance, SCOTUS | No Comments »
Print This Post
Fourth Circuit’s Partial-Birth Infanticide Ruling Echoes AUL Brief
By Dawn Eden | June 25, 2009
When the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Virginia’s ban on partial-birth infanticide yesterday, the ruling’s language had a familiar ring to Americans United for Life’s legal team.
That’s because the 6-5 decision in Richmond Medical Center v. Herring used some of the same arguments made by AUL in the amicus brief we filed in the case.
The plaintiffs made a facial challenge to the Virginia law — arguing that, as written — as opposed to as applied — the law was unconstitutional. They argued that the court should apply the “large fraction” test used in parts of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which posited that a law could be unconstitutional if it were invalid in a “large fraction” of its applications.
By contrast, our brief argued that the court, in determining its legality, must apply the traditional facial standard—that a law is unconstitutional only if invalid in all of its applications.
We added that the statute could not “be invalidated through a facial challenge attack even under Casey’s ‘large fraction’ standard.” Specifically, we outlined that Gonzales v. Carhart demonstrated that that the category of “relevant cases” to be examined in the “large fraction” standard is broader than that which courts have been evaluating in recent years. In Gonzales, the “relevant cases” were not only those women who suffered from medical complications and might, at some hypothetical time, require a D&X procedure (the medical term for partial-birth infanticide). Instead, the “relevant cases” referred to all instances in which the doctor proposed to do the prohibited procedure.
As we argued, the plaintiff’s own words made the flaw in their argument obvious:
Likewise, in the case at hand, the “relevant cases” refers not only to those “small fraction” of situations where a D&X is “accidentally” performed; instead, “relevant cases” refers to all cases of partial birth infanticide performed in the State of Virginia—both purposeful and accidental. Because the “accidental” D&X is—by the Plaintiffs’ own admission—only a “small fraction” of these relevant cases, the Virginia statute cannot be invalidated through a facial challenge attack even under Casey’s “large fraction” standard.
We emphasized this conclusion by pointing to the conclusion in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood (where the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a broad injunction against New Hampshire’s parental-notice law that was only, arguably, invalid in a limited number of applications) that if a statute was invalid in only a few applications, a court should craft a remedy to meet only those few applications.
While the Fourth Circuit ruling did not specifically mention our brief, the court clearly agreed with our arguments. It outlined the tension between the traditional facial standard and the “large fraction” test. It concluded that it need not decide which standard applied, because even under the Casey “large fraction” test, the plaintiff’s claims failed.
Likewise, the Fourth Circuit concluded:
[The plaintiff] testified that in less than 0.5% of the cases, a fetus is presented in a breech position and accidentally emerged intact up to its head, at which point the head becomes lodged in the cervix. … It is the rare circumstance when the fetus in breech position emerges intact to its naval on which [the plaintiff] relies to mount a facial challenge. … But Gonzales v. Carhart requires that we evaluate the constitutionality of the Act and appropriateness of the facial challenge based on “all instances in which the doctor proposes to use the prohibited procedure, not merely those in which the woman suffers from medical complications.”
This conclusion is significant not only because we urged it in our brief, but also because it is the first instance that this particular portion of Gonzales has been interpreted as such in the abortion context. It represents a departure from the broad “large fraction” test, where the only circumstances weighed were those urged by the abortion industry.
The abortion industry’s argument, used by the plaintiffs in this case, that the range of cases that must be examined to determine the constitutionality of a law is very narrow — those hard cases that are usually stacked in its favor — when in reality the universe of cases that a court should examine to determine if there is an “undue burden” is much larger. Under the Fourth Circuit decision the “relevant cases” category represents a broader range of abortions and makes it more likely for state Attorneys General to defend their common-sense abortion regulations.
The court’s language on this point could not be more emphatic: “To hold the Virginia Act facially unconstitutional for all circumstances based on the possible rare circumstances presented by [the plaintiff] is not appropriate under any standard for facial challenges.”
In addition to our amicus brief, AUL’s involvement in Richmond Medical Center v. Herring included practical aid for Virginia’s then-Solicitor General William Thro. AUL Senior Counsel Clarke Forsythe participated in mooting the case — acting as a mock questioner to help Thro prepare for oral arguments in the case.
Topics: Abortion, PBA | No Comments »
Print This Post
Fourth Circuit Protects Women and Children by Upholding Va. Partial-Birth Infanticide Statute
By Dawn Eden | June 25, 2009
In a 6-5 decision yesterday in Richmond Medical Center v. Herring, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Virginia’s ban on partial birth infanticide—a law which mirrors the federal ban on partial-birth abortion.
“We are thrilled that the Fourth Circuit followed clear Supreme Court precedent and upheld Virginia’s ban on partial-birth abortion – which is more accurately called partial-birth infanticide,” stated AUL President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest. “This ban protects not only the unborn, but also the health and welfare of women. It is a law that the vast majority of Americans are justified in supporting.”
Added AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs Denise Burke, “A wealth of medical evidence demonstrates that late-term abortions — and particularly partial-birth abortions — can have devastating health effects, including uterine puncture or rupture, puncture of the uterine artery, permanent injury to the cervix, and risks for subsequent pregnancies By upholding Virginia’s statute, the Fourth Circuit has protected women from these grievous and very real risks.”
Mailee Smith, Staff Counsel at AUL, said, “We are also pleased that the Fourth Circuit has given deference to the actions of the Virginia legislature, affirming the state’s significant interest in protecting women and children from the harms inherent in abortion.”
The decision follows a previous ruling by a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit striking the law as unconstitutional. The state requested rehearing by the full court, and today’s decision is the result of that review. Abortion supporters are expected to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review today’s decision.
AUL provided litigation support to the state and filed an amicus brief supporting Virginia’s law. The brief was filed on behalf of 11 members of the Virginia legislature, including Delegate Robert G. Marshall, who was the chief patron of the enabling legislation. The brief was also filed on behalf of U.S. Sen.Tom A. Coburn, M.D.
LEARN MORE: AUL Staff Counsel Mailee Smith explains why state bans are needed given the federal partial-birth abortion ban.
Topics: Abortion, PBA | 1 Comment »
Print This Post
‘WHO’ Doesn’t Know How Many Mothers Die from Abortion
By Dawn Eden | June 24, 2009
Americans United for Life board member Dr. Donna Harrison, diplomat for the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology and president of the American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, writes in a new article about the difficulties in getting global data from the World Health Organization (WHO) on how many mothers die from abortion.
One of the main obstacles to getting good abortion data, Harrison writes, is “the use of the terms ’safe’ and ‘unsafe,’ which are not scientific terms but more legal and political, because they are directed to changing the law.”
In a 2007 article co-sponsored by WHO, for example, unsafe abortion is defined as “abortions in countries with restrictive abortion laws”. That means that any abortion in such a country, no matter how medically superior the conditions, would be counted as “unsafe”.
This can produce some unintended and even amusing consequences. In 2007 I attended the UN-sponsored Women Deliver conference in London, which was dedicated to advancing maternal health. During the presentation of a paper estimating the worldwide number of “unsafe” abortions, a Marie Stopes International representative from a clinic performing abortions in a country where it is illegal rose in indignation and said, “By your definitions, are you saying that all the abortions performed in my clinic are unsafe?” The presenters did not answer her question. [Read the full article.]
Under WHO’s vague reporting rules, maternal deaths from abortion are typically listed within a wide category that can include deaths from “spontaneous abortion” — miscarriages — as well as induced abortion. One result is that researchers are unable to ascertain the number of deaths from abortions involving the abortion drug misoprostol, or RU-486, as Harrison explains:
Mifepristone and misoprostol abortions in the United States have been linked with severe adverse events, and women could easily die from infections and haemorrhage in areas where they do not have immediate access to transfusion and surgical facilities. Thus, introducing chemical abortions, whether with mifepristone and misoprostol, or with misoprostol alone, in medically underserved areas will mean that these severe adverse events will become maternal deaths.
AUL has long worked to educate the American public and lawmakers about the dangers of RU-486. As Staff Counsel Mailee Smith noted in Defending Life 2009,
RU-486 was actually approved through the FDA’s “Accelerated Approval Regulations.” These regulations were designed for drugs “that have been studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit to patients over existing treatments.” Yet, as demonstrated above, RU-486 was not adequately tested for its safety and effectiveness and it does not provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over the surgical abortions already available. In addition, pregnancy is not a serious or life-threatening illness. RU-486 should not have been approved under this accelerated procedure. [Read the full article.]
Although Dr. Harrison focuses on the lack of adequate global data on maternal deaths from abortion, similar problems exist in the United States. An article in AUL’s Defending Life 2009 outlines the many obstacles to getting the numbers:
[U.S. Centers for Disease Control] abortion statistics are inaccurate, in part, because of non-reporting. For example, the District of Columbia, Maryland, New Hampshire, and New Jersey do not have abortion reporting laws, and the abortion reporting law in California is permanently enjoined from enforcement by court order. Thus, there is no real way for the CDC or any other health agency to accurately track the number of abortions performed in these states, or record the types, severity, and frequency of complications that result from those abortions. As a result, all nationwide abortion data and statistics are not truly representative of the nation as a whole. [Read the full article.]
This fall, AUL plans to introduce model legislation on reporting abortion complications. To stay abreast of AUL’s work to promote pro-life legislation on the state level, sign up for AUL Action Alerts.
Topics: Abortion, Abortion Pill | 2 Comments »
Print This Post
Huckabee, Stewart Discuss Abortion on ‘Daily Show’
By Dawn Eden | June 23, 2009
When “Daily Show” host Jon Stewart invited Mike Huckabee to discuss the topic of his choice on his program last week, the former Arkansas governor chose one near to his heart: the dignity and value of every human life. That is no surprise, given Huckabee’s strong witness for life during his 2008 campaign for the GOP presidential nomination (in which Charmaine Yoest, now AUL’s President & CEO, served as Senior Advisor) and his support for Americans United for Life, which he calls “the premier pro-life organization in America.”
The ensuing discussion was, to both men’s credit, far more substantial and civil than what normally passes for dialogue in mass-media coverage of the life issue. Big Hollywood TV correspondent Tim Slagle, not a fan of Stewart, observes with glee:
Governor Huckabee very clearly laid out the constitutional pro-life position for the Daily Show audience. Stewart, was defenseless against a rational case for the rights of the unborn, especially since Huckabee’s position was not based in religion, zealotry or misogyny–the straw men Stewart usually attacks.
Although Slagle delights in what he calls the host’s “humiliation,” Stewart — despite his ill-advised attempt to offer a drink to Huckabee (an ordained Southern Baptist minister) and his promoting the “my body, my choice” trope — in fact emerged more humble than humiliated. He admitted that, as a father, seeing an ultrasound made him aware of the wonder of life in the womb, and he also confessed to finding it harder to be “self-righteous” about the abortion issue than his other liberal positions.
Huckabee’s eloquent witness seems to have succeeded in helping Stewart to think more deeply on the issue. One hopes his viewers will too.
RELATED: As Stewart notes, ultrasounds have the power to change the parents’ hearts. Read about how Americans United for Life works toward informed-consent laws designed in part to give a woman seeking abortion the opportunity to see her unborn child in the womb.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |
| Mike Huckabee Extended Interview Pt. 1 | ||
|
||
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |
| Mike Huckabee Extended Interview Pt. 2 | ||
|
||
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |
| Mike Huckabee Extended Interview Pt. 3 | ||
|
||
Please note: AUL is not responsible for the advertising content that may appear in connection with the above videos.
Topics: Abortion, In The News, Ultrasound | 5 Comments »
Print This Post
Press Release: Mary Harned Joins AUL, Set to Oppose Sotomayor Confirmation
By Melanie Johnson | June 23, 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Washington, DC — Former Chief Counsel on the Judiciary Committee staff of Senator Tom Coburn, Mary Harned has joined Americans United for Life (AUL) as Of Counsel to assist in spearheading America’s oldest national pro-life organization through its efforts to counter the confirmation of U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Sotomayor.
Dr. Charmaine Yoest, AUL President & CEO said: “I am very pleased to have Mary join our team. We are extremely fortunate to gain the benefit of Mary’s track record on Capitol Hill. She will be a valuable resource for us as we continue our active involvement providing legal expertise in advance of the Senate’s confirmation hearings.”
Ms. Harned said: “I am honored to join AUL in this crucial time of a judicial confirmation. I look forward to helping AUL bring attention to Judge Sotomayor’s record of radicalism on the abortion issue and her outspoken defense of judicial intervention. It has been a long-time dream of mine to work with AUL to defend and protect life.”
A cum laude graduate of the University of Alabama School of Law, Ms. Harned comes to AUL after serving as Chief Counsel to U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) on his Judiciary Committee staff. She was his legal counsel during the Roberts and Alito confirmation hearings. Prior to that, she served as Legislative Counsel and Judiciary Counsel to Alabama U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. She lives with her husband and son on Capitol Hill.
Topics: AUL, Press Release | 1 Comment »
Print This Post
New Op-Ed from AUL Prez: ‘Sotomayor Worse than Souter’
By Dawn Eden | June 22, 2009
Americans United for Life President & CEO Charmaine Yoest outlines the pro-life argument against President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court in today’s Washington Times: “Sotomayor worse than Souter”:
When President Obama nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court, the conventional wisdom was that she would be an apt replacement for retiring Justice David H. Souter, maintaining the high court’s “balance” — or, more accurately, its lopsided liberal tilt.
But Team Obama knows something most Americans don’t. When it comes to the landmark 1973 decision Roe v. Wade and the abortion cases that have since made it to the Supreme Court, Sotomayor is no Souter. Rather, her record shows that for the overwhelming majority of Americans who support at least some restrictions on abortion, she is worse than Justice Souter — reading a “fundamental right” to abortion into the Constitution.
On the basic issue of whether Roe v. Wade is settled precedent, Justice Souter is a reliable vote for the high court’s liberal wing. He has refused to take the opportunity, in cases such as Planned Parenthood v. Casey, to re-examine the judicial basis for permitting legal abortion. But when it comes to common-sense restrictions on abortion, Justice Souter has voted repeatedly to uphold laws such as informed consent and parental notification — which polls show are supported by at least 70 percent of the American public.
Not so Justice Sotomayor, whose activism before becoming a federal judge reveals strong and consistent opposition to common-sense regulations.
Read the full story on the Washington Times‘ Web site.
LEARN MORE: For in-depth background on Sotomayor’s record of abortion advocacy via her work for the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund — which, as Yoest notes, she has “never disavowed” — visit Sotomayor411.com
Topics: Uncategorized | No Comments »
Print This Post
The Abortion Industry’s Inconvenient Truth: Fathers
By Dawn Eden | June 22, 2009
A Father’s Day editorial in the Washington Times, “Childless on Father’s Day: Abortion industry scapegoats dads,” shines a light on the pain abortion causes to men who have no legal say in whether their children will live or die:
The story of a man abandoning a woman after getting her pregnant has become the stereotypical image of pro-abortion activists and some pro-lifers. The male shirker is central to the abortion storyline and often is used to rationalize taking the life of a baby.
Arthur B. Shostak, professor of sociology at Drexel University, is one of a team of academics who took a hard look at men and abortion over a 20-year period. Their findings shatter the common myth that men are more likely to abandon women who get pregnant rather than support them.
Most men in the survey reported that ending a pregnancy was a mutual decision, and only 5 percent didn’t support the abortion. However, nearly half of single and divorced men said they had suggested getting married and having the baby. As many as 1 in 6 men are never told about a pregnancy or an eventual abortion.
The editors add further details of Shostak’s research that reveal a depth of suffering rarely revealed in news stories on abortion. Many men began to cry during the sociologist’s interviews. As the editors write, men who want to keep their babies or help comfort their partners during the horrors of abortion “are inconvenient truths for the abortion industry, which would rather demonize men and keep business flowing.”
Read the full editorial on the Washington Times’ Web site.
Topics: Abortion, In The News | No Comments »
Print This Post
Obama’s Disbanding Bioethics Council Shows He Wants a ‘Rubber Stamp’
By Dawn Eden | June 19, 2009
Americans United for Life (AUL) criticized President Obama’s recent decision to disband the President’s Council on Bioethics and replace it with a new bioethics commission having a mandate to offer “practical policy options.”
The President’s Council on Bioethics was created in November 2001 by President Bush after his decision to allow human embryonic stem-cell research for the first time while limiting the research to existing cell lines.
“Why try to fix something that wasn’t broken?” said AUL’s President & CEO Charmaine Yoest.
Daniel McConchie, AUL Vice President of Government Affairs said, “This was the most balanced bioethics council in history with two leaders, Leon Kass and Edmund Pellegrino, who went out of their way to ensure the council was reflective of all the major perspectives on the issues,” he said. “We have to ask why the President has disbanded this effective and well-regarded council. Is this a move toward a council that is more of a rubber stamp of his administration’s priorities, rather than a group that actively debates current issues with all perspectives having a seat at the table?”
AUL Senior Counsel Clarke Forsythe said it was “a shame” that the council was dismissed. “The council leaves a rich legacy of reflection on the ethical and legal aspects of the most important questions of biomedicine and biotechnology facing the country. But despite the council’s balance — or perhaps because of it — many liberals and libertarians never appreciated the important books and reports published by the Council. When it conducted wide-ranging discussions of important bioethical issues, they dismissed it as a ‘debating society.’ And when, after such discussions, they issued policy recommendations, they dismissed it as ‘political.’”
If such a thoughtful and balanced bioethics council is to be disbanded, Forsythe said, the likelihood is that the President doesn’t want such thoughtful deliberation on bioethics or intends “to create a new council with only one, utilitarian ideology that will simply provide reasons to approve embryonic research, human cloning, et cetera.”
RELATED: Joe Carter comments at First Things on what he believes the Obama administration means by planning a new commission that will offer “practical policy options”:
In other words, the Obama administration already knows where it stands on all those pesky moral issues like human cloning, chimeras, and euthanasia, and just needs a group to provide advice on how to implement its preferred policies. Whereas the previous councils wrestled with such questions as “What is the nature of human dignity?” the new one will most likely be addressing more practical policy options, such as “How much should we pay women to harvest their eggs for cloning?”
Topics: Bioethics, Press Release | 1 Comment »
Print This Post
‘Common Ground’ a Cricket Field?
By Dawn Eden | June 18, 2009
US News & World Report’s Dan Gilgoff tried to reach the White House for details on what President Obama means by his oft-used phrase “common ground” on abortion — and was rewarded with the sound of crickets.
The reporter sought the information for a story on the progress of the White House Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, the means by which the administration is gathering input from abortion advocates and pro-life groups as it prepares a policy plan for “reducing unwanted pregnancy, increasing access to adoption, supporting maternal health, and reducing demand for abortion”
So, Gilgoff asked, what kind of ideas would the White House like to see? The answer was less than forthcoming:
The administration has stressed that it will avoid influencing pregnant women’s decisions about whether to have abortions but wants to find ways to support those who decide to carry their pregnancies to term. So far, though, the White House has avoided giving any hint about what its “common ground” plan on abortion and related issues will look like. Aides working on the matter declined to comment for this column. [Read the full article.]
Translation: “Chirp chirp. Chirp chirp.”
Here at Americans United for Life, we see “common ground” as a wide field of opportunities for common sense. That sound you hear is not crickets, but the keypad clicks and BlackBerry beeps of our legal team as they fine-tune legislation that any sincere advocate of justice for men, women, and children should agree on.
For example, as long as abortion is a legal “choice,” surely everyone should agree that no one should be coerced into choosing abortion. That’s why we developed Coercive Abortion Prevention (CAP) legislation, detailed in the 2009 edition of our annual legal guide Defending Life:
To effectively prevent coercive abuse, coercive abuse prevention (CAP) legislation must address the coercion itself, the timely reporting of suspected coercion, and treatment for victims of coercive abuse. First, coercive abuse must be clearly defined and punished. Coercive abuse takes on many forms. Whether it is actual or threatened physical abuse, a denial of social assistance support, a threat to fire a pregnant woman, or blackmail, each form should be met with a penalty. However, the right of someone to express an opinion or belief concerning a woman’s pregnancy must be protected. Additionally, property rights covering finances, resources, and assets must also be protected in this context.
Second, facilities that provide abortion services should be required to report suspected coercive abuse to the proper authorities. These facilities are often the last opportunity of hope for victims of coercive abuse. While many states require abortion providers to report suspected child and sexual abuse, no state requires providers to report suspected coercive abuse. Such facilities should provide treatment and protection information to patients known or suspected to be victims of coercive abuse. [Read the full article.]
Another common-sense AUL initiative available for those seeking common ground is our Child Protection Act, a comprehensive piece legislation designed to ensure abortion providers report child sexual abuse and prevent the transportation of children across state lines for clandestine abortions. This act, which was debated in the Mississippi legislature this year, is particularly needed to protect children from sexual predators who rely upon no-questions-asked abortion clinics to cover their tracks, as 2007 AUL Fellow Patrick Lavin wrote in Defending Life,
Currently, all 50 states have laws requiring healthcare professionals to report the suspected sexual abuse of minors, including statutory rape. The federal government also mandates that Title X healthcare facilities comply with state criminal reporting laws. However, there is substantial and developing evidence that many family planning and abortion clinics are not reporting all instances of suspected abuse, and are instead advising minors and their abusers on how to circumvent the law. As a result, sexual predators are free to continue to abuse their victims, scarring them for life.
Statutory rape is a major problem in the United States. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) estimates that half of all children born to minors are fathered by adult men. HHS also found that 75% of girls under 14 years of age who have had sex report having a forced sexual experience. In a similar report by the Massachusetts Family Institute, nearly 55% of children born to girls in the state who are 15 years old or younger were fathered by adult males.
We must therefore, champion laws and legislation that requires family planning and abortion clinics and their employees to report all cases of suspected sexual abuse to state authorities and to impose strict penalties upon anyone who is found to be circumventing these laws or encouraging non-reporting of sexual abuse. [Read the full article.]
What these and other AUL initiatives share is that they give American citizens the opportunity to choose for themselves, through their democratically elected representatives, how abortion should be regulated. By contrast, legalized abortion was imposed upon Americans through the judiciary. Our latest polling data shows that only 7 percent of Americans agree with the U.S. Supreme Court that abortion should be available on demand throughout all nine months of pregnancy.
Bottom line: If you want common ground, let the people decide, instead of the courts.
Topics: Abortion, Abortion Alternative | 1 Comment »
Print This Post
for Life: Where Does Sotomayor Stand on Life Issues? Get the “411″
By Charmaine Yoest | June 17, 2009
|
A big “thank you” to the hundreds who participated in last week’s conference call to learn the inside story about the Judge Sotomayor nomination. This week’s edition of “For Life!” features opportunities for you to get involved in defending the dignity of human life in your state and throughout the country.
Currently the Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nomineee Judge Sonia Sotomayor are scheduled to begin July 13. Make sure to visit AUL’s new Web site Sotomayor411.com, and bookmark it, as we’ll be adding important information and initiatives to the site as the hearings approach.
Thank you for your work and for being a part of this movement!
Charmaine Yoest, PhD
President & CEO
 |
Who Is the Real Judge Sotomayor? Get the 411!
The White House is attempting to paint Judge Sotomayor as one who would maintain the liberal “balance” on the Supreme Court but her record of abortion activism shows she is even worse on life issues than retiring Justice David Souter. With the confirmation hearings coming up fast, help us get the word out to pro-life America about her pro-abortion agenda. Visit our NEW site, Sotomayor411.com, a one-stop resource for all the essential information about where Judge Sotomayor stands on the life issues.
Don’t let your friends be in the dark about this important judicial nomination. One way you can help is to spread the word on our Web site by adding a Sotomayor411.com button to your own Web page.
Hear Our Experts Weigh In
Did you miss our conference call on Judge Sotomayor? Now you can listen to the call online. You’ll learn what to expect in this important U.S. Supreme Court nomination and the latest on AUL’s work to protect life.
 |
Take AUL to the Beach
Christianity Today magazine just named Politics for the Greatest Good: The Case for Prudence in the Public Square, by AUL’s own Senior Counsel Clarke D. Forsythe, as one of “Ten Theology Books for Your Beach Bag.” The editors write: “The senior counsel for Americans United for Life advocates the neglected virtue of prudence for fighting abortion” and adds that “his timing is impeccable” in light of current events. Order your copy today from Amazon.com.
Topics: AUL, In The News | No Comments »
Print This Post
British TV host speaks out against euthanasia
By Dawn Eden | June 16, 2009
London tabloid The Daily Mail has published a powerful testimony from a TV host affirming the dignity of human life: “Why I am opposed to euthanasia after 14 years of caring for mum.”
Charlie Ottley’s mother was diagnosed with multiple myeloma, an aggressive form of cancer of the plasma cells, and was expected to have no more than four years to live. Instead, she is now approaching the world record for survival of the disease, having held on for 14 years — and Ottley, a 37-year-old travel expert and poetry writer for TV and radio, has put his career on hold so that he may be her primary caretaker. He rents a cottage across the street from her so that she may receive care in her own house, as her wish is to die at home.
In the story, Ottley tells how his experience has turned him against euthanasia:
I believe it’s worth fighting for every moment of life - which is why I was so dismayed to hear in the past few days that there are 800 British people on a waiting list for Dignitas, an organisation in Switzerland that helps ill people end their lives.
Last week, it emerged that peers [in the House of Lords] are to debate a proposal to remove the threat of prosecution from family members who help their relatives to end their lives prematurely. It’s a controversial topic, but I can tell you that after years of caring for my grievously ill mother, I am more opposed to euthanasia than ever.
Apart from anything else, I owe it to such a remarkable woman to do all I can to prolong her life. [Read the full article.]
Here in the United States, Americans United for Life is taking the lead in the fight against a district-court ruling in Montana that permitted assisted suicide in that state. We’ve created a special Web page to keep you informed of our efforts in the case, which is currently on appeal to Montana’s Supreme Court.
LEARN MORE: Read about AUL’s work to preserve human dignity at the end of life in the latest edition of our annual legislative guide Defending Life.
Topics: Assisted Suicide, End of Life, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »
Print This Post
Press Release: AUL Senior Counsel Clarke Forsythe Publishes Landmark Pro-Life Book
By Melanie Johnson | June 16, 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Chicago, Illinois — Americans United for Life (AUL) is pleased to announce the publication of AUL Senior Counsel Clarke Forsythe’s book, Politics for the Greatest Good: The Case for Prudence in the Public Square, released by InterVarsity Press this month.
Politics for the Greatest Good seeks to instill confidence in legislators, policy groups, and voters that a prudential approach to public policy—striving for the greatest good possible when the ideal cannot be immediately achieved—is both moral and effective. This approach leads to a renewed long-term strategy to overturn Roe v. Wade, which is outlined in the book.
“It’s all too easy to lose sight of the fact that the aim of politics is not the perfect good but the greatest good possible,” Forsythe argues. “When the ideal in politics and public policy is not achievable, it’s both moral and effective to seek what’s possible and to limit a social evil when it cannot be prohibited.”
Dr. Charmaine Yoest, AUL President & CEO said, “Politics for the Greatest Good is a critical book for the pro-life movement at this time in history. This important focus on the achievable in political strategy will encourage perseverance for the cause of life in the often challenging realm of politics.”
Political prudence challenges voters and elected officials with four questions: Are we pursuing good goals? Are we using wise judgment about what is possible in the circumstances? Are we effectively connecting means and ends? Are we preserving the possibility of future progress when the ideal cannot be immediately achieved?
Forsythe continued, “I’m honored by the endorsements of the late Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, Princeton Prof. Robert P. George, and Denver Archbishop Charles J. Chaput among others. I hope the book will help bridge the divide between the idealists and the realists and refocus the debate on solving the obstacles to a culture of life in America.”
Politics for the Greatest Good is now available at bookstores and Amazon.com.
Topics: Press Release | 1 Comment »
Print This Post
New Website Launched: Sotomayor411.com
By Matthew Eppinette | June 11, 2009
We’ve just launched a new website — Sotomayor411.com — to get the facts out on Judge Sotomayor’s life-related record. The site includes:
- Worse than Souter: Judge Sonia Sotomayor on Abortion & Other Life Issues
- A Summary of Judge Sotomayor’s Life-Related Rulings & Writings
- PRLDEF briefs in U.S. Supreme Court Abortion Cases 1980-1992
- Spread the Word: Place an Ad for Sotomayor411.com on Your Site
Topics: SCOTUS | 1 Comment »
Print This Post
Sotomayor ‘supported positions far more pro-abortion’ than even Roe v. Wade
By Dawn Eden | June 10, 2009
An editorial in today’s Washington Times gives alarming evidence of Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s abortion advocacy, highlighting new details of her involvement with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund — which repeatedly “supported positions far more pro-abortion” than even the most extreme U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
From 1980 until October 1992, Judge Sotomayor was on the governing board of the PRLEDF, serving at various times as its vice president and as chairman of its litigation committee. It was during her tenure that the organization engaged in abortion advocacy of the most extreme variety, as the Washington Times editors state in “Sotomayor’s Abortion Ties”:
The New York Times in 1992 described her as “a top policy maker on the board.” During that time period, the fund filed briefs in not one, not two, but at least six prominent court cases in strong support of “abortion rights.”
The cases began with an abortion-funding case, Williams v. Zbaraz, just as she joined the board, and they continued through the landmark cases of Rust v. Sullivan, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Especially in the Webster case, in which all nine justices joined at least part of the decision saying that states need not provide public funds for abortions, the fund supported positions far more pro-abortion than the court itself did. Also, in the case Ohio v. Akron Center, the fund wrote that it “opposes any efforts to overturn or in any way restrict the rights recognized in Roe v. Wade.”
As the Washington Times adds, “No statement could be more categorical. The Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund thus presumably would oppose any restriction, including those on late-term abortions, partial-birth abortions, abortions for minors and the like.”
Judge Sotomayor takes her PRLEDF involvement as a point of pride, and the fund is now actively campaigning in support of her nomination. The fact that it filed pro-abortion briefs at least six times on her watch certainly indicates that Judge Sotomayor is unwilling to advocate for justice for the unborn. But the truth appears even harsher. The New York Times reported last month that Judge Sotomayor not only permitted the PRLDEF’s legal actions, but played a key role in shaping and backing them: “The board monitored all litigation undertaken by the fund’s lawyers, and a number of those lawyers said Ms. Sotomayor was an involved and ardent supporter of their various legal efforts.”
The Washington Times editorial has more on past actions and statements by the judge that point to her advocating abortion on demand. But, as the editors write, the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats need no such parsing of her record. They are convinced by their meetings with her, and by “her entire jurisprudential approach,” that she is firmly in the abortion-rights camp:
The most basic evidence of the judge’s support for Roe comes in the triple combination of White House assurances to that effect, of pro-choice senators declaring after meeting with her that they are sure she agrees with them, and of her entire jurisprudential approach of broadly construing anything characterized as “women’s rights.”
Topics: Uncategorized | 5 Comments »
Print This Post
Media Is Shocked, Shocked at the Possibility of Sex-Selection Abortions
By Dawn Eden | June 8, 2009
The media Down Under is abuzz with reports of a new home “gender test” for pregnant women, now available in stores without a prescription. It enables a woman who is eight or more weeks pregnant to learn the sex of her child, with 90 percent accuracy — opening up the possibility that she might abort it if she is not happy with the result.
As Father Jonathan Morris notes on his FoxNews blog, this story, which was just noted today by the Drudge Report, is a typical example of how the mainstream media often fails to notice the import of life issues until well after the fact. The test in question is already available over the counter at drugstore chains throughout the United States.
Similarly, it was reported last month that the Swedish government ruled in favor of allowing sex-selection abortions. That may be news in Sweden, but it is not news here in the United States, where the Supreme Court has interpreted Roe v. Wade to allow abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy. See Americans United for Life’s guide to Supreme Court rulings for more information on this, particularly the section on Doe v. Bolton.
TAKE ACTION: During the 2008 campaign, President Obama promised Planned Parenthood that his first priority as President would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would bar states and the federal government from imposing any restrictions on abortion on demand. Visit AUL’s FightFOCA.com to learn what you can do to prevent the act from becoming law. Also, read AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs Denise Burke’s article on how abortion advocates, in the face of growing public opposition to FOCA, are advising the Obama administration to implement the act’s objectives by stealth.
Topics: Abortion, Uncategorized | 2 Comments »
Print This Post
« Previous Entries
