Archive for December, 2012
By Life News
The Planned Parenthood abortion business in St. Louis has apparently botched its third abortion in recent weeks, as it was documented sending another woman to a local hospital the day after Christmas.
For the third time since Thanksgiving, the Planned Parenthood abortion clinic transported a woman to the hospital for emergency care, making it one of the most dangerous abortion clinics in the nation, according to officials with Operation Rescue, who informed LifeNews of the incident.
As the pro-life group indicated, on December 26, at approximately 9:30 a.m., an ambulance was photographed by local activists loading a Planned Parenthood patient into an ambulance. The ambulance was accompanied by two police cruisers.
Mary Maschmeier of Defenders of the Unborn, a local pro-life group that emailed both LifeNews and Operation Rescue about what happened, said “Her face was covered and we don’t know her condition. How sad it is to see this scene but especially the day after we celebrate the birth of Our Lord.”
Other medical emergencies took place at this Planned Parenthood abortion clinic on November 21 and December 1, according to Maschmeier. A fourth incident took place there on February 14, 2011, Operation Rescue noted.
Maschmeier talked about the other two cases in her email to LifeNews:
On Nov. 21, 2012, a woman was taken to an area hospital after complications from her abortion. Defenders of the Unborn suspects that the same abortionist is responsible for both. We have spoken to the brother of the first injured woman and he said she was doing okay. We will be contacting him again to see if she is in need of any help.
On Saturday Dec. 1, 2012, Planned Parenthood of St. Louis Region transported another victim to an area hospital. She was taken around 10:30 a.m. Sidewalk counselor John reported to Defenders of the Unborn that he witnessed an ambulance take a women from the abortion mill and transport her. Of course her face was covered with a sheet. The condition of the victim is not known at this time.
How can this be good medical care for women? Not only does the child die but now Planned Parenthood has sent three women to an area hospital from complications during their abortion. We must take action to bring this to an end, the senseless killing of our children and the harming of the mother.
The pro-life group says it has tried to follow up on the medical conditions of the women involved and the details of what happened during the failed abortion but it has been repeatedly denied access to 911 call records by St. Louis authorities, which could shed light on the rash of emergencies at Planned Parenthood. Such records are generally considered public documents.
By John Fund, National Review Online
Afew things you won’t hear about from the saturation coverage of the Newtown, Conn., school massacre:
Mass shootings are no more common than they have been in past decades, despite the impression given by the media.
In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections.
Incidents of mass murder in the U.S. declined from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the first decade of this century.
The chances of being killed in a mass shooting are about what they are for being struck by lightning.
Until the Newtown horror, the three worst K–12 school shootings ever had taken place in either Britain or Germany.
Almost all of the public-policy discussion about Newtown has focused on a debate over the need for more gun control. In reality, gun control in a country that already has 200 million privately owned firearms is likely to do little to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals. We would be better off debating two taboo subjects — the laws that make it difficult to control people with mental illness and the growing body of evidence that “gun-free” zones, which ban the carrying of firearms by law-abiding individuals, don’t work.
First, the mental-health issue. A lengthy study by Mother Jones magazine found that at least 38 of the 61 mass shooters in the past three decades “displayed signs of mental health problems prior to the killings.” New York Times columnist David Brooks and Cornell Law School professor William Jacobsen have both suggested that the ACLU-inspired laws that make it so difficult to intervene and identify potentially dangerous people should be loosened. “Will we address mental-health and educational-privacy laws, which instill fear of legal liability for reporting potentially violent mentally ill people to law enforcement?” asks Professor Jacobsen. “I doubt it.”
Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive. “Guns are already banned in schools. That is why the shootings happen in schools. A school is a ‘helpless-victim zone,’” says Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff. “Preventing any adult at a school from having access to a firearm eliminates any chance the killer can be stopped in time to prevent a rampage,” Jim Kouri, the public-information officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, told me earlier this year at the time of the Aurora, Colo., Batman-movie shooting. Indeed, there have been many instances — from the high-school shooting by Luke Woodham in Mississippi, to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo. — where a killer has been stopped after someone got a gun from a parked car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter.
Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools.
I spoke with Lott after the Newtown shooting, and he confirmed that nothing has changed to alter his findings. He noted that the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.
“Disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks,” Lott told me. “A couple hundred people were in the Cinemark Theater when the killer arrived. There is an extremely high probability that one or more of them would have had a legal concealed handgun with him if they had not been banned.”
Lott offers a final damning statistic: “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”
There is no evidence that private holders of concealed-carry permits (which are either easy to obtain or not even required in more than 40 states) are any more irresponsible with firearms than the police. According to a 2005 to 2007 study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin and Bowling Green State University, police nationwide were convicted of firearms violations at least at a 0.002 percent annual rate. That’s about the same rate as holders of carry permits in the states with “shall issue” laws.
Despite all of this evidence, the magical thinking behind gun-free zones is unlikely to be questioned in the wake of the Newtown killings. Having such zones gives people a false sense of security, and woe to the politician or business owner who now suggests that a “gun-free zone” revert back to what critics would characterize as “a wild, wild West” status. Indeed, shortly after the Cinemark attack in Colorado, the manager of the nearby Northfield Theaters changed its policy and began banning concealed handguns.
In all of the fevered commentary over the Newtown killings, you will hear little discussion of the fact that we may be making our families and neighbors less safe by expanding the places where guns aren’t allowed. But that is precisely what we may be doing. Both criminals and the criminally insane have shown time and time again that those laws are the least of the problems they face as they carry out their evil deeds.
— John Fund is a national-affairs columnist for NRO.
When in the course of political events it becomes necessary for the Conservative base to temporarily dissolve the bonds which connect them to the Republican Party and to assume the wisdom of the party platform and principles, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation of one week’s time.
We hold these truths to be self-evident that Conservatives represent the heart of and the majority of the Republican Party. That whenever any form of party leadership becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the Conservative base to institute demands for full respect and adherence to fiscal AND social soundness. That without the Conservative majority, the Republican Party is unviable and non-competitive.
When a long train of abuses and usurpations becomes pattern, Conservatives will not and cannot comply.
Party leadership has punished and demoted principled Conservative members from committees of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Party leadership is threatening to compromise with the opposition, putting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness at risk for all Americans.
Party leadership indicates it is unwilling to do the job for which it was given majority power in the U.S. House of Representatives. That being to fight socialists and those standing in opposition to the social underpinnings of America’s founding principles – life, marriage, and liberty – and to the commonsense principles of fiscal responsibility. To reduce spending and impose a reasonable ceiling on the currently insane level of debt resting on the head of citizens living and yet unborn.
Party leadership is demonstrating weakness at a time when strength is needed to exert sensible and correct counter positions to the flawed and destructive policies of the radical Left.
Party leadership exhibits a willingness to comply with the radical left-stream media’s destructive demands for compliance with harmful principles preferred by Democrats.
Party leaders insist on nominating presidential candidates who are unwilling to fight for and model Conservative principles which have stood the test of time and which have enabled the greatest times of prosperity in American history. These candidates are repeatedly unable to defeat flawed, corrupt Democrat incumbents who are substantially damaging America’s culture and committing generations of citizens to unsustainable debt while condemning millions of preborn children to death.
All the while, party leaders insist that those willing to compromise with the extreme demands of the Left are the answer to America’s most severe problems. This is not in the best interest of Americans.
We Conservatives therefore resolve to separate from the Republican Party, to demonstrate the seriousness of the problems existing within the party, for the period of January 1 to January 7 of the year 2013. If party leaders respond in good faith and restore a genuine, healthy respect to the Conservative base and the accompanying principles, relations will be fully restored. If not … a longer period of independence shall be declared until the leaders of the Republican Party come to restoration of good senses. For without the good will and full participation by the Conservative base the Republican Party cannot continue to pursue its questionable course, let alone compete with the opposing party.
by Christine Kim, Policy Analyst
Primary schoolchildren in married heterosexual households are 35 percent more likely to make typical school progress than peers in same-sex households, according to a new peer-reviewed study published in the respected academic journal Demography.
The finding is based on data from 1.6 million children in the 2000 U.S. Census, which included 8,632 children who lived in same-sex households.
The new study also re-examines findings from a 2010 study that used the same data source but concluded that children raised in sex-same households progressed just as well as children in married heterosexual households when differences in the socio-economic status (i.e., household income and parental education) are taken into consideration.
Why the different conclusions regarding children’s grade retention using the same data source?
The Census provides only a single-year picture of children’s living arrangements, so its data do not reflect their full family history. For example, married households include both first-marriage and remarried couples. The 2010 study tried to address this issue by limiting its sample in two significant ways that may not represent the full family experiences of all children.
The new study re-examines the data without these two limitations. When both restrictions are lifted, the sample size increased by nearly 125 percent, from 716,740 children to 1,610,880 children.
What happens when more children are included in the analysis? The new study finds that:
- When the sample consisted of only biological children, regardless of residential stability, children in married heterosexual households were 25.8 percent more likely to make typical school progress than peers raised in same-sex households;
- When the sample consisted of all children, regardless of their biological status or residential stability, children in married heterosexual households were 35.4 percent more likely to make normal progress in school than peers in same-sex households.
Consistent with previous research, these findings suggest that when considering how children’s family environment influences their outcomes, it is important to look at both family structure and stability.
Together, the pair of studies underlines the complex dynamics between children’s family situations and well-being, as well as the difficulty of analyzing that relationship even with sophisticated research methods and data.
The studies also underscore the necessity for policymakers to weigh the full accumulating research evidence in their decision-making.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities would erode U.S. sovereignty, skew the constitutional boundaries between state and federal governments, and allow the UN to promote more liberal abortion laws, a coalition of conservative experts warn.
Article 25 of the CRPD calls on nations to furnish the disabled “free or affordable health care…including in the area of sexual and reproductive health and population-based public health programmes.”
“The feminists are using this treaty as an opportunity to promote their abortion agenda,” said Phyllis Schlafly.
The treaty “opens up Pandrora’s Box for the most vulnerable among us – children,” said former Senator Rick Santorum at a news conference Monday, alongside his wife Karen, and three of his seven children, including Bella, a special needs child.
Although the UN covenant contains many positive affirmations of the equality of the disabled, he said it contains “some very troubling provisions.”
The organization founded by Christian evangelist and quadriplegic Joni Erickson Tada, Joni and Friends, “holds deep concerns regarding CRPD language on parental rights and the rights of the unborn with disabilities,” as well as U.S. sovereignty.
So far, 36 Republican Senators have signed a letter of opposition to the treaty during the lame duck session of Congress. The measure requires a two-thirds majority to pass the Senate.
“We can’t be sure that a few of them won’t change their position and vote for CPRD,” said a statement from Santorum’s political action committee, Patriot Voices. “That’s why we have to keep the pressure on. Please call the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and tell your Senator to vote ‘NO’ on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.”
Some who oppose the CRPD say it is unnecessary.
“We already treat individuals, able or disabled, rich or poor, better than any other nation by our Americans with Disabilities Act, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Fair Housing Act, Rehabilitation Act, Voting Accessibility for Elderly and Handicapped Act, Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act and Architectural Barriers Act,” said Schlafly.
One of the Senate leaders, Utah Republican Mike Lee, said the United States had historically rejected even well-intentioned UN documents out of concern they would set the nation on a “march toward socialism” and out of “grave concern for [national] sovereignty.”
For instance, Article 4 says signatories must embrace “economic, social, and cultural rights.”
“These rights refer to positive rights, as opposed to negative rights granted by government,” Lee noted. “These are positive rights to certain entitlement rights…that the government would be required, by treaty, to provide to individuals.”
President Obama has publicly lamented that “the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted,” is “a charter of negative liberties.”
Experts say the treaty would allow the federal government to supersede local ordinances and that it gives unelected UN officials too much leeway to promote an agenda often unrelated to the purpose of the ratified treaty.
Mike Farris of the Home School Legal Defense Association, who teaches International Law at Patrick Henry College, said turning authority over any aspect of U.S. life to foreign bureaucrats goes against the grain of most Americans.
Farris said curtly, “Americans should make the law for America.”
By Tony Perkins, Family Research Council
Nevada is willing to gamble on a lot of things, but marriage isn’t one of them. In federal court yesterday, Judge Robert Jones dealt a big setback to state activists hoping to redefine marriage. His opinion, which he issued just days after oral arguments, may be one of the most compelling yet on the question of “equality” for homosexual couples. The lead plaintiffs in the case are two lesbians, both grandmothers, who argued that Nevada’s 10-year-old marriage amendment is discriminatory. Judge Jones emphatically disagreed in a 41-page masterpiece that thoroughly dismantled the Left’s legal logic. Homosexuals aren’t being denied the right to marry, Jones explained. They simply have to abide by the same criteria as everyone else.
“Like heterosexual persons, they may not marry members of the same sex.” In fact, Jones wrote, “A homosexual man may marry anyone a heterosexual man may marry, and a homosexual woman may marry anyone a heterosexual woman may marry.” In other words, this isn’t about discrimination or equal protection. “Homosexuals have not historically been denied the right to vote, the right to serve on juries, or the right to own property,” he pointed out. “The protection of the traditional institution of marriage, which is a conceivable basis for the distinction in this case, is a legitimate state interest,” he said, adding that if the state recognized same-sex couples’ marriages, heterosexuals might “cease to value the civil institution as highly as they previously had and hence enter into it less frequently… because they no longer wish to be associated with the civil institution as redefined.”
Then, in perhaps the most pivotal part Jones’s opinion, he highlighted the recent success homosexuals had at the ballot box. “It simply cannot be seriously maintained, in light of these and other recent democratic victories, that homosexuals do not have the ability to protect themselves from discrimination through democratic processes such that extraordinary protection from majoritarian processes is appropriate.”
In other words, our Election Day losses might actually be the key to future victories in court. Now that three states have actually voted for same-sex “marriage,” liberals can no longer claim the court as their only avenue to “equal protection.” Even lesbian activists like Nan Hunter, a Georgetown professor, admit that judges might be less likely to intervene on marriage if homosexuals no longer seem “powerless” to advance their agenda. It could even, Hunter argues, change the way the Supreme Court sees the issue–if, as it’s expected, the justices agree to hear at least one of the marriage cases in their hopper.
The high court planned to meet today to decide which marriage case it would take. Thanks to the growing number of lawsuits, the justices have their pick of cases–from challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) or federal benefits laws to California’s Proposition 8. Given the high profile of any marriage case, the court would likely hear a suit in March and rule in June. That ought to give the bench plenty of time to absorb Judge Jones’s decision!
In St. Louis, Arch Rivals Square off
These days, it’s unusual to have one good news story from the courts–let alone two! But conservatives seem to be swimming in successes this Friday, as yet another judge blocked ObamaCare’s abortion drug and contraception mandate from taking effect. Missouri’s Frank O’Brien, the trailblazer for these lawsuits, was the first businessman to sue the administration back in March. He joined a crowd of plaintiffs from religious to academic fields who all share the same complaint: the president’s war on conscience rights is a direct attack on their First Amendment freedoms.
Wednesday, a federal appeals court agreed. A panel of 8th Circuit Court became the first judges from the appellate level to deliver a victory to challengers. Although the injunction is a temporary one, it is significant because the order reverses a victory that Health and Human Services had in the lower court.
“Once again,” Ed Morrissey points out, “this case doesn’t involve an explicitly religious organization. Cases involving religious schools, health care organizations, or charities have yet to come to court. So far, HHS and the Obama administration keep losing on what should be their best ground.” Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who was proud to witness a victory for his home crowd, applauded the decision as “another important victory as we fight to preserve the fundamental religious freedom that Americans have enjoyed for more than 220 years.” And that freedom, regardless of what the President says, isn’t exclusive to individuals. It applies to organizations and businesses too.
Come Back for Moore!
How many of you knew that November is National Adoption Month? Next week, FRC is doing its part to carry that theme through December with a special lecture called “Adopted for Life: Orphan Care and the Christian Mission.” As believers, we have a special stake in the issue. Jesus is the one who reminds us that His Father is also “Father of the fatherless” (Ps. 68:5). He is also the one who insists on calling “the least of these” his “brothers” (Matt. 25:40), and who tells us that the first time we hear his voice, He will be asking us if we did the same. In this lecture, Dr. Russell Moore, Dean of the School of Theology and Senior Vice President for Academic Administration at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, will consider what it would mean if Christians were known, once again, as the people who take in orphans? Don’t miss this important lecture at noon on Tuesday, December 4. For more information or to register to view it online or attend in person, click over to FRC’s events page.
** Washington’s problem isn’t taxing too little–it’s spending too much! Congressman Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.) will explain why when he joins us on this week’s show. Later, Dr. Arthur Goldberg will drop by to talk about an unprecedented suit from the Southern Poverty Law Center that aims to destroy the ex-gay movement. For more information or to find a radio station near you, visit FRCRadio.org.
*** FRC’s Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison offer their take on this week’s U.N. vote in a new column, “Getting It Wrong about the Palestinians.” Check it out on CNSNews.com here.