Election 2008 Pro-Life Voter’s Guide From LifeNews.com

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
October 12, 2008

In order to help you make the best decisions possible about the presidential race and the various candidates for Congressional, statewide and state legislative races across the country, LifeNews.com has compiled this voter’s guide. At the bottom of this email is a handy way you can donate to us. We sure appreciate your help to keep pro-life news coming to you.

In this pro-life election guide, we list the information about candidates provided by various statewide pro-life organizations and national groups.

Please forward this voting guide to every pro-life friend, family member, church member and other person you can think of to help them vote pro-life. The lives of the unborn, the elderly, the disabled and others hang in the balance.

National Voting Information
*National Right to Life has an excellent one-page comparison piece on pro-abortion candidate Barack Obama and John McCain, who is pro-life on abortion. It also includes Sarah Palin and Joe Biden. The piece is also in black and white and Spanish. For more on McCain’s record, see also mccainprolife.org and visit stopobamainfo.org for more on Obama’s.

* For more on Senator John McCain, see a speech he gave, where he stands on federal judges. For more on Obama, read about his Born Alive votes, his desire to overturn pro-life laws, how he supports partial-birth abortion, or his record in general. Read more about Joe Biden‘s pro-abortion record, and the pro-life record of Sarah Palin.

* We also recommend the Family Research Council 2008 voting guide and American Family Association has a good state-by-state voting resources list. See also the Susan B. Anthony List pro-life women candidates.

* See how your members of Congress voted on pro-life issues the last two or more years by visiting the National Right to Life legislative scorecard.

* If you know of a resource to add to this voter’s guide, email LifeNews.com.

State-by-State Pro-Life Groups/Endorsements

Alabama
Contact Alabama Citizens for Life

Alaska
Contact Alaska Right to Life

Arizona
Contact Arizona Right to Life and see its endorsements
Citizens for Arizona Policy also has a voting guide

Arkansas
Contact Arkansas Right to Life
The Arkansas Family Council also has a guide

California
California Pro-Life Council has a voting guide.
California’s Yes on 4 web site

Colorado
Colorado Family Institute has a voting guide
Colorado’s Yes on 48 web site

Connecticut
Call the Pro-Life Council of Connecticut at (212) 348-0422
See the Family Institute of Connecticut

Delaware
Call Delaware Citizens for Life at (302) 655-9624
Delaware Right to Life has a voting guide

Florida
View the Florida Right to Life election endorsements here.

Georgia
Click here for Georgia Right to Life’s endorsement list.

Hawaii
Contact Hawaii Right to Life

Idaho
Contact Right to Life of Idaho at (208) 367-9378
See also the Gem State Voter’s Guide and Idaho Choose Life.

Illinois
See the Illinois Federation for Right to Life endorsement list
Also see the Illinois Citizens for Life rankings list

Indiana
Indiana Right to Life has information and a judicial list

Iowa
Contact the Iowa Right to Life Committee

Kansas
Kansans for Life Political Action Committee has extensive information

Kentucky
Kentucky Right to Life endorsements and recommendations

Louisiana
Contact the Louisiana Right to Life Federation and see their election section

Maine
Contact Maine Right to Life

Maryland
Contact Maryland Right to Life
See also the Association of Maryland Families

Massachusetts
Contact Massachusetts Citizens for Life

Michigan
Contact Right to Life of Michigan and get your own personalized ballot or see the full endorsement list.
Vote no on Proposal 2. More info here and here.

Minnesota
Visit the Minnesota Citizens for Life PAC page for more information

Mississippi
Contact Mississippi Right to Life or Pro-Life Mississippi

Missouri
See Missouri Right to Life for information

Montana
Click here for Right to Life of Montana’s endorsement list.

Nebraska
Contact Nebraska Right to Life or call them at (402) 438-4802

Nevada
Contact Nevada Life or Nevada Right to Life for information

New Hampshire
Contact New Hampshire Citizens for Life or see their PAC
Contact New Hampshire Right to Life or see their voter guide

New Jersey
Find information on New Jersey Right to Life endorsements

New Mexico
Contact Right to Life Committee of New Mexico, endorsement list here

New York
Contact the New York State Right to Life

North Carolina
Contact North Carolina Right to Life

North Dakota
Contact North Dakota Right to Life

Ohio
Contact Ohio Right to Life or see their election page

Oklahoma
Contact Oklahomans for Life or see their candidate survey

Oregon
Contact Oregon Right to Life or see their election site

Pennsylvania
Contact the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation

Rhode Island
Contact Rhode Island Right to Life and see their election page

South Carolina
Visit the South Carolina Citizens for Life web site

South Dakota
Contact South Dakota Right to Life
View the VoteYesforLife.com site for info on the abortion ban.

Tennessee
Contact Tennessee Right to Life

Texas
Contact Texas Right to Life or Texas Alliance for Life

Utah
Call Right to Life of Utah at (801) 491-9742.

Vermont
Contact Vermont Right to Life

Virginia
Contact the Virginia Society for Human Life

Washington
View the Human Life web site and see their endorsements
Vote no on I-1000 which would legalize assisted suicide. Info here.

West Virginia
Contact West Virginians for Life and see their endorsement list

Wisconsin
Contact Wisconsin Right to Life and see their endorsement list

Wyoming
Email Right to Life of Wyoming at info@prolifewyoming.com for information

Sign Up for Free Pro-Life News From LifeNews.com

Daily Pro-Life News Report	Twice-Weekly Pro-Life News Report
Receive a free daily email report from LifeNews.com with the latest pro-life news stories on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here.	Receive a free twice-weekly email report with the latest pro-life news headlines on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here.

Florida Marriage Amendment Initiative Favored by Nearly 60% of Voters

by Aaron Deslatte, Orlando Sentinel

A majority of voters, close to the 60 percent needed for passage, favor writing a same-sex-marriage ban into the Florida Constitution, according to a new Orlando Sentinel poll.

But the state’s electorate appears far more skeptical of a ballot measure that would eliminate more than $8 billion in school property taxes and require the Legislature to pay for it, most likely with higher sales taxes.

The survey, released Thursday, found that 57 percent of voters supported Amendment 2, which would define marriage as “the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife.” Just over one-third of voters opposed it.

A 60 percent majority is required to amend the constitution. The 57 percent total is within the poll’s margin of error of 4 percentage points, meaning the amendment might pass if the vote were held today.

The initiative to put the amendment on the November ballot was launched in 2006 by the Orlando-based Florida4marriage group, with funding by Focus on the Family and other religious organizations.

“It shows this is going to be an extremely close race,” said John Stemberger, founder of the Florida4Marriage group. “Our people are very motivated. Our supporters understand the importance of the issue.”

A group called Florida Red and Blue has raised more than $2 million to fight the amendment. It is paying for commercials on CNN and MSNBC during this week’s Democratic National Convention that say the amendment would deny rights to, among others, seniors who live together but choose not to marry for tax or other reasons.

“This is a dead-heat race. And we haven’t started talking to people about how bad this is,” said Derek Newton, the Miami-based campaign manager for the group.

Meanwhile, 39 percent of voters supported Amendment 5, which would abolish most school property taxes — about 25 percent of the average homeowner’s or business owner’s tax bill. The Legislature would have to make up the lost education money through higher sales taxes, repealing sales-tax exemptions, budget cuts or economic growth.

Thirty-three percent were opposed, while 28 percent said they were undecided about the plan, which was drafted this year by the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission.

Voters might not get to make the final call.

A Leon County circuit judge ruled this month that the amendment was misleading because it wouldn’t actually require lawmakers to hold school funding “harmless” after 2011 — and he removed it from the Nov. 4 ballot. The Florida Supreme Court is scheduled to hear an appeal next week.

“It’s fairly long. It’s fairly confusing, and people aren’t really sure what it does. Then there’s the question of whether it ever makes the ballot,” said Brad Coker, managing director of Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, which surveyed 625 registered voters Monday and Tuesday.

Given the range of amendment opponents — including business groups, certified public accountants, school districts, teachers and some lawmakers — Coker called its passage “a long shot.” Gov. Charlie Crist has said he will campaign for the amendment if it makes the ballot.

The poll also showed the governor has solid support among voters, with a 57 percent approval rate, although that is down from a November survey. Of Republicans, 71 percent said he was doing an “excellent” or “good” job, compared with 47 percent of Democrats. Only 13 percent said he is doing poorly.

Aaron Deslatte can be reached at adeslatte@orlandosentinel.com or 850-222-5564.

The Facts on S. Dakota Reasonable Initiated Measure 11

In 2006, the voters of South Dakota spoke loudly. They wanted to stop most abortions in South Dakota, but also wanted reasonable exceptions to allow women to have abortions in cases of rape, incest, life and health of the mother. Initiated Measure 11 meets the demands to include these exceptions. This is a reasonable law requested by the people of South Dakota.

Current public polling shows a majority of South Dakota voters would vote “Yes” on Initiated Measure 11. The campaign expects the number will increase to a healthy majority by election day and that the measure will pass with a large margin in November. “After this passes, we will be out on the road with the Fleet for Little Fleet, AKA the big bus, ministering to and helping women and families across the state of South Dakota,” Leslee Unruh stated. Regarding the defeat of Referred Law 6 in 2006, Unruh acknowledged, “I felt terrible for the women, families and children of South Dakota who still had to deal with the scourge of abortion. I especially grieved for the post abortive women who gave their heart and soul working on the campaign.”

South Dakota voters have responded with fervor! 58,000 people signed the petition to stop abortions from being used as birth control. South Dakota has never seen that kind of support for a ballot initiative. Now voters are going out into their communities spreading the word about Initiated Measure 11. From parade walking to attending county fairs, the people of South Dakota are passionate about life and working hard to get this reasonable law passed in November.

It is unfortunate that the opposition to Initiated Measure 11 is running their campaign from Washington, DC. The VoteYesForLife.com campaign is based in South Dakota and run by South Dakotans. It is clear that the national pro-abortion community is making their last stand in South Dakota by bringing in “big guns” such as Cecile Richards, President of National Planned Parenthood, and leaders from National Abortion Rights Action League. The opposing campaign is shamelessly on their knees, begging for national help with this South Dakota law.

Source: Christian Newswire

Abortionist attempts to coerce woman into an abortion

— From a letter written by Luis Mendoza

We were blessed with two prayer warriors and a Christian gentleman named Paul who helps with the sidewalk counseling. A Hispanic woman in her mid-30s and her 12-year-old son approached the abortion mill. I intercepted them just a few feet from the mill’s door. I told them about how this abortuary had been in the news lately because of the arrest of the owner, who was allegedly doing abortions without a medical license. (See “Subjected to pain and risk of great bodily injury,” California Catholic Daily, June 23, 2008.)

As I was showing them a front-page article entitled, “Doctors Without Licenses” in a local Spanish-language newspaper, a heavyset medical assistant opened the front door. With a demonic grin on her face, she told the woman to come in so that she would not miss her appointment — and to ignore us because we are just protestors.

About 30 minutes after the abortionist arrived, the woman and her son left the mill. She told me that she had decided to leave because the abortionist really was pressuring her to have this abortion. She came to this mill because a doctor in Tijuana had told her that the rubella vaccination she had could have affected her baby. The doctor suggested she go see a doctor who could check out the health of the baby. If the baby was damaged, she may want to consider an abortion.

The woman said that the Clinica Medica abortionist told her that she was four months pregnant. She said she knew that this was a lie because she knew when her menstrual cycle had stopped. She believes he was saying this to charge more money since a second trimester abortion costs more than one in the first trimester. When the woman said she wanted to think this over, the abortionist got really pushy, she said, telling her the procedure was quick and it was best to do it now. She got very angry with his pushiness, she said, and left. She asked for directions to the Culture of Life Family Services clinic, so I gave her a COLFS brochure that contains a map. She said she would make an appointment to go there as soon as possible. I also gave her a Rosary. This woman’s name begins with “M.” Please keep her in your prayers.

Source: California Daily Catholic

Marriage makes babies

“As citizens of California,” Catholics need “to avail ourselves of the opportunity” to overturn the the California Supreme Court’s May 15 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, said the California Catholic Conference in a statement issued last week.

The California Catholic Conference is the public policy arm of the state’s Catholic bishops.

The way Catholics can overturn the ruling, said the conference’s Aug. 1 statement, is to vote for Proposition 8 on the November ballot. The initiative, “which reads,” said the bishops, “‘Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California’ … simply affirms the historic, logical and reasonable definition of marriage — and does not remove any benefits from other contractual arrangements.”

The conference’s statement spoke of the importance of marriage for society and said that, while “cultural differences have occurred” in marriage, “what has never changed is that marriage is the ideal relationship between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation and the continuation of the human race.”

The state Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same-sex marriage was a “radical change in public policy” that will have “many profound effects on our society,” said the bishops’ statement. For one thing, the court’s decision “discounts the biological and organic reality of marriage — and how deeply embedded it is in our culture, our language and our laws and ignores the common understanding of the word marriage.” The legalizing of same-sex marriage “diminishes the word ‘marriage’ to mean only a ‘partnership’ — a purely adult contractual arrangement for individuals over the age of 18. Children — if there are any — are no longer a primary societal rationale for the institution,” said the bishops’ statement.

The statement insists that the bishops’ view of marriage and their opposition to same-sex marriage is drawn not only from Holy Scripture or “the wisdom of tradition,” but from “what can be known by reason alone.”

The bishops said that “same-sex unions are not the same as opposite-sex unions,” because marriage does not only embrace male/female “sexual complementarity as designed by nature but includes their ability to procreate.” Marriage, too, “mirrors God’s relationship with us,” since husband and wives “offer themselves to God as co-creators of a new human being,” said the conference’s statement. “Any other pairing — while possibly offering security and companionship to the individuals involved — is not marriage.”

“Protecting the traditional understanding of marriage should not in any way disparage our brothers and sisters — even if they disagree with us,” said the statement. And to protect marriage, the bishops not only urged Catholics to vote for Proposition 8 in November but “to provide both the financial support and the volunteer efforts needed” for the initiative’s passage.

— California Catholic Daily

In a huge win for thousands of Christian families in California and nationwide, a California appeals court Aug. 8 reversed itself and ruled that parents do in fact have a right to homeschool their children

In a huge win for thousands of Christian families in California and nationwide, a California appeals court Aug. 8 reversed itself and ruled that parents do in fact have a right to homeschool their children even if they lack teaching credentials.

The three-judge panel received nationwide attention and criticism in February when it ruled that “parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children.” It based its ruling on a nearly 80-year-old law by the California legislature. But in the decades since that law was implemented, the panel ruled Aug. 8, the legislature has implicitly accepted homeschooling as legal.

“We … conclude that California statutes permit home schooling as a species of private school education,” the justices wrote in their unanimous decision.

The February ruling said parents could homeschool their children only if they had a “valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught” — something that many if not most homeschooling parents don’t have. The panel announced in March it would rehear the case. The original decision drew criticism from California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who pledged legislation if it wasn’t overturned, as well as from State Schools Superintendent Jack O’Connell, who said he supported the rights of homeschoolers.

There are an estimated 166,000 homeschool students in California. More than a dozen organizations filed friend-of-the-court briefs urging the court to reconsider its ruling. Technically, the court case involved alleged abuse within a family who had homeschooled their children. But instead of simply ruling on that particular case, the court issued a broad ruling that covered all homeschool families in the state.

The latest ruling drew wide praise from homeschool organizations.

“This is a great victory for homeschool freedom,” Michael Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, said in a statement. “I have never seen such an impressive array of people and organizations coming to the defense of homeschooling. The team effort was remarkable.”

The original ruling was viewed as particularly troubling to Christian families because California’s public schools have some of the more liberal laws in the nation regarding teaching about sexuality and homosexuality. Many of those families see homeschooling as the only viable alternative.

The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal organization, was among the groups involved in the case seeking a reversal.

“Parents have a constitutional right to make educational choices for their children,” Alliance Defense Fund attorney Gary McCaleb said in a statement. “Thousands of California families have educated their children successfully through homeschooling. We’re pleased with the court’s decision, which protects the rights of families and protects an avenue of education that has proven to benefit children time and time again.”

The court Aug. 8 said that home schooling was amended out of state law in 1929, and that court rulings in 1953 and 1961 “confirmed” that children could be homeschooled only by a credentialed tutor. But since then, the panel ruled, the legislature has passed statutes which assume that homeschooling is legal.

“Under these circumstances, it is our view that the proper course of action is to interpret the earlier statutes in light of the later ones, and to recognize, as controlling, the Legislature’s apparent acceptance of the proposition that home schools are permissible in California when conducted as private schools,” the decision said.

Michael Foust is an assistant editor of Baptist Press.

Democratic National Committee gave $25,000 to defeat Calif. marriage amendment

The Democratic National Committee has given $25,000 to help defeat a proposed constitutional marriage amendment in California, despite the fact that a significant percentage of Democrats in the state are expected to support it this fall.

The DNC’s donation was made to Equality for All, a leading homosexual activist group in the state seeking to keep “gay marriage” legal.

If passed, the amendment, known as Proposition 8, would protect the natural definition of marriage, thus overturning the state supreme court’s May decision legalizing “gay marriage.”

The DNC’s donation and others like them have helped opponents of Prop 8 raise more than $6 million, according to tabulations by the Los Angeles Times. The donation was first listed on the California Secretary of State’s website in May about a week before the high court issued its decision.

The DNC’s donation isn’t a huge surprise, being that Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean supports “gay marriage.” Additionally, presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama opposes Proposition 8, calling it “divisive and discriminatory.”

Earlier this year Obama wrote a letter to the Alice B. Toklas Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Democratic Club in which he declared, “I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law.”

Exit polls in 2000 showed that about a third of Democrats in California voted for Proposition 22, a statute which banned “gay marriage.” It was one of several laws overturned by the California high court’s ruling. Proposition 8 would place nearly identical language as Proposition 22 in the constitution.

Proposition 8 reads, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.”

Messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting in June passed a resolution urging Southern Baptists in California to work and vote for passage of the amendment and for all Southern Baptists and other Christians to pray for its passage. The resolution passed nearly unanimously.
–30–
Michael Foust is an assistant editor of Baptist Press.

Los Angeles Times confuses the ‘gay marriage’ issue

By R. Albert Mohler Jr., Baptist Press

The fact that the Los Angeles Times favors “same-sex marriage” is not a new revelation. To the contrary, the paper has positioned itself in support of “same-sex marriage” for some time.

Furthermore, no informed reader will be surprised to find that the paper’s editorial position is quite liberal. Given our cherished commitment to the freedom of the press, the paper has every right to position itself this way. Intelligent readers are responsible to be aware of this fact, and take this editorial posture into account when considering the paper’s coverage of controversial issues — like “same-sex marriage” and Proposition 8.

Proposition 8 will appear on the November ballot in California. The proposition — put on the ballot by public support — is an attempt to return the state’s marriage law to where it stood earlier this year, with marriage defined as the union of a man and a woman.

California’s state constitution does not mention “same-sex marriage.” In 2000 the people of California voted by an overwhelming margin to pass an initiative, Proposition 22, which stated: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

That is where the matter stood until May 15 of this year, when California’s Supreme Court ruled by a vote of 4-3 that “same-sex marriages” must be legalized and recognized in the state. Thus, Proposition 22 and all similar laws were struck down by the court, and the court ordered that the state must allow and recognize same-sex marriages effective approximately one month later.

Proposition 8 is a citizen-initiated response to that Supreme Court decision and an effort to return marriage in California to the legal definition effective as recently as May 14 of this year. The language of Proposition 8 mirrors that of Proposition 22, but differs in that it would amend the state constitution to define marriage.

The editors of the Los Angeles Times want voters to defeat Proposition 8 and, in effect, to confirm the action of California’s Supreme Court that overturned the will of voters expressed in 2000. The fact that the paper wants to see Proposition 8 defeated is not surprising, but the arguments employed by the paper’s editors are nothing less than breathtaking.

The paper speaks to the issue in an editorial published on Aug. 8. The editors began their arguments with this introductory paragraph:

“It’s the same sentence as in 2000: ‘Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.’ Yet the issue that will be put before voters Nov. 4 is radically different. This time, the wording would be used to rescind an existing constitutional right to marry. We fervently hope that voters, whatever their personal or religious convictions, will shudder at such a step and vote no on Proposition 8.”

The editors argue that Proposition 8 would “rescind an existing constitutional right to marry.” The California Constitution still does not mention “same-sex marriage.” No such right existed before May 15. The right exists now only by judicial action, not by any amendment to the constitution.

But, even after referring to the marriage of same-sex couples as “an existing constitutional right,” the editors went even further to declare same-sex marriage a “fundamental right.”

In their words:

“The state of same-sex marriage shifted in May, when the California Supreme Court overturned Proposition 22, the ban on gay marriage that voters approved eight years ago, and ruled that marriage was a fundamental right under the state Constitution. As such, it could not be denied to a protected group — in this case, gay and lesbian couples.

“What voters must consider about Proposition 8 is that, unlike Proposition 22, this is no longer about refining existing California law. In the wake of the court’s ruling, the only way to deny marriage to gay and lesbian couples is by revising constitutional rights themselves. Proposition 8 seeks to embed wording in the Constitution that would eliminate the fundamental right to same-sex marriage.”

Indeed, the court did rule that the right of same-sex couples to marry is a “fundamental right” — a right that is either enshrined within the constitution, drawn from the notion of natural rights, or a necessary implication of the constitution. The court also defined homosexuals as a protected group and thus deserving of a special attention in questions of rights.

But the California Supreme Court is not the final authority in such matters — the people are. The court and its decisions are ultimately accountable to the people, who can, when motivated by great concern or outrage, change the court’s composition or amend the constitution itself.

The editors of the paper write as if the decision of the California Supreme Court is unassailable, unchangeable and irreversible. None of these things is true. The court did declare “same-sex marriage” to be a fundamental right, but that decision is now, by definition, tentative and potentially temporary. California’s voters must keep this firmly in mind. The voters of California now have the opportunity to define and defend marriage and to return the state’s definition of marriage to where it stood just three months ago.

This entire controversy, illustrated by the paper’s editorial, is an illustration of the legal, cultural and moral breakdown described by Harvard law professor Mary Ann Glendon as “rights talk.” In her 1991 book, “Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse,” Glendon defined the problem as “our increasing tendency to speak of what is most important to us in terms of rights, and to frame nearly every social controversy as a clash of rights.”

Further:

“The most distinctive features of our American rights dialect are the very ones that are most conspicuously in tension with what we require in order to give a reasonably full and coherent account of what kind of society we are and what kind of polity we are trying to create: its penchant for absolute, extravagant formulations, its near-aphasia concerning responsibility, its excessive homage to individual independence and self-sufficiency, its habitual concentration on the individual and the state at the expense of the intermediate groups of civil society, and its unapologetic insularity. Not only does each of these traits make it difficult to give voice to common sense or moral intuitions, they also impede development of the sort of rational political discourse that is appropriate to the needs of a mature, complex, liberal, pluralistic development.”

“Rights talk” is what remains when deeper questions of right and wrong are taken off the table. The most important right at stake in Proposition 8 is the right — and the responsibility — of California voters to define and defend marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

___________________________

R. Albert Mohler Jr. is president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. This column first appeared at AlbertMohler.com.

Massachussetts Abortion Doctor Indicted for Manslaughter, Pleas Not Guilty

By Tom Strode, Baptist Press

Massachusetts abortion doctor Rapin Osathanondh, charged with manslaughter in the death of a 22-year-old woman last year, has pleaded not guilty.

Laura Smith’s death in September became noteworthy not only because it occurred while she was in the presence of a doctor who had just performed an abortion on her but because she was a member of a pro-life, evangelical Christian family. Smith was pronounced dead Sept. 13 at Cape Cod Hospital after being taken there from Osathanondh’s Hyannis, Mass., clinic by ambulance, according to the Cape Cod Times.

A pro-life organization has attached the victim’s name to an informed consent law it is pressing the state legislature to adopt. The board of directors of Massachusetts Citizens for Life voted to name the proposal Laura’s Law, LifeNews.com reported Aug. 11. The bill would require information on abortion’s risks, its alternatives and the unborn child’s development be provided before a woman undergoes an abortion, according to the report.

Osathanondh, 65, entered his plea July 24, eight days after being indicted by a Barnstable County Grand Jury, according to The Boston Globe. “Suffice it to say, there was an inattention to the kinds of procedures of a life-saving nature that one would expect in a place where an operation with anesthesia is being performed,” said District Attorney Michael O’Keefe, The Globe reported.

Osathanondh resigned his medical license in February after he apparently learned the state’s Board of Registration in Medicine had voted to suspend him. The resignation is permanent.

Eileen Smith, Laura’s mother, did not know her engaged daughter was pregnant. Laura was pro-life and was reared in a Christian home with three other children by Eileen and her husband Tom. Laura had made a profession of faith in Christ and been baptized at the age of 12, her mother said.

Since Laura’s death, Eileen Smith has become outspoken in her support for the pro-life cause.

“As I travel around the country speaking about Laura’s story, I am encouraged that word is getting out and people are being helped and lives are being saved,” she said. “My goal is to also be a catalyst in the laws changing in [Massachusetts] and maybe even beyond.”

Cell phone use during pregnancy is the reason for early childhood behavioral problems

In the July edition of Epidemiology, researchers reported that children whose mothers used cell phones while pregnant were more likely to have emotional and behavioral problems.

A team of scientists looked at a group of more than 13,000 children, including their time in utero. When the children reached age 7, mothers were asked to complete a questionnaire about their own cell phone use in pregnancy and their child‘s use of cell phones, as well as their children‘s behavior and health.

Children with both prenatal and postnatal cell phone exposure were 80 percent more likely to have emotional problems, conduct problems, hyperactivity, or problems with peers. Children who were only exposed prenatally had a higher likelihood of behavior problems compared to those who were only exposed postnatally, but not as high as those who were exposed at both times.

Dr. Mercola believes that an 80 percent increase in behavior problems is pretty drastic. In a recent article on the subject, he wrote,

“Could it be, as some have suggested, that mothers who use cell phones frequently are simply not very attentive parents? Sure. But those children who were only exposed in utero had significant increases in behavior problems too, which suggests there may be something deeper going on.”

That something deeper was also explained by Dr. Mecola.

“Electromagnetic radiation from cell phones poses a unique hazard to a developing fetus. Animal studies have shown that electromagnetic fields in that frequency range can affect their liver enzymes, glands, muscles, hormone balance, and heart and bone marrow. In fact, the cellular stresses caused by information-carrying radio waves can actually alter the DNA structure of both you and your child.

Autonomic nervous system expert Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt has noted this radiation can easily flip certain genes in the mitochondria. If this gene sequence is altered in a pregnant woman, she can pass her damaged mitochondria on to the child.

The child can then develop a mitochondrial disorder, which can include muscular atrophy and severe developmental problems. Even autism has been associated with cell phone use.

Because children are still growing, they also have far thinner skulls than adults. This makes their brains far more susceptible to these information-carrying radio waves. If you are, say, holding your infant while talking on a cell phone, the radiation plume can easily reach the child and penetrate their skull.

Of course, if you allow your child to talk on the cell phone himself, then this radiation will reach him directly.

To see an illustration showing just how much higher the electromagnetic radiation absorption rates are in a 5- and 10-year old’s brain versus that of an adult, see this article from a previous newsletter.

It’s very important that you keep cell phones away from infants, babies, children and pregnant women now, as the damage may not start showing up for 10 years or more, and by then it will be too late.

So, why hasn’t our government done something about this? A part of the deeper problem is that they are powerless. They serve the interests of the powerful, which means those corporations and politicians making big money. Yes, the FDA, FCC, and EPA have called for research on the problem, but the study reported by Epidemiology was conducted in the Netherlands not the USA. Dr. Mecola also goes into greater detail why the federal agencies are not doing much about the problem.

I should add that scientists have known about 20 years (maybe more) that high doses of electromagnetic waves is harmful to animals and humans. As Dr. Mercola points out, “[t]hese radio waves are literally everywhere, transmitting signals to wireless computers, cordless phones, cell phone base stations and countless other wireless technologies.”

In another article by Dr. Mecola, “Why Your Cell Phone Can Hurt Your Children,” a list of health problems caused by RF radio waves (cell phone, wireless, etc.) included:

*  Alzheimer’s, senility and dementia

*  Parkinson’s

*  Autism

*  Fatigue

*  Headaches

*  Sleep disruptions

*  Altered memory function, poor concentration and spatial awareness

*  Cancer and brain tumors

*  Sterility

 

Notice, health problems like sleep disruptions, headaches as well as the problems mentioned in the Epidemiology study such as hyperactivity, emotional and behavioral problems are related. In a previous post, I reported on the discovery that ADD and hyperactivity was often related to lack of sleep and even mild appendicitis. Yet, children have been drugged out the wazoo for profit not for a cure. The cure is limit or end cell phone, wireless computers, iPods, and cordless phone use and maintain good health practices.

Read Dr. Mecola’s articles for tips on cell phone safety, good health practices, or for more in-depth information.

Respecting Homosexuals

By Thorin Anderson -Illinois Family Institute

Whenever there is conflict between homosexual activists and conservatives regarding the issues such as the acceptance of same sex marriage, we on the right are accused of a lack of respect for homosexuals.

But, I would like to make one thing clear. The debate is not about respecting people, but about accepting bad behavior. There are many human behaviors which we conservatives believe to be unacceptable. They range from lying and cheating to promiscuity before or during marriage. They include murder and rape and a host of other deeds, criminal or otherwise. To say that we don’t respect someone when we disagree with their conduct is to suggest that confronting any bad behavior is inherently disrespectful. Are we to stop speaking about all wrong conduct? Should we stop confronting lying, stealing, or murder? Such a suggestion would be ludicrous.

All humans are worthy of respect as humans, period. But it is utter folly to imagine that behaviors people engage in are automatically respectable simply because a certain number of people are involved in them. Sad to say, many things we human beings do are not only unworthy of respect, but are destructive and dangerous. There is a reason why no one writes in any detail, in public, regarding the activities of homosexuals. And there is a reason why homosexuals have significantly shorter than average life expectancies. There is not a newspaper in the country that would detail their private conduct, and most of our stomachs could not handle it. Yet, we are told we MUST accept such conduct as perfectly normal. Get out your Websters and look up “normal.” Homosexuality in no way fits the definition of “normal.” And, it requires no special genius to understand that!

No doubt many practitioners have found themselves harassed or worse by those who don’t respect homosexuals and have taken it upon themselves to mock or injure them. Such actions are wrong. It is legitimate to demand respect as people, but it is absolutely illegitimate to demand respect for conduct that is simply disgusting on its face. And, consider the homosexual’s attitude toward such virtues of fidelity and loyalty. No self-respecting woman would tolerate infidelity in her husband, but in the homosexual community, infidelity is not only allowed, it is a given. It is ironic that homosexuals demand such respect from the general community when they quite obviously have little respect for themselves or one another. Such proclivities reveal that, in fact, the homosexual lifestyle really is much less about deep abiding relationships than satisfying inappropriate sexual desires.

Let us be clear about something: Christian conservatives oppose the wanton satisfying of inappropriate sexual desires in anyone whether straight or homosexual.

Those of us who disagree with homosexual conduct based upon the principles of the Bible and nature can do nothing to stop homosexuals from practicing their chosen lifestyle. But it is an egregious violation of our freedoms, principles, and character to demand that we accept it as normal.

Thorin Anderson is a member of the Pastor Advisory Council to Illinois Family Institute and the pastor of Parkwood Baptist Church on the south side of Chicago.

Pastor Anderson is also the President of Men for Christ, an association that organizes annual weekend men’s rallies in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois on a rotating basis. For more information on these events, please visit http://www.MenforChrist.us.

PFOX’s Regina Griggs is not a liar but her detractors are false accusers

Regina Griggs, President of Parents and Friend of Ex-Gays (PFOX), has been accused of lying to the public. The latest supposed bold-faced lie is a quote mentioned in an OneNewsNow article titled “PFOX: Children incapable of self-identifying sexually” published on July 26, 2008. The following is what she is quoted as saying:

“Why are we allowing people to tell them, ‘Try it — you might like it?’ Over 70 percent of young kids 13- to 24-years-old, men having sex with men, are now HIV-positive,”

Although Griggs didn’t respond to my inquiry, the editor of OneNewsNow did identify a 2007 CDC source. I looked up that source. Here is what the June 28, 2007 CDC report states,

“MSM made up more than two thirds (68%) of all men living with HIV in 2005, even though only about 5% to 7% of men in the United States reported having sex with other men.”

The CDC report goes on to state:

“HIV/AIDS continues to take a high toll on the MSM population. For example, the number of new HIV/AIDS cases among MSM in 2005 was 11% more than the number of cases in 2001. It is unclear whether this increase is due to more testing, which results in more diagnoses, or to an increase in the number of HIV infections. Whatever the reasons, in 2005, MSM still accounted for about 53% of all new HIV/AIDS cases and 71% of cases in male adults and adolescents.”

The quote above could be interpreted in at least one of two ways: (1) it could mean all 13-24 yr. old males are homosexuals and have HIV, which is how Grigg’s accusers seem to interpret it. (2) Of all homosexual males 13-24, 71% have HIV, which is the more likely meaning.

A review by Gregory Rogers of the 1979 book The Gay Report, which was written by members of the gay community, corroborates the CDC report. According to Rogers, about 50% of AIDS cases in the States (formerly 70%) are gay men. It may be assumed that 70% was the finding of The Gay Report researchers.

Whether Griggs was using old or new data, the facts demonstrate her detractors are false accusers.

Over 70 Colorado Physicians Sign Statment Saying Personhood Begins at Fertilization

Colorado for Equal Rights has announced the support of over 70 physicians and pharmacists, including neonatologists, family physicians, ob/gyns, pediatricians, and other physicians. nationwide. These physicians have stated that they concur with the statement, “A ‘person’ includes any human from the time of fertilization.” A list of these physicians is available below.

“We are honored to have received these endorsements from such respected physicians,” stated Kristi Burton, amendment sponsor. “Science clearly proves that life begins at the time of fertilization. We are secure in the fact that we have science and reason on our side, and we are pleased to have the medical community supporting our efforts.”

“As support for Amendment 48 accumulates, we are very encouraged as we get closer to November’s election,” continued Burton. “Every human life should be protected, and the endorsements we continue to receive prove that our easy to understand amendment is one that all Coloradans can support.”

In March, a majority of Colorado lawmakers endorsed the ballot initiative, according to LifeSite News. In May, WorldNet Daily reported that 131,000 Colorado citizens had signed petition to put the legislation on the Nov. ballot. Proponents had 54,952 more signatures than required.

Cohabitation on the rise

The number of opposite-sex couples who live together has jumped from less than one million 30 years ago to 6.4 million in 2007, according to new federal data. Cohabiting couples now make up almost 10-percent of all opposite-sex U.S. couples, married and unmarried. The same data also found that 48.5-percent of cohabiting couples had never been married, while 28-percent had both been married previously.

A recent poll also indicates the trend toward more acceptance of cohabitation prior to marriage. Nearly half of American adults in a recent USA Today/Gallup poll believe that cohabitation can be good for marriage. Forty-nine percent (49%) said that it would make divorce less likely. Social science tracking cohabitation has found the opposite to be true.

“Cohabiting couples are more likely to divorce,” said MFF Executive Director Brad Snavely. “They are also more likely to be a victim of domestic abuse and their children face significantly greater challenges than kids raised in a married household.”

Michigan Family Forum has worked collaboratively with other organizations as part of the Michigan Healthy Marriage Coalition to encourage couples to “test their compatibility” without living together first. The P.I.C.K.-a-Partner program, offered in southeastern Michigan in 2007 and 2008, is based on sound research and helps couples find ways to discover and work through areas where they differ before they tie the knot.

To learn more about the problems of cohabitation, go here.

California marriage advocates suing over amendment language change

Supporters of Proposition 8, the California marriage amendment, filed a lawsuit yesterday to block a change made by California Attorney General Jerry Brown to the language of the measure’s ballot title and summary. The petitions circulated to qualify the initiative for the ballot said the measure would amend the state Constitution “to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,” but the Attorney General has changed it to say that Proposition 8 seeks to “eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.”

Jennifer Kerns, spokeswoman for the Protect Marriage coalition, called the new language “inherently argumentative” and said it could “prejudice voters against the initiative,” according to the LA Times. “This is a complete about-face from the ballot title that was assigned” when the measure was being circulated for signatures, Kerns continued.

The paper reports that the move has raised suspicion in some circles that Brown, a possible candidate for governor in 2010, was influenced by politics. “He is delivering something…that is very important to the gay community, and that is a title and summary that is more likely to lead you to vote ‘No,’” said political analyst Tony Quinn, who added that changes this substantive are “highly unusual.”

In addition to the blatantly biased title change, the summary also has been changed and now predicts a loss to state and local governments of tens of millions of dollars in sales tax revenues over the next few years if the measure passes. The Times article then quotes the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office saying that in the long run there would “likely be little fiscal impact.”

Florida Governor Crist Reaffirms Support for Amendment 2

From a barber shop chair in Tallahassee, Florida Governor Charlie Crist on Monday reaffirmed his support for the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Joe Follick of the New York Times Florida Bureau in Tallahassee reported reported the Governor’s comments in today’s Lakeland Ledger.

Governor Crist joins dozens of other federal and state elected officials who support the common sense of having the people and not judges define marriage in Florida. Over 401 leaders have endorsed the Yes2Marriage.org campaign effort in support of Amendment 2 and will vote “yes on 2” November 4, 2008. The leaders endorsing the marriage amendment include businessmen, pastors, community leaders, bishops, and legislators. Among the other Florida elected officials endorsing Amendment 2 include U.S. Senator Mel Martinez, Attorney General Bill McCollum, seven Congressmen, eleven State Senators and dozens of State Representatives in the Florida House. The official list of all endorsements to date is available online.

“We encourage all supporters to check out the official endorsement list online and ask their local and county elected officials to download the form and endorse Amendment 2 if their names do not appear on the list.” said John Stemberger, Yes2Marriage.org State Chairman. “We are grateful to have the support of many of Florida’s top officials, who understand the importance of natural marriage to children, families and society. However, we will win this campaign not through a head count of elected officials. We will win this campaign because the people of Florida understand why marriage is critical for the next generation and do not want a new morality forced upon them by an unelected, unaccountable branch of government.”

The Yes2Marriage.org campaign is picking up considerable momentum and has hired 7 new staff members in the last week and also retained professional political and media consultants. Over 20 local campaign organizations are meeting regularly and organizing in regions around the state and more new groups are being added each week. For more information on starting a new local group in your area or getting involved with the campaign, contact Nathan Dunn at NathanD@FLfamily.org.

As Marriage Declines, Church Attendance Falls

by Devon Williams, associate editor of CitizenLink Daily Update

A dramatic decline in marriage, particularly among young adults, has led to a decline in church attendance over the last three decades, according to a study by Robert Wuthnow, a sociology professor at Princeton University.

Men are 57 percent less likely to regularly attend church if they are not married. Single women are 41 percent less likely to attend church than their married counterparts.

“It exaggerates only a little to say that Americans in their 20s and early 30s divide into two groups of about equal size: those who are married, the majority of whom participate in religion; and those who are not married, the majority of whom do not participate,” Wuthnow said at a conference at The Heritage Foundation.

Brad Wilcox, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Virginia, said the biggest factor driving the decline in church attendance is delayed marriage.

“Marriage is a gateway into family life, and family life, in turn, is often a gateway into church attendance,” he said. “The longer people postpone marriage, the less likely they are to attend church at a given age, and also the less likely they are to attend church down the road.”

Wuthnow estimates in his book, After the Baby Boomers: How Twenty- and Thirty-Somethings are Shaping the Future of American Religion, that American churches would have 6.3 million more young adults today if young people started families at the same rate they did 30 years ago.

Wilcox said the Church needs to be more intentional about promoting marriage at an earlier age.

“One thing churches need to do is to really encourage their teenagers and their young adults not to buy into this culture of ‘hooking up’ and even the culture of dating or just hanging out,” he said. “(Churches need) to create a culture of courtship that puts them on a path to marriage, for those who are called to marriage.

“I think connecting young adults to families who have different priorities and different challenges and different joys would help them see the world a little bit differently, and hopefully grow in their faith at the same time.”

Putting Adolescents at Risk

By Dale O’Leary

Males who self-identify as “gay” before age 18 are highly likely to have been victims of sexual abuse and/or to suffer from untreated Gender Identity Disorder (GID). This puts them at high risk for a number of negative outcomes. When these problems are untreated, the boys often act out in ways that draw negative attention to themselves. The strict restriction of bullying and other mistreatment by fellow students is, of course, important, but it is equally important to address the underlying problems. Even if an adolescent boy does not suffer from sexual abuse or GID, sexual activity combined with the predictable adolescent irresponsibility carries a high risk.

A study by Lemp and associates of sexual risk behaviors of young (ages 17-22) men who have sex with men found that 22% reported beginning anal sex with men when they were ages 3 to 14, of these 15.2% were already HIV-positive. Of those who began sex when they were 15-19, 11.6% were HIV positive. While of those who began sex with men when they were 20-22 only 3.8% were HIV positive. It is clear that every year a male with SSA delays sexual involvement reduces his risk of HIV.

The hope that identifying boys with same-sex attraction (SSA) and providing them with HIV prevention education will reduce the risk of infection is not supported by the research. According to a review of studies of HIV prevention programs, “the efficacy of health education interventions in reducing sexual risk for HIV infection has not been consistently demonstrated…More education, over long periods of time, cannot be assumed to be effective in inducing behavior changes among chronically high risk men.” (Stall, 1988) Although AIDS among MSM (men having sex with men) is no longer making headlines, the epidemic has not subsided. Of particular concern is the wide spread use of Crystal Meth in combination with unprotected sex (barebacking). (Halkitis 2005; Wainberg, 2006)

The Lemp study also found that of the 425 homosexuals males, ages 17 to 22, they surveyed, 41.4% reported an oc­casion of forced sex. (Lemp 1994) These young men would probably qualify as vic­tims of sexual abuse. Another study of 196 homosexually active men found that 29% reported that they had been pressured at least once into having sex. Of those pres­sured 97% said that one or more of these experiences involved unprotected anal inter­course, an HIV risk. (Kalichman 1995)

The study by Osmond also found evi­dence of sexual child abuse: “some of these subjects reported that they had first engaged in regular sex with a male when they were as few as 4 years old.”(Osmond 1994) The Remafedi study of the sexual behavior of 239 homosexually ac­tive boys 13 to 21 found that 42% had a history of sexual abuse/assault. (Remafedi 1994)

Sexual child abuse and sexual assault have been linked to lifelong psychological prob­lems, includ­ing depression, sexual addiction, drug addiction, involvement in prostitution, and suicidal feelings. Those promoting in-school support groups for students who think they may be homosexual frequently point to the multitude of problems among adolescents with SSA. Sexual child abuse and sexual assault must be considered as possi­ble causes.

AIDS education, which provides chil­dren and adolescents with explicit infor­mation about various forms of sexual behavior that spread the disease, may create curiosity and en­courage experimentation among young men. AIDS education has also been used as a vehicle for promoting positive attitudes toward homo­sexuality and it is possible that the number of young men experimenting with homosexuality will increase. As support groups in schools for boys who think that they might be homosexual are being set up, these boys will be encouraged to “come out.” This “coming out” will probably include engag­ing in sexual activity at an ear­lier age and more often. These young men may also become part of the urban homosexual commu­nity, traveling to centers of homosexual ac­tivity where they are likely to encounter HIV-positive adults interested in engaging in sexual activity with attractive teenagers.

The following is the conclusion of a study of the association of health risk behaviors and sexual orientation: “GLB youth who self-identify during high school report disproportionate risk for a variety of health risk and problem behaviors, including suicide, victimization, sexual risk behaviors, and multiple substance abuse use. In addition, these youth are more likely to report engaging in multiple risk behaviors and initiating risk behaviors at an earlier age than their peers.” (Garofalo 1998)

Since a certain percentage of males who experience SSA in adolescence find that these feelings disappear in time, schools should not encourage adolescent boys to “come out,” but offer positive support to deal with underlying problems.

_______________________________________________________________

Robert Garofalo, et al. (1998) “The association between health risk behaviors and sexual orientation among a school-based sample of adolescents,” Pediatrics, 101 (5) p. 895-898.

Halkitis, P., Wilton, L., Drescher, J. eds. (2005) Barebacking: Psychosocial and Public Health Approaches, Haworth Medical Press: NY

Kalichman, S., Rompa, D. (1995) Sexually Coerced and Noncoerced Gay and Bisexual Men: Factors Relevant to Risk for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Infection. Journal of Sex Research. 32, 1: 45 – 50.

Lemp, G., Hirozawa, A., Givertz, D., Nieri, G., Anderson, L., Linegren, M., Janssen, R., Katx, M. (1994) Seroprevalence of HIV and Risk Behaviors Among Young Homosexual and Bisexual Men. Journal of the American Medical Association. 272, 6: 449:454.

Osmond, D., Page, K., Wiley, J., Garrett, K., Sheppard, H., Moss, A., Schrager, K., Winkelstein, W. (1994) HIV Infection in Homosexual and Bisexual Men 18 to 29 years of age: The San Francisco Young Men’s Health Study. American Journal of Public Health. 84, 12: 1933 – 1937.

Remafedi, G. (1994) Predictors of unprotected intercourse among gay and bisexual youth: knowledge, beliefs, and behavior. Pediatrics. 94 : 163 – 168.

Stall, R, Coates, T, Hoff, C (1988) “Behavior Risk Reduction for HIV Infection among gay and bisexual men,” American Psychologist, 43, 11: 883.

Wainberg, Milton et al. (2006) Crystal Meth and Men who Have Sex with Men: What mental health care professionals need to know, Haworth Medical Press, NY.

This article is online at http://pfox.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=239#239