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.

Lots of pornography found on computer of Judge in LA obscenity case

From Aaron Leichman’s the Christian Post news report on June 13, 2008.

In one of the nation’s most high profile cases involving the prosecution of obscenity, pro-family groups and other commentators believed that they had a solid case against a Los Angeles advertizing agency owner who produced and sold thousands of what one attorney described as “the most extreme [pornographic videos] ever been put on trial.”

That is, until the case was temporarily suspended this week after the presiding judge was revealed to have a mountain of obscene pornographic videos on his personal web page.

Although state prosecutors spoke of a significant “conflict of interest” as they requested a 48-hour stay, pro-family groups have called for nothing less than the removal of Ninth Circuit Court Chief Justice Alex Kozinski from the case.

“As of this morning, he [has] yet to recuse himself from the current case involving sexual fetish videos,” the Family Research Council said in a statement.

“[Americans], like FRC, believe that Kozinski is ill-equipped to try an obscenity case when he clearly does not understand the definition of obscene. We call for his recusal in this case and a reexamination of his fitness as chief of one of the most important courts in the entire nation,” the group added.

But perhaps the most incredulous aspect of the recent case, according to pro-family groups, is Kozinki’s apparent indifference to the controversy of having a web page containing obscene pornographic images.

“Is it prurient?” Kozinski asked, according to the Los Angeles Times, which revealed the existence of the images and videos on the judge’s Web site. “I don’t know what to tell you… It’s part of life. This is a funny joke.”

A joke, however, that few Americans find funny, the FRC said.

The case, which involves Ira Isaacs, who is charged with obscenity for selling movies depicting bestiality and fetishes involving feces and urination, could prove challenging for prosecutors to effectively put on trial.

Kozinski called Thursday for an ethics panel to investigate his own conduct and said he would fully cooperate in any investigation, according to The Associated Press . He has acknowledged the sexual content on his personal Web site and claimed the images were not obscene. The California judge, however, also told the legal Web site abovethelaw.com that he doesn’t remember “putting some of that stuff” there.

“The problem with obscenity is no one really knows what it is. It’s relatively simple to paint something as an artistic effort even if it’s offensive,” said Jean Rosenbluth, a former federal prosecutor and law professor at University of Southern California, as reported by AP.

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that work cannot be considered obscene if it is deemed to have “literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”

The case will be relegated to a temporary pause until prosecutors decide how to further proceed.

Population Research Institute Perspective on the End of Planned Parenthood Funding in Viriginia

From PRI Comments on Planned Parenthood’s Loss of Taxpayer Funding in Virginia by Steve Mosher and Colin Mason, LifeSite News.

The amendment, cutting up to a half million dollars in funding from the abortion giant, passed by the narrowest of margins. The vote in the Virginia Senate was 20 votes in favor of the amendment and 20 against, and Lt. Governor Bolling had to break the tie. The amendment could still be vetoed by Governor Kaine later this month, although this would tarnish the moderate image he is trying to project. In all likelihood, Planned Parenthood faces a complete funding cut, and one that will last at least until 2010.

Feminist groups originally aimed their ire at Republican Ken Cuccinelli, who introduced the legislation. But they soon found a new target: Senator Charles Colgan, a pro-life Democrat who broke party ranks to cross the aisle and vote with Republicans.

Colgan faced withering opposition from within his own party in the days leading up to the vote, yet held firm to his pro-life convictions. “It was pretty tough,” Colgan told the Associated Press on the 27th. “They really wanted me to change my position, but I couldn’t do it.” His vote turned an expected 21 to 19 defeat of the amendment into a 20-20 tie, which in turn brought in Lt. Gov. Bolling to cast the tie-breaking vote against Planned Parenthood.

The vote was greeted with near hysteria by Planned Parenthood’s supporters, who over the years they have come to think of taxpayer funding for its sterilization and contraception programs, which largely target Blacks and other minorities, as a right.

“This amendment is not intended to save money,” complained an opinion piece in the Commonwealth Times. “It is a way for lawmakers to get around Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court case that made abortions legal in the United States, without directly confronting the constitutionality of the decision.”

Never mind that this legislative decision does not in any way address the constitutionality of abortion, only whether Virginia residents should be forced to fund an abortion group with their tax dollars. The Times apparently believes that abortion-on-demand is a human right, and that groups who perform abortions should automatically receive state funding.

The pro-choice blog Feministing.com is quick to pigeonhole all pro-life senators as “anti-choice.” The web site insists that these lawmakers “aren’t concerned about preventing abortion – if they were, they’d be touting birth control – their real concern is limiting women’s choices and rolling back our rights.”

The idea that pro-life senators spend their time plotting to find ways to subjugate modern women is laughable, especially given the fact that the deciding vote was cast by Charles Colgan, a moderate Democrat from Manassas.

Another feminist site, Feministe, goes a step further. Not only does it claim that Planned Parenthood helps to prevent abortions, but it further maintains that the funds would have gone toward non-abortion-related activities, anyway. “Jill,” one of the blog’s contributors, says, “Federal aid, and state aid from Virginia, are not paying for abortions. They are paying for pre-natal care, women’s health care, birth control, and sexual health education. Millions of women across the country benefit from those programs — and I’m one of them.”

Perhaps someone should explain the concept of fungibility to “Jill.” All the money that Planned Parenthood receives goes into the same kitty, and is impossible to track from there. As long as Planned Parenthood performs abortions, there is no way to give them money without in some way funding those abortions.

The Population Research Institute commends this pro-life amendment, and we would like to encourage other states to follow Virginia’s example.

It’s not as if Planned Parenthood needs the money. The abortion giant turns a huge profit each year, and has an endowment of over a half billion dollars. Killing babies is big business.

Years ago, Planned Parenthood declared Fr. Paul Marx, the founder of PRI, to be public enemy number one. In fact, it is Planned Parenthood itself that is the number one enemy of the American people.

In the years since Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood has killed more Americans than all the wars that America has ever fought.

Steve Mosher is the President at PRI, and Colin Mason is the Director for Media Production.