Don’t Experiment with Marriage (children aren’t guinea pigs)

Government could decree that “East” is now “North.” After all, they’re just arbitrary names for concepts, right? However, until all the old signs and maps (and compasses!) are replaced and gone forever, a lot of people will be lost and possibly hurt in transportation accidents.

Changing the family structure by government laws and regulations on marriage is reckless social experimentation, more like changing “up” to “down,” than “East” to “North.”

Rand Paul, (small-l)ibertarian Republican junior Senator from Kentucky and the son of perennial Presidential candidate Ron Paul, told the National Review that the Republican Party’s “problem” with gay marriage could be solved by changes eliminating references (and benefits) to marriage in the tax codes.

However, as an editorial in The Hill commentary noted,

Paul did not address in the interview how he might deal with other advantage and privileges extended to legally wed heterosexual couples, like federal spousal benefits, pension plans, health care, and Social Security survivors benefits.

And Paul ignores the societal consequences on our children of tomorrow.

Research confirms that the best environment for children is to live in a home with their married biological parents. When the ideal is not possible, statistics still favor stable, traditional marriage and the 2 parent home for the successful adult child of blended families and adoption. Please take a look at peer-reviewed studies published on the effects of stable families on children, here and here.

Want proof that government interference can change society for the worse? Look at the harm government has done to lower income families all those years when benefits were denied to families when the father was in the home. Or the negative influence of housing subsidies on marriage. (I can email the full article.)
Society and government ignore facts at the risk of harming the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of future generations. Don’t expect me to vote for or pay for dangerous societal experimentation – or even to sit quietly while someone outlines his intention to play social engineer.

Update: see this post from May 5, 2013, showing more evidence for the benefit to children of being reared in the home with their biological parents.

Plan B, Minors, and the Obama FDA Appeal

Just after I hit “publish” on yesterday’s effort to explain the mechanism of Plan B and why we still shouldn’t allow minor girls to buy it over the counter, I found the news that the Obama Administration has decided that the FDA will appeal the ruling by a New York Federal Judge Edward Korman that gave the FDA 30 days to remove all age restrictions on Plan B, the “morning after pill.” This will not change this week’s decision to move the age requirement down to 15 years of age, it is a good, if minor, move.

USA Today has an article that’s typical for those who object to the appeal, written by Cecile Richards, the former National president of Planned Parenthood (and the daughter of the late Texas Governor Ann Richards).

The comments on CBS News’ coverage of the appeal point out one big problem that teens who have unplanned sex may also have: the “emergency” aspect of “emergency contraception.” One person suggests that Plan B should be available in vending machines and restrooms, as condoms often are. Several readers are concerned that teens who have unprotected sex plan won’t ahead or be able to find a pharmacy open when they need it..

Obviously, the writer of that comment doesn’t understand that the pill can be useful up to 5 days — and is still very effective (if it’s going to be) for at least a day or two. As I responded, there is a difference between a condom and Plan B: the latter is ingested and will have an effect, however small, on the hormonal balance of whoever takes it. Condoms don’t make people nauseous or throw up!

Plan B and Minors (Updated!)

Update 5/02/13: The Obama Administration has decided to appeal the judge’s ruling that the age restrictions must be removed completely from Plan B sales.

Because of a ruling by a Court in New York on April 5, 2013 and the April 30, 2013 announcement that the Obama Administration has published its intent to allow 15 year olds to buy Plan B over the counter without a prescription or adult supervision, the news is full of the controversy about whether or not Plan B is an abortifacient because it kills the embryo or blocks implantation.

(How about that: she’s old enough to buy over the counter emergency contraception, but she’s still young enough for her parents to buy her insurance until she’s 26!)

There is quite a lot of evidence that Plan B does not interfere with the embryo if fertilization occurs and none that it does. If, as the evidence supports,  it doesn’t cause the death of the human embryo, before or after implantation, Plan B is not an “abortion pill.”

But it still shouldn’t be sold over the counter to minors.

I don’t know anyone who thinks it’s healthy for 12, 14 or 15 years olds to have sex – whether boys or girls. While Texas does have the “Romeo and Juliet” defense ( when there’s no force, both are over 14 years old, opposite sex and within 3 years of the same age), 15 year olds can’t legally consent to sex. Texas law deems it a “crime of indecency” to have sex with a minor under 17.  Our State has also decided that 15 year olds can’t drink alcohol, can’t buy tobacco or Sudafed, and they usually can’t get a driver’s license.

We do this to protect them, because we know that they are not prepared to make good decisions. Their brains are not mature enough and they don’t have the experience and knowledge to adequately judge the difference between immediate gratification and future benefit. The fact is that most parents are their children’s best protectors and advocates. We are legally responsible for our children, but we are also morally responsible for them. We love them and don’t want them to hurt!

Parents need – and have the right – to know what our dependent children are doing and what medicines they are taking. By changing these regulations, the Federal government is moving between the parent and child — a much more sacred relationship than “a woman and her doctor.”

There is very strong evidence from good scientific experiments published in the last 10 years that Plan B does not interfere with the implantation or development of an embryo.

Plan B only works, when it works, by preventing fertilization for 4-5 days in the middle of the month – before ovulation – it delays ovulation so there is no egg to fertilize and by preventing the sperm from getting to the egg.

Plan B is a high dose of progesterone, the main hormone produced by the ovaries during the second half of a woman’s monthly cycle. Before ovulation, Progesterone or Plan B delays ovulation (the release of the egg from the ovary) and makes it difficult for the sperm to get to the egg.  At or after ovulation,   progesterone appears to slow the sperm’s travel to the egg (prevents fertilization) In nature, this prevents fertilization of an old egg – and its effect is one of the signs used by women who use “Natural Family Planning.”   Progesterone normally encourages the development of the lining of the womb after ovulation. In fact, doctors sometimes give Progesterone to women who have repeated miscarriages.

 It wouldn’t be ethical to conduct experiments on women who are ovulating and having sex, because those women might be carrying a human embryo that hasn’t implanted or who could be harmed. While it is true that there have been no experiments on women who might be pregnant, there are good studies which were done on ovulating women who have their tubes tied or who agree to abstain from sex during the experiment. Then, they were studied by checking repeat exams, blood work, ultrasounds and biopsies of the womb.  No evidence that Plan B interferes with implantation or damages the embryo has been found.

Current evidence is that Plan B decreases the risk of pregnancy for those women who take it properly, Plan B cuts the risk of pregnancy by 50- 70%. At the population level, it does not decrease either the pregnancy rate or the abortion rate. In fact, even women who have the pills in their medicine cabinet – who don’t have to pay $45 when they have unprotected sex – don’t use the pills consistently. This is true in countries like Scotland, the UK and Jamaica where teen girls can obtain the medication without a prescription or are provided the medication in advance of need.

I am a pro-life doctor who, like Texas law, believes that the individual begins at fertilization. I spend much of my time advocating for laws that protect the human right not to be killed and for traditional medical ethics. Yes, I am a Christian , but I prefer to make my arguments from the science side because I’m convinced that science will prove me right in the long run. After all, the “Nature’s Creator “ cited in the Declaration of Independence created science!

For the science, see these articles:

Added 8:00 PM 5/2/13 One of the best and oldest. I can email a copy of the entire article to anyone who needs it http://www.contraceptionjournal.org/article/S0010-7824%2805%2900045-4/abstract

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20670097
• http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=17537781
• http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0010-7824(12)00100-X
• http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1726-46342010000200010&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en
• http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0010-7824(11)00106-5
• http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/news/20070417/plan-b-doesnt-cut-pregnancy-rates
• http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=200095

Texas Catholic Bishops Conference Rebukes “Texas Right to Life”

Using words such as “egregious,” “cynical,” “outrageous,” and “deceive,” the Texas Catholic Bishops Conference have published the letter that they sent to Texas Legislators concerning the actions of Texas Right to Life concerning Senate Bill 303 and its companion, House Bill 1444 on April 15, 2013.

Since employees and representatives of TRL continue to “stoke fear through ridiculous claims,” (and to harass those who support the Bills)  here’s the letter (I’ve reproduced the emphasis is in the original):

The Texas Catholic Conference is compelled to publicly correct the misstatements and fabrications that continue to be perpetuated by the Texas Right to Life organization against legislation to improve end-of-life care by reforming the Texas Advance Directives Act.

It has been said that all is fair in love, war and Texas politics. However, the actions of Texas Right to Life have been so egregious and cynical, especially when comes to misrepresenting the moral and theological doctrine of the Catholic Church, that the TCC cannot stay silent.

Texas’ Advance Directives Act needs reform. Current law lacks clarity given the complexity of end-of-life care, contains definitions that could permit the withdrawal of care for patients – including food and water – and permits unilateral Do Not Resuscitate Orders without the permission of, or even consultation with, the family.

Senate Bill 303 and House Bill 1444 are based on Catholic moral principles and reasonable medical standards for defending human life and protecting the conscience of both families and physicians. Both billsprevent unilateral DNRs, improve communication between medical providers and families, ensure a clear and balanced process for resolving differences, and give families the right to challenge Do Not Resuscitate Orders before a medical ethics committee.

In both its materials and communications with legislative offices and staff, Texas Right to Life has tried to stoke fear through ridiculous claims of nonexistent “death panels” and assertions that doctors are “secretly trying to kill patients.” Both claims are absurd. The truth is, many factors are involved in the sausage-grinding process of public policymaking. Some have less to do with making good laws and more about individual personalities and fundraising opportunities of organizations.

It is outrageous that an organization purportedly committed to the rights and dignity of life would resort to such disingenuous tactics that deceive honest and caring people. What is worse is doing so in a way that perpetuates current law and may cause unnecessary patient suffering.

Texas Right to Life has no authority to articulate Catholic moral teaching, and certainly does not have permission to represent the views of the Roman Catholic Bishops of Texas. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at the Texas Catholic Conference. We are more than happy to answer any questions or provide the Texas Catholic Bishops’ position on any issue before the Legislature.

 

(Edited for spelling and grammar, 4/25/13 BBN)

Obama Gives $13 Million Grant to Texas Planned Parenthood! @txprolife

We’ve all been hearing about the supposed “War on Women” by Conservative law makers – and, by extension, voters – in Texas. Well, President Obama and Secretary of Health Kathleen Sebellius just fired another shot in the war against Texas and State’s rights.

UPDATE: In an emailed statement, Texas Department of State Health Services spokeswoman Carrie Williams says that the agency just received notice that it will lose the Title X grant and is “reviewing the information to get a sense of the full impact.” The agency hopes the transition is smooth and the provider base remains strong, she wrote.
EARLIER: The federal government has pulled from the state of Texas millions in family planning funding, granting the money instead to a coalition led by the Women’s Health and Family Planning Association of Texas, which says it can serve a greater number of women with the available funds.
For more than four decades, federal Title X funding has been dedicated to funding family planning services and covering clinics’ infrastructure costs. The funds are generally granted to providers (like Planned Parenthood) and/or to state health agencies. In Texas since 1980, the majority of the funding has been administered by the Department of State Health Services — roughly $18 million in 2012, for example; since 2009, DSHS has been the sole grantor of Title X funds.

(Edit, maybe it’s only half of that.)

A Little History

Before this year, Federal tax dollars came back to Texas in two major funds: the Women’s Health Program and Family Planning, or Title X funds. Texas “matched” a certain amount and the Texas Department of Health and Human Services administered the dispersion of the money. Because the money paid for or freed up other funds for staff, marketing, and “infrastructure” or office overhead, PP was helped to keep their abortion clinics running. The overall effect was that State matching tax dollars helped PP to funnel patients, if not dollars, to their abortion clinics.

Texas was forced to make severe Budget cuts across the board in 2011, including Family Planning funds. This led to prioritizing what little money we had:

“State lawmakers cut funding for family planning services by two-thirds in the last legislative session, dropping the two-year family planning budget from $111 million to $37.9 million for the 2012-13 biennium. They also approved a tiered budget system for family planning funds, which gives funding priority to public health clinics, such as federally qualified health centers and comprehensive clinics that provide primary and preventative care over clinics that only provide family planning services.”

Texas Tribune

Trial shows abortion’s ‘coarsening’ impact

http://m.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=40078

State Rep Farrar: “Choice” to abort babies with spina bifida after 20 weeks

6:05/8:18 Farrar:  “So, so, this diagnosis is missed, they
have a fetal anomaly, the spine’s outside the body or something, you say you would not have an exception for that situation.”

Watch the video at 6:05 (See below ++) of the April 10, 2013 Texas House State Affairs Committee meeting hearing on HB 2364, by Representative Jodi Laubenberg,  as State Representative Jessica Farrar challenges a practicing OB/Gyn about his belief that abortion should not be performed when babies are found to have non-lethal “anomalies” after 20 weeks post-fertilization (or 22 weeks since last period).

I wonder how of you have heard of the trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell* in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania? Most people, whether pro-choice or pro-life, are horrified by the way Dr. Gosnell and his staff treated the babies they delivered both alive and dead.

We also squirm at the intentional killing of children who could otherwise live.

The limit of viability for the unborn, using current medical technology, is 20 to 23 weeks gestation.  There have been reports of survivors born before this time. Who will be surprised when the limit moves even farther back? What will history say about us?

In fact, here in Texas, we have made it clear with our Prenatal Protection Act of 2003, spurred on by the deaths of Lacy and Connor Peterson, that our definition of individual (or person) includes all humans from fertilization to natural death.

++ Download the free Real Player app, open the video and then pull the timeline cursor out to 6:05. More Committee and Session videos are available at the Texas Legislature Online site.

*(Gosnell is accused of killing the babies who survive, of committing abortions after the legal age limit, and of mutilating the bodies of the babies after they were dead. One gruesome account is here.)

Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst

Talking about Texas’s history of conservative pro-life and pro-family laws.

Shooter Used Southern Poverty Law Center’s Website to Identify FRC as Target

By the way, the victim’s name is Leo Johnson.

FRC’s Tony Perkins again calls on SPLC to Stop Reckless Labeling of Christian Organizations

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Earlier today, Floyd Lee Corkins, II, pleaded guilty to three charges including a District of Columbia charge of committing an act of terrorism. The charges stem from the August 15, 2012 shooting at the Family Research Council’s headquarters.

Today’s hearing also revealed that in the interview with the FBI right after the shooting, the shooter admitted his guilt, which was captured on video. He said he intended to “kill as many as possible and smear the Chick-Fil-A sandwiches in victims’ faces, and kill the guard.” The prosecutor said they reviewed the family computer and found that he identified his targets on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s web site.

read more via Shooter Used Southern Poverty Law Center’s Website to Identify FRC as Target.

This is Leticia Van De Putte, the pro-abort racist

Lest we forget, as Senator Zaffirini reminded us this afternoon, Leticia Van de Putte is a rabid advocate for Planned Parenthood. And, here’s who she was in 2003, when she ran away with the other Democrats to thwart the will of the voters of Texas on redistricting. (Edit –  She’s the one who suggested to the 82nd Legislature that traditional marriage would be strengthened if the State passed a law requiring all marriages to include “some sex.” — clarified for context. BBN)

Here’s the story I wrote in 2003, published online at the time by the Washington Dispatch and on FreeRepublic.com

Racism in Texas Politics? Exclusive commentary by Beverly Nuckols

Aug 7, 2003

From the Op-Ed pages of the Houston Chronicle on August 6, 2003:

To paraphrase one of the greatest civil rights activists of the 20th century, “We are sick and tired of being sick and tired.” Fannie Lou Hamer uttered these infamous words during her crusade in the 1960s and 1970s to encourage political participation and the right to vote by African-Americans, Hispanics and other minorities.

“We and our fellow senators are in Albuquerque, N.M., because the same important issue faces the citizens and state of Texas.”

These words were written by three Houston Democrats: State Senators Rodney Ellis, Mario Gallegos and John Whitmire. They are members of a mixed-race, single-party gang of eleven Texas State Senators who fled across the border to Albuquerque, New Mexico in order to shut down the legislative process of Texas by denying the State Senate a quorum. The group, alternately called the “Killer D’s,” “Chicken D’s,”or “AlbuTurkeys”, panicked Monday afternoon, July 28th, and left the Austin Capitol Building to board two private jets provided by wealthy Texas businessmen, David Rogers, whose family owns the First National Bank of Edinburg, and Greg LaMantia, a partner in L&F Distributors for Anheuser-Busch in McAllen. They have set up camp in $150 to $200 per day rooms and suites at the Marriott Pyramid. The Chair of the 2004 Democratic Convention, who just happens to be New Mexico’s Governor Bill Richardson, immediately sent State Troopers to provide round-the-clock protection so that the Senators would be safe to make statements such as this to the media. Virtually every news article printed, and most of the television or radio reports, about the attempted-coup-by-flying-the-coop quote the flock of eleven about the races of the voters in Texas, but never a word is said about the racial diversity of their own group, much less about the divisive nature of their comments.

Senator Leticia Van de Putte, who is the current Senate Democratic Caucus, former Chair of the Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus and the apparent gang leader of the runaways, engaged in similar rhetoric when I met with her at her hotel hideout on Sunday, August 3. (I drove and stayed in a much cheaper room in the same hotel.) Senator Van de Putte admitted that her constituency in the Bexar County area will not be touched by any of the proposed redistricting maps, because the Hispanic population is protected under Civil Rights laws and locked in by court rulings. However, the Senator with the Dutch surname repeatedly talked about her interests as “Hispanic” “Latino” and “minority,” while using the term, “Anglo” to represent those who oppose her and/or any group of people that she believed I would support. The Senator didn’t know that her use of the word “Anglo” would offend me, because of her own bias. She also doesn’t know how proud I am of my Cherokee ancestry, which gave me a great ability to tan instead of sunburn, and which made my eyes as dark as hers. And she evidently prefers to ignore the fact that 44% of Hispanic voters voted for the brown-eyed Republican Governor Rick Perry in 2002.

And then later, The Fort Worth Star-Telegram contains this little tidbit:

Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, recalled that in 1993, Senate Democrats were pushing a resolution to have state judges elected from Texas House districts rather than running in countywide elections. At the time, the House had a solid Democratic majority while Republicans were winning countywide elections in many urban areas.

When the resolution came up for a vote in the Senate, most of the Republicans had left the floor, which left the body short of the 21 members it needed for a quorum.

“They didn’t leave the state; they just left the Senate,” Ellis recalled. “But they did succeed in shutting the place down, even if it was just for a day. I remember somebody asking me if it was like the Killer Bees (the nickname for the Senate Democrats who fled for four days in 1979), and I said it was more like the Killer WASPs.” (emphasis mine)

As a citizen of the State of Texas and an American, I am sick and tired of the racist comments and views of the eleven Democrat rogues who have run away to New Mexico in an act of extortion against the Governor and Lieutenant Governor who are only responding to the will of the voting majority. These cowardly partisans seem determined to divide the State along racial lines and blur their own political agenda. They have waged a campaign in the media to deliberately imply that the State’s redistricting effort is an attempt to take the votes from certain racial groups. In fact, the actions of the Democrats – now and in May when 51 Democrats hired buses to take them to Ardmore, Oklahoma – steal the power of the votes of the majority of Texans: those who voted for the Legislators who did show up for work when they were supposed to.

Beverly B. Nuckols, MD is a pro-life pro-human rights Family Practitioner from New Braunfels, Texas. Beverly can be contacted by writing to feedback@washingtondispatch.com

Map: Approved women’s health program providers in North Texas | Dallas-Fort Worth Breaking News – News for Dallas, Texas – The Dallas Morning News

Note that the providers are up to date and much more widespread than the few PP clinics. The numbers of patients served in 2011 are all before the new program was established along with the outreach by DSHS to contract with more doctors and clinics.

The dots represent approved state women’s health program providers as of October, such as clinics or private physician practices. Many have more than than one doctor at the location.The color designates the number of Medicaid Women’s Health Program clients the provider saw in fiscal 2011, the most recent year data is available.

via Map: Approved women’s health program providers in North Texas | Dallas-Fort Worth Breaking News – News for Dallas, Texas – The Dallas Morning News.

New Payroll Tax Marriage Penalty Under ObamaTax (for the “rich”)

Just in time for all those same-sex newly-weds in the state of Washington, the Obama Administration and Democrat-pushed ObamaCare taxes will kick in, taxing married couples as one for the first time since Social Security and Medicare taxes were instituted as “payroll taxes.”

From the New York Times:

Among the most affluent fifth of households, those affected will see tax increases averaging $6,000 next year, economists estimate.

The NYT article advises us all, that since our employers may not (!) know how much our spouses make, we need to make sure our employers take out enough taxes each pay period or to begin making extra estimated payments on our own.

Texas victory on Women’s Health Program. BTW: It’s our money!

Next stop: getting our money back from the Feds!

Granted a legal victory Thursday by a federal appeals court, state officials said they will begin working quickly to exclude Planned Parenthood from the Women’s Health Program, which provides contraceptives and health care to low-income women.

The state also reversed course on funding for the health program, saying it would seek to have the federal government continue funding it, rather than switching to a state-funded program as planned.

“In Texas we choose life, and we will immediately begin defunding all abortion affiliates to honor and uphold that choice,” Gov. Rick Perry said.

Thursday’s ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was expected because it reaffirmed an August opinion that said Texas could legally exclude Planned Parenthood — or any organization that provides abortions or promotes the procedure — from the program.

But in a new wrinkle, state officials said the court victory will prompt them to press the federal government to continue providing money for the program — a reversal of U.S. policy that could save tens of millions of dollars in state money but is unlikely to happen without a fight.

via Texas seeks to keep federal money for women’s health program | www.statesman.com.

Comal County Early Voting

The first day of early voting in Comal County yielded double the voter turn out on the same day in 2008, with more than 3100 voters compared to 1700.

I voted on the second day, and was pleased to find that the Comal County Voting Center on Landa Street in New Braunfels was up to the task. The County has designed an efficient and organized Center, with fast moving lines and 3 stations set up to check in voters.

I cast my first “straight Party” ticket since 1992, today. The first “page of the electronic ballot offers the option to vote for one Party or the other, and a vote for Republicans took me through each page of all the candidates and offices, allowing me to review and view the names of each candidate I voted for and to see who I wasn’t voting for. I hope that those of you who are tempted to just vote the top of the ticket or for a few candidates will consider taking my endorsement of the Republican candidates all up and down the ballot, with the ease of the straight Party vote! You’ll get the well known candidates, like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, Donna Campbell for SD 25, Susan Narvaiz for Congressional District 35 and Kevin Webb for Comal County Commissioner, Pct 3, and you also support judges like Scott Fields, Jeff Rose and Bob Pemberton!

No matter where you live in Comal County, or where your regular voting place is, you can cast your ballot at any of the early voting places or times. Here’s the early voting opportunities in Comal County:

• New Braunfels: 345 Landa, Suite 101. Oct. 23-26, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; Oct. 27, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.; Oct. 28, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.; Oct. 29 — Nov. 2, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.

• Canyon Lake: CRRC Community Center, 125 Mabel Jones Dr. Oct. 23-26, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; Oct. 27, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.; Oct. 28, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.; Oct. 29 — Nov. 1, 9 a.m. to 7 p.m.; and Nov. 2, 7 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

• Bulverde: Bulverde / Spring Branch Library, 131 Bulverde Crossing. Oct. 23-26, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; Oct. 27, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.; Oct. 28, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.; Oct. 29-Nov. 1, 9 a.m. to 7 p.m.; and Nov. 2, 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.

• Garden Ridge: City Hall, 9400 Municipal Parkway. Oct. 23-26, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; Oct. 27, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.; Oct. 28, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.; Oct. 29 — Nov. 1, 9 a.m. to 7 p.m.; and Nov. 2, 7 a.m. to 3 p.m.

U. of Texas backs professor in battle with gay blogger

WingRight reported on the harassment of Mark Regnerus, a University of Texas at Austin Professor of Sociology, for his study on the differences in the adult children of homosexual parents. Dr. Regnerus was subjected to an investigation by the University, which confiscated his computer and emails.

The University has exonerated the Professor, and released this statement on September 12, 2012:

“The University of Texas at Austin has determined that no formal investigation is warranted into the allegations of scientific misconduct lodged against associate professor Mark Regnerus regarding his July article in the journal Social Science Research,” the school said in a statement. “As with much university research, Regnerus’ New Family Structures Study touches on a controversial and highly personal issue that is currently being debated by society at large.”The university expects the scholarly community will continue to evaluate and report on the findings of the Regnerus article and supports such discussion,” the statement concluded.

via U. of Texas backs professor in battle with gay blogger | Fox News.

Women Speak for Themselves Press Release @WomenSpeak2012 #prolife #tcot

By e-mail from Women Speak for Themselves, this morning:

Women Defy “We Are Women” Rally Claims; Say Let Women Speak For Themselves

Washington DC, August 18—As some women gather at the Nation’s Capitol today for the “We Are Women” rally, members of the advocacy group, Women Speak For Themselves (WSFT; womenspeakforthemselves.com) are making their own voices heard. WSFT began with an open letter to the White House, Congress and Secretary Sebelius in February 2012, demanding respect both for religious freedom and for an understanding of woman’s freedom and equality that goes beyond “free contraception.” It now has over 31 thousand signatories from every state.

“It defies reason that a few groups could speak for all women on issues of life, family, sex and religion,” said WSFT founder, Helen Alvaré.

“The 31,000 plus women who have signed onto our open letter will no longer sit silently by while a few political figures and their allies insist that religious freedom has to bow to the theory, the ideology really, that the centerpiece of women’s freedom is sexual expression without commitment,” continued Alvaré.

Catherine, a woman in her twenties living in New York City and a signatory, wrote to WSFT: “Out of respect for themselves and others, many women choose to live a life of sexual integrity…Many of my girlfriends and I have found this approach to our sexuality to be freeing, empowering, and constitutive of a deep sense of happiness.”

“I’m a pro-choice woman who respects the rights of other women to hold different views,” wrote another WSFT member Carol, from Vermont. “More specifically I expect the government, in compliance with the Constitution, to protect every person from being coerced into acting in a manner contrary to his or her conscience. The HHS mandates are a fundamental violation of our rights to free speech and religion.”

Hundreds more women wrote to WSFT to express their strong opposition to the message of the Saturday rally.

“Our women come from diverse political, ideological and religious backgrounds,” Alvaré explained. “But they are united in their opposition to a ‘one size fits all’ version of what women really want, particularly a version contradicted by decades of data and women’s experience in the new sex, dating and marriage markets formed by the idea that contraception, with abortion as the backup, is the sum and substance of women’s equality.“

Jennifer from Indiana, for example, a signatory to the WSFT letter says:
”Women and reproduction are not things that need to be fixed, medicated, sterilized. To equate women’s rights and health to these things is to do an incredible disservice to the rights and health issues that women do face today.”

“An honest ‘We Are Women’ rally would acknowledge the diverse views held by women. It would acknowledge the science about the decline in women’s well-being associated with the world view this rally represents.” Alvaré says. “No one speaks for all women on these issues. Let women speak for themselves.”

What Chick-Fil-a’s Dan Cathy Actually Said @FRCdc @BaptistPress #tcot

“Hate speech,” right? Only if you advocate for divorce and serial monogamy — or practice media abuse.

I’m ashamed to say that I didn’t look up Mr. Cathy’s actual remarks until I read a quote in a story about the shooting of a guard at the Washington, DC Headquarters of the Family Research Council.

I went searching for the original interview and found it, here:

“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

A person has to try very hard to find hate in that comment or the others recorded in the piece about a radio interview that Mr. Cathy gave to the Biblical Recorder’s  K. Allan Blume, and later published in the Baptist Press. In my opinion, your world view – or your agenda – must be pretty narrow to turn Mr. Cathy’s comments about the family and marriage into “anti” anything!

Here’s the part of the story that supposedly was “anti-gay:”

The company invests in Christian growth and ministry through its WinShape Foundation (WinShape.com). The name comes from the idea of shaping people to be winners.

It began as a college scholarship and expanded to a foster care program, an international ministry, and a conference and retreat center modeled after the Billy Graham Training Center at the Cove.

“That morphed into a marriage program in conjunction with national marriage ministries,” Cathy added.

Some have opposed the company’s support of the traditional family. “Well, guilty as charged,” said Cathy when asked about the company’s position.

“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

“We operate as a family business … our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that,” Cathy emphasized.

“We intend to stay the course,” he said. “We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”

As a “first wife,” I’m probably biased, but I like that he thanks the Lord for his marriage! And I don’t see any mention of gays, at all!

Texas Medical Association wants you to pay for elective abortions @texmed @texasallianceforlife #pro-life #tcot

Not all of the members of Texas Medical Association agree with the TMA on this.

The San Antonio Express News published an editorial August 9th, by O. Ricardo Pimentel, entitled, “Texas tries to get between you, your doctor:”

For them, the issue isn’t abortion; it’s about the doctor-patient relationship, patient health and the ability to put everything on the table that needs to be discussed. Even if it’s abortion.

In a recent letter to the state, the Texas Medical Association, joined by other medical groups, said Texas is about to embark on a plan for providing medical care to low-income women that will impose a “gag order” on discussing abortion even on doctors working with patients not in the program.

Other groups, weighing in during the public comment period on proposed state rules, have similar concerns.

It’s a plan, they say, that will ensure not enough doctors for this program willing to provide care, including family planning services. And this, they say, will guarantee more unintended pregnancies, more abortions and more illness that might have been prevented for low-income women.

Among those also commenting on the rules were the Center for Public Policy Priorities, and leaders of Planned Parenthood entities in the state, South Texas groups among them.

Trust me, for everyone who is mentioned above, it’s about abortion. The law doesn’t stop anyone from discussing or even promoting true contraception that doesn’t end the life of our youngest children of tomorrow.

And it is about “elective abortions:” those that are performed on health babies in healthy mothers. We’re not talking about the more controversial abortions in cases of rape and incest, much less in the cases of congenital disorders that are “not compatible with life outside the womb and certainly not in cases where the mother’s life is in danger. Since when do elective abortions “need to be discussed?”

How difficult is it to understand that Texas taxpayers should not pay for “promotion” of abortion? Or that we most certainly do not want our State tax funds to go to doctors who perform elective abortions on healthy babies and healthy mothers?

While I don’t speak for the Society, I am an elected delegate for my County Medical Society to the TMA House of Delegates and I believe that most of our members would agree with me on this. I am very much in favor of restricting payment from our limited State funds to only those doctors and organizations that provide comprehensive and continuing medical care for the whole woman and her whole family. With Texas Family Doctors, Internal Medicine Docs, Pediatricians and OB/Gyns reeling from the lack of increasing fees from Medicare and decreases in Medicaid funding, why not help keep them in business by adding the availability of billing the State for screening tests like pap smears, exams for breast masses, diabetes and high blood pressure?

In fact, that’s what the Legislature decided: that money would be prioritized. First come the comprehensive care docs, hospitals, and county and city clinics. Planned Parenthood is never mentioned, although there is a section of the law that absolutely prohibits the State from contracting with anyone who “promotes” abortion *if there are other qualified providers available.*

Texas DHS has already identified more than enough doctors and clinics that qualify under the law. These doctors can actually treat the diseases for which the Texas Women’s Health Plan screens. Our Texas Legislature made a wise decision when they agreed that it doesn’t make sense to send our few dollars to a clinic that treats a very narrow medical spectrum in an intermittent manner.

And the law has already saved human lives: Austin city and Travis County taxes once paid for 400 elective abortions each year. A year ago, the law achieved what the taxpayers who protested this use of their money couldn’t do: Austin and Travis County health clinics were forced to stop funding those abortions.
If you have a family doctor, consider a polite call to his or her front desk asking them to let the TMA know their views on using Texas’ tax funds to support Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.

You might also consider contacting Texas Alliance for Life and/or you local Crisis Pregnancy Center to let them know that you support their efforts to keep your State (and federal) tax funds from paying for the ending of lives of our Texans of tomorrow.

Action: Women Speak 4 OURSELVES @WomenSpeak2012 #tcot #pro-life

Based on the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of our United States is designed to secure our rights to life, liberty and property for every human being, not just the ones who can speak out. Those of us who can speak, should join in the effort to protect the rights of all, including the unborn children of tomorrow, male and female, and everyone who objects to government-sponsored efforts to end their lives. The recent Obama mandate that infringes on the First Amendment protection of the right of free exercise of religion and their on-going efforts to force Texas to fund Planned Parenthood with State taxes is in direct violation of the Bill of Rights.

I received an email tonight from the group, “Women Speak for Themselves” asking for comments on next Saturday’s Washington, DC rally sponsored by pro-abortion, anti-family and anti-First Amendment rights groups:

This Saturday, on the National Capitol lawn, Think Progress (a George Soros funded group) is hosting a “We Are Women” rally. Soros’ group, along with some of their co-sponsors, the usual—the National Organization of Women, Planned Parenthood, and the National Women’s Political Caucus—along with some more peculiar groups—Rock The Slut Vote, The National Center for Transgender Equality, and the Reformed Whores entertainers, among others—have a specific goal in mind.

“Our mission,” their website reads, “is to bring national attention to the ongoing war on women’s rights…”

Not surprisingly, the language on their website gives the appearance that they’re claiming to speak for all women on matters of healthcare, family, and freedom…which makes this just the type of event at which we need to make our voices heard! And so, here’s where YOU come in.

Prior to the rally, we’ll be releasing a statement to the press, informing them that there are women with alternative views on these matters, should the press wish to include us in the discussion. We’d like to add YOUR voices to that statement.

Send us a brief statement (2-3 sentences), articulating why as a woman you stand for and believe freedom includes protection for life, family, and/or religion. Be sure to include your full name, city and state, and your occupation, if you’d like—along with permission for us to include your information and quote in our press release.

If you’re not sure where to start, feel free to use our two sets of talking points for ideas (though your statement need not be solely focused on the HHS mandate), and try to stay focused on why you’re FOR our view of women’s freedom, as opposed to AGAINST the view of women’s freedom being put forth by Soros and cohorts.

Thanks for your help with this….I look forward to your statements!

My best to you,
Helen

http://womenspeakforthemselves.com/
https://www.facebook.com/WomenSpeakForThemselves
https://twitter.com/womenspeak2012

P.S. I’m told some pro-lifers will be gathering at the North Capitol Lawn on Saturday, to hold a counter protest. The rally starts at 11am, I believe, so feel free to head on over, with signs and pro-life gear, if you’d like to be a joyful example of the alternative.

 

I wish I could attend the counter protest, but I’m committed to a meeting for the Christian Medical and Dental Association that day. If you can attend, please do. Either way, send a message to http://womenspeakforthemselves.com/ or @womenspeak2012!

Author of study on homosexual parents and children under fire, investigated by University of Texas (Regnerus) #tcot

And anyone who supports his views is at risk, too.

In June, WingRight.org reported on the publication of Mark Regnerus‘ article, “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study,” in Social Science Research. The adults reported more problems when compared to adult children of “intact biological families.” The early complaints from critics were that the data didn’t distinguish between types of homosexual relationships in the same  way that it did among heterosexual families. The adult subjects were designated as having Lesbian Mothers (LM) or gay fathers (GF), without breaking out smaller groups by how long or stable the relationships of the parents were. This was a weakness in the study that was recognized by the author.

Legitimate criticism was rare. One article, here, by Walter Olson under “Gay Voices” at least looks at the data itself, although dismissing much of it and declaring the author’s own bias. Critics repeatedly point to a very few small studies of carefully chosen – often self-selected -upper-middle class LM families that are written by very biased authors, who openly advocate for same-sex marriage and parenting. Somehow, they believe that bias in favor is not significant, but any data or mention that there might be negative consequences from alternative families – or documentation of positive outcomes from intact biological families – is immediately dismissed as bigoted and discriminatory.

However, instead of focusing on the problems described and noting that adult children of divorced and step families also fared poorly compared to IBFs, the conversation in the media and on line quickly became attacks on Dr. Regnerus, the source of the funding, the Witherspoon Institute, and the connections between the leaders of the Institute and the National Organization for Marriage.

An article in “The New Civil Rights Movement,” an online site devoted to “gay rights and issues and marriage equality,” very literally attacks not only Dr. Regnerus, Witherspoon and NOM, but also tears apart the motives and history of a man who came forward to tell his story after the Regnerus piece was published. The author, gay rights activist Scott Rosensweig who writes under the name Scott Rose, is most certainly biased. His piece is loaded with emotional rants, using words such as the repeated use of “gay-bashing”personal attacks on the author of the Witherspoon essay.

And now, the heat is on the University of Texas to somehow censor or censure Dr. Regnerus. Due to a “formal” complaint by Rosensweig, author of the article above, UT is conducting an inquiry to determine whether to fully investigate Dr. Regnerus and his methods. Rosensweig’s letter evidently charged that “Your employee, Professor Mark Regnerus, is shaming and disgracing your institution by violating your university’s academic honor code,” he wrote. “If you take no stand against Regnerus’ coordinated political anti-gay hate campaign then you are leaving your institution’s reputation in a garbage-bin of iniquity.”

I’m forwarding my own essay to the University and suggest that those of you with an interest in the issue, or who pay taxes in Texas, send them your own polite informative notes. President Bill Power’s e-mail address is president@po.utexas.edu.

Hawaii’s traditional marriage law upheld #tcot

You wouldn’t know it from most of the headlines, however.  Most of the mainstream news articles say that Federal Judge Alan C Kay ruled against gay marriage, “refuses to legalize gay marriage” or “upholds” a “ban” on gay marriage. One article at “Think Progress,” is even titled, “Reagan-Appointed Judge Upholds Marriage Discrimination In Hawaii.”

In fact, what the judge ruled was that the Courts shouldn’t overturn State Constitutional amendments passed by a popular vote of the people and/or laws passed by the State Legislature without good reason:

If the traditional institution of marriage is to be restructured, as sought by Plaintiffs, it should be done by a democratically-elected legislature or the people through a constitutional amendment, not through judicial legislation that would inappropriately preempt democratic deliberation regarding whether or not to authorize same-sex marriage.

and,
Rational basis review does not authorize “the judiciary [to] sit as a
superlegislature to judge the wisdom or desirability of
legislative policy determinations made in areas that neither
affect fundamental rights nor proceed along suspect lines.” Jackson, Kleid, &Bradley v. Ambercrombie & Fudder  ruling by Alan C. Kaye for District Court in Hawaii.

The judge does explore the history of marriage and, indeed, concludes that marriage has traditionally included a man and a woman and that the Supreme Court and Circuit Court rulings have never considere marriage to be anything else. He also noted that homosexuals are not a “suspect class” that is protected from discrimination and that the law does not discriminate based on gender.

In an odd twist, the Governor of Hawaii, Democrat Neil Ambercrombie, was not only a defendant in the case,he testified for the plaintiffs, and against traditional marriage.

#RomneyRyan2012 GOP Ticket a Conservative Winner #RR12 #TxGOP

Paul Ryan is an excellent, conservative choice for Mitt Romney’s Vice President running mate. Not lukewarm at all, no pale pastels, here!

For background on Representative Ryan from Wisconsin, read the coverage of his votes and past statements at OnTheIssues.org

My primary issue is the right to life – without security of protection for life, there is no other freedom or right and if a person discriminates between other human beings as “persons,” then I can’t trust them to preserve my life and liberty.

Here’s the notes on “Abortion”  and other life issues on that link above:

Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted YES on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted YES on funding for health providers who don’t provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance. (Dec 2006)
Prohibit transporting minors across state lines for abortion. (Jan 2008)
Bar funding for abortion under federal Obamacare plans. (Jul 2010)
Prohibit federal funding for abortion. (May 2011)
Congress shall protect life beginning with fertilization. (Jan 2011)
Prohibit federal funding to groups like Planned Parenthood. (Jan 2011)
Grant the pre-born equal protection under 14th Amendment. (Jan 2007)

#GOP2012 Platform Ideas #TxGOP #

My idea for “Constitutional Solutions” for health care is up on the site. Take a look and second it, here.

Another place to read is under the Family Values and Faith-based Issues subheadings of Marriage and Family Values and Sanctity of Life. It seems the site is being bombarded by “Republicans” who want to get rid of these planks in our Platform. Please comment on the “ideas” that want to approve same sex marriage and get “pro-life” completely out of our Platform.

I wrote one of my (long) posts in response to “Remove Pro-life from the Party Platform,” here:

This idea can’t be considered by the Republican Party. The major difference between our Party and all others is the basic belief in and defense of the ideals embodied in the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution means nothing without the right to life. The freedom from tyranny that the Constitution preserves is nothing without the security “that all men are created equal and endowed by God with *unalienable* rights, …Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” The definition of human being is scientific, it’s not arbitrary or dependent on stage of life or geography. Once we stop assuming that all human individuals are endowed with these rights and allow the government to decide which humans are human enough to have these inalienable rights protected by the force of law, we all become slaves to the majority, whether that majority is in numbers or the power of the biggest guns. We are the only species having this conversation.

Donna Campbell receives mandate from SD 25 #TxSen #TxGOP

Texas Senate District 25 is Conservative, Pro-life & Pro-family! Donna Campbell wins 2:1 victory!!

Romney, GOP blast Obama for ‘gutting’ welfare reform law – The Hill’s Healthwatch

How does Congress reign in this Administration’s penchant for ignoring the letter and spirit of the law? Some headlines claim the Administration is “bypassing Congress! (and what’s next?)

The idea of allowing States more leeway sounds good until you read that the Obama admin will allow studying for GED to count. There’s not a thing wrong with working while taking classes. Lots of us did it.

Working to qualify for assistance from the Government is a reasonable expectation.

Republicans came out strongly against a quiet policy change by the Obama administration that could change how states administer welfare.

Under the new policy, federal waivers would allow states to test new approaches to improving employment among low-income families. In exchange, states would have to prove that their new methods are effective, or lose the waivers.

Republicans blasted the change as “gutting” work requirements in the landmark 1996 welfare-to-work law known as TANF.

via Romney, GOP blast Obama for ‘gutting’ welfare reform law – The Hill’s Healthwatch.

I believe in assisting people who have bad luck and hard times, although I do believe private charity is preferable.

One reason it’s better than government assistance is that government puts in more rules, and is much more likely to invade privacy of recipients. Then, there’s a difference between taking money from someone by force of law (with the accompanying threats of fines, prison) and freely giving of what you have out of compassion.

There’s also the personal indebtedness that comes from person to person charity and assistance. Taxpayer funded aide doesn’t cause the beneficiary to have reciprocal emotional attachment to the one giving the aide It’s good to see and hopefully understand and mirror the feeling of sacrifice by the giver. And it’s good to feel grateful and indebted. (And it’s more likely to cause the person who receives to be compelled to “pass it on” to someone else when able later on.

And back to that original question: this Administration ignores the law that’s written, so new law won’t help much. What can the rest of us or our Legislators do to keep them from flaunting the law and the Constitution?

Praise for a centrist (#TxSen @DavidHDewhurst on @teDCruz)

In a two page letter in a November, 2008 mailer from The National Law Journal, Ted Cruz (then a new partner in a global law firm)  wrote a letter endorsing John McCain for President.

Many of us supported Senator McCain in 2008.  Like Cruz, we may have commended McCain for his military service, for voting on principle, and for his efforts to fight the war on terror. Some of us may have cast our vote for Sarah Palin or against Obama.

However, Mr. Cruz specifically praises John McCain for his “moderation,” for being a  “centrist,” and for his avoidance of “divisive” issues: abortion, marriage, tort reform, free trade, and union “bosses.”

National Law Journal: Why I Choose McCain (By Ted Cruz)

Obama, to his credit, speaks often of bipartisanship. But there are virtually no issues of consequence where he has dared to part with the far left of his party. Trial lawyers, union organizers, protectionists, and advocates for gay rights and abortion rights make up some of the core constituencies of the modern Democratic party. And, predictably, Obama has pledged to oppose tort reform; to abolish secret elections for union organization (which would render workers vulnerable to being strong-armed into voting for union bosses); to oppose free trade with allies like Colombia and to “renegotiate” NAFTA; to oppose a federal Marriage Amendment; and to sign legislation repealing restrictions on “partial-birth” abortion, parental notification, and government funding of abortion.

McCain’s record, in contrast, reflects far greater moderation. Rather than advocate on these divisive issues, McCain has focused his passion on fighting and winning the global war on terror.

I’ll admit that the only reference I can give is a link posted in a “hit piece” on the David Dewhurst for Texas Senator campaign website. Nevertheless, the letter is reproduced in full and says what it says. He doesn’t pull punches when it comes to Islamic terrorism or the importance of naming Supreme Court justices. Why does he focus his praise, his whole endorsement, on what many of us on the right would consider Mr. McCain’s weaknesses?

Ted Cruz RUSE #8: TEDCRUZ THE DECEPTIVE POLITICAL WEATHER VANE

Traditional families supported by two new studies.

The original study by Mark Regnerus, PhD, can be found, here.

Of course, most of the articles reviewing the latest studies complain that the phenomenon is too new and still carries stigma that cause the problems.  They say if we’ll experiment with our kids just a bit longer, and with more legal protection (i.e., “marriage” and laws to punish people who won’t gush over the forced changes), the kids will turn out better. (“Haven’t we heard this about socialism: it’s just never had a chance to be done right.”)

The legitimate criticism for the Regnerus study is that the statistics are weakened because there is no distinction between children raised by same-sex parents who had long-term relationships and parents with a series of multiple partners or long periods without while the children of heterosexual parents are divided into traditional families and variations including single parent, etc. The database didn’t include that information. However, the problems for the children of homosexual parents are statistically significant.

Grammar edited 8/13/12 BBN

Dr. Jack Wilke on “Romney’s Conversion”

Dr. Jack Willke is an unimpeachable pro-life activist. He has taught many of us both why and how to protect life over the years. I was reassured to read his account of the pro-life conversion of Mitt Romney on LifeSite News and that Dr. Willke (and Dr. Hurlbut) are secure in believing that it’s genuine

The first part of the article outlines the work Dr. Willke did with George H. W. Bush when Bush was named as Vice Presidential running mate with Ronald Reagan. The last part is about Governor Romney’s conversion:

As this is written, Barack Obama has proven to be the most pro-abortion president of modern times and he is now seeking a second term. Former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney, is the presumptive nominee for the Republican Presidential slot in November. Naturally, some have questioned his pro-life credentials and convictions so let’s examine the details of Governor Romney’s conversion.

When he was first elected Governor of Massachusetts, it was generally presumed that his position was “prochoice.” However, about half way into his first term as governor in 2005, Romney announced that he was opposed to embryonic stem cell research and proceeded to veto a bill making the “Morning After,” plan B contraceptive pills available. In the same year, he declared that he was pro-life.

Governor Romney tells us that he changed his mind in November 2004. At that time, he was obviously searching and had questions. He met with Douglas A. Melton, PhD, a scientist from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute on November 9. In that interview the Governor said this researcher told him, “Look, you don’t have to think about this stem cell research as a moral issue because we kill the embryos after fourteen days.” This had a major impact on Romney and his chief of staff, as they saw it recognizing that such embryonic stem cell research in fact was killing what they were convinced were human lives already in existence. Later, through a spokesperson, Dr. Melton disputed that he used the word “kill.”

But Governor Romney, wanting to know more, consulted with one of the best people available in February 2005. This expert was William B. Hurlbut, a physician and professor at Stanford University Medical Center Neuroscience Institute. Dr. Hurlbut is a dedicated pro-lifer.

The two of them met for several hours, discussing the issue in great detail. They went through the dynamics of conception, embryonic development and repercussions of the various research and experimentation that has been going on aimed at exploring the first weeks after fertilization. At that point, Romney was under intense pressure to change a state law that, at the time, still protected human embryos from lethal stem cell research. Some of the pressure came from Harvard, his own alma mater. After this in-depth consultation, Romney stated that he was pro-life.

Asked about their meeting by columnist Kathleen Parker, Dr. Hurlbut said, “Several things about our conversation still stand out strongly in my mind. First, he clearly recognized the significance of the i s s u e, not just as a current controversy, but as a matter that would define the character of our culture way into the future. Second, it was obvious that he had put in a real effort to understand both the scientific prospects and the broader social implications. Finally, I was impressed by both his clarity of mind and sincerity of heart. He recognized that this was not a matter of purely abstract theory or merely pragmatic governance, but a crucial moment in how we are to regard nascent human life and the broader meaning of medicine in the service of life.”

Similar to my time with President H. W. Bush, Dr. Hurlbut presented Governor Romney with sound scientific and medical information. The Governor responded by changing his position to support the protection of innocent human life from the point of fertilization. He declared himself pro-life and has repeatedly done so since that time.

For over twenty years, Life Issues Institute has been solely dedicated to prolife education. It has been my primary contribution to the pro-life movement since the 1960s. Our strength comes from the central fact that we are daily changing the hearts and minds of Americans on abortion. And our efforts have greatly be en assisted by science. The tool of ultrasound has resulted in an entire generation having their first baby picture taken within the womb, and it’s greatly impacted people’s opinion on abortion. Every pro-life individual and organization should rejoice when anyone—political or otherwise—responds to the unmistakable fact that human life begins at fertilization and that it should be protected.

Life Issues Institute and I are confident that Governor Romney’s conversion is real, heartfelt and authentic. Since the Institute is a 501(c)(3) organization, we cannot endorse a political candidate. As such, this article should not be construed as an endorsement of Governor Romney’s candidacy but rather a testament to the fact that we believe Mitt Romney is truly pro-life.

Liberty Movement 101 (or Re-love-ution 10.1)

Check out the ongoing comments on my post at TexasGOPVote.org, if you’ve wondered about the philosophy of the Ron Paul supporters who are trying to win control of the Republican Party. They reaffirm my conclusion after years of flirting with (capital L)ibertarian philosophy: the Libertarian Party is not compatible with conservatism. Conservatism advocates small government, with a few rules, while utilitarianism, and especially objectivism, celebrate license rather than liberty and all too often de-volve into nihilism.

I can sympathize with the proponents of Libertarianism, having spent years participating on the Libertarians for Life list-serve in the ’90’s and early 2000’s. I even tried out to justify “Christian Libertarianism,” which I’ve concluded is an oxymoron. (Check out the blog, Vox Popoli, which, unlike most Libertarian groups, supports traditional marriage.)

The comments at TexasGOPVote.org by one man on marriage were probably the most enlightening:

If two men or women want to get into a contract we see as morally wrong, who are you or me to tell them no?? They don’t have to accept our definition of marriage, and we don’t have to accept their definition of marriage, but neither one of us have the right to use government force to make the other accept our values. That would be Statism. Additionally, faith is a gift, and not all are blessed with it. You, nor I have the right to claim we know that which is unknowable. We can speculate, and we can have faith, but we cannot judge others who may have different beliefs.

These aren’t the first time we’ve heard/read/countered these arguments. Remember the calls for “open marriage” and “do your own thing” in the ’60’s? Demands for restructuring marriage and the family are pervasive in virtually every historic “revolution” EXCEPT the American Revolution, which was based on Judeo-Christian principles:  from the enclave that gave us the Enlightenment, to the French Revolution, to the Soviet Revolution and the various social experiments of the 20th Century.

2010 RPT (original) Platform “Strengthening Families, Protecting Life and Promoting Health”

Here is the original 2010 platform – I’ve only copied the section that was disputed. The 2010 Platform was used by the 2012 Temporary Platform Committee as a beginning for our new 2012 Platform of the Republican Party of Texas. (At least for now, the entire 2010 document is online at the Tarrant County Republican Party website. The 2012 Platform is here at the RPT website.) (Thank you Tarrant County Republican Party!)

I’ve noted amended portions in red and deleted wording in blue. You can see the final version of this section here and the version proposed by my sub-committee is here.

STRENGTHENING FAMILIES, PROTECTING LIFE AND PROMOTING HEALTH

PROTECTING INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE

Party Candidates and the Platform on Protecting Innocent Human Life– We implore our Party to support, financially or with in-kind contributions, only those candidates who support protecting innocent human life. Further, we strongly encourage the State Republican Executive Committee to hear and recognize the longstanding and overwhelmingly consistent voice of the grass roots and revise its by-laws to make this action binding on our Party.

Partial Birth Abortion– We oppose partial birth abortion. We recommend that Congress eliminate from all federal court jurisdictions all cases involving challenges to banning Partial Birth Abortion.

Right To Life – All innocent human life must be respected and safeguarded from fertilization to natural death; therefore, the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We affirm our support for a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution and to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection applies to unborn children. We support the Life at Conception Act. We oppose the use of public revenues and/or facilities for abortion or abortion–related services. We support the elimination of public funding for organizations that advocate or support abortion. We are resolute regarding the reversal of Roe v. Wade. We affirm our support for the appointment and election of judges at all levels of the judiciary who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We insist that the U.S. Department of Justice needs to prosecute hospitals or abortion clinics for committing induced labor (live birth) abortion. We are opposed to genocide, euthanasia, and assisted suicide. We oppose legislation allowing the withholding of nutrition and hydration to the terminally ill or handicapped. Until our final goal of total Constitutional rights for the unborn child is achieved, we beseech the Texas Legislature in consideration of our state’s rights, to enact laws that restrict and regulate abortion including:

1. parental and informed consent;
2. prohibition of abortion for gender selection;
3. prohibition of abortion due to the results of genetic diagnosis
4. licensing, liability, and malpractice insurance for abortionists and abortion facilities;
5. prohibition of financial kickbacks for abortion referrals;
6. prohibition of partial birth and late term abortions; and
7. enactment of any other laws which will advance the right to life for unborn children.

Sonograms – We urge the Texas legislature in its next biennial session to enact legislation requiring a sonogram be performed and offered as part of the consent process to each mother seeking an elective abortion.

Harassing Pregnancy Centers– We urge legislation to protect pregnancy centers from harassing ordinances to require pregnancy centers to post signs in violation of their Constitutional rights. We further oppose any regulation of pregnancy centers in Texas which interfere with their private, charitable business.

Choose Life – We ask the Legislature to provide Texans opportunity to purchase “Choose Life” license plates.

Parental Consent– We call on the Legislature to require parental consent for any form of medical care to minors. We urge electoral defeat of judges who through judicial activism seek to nullify the Parental Consent Law by granting bypasses to minor girls seeking abortions. We support the addition of a legislative requirement for the reporting of judicial bypasses to parental consent on an annual basis to the Department of State Health Services and such reports shall be made available to the public. Further, we encourage the Congress to remove confidentiality mandates for minors from family planning service programs operating under Title X of the Public Health Services Act and Medicaid.

Protection of Women’s Health– Because of the personal and social pain caused by abortions, we call for the protection of both women and their unborn children from pressure for unwanted abortions. We commend the Texas Legislature for the passage of the Woman’s Right to Know Act, a law requiring abortion providers, prior to an abortion, to provide women full knowledge of the physical and psychological risks of abortion, the characteristics of the unborn child, and abortion alternatives. We urge the state government and the Department of State Health Services to ensure that all abortion providers are in compliance with this informed consent law and to ensure that all pregnancy centers and other entities assisting women in crisis pregnancies have equal access to the informational brochures created by the Department of State Health Services.

Alternatives to Abortion– We urge the Department of State Health Services to provide adequate quantities of The Woman’s Right to Know Resource Directory to anyone that works with pregnant women.

RU 486 – We urge the FDA to rescind approval of the physically dangerous RU-486 and oppose limiting the manufacturers’ and distributors’ liability.
Morning After Pill– We oppose sale and use of the dangerous “Morning After Pill.”

Gestational Contracts– We believe rental of a woman’s womb makes child bearing a mere commodity to the highest bidder and petition the Legislature to rescind House Bill 724 of the 78th Legislature. We support the adoption of human embryos and the banning of human embryo trafficking.

Unborn Child Pain Protection – We support legislation that requires doctors, at first opportunity, to provide to a woman who is pregnant, information about the nervous system development of her unborn child and to provide pain relief for her unborn if she orders an abortion. (Language added here to prohibit abortions after 20 weeks.)

Unborn Victims of Violence Legislation– We urge the State to ensure that the Prenatal Protection Law is interpreted accurately and consider the unborn child as an equal victim in any crime, including domestic violence.

Abortion Clinics – We propose legislation that holds abortion clinics to the same health regulations as other medical facilities and that subjects clinics to the same malpractice liabilities. We oppose any public funding for Planned Parenthood or other organizations/facilities that provide, advocate or promote abortions.

Abortion Requirements for Hospitals– We propose legislation that entitles hospitals to refuse to perform abortions because government has no moral authority to require such an abortion.

Conscience Clause– We believe that doctors, nurses, pharmacists, any employees of hospitals and insurance companies, health care organizations, medical and scientific research students, and any employee should be protected by Texas law if they conscientiously object to participate in practices that conflict with their moral or religious beliefs, including but not limited to abortion, the prescription for and dispensing of drugs with abortifacient potential, human cloning, embryonic stem cell research, eugenic screenings, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration. We call on the Texas Legislature to pass legislation to strengthen and clarify the current conscience clause in the Occupational Code to include the above-mentioned persons and practices. We further encourage legislation that requires hospitals and clinics to inform all health care personnel of their right to refuse to become involved in abortion or euthanasia, and their protection from prosecution and retaliation under Texas law.

Fetal Tissue Harvesting – We support legislation prohibiting experimentation with human fetal tissue and prohibiting the use of human fetal tissue or organs for experimentation or commercial sale. Until such time that fetal tissue harvesting is illegal, any product containing fetal tissue shall be so labeled.

Stem Cell Research– We oppose any legislation that would allow for the creation and/or killing of human embryos for medical research. We encourage stem cell research using cells from umbilical cords, from adults, and from any other means which does not kill human embryos. We oppose any state funding of research that destroys/kills human embryos. We encourage the adoption of existing embryos. We call for legislation to withhold state and/or federal funding from institutions that engage in scientific research involving the killing of human embryos or human cloning.

Human Cloning– Each human life, whether created naturally or through an artificial process, deserves protection. We confirm that somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is the process by which a human being is cloned, and that SCNT creates a unique human being with the same properties of a human embryo created through the union of sperm and egg. We seek a ban on human cloning for reproductive purposes (where a cloned human embryo, created through SCNT, is implanted in a womb and the human clone is birthed). We also seek a ban on research cloning (where a cloned human embryo, created through SCNT, is created, grown in the laboratory, and then destroyed when its stem cells are extracted for research purposes). Furthermore, criminal penalties should be created and experimenters prosecuted who participate in the cloning of human beings. No government or state funding should be provided for any human cloning.

Patient Protection– We support patients’ rights by calling on the state legislature to amend the Advance Directive Act to establish due process of law and ensure that a physician’s decision to deny life saving treatment against the patient’s will or advance directive is not due to economic or racial discrimination or discrimination based on disability. We also support the passage of legislation to amend the Advance Directive Act by requiring hospitals intending or threatening to withdraw life-sustaining treatment against the patient’s wishes or their advance directive to continue all treatment and care for such patients pending transfer to another facility.

Gene Manufacturing – We support a ban on research that alters human DNA in living human beings at any stage of life, including the altering of artificial, manufactured, and natural genes and chromosomes.