“This issue is not about party politics. It’s not about obstructionism. It is about saving lives and protecting pro-life Americans across the country,” Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pennsylvania, said.

I wish there was a way to end this debate for good and keep abortion out of politics.

The fact is, “pro-life” Americans do not need protection from abortion. They are not in any danger.

The next fact is, American society requires access to safe abortions. Women will have abortions either way. The only question is whether or not they will live through it.

In the face of such evidence, it’s disingenuous for opponents of legal abortion to claim a moral high ground campaigning for policy that will not reduce abortions and will severely increase the risk to women’s health. A sincere proponent of life would do better to focus their energy in more productive arenas.

The late Harry Browne sums it up well:

Every day you spend trying to get the government to do something to reduce abortions is a day wasted, a day that could have been spent doing something effective about abortion – such as working for less-restrictive adoption laws [and] encouraging private educational efforts to show young women the alternatives to abortion …

It’s hard to argue against the logic of this point.

But how to move this issue out of government and into the third sector where it clearly belongs?

I’d like to see an amendment that says something like this:

1. The right of citizens of the United States to safe abortion shall not be denied by the United States or by any State.

2. The Congress shall have power to appropriate funds to promote the progress of Abortion Prevention.

It’s win win. Legal abortion would no longer be an issue and the government can throw a ton of money at the people and organizations that have a chance of decreasing it. Everybody would be happy and there will be one less wedge issue to distract from judicial nominations, elections, the health care debate, etc.

This is awful…

The man charged with killing abortion provider Dr. George Tiller claimed Sunday that more violence is possible while the medical procedure is allowed to continue, giving his warning in calls that also focused on complaints about his treatment in jail.

Scott Roeder, being held on charges of first-degree murder and aggravated assault in Tiller’s killing one week ago, called The Associated Press from the Sedgwick County jail. [...]

“I know there are many other similar events planned around the country as long as abortion remains legal,” Roeder said.

He would not elaborate.

Won’t elaborate?

Well, we have ways of making terrorists like this talk, right?

Because the guy is obviously a domestic terrorist, makes no apologies for it and claims more killings will happen. Isn’t this exactly the type of ticking bomb scenario situation that many claim enhanced interrogation tactics can address?

So let’s get this thing done before more innocent people die!

Quick! The clock is ticking!!!

And regarding those complaints about his treatment in jail…

In two separate calls to AP on Sunday morning, Roeder was far more talkative about his treatment at the Sedgwick County jail, complaining about “deplorable conditions in solitary” where he was kept during his first three days there.

Roeder said it was freezing in his cell. “I started having a bad cough. I thought I was going to have pneumonia,” he said.

He said he called AP because he wanted to emphasize the conditions in the jail so that in the future suspects would not have to endure the same conditions.

Roeder also said also wanted the public to know he has been denied phone privileges for the past two days, and needed his sleep apnea machine.

This whole situation is ironic for so many reasons.

More as it develops…

Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that Roeder actually did kill Tiller. Does that guy look like he has even a shred of remorse? It sounds like he’s getting directions to a restaurant, not being informed of when his next court date is. Chilling stuff.

And, by the way, the folks at Operation Rescue supplied Roeder with information about Tiller’s court dates…

Roeder apparently kept track of the state prosecution against Tiller through a senior member of Operation Rescue, the anti-abortion organization.

At the time of Roeder’s arrest Sunday afternoon along Interstate 35 in Johnson County, a television station captured the vehicle on video. There on the dashboard was a note that read “Cheryl” and “Op Rescue” with a phone number.

Cheryl Sullenger, senior policy adviser for Operation Rescue out of Wichita, said Tuesday that she has spoken to Roeder in the past, but she said he would initiate the contact. She said she hasn’t had any recent contact with him.

Sullenger served about two years in prison after pleading guilty to conspiring to bomb an abortion clinic in California in 1988. She has since renounced violent action.

She said Roeder’s interest was in court hearings involving Tiller.

“He would call and say, ‘When does court start? When’s the next hearing?’ ” Sullenger said. “I was polite enough to give him the information. I had no reason not to. Who knew? Who knew, you know what I mean?”

Yes. Who knew?

More as it develops…

“Whatever titles we give these murderers, both deserve our attention. Violence like that is no way to solve a political dispute nor a religious one. And the fanatics on all sides do great disservice when they confuse dissention with rage and death.”
- Sarah Palin on the similarities between the Tiller and Long shootings

Credit where credit is due. Palin calls this one right.

Thoughts?

People were asking for more of a connection. Well, here ya go. The number of Operations Rescue’s senior policy adviser.

Not only that, the adviser was convicted of conspiring to bomb an abortion clinic in 1988. I’m all for prison reforming somebody, but why does she still work a militant anti-abortion outfit? Seem a little odd to anybody?

From The Pitch:

[Cheryl] Sullenger tells The Pitch that she hasn’t spoken with Roeder recently.

“No, he hasn’t called me recently,” Sullenger said. “No.”

She went on: “You know, he’s somebody who’s been around. My name is on the Internet. It’s on every press release. My phone number is on every press release it. It’s all over the internet. I don’t know. He probably has lots of people’s phone numbers. You know? So I don’t know. I don’t have any more comment other than that.”

“You know, he’s somebody who’s been around.”

The folks at Operation Rescue obviously know who Roeder is. I think that’s established now. To what extent his involvement in their org is will be determined in the coming days I’m sure.

More as it develops…

Transcript:

Terry: The point that must be emphasized over, and over, and over again: pro-life leaders and the pro-life movement are not responsible for George Tiller’s death. George Tiller was a mass-murder and, horrifically, he reaped what he sowed.

Q: So who is responsible …

Terry: The man who shot him is responsible …

Q: … because that makes it sound like you were saying that he [Tiller] is responsible.

Terry: The man who shot him is responsible.

Q: What did you mean by “he reaped what he sowed”?

Terry: He was a mass-murder. He sowed death. And then he reaped death in a horrifying way.

And after this clip makes the rounds, maybe Randall Terry and the group he started will reap a lot of really bad press and lose any shred of credibility.

Fingers crossed.

Here’s the comment he left at Operation Rescue’s site, via Free Republic:

Scott Roeder Says:
May 19th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Bleass everyone for attending and praying in May to bring justice to Tiller and the closing of his death camp.

Sometime soon, would it be feasible to organize as many people as possible to attend Tillers church (inside, not just outside) to have much more of a presence and possibly ask questions of the Pastor, Deacons, Elders and members while there? Doesn’t seem like it would hurt anything but bring more attention to Tiller.

Also from Free Republic, looks like he has a criminal record:

July 7, Kansas: Scott Roeder is sentenced to sixteen months in state prison for parole violations following a 1996 conviction for having bomb components in his car trunk. Roeder, a sovereign citizen and tax protester, violated his parole by not filing tax returns or providing his social security number to his employer.

This is just the type of domestic terrorism that the DHS pointed out in their recent report and that the right-wing was crying foul over, even though the Bush administration actually commissioned it.

More as it develops…

From KansasCity.com:

A suspect in the fatal shooting today of Wichita abortion provider George Tiller is in custody in Johnson County. [...]

Police said had been looking for a white male who was driving a 1990s powder blue Ford Taurus with Kansas license plate 225 BAB. The vehicle is registered to an owner in Merriam.

At 2 p.m. today, police in Gardner reportedly had a vehicle matching that description stopped.

My guess is that this man is looking to be some type of martyr in the anti-abortion world and really wasn’t looking to disappear into the shadows.

More as it develops…

Not only that, he was killed at his church.

From KMBC:

In a news conference on Sunday afternoon, Capt. Brent Allred said they were looking for a blue Ford Taurus with a K-State vanity plate, license number 225 BAB. He said the car was registered to an owner in Merriam.

Police described the shooter as a white male in his 50s or 60s, 6 feet 1 inch tall, 220 pounds, wearing a white shirt and dark pants.

Tiller became known because his abortion clinic was one of the few in the country that would perform late term abortions. Because of this, he was repeatedly attacked by militant anti-abortionists. His clinic was bombed in 1986, he was shot in 1993 and just last month his clinic was seriously vandalized.

Operation Rescue, the organization that usually organizes demonstrations in front of Tiller’s clinic, has already officially condemned the murder, but members have repeatedly caller for Tiller’s death.

However, then there’s this statement from the founder of Operation Rescue, Randall Terry:

George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God. I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller’s killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions. Abortion is still murder. And we still must call abortion by its proper name; murder.

Those men and women who slaughter the unborn are murderers according to the Law of God. We must continue to expose them in our communities and peacefully protest them at their offices and homes, and yes, even their churches.

Wow. It takes some brass ones to put out a statement like that after somebody was murdered at their church. Kind of classless if you ask me.

More as it develops…

No doubt you’ll be hearing A LOT about this decision…

Although Sotomayor has not had a case dealing directly with abortion rights, she wrote the opinion in Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, 304 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2002), a challenge to the “Mexico City Policy,” which prohibited foreign organizations receiving U.S. funds from performing or supporting abortions. An abortion rights group (along with its attorneys) brought claimed that the policy violated its First Amendment, due process, and equal protection rights.

Relying on the Second Circuit’s earlier decision in Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Agency for International Development, which dealt with a virtually identical claim, Sotomayor’s opinion rejected the group’s First Amendment claim on the merits. Turning to the plaintiffs’ due process claim, Sotomayor held that they lacked standing because they alleged only a harm to foreign organizations, rather than themselves.

Sotomayor held that the plaintiffs did have standing with regard to their equal protection claim, but she ultimately held that the claim failed under rational basis review because the government “is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position” with public funds.

This could actually diffuse the only real hot button issue Republicans have, although one can’t help but think they’ll be asking a lot of questions about privacy rights, etc.

More as it develops…

The change isn’t huge. The previous age for over-the-counter purchase was 18. But do not doubt that the Obama administration will not have the problems with this rule that the Bush administration had. Many abortion opponents consider the morning-after-pill to be no different than an abortion and Bush was sympathetic to those worries. Obama, on the other hand, is decidedly liberal on the abortion issue.

Of course, much of the debate comes down to when you think life begins. Is it fertilization? Implantation? The moment of “quickening” notoriously laid out in Roe v. Wade? For some people, the matter is clear-cut. After fertilization or even after potential fertilization, any interference is immoral. For others, the woman’s rights supersede the right of the unborn up to and, in some instances, beyond the point of viability outside the womb. But I think, for most people, the issue is not so clear cut.

My views on abortion are complex and too complicated to effectively describe in a blog post. But I will say that I support Plan B contraceptive. Mistakes happen, either out of foolish moments of passion or failure of other contraceptive devices. Plan B allows for otherwise responsible people to remain responsible and not have a child they don’t want or can’t care for. It’s not perfect. But doing nothing and waiting to see if pregnancy results creates even greater problems and deeper moral dilemmas. It’s easy to draw bright lines, but it’s not always what’s best for a responsible society.

Now, if you are adamant that life begins at the moment of fertilization and that doing anything to inhibit implantation is morally reprehensible, then there’s nothing I can say. But if you believe that preventing unwanted pregnancies necessitates certain compromises, then over-the-counter Plan B is a reasonable policy. At least that’s my conclusion.

Palin, say conservative activists, has instantly changed how they feel about [John] McCain’s campaign and spurred them to go to work for the Republican ticket.

First, though, they’re expressing their newfound fondness for McCain with their checkbooks. Since tapping Palin, the campaign has raised nearly $7 million online, according to McCain aides.

Most importantly for McCain, the two constituencies who are most energized by Palin just happen to be the twin grassroots pillars of the GOP: anti-abortion activists and pro-Second Amendment enthusiasts and sportsmen.

Palin is a staunch pro-lifer and a lifelong NRA member. Which means McCain can packaged his VP selection in two different ways. To the independents he can say: she’s a reformer who’ll bring real change to Washington. To the conservative base he can say: she’s a solid conservative who changes nothing about the Republican party.

Clearly the selection is getting reluctant social conservatives to jump on board. In the next two months we’ll see if Palin can ingratiate herself to moderates as well.

So what made her so special? Well, she was as an elected delegate to the Democratic National Convention at the time. Understandably, she was quickly booted.

Now she has popped up in a new ad as the voice of all of those pro-Hillary Dems who now, inexplicably, feel that actively supporting John McCain is the next best thing to supporting Hillary. You know, because they line up on so many issues…

Also, and even more inexplicably, she has come to the conclusion that McCain is possibly pro-choice?

Midway through the event, Bartoschevich was asked if she was concerned about McCain’s pro-life voting record. At a podium paid for by the Republican National Committee, with McCain aide Carly Fiorina standing nearby, Bartoschevich said this:

Going back to 1999, John McCain did an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle saying that overturning Roe v. Wade would not make any sense, because then women would have to have illegal abortions.

I don’t know, maybe Ms. Bartoshevich hasn’t been paying attention to who she’s supporting, but as recently as the Saddleback conference a few Saturdays ago, McCain reiterated his pro-life, Roe v. Wade overturning views…

“I have a 25-year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate. And as President of the United States, I will be a pro-life president and this presidency will have pro-life policies. That’s my commitment, that’s my commitment to you.”

And this from his website…

John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.

Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.

Listen, say what you want about John McCain being a maverick on issues like the environment, but one issue where he falls directly in line with his party is Roe v. Wade.

Pro-Hillary Dems who care about reproductive rights should keep this in mind. It’s certainly not the only issue, but 2 or 3 judges will probably be retiring in the next couple terms and that could have an impact not just on Roe v. Wade.

Food for thought…

Before anyone assumes they know where I’m going with this, let me make a few things clear:

—I am an evangelical, though that may not mean what you think it does.

—I am not saying that abortion and gay marriage are not important issues or that pastors should not present a moral and biblical perspective on both.

—That perspective, though, too often uses political buzzwords that send a clear but IRS-friendly message that unmistakably translates as “Vote a straight __________ Party line.”

—Partisanship exists in both conservative and liberal churches.

Passionate pro-life pastors in particular read what I’ve written or hear what I’ve said through their right-to-life filter and think I’m telling them to shut up. I’m not. I’m telling them and their liberal, woman’s-right-to-choose clerical counterparts that many people in the pews have had it. They — we — have had it with partisan sermons that are veiled political diatribes, and we’ve had it with services that are more like political (or patriotic) rallies than opportunities to worship God. (Actually, I’ve pretty much had it with sermons in general, but I’ll spare you here rand vent about them over on Postmodern Misfit.)

I believe there’s a place for political and social action among the people of God; that place, simply put, is outside of worship services. And I believe personal faith and politics cannot be separated; if your faith does not influence your political perspective and voting choices, that doesn’t say much for your faith. But I also believe political discussion and activism has to extend beyond abortion and gay marriage to the war in Iraq, the war on terror, the atrocities in Darfur and elsewhere, our shaky economy, our lack of adequate healthcare, the sorry state of our schools … you name it, people of faith need to bring their faith perspective to bear on these and other serious issues.

But — and here’s where both liberal and conservative Christians lose it and end up giving Jesus a bad name — we need to do so in a spirit of humility, servanthood, and genuine helpfulness. We need to share our perspective rather than bully our way into the political process and insist on making that perspective the law of the land. We need to work toward solving problems instead of trying to lord it over others and creating a whole new set of problems as a result.

I suspect the non-Christian American public would experience a bit of shock and awe if ordinary, reasonable, truly loving and truly compassionate people of faith could bring their wisdom, experience, and insights to the political table. As it is, their very existence is too often obscured by larger-than-life “leaders” who get the media attention — and whose message comes through all too accurately.

Marcia Ford is the author of We the Purple: Faith, Politics and the Independent Voter.

A new form of cloning has been developed that is easier to carry out than the technique used to create Dolly the sheep, raising fears that it may one day be used on human embryos to produce “designer” babies.
…
One scientist said this weekend that a maverick attempt to perform the technique on humans is now too real to ignore. “It’s unethical and unsafe, but someone may be doing it today,” said Robert Lanza, chief scientific officer of American biotechnology company Advanced Cell Technology.

“Cloning isn’t here now, but with this new technique we have the technology that can actually produce a child. If this was applied to humans it would be enormously important and troublesome,” said Dr Lanza, whose company has pioneered developments in stem cells and cell reprogramming.
…
The technique involves the genetic reprogramming of skin cells so they revert to an embryonic-like state. Last year, when the breakthrough was used on human skin cells for the first time, it was lauded by the Catholic Church and President George Bush as a morally acceptable way of producing embryonic stem cells without having to create or destroy human embryos.

…
These offspring are chimeras – a genetic mix of two or more individuals – because some of their cells derive from the embryo and some from the skin cell. Technically, such a child would have three biological parents. Human chimeras occur naturally when two embryos fuse in the womb and such people are often normal and healthy. Dr Lanza says there is no reason to believe that a human chimera created by the new technique would be unhealthy.
…
“At this point there are no laws or regulations for this kind of thing and the bizarre thing is that the Catholic Church and other traditional stem-cell opponents think this technology is great when in reality it could in the end become one of their biggest nightmares,” he said. “It is quite possible that the real legacy of this whole new programming technology is that it will be introducing the era of designer babies.

“So for instance if we had a few skin cells from Albert Einstein, or anyone else in the world, you could have a child that is say 10 per cent or 70 per cent Albert Einstein by just injecting a few of their cells into an embryo,” he said.

Or 10 to 70% Castro. Or Hugo Chavez. Or Osama Bin Laden.

But the great thing is that we won’t have “murdered” frozen embryos already slated for destruction. We’ll have made it possible to create the chimeric child of Michael Jackson, Kim Jong Il and Rosie O’Donnell, but we won’t have destroyed any already doomed frozen embryos. So Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and the Pope will be happy.

Perhaps because the three of them could now have a baby.

Now that’s irony.

It was certainly a clever phrase, but it was rude of them to interrupt him. What do you think?

Two teams of scientists reported yesterday that they had turned human skin cells into what appear to be embryonic stem cells without having to make or destroy an embryo — a feat that could quell the ethical debate troubling the field.

All they had to do, the scientists said, was add four genes. The genes reprogrammed the chromosomes of the skin cells, making the cells into blank slates that should be able to turn into any of the 220 cell types of the human body, be it heart, brain, blood or bone. Until now, the only way to get such human universal cells was to pluck them from a human embryo several days after fertilization, destroying the embryo in the process.

The need to destroy embryos has made stem cell research one of the most divisive issues in American politics, pitting President Bush against prominent Republicans like Nancy Reagan, and patient advocates who hoped that stem cells could cure diseases like Alzheimer’s. The new studies could defuse the issue as a presidential election nears.

I for one am glad to see the ethical ramifications of this laid to rest. I however never saw it in that light. My support for stem research is similar to my support for first trimester abortion. In developed nations 25% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage and 33% of all pregnancies in third world nations. To me that means either one of two things either individuality isn’t imparted by the divine until after the first trimester or that the creator is capricious and cruel. Given the choice between the two I chose to believe the former. Hence for me this has always been a political issue with the right opposing stem cell research in order to curry favor with its base and the left doing the same. Fortunately for those who have loved ones whose well being seemed to be hanging on the outcome of this debate the passion play may very well be over.

Marc Ambinder on Romney and abortion:

Mitt Romney is simply struggling to explain the Republican Party’s conventional pro-life position. Which is: overturn Roe v. Wade. And then, slowly build up public support for a constitutional amendment banning abortions. ETA: 30 years or more.

This is not a flip-flop.

The reason why Romney is struggling to explain the complicated two-step is that he is relatively new to the dance. Pro-life activists who have been in the trenches for years are very comfortable with the nuance and subtlely of their beliefs and know how to translate them into morsels for the media’s consumption. This measured, incremental approach — relatively new to the movement — has been successful in many ways.

He’s right – that’s not a flip-flop, and if that’s what Romney is advocating (and Ambinder is very well sourced), Romney has a fighting chance to explain himself out of it. The problem for Romney is that he’s apparently very bad at explaining himself. You can look at the discussion in the comment section in the post I made yesterday. It’s clear to people who know Romney what his position is, but the problem is that it’s not clear at all to anyone else. And if Romney can not help himself out, he’s not going to get too much help from the press.

I would think that with all the prep work that Romney has gone through in advance of all the debates that he would be more comfortable explaining his position on abortion (it’s not -that- confusing. really, it isn’t. For all the talk about nuance and subtlely, Americans deal with far more complicated issues on an everyday basis).

The challenge for Romney will be finding the discipline to clearly explain himself. Republicans claim to be pining for someone in the vein of the ‘Great Communicator’ and Democrats are tired of the Bush Administration’s dodging of what they feel are clear issues. This year is not the year to run if you can not explain your positions, no matter how nuanced they are. That’s the real lesson here.

Related at 2008Central.net:

• It’s Not a Flip-Flop If You Believe Both Positions
• Club For Growth Releases Paper on Romney: Another Mixed Record
• Mitt Romney: Everyone Flip-Flops, It’s No Big Deal; Also, Catching UBL Isn’t A Priority

From Politico:

Rudy Giuliani, whose positions on abortion and homosexuality mark him as the most socially liberal Republican presidential candidate in more than a generation, is so far winning the contest for the support of social conservatives, according to a new analysis of recent polls.

Forty-four percent of social conservatives in the Pew analysis believe that the former New York mayor has the “best chance” of becoming president in 2008. Less than half that figure, 19 percent, regard Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) as the most viable, despite twice as many social conservatives stating that McCain “comes closestâ€Â? to their view on abortion. All other Republican candidates lagged far behind. [...]

Giuliani is winning 30 percent of the social conservative bloc, compared to 22 percent for McCain. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney captured just 8 percent � a figure that puts Romney in fourth place, behind former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is currently not a declared candidate.

And to the “winning is everything” meme…

“A significant number of social conservatives have adopted a pragmatic line,” says John Green, a senior fellow at Pew who compiled the polling. “Pragmatism can be seen on the one hand as a good thing, because it produces results, and on other the hand it can be seen as a bad thing because it involves compromising one’s principles, and that’s just a tension social conservatives have had since the days of Ronald Reagan.”

It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out. Could it split conservatives down the middle? Could we have a socially conservative candidate, ala Pat Robertson circa 1988?

Oh, I love politics….

For too long, moderate Republicans have been silenced by party leadership who has pandered to the far right wing. The bullyboy braying of talk radio hosts and self-righteous right-wingers have cowed Republican candidates into acting against their political instincts while the base of the party has been shrinking and shrinking. While expounding the “big tent” theory of party building, leaders of the party were really constructing an outhouse.

How are the real party faithful now handling a presidential candidate who says abortion is a woman’s choice and not something that the government should be involved in? Why, they have put him in the lead! Should we be surprised? Certainly not. Those of us Republicans who have hung in there, not become independents, and withstood the torments of the intolerant are the real base of the Republican Party. We know that traditional Republican principles do not include sanctioning government intrusion into the bedroom or encouraging extremists to tell us whether or when we can become parents. Real Republican ideals include limited government, personal responsibility, individual freedom â€â€? and choice.

Some seem startled that Republicans support Planned Parenthood. But why should people be surprised? Hundreds of thousands of Republicans are donors to and volunteers, leaders and patients of Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is an organization that for 90 years has enabled Americans to make choices about the size of their families and their sexual and reproductive health. As an advocate in Congress, the state legislatures and the courts, it has worked to protect those individual choices from government interference. Planned Parenthood has long been protecting traditional Republican values.

So now, with this pro-choice candidate in the Republican mix, there seems to be an opportunity for a sea change in the Republican Party. A candidate for president who respects traditional Republican values, separation of church and state, and a woman’s right to choose is leading the pack and energizing the real “base.”