The backers of a $3 billion bond passed by California voters for stem cell research has failed. They kept no promises and have given money to support those on the 29 member board. Investors Business Daily nails the Stem Cell fraud in an editorial. The editorial hope voters will return to science and fiscal sanity. Something they forgot when they passed Pro. 71 in the first place.
Yesterday, President Obama decided to circumvent any confirmations hearings in the U.S. Senate by installing Donald Berwick as the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
Confirmation hearings would have publicly exposed Berwick’s well-documented support for rationing health care.
Just last year in a June 2009 interview with the journal Biotechnology Healthcare, Berwick said, “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care – the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”
The year before in the May/June 2008 issue of Health Affairs, he called for “rational collective action overriding some individual self-interest” in order to “reduce per capita costs.” Yep, those pesky patients think that their doctor’s visit is about them!
Rationing health care is not a new position for him. In a 1994 Journal of the American Medical Association article, he argued that, “Most metropolitan areas in the United States should reduce the number of centers engaging in cardiac surgery, high-risk obstetrics, neonatal intensive care, organ transplantation, tertiary cancer care, high-level trauma care, and high-technology imaging.”
Of course less treatment options means less treatment which means you live less. Dead people cost less. This is the change people voted for?
By Carol Long Tobias, NRL PAC Director
In every major election since 1980, pro-life candidates have had the advantage when it comes to voters and the abortion issue. Consistently, of those voters who select their candidate based on his or her abortion position, more will vote for the pro-life candidate than the pro-abortion candidate. These votes will come from men and women, Republicans and Democrats – – all segments of society.
In a close race, this “pro-life increment” – – more single-issue pro-life voters than single-issue pro-abortion voters – – can make the difference between winning and losing. Unfortunately, some pro-abortion candidates win because part of the pro-life community doesn’t help elect pro-life candidates, it helps defeat them. When pro-abortion candidates win, unborn babies lose.
So what could you do that would help defeat pro-life candidates?
1) Fall in love with your candidate.
We encourage pro-lifers to get involved in campaigns. Their active participation and volunteer activities can help a pro-life candidate build a strong campaign. It also puts the pro-lifer in contact with the candidate so that if he/she wins, the candidate can put a face to the pro-life community and a relationship can be built and strengthened.
However, too often pro-lifers get so wrapped up in their candidate that if he/she loses to another pro-life candidate (especially in a primary), the pro-life grassroots person becomes like the child who lost a game – – he takes his marbles and goes home. He doesn’t support the pro-life candidate who won and won’t volunteer in the campaign or work to get others to vote for that candidate. Pro-life candidates need the active support of all pro-lifers and, all too often, without that full support, a pro-abortion candidate wins.
2) Believe that your candidate is the only real pro-life candidate in the race and bash other pro-life candidates.
In a primary where there are several pro-life candidates, pro-life individuals will select the candidate they think is best. Then, unfortunately, all too often they will help to attack other pro-life candidates as not being “pro-life enough.” If another candidate has a 20-year pro-life voting record, they pick out the one or two votes that he didn’t vote right on and attack him as not being really pro-life. By doing this, the pro-lifer demoralizes other pro-lifers and weakens enthusiasm for the pro-life candidate who does win the primary. The pro-abortion candidate will, of course, use this.
Because some pro-lifers have attacked the successful pro-life candidate, the pro-abortion candidate will use that in pro-life circles to hold down support for his opponent. Ironically, at the same time, the pro-abortion candidate is going to other voters, attacking the pro-life candidate as a “radical pro-life extremist.”
3) Support a really nice candidate who is pro-life but has no chance of winning.
We’re talking about millions of unborn children whose lives are at stake. The viability of a candidate must be considered when we decide who to vote for. There are some wonderful pro-lifers, some even active in our chapters, who want to run for office. They should be given the chance to do so, but if it is apparent they can’t win, if they are running to make a statement or to get some publicity for the pro-life movement (or themselves), they need to be encouraged to step aside for a candidate who may not be as eloquent but who can actually win and take action to protect unborn children.
4) Expect the candidate to sound like a Right to Life chapter chairman.
People who are not directly involved in the pro-life movement are not going to be as articulate or well-versed on all the pro-life issues. They may not know about the abortifacient properties of RU 486 or understand the ins and outs of the Mexico City Policy.
Unless there has been some prior discussion, some candidates may not realize that there are certain “code words” that are interpreted differently by the pro-life community. Just because the wrong word comes out of his/her mouth doesn’t necessarily make the candidate a phony.
Sometimes a truly pro-life candidate can be tripped up by the media, confused, ill-informed, misquoted, or quoted out of context. Give him a chance to explain why he said what he did.
Many candidates are against abortion because they have a religious background that tells them abortion is wrong, or they have a natural instinct that wants to protect the babies. They will do what’s right when they’re elected, but that doesn’t mean they will be comfortable or eloquent talking about the killing of unborn babies.
Some of our strongest pro-life elected officials whose actions have helped to save hundreds of thousands of unborn babies are not articulate on pro-life issues. Remember, words are nice, action is better.
5) Expect the candidate to make abortion the top issue in the campaign.
A Voter Research and Survey exit poll in 1992 found that 13% of the voters said abortion was a top issue in deciding who to vote for. In 1996, a Wirthlin Worldwide poll found that 12% of the voters said abortion was a top issue for them. That can and does make a difference in the outcome of an election, but it also means that 87% and 88% of the voters had other issues that were more important to them.
In order to win, a candidate has to focus on several issues that will appeal to a broad variety of voters. In some races, making abortion an issue will help the candidate, but in some parts of the country, the pro-life candidate must be careful in what he says and how he says it. In most areas, the institutional news media is a powerful tool for the pro-abortion candidate. To always expect the candidate to make abortion the top issue in the campaign can be a sure way to lose an election.
6) Vote for a third-party candidate who has no chance of winning.
When a general election is between a pro-life candidate and a pro-abortion candidate, representing established parties, there will be times when a third-party candidate will get into the race, claiming to be the “real” pro-lifer. He will attack the pro-life candidate and get other pro-lifers to jump on board.
This is a sure strategy to elect the pro-abortion candidate. Pro-lifers who support the third-party candidate, to the detriment of the pro-life candidate who could win, may feel like they have not compromised their principles – – but if they succeed in helping to elect a candidate who will act consistently to allow the killing of unborn babies to continue, they have compromised away something far more important – – children’s lives.
Pennsylvania’s former U.S. Senator, Rick Santorum, a long-time pro-life stalwart has joined CPLC, Sarah Palin, NRLC and a host of other pro-life groups and individuals in backing Carly Fiorina in her fight against Tom Campbell and Barbara Boxer.
Every election year I take out NRLC’s Six Ways to Defeat Pro-Life Candidates by Carol Long Tobias and take a look. You see ways that pro-lifers defeat pro-life candidates every election cycle.
Last week I posted about a variation that causes pro-lifers to split the vote. That experience did teach me to be more cautious before doing something that hurt the pro-life movement.
Only five years or so later did I see one of the ways clear as day. Mrs. Tobias warns that pro-lifers shouldn’t “Expect the candidate to sound like a Right to Life chapter chairman”.Amen.
In that experience I was asked by national to meet with a primary winner in a congressional district in California. That district had lop-sided registration and there was no doubt this nominee would win and be called Congressman.
During the campaign he had beat a pro-life lawmaker and had sent out mailers saying he was pro-choice. I was asked to find out more.
The conversation went kind of like this:
Future Congressman: Look Mike I am pro-choice. It is pretty simple. I am pro-choice and that is it,
Me: What does pro-choice mean to you?
Future Congressman: It means I am against abortion, except in cases of rape and incest.
Me: What? (Sounded like I was in shock)
Future Congressman: It means I am against abortion except in cases of rape and incest.
Me: We need to talk……….
Obviously he didn’t have any idea what pro-choice meant. This candidate is now a Congressman and voted with National Right to Life about 90& of the time. Some years it has been %100.
Some candidates haven’t thought about every single issue or of the consequences that it may have. Some candidates that say they are pro-life are stunned on how many votes they maybe casting on that issue and haven’t thought about it until the campaign made them think about it.
In other words they haven’t spent their whole lives thinking about it. Sometime especially at the beggining they use the wrong terminology or don’t know every fact about what Planned Parenthood does. It is our job to help educate them and bring them our way.
What they will do and how they will vote is better to know then an early mistake in how to phrase an opinion or lack of detailed knowledge on a given item.
I turned 18 in July of 1984. I got to vote for Ronald Reagan, but not In California’s Primary. During the 1986 Primary, my first Republican Primary I learned how splitting the vote could be deadly to pro-life candidates
There were a lot of big names in that GOP primary. Some of them were Bobbi Fiedler, Ed Davis, Mike Antonovich, Bob Naylor, Art Laffer, Ed Zschau and Bruce Herschensohn. There were all fighting for the chance to defeat Senator Alan Cranston.
As the primary got to the end it became clear that the nominee would be Zschau (A pro-abortion liberal) or Herschenson (a pro-lifer). The winner was Zschau by seven points.
Here was my error. I was in Germany, not paying attention to the race. I voted for Mike Antonovich. Antonovich was and is my county supervisor. He is very pro-life and as a legislator actually stopped California from experimenting on unborn babies.
Great guy. Still glad I can vote for him for Supervisor. The problem was the money and dynamics of the race showed he couldn’t win. I voted my heart not my head. Antonovich got nine percent of the vote.
Since then I have been more careful. Making sure I cast a smart pro-life vote not just a pro-life vote. Unfortunately, I have seen this happen again in races for Assembly or State Senate.
Our duty is to elect pro-life candidates. The word elect is as important as the word pro-life. Lesson learned.
Had enough? We sure have.
You know pro-life citizens across the country are dismayed by the stunning betrayal by the Democratic lawmakers who campaigned for election as pro-life but then turned their backs on unborn children by voting for the Obama health care bill–the most pro-abortion bill ever passed by Congress.
Had enough? Stand with us now for the fight ahead. You know National Right to Life stood up for the unborn threatened by President Obama’s health care plan and never wavered.
Had enough? Join a chapter. No chapter in your area? Start one. Contact us and we’ll tell you how.
There are so many ways to participate locally and make a difference with us nationally. Together we are touching hearts, changing minds, and saving lives!
Wow! Stunning video reveals Stupak (not knowing he was recorded) was planning to cave all along. And apparently he received special ‘airport grants’ for his district! Did he learn nothing from the Ben Nelson “cornhusker” duplicity? Michigan’s Upper Peninsula will have some fresh paint at its airport and a new Congressman.
Of the remaining issues with the potential to bring down the entire health overhaul effort, the one that lawmakers fear most is abortion.
Abortion is such a politically hazardous issue that sponsors of both the House and Senate health bills have said their object was to maintain the status quo. “It is not the intention of this bill to, as the speaker has said, to change the policy that has been in place for three decades,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said on Tuesday. Hoyer was referring to what is known as the Hyde Amendment. It has barred federal funds from being used to pay for abortions since 1977.
But keeping the health bills abortion-neutral has proved impossible. And now the abortion language in the Senate-passed bill in particular could threaten the strategy Democratic leaders hope to use to get a final measure to President Obama’s desk for a signature.
The bill the House passed in November barred abortion funding in programs directly funded by the federal government. But it also banned it in private insurance plans that cover abortion if those plans are federally subsidized.
Abortion-rights groups say the problem with the House bill is that it would roll back coverage for abortion many women now have in private insurance.
“Anyone receiving a subsidy for their premium from the government would not be allowed to choose a plan that includes abortion, and that would apply to about 85 percent of people participating in the exchange,” said Jessica Arons, director of the Women’s Health and Rights Program at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. The exchange is the new insurance marketplace the bills would create.
The bill passed by the Senate in December, however, doesn’t go quite as far. But it’s even more confusing. It, too, would bar most direct federal funding of abortion. But it would let private plans cover abortions — if people are willing to write a separate check each month for that coverage. Arons says that’s something abortion-rights groups find really distasteful.
“I think that some of the language is not just intended to wall off public money from paying for abortion services, it actually is intended to stigmatize abortion and treat it as something other than health care, and discourage people from choosing health insurance plans that offer abortion coverage,” she said.
But while abortion-rights groups may not like the Senate bill, anti-abortion groups downright hate it. “In total, the Senate bill is the most pro-abortion single piece of legislation ever to reach the floor of the House of Representatives,” said Douglas Johnson, federal legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee. “The so-called abortion limits that are in the Senate bill are all very narrow, loophole ridden, or booby-trapped to expire,” he said.
He cites as an example a last-minute addition to the bill of $7 billion for community health centers, “from which abortions could be paid with no restriction.”
Arons says that’s not the case. “It’s a boogeyman. No one is intending to use public money from the bill to fund abortion services.”
Still, National Right to Life’s opinion on the bill counts, because it scores votes as being anti-abortion or not. And Johnson has made it clear how his group will score this vote. “No member of the House of Representatives who is pro-life or who wishes to have a record against federal funding of abortion could possibly vote for the Senate bill.”
That raises a big red flag for Democratic leaders in both houses. That’s because the way they are hoping to finish work on their health overhaul is for the House to pass the Senate’s bill — abortion language and all. Then they plan to pass a second bill that will incorporate a number of compromises between the House and Senate. For that, they’ll use the so-called budget reconciliation process that only requires 51 Senate votes.
But as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi acknowledged Tuesday, those compromises probably won’t include a change in abortion language. “In order to be in part of the budget bill, it has to be central to the budget. That’s the rule. And it’s a very strict rule,” she said.
Which means anti-abortion House Democrats who originally voted for the House health bill will likely face this choice: Vote for a Senate bill that’s more lenient on abortion or vote against health overhaul. And it will make it that much harder for House leaders to get the majority they need to pass the bill.
How many times have you heard that abortion should be safe and legal? It is one of the most common misconceptions in the abortion debate. Just because something is legal doesn’t make it safe.
Last August, so-called Dr. Andrew Rutland performed an abortion on Ying Chen in the dingy backroom of an acupuncture clinic. This legal back alley abortion resulted in her death.
He was not to perform any more abortions. Recently, a sting by the Medical board found that he was still plying his deadly trade. A judge let him of the hook. Rutland lost his license for five years over the death of two infants. The state gave him his license back and more babies and at least one mother have been killed.
Abortion maybe legal, but clearly isn’t safe.