December 2006

  "tis The Season…"

  Have a Very Merry Christmas

 Dear friends and constant readers, 

I will be on a much deserved ( well, I think so! ) vacation through December 26^th. Until then, It is my prayer that you will have enjoyed a wonderful Christmas or Hanukkah Holiday. Let us all pray for a coming to their senses for all those who oppose the inherent rights of pre-natal life. Note of the greatest importance: I would like to remind you that there is a reason for the season that goes far beyond the buying and giving of gifts: and that is the simple acceptance of the greatest gift given to us all, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

With all my best…    

--“Joe”  

In The Mail Bag... This, sent from a reader, is from a talk this past June by Angelina Steenstra. Stop, look, and listen. --"Joe"

       Abortion does not occur in a vacuum says pro-life speaker

By Doreen Beagan
The Interim

On June 16-17, spellbound audiences in Moncton and Charlottetown listened to a gripping and profound presentation by Angelina Steenstra. Mother of three children, spiritual mother of many, she is the co-founder of Second Chance Ministries, a post abortion outreach for both men and woman, in Scarborough, Ont.

"Abortion does not occur in a vacuum," she stresses. "A whole community - doctors, nurses, receptionists, family, friends - is involved in the decision and in carrying out the abortion. Both that community and the broader one are affected for a very long time, even into future generations."

Despite the prevailing myths, abortion is always a major event. Besides causing the death of a child, it impacts on the mother for the rest of her life. Increasingly, the literature documents a whole range of measurable, identifiable effects.

"Her body knows it has done something wrong; her spirit knows it has been involved in something abhorrent," says Steenstra. The effort to suppress that knowledge affects behaviour, self esteem, health, spiritual life, and relationships.

Healing involves much more than grieving the death of her child. A first step is dealing with denial, the self-protective absolute blockage of all conscious awareness of the experience. The literature now shows that breaking through that denial generally takes many years - for some, many decades.

It is now becoming known too, that abortion affects other children of the family, including survivors of the 'selective reduction' that is part of technologically assisted conception. "When 'excess embryos' have been destroyed, the remaining child feels a deep sense of defilement, and needs healing," says Steenstra.

It is even less widely known that abortion also has a profound effect on men. Their aftermath symptoms, though different from those of the women, are real, painful, and also destructive.

One factor often contributing to an abortion decision is a great unsatisfied hunger for healthy father-love, says Steenstra. Another major factor is fear, which, she says, would have little power if the women were properly supported.

Even more subtly influential, is the toxic atmosphere and milieu that allows the "values clarification" approach to education and moral formation. Intentionally or not, it allows sexual activity outside of marriage to be seen as acceptable.

"This is the old, old story of betrayal, of the lie that promises liberation, but leads to death, self hatred, and self destruction," Steenstra says.

"All men and women are called to fruitfulness, to be fathers and mothers. If not physically, then spiritually," she says.

She adds, "A particular grace that God wants to give to men, is to turn around this tide of evil. He is calling on them to reclaim their role as custodians of life. He wants to tell every man, father, brother, uncle: you are very important; you have a very big role to play."

All paternity comes from God. The marital embrace connects with the Trinity, and is sacred. A key part of the abortion solution, says Steenstra, is rediscovering and teaching our culture those realities.

"When I discovered Planned Parenthood's agenda, I learned that abortion had to become legal, because we were being sold contraception, and failed contraception almost always leads to abortion. So if we are going to heal this great wound of abortion, we have to go to the root of the problem: the promotion of contraception."

For that, a major tool is education in natural family planning and fertility awareness, she says. "We are so blessed in this age to be able to recognize our own fertility with certainty. How beautiful it is, how awesome, to know exactly when we have the potential to create a being in the image and likeness of God, a human being who will have a capacity for the infinite, and who will live forever."

Over and over, using many examples from her own experience, Steenstra stresses, "God does much more than forgive. In His economy, nothing is ever lost or wasted. He even uses our brokenness, transforming it and bringing life and goodness from it. With God, all things work together for good."

On The Wire... From a great "Joe", Pat Boone. There is currently a lot of discussion about the loss of, and the right to, our liberties. Let us examine free speech with Pat. --"Joe"

 No Such Thing as 'Free' Speech       © 2006 

  By Pat Boone

“Freedom isn't free, freedom isn't free
You've got to pay the price, you've got to sacrifice
For your liberty.”

The above words are from a song written over 30 years ago by a couple of brothers who were talented young devotees of Moral Rearmament, a youth-oriented international movement whose purpose was to appeal to the energy and altruism of young people all over the world, hoping to awaken their best instincts and call them to individual discipline and morality.

I was stirred by their zeal, and I hosted a couple of TV specials for them. I don't know what's happened to that well-meaning organization today, but I'll never forget the words to the song we all performed together.

"Freedom isn't free."

  Do you remember the term "free love," bandied about so frequently in the 1960s and into the freewheeling '70s? It seemed to spring out of the "flower children" phenomenon in the Haight-Ashbury section of San Francisco, Calif., during the decade-long period when open student dissent against the Vietnam War spawned flagrant drug use, rejection of all authority, the breaking of all taboos and the intoxicating notion that people should just be completely "free" to do whatever they wanted to do.

Timothy Leary joyously advocated, "Tune in; turn on; drop out!"

The Chicago Seven's Jerry Rubin shouted, "If it feels good – do it!"

After 200 years of burdensome moral guidelines and restrictions in America, millions of young people just revolted and took all that Never-Never Land advice, buying into the idea that if everybody just exuded "love" and "tolerance," with no limitations of any kind, our society would quickly evolve toward some kind of utopia. And for a while, it was sort of "in" for giddy, naïve young people to copulate freely, just giving and receiving and sharing, like children sharing playground equipment or toys at a party.

Naturally, musicians jumped into the middle of the whole thing, promoting and participating by popularizing the whole "new age," the "Age of Aquarius," the liberalization of mores, drugs and sexuality. It really seemed like one big, never-ending party.

But morning came eventually. And the inevitable hangover revealed permanently ruined lives, addled minds, a smorgasbord of sexual diseases, nervous breakdowns, overdose deaths – and set the stage for the still-real AIDS epidemic in this country.

"Free love" wasn't free, after all. The tab came due, and the bills are still being paid. The overthrow of responsibility was, and is, terribly, tragically costly.

So it is with "free speech." There really is no such thing.

There is a price for just about everything in life, but we're not prone to look for the tag until we've already used the commodity, and then we're stunned when we see the bill.

When our concepts of liberty were newly formed, in the late 1700s, wise old Ben Franklin said, "Only a moral and virtuous people are capable of freedom. The more corrupt and vicious a society becomes, the more it has need of masters."

Too few today comprehend that the consistent abuse of any liberty will stretch it into license, into meaningless, destructive anarchy – and eventually, a sickened and angry people will give up the liberty to escape the license, the licentiousness.

Currently, Sirius Radio is paying Howard Stern some half a billion dollars so he can exercise his "free speech" on their satellite radio service. He seems so proud of his "freedom" to spew any kind of filth or sacrilege or putrid obscenity into the atmosphere – and into millions of young minds – and so sincere in actually presenting himself as "a champion of the First Amendment."

Larry Flynt, publisher of Hustler Magazine and founder of a whole sleaze industry, portrays himself the same way. And many buy into the ridiculous, perverted idea; Hollywood even produced an Oscar-nominated movie presenting him as a patriot, a constitutional hero!

We came within a Bruno Magli shoeprint of being subjected to a huge media circus whirling around O J Simpson's "If I Did It" account of the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. I suspect that Rupert Murdoch's last minute decision to withdraw and cancel the whole atrocious affair was not a sudden rush of good taste and principle; likely, it was a growing awareness that the American people were "on to him," and that even by our drastically lowered standards, it was obvious that this was pushing "freedom of the press" too far.

And now, A&E, up till now a family-friendly bio and movie network in 90 million homes, has announced they'll pay two and a half million dollars per episode for "The Sopranos," the tremendous hit HBO series about other "families" – mobsters, killers, drug traffickers – and the graphic depictions of almost every vile thing human beings are capable of. "Sex and the City" is already in heavy distribution, and the inexcusable, decadent "Nip/Tuck" actually PROMISES to fill any gaps left in the primetime presentation of depravity.

Bob DeBitetto, general manager at A&E, actually says that in 2004, his network began to "chase younger viewers," explaining "we had to do something that was scary, which was to fairly rudely … show our loyal viewership the door."

And what better way to "chase younger viewers" than to expose the 90 million homes that carry A&E to the violence, profanity and obscenity of "The Sopranos"? As FX Network discovered with "The Shield," another cable series about base, violent, evil behavior: Nielsen ratings show 5.2 percent of the average 2 million viewers per show over this past year (though it airs at 10 p.m. Eastern time and is billed as "adult") were under age 17, including 2.4 percent under 11.

These facts don't even begin to paint the big picture, the truth that networks and movie producers and ad agencies won't face. The flagrant abuses of our freedoms is systematically corrupting our young, selling their souls and their futures, in the sordid quest for ratings, ticket sales and billions of dollars. Out of control drug usage, school closet sex, childhood profanity, guns, knives, gangs and falling literacy abound everywhere. And not content to debase our own young, the sleaze merchants reap billions exporting these images of our society to every country in the world, convincing them that we may be "the great Satan."

All of this, claiming they're just exercising "free speech."

Will we ever realize that speech, especially irresponsible, filthy, violent and immoral speech – isn't "free"? That it's costing us a lot more than we'll ever want to pay, when the bill finally comes due?

On My Mind... Optimism, or the lack thereof.

  Optimism

French: optimisme, from Latin optimum, noun, best, from neuter of optimus best; akin to Latin ops 

Defined in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as:

1 : a doctrine that this world is the best possible world
2 : an inclination to put the most favorable construction upon actions and events or to anticipate the best possible outcome   - op·ti·mist /-mist/ noun

This is what is sadly lacking in our society. Optimism. We look around us and all we can see and feel is all the negativity. So much crime and so much fear. So much greed. So much death. There is a burglary every 11 seconds, an armed robbery every 65 seconds, a violent crime every 25 seconds, a murder every 24 minutes, and 250 rapes per day.  There is not much hope for us when negativity is all we see and hear and experience.

Our overly-heightened perception of wide-spread pessimism may be choking us, but there is still a chance that we can turn our society around. You see, I have a plan. It is not going to be easy, because our success will require work on all our parts. What must we do, you will ask? The answer is simple:

WE MUST REFUSE.

·       We must refuse to remain silent.

·       We must refuse to allow our in-action to define us.

·       We must refuse to sit idly by watching the decay of society continue.

·       We must refuse to allow self-seeking politicians to rule at any level of government.

·       We must refuse to allow the abortion industry fund raisers to dominate the press.

·       We must refuse to allow supporters of the current culture of death to have the last word.

We must refuse... we must.  -– “Joe”

On The Wire... All is not lost in the aftermath of the elections. --"Joe"

  Election was 'turning point' for pro-life Democrats, activist says
By Michael Foust

WASHINGTON (BP)--The election of several pro-life Democrats in the November election may have marked a defining moment in the future of the pro-life movement in the party, the head of Democrats for Life of America says.

Election Day saw Democrat Bob Casey Jr., son of the late outspoken pro-life Pennsylvania governor and a pro-lifer himself, win a U.S. Senate seat from the Keystone State. In the House, a handful of Democratic pro-life candidates -- including Heath Shuler of North Carolina and Joe Donnelly and Brad Ellsworth -- also won. All of them were key to the Democrats taking control of the House and Senate.

Although the Democratic Party is still led by supporters of abortion rights who back the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, and although its platform says Democrats "stand proudly for a woman's right to choose," the tide could be turning to broaden the tent, says Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life, an organization that works to promote pro-life causes in the party.

"I think it absolutely is a turning point," Day told Baptist Press. "Two years ago the Democratic Party really wasn't working with us. There was a lot of mistrust. People thought we were Republicans. [But] we worked very closely with the DCCC [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee] this election. We coordinated in helping identifying pro-life candidates. There was really a much more openness and support for the pro-life candidates. I think it was very encouraging.

"The challenge we have is to not close the door and to keep it open and keep going on this road of really allowing people to vote their conscience and make their own statements on abortion and not have the party dictate it."

The victory by Democratic pro-life candidates comes on the heels of a book by Day, "Democrats for Life: Pro-Life Politics and the Silenced Majority" (New Leaf Press, 2006) released earlier this year. In it, she shows how the earliest feminists were pro-life and how over time the Democratic Party gradually embraced abortion rights. That culminated in 1992, when Bob Casey Sr., then the pro-life Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, was not allowed to speak at the Democratic National Convention reportedly because of his views.

"While many Democrats had left the party during the Reagan years, pro-life Democrats left in droves after 1992," Day writes. "... The next election cycle, Democrats lost 54 seats, including 34 incumbents and, for the first time in 40 years, control of the House of Representatives."

Elsewhere in the book, Day says plainly, "The Republican Party has embraced protecting the unborn and the Democrats have accepted the notion that abortion is a basic human right for women."

But Day hopes her party is changing. During the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania earlier this year, party officials essentially cleared the field of any major candidates and allowed Casey to sail to the general election, where he faced Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, a staunch pro-lifer.

"That was significant," Day told BP, referring to the party's early support for Casey. "The fact that he won, I think, sends a really strong message that the Democratic Party has to include pro-life Democrats if it is going to be a strong party. They really, truly have to promote the big tent."

The change in strategy by Democratic leaders apparently was sparked by losses in the 2004 election, when Bush defeated Democratic nominee John Kerry in an election in which Democrats felt Bush was vulnerable. That same year Republicans also increased their Senate majority.

"If you look at 2004 when the election was all about moral values, the Democratic Party really had to step back and see where they were headed," Day said. "... [Democratic strategists] James Carville and Paul Begala came out and said, 'Why is the Democratic Party on the fringe on this issue?' Democrats for Life has been saying it all along, but when you expand the big tent of the Democratic Party and include pro-lifers, we win elections."

Democrats, Day says in her book, must "send a strong message ... that our position on abortion will no longer be dictated by special interest groups such as NARAL, NOW and Planned Parenthood."

The new influx of pro-life Democrats won't please Christian conservatives on every issue. Shuler supports stem cell research using embryos from in vitro fertilization, according to The Washington Post. Casey opposes a federal marriage amendment and received campaign money from the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest homosexual activist organization.

But on the issue of abortion, the pro-life Democrats should provide a strong pro-life voice in the party. Pro-lifers have high hopes for Casey, who is consistently pro-life and opposes embryonic stem cell research.

"After this election I started talking to some of the pro-life groups," Day said. "I think they're finally getting it -- that this can't be about one party or the other. It has to be about people working together to end abortion. When it's used as a political football, everyone loses."

Day knows the political battle is far from over. For starters, her pro-life position on abortion remains essentially a non-starter for Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats, many of whom opposed then-Supreme Court nominees John Roberts and Samuel Alito because of their perceived pro-life positions. Democratic Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), who serves on the committee, told the New York Observer after the election, "Judges are the most important. One more justice would have made it a 5-4 conservative, hard-right majority for a long time," he said. "That won't happen."

During the election, Casey said he would have supported both Roberts and Alito. Pro-lifers hope Casey won't support any filibuster of President Bush's judicial nominees.

"I think in this situation [Bush] should appoint a pro-life Democrat," Day said. "If somebody steps down, he puts a Democrat up there who is pro-life, and let's see where the chips fall. I wonder how many conservatives, if there was a liberal pro-life judicial nominee, how many would support them."

Day hopes to see at least two pieces of pro-life legislation -- the National Cord Blood Inventory Act and the Child Custody Protection Act -- pass in the new Congress. She holds out hope that the Democratic platform, when it is re-written in 2008, will be different on abortion. As of now, the two parties have opposing positions on the issue, with the Democratic platform supporting abortion rights and the Republican platform declaring that the "unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed."

"2004 was very different from 2006 [for pro-life Democrats], and it's going to be very different in 2008 when we rewrite the platform," Day said. "I'm pretty confident it's going to be a lot better and a lot more accommodating for pro-life Democrats."

On The Wire… This is an example of the system imposing it’s own rules. Our freedom of speech is our greatest privilege, and we must not allow the system to censure it. -–“Joe”

Detroit Police Harass Pro-Life Supporters, Shut Down Free Speech Outside SuperBowl

DETROIT, November 22, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Alliance Defense Fund allied attorneys filed suit Monday against Detroit police for violating the free speech rights of six pro-life supporters, all of whom were harassed and later prevented from expressing their views outside the Superbowl in February 2006.

"Detroit police need to be reminded that free speech is the right of all Americans, not just a select few," said ADF-allied attorney Ted Hoppe.  "They clearly acted in violation of the Constitution when they chose to single out and squelch pro-life speech."

After learning of the group's plans to demonstrate Feb. 5, police first instructed them to move to the other side of the street.  They were later told by a second officer that they would be restricted to a traffic island.  Signs critical of abortion were confiscated after the group refused officers' demands to turn them around.

Police also towed away a car bearing pictures of aborted children and impounded it for two days.  Officers refused to provide their names and badge numbers when the protestors requested them.  Officers did not approach other people with signs carrying various other messages.

"It is truly disturbing when officers of the law must be re-educated about the tenets of the Constitution," Hoppe said.  "Whether certain speech is considered 'popular' or not is entirely irrelevant.  Their harassment of these individuals, who were acting peacefully in exercising their First Amendment rights, must be rectified and prevented from occurring in the future."

A copy of the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in Marcavage v. City of Detroit is available at http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/MarcavageComplaint.pdf

In The Mail Bag...  This reality check from American Life League. Great Q&A solutions. Arm yourself with straight-ahead facts. --"Joe"

     Life-squashing abortion/death proponents make false, illogical statements:

THEY SAY:

Abortion does not end the life of a human being.

REALITY CHECK: According to physicians, biologists, and scientists, “conception (fertilization) marks the beginning of the life of a human being . . .

There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological and scientific writings.”

*Therefore any direct act, such as abortion, that occurs after conception (fertilization) kills a new human being.

* Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, p. 7

THEY SAY:

Women have the right to control their bodies.

REALITY CHECK: All of us have the right to control our bodies. We decide how much food to eat, how often to workout and what clothes to wear. But, once a baby is conceived, we are no longer talking about one person’s body, we are talking about a baby and a mother. That little baby, no matter how small, has his or her own set of rights.

THEY SAY:

Abortion is a personal choice that doesn’t affect anyone else

REALITY CHECK: Look around you—more than 1/3 of your generation is gone forever. These kids may have been your friends, classmates, husbands or wives. Abortion is destroying our nation—a nation that you are very much a part of.

THEY SAY:

Your life will go back to normal after your abortion.

REALITY CHECK: After an abortion the majority of relationships break up; over 50% of women experience nightmares, thoughts of suicide and an inability to communicate or develop healthy relationships— and many women turn to alcohol and drugs.

THEY SAY:

Abortion is a simple, safe medical procedure.

REALITY CHECK: Complications from abortion include blood clots, hemorrhaging, infection, cut or torn cervix, perforated uterus, pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility and even death.

THEY SAY:

You’re too young to make a difference.

REALITY CHECK: You are never too young to spread God’s truth. You can make a difference. “Let no one disregard you because you are young, but be an example to all the believers in the way you speak and behave, and in your love, your faith, and your purity” (1 Timothy 4:12).

  ABORTION ???   QUESTION IT ! !

Did you know that ...

• From the moment you were created (at fertilization), every detail of your development was already determined (your sex, hair and eye color, etc.)

• Your heart started beating when you were 21 days old

• In the United States, more than 3,500 babies are killed every day by surgical abortion

• When you were 8 weeks old, you had all the body parts that you have now

• Most surgical abortions are performed at or after the 8th week of pregnancy

• Chemical contraception, such as the pill, “emergency contraception,” the patch and Depo-Provera can kill babies in the womb

• Most women taking chemical contraception are not aware of how it works

• Every person is a unique creation of God and is part of His plan—there is no one else like you

On The Wire… This is a good summary of the recent elections, by David Freddoso.  We still have much work cut-out for us. We must not let any election gains or failures reduce our level of intensity. The battle for life continues. --"Joe"

  Pro-abortion Republicans sustained greater losses in the midterm elections.

BY DAVID FREDDOSO

Register Correspondent

November 19-25, 2006 Issue

WASHINGTON — Republicans were bludgeoned in the midterm elections Nov. 7 as Catholic voters abandoned them in the midst of a bloody Iraq occupation and scandals in Congress.

Democrats took control of both the U.S. House and Senate, as pro-lifers lost some ground in both chambers.

Catholics overwhelmingly chose Democratic congressional candidates, according to exit polls. Nationally, Catholics made up 26% of the vote and chose Democrats over Republicans by 55% to 44%. In 2004, Republican congressional candidates had managed to win 50% of the Catholic vote, to 49% for the Democrats.

Although Republicans lost badly, pro-life losses were only moderate in the House of Representatives. The losses were more serious in the Senate, but life issues did not appear to have hurt any of the Senate candidates significantly.

“I don’t think this election is a sign that the country has shifted on the life issues,” said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan, a pro-life leader in Congress and a reported hopeful for the 2008 presidential election. “I think we continue to gain ground in support for pro-life issues on the national level.”

Meanwhile, ballot measures in Missouri and South Dakota dealt setbacks to the pro-life movement, as Missourians narrowly enshrined a right to clone human beings for medical research in their state constitution. Also, South Dakotans rejected a wide-ranging abortion ban that had been passed by their state Legislature (see related story, this page).

On the House side, Republicans lost 29 or 30 members, pending recounts and challenges, but about 12 of them were pro-abortion moderates.

Republicans lost 18 members with mostly or all pro-life voting records, but it does not appear that many — if any — lost because they were pro-life. Among the pro-life losers, seven were involved in congressional or personal scandals. Four were connected to the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, one allegedly choked his wife, another allegedly choked his mistress, and another allegedly used his influence to enrich his family.

Of the others, three of the Republicans were replaced by Democrats who appear to be genuinely pro-life — Joe Donnelly and Brad Ellsworth of Indiana, and former pro football player Heath Shuler of North Carolina.

“It fills us with hope that the Democratic Party is embracing social-conservative Democrats warmly,” said Joe Cella, president of the Catholic political activist group Fidelis. “We’re going to reach out to those Democratic conservatives who have won and develop relationships with them.”

“I think those are people who could definitely be approachable on traditional values issues,” said Mike Bober, executive director of the House Conservatives Fund, which raises money for pro-life, conservative Republican candidates.

Still to Come

Although Republicans failed to pick up any Democratic seats, pro-lifers made two gains. One pro-abortion Democrat — Rep. Ted Strickland, D-Ohio, who was elected governor of Ohio — was replaced by a pro-life Democrat, Rep. Charlie Wilson. One pro-abortion Republican, Rep. Joe Schwarz, R-Mich, fell in his primary election to pro-lifer Tim Wahlberg, a Republican who won in the general election.

In all, the final tally results in a net loss of 13 pro-life members, although two of these supported funding for research that destroys human embryos.

Although the House cannot directly decide the abortion issue, its votes will immediately make a difference in some important abortion-related legislation.

One provision that must be renewed frequently is the “conscience protection” amendment, which withdraws federal money from medical institutions that discriminate against doctors and other medical professionals who refuse to participate in abortions. The provision has not received a floor vote since 2002, when it received the votes of 16 of the Democrats (and was opposed by only seven of the Republicans) who will be present in the 110th Congress.

If the four new pro-life Democrats support it, the amendment could come very close to passage on the House floor.

House Republicans who opposed this year’s constitutional amendment to preserve the traditional definition of marriage did not find refuge in appeasing the homosexual lobby. Of the 27 who opposed the amendment, eight were defeated at the polls. Two others retired.

Of the 51 Republican congressmen who earlier this year supported overturning President Bush’s veto of funding research that destroys human embryos, eight were defeated and two retired.

The Senate

Republicans lost six Senate seats, for what may be a net pro-life loss of four or five. The 110th Senate will include 51 Democrats and 49 Republicans, putting Democrats in chairmanship position of all committees and making it tough for any pro-life judicial nominees.

At the top of the ticket in Pennsylvania , Sen. Rick Santorum, a Republican and a leader in the pro-life movement, was crushed in his re-election bid by state Treasurer Bob Casey, who campaigned as a pro-life Democrat. Casey received an impressive 35% of the pro-life vote, and Santorum took in only 41% of the Catholic vote as he went down to defeat by 18 points.

Casey, the son of the late pro-life Gov. Bob Casey, is at least nominally pro-life, but his noncommittal stance on confirming pro-life judges during the campaign was unsettling to some pro-lifers. He has also opposed any measures preventing same-sex marriage.

Also among the Republican Senate losers was the staunchly pro-abortion Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I.

Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, who also lost, voted pro-life.

In the Senate, the loss of four or five reliably pro-life votes, and a strong pro-life leader, could create complications if President Bush attempts to propose a Supreme Court nominee who could conceivably participate someday in a decision that overturns Roe v. Wade. But such a confirmation is not outside the realm of possibility.

“Clarence Thomas was confirmed with 43 Republicans in the Senate,” said Sean Rushton, executive director of the Committee for Justice, an activist group that seeks to confirm President Bush’s judicial nominees. “Republicans should remember their relative strength if [a Supreme Court nomination] comes up.”

In Missouri, the Senate race between losing pro-life Sen. Jim Talent, a Republican, and the successful pro-abortion challenger, Claire McCaskill, a Democrat, had in its background a ballot measure — Amendment 2 — which prevents the state Legislature from banning or restricting human cloning to produce embryonic stem cells. The initiative had been written very deceptively, and the state courts allowed it to appear with misleading ballot language that suggested that the measure was actually a cloning ban. Actor Michael J. Fox appeared in television ads for McCaskill related to the issue.

Despite the alleged popularity of embryonic stem-cell research, a vigorous but under-funded and last-minute campaign by the state’s Catholic bishops and evangelical leaders resulted in the measure’s passage by just over a 1% margin. Talent opposed Amendment 2, but he mishandled the stem-cell issue earlier this year when he withdrew support from a ban on human cloning pending in the U.S. Senate and embraced controversial and untested alternative procedures for producing embryonic stem cells. Most voters were confused, but pro-lifers knowledgeable of the issue were upset.

Notably, the “no” vote on Amendment 2 outperformed Talent by more than 25,000 votes and came much closer to winning than he did. This is a clear sign that its presence on the ballot did not harm him, and may have even prevented him from losing by a wider margin. Talent received 51% of the Catholic vote, and he was the only one of the six losing Republicans to receive a higher percentage of the Catholic vote than President Bush did in 2004. This was probably because of the campaign against Amendment 2: Thanks largely to the efforts of the state’s four bishops, 55% of Catholics voted against Amendment 2.

“It’s a very disappointing outcome,” Cella said of the passage of Amendment 2. “It will embolden people to propose similar propositions in 2008, in the presidential year, that will win. I think this will be a powerful wedge issue.”

Still, Cella acknowledged that the close finish suggests that embryonic research is not as popular an issue as social liberals would like to think. “If there is some silver lining, we started late and were substantially outspent, and we still made it competitive.”

David Freddoso writes from Washington , D.C

On The Wire... Why do men have voices that cannot be heard? Because men have not begun to fully understand that they must first speak out, in order for anyone to be able to hear them. Express yourself! Stand up and work for your rights. -- "Joe"

  When Fathers Can’t Protect Their Children

By Jeffery M. Leving

DadsRights.com

In reading President Bush's recent message to the anti-abortion rally about protecting "the lives of innocent children waiting to be born," I was struck by the lack of mention of the father's complete inability to protect his own unborn child. In fact, no one seems to acknowledge a father's rights to have a say in whether his child gets to live.

It's been 30 years since the Supreme Court made its decision in Roe vs. Wade. Despite the passage of that time, the issue remains a fiercely contested debate, with each camp remaining adamant in it attempt to out shout the other. Yet in these three decades, one voice continues to be unheard -- that of the fathers of unborn children.

As a family law attorney, I work daily with anguished fathers who have little or no say in the lives of their children. The agony of these men becomes unimaginable when the child is not yet born and they have no way of protecting the life they helped to create.

With the anniversary of such a significant ruling upon us, a new Congress and debates raging in legislatures across the country, activities on both sides see now as the time that will make or break Roe. But now is also a chance to balance the rights of the father with those of the mother, putting the focus on the child, and creating the most equitable law possible.

Depriving fathers of a meaningful voice will not solve the problem for anyone. This course would only deny fathers equal protection and due process. Moreover, many children will be far beyond the protective reach of their fathers who want to be included in such a pivotal decision.

Under the Supreme Court rulings made over the course of these three decades, fathers were denied any voice in the issue, whether they were married to the mother or not.

The government has turned the issue of reproductive rights back to the states, and we, as concerned Americans in every state, should use this ruling as the basis to create the fairest and most realistic law possible. To do this, every voice must be heard, even that of fathers.

Jeffery M. Leving is co-author of the Illinois Joint Custody Law and President Emeritus of the Fatherhood Educational Institute (FEI). A family law attorney, he is author of the book "Fathers' Rights" and currently serves on the Congressional Task Force on Fathers, Families & Public Policy. Leving is the founder of dadsrights.com

On The Wire… This young man chose to act in the final hour, to his success, though the method is not advised. Things could have gone very wrong. What needed to happen was  “Alexander” acting early enough to resolve the issues that would lead to his taking extreme action. More than one life was saved here, but violence, even the threat of it, is never the right answer. Talk it out. Work it out. Do the right thing and give life a chance. -- "Joe"

Distraught Man Uses Terrorist Tactics to Stop Girlfriend’s Abortion

By Gudrun Schultz

MOSCOW, Russia, November 13, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A young man dressed in military gear attacked a Moscow abortion clinic in an attempt to stop his girlfriend from undergoing an abortion, Interfax reported Nov. 8.

Identified as ‘Alexander’, the student from the Ulyanovsk region burst into the hospital clinic wearing camouflage gear from his army service and carrying what appeared to be a grenade and a pistol.

According to reports, the man took a nurse hostage and ordered her to take him to the operating room, arriving just before the doctors began the abortion.

Begging his girlfriend not to have the abortion, he threatened the doctors, ordering them to release the girl.

The man was restrained by guards and taken to a local police station. His grenade was discovered to be a plaster cast, while the pistol was an air gun.

In his defense the man said he had not intended to do anything wrong, but that he loved Tatiana, the girl, and wanted to marry her and raise a child. He was released without charges.

The couple married. Their child will be born next spring.