The Pro-life Movement and Stem Cell Research

ANOTHER SUCCESS WITH STEM CELL RESEARCH

Science now has proven there are moral and ethical alternatives to using stems cells from human embryos. The most recent success transplanted a new windpipe into a 30-year old woman suffering from tuberculosis. The procedure used tissue from the women’s own stem cells. Adult stem cells have also cured over 70 diseases in other men, women and children. By contrast, research using embryonic stem cell research has not cured a single disease in a single person.

Congress is expected to debate the use of stem cells from human embryos early in the 111th Congress. This is a crucial time to educate President-Elect Obama that it is time to end the debate on funding embryonic stem cell research and put our limited funds toward research that is curing and saving lives. The Obama Transition Team is asking for your vision for the next four years. Please share your views that we must follow science on stem cell research and use the moral and ethical alternatives to embryonic stem cells that have suceeded and do not sacrifice one life to potential save another.

From the Democrats for Life of America:

Democrats For Life of America
DFLA -The pro-life voice within the Democratic Party
________________________________________________________________________
Pro-Science and Pro-Life: The Most Promising Stem Cell Research Does NOT Require the Destruction of Human Embryos

Medical research involving “stem cells” is often presented as a false dilemma. It is a falsehood that one must be either pro-science or pro-life; that in order to advance medical and scientific research, one must push aside ethical issues relating to the creation, cloning, and destruction of human embryos. This common misperception is not just oversimplified and misleading – it is also outdated.

Today, scientists can create the most powerful type of stem cells without destroying embryos. Researchers have generated a new kind of stem cell that shares the helpful characteristics of embryonic cells, while avoiding the many moral and practical problems. The new, non-embryonic cells have shown tremendous promise in clinical studies, and scientists have only begun to explore their potential. They add to an already lengthy roster of medical treatments
utilizing “adult” stem cells.

What are “Stem Cells”?

Stem cells are unspecialized cells that can replicate themselves and produce more specialized cells. The most powerful stem cells are “pluripotent,” which means capable of developing into any type of cell.

Stem cells come from a variety of sources. Embryonic stem cells are those obtained by destroying a human embryo in the early stages of its development. Adult stem cells refer to stem cells from adult tissue, umbilical cord blood, or placenta.

In the past, it was believed that embryonic stem cells were unique in their ability to transform into any type of cell. We now know that this is not the case. Researchers have learned to manipulate the genes of adult cells and convert them into the equivalent of embryonic stem cells.
These breakthrough new cells – known as “induced pluripotent stem cells” or “iPS cells” – were created from adult skin cells. Like embryonic stem cells, they can be transformed into any type of tissue, including lung, brain, heart and muscle.

Proven Benefits of Adult Stem Cells

A flurry of research has followed upon the published discovery of iPS cells in late 2007. Clinical studies in mice have already shown progress in treating symptoms of Parkinson’s disease and sickle cell anemia, and in restoring blood circulation and function to damaged limbs. More studies are underway.

For many years prior to the discovery of iPS cells, the other types of adult stem cells have provided important medical benefits. Blood-forming cells from bone marrow have been used in transplants for 30 years. Adult stem cells are in widespread use treating many types of cancer, heart disease, and spinal cord injury.

Clinical trials have benefitted patients suffering from conditions including corneal damage, sickle-cell anemia, and multiple sclerosis. Adult stem cells, including iPS cells, permit doctors to treat a patient using cells from the patient’s own body. The advantage is that the cells will not be rejected by the immune system, as would be the case with stem cells from an embryo.

Another advantage of adult stem cells is that they are not as likely as embryonic cells to form tumors – and the advantage now extends to iPS cells. In September 2008, Harvard University scientists announced that they had succeeded in engineering iPS cells so they were not prone to causing cancerous tumors. This feat has so far eluded researchers working with embryonic stem
cells, and it raises the possibility that iPS cells may be used in human studies much sooner than once thought.

Problems with Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Embryonic stem cell research requires the destruction of a human embryo. In some cases, an embryo is created for the express purpose of destroying and harvesting its cells. Supporters of embryonic stem cell research seek to avoid the moral and ethical objections by arguing that the end – the possibility of a breakthrough that might advance medicine – justifies the means – destroying human embryos to harvest stem cells. This dubious argument loses all credibility in light of the research developments involving non-embryonic stem cells.

In addition, major practical hurdles continue to confront embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cells are valued for their capacity to grow and reproduce very rapidly, but that growth is difficult to control. In simple terms, embryonic cells are prone to forming cancerous tumors. To date, concern about tumors has prevented studies of embryonic stem cell treatments in human patients. Immune system rejection is another problem with treating patients using
cells from a destroyed embryo. The high risk of the patient’s immune system rejecting tissue grown from the embryo would mean a lifetime course of immunosuppressive drugs. The tissue rejection problem has led some researchers down a worrisome path.

Their “solution” is to create an embryo cloned from a patient’s own cells, terminate the cloned embryo after roughly 5-7 days development, and harvest the embryonic stem cells. The clone’s stem cells could then be used to grow transplant tissues or even whole body parts. They call this process “therapeutic” cloning.

“Therapeutic” cloning has progressed relatively slowly. The cloning process requires large quantities of human eggs and, so far, there is a shortage of donors. This is hardly surprising: egg donation is a time-consuming process that poses medical risks to the donor. She is subject to multiple office visits, daily hormone injections, and a surgical procedure under anesthesia to harvest the eggs. Even under normal doses, the hormone injections can lead to occasional serious (in rare cases, fatal) complications caused by excessive stimulation of the ovaries. To make matters worse, the commercial value of cloning research means that the doctor would have a financial incentive to administer high doses of egg-stimulating drugs, in order to produce as many eggs as possible. Given the health risks to women and the speculative benefits of the research, the National Academy of Science advises against compensation for women who
donate eggs for research purposes, and such compensation has been banned by California and Massachusetts, two large centers of stem cell research.

A shortage of human eggs available for cloning led researchers in the United Kingdom to use cow’s eggs instead, creating a human-animal hybrid embryo. Termed a “chimera,” the hybrid embryo was reportedly destroyed after five days. The “ends” justifying the “means” argument can be stretched very far indeed.

Conclusion

Recent developments may well make embryonic stem cells obsolete. At a minimum, scientists must be encouraged to harness the enormous potential of powerful new stem cells created without destroying human embryos. With limited dollars available for medical research, legislators should ensure that taxpayer dollars fund research that has tremendous potential for breakthrough cures: adult stem cell research.

Not A Third Bush Term, But A Third Clinton Term

No one should be shocked to discover that, in his transition to the presidency, the "inexperienced" former senator from Chicago has turned to the last Democratic administration that had experience in Washington. It seems, however, that the Obama team is doing so big time. Looking at lists of early appointees for the transition period and the administration to come, from Rahm Emanuel on down, you might be forgiven for concluding that Hillary had been elected president in 2008. Clintonistas are just piling up in the prospective corridors of power.

You might also be forgiven for concluding that just about no one else in America had ever had any "experience." Late last week, the website Politico.com did some counting and came up with the following: "Thirty-one of the 47 people so far named to transition or staff posts have ties to the Clinton administration, including all but one of the members of his 12-person Transition Advisory Board and both of his White House staff choices." More have been appointed since then, including, as White House Counsel, Gregory Craig, the lawyer who defended Bill Clinton in impeachment hearings, and evidently as Attorney General, Eric Holder, who worked in the Clinton Justice Department. And, of course, everyone in America now knows that Hillary herself is being considered for a cabinet post.

This is change and a "new kind" of politics, or is it old politics repackaged?

A Letter To Catholic Democrats

Brothers and Sisters,

The 2008 presidential election is over and done with. Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate has won. In unity with all Democrats around America, I am excited about the end of George Bush's presidency. The current president has proved to be a disaster for our country. In regard to President Bush -- I repeat -- no Democrat will find any disagreement with me. However, as a pro-life Catholic, I am terrified by the incoming Obama Administration.

Catholic Democrats are needed now more than ever. I'm not talking about the modern pro-sexual revolution feminist Catholic Democrat, who undoubtedly supported the right candidate, but pro-life traditionalist Catholic Democrats. Why? President Obama has an unprecendented position on abortion that's so extraordinarily horrifying, so unusual, and so scary that it demands immediate attention and the response of the pro-life movement. The agenda that President Obama has promised to deliver would be the greatest blow to the pro-life movement since the 1973 decision to legalize abortion.

With little surprise, the mainstream media glossed over abortion extremism as they literally campaigned for him. I know many of my fellow Catholics in the Democratic Party voted for our party's candidate. I didn't. None of that matters now. What matters now is that we all unite with the single goal of ensuring the common good, which particularly involves opposition to President Obama's agenda on abortion and embryonic stem cell research -- the latter of which, he has already indicated that he is going to reverse Bush's policy and expand efforts and fund the massive killing of embryonic human life with federal tax-payer dollars.

On the issue of abortion, Obama's actions and statements are not only outrageous morally, but they are outrageous by the standards of the Democratic Party. Obama blocked legislation to provide life-saving medical care to babies that survived abortions in an Illinois state version of a bill that soared into law unopposed in the Senate, even by staunch abortion rights' advocates like Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer. Once Obama left the Illinois Senate, the bill unanimously passed in the state legislature. It is no exaggeration to say that the incoming President of our nation preserved a literal form of infanticide.

As if that isn't bad enough, Obama has championed the Freedom of Choice Act which would eradicate every pro-life law since Roe v. Wade. This would effectively -- in one stroke -- wipe out all fully bipartisan initiatives passed by both Democrats and Republicans in legislatures all over America to reasonably restrict abortion. It's pure madness. To "top off" this madness, Obama advocates funding abortion with tax payer dollars through the medium of a national health care plan -- as if healing a human life with medical care is fundamentally no different than destroying one in the act of an abortion.

This just begins the list. Obama doesn't support funding pregnancy crisis centers because they allegedly spread lies about women's health issues and hinder women from making choices about their health -- in essence, they don't promote and encourage abortion the way Planned Parenthood does. The list goes on.

This nightmare couldn't have worse timing. The next president is likely to nominate one or two Supreme Court Justices and the highest ranking court is finally at a tipping point, where the court had McCain won could have been in position to overturn Roe v. Wade. Now it seems that Roe v. Wade might survive another generation or two. This is not good news. Since Roe became law in 1973, in this nation alone nearly 50 million unborn children have perished. This sort of death toll makes American casualities in World War II (300,000 dead Americans) look like a picnic. In fact, the American casualities in Iraq are at best 15 days of abortion. This, of course, isn't to demean any American that has died in war or to devalue the worth of their life. But it does show the extent and seriousness of the attack on unborn human life.

We all bear moral and spiritual responsibility for the decision of America to elect Obama. Some 2,000 years ago, a good people were offered a choice between Life itself and a murderer. They chose Barabbas. Please don’t misunderstand: I’m most definitely not comparing John McCain to Jesus Christ or calling Barack Obama a killer. I’m talking about rejecting rather than choosing a Culture of Death.

We must recognize that abortion is going to be with us for some years to come. The number of years is entirely contigent on the effort we put in to stopping it. We cannot continue falling for the fancy rhetoric and word gymnastics pro-choice Democrats put forth to establish themselves as better in combatting abortion than their Republican foes. It's simply not true. Obama doesn't even support the Pregant Women Support Act advanced by pro-life Democrats. How can he find common ground with Republicans on abortion if he won't even listen to members of his own party?

What we need to realize is the chilling similarities between the arguments for slavery and thosed used to defend abortion and the absolute aburdity in rhetoric that Democrats use, i.e. "reducing the number of abortions" as common ground, as if anyone would agree to leave slavery legal and only reduce the number of slaves. Like today's pro-choicers, slaveholders said they weren't forcing anyone to own slaves. They simply pleaded for the "right" to do what they wanted with their own "property" -- conveniently, blacks didn't meet their criterion for personhood. The word "property," of course, disguised the fact that human lives and the inalienable right to liberty was at stake. The question that pro-choice Americans ask today is similar: "Do we not think a woman has a right to do what she wants with her body?" The question similarly disguises the fact that exercising these so-called "rights" involves the deliberate murder of another human being. The slaveholders' pro-choice argument also lives on in bumper stickers that read: "Against abortion? Don't have one." As if, the slogan "Against slavery? Don't own one" would be in any sense tolerable though the logic is entirely consistent from issue to issue.

For months, I watched as Catholics fell one by one into the temptation of voting for the Democratic candidate despite his pro-choice position. It was all well-crafted and well-protected behind the controversy of "single issue" voting. In doing so, many Catholics (Doug Kmiec) began to qualify Obama's pro-choice position while maintaining that they themselves were "pro-life." The same thing happened n the 2004 presidential election. There was a wave of pro-choice Americans following John Kerry's twisted logic on abortion. As the science rolls in and the facts become impossible to refute, the latest tactic was to shift the focus. Right? They'll concede it is a human life, but it does not constitute a person -- therefore, it doesn't have any rights. This rolls into the dangerous game of defining personhood based on functions. A person, in this view, is a conscious, self-aware, independent, capable rational creature. We can see where this goes in the case of euthanasia and so many other issues, e.g. people who are mentally disabled. It's even present in the argument for slavery when "personhood" conveniently defined only includes whites. Blacks didn't constitute a "whole person" and didn't have rights as a consequence.

We cannot call ourselves Catholics and tolerate this. Abortion is not just one issue among many. It's curious that we are capable of making a distinction -- when pregnancy is embraced, it's obviously a child growing in our midst; yet when it's not wanted, it's a fetus--an instantly different thing.

Those who insist on a vastly improved, compassionate network of support for women are absolute right to do so. But to suggest that the Church herself has advocated anything short of this in both action and in preaching is bogus. The allegations made by progressive Catholics about obsessive "single-issue voting" driven by some pelvic theology is junk. No one is voting on a single issue, but there is one issue that is so fundamentally evil that it constitutes a decisive opposition to a candidate endorsing it -- in the same way, the same people attacking pro-life Catholics voting against pro-choice candidates themselves would not vote for a racist candidate no matter what, nor would they vote for a pro-slavery candidate, nor would they support a pro-Final Solution genocide of the Jews candidate. Yet, when a candidate supports the federal (as well as international) funded, systematic genocide of unborn children, issues of minimum wage and the economy are of paramount importance as if human life can be priced.

The singular issue of the right-to-life is the cornerstone of all human rights. We, Catholics, are not "single-issue voters." But we cannot deny that there is one issue, without which, the ennobling others have no hope of any stability. Building a society on the right to "choice" instead of the right to life is like building a house on sand.

President Obama has been called the personification of the hope and change we all need. That's not true. The hope and change we need already came. It's the Wisdom personified that was foretold in the Old Testament. The Wisdom of God -- the Logos -- God incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ.

We Catholics have so much to contribute to the unfolding American political experiment -- far more than we tend to imagine -- because we bring the mercy and justice of God to society. When Americans are as ashamed of abortion as we now are of slavery, the battle will be won. I'm in trenches as a pro-life Catholic fighting for the soul of our party. Will you join me?

- Just Another Catholic Democrat

Pro-Life Democrats in Congress

Pro-Life Democrats Get Five Congressional Seats Despite Pro-Choice Obama Win
by Steven Ertelt

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Pro-choice Democrat Barack Obama may have captured the presidency, but the pro-life group working within the party to change its pro-choice position has a reason to celebrate. Democrats for Life of America backed several pro-life Democrats for Congress and five won their races Tuesday night.

"The pro-life Democratic Caucus will once again increase," Kristen Day, the director of the group told LifeNews.com.

"This will be only the second time in 30 years that the number of pro-life Democrats increases instead of decreases," the said. "The first time we made gains was in 2006 due to the work of pro-life Democrats all over this country advocating on behalf of the pro-life cause."

Twenty-six pro-life incumbent members of Congress kept their seats on Tuesday night. They will be joined by five other pro-life Democrats.

Bobby Bright won the Congressional race in Alabama's second district, Parker Griffith won in the Alabama fifth district, Steve Driehaus is the new congressman in Ohio's first district, Kathy Dahlkemper now represents Pennsylvania's third distract, and John Boccieri won in the 16th district of Ohio.

Some of the victories are much-needed because less-than-stellar congressmen are on their way out.

The Griffith win is good news for pro-life advocates because he replaced pro-choice Democrat Robert Cramer and Boccieri replaces retiring mixed-record Rep. Regula.

However, the other victories came at a price -- with pro-life incumbents losing seats.

Driehaus defeated pro-life champion Steve Chabot, who was the main sponsor of the partial-birth abortion ban that Congress approved and the Supreme Court upheld. He will have big shoes to fill and pro-life advocates in Cincinnati will be making sure he is as vocal of an advocate.

Dahlkemper defeated long-time pro-life rep. Phil English, who always maintained a 100 percent pro-life voting record. Bright replaces retiring pro-life Rep. Terry Everett, a Republican.

The pro-life Democrat group could find another friend in Congress depending on the results of a December Congressional runoff.

In the fourth district in Louisiana, Democrat Paul Carmouche will face off against Republican winner Dr. John Fleming and independent candidates Chester T. "Catfish" Kelley and Gerard Bowen Jr.

They are vying for the open seat vacated by retiring pro-life Rep. Jim McCrery of Shreveport.

The Debate Over Health Care

With Senator Obama elected as the 44th president of the United States, Americans can expect that a Democratic president and Congress will push for comprehensive health care reform. The debate over universal health care coverage is underway and is being led by Senator Edward Kennedy. I think it's a debate and reform that is certainly going to be welcomed by many Americans.

Kennedy to Move on Health When Obama Gives Go-Ahead
By Aliza Marcus

Nov. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Senator Edward Kennedy's staff is holding regular meetings with interest groups to translate President-elect Barack Obama's health-care plan into legislation that can be passed by Congress, an aide said.

Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, will take his "cues from the Obama White House'' and expects that Congress will act on a measure in Obama's first term, said Michael Myers, staff director of Kennedy's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, at a conference today in Washington.

Obama has proposed expanding government health programs, giving subsidies to low-income families and requiring that insurers cover everyone, regardless of their medical condition. Kennedy, who is under treatment for brain cancer, told the Democratic convention in August that providing "decent, quality health care'' to everyone is "the cause of my life,'' and he pledged to return to Congress in January to achieve it.

"The question is no longer whether we will pursue health reform, but when and exactly in what form,'' said Myers, speaking at a forum organized by the Washington policy group Families USA. "It's the first, second and third item on our committee's agenda.''

Kennedy's committee, trying to avoid repeating Hillary Clinton's failed attempt to rework health care in 1993-94 during her husband Bill's first term as president, is talking with different advocacy and interest groups to produce a plan with broad support.

Change Anticipated

Health-care providers and policy groups know the status quo isn't acceptable, said Ron Pollack, Families USA's executive director.

"There is an effort to find a common ground,'' Pollack said. "I have never seen such interest in getting to 'yes.'''

Obama has estimated that making affordable coverage available to all Americans would cost up to $65 billion annually, with another $250 billion over five years to develop computerized health records throughout the country.

Congress last year insisted that any new legislation be paid for with revenue from other sources, such as tax increases, or spending cuts, to avoid increasing the budget deficit.

Kennedy's staff is looking for ways to save money in the $2.2 trillion health-care system. There's also the possibility that not "every penny and every dime'' spent will be paid for in advance, Myers said.

"All of these discussions are just beginning,'' he said.

Baucus's Proposals

Senator Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, is expected to release his proposals next week about how to provide universal health-care coverage. Some 15 percent of the U.S. population is uninsured.

Baucus's committee has jurisdiction over government health programs such as Medicaid, for low-income people, and the chairman held hearings this year on the high cost of care and how to make health insurance markets more efficient.

The proposals will be an "important contribution to the debate,'' Myers said, even as Kennedy plans that his committee will produce the sole legislative measure to change the health system.

Kennedy has "articulated a strategy that he calls the one bill strategy,'' Myers said. "We've learned from the lessons of the past.''

Catholic Social Teaching and Healthcare Reform

In Matthew 25, Jesus paints an image of His return in glory. On the Day of Judgment, Christ will separate His sheep from the goats. The sheep are those that cared for "the least" of Jesus' brothers: the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, the stranger, those sick, and those in prison. The goats didn't remember "the least" among them and as Christ foretold, "in all truth," they have "received their reward," in this life and will not in the next. Jesus’ teaching is unavoidable.

This message is especially relevant to the injustice of the American healthcare system. To call American healthcare—as a system—immoral makes no judgment on healthcare professionals or hospitals, but rather on the design itself. Many have advocated for universal healthcare in our country and have been rejected for proposing so-called "socialized medicine." I am personally a proponent of a universal healthcare system. We have the medical care, the financial resources, but we seem to lack the moral will to acknowledge that we are our brother's keeper.

Does the United States have the best healthcare in the world? It depends. In reality, there are at least five different co-existing healthcare systems in our country. They can be described as follows: first, at the top of the system are the wealthy and well-insured, particularly those with indemnity, fee-for-service health insurance. In this case, the United States has the highest quality, most technically advanced medicine in the world; second from the top is the private, employer-based insurance for the middle class, usually with some features of "managed care" and some restrictions on what the insurance company will cover; the third layer consists of insurance for lower-income workers in the form of tightly managed health maintenance organizations (HMO), substantial out-of-pocket payments and moderate restrictions on the doctors that can be seen and treatments covered; the fourth layer is Medicaid, Medicare, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which are grossly underfunded systems of federal and state insurance for the lowest of middleclass families, the poor, for children, the disabled, and the elderly. This group faces severe restrictions on doctors that can be seen and on treatments covered; the bottom of the ladder is "charity care" and emergency room care, which is available to those who have no medical insurance.

The American healthcare "system" translates into a socio-economically based distribution of medical care, which is fundamentally more of a medical caste system than a healthcare system. This hardly seems compatible with Jesus' teaching in Matthew 25. The results aren’t either. In virtually every form of basic statistics measuring days of illness, death rates, and life expectancies, the United States ranks behind almost every other industrialized nation. The U.S. ranked last in 2007 of every industrialized nation in terms of the citizens dying from preventable disease; France ranked first. In France 64 people died from preventable disease, in the U.S. approximately 101,000 died from preventable disease. The difference couldn't be starker, particularly given the fact we spend more on healthcare than any other industrialized nation in the world and for us it is only partial, not universal coverage as in other countries.

The "every-man-for-himself," radical individualist strategy of American healthcare not only is disastrously irresponsible, it seriously violates basic Christian teaching. Make no mistake, this is not an endorsement to eradicate personal responsibility and moral virtue (communism, in other words), but an observation that a private sector dominated healthcare system is bad business without some sort of minimal regulation. The Catholic principle of subsidiarity is an organizing principle that calls us to allow the smallest, most local institution to handle matters if it can be done more efficiently than or just as efficiently as would be done at the national level (or state level in America). But, if the task cannot be done efficiently at this level, then the national (or state) government has an obligation to have some sort of role to ensure the common good.

Any healthcare system—in my view—that is based on private insurance with no government intervention is fatally flawed. The incentive of private insurance is upside down. After premiums are paid, the less care they provide, the higher their profits—this is undoubtedly their goal. Hence, all the horrid stories one hears about insurance companies searching for the smallest technicality to not cover something. Thus, public health and human welfare is not the incentive, but rather profit. Profit over health and dignity is not a Christian value. Fundamentally, health and wellness should not be treated like any other consumer-based industry.

The problem with healthcare costs is hard to deal with in the current system. With thousands of different private health insurance plans, it's virtually impossible to negotiate consistently lower costs with healthcare providers and drug companies. A universal healthcare system, on the other hand, has the potential to rein in costs. More importantly, private insurance is a colossal waste of money. Administrative costs for Medicare, for example, which is government-financed (not government-run) are 2-3% of the total cost. Approximately 30% of private insurance premiums go to overhead, profits, and executive salaries. Overall the administrative costs of private insurance exceed $400 billion dollars in a year. That is arguably sufficient to cover all the uninsured without raising taxes.

Many conservative-leaning thinkers are concerned about the loss of freedom and the efficiency of a national healthcare plan. Ironically, the freedom that many people fear will be loss at the implementation of a universal healthcare system is already gone. Many choices in healthcare are at the discretion of the private sector insurance companies. They choose what doctors you can see, whether you are qualified to be covered (if you have a history of illness, good luck—you cost too much), what they will and will not cover and how long you can receive treatment, and this is all if they don't find some small technicality on which they can drop coverage all together to preserve their profits. It seems that we fail to realize how much is already controlled by large corporations—at least government officials can be voted out of office.

Even more so, we already pay for people to get medical care. When people go to the emergency room to receive medical treatment without health insurance, the cost is spread amongst everyone else. This is one reason why insurance premiums skyrocket and we're also taxed, since hospitals can receive government grants to offset some of their losses. Wouldn't we rather have paid for the preventative care than wait until it is much more expensive?

Additionally, it is nothing unusual for a hospital to have to bill more than 700 different payers and insurers--HMOs, PPOs, MCOs, IPAs, and an alphabet soup of other organizations. Each one has its own set of rules for what services are covered, the level of reimbursement and the kinds of documentation and pre-approval required. It is an administrative nightmare. And for this mess, we Americans shell out $2.2 trillion a year (more than any other nation) and all this inefficiency costs patients tens of billions of dollars each year. Billing, collection, and payment administration represents some 20 percent of that $2.2 trillion we spend on healthcare. There is nothing even remotely "conservative" about this—it’s nothing but “big spending” and for what results?

To consider this again in Christian thinking—we have a call from the Lord to give preferential option to the most vulnerable among us. Poverty and ill health travel often together. Poverty puts one's health in jeopardy, ill health with its attendant high medical bills, impairment of working ability, and days lost from work, make it difficult to find and hold a good job. This is a terrible and vicious cycle. The current healthcare system is evidently not accommodating.

Now there is a "safety net" of charity healthcare that ought to be commended. The Veterans Administration healthcare system, the Indian Health Service, state and local departments of public health, public hospital emergency rooms, community health centers and clinics, faith-based clinics for the poor and homeless, and the list goes on. Despite their tireless work and efforts, many lack the funding and the resources to address the problem at hand—they adequately cannot overcome the effects of the lack of good, regular access to mainstream healthcare.

Hispanics, African Americans, people with less education, part-time workers, and foreign-born persons have the highest rates of being uninsured. Guess what? They also are the same people who have more abortions. 1 in 2 African American pregnancies end in abortion. African American children are born into this world more often than not with the odds against them—the black community is experiencing a terrible crisis of missing fathers, thus single parent households. Statistically, children that grow up in such environments are inclined to have a weak parent-child relationship, prone toward committing crime, drugs, alcohol, sexual promiscuity, more likely to repeat a grade, less likely to graduate high school, and are often victims of abuse and neglect. And single mothers, particularly young ones, face a long, uphill battle toward economic self-sufficiency and the current healthcare system does little to help those in this sort of situation.

The elderly have limited economic productivity and healthcare is getting exponentially more expensive; we have a moral obligation to see that their needs are met, particularly for a group that often has very dire medical needs. While there is Medicare, it faces problems in providing long term care of chronic conditions, incorporating new technology, and lacks the financial resources needed.

Much of this may be slightly more "liberal" than one's own political perspective, but Catholic Social Teaching is beyond "left" and "right" politics. If we subjectively identify with one side of the political spectrum more than the other, we must do so as Catholics, which entails crossing party lines. We cannot continue to allow our politicians to cover unborn children in the children’s healthcare program to encourage women not to have abortions only to denounce expanding coverage, or redirect funding from the program. This isn't all "liberal" either. We need to heed the Bishops advice on the both/and approach. There is another side of this debate that conservatives need to win. That debate is in regard to much of the content of American healthcare and this debate involves religious freedom, Catholic and private hospitals, abortifacents, emergency contraception, patients rights', and the full range of so-called "reproductive health services," in vitro fertilization, genetic manipulation, etc.

The Democratic Party is currently the natural home of legislative proposals for healthcare reform. I firmly believe that universal healthcare is going to come sooner or later and if Catholics aren't sitting at the table, our values will be off the table. I see this fundamentally as a "life issue" in its own respect and from a pro-life perspective, the status quo is not acceptable. We may not agree on the details, but on fundamental principles of human dignity, basic civil rights, and the end goal of, in some way or another, providing universal access to quality and affordable healthcare, there should be agreement. No one should be left out. That’s the ideal goal.

Back to the fundamental question: does America have the greatest healthcare system? Not at all and I don't even think it's debatable. And reform is not only necessary, it is required.

Do Facts Matter This Election?

Do Facts Matter?
By Thomas Sowell

Abraham Lincoln said, "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time."

Unfortunately, the future of this country, as well as the fate of the Western world, depends on how many people can be fooled on election day, just a few weeks from now.

Right now, the polls indicate that a whole lot of the people are being fooled a whole lot of the time.

The current financial bailout crisis has propelled Barack Obama back into a substantial lead over John McCain -- which is astonishing in view of which man and which party has had the most to do with bringing on this crisis.

It raises the question: Do facts matter? Or is Obama's rhetoric and the media's spin enough to make facts irrelevant?

Fact Number One: It was liberal Democrats, led by Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, who for years-- including the present year-- denied that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking big risks that could lead to a financial crisis.

It was Senator Dodd, Congressman Frank and other liberal Democrats who for years refused requests from the Bush administration to set up an agency to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It was liberal Democrats, again led by Dodd and Frank, who for years pushed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans, which are at the heart of today's financial crisis.

Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, five years ago.

Yet, today, what are we hearing? That it was the Bush administration "right-wing ideology" of "de-regulation" that set the stage for the financial crisis. Do facts matter?

We also hear that it is the free market that is to blame. But the facts show that it was the government that pressured financial institutions in general to lend to subprime borrowers, with such things as the Community Reinvestment Act and, later, threats of legal action by then Attorney General Janet Reno if the feds did not like the statistics on who was getting loans and who wasn't.

Is that the free market? Or do facts not matter?

Then there is the question of being against the "greed" of CEOs and for "the people." Franklin Raines made $90 million while he was head of Fannie Mae and mismanaging that institution into crisis.

Who in Congress defended Franklin Raines? Liberal Democrats, including Maxine Waters and the Congressional Black Caucus, at least one of whom referred to the "lynching" of Raines, as if it was racist to hold him to the same standard as white CEOs.

Even after he was deposed as head of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines was consulted this year by the Obama campaign for his advice on housing!

The Washington Post criticized the McCain campaign for calling Raines an adviser to Obama, even though that fact was reported in the Washington Post itself on July 16th. The technicality and the spin here is that Raines is not officially listed as an adviser. But someone who advises is an adviser, whether or not his name appears on a letterhead.

The tie between Barack Obama and Franklin Raines is not all one-way. Obama has been the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae's financial contributions, right after Senator Christopher Dodd.

But ties between Obama and Raines? Not if you read the mainstream media.

Facts don't matter much politically if they are not reported.

The media alone are not alone in keeping the facts from the public. Republicans, for reasons unknown, don't seem to know what it is to counter-attack. They deserve to lose.

But the country does not deserve to be put in the hands of a glib and cocky know-it-all, who has accomplished absolutely nothing beyond the advancement of his own career with rhetoric, and who has for years allied himself with a succession of people who have openly expressed their hatred of America.

House Rejects Legislative Bailout

From the Washington Post: 'Why the Bailout Bill Failed'

So how could a major bill described by the president and both parties' leaders as critical to the well-being of the nation's -- and the world's -- economy go down to defeat?

There are no easy answers here, as the House's stunning defeat moments ago of the financial bailout legislation is putting us into seemingly uncharted territory. But while the final tally, with 133 Republicans and 95 Democrats voting no, was a surprise -- all morning, Hill sources were predicting narrow passage -- the signs were there that the measure was in trouble:

1) Poor Salesmanship. Did you know that the general consensus is now that this bill will not cost $700 billion? If you didn't, it's because the bill's proponents did a poor marketing job. From the start, the Bush administration did not do enough to emphasize the point that taxpayers would get at least some of the money back, and that gigantic price tag got stuck in the head of the public (and the media).

The administration was also too eager and ambitious with its initial proposal, alienating many lawmakers right from the start by seeming to ask for the moon -- give us everything we want, with no oversight. This White House has long played political hardball, but this was not the time for hardball. This was the time for begging. The administration also let the "bailout" label stick to the package right from the start. By the time President Bush started calling it a "rescue" measure, it was too late.

2) Vulnerables Scared. If you have a difficult reelection race, what was your motivation to vote for this bill? "I voted in favor of a bill that I didn't really like, because I had no choice," doesn't make for a particularly snappy campaign slogan. "I stood up to my party and Wall Street," sounds much better. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) both made the argument that lawmakers needed to rise to the occasion and not think of their own political futures. But members of Congress ALWAYS think of their political futures. It's much easier to talk of sacrifice for the greater good when you're going to get reelected with 70 percent of the vote, like nearly every leader on both sides of the aisle will.

3) No Center of Gravity. Who's running Washington right now? Bush is the lamest of lame ducks, with a minuscule approval rating and no clout or political protection left to offer. Bush and Vice President Cheney were reportedly making calls to wavering Republicans right to the end; obviously that didn't do the trick. Barack Obama and John McCain both supposedly support the bill, but neither of them has been exactly wholehearted in their backing, and there haven't been any reports of either candidate calling members of their own party to lobby.

House leaders, meanwhile, did support the bill and did whip it. But this wasn't a party-loyalty vote; lawmakers were asked to vote yes, but they weren't threatened. They (probably) weren't bribed. Add all that up, and you had a power vacuum.

4) Ideological Problems. The simplest explanation of all for the loss was that a lot of members just didn't like the bill. Capitol Briefing outlined last week all the reasons why House conservatives balked at the initial proposal, and the basic point still stands: A massive expenditure of taxpayer funds and intervention in the free market, combined with tough new regulations, simply offended too many conservatives' most basic principles. And Republicans, being in the minority, feel no responsibility to govern. They calculated that the bill's failure will be blamed on Bush (so what?) and the majority Democrats.

On the liberal end of the spectrum, most members believe this really does represent a "bailout" of Wall Street and a power grab by the Bush administration, and that the current crisis vindicates their longtime warnings that the financial system was riven by greed and insufficient regulation. For those members, the final package didn't have nearly enough help for struggling homeowners.

5) Partisanship? House Republican leaders gave a press conference right after the vote, and they have strongly suggested that Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) floor speech toward the end of the debate was at least partly to blame for the loss. "I do believe we would have gotten there had the Speaker not made this partisan speech on the floor of the house," Boehner said.

It's too early to know whether Pelosi's speech, which laid much of the blame for the whole financial crisis at the foot of the Bush administration, really made much of a difference. But if several House Republicans actually did switch their votes on a momentous piece of legislation just because they were irritated by a speech, what does that say about them? As Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) mockingly characterized the GOP's argument: "Somebody hurt my feelings, so I'm going to punish the country."

It's possible despite weeks of warnings, and a stock market that is cratering as we speak, that a lot of members still aren't taking any of this seriously enough. And that, ultimately, may be the real reason for today's vote.

Click here to see Nancy Pelosi's speech.
Click here to see GOP responses.

'No' To The Bailout and 'Yes' to Healthcare

Save Lives Instead of Bankers' Bloated Pay
Michael R. Sesit

Sept. 26 (Bloomberg) -- Now that the U.S. government has proposed bailing out the pin-stripe and Gucci crowd, it's about time it adopted a universal health program for the common folk.

After all, if you're going to socialize financial risk, it isn't a big intellectual leap to conclude that the same ought to be done for health care. It's also morally the right thing to do, especially after George W. Bush's administration decided to have the American taxpayer pick up the tab for the misdeeds of what is probably the wealthiest segment of the population.

Saving someone's life is more uplifting than preserving Morgan Stanley Chief Executive Officer John Mack's bonus. That's right, saving a life. An estimated 22,000 people age 25-64 in the U.S. died in 2006 -- and 137,000 from 2000 through 2006 -- because they lacked health insurance, according to an Urban Institute study in January.

About 41 million people in the U.S. will be uninsured throughout 2008, according to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. For various reasons, an additional 36 million will go without health insurance for part of the year. That 77 million total represents a quarter of the U.S. population and 94 percent of Germany's. It is also 33 percent larger than Italy's.

In 2006, U.S. health-care spending amounted to 15.3 percent of gross domestic product and $6,714 per capita, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. That compares with 11.3 percent of GDP and $4,311 for Switzerland, and 11.1 percent and $3,449 for France. The OECD average was 8.9 percent of GDP and per-capita expenditure of $2,824.

No Universal Coverage

Although the U.S. spends more on health care than other developed countries, it's the only major industrialized nation that doesn't offer comprehensive coverage to all citizens.

Twenty-seven of the 30 OECD member countries offer universal, or near-universal, health coverage. Besides the U.S., only Mexico and Turkey don't. Almost half of all Americans cited the cost of health care as their No. 1 economic concern in a Wall Street Journal-NBC poll last year.

Now for a brief summary of the numbers. The uninsured will pay $30 billion out-of-pocket for health care this year and receive an additional $56 billion in so-called uncompensated care provided by hospitals, community organizations and physicians, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation in Menlo Park, California. Federal and state funds will indirectly cover about $43 billion of that, private charities the rest.

If all uninsured people were to gain insurance coverage and use similar amounts of care as the currently insured, overall costs would increase by $123 billion, the foundation says.

Wall Street Bailouts

Meanwhile, the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve are on the hook for $29 billion of dodgy mortgage securities relating to JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s acquisition of Bear Stearns Cos.; $85 billion for the rescue of American International Group Inc.; and as much as $200 billion to shore up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

In addition, there is Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's proposed $700 billion bailout fund and whatever losses may result from insuring $3.4 trillion of money-market mutual funds.

Thus, in current dollars, the finance industry's aggregate bailout package could theoretically fund the incremental $123 billion increase needed to achieve universal health coverage for more than eight years.

Other ways the financial-services industry could contribute to a national-health system include an increase in the capital- gains duty, a turnover levy on securities transactions and a more progressive income tax that raises charges on the wealthy. And instead of relieving banks of their ailing mortgage securities, the government should get ownership stakes for taxpayers' contributions, which could later be sold if the bailout succeeds.

$2 Trillion

Then there's the Iraq fiasco, which may eventually cost U.S. taxpayers $1 trillion to $2 trillion. That's eight to 16 times the annual $123 billion incremental figure.

A comprehensive national-health program also makes good business sense for three reasons. First, the lost productivity associated with the poor health and shortened life spans of the uninsured cost the U.S. economy $102 billion to $204 billion in 2006, according to a March report published by the Health Policy Program of the New America Foundation.

"The economic cost imposed on the nation by the uninsured is as much as, and perhaps greater than, the public cost of covering them,'' the authors said.

Two, a national health system would help the U.S. attract investment because it relieves companies of a costly direct expense. This was one motive behind Toyota Motor Corp.'s 2005 decision to build a vehicle plant in Canada, instead of the U.S.

No Incentives

Three, after adjusting health-care spending to reflect America's higher GDP per capita, the U.S. in 2005 still spent more -- $1,645 per individual, or $477 billion -- on health care than peer countries with comprehensive health insurance, even though Americans aren't any sicker than others, according to a study last year by McKinsey & Co.

Much of the higher spending was attributed to the costly administrative structure of the U.S. system and its failure to provide incentives for patients to be value-conscious and for providers "to promote rational supply,'' the firm said.

"Despite higher costs, the United States does not deliver objectively better quality and access for U.S. citizens as a whole, relative to peer countries,'' McKinsey said.

Still, if taxpayers are expected to bail out Wall Street, they ought to demand something for themselves and their fellow citizens.

Senate Passes Bipartisan Adoption Bill

The U.S. Senate passed the bipartisan Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (HR 6893) on Monday, September 23. "This is the most significant legislation relating to adoption and foster care since the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997," said Tom Atwood, President and CEO of NCFA. "It provides for a wide array of reforms to benefit children and their interest in adoption."

The reforms in HR 6893 include: Reauthorizing the Adoption Incentives Program, whereby the federal government allocates financial rewards to states that have increased the number of children adopted from their foster care system, through 2013; Increasing the award amounts states stand to receive through the Adoption Incentives Program by establishing 2007 as the new "base year" against which future performance will be measured, and increasing the bonuses for special needs and older child adoptions; Ensuring all children with special needs adopted out of foster care are eligible for federal adoption assistance regardless of family income by 2018; Mandating that states inform prospective adoptive parents regarding eligibility for the adoption tax credit; Requiring states to make reasonable efforts to place siblings together; Establishing relative guardianship assistance payments in a way that does not creative incentives for relative guardianship over adoption; and Allowing states the option of extending adoption assistance, foster care maintenance and relative guardianship assistance payments to children aged 18, 19 or 20.

A Catholic Democrat's Reflection On His Party

From the Democrats for Life of America website:

Democratic analyst: The Party has been hijacked by secularist elites
Denver, Sep 25, 2008 / 05:33 pm (CNA).

The Democratic Party has been hijacked by elites hostile to religion, said Mark Stricherz, author of the book Why Democrats are Blue and a Democrat himself, during the Casey Lecture delivered on Tuesday at the Archdiocese of Denver.

The Casey Series of Lectures was started by the Archdiocese of Denver in 2006 to promote Catholic thinking in political life, inspired by the life and political activism of the late Pennsylvania Governor Robert Casey, a devout Catholic and a Democrat.

Stricherz, who has focused his investigation on the historical transition that turned the Democrats from a Catholic-friendly organization to the pro-abortion rights party it is today, explained the decisive role played in American politics by staunch Catholic Democrats like Gov. Casey, Robert Kennedy and David Lawrence.

"These politicians provided a political leadership and a push for human rights based on religious convictions and personal prayer life, thus becoming promoters of Christian Humanist values," he said.

Explaining an argument he makes in his book, Stricherz said that the Democratic Party created internal rules that favor Secular elites and limit the participation of common people. He mentioned caucuses in Iowa as an example: they are established to run from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., "preventing the participation of common people like third-shifters, military men and women or young mothers.” As a consequence, "56% of those attending the caucuses are pro- choice folks," he said.

Thus, Secularism and hostility to religion have become the dividing line between the Democratic Party of the past and today's Democratic leaders.

Asked about how to change the Democratic Party back to its original connection with average Americans, Stricherz said that is was critical to democratize the internal process, but added that, "I just don't see the constituency, the drive to bring that change... those with college degrees, who tend to be more secular are in control of the party, whereas more religious, working folks are kept out of the loop."

"There have been some small victories from the pro-life people inside the Democratic Party, they are very small, but I encourage people to take up the fight... even if I am very skeptical about the results."

Stricherz highlighted the importance of bringing the common people back to power. "I think the average folks are more commonsensical and less inclined to corruption than the elites." "I would take the first hundred people from the phone book in Boston rather than the first 100 academics from Harvard to run the country."

Finally, he said that, despite current polls, Republican presidential candidate John McCain has a greater chance to win the election because "the Republican party has a more democratic process of candidate-selection, and therefore have chosen the strongest candidate; whereas the Democratic Party’s system promotes the desires of the political leadership and [they] have selected the weakest candidate."

Catholic House Republicans to Pelosi: Correct the Record

Speaker of the House of Representatives
H-232, The Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Speaker Pelosi,

On the Sunday, August 24th, broadcast of NBC’s Meet the Press, you stated “as an ardent, practicing Catholic, [abortion] is an issue that I have studied for a long time.” As fellow Catholics and legislators, we wish you would have made a more honest effort to lay out the authentic position of the Church on this core moral issue before attempting to address it with authority.

Your subsequent remarks mangle Catholic Church doctrine regarding the inherent sanctity and dignity of human life; therefore, we are compelled to refute your error.

In the interview, Tom Brokaw reminded you that the Church professes the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death. As stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being” (2274).

To this, you responded, “I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the Church, this is an issue of controversy.” Unfortunately, your statement demonstrates a lack of understanding of Catholic teaching and belief regarding abortion.

From the Apostles of the first century to Pope John Paul the Great “the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law” (Catechism 2271).

Thus, your erroneous claim about the history of the Church’s opposition to abortion is false and denigrates our common Faith. For example, during the reign of Pope Innocent XI in 1679, the Church unequivocally stated it is an error for Catholics to believe a fetus does not have a soul; and confirmed the teaching that abortion constitutes an unjustified taking of innocent human life.

To reduce the scandal and consternation caused amongst the faithful by your remarks, we necessarily write you to correct the public record and affirm the Church’s actual and historical teaching that defends the sanctity of human life. We hope that you will rectify your errant claims and apologize for misrepresenting the Church’s doctrine and misleading fellow Catholics.

Respectfully,

Thaddeus McCotter

Steve Chabot

Virginia Foxx

Phil Gingrey

Peter King (NY)

Steve King (IA)

Dan Lungren

Devin Nunes

John Sullivan

Pat Tiberi

John Boehner

Phil English

Jean Schmidt

Jim Walsh

Jeff Fortenberry

Michael McCaul

Paul Ryan

Walter Jones

Mike Ferguson

The 2010 Texas Governor’s Race

What we all have feared has come to fruition. Texas Governor Rick Perry—already the longest serving governor in Texas history—announced that he is seeking to turn ten years in office to fourteen years. With the 2010 Governor’s Race around the corner, many Republicans are urging Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson to run against him. I honestly cannot see how she would lose the Republican primary against him.

From the 2006 Midterm Elections, it is clear that 61% of Texans are ready for another governor and hopefully we can line up strongly behind a single candidate to stop him, either in the primary or in the fall election itself.

Moreover with Texas legislatures and the State Supreme Court being under Republican control, I would not at all mind a Democrat in the Governor’s mansion if the life issues are safeguarded for at least one term, or maybe even two terms. (Not that I'd vote for that Democrat if he or she is pro-choice).

None of this comes as a surprise to me. Perry was George W. Bush’s Lieutenant Governor and he has carried on the Bush legacy—failure. All the Democrats have to ask the voters is this: do they want “a third Perry term” or “is it time for a change?” This seems to have created a circus on the national level that has played much to their favor—at least until McCain chose Palin.

Nevertheless, it remains that after over a decade of predominant Republican leadership, Texas schools are facing a massive budget crisis and continued budget cuts, terrible performances on standardized testing, scandals that have racked the Texas Youth Commission, soaring college tuitions that have amounted to a middle class tax increase, over a billion dollars in highway funds that were “lost” while toll roads are being outsourced to foreign corporations, Texas is leading the nation in children who have no health insurance, and the list goes on.

“Governor 39% of the Vote” can run again and the Democrats will win in 2010.

A Democratic Voice for McCain-Palin '08

A feminist and a Democrat is voting for the Republicans this November. What's her reasoning? I found it interesting, particularly the abortion comment.

Vicious Obama partisans have driven Clinton supporters like me out of the party. And PUMAs will vote for McCain/Palin in November.

Obama has a thin resume. He is a first-term senator from Illinois who has spent most of that term running for president. He was put in charge of a Congressional committee and has not held a single committee meeting. His career has been more about self-promotion than public service.

The media have vetted Palin more in a week's time than Obama was vetted in 20 months. They have crawled into her uterus and her ovaries as well as those of her 17-year-old pregnant daughter.

What's wrong with this picture? The PUMAs know.

As a lifelong Democrat, I am leaving the party with a feeling of profound regret and sadness. It's not that I'm a creationist, a pro-lifer or an environmentally unfriendly person, but as Susan B. Anthony said, no woman should support a party that doesn't support her.

It's not enough, as a PUMA interviewed by CNN at the Republican Convention said, to wave abortion and the Supreme Court in our faces to "keep us in line." No, we don't have to come home to the UnDemocratic party because we have nowhere else to go.

We own our own votes. We PUMAs waved our orange scarves at the Republican Convention and McCain wore an orange tie in our honor.

I talked to a former Clinton supporter at the Labor Day picnic. She is planning to vote, but not for president. She "can't vote for McCain" and won't vote for Obama.

I talked to a 20-year-old UI sophomore who supports Obama. She admitted that at her Coralville caucus, the Obama supporters shouted down the Clinton supporters and refused to let them speak.

So what's democratic about the Democratic Party lately? Not much. We women are welcome to donate to UnDemocratic candidates and volunteer our time.

But when we ask for a seat at the head of the table, all bets are off.

Why would we vote for McCain/Palin in November? Why did General Patton force-march the Third Army through snow and mud to save the American soldiers surrounded and dying in the Ardennes Forest? We're on a forced march against the UnDemocratic Party in 2008 to open up both parties to more women in 2012, 2016 or whenever Democratic leaders figure out that we're not going to shove over for the more politically correct candidate -- albeit with little to offer but impressive oratory -- and wait our turn.

Clinton and Palin together forced Wolf Blitzer on CNN to ask an important question of his CNN crew: "Should Barack Obama have put Hillary Clinton on the ticket?"

Yes, he should have.

If Democrats lose in November, it will be because Clinton's 18,000,000 votes -- as well as her appeal to working-class men and women in important swing states with a lot of electoral votes -- weren't enough to put her on the ticket.

Democratic leaders and Big Media engineered the final outcome before the race had played itself out. Those who get caught stacking the deck, lose. More importantly, they deserve to lose.
HWC on the "Hillary is 44" blog said it best: "I am voting for the party willing to nominate a strong woman for the two highest offices in the country and take a stand against the sexist attacks from the media.

"I look forward to a day in the future when the Democratic Party is also willing to nominate and support female candidates. Then, I will have the luxury of choosing which most closely matches my views on all of the issues. But, we obviously aren't there yet."

What It Means To Be A Pro-Life Democrat

From Christianity Today:

Congressman Dan Lipinski of Illinois finds it very challenging to be a pro-life in a party that unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade. He is one of 17 Democrats given 100 percent pro-life rating by the National Right to Life Committee, and we spoke at a Democrats for Life reception earlier this evening.

What obstacles do you face as a pro-life Democrat?
It’s always a difficult issue for a pro-life Democrat because the Democratic Party is not going to have a pro-life platform. It’s not going to happen. It’s very unfortunate, but I think it’s very important for the Democratic Party to have a pro-lifers in the party. As some of my pro-life Democratic colleagues say, it’s no use preaching to the choir. You have to go out and evangelize. We just have to keep working on fellow Democrats. It’s a tough position to be in. I think the party from the top and leadership has been much more open to pro-life Democrats. Unfortunately, there are still some groups really trying to get rid of pro-life Democrats. I had a tough primary. I people come up to me and ask me, ‘what are you doing in the Democratic Party?’ The pro-choice groups gave funding to my opponent.

Why are you a Democrat?
I believe in so much of what the Democrats stand for, basically standing up for middle class families, for working people. I believe the government does have a role in some important areas of our society, helping to protect the environment, helping to protect workers, seniors. I think there are some places where they should be involved and I think it’s much better with the Democratic Party than with the Republican Party. But it’s not easy being a pro-life Democrat. So it’s not easy in the Democratic party. I have a lot of a pro-life constituents, too.

Why are you pro-life?
Because I believe life begins at conceptions. It comes from my faith as a Catholic. I don’t think it’s the only place that it comes from. Every individual has to make a decision about when life began. Why draw a line somewhere else? We were all once an embryo. With the proper conditions, the natural conditions, I think an embryo becomes a child. That’s where we all started from, and that is where I think the line should be drawn. I think drawing lines in other places leaves room for where do we draw that line? I believe in the sanctity of life and it’s something I feel very strongly about.

I truly believe that the Democratic Party, especially now, has a better view of the future and where we should be going, but it’s not perfect. I’m willing to, when I think the Democratic Party is wrong, I’m willing to say it. I’m willing to speak up and willing vote for what I think is right.

What about Barack Obama?
I wish Barack Obama were pro-life. He’s not. I don’t have any expectation that in the future the Democrats are going to have a pro-life presidential candidate. Its disappointing to me, but I am a Democrat and will support the party.

Feminists for Life of America Proud of McCain's Pick

[August 29, 2008] Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, has been selected by Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain as his running mate.

According to The Anchorage Daily News published August 6, 2006, "Palin said last month that no woman should have to choose between her career, education and her child." The article went onto say that "she's a member of a pro-woman but anti-abortion group called Feminists for Life." "I believe in the strength and the power of women, and the potential of every human life,' she said."

Feminists for Life's policy is that all memberships are confidential. However, since Governor Palin has been public about her membership, we can confirm that Palin became a member in 2006.

Earlier this week Feminists for Life reacted to the inclusion of woman-centered solutions in the Democratic Party platform, and the inclusion of FFL's trademarked message, "Women deserve better® than abortion,©" in the Republican Party platform.

FFL President Serrin Foster said "It is unprecedented to see the platforms of both major U.S. political parties incorporate key pieces of FFL's unique message."

"Of course there is a certain excitement about the recent movement toward FFL's woman-centered solutions and message by the parties, and now the selection of a pro-life feminist as the Vice Presidential nominee. But as a nonpartisan organization, we cannot endorse any candidates," Foster said.

"FFL members represent a broad political as well as religious spectrum, and we remain both nonpartisan and nonsectarian. There are many issues outside Feminists for Life’s mission. Feminists for Life is dedicated to systematically eliminating the root causes that drive women to abortion - primarily lack of practical resources and support - through holistic, woman-centered solutions. We recognize that abortion is a reflection that our society has failed to meet the needs of women and that too often women have settled for less. Women deserve better than abortion," said Foster.

As each party takes steps to acknowledge and meet the needs of women, Feminists for Life is prepared to work with our elected leaders on behalf of girls and women who deserve far better than abortion. FFL has a long track record of working with both sides of the political aisle on major legislation such as the Violence Against Women Act, Child Support Enforcement Act, and much more. Many members of Congress have already stepped forward to cosponsor the FFL-inspired bill with bipartisan support, the Elizabeth Cady Stanton Pregnant and Parenting Student Services Act.

"We invite all parties, all public servants, and all people to join us on the bridge of woman-centered solutions," Foster said.

Archbishop Chaput Admonishes Nancy Pelosi

ON THE SEPARATION OF SENSE AND STATE: A CLARIFICATION FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE CHURCH IN NORTHERN COLORADO

To Catholics of the Archdiocese of Denver:

Catholic public leaders inconvenienced by the abortion debate tend to take a hard line in talking about the "separation of Church and state." But their idea of separation often seems to work one way. In fact, some officials also seem comfortable in the role of theologian. And that warrants some interest, not as a "political" issue, but as a matter of accuracy and justice.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is a gifted public servant of strong convictions and many professional skills. Regrettably, knowledge of Catholic history and teaching does not seem to be one of them.

Interviewed on Meet the Press August 24, Speaker Pelosi was asked when human life begins. She said the following:

"I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. . . St. Augustine said at three months. We don't know. The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose."

Since Speaker Pelosi has, in her words, studied the issue "for a long time," she must know very well one of the premier works on the subject, Jesuit John Connery's Abortion: The Development of the Roman Catholic Perspective (Loyola, 1977). Here's how Connery concludes his study:

"The Christian tradition from the earliest days reveals a firm antiabortion attitude . . . The condemnation of abortion did not depend on and was not limited in any way by theories regarding the time of fetal animation. Even during the many centuries when Church penal and penitential practice was based on the theory of delayed animation, the condemnation of abortion was never affected by it. Whatever one would want to hold about the time of animation, or when the fetus became a human being in the strict sense of the term, abortion from the time of conception was considered wrong, and the time of animation was never looked on as a moral dividing line between permissible and impermissible abortion."

Or to put it in the blunter words of the great Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer:

"Destruction of the embryo in the mother's womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed on this nascent life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder."

Ardent, practicing Catholics will quickly learn from the historical record that from apostolic times, the Christian tradition overwhelmingly held that abortion was grievously evil. In the absence of modern medical knowledge, some of the Early Fathers held that abortion was homicide; others that it was tantamount to homicide; and various scholars theorized about when and how the unborn child might be animated or "ensouled." But none diminished the unique evil of abortion as an attack on life itself, and the early Church closely associated abortion with infanticide. In short, from the beginning, the believing Christian community held that abortion was always, gravely wrong.

Of course, we now know with biological certainty exactly when human life begins. Thus, today's religious alibis for abortion and a so-called "right to choose" are nothing more than that - alibis that break radically with historic Christian and Catholic belief. Abortion kills an unborn, developing human life. It is always gravely evil, and so are the evasions employed to justify it. Catholics who make excuses for it - whether they're famous or not - fool only themselves and abuse the fidelity of those Catholics who do sincerely seek to follow the Gospel and live their Catholic faith.

The duty of the Church and other religious communities is moral witness. The duty of the state and its officials is to serve the common good, which is always rooted in moral truth. A proper understanding of the "separation of Church and state" does not imply a separation of faith from political life. But of course, it's always important to know what our faith actually teaches.

+Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
Archbishop of Denver
+James D. Conley
Auxiliary Bishop of Denver

Democrats: Let’s Abolish The Caucus System

I’m fully behind Hillary Clinton supporters calling for the abolition of the caucus system. This isn’t entirely noise being made for the sake of doing so because we’re mad Hillary Clinton lost to Barack Obama, but because the caucus system is very flawed—though, it is arguable that Clinton would have wiped the floor with Obama if there were only primaries.

Caucuses undermine core democratic values because it is a very undemocratic way to nominate someone. I think all states should be required to hold primaries instead. Caucuses are inherently unfair to the elderly, the disabled, shift workers, parents, overseas members of the military, and others whose circumstances prevent them from sitting for hours in a caucus vote. In a primary vote, people have the entire day to vote, but caucuses last only for a few hours, usually in the evening (past midnight in Texas this year) and that disenfranchises voters with obligations that prevent them from participating.

Many caucus rules profoundly violate the one person-one vote principle. For example, in certain states' rules if a precinct is entitled to elect four delegates to the county convention and the vote is 59 percent for candidate A and 41 percent for candidate B, the mathematical rules may require a 2-2 division (because candidate A did not win 60 percent). Therefore, 59 percent to 41 percent—a landslide—results in a 50-50 tie and an even split of delegates.

The worse case is in the state I live in (Texas) and that’s the “Texas Two Step” system. This year nearly three million voters participated in the March 4th Democratic primary. Then the caucus began at 7 p.m. when the polls closed. The people who voted in the primary—I’m not kidding you—may return and vote again. But not all votes are equal! Say, you live in Houston or Austin and the 2006 Democratic candidate for governor carried your precinct by a large margin, your vote could be twice or even three times as influential as if you lived in south Texas, which is mostly rural, strong Republican-dominated counties.

How is any of that democratic, particularly when the principle of one-person, one-vote is violated? Doesn't that embarrass a party that calls itself the "Democratic" Party?

Moreover the average turnout in the caucuses—which Obama did very well in—for all of 2008 was under 10 percent. Even in the highest profile caucus state of all, the “I-must-always-be-first-in-the-nation-to-go,” Iowa had their strongest caucus turnout ever this year. 218,000 Iowans made it to the Democratic caucuses that night, in a state with 2.982 million citizens, for a 7.3-percent showing. It doesn’t get any better in other states: New Mexico (11 percent), Nevada (9 percent), Minnesota and Maine (5 percent), North Dakota (4 percent), Colorado and Nebraska (3 percent), and Idaho, Wyoming, and Kansas (2 percent).

More than twenty years ago, the Democrats switched from winner-take-all contest to a proportional allocation of delegates to be more “fair.” Well, the current system is anything but fair with the silly mathematical formulas for allocating delegates.

In the Texas primary on March 4, Hillary defeated Obama by a margin of 100,000 votes out of nearly 3 million. Clinton was awarded 65 delegates, while Obama received 61. But in the Texas caucus over 42,538 caucus goers – 1.4 percent of primary voters – overturned the will of the other 98.6 percent. Talk about stealing democracy from the people by an exclusionary process. In the end, Obama won 38 delegates to Clinton’s 29. Put all this together and Obama came out of Texas with 99 delegates to Clinton’s 94, despite the fact that Clinton handily won the contest where votes were actually counted.

Look at Nevada and New Hampshire. Hillary won the Nevada caucus and the New Hampshire primary yet Obama received more delegates than her in both states.

Or look at Idaho and New Jersey.

In Idaho, about 21,000 Democrats gathered for the caucus. Obama won in a blowout by a margin of 13,000 votes (80 percent of the vote). For that, he won 15 delegates to only 3 for Clinton — a net gain of 12 delegates. In New Jersey, Clinton won by a margin of 110,000 votes out of more than a million votes. For that, she won 59 delegates to Obama's 48 — a net gain of 11 delegates.

Democrats…please explain, under what system does it make sense for Obama to collect more net delegates for beating Hillary by 13,000 votes in one state than she does for beating Obama by 110,000 in another?

If we kept the mathematical formula of Idaho where Obama picked up 15 of 18 delegates for winning a state with just over 21,000 Democratic votes, then, in a consistent democratic system, using the Idaho math of a net of 12 delegates per 13,000 vote advantage, Hillary’s 215,000 vote win in Pennsylvania should have yielded her a net gain of 198 delegates. Instead, she’s gained a net of only 12 delegates from the Keystone State.

In this case, an Idaho Democrat’s vote counted for 16 times more than a Pennsylvania Democrat’s vote. The system rewards blowout wins in small states and minimizes wins even of 10 or 12 percentage points in big states.

Why should a few thousand people Idaho have an absurdly large say, ultimately quelling a few million in Pennsylvania? One person, one vote? Not in the Democrats’ delegate-allocation system.

Suggestions for the Democratic Party:

One. Abolish the caucus system. Don’t try to bandage it, fix it up, or anything. Just kill it.

Two. Require all states to have primaries; do away with proportional delegate allocation and require a winner-take all system that aligns the nominating system with the Electoral College system for electing presidents—unlike many Democrats, I don’t support abolishing the Electoral College.

Three. Eliminate the super delegates. Nancy Pelosi said she opposed the idea of having super delegates from the beginning yet she was the most biased and the worst behaved. If the political big wigs want to give endorsements and try to sway voters, let them, but their advocacy should not earn any presidential candidate any sort of delegation. By all means, 800 super delegates is beyond excessive and it easily allows party insiders to back a single candidate to the chagrin of the voters. We’re Democrats—let the people decide. Step in if no one reaches the total number of delegates needed by the end of the primary season; it is a race to be elected by the people, not your colleagues.

Four. Why not have five regional primaries starting in mid-January, on a set date, maybe even on a weekend when people are off from work and have one region vote each month through May, with the order of regions rotated every four years so everyone gets a chance to go first (cf. Florida and Michigan controversy; the divine right of Iowa and New Hampshire to always go first to the anger of other states in the union.)

I think this is a sensible and fair request. While those terms are oxymoronic when associated with the Democratic Party’s presidential nominating system, I can always pray and hope.

Obama and the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act

Considering this, how could anyone support a candidate that is more pro-abortion that NARAL?

The 2008 Democratic Platform on Abortion

I was heartened to see that Kristen Day, Director of Democrats of Life of America, expressed her views on the 2008 Democratic platform saying that it is a step forward (semantically and in recognition, maybe), but not at all perfect. She praised the emphasis on promoting childbirth and helping pregnant women, but calls the unequivocal pro-abortion position out of touch.

The platform reads, "The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right."

Day stated that advocating unlimited abortions financed by taxpayers won't go over well with Americans. She further said, "We do not believe that the first paragraph of the [abortion] section that 'strongly and unequivocally' supports Roe v. Wade and federal funding of abortion accurately represents the common ground position that Americans are seeking." She reiterated the committment of pro-life Democrats despite this, saying, "Democrats for Life of America will strongly and unequivocally champion the sanctity of life from conception to natural death and will continue to oppose any and all legislation that infringes on that right." Amen to that.

Day also expressed unhappiness that a proposed conscience clause proposed by Democrats for Life saying "we respect the conscience of each American and recognize that members of our Party have deeply held and sometimes differing positions on issues of personal conscience, like abortion. We recognize the diversity of views as a source of strength and we welcome into our ranks all Americans who may hold differing positions on these and other issues," was rejected and replaced with a general conscience clause not specifying the abortion issue, which is the most critical. In fact, the pro-choice base and elected officials balked at the language.

"Democrats for Life of America appreciates the Platform Committee adding this statement of general inclusiveness, but we will continue to work with the Democratic Party to explicitly recognize and welcome pro-life Democrats in the big tent of the Democratic Party," Day said.

I fully agree with Day on this and believe that all pro-life Democrats, particularly Catholics, should not be so easily fooled. While it is indeed positive that pro-lifers in the party are being recognized and even Sen. Bob Casey, Jr. will be allowed to speak at the Democratic convention (hopefully he'll take the opportunity to stand up for the unborn) in Denver after his father was denied a speech in 1992 because of his pro-life views, we should ask ourselves: do they really understand our concerns or are they throwing us a bone because they realize how critical we are this election (after two losses in 2000 and 2004)?

The platform states, "The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay." There is very little room for common ground with people who believe abortion is murder in that statement, but rather it is totally reflective of the views of NARAL and Emily's List. Moreover, "regardless of ability to pay" sounds off an alarm to my Catholic conscience especially when Barack Obama pledged in 2007 to fund abortion through the medium of his universal healthcare plan, which would undermine the Hyde Amendment and allow abortion to be funded by tax-payer dollars.

The Democrats say they "oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right." That's why they support the Freedom of Choice Act and their presidential nominee has vowed to sign it, which would virtually overturn every federal and state pro-life laws which restrict and undermine the so-called right to abortion. This means the partial-birth abortion ban would be reversed, parental consent and notification laws overturned, mandated ultrasound viewing options overturned, laws against traveling state lines for abortion overturned as well, conscience laws that protect pro-life doctors would be overturned and they would be obligated to perform abortion as standard medical procedure, and the list goes on. Essentially, this would call for abortion-on-demand from conception to birth, maybe even after. (cf. Barack Obama's vote on the Born Alive Infants Protection Act).

I am not surprised they would throw pro-life Democrats a bone by supporting reducing unwanted pregnancies and thereby the abortion rate because that's all we'll have once they enact the Freedom of Choice Act. But as a Catholic, their proposed solutions to reducing abortions are a bit problematic, so much that I would oppose them even while I agree with the principle idea. The Democratic Party "supports access to affordable family planning services." Well, no, that's not Natural Family Planning (NFP), but tax-payers dollars being used to fund wanton distribution of contraceptives, the morning after pill and other abortifacents, and lastly they would advocate comprehensive-sex education (not education on health and disease that I received in school that promotes abstinence) which will "empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives." It is obvious that abstinence is not in that education packet, and if it is, it is in the background. Someone should alert the Democrats that Catholics (who they are courting) don't oppose contraception because we think it's a nice little rule, we oppose it because we believe it to be contra-human nature and no good can ever come from its use. Moreover, we can't use evil (contraception) to stop evil (abortion).

It seems to me that at present the Democrats have not changed at all and to quote Obama, "on this fundamental issue," they will "not yield." I sometimes wonder why I don't leave the Democratic Party. With all my soul, I pray they lose their White House bid this November and after three straight presidential losses and more pro-life Democratic seats in Congress and inclusion in the party, they will begin to reassess their priorities. But, at present, I am a dissenter in the ranks and I will be until the Democratic Party stops warring with her own principles.

On a final and very important note: all pro-life Americans who are voting for Barack Obama for whatever reason, do so because you believe that you cannot violate your conscience. I believe that you're profoundly mistaken, but I will not pass my judgment on any of you. Those of you, particularly my Christian brothers and sisters, who are speaking out against war, for peace, for economic justice, for fighting poverty and access to quality healthcare, and your most pressing concerns, do so standing upon the right-to-life if you wish to be morally coherent. In fact, it is the only way to be truly human and truly a humanitarian.