NARAL For Rudy?

Chelsea2008 Election, Abortion, Politics1 Comment

Rudy GiulianiNot quite yet. But, in an interview with the Huffington Post, the abortion rights group’s political director, Elizabeth Shipp said that it:

“would help” the pro-choice movement if a Republican proved it was possible to win the presidency while still supporting abortion rights.

“The Republican Party used to be about the conservative principles of limited government intervention in private life,” Shipp said. “It seems to me if they went back to that and stood out from the rigid mainstream, anti-choice agenda, I think yeah, it would be good for the movement.”

I think that statement pretty well speaks for itself.

nullSpeaking of NARAL and the presidential candidates, they offer a quiz on their website to test how well you know the candidates and their positions on abortion related matters: http://prochoiceaction.org/can/candidatesquiz.html (h/t Jill Stanek). I scored an 89% – I missed the very first question!

“Missouri Manipulation”

Chelsea2008 Election, CloningLeave a Comment

Cathy Ruse writes at National Review about the disastrous ballot language approved by the Secretary of State yesterday for an attempt to ban cloning in Missouri:

The only way to keep human cloning legal in Missouri is through lies. And Secretary Carnahan has just dropped a whopper.

Isn’t that the truth? Even Bill McClellan of the St. Louis Dispatch, a supporter of Amendment 2 recognizes the “fuzzy language”:

I would like to say a few words this morning to Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan:

Reverse course, Robin. You’re wrong…

The opponents of Amendment 2 want to put the issue to the voters again. They want to amend the definition of human cloning so the new definition includes somatic cell nuclear transfer. In other words, they want to ban somatic cell nuclear transfer.

That seems clear. The definition of human cloning would be changed, or expanded, to include somatic cell nuclear transfer.

It is the job of the Secretary of State to summarize the issue in simple language.

That’s all we’re asking for. The amendment itself is simple enough, prohibiting the creation of an embryo by any means other than fertilization of a human egg by a human sperm, and not allowing tax dollars to be used for research on such embryos. Polls consistently show that the majority of Missourians do not want human cloning, which is a violation of the dignity of the human person, to be allowed in their state. Cloning supporters, like Carnahan, know that science and the truth is on our side, which is why they refuse give us a fair chance to protect our state from this assault on human dignity.

Response from Missouri Right to Life

Chelsea2008 Election, Cloning, Pro LifeLeave a Comment

Attributed to president Pam Fichter from MRL’s press release today:

“Missouri Right to Life is outraged at the Secretary of State’s blatantly inaccurate and biased summary of the Cures Without Cloning ballot initiative. The ballot summary is profoundly different than the proposed amendment. Secretary Carnahan is greatly abusing the powers of her office and ignoring the legal requirement to use language that is ‘neither intentionally argumentative nor likely to create prejudice for or against the proposed measure.’ (Section 116.025 of Revised Statutes of Missouri) She has interfered with the constitutional rights of the people to ‘alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary’. (Article 1 Section 3 Missouri Constitution).”

This is what I was afraid would happen if the SOS was in charge of the ballot language. It is a bunch of pro-cloning talking points designed, no doubt, to discourage us from moving forward with this cloning ban. This is why we tried to get it passed through the legislature in the first place. We would have been able to control the language then, but the Governor’s opposition to it, along with other Republican leaders either on his side or unwilling to go against his wishes, assured that wouldn’t happen.

So what happens now? I don’t know, but there is no way we can go to voters with that awful language on the ballot. I think the language can be challenged in court, but I have not heard any word on what Cures Without Cloning will be doing about this yet.

Disgraceful Ballot Language Approved

Chelsea2008 Election, Cloning, Pro Life9 Comments

I just got word today that the Secretary of State has approved the ballot title and language for the Cures Without Cloning initiative and it is an absolute disgrace:

Constitutional Amendment to Add Article III, Section 38(e), Relating to Limiting Stem Cell Research, 2008-014

[full text]
Submitted by: Lori Buffa, M.D.

Contact Information:
Lori Buffa, M.D.
Cures Without Cloning
P.O. Box 554
Jefferson City, MO 65102

Petition sample form approved for circulation on September 17, 2007. Official ballot title certified by Secretary of State on October 10, 2007.

OFFICIAL BALLOT TITLE AS CERTIFIED BY
SECRETARY OF STATE

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to repeal the current ban on human cloning or attempted cloning and to limit Missouri patients’ access to stem cell research, therapies and cures approved by voters in November 2006 by:

* redefining the ban on human cloning or attempted cloning to criminalize and impose civil penalties for some currently allowed research, therapies and cures; and
* prohibiting hospitals or other institutions from using public funds to conduct such research?

This proposal could have a significant negative fiscal impact on state and local governmental entities due to its prohibition of certain research activities. However, the total costs to state and local governmental entities are unknown.

Not surprisingly, CWC is fuming:

Curt Mercadante, a spokesman for Cures Without Cloning, said the language “in no way accurately reflects what we’re attempting to do.”

“Quite honestly, it sounds like a talking point out of an opposition group’s playbook,” Mercadante said. “What the amendment is attempting to do is very simple: attempting to prohibit all human cloning in the state of Missouri.”

Mercadante disputed that the group was “repealing” the ban on human cloning written into last year’s amendment.

“We’re not repealing a current ban on human cloning. That’s preposterous,” Mercadante said. “I mean what we’re doing is adding to the current definition of what cloning is. The current constitution bans some cloning. It would extend the definition of what cloning is to ensure that all cloning is banned. And that’s spelled out specifically in the amendment.”

Mercadante said that “all options were on the table” on how to respond to the ballot language, but he didn’t specify what those would be.

I will be in touch with Missouri Right to Life and let you know what I find out from them. This is, to say the very least, a disappointment.

Wesley Smith has more

Finally, I’m on the News!

ChelseaCloningLeave a Comment

nullI did an interview with KOMU TV a number of weeks ago regarding the cloning debate in MO. It wasn’t my best interview, but I made it through. Here is part of the story:

COLUMBIA – The secretary of state’s office issued a ballot language on Wednesday evening. The ballot initiative was proposed by the Missouri Coalition for Cures Without Cloning.

The group launched a campaign last month to prohibit human cloning in Missouri.

How much do we value life? That is the question members of the Missouri Coalition for Cures Without Cloning are asking.

“No matter what potential good may come of it, you know, you can’t create and destroy human life for research,” said Chelsea Zimmerman from Cures Without Cloning. “It’s just wrong.”

A car accident nearly eight years ago left Zimmerman in a wheelchair, but this did not change her view of embryonic stem cell research.

“Obviously, I would love to walk again, I would love to see other people out of their suffering,” Zimmerman said. “We aren’t trying to limit research, and we are in favor of cures, and there are cures and treatments happening with adult stem cells and adult stem cell research.”

View the full article, with video at KOMU’s website

I Never Thought of it This Way!

Chelsea2008 Election, Politics, Pro LifeLeave a Comment

Thank you Jivin Jehohaphat! In light of one blogger’s football analogy for the 2008 election and the possibility of a Hillary/Giuliani race (in favor of electing Giuliani), Jivin J offered one of his own.

nullIt’s 4th and goal from the 35 yard line and we’re down by 4 points. Our chances of scoring a touchdown (electing a prolife third party candidate) are very slim. We have the option of trying to use a field goal kicker (Giuliani) who isn’t very good. If he actually makes the long field goal (vetoes pro-choice legislation and nominates decent individuals to the supreme court) – we’ll have to use him again (for another four years) to make another field goal. Or we can punt (allow a pro-choice Democratic candidate to be president for 4 years) and hope to stop the opponent’s offense and then try to score a touchdown on our next drive (2012).

nullIn other words, electing Giuliani would guarantee a pro-choice president for EIGHT years and we may or may not get good or decent judges. A Hillary presidency would ensure a pro-choice president for four years with an opportunity to nominate a stellar pro-life president in 2012. However, we want to first hope that this scenerio does not come to fruition by nominating an acceptable pro-life candidate to begin with. To use more football talk: it’s still 1st and 10 from the 50 yard line. We still have have a good opportunity to score a touchdown (nominating and electing a pro-life candidate) and leave our field goal kicker (Giuliani) on the side line.

Btw, I LOVE football! The Gators have been having a rough couple of weeks, but that’s what happens in the SEC.

Respect Life/Life Chain Sunday

ChelseaPrayer, Right to Life1 Comment

nullI forgot to do a post yesterday about Respect Life Sunday. I wasn’t able to participate in any Life Chains. Come to think of it, I don’t think I heard of any being organized around my area. Maybe I will have to do something about that in the future. This is a picture of me at the Life Chain in Naples a few years ago. It pretty much poured rain on us for the entire hour or so that we were out there. Only to clear up the moment we were ready to leave.

We also didn’t do a whole lot in our parish besides having a table set up in the back of church equipped with pro-life materials. Lucky for us the entire month of October is Respect Life Month. I will probably try to organize a group of people to go up to the PP in Columbia for a picket (this is us at PP in August). I have also been invited to speak to another parish in our Diocese later this month at their annual pro-life Mass. Conveniently, Respect Life Month coincides with the month of the Rosary – an excellent prayer for the end of abortion and the respect for all human life. I like the Rosary Crusade to Safeguard Embryonic Human Life that the St. Louis Respect Life Apostolate put out last year to fight Amendment 2. We should probably continue that crusade, especially here in Missouri, as the cloning/embryonic stem cell research debate continues to be a hot and heavy issue in the nation, and the world at large.

UPDATE: I will also be speaking tomorrow at a life issues forum in our Diocese about Theology of the Body – something very, very important to me, and I think, essential to the turnaround of the culture of death. I consider it a must-read, must learn about topic for everyone! I know that there are many people who teach this subject, but I am partial to Christopher West. I have listen to a number of his talks on CD and can’t get enough of them. You can find them on his website, along with the many books he has written, including his latest: The Love That Satisfies, reflections on eros and agape – based on Pope Benedict’s first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est (God Is Love). Other TOB resources can be found at www.theologyofthebody.net.

Good reading for this month:
EVANGELIUM VITAE
FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO

GIDEON’S TORCH – very interesting pro-life fiction

I Can’t Wait to See Him Debate

Chelsea2008 Election, Abortion, Politics, video1 Comment

I found this video via Catholic Tube, of Alan Keyes debating Barack Obama in 2006:

Golly, he just explains it so well!

FYI there will be a Republican debate on CNN November 28. CNN is partnering with YouTube on this debate, so people can submit video questions to be aired and answered during the debate.

The Great Giuliani Divide

Chelsea2008 Election, Politics, Pro Life2 Comments

Almost a week has gone by since pro-life leaders vowed third party support in the event of a Giuliani nomination and the fires are still burning on both sides of the Giuliani divide. I’m sick of this whole thing already. The way I see it, much of this infighting can be avoided if we would take a break and focus on that which unites us.

The majority of Republicans, I believe, still want to protect America’s most vulnerable members by changing hearts and minds and winning battles politically through pro-life legislation and conservative judges who will interpret the Constitution, which guarantees that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator” with the “unalienable…right to life,” correctly. We also want to protect America’s homeland from the threat of terrorism and illegal immigration, keep taxes low (though I am a huge fan of the fair tax and eliminating the income tax altogether), the government small, the markets free and spending DOWN. We don’t really disagree on the issues.

Regarding the presidential candidates (and I could be wrong about this) I see that the majority, or most likely all, of Republicans do not want Hillary Clinton – or any other running Democrat – to get elected, and many likewise do not want to vote for Giuliani. Even those I know who would support him against Hillary do not pick Giuliani as their first choice. So what are we fighting about? If we were smart we would stop arguing about a hypothetical Hillary/Giuliani race and try to rally support for a candidate that everyone, hopefully, can agree with.

Got any ideas on who that might be???

ESC Research and the Presidential Candidates

Chelsea2008 Election, Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Pro Life2 Comments

One of the best things I think President Bush has done during his presidency (notice I said “one of”) was to take a stand and twice veto a bill to expand federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Of course it doesn’t exactly excuse the fact that he was the first president to actually provide federal funding for ESC research, but I appreciate it, nonetheless.

nullYesterday, Hillary Clinton made it known that if she became president, she would

“sign an executive order rescinding President George W. Bush’s restrictions on U.S. government funding for embryonic stem cell research.”

Interestingly, one of Bush’s first executive orders as president in 2001 was to allow for federal funding on existing embryonic stem cell lines. Hillary’s may be the most extreme position of all the presidential candidates, even the Democrats, on the subject, but it is no real surprise. She voted in favor of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act that Bush vetoed and has long been an outspoken supporter of this unethical research.

She called Bush’s restrictions, which prevents federal funding for research on any newly created ESC lines, a “ban on hope.” Anyone who has read this blog more than once knows I that I would call a statement like that is a bunch of b.s. 25 years of ESC research on animals has yielded disastrous results, mostly in the form of tumors, never once showing enough promise to be used in human trials. Meanwhile human patients with varying diseases and disabilities have been successfully treated with adult stem cells.

So how do the other candidates stack up?

DEMOCRATS

Barack Obama: supports ESC research and voted in favor of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. As president he would:

* Promote Embryonic Stem Cell Research
* Support Medical Advancement and Innovation
* Expand the Number of Stem Cell Lines Available for Research
* Ensure Ethical Standards

Source: On the Issues

John Edwards: who can forget his ridiculous statement during the 2004 presidential campaign that expanding ESC research would allow, “people like [actor] Christopher Reeve will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again?” That’s enough to tell you where he stands.

REPUBLICANS

Sam Brownback: voted no on the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act and yes to ban cloning in 1998. He says, “We are curing and healing people with adult stem cells. It is not necessary to kill a human life for us to heal people. And we’re doing it with adult stem cell work, and it’s getting done.” Source: On the Issues

Mitt Romney: impressed me a few years ago when he took a stand as Gov. of Massachusetts against human cloning despite the fact that his wife has been diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis (speaking of which, you will remember that I posted last week on MS patients being treated with ASCs). He still opposes cloning, supporting instead a process called altered nuclear transfer, which some scientists believe will be able to make ESCs without creating a “viable embryo” (I’m still skeptical about this). Regarding ESC research on IVF embryos he says, “It’s fine for that to be allowed, to be legal. I won’t use our government funds for that.” See video here.

John McCain: voted yes on the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, supports funding on embryos that “are either going to be discarded or perpetually frozen” saying further “it’s a tough issue. I support federal funding.” Source: On The Issues He opposes creating human life for research and as president will:

strongly support funding for promising research programs, including amniotic fluid and adult stem cell research and other types of scientific study that do not involve the use of human embryos.

Source: Campaign website

Duncan Hunter: voted no on the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act and co-sponsored the Human Cloning Prohibition Act in 2003 (?). He also voted for the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, supporting alternatives to ESC research. Source: Campaign website

Tom Tancredo: voted no on the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act and yes on the Human Cloning Prohibition Act – says ESC research is “morally reprehensible in certain ways” Source: On the Issues

Mike Huckabee: supports funding for stem cell research on “existing stem cell lines” but opposes creating life for the sole purpose of destroying it. Source: Campaign website

Rudy Giuliani: I’ll let you decipher this answer on your own:

Q: Would you expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research?

A:As long as we’re not creating life in order to destroy it, as long as we’re not having human cloning, and we limit it to that, and there is plenty of opportunity to then use federal funds in those situations where you have limitations. So I would support it with those limitations, like Senator Coleman’s bill in Congress.

Source: On the Issues

Read more about the candidates’ position on stem cell research and other issues at The Pew Forum and On The Issues