CALIFORNIA YANKEE

Pro-life Women Leaders Urge Iowans To Support Anyone But Trump

Pro-life women leaders from Iowa urge Republican caucus-goers and voters to support anyone but Donald Trump. In a letter being  sent out to pro-life Iowans today, they say that based upon his own words, Trump cannot be trusted on abortion: 

On the issue of defending unborn children and protecting women from the violence of abortion, Mr. Trump cannot be trusted and there is, thankfully, an abundance of alternative candidates with proven records of pro-life leadership whom pro-life voters can support.  We have come to this conclusion after having listened patiently to numerous debates and news reports, but most importantly to Donald Trump’s own words.

These women also take Trump to task for his denigration of women:

Moreover, as women, we are disgusted by Mr. Trump’s treatment of individuals, women, in particular.  He has impugned the dignity of women, most notably Megyn Kelly, he mocked and bullied Carly Fiorina, and has through the years made disparaging public comments to and about many women. Further, Mr. Trump has profited from the exploitation of women in his Atlantic City casino hotel which boasted of the first strip club casino in the country.

Remember Trump said he would would not even ban partial birth abortion. He said it in his now infamous interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press:

Russert: Would President Trump ban partial birth abortion?

Trump: I'm very pro choice. And again it may be a little bit of a New York background because there is some different having attitude in different parts of the country and you know I was raised in New York, grew up and work and everything else in New York City.

Russert: But you would not ban partial-birth abortion?

Trump: No.

Never forget what a horrific procedure partial-birth abortion is. Generally performed in the second or third trimester, during which a fetus is partially removed from the womb, and its skull is punctured or crushed. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, defines partial birth abortion:

Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited 1.(b) As used in this section-- (1) the term `partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion-- (A) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and (B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus.

Congress provided that this ban would not apply to a situation in which the mother would be put at risk.

The Cruz Campaign keeps hitting Trump's New York values. The Campaign announced a new TV ad, "New York Values," on Tuesday showing Trump’s assertion that New York "views" and "attitudes" are different than views and attitudes in Iowa. Trump explained New York Values in his own words and how they shaped his views on gay marriage and abortion. He then admited that if he were president he would not even ban partial-birth abortions. The new ad will run statewide in Iowa beginning January 26. You can watch it in the accompanying video.

Here's the script of the ad:

Trump: I mean, hey I lived in New York City and Manhattan all my life, so my views are a little bit different than if I lived in Iowa.

Voiceover: They are different, like on Abortion.

Russert: Would President Trump ban partial birth abortion?

Trump: Look, I am pro-choice in every respect.

Voiceover: What does Trump think about Iowa?

Trump: How stupid are the people of Iowa?

Voiceover: Donald Trump, New York values, not ours.

Trump: My views are a little bit different than if I lived in Iowa.

Cruz: I’m Ted Cruz and I approve this message.

Some of this article was cross posted from RedState.

Obama's failed policies cause millions of Americans to give up

The April unemployment report brought attention to the millions of Americans suffering in silence as a result of President Obama's failed economic policies.

The Romney campaign has released a new video "Silence" highlighting the terribly disappointing April unemployment report:

No wonder that during his so-called official start to his reelection campaign, President Obama told Americans not to ask if they are better off than they were four years ago, but how they'll be tomorrow.

Only 115,000 jobs were added in April, far fewer than the 180,000 economists were expecting. The reason the unemployment rate declined slightly to 8.1 percent and the broader "U-6" measure remained at 14.5 percent is because 342,000 more people gave up looking for work and quit the labor force.

As Mitt Romney said, "It's still about the economy…and we’re not stupid.":

• The unemployment rate has remained above 8 percent for 39 straight months. 
• Only 115,000 jobs were created in April, which is the smallest monthly jobs gain in five months. Hiring has now slowed in three straight months.
• The labor force participation rate declined in April to 63.6 percent, which is its lowest level since 1981.
• If the size of the U.S. labor force as a share of the total population was the same as it was when Barack Obama took office—65.7% then vs. 63.6% today—the unemployment rate would be 11.1%.
• When President Obama pushed through his $800-billion stimulus bill, his administration claimed unemployment would drop to 5.9 percent by April 2012.
• 22.8 million Americans remain unemployed or underemployed, or are only marginally attached to the workforce.

Millions of Americans are suffering in silence as a result of President Obama's failed economic policies. No, they are not satisfied.

Supporting Obama is cooperation with 'intrinsic evil'

A South Carolina priest told his parishioners that they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion if they voted for Barack Obama because the Democratic president-elect supports abortion, and supporting him "constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil:

"Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exists constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ's Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation."

 Watch the following video report from South Carolina's WHNS-TV:

Obama's record on abortion is extreme:

• Obama opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion -- a practice the late Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once called "too close to infanticide."
• Obama strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban.
• In the Illinois state Senate, Obama opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants who survive a botched abortion.
•  Obama has even said he would not want his daughters to be "punished with a baby."

Pleading for Obama to change on born alive infant protections

A survivor of a failed abortion begs Obama to "change" and support born alive infant protections.

Jill Stanek has put together a list of the top ten explanations Obama has offered his horrendous record of trying to deprive babies surviving failed abortions medical treatment.

The National Right to Life Committee has an excellent “white paper” on Obama's misrepresentation of his outrageous record on the right to life of babies who survive failed abortions. Documents uncovered by NRLC show that Obama misrepresented his record on the issue:

On August 16, when asked specifically about the NRLC charges during a televised interview with CBN’s David Brody, Obama responded that “they have not been telling the truth” and “folks are lying.” But in a report issued August 25, the independent organization FactCheck.org concluded: “Obama’s claim is wrong. . . . The documents from the NRLC support the group’s claims that Obama is misrepresenting the contents of SB 1082.”

Infanticide is the only word to describe withholding medical treatment from babies surviving failed abortions.

National Right To Life Committee Backs Thompson

The National Right to Life Committee endorsed Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson.

This is a big deal. With 3,000 local chapters in 50 states, National Right to Life is the nation's largest antiabortion group; it publishes a monthly newsletter, funds radio and TV broadcasts and organizes local activists. Supporters donated more than $9.7 million in 2005, according to the latest available tax records. The group's political arm spent $4.4 million in the 2004 election cycle to support antiabortion candidates and causes.

Some were taken aback by Fred winning this endorsement. Huckabee thought Fred didn't handle the abortion issue well on NBC's "Meet the Press:"

MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about an issue very important in your party’s primary process, and that’s abortion.

MR. THOMPSON: Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: This is the 2004 Republican Party platform, and here it is: “We say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution,” “we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions.” Could you run as a candidate on that platform, promising a human life amendment banning all abortions?

MR. THOMPSON: No.

MR. RUSSERT: You would not?

MR. THOMPSON: No. I have always—and that’s been my position the entire time I’ve been in politics. I thought Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. I think this platform originally came out as a response to particularly Roe v. Wade because of that. Before Roe v. Wade, states made those decisions. I think people ought to be free at state and local levels to make decisions that even Fred Thompson disagrees with. That’s what freedom is all about. And I think the diversity we have among the states, the system of federalism we have where power is divided between the state and the federal government is, is, is—serves us very, very well. I think that’s true of abortion. I think Roe v. Wade hopefully one day will be overturned, and we can go back to the pre-Roe v. Wade days. But...

MR. RUSSERT: Each state would make their own abortion laws.

MR. THOMPSON: Yeah. But, but, but to, to, to have an amendment compelling—going back even further than pre-Roe v. Wade, to have a constitutional amendment to do that, I do not think would be the way to go.

MR. RUSSERT: I went back—we went back to your papers at the University of Tennessee and read through them. This is what you said back in 1994 as a candidate. Here’s the first one: “I’m not willing to support laws that prohibit early-term abortions. I’m not suddenly upon election as a senator going to know when life begins and where that place ought to be exactly. It comes down to whether you believe life begins at conception. I don’t know in my own mind if that is the case so I don’t feel the law ought to impose that standard on other people.”

MR. THOMPSON: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: So you yourself don’t know when life begins.

MR. THOMPSON: No. I didn’t know then.

MR. RUSSERT: You know now?

MR. THOMPSON: I, I, I—my head has always been the same place. My public position has always been the same. I’ve been 100 percent pro-life in every vote that I’ve ever cast in, in my service to the United States Senate.

MR. RUSSERT: But, Senator, you say that you’re for states having...

MR. THOMPSON: Well, no...

MR. RUSSERT: Let me finish, because this is important. You’re for allowing states to have pro-abortion rights, and you yourself, and I have 10 different statements from you, say that you would not ban abortion, it’s a woman’s right, and you would not ban it in the first trimester.

MR. THOMPSON: No, no. Well, you just said two different things here. You know, it’s a complex issue concerning whether or not you’re going to have a federal law, whether or not you’re going to have a federal constitutional amendment, those kinds of things. Nobody’s proposed a federal law on this. Nobody’s recently proposed a, a federal constitutional amendment. I, I, I had an opportunity to vote on an array of things over eight years, whether it be partial birth abortion, whether it be Mexico City policy, whether it be transporting young girls across state lines to avoid parental notification laws and all that--100 percent pro-life.

But let me finish on my point, and, and, and my legal record is there, and that’s the way I would govern if I was president. I would take those same positions. No federal funding for abortion, no nothing that would in any way encourage abortion. When I saw—and again, all consistent with what I’ve said. I—people ask me hypothetically, you know, OK, it goes back to the states. Somebody comes up with a bill, and they say we’re going to outlaw this, that or the other. And my response was I do not think it is a wise thing to criminalize young girls and perhaps their parents as aiders and abettors or perhaps their family physician. And that’s what you’re talking about. It’s not a sense of the Senate. You’re talking about potential criminal law. I said those things are going to be ultimately won in the hearts and minds of people. I’m probably a pretty good example of that. Although my, my, my head and my legislative record’s always been the same, when I saw that sonogram of my little now four-year-old, it’s, it’s, it’s changed my heart. It’s changed the way I look at things. I was looking at my child when, when, when I, when I saw that. And I knew that, and I felt that. And that’s the way I feel today. And I think life begins at conception. I always—it was abstract to me before. I was a father earlier when I was very young. I was busy. I went about my way. One of the, one of the maybe few advantages you have by getting a little bit older.

MR. RUSSERT: So while you believe that life begins at conception, the taking of a human life?

MR. THOMPSON: Yes, I, I, I, I do.

MR. RUSSERT: You would allow abortion to be performed in states if chosen by states for people who think otherwise?

MR. THOMPSON: I do not think that you can have a, a, a law that would be effective and that would be the right thing to do, as I say, in terms of potentially—you can’t have a law that cuts off an age group or something like that, which potentially would take young, young girls in extreme situations and say, basically, we’re going to put them in jail to do that. I just don’t think that that’s the right thing to do. It cannot change the way I feel about it morally, but legally and practically, I’ve got to recognize that fact. It is a dilemma that I’m not totally comfortable with, but that’s the best I can do in resolving it in my own mind.

You can watch the video of this exchange below. The abortion discussion begins at 1:33:

Pro-lifers are split among the Republican presidential contenders with Robertson backing Giuliani and Brownback endorsing McCain.

At RedState, Eric has the inside scoop on the National Right to Life Committee endorsement of Fred.

Court Rules Michigan Partial Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional

A federal appeals court ruled Michigan's attempt to ban partial-birth abortion unconstitutional:

A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal said the Michigan Legislature would have been "virtually guaranteed" a favorable result on appeal had it copied an Ohio law that the 6th Circuit already has upheld.

"It instead opted to use statutory language that pushed almost every boundary that the Supreme Court has imposed for these types of laws," the judges said.

Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm vetoed the bill in 2004 and hundreds of thousands of voters signed petitions that allowed the bill to become law with only the approval of the House and Senate - both of which were controlled by Republicans at the time. This is Michigan's third attempt to ban partial birth abortion. Previous attempts were struck down by federal courts in 1997 and 2001.

The 6th Circuit's decision is available here [pdf format].

Supreme Court To Review Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003

Reuters reports the Supreme Court agreed to review an appeals court ruling that declared the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 unconstitutional because it lacks an exception to protect the health of a pregnant woman.

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, passed after years of emotional debate, has never been enforced because of court challenges. Three lawsuits were brought challenging the law before it was even signed by President Bush. Six different federal courts around the country have all found the law to be unconstitutional.

According to the Associated Press, the outcome will likely rest with the two men that President Bush has recently installed on the court. Justices had been split 5-4 in 2000 in striking down a state law, barring partial birth abortion because it lacked an exception to protect the health of the mother.

We aren't talking about overturning Roe v. Wade here. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 only prohibits a horrific procedure, generally performed in the second or third trimester, in which a fetus is partially removed from the womb, and its skull is punctured or crushed. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, defines partial birth abortion:

Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited
1.(b) As used in this section--
(1) the term `partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion--
(A) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and
(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus.

In addition, Congress provided that this ban would not apply to a situation in which the mother would be put at risk:

This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

There is disagreement within the medical community as to wether the procedure is never medically necessary to protect a woman's health. The Justice Department contends that the appropriate question is not whether there is such a dispute, but whether there was substantial evidence to support the findings made by Congress.

The Justice Department asserts that Congress made the specific finding, after weighing the medical evidence, that a “medical ... consensus exists ... that [partial-birth abortion] is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.” This Congressional finding was based upon the following:

Partial-birth abortion “remains a disfavored procedure;”

The “overwhelming evidence” shows that it “is outside the standard of medical care;”

There is no credible evidence that partial-birth abortions are safe or safer than other abortion procedures; and

No controlled studies of partial-birth abortions have been conducted nor have any comparative studies been conducted to demonstrate its safety and efficacy compared to other abortion methods.

I find it intriguing that those opposed to the ban and the mainstream media now religiously refer to this procedure as “what opponents call partial birth abortion.” It wasn't referred to like that during the Clinton administration. It's fascinating how this group uses propaganda so uniformly.

The case the Supreme Court will hear this fall comes from Nebraska, where the federal law was challenged on behalf of physicians. Doctors who perform the procedure contend that it is the safest method of abortion when the mother's health is threatened by heart disease, high blood pressure or cancer.

I don't see how anyone can support this abhorrent procedure.

UPDATE: At How Appealing, Howard Bashman wonders whether the Court could have attempted to influence the politics of the Alito confirmation battle by postponing the grant of review in this case until today? It hotly debated an interesting question, which I'm sure will bedebated by many who can't know the answer. But at Philly, Albert Yee reminds us that today is Justice Alito's first day on the job.

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

The New York Times reports that United States District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ruled the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional:

In a 117-page decision, the judge, Phyllis J. Hamilton, ruled the law unconstitutional on three grounds, saying that it placed an undue burden on women seeking abortions, that its language was unconstitutionally vague and that it lacked a required exception for procedures needed to preserve the woman's health.

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was passed by Congress last October. Three lawsuits were brought challenging the law before it was even signed by President Bush.

Today's decision was the first final ruling in the three lawsuits. Both the Nebraska and New York cases are still pending.

According to the Times:

The California case was brought by Planned Parenthood and its local affiliate. They were later joined as plaintiffs by the city and county of San Francisco. The ruling applies to them and to their employees and members, wherever they perform abortions. Judge Hamilton declined to issue a nationwide injunction in deference to the Nebraska and New York courts.

The 2003 federal law is in many ways similar to a Nebraska law struck down by the Supreme Court in 2000, and today's decision did not surprise legal experts. Groups opposing abortion said today that they hoped the new cases will give the Supreme Court an opportunity to reconsider its decision.

If you are interested Judge Hamilton's decision can be accessed here as a pdf file.

I am surprised that it took this long for a decision. The government had asked for a speedy review of the law. That request was made in the New York case.

U.S. Seeks Speedy Review of Abortion Ban

Gail Appleson, writing for Reuters, reports that the U.S. Department of Justice filed a motion on Monday seeking a speedy review of the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003.

The filing was made in response to U.S. District Judge Richard Casey’s ruling last Wednesday blocking enforcement of the new legislation. I posted about Judge Casey’s decision here.

In its motion, available here via FindLaw, the Justice Department argues that Judge Casey’s decision to block enforcement of the ban “rested on the finding that there remains a disagreement in the medical community as to whether the abortion procedures covered by the Act are ever neccessary to protect a woman’s health.”

The Justice Department’s motion contends that the appropriate question for the Court is not whether there is such a dispute, but whether there was substantial evidence to support the findings made by Congress.

The Justice Department asserts that Congress made the specific finding, after weighing the medical evidence, that a “medical ... consensus exists ... that [partial-birth abortion] is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.” This Congressional finding was based upon the following:

Partial-birth abortion “remains a disfavored procedure;”

The “overwhelming evidence” shows that it “is outside the standard of medical care;”

There is no credible evidence that partial-birth abortions are safe or safer than other abortion procedures;” and

“No controlled studies of partial-birth abortions have been conducted nor have any comparative studies been conducted to demonstrate its safety and efficacy compared to other abortion methods.”

Hat Trick

The third federal judge asked to consider the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003, has followed the lead of two other federal courts and blocked enforcement of the new law.

According to this Associated Press report by David Kravets:

U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton of San Francisco ruled that the law appeared unconstitutional because it provided no exemptions for a woman's health. The basis for her ruling mirrored the reasons cited by the other judges.

Going further than her counterparts in Nebraska and New York Judge Hamilton called the law "an undue burden on a woman's right to choose."

UPDATE - In the Friday edition of the San Jose Mercury News, Howard Mintz provides some additional detail of the argument before Judge Hamilton.

The Justice Department argued before Judge Hamilton that Congress considered medical evidence and had the authority to craft the law in response to the Supreme Court's ruling.

But after a two-hour hearing, Hamilton favored Planned Parenthood's argument that Congress enacted a law that conflicts with the Supreme Court's precedent. Judge Hamilton also agreed with Planned Parenthood that the law is so broad it could jeopardize other forms of abortion.