As noted tonight on Backbone Radio, there is a fundraiser on Thursday, Feb. 1 for the legal defense of immigration whistleblower Cory Vorhis. He's the heroic ICE agent who revealed those lenient plea bargains for illegal alien felons, during last year's Ritter-Beauprez campaign. It will be an evening event in the DTC area - donation optional. If you want to come and show your support, email me at andrewsjk@aol.com for the details.
Ritter's pro-life pose unmasked
By Krista Kafer (krista555@msn.com) Governor Ritter announced in his state-of-the-state speech that he intends to return funding to Planned Parenthood for “pregnancy prevention and family planning programs.” Nationwide, Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion providers, receives some $272 million in tax payer funds annual under Title X of the Public Health Service Act for “family planning and reproductive health.” The program, enacted in 1970, funnels state and federal taxpayer funds to public and private agencies for birth control, STD testing and other activities. Such entities can even provide “neutral” information on abortion which seems like an opportunity for some to expand business.
In 1999, the Owens administration blocked funding for Planned Parenthood when an audit revealed that the organization was subsidizing abortion with tax payer funds, a clear violation of the Colorado Constitution. This year, Ritter intends to return the subsidies. While taxpayer funding for abortion is the big issue, no one seems to be asking why tax payers are paying for contraception. I’m more than willing to buy someone food or emergency housing, but if a guy can’t afford the $5 for a box of condoms maybe he shouldn’t be having sex. Maybe he should be out looking for a job instead. If I have to pay for somebody to have sex, maybe others should pay for my hobbies. I could use a new pair of skis. But I digress…
Ritter’s support for Planned Parenthood casts doubt on his commitment to the sanctity of human life. He isn’t the only Democrat to fail the first test of authenticity. Several self-identified pro-life Democrat congressmen fresh from election victories failed to vote pro-life when the first opportunity arose earlier this year.
Talking pro-life isn’t the same as actually standing up for the civil rights of unborn children. Regardless of moderate talk, both top Democrat presidential contenders – Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama – support the taxpayer funding for abortion and the barbaric partial-birth abortion procedure. Each received a 100% rating from NARAL, the powerful abortion lobby. Warm smiles and conciliatory language won’t change that.
As the American public grows increasingly squeamish about abortion-on-demand, harsh feminist rhetoric doesn’t resonate as well. Even the most ardent abortion supporter wants to seem a little sensitive. In the end, though, actions speak louder than words.
Abortion holocaust anniversary: 50 million dead
By Krista Kafer (krista555@msn.com) On January 22, 1973 the Supreme Court struck down most state laws protecting unborn children in the notorious Roe vs. Wade decision. Thirty-four years and 50 million lives later, there seems to be no end in sight for this American holocaust. New “uses” for unborn children as scientific guinea pigs does not bode well; as Eli Whitney’s cotton gin accelerated the demand for slaves, new “uses” for unborn children will likely increase the death toll. Although legislative victories have reduced the incidence of abortion since the late 1990’s, new technology could unleash the demand for human life.
Recent articles foretell a dark road ahead of science used to create and exploit human life. A chilling January Economist article described how scientists are using cloning technology to create human embryos and fusing them with cells from other species. Less macabre but more tragic, a U.S. News and Weekly Report article heralds pre-implantation testing on in vitro embryos to “weed out” those with genetic diseases. Such tests, however, are “increasingly… being used for choices that are less clearly beneficial to the child” such as sex selection,” the article states. The implication here is that death is a benefit to a disabled child but not one for simply being a girl or a boy.
Another January article in U.S. News said that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists are now recommending that all pregnant women receive screening to check for Down syndrome in the first trimester “allowing plenty of adjustment time… or an opportunity for an early abortion.” Again, the use of science to “weed out” disabled children is heralded as a good thing. While the magazine may quibble with less noble reasons to snuff out a life, the distinction is quite arbitrary. Whether a child dies because of her gender, disability, or the timing of her conception, she joins the yearly million casualties of choice.
Dem payoff to big labor & teacher union
Democrats in control of the Colorado House, ignoring Gov. Bill Ritter's inaugural criticism of narrow-interest legislation, are racing to put on his desk a pair of bills that empower organized labor and the teacher union at the expense of workers and parents. Both bills sailed through committee this week on party-line votes and are up for approval by the full House on Friday morning. Insiders say Senate Democrats will then speed them to Ritter for signature before January is out. Heavy political support for Dems by the AFL-CIO and CEA in 2006 would thus reap an early payoff in 2007.
House Bill 1072, by Rep. Garcia, makes an all-union closed shop far easier for labor bosses to obtain in negotiations with an employer. It removes Colorado's unique protection against coercion of workers to pay union dues -- the Labor Peace Act provision allowing employees to vote before the closed shop is imposed.
House Bill 1041, by Rep. Benefield and Sen. Windels, tightens the top-down, centralized educational conformity that already hinders innovation and flexibility in local districts. It requires any school board seeking a waiver of state-imposed red tape and regulations to get 2/3 approval by the State Board of Education, instead of the simple majority required by current law.
These bills give the lie to Democrats' campaign rhetoric last year about supporting policies that will grow the state's economy, create jobs, and improve learning performance for kids. If passed and signed, they will make Colorado less competitive with other states and nations, economically and educationally.
To voice your opinion about this unwise legislation and the unseemly haste with which it is moving, send an email through the Colorado General Assembly website at www.leg.state.co.us, or call...
House House Senate Senate Democrats Republicans Democrats Republicans 303-866-2346 303-866-5523 303-866-4865 303-866-4866
Killing embryos to further an agenda
By Krista Kafer (krista555@msn.com) Two days after the scientific community heralded the benefits of stem cells taken from amniotic fluid, the US House of Representatives passed Rep. Diana Degette’s bill (again) to use taxpayer funds to kill unborn children for their stem cells, a practice that has yet to produce any benefits.
For the record, the human body creates stem cells from conception to death. These cells are special in that they can become other types of cells like muscle cells or a brain cells. In adults, stem cells are present in the blood, bone marrow, skin, brain, liver, pancreas, fat, and hair follicle. They are also present in the placenta, umbilical cord, and amniotic fluid. Stem cells can be harmlessly culled from these sources to be used in medical experiments to treat diseases such as diabetes and spinal cord injuries.
In November of last year, the Rocky Mountain News reported Swiss scientists had grown human heart valves using stem cells from amniotic fluid. Another article on the same page lauded the use of adult stem cells in mitigating muscular dystrophy in dogs. The dogs were able to walk and jump after being injected with adult stem cells. On January 9, the RMN reported American researchers had discovered amniotic stem cells “have many of the key benefits of embryonic stem cells while avoiding thorny ethical issues.”
The “thorny ethical issue” is that the process of extracting embryonic stem cells kills the donor. That embryonic stem cells cause tumors and other complications in recipients is certainly a drawback. The lack of success in curing or mitigating diseases is another, but the main opposition to using taxpayer funds for embryonic stem cell research is that it kills unborn children. While it is legal to kill children from conception until birth and to sell their bodies or tissues including their stem cells (it is also perfectly legal to donate funds to these endeavors), we, the opposition, do not want to be complicit in the death of innocents by virtue of our tax dollars.
We support non-lethal adult, amniotic, placental, and umbilical cord stem cell research which incidentally is the research with the track record of success. Embryonic stem cell research has so little promise that it cannot attract sufficient private investment. So why, two days after yet another scientific breakthrough regarding non-lethal stem cell research, did the House of Representatives vote to use taxpayer dollars for that which is ineffective and opposed by millions of Americans? Do they not read the papers? Do they not talk with scientists or investors?
Perhaps it is not a question of ignorance. Perhaps it is a question of agenda. To back away from embryonic stem cell research is to admit that there might be something wrong with killing one human being to benefit another. To back away affirms the humanity of the child, an admission unacceptable to the abortion interests that profit in its absence. While the success of non-lethal stem cell therapies gives politicians a perfect out to change their votes, the stakes are too high to permit what may seem like a change of heart.