Republicans Walk Back "Redefining Rape" in Bill Defunding Abortions

Looks like the Republicans in the House have walked back their controversial verbiage in the HR3 bill that would defund Planned Parenthood any any other organization that performs abortions. Many have argued that they were "redefining rape" by only including "forcible" rape in the list of exemptions:

"The word 'forcible' will be replaced with the original language from the Hyde Amendment," a spokesman for Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), one of the sponsors of H.R. 3. The "No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act," told Politico.

The Hyde Amendment is the existing measure meant to bar the use of certain federal funds to pay for abortions.

This is no big surprise. It should have never been put in the bill in the first place. They should've that this would only inflame the public with virtually no upside to including it.

State Senator (D) From Pence's IN District Dishonestly Goes After Pence's Bill That'll Cut Federal Money to Planned Parenthood

Democratic State Senator and former Planned Parenthood public policy director Sue Errington recently went after US Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) and his plan to stop giving any federal money to Planned Parenthood, in an op-ed. FYI, Errington's state district 26 resides in Pence's federal 6th district:.

Why would Congressman Mike Pence suggest it is good public health policy to take birth control away from low-income women in this country? Yet that would be the result of the bill he promoted in last Sunday's Star Press. He wants to ban Planned Parenthood -- the country's leading provider of birth control services -- from the Title X program.

Title X is the only federal grant program dedicated solely to providing individuals with comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services. It is designed to provide access to contraceptive services, supplies and information to all who want and need them. By law, priority is given to persons from low-income families. From the program's beginning in 1970, Planned Parenthood, with clinics throughout the country, has been an important part of the program. It's estimated that one out of four American women has visited a Planned Parenthood center for health care at least once in her life. Why would Congressman Pence want to remove this pillar from our country's family planning infrastructure?

He says it's because he wants to ensure that no federal funds are used to subsidize abortion. That assurance is already in the law through the Hyde amendment, which prohibits the use of federal dollars for abortion. Not a dime of Title X funding supports abortion. It is used, rather, to assist low-income persons with the cost of basic reproductive health care -- Pap tests, pregnancy tests, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases and birth control.

Her whole premise for this story is wrong. Actually, it's so wrong that there's no way that this is just made a honest mistake. One can only come to the conclusion that, not surprisingly, she is lying in order to promote her own liberal agenda.

Pence is not calling for Planned Parenthood to be "banned" or closed. He's proposing that federal taxpayer money should no longer be given to Planned Parenthood.

Given the dire straights that the government is in, this isn't an outrageous proposal. Cuts need to be made, and this should be an easy cut to make.

Most Americans don't want their money to go to funding abortions and Planned Parenthood, and the women's clinic receives enough money from other sources that they really don't need our tax money to stay afloat. They'll be just fine without it.

Also, she says that the Hyde Amendment already stops Planned Parenthood from directly using federal money for abortions. While this is true, Pence argues that any money given to them does indirectly pay for it. He says that they will use the money that they get from the government for other programs, but in doing so, that will free up money that they have received from other sources that would've paid for those other programs, otherwise, and use it to pay for abortions.

Since Pence is probably running for governor or an outside chance of running for president in 2012, she is might be trying to position herself for a campaign to replace him as Indiana's 6th District representative in the US House. Still, why would she be so blatantly dishonest? That won't make the conservative 6th think highly of her.

Also, it could be that she's trying to protect her former employer. Either way, she needs to stop being so dishonest.

Senator Errington couldn't be reached for comment.

Boehner Makes Bill Banning Federally-Funded Abortions A Priority

In the spirit of making even more spending cuts, Speaker Boehner announced that he will put forth a bill written by Rep. Smith (R-NJ) that will cut all federal funding of abortions:

Calling it a top priority of the Republican agenda, House Speaker John Boehner on Thursday gave a top designation to a bill introduced by New Jersey Rep. Chris Smith that would ban the use of any federal funds from being used for abortions.

The "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," given the numerical designation H.R. 3 to emphasize its prominence, would make permanent in existing law any language that bans abortion. It also would provide medical workers with "conscientious protections" that allow them to refuse to participate in abortion procedures against their will.

The legislation will "ensure that the taxpayers -- through huge majorities clearly show do not want their money being used to pay for abortions -- no longer are coerced into using taxpayer funding to subsidize the killing of an unborn child and the warping of his or her mother," Smith said in a press conference with Boehner on Capitol Hill

"Our members feel very strongly about the sanctity of human life. We listened to the American people. We made a commitment to the American people under the Pledge to America and we're continuing to fulfill our commitment," Boehner said.

Separately, Reps. Joe Pitts, R-Pa., and Daniel Lipinski, D-Ill., are introducing a bill to prohibit any money from the new health care law from going to fund abortions.

Again, this is appealing to the base. Even some that are pro-choice are against federal taxpayer money going to the procedure. So, this would be easily palatable by the majority of Americans. Democrats will, of course, ferverently oppose the bill, but given the current political climate and the winds of change blowing towads reducing the deficits, they’ll have a hard time defending it.

However, with the Democrats in the Senate and Obama in the White House, the chance of this passing is minimal, unless it is included in some sort of compromise down the line. Abortion is one of the main tenents of the Democratic party, and they’ll be hard-pressed to do anything that would upset the pro-choice lobby.

Mike Pence: It's Time to Stop Funding Abortion Providers With Federal Money

In a statement recently made to LifeNews, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) said that the federal government needs to stop funding organizations, like Planned Parenthood, that provide abortions:

“It is morally wrong to end an unborn human life by abortion.  It is also morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use those funds to promote abortion.

“Planned Parenthood’s own report shows that the largest abortion provider in America is being bankrolled by American taxpayers.  With a nearly 10 percent unemployment rate, there is simply no reason during these tough economic times why taxpayers’ hard-earned money should fund the activities of abortion providers and equip them with the resources they need to end innocent human life.

“The time has come to deny any and all federal funding to Planned Parenthood by passing the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, which I intend to introduce again in the next Congress.”

Pence goes on to argue that, while these organizations aren't using the federal money to directly fund abortions, they are funding them indirectly:

When Title X money goes to clinics that provide both abortions and family planning services, even though the money cannot directly fund abortions, it is being used to offset operational costs with federal funds, freeing up money to promote and provide abortions.

With the mood in the country leaning towards cutting costs wherever we can pro-life sentiments growing, this has a shot at happening.

However, the liberal Democrats are going to fight this tooth and nail, and I don't see Obama signing off on this, either, unless he totally wants to alienate his base.

Abortion is one of the "holy grail" issues for his liberal base, and I don't see them forgiving him for this and his other "disappointments", like not shutting down Gitmo, not letting Bush tax cuts expire for the rich, and not drawing down troops in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Good News: Obama Flips on Federally-Funded Abortions

I guess that Executive Order forbidding taxpayer- abortions was just lip-service:

Boehner and other Republicans point to reports that the Health and Human Services Department is giving Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new high-risk insurance pool that will cover any abortion that is legal in the state.
 
"The fact that the high-risk pool insurance program in Pennsylvania will use federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortions is unconscionable," Boehner said in a statement on Tuesday.

Sen. Whitehouse: SCOTUS Recently “Discovered” the Individual’s Right to Bear Arms

This might be a slow week for me. Since this week is going to be dominated by the Kagan confirmation, I am not going to be writing as much because I refuse to write too much about them. Supreme Court confirmation hearings are nothing but a dog-and-pony show. Those that are being confirmed don’t ever really say what they think and tell the Senate what they’re really going to do once they get on the bench. So, I’d rather not write about something that is obviously kabuki.

Fortunately, I did find one gem from my new favorite senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.



He goes on to explain that he doesn’t want his judicial nominees to be activists and said that he was looking for “judicial restraint”, and if I didn’t know better, I would have sworn that he wanted a strict constructionist. Then, he goes on to rail on the conservative wing of the Supreme Court. He claims the THEY are the ones that are activists. He complains the Court has recently “witnessed the DISCOVERY of the individual’s right to bear arms” referencing the Heller decision, which affirmed the individual’s right to bear arms in DC. Then, he says that this is a right that had been “previously gone unnoticed by the Court for 220 years. Um, Sheldon, that’s probably because no level of government had ever tried to enforce an outright ban on guns until recently. Why would the Supreme Court have any reason to address blanket gun bans, if they didn’t exist before 1975? Before then, it was just understood that individuals had that right. There were no gun bans in the 1800’s. It was the activism of local lawmakers and lower court judges that recently discovered that the right to bear arms didn’t include individuals.

It gets especially rich, when he invokes abortion in his argument, considering that before 1973 there was no right to kill fetuses until the Court “discovered” one in Roe V Wade. Before 1973, it was just assumed that unborn babies had the same right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that everyone else did. I wonder if Whitehouse was just upset when the Court discovered that right. Somehow, I doubt it. It fits his political ideology unlike the incorporation of the Second Amendment on local governments.

Hillary Clinton: Forget About Feeding Third World’s Starving Babies, We Have to Fund Killing Unborn Ones Too

The Obama Administration seems to care more about furthering their liberal political agenda worldwide more than making sure women and children remain healthy in the some of the poorest parts of the world:

On the agenda at the G8 summit in Canada is promoting maternal and infant health in the poorest parts of the globe. The high rates of maternal and infant mortality in many countries are an impediment to democracy and social development, to say nothing of a human tragedy for these communities. Commitments of resources from the G8 countries to address these problems should be welcomed and commended. Why, then, is the Obama delegation threatening to derail these agreements?

It does seem to be an odd form of “smart diplomacy” to politicize and hold a program that would make sure to limit infant deaths hostage to make sure that funding for abortions are included in the package that would be sent to these impoverished countries, but here it is:

Given this, one would expect there to be universal support for Canada’s leadership in taking on these problems and working to meet these critical needs. But the Obama administration is obstructing this positive consensus. Hillary Clinton, when asked about Canada’s G8 plan to address infant and maternal health in the developing world, said the following: “You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion.”

It is surprising that Hillary Clinton would insist on funding for abortion and risk derailing an initiative that is poised to generate unprecedented commitments in both the private and public sectors. It is especially surprising considering the body of recent scientific evidence supporting the effectiveness of various straightforward, uncontroversial, and achievable means to reduce maternal and infant mortality.

When top U.S. officials change the subject away from important global policy and development work to push for favored hot-button political issues, it gives the appearance of using American taxpayer funding to promote social engineering, bypassing public debate about the best way to achieve development worldwide and address the very real unmet needs of the developing world. Does Hillary Clinton think it is more important to promote liberal Western ideologies than to address the critical needs of the women and children of Africa and Asia? Does she prefer to promote the tired, old eugenic orthodoxies of the largely discredited population-control movement? Is Hillary Clinton — and the Obama administration — willing to hold up funding for maternal and infant health because of a dogmatic commitment to a universal right to abortion on demand? What about the rights of countless women all over the world who want to bring children into the world safely, without risking their lives and the lives of their children?

As Allahpundit points out, it is beyond ironic and hypocritical for the same people that criticized Bush for holding out on the same kind of funding to the third world in order to make sure that it doesn’t fund abortions. Then, they turn around and hold out on sending money to help the poorest among us to make sure that money for abortions are included in the money being sent to ensure the health of babies:

Besides, Hillary’s statement is nothing short of idiotic. Maternal health does not depend on abortion. In fact, abortion is a rather moot point when it comes to the stage of worrying about the health of mothers of newborn infants, isn’t it?

Indeed!

Comedy Gold: Gloria Allred Chastises Tebow Pro-Life Ad For Not Including "All The Facts", Megyn Kelly Exposes Her Hypocrisy

Gloria Allred is all in a huff about the Tim Tebow pro-life ad that will air during the Super Bowl because they didn't mention that abortions were illegal, when Tebow's mother decided to have the 2007 Heisman winner despite the fact that it would endanger her own life and will go after CBS, if the end up airing the ad. However, Gloria, apparently, didn't do any research herself because, as Megyn Kelly points out it was legal in the Philippines, if the mother's life was in danger, which it was. Plus, she torched on Allred's attempt at violating Tebow and his mother's right of free speech. You can tell by the venom coming out of Ms. Allred that she clearly despises anyone that would dare to challenge the sanctity of abortion would be willing to violate people's free speech to protect it. Even though she claims that she is respects abortion opponents free speech, she says that she will "go after" CBS, if they air it. How is that respecting the Tebow's and CBS' free speech rights, if she goes after people for saying something that she doesn't agree with and tries to stop them from saying it? It just boggles the mind.

Abortion Ban Amendment Could Clear Way for Passage of Pelosicare

Pro-Life Democrats have been threatening to kill the bill, if the bill didn't block federal money from funding abortions. However, early this morning, Democrats including Stupak, one of the pro-life Democratic leaders, meet with Pelosi and company to broker a deal between them:

House Democrats reached an agreement on a contentious abortion provision overnight that appears to clear the way for a final vote on health care legislation today.

The agreement will allow a vote on an amendment, authored by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind., that would bar funds going toward abortion under both the public option and any private plans that participate in the new insurance exchange.

If this amendment passes, it might be barely enough to pass the monstrous bill. With all Republicans voting against it, she only afford to lose 20 Democrats. Since there are at least 15 Democrats that are giving a hard no against the bill regardless of the abortion issue, it is going to be a photo finish. The bill is scheduled to be up for a vote at 6pm, if it isn't delayed until Sunday or beyond.

Former Planned Parenthood Director Says She Had Abortion Quotas

A few days ago, a story came out about a director at a Planned Parenthood location in Bryan, Texas who quit, after she saw an ultrasound of an abortion.

Now, she has been talking to WorldNetDaily that there is more than meets the eye going on at Planned Parenthood, not any pro-life advocate's surprise:

The former Texas-based Planned Parenthood director who recently quit after seeing an ultrasound video of an abortion says high Planned Parenthood officials wanted her center to meet quotas for the number of abortions done. Abby Johnson had been the director of the Planned Parenthood in Bryan/College Station.

These quotas weren't just for her. Upper management pushed her to push her employees to "keep abortion numbers high."

"There are definitely client goals," she said. "We'd have a goal every month for abortion clients and for family planning clients."

These weren't any "soft" quotas. They were pushing her hard to kill more unborn babies. Why? Hint it's not for their patients' wellbeing:

She said her facility did abortions every other Saturday but began increasing the number of abortions in order to increase revenues. One method involved increasing the number of abortions done with the dangerous mifepristone abortion drug.

"One of the ways they were able to up the number of patients that they saw was they started doing the RU-486 chemical abortions all throughout the week," she said.

Just show how much that Planned Parenthood officials didn't care about the health of the woman, this is what one abortion drug mentioned above has done to women nationwide:

Johnson told WND that abortions using the drug, which has killed 13 women worldwide and injured at least 1,100 in the United States alone according to the FDA, would bring in between $505 and $695 depending on the age of the baby at the time of the abortion.

They push this drug even though they very well know the side-effects.

There are a few supporters of the abortion that claim that Planned Parenthood is not all about abortions, but these stats seem to paint a different picture:

Yet, prenatal care and adoption referrals resulted for only 5 percent of the total services provided to women in 2007 while abortions accounted for 95 percent of the services that year, according to Planned Parenthood's own figures.

This organization is nothing but a baby killing factory. The premise of them being a women's health clinic that is only interested in the health and well-being of women is a joke. It seems to care very little about it. They should pull any and all federal funding for the immoral operation.

Rep Stupak (D-MI) Doubles Down On Vow to Stop Healthcare Reform From Funding Abortions, Will Work With GOP

Back in late September, 183 Democrats sent a letter to Pelosi urging her to allow an up or down vote regarding whether the healthcare plan will fund abortion or not. So far, she has refused.

Now, one of the main architects of that letter, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), has further angered Pelosi in his pursuit to keep federal money from funding abortions:

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) on Tuesday threatened that he may work with Republicans to torpedo healthcare reform unless he gets a vote to strip abortion-related provisions out of the House bill.

Stupak wants a floor vote on a measure that would prohibit taxpayer funds from being used for abortions. And in an interview on C-SPAN on Tuesday, he suggested if Democratic leaders don’t give him the vote, he’ll work with Republicans.

I'm sure she is more that "not happy" with you, Bart. She is probably downright livid.

To his credit, he seems to be standing firm on this issue:

The Michigan Democrat said he will not be backing down: “I’m comfortable with where I’m at. This is who I am. It’s reflective of my district. If it costs me my seat, so be it.”

Most of the talk has been about whether Reid can pass the bill in the Senate, but I have some reservations about it passing the House even with heavy Democratic slant. In the end, the House will probably pass it, but it'll pass barely by a slimmer margin than many realize.

Birmingham: Planned Parenthood Gets Caught Covering Up Alleged Sexual Abuse of Minors

In a sting operation, the Mona Lisa Project has caught more Planned Parenthood workers covering up a case of statutory rape. This time the sting took place in a Birmingham location. This is the sixth time that Mona Lisa has taped them supposedly violating the law and aiding and abetting child rapists.

When will people see this as a culture of corruption within the Planned Parenthood organization? The federal and private funding of this crooked organization needs to stop now.

Sotomayor's Past Indicate Pro-Choice Beliefs, Dashes Conservatives' Hopes

With people like Rush expressing hopes that Judge Sotomayor is a closet pro-lifer, it is a huge downer to learn about her history in pro-abortion advocacy groups:

Consider that from 1980 until October 1992, Judge Sotomayor served on the board -- at times as vice president and at times as chairman of the litigation committee -- of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. The New York Times in 1992 described her as "a top policy maker on the board." During that time period, the fund filed briefs in not one, not two, but at least six prominent court cases in strong support of "abortion rights."

The cases began with an abortion-funding case, Williams v. Zbaraz, just as she joined the board, and they continued through the landmark cases of Rust v. Sullivan, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Especially in the Webster case, in which all nine justices joined at least part of the decision saying that states need not provide public funds for abortions, the fund supported positions far more pro-abortion than the court itself did. Also, in the case Ohio v. Akron Center, the fund wrote that it "opposes any efforts to overturn or in any way restrict the rights recognized in Roe v. Wade."

No statement could be more categorical. The Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund thus presumably would oppose any restriction, including those on late-term abortions, partial-birth abortions, abortions for minors and the like.

Some were speculating that since she is a Catholic she might be pro-life. After all, most Catholics are pro-life. There weren't any of her opinions to abortion related cases that seemed to indicate otherwise. So, conservative pundits were trying to find the silver lining and say that she might secretly hold pro-life beliefs. However, this new revelation unfortunately seems to put that theory to rest.

Nebraska Follows Kansas, 13 Other States Requiring Ultrasounds Before Performing Abortions

Nebraska follows Kansas and 13 other states in making women get ultrasounds before they get abortions:

Lawmakers passed the bill (LB675) Friday afternoon on a 40-5 vote, and Gov. Dave Heineman signed it a short time later.

Pro life supporters believe that this is step in the right direction to save many babies lives:

Mary Spaulding Balch with the National Right to Life Committee said Nebraska's proposed law is worded more strongly than that of most other states with similar measures. She says Nebraska's law requires the ultrasound image to be displayed instead of just requiring that the woman be asked if she wants to see the image, as the other states do.

"We think it's an important distinction, because we feel that when women are in a crisis -- such as trying to decide whether or not they will have an abortion or not have the abortion -- they're probably just thinking that they don't want to be pregnant, and they're not really asking too many questions," she said.

Therefore, if the woman is making a rash decision to get an abortion because she's scared, she might change her mind if they make her take more time to think it more thoroughly, and seeing her baby on the ultrasound would pull at her maternal, instinctual heartstrings. Then, she might change her mind and keep the baby.

Of course, Planned Parenthood didn't like the bill. They said that it was an intrusion of doctor/patient relationship:

"This is basically telling doctors what information and what care is best for their patients," (Planned Parenthood spokesman) Kierstead said.

However, I wonder why liberals claim to want to "limit the number" of abortions and give women all of the choices available to them. Whenever they get a chance to do something that might limit women getting abortions by giving women all of the facts, they balk and cry foul. I thought they were for giving women options and all the information about their health. I guess not. It seems to me that Planned Parenthood cares more about women getting abortions and paying them for the procedure.

"Jane Roe" Arrested During Obama's Speech Protesting The One's Pro-Abortion Stance

Interesting note from the protests of Obama's speech at Notre Dame:

The plaintiff who put the "Roe" in Roe v. Wade was arrested today at Notre Dame while protesting President Obama's commencement address.

Norma McCorvey, who had a change of heart and became a pro-life activist after originally suing for her right to have an abortion, was arrested with about 20 other protesters when she refused to leave the campus, Fox News and the South Bend Tribune report.

New Gallup Poll Shows People Pro-Life Outnumber Pro-Choice For First Time Since 1995

This is interesting to see:

A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42% "pro-choice." This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.

This poll seems to contradict claims by liberals that the country is moving center-left and the social conservatives are a dying breed.

Fluke or Trend? Poll Shows Support For Abortion Falls to Lowest Point Since 1995

These are some interesting results to a recent poll by Pew:

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted March 31-April 21 among 1,521 adults, finds President Barack Obama's abortion advocacy could be sparking a shift to the pro-life side of the abortion debate.

The Pew poll found 46 percent of Americans say abortion should be legal in most cases (28%) or all cases (18%) and 44 percent of Americans believe that abortion should be illegal in most (28%) or all cases (16%).

That two point margin in favor of abortion is the lowest margin since 1995 as Pew, and other polling firms, have been asking the same polling question of Americans across the country every year.

This shift towards pro-life was shown in all age groups and most other demographics. Hopefully, this will become a trend and the shame of abortion will come to an end.

Obama Nominee That Equated Pregnancy to Slavery Faces Strong GOP Opposition

Senate GOP Considers Filibuster of Obama Judicial Nominee Who Compared Pregnancy to Slavery
Republicans are considering a filibuster aimed at blocking the confirmation of Dawn Johnsen, who conservatives claim once compared "forced pregnancy" with slavery. FOXNews.com
Tuesday, April 07, 2009

President Obama's nominee to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel once compared "forced pregnancy" with slavery. Now Republicans are considering a filibuster to block her confirmation.

The controversy stems from comments made 20 years ago by Dawn Johnsen, a law professor at Indiana University, whose nomination is pending before the full Senate.

In a brief filed when she was a lawyer with the National Abortion Rights Action League, Johnsen cited a footnote that said forcing women to bear children was "disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude, prohibited by the 13th Amendment, in that forced pregnancy requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state's asserted interest."

At her confirmation hearing last month, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., asked whether Johnsen had said abortion rights should be protected by the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery.

"It seems to me just candidly beyond the pale," said Specter, who supports abortion rights.

But Johnsen said she merely suggested an analogy in the footnote and "never believed the 13th Amendment had any role" in the abortion issue.

At least 45 House Republicans have co-signed a letter to Obama asking him to withdraw Johnsen's nomination because of her "brazen" abortion rights stance.

But supporters of Johnsen are fighting back, most notably her former employer.

NARAL said this week it is mobilizing its nationwide network of activists and supporters to pressure the Senate to confirm Johnsen and two other Obama nominees -- Judge David Hamilton and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius -- and stop what it deems attacks on nominees who support abortion rights. Filibusters won't be tolerated, the group said.

"The use of the 'F' word when referring to any of these nominees is unacceptable -- and this threat will not go unanswered," NARAL president Nancy Keenan said in a press release.

"Our activists will make it clear to their senators that derailing nominees for critical positions in the Obama administration and in the federal court simply because they have taken pro-choice positions is not an option. We will keep up the pressure until we go three for three and see these distinguished nominees confirmed by the Senate."

Ryan Patmintra, a spokesman for Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., a member of the Judiciary Committee, told FOXNews.com that Specter's vote will determine whether Johnsen gets confirmed because of his ranking status on the Judiciary Committee.

His moderate position also gives him considerable influence in the Senate where Democrats hold a 58-41 majority and need at least two Republicans to cross the aisle to block filibusters.

Specter's office did not respond to a request for an interview. But a Senate aide to the Judiciary Committee told FOXNews.com that there's no way Specter will vote for Johnsen's nomination because it could damage his prospects in what is shaping up to be a tough primary next year against conservative Pat Toomey, a former congressman and current president of the Club for Growth.

FOXNews.com Stephen Clark contributed to this report.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/04/obama-judicial-nominee-faces-republican-opposition-supporting-abortion-rights/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

While it's true that we shouldn't just filibbuster everyone that is pro-abortion because that would mean that Obama would leave only a small handful of Democrats for him to choose from. However, we should be able to block someone that is outside of the mainstream belief system of America.

Most people would not even think to equate pregancy and motherhood to slavery and involuntary servitude. She may be backing off from that type of language, but she isn't denying it either. This makes her unacceptable.

NARAL needs to come to its senses. They can't just say that the nominees are above reproach because they are one of NARAL's buddies.

The turncoat caucus will play a big role again. While the Maine senators won't be up for re-election until 2012 and 2014, Specter is already in a fight to get re-elected in Pennsylvania. Specter may receive pressure from voters in his state to vote for the filibuster that he may have not received in a non-campaign yeer or at least not such a highly contested one.

N. Dakota: Bill Giving Unborn Basic Human Rights Goes Down in Senate

'Personhood' bill defeated in North Dakota Senate
By DALE WETZEL Associated Press Writer
Apr 4, 3:50 AM EDT

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) -- North Dakota's Senate has rejected legislation to bestow human rights on fertilized human eggs, whether they be in the womb or in a laboratory.

Senators voted 29-16 Friday to reject legislation that sought to define as a human being "any organism with the genome of homo sapiens." The "personhood" status would include a developing embryo from the moment of conception, whether inside or outside the womb.

A handful of states are considering similar proposals, and the measure generated an intense lobbying campaign from abortion opponents and people who favor abortion rights.

Sen. Curtis Olafson, a Republican, spoke out frequently against the bill, saying it would make it difficult for doctors to treat problem pregnancies that could threaten the woman's life because both she and her unborn child would have equal status under the law.

At a Senate hearing on the legislation, two reproductive endocrinologists testified that the bill would complicate the practice of in vitro fertilization, which involves removing eggs from a woman's body, fertilizing them in a laboratory, and implanting a fertilized egg inside the womb.

The bill's sponsor, Rep. Dan Ruby, a Republican, sent an e-mail message to Democratic senators before Friday's vote, offering to write letters to the editor to vouch for their anti-abortion credentials if they backed the legislation.

"I will demonstrate my belief that this issue is more important than partisan politics," Ruby wrote.

© 2009 The Associated Press.

---------------------------------------------------------------
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/ABORTION_RESTRICTIONS?SITE=PASUN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
---------------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

N. Dakota has had pro-life bills like this voted on many times over the last few years by both the legislature and the people. They've been defeated everytime. Many believe that it is because they don't want to be the first to challenge Roe V. Wade. If another state took the lead, N. Dakota would be more likely to follow suit.

The result isn't unexpected, but there is some hope for the future that the travesty of abortion holocaust will end, and the unborn will receive basic human and civil rights that we all enjoy.

Oklahoma: Bill That Gives Mothers Right to Defend Unborn One Step Closer to Law

Oklahoma Could Allow Pregnant Women to Kill to Save Unborn Children
State lawmakers passed the Use of Force for the Protection of the Unborn Act this week and if the Senate approves it in a final vote, as expected, it will be sent to the governor's desk.

FOXNews.com Friday, April 03, 2009

Oklahoma lawmakers are close to approving a bill that allows pregnant women to use deadly force to protect their unborn children.

State lawmakers passed the Use of Force for the Protection of the Unborn Act this week and if the Senate approves it in a final vote, as expected, it will be sent to the governor's desk.

The bill was crafted after a Michigan woman who was carrying quadruplets stabbed and killed her boyfriend after he struck her in the stomach. The woman lost the babies and was convicted of manslaughter.

"Pregnant women who refuse to abort their child are too often attacked by their partner in an effort to force a miscarriage," said state Rep. Mike Thompson, who co-authored the bill after Americans United for Life asked him. "Women put in this position should have the legal right to defend themselves, with lethal force if necessary."

State Sen. Glenn Coffee said the measure will allow victims of domestic violence defend themselves and their unborn children.

"Unfortunately, the unborn child is often the primary target of domestic violence," Coffee said in a statement. "Domestic violence has been acknowledged as a primary cause of stillbirths and miscarriages."

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/03/oklahoma-allow-pregnant-women-kill-save-baby/
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

This is going to be an interesting bill, if it gets passed. It throws a huge monkey wrench into the whole abortion debate.

On one hand, it gives the mother the right to protect her unborn children from intentional harm. This is a good thing. Too many men are abusing their significant others in order to force an abortion. This is a disturbing trend that I, for one, am ecstatic about the pending passage of the new law. It is a long time coming.

However, it gives credibility to the argument that the unborn is more than "just a fetus". It could open the door to further anti-abortion laws.

I, also, wonder if it might lead the way to give the fathers the right to protect their unborn and keep abortion from happening if the mother wants it but the father does not.