Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image

Judicial Politics

Charmaine Debates Taxpayer Funding of Abortion on FOX

July 16, 2010 | By | No Comments


Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D.,

Happy Warrior; Winsome Argument

Charmaine appeared on FOX today, Friday 16 July to debate against tax payer funding for abortion.

Charmaine taped this morning and the piece aired throughout the day. (Normally, ProLife talent should not tape – liberal media will use editorial-editing to win a debate. But FOX is, well, fair and balanced.)

Please let us know what you think.

Why you should watch.

No, not to check out Charmaine’s new hair cut and make-up. FOX in DC is expanding their make-up room next to the green room and the surface preparation was a bit rushed.

No. A viewer — especially those leaning toward abortion — should watch to learn why the ProLife position is winning in America; where 51 percent now self identify with Life.

Why?

Three reasons:

1) A compelling argument.

2) A winsome argument.

3) A healthy argument.

A compelling argument. Every picture tells a story, as Rod Stewart would say and every gif-jpg file is worth a thousand words. The science of the sono-gram has shifted the debate from the mother to the child. 85 percent of women who see Baby’s First Picture choose to let the baby live.

This is why Cecile Richards at Planned Parenthood fights this scientific advancement. Too much information would change a woman’s choice. Science has not been good for abortion.

ProChoiceGal tweets “fetuses are humans. However, that doesn’t mean that pregnant women shouldn’t get basic human rights.” Re: abortion choice. Which brings us to,

Charmaine and Senator Orrin Hatch

charmaine_yoest_Senator_hatch_2010.jpgA winsome argument. We in the Pro-Life movement are in the persuasion business. The Alert Reader knows that Your Business Blogger(R) teaches Sales and Marketing at the local college and has researched and taught how Pro-Life sells.

Over the years, we have shaken hands with nearly every pro-choice leader from Betty Friedan to Gloria Steinem to Margaret Sanger’s grandson, Alexander Sanger. They were not the happy people as one might expect and did not advance a positive, enjoyable debate. They do not smile. (Steinem has now married; I think she may have smiled since the honeymoon.) That’s why Charmaine’s Pro-Life message is selling so well: She smiles. A Happy Warrior. Who Wins.

The unfortunate Twitterer MsFetus makes as bitter a presentation as Eleanor Smeal (understand the subjective evaluation-not the person: the presentation). The first rule in debating is “whoever shouts or goes ad hominem loses.” The pro-abortion advocates are reduced to cussing in Caps Lock. They have lost.

UK Pro-Choice QueenCatherinex tweets, “In my personal opinion I wouldn’t call a zygote, embryo, then fetus a baby. So it’s not a case of dehumanising, it’s biology.” No, it’s not biology–it’s marketing: See your Baby; the Baby lives. Word descriptors-pictures are powerful.

Finally, the picture of health,

A healthy argument. Charmaine runs Americans United for Life, a public interest law firm. Her team of legal eagles has noted that the debate has moved from Roe v Wade. The Burger court wrote that the state has a compelling interest in the baby in the third trimester, but this was soon superseded by the health of the mother “exceptions.” Subsequent rulings have now asserted that abortion must remain legal on the “reliance” interpretation, where the mother’s financial health must be preserved as well as the perceived physical well-being.

(Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D., as a case study, would refute this. She didn’t need abortion to become a President and CEO.)

But we have come back full circle to the mother’s health. Science is now telling us that abortion is a crushing psychological burden where women are now stating–in public–that they now regret.

Studies also demonstrate that abortion removes protections allowing women to have a higher risk of breast cancer.

Women are regretting and re-thinking thinking their abortions. Harms to women will be the next foundation in the future of the abortion debate.

###

Be sure to follow Your Business Blogger(R) and Charmaine on Twitter: @JackYoest and @CharmaineYoest

Jack and Charmaine also blog at Reasoned Audacity and at Management Training of DC, LLC.

Thank you (foot)notes,

Watch Charmaine’s Expert Testimony to the Judiciary Committee on the Kagan Nomination

Watch Charmaine’s Expert Testimony to the Judiciary Committee on the Sotomayor Nomination


Charmaine Yoest Scheduled To Deliver Testimony At The Kagan Hearings

June 30, 2010 | By | No Comments

Charmaine_Yoest_pubshot_2010.jpg

Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D.Charmaine will be giving expert testimony in the Kagan hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The link to her written testimony is here.

Following is the Americans United for Life press release.

Contact:

Matthew Faraci

202-556-1994

press@aul.org

YOEST TO TESTIFY TOMORROW IN KAGAN HEARINGS: AMERICANS

DO NOT WANT AGENDA-DRIVEN JUDGES

WASHINGTON, D.C. – (06/30/2010) – Americans United for Life President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest will add her voice to the distinguished panel of experts testifying on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, calling on the Senate to reject another agenda-driven justice. When she testifies on July 1st, it will be the second time since 2009 that Dr. Yoest has been invited to illustrate concerns with a nominee to the nation’s high court.

What: Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO of Americans United for Life, to give testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court.

When: July 1st – afternoon – exact time to be determined.

Where: Hart Senate Office Building, Hearing Room 216

To read Dr. Yoest’s written testimony as submitted to the Committee, click here. For analysis of Kagan’s political and legal record, go to www.aul.org. And contact the AUL media office for interviews and analysis of the impact of this highly political nominee.

***


Charmaine’s tesitmony at the

Sotomayor hearingsAlert Readers know that this is not Charmaine’s first rodeo. She has delivered congressional testimony on a number of occasions – most recently in the Sotomayor confirmation hearings.

Please watch and leave us a comment on Facebook or email.



Charmaine on an earlier interview

on agenda driven judges


Join Fight FOCA

###

Thank you (foot)notes:

What Makes An Expert Witness?: The 5 C’s; Charmaine Giving Testimony At The Sotomayor Hearings.

Americans United for Life (AUL) is a nonprofit, public-interest law and policy organization whose vision is a nation in which everyone is welcomed in life and protected in law. The first national pro-life organization in America, AUL has been committed to defending human life through vigorous judicial, legislative, and educational efforts at both the federal and state levels since 1971.

AUL’s legal team has been involved in every pro-life case before the U.S. Supreme Court including the successful defense of the Hyde Amendment. AUL also publishes Defending Life, the most comprehensive state-by-state legal guide of its kind, which is distributed annually to legislators across the nation.

Recently, Americans United for Life detailed the facts on taxpayer-funding of abortion during the debate over federal health care legislation, provided legal assistance to states working to opt out of abortion provisions created by federal health care law, and has played a major role in educating policymakers on the record of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.

What Makes An Expert Witness?: The 5 C’s; Charmaine Giving Testimony At The Sotomayor Hearings

July 16, 2009 | By | No Comments

Charmaine_Yoest_CSPAN_cropped.pngThis will be Charmaine’s third appearance before Congress as an Expert Witness. She has also given testimony to state and local legislative bodies.

This is a lot of expert advice-giving. So I sat down with Charmaine and asked her,

What makes a good expert witness?

She came up with 5 C’s to follow. Watch them today at the Senate hearings for the Sotomayor confirmation.

Credentials – What makes the witness so smart? Charmaine has a terminal degree in political science and government from the University of Virginia. It took ten years. She’s been widely published and is the president and CEO of a public interest law firm. And most important: she’s appeared on every cable network. Including Hardball with Chris Matthews. (This was years…and years ago.) The Judiciary Committee requested her CV.

Character – Can the witness be destroyed? Yes, it should make no difference on the messenger’s faults in delivering the message. But ad hominem arguments are used more in this sight and sound generation. Just ask Saul Alinsky or his students. Fortunately, Charmaine has no faults.

Content – What does the witness deliver? What the witness says must be correct and must be clear — both from the witness stand and when read back by a court reporter. This takes practice and rehearsal. The witness is making an oral argument that will be captured on paper and must be readable.

Concise – Does the witness sound-bite? Long winded academics need not apply. Our short attention span populace will wonder away mentally, change channels, or do an under the table Blackberry check. Shortness works. Short words; short sentences. And short responses. This takes more practice. Mark Twain reminds us that it take two weeks to come up with a good ad lib.

Compelling – Is the witness likable? Some 85 percent of all communication is non-verbal. What the witness says is important, of course. But do we believe her? Do we like her? And, yes, her story must be believable.

Consistent – Is the witness of one mind? Harry Truman wanted only one-armed lawyers and economists to advise him; that way they’d never say “on the other hand…” Opposing counsel will provide the opposing expertise. The court will get a second witness for the second opinion. One expert witness should not advocate both sides of the argument.

This will be a good hair day for Charmaine. She is ready for the Judiciary Committee and will make an appearance that even Sotomayor’s mentor, Perry Mason, would appreciate (and he didn’t care that much for women…) (Why do we have to know that stuff?)

Be sure to follow the hearings on Charmaine’s Twitter @CharmaineYoest and Your Business Blogger(R) @JackYoest.

Charmaine is also scheduled to appear on MSNBC tonight. More later.

Supreme Litmus Test: The Constitution; Americans Don’t Want Activists as Justices

May 21, 2009 | By | No Comments

constitution_we_the_people.gifAmericans United for Life commissioned a scientific poll — outrageously expensive — to learn what the public wants in a Justice sitting on the Supreme Court.

It would appear that the public would not want any nominee Obama might uncover. Alert Readers will recall that Obama said that the Constitution,

“reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day…

The original Constitution as well as the Civil War Amendments…But I think it is an imperfect document, and I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture, the Colonial culture nascent at that time.”

Nothing is perfect on this side of eternity. If the Constitution is to be ‘made perfect’ or ‘de-flawed’ the founding framers put an amendment process in place to ratify any changes — the states do this — not the Justices. Not the Executive Branch embodied in Obama, but the legislators.

Americans do not want Justices legislating. Goodness, we don’t even want Congress legislating…

Americans want fidelity to the Constitution.

Charmaine’s letter to the Senators follows with the top line data.

***

May 21, 2009

Dear Senators:

As we await President Obama’s announcement of his choice to fill the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy created by Justice David Souter’s retirement, new polling data reveal that Americans want Justices who disavow politics and who will uphold the Constitution and the rule of law as written, including on issues involving abortion.

By overwhelming majorities, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents agreed that judges should exercise restraint and check their own beliefs and predispositions at the courthouse door. They agreed on upholding common sense abortion regulations already in place in the states, including parental consent laws, and objecting to late-term abortions and taxpayer-funded abortions in the U.S. and overseas. Further, this consensus was held even among Americans who self-described themselves as “pro-choice.”

For example, on the role of federal judges, majorities of self-identified Republicans, Independents, and Democrats:

* Agreed that “When considering a new Justice for the United States Supreme Court, I would prefer that my United States Senators look for a man or woman who will interpret the law as it is written and not take into account his or her personal viewpoints and experiences.”

(Agreement: 92% of Republicans, 86% of Independents, 84% of Democrats, 91% of conservatives, 85% of moderates, 80% of liberals)

These same majorities were in vast agreement on abortion regulations as they:

* Opposed a nominee who “Supports late-term abortions, which are abortions in the 7th, 8th, or 9th months of pregnancy, and are also known as ‘Partial-Birth Abortions.’”

(Opposition: 89% of Republicans, 78% of Independents, 77% of Democrats, 89% of conservatives, 80% of moderates, and 67% of liberals)

* Opposed a nominee who “Opposes making it illegal for someone to take a girl younger than the age of 18 across state lines to obtain abortions without her parents’ knowledge.”

(73% of Republicans, 74% of Independents, 62% of Democrats, 73% of conservatives, 67% of moderates, 59% of liberals)

* Opposed a nominee who “Favors using tax dollars to pay for abortions here in the United States.”

(Opposition: 86% of Republicans, 67% of Independents, 61% of Democrats, 86% of conservatives, 62% of moderates, 54% of liberals)

* Opposed a nominee who “Favors using tax dollars to pay for abortions in other countries.”

(Opposition: 97% of Republicans, 86% of Independents, 84% of Democrats, 95% of conservatives, 87% of moderates, 76% of liberals)

* Opposed a nominee who “believes that the Courts, and not the voters or elected officials, should make policies on abortion in the United States.”

(78% of Republicans, 65% of Independents, 69% of Democrats, 75% of conservatives, 71% of moderates, 65% of liberals)

Significantly, the majority of Americans of all political and ideological cohorts expressed opposition to a suggested federal law that abolishes restrictions on abortions (including 93% of Republicans, 69% of Independents, and 72% of Democrats, 88% of conservatives, 77% of moderates, and 62% of liberals.)

This unnamed law is the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), a law that our next Justice could rule upon in an upcoming term of the U.S. Supreme Court. Fully nine-in-ten Americans who identified with a pro-life position on the six-point scale (90%) and 65% who selected a pro-choice stance on the same spectrum were dissatisfied with this potential legislation.

Finally, when asked whether the next Justice should be a man or a woman, the tri-partisan consensus also volunteered that it does not matter (79% of Republicans, 78% of Independents, 61% of Democrats, 78% of conservatives, 67% of moderates, and 62% of liberals — as well as 66% of women.)

Senators, we urge you to take these clear findings into consideration before you vote on the President’s nominee and recognize that the majority of your constituents — regardless of political party — fervently oppose any type of judicial activism that would rescind common sense laws on abortion and its regulations.

Sincerely,

Dr. Charmaine Yoest

President & CEO

Americans United for Life

###

Follow us on Twitter: @JackYoest @CharmaineYoest

Media Alert: Charmaine Quoted in The Wall Street Journal, Congressional Quarterly, Roll Call, United Press International, Chicago Tribune, HotAir

May 7, 2009 | By | No Comments

Washington Wire, Political Insight and Analysis From The Wall Street Journal’s Capital Bureau, Judicial Advocacy Groups Prepare for Supreme Court Battle, Susan Davis reports on politics,

Judicial advocacy groups are already drawing battle lines for a Supreme Court fight following news that Justice David Souter will retire at the end of the term.

Americans United for Life, a group that opposes abortion rights, said they will oppose any nominee who supports the Freedom of Choice Act to “elevate abortion to a fundamental right on the same place as the freedom of speech,” said president Dr. Charmaine Yoest. Adding: “Justice Souter’s retirement also represents a test for the Senate: will they uphold their duty to raise serious questions over a nominee’s judicial philosophy?”

Posturing on Supreme Court Pick Continues; No Selection Likely This Week

By Seth Stern, CQ Staff

Republicans warned Tuesday against rushing a Supreme Court nominee through the Senate, even as Democrats said no announcement of a successor to Justice David H. Souter would come this week.

In timing his first nomination to the nation’s highest court, President Obama is balancing competing political imperatives: He needs to wait long enough that key senators in both parties feel that he seriously entertained their suggestions and weighed their advice. But waiting too long would give his conservative critics the opportunity to mobilize and to attack potential candidates pre-emptively — making it more difficult for the Senate to confirm a new justice prior to the August recess….

Conservative activists urged Republicans not to allow Democrats to rush the process. Charmaine Yoest, [Ph.D.] president of Americans United for Life, urged Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the Judiciary Committee’s new ranking Republican, “to begin your role as ranking minority member by putting the brakes on rushing through a Supreme Court nominee.”

Political Fight Already Brewing Over Souter Retirement, By John Stanton, Roll Call Staff, Reports: Supreme Court Justice David Souter to Retire at End of Term

Battle lines over President Barack Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee were quickly solidifying Friday morning, even as the White House and Capitol Hill continued to wait for the official word that Justice David Souter would retire this summer…

While politicians at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue may be waiting to comment until Obama receives a formal communication on Souter’s intentions, interest groups were wasting no time drawing lines in the sand over a looming Senate confirmation fight.

Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, warned in a statement Friday morning that anti-abortion-rights organizations would vigorously oppose any nominee that interprets the Constitution to include protections for abortion.

“We will work to oppose any nominee for the Supreme Court who will read the Freedom of Choice Act into the Constitution in order to elevate abortion to a fundamental right on the same plane as the freedom of speech. In his search for a replacement for Justice Souter, President Obama should avoid a pro-abortion litmus test,” Yoest said.

Marge Baker, executive vice president at People for the American Way, urged Obama to stick by his campaign pledge to tap nominees who bring a level of empathy for minorities, the poor and women.

UPI, Abortion key issue in replacing Souter,

WASHINGTON, May 3 (UPI) — Abortion rights will occupy a prominent place in the political battle to replace U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter, say those on each side of the issue.

“Without a doubt, opponents of women’s freedom and privacy will use a vacancy on the court as an opportunity to further their attacks on nominees who have taken pro-choice positions, ” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, the abortion rights group.

Difficulties encountered by several of President Barack Obama’s choices for federal posts prove anti-abortion groups retain the power to derail the president’s agenda, despite the Democratic majority in Congress, said Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life.

“This new administration and the congressional majority may support radical abortion rights, but the American people as a whole do not,” Yoest said.

Supreme Court Justice David Souter: Lines drawn before anyone is chosen as a potential successor; Nominee prospects already shadowed by abortion debate, Chicago Tribune, By James Oliphant, Washington Bureau,

WASHINGTON — A full-scale battle on Capitol Hill over the next Supreme Court nominee could still be months away, but small skirmishes have been taking place all year…

Groups that oppose abortion rights have been testing their political viability since Obama took office, and they say the difficulties encountered by Johnsen and others show they retain the power to derail the Obama agenda, despite large Democratic majorities.

“This new administration and the congressional majority may support radical abortion rights, but the American people as a whole do not,” said Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life. “Canny political observers and politicians know this.”

HotAir,

Pro-life group to Leahy: Reject judicial activism in Souter replacement, by Ed Morrissey,

One of the organizers of the Justice Sunday rallies in 2005 has sent a letter to the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee demanding that Patrick Leahy ensure against confirming a judicial activist to replace David Souter. Dr. Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life reminds Leahy that Americans around the country have put reasonable restrictions on abortion, and that any judge that would undo those through legislative fiat should not get sent to the highest court…


Join Fight FOCA

###

Thank you (foot)notes:

Jack and Charmaine also blog at Reasoned Audacity. Your Business Blogger(R) of Management Training of DC, LLC, is an adjunct professor of business at the Northern Community College and is a licensed agent for the William Oncken Corporation, presenters of Managing Management Time(TM) fondly known as Monkey Management.

Tiny URL: http://tiny.cc/Z7ahw

Learn how our household learned to manage teamwork at http://tiny.cc/8SVkS

Charmaine Quoted in The Wall Street Journal; Planned Parenthood Forbids the Science of the Sonogram

January 23, 2009 | By | 4 Comments

cecile_richards_obama.jpgWhile we were marching in yesterday’s March for Life, Charmaine was interviewed by the WSJ on the Obama Abortion Bail Out executive order.

Cecile Richards, from Planned Parenthood and Obama

The reporter, LAURA MECKLER, asked about the current Mexico City Accord which prohibits USA taxpayers funding education on “reproductive freedom” to other countries. (The Alert Reader knows well that reproductive freedom/education is code for abortion.) The reporter also asked about Obama’s “sensitivity” on not signing the abortion bailout on the anniversary of Roe v Wade; 22 January — a day Pro-Lifers yearly recognize as the day the Supreme Court legalized abortion in all 57 50 states. Abortion is now legal through all nine months of pregnancy.

Meckler wrote,

…[A]bortion opponents were not mollified. Charmaine Yoest, [Ph.D.] president of Americans United for Life, thinks the change in policy amounts to U.S. tax dollars funding abortion and sees no positive outcome. But she called the delayed timing “a politically savvy move” by the White House.

Meckler also interviewed Cecile Richards,

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, which offers abortion and family planning, says she doesn’t care when President Obama changes the policy, as long as it is changed. “He has clearly stated his opposition to the global gag rule and his intention to overturn it,” she said.

Cecile Richards makes money selling and preforming abortions. If women and other countries cannot afford an abortion. The American tax payer will now pay for them in a Planned Parenthood office.

sonogram_side_by_side.jpg

There is one gag rule that Cecile Richards demands that Obama not change: No pregnant woman should see a sonogram of her baby.

85 percent of women who see the first picture of the child, do not have an abortion.

Planned Parenthood cannot have the science of the sonogram help women to choose.

***

Over 530,000 have signed the Americans United for Life petition to Fight FOCA. Be sure to sign up!

Your Business Blogger(R) and Charmaine spend time yesterday talking with Lila Rose who regularly captures on video Planned Parenthood covering up rapes. See

Planned Parenthood Rape Cover-up: Is a Sting Operation Ethical?

Media Alert: Charmaine In USA Today, Reuters, HuffingtonPost, Catholic OnLine

October 31, 2008 | By | 3 Comments

sonogram_side_by_side.jpgWe had a film crew from South Africa at the house today interviewing Charmaine on the campaign.

The rest of the world is confused at our continuing frictional discourse on abortion. Most of the world has real restrictions on abortion on national levels. The world does not understand that we do not.

The USA is one of the few countries in the world that has abortion on demand for any reason through all nine months (and longer under the Obama Born Alive Abortion Plan). Including China where the government makes the demand — not the mother.

Unless the baby is a girl — then everyone wants the child dead…

Or in India where abortion also is used for sex selection to allow only male babies born. Because boys are superior to girls as all advanced nations know.

USA abortion proponents tell us that the “health of the mother” is the only exception. Scare quotes are used in print and air quotes are used in conversation as John McCain does.

The quoting is used because the “health” issue is the exception that swallows the rule as Clarke Forsythe at Americans United for Life reminds us. Because anything, anything can be interpreted as “health.” As in mental health. As in a bad hair day. Any reason is sufficient reason to abort.

There are no exceptions.

The Supreme Court has so ruled. Not we the people.

This was the background for the reporting by Joan Biskupic at USA TODAY in

Election comes at key point for high court’s stance on abortion,

“This is a historic election,” says Charmaine Yoest, [Ph.D.] president of Americans United for Life. “With the next president having the opportunity to appoint one, two or even more justices,” she adds, the election could change the law “on the life issue.”

Ed Stoddard at Reuters writes, Win Or Lose, Sarah Palin To Be A Political Force,

If McCain loses the exit polls will be scoured but many pundits seem likely to blame it on centrist concerns about Palin during a financial crisis.

“It’s really clear that there are some people out there who would like to make her a scapegoat if things don’t go their way Tuesday,” said Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life Action, which opposes abortion rights.

“But she’s has very clearly connected with the base of the party and the life and family voters and I think that is going to give her a really strong base going forward whatever happens,” she said.

Jessica Arons writing at the Huffington Post has the best summation of the state-by-state, incremental Pro-Life strategy in Not All Politics Is Local: Connecting the Dots on Abortion Initiatives,

California Proposition 4 is endorsed by Americans United for Life, among others.

This is an organization that has worked to slowly erode women’s access to abortion care with bills that limit available abortion methods after 12 to 13 weeks of pregnancy; require waiting periods, biased counseling, and ultrasound viewings prior to an abortion; create burdensome and medically unnecessary regulations for abortion clinics; assert that fetuses feel pain during an abortion; and allow health care employees to refuse to counsel, refer, or treat patients for any service to which they object.

She intends it to be dire and evil, but it comes out good and accurate. Something Biblical in there…

Deacon Keith Fournier at Catholic On Line has SPECIAL: Interview with AUL Action’s Charmaine Yoest on ‘Open Letter to Barack Obama’

Your Business Blogger(R) also recommends Values Voters

CatholicWifeAndMom

Obama the Abortionist

Makeup of U.S. Supreme Court Hangs in the Balance

***

J. Margaret Datiles, staff counsel for Americans United for Life representing the interests of the weakest citizens of the United States and abroad has an article in The Washington Times, A price on your head. Good read. Would get us ready for money saving suicide plans under an Obama administration.

Presidential Debate: Bob Schieffer,Americans Want to Hear a Question About Abortion

October 15, 2008 | By | 4 Comments

charmaine_yoest_pew_2006_2.jpgAUL Action to Bob Schieffer: Americans Want to Hear a Question About Abortion

Last update: 10:21 a.m. EDT Oct. 15, 2008

WASHINGTON, Oct 15, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ –

Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D. president and CEO

AUL Action

As CBS News’ Bob Schieffer prepares to moderate Wednesday night’s final presidential candidate debate, AUL Action President Dr. Charmaine Yoest released the following letter.

Dear Mr. Schieffer,

As you prepare for Wednesday night’s final presidential debate, I know that you will be working to raise questions on domestic issues that are of interest to a wide range of Americans. I encourage you to ask each candidate about his views on abortion — something that has not been done at either of the previous debates.

Many Americans are single-issue voters when it comes to abortion, and many more view a candidate’s position on abortion as one of a handful of issues on which they select a candidate.

While each candidate’s position on Roe v. Wade is well known, it remains unknown what restrictions on abortion each candidate would support in order to achieve the widely agreed upon goal of reducing abortion.

And that is the question I encourage you to ask: What restrictions on abortion would you support in order to achieve the widely agreed upon goal of reducing the number of abortions in our country?

Possible follow up questions include:


— A recent study by Dr. Michael New (University of Alabama) found that parental involvement laws reduce abortion by 13-31%.

Do you support the right of parents to be involved in the medical decisions of their minor daughters when abortion is being considered?

– Do you support taxpayer funding for elective abortions?

– Do you support laws that mandate abortion clinics meet minimum health and safety standards commonly applied to other types of medical practices?

– Do you support laws requiring abortions be performed by licensed physicians?

Particularly given that Wednesday night’s debate was scheduled to focus on domestic policy, the American voters need to hear each candidate respond to at least one question that addresses the topic of abortion, which is one of the central policy questions of our day.

I wish you all the best as you prepare for and moderate the debate.

Sincerely,

Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D.

President & CEO

AUL Action

About AUL Action,

AUL Action is the legislative arm of Americans United for Life (AUL). The first national pro-life organization in America, AUL has been committed to defending human life through vigorous judicial, legislative, and educational efforts at both the federal and state levels since 1971. In addition, AUL has been involved in every pro-life case before the Supreme Court since Roe v. Wade.

SOURCE Americans United For Life

Copyright (C) 2008 PR Newswire. All rights reserved

End of Story

Who Would Obama Pick for the Courts?

October 1, 2008 | By | 2 Comments

The best indication of future performance is past performance.

We don’t know exactly who Obama will nominate for the courts, but we do know who — and what — he likes.

Watch Wendy Long in this compelling 60 second spot by the good-guys at the Judicial Confirmation Network:

26 Jun

By

Obama: Abortion & The Death of a Live Birth

June 26, 2008 | By |

“Let all the babies be born.

Then let us drown those we do not like.”

GK Chesterton, Babies and Distributism, GK’s Weekly, 11/12/32

GK Chesterton writes a prophesy: He sees evil and wants it to stop –

Barack Obama writes a policy: He sees no evil and wants it to continue.

Obama is the full-spectrum abortion candidate.

Abortion thru nine months

Abortion at birth

Abortion after birth

Obama demands that some babies born alive be left to die.

Obama makes clear what he will do about the killing of babies — born and pre-born,

“Thirty-five years after the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, it’s never been more important to protect a woman’s right to choose. Last year, the Supreme Court decided by a vote of 5-4 to uphold the Federal Abortion Ban, and in doing so undermined an important principle of Roe v. Wade: that we must always protect women’s health.

obama_wiping_out_America_one_baby.jpg“With one more vacancy on the Supreme Court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a women’s fundamental right to choose for the first time since Roe v. Wade. The next president may be asked to nominate that Supreme Court justice. That is what is at stake in this election.

Read More