Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image


FREE Management Training: The One Minute (Small Business) Manager Meets The Monkey

July 25, 2009 | By | No Comments

You Are Invited to a FREE* Management Seminar.

The Manager’s Formula for Success

The One Minute (Small Business) Manager Meets the Monkey: An Introduction

How to Manage Your Staff and How to Manage Your Manager

Well-run organizations have managers and staff who work to control events, instead of events controlling them. They anticipate the future . . . adapt to the present . . . and learn from the past.

Who: Managers who need to get in control of events or to better influence results

What: An introduction to The One Minute Manager Meets the Monkey

1. The Management Equation:

Vocational Time vs. Management Time

2. How Management Really Works:

The Molecule of Management

3. The Who and How of Promotions:

The Freedom Scale

When: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 7:00pm to 8:30pm

Where: Northern Virginia Community College,

Alexandria Campus, campus map

The new Bisdorf Auditorium, room 196

3001 North Beauregard Street, Alexandria, VA 22311 street map

Parking and Directions here.

Why: Improve managerial effectiveness and staff efficiency.

Cost: FREE* Registration is helpful click here. Space is limited.

The class will reference the work of Ken Blanchard and Bill Oncken in their book The One Minute Manager Meets The Monkey.

Also cited will be the Harvard Business Review article, Managing Management Time: Who’s Got the Monkey?, published in 1974, by Bill Oncken, Jr.. The article, an edited excerpt of the Managing Management Time™ seminar, has gone on to become one of the two most requested reprints in the history of the Review.

The training summarized in the article is sometimes called the “Monkey Management” seminar.

Jack Yoest, Adjunct Professor of Management and President of Management Training of DC, is a former Armored Cavalry Officer in Combat Arms.

His military leadership training and management experience guides his philosophy at the core of Managing Management Time™. He has managed software, health care and international human resource management companies.

His experience is in Military, Academia, Early-Stage, Non-Profits, Fortune 500 and Government.

Jack also served in the Governor’s Office of the Commonwealth Virginia as Assistant Secretary for Health and Human Resources where he acted as the Chief Technology Officer for the secretariat. He was responsible for the successful Year 2000 (Y2K) conversion for the 16,000-employee unit.

He was also a manager with a medical device start-up and helped move sales from zero to over $12 million, resulting in a buy-out by Johnson & Johnson. Jack has consulted in China and India.

Questions? email or call Jack at 202.215.2434 to save your spot.

Jack Yoest


Adjunct Professor

Your Business Blogger(R)


Thank you (foot)notes:

*FREE. The Alert Reader knows well that there is no free lunch. But some products or services can be rendered at NO CHARGE as a component of an organization’s marketing budget. The taxpayers of the Commonwealth of Virginia have provided the compensation for Your Business Professor at NOVA.

Who’s Got The Monkey? from the Harvard Business Review

Following is the PowerPoint for the lecture:

One Minute Manager Meets the Monkey.ppt

Suggested class reading:

Do You Have An Incompetent Manager? From The Washington Post

One Minute YouTube Introduction: The Manager’s Formula For Success.

The six part management training video.

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.

Americans United for Life Launches New Website:

June 12, 2009 | By | No Comments

Most people know very little about Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor. Americans United for Life will be alerting the public about the Pro-Abortion-Choice affinities of Sotomayor and the abortion agenda of president Obama.

AUL has published a new website

Click on the banner for outstanding research and analysis to learn about Sotomayor’s judicial activism and the personnel policies of president Obama.

Alert Readers know that Charmaine served in presidential personnel in the (real) West Wing of the White House in the Ronald Reagan Administration. The direction from The Gipper was to hire carefully. Personnel is Policy.

President Obama shares more that oratorical elegance with Reagan. Obama also knows that Personnel is Policy.

Sotomayor is the personification of Obama’s abortion policy.


Follow us on Twitter: jackyoest and charmaineyoest

Management Training in Northern Virginia & DC in July and August

June 11, 2009 | By | No Comments

jack_yoest_washington_post_2008.jpg Management is getting things done through the active support of others.

These “others” are more than your direct reports. And they are key to the Manager’s success.

In this six week course we will review how the experienced manager,

1) Gains the support of his network,

2) Practices followership as well as leadership, and

3)Trains his staff to be self-reliant, not boss-reliant

We will review strategies that women can use to break the glass ceiling.

Your Business Blogger(R)

interviewed in The Washington Post

Watch the video clips at the end for a preview: The One Minute Manager Meets The Monkey.

The class is perfect for the manager looking for his next assignment.


The best time to look for a job is when you have a job.

Question: But what if you don’t have a job?

How to look?

And what to do meanwhile?

Answer: Go back to school.

Alert Reader, FaceBook and Twitter Friend, Janet, asks Your Business Blogger(R) about a common challenge:

What do I do about gaps in employment history; gaps on my resume?

If you are in this situation here’s what the job seeker can do to ‘mind the gap.’

Enroll in a course at your local community college.

Continuous learning is, well, continuous.

And it doesn’t have to be expensive.

Here are three F.A.B.’s, the Features, Advantages and Benefits of going back to class.

If you have a job or not.

First Feature

Meet a professor


Learn subject matter.

Learn presentation — interview — life skills.

Get referrals.


Cheaper than a personal coach.

Get a character reference letter.

Get employed faster

Second Feature

Meet other inquisitive minds


Expand your Friend contact database.

Challenge assumptions.

Increased network of contacts for job referrals.


Faster learning.

Cheaper than a job placement agency.

Get employed faster

Third Feature

Regularly scheduled class times.


Encourages the student to get out of bed, out of the house.

Provides structure to the job seekers’ week.

Forces the student to walk past career counselors’ office.


Get more done in less time.

Spend less time in Starbucks.

Get employed faster.

The purpose of continuing education is the gaining of new knowledge, skills and abilities. But this is even more important when one is out of work. A perspective employer is going to ask you a number of questions.

The first interview question will be, “What are you doing now?”

The perfect answer is, “As I look for my next position, I am taking a business refresher course at my local community college.”

Remember: the best time to find a job is when you are working — going to class is your job.

You may be unemployed, but you are busy: You are using your time wisely while you look for work.

As it happens, the Northern Virginia Community College has the perfect solution to help you find your next job.

Sit in my class.

NOVA has openings in my Business 200 class, Principles of Management. We will meet every Monday & Wednesday nights at the Arlington Campus, near the Ballston Metro. Beginning July 1 for six weeks.

Alert Readers know that Your Business Blogger(R) charges outrageous fees for a two day management seminar.

The same instructor at NOVA will set you back about 100 bucks a credit hour or about 500 bucks fully loaded for a three credit-hour class.

Course topics covered in Principles of Management:

1. Intro to Management

2. History of Management

3. Organizational Environments and Culture

4. Ethics and Social Responsibility

5. Planning and Decision Making

6. Organizational Strategy

7. Innovation and Change

8. Global Management

9. Designing Adaptive Organizations

10. Managing Teams

11. Managing Human Resource System

12. Managing Individuals and a Diverse Workforce

13. Motivation

14. Leadership

15. Managing Communication

16. Control

17. Managing Information

18. Managing Service and Manufacturing Operations

Call now to register. Operators are standing by.

Or apply on-line.

This after hours, summer evening class is the perfect career-management strategy and allows the attendee to job-hunt early in the day.

Come join my class. And get employed faster.


Thank you (foot)notes:

For more on your job search: tattoos, lying, resume enhancement and trick questions follow links below.

Read Job Search? PASS This Test

See how “Sarah” is getting it right. To get your next job, assignment or project PASS this test! See how the mythical composite Sarah learned new behaviors to find new opportunities.

As first appeared in The Daily Progress, Charlottesville, Virginia, January 20, 2002

To get a job, first get a plan and then get busy…

Your Business Blogger(R) is of a certain age from a certain generation with teenage children and is confused by various body art. I do not understand tattoos. (Except on my dad, who was in the Navy…) A future employer also may not understand body art. Not even Starbucks. Tiny URL:

What is the first question hiring managers ask themselves? Get a Blog; Get Hired — And the First Question

Be sure to ask some questions in your job interview, Job Interview: 3 Questions for Your Prospective Boss.

The Lie: A Guide to Fibbing in the Job Interview, it’s not what you think.

Here’s what your interviewer is really looking for, Job Interview: How To Tell If the Candidate Will Lie, Cheat, Steal?

There is actually controversy on hiring competence, Hiring Super Stars vs Tolerating Turkeys

Yes, High School still counts. Forever. What’s the One Best Question to Ask a Job Candidate?

Why Were You Really Hired? The Two Qualities That Count.

Follow me on Twitter: @jackyoest

Watch The One Minute Manager Meets the Monkey; short video

Part One

Watch the other videos at the jump.

Read More

Heather Smith, Top Radio Talk-Show Producer Joins Americans United for Life

June 8, 2009 | By | No Comments

Alert Readers following on Twitter know that Americans United for Life is making numerous key, high talent, hires,

Top Radio Talk-Show Producer Heather Smith Joins Americans United for Life.


Heather Smith

Washington, DC — Heather Smith has joined Americans United for Life (AUL) as Director of Communications. Her focus will be to oversee corporate communications including traditional media, internet, and new media.

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, AUL President & CEO commented: “I am very pleased Heather is joining our team. As a veteran producer of radio, television, and film, she brings a wealth of experience and an insider’s perspective to our communications efforts.”

Miss Smith said: “It is a great honor to join the foremost pro-life organization in the country. I look forward to expanding AUL’s media outreach and working with the AUL legal team toward our goal of seeing a nation in which everyone is welcomed in life and protected in law.”

She has produced three top-10 nationally syndicated radio programs: The G. Gordon Liddy Show, The Laura Ingraham Show, and most recently, The Lars Larson Show. She has also worked at FOX News Channel, where she produced Weekend Live with Tony Snow and FOX News Live, and booked guests for FOX’s breaking news special programming. In addition, she has produced film documentaries hosted by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and by Dick Morris. Previously she booked interviews for WFLA-AM’s The Shannon Burke Show and worked on several documentaries for PBS and History Channel.

Miss Smith has been in front of the microphone as well, having begun her media career in 1997 as an alternative rock disc jockey and radio talk show host. She has also been interviewed on FOX News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, and nationally syndicated talk radio programs about grassroots-activism campaigns she oversaw in Florida.

Please join us in welcoming Heather Smith to the Pro-Life professional legal-eagles at Americans United for Life.

Sotomayor: Who Sleeps Better at Night, AUL or NARAL? Charmaine Interviewed in USA Today And by AP

June 5, 2009 | By | No Comments

Alert Readers following on Twitter know that Charmaine has been in a number of media interviews.

Sometimes as a source.

Sometimes as a target.

See her quote in USA Today this morning on the Sotomayor nomination,

Sotomayor, a trial judge for six years and appellate judge for 11, has not ruled on a case involving Roe v. Wade. She has decided a few cases at the fringes of the issue, yet those defy predictions.

On Wednesday, Feinstein explained why she will persist on the abortion rights question: “I remember what it was like when abortion was illegal, and the lives of young desperate women were in jeopardy.” She said she worries that “Americans no longer appreciate what it would mean if (abortion rights) were taken away.”

Nominees usually elude such questions during their hearings.

“I don’t have concerns about this nominee in the sense that I think there is something on the record (against abortion rights),” says Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights. “We just think it’s important for Supreme Court nominees to say where they stand.”

Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, agrees. While observing that she and Northup both see nothing definitive in Sotomayor’s record, Yoest says, “I think Nancy’s probably sleeping a little better at night.”

JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS at AP interviewed Charmaine for GOP leader doesn’t rule out Sotomayor filibuster

Abortion-rights opponents circulated a 1988 legal brief joined by the PRLDEF that took a position in strong support of abortion rights and argued strenuously against dismantling the underpinnings of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that established a woman’s right to end her pregnancy.

The brief, submitted to the Supreme Court to support a challenge to a Missouri law making it illegal to use public officials or facilities for abortions, warns of “the danger of tampering with the core framework of Roe v. Wade.” The brief said doing so would disproportionately harm poor women of color. The high court ultimately upheld the Missouri law in the case, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services.

There is no evidence or indication that Sotomayor had any role in drafting the brief, or the PRLDEF’s decision to join it. Cesar A. Perales, now the group’s president, said its board has never been involved in deciding which cases the organization takes on or matters of litigation. Board members sometimes do, however, help decide which legal issues the organization should focus on, Perales said.

But abortion-rights opponents said the brief raises questions about Sotomayor’s stance on Roe.

“It’s explicitly a pro-abortion argument,” said Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life. “That specific case makes it very difficult for her to say that she doesn’t have a position” on abortion rights.

Other citations on Sotomayor,

CitizenLink reports,

In a recent poll commissioned by Americans United for Life, 69 percent of respondents said they do not want a Supreme Court justice 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.”

The Catholic Review writes

Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, a public-interest law and policy organization, said in a statement that “for all the president’s talk of finding ‘common ground,’ this appointment completely contradicts that hollow promise.” Without explaining why, Yoest said Sotomayor’s “judicial philosophy undermines common ground” and called her “a radical pick that divides America.”

Be sure to follow on Twitter, Jack and Charmaine.

Professor Robert P. George is Personally Opposed to the Killing of Abortionists

June 4, 2009 | By | One Comment

Here is a tactic that Saul Alinski, mentor to president Obama and author of Rules for Radicals, would endorse: ridicule. This is difficult — comedy is hard work — and does not come easy for the good-guys to use. But Dr. George pulls it off.

“I am personally opposed to killing abortionists. However, inasmuch as my personal opposition to this practice is rooted in sectarian (Catholic) religious belief in the sanctity of human life, I am unwilling to impose it on others who may, as a matter of conscience, take a different view.

Of course, I am entirely in favor of policies aimed at removing the root causes of violence against abortionists. Indeed, I would go as far as supporting mandatory one-week waiting periods, and even non-judgmental counseling, for people who are contemplating the choice of killing an abortionist.

I believe in policies that reduce the urgent need some people feel to kill abortionists while, at the same time, respecting the rights of conscience of my fellow citizens who believe that the killing of abortionists is sometimes a tragic necessity–not a good, but a lesser evil.

In short, I am moderately ‘pro-choice.’”

–Prof. Robert P. George

Media Alert: Charmaine FOX Video; Quoted in The Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, WorldNetDaily, CQ

May 28, 2009 | By | No Comments

The Sotomayor nomination: Charmaine taped ABC and is scheduled for CNN tonight at 8pm. The humidity is down, but will her hair stay up? The Big Question.

Follow us on Twitter; jackyoest & charmaineyoest

Charmaine on FOX debating abortion and

incremental sonogram legislation.

In The Washington Post, Battle Lines Are Drawn On Sotomayor Nomination; Ideology, Abortion and Remarks on Ethnicity Come to Fore; Washington Community Reacts to Sotomayor; Members of the Washington community give their opinion on Obama’s decision to nominate Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, By Robert Barnes, Washington Post, Staff Writer, Thursday, May 28, 2009,

Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, described Sotomayor as a “radical pick.” But Yoest acknowledged that Sotomayor’s most notable ruling on abortion was on the conservative side. In the ruling, she said the Bush administration had the right to prohibit abortions by overseas organizations receiving U.S. funding, as well as the right to prohibit the groups from speaking out against the restrictions.

Yoest said Sotomayor was following the court’s precedents, something she might not do if she were on the Supreme Court. “There is no doubt that Judge Sotomayor’s philosophy is that she is not only a practitioner of activism, but a defender of it,” she said.

On the other side of the debate, Northup’s concern is just the opposite. “That decision certainly doesn’t suggest she’s a judicial activist,” [Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights] said, adding that her organization knows of no instance in which Sotomayor has talked about Roe or expressed support for abortion rights. “We don’t want any Souters, either,” she said. The reference was to retiring Justice David H. Souter, whose jurisprudence surprised his advocates once he joined the court…

From The Chicago Tribune on line, Abortion views hard to judge; Rights activists fear Sotomayor not in their court

“What we know about her we like, but I don’t know the answer on abortion rights,” Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, said in an interview.

Abortion opponents say they are convinced Sotomayor is an “extreme” supporter of abortion, although several acknowledge they do not have specific evidence of her views.

“She is a radical pick that divides America,” said Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life.

WND CHANGING OF THE GUARD, Limbaugh: Obama’s judicial pick a ‘racist’ Criticizes comment that Hispanic woman can make better decisions than white male, Posted: May 26, 2009, By Bob Unruh, © 2009 WorldNetDaily,

Charmaine Yoest, chief of Americans United for Life, said the nomination torches any statements by Obama he wants “common ground” over the abortion war.

“A vote to confirm Judge Sotomayor as the next Supreme Court Justice is a vote to strip Americans of the ability to choose for themselves how to regulate abortion. Our recent polling data speaks to this point of judicial activism and as a woman, I don’t believe she ‘represents’ American women,” she said.

“The Supreme Court took on the role of the ‘National Abortion Control Board’ in 1973 with Roe vs. Wade, and Judge Sotomayor will further entrench the court’s self-appointed role as the sole arbiter of abortion policy. Based on her judicial philosophy, she will work to elevate unrestricted, unregulated, and taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand to a fundamental constitutional right by reading the sweeping Freedom of Choice Act – also known as FOCA – into the Constitution,” she continued.

Join Fight FOCA

Fearful of Latino Losses, GOP Cautious with Sotomayor

By Jonathan Allen, CQ Staff,

That emotion was clear in the reactions of conservative interest groups to the nomination.

“This appointment would provide a pedestal for an avowed judicial activist to impose her personal policy and beliefs onto others from the bench at a time when the courts are at a crossroad and critical abortion regulations — supported by the vast majority of Americans — like partial-birth abortion and informed consent laws lie in the balance,” said Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of Americans United for Life, a group that opposes abortion. Other conservative groups called Sotomayor a radical judicial activist — words that in battles past have been used to rally core supporters, yet neutral toward Hispanics, just like the strategists recommend.


Thank you (foot)notes:

Brayton gives voice and ink to the position that Roe was well reasoned. Not many liberals even assume that position any longer.

Sotomayor and Judges Making “Policy” Posted on: May 28, 2009 9:09 AM, by Ed Brayton

The point is that the line between interpreting the law and making policy is not nearly as clear as conservatives want people to think. Indeed, here is a textbook example of what conservatives really mean when they say a judge should not “set policy” from Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life, speaking about Sotomayor:

“She believes the role of the court is to set policy which is exactly the philosophy that led to the Supreme Court turning into the National Abortion Control Board denying the American people to right to be heard on this critical issue,” Yoest said. “This appointment would provide a pedestal for an avowed judicial activist to impose her personal policy and beliefs onto others from the bench at a time when the courts are at a crossroad and critical abortion regulations – supported by the vast majority of Americans – like partial-birth abortion and informed consent laws lie in the balance.”

They think that Roe v Wade was an example of “making policy” but that simply isn’t true. Whether you agree with it or not, Roe v Wade was a decision based on the constitutionality of laws forbidding abortion. So very much like “judicial activism” and its various cognates, when conservatives talk about judges “making policy” or “legislating from the bench” all they really mean is “judges ruling in ways we don’t like.”

Steve Benen writing the Political Animal column at The Washington Monthly, May 28, 2009


Shortly after Sotomayor was introduced as the nominee, Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, quickly blasted her as “a radical pick” who “believes the role of the court is to set policy which is exactly the philosophy that led to the Supreme Court turning into the National Abortion Control Board.”

What was that based on? Apparently nothing. The right assumes she’s pro-choice; the left assumes she’s pro-choice. But no one seems to know whether she’s pro-choice or not.

David G. Savage and Peter Nicholas reporting for the LA Times,

May 28, 2009

Abortion rights groups concerned about Sotomayor’s stance; Obama’s Supreme Court nominee has little record on issues related to Roe vs. Wade

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.


Dr. Charmaine Yoest

President & CEO

Americans United for Life


Follow us on Twitter: @JackYoest @CharmaineYoest