Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image

Media Appearances

Listen to Charmaine on NPR on the Sotomayor Nomination

May 29, 2009 | By | No Comments

Alert Readers following on Twitter know that Charmaine was interviewed on NPR yesterday. Did Nina Totenberg actually say “Pro-Life” and not “Anti-Abortion”?

Maybe the media is a-moving? Becoming, well, fair and balanced…?

Not likely. Michael Medved author of Hollywood vs America reminds us that journalists in the Main Stream Media began their descent into bias when they turned into Truth Tellers rather than Reporters of Fact.

The truth is, of course, what the liberals think it is. And liberals are usually wrong.

Listen to the interview here on Obama’s Supreme Court Nomination, Sotomayor.

So why do Hollywood and the newspapers — going broke — continue to produce product against American values (including that business drive to make a profit)? Read Making Money vs Making a Movie.

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

SHE’S PRO-CHOICE, RIGHT?…. ,

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

Media Alert: Reactions to Charmaine’s Interviews on Sotomayor

May 27, 2009 | By | No Comments

Yes, yes, the nomination is important, but we’ve got the real news — our new SWAG just arrived. We just got the new AUL baseball caps and golf shirts. Branding lives!

If you want to know how to get one, give us a tweet on Twitter @JackYoest @CharmaineYoest

On the CBS News Political HotSheet, Sotomayor Nomination Renews Roe V. Wade Debate, Posted by Declan McCullagh,

Americans United for Life said she would “impose her personal policy and beliefs onto others from the bench,” and pointed to a YouTube video saying that courts of appeal are where “policy is made.”

Join Fight FOCA

FrontPage Magazine, By John Perazzo reports, Sonia Sotomayor – Obama’s New Activist Judge,

A number of notable conservatives, meanwhile, have taken a different view of the nomination. For instance, Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, called Sotomayor “an avowed judicial activist” who “believes the role of the Court is to set policy,” and who will likely “impose her personal policy and beliefs onto others from the bench.”

Dahlia Lithwick at Slate writes Republicans won’t beat Sonia Sotomayor,

The case against Sotomayor–to the extent it’s being made, is that her life is such a tumultuous blend of personal hardship and deep feeling that she cannot separate the law from her own agenda. In short, she feels too much….[Goodness!] Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, rushed to describe 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.”

Our liberal friends at Media Matters write, Media uncritically repeat claim that New Haven firefighters case shows Sotomayor is an activist.

The Guardian has Sotomayor: closet moderate

Pro Ecclesia does not quite understand the separation of powers and the work and role of the Court, Sotomayor Blurs Lines in Abortion War [UPDATED],

“She is a radical pick that divides America,” [ED.: Really? She seems like a fairly safe and conventional (albeit clearly liberal) pick to my "untrained" eyes.] Americans United for Life said this morning. “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.’” [ED.: NEWS FLASH!!! The Supreme Court, like it or not, DOES set policy. They have ever since a little case back in the early 1800s called Marbury v. Madison.]

The anti-science women who run Choice Matters, not only don’t know when life begins — also do not know that Americans United for Life believes that the Sotomayor nomination divides America.

RaceWire claims to be color blind. Or maybe just blind, She rests her case.

Michael Sean Winters at America writes Sonia Sotomayor: A Different Pro-Life Angle

It took just about an hour for Americans United for Life, a pro-life lobbying outfit, to denounce the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. “Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy undermines common ground,” the group said in a press release. “She is a radical pick that divides America.”

The Plum LineGreg Sargent’s blog writes, Steele: I Really Don’t Know Whether Sotomayor Is An “Activist” Judge,

Steele’s fellow Republicans and conservatives, however, say those Sotomayor comments prove she is an activist judge. Senator Orrin Hatch told MSNBC yesterday that Sotomayor’s 2005 claim “means you’re going to get an activist justice on the Supreme Court.” Americans United for Life denounced her as an “avowed judicial activist.”

Steele doesn’t agree. Yet.

David Brody, CBN News White House Correspondent, reports at CBN News, Conservatives Down on ‘Policy Maker’ Sotomayor

“This is a judge who has gone on the record in defense of the idea of judicial activism so it’s pretty certain that she’s going to approach the bench with an intention of imposing her own personal political preferences into the process,” said Charmaine Yoest with Americans United for Life.

Campus Progress has talking points…that are actually quite good. Maybe not what the liberal Obama-lamas intended, Meet Judge Sotomayor.

###

Thank you (foot)notes:

Read the latest email from AUL at the jump.

Read More

Media Alert: Charmaine Quoted in Sotomayor Nomination; Watch the AP Clip

May 26, 2009 | By | No Comments

Charmaine _AP.jpgPresident Obama nominated Judge Sotomayor and Charmaine offered an analysis of her judicial temperament.

Charmaine on AP video

Click image for YouTube

Alert Readers following us on Twitter (@JackYoest; @CharmaineYoest) know that Your Business Blogger(R) performed duties today as wheel man of the monster SUV. The Dreamer filled the assignment as executive assistant as Charmaine did a number of media interviews across Your Nation’s Capital.

But the real issue: How does Charmaine’s hair look on camera? It was a humid mess in DC today…

Charmaine also made a number of terrific hires today at Americans United for Life. Announcements to follow.

Some of her media hits include;

The Associated Press

Sotomayor: A liberal record _ but not entirely so

The Associated Press

Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, called Sotomayor "a radical pick that divides America." The most controversial civil rights lawsuit

Obama nominates Sotomayor to Supreme Court

CNN International – USA

Charmaine Yoest, head of Americans United for Life, ripped Obama's choice of Sotomayor, calling it "a radical pick that divides America.

Some Voices Rise Against Sotomayor's Nomination

ABC News – USA

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, the president of Americans United for Life, calls Sotomayor “a radical pick that divides America. She believes the role of the Court is

The Rational Hysterics

Newsweek – USA

And even though Sotomayor has decided only a single abortion case (against the abortion-rights side) Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life

re: National Abortion Control Board – Kathryn Jean Lopez – Bench

By benchmemos@nationalreview.com

Tuesday, May 26, 2009. re: National Abortion Control Board [Kathryn Jean Lopez]. I think Charmaine Yoest probably won't be a surrogate for the RNC on this issue. 05/26 10:43 AM · Share

Bench Memos – http://bench.nationalreview.com/

Sotomayor Blurs Lines in Abortion War

U.S. News & World Report – Washington,DC,USA

"She is a radical pick that divides America," Americans United for Life said this morning. "She believes the role of the court is to set policy,

See all stories on this topic

SaddleBrooke Democrats » Blog Archive » Neo-cons begin the nay

Charmaine Yoest, the president of Americans United for Life, blasted Sotomayor as “a radical pick that divides America.” The Judicial Confirmation Network circulated a memo from its counsel, Wendy Long, calling Sotomayor a “favorite of

SaddleBrooke Democrats – http://www.saddlebrookedemocrats.org/

TONY PHYRILLAS: 'Avowed Judicial Activist Judge Who Undermines

By TONY PHYRILLAS

From Americans United for Life (AUL) President & CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest: "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

TONY PHYRILLAS – http://tonyphyrillas.blogspot.com/

Sotomayor: A liberal record _ but not entirely so – Kansas City Star

Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, called Sotomayor "a radical pick that divides America."</p><p>The most controversial civil rights lawsuit of her time as a judge concerns the race discrimination claims of white

Kansas City Star: Politics – http://www.kansascity.com/153/index.xml

Obama Supreme Court Pick Lacks Abortion History, but Criticized

By lsn@LifeSiteNews.com

Americans United for Life (AUL) President & CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest responded to the nomination, saying, "For all the President's talk of finding 'common ground,' this appointment completely contradicts that hollow promise.

LifeSiteNews.com Headlines – http://www.lifesite.net/

Is Sotomayor an Abortion Centrist? (Updated) – Steven Waldman

By Steve Waldman

"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," said the group's president, Charmaine Yoest.

Steven Waldman – http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/

Opposing Views: THEY SAID WHAT?: Mixed Reactions Pour in on Obama

Charmaine Yoest, president, Americans United for Life "(Sotomayor) brings a lifelong commitment to equality, justice and opportunity, as well as the respect of her peers, unassailable integrity, and a keen intellect informed by

Opposing Views – Issues, Experts,… – http://www.opposingviews.com/

PCC List: Majority of Americans Believe Abortion Hurts Women

By Michele Shoun

In a new national survey conducted by the Polling Company for the pro-life organization Americans United for Life, 68 percent said they know a woman who had one while 30 percent said they did not. Of those who knew a post-abortive woman

PCC List – http://pcclist.blogspot.com/

BrothersJudd Blog: AN EASY RIDE:

"She is a radical pick that divides America," Americans United for Life said this morning. [...] Despite the purported outrage by conservative groups, Sotomayor's thin record on abortion is most likely a relief to those groups–and may

BrothersJudd Blog – http://brothersjuddblog.com/

Read More

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

Memo to Senate Members: What do Americans Want in the Next Supreme Court Justice? New Polling Data Reveal Answers

May 21, 2009 | By | No Comments

MEDIA ADVISORY

TELE-NEWS CONFERENCE

Memo to Senate Members: What do Americans Want in the Next Supreme Court Justice?

New Polling Data Reveal Answers

WHAT

Tele-News Conference to share a memo from Americans United for Life (AUL) urging all members of the Senate to consider fresh polling data on what Americans want in the next Supreme Court Justice. The data show that while the U.S. is supposedly a “divided” nation on the issue of abortion, overwhelming majorities of Americans agree on numerous issues relevant to the selection of a Supreme Court Justice, including:

· The role of interpreting the law vs. judicial activism based on personal viewpoints and opinion

· The role of states in regulating abortion

· Agreement/disagreement with positions held by potential nominees on

o Late term abortion

o Tax dollars paying for abortion

o Parental notification/consent before abortion

· Demographic preferences such as desired gender of the next Justice

The data also detail the political party, past voting record and demographic make-up of those polled. Q&A will follow a brief discussion of the poll findings.

WHO

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President of Americans United for Life (AUL) (www.AUL.org)

Kellyanne Conway, President of The Polling Company, Inc. (www.PollingCompany.com)

WHERE

Tele-News Conference

For dial-in phone number and pass code to attend, contact:

Colleen O’Boyle (ext. 122) or Arina Grossu (ext. 104) at (703) 683-5004

WHEN Thursday, May 21st

10:00 AM ET

Media Alert: Charmaine on FOX Why Does USA Poll Pro-Life? & Abortion Debate Intensifes in National Journal

May 19, 2009 | By | 2 Comments

Charmaine recently appeared on FOX discussing the shift in polling — America is now 51 percent Pro-Life according to Gallup:


Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D. on FOX

Charmaine was also interviewed for National Journal,

Abortion Debate Intensifies, Awaits Nominee, Tuesday, By Amy Harder, May 19, 2009

Abortion has re-emerged as a hot issue, and if history is any indication, it will get even hotter when President Obama makes his Supreme Court nomination.

Obama — who first spoke out for a nominee with “empathy” before a Planned Parenthood audience in 2007 — rekindled conservatives’ wariness over the weekend with his speech at the University of Notre Dame, calling for “fair-minded” dialogue and “common ground.”

Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, found Obama’s speech at Notre Dame troubling in light of the names at the top of his short list. “He continues to want to use rhetoric to describe a mythical common ground while at the same time pursuing a real radical actual agenda,” Yoest said. Her group recently released a report criticizing possible nominees such as Solicitor General Elena Kagan, appellate judges Sonia Sotomayor and Diane Wood, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and outgoing Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears.


Join Fight FOCA

###

Thank you (foot)notes:

Follow Jack and Charmaine on Twitter: @JackYoest @CharmaineYoest

Pro-Life Group Details Pro-Abortion Views of Likely Obama Supreme Court Picks, by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor, May 19, 2009,

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — A leading pro-life legal group has compiled a detailed analysis of the pro-abortion views of the several leading contenders from which President Barack Obama is expected to pick the next Supreme Court justice.

Americans United for Life indicates pro-life advocates should expect a fierce battle over abortion with virtually any of the leading candidates.

Read, AUL’s short list for justice, with two notes to readers…

Media Alert: Charmaine on FOX News; Article up on Human Events

May 18, 2009 | By | No Comments

charmaine_obamacon_me_yoest.png

Charmaine is scheduling to appear on FOX today — taped interview on the recent Gallup poll on 51 percent Pro-Life finding and probable Supreme Court nominees. Hit times will be tonight and possibly through out the day.

Also see her article in Human Events,

Obama’s Short List of Abortion Supporters, by Charmaine Yoest, [Ph.D.] 05/18/2009

Americans are used to hearing nominees for the Supreme Court carefully hedge their answers to any question related to Roe v. Wade and abortion. This reflects a political reality in which any hint of sympathy toward defending unborn life in the law spells confirmation challenges for a potential nominee.

In contrast, this political reality does not exist for those committed to an abortion-rights ideology. A study Americans United for Life released this week examining the life-related views of President Obama’s rumored “short-list” for the Supreme Court documents demonstrated on-the-record evidence of the potential nominees’ pro-abortion opinions expressed consistently and without hesitation.

charmaine_wnd.jpg

Read the entire article here.

Follow us on Twitter: @JackYoest @CharmaineYoest

Also see America is Pro-Life.

Media Alert: Charmaine Quoted In LA Times 51% identify as ‘pro-life’ in U.S. Why The Change?

May 16, 2009 | By | No Comments

The household of Your Business Blogger(R) has been involved in a number of studies — commissioning statistical polling.

A number of years ago, Charmaine’s dissertation centered on data gathered with a $230,000 budget. To pass academic peer-reviewed scrutiny, she was most careful in ‘framing questions’ to get unbiased responses. And she had an expert team study the study so that all the actors involved in the questioning understood the questions.

The Little Woman knows statistical sampling and polling pit-falls.

It was of great interest to learn about the new Gallup poll showing a move of America from Pro-Choice to Pro-Life. Reporters began calling.

Charmaine did an outstanding interview with the LA Times reporter, Robin Abcarian, who was engaging and fair. (I know this ’cause I was driving while they talked on the phone…) The interview follows later.

I wanted to know more on the cause of the dramatic shift to America’s current Pro-Life self-identification. So I asked Charmaine, Why such a big change?

This passes for pillow talk in our house…

She says that America has always been Pro-Life and there are four reasons for the poll shift:

Reframing Pro-Choice,
Obama Backlash,
Advances in Technology,
Financial Independence

Reframing Pro-Choice

How polling questions are framed can prompt a particular answer. But this was not the challenge of Gallup: They have asked the same question for years. The issue may well be the question itself. It seems that the public is beginning to understand when an abortion occurs — in which trimester — is important to being Are you Pro-Life or Pro-Choice in this black and white question. No shade of gray.

So. If a Pro-Choicer recoils at partial birth abortion, as do all normal humans, can she still be Pro-Choice? The question (and Cecile Richards at Planned Parenthood) does not allow this.

Or, more likely, if the Pro-Choicer is confused about any abortion after viability, is she no longer Pro-Choice? Maybe. If I am not Pro-Choice, then I am Pro-Life.

Charmaine’s work reminds us that most Americans have always been Pro-life. But only now have the extremists of the Pro-Choicer agenda — of abortion on demand — pushed the public out of the comfortable gray area — the mushy middle — into a stark admission: I am not a part of any group who holds for partial birth abortion.

The public perception — the shifting of the frame of the question — changed.

It was: Yes, I am Pro-Choice because a woman can abort her baby in the first trimester.

It is: No, I am not Pro-Choice because there is no reason to abort in the third trimester.

The shift was not in the framing of the question but in the understanding of when the abortion was taking place during the pregnancy.

This demonstrates that the incremental strategy of changing law state-by-state in universal, common-sense regulation is what all Americans want. The incremental strategy of Americans United for Life is working.

Obama Backlash

This is why Planned Parenthood was so insistent that Candidate Obama push and pass The Freedom of Choice Act or FOCA. This law would kill all incremental controls passed by local lawmakers on abortion. The public is not happy with the extremism of the current Executive Order allowing Federal funding for abortions overseas. Americans don’t want to pay for abortions in any country.

Americans do not want to pay for any abortion bailout.

President Obama has installed radical pro-abortion political appointees to implement Planned Parenthood’s abortion on demand agenda — abortion at any place; at any time; for any reason; at taxpayer expense. People don’t like this. This makes self-identification as Pro-Choice unpalatable.

The Obama Backlash began when Jill Stanek documented his position against Infants Born Alive. What politician dare be against legislation protecting infants born alive?

Advances in Technology

Four Dimension Sonogram — where the mother can watch her baby move about in real time. 85% of women who see the sonogram do not go through with a planned abortion — which is why Planned Parenthood doesn’t care for the science of the sonogram: It kills profits.

Babies can now survive at very young stages. Years ago Your Business Blogger(R) worked with aggressive technologies to help neonates with underdeveloped lungs to ‘breathe’ and to live. The public understands the new survival rates and is beginning to understand the illogical of aborting a child who could, today, survive outside the womb, where, a few years ago, could not.

Financial Independence

Most legal scholars — even Obama short-listers — agree that Roe v Wade was poorly reasoned and poorly decided. Even back then, the Justices cited a compelling state interest against third trimester abortions.

But recent Supreme Court cases have shifted from the healthy viability of the baby to the financial viability of the mother, a “reliance interest.” The Court has now ruled that abortion is necessary so that women can break the glass ceiling.

And this is why liberals are so unhappy with Sarah Palin: She could have lotsa babies and still be a governor. Palin proves that financial success is compatible with motherhood (X 5).

(No, it is not easy. Do not just drop by our house unless you want to help do laundry…)

51% identify as ‘pro-life’ in U.S. It’s the first time the Gallup Poll finds ‘pro-choice’ outweighed — at 42% — and a near-reversal of last year’s figures, By Robin Abcarian,May 16, 2009

At a time when President Obama is trying to convince opponents in the abortion battle that they can find middle ground — in rhetoric, if not reality — a new Gallup Poll shows that more Americans describe themselves as “pro-life” than “pro-choice.”

For the first time since it began asking the question in 1995, Gallup reported Friday, a majority of adults questioned for its annual survey on values and beliefs — 51% — said that when it comes to abortion, they consider themselves “pro-life”; 42% consider themselves “pro-choice.” (The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.)

…antiabortion activists think they have more than the new poll on their side. “This isn’t new,” said Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life. “It tracks pretty much with what we’ve always known: People generally are pro-life depending on how you ask the question.”

But Yoest said abortion foes were not placated. “There has been such an avalanche of pro-abortion activity that it’s jaw-dropping. It’s not just that his rhetoric doesn’t square with reality; the gap is Grand Canyon-size. I think this administration has fundamentally miscalculated how out of step they are with the American people.”

robin.abcarian@latimes.com


Join Fight FOCA

###

Thank you (foot)notes:

From the Gallup organization,

May 15, 2009, More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time

Also, fewer think abortion should be legal “under any circumstances,” by Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ — 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.

Follow us on Twitter: @JackYoest @CharmaineYoest

USS Scorpion Lost: A Remembrance 2009

May 16, 2009 | By | No Comments

Each year in May Your Business Blogger(R) remembers the Cold War loss of submarine Scorpion. We are so lucky to have such brave men. And their families.

Our prayer is that our current Commander-in-Chief would know the culture of our warriors.

submarine_service_poster.jpg

In Remembrance of

those in the

Submarine Service Some 40 Years ago the USS Scorpion was due in my hometown, Norfolk, VA. She never returned.

She is, as the veterans say, on Eternal Patrol.

***

Your Business Blogger(R) wrote an article for National Review Online about those left behind from the loss of the USS Scorpion.

Five Days in May: The loss of the USS Scorpion.

By Jack Yoest

Yolanda Mazzuchi was about the prettiest girl in our school class. Our dads were in the Navy, often gone for months at a time. And they would be welcomed home at dockside with cheers and homemade signs. These gatherings at the D&S Piers at the Naval Base in Norfolk, Virginia, were a regular part of our lives growing up. Families often took children out of school to celebrate a ship’s homecoming.

At 1 in the afternoon on Monday, May 27, 1968, at the height of the Cold War the USS Scorpion was due in port.

Yolanda didn’t know it then, but her dad was already dead….

Continue reading here.

John Howland at USNA-AT-LARGE has set up a group for the boat,

Dedicated to and in honor of the 99 U.S. Navy submariners who perished in the loss of SCORPION in May 1968. The 40th Anniversary of that tragedy …[is] (May 2008), yet the cause(s) of the loss remain a complete mystery.

scorpion_40_years_eternal_patrol.jpg

USS Scorpion

40 Years on Eternal Patrol

This lack of clarity and closure has created a void into which charlatans now have full play in creating bogus theories for profit.

This unsatisfactory situation may result in the SCORPION 99 going into history forever at the mercy of the unscrupulous.

The solution that this group will work toward will be to encourage the U.S. Navy to, at the very least, put to rest the loss scenarios which have MINIMAL TO NO PROBABILITY of having actually occurred.

###

Thank you (foot)notes:

Follow Jack and Charmaine on Twitter: @JackYoest and @CharmaineYoest

More from BubbleHead.

And read about the Loss of the Bonefish.

Your Business Blogger(R) of Management Training of DC, LLC, is a licensed agent for the William Oncken Corporation, presenters of Managing Management Time(TM) fondly known as Monkey Management.

Remember Me at the jump.

Read More