Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image

Obama

11 Aug

By

Two Keys Words in Legislative Writing: Shall & May

August 11, 2009 | By |

Your Business Blogger(R) served a tour of duty in government and quickly learned that the two most important words in looking at a law were:

Shall, and

May

we_the_people.gif May meant, well, nothing. If there is a budget… It’d be nice… You have the option… Whatever. I could ignore it.

And like any time-starved senior manager I was desperate to find anything I could ignore.

But what I couldn’t ignore was that four letter word, “Shall.” (We also couldn’t ignore any campaign promises.)

(In the days before Obama…)

Anyway,

Shall sounded nice. A breezy word; sounding like: shallow or sanguine. Simple.

Not.

***

Yes, those two little words used to dominate my public service life:

May

Shall

Shall or May. In crafting legislation, policy and procedure my two little buddies could dictate or suggest.

Directive or suggestive.

“Shall” was not the first word in a question. ‘Shall’ did not ask, did not seek permission, did not offer options. ‘Shall’ is not squeeshy legalese.

Shall would appear as an ordinary word. But it is not. It is SHALL. It is the Scriptural equivalent of the GREAT I AM.

‘SHALL’ shall not be disobeyed. It meant that the text which follows ‘Shall’ directs that ITS WILL WILL BE DONE.

“Shall” indicated that an action was to be followed. Concrete Action.

‘May’ was a sandy suggestion. An option. An idea whose time may or may not have come.

Whole government departments and the livelihoods of 100′s of thousands of (expensive) bureaucrats hinged on ‘shall’ and ‘may.’

That dreaded word SHALL is back-

Under Obama’s Health Care proposal. Gary Bauer sends this along,

“Obama’s Death Panel”

Sarah Palin is making headlines again, this time by expressing her views on the national debate over healthcare reform. In a Facebook blog entry, Palin wrote, “The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.” I think it’s clear where she stands!

Over the weekend, Washington Post columnist Charles Lane explored the legislation at the root of this particularly controversial aspect of healthcare reform — Section 1233 on end-of-life decisions. Here are some excerpts of his column:

“…at least as I read it, Section 1233 is not totally innocuous. …Section 1233, however, addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones. …If it’s all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to ‘bend the curve’ on health-care costs? “…the [end-of-life] consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren’t quite ‘purely voluntary,’… Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive — money — to do so. Indeed, that’s an incentive to insist. …

“What’s more, Section 1233 dictates, at some length, the content of the consultation.

The doctor ‘shall’ [SHALL] discuss ‘advanced care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to’; … and ‘a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families.’

…Who belongs on ‘a list’ of helpful ‘resources’? The Roman Catholic Church? Jack Kevorkian?”

Emphasis mine.

Lotsa power in SHALL. That’s why “Congress shall make no law…” is so popular.

Lotsa liberty lost in SHALL.

Shall will soon dominate all our lives if Obama has his “health care” way.

Follow us on Twitter: @JackYoest and @CharmaineYoest

Can The Government Tell Us How To Live? Yes They Can.

August 4, 2009 | By | No Comments

yoest_army_profile_full_lenght019.jpgA few decades ago I had a boss who demanded that I brush my teeth. Another supervisor from the same organization didn’t like my haircut. Or how my shirt was starched. Another manager monitored my weight.

What organization can make those demands?

A Fortune 500?

FOX Cable News?

No. The US Army. Only the very large government organization could make and enforce these demands.

The Army was providing my (free) dental care and demanded that I sit thru tooth maintenance classes.

The Army was providing my (free) health care and demanded that my weight be within government prescribed limits.

That was the deal: The country would would give me all I needed; I would give all.

There was not much Freedom for the Fighters for Freedom.

Here is the deal of ObamaCare: You will be given all: Obama will take all.

There will not be much freedom.

Your Business Blogger(R) as a Second Lieutenant.

Obama will deny care to the elderly to accommodate the 50 million new people added to the health care system. Who will get in line to demand their “free health care.”

But Obama will limit resources to fulfill this vast increase in demand.

ObamaCare will deny health care to our elderly patients. No hip replacement for mom…

***

Alert Reader Larry C. sends the following,

The following is a brief outline of this bill put together by Mat Staver of the Freedom Foundation and Liberty Counsel (contact info is at the end). The comments by the brief are Mat’s,

Obama Health Care Plan Details

HR 3200 currently under consideration in the House of Representatives

Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit the books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!

Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill – THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get

Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill – YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!

Pg 42 of HC Bill – The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your benefits for you. You have no choice!

Pg 50 Section 152 in HC bill – HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise

Pg 58HC Bill – Gov’t will have real-time access to individual’s finances & a National ID Health care card will be issued!

Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access to your banks accts for electronic funds transfer.

Pg 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community orgs (ACORN).

Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Govt is creating an HC Exchange to bring priv HC plans under Govt control.

Pg 84 Sec 203 HC bill – Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private Health Care plans in the Exchange

Pg 85 Line 7 HC Bill – Specs for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration your Healthcare!

Pg 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill – Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services.

Example – Translation for illegal aliens.

Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan

Pg 85 Line 7 HC Bill – Specs of Ben Levels 4 Plans. #AARP members – Your Health Care WILL be rationed

Pg 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill – Medicaid Eligible Individual will be automat.enrolled in Medicaid. No choice.

Pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue Govt on price fixing. No “judicial review” against Govt Monopoly.

Pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill – Doctors/ #AMA – The Govt will tell YOU what you can make.

Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into public opt plan. NO CHOICE

Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay for HC for part time employees AND their families.

Pg 149 Lines 16-24 ANY Employer w/ payroll 400k & above who does not prov. pub opt. pays 8% tax on all payroll

Pg 150 Lines 9-13 Biz w payroll btw 251k & 400k who doesnt provide public opt pays 2-6% tax on all payroll Pg 167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesnt have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income.

Pg 170 Lines 1-3 Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay).

Pg 195 Officers & employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access to ALL Americans financial and personal records.

Pg 203 Line 14-15 HC – “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax” Yes, it says that. Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected.

Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill – Doctors, it does not matter what specialty you have, you’ll all be paid the same.

Pg 253 Line 10-18 Govt sets value of Dr’s time, prof judg, etc. Literally value of humans.

Pg 265 Sec 1131Govt mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries.

Pg 268 Sec 1141 Fed Govt regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs.

Pg 272 SEC. 1145. Treatment of certain cancer hospitals – Cancer patients – welcome to rationing!

Page 280 Sec 1151 The Govt will penalize hospitals for what Govt deems preventable readmissions. (Incentives for hospital to not treat and release.)

Pg 298 Lines 9-11 Drs, treat a patient during initial admission that results in a readmission-Govt will penalize you.

Pg 317 L 13-20 PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Govt tells Drs. what/how much they can own.

Pg 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion- Govt is mandating hospitals cannot expand.

pg 321 2-13 Hospitals have opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input required. Can you say ACORN?!!

Pg335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339 – Govt mandates established of outcome based measures. HC the way they want. Rationing.

Pg 341 Lines 3-9 Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans (Part B), HMOs, etc. Forcing people into Govt plan.

Pg 354 Sec 1177 – Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs people!

Pg 379 Sec 1191 Govt creates more bureaucracy – Telehealth Advisory Committee. HC by phone/Internet?

Pg 425 Lines 4-12 Govt mandates Advance [Death] Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life.

Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Govt will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of atty. Mandatory!

Pg 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Gov’t provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death.

Pg 427 Lines 15-24 Govt mandates program for orders for end of life. The Gov’t has a say in how your life ends.

Pg 429 Lines 1-9 An “adv. care planning consult” will be used frequently as patients health deteriorates.

Pg 429 Lines 10-12 “adv. care consultation” may incl an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOV

Pg 429 Lines 13-25 – The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.

PG 430 Lines 11-15 The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life

(NOTE FROM RJ: The above really does give the government the authority to determine who lives and dies, and when. A government bureaucrat really will be making this decision for you and your loved ones.)

Pg 469 – Community Based Home Medical Services=Non profit orgs. Hello, ACORN Medical Svcs here!!?

Pg 472 Lines 14-17 PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORG. 1 monthly payment to a community-based org. Like ACORN?

Pg 489 Sec 1308 The Govt will cover Marriage & Family therapy. They will insert Government into your marriage. Pg 494-498 Govt will cover Mental Health Svcs including defining, creating, rationing those svcs

PG 502 Sec 1181 Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research Established. – Hello Big Brother – Literally.

Pg 503 Lines 13-19 Gov’t will build registries and data networks from YOUR electronic med records.

Pg 503 lines 21-25 Gov’t may secure data directly from any depart or agency of the US including your data.

Pg 504 Lines 6-10 The “Center” will collect data both published & unpublished (that means public & your private info)

PG 506 Lines 19-21 The Center will recommend policies that would allow for public access of data.

PG 518 Lines 21-25 The Commission will have input from HC consumer reps – Can you say unions & ACORN?

PG 524 18-22 Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund set up. More taxes for ALL.

PG 621 Lines 20-25 Gov’t will define what Quality means in HC. Since when does Gov’t know about quality?

Pg 622 Lines 2-9 To pay for the Quality Standards, Govt will transfer $$ from to other Govt Trust Funds. More Taxes.

PG 624 “Quality” measures shall be designed to assess outcomes & functional status of patients.

PG 624 “Quality” measures shall be designed to profile you including race, age, gender, place of residence, etc

Pg 628 Sec 1443 Gov’t will give “Multi-Stake Holders” Pre-Rule Making input into Selection of “Quality” Measures.

Pg 630 9-24/631 1-9 Those Multi-stake holder groups incl. Unions & groups like ACORN deciding HC quality.

Pg 632 Lines 14-25 The Gov’t may implement any “Quality measure” of HC Services as they see fit.

PG 633 14-25/ 634 1-9 The Secretary may issue non-endorsed “Quality Measures” for Physician Services & Dialysis Services.

Pg 635 to 653 Physicians Payments Sunshine Provision – Gov’t wants to shine sunlight on Docs but not Govt.

Pg 654-659 Public Reporting on Health Care-Associated Infections – Looks okay.

PG 660-671 Doctors in Residency – Gov’t will tell you where your residency will be, thus where you’ll live.

Pg 676-686 Gov’t will regulate hospitals in EVERY aspect of residency programs, incl. teaching hospitals.

Pg 686-700 Increased Funding to Fight Waste, Fraud, and Abuse. You mean like the Gov’t with an $18 million website?

PGs 701-704 Sec 1619 If your part of HC plan isn’t in Gov’t HC Exchange but you qualify for Fed aid, no payment.

PG 705-709 SEC. 1128 If Secr gets complaints (ACORN) on HC provider or supplier, Gov’t can do background check.

PG 711 Lines 8-14 The Secretary has broad powers to deny HC providers/ suppliers admittance into HC Exchange. Your doctor could be thrown out of business.

Pg 719-720 Sec 1637 ANY Doctor who orders durable med equip or home med services MUST be enrolled in Medicare.

PG 722 Sec 1639 Gov’t MANDATES Doctors must have face to face with patient to certify patient for Home Health Svcs.

PG 724 23-25 PG 725 1-5 The same Gov’t certifications will apply to Medicaid & CHIP (your kids)

PG 724 Lines 16-22 Gov’t reserves rt to apply face to face certification for patient to ANY other HC service.

Pg 735 lines 16-25 For law enforce. proposes the Secretary-HHS will give Atty General access to ALL data.

PG 740-757 Gov’t sets guidelines for subsidizing the uninsured (Thats your tax dollars people)

Pg 757-762 Fed gov’t will shift burden of payments to Disproportionate Share Hospitals (DSH) to States. (Taxes)

Pg 763 1-8 No DS/EA hospitals will be paid unless they provide services without regard to national origin

Pg 765 Sec 1711 Gov’t will require Preventative Services including vaccines. (Choice?)

Pg 768 Sec 1713 Gov’t – Nurse Home Visitation Svcs (Hello union paybacks)

Pg 769 11-14 Nurse Home Visit Svcs include-economic self-sufficiency, employ adv, school-readiness.

Pg 769 3-5 Nurse Home Visit Services – “increasing birth intervals between pregnancies.” Govt ABORTIONS anyone

Pg 770 SEC 1714 Fed Gov’t mandates eligibility for State Family Planning Services. Abortion & State Sovereign.

Pg 789-797 Gov’t will set, mandate drug prices, controlling which drugs brought to market. Bye innovation.

Pgs 797-800 SEC. 1744 PAYMENTS for graduate medical education. The government will now control Drs’ education.

PG 801 Sec 1751 The Govt will decide which Health care conditions will be paid. Say RATION!

Pg 810 SEC. 1759. Billing Agents, clearinghouses, etc req. to register. Gov’t takes over private payment sys.

Pg 820-824 Sec 1801 Govt will identify individ. ineligible for subsidies. Will access all personal financial information.

Pg 824-829 SEC. 1802. Govt Sets up Comparative Effectiveness Research= Trust Fund. Another tax black hole.

PG 829-833 Gov’t will impose a fee on ALL private health ins. plans incl. self insured to pay for Trust Fund!

PG 835 11-13 fees imposed by Gov’t for Trust Fund shall be treated as if they were taxes.

Pg 838-840 Gov’t will design & implement Home Visitation Program for families with young kids & families expect kids.

PG 844-845 This Home Visitation Prog. includes Gov’t coming into your house & telling you how to parent!!!

Pg 859 Gov’t will establish a Public Health Fund at a cost of $88,800,000,000. Yes that’s Billion.

Pg 865 The Gov’t will MANDATE the establishment of a National Health Service Corps.

PG 865 to 876 The NHS Corps is a program where Drs. perform mandatory HC for 2yrs for part loan repayment.

PG 876-892 The govt takes over the education of our Med students and Drs.

PG 898 The Govt will establish a Public Health Workforce Corps to ensure supply of public health prof.

PG 898 The Public health workforce corps shall consist of civilian employees of the U.S. as Secretary deems.

PG 898 The Public health workforce corps shall consist of officers of Regular & Reserve Corps of Service.

PG 900 The Public Health Workforce Corps includes veterinarians.

PG 901 The Public Health Workforce Corps WILL include commissioned Regular & Reserve Officers. HC Draft?

PG 910 The Govt will develop, build & run Public Health Training Centers.

PG 913-914 Govt starts a HC affirmative action program thru guise of diversity scholarships.

PG 915 SEC. 2251. Govt MANDDATES Cultural & linguistic competency training for HC professionals.

Pg 932 The Govt will estab Preventative & Wellness Trust fund- initial cost of $30,800,000,000-Billion.

PG 935 21-22 Govt will identify specific goals & objectives for prevention & wellness activities. Control YOU!!

PG 936 Govt will develop “Healthy People & National Public Health Perform. Standards” Tell me what to eat?

PG 942 Lines 22-25 More Gov’t? Offices of Surgeon General -Public Health Svc, Minority Health, Women’s Health

PG 950- 980 BIG GOV’T core pub health infrastructure including workforce capacity, lab systems; health info sys, etc

PG 993 Gov’t will establish school based health clinics. Your kids won’t have a chance.

PG 994 School Based Health Clinic will be integrated into the school environment. Say GOVT Brainwash!

PG 1001 The Govt will establish a National Medical Device Registry. Will you be tracked?

Mathew D. Staver

Founder and Chairman Dean and Professor of Law

Liberty Counsel Liberty University School of Law

Offices in Florida, Virginia and the District of Columbia, Lynchburg, Virginia

www.LC.org

www.law.liberty.edu

Licensed in Florida and the District of Columbia

Take Action Now.www.stoptheabortionmandate.org

Be sure to follow us on Twitter: @JackYoest and @CharmaineYoest

Save the Date: Thursday, July 23, at 9 PM Eastern Web Cast on Tax-Payer Funded Abortion on Demand in ObamaCare

July 18, 2009 | By | No Comments

Investor’s Business Daily reports that half of the American public believes that a government take-over of health care would reduce health care quality.

Why should we let Obama do this? How do we stop it?

There will be a web-cast Thursday to Educate and Mobilize Pro-Life Americans Against Great Dangers of Obama Health Care Bill; Coalition of leaders alarmed that pro-lifers unaware of what is at stake with Obamacare.

Charmaine will be joining Mike Huckabee, Chris Smith (R) NJ, Tony Perkins and other pro-life leaders. Go Register and watch.

A small army helps Charmaine prepare with her presentations. Here’s a few of the staff that helped her get ready for her testimony at the Supreme Court Nomination hearing of Sotomayor on Thursday.

AUL_sotomayor_moot-court_murder-board_hearings_testimony.jpg

Top Row L to R:Bill Saunders, Bob Heckman

Bottom Row, L to R: Heather Smith, Courtney Lillie, Charmaine Yoest, Mary Harned

Not pictured are Dawn Eden who was live blogging the Sotomayor hearings, Clarke Forsythe by phone in Chicago and Denise Burke in San Antonio.

Steve Jalsevac writes,

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 17, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A coalition of prominent pro-life leaders has arranged a giant, Stop The Abortion Mandate live webcast for the public this coming Thursday, July 23, to alert Americans about the great dangers of the Democrat-proposed health care bill.

David Bereit, a coalition member and leader of 40 Days for Life, told LifeSiteNews that he is temporarily de-emphasizing his current 40 Days for Life tasks to concentrate on this issue because of its extreme importance. He is concerned that pro-lifers are not aware of what is at stake with the health care bill.

Connie Marshner, a well-known Washington pro-life political organizer, warned today that “this is the biggest issue since Roe v Wade.

This is not just about funding. Everyone will be forced to have abortion coverage.” Further, [Marshner] warned, the effect of successful passage of the Health Care bill will dramatically change the pro-life movement as we know it “because every doctor and health care worker will be forced to be involved in abortion.”

The pro-life webcast’s promotional material states that “Powerful abortion industry lobbyists and Washington, D.C. bureaucrats have just launched a massive effort to mandate taxpayer-funded abortions as part of their proposed trillion-dollar healthcare takeover.”

They list four main results of what they call “this abortion industry power-grab”:

Impose one of the cornerstones of the “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA) by stealth.

Force taxpayers to fund a huge abortion industry bailout – something the majority of Americans oppose, and certainly cannot afford in these tough economic times.

Mandate that virtually every American be forced into a health plan that includes abortion coverage.

Require honorable medical providers to violate their consciences and perform abortions — or risk losing their jobs.

The one-time-only LIVE webcast event will take place this Thursday, July 23, at 9 PM Eastern (6 PM Pacific, 7 PM Mountain, 8 PM Central.)

The live webcast, for which there is no charge, will be approximately 70 minutes long and will be accessible even to Internet users with only a dial-up connection.

Participants who register for the event will be able to listen in on the live audio and submit questions.

During the event, the following nationally known leaders will be heard:

MIKE HUCKABEE, Former Governor and Presidential Candidate

DR. CHARMAINE YOEST, Americans United for Life

TONY PERKINS, Family Research Council

FR. FRANK PAVONE, Priests for Life

MARJORIE DANNENFELSER, Susan B. Anthony List

DOUGLAS JOHNSON, National Right to Life Committee

TOM MINNERY, Focus on the Family

CONGRESSMAN CHRIS SMITH, U.S. House of Representatives

KRISTIN HAWKINS, Students for Life of America

CONGRESSMAN JOE PITTS, U.S. House of Representatives

DR. RICHARD LAND, Southern Baptist Convention

CARMEN PATE, Point of View Radio Show

DAVID BEREIT, 40 Days for Life

The Webcast organizers state that those who join the webcast will discover:

The shocking facts about the sweeping legislation that the political power brokers are trying to ram through before Congress goes on summer recess…

The devastating implications of the proposed mandates — facts the abortion industry doesn’t want Americans to hear…

Why respected leaders, national organizations, and pro-life people are joining together in record numbers to challenge this attempted power-grab…

The exact action steps YOU can take to make a difference at this crucial moment…

Registration for the event is accessed at http://www.stoptheabortionmandate.com.

Registration also allows those who are unable to be online at the time of the webcast to later access a recording of the webcast audio.

Organizers are hoping that 100,000 people will participate in this very urgent and unique education and action event.

***

Watch the YouTube testimony of Charmaine to the Judiciary Committee and be sure to read the nasty comments of the tolerant free love speech liberals.


Join Fight FOCA

###

Thank you (foot)notes:

Charmaine will also be on CNN today at 4pm Eastern.

Follow Charmaine and Your Business Blogger(R) on Twitter @charmaineyoest and @jackyoest

Kim Gandy from NOW Stepping Down See the Charmaine and Kim Smackdown

June 15, 2009 | By | No Comments

LifeNews reports that Kim Gandy is leaving the leadership of the National Organization for Women (NOW) to spend more time with her family. Maybe…

It is more likely that she will join the liberal feminists running the Obama administration.

gandy_yoest_six_panel_smack_down.JPG Charmaine has crossed paths with NOW’s Gandy a time or two. The most memorable was in November 2005. At the time Your Business Blogger(R) noted the altercation,

I was in the middle of drafting an article on the glass ceiling for women. And got a first person account instead.

Click on image to enlarge; Charmaine on Right in red.

Today I thought I’d give the little woman a respite from the laundry and the kids. “Go play in the Nation’s Capital,” I said to Charmaine this morning. “Have a fun lunch with the girls!”

Then on the radio I hear Rush talk about a smack down at the Supreme Court and see a photo of Charmaine in her red power suit at Rush Limbaugh EIB Extra… .

She had Kim Gandy in a half-nelson. Elbowing Gandy aside at a press conference.

I have sat through a number of cantankerous board meetings. Adversarial budget negotiations. Hardball sales presentations. Terminations. Giving and getting.

But no one actually got spanked.

I thought the gathering of girls today would be a powder puff tea party of cooperation. Sweetness and light and reason and ‘Please’ and ‘Thankyou.’

I was wrong. No one fights like a woman on a mission.

I’ll have to rewrite the glass ceiling article.

(It is a joy to marry over your head.)


Join Fight FOCA

###

Thank you (foot)notes:

Be sure to follow us on Twitter: jackyoest and charmaineyoest

Press Release: AUL Senior Counsel Clarke Forsythe Publishes new book.

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, AUL President & CEO said, “Politics for the Greatest Good is a critical book for the pro-life movement at this time in history. This important focus on the achievable in political strategy…AUL Action

FOXBusiness reports, Americans United for Life Senior Counsel Clarke Forsythe Publishes Politics for the Greatest Good is now available at bookstores and Amazon.com.

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.

Media Alert: Charmaine Quoted on the Tiller Killing in US News & World Report, CNN

June 1, 2009 | By | No Comments

Americans United for Life issued a statement on the killing of Tiller who performed third trimester abortions,

Washington, DC – Americans United for Life President and CEO, Dr. Charmaine Yoest, issued the following statement to address the murder of Dr. George Tiller: ?

“We condemn this lawless act of violence. The foundational right to life that our work is dedicated to extends to everyone. Whoever is responsible for this reprehensible violence must be brought to justice under the law.”

Alert Readers who follow us on Twitter, jackyoest and charmaineyoest, know that AUL is saying very little out of respect for the Tiller family left behind.

USN&WR has George Tiller Murder Knocks a Burgeoning Antiabortion Movement Back on Its Heels, by Dan Gilgoff,

It’s too early to tell if the killing will halt the antiabortion movement’s recent momentum….[I look forward to reading if our friend Dan Gilgoff would ever be able to buck his editor's style book requirement of using 'anti-abortion' rather than 'pro-life.']

According to news reports, Kansas police have apprehended Kansan Scott Roeder, an abortion opponent, as a possible suspect in the murder. “Roeder is most definitely not part of the pro-life movement,” said Charmaine Yoest, Americans United for Life president and CEO, in an E-mail message this morning.

CBN has Pro-life Leaders Respond to Tiller Shooting, with a review of Pro-Life reactions.

CNN reports, Obama, others condemn Kansas abortion doctor’s killing

Zenit reports, Pro-life Groups Denounce Murder of Abortionist, Condemn Attack as Contrary to Goals of Promoting Human Dignity

Kay Steiger at Campus Progress, writes Rebirth of Anti-Abortion Terrorism, The murder of Dr. George Tiller in Kansas brings back old memories of radicalized violence against abortion providers. As much as Your Business Blogger(R) and Your Business Professor loves academia, the children at Campus Progress, like most academics, are wrong. Kay is a bit confused about terrorism– and has yet to learn the difference between acts of war and criminal acts. The unfortunate Kay is still suffering from the Bush Derangement Syndrome where she pokes fun at the past president,

Opinions: “I have opinions of my own — strong opinions — but I don’t always agree with them.” -George W. Bush

Who cares anymore?

Houston Belief

See The Moderate Voice

The Huffington Post has Cristina Page writing, The Murder of Dr. Tiller, a Foreshadowing

Tiller Murder a Lawless Act of Violence

Be sure to follow us daily on Twitter.

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

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

Americans United for Life Ready for the Obama Supreme Court Nominee

May 20, 2009 | By | No Comments

AUL will be conducting a press conference tomorrow, Thursday. It’s going to be good.

Americans United for Life has released a review of the potential Supreme Court Nominees.

The concern of AUL, the country’s oldest Pro-Life public interest law firm, is that nominees might be “empathetic” to petitioners to the Supreme Court — rather than honoring the Justices’ oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.”

Your Business Blogger(R) served as an Armored Cavalry Officer and at commissioning — becoming an officer and gentleman — also took an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” The oath of commissioned military officers is to the document not to the president — to a piece of paper, not to a person.

(It quite literally took an act of Congress to make Your Business Blogger (R) a gentleman…)

None of Obama’s short list of nominees seem to understand this distinction on the job of a Supreme Court Justice: To be faithful to the Constitution and NOT to show “empathy” to any person or case before the Court.


Join Fight FOCA

###

Thank you (foot)notes:

Get on Twitter and follow Jack and Charmaine, @JackYoest @CharmaineYoest

Read America’s Unsettled Conscience on Abortion.

Visit Ultrasound Technology, Laws Credited for Pro-life Shift.

Lots of Links and good writing at Roundup: Obama Starts Conversations with Potential Supreme Court Picks.

Ultrasound technology and laws credited for pro-life shift, quotes Charmaine; always a good idea…

DEACON FOR LIFE

Read how numbers can be presented, Slight Majority Of U.S. Residents Call Themselves ‘Pro-life;’ 76% Say Abortion Should Be Legal, Poll Shows.

Conservatives, Interest Groups Gear Up for SCotUS Battle

New Gallup Poll Says Majority of Americans are Pro-Life, By Focus on the Family

Saint Luke, “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative…”, Life and the Supreme Court

The Oath of office