Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image

Religion and Politics

A Christmas Greeting for Liberals and A Greeting for Conservatives

December 26, 2009 | By | No Comments

Alert Reader Terry, one of the sharpest lawyers in DC, sends this along,

To My Liberal Friends:

Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.

I also wish you a fiscally successful,personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2010, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great.

Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere .

Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wish.

To My Conservative Friends:

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

###

Thank you (foot)notes:

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

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

Stop the Abortion Mandate: WebCast Tonight, Free

December 15, 2009 | By | No Comments

webcast_15-Dec-2009.jpgCharmaine is hosting the Stop The Abortion Mandate WebCast from her offices in Your Nation’s Capital across from the Treasury building.

Interesting venue. The US Treasury is where our tax dollars will flow into – and out of – to pay for abortions under ObamaCare. Register and listen in tonight.

cash_for_kids_abortion_mandate.jpg

Obama’s Cash for Kids Program Abortion is horror enough. Now we have to pay for it. Cash for Kids.

Even Pro-Choice liberals don’t care for this…

Charmaine’s letter follows.

***

Dear Friend,

We desperately need your help as the U.S. Senate moves on pro-abortion health care legislation, so please join us for a Stop the Abortion Mandate Coalition live audiocast roundtable – Tuesday night, December 15th at 9 p.m. ET – to find out what you can do to take action on this urgent issue.

LIVE AUDIOCAST DETAILS:

WHAT: Stop the Abortion Mandate Urgent Audiocast

TIME: 9 PM Eastern, 8 PM Central, 7 PM Mountain, 6 PM Pacific

Register now at: www.StopTheAbortionMandate.com/audiocast

Expert presenters include:

CHARMAINE YOEST, Americans United for Life

MARJORIE DANNENFELSER, Susan B. Anthony List

TONY PERKINS, Family Research Council

KRISTAN HAWKINS, Students for Life of America

DOUGLAS JOHNSON, National Right to Life Committee

KRISTEN DAY, Democrats for Life

WENDY WRIGHT, Concerned Women for America

DAVID BEREIT, 40 Days for Life

JOIN US TO HEAR…

The LATEST UPDATES on abortion and its inclusion in the Senate health care

legislation…

What’s at stake if the abortion industry successfully pushes their agenda through passage of this pro-abortion bill…

What you can do SPECIFICALLY to help us BLOCK this NOW.

We hope you can join us. Thank you for helping defend life!

For Life,

Charmaine_Yoest_aul_pub_shot_2009.jpg

Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D.

President & CEO

P.S. Even if you can’t participate in this live audiocast, you can contact Congress today by clicking here and call your Senator at (202) 224-3121.

P.S.S. Please forward this email to at least one friend.

http://stoptheabortionmandate.com/webcast/

###

Thank you (foot)notes:

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

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

Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D., To Speak at the Religion Newswriters Association

September 8, 2009 | By | No Comments

Charmaine_Yoest_aul_pub_shot_2009.jpgReligion Newswriters Association, Annual Conference

Kn i g h t s o f C o l umb u s Luncheon

A closer look at rights of religious conscience in modern society

Charmaine Yoest

President & CEO, Americans United for Life

Join us for the 60th RNA Annual Conference Sept. 10-12, 2009, at the Minneapolis Marriott City Center. Can’t be there? Don’t miss a thing; follow us on Twitter @ReligionReport / #RNA20

Dr. Charmaine Yoest has a Ph.D. in Politics from the University of

Virginia, and began her career in the White House during the Reagan

Administration. She is the co-author of Mother in the Middle, an

examination of childcare policy, published by HarperCollins.

Americans United for Life recently provided legal support to Illinois

pharmacists who challenged an executive order by former Governor

Rod Blagojevich that would have forced pharmacists to fill

prescriptions for abortifacient drugs in violation of their consciences.Charmaine _AP.jpg

Register here.

***

Follow Your Business Blogger(R) and Charmaine on Twitter: @JackYoest and @CharmaineYoest

About RNA,

RNA was founded in 1949 to advance the professional standards of religion reporting in the mainstream media and to create a support network for religion reporters. The Association’s primary projects include an annual conference, contests for religion reporting, membership resources and mentoring.

In 1999, RNA created an educational and charitable arm, the Religion Newswriters Foundation. Since its founding the RNF has received millions in grants to create tools and training for religion reporters, including our Web site, ReligionLink, the Lilly Scholarships in Religion Program, a religion stylebook and primer, webinars (online seminars) and regional training events, among others.

Read More

Stop the Abortion Mandate: The Video

August 21, 2009 | By | No Comments

charmaine_stopabortionmandate_hotair_screenshot_aul.jpg “Let all the babies be born.

Then let us drown those we don’t like from the litter.

Let all the old folks die.

Who wants to feel their pain — they’re so old and bitter?”*

Apologies to G.K. Chesterton.

Charmaine Yoest, PH.D.

Screen Shot Courtesy Hot Air.

Obama is having trouble selling his socialized medicine.

Cecile Richards, CEO of Planned Parenthood supports Obama’s health care government take over.

Americans United for Life Action does not.

Planned Parenthood has a money-making business model selling abortion. The Obama plan will demand abortion in health insurance plans and will provide tax dollars to provide for abortion on demand. Though all nine months — and beyond: See Obama and the death of a live birth.

Planned Parenthood will make more — lots more — money.

Your Business Blogger(R) loves business. But not this one.

###


Join Fight FOCA *”Let all the babies be born.

Then let us drown those we do not like.”

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

Thank you (foot)notes:

Bait and switch healthcare – the Trojan Horse strategy,

Below is an open letter to those who support the life of the pre-born and stand against a mandate which would fund abortions from tax revenue. This letter is from Charmaine Yoest, P.H. D, President and CEO of Americans United for Life. She writes:

“We’ve got inside information: Yesterday a media-relations executive from the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, giving a talk here in Washington on Planned Parenthood’s health care reform strategy, made a comment that revealed the impact we’ve been making in thwarting the abortion industry’s agenda. She lamented that because the “anti-choice” movement — meaning pro-lifers like you and me — had attracted so much attention to her organization’s efforts to mandate abortion funding in health care reform, Planned Parenthood was being forced onto the defensive.

Anti-Abortion Coalition Called Into Question, By Sara Jerome

Myths about abortion in “Health Care” debacle

McCain Warns AUL: Abortion Funding in Health-Care Reform Is Being Fast-Tracked

July 14, 2009 | By | No Comments

By Charmaine Yoest | July 13, 2009

Americans United for Life has spent the last few weeks leading up to this week’s hearing in meetings with senators on the Judiciary Committee and their staffers, on both sides of the aisle, presenting them with the research that the AUL legal team has done on Judge Sotomayor’s pro-abortion advocacy.

On July 13th, we had the opportunity to meet with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to take our concerns directly to him and ask him to use his leadership in the Republican ranks to draw attention to her extreme record.

We had a good conversation with Senator McCain and he clearly shares our concerns. He was very interested in hearing about our “Worse than Souter” documentation (available at Sotomayor411.com) that outlines the pro-abortion advocacy that Judge Sotomayor was associated with while she served on the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.


Join Fight FOCA

McCain volunteered his own concern that the “health-care reform” agenda is hurtling down the tracks as well and that it will contain abortion funding, which he strongly opposes. He even thinks it is possible that Obama will push to pass it before the August congressional recess, while we are all focused on the Sotomayor confirmation hearings and vote.

There is no doubt that abortion funding will become a mandate in the plan under consideration. McCain encouraged us to engage our grassroots supporters on the health-care reform issue as soon as possible.

We are taking his caution to heart and will be emphasizing action in opposition to the health-care government takeover in the days ahead.

###

Thank you (foot)notes:

This is a cross post from AUL Blog

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

Democratic Senators Rally Support For Sotomayor; Hearing Witness List Released.

The Washington Times, EDITORIAL: Sotomayor in review, A brief on judicial radicalism

From Christianity Today,

Conservatives Offer Last Words as Sotomayor Hearings Begin, by Sarah Pulliam

Senate confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor began today as the Supreme Court nominee tried to preempt some of her critics.

Norma McCorvey, known as “Jane Roe” during the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion, was arrested after she yelled that Sotomayor was “wrong” during Sen. Al Franken’s opening statement.

Sonia Sotomayor hearings are the first skirmish in ideological war over Supreme Court’s future

by Richard S. Dunham/Houston Chronicle

Republicans will cite her decisions on sensitive social issues such as affirmative action, abortion and gun rights to claim that she is to the left of the man she’d replace, retiring Justice David Souter.

“Her record of activism in support of a radical, pro-abortion agenda is clear and documented,” said Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, who is scheduled to testify at the confirmation hearing. “The American people will not tolerate a nominee who is outside the mainstream of American public opinion.”

Sotomayor's confirmation hearings at a glance – Kansas City Star

and the Supreme Court overturned; Linda Chavez, Center for Equal Opportunity; Sandy Froman, National Rifle Association; Dr. Charmaine Yoest, Americans United for Life; John McGinnis, Northwestern University School of Law professor.

Blue Commonwealth:: Sotomayor opponents' witness list…
By cvllelaw

And we end with Dr. Charmaine Yoest, Americans United for Life, who will no doubt fuss about whatever Sotomayor says in response to questions about abortion. So –. Affirmative action, guns, and abortion.

Washington Examiner, As Sotomayor hearings begin, Democrats predict easy confirmation

From the Charlotte Observer, Sonia Sotomayor is under scrutiny

Sotomayor, tough-minded yet true to her roots, defies simple labeling Activist? Trailblazer? Ideologue? Workaholic? Liberal? By Michael Doyle and Marisa Taylor, McClatchy Newspapers

Liberal’s War on the Weak & (un)Planned Parenthood

July 4, 2009 | By | No Comments

margaret_sanger.jpgThe most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.

Margaret Sanger

Founder Planned Parenthood

Happy 4th of July…

Alert students of Your Business Professor know that men are not equal to each other.

This is one of the great challenges in Business Law: understanding that the Law is King. Not the KIng is King. But Lex Rex.

Men are equal in the eyes of our Creator; in the eyes of the Law. Our governance and justice should be based on Natural Law and the original intent of our Constitution.

Conservatives and Liberals see equality, so to say, differently:

Conservatives:

Creator

Law

over

Man…..Man

Where all men are equal under the law.

The modern Liberal flow chart is different and cascades so,

Creator (irrelevant)

Law (extension of policy-judges become legislators/politicians)

man = man

Men are equal to each other under the new Liberal equation.

Conservatives however, would submit that each person has equal value under law, under the Creator.

But if the Liberal removes the Creator and Law simply becomes an extension of a political policy shop then the Liberal is left with only Man. Who must be then equal to one another. Because we still do believe in equality.

Maybe.

So how can we judge the new Liberal paradigm of equality without the Creator or the Law?

By observation — By how we treat the least among us. How we treat “retarded people.”

Since all men are obviously “not equal” directly to each other — what do liberals think of the weak, with no Creator? –

What do liberals think of those unequal in their liberal equation; what do they think of those “beneath” them?

***

NewsBusters’ Noel Sheppard saved us an article from the liberal Huffington Post, HuffPoster: ‘Palin Will Run In ’12 On More Retardation Platform’, July 3, 2009 – 19:52 ET

This is about as disgusting as Palin Derangement Syndrome can get.

A blog just published at the Huffington Post is disgracefully titled “Palin Will Run In ’12 On More Retardation Platform.”

The author, fiction and comedy writer Erik Sean Nelson… actually wrote the following (readers are seriously warned to proceed with caution as this is really vile stuff):

In Sarah Palin’s resignation announcement she complained about the treatment of her son Trig who always teaches her life lessons. She said that the “world needs more Trigs, not fewer.” That’s a presidential campaign promise we can all get behind. She will be the first politician to actually try to increase the population of retarded people. To me, it’s kinda like saying the world needs more cancer patients because they teach us such personal lessons.

Her first act as President: To introduce a Pre-K lunch buffet that includes lead paint chips. Sort of a Large HEAD-START Program.

She will then encourage women to hold off on pregnancies until their 40′s just to mix up some chromosomes.

She now is in favor of abortion only in case of diploid birth [normal chromosomes-this liberal is saying that Palin would only want abortions on “normal” babies. This passes for humor for abortion supporters].

Her policies will increase jobs because Wal-Mart is building new stores each day and someone has to be the greeter. [Liberals hate, just hate Wal-Mart.]

This will lead to smaller government because fewer Americans will have the cognitive ability to hold a government job

Wow. Is this what passes for comedy today?

It will be interesting to see how long this post stays up before someone at HuffPo pulls it.

Stay tuned.

*****Update: The article has been pulled, apparently by the author who claimed: “I got some emails from offended loved ones of the retarded. No one was seeing the absurdity of Palin hiding behind her children, so my piece was not accomplishing anything good.”

Imagine that.

Well, for posterity purposes, here’s a screen-cap of the piece courtesy NB reader Brett Scheer:

Nice job, [HuffPo writer] Erik. Don’t be a stranger.

–Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.

Liberals support Barack Obama’s vote against his state’s Born Alive Infant Protection Act before he became president. His vote would allow babies born alive — from a botched abortion — to die by withholding treatment.

Obama’s concern was that his vote might lead to overturning Roe v Wade which made abortion legal through all nine months – and beyond.

obama_thumbs_up.jpgHis philosophy is not new.

Barack Obama

Supports Planned Parenthood

This thinking was born, so to say, at the turn of the last century and made “popular” by Margaret Sanger, founder of modern Planned Parenthood.

In 2003, Edwin Black wrote a national bestseller War against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign To Create A Master Race.


War Against the WeakAuthor Edwin Black does not oppose abortion. But he is nevertheless horrified by the disgust that elite Americans feel for the weak, “the least among us.”

Edwin Black writes,

Sanger’s solutions were mass sterilization and mass segregation of the defective classes, and these themes were repeated often in [her book] Pivot of Civilization.

“The emergency problem of segregation and sterilization must be faced immediately. Every feeble-minded girl or woman of the hereditary type, especially of the moron class, should be segregated during the reproductive period.

Otherwise, she is almost certain to bear imbecile children, who in turn are just as certain to breed male defectives. The male defectives are no less dangerous.

Segregation carried out for one or two generations would give us only partial control of the problem.

Moreover, when we realized that each feeble-minded person is a potential source of endless progeny of defect, we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded.”

Edwin Black then guides us to Margaret Sanger’s solution,

Sanger was willing to employ striking language to argue against the inherent misery and defect of large families. In her book, Woman and the New Race, she bluntly declared,

“Many, perhaps, will think it idle to go farther in demonstrating the immorality of large families, but since there is still an abundance of proof at hand, it may be offered for the sake of those who find difficulty in adjusting old-fashioned ideas to the facts.

The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

It would appear that liberal elitists like Obama, in keeping with Margaret Sanger’s world view, might have prefered that the Palins abort Trigg, Sarah’s Down syndrome newborn.

Why?

To avoid the “pain and despair” these children have and cause, so says Obama.

Because an unexpected child is a “punishment.”

What kind of political party would even consider a man with this world view to govern?

***

Edwin Black tells us more and connects the events in War Against The Weak,

During the period between the wars, the American [eugenics] movement viewed National Socialism [in Germany] as a rising force that could, if empowered, impose a new biological world order. [National Socialism] eugenicists promised to dispense with the niceties of democratic rule.

So even if America’s tower of legislation, well-funded research and entrenched bureaucratic programs still monopolized the world of applied eugenics in the 1920′s, National Socialism promised to own the next decade.

American eugenicists welcomed the idea.

Obama and the The Party of Death.

###

Thank you (foot)notes,

Follow us on Twitter: @jackyoest and @charmaineyoest

Your Business Blogger(R) and Charmaine are celebrating Independence Day at The Dude’s All Star baseball tournament with our large family — The Penta-Posse. When we got married we didn’t know it would be so large…and so much fun. This is (un)planned parenthood. What would Margaret Sanger and Cecile Richards say?

Happy 4th of July from Americans United for Life: Keeping the Founding Fathers’ Legacy Alive

July 1, 2009 | By | No Comments

Charmaine sends this out to the AUL good-guy list,

dude_pitching_14_yorktown_high_school_2009.jpgIt’s nearly Independence Day, and, here in the Yoest household, that means a road trip!

Friday afternoon, Jack and I are filling up our black Suburban and taking our ‘Penta-posse’ — our five kids — to Charlottesville, VA, for our 14-year-old son John’s all-star baseball tournament. How wonderful to spend July 4th in a city steeped in American history near the University of Virginia (my alma mater!), which was founded by Thomas Jefferson just a few miles from his Monticello home.

John Yoest, age 14

[Pitched a no hitter on his JV team -- as an 8th grader]

Photo Credit: Hannah Yoest

But although the calendar — and the heat index — says it’s July 4, in my heart it feels like late November.

Independence Day has always been a kind of early Thanksgiving for me. I think about the sacrifices made by the Founding Fathers and their families, and of the blood shed by patriots so that America could be free, and I am so very thankful to be able to raise my children in the greatest country in the world.

The Founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

In naming three inalienable rights as endowed by humanity’s Creator, the Declaration’s authors were recognizing something unique and beautiful about being human. Taken together, those rights enable all the goods necessary for human flourishing.

More than that, the order in which the Founders listed the rights carries special meaning; it reveals the way one right flows from another. The right to liberty — the freedom to thrive — flows from the right to life, and from that liberty flows the ability to seek the happiness that will give one’s life meaning and purpose.

I’m so honored to be working with the AUL team to further the understanding that the right to life enshrined in our Declaration extends to all humanity and includes the unborn.

yoest_family_DC_2009_dreamers_sweet_16_party.jpg

The right to life is the foundation of all the freedoms we enjoy as Americans. This is what we must teach our children on this family holiday, so that they and their children and their children’s children may continue to live in a free country long after you and I have left this world.

Jack, Helena, Hannah, Charmaine, John, James, and Sarah at Hannah’s recent

Sweet Sixteen celebration.

My friend and AUL colleague Bob told me today about a wonderful Fourth of July tradition in his family. Every year, he and his wife host a barbecue that is highlighted by having one of the children present, usually his own daughter, read out loud the entire Declaration of Independence.

Jack and I like that idea so much that we are adopting this as a Yoest family tradition. I think we’ll have Helena, our 12-year-old who has a dramatic flair, read the Declaration of Independence before we watch the fireworks after John’s baseball game. If you’d like join us in that tradition, click here for a printable copy of the Declaration.

Wishing you and your family a happy and healthy Fourth,

charmaine_signature.jpg

Charmaine, and the Yoest family

P.S. On Monday, the AUL team will be back at the job of defending the right to life, all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. For the latest news on President Obama’s high-court nominee, visit Sotomayor411.com. It’s a one-stop resource we’ve created to share in-depth background and analysis from our legal team on Judge Sotomayor, including detailed information on why she is worse on life issues than retiring Justice David Souter.


Join Fight FOCA

###

Thank you (foot)notes:

Follow us on Twitter.

Pro-Abortion Hispanic Group: Sotomayor Set Policy, Not Involved in Legal Briefs, by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor, July 1, 2009,

“Although the Senate will have a significant amount of materials to wade through, Charmaine Yoest, the president of Americans United for Life, has seen enough to say Sotomayor is pro-abortion and worse than Justice David Souter, whom she would replace.

Yoest points out that, during Sotomayor’s time on the PRLDEF’s board, its efforts “included no less than six briefs in five abortion-related cases before the Supreme Court — pushing aggressively for an interpretation of abortion rights that would eliminate most or all state and federal abortion regulations while requiring state and federal funding of abortion.”

In two of the legal briefs, “the PRLDEF’s briefs took positions more extreme than those of Justice Souter, who joined with the court’s majority to uphold restrictions the fund wanted struck down,” Yoest added.

Ultimately, “Justice Sotomayor has never disavowed any of the PRLDEF’s briefs, which are packed with the kind of extreme rhetoric more typical of left-wing blogs than of serious legal documents.” ”

U.S. appeals court upholds Virginia’s ban on partial-birth abortion, By Catholic News Service

RICHMOND, Va. – Virginia’s ban on partial-birth abortion is constitutional, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a 6-5 decision June 24.

“The head of Americans United for Life, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case and assisted the state with the litigation, said the “ban protects not only the unborn, but also the health and welfare of women.”

“We are thrilled that the 4th Circuit followed clear U.S. Supreme Court precedent and upheld Virginia’s ban on partial-birth abortion – which is more accurately called partial-birth infanticide,” said Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO.

“It is a law that the vast majority of Americans are justified in supporting,” she said. Opponents of the ban are expected to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the appellate court’s decision.

The 2003 Virginia law makes it a felony to perform a partial-birth abortion, but it never went into effect because its constitutionality was challenged by a Richmond doctor who said the procedure can be necessary to protect the life of the mother. He also said the ban could prevent doctors from performing legal procedures for fear they would be prosecuted. ”

From PA Pundits – International

“the relentless pursuit of common sense” – A Variety of Opinions From Various Writers -

“Only the pro-life group Americans United for Life has made a significant campaign against Sotomayor’s ascension to the high court, calling her record on abortion rights “worse than [current Justice David] Souter’s.” Still, the fight should pick up once Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings begin July 13.”

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

Americans United for Life Makes Big Hire: Bill Saunders

May 23, 2009 | By | No Comments

Well published and very expensive, Harvard JD, Bill Saunders has just been hired by Americans United for Life.

AUL’s, president and CEO, Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D., says,

We were lucky to get him.

The press release,

By Melanie Johnson | May 22, 2009

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Washington, DC — William L. “Bill” Saunders today joined Americans United for Life (AUL) as Senior Counsel. Mr. Saunders will be leading the development of an international edition of AUL’s definitive legal guide Defending Life and contributing to AUL’s work on bioethics, rights of conscience, and end of life issues.

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, AUL President & CEO said: “I am very pleased Bill is joining our team. As a Harvard-trained attorney with extensive publications and a prominent reputation in the pro-life movement, Bill’s addition is a strategic move for AUL as we head into our next phase of development. He will be an important resource for us as we move toward the coming Supreme Court nomination.”

Mr. Saunders said: “It is a great honor to be a part of AUL, an organization with a reputation for excellence and unparalleled expertise. Working to expand the protection of human life beyond our national borders and to provide more resources to pro-life allies around the globe is a significant venture. This new project is critical as we see the targeted threats to life growing internationally.”

Mr. Saunders was featured in Harvard’s first Guide to Conservative Public Interest Law in 2003, and again in the 2008 edition, and he served on Harvard’s Advisory Committee for its 2008 celebration of public interest law.

He speaks and writes frequently on international law and life-related topics such as stem cell research and cloning. He has submitted testimony on several occasions to the President’s Council on Bioethics and has briefed Congressional staff multiple times on stem cell research and cloning. He delivered the annual J. Michael Miller Lecture at the University of St. Thomas (on international law) in February 2007, the annual R. Wayne Kraft Memorial Lecture (on bioethics) at DeSales University in February 2004, and the annual James Moore Lecture (on Sudan) at Millikin University in 1999. He has also lectured, and/or has been published, in many countries, including Italy, Germany, Poland, Slovakia, Mexico, Qatar, Malaysia, Romania, Hong Kong, and the United Kingdom.

President Bush appointed Mr. Saunders to serve on the United States delegation to the UN Special Session on Children in 2001-2002. In 2004, he served on the NGO Working Committee in connection with the Doha Intergovernmental Conference for the Family. He served on the organizing committee for the conferences of the World Congress of Families in Mexico City (2004), in Poland (2007), in Amsterdam (2009), and is a member of that organization’s Management Committee.

Mr. Saunders served previously as Senior Fellow, Human Rights Counsel, and Director of the Center for Human Life and Bioethics at the Family Research Council. He has also practiced law with the firm Covington and Burling and taught law at the Catholic University of America. A member of the Supreme Court bar, he has authored numerous legal briefs in state and federal (and foreign) courts.

Follow us on Twitter: @jackyoest @charmaineyoest

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