According to a CBS News report, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters that Barack Obama did not ask Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor about abortion even though she spent several hours in an interview with Obama.
Hmmm. Wouldn’t Obama want to make absolutely sure Sotomayor was in sync with his strident pro-abortion stance? After all, during his presidential campaign, Obama pledged he would only back pro-abortion Supreme Court candidates. Wouldn’t he want to avoid, at all costs, what happened when President George H.W. Bush nominated David Souter to the high court? Staffers had assured Bush that Souter was in sync with his views. Much to the chagrin of Bush and millions of right-to-life Americans, Souter turned out to be a solid pro-abortion vote on the Court.
Given the support pro-abortion organizations gave Obama during the presidential campaign and his promise to nominate only pro-abortion individuals to our nation’s highest court, I’d say Obama knows exactly where Sonia Sotomayor stands on the issue of abortion.
Wisconsin Right to Life has obtained an email sent yesterday by Pete Christman, UWMF Executive Director to various UW officials regarding Wisconsin Right to Life’s most recent ad which appears today in the Wisconsin State Journal. Christman stated he had viewed the ad by visiting the Wisconsin Right to Life website. The ad can be viewed here
The Wisconsin Right to Life ad exposes shocking information contained in internal emails between various UW officials regarding the late-term abortion plan at the Madison Surgery Center. The emails were obtained through an open records request.
Christman’s email yesterday to his squeamish colleagues attempts to quell their discomfort but instead, he has reinforced the facts that we have been bringing to the publics attention.
1. UW admits they will force employees to assist in late-term abortions which is contrary to Wisconsin state law and to the public promises they have made.
2. UW admits that late-term abortions are dangerous and that abortionist Caryn Dutton could endanger women’s lives but they are pursuing these abortions anyway.
3. UW admits that late-term abortions are not medically necessary.
4. Christman states employees would be forced to participate in the case of an “emergency.” But UW will not define “emergency.” Because they have admitted these abortions are not medically necessary any actual emergencies that arise would have to be a result of abortionist Dutton causing injury to women or from the inherent danger of the procedure. Even Planned Parenthood has little confidence in Dutton’s ability to perform late-term abortions.
5. Because UW has not defined “emergency,” they will be able to define any abortion as an emergency and force employees to participate in an expanding number of circumstances.
6. UW is understaffing their late-term abortion plan to save money.They admit that the abortions are dangerous and that abortionist Dutton could seriously harm or kill women but they refuse to bring in enough staff to take care of actual emergencies. They are virtually guaranteeing that objecting staff will be forced to participate.
The public, the Madison Surgery Center staff, and the patients who obtain their health care at this facility have a right to know the truth about the late-term abortion plan and the devastating and far-reaching consequences it will have..
Following up on President Obama’s words at his Notre Dame address that we should have “sensible” conscience protections for medical professionals who do not want to participate in abortions, Wisconsin Congressman Sensenbrenner has sent a letter to the President asking him to rescind his review of the regulations President Bush put in place.
The Bush regs provide for better enforcement of federal laws which provide those conscience protections. Almost immediately after taking office, Obama asked for a review of the regs.
In the letter, co-authored by Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey, Sensenbrenner also asks that the President work with them to reduce the number of abortions by leaving prohibitions of taxpayer monies for abortions in place.
You can read Congressman Sensenbrenner’s letter to President Obama here.
In Sotomayor, President Obama selected an individual for the U.S. Supreme Court who clearly sees her role as one in which the court can legislate from the bench. In a 2002 speech given at Berkeley, Sotomayor said “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” Sotomayor has referred to the Court of Appeals where she now serves in the Second Circuit as a place “where policy is made.”
Given her unabashed commitment to radical positions, we can pretty confidently state that Sotomayor passed Obama’s litmus test as a hard-core proponent of Roe v. Wade.
In a May 17-18 national poll conducted by The Polling Company, Americans overwhelmingly do not want the new Justice to be a pro-abortion activist. Americans do not support a Supreme Court Justice who would support late-term abortions, partial-birth abortions, taxpayer funding of abortions, or the Freedom of Choice Act which would overturn all state and federal abortion restrictions.
America is moving in the right direction on abortion while Obama continues his assault on the unborn child.
Joining Gallup in reporting a significant shift to a pro-life position among the American public are Pew Research, Fox News and the Rasmussen Report. The last three polls have not gained as much publicity as Gallup but substantiate Gallup’s results and provide new insights.
The main nuggets to glean from these polls are:
Pro-life is now the mainstream position, refuting statements by pundits, media and the proponents of abortion that we are a small group of “right-wing extremists.”
Identifying as pro-life instead of pro-choice signifies that people do not view a pro-life position as a stigma or politically incorrect.
Fueling the pro-life position are women, women, women — especially younger women. The Pew poll showed the most significant change in women 18-29. This substantiates research data from many sources over the past five years showing that the millenials, ages 13-27, hold pro-life positions.
The best news — since most abortions are performed on women 18-34, this shift to a pro-life position for women 18-29 could signify even more decreases in the number of abortions.
UW Hospital has been sued for denying care to patients with developmental disabilities….who are not dying! This latest UW travesty puts that entity squarely on the slippery slope to devalue the lives of those considered to have no meaning. Not only did officials at the hospital approve a plan to perform late-term, elective, dismemberment abortions at one of its facilities, it is now on record as applying the same lack of respect for the lives of those with disabilities.
UW Hospital has been sued by Disability Rights Wisconsin for allegedly withdrawing treatment from two patients with developmental disabilities, one of whom subsequently survived while the other one died. The patients had apparent cases of pneumonia which is easily treatable. According to a May 14 article in the Wisconsin State Journal, Disability Rights in its lawsuit contends that state law does not allow withdrawal of treatment from patients unless they are dying or in a “persistent vegetative state,” a prognosis that applied to neither of the patients.
The WSJ article states that , “Disability Rights is suing to change hospital practices and to recover the $4,700 it spent investigating the cases, plus legal costs. Attorney Mitch Hagopian said he worried some UW Hospital doctors may be too quick to suggest withdrawing treatment from a developmentally disabled person they perceive to have a low quality of life.”
Wisconsin Right to Life commends Disability Rights Wisconsin for raising this important issue on behalf of patients who cannot speak for themselves. Commendations also to Bethesda Lutheran Homes in Watertown for refusing to withhold antibiotics from their patient. The statement by UW Hospital that they were acting in the ‘best interests of the patients” is hollow, given that one of the patients died, and the other reported being subjected to undue pressure to withdraw treatment.
President Obama played the most magnificent violin at Notre Dame on Sunday. Salivating over every note were Fr. John Jenkins, the Trustees of the University, and the audience who gave Obama standing ovations.
Do all of these people agree with Obama’s ardent pro-abortion position? If the answer is “yes,” Notre Dame’s stated commitment to the sanctity of human life is a sham, as it is a commitment in words only.
Or, were they willing to be “played” so adroitly? If “yes,” Obama comes out the big winner. He can drag out the photo op as “proof” he isn’t so bad on abortion whenever it suits his purposes — on his website, in campaign literature, in ads.
Notre Dame officials may believe that Obama’s appearance lent prestige to the University. They were hoodwinked as it only gave cover to Obama.
This is a mock-up of President Obama’s speech on May 17, 2009 at Notre Dame as though he is speaking of slavery, not abortion.
—I want to thank you for this honorary degree. I know it has not been without controversy. We must find a way to live together as one human family. Finding that common ground is not easy.
Those who speak out against slavery may be rooted in admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the slave-owners who feed their children and make their living by owning slaves. How do we work through these conflicts? Nowhere do these questions come up more powerfully than on the issue of slavery.
Maybe we won’t agree on slavery, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any slave owner to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions. So, let’s work together to reduce the number of slaves. Let’s make certain that slaves are properly cared for. —
In the mock speech, President Obama fails to recognize the core essence of the debate over slavery, the civil and human rights of those bought and sold. Instead, he tries to find ways to reduce the incidence of slavery. Using eloquent words yesterday at Notre Dame, President Obama once again failed to address the foundational problem of abortion, the human and civil rights of the unborn child.
Americans are now proud to call themselves pro-life — and that is a good thing. A Gallup poll conducted May 7-10 and released today finds 51% of Americans self-label as “pro-life” on abortion and 42% as “pro-choice.” According to Gallup, just one year ago, 44% self-labeled as “pro-life” and 50% as “pro-choice.”
Gallup observed that this is the first time in decades of polling that this shift has been recorded. The significance of the attitude change is that the success of those who support abortion in branding the word ‘choice’ as the favored position is now reversed.
The label question is the softest attitude question that can be asked on abortion since it is subjective. When probing beyond the label question, some people claim to be “pro-life” but support abortion in the first three months of pregnancy. The Gallup poll also found a significant decline in those who believe abortion should be legal in all circumstances, a more significant measure than the label question because it depicts real positions on when abortion should be legal or illegal.
The reasons for this attitude shift are many. Wisconsin Right to Life has engaged in an attitude-changing advertising campaign over the past 12 years. No one with any degree of intelligence or integrity would argue at this time that the baby in the womb is just a blob of tissue, given the wide range of technical ability to view and even treat the baby in the womb.
Late-term abortions, especially partial-birth abortions, are viewed as abhorrent by Americans. Younger people are far more pro-life than preceding generations. Abortion, with its high repeat rates and damage to women, has lost its luster as a panacea for curing society’s social ills.
America has turned a new corner and it is gratifying to know that we have come home. Come home to recognize that as a people, it is our duty and responsibility to protect the baby in the womb — the most vulnerable member of the human family.
Buoyed by news that the Madison Surgery Center has yet to perform a single late-term abortion, Wisconsin Right to Life garnered enough funds at last week’s Madison event to publish three half-page ads in the Wisconsin State Journal.
The first ad, appearing today, reminds patients that they can and should seek treatment somewhere other than the Madison Surgery Center.
Officials face a myriad of problems in trying to get their abortion plan off the ground:
1. Patients are asking to be treated elsewhere for moral reasons and because they don’t want to face protesters outside the facility.
2. Doctors are taking their practices elsewhere.
3. Medical staff are resigning, signing conscience protection forms, and stating they don’t want to be scheduled to work on days when abortions are being performed. Staff have even stated they will not assist if an emergency following an abortion arises.
4. Officials have not sorted out complicated funding issues.
All of this is good news to Wisconsin Right to Life and many other organizations who have kept the pressure on to ensure that the number of abortions at the Madison Surgery Center remains at zero!
It’s still not to late to contribute to the newspaper ads. You can donate online here.
Get an update on the Madison Surgery Center situation here.
![[Email]](http://www.wrtl.org/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
![[Facebook]](http://www.wrtl.org/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[MySpace]](http://www.wrtl.org/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/myspace.png)
![[Twitter]](http://www.wrtl.org/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
