Barbara Lyons Open Letter

Barbara Lyons and Wisconsin Right to Life have been criticized recently by some calling themselves pro-life.

Some of the attacks stem from a debate Lyons participated in on Wisconsin Public Radio.

Today, Lyons responds to the attacks with an open letter:

Barbara Lyons Comments on Personal Attacks Against Her and Wisconsin Right to Life

AN OPEN LETTER FROM BARBARA LYONS -- JULY 5, 2011


Organizations, bloggers and email commentators who say they are pro-life have recently attacked Wisconsin Right to Life and me, personally, for comments made on Wisconsin Public Radio (WPR) on May 25, 2011 while debating a representative of Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin (PPWI) on a statewide program.

As everyone knows, Planned Parenthood is an abortion giant both nationally and here in Wisconsin. The Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) receives hundreds of millions of federal and state taxpayer dollars each year. PPWI receives millions.

That is why Wisconsin Right to Life has been at the forefront of defunding Planned Parenthood at both the national and state levels. In fact, Wisconsin Right to Life is the organization most responsible for the recent partial defunding of Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin in the recently signed Wisconsin state budget. On behalf of Wisconsin Right to Life, I have had numerous op ed pieces exposing Planned Parenthood published in newspapers all over the state.

So, why would I and Wisconsin Right to Life be under attack from people who are supposed to be on our side? During the course of the WPR program, Planned Parenthood tried to “sell” the idea that PPWI is a health care provider and women would suffer if PPWI doesn’t receive your taxpayer dollars. I goaded PPWI relentlessly to expose their real agenda which is abortion. I repeatedly said that if PPWI would give up performing abortions, they would be able to provide health care without controversy. The goal was to inform the audience that PPWI can choose between health care and abortion, which it will never do. Interestingly, on a recent Mike Huckabee national television show, Lila Rose of Live Action pretty much said the same thing I did to goad and expose Planned Parenthood.

Now, those organizations, bloggers and email commentators who say they are pro-life are sending out emails and blogs claiming that Wisconsin Right to Life and I are “soft” on Planned Parenthood, using the WPR debate to “prove” their claim. How disturbing that a pro-life person debating the real enemy, Planned Parenthood, is subjected to a “gotcha” mentality from people and organizations who are supposed to be on the same side.

Right-to-life people are tired of ambushes and criticism within our own ranks as they demean the great cause for which many in Wisconsin Right to Life have devoted their lives. It is my sincere hope and prayer that this open letter will cause these internal attacks to cease. Thank you for listening.

While I think it's always important for groups and individuals to hold organizations accountable, give feedback, and share concerns, the notion that WRTL is soft on Planned Parenthood is silly.

It's extremely unfortunate that WRTL finds it necessary to expend energy responding to attacks from people claiming to be pro-life proponents.

Abortion: Facts

Here are some Fast Facts on Abortion, from Wisconsin Right to Life:

•Abortion is the direct killing of a baby in a mother’s womb by ripping the baby apart, dismembering the baby, injecting a lethal substance into the baby or other similar means.


• The 1973 U.S. Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision made abortion legal in all 50 states.


• Abortion is legal in all 50 states for any reason for the full nine months of pregnancy.


• Only one abortion procedure – partial-birth abortion – is prohibited in the United States.


• Over 53 million legal abortions have been performed in the United States since 1973.


• Over 3,300 unborn babies die from abortion in the United States every day. In Wisconsin, 23 abortion deaths occur each day.


• Over 92% of abortions are performed for social or “other” reasons – because the woman does not want to have the baby. Less than 1% of abortions are performed because the mother’s life is in danger or for cases of rape or incest.


•64% of women report feeling pressured into having an abortion; women also report being forced to abort.


• 48% of abortions are repeat abortions -- the woman has already had one or more abortions.


• Approximately 80% of abortions are performed on unmarried women between the ages of 18-34.


•Women experience significant psychological and physical problems post abortion.


• 36% of all abortions in the United States are of African-American babies. African-Americans comprise 13% of the American population.


• Fathers have no legal rights to prevent their unborn children from being aborted.


• Babies suffer significant pain during an abortion procedure.


• Over 2 million couples each year are waiting to adopt a baby

The numbers are horrific.

Notice how rare it is for an abortion to be performed because "the mother’s life is in danger or for cases of rape or incest." Such abortions account for less than 1 percent of the procedures performed.

The overwhelming majority of abortions, 92 percent, are performed for social or “other” reasons – because the woman does not want to have the baby.

That's not mentioned when pro-abortion proponents promoted the grisly procedure as a "health care" issue.

Another disturbing number - 48 percent of abortions are repeat abortions. Nearly half of all abortions occur when "the woman has already had one or more abortions." That's not a statistic many pro-abortion activists dare to cite.

One number I think should draw a lot of attention is this: "36% of all abortions in the United States are of African-American babies. African-Americans comprise 13% of the American population."

African-Americans babies are being killed in disproportionate numbers. Why aren't African-American leaders speaking out against this slaughter? Why isn't our first African-American president working diligently to protect the lives of these innocent African-American babies?

Why is this racial component ignored?

According to Wisconsin Right to Life, over 3,300 unborn babies will die from abortion in the United States today.

In Wisconsin, the lives of 23 unique individuals will end today.

So much death.

Every day.

The numbers are staggering.

They're heartbreaking.

Sheila Jackson Lee and Christian Militants

Sheila Jackson Lee is concerned about Christian militants.

She thinks they pose as great a threat to the security of America as Muslim radicals.

She believes that Christian militants "might bring down this country."

From CNSNews:

At a congressional hearing on Muslim radicalization in U.S. prisons, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) said that investigators needed to analyze Christian militants in America because they too might try to “bring down the country.”

In an exchange with witness Patrick Dunleavy, the former deputy inspector of the criminal intelligence unit, New York Department of Correctional Services, Rep. Jackson Lee mentioned the case of a man who blew up an abortion clinic and proposed that this perhaps was an attempt to undermine U.S. law that allows a woman to procure an abortion.

Rep. Lee then said, “As we look to be informational, we should include an analysis of how Christian militants or others might bring down the country. We have to look broadly, do we not?”

Dunleavy answered: “I don’t know that Christian militants have foreign country backing or foreign country financing.”

Lee then said, “I don’t think that’s the issue. The issue is whether or not their intent is to undermine the laws of this nation. And I think it is clear that that is the case. So it’s not -- your distinction is not answering the question.”

Good grief.

Democrat Lee reveals herself to be clueless regarding radical Islam and the threat of terrorism.

Video.

No Bin Laden Death Photo

Reuters "spikes the football" for Obama, sort of.

Still no verified image of Osama bin Laden dead.

Photographs acquired by Reuters and taken about an hour after the U.S. assault on Osama bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad in Pakistan show three dead men lying in pools of blood, but no weapons.

The photos, taken by a Pakistani security official who entered the compound after the early morning raid on Monday, show two men dressed in traditional Pakistani garb and one in a t-shirt, with blood streaming from their ears, noses and mouths.

The official, who wished to remain anonymous, sold the pictures to Reuters.

None of the men looked like bin Laden. U.S. President Barack Obama decided not to release photos of his body because it could have incited violence and used as an al Qaeda propaganda tool.

WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES
______________

Obama has spoken.

The American people will NOT see a photo of the dead Osama bin Laden.

Video.



WH won't release bin Laden death photo

President Barack Obama has decided not to release death photos of terrorist Osama bin Laden, he said in an interview with CBS's "60 Minutes," amid concerns that the gruesome image could prove inflammatory.

Obama's decision was reported on the CBS News Web site Wednesday after the president sat for an interview with the news magazine program.

Releasing graphic images of bin Laden's corpse after his shooting in a U.S. raid on his compound could have dispelled doubts that bin Laden is indeed dead. The worry, though, was that it would feed anti-U.S. sentiment.

More, from CBS News:

In an interview with Steve Kroft for this Sunday's "60 Minutes," President Obama says he won't release post-mortem images of Osama bin Laden taken to prove his death.

...Republican House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers said Wednesday that the Obama administration should not release the gruesome post-mortem images, saying it could complicate the job for American troops overseas. Rogers told CBS News he has seen a post-mortem photo.

"The risks of release outweigh the benefits," he said. "Conspiracy theorists around the world will just claim the photos are doctored anyway, and there is a real risk that releasing the photos will only serve to inflame public opinion in the Middle East."

"Imagine how the American people would react if Al Qaeda killed one of our troops or military leaders, and put photos of the body on the internet," he continued. "Osama bin Laden is not a trophy - he is dead and let's now focus on continuing the fight until Al Qaida has been eliminated."

What's Obama talking about?

We saw images of our troops being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. We don't have to imagine what it would be like.

What's with these Leftists?

They whined about not having images of the flag-draped coffins of our war dead.

They obsessed over body counts.

They insist on publishing all the gruesome details and images they can when it serves their purposes.

They couldn't get enough of the Abu Ghraib photos. They lusted for more.

The military be damned. The Leftists don't care.

Recently, TIME magazine put an extremely graphic photo of a young Afghan woman disfigured at the hand of her husband on its cover.



To view a larger image of the cover, click here.

Richard Stengel, TIME's Managing Editor, gives justification for publishing the cover photo:

Our cover image this week is powerful, shocking and disturbing. It is a portrait of Aisha, a shy 18-year-old Afghan woman who was sentenced by a Taliban commander to have her nose and ears cut off for fleeing her abusive in-laws. Aisha posed for the picture and says she wants the world to see the effect a Taliban resurgence would have on the women of Afghanistan, many of whom have flourished in the past few years. Her picture is accompanied by a powerful story by our own Aryn Baker on how Afghan women have embraced the freedoms that have come from the defeat of the Taliban — and how they fear a Taliban revival.

I thought long and hard about whether to put this image on the cover of TIME. First, I wanted to make sure of Aisha's safety and that she understood what it would mean to be on the cover. She knows that she will become a symbol of the price Afghan women have had to pay for the repressive ideology of the Taliban. We also confirmed that she is in a secret location protected by armed guards and sponsored by the NGO Women for Afghan Women. Aisha will head to the U.S. for reconstructive surgery sponsored by the Grossman Burn Foundation, a humanitarian organization in California. We are supporting that effort.

I'm acutely aware that this image will be seen by children, who will undoubtedly find it distressing. We have consulted with a number of child psychologists about its potential impact. Some think children are so used to seeing violence in the media that the image will have little effect, but others believe that children will find it very scary and distressing — that they will see it, as Dr. Michael Rich, director of the Center on Media and Child Health at Children's Hospital Boston, said, as "a symbol of bad things that can happen to people." I showed it to my two young sons, 9 and 12, who both immediately felt sorry for Aisha and asked why anyone would have done such harm to her. I apologize to readers who find the image too strong, and I invite you to comment on the image's impact.

Without question, the Leftists are willing to use gruesome images.

On the other hand, these same people freak out over the images of an aborted baby. They demand that such photos never be shown. They refuse to allow people to see the reality of abortion, the dismembered, tiny bodies. No, we can't see those either.

It's all political.

I think a photo should be released. Give people the choice whether to view it or not.

I want to see a photo of bin Laden dead.

Give the American people, and history, something to go with these images:





Too gruesome?

Too inflammatory?

This from Obama, the man who undermined George W. Bush and his administration at every turn, showing no concern for how it would impact the American troops on the battlefield. This from Obama and his Democrat comrades, wanting to slash funding for our military.

Give me a break!

Obama's assertion of this notion that conspiracy theorists will just say a photo is doctored anyway is a ridiculous excuse.

Conspiracy nuts will never EVER be satisfied.

Moreover, all the fake images of the dead bin Laden floating around right now can just as easily be used as recruiting tools for terrorists and to inflame the Muslim world.

It's not as if withholding an image will prevent a backlash against the U.S., if there's going to be one.

Obama went on national TV and declared that a U.S. military operation KILLED bin Laden. I think the news of bin Laden's death is enough to inflame.

The argument that nothing good can come from releasing the photo is offset by the fact that nothing will change if it is released.

The slaughter of innocents on 9/11 and all the previous acts of war against the U.S. preceded bin Laden's death. No photo of a dead al Qaeda leader prompted these attacks.

Hopefully, Obama has the facts wrong about the photo, too. Hopefully, the White House will realize it's a mistake to fail to release a death photo of bin Laden.

Maybe this whole thing is just a dance to make it appear that Obama was forced to release a photo, even though he really didn't want to do it.

Someone will leak it and then Obama won't have to bear responsibility for making the decision to show the world.

The allegedly gutsy Obama should show some guts.

Planned Parenthood: Lawrence O'Donnell Cries

And the Oscar goes to...

Lawrence O'Donnell!

O'Donnell has had plenty of bizarre moments on TV.

Examples include:

"Creepy Liar" Meltdown

"Mitt Romney Mormon" Meltdown

"Dick Cheney" Meltdown

"George W. Bush Invited 9/11 Attacks" Meltdown

We have another O'Donnell moment to add to his highlight reel.

While on the air, he read an allegedly personal e-mail sent from a "friend." He read it off his blackberry. (How lame!) O'Donnell's buddy has had an abortion and receives birth control, all courtesy of Planned Parenthood. O'Donnell used the e-mail to decry the efforts to prevent federal funds from being used to keep Planned Parenthood in business, the nation's largest slaughterhouse of the unborn.

Then, he cried.

It's official. O'Donnell is the Left's Glenn Beck.

Video, via Breitbart.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I wonder if O'Donnell breaks down in tears when he thinks about the tens of millions of precious lives ended by their mothers. Does he cry when he thinks about those individuals never having a chance to take their first breath because their mothers chose to kill them before they were born?

Does he shed tears when he mourns their deaths?

I'm guessing that's unlikely. That would require him to respect life.

WRTL Weighs in on Stevens Point Pro-Life Display

Pointers for Life is a right-to-life group at UW-Stevens Point whose leader is funded by Wisconsin Right to Life.

The group staged a "Cemetery of Innocents" display on the campus, consisting of 4,000 white crosses and pro-life signs.

Student Senator Roderick King didn't like it. He and other students pulled out the crosses in protest even though Pointers for Life had obtained approval for the display.

Barbara Lyons, Executive Director of Wisconsin Right to Life, comments:

"We wonder what caused such intolerance and disrespect. It is hard to understand why a group of white crosses would trigger such an extreme response from King."

What would trigger King's response?

I think King can't handle the truth. Sometimes, the truth hurts.

Watch video of King's fit.

Stevens Point Student Sen. Roderick King Destroys Pro-Life Display

Alex Schumer, left, and Kami Koeshall, students with the Pointers for Life group on the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point campus, replace crosses Thursday after they were pulled up by protesters. (Doug Wojcik/For the Stevens Point Journal)

Oh, those compassionate pro-abortion people!

From the Wausau Daily Herald:

Students at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point butted heads Thursday after an anti-abortion organization planted 4,000 white crosses on campus to symbolize aborted fetuses and a student responded by pulling hundreds of them out of the ground.

The display, sponsored by Pointers for Life and planted on Isadore Street outside the Health Enhancement Center, is called "Cemetery of the Innocents" and features crosses and anti-abortion and religious signs, one of which reads "Seek Jesus."

The group has come to expect minor vandalism each time it displays the exhibit, but students were shocked when Roderick King pulled up many of the crosses in protest.

"It's just so disrespectful, and it's disappointing that this comes from UWSP students. I've always thought of this campus as a tolerant place. ... Someone made these (crosses) with their own hands," said Pointers for Life member Tracey Oudenhoven.

King eventually left the site of the display after speaking with Protective Services officials, but he later returned to protest. King said his anger was not just politically charged, but also related to the anonymity of the exhibit.

"If you're not ashamed of this, then you should claim it and sign it," King said. "My student dollars are going to support this, this travesty."

Pointers for Life reserved the space but didn't indicate its sponsorship of the exhibit. At King's request, students eventually posted a sign reading, "Sponsored by Pointers for Life."

Students put up the exhibit early Wednesday. By Thursday morning, some signs had been slashed and a few crosses had been broken. King said he didn't participate in those acts.

According to a release from Students for Life of America, King did take part in the vandalism.

After having their display vandalized on the night of April 30th, several members from the UWSP pro-life group, Pointers for Life, were repairing the display around 11am on the morning of May 1st when a group of angry students, lead by UWSP Student Senator Roderick King, began to walk though the rows, taking crosses from the ground and throwing them.

King began to voice his complaints and said that Pointers for Life had "no right" to display the crosses, and that it was "his duty as a paying student" to take it down.

When the campus Protective Services officer arrived, most of the students stopped vandalizing the display, however, Senator King did not stop. He claimed, "The freedom of speech does not cover these signs and symbols!" Only after the Protective Services officer threatened to make him pay for damages, Senator King finally stopped.

Bob Tomlinson, Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs, apologized to Pointers for Life for the disrespect and vandalism by the students. And Student Senators Katie Kloth and Erica Wardle came to the display and clearly defined the policies, asserting that Pointers for Life had correctly reserved the space and were allowed to host the display.

That night, Pointers for Life submitted a complaint to the Student Government Association (SGA) and asked for Senator King to resign or be disciplined appropriately under the student government Constitution. However, the student government has yet to force Senator King to resign.

Jackie Kryzkowski, the Pointers for Life President, said, "Student Senators should be helping to defend our freedom of speech, not trying to take it away because of personal beliefs. If students had a problem with the display, they could exercise their freedom of speech maturely by protesting it peacefully, not by defacing our display."

There is no question that King vandalized the display on the morning of May 1. Watch Sen. King rip down the crosses.



So much for free speech.

Yale Threatens to Ban Shvarts' Art

UPDATE, April 22, 2008: Yale Pulls Student's 'Abortion Art' Project From Exhibit Opening

Senior Aliza Shvarts' controversial piece still could be included in the student show, which runs through May 1, Yale officials indicated.

"Her exhibit is not on display, but it's unresolved as to whether it will be," said Yale spokesman Tom Conroy, suggesting discussions were in progress between the university and Shvarts.

Discussions?

This is ridiculous. Maybe Jimmy Carter can help resolve the matter.

Shvarts kept mum through the weekend and early this week despite the school's calls for her to confess that she lied in describing how she constructed the project. She didn't respond to repeated calls or e-mails requesting comment.

Yale officials warned that unless the art major agreed to say in writing that she hadn't told the truth about artificially inseminating herself and then taking herbal drugs to try to induce miscarriages, they'd yank her piece from the student exhibit, which opened Tuesday morning and closes May 1.

Does this mean she gets an A on her project?
___________________

Aliza Shvarts' senior art project is turning into quite a battle.

What a performance artist!

From the Yale Daily News:

The University will not allow Aliza Shvarts ’08 to display her controversial senior art project at its scheduled opening Tuesday unless she confesses in writing that the exhibition is a work of fiction, Yale officials said Sunday.

The University, meanwhile, acknowledged that it has disciplined two faculty members for their role in allowing Shvarts to proceed with a project that she claimed included nine months of repeated artificial inseminations followed by self-induced miscarriages.

As news of Shvarts’ project swept across the Web last week and attracted the ire of students and private citizens alike, Shvarts and the University engaged in a match of he-said/she-said: Shvarts stood by her project as she described it earlier last week in a news release, while the University — claiming Shvarts had privately denied actually committing the acts in question — dismissed it as a hoax that amounted to nothing more than “performance art.”

And with the scheduled opening of her exhibition rapidly approaching, the University only intensified its criticism this weekend.

“I am appalled,” Yale College Dean Peter Salovey said in a statement Friday. “This piece of performance art as reported in the press bears no relation to what I consider appropriate for an undergraduate senior project.”

School of Art Dean Robert Storr also condemned the project in a written statement Friday.

“If I had known about this, I would not have permitted it to go forward,” Storr said in the statement. “This is not an acceptable project in a community where the consequences go beyond the individual who initiates the project and may even endanger that individual.”

...Meanwhile, Salovey said in the Friday statement that he and Storr would reassess what constitutes an “appropriate” senior project and the process through which such projects are overseen by faculty.

Two days later, Salovey and Storr announced that an investigation had found “serious errors in judgement” on the part of two unnamed individuals — ostensibly her thesis adviser, School of Art lecturer Pia Lindman, and School of Art Director of Undergraduate Studies Henk van Assen — who had been involved in her project before it incited mass condemnation across campus and across the country and that “appropriate action” had been taken against them.

“In one case, the instructor responsible for the senior project should not have allowed it to go forward,” Salovey said. “In the other, an adviser should have interceded and consulted others when first given information about the project.”

...In his statement Sunday night, Salovey called on Shvarts to produce a written confession admitting that her project did not actually include the graphic acts that she had first described. He added that Shvarts will not be allowed to install her project unless she admits she did not try to inseminate herself and induce miscarriages and promises that no human blood will be displayed in her exhibit.

...If the exhibition does go ahead, it will likely require heavy security. A Yale official said last week that the incident has drawn more press inquiries to the University than any episode since the controversy over the admission of former Taliban diplomat Rahmatullah Hashemi in 2006.

But if the art opening does not continue, the University is likely to face criticism that it has restricted freedom of expression.

In his statement, Storr emphasized that the University “has a profound commitment to freedom of expression” and that he, personally, supports the legality of abortion.

“That said, Yale does not encourage or condone projects that would involve unknown health risks to the student,” Storr said. “Nor does it believe that open discourse and inquiry can exist in an educational and creative community when an individual exercises these rights but evades full intellectual accountability for the strong response he or she may provoke.”

Exactly.

Shvarts is exhibiting intellectual dishonesty.

Yale is not banning her project, disgusting as it is.

The university is demanding that she simply be honest and not misrepresent the truth of her art project.

This isn't a case of trampling on Shvarts' freedom of expression. And certainly, members of Yale's faculty are strongly pro-abortion. It's not a matter of School of Art Dean Robert Storr acting in support of anything as controversial as respecting life.

Shvarts can display her project, but she can't profess it to be something it's not.

With freedom comes responsibility.

Yale is not going to be complicit in Shvarts' irresponsibility. She can't claim that the university signed off on an assignment that would have endangered her physically.

To those of you claiming a ban of Shvarts' project would be an assault on free speech: I say, "It's not. Duh."

GAME OVER, SHVARTS

UPDATE, April 22, 2008: Yale Pulls Student's 'Abortion Art' Project From Exhibit Opening

Senior Aliza Shvarts' controversial piece still could be included in the student show, which runs through May 1, Yale officials indicated.

"Her exhibit is not on display, but it's unresolved as to whether it will be," said Yale spokesman Tom Conroy, suggesting discussions were in progress between the university and Shvarts.

Discussions?

This is ridiculous. Maybe Jimmy Carter can help resolve the matter.

Shvarts kept mum through the weekend and early this week despite the school's calls for her to confess that she lied in describing how she constructed the project. She didn't respond to repeated calls or e-mails requesting comment.

Yale officials warned that unless the art major agreed to say in writing that she hadn't told the truth about artificially inseminating herself and then taking herbal drugs to try to induce miscarriages, they'd yank her piece from the student exhibit, which opened Tuesday morning and closes May 1.

Does this mean she gets an A on her project?
___________________

UPDATE, April 21, 2008: Yale to Cancel Controversial 'Abortion Art' Exhibit Unless Student Admits It's Fiction
________________

Yale student Aliza Shvarts insists that she really did inseminate herself and then abort her pregnancies as part of her senior art project.

A Yale University student who touched off a campus firestorm with her shocking claims of repeatedly artificially inseminating herself and then inducing miscarriages as part of an art project stood by her story Friday, despite statements from the university that her version of events is "creative fiction."

In a guest column that ran in Friday's Yale Daily News — which first reported her claims in Thursday's edition — senior art major Aliza Shvarts maintained that she had conducted artificial inseminations and carried out what she characterized as self-induced miscarriage procedures, though she never actually knew whether she was pregnant.

"For the past year, I performed repeated self-induced miscarriages," Shvarts wrote in Friday's column. "Using a needleless syringe, I would inject the sperm near my cervix within 30 minutes of its collection, so as to insure the possibility of fertilization.

"On the 28th day of my cycle, I would ingest an abortifacient, after which I would experience cramps and heavy bleeding. ... Because the miscarriages coincide with the expected date of menstruation (the 28th day of my cycle), it remains ambiguous whether the there (sic) was ever a fertilized ovum or not.

"The reality of the pregnancy, both for myself and for the audience, is a matter of reading."

She reiterated that the display, which she herself drew attention to with a press release circulated Wednesday, was meant to provoke discussion about the link between art and the human body.

"This piece — in its textual and sculptural forms — is meant to call into question the relationship between form and function as they converge on the body," she wrote.

..."The entire project is an art piece, a creative fiction designed to draw attention to the ambiguity surrounding form and function of a woman’s body," Helaine S. Klasky, associate dean and vice president for public affairs at Yale, said in the statement sent to FOXNews.com.

"Ms. Shvarts is engaged in performance art. Her art project includes visual representations, a press release and other narrative materials. She is an artist and has the right to express herself through performance art."

Shvarts' campus phone has been disconnected, and she did not respond to e-mailed requests for an interview. While she did not explicitly mention Yale officials' version of events in her Friday column, Klasky told various media that Shvarts had indicated what she would do if the university contended her story was false.

"She said if Yale puts out a statement saying she did not do this, she would say Yale was doing that to protect its reputation," Klasky told The Associated Press.

The public affairs official also wrote an e-mail to the Yale Daily News late Thursday night saying that Shvarts "denial is part of her performance. We are disappointed that she would deliberately lie to the press in the name of art.”

Shvarts shot back at the school, claiming her project was “university sanctioned,” according to the paper.

“I’m not going to absolve them by saying it was some sort of hoax when it wasn’t,” she told the Daily News. “I started out with the university on board with what I was doing, and because of the media frenzy they’ve been trying to dissociate with me. Ultimately I want to get back to a point where they renew their support.”

Shvarts said her project had the backing of Yale's Davenport College Dean Craig Harwood, as well as at least two faculty members within the School of Art.

Blah, blah, blah.

Pull the curtain on this one. The performance is over.

My review: Despicable. GAME OVER, SHVARTS.

____________________

Read Shvarts' column in the Yale Daily News.

Shvarts' Performance Art

UPDATE, April 22, 2008: Yale Pulls Student's 'Abortion Art' Project From Exhibit Opening

Senior Aliza Shvarts' controversial piece still could be included in the student show, which runs through May 1, Yale officials indicated.

"Her exhibit is not on display, but it's unresolved as to whether it will be," said Yale spokesman Tom Conroy, suggesting discussions were in progress between the university and Shvarts.

Discussions?

This is ridiculous. Maybe Jimmy Carter can help resolve the matter.

Shvarts kept mum through the weekend and early this week despite the school's calls for her to confess that she lied in describing how she constructed the project. She didn't respond to repeated calls or e-mails requesting comment.

Yale officials warned that unless the art major agreed to say in writing that she hadn't told the truth about artificially inseminating herself and then taking herbal drugs to try to induce miscarriages, they'd yank her piece from the student exhibit, which opened Tuesday morning and closes May 1.

Does this mean she gets an A on her project?
___________________

UPDATE, April 21, 2008: Yale to Cancel Controversial 'Abortion Art' Exhibit Unless Student Admits It's Fiction
_________________

UPDATE: Shvarts maintains her facade.

Blah, blah, blah.

Pull the curtain on this one. The performance is over.

My review: Despicable. GAME OVER, SHVARTS.

_________________

Let me get this straight...

Aliza Shvarts' senior art project was "performance art." She didn't actually do what the Yale Daily News reported that she did. Apparently, she duped the newspaper and many people across the country, outraged over what she professed to have done.

Don't accuse Shvarts of lying. It was art.

Here's how Shvarts' project was described in the student newspaper on Thursday:

Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself "as often as possible" while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process.

...The "fabricators," or donors, of the sperm were not paid for their services, but Shvarts required them to periodically take tests for sexually transmitted diseases. She said she was not concerned about any medical effects the forced miscarriages may have had on her body. The abortifacient drugs she took were legal and herbal, she said, and she did not feel the need to consult a doctor about her repeated miscarriages.

Shvarts declined to specify the number of sperm donors she used, as well as the number of times she inseminated herself.

...The display of Schvarts' project will feature a large cube suspended from the ceiling of a room in the gallery of Green Hall. Schvarts will wrap hundreds of feet of plastic sheeting around this cube; lined between layers of the sheeting will be the blood from Schvarts' self-induced miscarriages mixed with Vaseline in order to prevent the blood from drying and to extend the blood throughout the plastic sheeting.

Schvarts will then project recorded videos onto the four sides of the cube. These videos, captured on a VHS camcorder, will show her experiencing miscarriages in her bathrooom tub, she said. Similar videos will be projected onto the walls of the room.

School of Art lecturer Pia Lindman, Schvarts' senior-project advisor, could not be reached for comment Wednesday night.

Both pro-life and pro-abortion proponents reacted with horror.

Late on Thursday, Helaine S. Klasky, Yale University spokesperson, finally issued a statement about Shvarts' project:

New Haven, Conn. — April 17, 2008

Ms. Shvarts is engaged in performance art. Her art project includes visual representations, a press release and other narrative materials. She stated to three senior Yale University officials today, including two deans, that she did not impregnate herself and that she did not induce any miscarriages. The entire project is an art piece, a creative fiction designed to draw attention to the ambiguity surrounding form and function of a woman’s body.

She is an artist and has the right to express herself through performance art.

Had these acts been real, they would have violated basic ethical standards and raised serious mental and physical health concerns.

Yale supports Shvarts.

Why am I not surprised?

Shvarts' senior-project advisor is Pia Lindman.

Who is Pia Lindman?

Read her résumé.

Here's her profile, lecturer at M.I.T. (2004-2005):

Born in Espoo, Finland, Pia Lindman received her MFA from the Academy of Fine Arts in Finland, and then as a Fulbright scholar received a Master of Science in Visual Studies from Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts. She now lives and works in New York City.

Lindman takes the site-specific art tradition as a point of departure. Her work evolves around the themes of social context and space, as well as the performative aspect of making and experiencing art. By engineered social contexts like the Hybrid Sauna at M.I.T. in 1999 and Public Sauna at P.S.1 in 2000, Lindman aims to provoke members of the audience to perform and experience a particular social practice, forcing a re-evaluation of notions of corporeality and public sphere. Lindman’s approach to drawing is informed by the tradition of performance art. After videotaping herself re-enacting gestures of mourning captured in photographs in the New York Times, she traced these gestures from video stills with pencil. By exhibiting both the tracings and the enactments, she tries to illuminate some of the relationships between a photograph, its mediation, and the idea of original content, in this instance human emotional reaction to terrorism.

Lindman has mounted solo exhibitions and screenings at “the lab”, N.Y.C., Galleri Leena Kuumola in Helsinki Finland; the Institut Finlandais in Paris, France; Artist-in-Akiya in Tokyo, Japan; Kluuvi Gallery in Helsinki, Finland; and Galleri FABRIKEN in Gothenburg, Sweden. She has been included in group exhibitions and screenings in New York such as: “Premieres” at the Museum of Modern Art in N.Y.C., “BLIND DATES” at Sculpture Center L.I.C., "The Suburban Backyard" at Socrates Sculpture Park L.I.C., "Lobby Projections" at Museum of Modern Art in Queens; "New Views, World Financial Center", with Lower Manhattan Cultural Council and the World Financial Center Arts & Events; and "Greater New York" at P.S.1 Contemporary Art Center, L.I.C. Her video series Thisplace is in the MoMA collections. She has shown internationally in galleries and art institutions such as: Kunsthalle Exnergasse in Vienna, Austria, Millais Gallery at the Southampton Institute, U.K., San Francisco Arts Commission Gallery, SF, FIAC with Luxe Gallery, Paris, France, Kunstbunker in Nuremburg, Germany, Helsinki Museum of Contemporary Art, Finland, and Beaconsfield in London, UK. She has lectured widely, among other at Yale University School of Art and Architecture, New Haven, New York University School of Visual Art, Institut Française d’Architecture in Paris, France, and the Rhode Island School of Design. She has received numerous awards, including those from AVEK (The Promotion Centre for Audiovisual Culture in Finland, FRAME (Finnish Fund for Art Exchange), the Council for the Arts at MIT. Lindman’s work has been reviewed in many periodicals and journals including: Times Higher Educational Supplement, PRINT Magazine, Rethinking Marxism, Artforum.com, Brooklyn Rail, Art Press, The New York Times, The Village Voice, ARTnews, Technikart, Thresholds, Time Out New York, and Time Out London.

I suppose Yale didn't want to diss the distinguished Lindman by reprimanding her for overseeing Shvarts' disgusting "art."

From the Associated Press:

Cullen MacBeth, the student newspaper's managing editor, declined to comment Thursday.

Shvarts could not be reached for comment. Her telephone number was disconnected and she did not respond to e-mails or a knock on the door at the address listed for her in the campus directory in New Haven.

Why no comments?

I would think that the newspaper's managing editor would have a lot to say about being exploited by Shvarts.

And Shvarts-- she wanted to spark discussion, yet she's not talking.

Groups both for and against abortion rights expressed outrage over the affair.

Ted Miller, a spokesman for NARAL Pro-Choice America, called the concept offensive and "not a constructive addition to the debate over reproductive rights."

Peter Wolfgang, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, an anti-abortion group, said his anger was not mitigated by the fact that Shvarts was never pregnant.

"I'm astounded by this woman's callousness," he said. "There are thousands of women in this country who are dealing with the pain of having had an abortion, with the trauma of having suffered a miscarriage. For her to make light of that for her own purposes is just beyond words."

I, too, find Shvarts' callousness astounding. As her advisor, I don't think Lindman should have signed off on such a cruel hoax.

Yale's Klasky says that Shvarts "is an artist and has the right to express herself through performance art."

True. Shvarts has the right to do unconscionable things and call it art.

I have the right to express myself.

Shvarts' project wasn't art. It was an exercise in heartlessness and soullessness, an assault on an audience without their permission. She's not a performance artist. She's a liar.

Aliza Shvarts' Art Project

UPDATE, April 22, 2008: Yale Pulls Student's 'Abortion Art' Project From Exhibit Opening

Senior Aliza Shvarts' controversial piece still could be included in the student show, which runs through May 1, Yale officials indicated.

"Her exhibit is not on display, but it's unresolved as to whether it will be," said Yale spokesman Tom Conroy, suggesting discussions were in progress between the university and Shvarts.

Discussions?

This is ridiculous. Maybe Jimmy Carter can help resolve the matter.

Shvarts kept mum through the weekend and early this week despite the school's calls for her to confess that she lied in describing how she constructed the project. She didn't respond to repeated calls or e-mails requesting comment.

Yale officials warned that unless the art major agreed to say in writing that she hadn't told the truth about artificially inseminating herself and then taking herbal drugs to try to induce miscarriages, they'd yank her piece from the student exhibit, which opened Tuesday morning and closes May 1.

Does this mean she gets an A on her project?
___________________

UPDATE, April 21, 2008: Yale to Cancel Controversial 'Abortion Art' Exhibit Unless Student Admits It's Fiction
__________________

UPDATE: Shvarts maintains her facade. She claims it was not a hoax.

Blah, blah, blah.

Pull the curtain on this one. The performance is over.

My review: Despicable. GAME OVER, SHVARTS.

__________________


UPDATE: Hoax

__________________

I thought Susan Crane's "social experiment art project" was a bit extreme.

The assignment was to create a social commentary piece for a class with assistant art professor Kate Randall.

Starting about 6 a.m., students and employees walking through the student center [at University of Maine at Farmington] had to decide to either step around or step on the five, four-by-five-foot flags and the 3,000 small, handheld flags scattered over the floor. As part of her project, Crane videotaped people's feet to record their response.

"This is very emotional for me because it goes against a lot of my own beliefs about the flag," Crane said, her eyes tearing up, after holding her own against a verbal barrage.

"But I feel strongly that people should have the choice. That is what our country is all about. I expected controversy but not like this," she said.

It's not surprising that veterans and others found Crane's "social experiment" to be disrespectful.

In terms of eliciting a strong response, Crane's project pales in comparison to what a senior at Yale did.

Aliza Shvarts' senior art project is beyond shocking.

From the Yale Daily News:

Art major Aliza Shvarts '08 wants to make a statement.

Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself "as often as possible" while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process.

The goal in creating the art exhibition, Shvarts said, was to spark conversation and debate on the relationship between art and the human body. But her project has already provoked more than just debate, inciting, for instance, outcry at a forum for fellow senior art majors held last week. And when told about Shvarts' project, students on both ends of the abortion debate have expressed shock . saying the project does everything from violate moral code to trivialize abortion.

But Shvarts insists her concept was not designed for "shock value."

"I hope it inspires some sort of discourse," Shvarts said. "Sure, some people will be upset with the message and will not agree with it, but it's not the intention of the piece to scandalize anyone."

The "fabricators," or donors, of the sperm were not paid for their services, but Shvarts required them to periodically take tests for sexually transmitted diseases. She said she was not concerned about any medical effects the forced miscarriages may have had on her body. The abortifacient drugs she took were legal and herbal, she said, and she did not feel the need to consult a doctor about her repeated miscarriages.

Shvarts declined to specify the number of sperm donors she used, as well as the number of times she inseminated herself.

Art major Juan Castillo '08 said that although he was intrigued by the creativity and beauty of her senior project, not everyone was as thrilled as he was by the concept and the means by which she attained the result.

"I really loved the idea of this project, but a lot other people didn't," Castillo said. "I think that most people were very resistant to thinking about what the project was really about. [The senior-art-project forum] stopped being a conversation on the work itself."

Although Shvarts said she does not remember the class being quite as hostile as Castillo described, she said she believes it is the nature of her piece to "provoke inquiry."

"I believe strongly that art should be a medium for politics and ideologies, not just a commodity," Shvarts said. "I think that I'm creating a project that lives up to the standard of what art is supposed to be."

This is so degrading and repulsive that I am absolutely sickened.

How could this sort of "project" be sanctioned by Yale?

Not only did Shvarts put herself at great risk by repeatedly becoming pregnant and inducing miscarriages, she showed no respect whatsoever for life. ZERO.

The display of Schvarts' project will feature a large cube suspended from the ceiling of a room in the gallery of Green Hall. Schvarts will wrap hundreds of feet of plastic sheeting around this cube; lined between layers of the sheeting will be the blood from Schvarts' self-induced miscarriages mixed with Vaseline in order to prevent the blood from drying and to extend the blood throughout the plastic sheeting.

Schvarts will then project recorded videos onto the four sides of the cube. These videos, captured on a VHS camcorder, will show her experiencing miscarriages in her bathrooom tub, she said. Similar videos will be projected onto the walls of the room.

School of Art lecturer Pia Lindman, Schvarts' senior-project advisor, could not be reached for comment Wednesday night.

That is horrific.

Again, how could Shvarts' project advisor have signed off on this?

Shvarts "did not feel the need to consult a doctor about her repeated miscarriages."

How could her advisor have been aware of what she was doing and not demand that she be monitored by a doctor?

Few people outside of Yale's undergraduate art department have heard about Shvarts' exhibition. Members of two campus abortion-activist groups . Choose Life at Yale, a pro-life group, and the Reproductive Rights Action League of Yale, a pro-choice group . said they were not previously aware of Schvarts' project.

Alice Buttrick '10, an officer of RALY, said the group was in no way involved with the art exhibition and had no official opinion on the matter.

Sara Rahman '09 said, in her opinion, Shvarts is abusing her constitutional right to do what she chooses with her body.

"[Shvarts' exhibit] turns what is a serious decision for women into an absurdism," Rahman said. "It discounts the gravity of the situation that is abortion."

CLAY member Jonathan Serrato '09 said he does not think CLAY has an official response to Schvarts' exhibition. But personally, Serrato said he found the concept of the senior art project "surprising" and unethical.

"I feel that she's manipulating life for the benefit of her art, and I definitely don't support it," Serrato said. "I think it's morally wrong."

Shvarts emphasized that she is not ashamed of her exhibition, and she has become increasingly comfortable discussing her miscarriage experiences with her peers.

"It was a private and personal endeavor, but also a transparent one for the most part," Shvarts said. "This isn't something I've been hiding."

It wasn't a "private and personal endeavor." Her multiple abortions were meant for public exhibition, artistic expression for public consumption.

Clearly, Shvarts is a disturbed individual. She is in dire need of medical care. Her body and mind needs to be thoroughly examined.

The official reception for the Undergraduate Senior Art Show will be from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. on April 25. The exhibition will be on public display from April 22 to May 1. The art exhibition is set to premiere alongside the projects of other art seniors this Tuesday, April 22 at the gallery of Holcombe T. Green Jr. Hall on Chapel Street.

This exhibition is going to be a circus. Shvarts' ghoulish freak show display is sure to dominate the Undergraduate Senior Art Show.

I feel sorry for the other seniors. Their works will be held hostage by Shvarts' submission.

I don't see how a project requiring the "artist" to have been in such physical peril would be displayed. The utter moral bankruptcy of the "artist's" project is jaw-dropping.

Does Yale have no rules or guidelines for the senior art project? I can't get over the lack of judgment shown by Shvarts' advisor.

I wonder if an art student would have been allowed to do a project like this:

The display will feature a large cube suspended from the ceiling of a room in the gallery of Green Hall. The student will wrap hundreds of feet of plastic sheeting around this cube; lined between layers of the sheeting will be the blood from the dogs and cats the student killed mixed with Vaseline in order to prevent the blood from drying and to extend the blood throughout the plastic sheeting.

The student will then project recorded videos onto the four sides of the cube. These videos, captured on a VHS camcorder, will show the student killing the dogs and cats in her bathrooom tub, she said. Similar videos will be projected onto the walls of the room.

Imagine the outcry, and rightly so. Of course, Shvarts couldn't get away with killing dogs and cats. Animal cruelty laws would kick in.

The fact that what Shvarts did was legal should give everyone pause.

Shvarts' art project sounds like a horrible Nazi experiment, an atrocity committed by a brutal regime.

Barack Obama: Of Babies and Punishment

I am so sick of hearing that Barack Obama can unite the country. He can bring everyone together. He transcends our divisions. Blah, blah, blah.

Listen up! Listen to what Obama says!

From Ben Smith:

Opponents of Obama's plan are expected to jump on a quote from his Q and A session in Johnstown, Pa., yesterday.

Politico’s Carrie Budoff Brown reports that it followed “Obama's earlier comments that he does not favor abstinence-only education but, rather, comprehensive sexual education that includes information on abstinence and birth control.”

“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old," Obama said. "I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."

Anti-abortion leaders will be encouraged to make the “punished with a baby” part famous.

"Punished with a baby"?

My question is: What kind of values and morals does Obama plan on teaching his daughters?

It doesn't sound like he values human life, certainly not the life of the unborn.


A baby, a human life, is never a mistake. A baby is not a punishment.

If his daughters have unplanned pregnancies, the moral thing to do is not to kill the babies. If they don't want to love and care for their "mistakes," they should give up their "mistakes" and allow someone else adopt them, to love and care for them.

Every baby is wanted by someone.
__________________

Read more about Barack Obama and abortion.

Barack Obama, Abortion, and Infanticide

Barack Obama doesn't like the liberal label.

At the core of Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars, and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, "we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done."

It is a promise that convinced 67 percent of all registered voters in the last New York Times/CBS News Poll, in late February, that Obama "would be the kind of president who would be able to unify the country" - far more than those who identified his Democratic rival, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, or the presumptive Republican nominee, Senator John McCain, that way.

But this promise leads, inevitably, to a question: Can such a majority be built and led by Obama, whose voting record was, by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year?

Also, and more immediately, if Obama wins the Democratic nomination, how will his promise of a new and less polarized type of politics fare against the Republican attacks that since the 1980s have portrayed Democrats as far out of step with the country's values?

Obama, in an interview, said that "a lot of these old labels don't apply anymore."

He said he was a progressive and a pragmatist, eager to tackle the big issues like health care and convinced that the Democrats could rally independents and disaffected Republicans to their agenda.

I don't see that happening at all.

I don't think Obama can bring Republicans and Dems, or liberals and conservatives together.

There is no way that any staunch pro-life voter could ever support someone as extreme as Obama.

Read about where Obama stands on abortion and other issues of interest to people who care about the sanctity of life.

On abortion issues, Obama scores a 0% from the National Right to Life Committee.

A 0% is pretty extreme. Agreed?

And then we have the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.


(Chicago Sun-Times)

A pro-life nurse is seconding a statement made by Alan Keyes that Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama, pointing to his support for infanticide.

Jill Stanek is a nurse who discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms while working at a hospital in Illinois and since has been a strong advocate against partial-birth and live-birth abortions.

According to her commentary on WorldNetDaily.com, Stanek explains why Keyes made his statement.

At the federal level, legislation was presented called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) which stated all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted.

BAIPA sailed through the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote and by an overwhelming majority in the House. President Bush signed the bill into law in 2002.

Stanek wrote that, “in Illinois, the state version of BAIPA repeatedly failed, thanks in large part to then-state Sen. Barack Obama. It only passed in 2005, after Obama left.”

“Obama articulately worried that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on women's rights or abortionists' rights. Obama's clinical discourse, his lack of mercy, shocked me. I was naive back then. Obama voted against the measure, twice. It ultimately failed.”

“So, the reason Keyes said Jesus Christ wouldn't vote for Barack Obama was because of Obama's fanatical support of abortion to the point of condoning infanticide.”

In a recent USA Today opinion piece, Obama admitted being "nagged" by the Jesus-wouldn't-vote-for-him statement, but only because he wished he'd given a different comeback.

Obama’s initial response, as stated in USA Today was “that we live in a pluralistic society, and that I can't impose my religious views on another.” He added that he was running to be the U.S. senator of Illinois, and not a minister.

Obama reminds me a lot of Russ Feingold when it comes to infanticide.

Like Obama, Feingold is rabidly pro-abortion.

On September 26, 1996, during debate in the Senate on partial birth abortion, Feingold revealed just how extreme he is.

Transcript

Sen. Santorum: Will the Senator from Wisconsin yield for a question?

Sen. Feingold: I will.

Sen. Santorum: The Senator from Wisconsin says that this decision should be left up to the mother and the doctor, as if there is absolutely no limit that could be placed on what decision that they make with respect to that. And the Senator from California [Sen. Barbara Boxer] is going up to advise you of what my question is going to be, and I will ask it anyway. And my question is this: that if that baby were delivered breech style and everything was delivered except for the head, and for some reason that that baby's head would slip out -- that the baby was completely delivered -- would it then still be up to the doctor and the mother to decide whether to kill that baby?

Sen. Feingold: I would simply answer your question by saying under the Boxer amendment, the standard of saying it has to be a determination, by a doctor, of health of the mother, is a sufficient standard that would apply to that situation. And that would be an adequate standard.

Sen. Santorum: That doesn't answer the question. Let's assume that this procedure is being performed for the reason that you've stated, and the head is accidentally delivered. Would you allow the doctor to kill the baby?

Sen. Feingold: I am not the person to be answering that question. That is a question that should be answered by a doctor, and by the woman who receives advice from the doctor. And neither I, nor is the Senator from Pennsylvania, truly competent to answer those questions. That is why we should not be making those decisions here on the floor of the Senate.

That exchange is chilling, so chilling that Feingold had the Congressional Record altered.

Does Obama really believe that he is the candidate capable of bringing all Americans together when he holds a position as extreme as being against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA)?

About a month ago, Rick Santorum wrote a piece on Obama's extremism, "Obama: A harsh ideologue hidden by a feel-good image."

This is a "must-read:"

American voters will choose between two candidates this election year.
One inspires hope for a brighter, better tomorrow. His rhetoric makes us feel we are, indeed, one nation indivisible - indivisible by ideology or religion, indivisible by race or creed. It is rhetoric of hope and change and possibility. It's inspiring. This candidate can make you just plain feel good to be American.

The other candidate, by contrast, is one of the Senate's fiercest partisans. This senator reflexively sides with the party's extreme wing. There's no record of working with the other side of the aisle. None. It's basically been my way or the highway, combined with a sanctimoniousness that breeds contempt among those on the other side of any issue.

Which of these two candidates should be our next president? The choice is clear, right?

Wrong, because they're both the same man - Barack Obama.

Granted, the first-term Illinois senator's lofty rhetoric of bipartisanship, unity, hope and change makes everyone feel good. But it's becoming increasingly clear that his grand campaign rhetoric does not match his partisan, ideological record. The nonpartisan National Journal, for example, recently rated Obama the Senate's most liberal member. That's besting some tough competition from orthodox liberals such as Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer.

John McCain's campaign and conservative pundits have listed the numerous times in Obama's short Senate career where he sided with the extremes in his party against broadly supported compromises on issues such as immigration, ethics reform, terrorist surveillance and war funding. Fighting on the fringe with a handful of liberals is one thing, but consider his position on an issue that passed both houses of Congress unanimously in 2002.

That bill was the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. During the partial-birth abortion debate, Congress heard testimony about babies that had survived attempted late-term abortions. Nurses testified that these preterm living, breathing babies were being thrown into medical waste bins to die or being "terminated" outside the womb. With the baby now completely separated from the mother, it was impossible to argue that the health or life of the mother was in jeopardy by giving her baby appropriate medical treatment.

The act simply prohibited the killing of a baby born alive. To address the concerns of pro-choice lawmakers, the bill included language that said nothing "shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right" of the baby. In other words, the bill wasn't intruding on Roe v. Wade.

Who would oppose a bill that said you couldn't kill a baby who was born? Not Kennedy, Boxer or Hillary Rodham Clinton. Not even the hard-core National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Obama, however, is another story. The year after the Born Alive Infants Protection Act became federal law in 2002, identical language was considered in a committee of the Illinois Senate. It was defeated with the committee's chairman, Obama, leading the opposition.

Let's be clear about what Obama did, once in 2003 and twice before that. He effectively voted for infanticide. He voted to allow doctors to deny medically appropriate treatment or, worse yet, actively kill a completely delivered living baby. Infanticide - I wonder if he'll add this to the list of changes in his next victory speech and if the crowd will roar: "Yes, we can."

How could someone possibly justify such a vote? In March 2001, Obama was the sole speaker in opposition to the bill on the floor of the Illinois Senate. He said: "We're saying they are persons entitled to the kinds of protections provided to a child, a 9-month child delivered to term. I mean, it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal-protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child." So according to Obama, "they," babies who survive abortions or any other preterm newborns, should be permitted to be killed because giving legal protection to preterm newborns would have the effect of banning all abortions.

Justifying the killing of newborn babies is deeply troubling, but just as striking is his rigid adherence to doctrinaire liberalism. Apparently, the "audacity of hope" is limited only to those babies born at full term and beyond. Worse, given his support for late-term partial-birth abortions that supporters argued were necessary to end the life of genetically imperfect children, it may be more accurate to say the audacity of hope applies only to those babies born healthy at full term.

Obama's supporters say his rhetoric makes them believe again.

Is this the kind of change and leader you believe in?

Obama has earned his liberal creds. No doubt about it.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Backs Off Ott

From what I can tell, Jim Ott has won his battle with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Press release from Jim Ott:

Madison….As of this morning (Wednesday, March 12, 2008) Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice continue to run their outrageously dishonest ad lying about State Representative Jim Ott and the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel continues to display it on jsonline.com.

The only response to numerous calls to the Journal-Sentinel on Monday and Tuesday was an e-mail with a link to their policy for accepting ads. It reads, in part “We may elect to reject advertisements that are patently false, libelous, exploitive or hateful, or that fail to meet the production standards of our publication.”

“Since jsonline.com continues to run the ad, which they know is false, their ad policy isn’t worth the paper it is printed on,” said Ott. “So much for their concerns about negative third party ads.”

...Ott continues to demand that the Journal-Sentinel remove the ads and issue a retraction for the false information they have disseminated.

I don't see the ads targeting Ott anymore.

Mark Honadel is still coming under fire.

Ott, Lies, and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

What would you call a group that tells an outright lie?

And what would you call the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel for continuing to disseminate the lie even after being informed of the truth?

NARAL Pro-Choice Wisconsin Foundation and Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin are lying and they aren't backing down, neither is the Journal Sentinel.

NARAL Pro-Choice Wisconsin Foundation and Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin launched a joint media campaign to educate the public about the threat of abortion once again becoming illegal in Wisconsin.

The first phase of the “How Much Time Should She Do?” campaign features radio and online ads targeting legislators in Milwaukee, Green Bay and La Crosse who support Wisconsin’s Criminal Abortion Statute (Wis. Stat. § 940.04) and who voted last Thursday to preserve criminal penalties for victims of rape.

“Wisconsin voters do not want to go back to a time when abortion was a crime,” said Kelda Helen Roys, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Wisconsin Foundation. “We are committed to educating the public about these legislators’ anti-choice votes – they want abortion to be a felony even if a woman’s health is in danger, even if she is a victim of rape.”

If abortion is outlawed, women and their doctors will be criminals – regardless of the circumstances. Efforts to clarify the conflict in our current Criminal Abortion Statute to ensure rape victims are not threatened with prison time were rejected by 54 Assembly representatives.

The media campaign poses the question to these anti-choice legislators: If abortion becomes a crime again in Wisconsin, how much prison time should women serve for having one?

Listen to the Representative Ott (R-Mequon) ad.

Like NARAl, Planned Parenthood, and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Jim Ott isn't backing down either.

Why?

Because NARAL and Planned Parenthood are lying.

Ott is also troubled that the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel continues to host the lies on its website.

Press release

Rep. Ott: Journal-Sentinel ignores own policy
3/12/2008

For more information contact:
Rep. Jim Ott 1-800 -534-0023

Planned Parenthood & NARAL Pro-Choice continue to spread lies

Madison….As of this morning (Wednesday, March 12, 2008) Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice continue to run their outrageously dishonest ad lying about State Representative Jim Ott and the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel continues to display it on jsonline.com.

The only response to numerous calls to the Journal-Sentinel on Monday and Tuesday was an e-mail with a link to their policy for accepting ads. It reads, in part “We may elect to reject advertisements that are patently false, libelous, exploitive or hateful, or that fail to meet the production standards of our publication.”

“Since jsonline.com continues to run the ad, which they know is false, their ad policy isn’t worth the paper it is printed on,” said Ott. “So much for their concerns about negative third party ads.”

The ad falsely states that Representative Jim Ott supports imprisonment for rape victims who have an abortion.

“The ad is patently false on two accounts,” said Ott. “First of all, I have never held such an outrageous position and secondly, under current Wisconsin law, no woman may be punished for having an abortion under any circumstances – a law I support.”

“The Journal-Sentinel editorial board continually harps about campaign finance reform and the problem of third party negative advertising,” Ott stated. “Perhaps a good starting point would be to clean up their own house. This is the height of hypocrisy.”

Ott continues to demand that the Journal-Sentinel remove the ads and issue a retraction for the false information they have disseminated.

NARAL Pro-Choice Wisconsin and Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin will continue to lie. No surprise there. The groups are extremist and in the business of destroying life. Lying is the least of their sins.

But what about the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel?

Is it a legitimate, reliable news outlet or not?

If Ott doesn't get his retraction and the false ads aren't removed immediately, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel will be pounding nails in its own coffin.

The Journal Sentinel can settle in the unmarked grave of discarded lies, where it belongs.

Steve Kagen a Perfect Zero

According to Wisconsin Right to Life, Congressman Steve Kagen is perfect.

Kagen is a perfect ZERO on Right-to-Life issues.

Kagen's accomplishments:

--Voted to withhold life-saving medicines from the elderly.

--Voted to allow the cloning of human embryos for the purpose of killing them in medical experiments.

--Voted to force taxpayers to pay for the destruction of human embryos for research.

--Voted to undermine the Mexico City Policy, a policy which protects taxpayers from subsidizing oversears organizations that perform or actively promote abortion.

--Voted to provide federal family planning dollars (YOUR tax dollars!) to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider.

Kagen is a model soldier in the war on the Culture of Life.

Rick Majerus' Marquette Education

The Rick Majerus controversy rolls on....

Majerus Is Criticized for Pro-Choice Stance

A Roman Catholic archbishop said Tuesday that he would ask officials of St. Louis University to take “appropriate action” against its basketball coach, who said in a television interview that he supports abortion rights.

Rick Majerus, one of the game’s winningest coaches, made the comment at a weekend rally for the Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke declined to say what the action against Majerus should be, saying it was a decision for officials at St. Louis, a Jesuit university.

“I’m concerned that a leader at a Catholic university made these comments,” Burke said by telephone as he attended March for Life anti-abortion events in Washington. “It can lead Catholics astray. I just believe that it’s of the essence for people to understand as a Catholic you just cannot hold these beliefs.”

In an interview with KMOV-TV at Saturday’s Clinton rally in suburban St. Louis, Majerus identified himself as a Catholic and called himself pro-choice. The St. Louis University spokesman Clayton Berry said Majerus was at the rally as an individual, not as a representative of the college.

I would bet that St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke could have a full-time job trying to police all the Catholic staff and faculty at St. Louis University uttering views that run counter to Catholic teaching.

It's a Jesuit university. It would be shocking to learn that Catholic faculty and staff weren't challenging the Church's teaching.

I think it is important to note that Rick Majerus is a basketball coach. He's not teaching theology. Furthermore, Majerus was not speaking on behalf of St. Louis University. He wasn't speaking on behalf of Catholics. When he voiced his pro-choice stance, he was speaking for no one but himself.

In an interview with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Majerus spoke out for the first time since all the uproar.

Surprised by the reaction to his pro-choice, pro-embryonic stem cell research comments made Saturday night at a Hillary Clinton political rally, St. Louis University basketball coach Rick Majerus spent part of Wednesday morning on the phone, trying to calm his elderly mother.

"She was upset, thinking I was going to be excommunicated from the Catholic Church, and that I would be denied Communion during Mass," Majerus said Wednesday night, in his first public comments over a controversy that included a strong rebuke from St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke. "But she told me to keep doing what I thought was right, just as my parents taught me."

I feel sorry for Majerus' mother.

It's often forgotten that these public controversies involving public figures touch private people, too, impacting them personally.

...[I]f Burke is expecting an apology or silence from Majerus, it won't happen. If Burke hopes Majerus will fall in line with the Roman Catholic church's official positions on these two issues, it won't happen.

During an exclusive 90-minute conversation Wednesday, Majerus was civil and respectful in his comments made about Burke. But make no mistake: Majerus is unyielding, and defiant.

"I'm very respectful to the archbishop," Majerus said. "But I rely on my value judgments, thanks to my education at Marquette, which is a Jesuit institution, just like St. Louis. And that Jesuit education led me to believe that I can make a value judgment. And my value judgment happens to differ from the archbishop's.

That sounds like a Marquette education.

I don't know if Majerus did Marquette any favors by stating, in effect, that "Marquette made him to do it."

"I do not speak for the university or the Catholic Church. These are my personal views. And I'm not letting him change my mind. I think religion should be inclusive. I would hope that all people would feel welcome inside a church, and that the church would serve to bring people together, even if they happen to disagree on certain things."

...Majerus said he has not heard from Burke, or the SLU president, the Rev. Lawrence Biondi. But Majerus is confident that Biondi supports his right to express personal views. Attempts to reach Biondi on Wednesday were unsuccessful.

Majerus said he would welcome a visit, or a conversation, with Burke.

"But in the end, it wouldn't make a difference," he said. "Because the archbishop would still believe in what he believes, and I would still stick with my beliefs."

I can't imagine these comments going over very well with Archbishop Burke.

The fact is Majerus' beliefs regarding abortion and embryonic stem cell research are not consistent with the stance of the Catholic Church.

Nonetheless, I'm sure Fr. Biondi will support Majerus' right to speak freely, in the Jesuit tradition.

And I don't think the university will reprimand him in any way.

It's up to Majerus to reconcile his identity as a Catholic and his beliefs that are not in line with the Catholic Church.

I think Majerus should meet with the Archbishop and discuss the matter privately rather than via the press. This war of words is a bit unseemly.

In the end, both Archbishop Burke and Majerus have to answer to God.

The March for Life

Thousands of pro-life advocates take part in a "March for Life" marking the 35th anniversary of the Supreme Court's 1973 decision in Roe vs Wade, the Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal, in Washington, January 22, 2008. REUTERS/Jason Reed (UNITED STATES)


Thousands of anti-abortion demonstrators participate in the "March for Life" in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, the 35th anniversary of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion. (CHIP SOMODEVILLA/GETTY IMAGES)

The faces of the pro-life movement in the United States are young. It's fascinating when you think about it. These young people have grown up in a Culture of Death.

Maybe that's why they're so energized to defend life.

From the Washington Post:

Tens of thousands of abortion opponents took to the cold, gray streets of Washington yesterday, buoyed by a recent report that the number of abortions in the United States had hit the lowest level in years and vowing to continue the fight.

Many of the participants in the March for Life were young people, many from religious clubs and church-run schools from as far away as Ohio, Texas and Tennessee. The march has been held each year since 1974 to protest the Supreme Court's Jan. 22, 1973, decision that most laws against abortion violate a constitutional right to privacy.

In many ways, the march resembled a gigantic pep rally, with smiling teenagers in matching scarves or sweat shirts holding school banners high as they moved along Constitution Avenue NW toward the Supreme Court. But the individual signs they clutched told of their commitment to a cause: "Give Life, Don't Take It" and "Your Mother Was Pro-Life."

"It's illegal to kill someone walking down the street, so it should be illegal to kill someone in the womb," said Topher Boehm, 17, a member of the Pro-Life Club at the Jesuit College Preparatory School of Dallas. "This is the social justice issue of our era, and I want to do something about it."

Kelsey Wilson, 16, and Michelle Caulder, 17, along with their group from a Catholic church in Indianapolis, waved "Defend Life" signs as they maneuvered through the crush of people. This was their third Washington march, and they plan to keep coming, they said, until abortions are outlawed.

"I think abortion is wrong. People have reasons why they think it's right," Caulder said. "But it's wrong all the time."

Not surprisingly, the Post chooses to use quotes that are sure to disturb pro-abortion proponents - talk of outlawing all abortions in all situations.

This article is really more a rallying cry for people in favor of abortion than a report on people marching in support of life.

The message from the lib media: These tens of thousands of extremists want to strip women of their rights.

The march capped three days of antiabortion events, including a Luau for Life at Georgetown University, prayers at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception and a candlelight vigil at the Supreme Court.

At a youth concert and Mass at Verizon Center yesterday morning, a message from Pope Benedict XVI was read to more than 20,000 youths. The pope, who will visit the United States in April, thanked them "for promoting respect for the dignity and inalienable rights of every human being, including the smallest and most defenseless members of our human family."

I suppose pro-abortion candidates like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama don't like to think about "the smallest and most defenseless members of our human family."

The unborn can't vote. They can't make campaign contributions.

At a noon rally, President Bush spoke to the crowds via a telephone hookup from the White House, in what has become an annual greeting. "Thirty-five years ago today, the Supreme Court declared and decided that under the law an unborn child is not considered a person," Bush said. ". . . Today, we're heartened -- we're heartened by the news that the number of abortions is declining. But the most recent data reports that more than one in five pregnancies end in an abortion."

On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, George W. Bush will no longer be president. He will leave office at noon on January 20, 2009, two days before the anniversary.

In this last Roe v. Wade anniversary message that President Bush delivered to the tens of thousands of advocates for life, he said:

You believe, as I do, that every human life has value, that the strong have a duty to protect the weak, and that the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence apply to everyone, not just to those considered healthy or wanted or convenient. These principles call us to defend the sick and the dying, persons with disabilities and birth defects, all who are weak and vulnerable, especially unborn children.

...By changing laws we can change our culture. And your persistence and prayers, Nellie [Gray, organizer of March for Life], and the folks there with you, are making a real difference. We, of course, seek common ground where possible; we're working to persuade more of our fellow Americans of the rightness of our cause. And this is a cause that appeals to the conscience of our citizens, and is rooted in America's deepest principles -- and history tells us that with such a cause, we will prevail.

Think about a year from now, when we have a new president. Will he or she address the marchers?

Will he or she say "that every human life has value, that the strong have a duty to protect the weak... especially unborn children"?

I can guarantee you that there's no way Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would ever utter words similar to what President Bush said when he spoke to the throngs of people gathered in Washington yesterday to promote the protection of the weak and vulnerable.

_______________

President Bush Speaks to March for Life Rally Participants

President Calls "March for Life" Participants