HHS Nominee is Good News for Post-Viability and Teen Abortion Markets

The abortion industry can probably look forward to a mutually beneficial relationship with the Obama administration if the Senate confirms Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Sebelius will oversee an annual budget of $821 billion.

Sebelius vetoed bills in 2003 and 2005 that would have mandated the safety of abortion centers in Kansas, which were allegedly operating under medically dangerous conditions. In 2008 she vetoed a measure to enforce the state's parental notice law.

More recently, she vetoed a bill that would have required those doing late-term abortions to provide an explicit medical reason.

A nominal Catholic, she also vetoed another bill that would have required those doing post-viability abortions (that is, abortions after the point when the child is developed enough to breathe on its own outside the womb) to report the diagnosis that led to the abortion.

According to the Family Research Council, Gov. Sebelius received significant political donations from a late-term abortionist and used the Governor's Mansion to entertain both this man and the nation's leading partial-birth abortionist. Post-viability abortionists are expected to provide robust financial support for President Obama's 2012 reelection bid.

Abortion opponents have denounced the appointment as "divisive."

Unlicensed California Abortionist Sentenced to 3 Years, 4 Months in Prison

Scofflaw abortion freelancer Bertha Bugarin was sentenced to prison in a California court earlier this week for doing abortions without a license, but an Operation Rescue spokesperson complained that the sentence was too lenient. Cheryl Sullenger vowed that her anti-abortion group will continue to monitor illegal abortionists and seek their prosecution, according to this article in LifeSiteNews.com.

LifeSiteNews.com - February 2, 2009
California Abortionist Sentenced to Over 3 Years in Prison

LOS ANGELES (LifeSiteNews.com) - Bertha Bugarin was sentenced in a Los Angeles court on Friday to only 3 years, 4 months in prison for committing illegal abortions without a medical license. Prosecutors had asked for five years. Bertha appeared in court sobbing, where she requested leniency from the judge. Her 22-year old daughter, Evangelina Bernal, also cried as she read a prepared statement extolling the virtues of her mother.

"In sentencing Bugarin, Judge Sam Ohta has forgotten that Bugarin's victims were given no such mercy. Many of the women were cruelly given abortions without anesthesia or pain medication," said Operation Rescue spokesperson Cheryl Sullenger.

"Bugarin preyed on vulnerable Hispanic neighborhoods. She hoped to earn the maximum amount of profit by providing the shoddiest care, hoping the illegal status of many in those neighborhoods would prevent them from reporting what one journalist described as her 'shop of horrors.' Her victims will have to live with
the trauma and injury Bugarin inflicted on them for the rest of their lives. Bugarin is a cold-hearted predator whose only remorse is that she got caught."

Bugarin has a long history of disregard for the law and the safety of women who came to her abortion business that once operated 11 abortion facilities. At least six of Bugarin's abortionists have lost their medical licenses, due to negligence and fraud.

One of her abortionists, Laurence Reich, was a twice-convicted sex offender who molested and raped his abortion patients. Reich surrendered his license in 2006, but continued to work as an abortionist for Bugarin until his arrest in February, 2008.

Even after her arrest in a Los Angeles Police raid on four of her remaining six clinics, Bugarin continued to operate in San Diego County until her arrest there. Bugarin pled guilty to 9 felony counts in San Diego County and is scheduled for sentencing there on Friday, February 6.

"We are very thankful that Bugarin's clinics are now closed and that she is on her way to jail where she belongs," said Sullenger. "This sends a message to abortionists around the nation who have the attitude that they are above the law: We are watching you, and we will not stop working to enforce the laws until you, like Ms. Bugarin, are brought to justice."

Miami won't prosecute infanticide case, but Thomas More Society will sue

The Thomas More Society is invoking civil remedies on behalf of an infant allegedly murdered by Miami abortion entrepreneur Belkis Gonzalez in connection with a business conspiracy among 13 defendants. Miami law enforcement officials have declined to initiate criminal proceedings, and have withheld evidence that the Society hopes to introduce at trial.

The LifeSiteNews.com website posted this report Friday.

LifeSiteNews.com - January 30, 2009
Lawsuit Filed for Baby Born Alive at Abortion Clinic then Killed and Hidden from Police

MIAMI, FL (LifeSiteNews.com) - On Tuesday, January 27, 2009, suit was filed by the Thomas More Society in Miami on behalf of Shanice Denise Osbourne, an infant girl who was allegedly murdered in July, 2006.


The case claims that Shanice was born alive and then murdered by abortion clinic owner, Belkis Gonzalez. Thirteen defendants (including Gonzalez, abortionist Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacques Renelique and their conglomerate of four South Florida abortion clinics) have been sued for unlicensed and unauthorized medical practice, botched abortions, evasive tactics, false medical records and the killing, hiding and disposing of the baby.

Shanice’s mother, Sycloria Williams, learned she was pregnant early in July of 2006 when she went to the hospital complaining of abdominal pain and bleeding. She decided to abort the baby, and visited the Miramar Woman Center in Miramar, Fla., where she was referred to abortionist Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique. Dr. Renelique inserted laminaria sticks to dilate the cervix and prescribed additional medication to be taken that night in preparation for the procedure the next morning at a Hialeah clinic.

Williams arrived at the Hialeah clinic on the morning of July 20, 2006, feeling ill and in severe pain from the medication the night before. Despite the fact that the doctor nor any other licensed health practitioners were present, the abortion center’s receptionist gave Williams Cytotec, which induces labor and also dilates the cervix. Williams, however, began to feel even worse with nausea and cramping. According to testimony, the staff had her sit in the clinic’s recovery room area where she waited for hours in severe and increasing abdominal pain without medical staff available.

At one point, unable to remain seated, Williams braced herself with the arms of the recliner chair she was sitting on. As she lifted herself, her water broke and she delivered a live baby girl onto the seat of the recliner. The baby writhed and gasped for air, still connected to Williams by the umbilical cord.

Immobilized by shock, Williams watched Gonzalez run into the room, cut the umbilical cord with a pair of orange-handled shears, stuff the baby into a red biohazard bag and throw the bag into a garbage can. Shortly thereafter, the doctor arrived at the clinic and sedated Williams. The doctor’s medical records failed to indicate that Williams had delivered a live baby that was killed by the clinic.

Anonymous callers notified police at least three times about the live birth and murder, and when police executed a search warrant on July 22, 2006, they found medical records but couldn’t locate the baby’s remains. Six days later, another anonymous caller told police the baby’s body had been hidden on the roof. Police responded but didn’t find the baby’s body on the roof. After another anonymous tip police got another search warrant and found the decomposing baby in a cardboard box in a closet at the clinic. DNA linked the baby’s remains to Williams.

The Miami-Dade County medical examiner performed an autopsy which showed that the baby’s lungs had been filled with air before her killing, proving it was a live birth. But the examiner blamed the death on “extreme prematurity,” ignoring eyewitness testimony that the baby had been murdered.

The Thomas More Society took an interest in the case when a local law school professor was quoted in The Miami Herald to the effect that if the baby wasn’t “viable,” then it “couldn’t be a case of homicide.”

“That opinion is dead wrong,” says Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society. “A disabled or dying patient may not be ‘viable’ in the sense of being able to live very long or without help, but if you kill them, it’s murder. This was a case of infanticide, and we’re not going to let it go ignored or unpunished.”

The Thomas More Society tried to secure a second autopsy but prosecutors wouldn’t release the baby’s body, or take any action to begin criminal proceedings. An investigator and expert pathologist were retained by the Society, and the expert concluded – after examination of the autopsy slides and investigation of all the facts – that the acts and omissions of the abortionist and clinic staff were causative factors in Shanice’s untimely death.

The state attorneys’ office has had this matter “under investigation” for more than two years with regard to filing what the Thomas More society says should be a clear case of criminal murder, or at least manslaughter.

“This case will trumpet to the world that abortion clinics are places of barbarism where mothers as well as their babies are at serious risk,” said Brejcha. “Moreover, this case should put some sharp teeth into the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. As we struggle to end the scourge of legal abortion in this country, we must hold the line against infanticide!”

Abortion Industry Files Suit Against Conscience Protection Regulations

Excerpt from the Hippocratic Oath

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.

In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.

All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.

If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot.

A lot has changed in the medical industry since ancient Greek physicians vowed to do no intentional harm. Here is Jason Ramsey's post on Top News about lawsuits filed Thursday against the regulations, which would protect the "right of conscience" of medical professionals who do not wish to participate in abortions or to dispense abortifacient drugs, scheduled to take effect today.

Seven states and two abortion rights groups filed a lawsuit on Thursday against the U. S. government to invalidate a federal regulation that would protect health care workers who refuse to perform abortions or other medical procedures because of religious or moral reasons.

Attorneys general of the seven states of Connecticut, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, and Rhode Island filed lawsuits on behalf of the states to the rule set by the Department of Health and Human Services. The Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Planned Parenthood of Connecticut and American Civil Liberties Union, which was acting on behalf of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association, filed separate lawsuits in the U. S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. In a statement Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards said, "We filed this lawsuit today on behalf of the millions of women whose health care has been put in jeopardy by the Bush administration's parting shot at women's health."

This regulation was set last month and would allow the federal government to withhold federal funds for state and local governments, health plans and health care facilities that do not follow existing federal laws that ban discrimination against doctors and other health workers who refuse to participate in procedures such as sterilizations or abortions or to make referrals for such procedures.

In a statement issued at the time, Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said, "Doctors and other health care providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience. This rule protects the right of medical providers to care for their patients in accord with their conscience."

Those who oppose the rule say it is an attempt to deny legal abortion and contraception to women. In a joint statement Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Planned Parenthood of Connecticut said, "The midnight regulation, issued by the outgoing Bush administration, poses a serious threat to women's health care by limiting the rights of patients to receive complete and accurate health information and services."

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said, "On its way out, the Bush administration has left a ticking legal time bomb set to explode literally the day of the inaugural and blow apart vital constitutional rights and women's health care. Women's health may be endangered -- needlessly and unlawfully -- if this rule is allowed to stand." Blumenthal added that the regulation encouraged individuals to "deny virtually all forms of contraception's, even emergency contraception to rape victims."

In an e-mail department spokeswoman Rebecca Ayers said, "We have not had an opportunity to review the lawsuits and we will respond to the court on any pending litigation. The department followed appropriate procedures to put the regulation in place and the regulation is fully supported by law."

HHS and Illinois Supreme Court Affirm Pro-life Medical Professionals' Right of Conscience: Will Obama Counter?

Life Advocacy reported two victories for pro-life medical professionals, including pharmacists, just before Christmas. President-elect Obama has promised pro-abortion constituents that he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act, reversing much of the reform that pro-lifers ground out since President Clinton left office in 1993.

Obama may keep his campaign promise, but if he does, it may be at the expense of his honeymoon. Pro-lifers are unlikely to accord him the deference traditional at the outset of a new presidency if he confronts them in this way.

Conscience Rule Finalized

THE LONG-AWAITED 'CONSCIENCE RULE' WAS PUBLISHED in Friday's Federal Register and is set to take effect Jan. 20 at 12:01 a.m. - as it happens, the very day of the Presidential inauguration of one who is expected by his abortion industry backers to cancel it.

The new President will not have the power on his own, however, to repeal the statutory medical provider conscience provisions the rule is intended to implement. "Federal protection of provider conscience rights dates back to the 1970s," notes a news release from the Dept. of Health & Human Services announcing the new regulation. "The [Church] Amendments protect health care providers and other individuals from discrimination by recipients of HHS funds on the basis, among other things, of their refusal, due to religious belief or moral conviction, to perform or participate in any lawful health service or research activity." Such "service[s]" and activities would certainly include committing abortion or aiding medical experiments in which embryonic boys and girls are sacrificed.

More recently the statutory law has prohibited, by a 1996 law sponsored by Rep. Dave Weldon (R-FL), "federal, state or local governments from discriminating against individual and institutional health care providers (including participants in medical training programs)," notes the release, "who refused to, among other things, receive training in abortions; require or provide such training; perform abortions; or provide referrals for, or make arrangements for, such training or abortions."

The department's chief, Secretary Mike Leavitt, initiated the Medical Provider Conscience Regulation in response to an attempt by ACOG (the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists) to force all ob/gyns either to commit or at least refer for abortion and even, if unwilling to commit such child killings, to locate their offices in proximity to abortionists.

"The new regulation will increase awareness of and compliance with [the] laws" enacted "over the past three decades," notes the release, "to safeguard the freedom of healthcare providers to practice according to their conscience.

"'Doctors and other healthcare providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience,'" Secy. Leavitt said in the release. "'This rule protects the right of medical providers to care for their patients in accord with their conscience.'"

It also serves, notes David Stevens MD, CEO of the 16,000-member Christian Medical Assn. in a CMA news release, "'to protect patients who want access to conscientious and compassionate care from Life-affirming physicians. These objective standards have for millennia formed the foundation,'" Dr. Stevens said in the CMA release, "'of patient care and protection, and this regulation ensures that physicians and others won't be run out of the profession for upholding those standards.'"

Care Net pregnancy centers network president Melinda Delahoyde joined in praise of the new regulation, noting in a Care Net news release: "'Care Net and its national network of pregnancy centers rely on the availability of healthcare providers who have the right to conscientiously object to abortion. These healthcare providers - RNs, nurse practitioners and physicians - provide critical free services at pregnancy centers to those facing unplanned pregnancies and other health concerns. Without these new conscience protections,'" said Ms. Delahoyde in the Care Net release, "'fewer healthcare providers would be available to serve this at-risk population in our nation's pregnancy centers.'"

Care Net's national medical consultant Dr. Sandy Christiansen also weighed in, quoted in the Care Net release declaring, "'These new regulations send a message to both current and aspiring healthcare providers that their personal code of ethics, their conscience and their adherence to the Hippocratic Oath matter and will be protected.' When Dr. Christiansen was an intern," notes the Care Net release, "she was denied operating room privileges by her chief resident, who explained it was because she was not 'working hard doing the abortions' like others and thus would not get that 'perk.' Later, as a chief resident," the Care Net release adds, "she was humiliated by the attending physician in front of her team of residents, interns and students when she would not [commit] an abortion on a patient whose baby was diagnosed with Down's Syndrome. . Not once," notes Care Net, "were Dr. Christiansen's faith-based convictions validated in these experiences nor was she informed of her rights according to existing law to protect against this kind of discrimination."

The HHS release quotes the department's Assistant Secretary of Health, Admiral Joxel Garcia MD: "'Many healthcare providers routinely face pressure to change their medical practice - often in direct opposition to their personal convictions. During my practice as an ob/gyn, I witnessed this firsthand. Healthcare providers shouldn't have to check their consciences at the hospital door,'" he said, adding that while Congress has "'enacted several laws to that end, . too many are unaware these protections exist.'"

Now they know. Will they truly advocate the repeal of actual choice?

We can be thankful that Secy. Leavitt has followed through and promulgated the regulation before leaving office. Regardless of what the new President does with it, the Medical Provider Conscience Protection regulation is a fine legacy for a pro-life public servant and its underlying legislation is worth fighting to maintain.

Conscience Right Respected

IF ILLINOIS LEGISLATORS ARE LOOKING FOR INCIDENTS wherein Rod Blagojevich (D), has abused his power as governor, they need look no further than his 2005 "emergency rule" ordering Illinois pharmacists who conscientiously object to the "morning-after pill" to stock and dispense the megadose abortifacient or face state sanctions, including loss of license.

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled last week that "pharmacists may now defend their right of conscience" against the rule, reports Richard Baker, Chicago attorney from the firm of Mauck & Baker, which had filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Illinois and American Pharmacists Associations in a case brought by two pharmacists challenging the rule.

Pharmacists Luke VanderBleek and Glen Kosirog "claimed in a nine-count complaint," reports Mr. Baker in his news release celebrating the vital ruling, "that the governor's dictate and the administrative rule that followed were violations of their statutorily and constitutionally protected rights to conscience and free exercise of religion.

"'No pharmacist should ever be forced to choose between their conscience and their livelihood,' said [Mr.] Baker" in the release. "'This decision is good news in light of the many legislative initiatives [in various states] to override the conscience of those, like [the two complainants], who seek to follow the dictates of conscience in practicing their profession. We would all do well to pay more attention to our consciences,'" said Mr. Baker, adding, "'the governor included.'"

Though the high court ruling did not overturn the rule itself, it did clear the way for the complainants to pursue their litigation challenging its constitutionality; a lower court had earlier dismissed the suit on grounds of standing, ripeness and failure to exhaust administrative remedies. That dismissal was upheld by an appellate panel on a split decision but further appealed to the state supreme court, which last Thursday ordered the trial court - in Illinois, the "circuit court" - to hear the complaint.

Mr. Baker said he was "'pleased with the result and hope[d] that the circuit court, on remand, will vindicate the fundamental right of pharmacists in Illinois to follow their conscience in their vocation.'"

Contact Information

Business Office:
2004 E. Sherwood Rd.
Arlington Heights, Il 60004 Toll Free: (888) 344-LIFE
briefing@lifeadvocacy.com
www.lifeadvocacy.com

Obama Sets Table for Pro-Abortion Regime by Domestic Policy Czar Appointment

Economic conservatives have heaved sighs of relief at the generally moderate appointments President-elect Obama has announced since swamping the hapless McCain campaign early last month. Social conservatives don't have nearly as much to celebrate.

Obama's new Domestic Policy Council director, leftist New York lawyer Melody Barnes, is an "unyielding" advocate of abortion, according a post in the Clerical Whispers blog, reproduced below. Barnes is a veteran of Emily's List, a pro-abortion PAC that cut off contributions to longtime pro-abortion allies who voted to ban partial-birth abortion.

Obama may be more successful than any of us predicted. "Real change" may indeed be on the way. "Country club" (economic) conservatives" never much cared for the unwashed social conservatives in the first place. High-church aristocrats like Danforth and Warner could scarcely conceal their contempt for the unsavory Fundamentalist - mostly Baptist and Pentecostal - Republicans whom they considered necessary but impudent allies.

Could it be that Obama is making a bid for their loyalty, re-aligning the American political landscape to put down the ragged 40-year Evangelical insurrection once and for all?

One of the programs under Barnes' direction will be Faith-Based Initiatives. She could slash funding, but Obama thinks like a chess player - several moves ahead. How much wiser for him to direct "faith-based" funding into pro-abortion denominations and nominally Christian outreaches, and as patronage for the Black church, which will be reliably pro-Obama when he runs for a second term.

Clerical Whispers
Fides - Libertas - Veritas
November 28, 2008
New Obama domestic policy director has close ties to abortion lobby

President-elect Obama has selected as Director of the Domestic Policy Council Melody C. Barnes, a New York lawyer with an “unyielding” record of abortion rights advocacy.
According to the White House web site, the Domestic Policy Council oversees major domestic policy areas such as education, health, housing, welfare, justice, federalism, transportation, environment, labor and veteran's affairs.

It also oversees the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

Barnes is a former Executive Vice President for Policy at the Center for American Progress, where she led the left-wing think tank’s Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative.

She has also served as a board member of EMILY’s List, a group formed more than two decades ago to support pro-abortion rights women candidates. Over the years the group has raised millions for Democratic women candidates who support unrestricted access to taxpayer-funded abortion on demand.

EMILY’s List has even cut funding from pro-abortion rights politicians who voted to ban partial-birth abortion.

Barnes has also lobbied on behalf of the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR).

Carlos Polo, director for Latin America at the Population Research Institute, has linked the Center for Reproductive Rights to a strategy to force permissive abortion laws upon Latin America.

Members of CRR have proposed using international litigation to “develop new standards for the protection of reproductive rights” and to force local authorities to ignore their country’s laws and introduce changes that would allow abortion and “reproductive health” services for teenagers.

Barnes was a former aide to Sen. Ted Kennedy and was his chief counsel at the Senate Judiciary Committee from December 1995 to March 2003. According to the New York Times, Barnes is associated with a “bitter dispute” over confirmation of a federal appeals court judge in 2002. At the time, charges were leveled against Barnes and another aide to Ted Kennedy that they tried to influence the outcome of a high-profile affirmative action case by delaying the confirmation of a judge who might have ruled against affirmative action.

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, in a Monday statement voiced criticism of Barnes’ selection as head of the Domestic Policy Council.

Claiming her “forte” is working with the “religious left,” Donohue reported that Barnes has been described by the left-wing journal The Nation as a “dyed-in-the-wool progressive.”

“She wants to overturn all restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, and her passion for abortion rights is so unyielding that she has served on the board of EMILY’s List and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund,” he charged.

Donohue also alluded to a controversy over pro-life Catholic and evangelical jurists allegedly being denied approval to serve as federal judges. Without mentioning specifics, he said Barnes had denied bigotry was an issue in the delay.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Former Pro-Life Stalwart Moves Into Obama Column, Denounces Former Comrades

Catholic pro-life Constitutional law professor and author Douglas Kmiec joined the swell of support for pro-abortion, pro-infanticide Barack Obama this year, and has been hard at work defending his new position ever since. His pro-life former comrades aren't buying it. One website labeled the recent fratricide "the pro-life circular firing squad."

Given that his abortion views are increasingly indistinguishable from those of Chemerinsky et al, one wonders if Christian law schools will continue to use Kmiec's Constitutional Law casebook, or rebuke him by replacing it in the curriculum.

The Increasingly Bizarre Doug Kmiec
by Matthew Miller
Nov. 8, 2008

For those of you who haven’t been paying attention, some months ago Catholic lawyer and former Romney supporter, Doug Kmiec took the bold step of endorsing Barack Obama. In succeeding installations defending his decision, Kmiec confessed that he felt Barack Obama would be more “pro-life” then John McCain. Really. At which point, he became a laughing stock in the conservative movement.

Now, in Slate’s post-election analysis from “conservatives” (i.e, idiosyncratic sometimes/once-were-right-leaning moderates), the Atlantic’s Ross Douthat has a few unkind words for Kmiec. He writes:

What I don’t understand at all is Kmiec’s position, which seems to be that the contemporary Democratic Party, and particularly the candidacy of Barack Obama, offered nearly as much to pro-lifers as the Republican Party does.

I am sure that Kmiec is weary of being called a fool by opponents of abortion for his tireless pro-Obama advocacy during this election cycle, but if so, then the thing for him to do is to cease acting like the sort of person for whom the term “useful idiot” was coined, rather than persisting in his folly.

Those seeking a primer on the case against Kmiec’s putatively pro-life position on Obama and abortion can begin here or here or here. Suffice to say that what he calls “outright lies and falsehoods” about Obama’s views were, in fact, more or less the truth: The Democratic nominee ran on a record that can only be described as “very, very pro-choice,” and his stated positions on abortion would involve rolling back nearly all the modest — but also modestly effective — restrictions that pro-lifers have placed upon the practice, and/or appointing judges who would do the same.

There may have been reasons for anti-abortion Americans to vote for Barack Obama in spite of his position that abortion should be essentially unregulated and funded by taxpayer dollars. But Kmiec’s suggestion that Obama took the Democrats in anything like a pro-life direction on the issue doesn’t pass the laugh test. (And nor, I might add, does his bizarre argument that because the goal of placing a fifth anti-Roe justice on the court is somehow unrealistic, the pro-life movement should pursue a far more implausible Constitutional amendment instead.)

I suppose I could find a thing or three to agree with in Kmiec’s longer list of ideas for how the party he abandoned could win back his vote. But frankly, I don’t see the point.

I understand that the pro-life position on abortion does not command majority support in the United States and that people of good will can disagree on the subject. And I have no doubt that the Republican Party can profit from greater dialogue between its pro-life and pro-choice constituents—and do a better job, as well, of addressing itself to both pro-lifers and pro-choicers who aren’t already inside its tent.

But I can’t begin to fathom why the GOP should consider taking any advice whatsoever from a “pro-lifer” who has spent the past year serving as an increasingly embarrassing shill for the opposition party’s objectively pro-abortion nominee.

Douthat is normally an interesting, but genteel writer, so even these few hints of venom are spicy. He’s, of course spot, on, but Kmiec doesn’t quite see it that way. Here’s, in part, his reply:

I am stunned by the coarseness of your writing, Ross. While we have not met, so little of what you have written is in any way respectful or acknowledges that you are addressing not some abstraction but a fellow human that I can only pray that if any of your family or closest friends come into contact with this commentary that they reach out to you in the most gentle and understanding way, without precondition, to calm an anger that is harmful to the soul.

Genuine love and affection do not reside on the Internet, so I cannot extend it to you, but in my heart, I forgive your great unkindness. I do hope you can free yourself from its enslavement. Realize that your meaning is bound up in the occasions in your life to be of service. Ross, once you allow yourself to see your dependence upon others, and their need for you, I am certain you will appreciate the cruelty of what you have written. To the extent that Slate accepts Ross’ submission as appropriate commentary directed toward helping the Republicans find their bearings, it must be accepted as a counter example from that which is ultimately desired. Ross’ anger is as unexplainable as it is wrong. Yet Kathleen suggests that Sarah Palin perhaps embodied exactly such anger; the anger of the “ordinary” person. One could sense that anger in the mobs riled by Mrs. Palin’s tirades about Obama being in a conspiracy of some sort with Bill Ayers. It was frightening to see on tape, and it is even uglier to see it rear its head here.

Ross, you are not ordinary in God’s eyes; nor are the women facing abortion as a tragic answer to a dismal, impoverished, and near-hopeless existence. Ross, you and she are brother and sister made in God’s image and are expected to be of help to one another. That is a lesson for the Republicans.

If it be useful idiocy to save even one child from death by lifting up the economic or social prospects of the mother, I accept the title as an honor among men. It is pro-life. If it is hypocritical not to want to treat as criminal the woman abandoned by the selfishness of an abusive spouse, I embrace the hypocrisy. It, too, is pro-life.

Surely this is parody. It reads like the dialogue from a B movie. I suspect the embarrassingly overwrought writing is a defense mechanism to obscure the indefensible. I don’t know too many women who’ve had abortions, or who admit it openly. I do know that in the United States, there are very few people, of any type, who can be fairly described as having a “dismal, impoverished, and near-hopeless existence”. This is not a third world (or should I say “developing”?) country. Doug would have us believe all 1.2 million American women who have abortions each year are digging through garbage piles for food and using water from puddles to bathe. Many women who have abortions ARE in truly heartbreaking situations, but Kmiec’s appeal to pity is obfuscation at best.

How precisely does it follow that because many women are struggling, or to accept Doug’s ludicrously stronger formulation, “in a near hopeless state of existence”, they should be permitted to have abortions? Where is the logical connection between pregnancy and a hopeless state of existence? Is Doug claiming that being pregnant is a hopeless state of existence? Or is he, rather, arguing that women who are already in a hopeless state of existence are becoming unwittingly pregnant? If the former… well I find his claim to be “pro-life” dubious. If the latter, I guess I’m supposed to conclude that ending a pregnancy (and thereby ending a person’s life) will substantially improve a woman’s previously hopeless existence. One moment, she’s cleaning her hair with her spit, while living out of a 3 wheeled Winnebago; the next she’s enrolling in night school, acing the bar, and taking up a satisfying croquet habit. Abortion as a rejuvenator. Or something.

If Kmiec means something else by this bizarre exposition, if he means instead that because women who have unwanted pregnancies often suffer, we ought to have compassion for them and seek to offer counseling and easy alternatives to abortion, then he has no quarrel with Douthat. Or me. Or John McCain. This is what the pro-life movement has substantially focused on-especially post-Casey when it looked as though future abortion litigation was DOA-for decades. It, more then any attempt to overturn Roe, dominates the energies of on the ground pro-life activists. Kmiec knows this, given that he ostensibly counted himself among them as little as a year ago.

He goes on, of course, to demonize pro-lifers and conservatives. Pro-lifers and conservatives don’t want to “lift up the economic or social prospects of the mother”. No mention that pro-lifers and conservatives believe that broadly conservative economic policies, combined with private charity and compassion, “life up all boats”. Pro-lifers want to “punish women who have been abused by their husbands”. No mention here that not a single mainstream pro-life politician has advocated “punishing” the women and that this is a canard of the left. This is all really more then one should have to bear from a man who’s now taken to arguing that justices Breyer and Souter advance the pro-life cause. I don’t begrudge Douthat his anger in the face of such raving nonsense. And I don’t believe Douthat is the one who needs prayer. Something is not right with Doug Kmiec.