Apparently in Atlanta the pro-life groups have been garnering the support of African-Americans by appealing to their sense of racial injustice.  The article, here, has a picture of a billboard that says “Black Children are an Endangered Species.”

“It’s ingenious,” said the Rev. Johnny Hunter, national director of the Life Education and Resource Network, a North Carolina-based anti-abortion group aimed at African-Americans that operates in 27 states. “This campaign is in your face, and nobody can ignore it.”

The billboards went up last week in Atlanta and urge black women to “get outraged.”

In your face? That’s for sure.  I’m still shocked.  Thoughts?

Confession: I get more “news”  than is probably goof for me from the Yahoo homepage.  I think they get their stuff from the Associated Press.

Anyway, I found this article interesting.  Bishop Tobin (RI) has asked Rep. Patrick Kennedy (son of Ted) to stop receiving Communion because of his stance on abortion. In the article, you have to read between the anti-religious lines, and the whole thing is kind of a waste of journalism but I’d like to see more bishops like Tobin.

I’d also like to see a knock-down drag-out fistfight between them.

The propensity of embryonic stem cells to produce cancerous tumors after implantation is often swept under the rug. New research discussed at Science Daily suggests there are benefits to potential therapies derived from adult stem cells (the excerpt below did not use “adult” and “embryonic” labels for whatever reason so I added them):

Results showed that immature (undifferentiated) [embryonic] stem cells are more likely to form tumors than mature ones [i.e. adult stem cells]. The transplantation of “safe” [adult] cells into mice with spinal cord injuries resulted in the formation of new neurons, while “unsafe” [embryonic] cells sped recovery for a short period but ultimately formed tumors.

Proponents of embryonic stem cells tout the totipotency of ESCs as the decisive factor that renders ESCs of superior therapeutic value. Perhaps the mere pluripotency of ASCs will in fact allow be what ultimately allows workable therapies to be developed from stem cells.

(Originally posted at Underdog Soldier)

A moving video following a couple who discovered that the child they were expecting  had fatal trisomy 13, their decision to carry him to term, and their brief time with him.

Warning: this video is emotionally charged and contains medically graphic images

ObamaCare is clearly troubling in many ways, but this article points out the issue of the fate of the disabled (particularly children) under the plan. It quotes a mother with a son with Down Syndrome:

“When rationing begins, you all will look at my son and other people with disabilities and may wonder what kind of drain he is imposing on this new limited system or wonder what he’s taking away from you,” she said.

She hits the nail on the head. Health care is a limited resource that cannot be provided to everyone. Currently, it is largely rationed by the market. Under the proposed plan however, the government will ration and will surely use a utilitarian ethic to determine who gets what care. Under such an ethic, the disabled (particularly children), terminally ill, premature babies, and the elderly are simply “not worth” the cost of sustaining them.

Just think about how much that money could do in the hands of a fine govermentally-funded group like ACORN.

(Cross-posted at Underdog Soldier)

“We must deceive them so as not to hurt them, and in that way, we honor them.”

This logical gem was employed by Dwight Shrute in an episode of The Office (“Casino Night,” for fellow enthusiasts) to justify hiding the presence of one woman at a party from another and vice versa. Unfortunately, such logical travesties are not confined to sitcoms, but are all too frequently used to justify killing unborn children. (more…)

This is video of a brief talk I gave yesterday at a gathering of conservative Republicans.

My talk to the RALC

When does one become a human being? Let us turn to White House Office of Science and Technology Policy director, John P. Holdren, for a clue.

John P. Holdren is director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. In 1973, he co-authored a book — “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions” — with Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich.

…

On page 235, while making an argument for legalized abortion, the authors use language that on its face says a child “will ultimately develop into a human being” — after it is born.

“To most biologists, an embryo (unborn child during the first two or three months of development) or a fetus is no more a complete human being than a blueprint is a building,” they wrote. “The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being. Where any of these essential elements is lacking, the resultant individual will be deficient in some respect.”

Did you go through the essential early socializing experiences, and were you given sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after your birth? If not, then you, though born, are not a human being.

Yet another compelling video from the folks at CatholicVote.org:

On this feast day of St. Thomas More, patron saint of politicians, it seems appropriate to mention my latest enterprise.

Southern Appeal has always been a law blog, among other things. When I came on board as a contributor, it was in spite of my lack of experience with the law. I am now endeavoring to gain a greater involvement with the law — as a legislator.

I am a candidate for the Illinois legislature. I am seeking to unseat a Republican incumbent who has voted to repeal parental notifications for minors seeking abortions, voted to increase state funding of abortion, voted to abolish conscience protections for pro-life healthcare providers, voted for state funding of embryo-destructive stem cell research, who voted to remove the requirement that abortion providers be physicians, and who voted to protect abortion providers from malpractice suits. Her largest contributor is a pro-abortion PAC, and she has repeatedly been endorsed by Planned Parenthood.

And in 2008, she ran unopposed in both the primary and the general election.

I am running against her as a regular guy with no money, no organization, and virtually no relevant experience. But at least I know what a person is.

For me to beat her may require a miracle. But as a Christian, I believe in miracles. I’m asking for your prayers, for the intercession of St. Thomas More. And if you want to help spread the word, I’d be grateful for that as well.

St. Thomas More, Patron of politicians, ora pro nobis.

Even more evidence of the inverse relationship between the number of successful trials implementing adult stem cells and the attention the trials receive.

In Australia, stem cells were taken from patients’ eyes, cultured and coated onto contact lenses. The lenses were then put on the eyes of patients who had corneal damage. The result? Improved vision from a relatively cheap and noninvasive procedure that did not require the destruction of human life!

Two of the patients had damage in only one eye so corneal stem cells were taken from their good  eye and placed on their eye with the corneal damage.

Most interestingly, a third patient had corneal damage in both eyes so stem cells were taken from his or her conjunctiva. These cells with the conjunctiva phenotype (the physical makeup of the cell) successfully switched to the cornea phenotype and dutifully repaired the corneal tissue. Precisely what adult stem cells are purportedly unable to do.

I have seen a good number of positive ASCR results from bone marrow, skin cells and umbilical cord blood. It will be interesting to see what else comes of conjunctiva/cornea stem cells.

See also Adult bone marrow stem cells repairs damaged heart tissue

In the midst of an excellent piece on the abortion issue, Teri O’Brien recently asked the question, “could one be a ‘centrist’ on the issue of slavery?”

The answer is, of course one could. Back in the day, U.S. Senator Stephen A. Douglas (D-IL; who was Barack Obama’s direct predecessor in the U.S. Senate), was the voice of moderation on the slavery issue. Douglas could be described as “pro-choice” on slavery, although he preferred to speak of “popular sovereignty,” by which he meant the rights of the people of the several states and territories to decide the slavery question for themselves. (more…)

Cross-posted previously at In Toon With the World.

Alan Keyes and a Catholic priest were among 21 pro-lifers who were arrested for a protest march onto Notre Dame’s campus.

Although I will admit Mr. Keyes is a little crazy, he is a tenacious supporter of the rights of the unborn. I had the privilege of meeting him in Illinois when he challenged the ambitous senatorial candidate Barack Obama.  He gave an incredibly fiery pro-life speech and was a gracious enough to give me a photo op after.

A new Gallup poll shows that America has taken a sharp turn towards the pro-life position.  Other recent surveys have corroborated this.  It is hard, humanly speaking, to say what has caused this.   Ideas, anyone?  The publicity of the Notre Dame situation?

I am confident, however, that prayer is at the true heart of the change!  Let’s keep it up!  At this rate, we won’t even have to beg politicians to take notice.  They tend to simply go with the flow.  We truly need a pro-life populace; otherwise, even overturning Roe vs. Wade won’t do much good as far as reducing the number of abortions.

Like him or hate him (and I happen to like him), Mike Huckabee is right about this:

Here’s what I find: People that are social conservatives are also economic conservatives. But a lot of the economic conservatives are not social conservatives. Throw the social conservatives the pro-life, pro-family people overboard and the Republican party will be as irrelevant as the Whigs.

Read the entire interview.

As I noted elsewhere, Wall Street Journal columnist Bill McGurn was scheduled to speak this evening at the University of Notre Dame. I just returned from the talk. It was outstanding and powerful. Mr. McGurn, who I had the privilege to speak with after his lecture, offered a principled defense of his point of view while being charitable to those with whom he disagrees.

The Notre Dame Center for Ethics & Culture has published the text of the talk online, which you can find here. The following are some excerpts:

The precipitate cause of our gathering tonight is the honor and platform our university has extended to a President whose policies reflect clear convictions about unborn life, and about the value the law ought to place on protecting that life. These convictions are not in doubt. In July 2007, the candidate spelled them out in a forceful address to a Planned Parenthood convention in our nation’s capital.

Before that audience, he declared that a woman’s “fundamental right” to an abortion was at stake in the coming election. He spoke about how he had “put Roe at the center” of his “lesson plan on reproductive freedom” when he was a professor – and how he would put it at the center of his agenda as president.

He invoked his record in the Illinois state senate, where he fought restrictions on abortion, famously including one on partial-birth abortion. He said that the “first thing” he wanted to do as President was to “sign a Freedom of Choice Act.” And he ended by assuring his audience that “on this fundamental issue,” he, like they, would never yield….
(more…)

This lecture is sponsored by the academic unit at Notre Dame in which I hold my visiting appointment, the Notre Dame Center for Ethics & Culture. If you are interested in attending, here are the vitals:

Thursday, April 23 – “A Notre Dame Witness for Life”

William McGurn, Notre Dame alumnus (Class of 1980) and former chief speech writer for George W. Bush (2005-2009), will be lecturing on Thursday night on the topic, “A Notre Dame Witness for Life.” Mr. McGurn, currently a columnist for the Wall Street Journal, will be speaking in Room 155 DeBartolo Hall and there will be a reception following his lecture. The lecture will be open to the public.

In his talk, Mr. McGurn will be exploring the ways in which the University of Notre Dame is of special significance for the pro-life cause globally. Mr. McGurn offered the following comments on what he plans to talk about:

“President Obama’s invitation to speak at Notre Dame comes at a moment when the nation’s most prominent Catholics — our Vice President, our Speaker of the House, the nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services — are all strong and unequivocal advocates for enshrining abortion into the law as a constitutional right. For the prolife community, the issue is not so much opposition to a commencement speaker as what we long to see at Our Lady’s university: affirmation for the premier civil rights cause of our day. In a nation wounded by Roe, in a culture that sets mothers against their own children, we know this: Our church, our culture, and our country are poorer without the life witness of Notre Dame.”

(Cross-posted on Return to Rome)

Here is the article, with the following caveat:

They must use cells culled from fertility clinic embryos that otherwise would be thrown away.

Is that supposed to make me feel better?

Since I’ve been buried under the gigantic first year law school assignment known as the appellate brief, I have not been keeping up with current events for the last couple of weeks. Having completed that assignment, I looked up some of the news stories from the last few days. I sure was surprised to find that the Department of Homeland Security now considers anyone who is dedicated to a single issue (specifically, opposition to abortion) to be a threat to the country.

Interestingly, judging from Mike Huckabee’s interview of former supermodel Kathy Ireland, and the pro-life view that she articulates, both she and Huckabee also seem to be a dangerous threat to the country.

(HT: Justin Taylor).

Yet another study showing more positive results from adult stem cell research.

Note that the headline reads: “Stem cell treatment effective in heart patients” (emphasis mine). What kind of stem cells? Adult stem cells – but you have to read the article to get that.

Here is a tip: whenever a headline talks about positive results of “stem cell research” – understand that it means “adult stem cells research”. Rarely do I read a headline that actually identifies adult stem cells as adult stem cells.

It seems that this is due to an effort to blur the distinction between ASCs and ESCs. It is done by the pro-ESCR crowd that the results of both ASCR and ESCR might be lumped together and the positive results of ASCR shared equally between the two camps. See The Little Red Hen.

The desired effect is to leave the reader thinking, “That stem cell research great stuff! Aren’t we glad our Obama lifted restrictions on stem cell research?” This impression is left despite that fact that the stem cells were from adults and Hopeful Leader’s lifitng of the ESCR did not contribute to this but actually discouraged such research.

As a 3L law student at Notre Dame, I’ve been paying close attention to the controversy surrounding the University’s ill-considered invitation to President Obama to give the Commencement Address. The Catholic blogosphere has already more than explained why the decision was ill-considered, so I won’t revisit all those arguments in this post. Suffice to say, I think the University’s decision is wrong, not least because it is the type of conduct previously condemned by the U.S. Catholic bishops.

If for some inexplicable reason anyone hasn’t heard the case for why President Obama should not be giving the Commencement Address, then I’d recommend reading Bishop D’Arcy’s statement, Cardinal DiNardo’s statement, Prof. Rick Garnett’s excellent posts on the matter, and the press release from Notre Dame Response. Notre Dame Response’s press release is especially noteworthy because it is one of the few critiques that voices the concerns of graduating students at Notre Dame. Regardless of whether you think it’s okay for President Obama to be giving the Commencement Address at Notre Dame, it’s just a fact that a significant portion of the Notre Dame student body doesn’t think it’s okay based on deeply held moral & religious beliefs. Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear Fr. Jenkins and the Administration adequately considered how their decision would affect those students

That said, I have mixed feelings on the matter, in part because I’ve been un-settled by the tone and language used by some of the University’s most out-spoken critics. Here are two of my concerns:

(more…)

This week, a British court ordered life sustaining treatment withdrawn from a baby – against the wishes of his parents. The writeup indicates that it was uncertain whether this was done for the best interest of the baby or the best interest of the hospital. Does this distinction make any difference? (more…)

I am most grateful that Feddie has graciously allowed me contribute to SA!

A little bit of background – I have lived in the Great State of Mississippi for my entire life  except for a  brief foray up north for college. Once I got my hands on a biology degree I headed back to Mississippi with my wife where I am now a first year law student at Ole Miss.

In college, I developed an interest in bioethics. My contributions to SA will mostly revolve around these issues, including but not limited to: abortion, stem cell research, cloning, genetic engineering, health care, and pre-implantation genetics.

More to the point -  I am a gun owning, church going, SA reading, pro-life Conservative with a libertarian streak and I am fired up about joining the folks here at SA.

A UN bureaucrat has let the cat out of the bag! Liberals really do want to destroy the family (H/T: Pro Ecclesia):

Speaking at a colloquium held last month at Colegio Mexico in Mexico City, UNFPA representative Arie Hoekman denounced the idea that high rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births represent a social crisis, claiming that they represent instead the triumph of “human rights” against “patriarchy.”
(more…)

It has been several years since I have given a talk at Biola University in La Mirada, California. It is an institution that has a number of my friends on the faculty including Craig Hazen, John Mark Reynolds, J. P. Moreland, and Scott B. Rae. So I am very much looking forward to this Thursday, when I return to Biola as a speaker in its Distinguished Speaker Lecture Series for Christianity and Culture.

Scheduled for October 30 at 6 pm in Biola’s Calvary Chapel, I will be delivering a lecture on the topic of abortion and American politics. After the lecture I’ll be meeting for an informal Q & A at the Philosophy House of Talbot School of Theology (Biola’s seminary) with some students in the school’s M.A. program in philosophy of religion and ethics.

If you are in southern California, feel free to attend. The lecture is open to the public.

(cross-posted)

An on the money blog post by Jonathan V. Last at First Things:

There are reasonable criticisms that can be made of Sarah Palin, both as governor and a vice presidential selection. Yet little of what we have seen in the last six days has been either reasonable or critical (in the traditional sense of the word). Instead, much of the left and many in the media simply lashed out at Palin, particularly at her family.

And not only the fringiest parts of the political fringe: A writer at the Washington Post attacked Palin for the fact that her seventeen-year-old daughter was going to have a baby. A writer for The Atlantic openly questioned whether or not Palin’s four-month-old baby, who has Down’s Syndrome, was actually hers. The utterly unfounded suggestion was that the baby was Palin’s daughter’s and that the governor had faked her pregnancy. Proof of the baby’s birth was demanded.

(more…)

Read it here. The picture is below. Andrew Sullivan, however, seems hesitant to acquiesce.