R.A.G.E. Media

News from the Abortion Capital of America. On the very first day they city council is trying to shut down pro-life initiatives such as EMC Frontline (Frun by Chris Slattery)

September 25, 2008

“40 Days for Life” Campaign Attacked on Day 1 by NYC City Council President
and Leading Abortion Advocates with Sweeping New Restrictive “Clinic Access” Bill

http://council.nyc.gov/html/releases/health_clinic_bill.shtml

“A vicious assault on the freedoms of speech, and assembly were launched against the peaceful and prayerful New York City pro-life community yesterday with the announcement of a new “Clinics Access Bill” (see press release above) on the first day of the nationwide 40 Days for Life campaign,” charged Chris Slattery, founder and president of Expectant Mother Care-EMC FrontLine Pregnancy Centers, with ten alternative-to-abortion centers in New York City.

The 40 Days for Life campaign, which Slattery is co-ordinating in New York City, is part of a 177 city, 45 state prayerful mobilization ongoing for 40 days from September 24th to November 2nd with volunteer led vigils at abortion sites across America.

Slattery, and a team of over 15 volunteer attorneys, led a successful effort to squash subpoenas and an investigation into New York City and geographically spread out New York State crisis pregnancy centers, by then Governor Eliot Spitzer, in early 2002. Spitzer lifted his investigation of close to 24 pro-life pregnancy help centers in late February, of that year, including Slattery’s then five New York centers.

“The NYC Council President, Christine Quinn, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and the NY Civil Liberties Union have designed a bogus law to empower NYC abortion facility staff to actually become rouge, vigilante prosecutors and persecutors of local pro-life life-saving, and life-changing sidewalk counselors,” Slattery charged.

“These mostly volunteer street counselors, working with and for local pregnancy centers who compete with abortion mills, often hurt abortion businesses by successfully and peacefully dissuading abortion patients from entering their sites when offered free help, education, medical care, and housing, ” Slattery said.

Slattery added that “Not only would this bill provide shocking new powers to harass pro-life activists with bogus charges, Christine Quinn and company want to employ unconstitutional draconian fifteen feet “no-speech” barrier or “bubble zones” in clear violation of the FACE (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances)Statute, which protects pregnancy centers from being prohibited potential client access to their staff.”

He further stated “This unAmerican bill will inhibit and chill all the free speech necessary to inform abortion clinic patients of their right to know the alternatives to abortion, not currently required by New York City or State law.”

“Within minutes of learning of this new proposed bill on Wednesday I contacted David Bereit, national director of 40 Days for Life, and we have begun assembling a crack legal team and activist support network for a full scale counter-attack against this unfair, biased and blatantly unconstitutional bill,” said Slattery.

He concluded that with “with God’s help we will defeat this bogus bill, and bring out many women who have had their lives changed and babies saved by pro-life sidewalk outreach at abortion clinics.”

There is an alarming number of Catholic and pro-life leaders and influencers who are propagating a dangerous, even evil idea. This idea is that in 2008, we do not have a suitable candidate for truly pro-life voters to choose in November.

Not voting, or voting write-in candidates, is the popular suggestion.

When I was in attendance at the Men and Abortion conference in Chicago a few weeks ago, Jason Jones addressed the audience, and said “When you live in a constitutional democracy, your civic duty becomes your religious duty. We are the sovereigns.” In other words, these influential pro-life and Catholic individuals are asking us to abdicate the throne.

First, though, it should be pointed out that the most convincing argument against voting for John McCain was his acceptance of Embryonic Stem Cell Research. That has now been answered by his announcement that he will maintain the policy of George W. Bush and the nomination of Gov. Sarah Palin, who is more courageously pro-life than I would have ever hoped to see in this election on a major ticket. Third, by the very fact these two preceding events have taken place, it confirms that John McCain is a candidate in which pro-life dialog can take place and have an effect. Therefore, this argument that he is not ‘pro-life’ enough seems to no longer hold water.

But even if these events had not taken place, if we were faced with the two parties putting forth such terrible options - would it be justified to cast a vote for a third-party candidate, especially one who has not gotten on the ballot in all 50 states?

The cause for abortion is one of the ultimate issues of good versus evil in our time. For many of us, it may be the greatest of our lives. Therefore it is our duty to take part in the battle.

Those who would have you believe there is no choice but a third-party candidate have cited that one cannot take part in evil. That is true. But we live in a time so compromised our choices have been severely limited. The blood of two generations is literally running in our sewers. The tyranny of the two party system has given us no perfect solution. However, there is a great difference between those candidates put forth by the parties.

The faults of John McCain have been mentioned, and of course one can add concern over his party’s integral part in the war in the middle east. But on the other hand… in Barak Hussein Obama… we have perhaps the personification of a candidate on the anti-Catholic, pro-abortion platform.

Obama not only supports abortion, but he has not opposed the rights of a child who survives an abortion - Obama supports a mother’s right to even kill her already-born children. As a Democrat, it is practically assured that he will revoke the Mexico City Policy, which will allow our tax dollars to fund abortions in foreign countries. There is indeed a great many more lives that will be lost if Obama is elected than if McCain is elected. Of course, if you have even read this article to this point, we are probably in agreement that under no circumstances do we want Obama to be elected.

If we cannot choose either candidate because we should not participate in evil, then we have no choice? That is what a fool will tell you. If you do nothing, or you piddle your precious vote away on a third-party candidate who has no chance, than you may very well commit a graver sin of omission, if your action or inaction brings about the greatest evil. As Edmund Burke said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Let’s say that someone tells you they are about to kill one man, or three. It is your choice. But if you do not choose, they will kill the three, You have in fact three choices. If you refuse to choose, the third option, you would be responsible for the death of two more people than if you had chosen the lesser evil.

The third parties might still seem to be an option. However, never in our history has a candidate from a third party won, and for good reason. Jerry Freisa explains:

On four occasions in US history, the candidate with the most popular votes did not win the presidency. This is a feature of a republican form of government, a government that is intended to “check” popular participation and “leveling” or democratic impulses. The mechanism by which this is done is the Electoral College. The Electoral College also insures that the number of parties seriously competing for the presidency will always be and only be two.

Each State’s allotment of electors is equal to the number of House members to which it is entitled plus two Senators (with the District of Columbia getting three). But here is the key element for our purposes: in order to win the presidency, a candidate must win a majority of electors.

By requiring that a candidate win a majority, the Electoral College guarantees that third parties must do one of three things. Let’s assume a third party arises and is incredibly strong (the Perot candidacy that for a time was pushing 20 percent nationally), but has no realistic chance of wining a majority of electors straight out. Its first choice is to press forward, win a significant percentage of electors and deny either of the two major parties a majority victory. In this case, the election would be decided by the House of Representatives, already dominated by the major parties. Option 1: third party looses everything.

The second option, again assuming a strong third party, is to coalesce with one of the major parties in order to get something. Arguably the most powerful progressive political party was the People’s Party during the late 19th century. In 1896, they had anywhere from 25 to 45 percent strength in twenty-odd states. Clearly unable to win the presidency as a third party, they felt compelled to coalesce with the Democrats and saw their more radical labor and socialist elements purged in a losing effort. Well, there you are. Option 2 puts you back inside one of the major parties.

The third option arises when a third party is not that strong, say a Nadar candidacy of 2000. We know what happens there. A weak third party, by taking votes away from the party closest to it ideologically will, in effect, help elect the major party most unlike themselves. Option 3: help the other guys win.

The third option is perhaps the most likely for any “more pro-life than McCain” party, and in effect it hands Obama the presidency. In other words, if the sun rises on November 5, 2008 and Obama is elected, the blood will be on the hands not only of those who voted for him or did not vote, but for those who voted for someone other than McCain.

All three of these scenarios depict a strong third party, which is not a factor in the 2008 election. Even if they were, they would pretty much have to be polling more than at least one party to be a contender, and even then the odds are decidedly stacked against them. If you need a review of how the electoral college works, Wikipedia is actually decent for this.

The Catholic Voter’s Guide put out by Catholic Answers addresses this as well:

Where an ideal candidate, law, or prgram is not on the table, we are to choose the best option, the one that promotes the greatest good and entailes the least evil. Not voting may sometimes be the only moral course of action, but we must consider whether not voting actually promotes good and limits evil in a specific instance.

Is not voting, or voting for a third party candidate, who with less than 60 days to election day has not got a prayer, the best choice to limiting evil? No, for grave evil will befall us and our children if Obama is elected.

Disclaimer: I am an independent voter, with no particular affection for the Republican party. Like Sen. Clinton, whose support of Obama is more or less due to the fact that he is not McCain, my support for McCain is because he is not Obama, and the electoral college has left us with only 2 choices.

Also, I am free to specifically name candidates in posts such as these since R.A.G.E. Media is a Corporation and not a non-profit. We do not have the muzzle that non-profits are burdened with but at the same time we must “render unto Ceasar.” So if you would like us to keep saying what we must, please take a look at our products and consider purchasing an item or two.

Disturbing email I just received from a colleague:

It appears that Prolife pharmacist and PFLI spokesman Mike Koelzer has crossed paths with the very liberal
Associate Professor of Biology, P.Z. Myers. Apparently Mike’s big offense was to show (by offering to make a presentation at Myer’s place of worship) that he didn’t (according to Myers) “know me very well“.
For this grave insult of not recognizing the renown of Myers, small hordes of Myers’ Atheist Acolytes were sent to Mike’s pharmacy survey page to heap spam onto the website of his business. This caused Mike a bit of tedium, from a need to manage the spam, and caused me considerable amusement to hear of it.

Myers, a rather bellicose fellow, apparently in midlife crisis, is known more for obtaining a Blessed Eucharistic Host from a Catholic Church, and desecrating it, than he is for accomplishments in scientific research. A brief search for his work in Biology turned up……. well, ….. next to nothing. I understand that he has one or two peer reviewed journal articles, and a little collection of conference presentations to his name. If you search the net, you’ll find Associate Professor Myers now bending the ears of students at University of Minnesota, Morris Campus.

It appears that when this P.Z. Myers passes on to become fertilizer (as his own religion might suggest) he won’t be remembered for actual accomplishments, and may be recalled by a few for attempting to anger Catholics and other people with a vision of the Creator.

I do sincerely invite P.Z. Myers to get a life, to obtain access to the Creator through the illumination of the Catholic Religion, and perhaps accomplish some significant scientific research.

Science becomes a very useful tool, for the good of living creatures, when one stops abusing it as a religion.

Karen L. Brauer MS, RPh, President, Pharmacists for Life

Mike Koelzer is just down the road from me, and we had a chance to meet last month. He’s a wonderful guy who lives his Catholic faith.

If you haven’t found your way over to PickAFig.com, the Catholic Social Bookmarking Site, I highly suggest you take the time to check it out if you are interested in increasing the readership of your blog or website.

Here are a few tips for using the new tool, which also apply for websites like Digg and del.icio.us - although those sites are not Catholic and it can be difficult to get noticed there.

1) Submit your own stories to PickAFig. Also, vote for your own stories if someone else submits them. There’s nothing wrong with self-promoting, since you can only vote once per article anyway. Besides, how can new readers find you if you don’t tell them on a directory like PickAFig that you have content worth reading?

2) Put a PickAFig button on your blog posts. If you put a PickAFig button on your blog template, it will automatically show on each post. It serves as a reminder to your readers to vote for your story and/or submit it, and it shows off your more popular posts at a glance.

3) Don’t pass up the free incoming link. To get better rankings in the search engines, you need to have quality incoming links. That is, links that are relevant to your content from other sites that are similar in content to your own site. PickAFig, being faithfully Catholic and pro-life, can provide those links… but you or your readers have to submit your stories!

4) Vote on other stories, and discuss other posts. Your profile name and link shows when you vote or comment on other stories, and if you comment enough you’ll show up on the “Top Comments” list. Your profile should provide a link back to your site, and will also include links to stories you submitted.

Also, this is free networking with other writers; if someone sees that you voted for their story, they may be curious about what it is you write and submit. Thus, they will be introduced to your content.

5) Get over Writer’s Block. Can’t think of a topic? Browse PickAFig and see what everyone else is talking about. You may have missed a tidbit of news, or get inspired by someone else’s post.

6) Recruit more PickAFig members. The more people that participate on PickAFig, the more people will see your posts on the site. Consider browsing Catholic directories such as catholicblogs.blogspot.com, Saint Blog’s Parish, or stblogs.net and finding posts you like, and submitting them on PickAFig. Then, let the blogger know that you liked their post so much you submitted it on PickAFig.