The Idaho Statesman carried a headline in its paper on Saturday, “Abortion Foes Promote ‘Personhood’ for Eggs”. Talk about your “unbiased” media.

A casual reader could only be confirmed in the suspicion that the pro-Life movement is composed of irrational “egg worshipers” – perhaps a secret cult within a cult. Imagine going to the supermarket and buying a carton of eggs to bring home for family worship. How silly of us. (Sometimes it seems that the abortion crowd really does understand us this way).

Instead, the substance behind the headline concerns a singularly important question: Just Who Is Entitled to Equality Under the Law? Or, in this case, which subset(s) of homo sapien will have any legal recognition at all.

The Statesman article is a reprint out of the LA Times purporting to cover developments in Colorado. Pro-Lifers there are waging battle to amend the state’s constitution in order to establish that human life begins at conception. If they succeed, the citizens of Colorado will present the U.S. Supreme Court with an unprecedented challenge. But members of the media are working hard to ensure that campaign fails.

Take this fascinatingly stupid sentence: “The campaign to grant ‘personhood’ to fertilized eggs, giving them the same legal status as human beings, comes as the nation in December marks the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade ….”

Please note that the author does clarify that we are not actually talking about eggs from the supermarket – but ‘fertilized eggs’. And secondly, observe that the author presumes we all understand these odd creatures to be something other than ‘human beings’. I wonder how that “factoid” became so established as to make it unnecessary for the reporter to even bother putting forth a logical argument or scientific fact to support his bias.

And we are the “irrational” ones?

The simple and incontrovertible truth is that human life does begin at conception. In all of human history, there has never been a single human being whose life did not begin in exactly the same way. That means billions of hard data points on our side of the debate – and exactly none on theirs. Furthermore, it is a plain scientific fact that fertilized eggs are human; they belong to no other species.

To read the learned comments of folks at the Statesman or LA Times, one would have to believe, as an article of political and social faith, that non-human eggs somehow transform themselves, by an unknown and magical force, into human beings at some later date: Utter gibberish by another name.

Perhaps it is the abortion crowd that has spent too much time around the moonshine still.

Shout for joy to the Lord, all the earth.

Worship the Lord with gladness; come before Him with joyful songs.

Know that the Lord is God. It is He who made us, and we are His;
we are His people, the sheep of His pasture.

Enter His gates with thanksgiving and His courts with praise;
Give thanks to him and praise His name.

For the Lord is good and His love endures forever;
His faithfulness continues through all generations.

- Psalm 100

As the presidential race continues to sort itself out – even without the casting of a single ballot – the pro-Life community is coming to face a rather stark set of circumstances. The specific terror comes in the form of Rudy Giuliani as the potential Republican nominee.

There are some of us who believe that that development would likely be a development of greater consequence than the election of Democrat Hillary Clinton. His recent speech at the Federalist Society, designed to calm our fears, did more to provoke alarm than his personal donations to Planned Parenthood.

We point readers to a profoundly interesting and thoughtful article which appears in the most recent issue of First Things. Professor Hadley Arkes, one of the great philosophers behind the modern pro-Life movement, offers an important analysis of the fallout likely from Giuliani’s nomination, or even election:

“The nomination and election of Rudy Giuliani would mark the end of the Republican Party as the pro-Life party in our politics. And that would be the case regardless of whether pro-Lifers respond to his nomination by refusing to vote for Giuliani, forming a third party, or folding themselves into a coalition that succeeds in electing Giuliani.”

In my opinion, Giuliani’s nomination would almost certainly guarantee Hillary’s election, but the damage to the Republican Party in nominating such a man would have longer term consequences. It is almost inconceivable that Giuliani could run next fall on the Party’s current platform. His differences with the GOP’s “core principles” are simply too numerous and deep to be ignored. The dissonance would simply make him too vulnerable to attack in a tough campaign. And certainly if Rudy has the votes at the National Convention to win the nomination – he will have the troops necessary to rewrite the platform.

And why does that matter? Again we turn to Professor Arkes:

“Since the days of Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party has become, ever more clearly, the pro-Life party in our politics. And, just as clearly, the ‘right to abortion’, with its theme of sexual liberation, has become the central peg on which the interests of the Democratic Party have been arranged. Under these conditions, the pro-Life movement has become bound up inescapably with the fate of the Republican Party.”

In dismissing Giuliani’s claim that pro-Lifers can support him because he would appoint judges like Samuel Alito, Arkes reaches back to the last time America was driven to confront such a monumental moral question. He compares Giuliani’s preference for “personal choice” on abortion to Stephen Douglas’ position on slavery. Lincoln pinned Douglas to the wall when he charged that Douglas’ “states rights” position was really an attempt to “blow out the moral lights” by teaching a policy of “indifference”. In other words, slavery was simply not that important, certainly not important enough for Congress and presidential candidates to trifle with. All of this was possible because Douglas studiously refused to reach a moral conclusion about the slavery of other human beings.

In that, Giuliani’s position is eerily similar to that proffered by Fred Thompson – notwithstanding the latter’s endorsement by “National Right to Life”. Mr. Thompson has stated that he opposes the Party’s platform in its call for a Human Life Amendment – which would guarantee the right to life for every child in America. Instead, his brand of politics would leave it to the local communities and states to determine where, how and if personhood was conferred upon the “biological entity” somehow growing within the mother’s womb.

Professor Arkes concludes by arguing that Mitt Romney remains the candidate best positioned to stop Giuliani. Perhaps. But be certain that Giuliani’s nomination would mean a major redefinition of the Republican Party. And perhaps that is not all bad for the pro-Life movement. But certainly it would take many years to reorganize a competitive political structure capable of electing policy makers.

The Arkes article should be read and pondered by any person seriously concerned with the lives of innocents fighting for survival in hostile wombs held within an all-too-hostile culture.

We urge you to read the article for yourself: http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6085

The Supreme Court of India has just sentenced a man to life in prison because he forced his girlfriend to undergo an abortion.

According to a LifeNews.Com report, a man there impregnated his girlfriend. He insisted she abort the child. She refused. He then took the woman to a local pharmacist, a friend of his, during which visit the pharmacist put her under anesthesia and performed the abortion. What is particularly interesting about this story is that the charge leveled at the boyfriend was not performing an “illegal abortion” because the pharmacist was not a licensed abortionist. Rather, the life sentence was handed down for the specific crime of aborting a child without the mother’s consent.

Many of our readers may think this story extreme, perhaps on a couple levels. First, some might think a life sentence too harsh. Others might think that coercion really ought not be a crime in the first place, or that this instance of coercion is too extreme to serve as any kind of public policy guide for treating the problem of coercion.

We would disagree on both counts, and suggest that part of the problem is that the daily pummeling from a pro-abort media has twisted our sensibilities; even pro-Lifers are inclined to accept the embedded premise.

If, for example, we really believe abortion is the killing of an innocent human being, than why would a life sentence be extreme?

And why shouldn’t a person be prosecuted for forcing – either through physical or emotional abuse or economic pressure – a woman to participate in the killing of her own child?

Let’s take a look at the closely-related crime of extortion. A person uses verbal abuse, and threats of kicking out on the street, an elderly relative unless they sign over their life insurance benefits to that relative with whom they live. Anyone can spot the crime of extortion – and rightly conclude that such coercion is not just immoral, but illegal. It is theft by a different name.

Idaho law provides for the prosecution of such thievery. But no protection exists for the woman or girl threatened with any number of sanctions unless she agrees to kill her own child. And it happens more often than you might care to believe.

Could it be that we as a society value money more than the human victims, both baby and mother, pummeled by the employer or boyfriend or spouse?

The Actuary, an insurance industry publication out of England, carried an article in its last issue warning insurance companies about the impending explosion of breast cancer claims. What makes the article even more extraordinary is the fact that the article flat-out declares that the epidemic is the result of legalized abortion. The magazine’s analysis is based upon work published last month by researcher Patrick Carroll.

LifeNews.Com is reporting that Mr. Carroll forecasts a 51% increase in breast cancer rates for England and Wales by 2029.

The industry article warns companies that the link between abortion and breast cancer will likely result in higher and more numerous claims over the next two decades.

The article did not, apparently, explore the potential explosion in malpractice claims against doctors, hospitals and others in the medical field – but that is a whole subject in itself, given their propensity to mislead women about the risks associated with abortion.

This is a highly significant development. Babies destroyed by abortion cannot, of course, make claims. But women, physically and emotionally damaged by the Abortion Industry’s false claims, certainly can. And will.

Eventually, the sheer economic consequences of unfettered abortion will help to bring down this evil empire.

It was disheartening to hear that the Alaska Supreme Court struck down that state’s Parental Consent Law last week. A majority of the court has discovered a privacy right in the state’s constitution which not only applies to children – it includes an abortion “right” which is superior to the one uncovered by jurists in the federal constitution.

This continues a pattern in which the Abortion Lobby – the ACLU and their clients at Planned Parenthood – have assiduously sought to build a legal breaker in the states, should the U.S. Supreme Court ever reverse its specious ruling in Roe v. Wade. The consequences for Alaska families will be enormous over time. Just look at the devastation wrecked by a similar injustice in neighboring Montana – where the state courts there have struck down virtually every pro-Life law ever enacted.

The events in Alaska are as instructive as they are tragic.

Parental Consent has been the law in that fairly conservative state for some ten years. Who knows how many lives have been spared? How many families protected? How many girls spared the burden of a dark abortion history?

It has been allowed to stand by federal courts – which is no small comment. Like Idaho, Alaska’s fate is bound by the infamy often perpetrated by the 9th Circuit of Appeals.

So what is the lesson for Idaho? It is a warning that if we lose our ability to vote in meaningful contests for state judges – we will one day awaken to a state remade in the image of liberal activists.

Alaska’s constitution provides for the appointment of state judges by the governor to ten year terms. Citizens are given the chance to “retain” or expel supreme court justices at the end of their terms. We’ve not done an exhaustive research effort on the number of justices kicked loose by voters under this system – but we’d bet it is virtually zero.

This is essentially the model many elites in Idaho which to force down our throats. Those elites include two former justices of the Idaho Supreme Court, who just resigned their posts early for the explicit purpose of fixing Idaho elections. Their replacements, appointed by Governor Otter, will be able to run as pseudo-incumbents. It would be more than surprising if either are even challenged by lawyers fearful of retribution.

The Idaho Legislature must rise up in the next session to protect Idaho’s Constitution from the unseemly attempts by Linda Copple Trout and others to destroy our system of government. Otherwise, we will soon find our freedoms hopelessly eroded.

Let’s admit it: Public Affairs is often strange and inexplicable. Take, for example, Pat Robertson’s bizarre endorsement of the pro-abort Rudy Giuliani. Who could have predicted such a calculated sell-out of fundamental principle? But that is a subject for later writings.

The week’s other odd development is much more welcome: New Jersey voters soundly rejected the Abortion Lobby’s proposal to borrow $450 million in order to fund stem cell research on human embryos. Despite liberal Governor Corzine’s personal financing and endorsement of the effort – 53% of voters opposed the scheme.

News reports from Bloomberg and others suggest that opposition had more to do with the oppressive state of New Jersey’s finances than any moral objection to killing preborn children to harvest some of the cells. Whatever the cause of the victory – we’ll take it, especially from a state more renowned for corrupt liberalism than sound judgment.

The truth is, there are both financial and moral reasons for opposing this grand hoax.

Despite hundreds of millions of dollars in public money; despite great media hype and hoopla – human embryonic stem cell has failed to produce viable results. Nor does it seem likely to ever produce more than subsidies to various institutions, pharmaceutical companies and questionable researchers. After all, if these projects were likely to produce viable cures, these huge international companies would be putting their own dollars on the line. Instead, they prefer to scam the public.

New Jersey’s wisdom in rejecting this scheme may help apply the “airbrakes of logic” to the national drive to compromise all of us in the killing of preborn children.

President Bush will present the Presidential Medal of Freedom today at a White House ceremonyto Henry Hyde. The former Illinois congressman is being honored for his decades of national leadership in defending preborn citizens.

A White House press release President Bush said, “During his career in the House of Representatives, [Congressman Hyde] was a powerful defender of life and a leading advocate for a strong national defense and for freedom around the world.”

The event is an unintended, but powerful, retort to folks like columnist George Will – prone to argue that it no longer really matters what a candidate for president thinks about abortion. A president (and most elected officials for that matter) has many ways to impact the culture that go beyond the power to appoint judges. In this case, President Bush provides legitimacy and focus and encouragement to the whole pro-Life movement by honoring one of its own.

And there is no doubt that Henry Hyde is one of our best.

I have on my office wall a quote which Hyde delivered at his retirement banquet:

“When the time comes, as it surely will, when we face that terrible moment, the final judgment, I’ve often thought, as Fulton Sheen wrote, that it is a terrible moment of loneliness. You have no advocates there, you are there alone standing before God and a terror will rip your soul like nothing you can imagine.

“But I really think that those in the pro-Life movement will not be alone.

“I think there will be a chorus of voices that have never been heard in this world but are heard very beautifully and very loudly in the next world and I think they will plead for everyone who has been in the movement.

“They will say to God, ‘spare them, because they loved us,’ and God will look at us and say not, ‘Did you succeed?’ but ‘Did you try’?”

-- David Ripley