Cangemi

2012

Be An EVERY Single Issue Voter

Be An EVERY Single Issue Voter
By Gary Cangemi
Pro-Life Reporter October 2012

There are two statements about the pro-life movement that are frequently uttered but rarely challenged in the media. One is that we only care about the person BEFORE he or she is born. The other is that pro-life people are SINGLE issue voters. Both of these statements are untrue and easily refuted.

The pro-life people I have been privileged to know care very deeply about all human life from conception to natural death. The people who suggest otherwise are really saying that we don’t care about people unless we are willing to spend a ton of government money giving them everything they need. We can have a huge debate about how much government assistance is enough and about how private charity helps people more efficiently and with greater compassion, but to paint all pro-lifers with the same broad brush is absurd.

There are numerous private and religious groups which go out of their way to help young mothers after they have made the right choice. You never hear about these heroes at pro-choice rallies or at some political conventions. But they are out there every day, changing hearts and minds and then lending a helping hand.

As for the single issue voting charge, this is utter nonsense. We don’t just evaluate candidates based on their views on abortion but on a whole range of issues like health care, euthanasia, cloning, embryonic stem cell research, marriage, family, the Constitution, Social Security and Medicare, to name just a few. We are not single issue voters; we are EVERY single issue voters. We care about the quality of life for everyone, but addressing the quality of life begins with a fundamental RESPECT for life. You cannot have one without the other. If respect for human life is our litmus test for politicians to whom we entrust the quality of our lives, then the quality of life can only improve if they are elected.

Due Process Rights for the Unborn

Due Process Rights for the Unborn
By Gary Cangemi
Pro-Life Reporter March 2012

Suppose we do elect a pro-life president, he appoints the next Supreme Court justice and the land’s highest court overturns the infamous Roe v. Wade decision. What then? The abortion debate goes back to the states and is decided on a state by state basis? Will America become a land where only half its unborn citizens have a right to life?

The American Civil War determined that we could not remain a nation half slave and half free and the same could be argued of the right to life. Simply overturning Roe V. Wade won’t end the abortion battle, it will only change the landscape of the battlefield. In my view, the key to ending or significantly reducing abortion in America may lie in the Constitution itself. The 14th amendment clearly states that no State may “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...”

Thus, according to one possible interpretation of the Constitution, NO abortions should be performed in this country without the unborn child having some sort of legal process in which their interests are taken into account. Thus, if the courts were to uphold the due process rights of the unborn, hearings would be required to determine whether the mother’s interest in aborting the child outweighs the child’s fundamental right to life, potentially reducing the number of abortions performed each year significantly below current statistics.

Such hearings need not require a full court trial, but could be dealt with by a master or appointee of the court, as many other family matters are currently handled. But the Constitution, if so interpreted, would be clear: no unborn child should have his life terminated without full legal recourse and a duly executed, case by case legal process which weighs the interests of all parties concerned; a “due process” that was denied when the last 53 million children were put to death in America’s abortuaries.

2011

Why Not Use Anti-Tobacco Tactics?

Attorneys Take Note: To End Abortion, Why Not Use Anti-Tobacco Tactics?
By Gary Cangemi
Pro-Life Reporter June 2011

Before tort reform finally takes hold in Pennsylvania, why doesn’t the prolife movement borrow a chapter from the book of tactics used to destroy the tobacco industry and use it to abolish the abortion industry? That’s right, if we can’t legislate the abortionists out of business, why don’t we sue them out of business?

It’s not like Pennsylvania has a shortage of lawyers willing to sue at the drop of a hat; one need only turn on the TV set to observe an endless stream of advertisements aimed at suing everyone and their brother for everything from trucking accidents to bad side effects from pharmaceuticals. Lawsuit-happy lawyers are plastered over billboards, buses, and phonebook covers throughout the state. What better issue to launch them into commonwealth courts than botched abortions resulting in physical and emotional injuries?

The same arguments used by the anti-tobacco people to squeeze billions of dollars out of the cigarette biz could be used to fleece abortion clinics for millions and bankrupt their operations. Big Tobacco was accused of lying to its customers and making misleading claims to make them dependent on its products. Bingo! Can’t the same be said of the Big Abortion industry which told women their unborn babies were nothing more than blobs of tissue and that abortion was akin to having a bad tooth removed? Tell that to the women who suffered years of guilt and torment when they learned the truth about what they had really done to their children. Tell that to women who have been physically injured and unable to bear children. Tell that to women suffering from breast cancer whose risk was increased by having abortions. Pain and suffering and the loss of a child are worth something, aren’t they? Well then, come on Mr. Attorney, hang out your shingle, post your billboards, jump on the anti-abortion bandwagon and sue the pants off these merchants of death. You made a fortune stomping out cigarettes, now make another one pulling the plug on abortion!

In Giffords Case, Media Selectively Pro-Life

In Giffords Case, Media Selectively Pro-Life
By Gary Cangemi
Pro-Life Reporter March 2011

As I watched the media coverage of the shootings in Tucson, Arizona, and of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords recovery, I was dumbfounded. The media reported every detail of Giffords’ condition and treatment, expressing the utmost concern for her well-being and recovery. Reporters and commentators counted every heartbeat and every breath and marveled at the wonders of modern medicine and the heroic efforts of the doctors as they bravely attempted to bring “Gabby” back to health, so that she could resume a useful life on the floor of Congress.

This is all great, but I have just a few questions. Where was all of this awe and wonder and concern a few years ago for a woman in Florida, when the courts ordered her feeding tube removed so that she could be starved and dehydrated to death at the behest of her husband? Where was the media during the ordeal of Terri Schiavo? Was Terri treated like a valued human being with a future like Gabrielle Giffords? On the contrary, Terri was dismissed by the mainstream media as a brain-dead vegetable who wouldn’t feel a thing if she were to be euthanized. The people who fought to keep Terri alive were portrayed by the media as a bunch of pro-life crazies who were butting into the Schiavo family’s private health decisions. Of course, included in the bunch were Terri’s parents, and brother and sister who were not even allowed to give her some ice chips to relieve the torment of her thirst.

There were no media expressions of hope for Terri’s treatment or recovery. There was no media joy or elation over Terri’s on-camera responses to stimuli, clear evidence that Terri was neither brain-dead nor in a persistent vegetative state. So why has the media treated these two cases so differently? The death of Terri Schiavo was a victory for the so-called “right to death” movement, a cause with which the liberal media is sympathetic. Gabrielle Giffords, on the other hand, was a liberal congresswoman shot by a man whom the press tried to link with the tea party movement.

We in the pro-life movement wish Miss Giffords only the best for her speedy recovery and return to office. But we also hoped and prayed for Terri Schiavo, that she would be given over to the care and love of her family. We will never forget her plight even if the media does.

2010

Remember Terri...

Remember Terri...for Your Own Sake!
By Gary Cangemi
Pro-Life Reporter July 2010

It has been just five years since an American woman was murdered by slow dehydration and starvation all under the approval and supervision of the American legal system. We just couldn’t bear the thought of a human being lying in bed for the rest of her life in a so-called “vegetative” state, even with a loving caring family willing to care for her and assume the financial burden of her care. We, the self-proclaimed most compassionate people on the planet, wanted her out of sight and out of mind, so we allowed her to be declared brain-dead in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Her family members were not even permitted to give her ice chips to sooth her raging thirst as she edged towards death.

I recently had open heart surgery and the first thing I remember after the operation was how thirsty I was. A nurse came over and put a spoonful of ice chips in my mouth and the feeling of relief was tremendous. I immediately thought back to Terri Schiavo and how she was denied that very simple, merciful act of kindness. How she must have suffered in those final days and hours, while others dared to call such treatment compassion.

We are so deluded by political correctness these days, we can’t even call “mercy-killing” and euthanasia by their real names, we have to call them “end of life issues.” We make heroes out of men like Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who now has an HBO movie portraying his “noble” struggle to give doctors the right to kill their patients.

The story of Terri Schiavo must be memorialized and remembered always, because the story of Terri Schiavo is the story of us; the story of how a nation failed one of its citizens, and in doing so, failed to protect all of its citizens. From the tiniest embryo to the oldest and sickest among us, no person should have his or her life taken without the full protection of the law and its due process.

Chris Doherty

Mayor? Governor? Senator? Candidate Du Jour Chris Doherty Will Oppose Any Anti-Abortion Legislation
By Gary Cangemi
Pro-Life Reporter March 2010

While Scranton Mayor Chris Doherty is busy flip-flopping his future job title, he continues his infamous flip-flop on abortion. In a recent debate of democrat candidates for governor, Doherty joined pro-abortion candidates Dan Onorato and Joe Hoeffel in asserting that he would VETO any legislation that would outlaw abortions in Pennsylvania should the U.S. Supreme Court overturn the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision.

This flies in the face of Chris Doherty’s signed pro-life proclamations issued as mayor of Scranton and his earlier assertions as a candidate for office that he was indeed pro-life. In our last issue and on the Steve Corbett radio program, PHL President Helen Gohsler called Doherty out on the carpet for his deceptive posture with regard to abortion. Because Doherty recently made the claim that he was “ALWAYS” pro-choice, Mrs. Gohsler wants to know whether Doherty was deceiving us when he claimed to be pro-life or deceiving us now in order to garner pro-choice votes. And quite frankly, the rest of us want to know as well, although we suspect we already know the answer. Now that Doherty is a candidate for State Senator, it is clear that he intends to oppose any legislation that may come before him to ban or curtail abortions.

Let this serve as a warning to all Pennsylvania voters when evaluating candidates for office. Just because they say they are pro-life, doesn’t mean they are pro-life. Let them prove it, not just through words, but by their actions. If a candidate goes to Harrisburg and Washington, not only should they vote pro-life, they should fight for the pro-life cause, leading the charge on legislative initiatives. If they don’t, we should send them home. We don’t need another half-hearted Bob Casey who calls himself pro-life and yet supports legislation that uses tax dollars to pay for abortions and we don’t need another Doherty deceit.

Stupak-Obama Deal

Kanjorski, Carney Betray Pro-Life Voters with Stupak-Obama Deal
By Gary Cangemi
Pro-Life Reporter March 2010

In an act of defiance bordering on arrogance, the House of Representatives thumbed their noses at outraged constituents and voted last Sunday for the most massive takeover of the private sector by the federal government in U.S. history, including local congressmen Chris Carney and Paul Kanjorski. By all accounts, Obama and Pelosi did not have the votes they needed to pass the Senate Health Care bill in the House, a bill loaded with provisions that would permit federal funding of abortions.

These provisions are what drove Congressman Bart Stupak to lead pro-life democrats to vote against the health care bill unless a written prohibition of federal abortion funding were explicitly included in the bill.

Chris Carney stated on the Steve Corbett show in November: “If Hyde language(the Hyde Amendment) is not in the final conference bill, I would not be able to support it. That has to be in the final bill.”

Stupak made similar statements and took a principled stand, a stand so firm that he was slated to receive an award for his pro-life efforts by the Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life group. His defiance worked as many congressmen were prepared to vote NO on the final bill.

What happened? Just hours before the final vote was taken, as debate raged on in the House chanber and vociferous tea partiers encircled the Capitol, Stupak met with President Obama behind closed doors and hammered out a deal. We may never know the full extent of that deal or what was promised, but what we do know is that Obama agreed to sign an executive order to prohibit the use of federal funds for abortions under the new law. A triumphant Bart Stupak immediately held a press conference, reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain waving a piece of paper in front of the press after making a worthless peace deal with Adolph Hitler, and announced an agreement had been reached that satisfied Stupak that no abortions would be funded by the bill. Stupak and his cohorts then unleashed a torrent of praise of the health care bill as if they had just had a gag order lifted.

There’s just one problem. The piece of paper Obama promised isn’t worth the paper it would be printed on. Obama has NO authority to change one iota of the bill now that it has become law. He can only sign it or veto it. He cannot change it.

That fact didn’t stop Stupak or Carney or Kanjorski who insisted that they couldn’t support the bill unless anti-abortion language were included. They voted for it gladly after accepting Obama’s deal, hook, line, and sinker. Still we are left begging the question: if it was Obama’s sincere intent to ban the use of all public funds for abortion services, why did he refuse to include explicit language doing so in the bill itself? And why did Stupak settle for what he swore he would not accept and then proclaim it a victory?

Whatever the answers to these questions, the result is a bill which is now law and which DOES PERMIT the use of taxpayer dollars for elective abortions.

Prior to the vote, Stupak engaged in a scripted exchange with Congressman Waxman, officially assuring pro-life democrats of Obama’s executive order, after which Stupak launched an attack on pro-life hold-outs, claiming that Democrats were truly the pro-life party and that the Senate bill was a pro-life bill, a bill which constitutes the biggest expansion of abortion in American history.

What happened to Stupak’s award? The Susan B. Anthony List, devastated over Stupak’s betrayal, withdrew the award which he was slated to receive on the Wednesday following the bill’s passage. We applaud their integrity in denying him this undeserved honor.

2009

2010...

2010...Take America Back!
By Gary Cangemi
Pro-Life Reporter December 2009

2009...what a year! The trillion dollar “stimulus” bill, cash for clunkers, bank bailouts, Government Motors, and to top it all off...the trillion dollar Obama health care bill.

No wonder Americans from sea to shining sea took to the streets and town halls to voice their collective outrage over massive federal spending. In the spirit of our founders, “tea parties” were held everywhere, including here in Lackwanna County, while the mainstream media ignored or ridiculed them.

People turned out in droves to confront their political leaders only to be patronized or scolded. Citizens were lectured that out-of-control spending is good for America and that a government takeover of the health care industry is beneficial to our health.

Those of us in the pro-life movement have had an even greater stake in the events of 2009-to stop the unprecedented effort by the federal government to guarantee abortion on demand as a universal right and to force all taxpayers to pay for it. We also view government run health care in its proposed form as a potentially grave threat to the quality of health care and end of life care. These issues are too important to be railroaded through the House and Senate without serious study and a thorough and inclusive national debate.

The arrogance of our leaders in ignoring the concerns of American citizens and proceeding with the nationalized health care agenda displays the utter contempt in which they hold their constituents and the blatant disregard they have for the U.S Constitution. Nothing else could explain the prominent display of “Don’t Tread On Me” flags at the tea parties. But there is a silver lining to the dark cloud of 2009...2010, a congressional election year and a chance for Americans to send Washington a message of their own. We can’t wait!

Obama's Health Czars

Obama's Health Czars
The people behind the federal government's takeover of America's health care system.
By Gary Cangemi
Pro-Life Reporter Fall 2009

Just what is a CZAR in modern political parlance? There is no official definition, but it generally refers to presidential special appointees who are given the job of pushing a specific policy or initiative, especially those positions which are created and are not subject to Senate confirmation. In that sense, some of the persons depicted here are technically not czars, but because they were chosen to move Obama’s health care reform agenda forward as well as implement it if it is passed, they are, in effect, czar-like in their power and authority. Like the last czar of Russia, these czars have their own Rasputin, a charismatic figure with the power to mesmerize, from whom they take their marching orders as they seek to take over the U.S health care industry. But President Obama is also the Czar of all the czars who has said on more than one occasion, “I am the president” to underscore his authority. Clearly, he believes his election to the White House has given him a mandate to push forward his liberal agenda in spite of the massive opposition now in evidence. Will Obama listen to the people or will he drive forward like a czar on horseback leading a cossack charge? That remains to be seen.

In the meantime, it is incumbent upon us to know who the key commanders are on this battlefield of health care reform and what they stand for.

Nancy Ann DeParle, Director of the newly created White House Office of Health Reform and Obama’s health reform czar.

Having run Medicare for the Clinton administration, DeParle, a lawyer, made a small fortune working for companies that were the target of numerous federal investigations, according to the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University, including kickbacks, fraudulent billing schemes, and violations of federal quality standards. One such company failed to warn patients about deadly defects in an implanted heart defibrillator. Now she is the point-man for Obama’s overhaul of the health care system and the way Americans pay for it. “This woman owes her fortune to the corporations that she is making decisions about,” said Dr. David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard University. (See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ id/31566399/ns/health-health_care/ for more on her corporate connections). On abortion, DeParle oversaw budget issues on HillaryCare which promoted abortion and health care rationing. As administrator of the federal Health Care Financing Administration, DeParle rejected a Virginia child health insurance plan because it would not fund abortions in cases of rape or incest for uninsured, low-income women. (LifeNews.com, 3-2-09) The plan would have covered abortions only when the woman’s life was endangered. The issue of federal funding of abortions will be a key issue in ObamaCare, one that DeParle is likely to promote, given her track record.

Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Sebelius, former governor of Kansas, was easily confirmed in spite of great controversy over her pro-abortion record. She received over $12,000 in contributions from her friend and supporter, notorious abortionist George Tiller. She has been endorsed by Planned Parenthood and vetoed anti-abortion legislation four times during her administration, including the Comprehensive Abortion Reform Act which sought to restrict late term abortions among other things. Kansas City Archbishop Joseph Fred Naumann asked that Sebelius no longer receive Holy Communion because of her position on abortion.

Dr. Regina Benjamin, Nominee for Surgeon General.

Dr. Benjamin is a Catholic physician who founded a rural health clinic in Louisiana, receiving an award for her work from the Pope. However, she has refused to comment on her position with regard to abortion prior to her confirmation. LifeNews.com reported that Benjamin voiced support for an AMA proposal to provide abortion education and training for doctors and that White House sources had confirmed that Benjamin’s views on “reproductive health” were similar to Obama’s. More remains to be learned at her confirmation hearings.

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Health Policy Advisor, Office of Management and Budget.

Dr. Emanuel is one of the chief architects of the Congressional health care plan that has so many angry Americans storming town halls. Dr. Emanuel’s past published opinions on health care reform recently became national news when an angry father, with his disabled son, confronted a congressman and referred to quotes by Dr. Emanuel in a New York Post article, “Deadly Doctors”(NY Post, 7-24-09) in which Emanuel spoke about restricting health care to the disabled. Emanuel is quoted as saying that doctors take the Hippocratic oath too seriously and that government health care should NOT go to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens.” In the medical journal Lancet, Emanuel wrote, “Unlike allocation (of health care services) by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious [offensive] discrimination.” According to many pro-life pundits, the same logic was used to justify a massive program of euthanasia in NAZI Germany, prior to the Holocaust. Ironically, Emanuel is also head of the Department of Bioethics at the Clinical Center of the National Institute of Health. Emmanuel also believes that every string should be pulled to push ObamaCare through, stating, “Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health care reform agenda.” (Atlanta Journal-Constitution 8-17-09)

Dr. David Blumenthal, National Coordinator of Health-Information Technology.

Translated: this is the guy who will make sure doctors comply with electronically transmitted federal guidelines on health care and costs, care the government deems appropriate and cost effective. Fueled by $20 billion in federal stimulus money, Blumenthal will also be heading efforts to put Americans’ medical records into a national database, a move the government claims will save $12 billion dollars over the next ten years but one that many consider to be an Orwellian nightmare of government control of personal information.

Jeffrey Crowley, Director, Office of National AIDS Policy.

Gay activists are heralding Obama’s choice for AIDS Czar. Crowley is expected to make AIDS prevention, research, and treatment a major part of Obama’s overall government health care strategy and to TOTALLY eliminate Bush’s funding for abstinence only education, while bringing back federally funded needle exchanges. Rather than discouraging risky behaviors, it seems the government will be back to teaching children how to risk their health and lives more “safely.”

Gil Kerlikowske, Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Treatment will receive priority over law enforcement in the Obama administration and Drug Czar Kerlikowske, former Police Chief of Seattle, the home of “Hempfest” and an open air downtown drug market, (Wall Street Journal 5-14- 09), will be charged with overseeing the implementation of more liberal drug policies. The war against drugs has been declared “over,” meaning taxpayers will be shelling out more for drug treatment programs and related health care as well as the return of federally funded needle exchanges. Already, Obama has ended federal raids on so-called medical marijuana dispensaries. Thus the treatment of what is sure to be an increased number of drug addicts will be a major component of ObamaCare, especially since fewer of these folks will be in jail due to reduced enforcement.

John Holdren, Director of White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

What would liberal health care reform be without a mad scientist? Well, Obama’s science czar John Holdren was tailor-made for the role. In 1977, Holdren co-authored a book entitled: Ecoscience; Population, Resources, Environment. Among the horrors recommended in this book (FoxNews.com) are forced abortions to control populations, mass sterilization through the use of infertility drugs in water and food supplies, government seizure of illegitimate babies and adoption by other couples, forced sterilization of “undesirables,” and the discouragement of marriage and childrearing while promoting alternate lifestyles. The book’s philosophy can be summarized in one sentence: “To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people.” Scanned pages from this book can be seen (and must be to be believed) at http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

These are the people the President has surrounded himself with and from whom he will seek advice in the implementation of his health care plan. Perhaps the term “czar” is appropriate, for if this plan becomes reality, Americans may well be reduced to serfdom.

Are We Getting It Yet?

Are We Getting It Yet?
By Gary Cangemi
Pro-Life Reporter June 2009

One of the most important functions of this newsletter is to alert our readers to the dire consequences of elections when voters ignore pro-life issues at the polls. Now we are facing those dire consequences on an almost weekly basis as the Obama administration proves itself to be the most pro-abortion, anti-life administration in American history.

And who is helping Obama realize his vision of an unrestricted proabortion America? Senator Bob Casey and Senator Arlen Specter. Both Senators Casey and Specter voted to overturn the Bush policies and restore funding to organizations which provide abortions overseas and both voted to confirm Kathleen Sebelius, the close friend of late-term infant killer George Tiller, as Secretary of Health, a move which makes about as much sense as putting Ted Bundy in charge of a battered women’s shelter.

PA voters had chosen Bob Casey over the eloquent defender of human life, Senator Rick Santorum. Why? Rick Santorum lost a great deal of conservative support when he and President Bush endorsed pro-choice Arlen Specter over pro-life Congressman Pat Toomey for Specter’s Senate seat in 2004. And how did Specter repay his fellow Republicans for the favor? He turned democrat.

Now we are stuck with two Washington politicians who care more for their political careers than they do for the fundamental rights of the most vulnerable Americans. They will both, we are certain, vote to confirm Obama’s first choice for Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, a person who has been caught on tape publicly admitting that the function of the courts is to make policy.

When we try to choose the lesser of two evils, we still get evil. When we play politics to advance our issues we place our issues at the mercy of politicians. Voting pro-life is not subjecting candidates to a litmus test, but a test of their humanity. We must all actively engage in the political process and support only those candidates who are personally committed to defending the right to life of all innocent human beings. By “single-issue” voting for the economy, America has condemned another 4-5 million of its fellow citizens to death while delaying for years any hope of changing the balance on the Supreme Court and overturning Roe v. Wade. Are we getting it yet?

A Profile in Christian Courage

A Profile in Christian Courage
By Gary Cangemi
Pro-Life Reporter Spring 2009

We in the pro-life movement of Northeastern Pennsylvania are truly blessed. We are blessed with many wonderful, selfless people who have devoted their lives to the protection and defense of the unborn, the sick and dying, and the dignity of human life. Among these dedicated souls is a man who was sent to us just a few short years ago but who, in that brief time, has taken his place among the champions of the pro-life cause in NEPA. Not only is Bishop Joseph Martino unapologetically pro-life, his willingness to challenge publicly those in power who support abortion and euthanasia, has given us a shining example of Christian courage in action.

Without regard to the growing criticism heaped upon him by political and media voices throughout the country, Bishop Martino has steadfastly upheld the tenets of his faith and the moral teachings of the Church. Locally, critics in the print media and talk radio have chastised and ridiculed Martino on an almost daily basis, a Catholic Bishop who, “heaven forbid,” actually supports Catholic teaching. What these critics fail to realize is that the right to life doesn’t exist because the Church proclaims it, the Church proclaims it because the right to life exists. It is a fundamental tenet of God’s natural law.

While Pennsylvanians for Human Life is a non-sectarian organization, whose members embrace many different faiths, we stand in awe and admiration of a man whose words and deeds bear witness to his core beliefs; a man who talks the talk, but isn’t afraid to walk the walk. Bishop Martino has rejected the comfort of amiable church-state relations when that comfort has required him to nod politely and look the other way while state-sponsored evil prevails. He has publicly confronted our elected officials, especially those whose words and actions have run contrary to Christian moral teaching. Conviction and courage such as this are infectious and we predict that Bishop Martino’s example will inspire many others and stir them to positive action in defense of the defenseless.

2008

Back to Square One

Back to Square One:
What an Obama Presidency Would Mean to the Pro-Life Cause
By Gary Cangemi
Pro-Life Reporter Fall 2008

It’s hard to imagine. Thirty-five years of heartbreak and struggle to beat back Roe v. Wade in defense of the unborn while enduring condemnation from radical feminist groups and ridicule in the liberal-controlled media. Over forty million American citizens killed legally by medical professionals, citizens who would now be contributing tens of billions of dollars to social security, and hundreds of billions of dollars to this economy had they been allowed to live. All this and yet somehow, many Americans are seriously considering electing the biggest abortion advocate ever to run for the presidency. Here is what an Obama presidency would mean for the pro-life movement:

-An Obama Supreme Court with a solid liberal majority that would guarantee abortion on demand for years to come;
-The killing of millions more future citizens, plunging America further into moral and economic decline;
-The creation of new constitutional rights to physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia;
-Medical science run amok in the fields of embryonic stem cell research and human cloning;
-Forcing American taxpayers to pay for unlimited abortions at any term for any reason;
-The silencing of voices against abortion by re-imposing the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” forcing the media to eliminate conservative, pro-life airtime;
-The continued slaughter of 90% of Down Syndrome children because they are deemed deformed and imperfect;
-The passage into law of the Orwellian nightmare, the “Freedom of Choice Act,” which will make it illegal to deny, restrict, limit or place conditions on any abortion for any reason whatsoever, destroying the legacy of Governor Robert Casey;
-The overturning of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban act which protects babies from being partially delivered and then killed in the birth canal.

It is understandable that, with the current economic crisis, many people consider abortion and other life issues low priorities. However, the prevention of over a million American births per year through abortion is exacting a huge toll on our economy as well. Children are not a burden on this country, they are its future workers, taxpayers, consumers, and social security providers. An Obama presidency could undo nearly all of the gains of the pro-life movement and send us thirty-five years back to square one.

Make 2008 A Leap Year for Life

Make 2008 A Leap Year for Life
By Gary Cangemi
Pro-Life Reporter Winter 2008

It happens to every one of us. We become so preoccupied with the daily tasks of living that we find very little time to focus on the broader issues of Life. It’s only natural. And because the progress achieved by the pro-life movement sometimes seems slow and incremental, we find it easy to become complacent and perhaps too patient in anticipating the day when victory will finally be achieved.

Thus, every once in a while, we need someone or something to shake us out of our doldrums, roll us out of our comfort zones, and call us back into action to get the job done and secure the right to life for all Americans, born and unborn. This leap year is just such an opportunity. We stand on the precipice of major events that will shake up and reshape our struggle to establish a culture of life in the United States and in the world. An historic presidential election promises either to tip the balance of the Supreme Court back to a pro-life perspective or wipe out the hard fought gains that have been made over the last eight years.

This editorial is a call to arms to all our members. It is time to mobilize our minds, our bodies, and our spirits, and to put our shoulders collectively to the wheel. Whatever we have done in the past, we need to redouble our efforts in 2008, to get actively involved in this movement like never before.

If you haven’t done so lately, please make a donation to Pennsylvanians for Human Life. If you have, please consider increasing your donation by whatever you can afford. We need a base of operation and the materials necessary to carrying out our ambitious agenda for 2008. These can only be realized through your generous support. Also, please make a resolution to give of your time this year…helping with our mailings, attending the March for Life and Prayer Breakfast, marching in the St. Patrick’s Day Parade, helping with our Mother’s Day Carnation Sale. Supporting and working to elect pro-life candidates for President and other offices, helping with the Baby Bottle Project, or participating in this year’s Forty Days for Life Prayer Vigil. If you happen to be driving by the Pro-Life Center on Broadway, stop by and ask if there’s anything you can do to help. Anything and everything you can do will make a huge difference and will contribute to the success of our efforts.

To borrow a frequently used word from another recent struggle, our movement needs a “surge.” Last year, we scored a major victory against partial-birth abortion. Other victories are within our grasp if we all join forces and pool our resources. Let 2008 be the year that surge takes place. Please join us and help make this a Leap Year for Life!

2007

Will Pro-Lifers Defeat Themselves in 2008?

Will Pro-Lifers Defeat Themselves in 2008?
By Gary Cangemi
The Pro-Life Reporter Fall 2007

Anymore, it seems that every election is a “do or die” election for the pro-life movement, especially during the presidential election cycle. In 2008, not only will we be in for the fight of our lives, the very relevance of our movement will be at stake. It’s a given that, no matter whom the Democratic Party nominates for president, he or she will be an unacceptable pro-abortion candidate who will be bound to undo whatever progress has been made in the last eight years. Looking at the Republican slate however, it is not a given that the GOP choice will be pro-life. While most of the Republican field has taken a public pro-life stand, the front runner makes no apology for supporting abortion rights. This fact threatens to split the Republican Party next year and, if that happens, it’s all over and Hillary Clinton and her militant pro-abortion army will win by default. The results of such an outcome will be disastrous for unborn children.

Next year’s election poses a real dilemma for the conservative, pro-life segment of the electorate. The choice for President may come down to two pro-abortion candidates. Many cannot and will not vote for any candidate who supports abortion, no matter what his positions are on the other issues. So, they will either vote for a third party candidate or they will not vote at all. Either way, Hillary wins. This is why Rick Santorum was defeated, because he supported a pro-abortion Arlen Specter over pro-life Congressman Pat Toomey in last year’s Senatorial election. I heard the grumblings and threats at the state’s previous Conservative Leadership Conference in Harrisburg, threats that were made good a year ago.

The same voters will not vote for anyone other than a pro-life presidential candidate in 2008 and that fact may spell doom for the Republican candidate and any hope that pro-life voters will remain a force to reckon with in future elections. There was already a major rift in the movement over the Supreme Court’s ruling against Partial Birth Abortion. Because the ruling didn’t outlaw ALL abortions, certain pro-life groups declared it an evil ruling and criticized the National Right to Life organization for celebrating it. When pro-lifers start accusing other pro-lifers of not being pro-life enough, we’re ALL in trouble. If we disagree on methodology, it is imperative that we stand together on the core principles on which this movement is founded. Regardless of who captures the nomination, it is important that the right to life remain a solid plank in the platform and that all pro-life voters stand together to defend that platform. Supporting pro-life candidates now is vital to that process, for it will force the eventual nominee to embrace the pro-life agenda or face defeat.

Save the Children from “Save the Children?”

Save the Children from “Save the Children?”
By Gary Cangemi
The Pro-Life Reporter Spring/Summer 2007

Just when you thought it was safe to donate to your favorite charitable organization, along comes news that it may be linked to the abortion industry. With the instant availability of information and news via the internet and other sources, it is becoming more difficult for long established charitable organizations to conceal their relationships with those who promote or provide abortion services worldwide. Some of these connections are shocking in light of the missions these groups profess to carry out.

Case in point…UNICEF, the United Nations children’s advocacy organization. Many of us remember trick-or-treating for UNICEF as kids and the pride we felt turning in our little boxes full of change to help poor children around the world. Today, along with saving children, UNICEF promotes their destruction by promoting abortion rights and services and providing funding to organizations like the Population Council and LoveLife which provide “reproductive health services” and abortion counseling among teenagers. UNICEF receives over $200 million per year from the United States alone.

Another international children’s organization, Save the Children, is also under fire for promoting abortion. In its 2003 report, State of the World’s Mothers, STC called for “quality reproductive health and family planning services” for women in refugee camps. The March of Dimes, another organization we used to collect money for as school children, is also under intense scrutiny for its “neutral” position on abortion while giving research grants to abortion providers and money to groups which refer people to abortion counselors. Another area of scrutiny is MOD’s efforts in pre-natal health screening to identify children with potential birth defects in order to enable parents to make informed choices, including terminating the pregnancy. While MOD claims its monies may not be used for abortion, it does fund fetal tissue research, which includes tissue from aborted fetuses.

How about the Girl Scouts which underwent a boycott of their cookie sales in Texas because of a locally planned event between the Waco Girl Scouts and Planned Parenthood? In Illinois, parents were in an uproar over a graphic booklet put out by Planned Parenthood for young girls on sex, masturbation, homosexuality and the proper use of condoms. The booklet featured the Girl Scout logo.

Just as troubling are the links between cancer fighting groups and abortion rights advocates. While many women “Race for the Cure” in the annual Susan Komen fundraiser for breast cancer, little do they realize that part of the money for which they are racing is being given to Planned Parenthood chapters for “breast cancer screening.” Of course, Planned Parenthood will NOT tell their clients of the proven increased breast cancer risks caused by abortion. Neither will the American Cancer Society, which has ignored DOZENS of studies linking abortion to breast cancer, while touting ONE study that suggested three or more alcoholic drinks per week may increase the risk of breast cancer.

Our children are also vulnerable to pro-abortion influences in our public schools. The nation’s two largest teacher unions, the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association both support liberal policies and candidates with respect to abortion rights and “reproductive rights.” The AFT, since 1981, has publicly proclaimed its support for abortion and the appointment of pro-abortion Supreme Court nominees.

While pro-life contributors can carefully research these organizations before donating any money to them, it is virtually impossible for even the most alert pro-lifer to avoid giving money indirectly to Planned Parenthood. The huge number of companies representing hundreds of products we use everyday which give money to the largest abortion-provider in the country is staggering. Sellers of goods like Band-Aids, Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream, Jiffy Pop, Chef Boyardee Spaghetti, Taco Bell, and Pepsi-Cola, to name a few, all give your money to Planned Parenthood. Even Gerber Foods, whose slogan is “Baby’s Are Our Business…Our Only Business,” donates to PP. Apparently the killing of their most important customers is their business, too.

The real scandal in all of this is that most of these organizations which purport to be putting children first, are in fact subordinating the rights of children to the desires, wants, needs, and “rights” of women. How can a group called Save the Children advocate the killing of unborn children? How can teachers support the abortion of children who would otherwise occupy their classrooms and keep them employed? How can so many groups dedicated to saving human life, work so hard to destroy it? It boggles the mind.

On a positive note, the American Idol TV competition came under fire for donating a portion of its proceeds to international groups which support abortion. Ironically, this year’s American Idol winner, Jordin Sparks, happens to be a vocal and active teen in the pro-life movement who is not afraid to express her anti-abortion views. After years of witnessing out of control divas crash and burn on tabloid TV, it’s refreshing to see a real role model emerge for our young people to emulate.

2006

Embryonic Stem Cell Debate: Bigotry Against the Unborn

Embryonic Stem Cell Debate: Bigotry Against the Unborn
By Gary Cangemi
9/2006

Proponents of embryonic stem cell research contend its opponents obstruct the advancement of medicine and the discovery of cures for a host of dreaded diseases. “Spare embryos are doomed anyway and will be discarded if not used for research.” they claim. The underlying logic here is, a negative act channeled into some positive purpose, can render the act no longer negative. In other words, the end justifies the means.
This logic can be used to justify any number of destructive acts: For example:
* Death row inmates are going to be executed anyway. Why not use them for medical experimentation, drug testing, and organ and tissue harvesting?
* Terminally ill patients are going to die anyway. Why not use them as human guinea pigs so that future deaths might be prevented?
* Shouldn’t patients in a persistent vegetative state whose prognosis gives them no hope of recovery be used for the advancement of medical research?
* What about elderly people who have only a few years left to live? Why spend thousands of dollars on long term care if they are near death anyway? If it benefits mankind, shouldn’t they be used for medical experimentation?
* Employing the logic used to justify embryonic stem cell research, weren’t NAZI medical experiments on concentration camp inmates justifiable? They were going to be gassed anyway? After all, NAZI medical experiments were conducted to advance medical knowledge and potentially save human lives!

To the average humane and compassionate human being, every one of these propositions seems outrageous and absurd! We cannot treat our fellow human beings, like lab rats, regardless of the benefits to mankind. Why does birth render these human beings deserving of the fullest measure of compassion while leaving those not yet born in a swirling soup of gestating alien life forms? How does birth confer value, when the value of human life before birth is limited to potential medical material to be used to improve the quality of life after birth?

“These embryos are nothing more than microscopic clusters of human cells frozen in a fertility lab,” proponents of embryonic stem cell research argue. These cells will be flushed down the drain anyway, why not use them to save lives? Does SIZE matter in determining the validity of human life? Why are “little people” in our society treated as less valuable than fully-grown people. An old song once declared that short people have no reason to live. Well, one cannot get much shorter than an embryo so it’s a cinch human embryos will be last in line when compassion is rationed out in this country.

It’s at this point in the debate where the tables are turned on the opponents of embryonic stem cell research to demand their compassion for the sick and dying, and for those suffering from Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and other diseases. Does a person who is suffering or terminally ill have a greater right to life-sustaining technology than a not yet born person has to exist? How does one arrive at such a judgment?

The answer is simple …bigotry. Born human beings are prejudiced against the unborn, so much so, they don’t even consider them to be human at all. Sound familiar? Wasn’t slavery once justified and upheld in the Supreme Court on the premise that Negro slaves were somehow less than human? Unborn babies, fetuses, embryos, blastocysts, and zygotes, in fact, EVERYONE south of the “birthline” in our society is viewed and treated as something foreign, alien, subhuman and unworthy of our compassion.

No one is accusing embryonic stem cell researchers of being Nazis. Yet the logic and argumentation used to justify the use of living human embryos for stem cell research are those used by the Nazis to justify their horrifying experiments on living human beings. Both contend the benefits of this research far outweigh any moral or ethical considerations in the conduct of such research. The Nazis convinced average citizens to buy into their logic or turn a blind eye to it. In the 1930s, the Nazis were considered progressive visionaries who would advance Germany and the world into the next millennium. Millions of people were killed before the horrific consequences of this “progress” were fully realized. Have we learned nothing from the past?

The debate raging over the use of adult stems vs. embryonic stem cells, i.e., the availability of alternatives to embryonic stem cells, is irrelevant to the issue of destroying live human embryos. The availability of adult stem cells no more defeats the fallacious justification of embryonic stem cell research than automation defeats the arguments for slavery. If there were NO other types of stem cells available for research, the use of human embryos would still be wrong. An embryo is not a future human being or a potential human being, he or she is an actual human being. Every time human embryos are used to harvest their stem cells,…a human being dies.

Will Specter Hurt Santorum Re-election Bid?

Will Specter Hurt Santorum Re-election Bid?
By Gary Cangemi
4/2006

At a conservative leadership conference in Harrisburg last year, I heard the rumblings of an electorate backlash against Senator Rick Santorum for his support of Senator Arlen Specter over Congressman Pat Toomey, a backlash we predicted in the Spring-2004 issue of the Pro-Life Reporter. Many conservative, pro-life voters were outraged that Santorum and President Bush would endorse the candidacy of a pro-choice incumbent over a pro-life challenger and were vowing to punish Santorum at the polls in 2006. Pro-abortion Democrats, aware of this vulnerability, have targeted Rick Santorum’s Senate seat, ironically by supporting a “pro-life” Democrat, Bob Casey, Jr. against him.

The rumblings have since died down as pro-life voters begin to realize what is at stake if Santorum loses his Senate seat. Santorum’s has been the most eloquent and proactive voice for the rights of the unborn on the Senate floor. As for Santorum’s support of Specter, it was a political calculation that has reaped enormous benefits for the pro-life cause. Specter is now head of the Judiciary Committee and has kept his word not to hold up or stifle President Bush’s appointments. He has enforced a fair debate on each candidate and thwarted every attempt to stall a floor vote, in spite of his personal views on abortion. As a result, we now have Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court with only one more appointment needed to gain a conservative majority on the bench. Had Republicans lost control of the Senate, it is doubtful that either of those two men would have survived the confirmation process.

Rather than risk losing Senate control, Rick Santorum risked his own political future to guarantee a desperately needed change in the Supreme Court. Pro-life voters need to weigh Santorum’s endorsement of Specter against Casey’s endorsement of pro-abortion Governor Ed Rendell. While both men acted in the interest of their parties, it is highly unlikely that a Democrat victory in the U.S. Senate will result in any gain for the pro-life cause. As the election draws closer, we predict the polls will get closer as voters seriously examine the records and pro-life credentials of these two men. Watch for our pre-election issue for further details and insights.

2005

How Will Roberts Rule?

How Will Roberts Rule?
By Gary Cangemi
9/25/05

The recent Judiciary Committee hearings on the appointment of Judge John Roberts to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court left little doubt how desperate pro-abortion politicians are to hold on to their precious abortion rights. The usual suspects were there, grilling Roberts like a rib-eye steak; Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Diane Feinstein, and Chuck Schumer all praising Roberts for his brilliant legal mind, while pistol-whipping him to elicit the slightest betrayal of his position on abortion. With Darrowesque deftness, he rebuffed each attempt, refusing to reveal how he would rule on a case pending before the court. Even Arlen Specter, who just the day before promised he would not ask how Roberts would vote on Roe V. Wade, jumped out of the starting gate with question after question aimed at determining how Roberts would vote on Roe V. Wade. Reading between the lines of Roberts’ skillful answers, several things were clear. First, Roberts is very conscious about not wanting to appear to be an ideologue. He stated clearly that he would not bring his personal opinions, only his legal opinions to the bench. That, of course, did not satisfy the Bidens and Kennedys, who wanted an ironclad guarantee that he would bring THEIR opinions to the bench.

Second, Roberts indicated that he would respect precedent, but that precedent was a starting point in reviewing cases before the court. His responses made it clear that precedent was no sacred cow and that there were factors which could erode or change the circumstances determining how precedent is applied. Roberts, in essence, was leaving the barn door open for future challenges to Roe V. Wade. But the burden will clearly be on the challengers. Third, Roberts is a dedicated servant of the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law. He has no political agenda. He left no doubt that he would strictly interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench. The only question that remains is how he will apply these to any future cases on abortion and other life issues. The answer is, we don’t know. Our opinion is that the right to life is fundamental and foundational to our Constitution. If John Roberts is a true strict constructionist, he will uphold that opinion in his rulings. Time will tell.

Schiavo Death An Abortion of Justice

Schiavo Death An Abortion of Justice
By Gary Cangemi
5/2005

What was most shocking about the death of Terri Schiavo was NOT that she was dehydrated to death. A society that has permitted the murder of over forty million unborn children wouldn’t think twice about allowing a woman in Terri’s condition to be brutally deprived of basic human sustenance. What was most shocking about the death of Terri Schiavo was NOT that the judges refused to review her case fairly and err on the side of compassion. Federal judges have been ruling against the right to life since Roe vs. Wade. What was most shocking about the death of Terri Schiavo was that so many PRO-LIFERS sided with Michael Schiavo and the judges and were actually outraged that the government tried to intercede and get her a fair hearing.

Let us make no mistake-this case was about the right to life and due process. Congress did not pass a bill to keep her alive; they passed a bill to guarantee a fair review of her case, a bill that was defiantly and arrogantly ignored by the courts. Michael Schiavo’s victory was a victory for the pro-choice, pro-euthanasia, pro-doctor-assisted suicide culture of death! But it was also a double victory. They succeeded for the first time in dividing the pro-life movement on an issue crucial to the future of our cause. They found a chink in our armor and exploited it. For the first time, pro-lifers are arguing with each other over a matter of life and death.

Terri Schiavo, a living, breathing adult human being who was not terminally ill, who was not dying, and who was not receiving extraordinary care to keep her alive was deprived of her life without due process—a clear violation of her constitutional rights—all because her husband said that’s what she wanted. If that’s all it takes to get rid of an ill or disabled family member, we’re all in a lot of trouble, especially when those in the pro-life movement can’t agree that state- sanctioned murder is being perpetrated.

We in the movement MUST get on the same page on this issue. The tragic consequences of failing to do so will be a holocaust of elderly, disabled, sick and any other persons deemed not worth the trouble of keeping alive—all in the name of a perverted compassion that asserts they will be better off dead.

2004

Life: This Fall's Greatest Single Issue

Life: This Fall's Greatest Single Issue
By Gary Cangemi
The Pro-Life Reporter Educational Supplement 2004

During every election season, pro-life voters get accused of being narrow-minded, blinder-bound, single-issue voters who only judge candidates by their positions on the abortion issue (never mind that the militant pro-abortion crowd refuses to even consider a candidate who doesn’t support unfettered abortion rights). The aim is to reduce in rank the priority of the pro-life issue in the minds of pro-life voters, by getting them to attach equal importance to other issues such as prescription drugs for the elderly, health care and education. These other issues then become salve for the conscience, bruised by the decision to vote for a pro-education or pro-senior citizen candidate who just happens to be pro-choice. How else could Bill Clinton have gotten elected? Remember? It wasn’t the womb, stupid, it was the economy!

Pro-life voters should not be taken in by this transparent ruse to separate them from their consciences. Life isn’t the only issue; it’s the most important issue. Life is the foundation of all other issues. If a human being doesn’t have the right to be born, what do the other issues possibly matter? You have to be born to enjoy a free public education. You have to be born to participate in the nation’s economy. You have to be born to collect social security. You have to be born to vote (though some exceptions to that rule have been reported). Life is the starting point of every issue at stake in every election. When a candidate defends death to the unborn, he is denying his future constituents the right to everything else he claims to stand for. The abortion issue isn’t a litmus test; it is a test of character. A man or woman who would preside over the destruction of unborn children has no business presiding over the futures of born children.

In the presidential battle between President George Bush and challenger John Kerry, the contrast between the culture of life and complete indifference to the unborn could not be greater. While Bush does not parade the abortion issue around like a placard at a march, he has made the culture of life an integral part of his administration and policies. He has diligently worked for and won respect and recognition for America’s most vulnerable citizens. He stands by his conscience and defends life regardless of the consequences to his political popularity. In stark contrast, John Kerry sold his political soul to the fiercest proponents of the abortion industry and culture of death. Like his primary opponents, he sought and won the approval of the National Abortion Rights Action League (N.A.R.A.L.) and will do everything in his power to ensure that abortion remains the law of the land. One has to be politically naive to assume that this callous disregard for human life would not affect the way John Kerry would govern our nation. Life is no longer a single issue separate from other political issues-it is the underlying issue that will determine their outcomes. To reverse Vince Lombardi’s classic line…Life isn’t the only thing, it’s everything!

2003

Partial Birth Abortion Ban: A Foot in the Door

Partial Birth Abortion Ban: A Foot in the Door
By Gary Cangemi
The Pro-Life Reporter Summer Edition 2003

Although it is still tied up in conference committee, the passage of a ban on partial birth abortion by both houses of Congress is a glimmer of hope for the pro-life movement and could be a sign that the high water mark in the battle over abortion has been reached. It doesn’t really matter how many lives will be saved by banning this procedure, that fact is lives will be saved and that is cause for celebration and optimism that Americans are becoming increasingly less comfortable with the very idea of abortion – that years of unborn advocacy are penetrating the collective consciousness of our country.

It is astounding that pro-abortion feminists are so uncompromising that they fought bitterly to maintain even the most heinous form of abortion – the cold blooded murder of a human being in the birth canal. How chilling that is to contemplate – leading a defenseless baby to the very threshold of Constitutionally-protected existence and then mercilessly destroying it before it reaches legal sanctuary. What kind of person could witness such an act unmoved, let alone advocate its legitimacy in law? Even more terrifying, what kind of doctor could perform such an act? The Mengeles of the world are alive and well and practicing their deadly rationalism.

With the passage of this legislation, lawmakers are finally drawing a line, a line that, if upheld by the Supreme Court, can be moved incrementally to ban other procedures and protect greater numbers of unborn children. It’s a small victory, yes, but it’s also a much needed foot in the door if Roe v. Wade is ever to be reversed. Now this legislation must be moved out of conference committee for final passage so that President Bush can make good on his promise to sign it.

Estrada Filibuster Exposes Pro-Abortion Hypocrisy

Estrada Filibuster Exposes Pro-Abortion Hypocrisy
By Gary Cangemi
The Pro-Life Reporter Spring 2003

Unable to muster enough votes to defeat George W. Bush's judicial nominees in a straight up or down vote, the desperate politicos who owe their Senate seats to the abortion industry have changed the rules of engagement by vowing to filibuster any appointment to a federal court they perceive to be pro-life. Making good on their threat, they have held up the vote on Miguel Estrada to the D.C. Circuit Court. Estrada, it has been demonstrated, is an extremely qualified candidate with an extraordinary track record. There's just one problem. He refuses to announce in advance his decisions on cases and arguments he hasn't yet heard, in particular, cases involving abortion.

Liberals are demanding that Estrada do what no other candidates have been forced to do-give an advance ruling on a case to see whether he passes the anti-life litmus test of the Left. Never mind that the Left has been decrying pro-life litmus tests for decades; never mind that pro-life Senators have supported pro-choice nominees based on their judicial qualifications alone; never mind that Estrada passes the very criteria that Democratic leaders have demanded of judicial appointments---they're going to rewrite the rules and impose two different sets of standards for Republican and Democratic nominees to federal courts. This is blatant hypocrisy that should not be tolerated.

Fortunately, President Bush has vowed not to withdraw Estrada from consideration, no matter how many cloture votes it takes to bust the filibuster. Our two Senators stand with him. Make no mistake, no matter how many excuses the opposition gives for refusing to allow the Senate to vote on Estrada, the issue here is ABORTION, nothing more. They are in a desperate fight to cling to abortion-on-demand sold their souls on the issue to get elected. If they back down now, they risk the wrath of NARAL, NOW and the other self-appointed champions of so-called CHOICE.

The tide is slowly turning, as evidenced by the recent Senate ban on partial- birth abortion. It is time for the tide to turn on the lopsided left-leaning federal court system as well. Up or down, stop the filibuster and let the Senate vote on Miguel Estrada!

2002

New Tone In Washington Music To Our Ears

New Tone In Washington Music To Our Ears
By Gary Cangemi
The Pro-Life Reporter Spring 2002

Northeastern Pennsylvanians, on their recent March For Life in Washington, D.C., had the opportunity to gage the new rhetorical climate in our nation's capital and had to walk away with a feeling of renewed hope for the pro-life cause. President George W. Bush, from the onset of his campaign, promised Americans that they would hear a new tone in Washington. Granted, he was referring to his efforts to promote bi-partisanship, but his remarks on January 20 made it clear that Americans would be hearing a different tone with respect to the value and sanctity of human life as well.

Many were skeptical during Bush's bid for the presidency that he was fully behind the pro-life movement because of his refusal to debate the abortion issue head-on during the campaign and many today are reserving judgment on his commitment until they see whether or not he'll deliver the goods, e.g., a pro-life Supreme Court appointment.

But therein lies George Bush's tactical brilliance. He saw what polarizing effect the abortion debate had on previous presidential campaigns and how the familiar rhetoric ran contrary to his "I'm a uniter-not a divider" style. Instead, he devised his own rhetorical devices designed to disarm even the most ardent pro-choicers, many of which he used in his Jan. 20 speech.

Bush quoted Jefferson and spoke of a compassionate society that values life from its inception, one that will welcome all children and protect them in law. He also drew a clever parallel between the tyranny of terrorism against innocent Americans and the tyranny against innocent life in the womb. He never once uses the word abortion or attacks anyone who doesn't share his views. Neither does he mention Roe V. Wade or launch the familiar tirade against the Supreme Court that created it.

What Bush is doing is patiently gathering followers by winning over the hearts and minds of average Americans, one at a time. By presenting himself as non-judgmental, compassionate and willing to work with others to achieve his goals, Bush is redefining pro-life politics. Whether his methods will succeed or not, it is refreshing to hear a voice for life emanating from the White House once again.

Orrin's Hatchet Job on Cloning Issue

Orrin's Hatchet Job on Cloning Issue
By Gary Cangemi
The Pro-Life Reporter Summer 2002

Senator Orrin Hatch's recent appearance on ABC's Sunday morning program with Cokie Roberts confirmed the belief of many that pro-lifer Hatch has been sold a bill of goods by the proponents of cloning and other Frankenstinian sciences currently running amok in America's laboratories. Hatch, summoning all the humility an experienced politician could muster, wrung his hands and agonized over his prayerful decision, in effect, crediting God with his conclusion that the form of cloning now being proposed in Congress will neither destroy human life nor create it artificially.

But when challenged on the details of the proposed cloning procedure, he retreated into a rationalist rant about all the diseases that cloning would seek a cure for, the same question-begging, means-justifying argument that the a-moralists of science have used for years to defend human sacrifice in the name of progress. Apparently, Hatch believes that life does not begin until a fertilized egg is securely implanted in the mother's womb, that fertilization alone does not impart personhood on paired human chromosomes. His rationale is that life exists only when it is certain that the embryo has a chance to develop in the womb, not before. Therefore, any cloned embryos created in vitro, which have no legal opportunity to be implanted into a womb, are fair game for research and development into life-saving tissue.

I haven't seen this much hair-splitting since the Little Big Horn. Where does Hatch come up with assertions that any seventh grade science student could refute with his textbook? The process of human development begins at the moment of conception. At that sublime moment, all that the individual is and shall be is encoded in that single living human cell. Whether that cell exists in a fallopian tube or a test tube has no bearing on this most basic fact. Whether that cell was created through natural means or unnatural means likewise does not alter the reality of its being alive and human.

Who cares, says Hatch, when we can cure Parkinson's disease or cancer? Some of us do care, Senator. Some of us don't want our lives spared at the cost of another's life. Some of us actually puzzle over the most basic questions of life and death as if the answers to these questions matter, but too many scientists today view such questions as an obstruction to the "higher" purposes of science. Science can be a great force for good but not if scientists AND politicians refuse to draw a clear and distinct line between good and evil.