abortion on demand

Tuesday Is Primary Day In Virginia

Tuesday is primary day in Virginia and several intraparty races will be decided in preparation for November's elections. Democrats will decide on their candidates for lieutenant governor and attorney general. Senator Ralph Northam (D-6, Norfolk) is facing off against former Obama administration appointee Aneesh Chopra for the nomination for lieutenant governor. Northam, who received a 25 on The Family Foundation Action's 2013 General Assembly Report Card, has the endorsement of Planned Parenthood and has been one of the abortion industry's most vocal apologists. Chopra, who served as Secretary of Technology for then-Governor Tim Kaine, has made public statements that are supportive of the abortion industry and abortion on demand, is supportive of elevating sexual behavior to a protected class, and opposes the "Tebow Bill" (see Blue Virginia). The winner of the nomination will face Republican E.W. Jackson in November.

Democrats also will decide their candidate for attorney general between Senator Mark Herring (D-33, Fairfax) and former federal prosecutor Justin Fairfax. Herring, who received an 18 on TFF Action’s Report Card, also is an ally of the abortion industry in Virginia. Fairfax has made comments in opposition to Virginia's abortion center health and safety standards. The winner will face Republican Mark Obenshain (R-26, Harrisonburg) in November’s general election.

In addition to these two statewide nomination campaigns, there are several House of Delegates primaries in both parties. Follow this link to see if there is a primary in your district for either or both parties. In November, all 100 seats in the House are up for election.

As you know, The Family Foundation is restricted by federal law from endorsing any candidates for office and we do not participate in primaries for either party. Our goal is simply to keep you up to date on the elections that are happening and to ensure that you have the best information available on the candidates' stances on important values issues so that you can make an informed decision.


McAuliffe Opposes Abortion Center Safety Measures Supported By Gosnell's Lawyer!

Hand it to Terry McAuliffe. He won't back down. Not to the abortion industry. Not even to the point of being more pro-abortion than convicted baby murder Kermit Gosnell's lawyer. Even former President Bill Clinton, of whom McAuliffe is one of the biggest of FOBs (Friends of Bill) wants abortion "Safe, legal and rare." But McAuliffe has drawn a stark contrast between himself and a super majority of Virginians and Americans at large — even those who support abortion, but recognize the abomination it has become in abortion centers, such as the "Houses of Horrors" run by Gosnell and others. Last week, the Susan B. Anthony List released a statement describing the extreme position McAuliffe has taken on abortion center safety standards and how even Jack McMahon, the defense attorney for the recently convicted Gosnell, who said his client suffered from the "baby factor," supports oversight of abortion centers and certain restrictions on their procedures. Here is the entire news release:

Terry McAuliffe Opposes Abortion Clinic Regulations Supported by Gosnell Attorney

Jack McMahon Says He Supports Increased Regulation of Clinics, Late-Term Abortion Limit

WASHINGTON, D.C. – This week Jack McMahon, defense attorney for convicted murderer and late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell, told FOX News' Megyn Kelly that he supports increased regulation of abortion clinics as well as a ban on abortion past 16-17 weeks in order to forestall crimes like those Gosnell committed. In light of McMahon's statements, Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List) President Marjorie Dannenfelser blasted Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe's opposition to increased health and safety standards for the Commonwealth's abortion facilities.

"Weeks of graphic testimony detailing the horrors and conditions inside Kermit Gosnell's Philadelphia abortion clinic was enough to sway even Gosnell's own attorney,” said SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. “If McMahon can agree that women going into abortion facilities must be treated with basic dignity and respect, why can't Terry McAuliffe? Virginia women are increasingly disturbed that a politician who seeks to represent women would oppose such elementary efforts to protect our health and safety.

“Kermit Gosnell isn't alone. More than 80 violations were discovered inside Virginia abortion facilities last year. Unsafe, unsanitary conditions — not to mention barbaric abortion practices — continue to be exposed nationwide. Shame on McAuliffe for refusing to join the General Assembly and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli in standing up for Virginia women. Women deserve better than his extreme abortion ideology.”

Last month, McAuliffe's campaign was asked by the Washington Post to confirm or deny that he supports “a platform of abortion on-demand at any time, for any reason, paid for by Virginia taxpayers,” including “sex-selective abortion, late-term abortion, partial-birth abortion, and abortions on teenage girls without parental consent — all paid for by Virginia taxpayers.” McAuliffe spokesman Josh Schwerin declined to comment to the Post.

The SBA List has compiled an ever-expanding fact sheet on abortion industry negligence and brutality toward women and children occurring nationwide.

Terry McAuliffe: Too extreme for Bill Clinton; too extreme even for convicted killer Kermit Gosnell's attorney!

Us, Them & The Media

Us . . .

One thousand pro-lifers . . . 

Them . . .

. . . about 18  pro-abortion supporters (plus a bullhorn).

Yet, the media took the 18 just as serious as the 1,000 and gave the them equal coverage, if not more. In fact, the Richmond Times-Dispatch ran only one picture — one of the protesters similar to the one above, giving the impression that there was only one event, or that the tiny event was larger than the huge event. No matter how obvious the evidence is to the contrary, nothing will ever persuade these "objective" journalists into reporting anything that will even remotely conflict with its abortion-on-demand-is-the-majority narrative — no matter how big and large the facts and evidence are, even when it's 1,000 people standing in their midst.

To sample the coverage, check out today's News Clips. Meanwhile, let us know what you thought of the rally and the media's coverage. (See still more coverage here.)

Are There Candidates Worthy Of Our Votes?

With a day before Election Day, it's hard to believe there are any so-called "undecideds" left. Yet, I've had recent conversations with people who really weren't well informed about where the candidates for President and U.S. Senate actually stand on important issues. It's not too late to educate them. Don't take for granted that your fellow church goers, friends and family have all the information they need to make wise choices come Tuesday. Take some steps to make sure they are fully informed and fully motivated. There's still enough time.

Of course, be sure that everyone you know has a copy of our 2012 Presidential and U.S. Senate Voter Guide, downloadable from vavotes.net. There is also a brief Voter Guide promotional video available on the site that you can share on your social networking sites (click on the slider panel as it comes up) as well as every bit of information you need about where to vote, what personal identification to bring, etc.

I hope you'll also share our "Boiling Frog" video on sites like Facebook and Twitter as well as our voter guides and other information.

If you have time, please plan on joining us at one of our four field offices to assist with voter identification calls in key areas of the Commonwealth. Our field offices have made tens of thousands of voter ID contacts in recent weeks and are working to ensure that every pro-family voter in Virginia is identified and mobilized to vote on Tuesday. The list of our field reps is below; just call ahead to find out when the offices are open.

Then, on Election Night, be sure to join CitizenLink for its live three-hour Election Webcast, beginning at 9:00 p.m. I’ll be on at 9:30 to analyze the results in Virginia, and they’ll be reporting on and analyzing poll results in key races from coast to coast as they become available. Don't miss it!

While some may argue that candidates for office this year don't merit their vote, I would encourage you or anyone you know to take another look. I believe we have a responsibility to vote even when the candidates aren't perfect. See which candidates support abortion on demand and which don't, which believe in marriage between one man and one woman, and which don’t, which candidates respect our religious liberty and which don't. I think there are clear choices worthy of our vote and there's still time to convince those undecided voters that there are.

TFF Action Field Offices:


William Zimmerman

T 703-568-4093

E-Mail william@novafamily.org

Prince William

Bill Pfister

T 515-505-5209

E-Mail: billpfister@verizon.net

Metro Richmond

Ron Gallagher

T 804-591-5909

E-Mail: FFA.Gallagher@gmail.com

Greg Culbertson

T 515-505-5280

E-Mail: greglc7@yahoo.com

Hampton Roads

Tim Pogge

T 515-505-5224

E-Mail: timpogge89@gmail.com

A Lethal Assault Against The Very Idea Of Human Rights That Destroys The Moral Foundation Of Our Democracy

The voice in this video is that of the late Henry Hyde, author of the Hyde Amendment, which for decades with bipartisan support has precluded federal funds for the use of abortion . . . until Obamacare. It is one of the most powerful two minutes you will ever hear. There are no poetic words nor profound phrases possible to enhance or explain his thoughts or his passion. The video was produced by our friends at  FRC Action.

"We risk our souls, we risk our humanity, when we trifle with that innocence or demean it or brutalize it. The supporters of abortion on demand have exercised an amazing capacity of self-deception by detaching themselves from any sympathy whatsoever for the unborn child." 

President Obama And Abortion: Not One Restriction

The following article was written by John McCormack at The Weekly Standard Blog:

At the end of the vice presidential debate Thursday night, Joe Biden and Paul Ryan lobbed charges of extremism at one another on the issue of abortion. "The Democratic party used to say they want [abortion] to be safe, legal, and rare," Ryan said. "Now they support it without restriction and with taxpayer funding, taxpayer funding in Obamacare, taxpayer funding with foreign aid. The vice president himself went to China and said that he sympathized or wouldn’t second-guess their one-child policy of forced abortions and sterilizations. That, to me, is pretty extreme."

Biden shot back, saying that Ryan has "argued that, in the case of rape or incest, it was still — it would be a crime to engage in having an abortion. I just fundamentally disagree with my friend." Debate moderator Martha Raddatz followed up with Ryan, asking if pro-choice Americans should be "worried" about Romney, but she didn't follow up with Biden.

In the spin room following the debate, I asked top Obama officials, as well as Planned Parenthood chief Cecille Richards, if Obama's position on abortion is as extreme as what Ryan claimed. The Obama campaign denied the president favored abortion without restriction, but top Obama officials Jim Messina, Stephanie Cutter, and David Axelrod could not name a single restriction the president supports.

TWS: Mr Messina, the issue of abortion came up tonight with both sides trying to paint the other as extremist. Can you say, are there any restrictions that the president supports at any stage of pregnancy on the issue of abortion?

MESSINA: Look, we have been absolute[ly] clear. I think as you saw an absolute difference between the president and Romney on this. Romney’s position has been on four different sides. But I take him at his word that he says he will be happy to sign a bill outlawing all abortions in the United States of America. That’s not our position that’s not where the American public is. And I think it’s going to be a very difficult position for them to defend in the battleground states. Swing women voters in places like Colorado and Virginia looked at that exchange tonight that you talked about and said we cannot support this guy.

TWS: So the president doesn’t support any restrictions on abortion?

MESSINA: Look, we’ve been very clear. You know our position on abortion.

TWS: No. I asked, can you say what it is?

MESSINA: Look, don’t put words in my mouth. I’ve been very clear about our position. And that’s what it is.

TWS: Can you name one restriction?

Messina ended the exchange and moved on to another question.

Stephanie Cutter also said Obama supports some restrictions on abortion, but wouldn't say what they were:

TWS: Are there any restrictions he supports at any stage of pregnancy? Or there's no restrictions whatsover? Is that the president's position?

CUTTER: No, that’s not his position.

TWS: Then can you name one restriction that he supports on abortion?

CUTTER: He has several votes on this. We can get them to you.

David Axelrod similarly ducked questions. So I turned to Cecille Richards, the head of Planned Parenthood. "There already are restrictions on the books," she told me. But does the president support any of them? Richards said she didn't know. "I haven’t spoken to him about those," she replied.

In 2003, Barack Obama was asked if he was "all situations including the late term thing?" He answered in the affirmative.

The record doesn't appear to show that the president has ever supported any restriction on abortion. He opposes the Hyde amendment, which means he favors taxpayer funding of abortion. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion. And he opposed parental consent laws. We'll let you know if the Obama team is able to come up with any evidence showing that Obama's position is anything short of taxpayer-funded abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy.

Which Philosophy Represents Personal Responsibility? Who Would You Rather Have Your Daughter Or Son Emulate?

Here's a story of two 30-year-old women. One is white. One is black. One is a conservative and lives in Utah. One is a liberal and lives in the D.C. area. Both have or will address the two major party conventions. One, by age 30, was married, had two children, teaches, is a homemaker, was elected to her city's city council, became mayor, and is a candidate for the House of Representatives. The other is still in college at a Catholic law school. One espouses American exceptionalism, where people can be and do anything they aspire to through initiative, hard work and freedom from an overbearing government. The other has become the darling of the Left for her speeches demanding the federal government force private and religious institutions to pay for her birth control as well as abortion on demand, even if it's against their faith. One, America just discovered. The media has fawned over the other for months now.

Which one represents personal responsibility and your values? Which one is an accomplished role model for your daughter or son to emulate? Which one thinks the government should make decisions for you, compromise the First Amendment by coercing religious institutions into complying with ideas contrary to their convictions, and make almost anything you define as essential, free? Who are these women and which philosophies do they represent?

Meet the dynamic conservative Mia Love.

 Reintroducing the far left wing, big government, you-must-pay-for-abortion-and-contraception-on-demand Sandra Fluke. How perfectly apt for what the diminished Left has become.

Just Learned: N.Va. Woman Rushed To Hospital Last Month After Botched Abortion

Steven Ertelt, editor of LifeNews.com, and one of Planned Parenthood's 10 most hated people, broke a story last night that flew through cyberspace at Twitter speed, which is how I became aware of it. It concerns a 35-year old diabetic woman who suffered heavy bleeding after a failed abortion on March 3 at Nova Women's Healthcare in Fairfax County (see article). The news came to light after investigative work by Operation Rescue, which had plenty of reason for concern about the abortion center, which is still  operated by Mi Yong Kim, even though she is at the center of several previous botched abortions and  surrendered her license in 2007. In fact, a long series of abortion injuries and standard of care violations at her abortion center go back as far as 1998 and include deaths women in 2002 and 2005 from botched abortions. The 2005 death resulted from an improper sedation and subsequent cardiac arrest. Kim did not attempt to resuscitate her. In 2007, the health board concluded she did not perform proper followups with her patients and in 2009 she and the abortion center were sued, according to the article . . .

for conducting an abortion on a woman with an ectopic pregnancy. The patient was told the abortion was successful and sent home. The ectopic pregnancy later ruptured and caused a painful, life-threatening emergency for the woman.

Cheryl Sullenger, Senior Policy Advisor for Operation Rescue and Pro-Life Nation, told LifeNews.com:

There can be no doubt that Kim's policies and procedures . . . are in place at Nova and are endangering the lives and health of women every day. She has no business operating any kind of facility. We are filing complaints and urging the medical board and the health department to step in and close the clinic on an emergency basis in the interest of public safety.

Operation Rescue was at the abortion center when the ambulance arrived to take Kim's latest victim to the hospital and video taped it. It then, through Freedom of Information Act requests, secured the audio of the 911 one call (see below).

Planned Parenthood, NARAL and the abortion industry call abortion "one of the safest medical procedures." But this is only one abortion center. Imagine the aggregate number of emergencies, injuries and deaths to women, not to mention the unborn children. Yet, we still hear the howls of indignation over abortion center regulations. How can abortion proponents in good conscience defend self-governance by these abortion centers when more and more of these instances are coming to light?

Furthermore, where are the mainstream media, political pundits and activists who were all over the news during the General Assembly? If the media devoted even five percent of its coverage to this story as it did to the ultrasound bill, maybe it wouldn't have taken a chance viewing on Twitter for me to hear about this. Sad but true: We will hear more about these injuries and deaths eventually; but to hear about them they have to happen. As long as there are determined abortionists willing to skirt abortion center safety regulations, at any risk, they will indeed continue to happen.

Another botched abortion, another ignoring of it by abortion-on-demand apologists and the media. Besides, there's no need for abortion center regulations, right?

Who's Extreme? Quinnipiac Poll Shows Large Majority Of Virginians Support Abortion Center Regulations

Christian conservatives are extremists. Out of touch. Want to force their view of the world, indeed, their religion, on all of us. 

That, basically, is what the Far Left, posing as pragmatists, even as self-styled libertarians, would have the public believe about Christian conservatives and the pro-life movement. No matter how much common sense a law about abortion center safety makes, for example, the Far Left rants hysterically about lost rights and a pending Christian theocracy. They pontificate about diversity of thought and redefine the founding ideals of Virginia and America — which is perfectly peculiar: Who knew there was a range of thought on the deaths of babies and the potential serious physical injuries to women as well as subsequent mental problems? In fact, don't the abortion-on-demand crowd cite vague "mental health" concerns as a be-all exception to allow abortion?

More disturbing is the pro-abortion side's assertion that Americans, and Virginians in particular, have somehow removed themselves from their centuries-long shared traditions, upbringings, faith and shared sense of values because fleeting, temporary political winds, often mild, and rarely caused by a serious discussion of "social issues." The fact is, whether rank and file Democrat or Republican, the vast majority of Americans and Virginians understand common, practical sense and know what is patently wrong and unfair. They know injustice and they know danger. They know a problem when they see one and demand it get fixed. Some things are simply inherent and instinctive.

Now, on the heels of tomorrow's meeting of the Virginia Board of Health to consider safety regulations for abortion centers, a Quinnipiac University Poll proves that the loud rantings of a few on the fringe mask a large consensus. Either that or Virginians are massively intolerant Christian bigots and zealots, or even uniformed, uneducated, backward simpletons, or maybe both — in the Far Left's view. Really, though, Virginians are just real. The essence of the poll:

Quinnipiac interviewed 1,368 registered Virginia voters from September 6-12 and 55 percent of them support holding abortion centers to tougher health standards and only 22 percent opposed. The margin of error was plus or minus 2.7 percentage points. Even the 50 percent who believe abortion should be legal (versus 41 percent who do not) said the proposed regulations are necessary to protect the health of women who have abortions.

Those are large numbers and you cannot get a majority on most any issue in a politically competitive state such as Virginia with only those from one party. Especially on abortion. It's an issue even many Republicans don't feel easy about. But most Virginians — Democrat, Republican, independent, Tea Party or true libertarian — know that societies form governments for core functions. Protecting its people is the primary one. It's just common sense — mainstream thought — that everyone but the Far Left has yet to figure out.

Politicizing Abortion

Earlier today representatives from various abortion industry interests, including Planned Parenthood and NARAL, held a conference call with reporters, blasting yet to be revealed regulations of abortion centers in Virginia. Lobbyists and lawyers fro the two abortion on demand groups cautioned Governor Bob McDonnell against "the insertion of politics into this process" and "demanded the process be depoliticized." News reports so far have yet to say if there were any "non-political" participants in the conference call.

But the statements reminded us of a media story that ran during the 2010 General Assembly session, just a few weeks after McDonnell defeated Democrat Creigh Deeds in a landslide. In it, Planned Parenthood lobbyist Jessica Honke was interviewed at Planned Parenthood's offices when the camera caught something interesting in the background (see our post from the time):

Of course, I'm sure Planned Parenthood (a non-profit prohibited from electionering) wasn't endorsing anyone for the election.  They never would think of "politicizing" anything.

Planned Parenthood: In Their Own (Shrieking) Words

As with yesterday's post about the NEA, where a high ranking official without shame articulated that group's real objectives (money and power) in contradiction to its stated goals of improving education, today we bring you something similar, though thoroughly crude and disturbing, by Planned Parenthood. It's a video, by our friends at Catholicvote.org, of a Planned Parenthood march and rally earlier this year. The video simply records pro-abortion radicals saying (often screaming) what they believe, while (to put it kindly) distorting what pro-lifers believe. Of course, the Mainstream Media won't embarrass its own movement by covering such nonsense (but when there's a Tea Party rally calling for commonsense spending restraint . . . you know what happens). Neither did the MSM cover this rally of "liberals" last year, where participants gladly called themselves socialists and communists. (But let a conservative call these radicals what they admit to being and the media contrives a firestorm.) Still, it's important to hear what the pro-abortion side truly believes (government funding and insurance coverage of abortion on demand), in their own (shrill) words. Nothing close to "safe, legal and rare." Of course, liberals claim that conservatives distort their positions and it is conservatives who are out of touch. But it's hard to claim Planned Parenthood is reasonable after watching this. As with the teachers union, what Planned Parenthood says (and how it acts) for public consumption and what it sincerely shrieks when it thinks no one is watching is vastly different.

"Government should fund Planned Parenthood."

"I want Planned Parenthood to be like Starbucks. I want a Planned Parenthood on every corner."

Tebow Super Bowl Ad Follow-Up

Speaking of television ads, it wasn't that long ago when the abortion-on-demand crowd was howling at the pro-life Super Bowl ad from Focus On The Family that featured star college football quarterback Tim Tebow and his mom. The fact that they tried to block it gave up the lie (if we needed any proof) that they are not "pro-choice" (having a baby, of course, being a choice), but rather pro-abortion at all costs. So, what was the outcome of it all? If this was an ad promoting a secular progressive cause, the mainstream media would have produced all sorts of follow-ups, documentaries, blog posts, etc., detailing how successful it was, whether or not it really was. That it was a pro-life campaign, we didn't expect any subsequent media, positive or otherwise. But new Focus President Jim Daly issued a letter the other day with some interesting notes about the ad's success:

. . . the network would not permit the word "abortion" to even be mentioned. So, if we didn't want to play by their rules, we couldn't run the spot. ... there had always been a two-part strategy surrounding the ad campaign. Our main goal was to drive viewers to FocusOnTheFamily.comwhere the full story of Mr. and Mrs. Tebow was featured. Over 1.5 million people have viewed the online movie.

. . . new research data that indicated the Super Bowl ad caused over 5 million viewers to reconsider their view of the legality/morality of abortion.

Those impressive numbers spell success. Congratulations to Focus for a good strategy and a well played hand.

NARAL, Abortion Allies Bully PRCs, But Not For The First Time

If anything exposes the utter fallacy of the "pro-choice" (i.e., pro-abortion-on-demand) industry, it is its constant attack on pregnancy resource centers — places where women in a crisis pregnancy, or just considering all options, can go for advice and counsel. Instead of fostering information and "choice," though, organizations such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL try to bully these very non-political, keep-to-themselves non-profits. It also reveals that the abortion industry is exactly that — a ruthless industry trying to snuff out competition. Liberals rail against unethical anti-competitive big business all the time. Where's the outrage over these bullying tactics by the billion-dollar-plus abortion industry? An outrage did occur today, but it wasn't directed at the abortion industry. Rather, it was directed by the abortion industry against pregnancy resource centers at a capitol news conference. These non-profits do not engage in politics, do not endorse candidates, do not lobby the legislature. The abortion industry does all of that. Pregnancy resource centers simply try to help pregnant women make informed decisions — only to be demonized by national abortion-on-demand organizations backed by millions in big money elitists and liberal special interests.

My word! Have a baby? That's one less abortion fee! An underage girl pregnant by a 30-year-old? No worries. We'll take care of it (see videos at LiveAction).

In Richmond, today, an all-star cast of liberal lawmakers came out swinging, introducing legislation that would stifle pregnancy resource centers and issued a "report" impugning PRCs that is about as accurate as the typical Weekly World News. But it's not the first time. In October, NARAL released a letter attacking PRCs — and they tried to capitalize on our response.

We have no doubt it will continue to these hard ball tactics. It truly reveals who they are and what they actually do. So, we have a message to the abortion industry. Pick on someone your own size.

The big abortion lobby lobbing grenades at pregnancy resource centers. What are they afraid of? Babies being born?

Campbell County Mother Murders Newborn, Time For Virginia Senate To Act!

As we draw closer to Christmas and the celebration of the birth of the baby Jesus, a story out of Campbell County has drawn outrage from across the nation, and reveals just how far we have fallen in our culture in defense of abortion on demand: A baby allegedly was murdered by its mother moments after it was born, but because the child was still attached by the umbilical cord, under Virginia law, it is not considered a "separate life." Thus, no charges will be filed. In the words of one investigator:

In the state of Virginia as long as the umbilical cord is attached and the placenta is still in the mother, if the baby comes out alive the mother can do whatever she wants to with that baby to kill it. She could shoot the baby, stab the baby. As long as it’s still attached to her in some form by umbilical cord or something it’s no crime in the state of Virginia.

You can read more about this disturbing case here, from WSLS.com. It's also received national attention, including this, from the blog Hot Air, here.

The Family Foundation worked with Delegate Chris Jones (R-76, Suffolk) during the 2007 and 2008 sessions of the General Assembly to fix the law regarding a case where a mother shot herself in the stomach on the day her unborn child was due to be delivered. That legislation overwhelmingly passed the House of Delegates (see new 2010 member contact information) on two occasions but was defeated both times in the Senate Education and Health committee.

These are the members of the Senate Education and Health committee who are so extreme in their defense of abortion that they voted against legislation that would make it a crime for someone to kill their child in this way: Dick Saslaw (D-35, Springfield), Louise Lucas (D-18, Portsmouth), Janet Howell (D-32, Reston), John Edwards (D-21, Roanoke), Mary Margaret Whipple (D-31, Arlington), Maime Locke (D-2, Hampton), George Barker (D-39, Alexandria), Ralph Northam (D-6, Norfolk), John Miller (D-1, Newport News). Committee Chairman Edd Houck (D-17, Spotsylvania) did not vote on the legislation. (Click on the links to get their contact information. Click here to see our General Assembly Report Card on their votes.)

Senator Steve Newman (R-23, Lynchburg) and Delegate Kathy Byron (R-22, Lynchburg) will introduce legislation in the 2010 General Assembly session that once again will attempt to fix this "loophole" and make it a crime to murder a nearly born or newborn child. We must remember, however, that there are many in our General Assembly who, like our president, apparently believe it is perfectly reasonable for a mother to take the life of a newborn child if it protects the sacred "right" to abortion. How else can one explain their voting records? If we can’t fix this and protect the lives of those children born alive, God help us.

Now, here's an important, coincidental, side note to all this: A new policy in effect just this week by the Senate of Virginia (contact clerk, here) blocks all e-mail from non-constituents that come through action alert programs. We are reviewing the legality of this, but you can contact these senators by e-mailing, calling or faxing them directly. We hope you will do just that and urge them to support legislation during 2010 that will ensure that this type of murder does not happen again. When you do, please:

» Mention the Campbell county story; you could even include a news link.

» Remind them that they voted against legislation in 2008 (HB 1126) that dealt with similar circumstances.

» Tell them they will vote on legislation fixing this situation in 2010 and you expect them to vote in favor of it and will hold them accountable for their vote!

Pew Poll Confirms Tide Has Turned In Abortion Debate

In late August, Democrat gubernatorial hopeful Creigh Deeds took what most political analysts said was a gamble when he began hammering Republican Bob McDonnell on the issue of abortion — and in contradiction of his pledge to leave social issues out of the campaign. Many thought Deeds' lackluster campaign was looking for an issue that would motivate his base, but at the risk of alienating independent voters. Thursday, the Pew Research Center for People & the Press released a national survey (see Pew) that might indicate the Deeds move was the wrong one. Said Pew:

Recently, Americans have become more opposed to legal abortion.

In fact, the division between those who believe abortion should be illegal in almost all cases is nearly even with those who believe it should be legal in most cases, a significant shift. Plus, the number of those who think abortion should be more difficult to obtain also increased (see U.S. News & World Report).

But what should worry Deeds the most is that liberal Democrats polled have lost an extraordinary amount of intensity on the issue. According to Pew:

There has been a 26-point drop since 2006 in the proportion of liberal Democrats who say abortion is a critical issue, from 34 percent to 8 percent.

Ooops! So much for energizing the base.

As with any abortion poll, the news is mixed, but it discloses many positive trends. For example, it indicates an important shift in public opinion away from abortion on demand. It confirms a Gallup poll from May (see Gallup) that shows more Americans consider themselves pro-life than "pro-choice" for the first time in that poll's history.

So, we are winning this issue on a daily basis by changing hearts and minds. It is nearly impossible to look at the beauty shown by an ultrasound and not recognize the humanity that exists. Any woman who has heard the heartbeat of her unborn child for the first time and then sees the image of that child inside her is drawn naturally to the conclusion that it is a human life worth defending.

More and more people are drawn to that defense, too. Virginians and Americans are joining together for the next several weeks for 40 Days for Life. We urge you to join with them (see how, here) in praying for more hearts and minds to change. Also, call your local pregnancy resource center and lend a hand. Reach out to a woman in crisis and provide for her needs. Together, through prayer and action, and through God’s blessing, we will one day live in a nation that respects all human life — born and unborn.

This Pretty Much Sums Up ObamaCare

Of all the aspects of the socialized medicine legislation making its way through Congress, the most disturbing piece of it (which is saying a a great deal considering all the freedoms that will be taken away from us) is the taxpayer funding of abortion on demand (a ban of which has been a bi-partisan policy for decades). Yet, as a candidate, Barack Obama had something interesting to say about that. Here are two short videos from FRC Action that point out, vividly, the travesty that is this legislation. First, candidate Obama's seemingly pro-life statement followed by some philosophical questions he has yet to answer (except through his abortion-on-demand actions), then a poignant point about the legislation that should concern every American.

Setting The Record Straight

One of the responsibilities we at The Family Foundation take very seriously is challenging the misinformation, distortions, or outright lies propagated by those opposed to traditional values, particularly as spread through the Mainstream Media, which shapes so much of popular culture and thought. It's one of the reasons we started this blog and other social networking sites — to provide the truth. (Our YouTube channel, for example, provides uncut video of lawmakers in committee, where you can judge for yourself their attitude toward common sense, pro-traditional values, limited government legislation.) Two examples of misrepresentation in the media have occurred over the last two weeks. One was the murder of Kansas abortionist George Tiller. Our own president, Victoria Cobb, was interviewed about it last week on the popular Richmond's Morning News with Jimmy Barrett (hear it here) on WRVA-AM. In the interview, she dispelled the notion repeated by abortion extremists and some pundits that the murderer of George Tiller is representative of the pro-life movement in America.

She told listeners that, just as the pro-life movement was gaining headway(witness the recent Gallop poll that found a majority of Americans now consider themselves pro-life), pro-life advocates must expend precious time and energy to counter the notion that the murder somehow represents the overwhelming majority of thoughtful, peaceful pro-life Americans.

We know that some abortion extremists and mainstream media organs are using the murder to paint all Americans who seek to protect human life as enablers, morally equivalent to the acused murderer. That kind of rhetoric serves no positive purpose. Instead, it gives opportunities to extremists to label as dangerous law-abiding citizens who legally seek to protect unborn human life. It advances no cause and brings us no closer to resolution in this debate.

The other example was an opinion piece by Lindsay Oliver of the Richmond Reproductive Freedom Project, published in the Richmond Times-Dispatch a few weeks ago. She claimed that, "Although 15 states use their own funds to cover abortions under many circumstances, Virginia is not one of them." 

This statement is absolutely false and Victoria responded as such in a letter to the editor the Times-Dispatch subsequently printed. In fact, despite legislative efforts by The Family Foundation, other pro-life organizations and thousands of pro-family citizens, Virginia continues to fund abortion — taxpayers even fund elective abortions! As Victoria wrote:

The Federal government subsidizes abortions only when a Medicaid-eligible woman's life is at risk or in the cases of rape or incest. In Virginia, we fund abortions beyond the Federal requirements. Incredibly, from 2006-2007, Virginia tax dollars have funded 301 elective abortions (149 in fiscal-year 2007, and 152 in fiscal 2006).

Public interest is in favor of ending this funding. The Family Foundation and the Virginia Catholic Conference co-sponsored a Mason-Dixon poll in December 2008, and when asked if they supported Virginia's policy of using state money to pay for abortions falling outside the categories of rape, incest, and endangering the life of the mother, 46 percent of respondents were opposed to the funding with only 39 percent in support.  Furthermore, a recent Harris poll found that 63 percent of Americans oppose the taxpayer funding of abortion. Combine this with the widely publicized recent Gallup poll showing that 53 percent of Americans believe that abortion should be legal only in certain circumstances, and it's clear the tide against abortion on demand is growing.

The Family Foundation is honored to serve as a voice for traditional values in the public square. Correcting the lies and distortions of the left is a full time job, but one that we are more than willing to do.

Something For The Abortionist-In-Chief To Ponder On His Trip To Notre Dame

President Barack Obama prepares to speak at and receive an honorary doctorate at Notre Dame's commencement this weekend on the heels of a new Gallop Poll that shows a majority of Americans consider themselves pro-life. His appearance flaunts his abortion-on-demand ideology at a Catholic university in contravention of Church teaching (see LifeSiteNews.com), and against the urging of 76 bishops, (including, interestingly, Bishop of Arlington Paul Loverde, but not Bishop of Richmond Francis DeLorenzo), as well as more than 360,000 Catholics who have signed a petition. The decision to honor him, despite his pro-abortion-on-demand fanaticism, provoked outrage at the Vatican (CardinalNewmanSociety.org). It also prompted Mary Ann Glendon, a Harvard professor and former U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican, to decline the event, where she was to receive the highest honor for a Catholic lay person, the Laetare Medal (Boston.com). (Not only was she disappointed in the decision to honor him, she was disturbed that Notre Dame issued talking points that, in effect, used her as an apologist for his appearance.)

The angry left, of course, is typically twisting the truth and topic in order to demonize traditional Catholics and all pro-lifers. They say those protesting the president's attendance at Note Dame want to stifle opposing opinions, and worse, stifle them where all points of view are welcome. It's the left's standard operating procedure — not only twist your words and reasoning, but change the entire premise of the debate in order to make opponents look foolish.

But free speech and opposing views are not the point. The point is honoring someone who so violently opposes authoritative Church teaching, a teaching Notre Dame is sworn to uphold. Let him speak all he wants, but Notre Dame has no reason to honor him with the prestige of an honorary doctorate, which gives its imprimatur to his point of view.

Aside from the abortion issue, what has he done in 100-plus days to merit an honorary doctorate from such a prestigious school? By his own admission, nothing! He spoke at Arizona State University's commencement Wednesday, but university officials there previously stated ASU would not confer upon him such an honor because he had not done enough to merit it.

Said the president (from AP):

"But more than that I come to embrace the notion that I haven't done enough in my life. I heartily concur. I come to affirm that one's title, even a title like 'president of the United States,' says very little about how well one's life has been led."  

Still, Notre Dame persists and, despite his seeming humility, there is no doubt the pro-abortion-on-demand president relishes the acclaim the honor will accrue to his image as well as a smug "in-your-face" to pro-lifers. Additionally, Catholic St. Joseph University in Philadelphia is honoring pro-abortion Chris Mathews (Philadelphia Inquirer), as did Georgetown a few weeks ago, with Vice President Bishop Biden

While all of this proves that political expediency over principle isn't limited to individuals, but touches "revered" institutions as well, here is something for Mr. President to look at and ponder as he takes advantage of the Catholic Church this weekend. It a reprise of a paid commercial NBC refused accept for the Super Bowl. It is from CatholicVote.org.

More On Life From Nat Hentoff

As we posted last week, liberal and pro-life columnist Nat Hentoff wrote an insightful column about liberal politicians' pro-abortion views. That column ("Democrats and abortion") is very well worth the read (click here). This week, he's followed up with another brilliant piece ("Abortion wars crescendo")  which we cannot  recommend highly enough for you to read as well (click here). In it, Hentoff highlights some astounding — and very unfortunate — shifts in the Democrats' national platform. In a telling sign of just how far left those who controlled the levers of power at its convention are, the party even eliminated the Bill Clinton abortion platform plank of "safe, legal and rare." (Wonder if Hillary would've left that in?)

It also is "strongly and unequivocally" supportive of Roe v. Wade and opposes  any attempts to "weaken or undermine it." (Which shows more than a sad policy position. It shows weakness and hypocrisy at best, and ignorance at worst. Most liberals think an overturn of Roe would ban abortions. It would not. It would return the decisions to the states. If the country is so supportive of abortion on demand, what are pro-aborts afraid of? A little democracy? Why so afraid of a little voting here and there?)

Here are some other jaw droppers from Hentoff: 

» Barack Obama is a co-sponsor of the "Freedom of Choice Act" that would make partial-birth abortion legal, contrary to a Supreme Court decision. (Why is it okay for pro-aborts to try to change a Supreme Court decision, but not for pro-lifers?)

» For you libertarians who don't think abortion is an issue, Obama is leading the way repeal the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxpayer funding of abortion. (Joe Biden also supports taxpayer funding of abortion despite what he said to Tom Brokow per his September 7 Meet The Press interview. Click here for the record. In fact, Hentoff notes from The Nation, that Biden has a perfect 100 percent rating from Planned Parenthood.)

» Obama voted in the Illinois Senate to block a bill requiring the notification of at least one parent of a minor from another state seeking an abortion in Illinois.

» The well know fact, by now, that Obama voted to deny life-saving treatment to babies born despite surviving an abortion.

» Hentoff cites from an August 24 Washington Times editorial, "Planned Parenthood Targets Blacks," (read here) that one-third of all its abortions in 2007 were performed on blacks and a majority of its facilities are in minority neighborhoods.

Speaking of Planned Parenthood's apparent racial profiling, Hentoff ends by citing a black leader, a prominent Democrat, who once was fiercely eloquent in his defense of life. Until he, too, ran for president. Said this man several years ago:

"Don't let the pro-choicers convince you that a fetus isn't a human being. That's how the whites dehumanized us. ... The first step was to distort the image of us as human beings in order to justify that which they wanted to do and not even feel like they had done anything wrong."

That man is the Reverend Jesse Jackson.