Every election year I take out NRLC’s Six Ways to Defeat Pro-Life Candidates by Carol Long Tobias and take a look. You see ways that pro-lifers defeat pro-life candidates every election cycle.

Last week I posted about a variation that causes pro-lifers to split the vote. That experience did teach me to be more cautious before doing something that hurt the pro-life movement.

Only five years or so later did I see one of the ways clear as day. Mrs. Tobias warns that pro-lifers shouldn’t “Expect the candidate to sound like a Right to Life chapter chairman”.Amen.

In that experience I was asked by national to meet with a primary winner in a congressional district in California. That district had lop-sided registration and there was no doubt this nominee would win and be called Congressman.

During the campaign he had beat a pro-life lawmaker and had sent out mailers saying he was pro-choice. I was asked to find out more.

The conversation went kind of like this:

Future Congressman:  Look Mike I am pro-choice. It is pretty simple. I am pro-choice and that is it,

Me: What does pro-choice mean to you?

Future Congressman: It means I am against abortion, except in cases of rape and incest.

Me: What? (Sounded like I was in shock)

Future Congressman: It means I am against abortion except in cases of rape and incest.

Me: We need to talk……….

Obviously he didn’t have any idea what pro-choice meant. This candidate is now a Congressman and voted with National Right to Life about 90& of the time. Some years it has been %100.

Some candidates haven’t thought about every single issue or of the consequences that it may have. Some candidates that say they are pro-life are stunned on how many votes they maybe casting on that issue and haven’t thought about it until the campaign made them think about it.

In other words they haven’t spent their whole lives thinking about it. Sometime especially at the beggining they use the wrong terminology or don’t know every fact about what Planned Parenthood does. It is our job to help educate them and bring them our way.

What they will do and how they will vote is better to know then an early mistake in how to phrase an opinion or lack of detailed knowledge on a given item.

I turned 18 in July of 1984. I got to vote for Ronald Reagan, but not In California’s Primary. During the 1986 Primary, my first Republican Primary I learned how splitting the vote could be deadly to pro-life candidates

There were a lot of big names in that GOP primary. Some of them were Bobbi Fiedler, Ed Davis, Mike Antonovich, Bob Naylor, Art Laffer, Ed Zschau and Bruce Herschensohn. There were all fighting for the chance to defeat Senator Alan Cranston.

As the primary got to the end it became clear that the nominee would be Zschau (A pro-abortion liberal) or Herschenson (a pro-lifer). The winner was Zschau by seven points.

Here was my error. I was in Germany, not paying attention to the race. I voted for Mike Antonovich. Antonovich was and is my county supervisor. He is very pro-life and as a legislator actually stopped California from experimenting on unborn babies.

Great guy. Still glad I can vote for him for Supervisor. The problem was the money and dynamics of the race showed he couldn’t win. I voted my heart not my head. Antonovich got nine percent of the vote.

Since then I have been more careful. Making sure I cast a smart pro-life vote not just a pro-life vote. Unfortunately, I have seen this happen again in races for Assembly or State Senate.

Our duty is to elect pro-life candidates. The word elect is as important as the word pro-life. Lesson learned.

Fellow pro-lifers,

Had enough? We sure have.

You know pro-life citizens across the country are dismayed by the stunning betrayal by the Democratic lawmakers who campaigned for election as pro-life but then turned their backs on unborn children by voting for the Obama health care bill–the most pro-abortion bill ever passed by Congress.

Had enough? Stand with us now for the fight ahead. You know National Right to Life stood up for the unborn threatened by President Obama’s health care plan and never wavered.

Our resources are drained and your gift will go directly to help save lives.

Had enough? Join a chapter. No chapter in your area? Start one. Contact us and we’ll tell you how.

There are so many ways to participate locally and make a difference with us nationally. Together we are touching hearts, changing minds, and saving lives!

Together, we are making a difference. Take a stand with us for life!

Wow! Stunning video reveals Stupak (not knowing he was recorded) was planning to cave all along. And apparently he received special ‘airport grants’ for his district! Did he learn nothing from the Ben Nelson “cornhusker” duplicity? Michigan’s Upper Peninsula will have some fresh paint at its airport and a new Congressman.

http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/9114A218-8ADB-47BB-BD50-C7A3CCFEC2C5/

Of the remaining issues with the potential to bring down the entire health overhaul effort, the one that lawmakers fear most is abortion.

Abortion is such a politically hazardous issue that sponsors of both the House and Senate health bills have said their object was to maintain the status quo. “It is not the intention of this bill to, as the speaker has said, to change the policy that has been in place for three decades,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said on Tuesday. Hoyer was referring to what is known as the Hyde Amendment. It has barred federal funds from being used to pay for abortions since 1977.

But keeping the health bills abortion-neutral has proved impossible. And now the abortion language in the Senate-passed bill in particular could threaten the strategy Democratic leaders hope to use to get a final measure to President Obama’s desk for a signature.

The bill the House passed in November barred abortion funding in programs directly funded by the federal government. But it also banned it in private insurance plans that cover abortion if those plans are federally subsidized.

Abortion-rights groups say the problem with the House bill is that it would roll back coverage for abortion many women now have in private insurance.

“Anyone receiving a subsidy for their premium from the government would not be allowed to choose a plan that includes abortion, and that would apply to about 85 percent of people participating in the exchange,” said Jessica Arons, director of the Women’s Health and Rights Program at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. The exchange is the new insurance marketplace the bills would create.

The bill passed by the Senate in December, however, doesn’t go quite as far. But it’s even more confusing. It, too, would bar most direct federal funding of abortion. But it would let private plans cover abortions — if people are willing to write a separate check each month for that coverage. Arons says that’s something abortion-rights groups find really distasteful.

“I think that some of the language is not just intended to wall off public money from paying for abortion services, it actually is intended to stigmatize abortion and treat it as something other than health care, and discourage people from choosing health insurance plans that offer abortion coverage,” she said.

But while abortion-rights groups may not like the Senate bill, anti-abortion groups downright hate it. “In total, the Senate bill is the most pro-abortion single piece of legislation ever to reach the floor of the House of Representatives,” said Douglas Johnson, federal legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee. “The so-called abortion limits that are in the Senate bill are all very narrow, loophole ridden, or booby-trapped to expire,” he said.

He cites as an example a last-minute addition to the bill of $7 billion for community health centers, “from which abortions could be paid with no restriction.”

Arons says that’s not the case. “It’s a boogeyman. No one is intending to use public money from the bill to fund abortion services.”

Still, National Right to Life’s opinion on the bill counts, because it scores votes as being anti-abortion or not. And Johnson has made it clear how his group will score this vote. “No member of the House of Representatives who is pro-life or who wishes to have a record against federal funding of abortion could possibly vote for the Senate bill.”

That raises a big red flag for Democratic leaders in both houses. That’s because the way they are hoping to finish work on their health overhaul is for the House to pass the Senate’s bill — abortion language and all. Then they plan to pass a second bill that will incorporate a number of compromises between the House and Senate. For that, they’ll use the so-called budget reconciliation process that only requires 51 Senate votes.

But as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi acknowledged Tuesday, those compromises probably won’t include a change in abortion language. “In order to be in part of the budget bill, it has to be central to the budget. That’s the rule. And it’s a very strict rule,” she said.

Which means anti-abortion House Democrats who originally voted for the House health bill will likely face this choice: Vote for a Senate bill that’s more lenient on abortion or vote against health overhaul. And it will make it that much harder for House leaders to get the majority they need to pass the bill.

How many times have you heard that abortion should be safe and legal? It is one of the most common misconceptions in the abortion debate. Just because something is legal doesn’t make it safe.

Last August, so-called Dr. Andrew Rutland performed an abortion on Ying Chen in the dingy backroom of an acupuncture clinic. This legal back alley abortion resulted in her death.

He was not to perform any more abortions. Recently, a sting by the Medical board found that he was still plying his deadly trade. A judge let him of the hook. Rutland lost his license for five years over the death of two infants. The state gave him his license back and more babies and at least one mother have been killed.

Abortion maybe legal, but clearly isn’t safe.

Isn’t it nice how “superior people” would like other people dead? You didn’t think the Culture of Death was a mere metaphor, did you? These folks are serious.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6999873.ece

The majority of Americans are pro-life. The question is what are we going to do about it? I’ll tell you what… Hold Lawmakers Accountable!

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/majority-of-americans-and-nearly-6-in-10-young-adults-view-abortion-as-morally-wrong-82304862.html

By exploiting the emotions of the vulnerable, and the sympathies of the uninformed, society is on its way to the regulated killing the ‘imperfect,’ ‘who are going to die anyways.’ These, as we are regularly told, are those who, ‘cost us the most money’ and ‘are a burden to the healthcare system.’

Remember, Healthcare Reform is NOT designed to give more care to those who actually need it, because that is ‘costly.’ The goal of healthcare reform is to control costs. Killing the depressed is a cost-saver.

– Brian Johnston, Executive Director California ProLife Council

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-12-31-Montana-suicide_N.htm

The United States Senate can grant eternal life. I wish I was kidding, but the healthcare bill that passed the Senate with the support of Feinstein and Boxer contained language that prohibits future lawmakers from ever changing the Independent Medicare Advisory Board from being considered…ever.

Language was inserted that says “it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.”

Hats off to Sen. Jim Demint for this find. Of course this board will be charged with finding ways to reduce “costs” for Medicare. Other countries with government controlled health care reduce “costs” by reducing care and patients.

Eternal life for rationing, but an earlier death for some neglected Americans. Some Christmas present.