STUTZMAN MAKES HAY WITH SPECIAL INTEREST MONEY

The quarterly candidate financial reports are out, and, according to the FEC reports, Marlin has had no trouble raking in money from PACs and other special interests.  As of September 30, 2010, Stutzman’s fund raising looks like this:

Total Receipts: $354,455
Transfers From Authorized Committees: $0
Individual Contributions: $196,313
Non-Party (e.g. PACs) or Other Committees: $153,142
Contributions from Party Committees $5,000
Candidate Contribution: $0
Candidate Loans: $0
Other Loans: $0
Total Disbursements: $225,347
Transfers to Authorized Committees: $0
Individual Refunds: $650
Non-Party (e.g. PACs) or Other Refunds: $0
Candidate Loan Repayments: $0
Other Loan Repayments: $0
Beginning Cash: $0
Latest Cash On Hand: $129,106
Debts Owed By: $10,101

Stutzman has received almost 45% of his funding from special interest groups – that leaves 55% attributable to individual contributions.

On the other hand, Dr. Hayhurst’s September 30th report reflects that 93% came from individual contributions and only 7% from special interest groups.  Here are his numbers:

Total Receipts: $692,553
Transfers From Authorized Committees: $0
Individual Contributions: $631,004
Non-Party (e.g. PACs) or Other Committees: $48,189
Contributions from Party Committees $5,000
Candidate Contribution: $7,570
Candidate Loans: $0
Other Loans: $0
Total Disbursements: $576,748
Transfers to Authorized Committees: $0
Individual Refunds: $0
Non-Party (e.g. PACs) or Other Refunds: $0
Candidate Loan Repayments: $0
Other Loan Repayments: $0
Beginning Cash: $0
Latest Cash On Hand: $115,804
Debts Owed By: $0

The disparity in accepting special interest money is staggering:  45% for Stutzman – 7% for Hayhurst.

So, as you go to the polls on November 2nd, ask yourself – who do you think is bought and paid for by the special interests?  Someone who receives 7% – or someone who receives a whopping 45% from special interests.  Doesn’t take a math wiz to calculate the numbers.

And, your next observation?  Stutzman is not his own man.  Dr. Hayhurst assured the debate viewers and the public that he is independent – and his special interest contributions back him up.  On November 2nd, you have a choice to send a “bought and paid for” special interest candidate – Marlin Stutzman to Congress .  Or you can vote for  an independent, fair-minded, and dedicated candidate – Dr. Tom Hayhurst.

About these ads

About Charlotte A. Weybright

I own a home in the historical West Central Neighborhood of Fort Wayne, Indiana. I have four grown sons and nine grandchildren - four grandsons and five granddaughters. I love to work on my home, and I enjoy crafts of all types. But, most of all, I enjoy being involved in political and community issues.
This entry was posted in Congress, Democrat Party, Democrats, Government, Marlin Stutzman, Republican Party, Republicans, Third District and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

89 Responses to STUTZMAN MAKES HAY WITH SPECIAL INTEREST MONEY

  1. john b. kalb says:

    And, if you follow Charlotte’s directions, you will end up with a representative who feels this way about his constituents:

    At Dr. Tom Hayhurst’s last Fort Wayne Common Council meeting, he commented about those of us who had taken the time to speak to council about our thoughts in regard to various items on their agenda. His comment was “The people that have lectured us about items that we know all we need to know about have sure wasted our valuable time.”

    I had worked FOR Dr. Tom in 2006 (making phone calls, driving voters to the polls, et al) during his first run against Souder – but his comments that night turned me OFF (completely)!

    Go ahead and vote for a guy who has publicaly indicated that he is so “independently knowledgable” that he can care less about how his condstituents feel about all items!

  2. Lockwood Marine says:

    Charlotte,
    Surely you are not naive enough to think that individuals don’t have “interests” including “special “ones. How about out of state contributors ,Indy and DC attorneys etc?

  3. Pingback: Hayhurst outraises Stutzman nearly 2-1 « Allen County Watchdog

  4. iceironman says:

    I guess Mr Stutzman needs to bump elbows with the white collar fat cat big donors like Hayhurst. I thought you wanted to eat the rich, 90% of Hayhursts donations are the millionares you dispise, the big wage bosses, the tyrants of business, the ones steeling money from the poor. I guess Hayhurst will owe the unions nothing,while stutzman will bow down to big tomatoe??

    In the end, the democrat has more money and power in this race. I thought we wanted money out of it?

  5. John:

    I was not present, so could you put his comment into context? While I don’t dispute your account, I have known Dr. Hayhurst for over six years, and I can tell you that I have never heard him talk to anyone in that way.

  6. Lockwood:

    Of course individuals have interests. I am making a comparison – I would wager that if it had been the reverse and Stutzman had received 93% of his contributions through individual contributions, you would be raising the issue of Hayhurst and group contributions.

  7. Ice:

    I would almost bet that if Dr. Hayhurst had received 45% from special interests and Stutzman had received 93% from individuals, you would be condemning Hayhurst for the special interest money and praising Stutzman for appealing to individuals.

  8. Dave MacDonald says:

    Not finding any information on Mr. Hayhurst’s campaign website, I requested information over two weeks ago re: his position on life issues. I’m still waiting. Apparently he feels this issue is unimportant to the majority of voters in the 3rd district who are pro-life.

    • Dave MacDonald says:

      It’s been yet another week and still no response from Dr. Hayhurst or his campaign re: his position on life issues and taxpayer funded abortions. Someone also pointed out he refused requests from pro-life organizations for his positions. These include: Indiana Right to Life and Kosciusko County RTL.

      In the absence of a response, it is fair to assume his position is similar to Brad Ellsworth’s, Baron Hill’s, and Joe Donnelly’s in support of taxpayer funded abortion and abortion on demand.

  9. john b. kalb says:

    Charlotte: I have known (and lived 1/4 mile from) Dr. Tom Hayhurst for over 20 years. You just have not heard him except when in a guarded role. His comment that I quoted was made at his last meeting as a city councilperson on December 19, 2007. If you need verification, you can ask Sandy Kennedy, our city clerk, to let you view the video of this meeting in her City/County office. Maybe some other of your readers who were in attendance that night can comment as to the truth of this quote.

  10. Dave:

    Tom is a doctor – how would life not be important to him? I am out at HQ quite a bit and am going out today. I know that email requests are answered with regularity. I will ask as to why you received no response.

  11. John:

    As I said, I am not doubting your information – I was just curious as to the context in which it occurred. And, you are wrong, I have been around Dr. Hayhurst in just about every situation from working on veterans’ issues to informal gatherings at his home with he and his wife Judy hosting to working on his campaigns. I am saying that in all those situations, I have never heard him talk in that manner.

  12. Dave MacDonald says:

    Charlotte,

    Fort Wayne’s abortionist George Klopfer is a doctor as well.

    The prosecution rests.

  13. Dave:

    I realize that those who perform abortions are doctors unless women have gone back to performing their own abortions as they did before it was legalized.

    When you ask where a person stands on “anti-choice” as I call it, do you want to know whether or not he or she believes in the right to a woman’s choice to have an abortion? Or do you want to know if a person is anti-choice to the extent that the person would make abortion illegal again?

    Where do you stand on the exceptions on saving the woman’s life, or a pregnancy as the result of rape or incest?

    If a child is innocent at conception, why is it so many anti-choicers believe in the exceptions for rape or incest? After all, the child had no say in how it was conceived and would be an innocent victim over a situation in which he or she (the baby) had no control – if your argument is truly the innocence of the baby.

    Saving the life of the mother is a “balancing” of interests; the other two are not.

  14. Dave MacDonald says:

    I recognize the difficult decision women face in these positions. Choosing to abort doesn’t make the problems go away, it compounds them. Many women deeply regret their decision to abort. Taking any human life is not the answer.

    I am “pro-choice” on taxpayer funded abortions. I choose not to. Unfortunately, President Obama via his Mexico City policy and those voting for his health care plan like Brad Ellsworth and Joe Donnelly force us to pay for them. What is Mr. Hayhurst’s position on this?

  15. Andy S. says:

    If the ultimate goal of pro life individuals is to ban abortions in the U.S. (and the rest of the world for that matter), it is definitley not going to stop them from happening.

    Just as Charlotte stated, when abortions were ‘banned’ in the U.S. – it certainly didn’t stop them from taking place.

    I can only speak for myself, but I feel very strongly a woman should have the freedom (and right) to have a safe abortion. In addition, without someone trying to guilt them about their personal decision.

    Contrary to what some want to convey, abortion is not a black and white issue. It is usually a procedure of last resort.

    Rape, incest, a mother’s health, etc. are all factors which may be considered as to why someone may want to abort a pregnancy.

    Adoption may be an option for some, but not everyone may not want to endure nine months of pregnancy. It comes down to being each woman’s ‘choice’.

    Especially, if you are a 14 year old girl who was raped and impregnated by your uncle.

    The real crime in my opinion, is to try and ‘guilt’ a 14 year old rape victim into giving birth, or judge her and call her a murderer if she chooses to abort the pregnancy.

    It’s her life, her future, her decision.

  16. iceironman says:

    Hayhurst will take the easy road, as most progressive liberals do. I have not read his website or searched out his stance but let me guess it would sound like this. “while I personaly do not believe in abortion and believe it is not a good practise, my wife and i would never consider it, I dont think its my job to get between a woman and her dr.” Kinda like the GM bailouts, the libs run around dissing them until it is their area. RIGHT?? Stuzman took the hard line and stuck to his principles.

    The arguement of rape or incest always comes up, what about the day after pill. Conception may not have taken place and this would be contraception not abortion.

    And why is it if a concervative makes concents and gives in and allows abortion in the case of rape or incest, we are hippacrites etc.

    You didnt responde to my citi debate, took 20 minutes to read the article.

    • Ice:

      We see the memo from different perspectives. Bottom line is Citigroup, Wall Street, big corps plan on ruling – whether it is through direct or indirect control. A plutocracy is where the wealthy control, which is already happening.

      As Citigroup so proudly points out, it came up with the word “plutonomy.” It isn’t in the dictionary – I checked my good, old-fashioned hardcover dictionaries as well as the internet “dictionary.com” and the word doesn’t exist. But, according to CitiGroup, plutonomy is a state of an economy driven by the wealthy. Driven = controlled. – they just chose to use a more acceptable word.

      On the other hand, the word “plutocracy” is found in the dictionaries. Citigroup just didn’t want to use the word plutocracy since it is pretty negative and didn’t fit into their analysis, so Citigroup made up a word to soften the idea that we are marching toward a plutocratic society. Research the data – the rich are getter richer and the middle class and poor are getting dumped on.

  17. Jim Stanley says:

    Hi there Dave!

    Thanks for weighing in.

    You’re absolutely correct about the majority of voters in this district. Abortion is probably the most important issue to them. And sadly, the majority of them want to criminalize it. State Representative Stutzman certainly does — even in cases of rape and incest. I suspect Dr. Hayhurst, like many of us who do NOT want to see abortion criminalized, would prefer that pregnant women make other choices. We’d love to see them receive generous tax credits for adopting — the current adoption tax credit was promoted and signed into law by President Clinton. And Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut was the lawmaker who, despite objections from the right, fought to see that adoption was included in the FMLA.

    My guess would be that Dr. Hayhurst is worried about making abortion a crime and thus overloading an already burgeoning court and jail system with women, doctors, nurses and others involved in the illegal abortions. Of course, I realize a few (not many, but a few) abortion rights opponents simply want the procedure to be technically illegal. They want Roe off the books. Okay, I guess. But then there goes the argument about how precious those “human lives” are. You’re either for a massive expansion of our police forces, jail systems and courts…or your for a symbolic, but meaningless, removal of legality. This would explain why Republicans have repeatedly promised to stop abortion…and have never come remotely close to delivering. (No pun intended.) But if Marlin Stutzman and his religious right supporters wish to enter a fourth decade of useful idiocy, that is certainly their right.

    • tim zank says:

      Wow, that’s a clever new angle. The pro abortion crowd really just doesn’t want to overload our court system. Gotta hand it to ya, you guys are creative!

  18. Dave MacDonald says:

    Andy S.

    Yes, people will still have abortions if it’s illegal. People murder their children, spouses, siblings, and parents and this is already against the law. Should we do away with any law because some will break it?

    Rather than “guilt,” the real crime is suggesting to the 14 year old incest victim that the child growing inside of her is not a baby, and that by killing it, her problems will go away. What a lie.

  19. Dave MacDonald says:

    Thanks, Jim.

    So you believe Dr. Hayhurst’s official position is he wants to keep abortion legal and hope women make a better choice? And this is because he is worried about “overloading an already burgeoning court and jail system with women, doctors, nurses and others involved in the illegal abortions”?

    Do you know his position on using taxpayer funds to pay for abortions? Would he have supported President Obama’s health care plan that included this funding like Brad Ellsworth, Joe Donnelly, and Baron Hill did?

    • I don’t believe Jim is speaking for Dr. Hayhurst.

      I did ask about the taxpayer funding, and Dr. Hayhurst opposes taxpayer funding for abortions. Would he have supported the health care bill? I don’t know, but he addressed the issue in the debate. He believes that there are a number of things wrong with the health care bill.

      However, here is a link that addresses the executive order signed by President Obama which prohibits funding for “elective” abortions. This EO was signed to gather support from the anti-abortion group of representatives in order to pass the health care bill.

      http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/03/25/obama_signs_order_blocking_abortion_funding/

      Here is a link to a prolife website where it states that over 90% of abortions are elective, thus the health care bill would not pay for these.

      http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/aug/09081202.html

      Here is the FactCheck site showing the same thing:

      http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/the-abortion-issue/

      • Dave MacDonald says:

        Charlotte,

        Thanks for checking with the campaign.

        I appreciate hearing that Dr. Hayhurst opposes taxpayer funded abortions. The real question pro-life Catholics need answered is whether he would vote for PPACA if he knew it does NOT exclude federal funds for elective abortions, or would he cave like others did.

        I know the EO was obtained to gather support from Bart Stupak, Baron Hill, Brad Ellsworth, and Joe Donnelly (among others), but it simply provided political cover and was ineffective; the funding for elective abortions remains. The USCCB was in direct contact with members of Congress during the entire process, urging them to approve the House version of the bill which among other things, maintained Hyde. (see post #22 below).

        Thanks for the other links you provided. I have reviewed each of them previously. Like many Catholics, I’ll defer to the moral interpretation and authority of my Church over the posturing of politicians and papers every time.

  20. Jim Stanley says:

    Hiya Dave!

    A couple things. Actually, according to both Politifact.com and FactCheck.org, the health care reform bill would not cover abortions. These claims were vetted by both fact-checking organizations and found to be patently false.

    As to hoping women make a better choice, I would prefer to leave that choice with them. Dr. Hayhurst would, too, presumably. As an adoptive parent of a special needs child, I know all too well the rewards of adoption and I would personally hope to persuade any woman who is not in danger of losing her life to give the strongest consideration to it. I would hope the federal and state governments would do even more to make it easier to adopt…something that didn’t happen until Bill Clinton was President, oddly enough. I would also hope that the number of abortions would be reduced, as they were from the early 1990’s until the middle of the second Bush administration. Dramatically increased funding for WIC and other helping programs and agencies would make a tremendous difference. I’m sorry State Representative Stutzman opposes these programs in the name of fiscal conservatism.

    But the pivotal question I framed, probably quite poorly, is the matter of criminalization. I have received some chilling answers to it from some anti-choice friends. Most of the time, I don’t get any sort of substantive answer. If abortions are criminalized, what then shall be the penalty for women who abort, doctors or others who perform the procedure and those who facilitate it?

    • john b. kalb says:

      Jim Stanley – Your comment about the decline of “legal” abortions from 1990 through 2005 led me to check on these figures. You’re correct, from a high of 1,600,000 – that’s one million – six hundred thousand – that’s over 6 times the population of Fort Wayne! – every person in our city times 6!!!- in 1990 down to “only” 1,200,000 in 2005. That 1,200,000 is still 4-3/4 times the population of our town!

      It is a decrease, but what a huge number! And, if it were possible to measure it, probably the reduction is largely due to the activities of groups like The Hope Center in consoling mothers-to-be (& some fathers-to-be) to not murder the child they have conceived.

      The other item that contributed to part of the reported decline was the fact that the state that had reported the highest number of abortions in prior years, California, stopped summiting their numbers in 1998 and have not reported since (three other states also stopped reporting the same year, but their numbers have always been low- Alaska and New Hampshire for example).

      As far as your comment in regards to “What do we do to enforce a law outlawing selective abortions?”, I offer the following:
      You are assuming that millions of persons would break a law of our county – I believe this to be a false assumption. Yes, there will probably be some abortionist doctors who will not follow the law of the land – after all, our law against murder is not followed by everyone – but we sure don’t kill our fellow man in the numbers recorded for the millions of abortions each year.

      • Jim Stanley says:

        Good morning, John! Thanks very much for your thoughtful reply.

        I’m glad we’re in agreement that abortions declined in the 90’s and until 2005…and that the amount to which they declined is still far too many.

        Certainly, one major factor discouraging abortion during this time was the increased funding and support for programs like “Healthier Moms and Babies”, WIC, Food Stamps and the Adoption Tax Credit. As the economy sputtered and recessed, there was greater need for these and other programs. We were on the right road to making abortion rare, but we had only moved the ball about a yard down the field. And now, the call goes forth to cut funding for WIC, for food stamps, for childcare assistance –when people most need it!

        Now, we probably disagree where the matter of criminalization is concerned. If I read you correctly — and please let me know if I do not, as I’ve had just one cup of coffee so far! — you would suggest that if abortion were criminalized, there would be comparatively few abortions. Statistics vary, but no statistics I have seen would bear that out. The most conservative estimates place the number of illegal abortions performed in the U.S. place the number in the hundreds of thousand — not including those states where some abortions were legal; and not counting those cases where women sought abortions in Canada or overseas. The highest number I have seen is about 1.5 million. I suspect the low number is too low and the high number is too high. But again — we’re in the mid to high hundred thousands. Too many. And proof positive that criminalization did nothing to prevent abortion. Though it did force many women to seek less safe abortions. (No medical procedure is 100% safe, of course and my fellow pro-choice advocates are being disingenuous at best to suggest or imply otherwise about abortion.)

        I don’t want to go back to the days of illegal, backalley abortion. I also don’t want to see the current orgy of abortion for the sake of sex selection, a college degree or “convenience” continue. As I said in a prior post, we liberals must stop behaving as though the only thing at risk in an abortion is a woman’s right to choose. Nonsense. Whatever you believe about the beginning of human life…whatever your science or theology…a fetus contains the potential for unbounded good. Liberals have been fools to ignore this. That said, conservatives have been just as foolish to pretend that making something illegal will make it go away. (And that criminalizing something of this nature won’t be enormously expensive to an already overwhelmed law enforcement and legal system.)

        Of course, my friend, my final question still stands and remains unanswered. What shall be the penalty for women who seek and undergo abortions? What shall be the punishment for those who perform, assist in or otherwise facilitate the abortion?

        John, thank you so much for the graceful way you defend your position and the courtesy and conviction with which you state it. We’re on opposite sides for the most part. But I am heartened by the many fine conservative folks I am meeting these days! God bless!

  21. Judith Steckly says:

    Mr. Kalb,
    The words of Dr. Hayhurst in the circumstance you reference are available on YouTube. You have misquoted and failed to give the context.

    After hearing ALL comments from the audience, some of which were described in the news article as “invective”, Dr. Hayhurst calmly thanked all City Council members for their countless hours spent on the issues being discussed. He said the Council members’ research and consituent contacts gave them greater knowledge than the speakers. Though he said some of the facts given were not correct, he did not put down any of the individual speakers.
    I have been dismayed over recent years to see the lack of respect given to elected officials who are carefully evaluating difficult choices. Citizens should be able to present ideas for consideration without personal attacks or denouncing efforts for resolution.
    Dr. Hayhurst is truly an example of a dedicated representative who uses facts, comparisons to similar situations, ideas from all interested, reasoning and cooperation to reach decisions. He is the Representative we need in Washington, D.C.

    There is NO federal funding for abortions, with exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the mother, in ANY federal law, period!

    • tim zank says:

      In r/e “There is NO federal funding for abortions, with exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the mother, in ANY federal law, period!”

      Would you please cite that section/page in the bill?

    • Dave MacDonald says:

      Judith writes: “There is NO federal funding for abortions, with exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the mother, in ANY federal law, period!”

      This six minute video provides a clear and simple explanation of how President Obama’s healthcare plan uses our tax dollars to fund abortion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW1DuhBRoUw

      • Judith Steckly says:

        Just research the group that put out this video–Population Research Institute. It is financed by the extreme far-right. The misinformation is apparent even without knowing the source of the money.

  22. Dave MacDonald says:

    Jim,

    The US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) thoroughly vetted the health care reform bill (note the case law cited) and found it patently TRUE that taxpayer funds WOULD cover abortion. It was the Senate version of the bill that was passed. The problems the USCCB found specifically,

    1.) Federal funds in the Senate bill can be used for elective abortions.
    2.) The Senate bill uses federal funds to subsidize health plans that cover abortions.
    3.) The Senate bill uses federal power to force Americans to pay for other people’s abortions even if they
    are morally opposed.
    4.) The House bill simply follows current law (but this was not adopted).
    (source: http://www.usccb.org/healthcare/030410facts.pdf )

    Four days after PPACA was passed, the USCCB reiterated that PPACA “Violates Both Principles of the Hyde Amendment, and the
    Accompanying Executive Order Does Not Correct Those Problems.” (source: http://www.usccb.org/healthcare/03-25-10Memo-re-Executive-Order-Final.pdf )

    I applaud your strong advocacy for adoption! Your child is truly blessed! Certainly more can be done to support loving parents like you with the high cost of adopting, eliminating red tape and streamlining the process. Peace.

    • Jim Stanley says:

      Good morning, Dave! Thanks for the kind words.

      I did know about the USCCB’s position and I generally listen very carefully to them, because I respect their consistently pro-life position. Like Ohio Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur, the Bishops oppose abortion rights…but they also oppose the death penalty, the presence of nuclear weapons in our world and the tendancy of systems to oppress the poor…all of which HH John Paul II called “matters of import where the sanctity of human life” is concerned. My respect for the USCCB and this diocese’s Bishop Emeritus, John D’Arcy, is unbounded. (I don’t know Bp. Rhoades yet.)

      That said, I’m reticent to dismiss the findings of two of the most respected fact-checking organizations in the country. (They are definitely non-partisan — they sure give me headaches when my side gets squirrely!) Here’s the report from PF — http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/10/bart-stupak/stupak-says-every-enrollee-office-personnel-manage/

      And here’s what FC has to say…http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/the-abortion-issue/

      It could come down to who you believe, of course. I support the right to elective abortion under any circumstance, but it’s not just about what *I* want. I have a ton of friends who don’t want their tax dollars used for any abortions — so I would hope they are fairly represented. Then again, I don’t like MY tax dollars being used for wars of aggression, executions or building nuclear stockpiles. This business of maintaining a republic is thorny, yes?

      Another gent engaged in this discussion, Mr. Kalb, believes all abortions are murder. I am curious to know if that would be murder in the first degree, second degree or ?? Would he prefer abortive women and those who perform the procedures, once they are criminalized, be charged with lesser offenses like criminal recklessness or manslaughter? What punishment would Mr. Kalb propose the various offenders receive? And how would he propose to relieve the already overworked police forces, court systems and correction systems once we start investigating, arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating all the parties involved in the abortion? Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn believes the death penalty should be administered to anyone performing abortions illegally, but he has refused to say if the abortive women deserve to die. Christian Reconstructionist author and theologian Gary North advocates the public execution of women who abort their children and anyone who facilitates an abortion. (His preferred method of execution is actually stoning. Not, North says, because it’s “Biblical”…but because stones are inexpensive to taxpayers and because public stoning allows the entire community to participate.) Before dismissing his as a crackpot point of view, North is considered the most prominent theologian in the Christian Reconstructionist (aka “Dominionist”) movement, since the passing of his mentor, Dr. Rousas Rushdoony.

      I know I keep coming back to the issue of criminalization and punishment. But sometimes, whether you are strongly for a particular right or strongly against a particular right, the most basic and practical issues have to be weighed first. We can roll back Roe. What then? It’s like when I try to reason with my more liberal friends on the firearms issue. We might WANT to outlaw all guns. (I don’t, btw) But if we do, what then? The genie is out of the bottle and cannot be put back.

      What we need in this country, as Jim Wallis says, is a new conversation around the issue of abortion. We liberals, all of us, have got to stop behaving as though the only thing at stake when a woman has an abortion is her right to choose. That’s not only untrue…it’s coarse and beneath the nobility of our traditionally hopeful world view. We deserve a certain amount of shame for denying — whatever else we believe about a fetus, scientifically — the sheer wonder of what every child can become if allowed to be born and then cared for in a just society.

      Our conservative brothers and sisters, however, must disabuse themselves of the notion that the sanctity of life ends at natural birth. Until they are willing to recognize the selfless and Biblical idea that individuals and churches alone are not sufficient to care for the poor and marginalized (including neo-nates and newborns), then they are without integrity on the issue. (I won’t get into the theology of shared responsibility, but I certainly can if someone cares to have that discussion.)

      Perhaps Bill Clinton was simply throwing out another clever line, as politicians do, when he said “abortion should be safe, legal and rare”. But the abortion rates during his presidency indicate he might have been serious about that. I would only change his mantra a little bit. I would say that abortion should be safe, legal, rare and one day — unthinkable. Because one day, we hope to live in a country where we have finally rejected the gospel of Ayn Rand and embraced the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the prophets.

      In any case, that’s my nickel’s worth. I’ve not been here long, but I have to say — I am heartened by the decency and civility of the discussions. God bless you all!

      • Jim Stanley says:

        Well, I take back what I said about civility. Calling someone a “simpleton” is hardly that. But otherwise, wonderful discussion everyone. I am learning from both sides.

  23. john b. kalb says:

    Judith – Were you in attendance that evening? I would guess you were not. I was there and I heard Dr. Tom’s comments. Just who are you saying commented on YouTube with different wording?

    As to your comments in regard to abortion, IT IS MURDER. Marlin Stutzman would agree with your “exceptions” only where the life of the mother was in danger. Here the fact that sin causes us to have to go one way, is the only reason for “chosing the sin”. All other cases of “abortion on demand” can only be looked at as sinful murder.

  24. john b. kalb says:

    And Judith – The baby in the womb, via abortion, is the human that pays for the sin of the rapist and the incestous male perpetrator. How can anyone justify that? And the couples that are unable to conceive and wish to adopt also “pay for ” this sin.

  25. John:

    Stutzman does not have his position on exceptions. Here is his statement according to his website:
    ________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Simply put. I’m prolife. The Declaration of Independence states that our inalienable rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Life is listed first in that famous line in the Declaration of Independence and it’s first with me, too. Protecting innocent life—of the born and preborn—is very dear to me. As a supporter of life, you want a candidate that has put his convictions to work. As a member of the legislature, I helped author the first prolife legislation Indiana has seen in over a decade. I have a 100% rating from Indiana Right-To-Life, and I will stand up to the anti-life interests in Washington. I believe life begins at conception, but the duty of protecting life doesn’t end with the birth of a child. Valuing life is a basic principle of America’s founding, and honoring life is showing honor to the creator of all life.
    _______________________________________________________________________________________________

    Do you have a link to where his statement on exceptions can be found?

    Thanks.

  26. Judith Steckly says:

    Mr. Kalb,
    I watched the YouTube of Dr. Hayhurst’s comments. Your quote is not accurate. You can watch it too, and perhaps then you would realize that Dr. Hayhurst was attempting to be sure everyone realized the amount of time the City Council had spent on the issue, and that “invective” comments (as described in the newspaper report of the meeting) towards council members were not warranted. He specifically said that all comments from constituents that night and in the past were listened too and considered.
    Perhaps you need to reconsider your interpretation of the evening?

    RE: federal funding of abortions–there will be subsidies for people below an established income level so that they can purchase health insurance. No one can be denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions, even babies born with a medical problem such as a hernia, which some insurance companies have refused to pay for medical treatments.
    An individual covered by subsidized insurance can elect to purchase a “rider” that would include abortion coverage, but it would be a separate, personal payment.

    As to “murder”, Mosiac law separated termination of pregnancy according to the length of time of the pregnancy. Causing a miscarriage during the first part of the term was punished by a monetary payment to the husband, while a later one would result in a murder charge.
    Ecclesiastes 11:5, “Just as you do not know how the spirit enters the bones in the womb, so you do not know the activity of God who makes all things.”
    Would you MANDATE that a twin be connected to the sibling for life-supporting blood exchanges daily? Should you MANDATE that a woman carry a rapist’s child? My pregnancy was very uncomfortable, but I rejoiced in it for I truly wanted to bear children. But you want a woman to experience the nausea, water retention and high blood pressure of a pregnancy, and the painful delivery, no matter what circumstances she faces or the child might inherit.
    What really upsets me about those who try to impose their beliefs about the viability of a fetus, is that the same people tend to turn a blind eye to child abuse, hunger, and medical needs. As a teacher I reported numerous cases of abuse and neglect, but the child remained in the terrible environment.

  27. Andy S. says:

    @Dave McDonald –

    People will continue to have abortions whether they remain legal or not.

    We see human beings making extremely difficult decisions about their lives every single day.

    If someone truly is PRO LIFE, then why do some PRO LIFE individuals continue to support the death penalty ? Kind of contradictory to the whole concept that EVERY life is sacred isn’t it ?

    Or what about WAR ? How many PRO LIFE individuals supported the current WARS our country is currently engaged in ? Wouldn’t it be a bit hypocritical of these individuals to stand on a soap box and declare every life precious and then simultaneously turn right around and support the concept of war ?

    And how does the concept of PRO LIFE come into play when someone is faced with the difficult decision of keeping a loved one alive (through life support) even though the individual has been diagnosed as terminally ill and is experiencing excruciating pain, or is in a vegetative state ?

    Would someone be violating the “sanctity of life” if he or she honored an individual’s request to take them off of life support, and thus end their LIFE ?

    • Dave MacDonald says:

      Andy,

      Every life IS sacred.

      Certain life issues are “non-negotiable” as far as the Church is concerned, including abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and human cloning. The Church does allow for capital punishment as a last resort (when it’s the “only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” CCC 2267) I personally believe that here in the US it IS possible to protect the public with non-lethal means, thus I am personally opposed to the death penalty.

      War is also permissible in some cases: “All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war. However, ‘as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.'” CCC 2308

      Abortion, euthanasia, fetal stem cell research and cloning are ALWAYS intrisically evil and must ALWAYS be opposed. The death penalty and war are permissable in some cases.

      (source: Catechism of the Catholic Church – http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/fifth.html )

    • john b. kalb says:

      Andy S – Your arguments tend to fall apart when you seriously think about them – for example-
      1) A SMALL number of people will continueto be involved with elective abortions even if they become illegal again. But the numbers will never approach the many millions that have been murdered (per the 5th commandment) due to an ungodly law that made it “legal” (NOT unsinful)since Roe vs. Wade. We are talking millions! With a repeal of Roe vs. Wade, hopefully we can return to the few that were performed before it.
      2) How can a ProLife individual support the death penalty? Well, the death penalty is applied to those that have broken the law against murder – and is not applied to an unborn baby!
      3) Life support in cases where “extreme acts” are necessary to prolong life also cannot be compared to elective abortion. The baby is not able to testify as to his or her desire to live. The mother can make a conscious choice for the baby – but she does have the alternative decision to carry to birth. A “loving-letting-go” cannot be compared to a “get-rid-of” decision!
      4) Death during a war is also very hard to compare to an elective abortion. One of the on-going sins of mankind has been the settling of disagreements between countries by fighting a war- but, what is the disagreement between a mother-to-be and the baby growing in her womb? Results equivalent to war? That’s hard to envision.

      Andy S – Do you agree that electing an abortion is a sin against God and against the unborn baby? I believe this is the question that must be answered by all of us. What do we, as a society, believe on this point? Are we, again as a society, comfortable with our collective answer to this question? The answer is what we will do in a legal way – that discussion is happening and has been going on for the years since Roe vs. Wade.

      • Judith Steckly says:

        How do you feel about the 44,000 people who died last year only because they did not have health insuance to help pay for medical treatment?

      • john b. kalb says:

        Judith – I feel very sorry for them – but, in this day & age and in this country -NO ONE DIES BECAUSE THEY DON’T HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE that didn’t die before this country even thought about health insurance!!! I did not have health insurance (and neither did my working parents) until I was 19 years old and went to work at General Electric.
        The choice to not seek medical care in our city, our state, the midwest and our country lies totally with the person needing it (or their guardian,keeper, parent or significant other)
        What you are saying cannot be proved – and hasn’t. If you don’t agree, quote the source – and don’t give me some liberal media guessimate!

      • Andy S. says:

        @John Kalb-

        You said: “I did not have health insurance (and neither did my working parents) until I was 19 years old and went to work at General Electric.”

        ALOT has changed in the past 50 years (or last 10 for that matter).

        Do you know the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the U.S. is medical bills default ?

        Used to be you could get a broken arm patched up in no time for a couple hundred bucks. Not anymore.

        A two day stay in the hospital will put you back a few thousand dollars, at least.

        Used to be common for employers to foot the bill for their employees. Now having health insurance benefits is a LUXURY.

        Even if you have health insurance, you then need to deal with deductibles. A few decades ago there were almost no deductibles. Then one hundred dollar deductibles, then five hundred deductibles – heck now its common to have $ 25oo deductibles.

        The days of getting by with no health insurance and living footloose and fancy free are a memory for a good portion of Americans.

      • Judith Steckly says:

        Mr. Kalb,
        According to a study published by the American Journal of Public Health on September 17, 2009, nearly 45,000 deaths annually are linked to lack of health insurance. The study was conducted at Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance. The lead author, Andrew Wilper, M.D., currently teaches at the University of Washington School of Medicine. They included, with their other data, results of national surveys by the Centers for Disease Conrol and Prevention. This was 2 1/2 % higher than the estimate from the 2002 report from the Institute of Medicine. Also within the last few years, Johns Hopkins Institute gave an estimate of around 100,000 deaths in one year due to the patient not having health insurance.
        Many of these patients cannot buy insurance because of pre-existing conditions. Others cannot afford the premiums. And some just choose not to prioritize insurance enough to pay premiums.
        Gone are the days when a church family can offer sufficient help with medical costs. A woman recently went to the hospital for out-patient tests and received a bill for $8,000. Our church could not help much!
        Families used to help each other, but, again, medical costs have increased drastically. Most of that is because of new knowledge, drugs and medical procedures. Dr. Hayhurst has many ideas for cutting medical costs, starting with making pharmaceutical companies bid to supply drugs for all Americans as they do for the VA and military. Another is to enact the same tort reform nationally as Indiana did a few years ago. Another is to create uniform paperwork for all insurance companies so that office personnel can easily fill out the correct forms for payments. Dr. Hayhurst will be a valuable source of ideas for improving the new health care law.

      • iceironman says:

        To Judeth, I hate to be the mean guy but dumb statements are dumb statements. Not one coroner has ever stated the cause of death as not having insurance. This is an idiodic statement. You cant insure health.

        Based on your ill concevied logic if my insurance is cancelled tomorrow, I could die?

      • Judith Steckly says:

        Yes, Ice, you could die if you cancel your health insurance, and so could a family member. Isn’t that why you buy insurance? Hopefully you will not need the insurance, but if you fall as you are cleaning your evespouts, causing a punctured lung, or if you have a child born with a strangled intestine, either of you could die if you don’t have the ability to pay for medical treatments. ER’s will treat and dismiss, not provide life-sustaining care.

      • iceironman says:

        Judeth again, you are very niave or just being bull headed. You and I both know an illegal alien without insurance could get injured falling from a roof and there is no way treatment will be refused. So the life is saved. So after the life is saved the person really should get insurance or would that require work and effort? That is the point Judeth, you are not being intellectualy honenst. I want you to name names of all the people without insurance who died because they couldnt afford treatment. YOU CANT. Its practicly a myth. I know insurance is cancelled, I know people fight for help but in the end, they get it.

        I guess in Judeth land, the US taxpayer can withstand a 3 trillion deficit increase in 18 months and just act like we can pay for everything. Wake up libs. Its over, the utopian sociaty cannot exist. France is proving this, dont you guys always say “look at France”. France is on fire. We dont have the money to pay for Social Security, We dont have the money to pay for insurance for all, we dont have the money to bail out the post office, our schools are falling apart in both physical structure and quality, medicare caid are broken. When will any lib actualy acknwoledge this ship is sinking. When will you admitt that we are headed for a really bad place.

      • Judith Steckly says:

        Ice, You are the one in a dream world. Could anyone who was recovering from a punctured lung find any insurance company who would let him buy insurance? Or let him have insurance for his baby? Until this September insurance companies routinely disallowed payments for newborns with any type of birth defect–pre-existing condition.

        I personally do not know aynone who died–44,000 of my fellow Americans did. I do have friends who did not receive the medical care they needed because they did not have insurance. One friend with Chrones Disease was unable to keep her medicines properly regulated, and the condition worsened. She could go to an ER, but ER’s do not give free care, as you seem to assume. All ER treatment is billed to the patient. Collection is not possible if the patient does not own property, but why do you think the majority of bankruptcies in our country are due to medical expenses? Other friends did not have tests that would have shed light on treatments for physical problems because they could not afford them. Reaching the age for Medicare was life-saving for some. Yet this is a program the Tea Partiers want eliminated. Our tax rate is not near the top of all nations, but then, neither is our health care rating! As to the cost, Americans lost $17 trillion during the near collapse of our economy! Why would we want to go back to the deregulation that increased drastically over the last 30 years, to the extreme latitude during the G W Bush years.

        The latest poll says that 2/3 of the voters in our Third district are willing to let a Tea Party candidate represent us in Congress! I can’t believe this! We must work as hard as possible to keep that from happening! Getting out the vote is a must, for I do believe the majority living here do not support the Tea Party’s goals.

    • iceironman says:

      Andy must have a good home security system, otherwise everyone knows he will not defend himself in the middle of the night.

      What simplton rebuttle. If someone has killed and raped 50 people, we should have trial after trial, and spend 65000 dollars a year keeping them in prison. I am one of those hippocrites who doesnt mind the death penalty but believes in saving innocent lives. I also believe when the .00001% of abortions that happen on rape or incest should be given the morning after pill if they chose. This interupts the conception process (if done quickley). But pro death folks act like it doesnt exist so they can have their precious abortions.

      I know this wont be sovled here, Im just glad I know Im on the right side on this one in the case of abortion. Who knows on the death penalty. Ill find that out when my time on earth is done.

      • Andy S. says:

        @Iceironman –

        You said:

        “I am one of those hippocrites who doesnt mind the death penalty but believes in saving innocent lives.”

        Great – but you probably should refrain from using the term PRO-LIFE then.

        And regarding the morning after pill in cases of rape/incest – to imply the victim and/or supporters of PRO-Choice DELIBERATELY desire to wait to have an abortion, rather than taking the morning after pill, is absurd.

    • john b. kalb says:

      Andy S. The very existance of heath insurance (aka “third-party-payer”) and the government’s involvement in it has caused this cost to skyrocket (just like government support of the cost of higher education) way beyond the rate of inflation – actually these two item are large contributors to rampant inflation!
      As to your comment about your unbelief in a supreme being, I agree that,in our society, the beliefs of some should not be forced on all – but, I draw the line when all are required, by law, to pay because of your unbelief!

      • Judith Steckly says:

        Guess the government told the insurance companies to pay their executives millions of dollars per year, $26 million in one case. Probably the government wanted to collect more taxes?
        Or did these executives earn this extravagant compensation because they found ways to make profits for their company? After all, our country is the only one in all of the world that allows health insurance companies to be for-profit. So by cutting a person who is costing too much, denying insurance to those with pre-existing conditions, and raising premiums because there is very, very little competition–the executives were able to create enough wealth for the company to enable them to be highly compensated!

        Oh yes, our government refuses to make pharmaceutical companies bid for contracts to provide drugs for American citizens. The companies are selling the same drugs at significantly lower costs to other countries, including Canada. This is a way government could cut health care costs. Congress could also enact tort reform such as Indiana legislated many years ago, cutting costs further. And the health insurance exchanges that are part of the health care reform will allow small businesses and individuals not covered by employers to purchase insurance at the same rates as large corporations now do. And the exchanges will promote competition among the insurance companies because the minimum coverage regulations will be national, not set by each individual state. And small businesses will receive tax credits for the health insurance premiums they pay.

  28. Andy S. says:

    @ John Kalb-

    Please help me digest your earlier comment.

    From the sounds of your position, do you advocate women who are victims of rape/incest follow through with the pregnancy ?

    • john b. kalb says:

      Yes, Andy – It’s not the baby’s fault that he or she was conceived under these circumstances – After all, there are two victims in these cases -and which one pays the most? Remember that the victim-baby is directly related to the victim-mother.

      • Judith Steckly says:

        The living organism is first a zygote, then a fetus. Yes, the mother gives genes, but so does the father. So would YOU be willing to be physically ill for nine months in order to allow a person to develop who carries the agressive behavior and mental illness of a person who raped or committed incest, who in effect tortured the woman and created nightmares that last for months, even years? In no way is the living organism a baby in those first days of development.

      • Dave MacDonald says:

        @ Judith Steckly:

        “In no way is the living organism a baby in those first days of development.”

        From conception it IS a human being. A fetus is smaller than a newborn. Are you saying large people are “more human” than small people? A 1-month-old child is less developed than a 14-year-old. Does that make the 1-month-old less human?

        Are you suggesting that a pre-born baby “becomes” a human being when it is capable of surviving outside of the mother’s womb without artificial support? Some people depend upon insulin and pacemakers and without these supportive measures, these people would not survive. Certainly this does not make them less human than us, or their lives any less worth protecting.

      • Judith Steckly says:

        Mr. MacDonald,
        2/3 of all fertilized eggs do not become attached to the wall of the uterus and are discharged during menstration. Of the third that do attach, many spontaneously abort naturally. Are you saying that all of these groups of cells have a soul that will be waiting for the unsuspecting parents in heaven?

      • Dave MacDonald says:

        “Are you saying that all of these groups of cells have a soul that will be waiting for the unsuspecting parents in heaven?”

        From conception it is not simply “groups of cells” but a human being and therefore has a soul.

  29. john b. kalb says:

    Charlotte and Judith: My comments about Dr. Tom Hayhurst’s last meeting as a city councilperson were in reference to the December 19, 2007 meeting – not the one recorded by Jeff Pruit on September 25, 2007. Yes, our good doctor did twice, in 3 months, scold those who did not agree 100% with him!

    • Judith Steckly says:

      Scold? You cannot have watched the video and still believe that Dr. Hayhurst “scolded” those who did not agree with him! If you could use the term “scold” it would have been directed at the “invective” speakers who showed extreme disrespect for our representative government by name calling, ridiculing the research of the elected council members, and showing extreme lack of preparation for speaking before the Council by giving incorrect facts. But Dr. Hayhurst stressed that Council members listened to all speakers, to thousands of other constituent comments during the research time, and read about and talked to others who sought solutions to similar issues. You must have disagreed with the decision of the Council in this instance. But certainly you must admit the elected officials did the research, listened to many, many constituents, and voted for what they believed was in the best interest of Fort Wayne.

      Also, you can’t say that Dr. Hayhurst used any inappropriate language, or that he “called out” any individuals who disagreed with the Council’s decision. He spoke in a rational, even-toned manner, seeking civility.

      • Judith Steckly says:

        Besides being endorsed by Tea Party leaders and advocating their goals in a speech in Goshen, Marlin Stutaman is one of ten in Indiana who has signed a pledge to try to eliminate any federal programs not specifically given in the Constitution. Many Tea Partiers across the country, especially in the South, have also signed. This is written about extensively on various sites, including http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/16/opinion/oe-rutten16/2

        So Marlin Stutzman has promised to help eliminate Medicare, CDC, FDA, food and products inspections, safety standards, anything related to education–Head Start, elementary school programs, student loans, Pell grants, research grants to universities, National Parks, NASA, Labor Laws insluding those about children, regulations in the financial sector (that almost lead to a Great Depression), nursing home standards, really every aspect of our civilization not related to defense.

        Can the polls be right that a large majority of the Third District would send a Tea Partier to Congress instead of Dr. Hayhurst who is rational, has common sense, knows our district, is involved in many areas to make our community better, who looks at issues through research, communication with his constituents, and discussion with other elected officials? Dr. Hayhurst would never sign such a pledge, but looks at each new issue with objectivity. He would not be swayed by lobbyists or political leaders, but has experience in working together with all concerned to reach decisions. Most of those opposed to this City Council’s decision admit that Dr. Hayhurst listened to everyone who had an opinion and used that information, along with facts he found through research and with other Council members to reach a decision. Marlin Stutzman would not do that. He would be part of the problem–the Party of NO–not interested in working together to govern. Do we really want the likes of Sharron Angle, Paul Rand, and other extremists guiding our country through the next two years? Is sending a person who agrees with them to represent us a reasonable decision?

  30. Andy S. says:

    @John Kalb & Dave McDonald –

    Sorry to have one reply to respond to you both, but my individual responses would be very similar.

    I’ve notice both of you have referenced certain personal religious beliefs/doctrine to denounce abortion.

    In your comments your religious affiliation is also used to:

    1. justify the death penalty
    2. justify (at least some) wars

    The “Church” and “God” are cited in both of your comments.

    You must understand there are those of us, who are NOT of the church, a member of any particular religion, or who believe in the concept of “God” in general. All types of folks present in the U.S (humanists, atheists, agnostics, free-thinkers, non-religious, non-believers, etc.) love this country, contribute to society, pay taxes and are proud to call themselves American citizens. Just because we may disagree on some issues doesn’t mean we are “evil”, “murderers” or any less of an American.

    I believe, and will defend, the right for anyone to peacefully worship (or not worship) any god, deity, tree, rock and/or saint he or she may choose.

    But, I do NOT believe the path to a free, equal & fair society (especially a democracy as we have in the U.S.) should be channeled through any particular religious doctrine.

    As, I’ve stated, a woman’s right to abort a pregnancy is her decision. If a woman chooses to subscribe to a certain religious-based belief which states abortion is a sin, then she MAY not choose an abortion. It’s up to her to decide why or why not. But – she should always have the freedom to choose.

    On a greater scale, what concerns me is a belief by some in our country & around the world, that the laws of society should be in accordance to ONE’s own particular religious belief system.

    This is what a Theocracy is modeled after.

    Saudi Arabia, Iran & Vatican City are some well-known Theocracies.

    Theocracies tend to work well & benefit those who are in power and for those in the population who also subscribe, endorse and enforce the laws of their particular chosen religion. For the unlucky folks who do not belong or subscribe to the state religion – as we know from history – life can be pretty rugged.

    Whether it be the death penalty for homosexuals, stoning of individuals, public executions, cutting off hands for stealing, denying a woman the right to divorce her husband – theocracies tend to have many types of religious-based laws which do not sit well with me and others.

    In many ways, there is this relentless attempt by those with a very strict, fundamentalist view of the world to take mankind back in time. Check out the Taliban’s ‘vision’ for society in Afghanistan to get a more horrific point of view.

    I believe I am not alone when I say: I have absolutely NO desire to live in a theocracy or return to a Dark Ages type of society.

    • Dave MacDonald says:

      Andy S.

      Oh please. Your comparisons of Christianity to the Taliban and Islamic Theocracy are certainly not new, but completely unfounded and tiresome. Might as well call us “racists” and “misogynists” for good measure. Cite 3 examples in the last 2 centuries of Christians calling for “death penalty for homosexuals, stoning of individuals, public executions, cutting off hands for stealing, denying a woman the right to divorce her husband.” Scratch that. Cite 1 if you can.

      Stop the fearmongering and let’s have a rational debate.

      • Andy S. says:

        Dave –

        “…let’s have a rational debate.”

        I agree. But when religious doctrine is quoted/referenced (by you) in this discussion, how am I not to address it?

        I’m going out on a limb here, but I would surmise – a good many religious folk (certainly not all) arrive at their conclusions about abortion through the doctrine of their particular religious affiliation.

        Look at homosexuality – why do a large percentage of folks think homosexuality is bad ? I would guess because some religious-based doctrine/individual/organization told them so.

        Regarding your comment about naming a recent example in which Christians have called for public ‘stonings’, I give you Bill Gothard. He’s an American Christian Reconstructionist who believes in implementing public stonings as a form of capital punishment in America. Needless to say – he don’t like homosexuals, pro-lifers, and heretics too much:

        http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/09/29/alan-graysons-fl-republican-opponent-tied-to-biblical-stoning-movement-aka-christian-reconstructionism/

        “…Gothard’s participation in a radical Christian political movement called Christian Reconstructionism that seeks to impose stoning as a form of capital punishment for crimes including murder, adultery, “heresy,” and “witchcraft.”

  31. Andy S. says:

    Recent story about a woman victiminzed and ultimately punished for being gang-raped, impregnated and attempting to seek out an abortion doctor:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1141267/Saudi-judge-sentences-pregnant-gang-rape-victim-100-lashes-committing-adultery.html#

    Saudi judge sentences pregnant gang-rape victim to 100 lashes for committing adultery

    By Liz Hazelton

    Last updated at 11:01 AM on 11th February 2009

    A Saudi judge has ordered a woman should be jailed for a year and receive 100 lashes after she was gang-raped, it was claimed last night.

    The 23-year-old woman, who became pregnant after her ordeal, was reportedly assaulted after accepting a lift from a man.

    He took her to a house to the east of the city of Jeddah where she was attacked by him and four of his friends throughout the night.

    A judge in the Saudi city of Jeddah, pictured, ruled that the woman was guilty of adultery and should be jailed for a year

    She later discovered she was pregnant and made a desperate attempt to get an abortion at the King Fahd Hospital for Armed Forces.

    According to the Saudi Gazette, she eventually ‘confessed’ to having ‘forced intercourse’ with her attackers and was brought before a judge at the District Court in Jeddah.

    He ruled she had committed adultery – despite not even being married – and handed down a year’s prison sentence, which she will serve in a prison just outside the city.

    She is still pregnant and will be flogged once she has had the child.

    The Saudi Arabian legal system practices a strict form of medieval law. Women have very few rights and are not even allowed to drive.

    They are also banned from going out in public in the company of men other than male relatives.

    • Dave MacDonald says:

      Like you, I am glad we don’t live in Saudi Arabia under Sharia law.

      Not sure why you posted this in particular. Any politician suggesting a similar law here would be ridiculed by both sides.

    • tim zank says:

      What on Earth is the point of your post?

      • Andy S. says:

        @ Tim Zank –

        Seriously ?

        OK – here goes:

        “She (the rape victim) later discovered she was pregnant and made a desperate attempt to get an abortion at the King Fahd Hospital for Armed Forces.”

        “She (the rape victim) is still pregnant and will be flogged once she has had the child.”

        Keeping in mind, there are some who are advocating to ban all abortions here in the U.S., even in the case of rape.

        Thus, rape victims, just as the woman described above in Saudia Arabia, would be denied, by Law, the right to receive a safe, legal abortion.

        I can’t even imagine EXPECTING & FORCING this woman, or ANY other woman who was victimized, into following through with the pregnancy.

      • tim zank says:

        Uhhh…stopping elective abortions in this country would hardly turn us into Saudi Arabia.

    • Andy S. says:

      @Tim Zank –

      So, you’re for OUTLAWING & DENYING a woman who was gang-raped & impregnated from terminating the pregnancy here in the U.S. ?

      I’m assuming you’ve never had a WIFE, MOTHER, SISTER or DAUGHTER who has ever been gang-raped and impregnated before.

      A society that FORCES women into doing such a thing doesn’t sound too much like democracy & “freedom” to me.

  32. In all the comments, I have not seen any mention of the alleged father and his responsibility or potential punishment if abortion were again to be ciminalized. I will give you a solution.

    Let’s say abortion is again criminalized, then here is my solution. Paternity should be established – easy enough in today’s world of DNA. Tissues from the fetus could be tested, paternity established for the aborted fetus (this should be acceptable for those who are arguing that the fetus is a person from conception), and the father could then be arrested and charged with – oh – say aiding and abetting.

    A charge of conspiracy could also apply – especially if the father knew and furthered the act of aborting the fetus. Since it is not the impregnation that is being criminalized, Wharton’s Rule would not apply (Wharton’s Rule states that if a crime requires two people for commission of the crime – such as prostitution – then conspiracy is not an option). The conspiracy charge would be a separate charge in addition to any charges against the mother.

    I will guarantee you that if the alleged fathers were brought into this and made subject to criminal penalties, abortion would again be quickly legalized from its previous illegal status. Think about it – the father is just as responsible in this scenario as the mother – why shouldn’t he be punished as well?

    I imagine some of the commentators will think this is absolutely ridiculous, but I would ask why? The father is just as responsible as the mother, and, if abortion were again criminalized, then let’s get the fathers rounded up to share in the responsibility for this despicable act which many consider murder.

    • Dave MacDonald says:

      Charlotte,

      I agree that fathers should be held accountable if they are complicit. DNA testing for paternity alone wouldn’t suffice though. Current law almost exclusively favors the women’s decision to keep or abort; the father has few rights if any. And how many women would simply choose abortion while neglecting to share news of her pregnancy with the father?

    • john b. kalb says:

      Charlotte – please review my comment on Octber 19 at 11:41 PM where I called out the rapist or the incestious male. In this regard, I agree with you that the father should be cited in a non-forced sexual union if he is involved in the decision to abort (if it is made unlawful again).

  33. Well, this has certainly been a fairly civil discussion – short of a few unpleasant words – and I appreciate the information that has been shared.

    As I have stated on my home page, I appreciate civil discourse. We may not change each other’s minds, but we may also learn some things in the process even if we aren’t swayed.

  34. Dave:

    I realize my solution is not perfect, but I think it could be workable if abortion were ever criminalized again.

    You are right about the current state of the law. It is a woman’s choice, short of a few restrictions, in how to handle an unwanted pregnancy. But in a society where abortion was once again criminalized, that would still hold true. The man would take the risk of sleeping with the woman, she becomes pregnant, she chooses an abortion, and the alleged father is brought to task for his actions.

    In today’s world where abortion is legal, if a man decides to sleep with a woman and she becomes pregnant, he has no control over the decision. He takes that risk. When paternity is established, he will be made to support the baby. He would take the same risk in a society were abortion was criminalized. He takes that risk.

    Instead of the penalty being child support for a certain number of years if the mother opts to keep her baby, his penalty could very well be imprisonment if the mother opts for an abortion.

    And, you are right also that there are many women out there who may not share the news of the pregnancy with the alleged father; however, that is often true now so that factor would probably remain pretty consistent.

  35. john b. kalb says:

    And Charlotte – Thank you for allowing us to “vent” on your blog! The years I have been thankful that I could “use” your blog, and I have never met you – even tho we live 3/4 mile from eacxh other and our family worships weekly in West Central (and we view the 3-Rivers parade in your block of Berry Street every year!
    I’ve got to correct that – and I will, soon.
    Thanks again. John B. Kalb

  36. Jim Stanley says:

    Hi everyone!

    Good conversation and clearly good people on both sides of the discussion — this is heartening.

    I want to interject a few points and revisit an old one (at the risk of becoming a broken record)…

    I think both Andy and Dave are making a fair point about theocracy, though from opposite ends of the debate. Dave is precisely correct to insist we not engage in overly-hyperbolic comparisons between what currently exists in this country and the sort of theocratic extremism extant in parts of the Islamic worlds. (And, for that matter, anti-abortion-rights extremism needn’t be religious at all. Romanian strongman Nicolae Ceauşescu was an avowedly non-religious tyrant who imprisoned and executed abortive women and abortion providers as a matter of routine. He had his own tortured reasons.) Dave would also be right if he (and I would be he holds this view) said the vast majority of abortion rights opponents in the U.S. are peaceful and are harshly critical of the few extremists in their midst who resort to violence and/or vandalism in their crusade to stop abortion.

    At the same time, we shrug off Andy’s warning at our peril. In a prior post (which no one has responded to — ), I opined that there is a fairly influential Christian Reconstructionist (aka “Dominionist”) movement in this country. These folks, as a matter of routine, mingle much too comfortably in religious right circles. Note that not all (or even most) people in the religious right are actually Dominionists. But a great many of them are sympathetic to that movement and more seem to be embracing its violent syntax (if not, thank God, actions). There is no theocracy in this country, Andy. But Andy is right. There is a well-funded movement working to establish one…and far too many conservatives who might not be quite as extreme enabling it, perhaps unwittingly.

    Of course, the overarching point Andy makes that is spot-on is that this is and always has been a secular republic. And so people of all religious persuasions (liberal or conservative) must live with the reality that some of their tax dollars will be spent in ways they consider hateful or ugly. Some laws will be passed that they dislike. And likewise, our non-theistic friends will need to understand that sometimes, they’ll need to swallow hard and accept that some of the laws enacted will be supported by large numbers for religious purposes. It’s part of what it is to live in America. (I digress a bit, but it would be helpful for everyone to know that there is no small number of liberal and non-theistic people who are opposed to abortion rights. Liberal columnist Nat Hentoff is a good example. There is even a small gay rights group that also lobbies against abortion rights. This bloc is not monolithically Roman Catholic, Evangelical Protestant or religious.)

    All that aside, I would still welcome some substantive comment from my anti-abortion-rights friends about criminalization. Once abortion rights are outlawed, what shall be the punishment for a woman who undergoes an abortion…for a doctor or other abortion provider…for an assistant in conducting the procedure (if there is one)…and for anyone else who facilitates the abortion in any way? (And if someone wants to bother to scroll up to my prior entry on this matter where I discuss the dramatic decline in abortion rates during the 1990’s, I would welcome that also.)

    Thanks everyone!

    Jim

  37. Andy S. says:

    @ Jim Stanley –

    Great comment(s). You have such a smooth & courteous writing style, it’s a pleasure to read.

    You make MANY pertinent comments and bring up a good point about the Christian Reconstructionist Movement in America.

    I believe you are right when you stated: “There is a well-funded movement in this country to establish one (a theocracy)…”

    And sometimes, folks who are members of the Religious Right “unwittingly” find themselves in accessory to some of Reconstructionist’s objectives.

    Many of the leaders of the Christian Reconstructionists Movement certainly make no apology for their ultimate goals for life in America as referenced below:

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr3.htm

    http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre1.html

    “Doctrinal leaders ((of Christian Reconstructionism,) notably Rushdoony, North, and Bahnsen) call for the death penalty for a wide range of crimes in addition to such contemporary capital crimes as rape, kidnapping, and murder. Death is also the punishment for apostasy (abandonment of the faith), heresy, blasphemy, witchcraft, astrology, adultery, “sodomy or homosexuality,” incest, striking a parent, incorrigible juvenile delinquency, and, in the case of women, “unchastity before marriage.”

    “According to Gary North, women who have abortions should be publicly executed, “along with those who advised them to abort their children””

    “The Biblically approved methods of execution include burning (at the stake for example), stoning, hanging, and “the sword.” Gary North, the self-described economist of Reconstructionism, prefers stoning because, among other things, stones are cheap, plentiful, and convenient.”

    • Jim Stanley says:

      Andy,

      Some years ago, I read one of North’s articles in which he made the comments about stoning. I found it particularly chilling to read…

      …that stones were plentiful and, therefore, not a burden to the taxpayers (there’s that theme again)

      …that stones allowed for the entire community to easily participate in the execution

      …that such public executions should be attended by chiildren, though children should be discouraged from actually participating until they are “of age”.

      Wacko? You bet. Lone crackpot? Not hardly. People from James Dobson to the late D. James Kennedy to Pat Robertson have drawn from North’s theology and writing. No, they aren’t pure Dominionists…but they are much too sympathetic to this movement.

      If it weren’t for Jesus Christ, I wouldn’t be a Christian for ten seconds.

      • Andy S. says:

        @ Jim –

        “If it weren’t for Jesus Christ, I wouldn’t be a Christian for ten seconds.”

        Amen, brother.

        I ,personally, have absolutely no issues with Jesus. From what I have read, he was an extraordinary man.

        Although I am not religious, I respect & admire the teachings of many different spiritual leaders (Mahavira, Buddha, Gandhi, & Rumi to name a few.)

  38. iceironman says:

    I not being as smart as Judy and using words like zygote, Hey Jude, if NASA found a zygote on the moon would they say they found “LIFE AS WE KNOW IT” Just curious Im not that smart.

    Leave religion out of it, and you still have a country where LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happyness was meant for all.

    My idea, just as the far left hates guns, they make me wait to obtain one, infringing somewhat on a guaranteed right. How about since the right hates abortion, mothers have to wait 11 months to obtain the abortion? Just that simple people, just that simple. Of course we do have a president that voted “present” to deny a born baby to be killed because of a botched abortion. Just put the baby in the closet and let it die. I think everything may be above that mans pay grade.

  39. iceironman says:

    @ Jim
    You said

    “Note that not all (or even most) people in the religious right are actually Dominionists. But a great many of them are sympathetic to that movement and more seem to be embracing its violent syntax (if not, thank God, actions). There is no theocracy in this country, Andy. But Andy is right. There is a well-funded movement working to establish one…and far too many conservatives who might not be quite as extreme enabling it, perhaps unwittingly.”

    Since you are so well spoken and I am a grunt for the right wing, please give reference to your accusation that there is a well funded movement to establish a theocracy. Considering there is something actually written in the constitution about govt staying out of religion, not the other way, how can a theocracy develop.

    Please show me your documentation for the funding of this movement. Please tell little me how I am unwittingly enabling it.

    I think I get what an intellectual is now. It is a person without opinion, puking out little warm and fuzzies to all below him to make them feel adequate in their own opinions. A nod to each side for their points. It is a person who doesnt see in bold colors but in pastels. A person of generalities, maybe not so much fact but enough info to confuse and sidetrack real discussion. Man, Im glad Im not an intellectual. Im just right.

    You guys are worried about reconstructionist getting into the whitehouse, yet the whitehouse is crawling with communist and Im the alarmist? Dont worry about reconstuctionist, communism doesnt allow room for religion.

  40. Jim Stanley says:

    Good morning, Ice!

    I want to apologize if anything I have written came off as arrogant or intolerant. I don’t want to put words into your mouth (or keyboard) but I’m getting a vibe that I offended. If there is anything I can do or perhaps any way I can phrase my opinions (without compromising my convictions) that would be more pleasant and conciliatory, please let me know. I’m not here to be a stir-stick or to hurt anyone’s feelings.

    With that said, I’d like to interact with a few of your comments.

    You said “Since you are so well spoken and I am a grunt for the right wing”.

    First, thank you. As to you being a grunt, I never said that. I always thought a “grunt” was a common soldier in the military. Did you serve in our armed forces, Ice? If so, you have both my sincerest admiration and gratitude. As to being a right winger, while I certainly don’t share your views — so what? I’m glad there are right wingers, conservatives, Republicans, etc. I was one for many years. I shudder — almost literally — at the thought of any one party or movement having complete control. Even my own. Admittedly, I would prefer a brand of conservative like Eisenhower, Nixon (sans corruption), Ford or even Lugar to the Tea Party. But that’s another conversation for another thread.

    You ask, “please give reference to your accusation that there is a well funded movement to establish a theocracy”

    Did I say exactly that? I believe I said the Christian Reconstructionist movement is well funded. References were supplied via hyper link — not by me, but by Andy. You might want to check them out. You might also contact the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is doing yeoman’s work in tracking a variety of dangerous and violent movements, both left and right.

    You inquire, “Considering there is something actually written in the constitution about govt staying out of religion, not the other way, how can a theocracy develop?”

    One of the greatest blessings and defenses we have against theocracy is the Constitution, you’re right. Our system of checks and balances with two legislative chambers, an executive branch and a court system is also a wonderful source of protection. Thanks for reminding us, Ice! I’m not sure I said, though, that I believed there would actually BE a theocracy. I think I said (I could be wrong — so please check me) that there are many people who WANT one. I realize there’s some nuance there, but it’s a clear difference. For example, Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn has said he would like to see laws passed calling for execution of people who perform abortions. South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint has said there should be laws passed banning people who happen to be gay or lesbian from having any contact with children in schools. (He even wrote such legislation when he was in the South Carolina legislature.) Both men believe such laws should exist because their version of Christianity — fundamentalism — informs their politics. Is that theocracy? Not really…not yet anyway. But we do tend to worry about slippery slopes, yes? One layer of protection against theocracy is the legislative branch. And yet we keep electing theocrats like these or like Michelle Bachmann. So no, Ice. I am not afraid I will wake up one morning and find the American flag replace with the Christian flag and soldiers knocking on my door asking to know where I am hiding the Atheists and the homosexuals. But I never said that. I am concerned about the slow slouch in that direction. Whether it ever actually occurs or not is hardly the point. The point is that the impulse exists and it’s an evil one. (And unbiblical, actually.)

    You also ask, “Please show me your documentation for the funding of this movement. Please tell little me how I am unwittingly enabling it.”

    Again, check Andy’s links. If you need more information, I will dig it up for you. I love the Google. LOL! Now, for the rest of your remark, I don’t recall making a comment about you, Ice. If I did, again — I apologize! In terms of the religious right in general, I do think there is no small amount of unwitting mingling going on. (And in more powerful people — leaders of the movement like Jim Dobson and Pat Robertson — it is hardly unwitting.) They don’t actually espouse or endorse the goals of the Christian Reconstructionist movement. But they also don’t speak out against them. Let me offer you a left wing parallel. I am an environmentalist. I am somewhat liberal — though not an extremist — on issues of animal rights. Groups I support, like the Sierra Club and The Evangelical Environmental Network share my views and goals, mostly. There are other environmentalists who actually believe in violence and vandalism as a means of stopping animal testing. I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone more filled with ire or condemnation over this gross disservice to our cause than the folks at Sierra or EEN. Get my point? Jim Dobson and Pat Robertson and that whole group doesn’t need to abandon one whit of their agenda. But they DO need to definitively and repeatedly condemn the Christian Reconstructionist movement. They most definitely do not. Their supporters need to call them on that.

    Ice, you also say, “I think I get what an intellectual is now. It is a person without opinion, puking out little warm and fuzzies to all below him to make them feel adequate in their own opinions.”

    Excuse me? Ice, have I been anything but kind to you? Was this really necessary? I do, of course, have opinions. On almost everything from baseball to church hymnody to foreign trade. You say I am without opinion — and then, in the same sentence — you say I am attempting to make myself feel adequate in my…opinions. I thought I didn’t have any. As to making warm and fuzzy comments, could you be more specific? I try to bear witness to love. Love for one’s enemies, love for one’s friends…is that a “warm fuzzy”? Then guilty, as charged. Like I said at the open, Ice, if I have said something hurtful or cruel please tell me. I want to make it right. If not, then what are you on about?

    You conclude, “You guys are worried about reconstructionist getting into the whitehouse, yet the whitehouse is crawling with communist”

    This canard again? Ice, who in the White House is a Communist? Forget what Democrats say in defense of President Obama, look at what intelligent, erudite Republicans like Colin Powell and, before he died, Bill Safire, said/say. Obama is no more a Communist that Presidents Eisenhower or Nixon. His health care reform? It was identical to Governor Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts health care reform. Is Mitt Romney a Communist? Obama’s call for raising taxes (slightly) on the fabulously rich? He is proposing a slight uptick in taxes on them so that they will pay a rate that is STILL under 50%. Under Republican President and American war hero Dwight Eisenhower, the tax rate on top incomes was 91%. Was Ike a Communist? Obama has proposed some very modest (too modest for my taste) expansions of governnment services. But nothing like the expansion of government under President Nixon, who created the EPA and championed both the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. Was Nixon a Communist? Even President George H.W. Bush expanded government in defense of our disabled and handicapped citizens by fighting for and signing the ADA. Was he a Communist?

    Ice, I hope you understand that everything I have written I am offering in a spirit of friendly debate and I wish you nothing but blessing, health and good fortune. Let’s not make this a pissing contest. Perhaps I can learn some things from you. I hope you feel the same.

    Warmly,

    Jim

    • iceironman says:

      Van Jones is a communist, they got rid of him when the heat came. Valerie Jarret’s father in law was a communist with Frank Davis Obamas mentor from Hiwaii.

    • iceironman says:

      Socialist/communist statements
      BIDEN: “I’m telling you, you know, pre-existing, they’re going to be covered. You know we’re going to control the insurance companies.

      OBAMA on the TROJAN HORSE OF HEALTHCARE “when you hear the naysayers claim that I’m trying to bring about government-run health care, know this: They’re not telling the truth.”
      OBAMA AFL-CFO 2003 “I happen to be a proponent of single payer universal healthcare system”
      OBAMA “If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system,” said then-Senator Obama. “I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody.”

      Anita Dunn Obamas media relations rep “… the third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers Mao Tse Tung and Mother Teresa, not often coupled with each other, but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point which is you’re going to have make choices, you’re going to challenge, you’re going to say why not…. In 1947, when Mao Tse Tung was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over, Chiang Kai-Shek and the nationalist Chinese held the cities, they had the army, they had the air force, they had everything on their side and people said how can you win, how can you do this, how can you do this, how can you do this against all of the odds against you, and Mao Tze Tung said, you fight your war and I’ll fight mine.” (Dunn’s remarks appear in an online video at http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/white-house-vs-fox-chairman-mao/)

      Do you know who Mao is?? He is a Marxist/Communist. Mao’s social-political programs, such as the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, are blamed for costing millions of lives, causing severe famine and damage to the culture, society and economy of China. This is generally accepted in China as well as by the Chinese Communist Party. Mao’s policies and political purges from 1949 to 1975 are widely believed to have caused the deaths of between 50 to 70 million people.[2][3][4] Since Deng Xiaoping assumed power in 1978, many Maoist policies have been abandoned in favour of economic reforms.

      JONES Jones views environmental activism as a means to advance the ultra-left’s Orwellian notion of “justice.” He has referred to himself not only as a “communist,” but as a “rowdy black nationalist.”

      JONES “I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th [1992], and then the verdicts came down on April 29th. By August, I was a communist. (…)
      I met all these young radical people of color – I mean really radical: communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of.’ I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary.”

      Need more Jim, I can keep going. I didnt even include the Joe the plumber (we have to take from you to give to those behind you)

      • Jim Stanley says:

        Hi there Ice! Thanks for the response.

        So you would answer my question, “yes”, then?

        Nixon and Eisenhower and even George H.W. Bush were/are also Communists?

        They also supported government takeovers and programs…and higher tax rates on the fabulously rich than President Obama is advocating.

        Thanks in advance for letting me know and have a great day.
        Jim

  41. Jim Stanley says:

    Good morning, Ice! Hope you had a great weekend!

    I appreciate your willingness to name some specific examples when saying the White House is “full of communists”. You mention Van Jones. Well, Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter certainly say he is a Communist. Unfortunately, if you check their record of truth-telling with Politifact.com or FactCheck.org, you will find that they both have egregious records. I’m not sure either of them has managed to acheive a rating on any claim that went above “barely true”. And most were rated “False” or “Pants on Fire”. So forgive me if I am reticent to accept their judgment on anything. I commend to your consideration this outstanding and judicious tome by David Roberts… http://www.grist.org/article/2009-09-02-cleaning-some-of-the-fox-off-of-van-jones/

    I’ve no information about Valerie Jarret’s father or Frank Davis, whoever that is. Your claim was the the White House was crawling with Communists. Valerie Jarret’s Communist father and Frank Davis (if they even are Communists) aren’t at the White House.

    It would be particularly helpful if you could respond to my argument involving how the domestic agenda(s) of Presidents Eisenhower and Nixon were more “progressive” and “liberal” than what President Obama has forwarded. Point being, it’s pretty hard to objectively regard Barack Obama as a Communist when the policies he has endorsed, the legislation he has signed and the ideas he has advanced aren’t any more aggressive than those of two Republican icons from the last century.

    Thanks, Ice! Have a good day!

    Jim

Comments are closed.