Some of you may be under the impression that I have been the laziest blogger ever for the past few weeks.  This is patently false.  Surely there must be others who post less than once every three weeks?

Anyway, in between study sessions of memorizing the history and strategies of the pro-life movement forward and backward, I have been looking into ConservaBlogs.com and their irresistible offer to conservative bloggers.  This weekend, I finally made the leap and moved from here to there.

You can now find me and all my blog madness over at Haemet.  Please update your blogrolls and readers!

Just to let everyone know, I did shorten my blog name from “Haemet Yeshachrer Otcha” to “Haemet.”  This decision was partly because some people had a hard time understanding the full title and partly because I was just ready for a little change.

So, come on over to ConservaBlogs.com!  All the cool kids are doing it.

Perhaps I am naive, but until this year I was completely unaware of the clashes between the various leading forces within the pro-life movement.

In my Evangelicals and American Politics class, I learned for the first time about the considerable differences in the immediate post-Roe era between groups like the National Right to Life Committee (dedicated to legislative action) and members of the rescue movement such as Randall Terry and company.  I would still like to do some research on the motives and methodologies of each group before making a complete judgment about who was right or wrong, but I honestly cannot see myself absolutely disagreeing with either side.  Is it really that novel of an idea to think that we need both legislative pressure and social action?  Lobbyists and protesters?  I would be hard-pressed to criticize either of their goals and actions.

Currently, I’m in the midst of an amazing learning opportunity — basically, I’m studying at the feet of some of the most influential pro-life leaders in the country and obviously enjoying every minute of it.   That said, there are a lot of questions that I’ve been asking myself and I’m interested in what a lot of you may think on the issue as well.

One of my assigned readings was a commentary (from Nov. 2003) by Thomas A. Droleskey of the American Life League.  I have always been impressed with the publicity materials produced by ALL.  Their pro-life t-shirts, signs, and various literatures tend to stand out with their boldness and include solid information.  They are a strongly Catholic organization, so some of their articles have not really appealed to me from that angle.

Anyway, I could not find the Droleskey article on the ALL website, but I was able to find it midway down the page here, titled “Affirming the Merchants of Death.”  The gist of this article and much of the other material propagated by ALL is that incrementalism is an inherently anti-life strategy.  Therefore, groups that use such a strategy (read:  National Right to Life Committee) are actually pro-abortion baby killers.  Don’t believe me?  Here is a quote straight from the horse’s mouth:

Here is a simple rule of thumb for pro-life Americans: ignore all of the political and policy judgments of the National Right to Committee. They have affirmed the very principles that have given rise to the culture of death in which we find ourselves at this point in salvation history. All of their pragmatism and incrementalism have failed the cause of saving preborn babies and are failing now the cause of those threatened by euthanasia.

Honestly, this blows my mind.  According to the American Life League, supporting a bill such as the Partial Birth Abortion Act is wrong because it does not make all abortions illegal right now.  Sure, it’s logical to say that ultimately this act probably won’t save many unborn children because women will just get different types of abortion.  Nevertheless, we have established a boundary!  We’ve shown that there is a line that Congress and the Supreme Court will refuse to cross.  No, it’s not perfect, but I recently heard an analogy that makes a lot of sense:  compare the road to making abortion illegal to a large room.  Logically, we simply cannot cross the room in one step.  We’re physically incapable of flying to the other side, so we have to take it step by step.  If each step is successful, we will arrive at the other side of the room.

Is this a satisfying metaphor?  No.  More than anything else in the world I wish we could make all abortions illegal right now.  If there were any sort of plausible way to do that, I would support it 1000000%.  There simply isn’t such a way at this time.  Abortion has become socially acceptable, or at least unmentionable.  The inherent sanctity of life has become a back-burner priority to many politically ambivalent Americans.  This does not mean our goal is unachievable, but it does mean that it may take some time and effort — as horrible as it is to think of the unborn children that will continue to die.

Now, that said, I do believe that some leaders within the pro-life movement take incrementalism much too far.  They argue that it would be best to accept electable candidates who support a rape/incest exception just so that we have mostly pro-life individuals in office.  I simply cannot accept that option.  If we’re not in favor of a rape/incest exception, why would we want to elect people who will only support legislation with such a rule?  That is one criteria which falls into the “all or nothing” category, in my opinion.

Alright, I’ve rambled enough and I have homework/reading to do.  Please, please, please skim that article or think about incrementalism as a pro-life strategy and tell me your thoughts on the issue.  How do you think the pro-life movement would be most effective?  In an ideal situation where we had unlimited funding to spend toward saving the lives of unborn children, what methods would you employ to reach that goal?

A smarter person would post this rant after they have successfully arrived at their final destination… but a smarter person wouldn’t have nearly this much fun.

Long story, short:  My e-ticket said the flight left at 11:20, reality said it left at 11:05.  We arrived 25 minutes before take-off, also known as 5 minutes after the you-can-get-on-the-flight deadline.  Without even letting us say a word, the counter attendant was all like, “You’re 5 minutes too late!  The plane has boarded.  It’s taking off.”  And then she walked off.  About 7 minutes later, the intercom announces that my flight is now pre-boarding.  Obviously, I was the happiest camper on earth!  Or not.  A nicer guy eventually came out (some 15 minutes later) and worked out my new flight schedule for tomorrow, got me a hotel room in town for tonight, and a $100 voucher on top of it all!  No extra fees for me since the wrong e-ticket was all their fault.

Moral of the story:  I hate Northwest Airlines.  Hate.  Hate.  Hate.   But, luckily for them, my schedule is more flexible than that Chinese guy on Ocean’s 11 who fit in ridiculously small spaces.

Well… I better get back to my Mountain Dew, Starburst, and Disney Channel party.  (Honestly, there’s nothing else on!)

Why do I always have issues with flying?

I know I said I wasn’t going to blog this week, but I just saw this article at the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation website and wanted to get a quick post out.

As most of you know, Bobby Schindler came to speak at Cornell in March this year, and it really changed the way I approach euthanasia as a pro-life issue.  I was obviously anti-euthanasia before, but had always prioritized abortion as my issue to fight against.  The Schindler family’s personal story about their struggle to save their daughter/sister’s life really showed me that all threats to life at any stage are equally important.

 June 22, 2007 (North Country Gazette)

 

New studies show a high rate of misdiagnosis and inaccuracy in patients deemed to be in a persistent vegetative state and researchers say that the findings are grounds for “extreme caution” in decisions that might “limit the life chances” of patients, according to a report issued in News-Medical.net.

 

The latest study conducted by Belgium researchers indicates that around a quarter of the patients in an acute vegetative state when they are first admitted to the hospital have a good chance of recovering a significant proportion of their faculties and up to a half will regain some level of consciousness, Belgium researchers have determined.

 

Another study shows that around 40% of the patients were wrongly diagnosed as in a vegetative state when they in fact registered the awareness levels of minimal consciousness. 

According to the study as reported by News-Medical.net, comparing past studies on this issue shows that the level of misdiagnosis has not decreased in the last 15 years.

 

Read More From North Country Gazette . . .

Read Related Story From LifeNews.com . . .

Read Comments From Wesley J. Smith . . .

Just more proof of the deadly misinformation propagated by the mainstream media during the fight for Terri’s life.

Only not.  It’s more like summer break, only still not.

Just to let everyone know, I’m going on a blogging hiatus for the week.  I have a friend coming into town to visit for a few days and then I’m headed out east again.  So, in the next 5-6 days there will be much fun-having, suitcase-packing, and plane-flying.   Unfortunately, that doesn’t leave a lot of room for blog-writing.

Have a sensational first full week of summer!

I’ve just heard that Gov. Freudenthal has chosen Dr. John Barrasso to replace the late Senator Craig Thomas.

I can’t find any news stories yet, but updates will be forthcoming.

UPDATE: (10:02AM)

Here is a copy of the email sent to all WY state workers –

Remember, folks, you heard it here first …

Juliette Rule
Information Officer
Wyoming Department of Family Services
Desk: 307.777.3798
Cell: 631-1544

>>> Cara Eastwood 06/22/2007 9:42 AM >>>
OFFICE OF GOVERNOR DAVE FREUDENTHAL
State Capitol
Cheyenne, WY 82002
Ph. 307.777.7434

June 22, 2007

******FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE******

Contact: Policy Analyst Robert W. Black
Office 307.777.7437
Cell 307.286.6700

GOVERNOR APPOINTS BARRASSO TO THE U.S. SENATE

CHEYENNE, Wyo. – Gov. Dave Freudenthal today appointed John Barrasso to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Sen. Craig Thomas.

I look forward to working with John Barrasso as he assumes his duties as the interim senator for Wyoming, Freudenthal said. I pledge my cooperation to do all that I can to make sure he is a successful senator.

There are many factors that went into this decision, and it was the sum of these factors that led me to this choice, the Governor said. While I dont intend to indulge the speculation on why I made this decision, I will say that I hope I made the right choice.

Barrassos appointment is effective today. The formal Certificate of Appointment will be forwarded to Nancy Erickson, Secretary of the United States Senate.

(H/T wytammic)

UPDATE: (10:04AM)

The Casper Star Tribune has an article up, “Governor Picks Barrasso“

John Barrasso, the well-known surgeon and state senator from Casper, will serve as Wyoming’s next U.S. Senator.

Gov. Dave Freudenthal, who selected from three Republican nominees, made the announcement this morning in a news release.

Barrasso, 54, succeeds Sen. Craig Thomas, who died earlier this month of complications from Leukemia. His term begins immediately.

Freudenthal said he will not “indulge the speculation on why I made this decision,” but that he looks forward to working with Barrasso.

“There are many factors that went into this decision, and it was the sum of these factors that led me to this choice,” the governor said.

From Edward Whelan at the National Review Online,
“The Next Supreme Court Vacancy: There’s plenty of room to confirm another strong justice.”

If a Supreme Court vacancy unexpectedly develops this summer, the conventional wisdom is that President Bush will find it extremely difficult or impossible to get a strong proponent of judicial restraint confirmed by the Senate. Now that Senate Democrats are in the majority, the thinking goes, they can easily defeat any judicial conservative, especially if the nominee is replacing one of the five justices who are consistent (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer) or frequent (Kennedy) votes for liberal judicial activism. Look, after all, at how they’re now able to block the President’s lower-court nominees whenever they want to.

This conventional wisdom is unsound. Briefly put: Under long-established Senate practice, every Supreme Court nominee is afforded an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. A departure from that practice would threaten to impose severe political costs on Senate Democrats. In a competently run confirmation campaign, a strong proponent of judicial restraint will win majority approval in the Senate, with votes to spare.

Now for the extended version…

I highly recommend reading the entire article if you are at all interested in the future of the Supreme Court. Obviously, this is all hypothetical. There is no guarantee that Bush will get the chance to replace another Supreme Court justice, but it is definitely worth considering now rather than being caught off guard in the future.

I do like Whelan’s logic, overall. Unless the Democrats want to commit political suicide for 2008, they will have to send Bush’s nominee before the entire Senate for an up or down vote.

Ironically, success in filibustering a nominee would probably produce the riskiest situation for Democrats, especially if President Bush steadfastly stood by an appealing nominee. Going into the 2008 election year, Democrats would be foolish to highlight the gulf between the parties, and between their presidential candidates, on the proper role of the Supreme Court.

My only problem with this article is that the author began by assuming the Bush administration would not only run a confirmation campaign competently, but also nominate a strong strict constructionist to begin with — a bit of a stretch after the Harriet Meiers debacle. However, his pessimism (a true sign of a Bush-era conservative) shines through in the end:

To be sure, there will be plenty of timid voices counseling President Bush to go wobbly. A number of Republican senators, for example — including some conservatives — will encourage the hopeless illusion of a consensus pick. Confident that they will win an issueless reelection campaign, they would prefer to avoid the controversy of a contentious confirmation fight, even if that controversy will most likely redound to their benefit. Why, they ask themselves, incur even a small downside risk? Some White House advisers may fear that political capital will be diverted from their own favored priorities, and others may believe that the benchmark of a successful nomination is a quick and quiet confirmation, rather than the appointment of a quality justice.

President Bush’s appointments of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito are perhaps his greatest domestic achievements. If another vacancy develops, President Bush can enrich his legacy with another outstanding appointment or jeopardize it by an inferior selection. The choice will be his, and no one should mistakenly believe that the bare Democratic majority in the Senate prevents him from selecting another strong proponent of judicial restraint.

Food for thought, eh?

Check out the article for the rest of Whelan’s extended version.

Just in from the Governor’s Office:

June 20, 2007

******FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE******

******NOTE CORRECTED SPELLING OF BARRASSO

Contact: Press Secretary Cara Eastwood
Office: (307) 777-7437
Cell: (307) 421-0197

GOVERNOR’S LETTER TO U.S. SENATE SEAT NOMINEES

CHEYENNE, Wyo. – Gov. Dave Freudenthal sent the following letter today to the three nominees for Wyoming’s vacant U.S. Senate seat.

The letter was addressed individually to the three candidates: John Barrasso, Cynthia Lummis and Tom Sansonetti.

 

I have been notified of your selection as one of three individuals eligible for appointment to serve as a Wyoming Senator pending a special election in 2008.

The statutory scheme does not require you to participate in a conversation with me prior to my appointment of a Senator within five days. However, I would appreciate the opportunity to meet with each of you prior to making the appointment. Given the partisan marathon you have just completed, I can understand a lack of enthusiasm about one more discussion of your thoughts and plans should you become a Senator for Wyoming. In order to make the conversation more useful, I am attaching a partial list of issues/matters (in no particular order) which relate to your potential role as Senator. I am not sure which of these or other items we will discuss, but these are some of the items we see in our office and in Wyoming. I am available Wednesday afternoon and Thursday afternoon in Cheyenne.

Excuse me, but what?  This just seems like a rather asinine statement to make.  After all, I am sure that Sansonetti, Barrasso, and Lummis are exhausted from the intense 2 week selection process, but to imply that they somehow lack enthusiasm to discuss the issues after that is a stretch, at best.  It seems to me — and I could be completely off-base on this — that Freudenthal is trying to get some sort of dig in toward the Republicans.  Either we’re too partisan, or perhaps, that discussing issues of importance to Wyoming’s Senators is not a high priority to the Republican nominees.  I’m really not sure, just unimpressed with that statement overall.

While not on the list, federal fiscal and monetary policy has always been of interest to me and perhaps we can have an illuminating discussion.

If you wish to meet before I make my selection, please let me know. Please contact Barb Warburton at 777.7435. I would also appreciate receiving a copy of any materials you may have submitted to the central committee members. Given the public interest in this process, I am releasing this correspondence contemporaneous with its transmittal to you.

Best regards,
Dave Freudenthal
Governor

Now, here is where it gets good:

Potential Issues/Matters of Interest

Federal funding support for various state, local and private projects
FERC: pipelines, transmission lines, energy corridors
Clean coal and alternative energy
Carbon management/climate change
EPA – air quality
Federal research dollars
Interstate highway system funding
Role of federal government: 2nd Amendment, 10th Amendment
APHIS – brucellosis
Wolves, Sage Grouse, Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse, Grizzly, ESA, etc.
Federal disaster designation
Health care – electronic medical records, costs, federal responsibility
Medicaid/Medicare, rural hospitals
Law enforcement
National Guard
Patriot Act
Wyoming Range
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Real ID
Responsibility for immigration policy
Special places in Wyoming
Federal lands – Forest Service, BLM, Park Service
Constituent services
Farm bill/agriculture policy/federal grazing policy
Free trade
Alcohol and substance abuse
National parks
Ability to work on a bi-partisan basis
Unfunded mandates on state/locals
FMR’s – revenue stream
Senate confirmation power
Gasoline prices
Balanced growth – federal government as landlord
Education – NCLB, role of federal government
Water – federal role through Bureau of Reclamation and participation in water projects
Wind River Indian Reservation – federal trust responsibility
Firefighting
Federal objections to state water projects
Air traffic/support for airport construction
Worker Visas
Federal lease buyback

Blah, blah, blah.  Quite the all-encompassing list.  Oh, except for a few other issues that Americans (and Wyomingites) tend to care about… namely, abortion, same sex marriage, the War on Terror, etc.

I’m glad that Freudenthal is concerned about the gasoline prices, but shouldn’t he be asking his fellow DemonRats about that one?  After all, they’re in power now and gas prices have been rising even more.  As for Senate confirmation power and the ability to work on a bi-partisan basis… I think that the Republican nominees ought to promise to do the exact same thing the Democrats did when they were the Senate minority — obstruction of the Constitution, etc.  It’s only fair, right?

I really get the feeling these interviews are just for show.  He knows who he is going to pick.  He’s only biding his time and trying to put on a happy face before revealing it to the people.

1.  It was long.  Very long.

2.  It was repetitive.  Very repetitive.

3.  It was interesting and exciting.  Despite the length and the unfortunate repetitiveness of a lot of the questions, it really was an amazing process and an incredible event to be able to observe.

I am very pleased with the list that we are submitting to the Governor tomorrow morning.  Tom Sansonetti and John Barrasso are amazing and you couldn’t ask for two better Republicans.  Cynthia Lummis is very nice, but too nice.  So nice it was a little annoying after a while.  I know more than one person felt the same way… I wish we could have just told her to stop smiling and act serious for once!  I also wasn’t impressed with too many of her answers.  That said, I hear that she really doesn’t have much of a chance for Freudenthal to pick her.  Apparently he’s not her biggest fan.  That leaves Sansonetti and Barrasso for him to choose between, either of which will be a great Senator for Wyoming and a very strong contender in 2008.   I really wish Micheli would have been the third candidate instead of Lummis, but I’m satisfied with the results overall.

Here are some notable quotes from the three candidates (with my comments non-italicized):

Barrasso:

• “You can count on me to show up, stand up, speak up, and shut up.”  I love that summary of what a Senator should do.  Show up is pretty basic.  Stand up for the people of Wyoming and speak up for issues that matter most.  And finally, just shut up and act.
• “This is my philosophy for government:  helping people help themselves.”
• I didn’t get the exact transcript, but I really liked Barrasso’s answer during the questioning session about his passions.  He mentioned all of his hard work on the Laci Peterson Act – introducing it a total of three times and finally having it pass the state House and Senate before being vetoed by our DemonRatic Governor.
• “Bring ‘em on.  I’m ready for any one of ‘em.  I don’t know who they’re going to nominate and I don’t care.”  In response to a rather weird question about who he thinks the Democrats will nominate against us next year.  Easily the best statement of the day.

Sansonetti:

• I have to admit that I don’t really have a lot of pithy, memorable quotes from Sansonetti.  That is not to say, however, that he did not make an incredibly strong showing and say a lot of good things.  I just happened not to write any of them down.   I liked how he emphasized both his fiscal conservatism and his social conservatism.  Also mentioned being a strict constructionist and pro-10th amendment, etc.
• Concerning compromise (when to do it and when not to) -”Frankly, each and every one of us up here have a very good conservative traditional philosophy… You gotta start with a line and know that you will not go beyond it.”
• Discussing the issue that he’s been passionate about and shown leadership, he brought up his efforts to move our presidential primary up to January - “The problem came from the fact that even though we are one of the most conservative states, we have seldom had the chance to select our president.  And I felt that it was time for Wyoming to be put on an equal playing field as New Hampshire…”
• On how to stay connected with Wyomingites when you have so much to do in Washington - “Plug into staff, plug into the state’s media, and make sure you’re on committees that meet a lot [about issues that are important to WY].”

Lummis:

•  My paraphrase of a point she made repeatedly:  “Let the states due their thing so that the federal government is freed up to do their thing.”
• Mentioned Teddy Roosevelt and John Adams as dead role models and her husband and daughter as living ones.  Interesting?
• Oh, I have to be honest.  I really found it hard to listen to anything she said because she was so darn smiley.  And honestly, some of her answers just made me uncomfortable.

And that’s my two cents, for whatever it’s worth.  I met a ton of interesting (and influential!) people today and had a great time overall… near death experience with boredom notwithstanding.  As far as I can tell (and based upon the information I’ve received from numerous knowledgeable Republicans), we are going to have a solidly conservative, pro-life Senator within the next week.  I’m excited, like any good government nerd should be.

It’s finally time. We’ve been here since 8AM (earlier in the case of many committee-people and candidates) and it is going on 5:30PM.

There have been some really stellar candidates today and others who are not so stellar.

Alright, it looks like Fred Parady is preparing to make an announcement.

And here we go. The list of candidates that the WYGOP will submit to the Governor is…

1. Sansonetti
2. Barrasso
3. Lummis