By Dave Andrusko

Editor's note. Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com. They are very much appreciated.

Today I'd like to talk about one of my favorite topics which is also crucial to our struggle to hold the line against the Obama Abortion Agenda: freedom of speech. Several items have come together in the last couple of days that remind us that there are lots of people who really don't consider the ability to disagree all that important. Indeed, in classic Orwellian doublespeak, they boldly insist back-door censorship IS promoting free speech!

By way of background White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said yesterday that President Barack Obama "does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated." As hard as it is to believe, this may mean something positive. Easier to believe is that it could be cover for something far more invidious.

Halted under President Reagan, the so-called Fairness Doctrine--an Orwellian formulation, if ever there was one--obliged broadcasters to provide opposing views on controversial issues. Attempts to reinstate the doctrine are seen as a thinly disguised attempt to stifle talk radio, which is the one major media outlet on which the pro-life perspective is frequently displayed.

Prominent pro-abortion Democrats, such as Senators Harkin, Stabenow, and Durbin have waxed nostalgic about the good old days. And if people weren't nervous enough, The American Spectator reported this week that "aides to Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman, Calif., met last week with staff for the Federal Communications Commission to discuss ways to enact Fairness Doctrine policies," according to Fox News.

"The report said Waxman was also interested in applying those standards to the Internet, which drew ridicule from supporters and opponents of the doctrine." Waxman's office and the FCC denied the report.

But there is more than one way to skin a cat or squelch dissenting voices. That includes changing the composition of the Federal Communications Commission, various and sundry plans to "diversify" station ownership, and/or a full-court press to promote "localism."

To keep their broadcast licenses radio and television stations are already required to serve the interests of their local community--whatever that means. As Jim Boulet, Jr. has observed, "Obama needs only three votes from the five-member FCC to define localism in such a way that no radio station would dare air any syndicated conservative programming."

Tomorrow I'll talk about several examples, one here at home, and others from Canada, which remind us that if we are not vigilant, our right to oppose Obama's Abortion Agenda could be made infinitely more difficult. In Part Two I'll discuss still another case of a patient emerging from a coma just before life support was about to be disconnected.

Part Two -- California Man Awakes Just in Time