The first part of our two-part Wednesday TN&V is itself comprised of two parts. The first is very encouraging. The second is a sober reminder of the willingness of anti-life ideology to cut corners intellectually in order to fit the response into the prescribed pro-death box.

Crank up your PC and go to www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/05/AR2007110502000.html?hpid=topnews. You’ll find an interesting twist even before you read the first paragraph.

The title on the front page of the Washington Post web site is “Teen Launches Pro-Life Club.” In the paper and when you link directly to the story online the title is “Teen Wins Fight for Antiabortion Club at School.”

Stephanie Hoffmeier, of Stafford Virginia, had simply asked that her request be treated fairly. When she requested permission from school officials to start a Pro-Life Club on campus and applied for official recognition, administrators turned her down “on the grounds that it was not tied to the school curriculum,” according to the Post.

(As her attorney pointed out, if a group wants access to the school bulletin board, newspaper, and public announcement system, along with the right to participate in student activities, programs, and club fairs, it has to be officially recognized.)

Hoffmeier was not about to give in so easily. In her suit filed in September in federal court she made an argument that is well-established by now but frequently missed by school authorities—you can’t deny official status to a pro-life club or a religious club, if you extend the same status to other clubs. Stafford had already “recognized such clubs as the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, the Key Club, Young Republicans and Young Democrats,” the Post reported.

Interestingly, the Post quoted the legal director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who pointed out that the federal Equal Access Act forbids schools from denying student-run clubs based on a club's religious or other perspective. "We need to treat students who are private individuals different than we treat government employees," Ayesha N Khan told the Post.

The Post quoted Stafford Superintendent David E. Sawyer, who said, "When we had an opportunity to review what the circumstances were, it was apparent that [school] board policy allowed for this club." He said that he was not aware of the proposal until the suit. "We certainly think student organizations and clubs are important activities for youngsters. It's not an issue that we would just prohibit."

The story concluded with the information that the Pro-Life Club met for the first time a few weeks ago, a mostly question-and-answer session, according to Hoffmeier.

"I'm just the one who took action," Hoffmeier said, noting the turnout of about 20 students. "But there are many others -- many, many others."

Last week we wrote about an awful turn in Great Britain. October was the 40^th anniversary of the Abortion Act of 1967 and far from using the occasion to rein in very “liberal” abortion law, pro-abortionists are trying to use the report of a special House of Commons committee to eliminate what few restraints exist. [www.nrlc.org/News_and_Views/Nov07/nv110107part3.html]

A key evasive technique was to pretend as if there has been no recent research that confirms that the unborn can experience pain prior to the 24^th week of gestation (the nominal cutoff point for abortions, although babies diagnosed with disabilities—loosely defined-- can be killed much, much later in pregnancy).

Professor K. J. S. (“Sunny”) Anand knows as much about the pain experienced by newborns (especially preemies) and the issue of fetal pain perception as anyone. In 1987 Dr. Anand published the landmark article, "Pain and its effects on the human neonate and fetus," in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In a recent letter to the Times of London, Dr. Anand noted that The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (responding to a question on abortion) stated it was “unaware of the work of Dr Anand.”

In fact, he writes, “RCOG received 13 published articles referring to my work on foetal pain; 12 of these were published before the closing date for submissions to the Science and Technology Committee.” Dr. Anand adds, ‘Yet, it refers only to one article that appeared in October after the deadline.”

The remainder of his letter is a brilliant primer on the three primary errors committed by those determined to deny that the unborn can experience pain by 20 weeks. [www. timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article2805424.ece]