JULY 2005
Vol. 32, No.
7
O’Connor’s Retirement Means First Supreme Court Vacancy
in Eleven Years
By Dave Andrusko
Washington
(July 5)—When Associate Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a
24-year veteran of the High Court, unexpectedly announced her
retirement, her impending departure touched off a media frenzy of
speculation. Her announcement came as NRL News was about to go to
press, so NRLC cannot comment on her replacement in this edition. (Be
sure, however, to check www.nrlc.org.)
In
the immediate aftermath, pro-abortion organizations bragged about their
ability to raise money to fight President Bush’s nominee. For example,
NARAL said in a July 2 press release that it has “surpassed its
fundraised [sic] goals in the hours following Justice O’Connor’s
announcement. Pro-choice Americans from all over the country have made
financial contributions, because they understand the importance of a
mainstream nominee who recognizes the impact his or her decisions will
have on the average American.”
As
explained on page five of this edition, President Bush’s nominee “must
survive the minefield of Senate confirmation. Senators Boxer, Leahy,
Schumer, Clinton, Kennedy, and others will stand in the way. In some
ways the coming fight to confirm a true constructionist who respects the
words and real meaning of the Constitution will be every bit as bitter
as the fight to confirm Robert Bork in 1987.”
National Right to Life’s grassroots effort needs your help. Please read
the alert, contribute as much as you can,
and pass the message along to your pro-life family, friends, and
colleagues.
Continue article...
U.S.
House Committee Rejects Amendment to Erect Barrier to Human Cloning in the U.S.
WASHINGTON (June 29,
2005)—An amendment to enact a barrier to human cloning in the United States was
rejected by the powerful Appropriations Committee of the U.S. House of
Representatives on June 16.
The committee rejected,
29–36, an NRLC-backed amendment offered by pro-life Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Fl.)
that would have required any state, university, corporation, or other entity to
refrain from involvement in human cloning in order to remain eligible for funds
from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Weldon offered the
amendment during the committee’s consideration of a $602 billion appropriations
bill for the federal Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), which
includes $28.5 billion in funding for NIH. (The text of the Weldon Amendment
appears in a box on this page.)
Some researchers wish to
use the process of cloning (technically called “somatic cell nuclear transfer”)
to create human embryos and kill them to obtain their stem cells for research or
use them in other forms of research that would kill them. This is sometimes
called “therapeutic cloning.”
In 2001 and 2003, the
full House passed a bill to ban the creation of human embryos by cloning,
sponsored by Weldon and Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mi.), but that legislation has never
been passed by the Senate. If Weldon had succeeded in attaching his amendment to
this DHHS appropriations bill, it could have forced Senate action on the issue.
President Bush supports a ban.
Continue article...
|
|
From the President
 |
|
Wanda Franz, Ph.D. |
DEEPER INTO
THE DARKNESS OF “PRIVACY”
... The above quotes
from editorials upon the release of the report on the autopsy of Terri Schindler
Schiavo and the sample of poll questions surrounding her case should alarm
everyone of us—especially if you are disabled.
The editorial
misrepresentations and baffling distinctions are astounding. Mrs. Schiavo “was
not starved to death, she died of dehydration” is the petulant observation of
the Miami Herald. Does that make killing her morally acceptable?
No, the autopsy
did not show that Mrs. Schiavo was “irreversibly brain dead” as the
Minneapolis Star Tribune falsely claims. Had she been, she would have been
on a ventilator. The autopsy did not show “beyond dispute” that she was
in a “persistent vegetative state”—that is a clinical diagnosis to be made on a
living patient. And physicians disagreed whether she was or not. No one
had “to make difficult end of life choices” because she was not dying. She
“might have lived another 10 years,” the medical examiner said.
But “the only
issue was privacy,” states the editorial headline in the Minneapolis Star
Tribune. Indeed, it is judicially invented “privacy” that allows one to
make the decision to end the life of a disabled relative—as long as that
relative is physically unable to voice an objection. The “private” decision to
end the disabled person’s life still requires that the actual killing take place
outside the privacy of one’s home, with the cooperation of others.
You can’t just quietly suffocate that relative at home—not yet.
Read Dr. Franz's Entire Column
Complete NRL News
2004 Subject Index
Complete NRL News
2001 Subject Index
Complete NRL News
2000 Subject Index
Complete NRL News
1999 Subject Index
Complete NRL News
1998 Subject Index
Complete NRL News
1997 Subject Index
Complete NRL News
1996 Subject Index
Complete NRL News
1995 Subject Index
Complete NRL News
1994 Subject Index
Complete NRL News
1993 Subject Index
Complete NRL News
1992 Subject Index
Complete NRL News
1991 Subject Index
Complete NRL News
1990 Subject Index
NRL News
Archive
2001
January
2001
February 2001
March 2001
April 2001
May 2001
June 2001
July 2001
August 2001
September 2001
October 2001
November 2001
December 2001
2002
January
2002
February 2002
March 2002
April 2002
May 2002
June 2002
July 2002
August 2002
September 2002
October 2002
November 2002
December 2002
2003
January
2003
February 2003
March 2003
April 2003
May 2003
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
2004
January
2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
2005
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
Subscribe
Today to NRL News
|