Two Good Pieces of News and an Eloquent Papal Denunciation of Abortion and Euthanasia  -- Part One of Two

Today's edition of TN&V has two parts--and Part One will have three components. My goal is to touch on a number of topics that I know you will want to read about in depth, which is why I will include links.

Back in December we wrote about an important, if interim, victory.

A three-judge D.C. District Court upheld a challenge by Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) to a portion of the infamous McCain-Feingold campaign finance "reform" law. The gist of the decision, written by U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, joined in his opinion by U.S. Court of Appeals Judge David B. Sentelle, was that the McCain-Feingold's ban on corporate electioneering communications is unconstitutional as applied to grassroots lobbying ads created by WRTL.

Understand that one provision of the law, passed in 2002, said that in the 60 days prior to a November general election or 30 days prior to a primary, money from corporations, unions, and citizen advocacy groups such as WRTL can not be used to sponsor radio and TV ads that mention a candidate for federal office. But what WRTL had produced was what the panel ultimately concluded was "a textbook example of genuine issue ads," which (as the Los Angeles Times described it) "refer to a lawmaker's pending business in the capital." Such ads may be corporate-funded--in this instance, by the non-profit WRTL--the district court held. (See www.nrlc.org/News_and_Views/December06/nv122706part1.html)

It was anticipated that the Supreme Court would hear the case. We now know when: April 25.

James Bopp, Jr., lead counsel for WRTL, said, "While this case involves grassroots lobbying ads that Wisconsin Right to Life was deprived of running in 2004, it provides an opportunity for the Supreme Court to state a test under which such ads can safely be run in the future." Mr. Bopp added, "This will provide a safe haven for the First Amendment right of citizen groups to participate in self-government by asking other citizens to petition their congressional representatives about upcoming legislative action even near elections."

Professor Michael New has added a new chapter to his growing work on the impact of pro-life legislation at the state level, specifically how it reduces the incidence of abortion among minors. His latest contribution appears on the web page of the Heritage Foundation. (See www.heritage.org/Research/Family/cda07-01.cfm)

His research in this instance uses what statisticians call a regression analysis which allows him to pinpoint the impact. Prof. New's conclusion is "[T]hat certain types of pro-life legislation are correlated with reductions in the incidence of abortion among minors."

Third, and finally, last Sunday, in his weekly address, Pope Benedict provided still another eloquent denunciation of abortion and euthanasia on the occasion of "Pro-Life Day" in Italy.  (You can read the Pontiff's remarks by going to http://www.zenit.org/english/ and then clicking "On Pro-life Day in Italy.")

"Life, which is the work of God, must not be denied to any one, not even the smallest and defenseless newborn, and much less so when he has serious handicaps," Pope Benedict said. "At the same time, echoing the pastors of the Church in Italy, I urge you not to fall into the deception of thinking that one can dispose of life to the point of legitimizing its interruption with euthanasia, masking it perhaps with a veil of human mercy." His remarks came a few days after a medical panel cleared an Italian doctor of any wrongdoing for having disconnected the life support of a paralyzed man at the man's request.

If you have any questions or comments, please write Dave Andrusko at daveandrusko@hotmail.com.

Part Two