 |
          
  |
|
|
|
 Yesterday, Steven Agee
was appointed to the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
President Bush issued a statement expressing his gratefulness for Agee’s
confirmation, but also firmly rebuking the Senate for its unprecedented
judicial obstruction. Here is an excerpt
from a White House press release:
Unfortunately, many of my other judicial
nominees have not received a timely confirmation process and their nominations
have been pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee for significantly
longer.
Since the beginning of the 110th Congress,
the Senate has only confirmed eight Circuit Court nominees. In the last two years of the past three
Administrations, the Senate has confirmed an average of 17 Circuit Court
judges. I encourage the Senate to
provide all judicial nominees with a swift and fair confirmation process.
The
confirmation of Steven Agee brings the total number of Circuit Court judges
appointed in the last two years of President Bush’s term to 8 which, as our appellate court judges
chart demonstrates (below), is far below the 15 President Clinton had
confirmed by a Senate controlled by an opposing party.
Click here to see a
larger image.
 Yesterday Senator Hillary Clinton
won the Democrat Primary in Kentuky by a wide margin, while Senator Barack
Obama won the contest in Oregon. Despite
trailing in the delegate count, Sen.
Clinton promises to continue campaigning, at least until June. Senator John McCain, as expected, handily won
both states’ Republican primaries.
ABC
News has the full results for Kentucky
and Oregon.
Make
sure you know where the remaining major presidential candidates stand on
important issues with AdvanceUSA’s 2008
Candidate Comparisons.
The
Baltimore Sun reports. It is a shame
that such a common sense ruling should be so surprising. In the interests of parental rights and
traditional marriage, let’s hope that the precedent set by the Maryland Supreme
Court will be followed by courts across the country (especially
in Virginia).
Daniel Herbster reporting
 Dr. David Prentice is one of the foremost experts on bioethics in the country. He has valuable science experience from his days as researcher and teacher, and he now works for groups like the Family Research Council and Do No Harm speaking out on some of the most important (though sometimes confusing) ethical issues facing our society today. I’ve had the opportunity to meet Dr. Prentice a number of times and have heard him speak often so it is a distinct pleasure to interview him today and share with you his scientific expertise.
DH: First off, tell our readers a little about yourself. What did you do before you came to FRC? What are your responsibilities at FRC and Do No Harm?
DP: Before FRC, I spent almost 20 years as Professor of Life Sciences at Indiana State University, at the same time as Adjunct Professor of Medical & Molecular Genetics for Indiana University School of Medicine.
During those years I taught and did lab research, and also spent a few years in administration.
My job description now is somewhat similar: I lecture, give briefings, and testify about science, especially the scientific facts regarding stem cells, cloning, and other biotechnologies.
DH: You often hear people say that we should “leave science to the scientists,” that we who have ethical concerns with particular research techniques have no right to an opinion if we are not scientists ourselves. Is this true? Do we as a society have a stake in deciding what research should or should not be allowed? Why is this notion so dangerous?
 DP: Some scientists might like that, but the fact is that society sets the agenda, both in terms of what's allowed as well as what resources are provided to science. Everyone has a stake in this discussion, because everyone is affected. Leaving these decisions just to one group means we abdicate our responsibility to help form a strong society.
DH: Dr. Prentice, what are stem cells?
DP: A stem cell has 2 main characteristics: (1) It continues to grow and divide, making copies of itself, and (2) given the correct signal, a stem cell can form many different specialized cells of the body.
DH: What are the two general types of stem cells, and are there any ethical differences between them?
 Unfortunately our pro-life compatriots in Great Britain were unsuccessful in passing a ban on the creation of human-animal hybrid embryos for unethical stem cell research in Parliament (for more details check this BBC report). However, it looks as though a move to lower the abortion limit from 24 weeks to 22 or 20 weeks might prove successful. It in encouraging to know that pro-lifers are fighting the good fight elsewhere in the world, but the fact that Britain will likely allow the creation of hybrid cloning is a sobering warning that such research could be coming to American shores in the near future (unless legislation like H.R. 5910 and S. 2358 is passed).
The fact that Great Britain even has a gestation limit on abortion illustrates the surprising fact that the United States is among the nations with the most unrestrictive abortion laws in the world. Many Americans are unaware that the Supreme Court decisions of Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton basically mandate that abortion for whatever reason is permissible at almost any stage of prenatal development.
See also: pro-life page, stem cell page
Photo source: roots-travel.co.uk
 As only he can, Dinesh D’Souza aims his intellect and gift for expression at the issue of same-sex marriage arguing that its institution by activist judges is a threat to democracy itself. He also helpfully explains why defending the preservation of the traditional definition of marriage does not threaten the Constitutional rights of homosexuals. Excerpt:
We already know what California citizens think about gay marriage: they oppose it. A referendum outlawing gay marriage was passed with the support of the state's voters. More than 60 percent of voters cast their ballots against gay marriage.
How, then, can a court invalidate the referendum and over-rule the will of the people? Basically through a kind of legal fraud. The court has to pretend that there is a right to gay marriage even though it is nowhere evident in the state constitution. Read the constitution, hold it up to the light, squeeze lemon juice on it--you won't see a right to gay marriage in there. It is simply not an enumerated right, nor is it a right that can be clearly derived from other enumerated rights.
In issuing its ruling the California court appealed to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The basic logic is that gays have a right to be treated like everyone else. But just like everyone else, gays do have the right to marry. They have the right to marry adult members of the opposite sex! What gay activists want is something else: the right to marry members of the same sex. This is not a right currently enjoyed by anyone. What these gay activists seek is not equal treatment but rather to change the definition of marriage.
The
AP explains which states have marriage protection amendments, which have
instituted gay marriage or civil unions, and which states could vote on
marriage in November.
To
see a breakdown of this information continue reading:
LifeNews reports. Excerpts:
Wesley Smith, an attorney and bioethics
watchdog, responded to the news.
"Geron Corporation has released a
series of press releases over several years stating that 'next year' it would
start the first human trials using ES cells. Apparently, that won't be
happening yet," he said.
"Tumors are an important worry, as is
efficacy. Meanwhile, those adult stem cell advances keep rolling in," he
added.
…
[Senator] Brownback said human trials
involving embryonic stem cell research are unnecessary given the enormous
success scientists have had with adult stem cells.
“What makes this even more troubling is
that there is a viable ethical alternative with adult stem cells," he
said.
"They are currently being used in the
treatment of well over 70 different diseases and conditions, including spinal
cord injury, type-I diabetes, heart failure, and Parkinson’s disease as
validated by peer-reviewed, published results."
 In a blatant display of judicial activism, four out of seven members of the California Supreme Court have ruled that the state must recognize same-sex marriages. In overturning the clear will of the people, California becomes the second state (after Massachusetts) to legalize same-sex marriage by judicial fiat.
This judicial outrage demonstrates the need for a state constitutional amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage. Protectmarriage.com recently submitted thousands of signatures in an effort to place a marriage amendment on California’s 2008 ballot. Check Protectmarriage.com to find out more about protecting marriage in California.
This ruling also shows the need to protect one-man, one-woman marriage on the national level with a Federal Marriage Protection Amendment so that unelected judges in one state cannot impose same-sex marriage on the rest of the country.
For more information on protecting marriage click here.
In
her piece at Townhall.com Sandy Froman reminds us of the important
of Supreme Court nominees in the upcoming presidential election. This is something we can’t be reminded of
enough. Excerpt:
The political “hot button” issues of guns
and judges have become intertwined in this election year. The fate of both
issues will be decided by the candidate we elect as president. Why? Because
over a four-year term, that president will likely appoint at least two and
possibly three justices to the United States Supreme Court. Simply stated, this
year when we elect a president, we will also cast our ballot for the next
Supreme Court.
So
said the late Julian Simon (referring to population concerns and not to using
human life as a mere commodity). Steven
Mosher has written a new book which explodes the “overpopulation” myth which
has been used as justification for forced abortion, eugenics, and other
horrors. LifeNews reports. Excerpt:
The numbers show that the world is not, has
never been, nor ever shall be, overpopulated. In fact, according to the world's
experts -- even the ones advocating population control -- birthrates around the
world are dropping at a precipitous rate.
The book thus torpedoes the lifeboat
scenario, which argued that in order to survive, we had to throw some of the
earth's passengers overboard.
But it is much more than this. The history
of the population control movement is replete with human rights abuses. Those
who were made to walk the plank of abortion, sterilization, and contraception
-- all for the supposed good of humanity -- have some horrific tales to tell.
Vowing to continue her race for the presidency, Sen. Hillary Clinton won the West Virginia Democrat primary Tuesday by a wide margin. It doesn’t appear that the end of the Democrat Primary is yet in sight. Reuters reports.
Full results here.
Compare the remaining three major candidates on 12 important issues with AdvanceUSA’s 2008 Candidate Comparisons for the general election.
As of yesterday, Judge Robert J. Conrad has waited 300 days to be confirmed by the Senate to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Conrad has the support of both North Carolina senators and has been unanimously rated “well qualified” by the American Bar Association (that organization’s highest rating). Despite his stated desire to respect the wishes of home-state senators and despite the dangerous judicial emergency on the fourth circuit due to judicial vacancies, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, appears unwilling to give Judge Conrad a swift hearing.
The
Alliance Defense Fund reports. Excerpt:
A Missouri judge ruled Friday that a state
law that enforces health and safety standards for surgical abortion clinics
also regulates clinics that dispense the abortion-inducing drug RU-486.
KMOX
also reports.
Daniel Herbster reporting
 Exodus International is the largest network of former homosexuals in the world and assists local ministries around the world in helping people overcome same-sex attraction and the homosexual lifestyle through a relationship with Christ. They also use their unique expertise to speak out on important cultural and societal issues. I’ve had the opportunity to work with members of Exodus on a number of occasions so it’s great to be able to interview my friend Randy Thomas who is Vice President of Exodus. The following is my interview with Randy.
DH: Randy, how long has Exodus been in existence and how did it get started?
RT: In 1976, sixty-two ministry leaders met in California to talk about their efforts to help those dealing with unwanted same-sex attraction and how they, as independent ministries, could network to help one another in this effort. The vision and name for Exodus was born out of obvious parallels that could be drawn from the Children of Israel leaving Egypt and entering the Promise Land. These visionaries had the accurate view that being “gay” should not be the only option for those with same sex attractions. They knew that our “Promise Land” was the knowledge of and relationship with Jesus Christ. They knew that there was so much more to life than what a gay ideology was offering and so they developed the network we now know as Exodus. Thirty-three years later our network has over 200 member agencies across North America who reach thousands of people seeking help. We are also affiliated with other ministries around the world who offer this perspective on homosexuality to a world hungering for positive alternatives.
Sixty-two people cast a vision that has now helped millions of people and educated millions more about biblical sexuality.
DH: One of the tenants of our modern, politically correct culture holds that sexual orientation is inherent and unchangeable but “gender identity” is unfixed and can change. Do you think this is true, and how does Exodus’s unique perspective relate to this issue?
RT: Recently I wrote on my personal blog a post called “The Transgender Double Standard.” In it I shared, ‘It’s always astounded me how willing some in the gay activist community are to celebrate someone surgically altering their body to “become” who they perceive to be internally. Yet when I determine I want to reorient my sexual orientation, which does not require drastic surgery or body altering drugs, according to those same activists, I am the one doing damage to myself and others by simply holding to a particular worldview that brings me contentment and sexual reorientation. The transgendered are applauded for radically altering their bodies while I am scolded for holding the belief that I would be happier living out who I truly am regardless of my past life as a gay identified man. It¹s ok for someone to ignore what they were obviously born as, but for people like me - we are told being “gay” is genetic and should be embraced because we have no other option.’
This is a terrible conundrum for militant gay activism because their own moral relativism is being exposed. We were all created with free will. We all have the ability to define right and wrong for ourselves. The issue with moral relativism is that eventually it will prove out to be hypocritical because it is self based moral judgments instead of God¹s creative intent which is unchanging. Sixteen years ago I decided that maybe God’s intent for my sexuality and identity just might be beyond my own seemingly logical conclusions. I started to question everything in life and attempting to live out my identity and sexuality in accordance with my faith. My identity has completely changed in that I am not a “gay” man anymore. I am a Christian. I will hopefully be known as a man of God. My sexual orientation has shifted a great deal as a byproduct of my pursuing purity and holiness.
Notice I said shifted. I am not above temptation and if temptation happens, I know why and what to do about it. Regardless, homosexuality does not have the power to determine who I am or how I steward my sexuality.
DH: Would you mind telling us about your background and how you came to work at Exodus?
 Proponents of unethical embryonic stem cell research often argue that unused embryos that were created through in vitro fertilization should be destroyed for research purposes because they will only be discarded anyway. The fact that embryos are being adopted (many known as “snowflake” children) by parents unable to have children of their own shows that this argument is incorrect.
CitizenLink recently interviewed the first snowflake family. Click here to read this informative and heart-warming interview.
Tony
Perkins, President of the Family Research Council, speaks out the important
issue of judicial nominations, asking the crucial question:
Will social policy in the USA continue to
be made by panels of unelected judges with lifetime tenure, or will we have a
judiciary governed by self-restraint and fidelity to the rule of law?
He
goes on to quote Alexander Hamilton, one of our greatest but most
underappreciated founding fathers, in the Federalist Papers where he explains
the proper role of the federal judiciary when he says it has “neither force nor
will, but merely judgment.”
We
thank Mr. Perkins for his helpful piece and hope it motivates the Senate to act
on President Bush’s waiting judicial nominees.
The New York Times reports that a deal could be in the works between the White House and Senate Democrats on the stalemate over appellate judges. It is unclear whether this deal would be beneficial over all. AdvanceUSA will be watching this important issue closely.
Peter Keisler, Steve Matthews, and Robert Conrad are excellent nominees who have been waiting far too long for up-or-down votes in the U.S. Senate. The Senate needs to do its constitutional duty and consider these nominees before the Memorial Day recess.
|
|
|
| |