[This open letter to Senator-elect Joe Donnelly originally appeared in part in the Kokomo Perspective on December 9, 2012 and in full in the Kokomo Herald on December 10, 2012.]
Dear Editor,
Hobby Lobby is facing large fines by the Federal Government beginning in January because they refuse to provide coverage for abortifacients to its 13,500 employees. We appeal to Senator-elect Joe Donnelly to make good on his commitment as a pro-life Democrat. We hope that Senator elect Joe Donnelly was unaware of the consequences of his support for the law he voted for called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and that he will now push for protection for the consciences of fellow Hoosiers. We know it may be difficult to stand alone if necessary, but we pray that Mr. Donnelly will be emboldened to do so.
The current smokescreen – that Federal tax dollars will not pay for abortion drugs – is just that, a smokescreen. The government requiring businesses to pay for abortion drugs is certainly no better. Such political ploys may divert criticism, but they suggest a deceptive and dishonest manner of governing. We urge Mr. Donnelly to use the weight of his influence to protect those humans conceived but not yet born. Our religious convictions AND our scientific understanding of the human body are why we do not consider these drugs to be conducive to healthy living.
One of our former Presidents wrote, “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical” and “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”
Hopeful and sincere,
David, Ann and Hannah Ihms
Pastor Steve and Evelyn Sherwood
Pastor Jeff, Tammy and Jayme Hierholzer
Rob and Robin Brookshire
Leelia Cornell
Ed and Nilda Penaflor
Pastor Bill Martin
Troy and Brenda Pullen
Cindy Benedum
Jacob and Betty Deurloo
Clovis Smith
Michael G. Kranner
Joe and Andrea Russeau
Mickey Jackson
Mr. and Mrs. Peter Heck
Faith Rose-Scales
Don and Linda Burris
Jeff Schwartz
Gail Ambrose
Geri and Jesse Brewster
Pastor Ed and Marylu Vasicek
Terry and Sharon Watson
Mark Lantz
Karen and Loren Hylton
Barney and Mariann Shayne
Larry and Felicia King
“These abortion-causing drugs go against our faith, and our family is now being forced to choose between following the laws of the land that we love or maintaining the religious beliefs that have made our business successful,” David Green, Hobby Lobby’s founder and CEO, said in September. “…We simply cannot abandon our religious beliefs to comply with this mandate.”
The following article was originally published by Illinois Review.
With his uptilted chin and elitist policies, President Obama has proved how little he understands the average American or cares to represent him. Case in point: his abortion policies.
Mr. Obama’s voting record as a state and U.S. senator proved his support for pre- and postnatal infanticide, an intentness he sometimes toned down on the campaign trail:
Rick Warren: “[A]t what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?”
Barack Obama: “Well, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.”
“I’ve got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
The social media prowess of President Obama’s campaign helped propel him into office in 2008, but it certainly did not help him understand the views of average Democrats, let alone average Americans. This May, Gallup reportedthat a majority of Americans (50%) self-identify as prolife, while only 41% self-identify as prochoice. This prolife majority is comprised not only of Republicans, but also of Democrats and Independents. Members of all three political affiliations increasingly see themselves as prolife.
Even though a majority of Americans disagree with him on abortion, President Obama shows no sign of damping his relentless abortion agenda. Instead, he lobbied for Obamacare. Before Obamacare, many Americans (myself included) had grown used to what seemed to be the abortion status quo. Roe v. Wade survived, but state and national prolife laws provided checks on particularly egregious abortion techniques and practices. It was tempting to think that abortion could be contained and eradicated slowly. That in the meantime the Hyde Amendment would prevent taxpayers from being forced to subsidize abortions. We tried not to think about the financial support we already were forced to give Planned Parenthood, and the lives claimed as the slow-motion strategy played out.
Obamacare changed all that. President Obama has destroyed the all-powerful illusion of the abortion status quo, and we begin to see there’s no emergency brake on evil. New methods of assaulting consciences are continually being revealed. “Abortion-free” health insurance is becoming an endangered species. And Obamacare is increasing the country’s prolife/proabortion divide as nothing else could.
As John-Paul Deddens, the founder and executive director of Students for Life of Illinois puts it, “Obamacare gives unprecedented power to the executive branch to use insurance requirements to buy votes. The abortion lobby has already gotten its pay-off through the contraception mandate and the abortion surcharge instituted by the HHS. These mandates will not only constitute political favoritism but also the largest expansion of abortion since Roe forcing everyone to pay for the contraception, sterilizations and abortions of others.”
As disturbing as the implications are for the prolife community, it’s even more frightening for the unborn of America. “Safe, legal, and rare” is becoming “Just as unsafe, legal, and subsidized.” Indeed, the 2008 Democratic Party’s platform, which was patterned from Obama’s campaign, dropped the word “rare” in reference to abortion entirely.
Even in Illinois, there is hope amid the heartache. This is where President Obama came of political age, and where he first voiced his support of postnatal infanticide. But it’s also where Jill Stanekbegan her political and ethical career. As a nurse in Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Mrs. Stanek saw multiple children who survived abortions but were abandoned in a soiled utility room to die. Her testimony to Congress on behalf of the unborn has been strategic in bills such as the Born Alive Infant Protections Act, and she now maintains a prolife blog that earned her the title “Worst Person in the World!” from Keith Olbermann.
Mrs. Stanek is not alone. Prolifers from across the state participate in events such as 40 Days for Life and Life Chain to pray for the end of abortion. This year, five Illinois cities participated in the spring 40 Days for Life campaign, and there are already 96 confirmed locations for Life Chain in Illinois. Meanwhile, prolife organizations such as the Illinois Family Institute are keeping Illinoisans abreast of prolife bills, news, and perspectives.
Young people in Illinois are finding ways to voice their prolife convictions. Live Action’s investigations in Illinois have complemented the work of prolife elected officials in the statehouse. Thousands of students gather in Washington, D.C. on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade for March for Life, and Illinois students are among them. (Here is a video from the 2012 March).
And four years ago, Illinoisans Mike Schaefer and Jimmy Becker combined their love for biking with their concern for unborn children, and Biking for Babies was born. This year, over the course of nine days, ten bikers rode the 1100 miles from New Orleans to Chicago, to encourage others to become involved in the prolife movement. They also raised $31,000 for eight Midwest prolife organizations, including the Living Alternatives Pregnancy Resource Center in Champaign, the Life Network in Waterloo, and Students for Life of Illinois in Champaign.
On the last day of the ride, Mike Schaefer blogged,
“I can simply say that it was a real blessing to bike with and be supported by such wonderful friends. It really isn’t a cause for which we ride. It’s because life is worth living that we ride. The linguistic, political, and social framework of that which is ‘pro-life’, in as much as it may look similar to any other social platform, only attempts to share with others the far bigger and more meaningful reality of something that we are certain of because there is something ultimately very beautiful about it–something so valuable and noble at every stage in life that we fear doing damage to our own humanity should we take it away from someone else, no matter the circumstance.”
The tenacity it takes to plan and execute such a trip is also needed on college campuses, where faculty and peers are often openly hostile to those who take a prolife stance. Students for Life of Illinois is standing in the gap, and offering encouragement and resources to students on 24 Illinois campuses.
Recently this organization recognized three students for their outstanding contributions to the prolife effort in Illinois. Christina Foreman and Pam Suresca have been outstanding leaders on their campuses (the University of Illinois at Chicago and Loyola University), and were named Passionate Leader of the Year and Outstanding Student Leader of the Year.
Videos made by others from their campuses show the contagious enthusiasm these young women have about building a prolife culture: “What stands out the most to me about Christina is the loving way in which she communicates the prolife message. Christina is utterly fearless when speaking about the prolife movement.”
The third award recipient was Anne Marie Dust, an alumna of Bradley University, was named the Courageous Student of the Year. When Miss Dust was applying for a nursing residency at Vanderbilt University, the University required her to agree to participate in abortions. Understandably shaken, she weighed her options. Objecting might limit her chances to take her nursing examinations, or even find a job. Finally, she made her choice. “At the end of the day you have to stand up for what is most important to you,” she says. With the help of the Alliance Defense Fund, she filed a federal complaint. Here is the result of her actions:
The legacy of Illinois and this nation hangs in the balance. Each of us must decide whose vision will shape the future: the proabortion vision of Barack Obama, or the prolife vision of Jill Stanek, John-Paul, Anne Marie, Mike, Jimmy, and others. Here in President Obama’s home state, our fight to defend the unborn is just beginning. But where there’s life, there’s hope.
The following article was originally published byIllinois Review.
Shortly after the Supreme Court released its decision on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Representative Adam Kinzinger (IL-11) weighed in on the ruling making a formal statement and then answered questions from Washington DC via a phone press conference call. Mr. Kinzinger further explained his thoughts on Obamacare to reporters from various media agencies:
Wanda Rohl this morning said, “The government already makes people buy auto insurance. The government already makes people do other things, and we are already paying for the uninsured anyway, so she’d rather have everybody covered. Could you respond to that?”
Kinzinger: “I think Wanda’s made it clear that she believes that there’s a huge role for basically a full government takeover of healthcare. It’s an area where we fundamentally disagree. State government—and keep in mind it is state—can make people buy car insurance, but they can’t force people to drive. You don’t have to have a license to simply exist as a person. In this case, it looks like the Supreme Court agreed that the Federal government does not have the power to do that. However, again, [Obamacare proponents] went and said, ‘This is actually a tax increase and the Federal government does have a right to tax.’
“So, from that perspective, this is a tax increase on the American people and it is not saying that the federal government has a right to make people buy something simply for existing.”
What is the next step?
Kinzinger: “The reality is, the Supreme Court says the healthcare law can survive today, but I think the healthcare law ends on November 6th when Obama is not reelected. We’re going to vote to repeal this once again. We’ve already voted many, many times to repeal this law, and just because the Supreme Court upheld it today doesn’t make it anymore popular. The American people are still very upset. This is the law that’s going to put us deeper into debt and reduce the quality of healthcare that people are getting, and so we are going to continue to fight to repeal this entire bill.”
What will happen if the Republicans don’t get veto-proof majority control of the Senate in November? Won’t we still have this quagmire?
Kinzinger: “That’s the reality, but the fact is, the American people are pretty upset about this law. It’s just like what you saw back when the law passed initially: there were a lot of Democrat defections because they felt the wrath of the American people. I tell you: a lot of people out here in Washington, D. C. are political folks and they understand what public pressure is. I think that if the Senate is going to stand in the way of a repeal of this very unpopular law, some of these more moderate Democrats or these Democrats in tough districts are going to understand that the American people are not happy and potentially flip. There’s no doubt that today the news of the Supreme Court’s decision was a blow to the efforts to repeal it, but that’s not going to stop us from fully repealing or making attempts to fully repeal this law.”
Is this going to be primarily what the election is about as we head into November? Do you think other issues are going to be droned out now?
KInzinger: “No, I think the election is always about unemployment, about the terrible economy we’re in, the fact that the President, when he was elected, said, ‘If I don’t turn this economy around, it’ll be a one-term proposition.’ I think that’s going to be number one. The American people are hurting. They want jobs. They want a president that actually understands that and tries to lead. Is this going to be one of the top issues? Yes, it will be. Healthcare will now be one of the top issues discussed. The number one issue is still going to be the fact that too many of our neighbors do not have the opportunity to go out and get jobs, and it’s going be a referendum, partially, on the fact that the President has not lead the American people and still refuses to lead on that issue.”
What would the Republicans replace the Obama healthcare bill with?
Kinzinger: “Well, as I mentioned in my statement, there’s a lot of it, including allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines. Portability for health insurance: you shouldn’t have to lose your health insurance when you switch jobs. That actually stems from back in the day when somebody would work for the same corporation for twenty years. Now, if you leave a company, you should be able to take your insurance plan with you. We need tort reforms, so doctors don’t have to spend [money] on unnecessary tests to practice defensively; they can practice the best for that doctor-patient relationship.
“Allowing small businesses to band together with the buying power of big businesses to dilute the pre-existing conditions that may have somebody have to pay way too much money. There’s a lot of potential things that we can do to replace this law. The fact is, we’ve got to bring the cost of healthcare down, and then we’ve got to figure out how to fully cover everybody through lower costs. But you can’t do that with just the government takeover of healthcare like we see here, and with writing a big, blank government check when the government’s out of money.”
The following article was originally published byIllinois Review.
With its wide range of ideologies, the Court has heroes for progressives, libertarians, and conservatives. And in the boxing ring of the Supreme Court chambers these justices engage in some of the highest-stake intellectual fisticuffs ever carried out.
Who are the nine people that decided the fate of Obamacare? It’s worth the time to examine the lives and characteristics of the members of the highest court in the land.
Two justices (Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito) greeted the world in Trenton, New Jersey, and other justices hail from as far south as Pin Point, Georgia (Clarence Thomas), and as far west as San Francisco (Stephen Breyer). Interestingly, none of the justices were born in the Midwest.
Though some were born into humble circumstances and others enjoyed a wealthy upbringing, all justices obtained their law degrees from Ivy League institutions, with five attending Harvard, three attending Yale, and one attending Columbia.
This uniformity in choice of schools is not reflected in the justices’ ideologies, however. Given the amount of time many justices spend on the Court and the scope of cases they consider, there is a wealth of information about the political views of most of the Supreme Court justices. Two measures commonly used to compare justices’ ideologies are the Martin-Quinn score and the percent or fraction of conservative votes cast by a justice in non-unanimous decisions.
The Martin-Quinn score describes a justice’s political ideology for a given year by assigning more negative values to more liberal ideologies and more positive values to more conservative ideologies. In this way, the evolution of a given justice can be tracked over time, and justices can rapidly be compared to one another. For 2010, the court’s ideology as indicated by their Martin-Quinn scores ranged from 0.024 (Stephen Breyer) to 5.689 (Clarence Thomas). The median score was 2.071 (Anthony Kennedy’s, the most common swing vote). The justices range from casting a more conservative vote about 37.2% of the time (Stephen Breyer) to 82.2% of the time (Clarence Thomas).
How much time said heroes have spent on the Court or can expect to stay there varies widely. The average number of years the justices on this court have served is 13 years, but this disguises a bimodal distribution, with four justices having served six or less years, and five justices finishing 17-25 years on the bench. Liberal justices have spent 1-18 years on the Court, while conservative justices have spent 6-25 years there.
The fact that justices can exert their influence for a quarter century and more shows the breadth of influence a given administration can have years after the Oval Office has been redecorated. Five presidents can claim the current justices as their enduring legacy, with two current justices appointed by Ronald Reagan through Barack Obama, with the exception of H. W. Bush, who has only one appointee remaining. Notably, this appointee is Clarence Thomas, the most conservative justice currently serving on the Court.
The long-term influence of each justice explains the full vetting that each candidate should undergo, and the verbal flayings that some candidates have endured. Still, the confirmation process and final vote varies widely. Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy were unanimously confirmed (98-0 and 97-0), while the Senate was most divided on Clarence Thomas (52-48), followed closely by Samuel Alito (58-42). Of the liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg faced the least opposition (96-3), and Elena Kagan faced the most (63-37). And, of course, we’re speaking only of those candidates who survived the potential borking.
The heterogeneity of the court extends further than ideology or vetting intensity. The justices range in age from 52 to 79, with an average age of 66. The most recent addition to the Court is also the youngest of all time: Elena Kagan, who is 52 years old. The two most elderly justices are Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia, from the further ends of the ideological divide.
Another distinguishing factor are the justices’ religious views. The current justices are either Roman Catholic or Jewish, with a 6-3 split. Three of the four liberal justices are Jewish, and all of the more conservative justices in addition to Sonia Sotomayor are Roman Catholic.
All of the individual traits and choices of the justices—their upbringing, ideologies, etc.—impact their decisions in small and large ways. Hearing their interpretations of the Constitution as it pertains to some of the most pressing issues of our day is nerve-racking because we know every human, regardless of how well-educated, well-informed, or well-intentioned, is fallible.
We champion some justices and question others. We wonder just how flexible or forthright each justice will prove to be. In the midst of it all we can see the wisdom of our Founders in entrusting this power to a panel of justices instead of a single, omnipotent Supreme Court Justice. May this Court and every ensuing Court recognize and uphold the letter and the spirit of our highest law.
