Edmund Burke once said, "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Unfortunately, evil in America has triumphed in recent years. Since Roe v. Wade, 4000 children have been routinely slaughtered every day while millions of Americans stood idly by, too busy to vote or too disenfranchised to care. While both of these are real concerns, they must not prevent people from answering the needs of the community. Register to vote now because Nov. 7 is the time for good people to finally do something.

****

 

C. Abortion as the #1 Issue

 

C-1 -- 250 Words

In our nation's experiment in self-governance, certain things need to be beyond the reach of the majority, precisely because they embody values that a society needs to survive. No majority can make what is wrong into something that is right.

People cannot govern themselves if they have lost the sense of what is right and what is wrong. We govern the country. If we exempt ourselves from that admittedly challenging process, then we are letting someone else govern us!

Some call the right-to-life movement "divisive." Our country was founded on the recognition of certain basic moral principles, among which is that the right to life is unalienable, is bestowed by the Creator, and is to be protected by the government. The very greatness of America depends on her adherence to this truth. How, then, can one consider "divisive" the very principle on which our unity as a nation stands?

Some speak of "a pluralistic society." There are many forms of legitimate pluralism in our society: there are varieties of cultures, of art, of races, of schools of thought. Yet the very phrase "a pluralistic society" indicates that it is one. The word "pluralistic" here is modifying a singular noun. What holds this "pluralistic society" together, keeping it from becoming a disconnected chaos? There need to be certain basic, foundational principles to which everyone in the society adheres if it is to survive. The right to life is the first among them.

****

C-2 -- 220 Words

We who are pro-life do not say that abortion is the only issue. It is, however, the foundational issue. Many things destroy human life. Yet abortion goes beyond that. Our nation's current abortion policy authorizes such destruction, by a direct denial of the protections granted to persons under the US Constitution.

An example will clarify this. Sometimes people are heard to say that poverty is a more important problem than abortion. Certainly, the problems are related, and we must actively care for the poor.

But to make a truly equivalent parallel between the plight of the poor and that of the unborn, one would have to imagine a policy whereby a) the poor were officially declared to be devoid of "personhood" under the Constitution (as Roe vs. Wade did to the unborn), and b) over 4000 of the poor were put to death daily against their will, while efforts to directly save them were prosecuted by the government (as is the case regarding the unborn).

It is one thing to assert that a particular policy does or does not advance the rights of the poor; it is quite another to assert that the poor have no right to exist. Debates about the poor are in the first category; the debate about the unborn is in the second.

****

C-3 -- 200 Words

As the election draws near, we are hearing more and more about health care, education, the war on terrorism, and other important topics. All of these are, to be sure, very important. The most important topic, however, is the one that nobody wants to talk about: abortion. "But how is abortion more important than quality education?" Easy. A child cannot receive a quality education once he is aborted. It is certainly a noble goal to see to it that every child receives a quality education, but when one-third of children die before they reach kindergarten, we have failed in providing them with a quality education.

The same is true for other issues. Certainly children should have access to proper health care, but why is health care important? Health care is important because we value human life and seek to protect it from harm. Abortion, conversely, says that the purpose of health care is to destroy life, not to nurture it. Every humanitarian goal, and there are many of them, rests on the premise of the value and protection of human life. It is for this reason that support for life must be the sine qua non for your vote.

****

C-4 -- 200 Words

Deciding whom to vote for is like choosing what to drink when you go out to dinner. There are a number of different choices that look good, but none that seems to fit perfectly with what you are looking for. You may desperately want to enjoy the luxury of what looks like the best drink on the menu, but you must first consider where you are. You know that you have to get home, and that you don't want to drive drunk. So, you make the decision to have water. It's plain and might not be everything you want, but it will not endanger you when you are driving home. You placed life on a higher plain than luxury.

Voting for a candidate works much the same way. There are candidates with different ideas, different priorities, and different solutions to various problems. Some priorities are higher than others, with life being the highest. Just like at dinner, even if you are not pleased with your choice, you take the one least likely to bring about the destruction of innocent human life. Like ordering water, the candidate might not taste the best, but in the end you know what you must do.

****

C-5 -- 150 Words

Isn't it ironic that those who tell us to "Never forget" have themselves forgotten so quickly? Indeed, many argue that people may not be single-issue voters, at least not on the life issue. These are usually the same people who spend their time talking about the horrors of the Holocaust. If you asked them whether they would have thought single-issue voting was permissible in Germany, they would rightly reply, "Of course! How could anyone think that there is a more important issue that the taking of innocent human life?!" Now it is time for all Americans to realize that they too must become voters who protect innocent human life, even if that means compromising on some of the other aspects of their agenda. Every day, 4000 people are routinely put to death in the concentration camps commonly known as abortion clinics. On Nov. 7, you must not forget!

****

C-6 -- 100 Words

The election on Nov. 7 is nothing short of a life and death matter. It's not about war, terrorism, or anthrax. It's about abortion. Candidates of both parties have various solutions to the serious problems in our society, but only some will work toward ending the biggest problem. Crime must drop, health care must be more widely available, and education must improve, but all of these goals are worthless if we say that they are off limits to one-third of our society. If these goals are really important, then our first goal must be allowing all people to enjoy them.

****

 

D. Religious Beliefs and Politics

 

D-1 -- 225 words

Some politicians say they are "personally opposed to abortion." But they also say, "I cannot impose my belief on others."

This is a classic example of fence-sitting--of trying to please both sides. This kind of politician says what one side wants to hear, then does what the other side wants him to do. This is called hypocrisy. It is a sign that somebody can't be trusted. As the Indians used to say in the old Westerns, this sort of person "speaks with forked tongue."

If a politician who engages in fence-sitting believes what he says--that he really is opposed to abortion--then he is publicly admitting that he can be bought. After all, the major pro-abortion groups can be among the biggest campaign donors to this sort of candidate. If a politician really is opposed to abortion and accepts these contributions, he is willing to sell his own beliefs.

If he isn't selling out, then he doesn't see anything wrong with abortion. That makes him a liar. It means that all his talk about opposing abortion is a trick to avoid losing pro-life votes.

Either way, this sort of politician is a snake in the grass. I believe he is untrustworthy, and I will impose that belief in the ballot box next election. Unlike him, I stand up for what I believe in.

****

D-2 -- 220 words

Many pro-choicers say they are "personally opposed to abortion." But they also say, "I cannot impose my belief on others."

Are these people as tolerant on other issues? Surely they are also opposed to holding up convenience stores, running red lights, and wife-beating. Do they balk at imposing their beliefs on others regarding these issues?

If one is opposed to abortion, he must recognize that it involves taking life. It is possible to hold up a convenience store, run a red light, and beat your wife without taking a human life. It is not possible to practice abortion without taking human life.

Why are abortion rights advocates willing to impose their beliefs on robbers, reckless drivers, and wife-beaters, but not on women? Why are women entitled to a special grace pro-choicers won't grant to others?

Pro-choice people seem to think that masked gunmen, reckless drivers, and wife beaters can be held to a higher standard than ordinary women. Masked gunmen, drunk drivers, and wife beaters can be required to act civilized. Why do people who advocate women's right to have abortions think women can't be civilized as well?

I suggest that these people hold women just as accountable for their behavior as they do everyone else. Women should refrain from harming others. It's not too much to ask.

****

D-3 -- 140 words

A congresswoman recently said that she is "personally opposed to abortion." But she also said, "I cannot impose my belief on others."

What she is really saying is, "I'd rather be popular than honorable."

The primary reason someone would be opposed to abortion lies in the belief that it takes a human life. Another concern could be for the women who are injured, killed, and raped in America's legal abortion clinics.

This congresswoman has never said why she opposes abortion. She has just made it plain that whatever her concerns are, she is willing to lay them aside for the sake of popularity. We have names for people like that where I come from, most referring to a willingness to lay one's lips on the posteriors of others.

So congresswoman, if the name fits, wear it.

****

D-4 -- 210 words

Recently, I heard a politician say he is "personally opposed to abortion" but that he couldn't impose this belief on others.

It is hard for me to imagine a more cowardly statement. The primary reason someone would be opposed to abortion lies in the belief that it takes a human life. Another concern could be for the women who are injured, killed, and raped in America's legal abortion clinics.

In either event, this person is willing to look the other way while these things happen if doing so allows them to avoid taking a courageous political position. I really hope that American society hasn't fallen so low that statements like this pass for political leadership. Can you imagine Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, or Winston Churchill saying they wouldn't stop someone from committing murder as long as the person who did it said it wasn't murder? The real question is: What will the long-term consequences be for a society that elects leaders who say they wouldn't do anything to stop what they admit is wrong? That doesn't fit any definition of courage or leadership I know. It's certainly not the kind of political and personal courage this country was founded upon. In reality, it's just your standard, garden-variety political cowardice.

****

D-5 -- 160 words

Recently, I heard a politician say he is "personally opposed to abortion" but that he couldn't impose this belief on others.

It is hard for me to imagine a more cowardly statement. The primary reason someone would be opposed to abortion lies in the belief that it takes a human life. Another concern could be for the women who are injured, killed, and raped in America's legal abortion clinics.

During the Second World War, Oskar Schindler risked everything--his reputation, his business, his life--to rescue Jews because he was opposed to what his countrymen were doing. He pretended that he approved of dehumanizing the Jews in order to divert attention from the fact that he was saving them. People like the politician mentioned above do the opposite. They pretend to disapprove of what their countrymen are doing in order to let them continue to do it.

If Oskar Schindler was a hero, what does that make these folks?

****

D-6 -- 160 words

Some people say they are "personally opposed to abortion." But they also say, "I cannot impose this belief on others."

It is sickening how many people are willing to embrace this cowardly philosophy.

French existentialist and Nobel Prize-winning author Albert Camus wrote, "We shall know nothing until we know whether we have the right to kill our fellow men, or the right to let them be killed."

Have the "personally-opposed pro-choicers" ever sat down and really thought about whether they have the right to look the other way while their fellow human beings are killed? Do they have the right to go about their business while their youngest brothers and sisters are brutally torn limb from limb? Do they really have the right to allow such barbarity against others?

When it comes to abortion, the question is not whether others have the right to step in. It is whether they have the right to remain silent while the killing continues.

****

D-7 -- 110 words

Some people express the notion that although abortion is wrong, "it is not an area where one person has the right to impose his beliefs on others."

Would they feel that way if they were in the baby's shoes? I know that if someone was about to slice me up with a knife, I'd want somebody to impose his beliefs on the situation for my protection.

It's easy to take the "I shouldn't be involved" attitude toward abortion because once you are born, you will never be a target of abortion. If any other kind of killer were on the loose, I imagine these people would have a different attitude.

****

D-8 -- 235 words

Some politicians say they are "personally opposed to abortion." But they also say, "I cannot impose my belief on others."

What do these people think we elected them for? Every time they vote for a law, they are imposing their beliefs on somebody. Recently, environmentally conscious legislators imposed their beliefs on motorists, requiring them to have emissions testing done on their cars every other year. Many people believe this was a thinly veiled attempt to keep poor people dependent by taking their cars away. That didn't stop these legislators from acting on their belief that the emissions test is more important than poor people having transportation to get to work. Many people will no longer be able to afford their own cars, and will lose their jobs as a result. This law will have a powerful impact on their lives.

Obviously these politicians were willing to impose their beliefs on the working poor, regardless of how much their beliefs hurt them. Why are they so unwilling to act on their beliefs when it comes to abortion? They won't let poor people drive old cars, but they'll let women abort their children.

Such legislators have some strange priorities. They'll take away a poor mother's car, then tell her to take heart--sure, she'll have to go on welfare, but she'll always be able to get an abortion!

Small comfort that is. These lawmakers should be ashamed.

****

D-9 -- 100 Words

Last week, Senator N. made the case that a person's religious beliefs must not affect his political views. Quite clearly, then, the Senator does not understand the nature of religion. Religious beliefs are inherent to the individual, and a person's beliefs are supposed to help determine what he thinks and does. Indeed, anyone who says that his religious beliefs do not influence his political ideas has little understanding of religion, or politics, or of both.

****

 

E. Government Should Not Interfere

 

E-1 -- 240 words

A political candidate recently stated that although she considers abortion wrong, "the government should not interfere with people's private choices."

What nonsense! The government interferes with people's private choices all the time. That's why we have a government.

There is nothing intrinsically noble about choice. There are many choices societies simply can't allow individuals to make. Total freedom for each individual is anarchy.

The government has forbidden many choices, both public and private. The choice to have sex with children and the choice to dump antifreeze in the city reservoir are both forbidden. I have never heard this candidate protest these limits on choices.

Restricting choices is exactly what laws are meant to do. Every law ever passed--from speed limits to bans on insider trading--were passed to deny someone the legal ability to make a particular choice.

Many choices that we may not legally make are not nearly as deadly and far-reaching as abortion. We may not legally choose to fish without a license, sunbathe nude in our front yards, or pick flowers in state parks. The decision of the government to interfere is based on what is in the best interests of the community. Considering that abortion results in dead babies, injured women, and damaged families, it is certainly a better candidate for government interference than nude sunbathing. The shame is that this candidate is too infatuated with abortion to see this.

****

E-2 -- 230 words

Some politicians say that although abortion is wrong, "it is not an area in which the government has a right to interfere."

What do they think the government should interfere with?

It is the job of the government to protect the weak from the strong. To protect ordinary citizens from burglars and carjackers. To protect children from child molesters. To protect consumers from seedy con-artists. If one person or group tries to wrong another person or group, it is the job of the government to intervene.

Is the government supposed to intervene when no wrongdoing is afoot? Would these politicians rather have the government control what color cars we drive, how many people attend baseball games, or the amount of ice cream on pie a la mode? If the government won't intervene when life is at stake, it has no business governing.

Abortion is an unregulated industry that produces injuries, death, and sexual assault of women at an alarming rate. One would think that of all industries, one that produces only corpses, mutilated bodies, and rape victims would be the one held most accountable--if not shut down entirely. The politicians I mentioned earlier are probably not opposed to government regulation of the transportation, manufacturing, and service sectors. What is it about producers of dead babies and victimized women that these politicians consider them to be above the law?

****

E-3 -- 120 words

A leader in the pro-abortion movement quoted Richard Nixon as saying, "On abortion the state should stay out of it. Don't subsidize and don't prohibit."

That's like saying that if we neither subsidize nor prohibit lynching blacks, we're staying out of racism.

To permit something is to give it official sanction. Imagine for a moment saying that the government was going to "stay out of" domestic violence by taking this kind of hands-off attitude. No more restraining orders. No more jailing abusive husbands. Are we supposed to believe that this would solve the problem?

Allowing abortion is being involved. It is promoting and protecting abortion.

Is that what we really want to do?

****

 

F. Supreme Court and Senate Races

 

F-1 -- 185 words

We face a crucial election this year, since those who are elected to the US Senate may have the opportunity to confirm the next justices for the US Supreme Court, as well as many positions on other Federal courts.

For the passage of laws that favor the right to life, and for the appointment of Justices who will protect that right, the President cannot act alone. The Senate must vote in a pro-life direction. That will happen only if we vote in a pro-life direction when we elect our Senators.

A commitment to the right to life is not identical to a commitment to any particular political party. No party perfectly embodies the Gospel, nor is our loyalty to party supposed to be stronger to our loyalty to our moral convictions. Candidates of any party can be pro-life. Throughout the changes that occur from candidate to candidate, election to election, and year to year, our message is always the same: No government has the authority to allow the destruction of innocent human life, and we have the solemn responsibility to choose leaders who recognize that.

****

F-2 -- 150 Words

The Supreme Court hangs in the balance our Senate race this year. The winner of the Senate race will have to decide whether to support or oppose Court appointments made by the President in the coming years. (Candidate A) likely will look at the criteria as originally intended and use his best judgement when deciding whether to support the nominee. (Candidate B), conversely, will look at his political agenda and try to determine whether a nominee will help to bring about his political agenda. If we elect (Candidate B), the judiciary will be nothing more than an unelected political branch with no accountability at all, much like the courts in the totalitarian regimes from which we are trying to free nations. Incidentally, didn't we have our own war over that sort of thing a couple of hundred years ago?

****

 

G. Judicial Appointments and Senatorial Elections

 

G-1 -- 200 Words

If it has been a while since you have taken a civics class, you may think that a Constitutional amendment requires the support of two-thirds of each house of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures. The requirements have since been reduced to three extremist special interest groups. Planned Parenthood, the National Organization for Women and NARAL Pro-Choice America have blackmailed a minority of Senators, forcing them to filibuster federal judicial nominees or face opposition, which would be financed by their fat cat contributors, at the ballot box. Their actions effectively constitute religious McCarthyism as they delve into the political and personal backgrounds of nominees in search of support for the most moderate restrictions on abortion, such as requiring a thirteen-year-old to notify one parent that she is planning to have elective surgical abortion. Obviously, this eliminates the vast majority of actual and potential nominees from consideration. It also eliminates the possibility of a practicing Christian from serving on the federal bench. One would think that if Senators had learned anything from history it would be that those who persecute the many to appease the few ultimately fail all. This November, support a senatorial candidate who will not participate in this religious witch-hunt.

****

G-2 -- 150 Words

Most people think witch-hunts are a thing of the past, but in recent years the Senate has borne a striking resemblance to Salem. A minority of members decided to oppose the President's judicial nominations and then go searching for excuses to do so. Excuses for opposing nominees have been that they did not strike down laws requiring children to inform a parent of their decision to have an abortion, legislative attempts to restrict abortion, and even personal opposition to abortion. It doesn't take a theologian to see that this effectively eliminates practicing Christians from the federal bench. There is no excuse for any member of government in a pluralistic society to prevent a person of faith from serving in government based solely on the fact that he practices his religion. It is time to end the witch-hunt. Vote for a Senate candidate who will give religious nominees fair consideration.

****

 

H. Parental Notification

 

H-1 -- 150 Words

Parental rights took a severe blow last week when Gov. N. vetoed a bill that would have required minors to obtain the consent of at least one parent before having an abortion. Although numerous studies have shown a correlation between abortion and breast cancer, as well as an increase in the potential for problems in future pregnancies, the Governor apparently thinks that thirteen- and fourteen-year-olds are sufficiently mature and informed of the long term consequences of abortion to obtain them on their own. Does it make any sense that a school nurse cannot give a child an aspirin without asking the parents permission while an abortionist can perform an invasive, and potentially fatal, procedure on that same child? It's time that Gov. N. stops pandering to extremists and starts looking out for young girls.

****

H-2 -- 125 Words

What would you do if someone called you and told you that your thirteen-year-old daughter was in a coma? And what if they then told you that she was in that coma because someone had performed invasive, elective surgery that you did not know she was having? In 1985, that is just what happened to the Ravenell's when their daughter Dawn died three weeks later as a result of her botched abortion. This case is not uncommon, yet Governor N. continues to oppose not only parental consent laws, but also parental notification laws. It's time for Gov. N. to stop listening to the extremist abortion lobby and start looking out for our children.

****

 

I. Abortion Safety and the Abortion Lobby

 

I-1 -- 200 Words

Most pro-choicers echo Bill Clinton's mantra of making abortion "safe, legal, and rare". It is common for "rare" to be disregarded, but what is less often noticed is that "safe" is now being left out too. Last week, the state assembly passed a bill requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at their local hospital. Just the fact that this is an issue raises questions about how safe abortion is in the first place. That aside, abortionists themselves must admit that Roe, even after thirty years, has not made abortion safe. Long term consequences of future miscarriages and an increased risk of breast cancer have been well documented, but short-term consequences are equally dangerous. There is often uncontrollable bleeding and hemorrhaging, which in turn open the doors to infection. Many members of the legislature last week callously voted against the requirement, claiming that it was intended to make abortions more difficult to obtain. Somehow, though, car safety standards have not limited their sales. Maybe those who voted against the legislation simply had not thought that through. Maybe. More likely, though, they were just bowing to the pressure of fringe pro-abortion groups who are more concerned with funding from abortionists than womens' health.

****

I-2 -- 150 Words

Think the abortion industry cares about women? Think again. In 2000, the abortion industry made concerted effort to get the Food and Drug Administration to approve RU-486, an abortion drug used early in a pregnancy to avoid a surgical abortion. They celebrated their success, but that's only half the story. Since then, the drug has proven fatal not only to children but also to mothers. Complications from use of the drug have resulted in multiple deaths and hundreds of other health problems for abortive women. Why? A closer look at the FDA's approval process reveals that standard practices for trial and study were ignored, largely because of political pressure from elected officials and the abortion lobby. If pro-choice forces were really interested in helping women rather than helping business, wouldn't they have wanted the drug to meet the highest standards of safety rather than require the minimum standard to be lowered for approval?

****

 

J. Abortion Lobby and Its Money

 

J-1 -- 200 Words

Aren't there any pro-choicers left? No, everyone has not become pro-life over night. Instead, the country seems to have become more divided. Fewer and fewer people can honestly define themselves as "pro-choice". More accurately, most of these people are pro-abortion. They define themselves as "pro-choice" but prefer to offer women no choice at all.

That is the case with State Sen. N. and many of his colleagues who voted last week against legislation requiring abortion clinics to provide counseling that includes alternatives to abortion before performing the abortion. Such counseling would include making patients aware of crisis pregnancy centers. These centers are willing to meet all of the mother's and child's needs, including counseling and legal and medical service.

If politicians were really pro-choice, they would want women to make an informed choice with all their options on the table. Unfortunately, radical feminist organizations that, not incidentally, are funded by abortionists have shown that they will oppose any politicians who want to allow women to have a real choice. Follow the blood money and you will see that those who opposed the legislation are also those who receive a portion of the proceeds from every abortion. Coincidence? I think not.

****

J-2 -- 50 Words

Six years ago, Senator N. said that he would give in to special interests. Since then, Planned Parenthood has given him 100% voting record, thousands of dollars, and contacted supporters throughout our state asking them to support him. This year, let's elect a Senator to support our state's interests, not Washington's.

****

 

K. General Call to Pro-Life Action

 

K-1 -- 200 Words

Many rightly lament the tragic disposal of newborns in recent years. Whether left on the side of a road or in dumpsters, these children are victims of selfishness. Unconscionably, mothers and fathers have considered children an inconvenience and tossed them aside as though they were garbage.

How, you may ask, can this happen? The answer is simple. It happens every day. In fact, in most of those instances, the children could have been killed legally just hours earlier and no one would have noticed. Such is the status of human life in this country. Going one step further, the parents, often teenagers, are well aware of the fact that they could, just as easily and banally, have been killed themselves.

The acts of evil after birth cannot be separated from similar acts of evil before birth. Whether drugs are used to ensure a stillbirth or the child is literally torn limb from limb, children are treated as inconveniences ready to be disposed of at the whim of the parents. Those who dispose of their children after birth grew up in a society that did not love them. The cycle of selfishness rather than selflessness must end.

****

K-2 -- 125 Words

September 11th was a dark day in American history. What few realize, however, is that a tragedy of equal proportions occurs on our soil every day. "How can you say that?" you ask. "Have you any idea how many lives were lost?" Indeed I do. 3,066. Have you any idea how many lives will be lost tomorrow? 4,000. And yesterday? 4,000. Today? 4,000. Indeed, abortion takes more lives daily than did the nineteen hijackers on September 11th. There was, however, a bright light shining on September that dark day. Passengers on Flight 93 banded together to win the first battle in the war on terror. Isn't it time that we honor their lives by fighting this battle in the war on terror?

 

L. Partial-Birth Abortion

 

L-1 -- 106 Words
Partial-birth abortion isn't just about abortion.
According to court testimony by doctors who perform the procedure, partial-birth abortion involves grabbing a baby by his feet and pulling him out of his mother's body, except for his head. At this point, his arms and legs are moving, his toes and fingers are wiggling. The live baby is then stabbed in the head with a pair of scissors. A tube is inserted into the skull and the baby's brain is sucked out. After the child's skull is crushed, he's then fully removed from his mother.
Let's be clear. Partial-birth abortion isn't just about abortion, it's also about infanticide.
****

L-2 -- 149 Words
There's a lot of talk about partial-birth abortion, much of it full of dry, clinical words and euphemisms. I wish people would just be honest about it.
When a partial-birth abortionist talks about doing an "intact D and X procedure," he means he's almost delivering a living baby out of her mother's body, being careful to leave the head inside so he can still call what he does an abortion.
When he talks about "evacuating the intercranial contents," he means he stabs the baby in the back of the head and sucks her brain out as her once wiggling arms and legs go limp.
When he talks about "compressing the calvarium," he means he crushes the baby's skull before removing her head completely from the mother's body.
Maybe abortionists don't like to use plain language because if they did, more people would understand exactly what partial-birth abortion is: infanticide.
****

L-3 -- 125 Words
The first purpose of any government is to protect the people it governs. There is no doubt that a baby threatened by partial-birth abortion is one of the people [name of candidate] seeks to govern. After all, when a partial-birth abortion is performed, that baby is already mostly outside his mother and visibly human. And there is absolutely no medical reason why such a gruesome procedure has to be performed.
If [name of candidate] is afraid to state that he's willing to protect this tiny infant from having his or her skull stabbed and crushed, he clearly doesn't have the courage to protect the rest of us from threats domestic and foreign. [Name of candidate] needs to take a stand on partial-birth abortion and do it now.
****
L-4 -- 110 Words

Moral courage is an essential trait in an elected representative. So is compassion. [Name of candidate] won't state his/her position on partial-birth abortion and that makes me wonder if he/she possesses either quality.
If [name of candidate] can't stand up to the abortion lobby and try to protect tiny, living babies from having their heads stabbed and crushed while their arms and legs wiggle outside their mother's bodies, just who and what will he/she stand up to? And if he won't protect the most vulnerable "little guy" in our society, where is his/her heart?
[Name of candidate] needs to tell us where he/she stands on partial-birth abortion. We as voters deserve that much.
****
L-5 -- 134 Words

It seems when people start talking about partial-birth abortion, they talk about everyone's feelings except those of the person most directly affected: the aborted baby.
Sworn testimony by a leading expert in the study of fetal development states that there is a consensus among such doctors that a 20 to 22-week old unborn baby is conscious and feels pain. In fact, the pain threshold of such a child is actually lower, that is he's more sensitive to pain, than when he's born.
Partial-birth abortions are performed on babies at this stage and later. Can anyone imagine what one pro-choice specialist in the field of fetal development called the "prolonged and excruciating pain" associated with this method of killing?
It grieves me that partial-birth abortion takes place; it appalls me that our government sanctions it.
****
L-6 -- 122 Words

A former president was famous for saying he felt others pain. I wonder if today's politicians bother to feel the pain of a baby killed by partial-birth abortion.
Many partial-birth abortions take place after the fetus is 20 weeks old. Yet, at 20 weeks, the baby in the womb is a conscious being who can feel pain. This is not conjecture, it's the consensus of expert doctors who study human development.
Politicians and others who try to justify partial-birth abortion say they can't be sure if the baby is feeling pain while being dragged by the feet, stabbed, and crushed. With the amount of scientific research and expert testimony on record to the contrary, their callous disregard for human suffering is inexcusable.
****

L-7 -- 134 Words
With the newly reconfigured Supreme Court ready to hear two cases on partial-birth abortion this fall, perhaps the Court will finally acknowledge what most of the nation already knows - there's no justification for a procedure that is nothing short of infanticide.
A partial-birth abortion only qualifies as an abortion because the baby's head is still inside the mother when he's killed. His arms, legs, and torso are all outside the mother's body, moving and squirming in what one pro-choice expert doctor termed, "prolonged and excruciating pain."
There's no medical reason why this barbarous practice has to be performed. There's no threat to a woman's health that would require this type of killing. The people, through their elected representatives, have a right to ban partial-birth abortion. The Supreme Court needs to recognize that right.
****

L-8 -- 144 Words
Two new Supreme Court justices and two new cases on partial-birth abortion this fall will hopefully lead to a restoration of the separation of powers our forefathers designed.
Congress is supposed to make laws. The Supreme Court is supposed to determine if those laws violate the Constitution, not whether they are good policy. For far too long, our Courts have taken the role of the legislature and Congress has abandoned its responsibilities, letting courts determine policy.
There's nothing in the Constitution, one way or the other, about abortion. If anything, one could argue that everyone, including the unborn, is entitled to equal protection under the law. Hopefully, the Supreme Court Justices will acknowledge the proper role of the judiciary when deciding whether the people, through their elected representatives, have a right to ban a practice that is nothing more than infanticide.