Democratic Party recruiting pro-life House candidates

The New York Times reports that the Democratic Party has recruited and is heavily funding a dozen pro-life candidates for the U.S. House. I’m particularly intrigued by Kathleen Dahlkemper, who I believe would become the only pro-life Democratic woman in Congress:

In the Third Congressional District of Pennsylvania, for example, the Republican incumbent, Phil English, is facing what analysts describe as a strong challenge from Kathleen Dahlkemper, a Democrat who has benefited from more than $1 million in spending by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Mrs. Dahlkemper has spoken openly on the campaign trail about her opposition to abortion and even shared a deeply personal story to drive home her message: how she decided to have a child 29 years ago when she was a single woman and a college student. “It was tough,” she recalled recently. “I was on food stamps.”

But her position has become an issue among some Democrats who view abortion rights as a bedrock Democratic principle. In the primary, for example, her opponents repeatedly criticized her opposition to abortion. “They were trying to say that I wasn’t a real Democrat because I am pro-life,” Mrs. Dahlkemper recalled. “I believe they have a narrow view of what a Democrat is.”

The Democratic Party’s angle on this, of course, is that they need the votes of pro-lifers to win in some districts. We as pro-lifers should take it as an opportunity to break the stranglehold that the Republican Party has on this issue, and to advocate for a modern, balanced, pro-woman and pro-life position from inside the Democratic Party.

Speaking only for myself

I didn’t realize this would be a problem, but for the sake of clarity: Anything I write on this blog represents my opinion and my opinion alone. I do not speak on behalf of any organization of which I am currently or have been a member.

Even if I start my own organization (still considering it!), what I write on my personal blog will represent my personal views only.

Supreme Court declines to hear Davis case

                The motion of The Innocence Project for leave to file a
          brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of
          certiorari is denied.

October 14, 2008 Order List (PDF)

The state of Georgia will now be able to set a new date for Davis’ execution. His lawyers say they will keep fighting, but there now appears to be no way that new evidence in his case — evidence that casts serious doubt on his guilt — will ever be heard in court.

Medical professionals’ consciences

Update on the Troy Anthony Davis case: The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to announce tomorrow whether it will hear Davis’ appeal.

In his blogging on the Davis case, Dave wrote that the state of Georgia pays a private company called Rainbow Medical thousands of dollars to provide doctors and nurses for executions.

With all the debate lately about whether medical professionals have a right to refuse to participate in procedures they consider immoral, I note that the state of Georgia has to contract its executions out because the doctors and nurses in its employ refused to participate in executions. Good for them.

Sarah Palin calls George W. Bush a liar

Sarah Palin, October 2, 2008:

Americans are craving that straight talk and just want to know, hey, if you voted for it, tell us why you voted for it and it was a war resolution. [emphasis added –jr]

Funny, that’s not what some people were claiming at the time.

George W. Bush, September 19, 2002:

If you want to keep the peace, you’ve got to have the authorization to use force. But it’s — this will be — this is a chance for Congress to indicate support. It’s a chance for Congress to say, we support the administration’s ability to keep the peace. That’s what this is all about.

George W. Bush, October 7, 2002:

Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice.

(I happen to agree that it was a war resolution — albeit one in which Congress completely abdicated its responsibility to actually make the decision on war — because it was clear at the time that the Bush Administration was lying about wanting to avoid war. But Palin’s giving the game away a bit by saying so. Or would be, if anyone cared about the truth of what happened six years ago.)