Via Feministing, I see that George Bush has declared January 18 Sanctity of Human Life Day, on which: “Our country recognizes that each person, including every person waiting to be born, has a special place and purpose in this world.”

Our country recognizes no such thing, and never has, and the person who presided over the last eight years has a lot of nerve saying so.

The only appropriate response I can think of that doesn’t involve swearing is to renew my membership in Consistent Life.

The Nonviolent Choice Directory, a listing of resources for helping women avoid abortion, is looking for volunteer assistance.

Specifically, they need people who can help with website design, publicity, checking links, and researching new listings.

For more information, check this post.

I’ve started writing at a new blog called The Obama Administration. It grew out of the “Pro-lifers for Obama” group on my.barackobama.com, and features Democrats writing on life issues as well as their particular areas of specialty.

I’ll be crossposting some posts from here, and will also be blogging on civil and human rights issues such as warrantless wiretapping and torture. Please come join us!

Encouraging news from the UK: parents whose unborn children are diagnosed with Down Syndrome perceive that there is greater social support for their families and a better chance for a good life for their children than ever before. As a result, they are increasingly choosing life over abortion.

The Down’s Syndrome Association surveyed 1,000 parents to find out why they had pressed ahead with a pregnancy despite a positive test result.

A fifth said they had known somebody with Down’s, a third cited religious or anti-abortion beliefs and 30% felt life had improved for people with Down’s.

Almost one in five said they simply did not believe the results of the test.

Most respondents said they felt supported by their family and friends and considered that the future was far better today for those with Down’s syndrome.

They pointed to integrated education in particular and a greater acceptance of what it means to be different.

BBC, “Many Opting to Keep Down’s Babies

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.

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.

08-66  DAVIS, TROY A. V. GEORGIA
                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.

Christine Barry is considering forming a Democrats for Life chapter in mid-Michigan. If you’re interested, drop her a line.

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.)

Some (opposite-sex) couples in California are upset that marriage licenses no longer list “bride” and “groom”:

Bird’s father, Doug Bird, pastor of Roseville’s Abundant Life Fellowship, said he is urging couples not to sign the new marriage forms, and that he is getting some support from congregants and colleagues at local churches.

“I would encourage you to refuse to sign marriage licenses with ‘Party A’ and ‘Party B,’ ” he wrote in a letter that he sent to them. “If ever there was a time for the people of the United States to stand up and let their voices be heard – this is that time.” [emphasis mine --jr]

No, when the United States invaded another country in an act of aggressive warfare – that was the time.

When Clinton and Bush made torture of prisoners official U.S. policy, that was the time.

When the Bush Administration claimed the right to detain people indefinitely without due process, that was the time. When they claimed the right to spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant, that was the time.

I read quotes like the one from Doug Bird, and I’m reminded that we are not living in the same world. My “American ideals” and their “American ideals” describe two completely different countries.

Congratulations to Dave Lowitzki on his newly expanded family! And if you don’t read his blog, you should check it out. :) He has a great post today on community organizers. Working with people on the local level to empower them to improve their lives seems to me pretty much the essence of democracy, but apparently the GOP thinks it’s worthy of scorn.

It’s been a nauseating and hateful week on the blogs.

Does anybody have any good news?

Warren Throckmorton is compiling reactions to the recent report (PDF) from the American Psychological Association’s Mental Health and Abortion Task Force. Among them is a comment from David Fergusson, the pro-choice author of an extensive study on the effect of abortion on young women in New Zealand. Fergusson isn’t impressed with the Task Force for drawing a sweeping conclusion based on evidence it admits is flawed and incomplete:

[...] In this respect, the response of the APA committee to this situation appears to follow the type of logic used by the Tobacco industry to defend cigarettes: since, in our opinion, there is no conclusive evidence of harm then the product may be treated as safe. A better logic is that used by the critics of the industry: since there is suggestive evidence of harmful effects it behooves us to err on the side of caution and commission more and better research before drawing strong conclusions. History showed which side had the better arguments.

Rachel MacNair offers a more inside view:

Though I keep my ears attuned, the task force membership was appointed and explicitly not open to any more nominations by the time I first heard about it.

Actually, there never had been any call for nominations. Membership had been decided by Division 35, psychology of women, and the Council apparently rubber-stamped the selection. I knew the fix was in at that point and subsequent events have confirmed this, but I gamely kept trying to talk about balance and science.

[...]

Setting aside the quality of the study itself, citing only one study in support of a politically-desired conclusion cannot be explained in any other way than a politically-motivated exercise. This is not a debatable point. This is Quantitative Research 101.

I just formed a group called Pro-Life Nonbelievers on the new atheist social network Atheist Nexus. Come join!

Tony Campolo is planning to call for an abortion reduction plank in the Democratic platform. He discusses some of the financial burdens facing low-income women with unplanned pregnancies, and how helping to relieve those burdens could help more women choose life.

Also, it’s a bit short notice (some of these meetings have already taken place), but the Democratic Party is holding meetings to discuss the 2008 platform. Pro-life Democrats/liberals/progressives/whatevers should take this opportunity to get our perspective heard.