From Dan Becker, President of Georgia Right to Life:

Thanks much for your notice of our endorsement criteria.  It actually is one of the toughest in the nation.

Many people assume that having such strict standards would actually marginalize our influence.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  We began this practice over ten years ago.  Today, the majority of publicly elected legislators in the state of Georgia hold to “life of the mother ONLY” exception.  In the last decade we went from the bottom of the list of states ranked by Americans United for Life (AUL) for its pro-life legislation to our current rating of 8th in the nation.

In the current race for Governor, 6 of 7 candidates supported our position AND support a Personhood Amendment to our Georgia Constitution.

We in the pro-life movement have been misled by our leaders in thinking that a biblicaly based, principled approach to politics is not achievable.  We have demonstrated otherwise.  We are proving that politicians “only see the light when they feel the heat.”

Thanks for all you are doing to end abortion in our day.

For the Sanctity of all life in the 21st century,
Dan Becker, President
Georgia Right to Life

(Note:  Dan Becker, President of Georgia Right to Life, left a longer version of the above as a comment on a previous FAB posting.  We thought his comments were important enough to warrant a reposting for wider visibility. — FAB)

Georgia Right to Life (GRTL) has issued their endorsements for the August 10 runoff election.  Click here.

GRTL has very strict requirements for getting their endorsement.  Each candidate must sign the following statement:

WHEREAS, the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states, “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law,” Georgia Right to Life PAC affirms the principle that the right to life is the bedrock upon which all other Constitutional rights are derived.

IN ADDITION, we believe, in the face of compelling biological evidence, that a continuum of human life and personhood begins at the moment of fertilization and ends at natural death, the ethical treatment of human embryos must include their “best interests,”

THEREFORE, as a candidate for public office, I affirm my support for a Human Life Amendment to the Georgia Constitution and other actions that would support these principles. This would assure that regardless of race, age, degree of disability, manner of conception or circumstances surrounding a terminal illness, that the civil rights of the pre-born at an embryonic or fetal level, the elderly and those with mental or physical infirmities are protected by law and are violated when we allow destructive embryonic stem cell research, therapeutic or reproductive cloning, animal human hybrids, abortion (except to save the life of the mother), infanticide, euthanasia or assisted suicide.

As a candidate for public office I agree to uphold these principles and positions.

Note that politicians who support a rape/incest exception would NOT get the Georgia Right to Life endorsement.  What do you think about this agreement?  Is it strong enough?  Too restrictive?  Please comment.

I think I would add a requirement that the candidate also sit and watch a video of abortion, e.g., the video on the www.AbortionNo.org website.  Do you agree?

FACT says vote “NO” on judges in Tennessee.  For the whole story, click here.

Do you agree?

The Tennessee Conservative Union has released their ratings for Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey, Congressman Zach Wamp and Mayor Bill Haslam.  Candidates are rated on these factors: income tax (Tennessee doesn’t have one and doesn’t want one), Second Amendment, administrative experience, social issues (including pro-life), spending, and taxes.

Click here to see the full document: TCU Candidate Ratings.

Who are you voting for?  Why?  Please comment!

I still haven’t had a chance to read Time, but the story is really the photo on the cover.   I’m guessing that this photo alone will buy Obama an additional two years to find victory (or at least the appearance of victory) in Afghanistan.

Why is that important?  And why would Time Magazine want to help prolong our presence there?

Rightly or wrongly, the war in Afghanistan is perceived as Obama’s war.  Iraq was Bush’s war, but success or failure in Afghanistan will belong to Obama.  Ever since the invasion of Iraq, the Dems maintained the mantra, “We should never have ever gone there; we should have focused on Afghanistan instead.”  It was their way of trying to appear to be anti-war (in Iraq) and pro-security (in Afghanistan) at the same time.

Now that they control the government, the Dems are trying to navigate between (a) the American public who heard them say for so many years that we should be in Afghanistan, and (b) their own base, the fringe left, who expected Obama to bring all the troops home on January 21, 2009, no matter what.  For whatever reason, they’ve decided to stay.  For now.  And now that they’re in, Obama really needs a victory (or at least something that they can claim is a victory).

However, to achieve victory, Obama needs time to prosecute the war before political forces pushing for withdrawal become irresistable.  That’s where Time Magazine comes in.  They are heavily invested in their guy Obama, and they will do anything they can to make him appear to be successful.  The photo is a powerful argument to do what’s necessary to make sure young women like Aisha don’t have to live in a country governed by barbarians.  It’s an argument to give President Obama more time.

It is facinating to see how the press selects the photos it will use based on the public policy objectives it wants to support.  The press hated LBJ and Nixon, so they published photos of war violence that diminished public support for US involvement in Vietnam.  They hated Bush, so they published photos of war violence that suppressed public support for the war in Iraq.  But now they love Obama, so they publish a photo that will actually increase public support for Obama’s war.

Of course, it is a powerful photo.  It certainly refocused in my own mind what’s at stake in Afghanistan.  For myself, I hope we do everything possible to bring peace and justice to this corner of the world.  Not only for Aisha’s sake, but for many more just like her.  Taliban barbarians are a cancer that needs to be eradicated.  I say publish the photo.

What do you say?

You have heard of Lila Rose of Live Action.  You may have seen her under-cover videos that show how Planned Parenthood employees cover up the illegal sexual abuse of children.

In this video, Ms. Rose describes how CBR employs the exact same strategy that was used by other successful reformers in history, including the movements to stop the slave trade in England, to abolish slavery here, to end abusive child labor here, and to galvanize the civil rights movement in the 1950s.

Ms. Rose reports from Sproul Plaza at the University of California at Berkeley during our GAP presentation last October.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldxict4AZD4

Besides college campuses, what other venues are appropriate for abortion pictures?  Please comment!

In a surprising betrayal of left-wing kooks everywhere, Time Magazine has published (on its August 9, 2010 cover) a shocking and disturbing photo of 18-year-old Aisha, an Afghan woman who had her ears and nose cut off by the Taliban. Her crime? Trying to escape from abusive in-laws who beat her without mercy. She posed for the photo because she wants the world to see what a Taliban resurgence will do to the women of Afghanistan.

This has to be a setback for the fringe Left, who say we should forget about 9/11 and get out of Afghanistan and Iraq right now because, after all, America is the real source of evil in the world.

The political Left has allied itself with radical Islam, much in the same way that it embraces Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro (just one example).  This is especially ironic because radical Isalm seeks to impose Sharia Law, which would beat, imprison, and kill the very people that make up the Left: radical feminists, homosexuals, atheists, etc.  I guess they see America as the common enemy, and the defeat of this enemy is so important, they are willing to make common cause with barbarians.

I’m guessing this photo will make it a little more difficult for the kook Left to justify their collaboration with radical Islam.

What do you think? Am I wrong? Am I right? Tell me how!

If you haven’t already, please go “Like” us on Facebook!