Tiller Found Not Guilty: Pro-Life Forces Vow To Continue Fight

A Kansas jury has found notorious abortionist, George Tiller, not guilty on all counts.

Tiller faced 19 misdemeanor charges that accused him of violating state laws involving late-term abortions. Cheryl Sullinger of Operation Rescue tells OneNewsNow they were disappointed with the verdict.

"We have to remember that these were the weakest of the charges that could have been brought by the state," she notes. "There were 30 charges that had been brought by former Attorney General Phil Kline in 2006 that were dismissed on jurisdictional reasons without having ever been considered on their merit."

Had Tiller faced those charges, Sullinger is confident he would have been convicted. Operation Rescue was at the forefront of the investigation, so Sullinger was asked if they are finished with Tiller.

"We have a number of other projects, and we believe that there's [sic] plenty of things that Tiller has done that violated the law that eventually, we're just going to keep pressing on until we finally get justice and we finally get a conviction," she concludes.

Kansas law allows abortions after a baby can survive outside the womb only if two independent doctors agree that it is necessary to save a women's life or prevent "substantial and irreversible" harm to "a major bodily function," a phrase that has been interpreted to include mental health.

Dr. Ann Kristin Neuhaus provided second opinions on late-term abortions before Tiller performed them.

According to trial testimony, Tiller's patients paid Neuhaus $250 to $300 in cash for providing the consultation and the only way patients could see her was to make an appointment with Tiller's office.

Tiller testified that he used Neuhaus based on advice from his lawyers and from Larry Buening, who was then executive director of the Board of Healing Arts.

Prosecutors tried to show that Tiller ultimately relied on his lawyers' advice - an important distinction because the judge told attorneys before their opening statements that relying on the advice of an attorney cannot be used as a legal defense to criminal charges. They also questioned Tiller about the conversation with Buening, noting that Tiller had testified that Buening said he couldn't quote him.

Mary Kay Culp, executive director of Kansans for Life, said abortion opponents were never confident that Tiller would be prosecuted aggressively enough by Attorney General Steve Six.

"Even if Tiller had been found guilty, he would have appealed to the Supreme Court," Culp said, noting that four of the Kansas high court's seven justices were appointed by Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who supports abortion rights.

Phill Kline, the former attorney general who started the investigation, expressed frustration at the prosecutors who tried the case, noting that their only witness was Neuhaus.

"You do not win cases nor achieve justice by calling one witness and ordering your staff not to initiate any additional effort to gather evidence," Kline said in a written statement.

Disney said his office had thoroughly investigated the case and "presented all the evidence that there was."

Tiller said he is one of three doctors in the U.S. who currently perform late-term abortions. The others are in Boulder, Colo., and Los Angeles, he said.

Elevating Homosexuality To New Heights

The Obama administration and other proponents of a United Nations statement that calls for the decriminalization of homosexuality claim it merely targets the seven countries that put homosexuals to death. But one pro-family activist warns the document elevates homosexual behavior to skin color and religious belief.The Obama State Department has endorsed the U.N. statement out of concern over what one official describes as "violence and human rights abuses against gay, lesbian, transsexual and bisexual individuals" as well as "the criminalization of sexual orientation in many countries." In addition, according to U.S. officials, signing of the nonbinding declaration demonstrates that the U.S. supports human rights for all. (See related article)

Austin Ruse, president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, says the Obama administration has essentially signed its name to a "press release" initiated by the French government in the U.N. General Assembly last fall. Ruse says he fully expected the Obama administration to sign on to the document immediately because it supports the homosexual agenda.

"What the press release really does is encourage the acceptance of gender identity and sexual orientation as a category of non-discrimination in human rights treaties," explains Ruse, "so that these categories would stand alongside race, religion, and other widely accepted categories of non-discrimination."

Ruse says the Bush administration almost signed on to the U.N. homosexual rights document last fall. He notes there is a "very healthy homosexual lobby" in the State Department and in various parts of the U.S. government. In fact, he reports that for a brief moment last week at the United Nations, the Obama administration endorsed a document titled "The International Guidelines on HIV/AIDS," which calls for criminal penalties for those who criticize homosexuality.

Blueprint for Global Enslavement?

Valedictorian's Free-Speech Case Goes To Court

A student's free-speech rights are being defended in federal court.

Liberty Counsel is pursuing the case at the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. General counsel Steve Crampton is defending Colorado high school valedictorian Erica Corder. Along with 14 others, Corder was permitted to make a 30-second statement at the graduation ceremony.

"And because she mentioned Jesus Christ, she was told immediately after the service that she would not be receiving her diploma along with the other students, but had to meet the principal who then required that she sign an apology, with which she did not agree, as a condition for receiving her diploma," Crampton explains.

Corder wrote the apology under compulsion, and Liberty Counsel then sued the school on her behalf. Crampton says it is unconstitutional to restrict public speech, especially since it was student-initiated.

Evidently, says the attorney, "there's basically no such thing as private speech at a graduation ceremony -- even for a valedictorian who earned the right to address her classmates."

Crampton calls it a clear case of viewpoint discrimination.

Watch the following video for another similar case...

Baptist Leader Speaks Out Against Obama's Pro-Death Moves

A Southern Baptist leader who serves on President Barack Obama's Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships opposes Obama's move to fund embryonic stem-cell research.

Rev. Frank Page, a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention, says he told the White House that he is alarmed at Obama's "consistent pattern of removing any pro-life protections." Page says he wonders sometimes if the president is really listening to his advice and says he is conscious of being a Baptist and evangelical voice on the president's advisory council.

"I know that I am representing a huge number of people who are deeply concerned, and as long as I am at the table I have a voice at the table, and I am trying to maintain that and be true to what I feel is a biblically consistent voice," he notes.

But after Page objected last week to the removal of conscience protections for medical providers, he says he got a letter from the White House. "Promising me in writing that President Obama would never be a part of forcing anyone to perform an abortion against his or her conscience," he points out.

Page says he disagrees with President Obama's move to federally fund embryonic stem-cell research. "I'm just seeing this consistent pattern of removing any pro-life protection, so I am deeply concerned," he admits. "And I have stated that concern and will continue to state it."

4D Proof Abortion is Murder / Pro-Life Anti-Abortion Video

Come See Who Pro-Choicers Want to Be Allowed To Be Murdered. The video, "Anna's Baby February 2006". The first pictures in 3D of Anna's Son. 4D Ultrasound (also known as 3D/4D Ultrasound) is the most advanced technology used by sonographers during pregnancy to evaluate the unborn baby. The film proves that the unborn child is a human being and that abortion is nothing more than the murder of an innocent human being. This item is part of the collection: Open Source Movies. Creative Commons license: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike.

The Orwellian Presidential Bully Pulpit

by David Limbaugh

Does the following statement from Melody C. Barnes, director of President Barack Obama's Domestic Policy Council, strike you as a) patronizing or b) Orwellian? "The president believes that it's particularly important to sign this (presidential memorandum authorizing federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research) so that we can put science and technology back at the heart of pursuing a broad range of national goals."

Your answer should be both a and b, especially when considered in conjunction with another presidential memorandum "aimed at insulating scientific decisions across the federal government from political influence."

The president brazenly sermonizes against scientifically challenged conservatives while triggering federal funding of research that is scientifically controversial and preparing to impose cap and trade penalties on corporate America in deference to global warming junk science.

While you won't hear much about this in the mainstream media, there is a meeting currently taking place in New York City that serves as an ironic backdrop for Obama's embryonic stem cell order.

OneNewsNow.com reports that more than 70 scientists -- representing the views of tens of thousands more scientists -- are meeting at The Heartland Institute's second annual International Conference on Climate Change to make the case that politically motivated alarmism, not science, is driving climate change activism, which potentially threatens the sovereignty of the United States.

At the conference, European Union and Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus likened those pushing global warming hysteria to the communists of Old Europe, who refused to listen to opposing views. Their goal, Klaus warned, is to control the public.

Sounds familiar. The Obama administration repeatedly implements policies that are in direct contradiction to its benign rhetoric, which is what I mean by "Orwellian." Consider its fiscal recklessness accompanied by promises of fiscal responsibility, including its staggering denial that it is promoting earmarks. Or its boasts of bipartisanship while shutting Republicans out of the legislative process. Or calling its plan to chill an employee's choice to opt out of union membership the "Employee Free Choice Act."

But Obama's statements while introducing his embryonic stem cell executive order truly take the cake. He said: "But after much discussion, debate and reflection, the proper course has become clear. The majority of Americans, from across the political spectrum and from all backgrounds and beliefs, have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research -- that the potential it offers is great, and with proper guidelines and strict oversight, the perils can be avoided."

It would take several columns to parse that statement alone, but just look at the misleading phraseology: "The majority of Americans … have come to a consensus." Assuming a majority favors embryonic stem cell research -- and even federal taxpayer funding for it -- is it not deceptive to imply that a majority constitutes a consensus?

Of course, those who agree on a proposition always share a consensus among themselves, but doesn't "consensus" suggest that there is almost unanimity on the issue?

The answer is yes. The Obama left repeatedly uses this type of language to manufacture the impression that only a fringe minority disagrees with the overwhelmingly accepted majority view. They declare a consensus when there isn't one and bully the true opposition from voicing their concerns. They do it with global warming, embryonic stem cell research, "intelligent design" theory and now Keynesian economics.

They have plenty of help from the liberal lapdog media. They dutifully report that Obama is lifting a ban on embryonic stem cell research when there has been no ban on such research, only a restriction on federal funding for it. Nowhere do they acknowledge the genuine ethical objections to or the scientific problems that have been encountered in such research. Instead, they just portray opponents of federal subsidies for the practice as Luddites.

While the left ridicules those who don't buy into their decreed "consensuses," they are the ones who suppress scientific inquiry and debate on various issues. They are the ones who suppress publication of facts that contradict their agenda.

You'll rarely hear from them about the failures and hazards of embryonic stem cell research, such as a report that embryonic cells injected into a boy caused multiple brain tumors. You'll never hear them speak about the increasing successes of adult stem cell research, even though adult stem cell science is less expensive, more accessible, probably involves less cancer-causing risk, and is not ethically controversial.

Beware; when the Obama left mounts its rhetorical high horse and tells us it is advancing science in furtherance of a consensus, it is most likely signaling that it is implementing a highly controversial, scientifically dubious policy whose opposition it intends to intimidate and silence with the formidable force of the presidential bully pulpit.

Carville Wanted Bush to Fail

The news that Democratic strategist James Carville wanted President Bush to fail has been circulating for a couple of days now. According to FOX News, on the morning of September 11, 2001, just minutes before the terrorist attacks, Carville told a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed."

Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.

"We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him," Greenberg admitted.

Of course, as soon as Carville heard of the terrorist attacks, he announced to all the reporters he was having breakfast with for them to "Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!" And the press did just that, never reporting anything that Carville had said, for months and years afterward.

Why is this bit of news important? Because the press went crazy when Rush Limbaugh recently said that he wanted President Obama to fail, talking endlessly about it and suggesting that Limbaugh and Republicans were unpatriotic.

Mr. Carville himself said on CNN: "The most influential Republican in the United States today, Mr. Rush Limbaugh, said he did not want President Obama to succeed." "He is the daddy of this Republican Congress."

Did Carville forget what he said about Bush in 2001? Of course not, he was just hoping everybody else wouldn't find out about it - pot, meet kettle. Carville says that focusing on Limbaugh is a deliberate strategy and that Democrats hope it undermines Republicans. This piece of information was confirmed by the New York Times in a profile of David Axelrod, Obama's closest political advisor:

He [Axelrod] also helps decide which fights to pick and which ones to avoid, making him a leading voice in setting the political tone in Washington. The recent back-and-forth with Rush Limbaugh, for example, was explicitly authorized by Axelrod, who told aides that it was not a moment to sit quietly after Limbaugh said he hoped that Obama would “fail.”

Limbaugh, for his part, said that he is rooting for the failure of Obama's liberal policies. "The difference between Carville and his ilk and me is that I care about what happens to my country," said Limbaugh on Wednesday. "I am not saying what I say for political advantage. I oppose actions, such as Obama's socialist agenda, that hurt my country."

Teen Commits Suicide -- Is Sexting to Blame?

We're saddened by a story about a teen who hanged herself in her bedroom after an ex-boyfriend disseminated a nude cell-phone photo of her around their Ohio community. Jessica Logan, 18, was harassed daily by other girls calling her "slut" and "whore" and throwing objects at her.

Making It Through
She finished high school last year and went on national television with her face and voice distorted to warn other girls about the potential consequences of taking naked photos of themselves, a mistake Vanessa Hudgens later made.

But two months later, after attending a funeral for another teen who had committed suicide, Jessica went home and took her own life.

A Common Mistake
An oft-cited survey says that 39 percent of teens have sent similar photos of themselves ... and 15 percent of high-school boys say they disseminate the pics after a breakup.

The "Today" show had an "Internet security expert" on hand to warn of the dangers of "sexting" and urge parents to check their kids' cell phones. But isn't the real problem old-fashioned high-school cruelty?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

"Sexting" and online bullying may be relatively new, but girls tormenting other girls over their alleged promiscuity has been around forever.

We're glad to hear from the security expert that schools are finally being held liable for bullying (including some cyber-bullying), but we're not sure if that will be enough to keep kids from tormenting each other.

"Mean Girls" has a touching ending, but what can school officials and parents do to help real-life teens make peace? Should we blame technology ... or ourselves?

Tell us! What should parents or administrators do to teach kids about the dangers of sexting? Is it just another rite of passage?

Stem-Cell Decision Exposes Religious Divides

The embryonic stem-cell research debate is steeped with religious arguments, with some faith traditions convinced the research amounts to killing innocent life, others citing the moral imperative to alleviate suffering, and plenty of religious believers caught somewhere in between.

President Barack Obama's order Monday opening the door for federal taxpayer dollars to fund expanded embryonic stem cell research again brings those often colliding interests to the fore. Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities, called Obama's move "a sad victory of politics over science and ethics."

"This action is morally wrong because it encourages the destruction of innocent human life, treating vulnerable human beings as mere products to be harvested," Rigali, the archbishop of Philadelphia, said in a statement.

On the other side is the Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, a United Church of Christ minister and a professor at Chicago Theological Seminary. "There is an ethical imperative to relieve suffering and promote healing," she said. "This is good policy for a religiously pluralistic society that cares about human suffering and the relief of human suffering."

Obama alluded to religion in announcing the changes, saying, "As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly."

Some religious traditions teach that because life begins at conception, any research that destroys a human embryo, as this research does, is tantamount to murder and is never justified. The Roman Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention are among those that oppose the research.

Other more liberal traditions, including mainline Protestant and Jewish institutions, believe the promise to relieve suffering is paramount. In 2004, the governing body of the Episcopal Church said it would favor the research as long as it used embryos that otherwise would have been destroyed, that embryos were not created for research purposes, or were not bought and sold.

Under Jewish law, an embryo is genetic material that does not have the status of a person. According to the Talmud, the embryo is "simply water" in the first 40 days of gestation. Healing and preserving human life takes precedence over all the other commandments in Judaism.

Some groups and faiths are divided on the issue. Muslims disagree over -- among other things -- whether an embryo in the early stage of development has a soul. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the Mormon church, has not taken a position.

The Rev. Joel Hunter, an evangelical pastor from Orlando, Fla., who serves on an Obama White House advisory panel, said he was encouraged by Monday's developments.

"The principle is still that it's not only understandable but in some ways moral to use embryonic stem cells that are destined for destruction for research for helping people," he said. "I think we have to tread very lightly and very carefully, and I think we have to be vigilant for years to come."

But most evangelicals criticized Obama's move. Gilbert Meilaender, a Christian ethicist at Valparaiso University and a member of the President's Council on Bioethics, created by President George W. Bush, said Obama's decision was especially disappointing because scientists are advancing toward being able to produce cells that act like embryonic stem cells without destroying any human embryos.

Meilaender said that while there is no good solution for frozen embryos left in storage at fertility clinics, destroying them for stem cell research is not the answer.

"My own position is that having, as it were, produced and used them once in the use of someone else's project, for a reproductive purpose, that using it once for someone else's purpose is enough," said Meilaender, a member of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

Catholic bishops have been outspoken in opposing embryonic stem cell research. Other Catholics, though, are more open to lifting the Bush-era restrictions, with caveats. The Rev. Tom Reese, a senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University, said restrictions should be put on embryonic stem cell research -- including prohibition on their buying and selling, and using only embryos that otherwise would be destroyed.

"I'm trying to make an argument for some middle ground here," Reese said. "Hopefully down the line we can reach a point where we don't have to use embryonic stem cell research."

Polls show some believers are willing to buck their leaders on the issue. Fifty-nine percent of white, non-Hispanic Catholics and 58 percent of white mainline Protestants favor embryonic stem cell research, according to a poll released in July 2008 by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. Only 31 percent of white evangelical Protestants, however, favored the research.

Princeton University politics professor Robert George, a Catholic and another member of the Bush-era Council on Bioethics, said the moral argument over embryonic stem cell research is not rooted in religion but in ethics and equality. He said research shows that an embryo is a human being in its earliest form of development, so we have to ask ourselves whether all human life should be treated equally, with dignity and respect.

"I don't think the question has anything to do with religion or pulling out our microscope and trying to find souls," George said. "We live in a pluralistic society where some people believe there are no such things as souls. Does that mean we should not have moral objections to killing 17-year-old adolescents?"