The Committee for Truth in Politics has put up a new ad hitting Obama on the fact that he opposed legislation that would have mandated medical care for infants that survive abortions.  Better yet, they're making the ad available without copyright...meaning anyone can use it anyway they wish...including other political committees that may want to put it on television themselves.

Watch it below (or click here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrtOBespwYg)

Tough stuff.

This is gonna' leave a mark...

Vatican officials seldom single out political leaders who differ with the Church on issues like abortion rights or embryonic stem cell research. But now that the Vatican’s highest court is led by an American, the former St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke, we can expect things to get more explicit in Vatican City — at least when when it comes to U.S. politics.

Burke, who was named prefect of the Vatican’s Supreme Court of the Apostolic Signature in June, told the Italian Catholic newspaper Avvenire that the U.S. Democratic Party risked “transforming itself definitively into a party of death for its decisions on bioethical issues.” He then attacked two of the party’s most high profile Catholics — vice presidential candidate Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — for misrepresenting Church teaching on abortion.

Boy, it's refreshing when you come across someone who gives it to you without the varnish.  He went on...

Burke said pro-life Democrats were “rare” and that it saddened him that the party that helped “our immigrant parents and grandparents” prosper in America had changed so much over the years.

No joke.  Given their party's positions on abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, and gay marriage, you can't think that their leadership feels too happy about the Vatican taking a more aggressive role in holding its flock to account, (especially when you consider how many blue-collar Catholics there are in those swing states in the north and upper-midwest).

Just when you think liberals couldn't possibly demean the value of life any further...you get this at Yale:

Art major Aliza Shvarts '08 wants to make a statement.

Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself "as often as possible" while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process. ...

But Shvarts insists her concept was not designed for "shock value."  ...

"I believe strongly that art should be a medium for politics and ideologies, not just a commodity," Shvarts said. "I think that I'm creating a project that lives up to the standard of what art is supposed to be."

The display of Schvarts' project will feature a large cube suspended from the ceiling of a room in the gallery of Green Hall. Schvarts will wrap hundreds of feet of plastic sheeting around this cube; lined between layers of the sheeting will be the blood from Schvarts' self-induced miscarriages mixed with Vaseline in order to prevent the blood from drying and to extend the blood throughout the plastic sheeting.

Schvarts will then project recorded videos onto the four sides of the cube. These videos, captured on a VHS camcorder, will show her experiencing miscarriages in her bathrooom tub, she said. Similar videos will be projected onto the walls of the room. ...

The official reception for the Undergraduate Senior Art Show will be from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. on April 25. The exhibition will be on public display from April 22 to May 1. The art exhibition is set to premiere alongside the projects of other art seniors this Tuesday, April 22 at the gallery of Holcombe T. Green Jr. Hall on Chapel Street.

In other words, what we really have here is using murder to create "art".  As I recall, the Nazis took pictures and made movies of many of those they tortured and killed, but I don't recall such documentation being viewed as "art"...more like evidence.

From what I've seen, it costs around $45,000 a year to attend Yale.  Her parents must be so proud of their investment.

Here comes Planned Parenthood and NARAL...

Abortion-rights groups are planning to spend unprecedented sums on voter outreach and education in this fall's elections, as they broaden their electoral targets in an effort to change the make-up of the House and Senate.

The Planned Parenthood Action Fund is promising to spend $10 million this election cycle — three times more than the organization has spent in any previous election.

NARAL Pro-Choice America has also budgeted $10 million for the 2008 election campaign — the most it has spent in any election year since 2000.

Both groups are expanding their strategies beyond the presidential race and gubernatorial elections, where they have spent the bulk of their money in previous years.

Planned Parenthood is targeting a series of critical Senate races, while NARAL is making plans to spend heavily in nearly three dozen House races nation-wide.

I guess they're getting a little upset about the reduced number of abortions lately.

The bigger point is the usual suspects on the left are getting in full battle gear for the upcoming election.  But where's the conservatie equivalent?  Time for some people to get serious.

As reported by OneNewsNow.com, the SCOTUS has turned down an appeal from an Arizona county sheriff, who's religious and ethical beliefs make it a serious problem for him to transport pregnant inmates for elective abortions.

Not only is the dilemma grounded in moral and religious beliefs for the law enforcement officer, it was actually against jail policy to engage in such a transport without court order.

An Arizona sheriff wanted the justices to allow him to enforce a jail policy that bars transporting inmates for abortions without a court order.

Arizona courts said the policy violated the inmates' constitutional rights. A federal appeals court in Missouri recently issued a similar ruling in a case there.

The justices did not comment on their decision to leave the Arizona ruling in place.

It's obvious that this occasion can be placed right along with the rest, in the stack of countless occasions where terms like "Choice" and "Diversity" are recognized and respected, until those with opinions and stands from the moral and conservative side of the argument are concerned.

This is interesting:

A new poll of Republican voters finds them not united on the best choice to handle key social issues like abortion. In each of the three first primary battleground states, GOP voters see a different candidate as the best one on the issue.

The Los Angeles Times and Bloomberg News conducted a joint poll of Republican voters in the states and asked them, "Regardless of your choice for president, who do you think would be best on social issues, such as abortion."

Among Iowa voters, the poll found 20 percent thought Mitt Romney was the best to address the abortion issue and Rudy Giuliani came in second at 14 percent. Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson tied with 10 percent each and others received only single digit support.

In New Hampshire, Giuliani received the support of 25 percent on the abortion question and Romney had 23 percent. No other candidate there received more than 10 percent.

And in South Carolina, Fred Thompson leads on the abortion issue among Republicans with the support of 17 percent to 15 percent for Giuliani and 11 percent for Romney.

In other words, it seems that how Republican primary voters in each state feel about the candidates on the abortion issue roughly correlates with those candidates' standing in that states' polls...which is about what one would expect this early on, when the candidates aren't yet spending big money to "shoot" at each other on specific issues.

I can't believe I'm actually posting this article, but read this:

Capping a months-long scientific and ethics review, British regulators said yesterday that they are prepared to allow the creation of embryos that are part human and part animal for use in medical experiments.

The ruling by the Human Fertilisation and Embryo Authority, which oversees human embryo research in Britain, means that two previously submitted proposals to create hybrid embryos -- on hold while the agency considered whether it would even look at them -- will be evaluated in detail. Decisions on those proposals, widely anticipated to be positive, are expected in November.

The prime goal of the research is to create embryos from which embryonic stem cells that may be medically useful can be extracted. The embryos would be made by injecting human DNA into cow or rabbit eggs whose own DNA has been largely, but not fully, removed. ...

But opponents have argued that it is no less unethical to create partly human embryos solely to harvest their stem cells, and some opponents have raised the specter of rogue scientists growing the embryos into weird human-animal creatures.

The embryo authority acknowledged those concerns and promised to watch the field closely.

Oh, well now I feel better.  The group charged with watching the scientists (which is made up of scientists) will "watch the field closely".

Have we really slipped so far down the slope where it's necessary to rasie objections to the idea of creating half-human/half-animal embryos??  What will we have to object to next?

And keep in mind that our good friends across the pond are always just a little farther down the slope than we are on these types of things.  Meaning that we can usually get a good idea of where we're heading by seeing where they are.  If we're smart, we'll treat them like the proverbial canary in a coal mine...and we'll change our course pretty quick.  No doubt the scientists will object.

The latest national poll (this one via CNN) shows Rudy taking a pretty big dip in the post presidential debate numbers.  In fact, it shows him at his lowest point since they begain including him in the survey back in August of 2006.  (Now down to 25%)

CNN Poll: Giuliani's Slide - A new CNN poll out today has Rudy Giuliani at 25%, which is his lowest point all year. John McCain, meanwhile, remains in second place at 23%, with Fred Thompson (13%) and Mitt Romney (10%) filling out the top tier.... [Real Clear Politics]

In other words, it would seem that what most people who know a little bit about conservative Republican politics have been saying all along is actually true...a socially moderate/liberal (take your pick) pro-choice Republican is not going to win the nomination.  And what we've been seeing in the months after his first big splash is the start of the "issues exam" that all the candidates have to go through...and many of the examiners are finding that Rudy comes up a little short.  And his recent debate performance, and even more recent revelations re: contributions to Planned Parenthood have not helped.

And don't forget, this is the guy who once appeared in public in drag...