Sibby Online

Abortion causes Cerebral Palsy

Here is another stake into the heart of the 2006 South Dakota vote-no-for-death pro-abortion advocates using "Healthy Families" as their name:

VANCOUVER, October 26, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – An article appearing in this month’s edition of the Journal of Reproductive Medicine concludes that nearly 32 per cent of "very preterm" U.S. births, that is, before 32 weeks gestation, are due to the mother having had a prior abortion. This information, combined with previous research in the relation between low birth weight children and cerebral palsy (CP), results in an estimated 1,096 children suffering from CP because of their mother’s prior abortion.

The 2002 data examines 4,021,726 births, 486,629 preterm babies and 72,751 very-preterm babies.

The study’s authors, with the Reduce Preterm Risk Coalition based in Vancouver, are Dr. Byron Calhoun an obstetrics and gynecology professor at Western Virginia University, Dr. Elizabeth Shadigian, obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Michigan and Brent Rooney the research director. They concluded that prior induced abortion is a significant risk factor in very preterm births and cerebral palsy.

The research backs up previous findings published in 2006 by Dr. Richard E. Behrman of Stanford University’s Institute of Medicine, that named "prior first trimester induced abortion" as "immutable medical risk factor associated with preterm birth".

Very preterm babies have much higher than normal risks of suffering medical problems including cerebral palsy, mental retardation, autism, epilepsy, blindness, deafness, lung impairment and serious infections.

The estimate combines a study of 58,717 newborns with a birth weight under 1500 grams (3 pounds 5 ounces) most of whom were very preterm. Calhoun estimated that since 31.5 per cent of children born with very low birth weight are due to prior induced abortions. Approximately 7.7 per cent of children with very low birth weight develop CP, at least 1,096 cases of CP are directly associated with the mother’s prior abortion.

The article further estimated a direct cost to the health care system of abortion-related pre-term babies at US $1.2 billion in 2002. This estimate did not include long-term costs for ongoing, often life-long medical expenses and lost income such children will suffer.

Partisan Politics versus Property Rights

Madville Times takes the newly self-appointed spokesman of the SD GOP and self-anointed rule maker for the South Dakota Blogosphere to task for siding with a Canadian big oil company instead of South Dakota property owners:

Dakota War College runs a press release from Dakotans Concerned, the folks up in Britton trying to keep TransCanada from stealing their land. According to Dakotans Concerned, our pushy Canadian corporate neighbors filed eminent domain papers against 9 more landowners Friday, bringing the total facing court-approved theft to 18.

The Madville Times hesitates to put words in anyone's mouth, but DWC's PP appears to dismiss the position of Dakotans Concerned and their lawyer, State Senate Minority Leader Scott Heidepreim, as bad for South Dakota: "Interesting that Senator Heidepreim is fighting the oil companies trying to develop South Dakota’s energy infrastructure."

We welcome interpretations and explanations of DWC's position on eminent domain and energy development. We also await an explanation of how the Keystone pipeline at all represents an addition to South Dakota's energy infrastructure; i.e., how specifically does this pipeline improve South Dakota's energy situation in a way that justifies the trampling of property rights (not to mention environmental concerns and common courtesy).

Finally, we ask for clarification: is DWC's desire to take a poke, small as it may be, at a perceived partisan opponent, overshadowing the bigger issue of protecting property rights for South Dakotans? The Madville Times has certainly offered criticism (and does so here) of the Republican administration that has remained disturbingly silent on these eminent domain actions, but we would offer criticism of any public official who did not protect his or her fellow citizens' rights from encroachment by foreign powers, political or corporate. We will also offer praise for any politician of any party who works either from his official position or in his day job (like lawyer Heidepreim) to protect landowners from eminent domain exercised for private gain.

Seems like Pat Powers might be a little shaken by my pointing out his relationship with Democrat activists Todd Epp and Bill Fleming by making a partisan shot at Heidepreim. Problem is, he picked a bi-partisan issue to do it on. Here is coverage on the 2006 legislative action in regard to eminent domain:

Calling it a model of legislative cooperation, the South Dakota Senate on Tuesday unanimously passed a measure that is designed to protect private-property rights.

"This bill is truly a work of art," Senate Minority Leader Garry Moore, D-Yankton, said. Moore commended HB1080’s chief sponsors, Sen. Jim Lintz, R-Hermosa, and House Majority Leader Larry Rhoden, R-Union Center, for working with interested parties in crafting the legislation.

HB1080, which ensures that government agencies cannot condemn land for economic development, stems from a controversial U.S. Supreme Court decision last summer regarding eminent domain.

Lintz told lawmakers that he and Rhoden began work on the legislation the day after the Kelo v. New London decision.

"Our phones were already ringing," he said. "It created quite a backlash because people thought they were protected by that kind of action."

The Supreme Court ruled that the city of New London could condemn private homes for the construction of a hotel and convention center because the new development would generate more tax revenue. But the court also said that states could put further restrictions on eminent domain.

Lintz and Rhoden said that although South Dakota has taken a conservative approach to condemnation issues, they wanted to make sure state law would prevent what occurred in Connecticut from happening here.

Under HB1080, counties, municipalities and housing and redevelopment commissions cannot transfer property to private or nongovernmental entity primarily for "enhancement" of tax revenue. It also stipulates that after seven years, if land isn’t used for the purpose for which it was acquired, it must be offered for sale to the original owner of the property.

Lintz said he and Rhoden wanted to get everyone on board.

"We knew it was something that all the people of South Dakota were concerned about," Lintz said.

So would does that legislation apply to the TransCanada situation? It doesn't but it should. Yes the TransCanada pipeline is being done for economic development reasons and to raise property tax revenues. The problem is that the 2006 legislation applies to "counties, municipalities and housing and redevelopment commissions" but not to a foreign corporation. So TransCanada can do what your local government entities can't, use eminent domain for economic development reasons that increase tax revenues. This needs to be looked at in the 2008 session. Instead of allowing Heidepreim to get all the glory for standing up for the little guy versus the big oil interests, the South Dakota GOP needs to join this crusade and make it a huge bi-partisan victory for the little guy as they did in 2006. This is no issue for the SD GOP to go partisan on.

Moving forward

The day after black Monday has been one of much conversation and listening to those who have frustrations with the conservative cause. I think an important point is that the conservative cause should not be about the politics of personal destruction, but instead focus needs to be on the issues.

I have more thoughts about what Pat Powers has done, but like other nasty issues, I had decided they are not important in the overall scope of what is in the best interests to us all.

The mission of this web site has been in search of the truth. Today I can say that I have a much higher understanding of the truth than what I had when I started this web site. Based on that I have developed priorities as follows:

1: God

2: Family

3: America

4: Political affiliation

If Party affiliation gets into the way of the first three, then it has to go. I believe the conservative cause is about the top three priorities. And in regard to Republican versus Democrat I believe most Republicans have it right, while most Democrats have it wrong. This also means that some Republicans have it wrong and some Democrats have it right.

And then there are those that are Independent. I think many are Independent because of too much politics of personal destruction. David Kranz has helped me understand the importance of that group with my most recent conversation with him.

Unfortunately, I believe Independents can not fully participate in the political process. Even though the real debate is largely between two competing worldviews, Biblical Christian versus humanism, I believe political action is a necessary component in fighting that culture war. So in that regard, I believe it is better to fight with a political force where most of the people have it right. And that currently is the Republican Party. With that said, I believe it is just as important to support those Democrats and Independents who also adhere to the Biblical Christian worldview. And I think that avoiding politics of personal destruction is a must in order to constructively work with those people. I think that becomes obvious to one whose number one priority is God.

As a fallen man, I have and probably at times will again forget what is most important. Today I have a renewed focus to lessen those times. And in that regard, I would like to thank Randell Beck for his conservation that ended by day yesterday. May God Bless him.

And with all of that said, I do not want to give the impression that I will stop describing the worldview of secular humanists as being anti-God, anti-Christian, anti-American, and anti-family. I believe that to be the truth. I hope you all understand that fits the above priorities I have detailed above. I also hope those who hear me say those things understand that I am talking about ones position on issues, and not the person as a whole. We all are sinners. Those I love the most are quick to point out my sins as I believe they are the ones that love me the most. And my parents are at the top of that list. That is why family carries such a high priority as it reinforces the top priority.

And with regard to America, I believe the strength of this great country has been its Biblical Christian worldview. We as the citizens of this country that is based on inalienable rights that are granted only by God have a sacred duty to our political leaders to hold them to a high Biblical standard. But the way that is done is what I believe needs to be worked on. If it simply is intended to be a means to personally destroy others, it is wrong. The intent has to be out of love for others and to attack sin without attacking the sinner.

Yes, easier said than done, but I now carry on with hope that I can do it better. And I will continue to fight for what I believe in within the Republican Party…if they will have me.

God Bless all of those who read this site. Remember that all glory belongs to Him that guides us.

He said verses he said

Here is a link to a post that I have corrected by deleting the content.

I have a He said versus He said situation in reach only one person will go on the record here at Sibby Online. So that person gets the right to my space. If I find out anything further on the issue I will report it. I don’t know what the real truth is, so I leave that up to God as I apologize to all that were adversely affected, most notably David Kranz. No matter what the truth is in regard to the issue addressed below, I do agree that David Kranz is a fine journalist and most importantly a fine man. So here is the email of the person of record for those who want to correct their web site:

Steve:
I have always supported your right to advocate for your views, to stir the pot. Your right to do so is one of the great things about a democracy, perhaps the greatest. In my view, however, you do not have a right to say blatantly false things about people. The wild and unsubstantiated claims on your Web site in recent days about David Kranz attempting to influence the sale or distribution of Jon Lauck's book are simply not true. They are unwarranted attacks on the integrity of a fine journalist, and of a fine man, and I believe you owe it your readers to remove those postings from your Web site and tell your readers that they were untrue. If you are, as you say, in search of the truth, you will do this right thing.

Randell Beck
Executive Editor
Argus Leader

Frustrations of GOP conservatives

Bob Ellis lets out his frustrations on the less than conservative field of GOP Presidential candidates:

I sympathize with those on the Right who fear the unspeakable damage that a second Clinton administration could do to this country.

But while Huckabee is more palatable than Giuliani because Huckabee is at least pro-life and pro-marriage, why settle for half of a conservative? We don't need to settle for this.

There is still time before the primaries for conservatives to get behind a TRUE conservative. Why do conservatives continue to shoot themselves in the foot? Why do conservatives continue to stand in fear of and be intimidated by the "mainstream" media and other elites? Why do conservatives continue to settle for a pale imitation of what this country needs?

I'm beginning to wonder if conservatives have some kind of "Battered Voter Syndrome" where they seem to think they can't do any better than the candidate who panders to them when he wants something, and then "steps out" on them once he's got it. Many conservatives seem so desperate for affection and the illusion of security that they'll ignore a suitor's past behavior as long as he'll pretend he loves them.

We don't need to settle for a liberal on immigration, taxes, big government and the welfare state, just so we can get a pro-life pro-marriage candidate. Not when there are excellent, across-the-board conservative candidates like Rep. Tom Tancredo and Rep. Duncan Hunter.

Conservatives need to stop wallowing in victimhood and start acting like they want to see their values carried out in government. If we think we can't do better than a pseudo-conservative, guess what: we WON'T do better than a pseudo-conservative. We've had plenty of those; we don't need another one.

UPDATE: Bob has more on Duncan Hunter.

Pro-life events in Rapid City

BE A SAINT ON ALL SAINTS DAY

"Be glad and rejoice for your reward is very great in Heaven."

Citizens For life will be holding a peaceful, prayerful protest at the Planned Parenthood site in Baken Park.

WHEN: Thursday, November 1st; 4 - 5 p.m.

WHERE: Corner of Mountainview Road and up West Main St. (Parking at Boyds Drug; Signs/pictures will be available.)

**We will be doing this every Thursday on "Face the Truth Thursdays" to inform the new owners that we are serious in our effort to drive Planned Parenthood out of our community.

Can you sacrifice a half hour every Thursday for the "little innocents lost"?

Any questions call Al at 391.8307

Defining the Republican Party

As I contemplate leaving the GOP, I thought a history lesson of the Republican Party would be interesting:

The Republican Party was founded in 1854 by a group of renegade Democrats, Whigs, and political independents who opposed the expansion of SLAVERY into new U.S. territories and states. What began as a single-issue, independent party became a major political force in the United States. Six years after the new party was formed, Republican nominee ABRAHAM LINCOLN won the U.S. presidential election. The Republican Party and its counterpart, the DEMOCRATIC PARTY, became the mainstays of the nation's de facto two-party system.

Lincoln's victory in 1860 signaled the demise of the WHIG PARTY and the ascendance of Republican politics. From 1860 to 1931, the Republicans dominated U.S. presidential elections. Only two Democrats were elected to the White House during the 70-year period of Republican preeminence.

The early Republican Party was shaped by political conscience and regionalism. Throughout the early and mid-nineteenth century, states in the North and South were bitterly divided over the issues of slavery and state sovereignty. In 1854 the enactment of the KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT inflamed political passions. Under the act residents of the new territories of Kansas and Nebraska could decide whether to permit slavery in their regions. In effect, the act invalidated the MISSOURI COMPROMISE OF 1820, which prohibited the extension of slavery in new areas of the United States. Opponents of slavery condemned the measure, and violence erupted in Kansas.

So the Republican Party was founded upon the civil rights issue of slavery. Many may not know that slavery was not exclusively an American issue. Here is an excerpt form page 47 of John W. Chalfant’s book, "America, A Call to Greatness":

Continuing to the 1400s A.D., the Portuguese explored the coast of West Africa and shipped African blacks to Europe as slaves. This slave trade expanded to Spain, Mexico, Cuba, and various Caribbean islands, which became known as the West Indies These African slaves were used primarily on plantations.

Between 1500s and 1800s, European slave traders shipped about ten million black slaves from Africa to the Western hemisphere. North America received about six percent of them.

Chalfant goes on the explain the beginning of the end to American slavery thanks to the Biblical Christian Worldview of the Founding Fathers:

Slavery had been established in North America for centuries, when the first Christian settlers founded the American colonies in the early 1600s. So opposed were the colonies of the Pilgrims and Puritans to slavery, that when the first slave trader brought his ship to Massachusetts, he was arrested and his slaves returned to Africa. More than one hundred years later, the Founding Fathers inherited the situation of slavery, and dedicated themselves to its eradication.

The Founding Fathers were a mere handful of Christians – educators, clergymen, lawyers, merchants, and political representatives – who believed that all men are created equal in the eyes of God. They set forth this belief in the Declaration of Independence (1776) that, as such, all men are entitled to certain unalienable rights – among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They contended that human slavery was contrary to the will of the God of creation and believed that America would not and could not become great and free if the black man was not recognized as a person.

So then finally the creation of the Republican Party was the final act to achieve justice for black men so that they can be treated as persons of God. Today, the civil rights of the pre-born child follow the same person hood argument as that of slavery:

Ever since the Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton decisions on abortion by the US Supreme Court in 1973, spokesmen for the Right-to-Life movement have been comparing the abortion issue to slavery. They have pointed to the core analogy of legal personhood for black Americans then, and of unborn Americans today.

The 1973 decision has been compared to the Dred Scott decision of 1857. Its identical court majority of 7 - 2, its holdings, even the arguments justifying it then, find almost exact echoes today in the abortion decisions.

Dred Scott was decided only three years before Lincoln’s election and the onset of the Civil War. It attempted to settle, once and for all, the vexing slavery question. In judging the case of Mr. Dred Scott, a black man from St. Louis, the US Supreme Court certainly did clarify the issue. Black people, it ruled, were not legal persons; they were the property of the slave owner. He could buy, sell or even kill them.

Abolitionists had objected. The ruling was outrageous, they said. It was immoral and discriminated against an entire class of living Americans solely on the basis of skin color. None other than Roger Taney, Chief Justice of the Court, and a chorus of others replied to them. So you folks have a different opinion? You object on moral and religious grounds to slavery? That is all right, they said. You abolitionists don’t have to own a slave if you don’t want to. No one is forcing you to own one, but don’t force your morality on the slave owner. He has the "right to choose" to own slaves if he wishes. The Supreme Court has ruled this is a constitutionally protected right. It has so interpreted the Constitution. Slavery is legal.

The Roe vs. Wade decision has been seen as a direct parallel. It too was a 7 - 2 decision by the Supreme Court. It too tried to settle a very vexing and controversial social issue. It too superseded existing state laws. Unborn people, it ruled, were not legal persons. They had no civil rights, no human rights. They were, henceforth, legally the property of the owner — the mother. She had the absolute legal right to keep or kill her unborn baby.

So today the defining element of the Republican Party should be providing the equal protection of the constitution to the pre-born person of its God given rights as it did to slaves back in the days of Lincoln. This "social issue" of abortion should be the defining issue of the Republican Party if it wants to maintain itself as the Party of Lincoln.

Unfortunately, the secular wing of the South Dakota Republican Party attacked those within its own Party who stood for granting the God-given right to life to the pre-born person. They now say, that the legislature is no place for "social issues" such as abortion. That secular approach should not be what defines the South Dakota Republican Party. It is those members of the Republican Party that may provide the same fate to its Party of that of the Whig Party if they are allowed to lead with their secular humanist worldview.

It is the secular wing of the Republican Party who are the extremists. They are not the "moderates". Unfortunately, that is what the Drive-by media calls those Republicans who agree with the far-left agenda of the Democrats. It is those who are willing to lead with the traditional American Biblical Christian worldview who should be the called the moderates that define the Republican Party.

The Biblical Christian worldview cannot co-exist with the secular humanist worldview and vise versa. It is time for the Republican Party to define itself. I hope the Party of Lincoln is the one that prevails. Once that is done, then we must correct the media’s use of labels, and we must reform education so that the secular humanists do not have exclusive control that allows them to establish their godless religion.

There is no time to waste.

One more parting shot

First off, I appreciate the phone calls and emails from my GOP friends. I hope to continue and enhance our relationships.

Before I move forward with a renewed focus on restoring traditional American principles, I need to say one more thing about Pat Powers. He attacked me for being like the MAINstream coalition. But like the MAINstream coalition members, he has the support of Democrats with his crusade against me. Todd Epp and Bill Fleming are over on his web site celebrating what Powers has done to me. I should have taken greater pause when he and Epp took so fondly to SDBWM. Powers relationship with Epp can’t be about civility. Epp has proven that over and over again that he has no clue about civility.

In 2004, the Dakota Blog Alliance was focused on a common goal, and we watched each other’s back. Today, the atmosphere is totally different. Now you get stabbed in the back at a moments notice, and at times by people that are not identified. And then at times by those who you thought were on your side. But what Powers has done to me is no different than what Stan Adelstein has done against other conservative Republicans. With friends like that , we sure don't need enemies.

In regard to Todd Epp, I have to say he is the biggest hypocrite that I have ever dealt with. His latest comment at Powers’ site is a flaming example of that.

And with regard to Bill Fleming, I have great pause in moving to Independent because of his blessing in that regard. That gives me great pause.

So if the leadership of the SD GOP has anything to say, you better say it now. I still have fire in my belly. And I hope to be wiser in the future. At least now I know those who are not my friends.

Hand of Providence

Another good book idea:

According to recent opinion polls, Ronald Reagan is the most popular of modern presidents. And yet, to most biographers the man is still an enigma.

This is because, as author Mary Beth Brown explains, no one has ever focused on this great man’s faith. "Hand of Providence" explores the life and personality of Ronald Reagan by focusing on his deeply felt Christian beliefs, and showing how it was faith that guided Reagan along his distinguished career and led him to his unprecedented success.

With the support of Ronald Reagan's own words and writings and first-hand interviews of Ronald Reagan's family, friends, and co-workers, Brown weaves a magnificent story of Reagan’s strong devotion to God. It is a story that will not only inspire Christians to enter public service and allow their faith to motivate all their actions, but also help point others to the Cross of Jesus Christ — a cause that was near and dear to President Ronald Reagan's heart.

Conservatives betrayed

Sounds like a poetic book for today:

The November 2004 election results were barely counted when conservative leader Richard A. Viguerie proclaimed: Now comes the revolution! If we don’t implement a conservative agenda now, when do we? Then he added: Make no mistake. Conservative Christians and ‘values voters’ won this election for George W. Bush and Republicans in Congress. It’s crucial that the Republican leadership not forget this—as much as some will try.

Viguerie’s challenge to the GOP and his fellow conservatives was reported on the front page of The New York Times the very next day, and was immediately picked up by media around the world. Liberals in the U.S. sank into despair, for they knew that Viguerie was the marketing guru who established the conservative movement in the 1960s and 70s through the use of direct mail, and remains "the conservatives’ Voice of America" (Washington Post) today.

Viguerie’s new book, "Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause", will lead conservatives into battle, and serve notice to the Republican Party that it must hew to the conservative line if it hopes to remain in power. For before Karl Rove, another direct marketing guru, there was Richard Viguerie; but while Rove’s first loyalty is to the GOP, Viguerie’s is to the conservative movement.

Written as a compact manifesto in easy-to-understand language, the book explains what conservatives must do to preserve moral values; protect the institution of marriage; overthrow Roe v. Wade; downsize government dramatically; slash the deficits that are holding back the American economy; cut taxes; reduce waste; and protect the interests around the world of America and its allies such as Taiwan. A call to action, Viguerie’s latest book gives Conservatives their marching orders for the coming political battles ahead.