Month Archives: May 2009

U.S.A.F. Airman Convicted under Unborn Victims of Violence Act

by Chris Gacek

May 4, 2009

It appears that the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) (UVVA) has produced its first conviction. This took place over the weekend pursuant to a court martial at the Elmendorf Air Force Base near Anchorage, Alaska.

United States Airman 1st Class Scott Boie of Milton, Wisconsin, was sentenced on Saturday, May 2nd to nine years, six months in prison after he was found guilty of attempting to kill his unborn child. Boie was tried by a military court made up of ten member of the United States Air Force. The ten panel members convicted Boie late Friday night.

After Boie’s wife, Caylinn, told him that she was pregnant, Boie requested that she get an abortion. After she declined to do so, Boie used his computer to gather information about abortion inducing drugs. Boie discovered that the anti-ulcer drug, misoprostol (Cytotec), could be used. Misoprostol is the second drug in the RU-486 (mifepristone) abortion regimen and is widely used in some countries like Brazil as a cheap abortifacient. (For more information on mifepristone and misoprostol - download and read this FRC pamphlet (PDF): LINK.)

With the help of a fellow serviceman Boie obtained misoprostol and crushed some of the tablets which he placed in his wife’s food. A miscarriage followed one week later. His wife thought the miscarriage occurred naturally, but learned from a friend that her husband had attempted to kill their child. My news accounts do not reveal how Caylinn Boie’s friend learned this. Mrs. Boie confronted her husband about the miscarriage while covertly taping their conversation. Scott Boie confessed to her that he had attempted to kill the baby, and the recording of this confession was played in court.

Boie was also dishonorably discharged, demoted to E-1, and assessed a “total forfeiture of all pay and allowances.”

Congratulations should go to all those who worked to enact the UVVA and to President George W. Bush for signing it.

How Do I Feel About the Constitution Today?

by Family Research Council

May 3, 2009

One thing can be said for President Obama is that he doesnt sneak up on his targets. And another thing that can be said for this liberal administration is that it is not in the least embarrassed about its inclinations. To buy into this left-of-center government is to have gotten what one bargained for. Yesterday Obama made it clear that he wants to see retiring Justice David Souter (he who ignored the erstwhile tradition of justices allowing a president of the party that appointed him to nominate his successor) replaced by October and by an individual who has empathy and is about how our laws affect the daily realities of peoples lives. These are indeed fine characteristics, but they are finest in legislators and not in judges, and in judges they are finer in trial judges than in appellate and Supreme Court judges whose empathy may or may not be a reliable yardstick of, well quaint concept justice or due process.

President Obama also suggested that some (unspecified) Americans need Supreme Court judges who will use their empathy to assure that they feel welcome in their own nation. Is Obama referring to judges who will enforce duly enacted civil rights laws? To homosexual couples desiring to marry and have the U.S. Constitution traduced to their cause? To Mormons and Christians who are being assaulted in their churches or on the street for their participation in our democracy? To legal immigrants? Illegal immigrants?

In the realm of feeling, any answer is possible. But in the realm of leftwing jurisprudence, only one answer to each of these questions is likely. The empathy that matters is in the eye of the office-holder.

Matthew Shepard’s Brutal Murder—No “Hoax,” But No “Hate Crime”

by Peter Sprigg

May 1, 2009

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) has admitted making a “poor choice of words,” during House debate on a “hate crimes” bill on April 29, when she used the word “hoax” in connection with the 1998 murder of a homosexual Wyoming college student, Matthew Shepard.

Here’s what she actually said:

We know that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn’t because he was gay. The bill was named for him, the hate crimes bill was named for him, but it’s really a hoax that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills.”

It should be clear to anyone remotely familiar with the Shepard murder or the hate crimes issue that she was not claiming that Shepard never existed or that his murder was a “hoax,” but only that it’s classification as an anti-gay “hate crime” was a “hoax.” Nevertheless, she was mocked as roughly the equivalent of a Holocaust denier.

Yesterday, Foxx explained, appropriately, that she was not trying to minimize the horror or brutality of Shepard’s murder in any way. “Mr. Shepard’s death was nothing less than a tragedy, and those responsible for his death certainly deserved the punishment they received.”

Some people, however, may still not be aware of the basis for Rep. Foxx’s claim that classifying this brutal attack as a “hate crime” is inaccurate. I explained it in a 2007 op-ed in the Washington Times:

The ultimate irony in all this is that Matthew Shepard’s death was probably not a “hate crime” at all. A courageous investigative report by ABC’s 20/20, which they unfortunately buried on the day after Thanksgiving [November 26] in 2004, revealed that most of the people most closely involved in the case say that the attack on Matthew Shepard was motivated by robbery and driven by drugs - not by hostility toward Matthew Shepard’s homosexuality. If he was specifically targeted, it may have been because he was small (only 105 pounds) and well-dressed - not because he was a homosexual.

When asked about the proof that it was a “hate crime,” Cal Rerucha, who prosecuted the case, declared, “Well, I don’t think the proof was there… That was something that they [friends of Shepard] had decided.” Ben Fritzen, a former police detective, said, “Matthew Shepard’s sexual preference or sexual orientation certainly wasn’t the motive in the homicide… What it came down to, really, is drugs and money.”

McKinney’s girlfriend, Kristen Price, said, “I knew that night it was all about getting money… Money to get drugs.” McKinney himself, talking for the first time (he did not testify at his trial), told ABC’s Elizabeth Vargas that “it wasn’t a hate crime… [A]ll I wanted to do was beat him up and rob him.” In fact, McKinney said, “I have gay friends. … You know, that kind of thing don’t bother me so much.”

Wyoming had no “hate crimes” law. But that didn’t stop Shepard’s killers, Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson, from being sentenced to two consecutive life sentences, after being spared the death penalty only because Shepard’s parents interceded against it.

So it’s hard to argue that a “hate crimes” law would have made much difference-even if it had been a “hate crime.”

Tennessee Lawmakers Clash with Planned Parenthood Officials over Undercover Footage

by Krystle Gabele

May 1, 2009

Lila Rose of Live Action Films again exposes Planned Parenthood’s reckless counseling practices. This time, Rose posed as a 14-year-old girl, who was impregnated by a 31-year-old man. Rose, in her dialogue with the Planned Parenthood counselor, mentions:

My boyfriend said he could pay for everything—But he shouldn’t come here to pay ‘cause you’ll see him, right?” the counselor replies, “It doesn’t matter. As long as your parents are not here and can’t identify him, he can just pay and that’s it. He could be like your older brother or whatever.”

Tennessee law mandates that a minor must have parental consent before undergoing an abortion. Since the video has been released, two Tennessee state legislators, Senate Speaker Ron Ramsey and Sen. Jack Johnson, have introduced legislation that would defund Planned Parenthood.

Why would citizens tolerate paying the bills of an organization that protects statutory rapists and victimizes young girls? This is the sad result of the careless abortion-first mentality that has persisted at Planned Parenthood for decades.”

Grandmother’s Adult Stem Cells Save Younger Brother’s Life

by David Prentice

May 1, 2009

A 75-year-old grandmother in the U.K. has become the oldest person ever to donate stem cells. Erica Henderson was allowed to donate her bone marrow adult stem cells, even though she was older than the medical guidelines limit of 70 years old to be a donor. Her younger brother Paul Hallowes, a mere 69 years old, had been diagnosed with leukemia and after high dose chemotherapy, he needed an adult stem cell transplant to repair his body’s ability to produce blood and immune cells. He would have died without the stem cell therapy. The transfer took place in October 2008 and two weeks ago Paul was told he is now in remission. And Mrs. Henderson has made medical history as the world’s oldest stem cell donor. Obviously there is some advantage to age, especially when the stem cells are from someone older than an embryo.

On Abortion, Obama Chose His Words Carefully

by Cathy Ruse

May 1, 2009

In his answer to the question on the Freedom of Choice Act, President Obama first said abortion was a “moral issue” and then went on to say:

[T]his is an issue that… individual women have to wrestle with… And I think they are in a better position to make these decisions ultimately than members of Congress or a president of the United States… So that has been my consistent position. The other thing that I said consistently during the campaign is I would like to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies that result in women feeling compelled to get an abortion, or at least considering getting an abortion…

These were careful words. Notice that Obama avoided any phrasing that would suggest that he believes abortions per se ought to be reduced. He doesn’t ever assert that we ought to reduce the number of abortions because that would cast abortion in a negative light; wanting fewer abortions suggests abortion is a negative thing that ought to be reduced. Rather he is always careful to say that he wants to reduce the need for abortion, which leaves abortion as a “good” and casts the pregnancy (or rather the child) as the bad that should be reduced.

The Democrat platform under Obama was changed from making abortion “rare” to reducing the need for abortion — a move deeper into pro-abortion orthodoxy. It’s like the child is the dreaded disease and abortion is the wonderful vaccine — why would we want fewer of those wonderful vaccines? It’s the dreaded disease we want to reduce!

Obama is careful in his choice of words and so should pro-lifers be: do not ever give Obama credit for wanting to reduce abortions.

April 2009 «

» June 2009

Archives