There’s another birthday worth celebrating this week: Susan B. Anthony was born 187 years ago today.  This stouthearted Quaker not only fought tirelessly for women’s suffrage, but was also supported the unborn.  She published the following statements in her paper, The Revolution:

“Sweeter even than to have had the joy of caring for children of my own has it been to me to help bring about a better state of things for mother’s generally,
so their unborn little ones could not be willed away from them.”
 
“I deplore the horrible crime of child murder…We want prevention, not merely punishment.”

I’ve been amazed to find out more about the pro-life history of American feminism.  Anthony’s co-worker, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, a mother of seven, said “When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.” 

Today, Feminists for Life continues the work of pro-life feminists like Susan B. Anthony, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, spreading the message that “women deserve better than abortion.”

In his latest newsletter, Senator Doug Whitsett (R-Klamath Falls), a retired veterinarian, includes an interesting commentary on a looming conflict between the state and scientific freedom.
 
Here’s what he has to say:
 
“An issue that seems at first glance to be rather insignificant may actually carry tremendous implications for a free society.  That issue is freedom of speech and the continuation of separation between the state and scientific freedom.
 
Oregon State University has a climate laboratory which has been in existence for many years. This laboratory comprises a non-partisan group of very well educated earth and meteorological scientists who are, and have historically been instrumental in predicting the climate trends of the state.  George Taylor is the meteorologist who is in charge of the laboratory.  He has been known for many years as the state’s chief climatologist.  He has earned the position through his and the laboratory’s accurate work prognosticating winter snow pack, precipitation trends and overall climatology from year to year.

 
Oregon’s governor and his policy advisors now seek to strip George Taylor of his unofficial title of state climatologist and bestow the title on someone else because Mr. Taylor dares engage in valid scientific debate regarding global warming.  We as a society and government are starting to slide down a slippery slope when we invalidate the work and personages of legitimate scientists and quell scientific debate in favor of “political” agendas.  Under the guise of political correctness and advancement of his political legacy, the governor and his advisors appear willing to go to any lengths to ensure that Oregonians are not presented with the two sides of the anthropogenic causation of global warming debate.
 
Throughout history, science, religion and the state have often times been at odds with each other.  During the Middle Ages, the Inquisition in Europe often had scientists being burned at the state – or otherwise condemned to death – as heretics for suggesting that the earth was round that the earth revolved around the sun, and many other facts that are now commonly accepted.  We are seeing an age of “dis-enlightenment” if you will, where governments are castigating scientists who don’t believe in their agendas and Oregon is at the leading edge of this movement.
 
There are many well educated scientists who do not believe that global warming is caused by humans, if it exists at all over the long term.  Through censorship and intimidation, our governor appears to be attempting to regulate our scientists to expose only those notions that support his agenda.  The debate rages on and scientists on both sides of the issue should be allowed to represent their work and opinions and continue to be held in high esteem for their work.  Science does not have a preset, preconceived agenda; its outcome is not a political “goal” to be attained; and the individuals who work in the field of science should not be politically manipulated, threatened or subjugated by politicians.”
 
Wow.  Discuss.

Happy 148th Birthday to Oregon!

Yesterday, the Governor of Utah signed a bill that will provide vouchers for over half a million kids attending Utah’s public schools. The program, which will begin this fall, will grant vouchers from $500 to $3000 per student, based on the family’s income.

The bill states “parents are presumed best informed to make decisions for their children, including the educational setting that will best serve their children’s interests and educational needs.”

That sounds like common sense to me. Think little Erskine would do best at the public school across the street? Utah will provide for his education. Think the Catholic or Montessori or Scientology gradeschool across town would be best? Utah will help you send him there too. This bill helps parents of every income level make sound educational choices for their children.

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Stephen Urquhart went to extraordinary lengths to ensure that the bill wouldn’t hurt public schools financially. For funding purposes, schools will be able to count students who transfer for five years. Utah’s public schools are funded through the state’s income tax, and voucher funding will come from the general fund. In the surrounding debate, no one could prove that the program would hurt public schools. Despite this, nearly the entire education establishment opposed the bill.

My main concern with voucher programs in general is that when government provides the funding, they also have the ability to control how that money is spent. But, for now parents may choose any school that meets the following requirements: employs college-educated or skilled teachers, operates outside a residence, enrolls at least 40 students and does not discriminate based on race, color or national origin. They must give parents the results of a standardized test once a year and submit to a financial audit once every four years.

Rep. Urquhart’s blog, www.politicopia.com has great information on the pros and cons of the bill. Check it out, then come back here and discuss.

Do you think Oregon has a chance of passing a similar law? Would you vote for it if you could? What would it take for the education establishment to support voucher programs?

Many legislators make a weekly email update available to their constituents, or at least post press releases on their websites.

Here’s some info from Rep. Wayne Scott’s latest press release on illegal immigration:

“Rep. Scott said he supports an immigration reform package introduced by Rep. Linda Flores (RClackamas) and Rep. Kim Thatcher (R-Keizer). The package includes measures to:

• Prohibit the state from contracting with companies that hire illegal immigrants.
• Direct the state to participate in the federal “Willing Workers-Willing Employers”
program.
• Require proof of citizenship for voter registration.
• Bring Oregon into compliance with the federal REAL ID Act.
• Reserve state benefits and services for citizens and legal residents.
• Allow Oregon law enforcement authorities to verify a person’s residency status if they
have reason to believe the person is an illegal alien.
• Establish English as Oregon’s official language.
• Toughen penalties for those convicted of human trafficking.
• Call on federal government to reimburse states for costs of incarcerating illegal
immigrants.
• Call on Congress to protect our borders and enforce immigration laws.”

Most of these seem like common sense, pro-public safety initiatives. Are there reasons to oppose any of these ideas?

If you’ve been following the Measure 37 saga, you may have read yesterday’s Oregonian editorial/lament by Mary Pitman Kitch.

The Coyote has an extensive response at NWRepublican.

SB 521 makes distracted driving a crime.
 
“Distracting activity” includes “reading, writing, performing personal grooming, interacting with pets or unsecured cargo, using a mobile communication device and engaging in any activity that diverts a person’s attention from the operation of a motor vehicle.”
 
Is this a good idea or a bad idea?  Discuss.

It’s Black History Month, a time to honor past achievements, and to look forward to the future. It’s also a time to recognize the injustice the African American community has faced, and is facing today. I want to particularly address a growing inequity in the United States: three times as many black babies are aborted as white babies.

In general, abortion numbers are decreasing. But, African American women are almost four times as likely to have an abortion as white women. 70% of abortion providers are located in minority communities. 15 million African Americans have been aborted since Roe vs. Wade. Today, African Americans are the only minority in the country whose numbers are declining.

It’s no secret that Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, wanted to use abortion to reduce the number of “unfit” in society. In her mind, “unfit” meant poor, mentally ill, or African American.

In 1939 she wrote to a colleague, “The most successful education approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

It seems that Sanger’s Nazi-esque goal is succeeding.

But, African American ministers, whose influence Sanger once used against their own community, are fighting back. Pastor Clenard Childress is a nationally recognized speaker whose website www.blackgenocide.com gives solid facts about abortion and the African American community, and offers resources for churches.

Pastor Childress is working to unite African American pastors and religious leaders to speak out against abortion, saying “If there’s a devouring force that’s decimating my community, as a shepherd, I must respond with the truth. …the devourer is the abortion industry.”

Bishop Daniel Robertson of Mount Gilead Baptist Church in Richmond, VA sponsored the first annual Pastors for Life Conference focused on reaching African American ministers. In an interview, Bishop Robertson said, “There are a lot of pastors, whether they’re Black or White, they’re just comfortable, they don’t want to stir up anything.”

Yet, he continued, “You can’t stay behind the stained glass windows of your sanctuary, you really have to reach out into your community and make a difference.”

These pastors are not afraid to stir things up, or to face the grim statistics on abortion and race. How can we honor these men and respond to their challenge, not only this month, but throughout the year?