1. law, govt and politics
2. politics
3. elections

RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE
OF NEW MEXICO
NON-PROFIT
ORGANIZATION
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
Albuquerque, NM
Permit #471
2413 Wyoming Blvd NE, Suite A
Albuquerque, NM 87112-1164
INSIDE:
JANUARY 2015
Go Away Doubting Thomases… | 2-4
2015 - What Happens to
ObamaCare Now? | 5-6
RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED
vol. 33, no. 1
www.rtlnm.org
Newsletter of the Right to Life Committee of New Mexico
This newsletter is meant to be shared with at least ten others — copy as needed!
JANUARY 22, 2015 – MEMORIAL FOR LIFE
HOSTED BY ALBUQUERQUE RTL
ObamaCare… (continued from page 5)
There isn’t just one subsidy for everyone in the
exchanges. The subsidy depends on your income.
So there’s also an income tax built in. The folks
analyzing this decided only eight million people
will be in the exchanges, so only eight million
people will have a new income tax. But they were
oblivious of the fact that they were implementing
a full-time employment tax on the majority of
Americans workers and this is the biggest tax in
the law.
The economic impact from these taxes on
workers varies widely, affecting low-skill workers
the most. They create all kinds of productivity
problems and will have visible and permanent
effects on the economy. It is estimated that
employment will be 3% less over the long term
because of ACA, and that the national income,
GDP, will be 2% less. If you look at the productivity
costs alone, forgetting the fact that there will
be a number of people not working anymore –
they come to $6000 per person who gets health
insurance because of the law. And I am not
beginning to count the payments needed for
health care providers. Conclusion: If you like a
weak economy, you can keep your weak economy.
THE AMERICAN LEFT THINKS WE ARE STUPID,
AND WE MUST SHOW THEM WE ARE NOT
In a series of videos taken at various
conferences and lectures between 2010 and 2013,
Jonathan Gruber, key ObamaCare architect, claimed
that the effects of ObamaCare had to be hidden
from the Americans because of “the stupidity of the
American voter.” The Massachusetts Institutes of
Technology professor said that “lack of transparency
is a huge political advantage” in writing legislation
and likened its critics to “my adolescent children.”
Gruber was paid $6 million dollars for his various
services in designing and consulting on ObamaCare.
This attitude of the Washington political
establishment in general of the American public,
by liberal elites, is one that Americans cannot
make their own decisions, they must be cajoled,
mislead, threatened and flat-out lied to in order to
achieve the greatest good. A good example of this is
Gruber’s assessment of the tax-fee argument at the
heart of ObamaCare’s passage and later Supreme
Court fight: “This bill was written in a tortured way
to make sure CBO {the Congressional Budget Office}
did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored
the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Ok, so it was
written to do that.” This is all absolutely true.
They don’t know what is best for us, and we
must tell them with correspondence, votes and
involvement. There are many more people like
Jonathan Gruber in our government, and we must
eliminate them by voting them out and replacing
them with people who respect Americans.
Happy New Year!
Twenty-Five Alive Pledge 2015
Name:________________________________________________________________________________________
Phone:_______________________________________________________________________________________
Address:______________________________________________________________________________________
City:__________________________________ Zip code:_______________________________________________
I pledge:
$_____________ Monthly
$_____________ Every Three Months
$_____________ Every Two Months
One Time Pledge or Donation: $______________
Please return to: RTLCNM, 2413 Wyoming Blvd Ste A, Albuquerque, NM 87112
6 VIVA LIFE DECEMBER 2014
MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION
I understand that the Right To Life Committee
of New Mexico (RTLCNM) is a non-sectarian,
non-profit organi­
zation dedicated to the
right to life of all innocent human beings
from fertilization to natural death; that this
organization takes a stand only on those
issues that are directly related to abortion,
infanticide and euthanasia.
I support the goals of RTLCNM, including
a Human Life Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, and hereby make application for
membership (renewal) as follows:
Individual — $25.00
Corporate — $45.00 for business organizations
Family — $35.00
Life Membership — $500.00
Name____________________________
Address___________________________
City/Zip___________________________
Wish to: (check one)
Register to vote
Re-register
I am a registered: (check one)
Republican
Democrat
Other
________________________________
Signature
VIVA LIFE! is published by the
Right To Life Committee of New Mexico,
2413 Wyoming Blvd., NE, Suite A,
Albuquerque, NM 87112-1164 • 881-4563.
Verna Pochop. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . President
Kenneth lee. . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice President
Cherry Lyle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Secretary
Tom Taylor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Treasurer
Dauneen Dolce. . . . Natl. Delegate & Editor
VIVA LIFE! is printed by The Sherwood Co.
EVERY ONE IS INVITED TO BATAAN PARK ON LOMAS BLVD &
CARLISLE BLVD. ON JANUARY 22, 2015 FROM 11:00 A.M TO 3:00 P.M.
TO HONOR THE UNBORN CHILDREN LOST TO ABORTION IN NEW MEXICO.
FLAGS AND BANNERS WILL BE PLACED TO HONOR THESE INNOCENT
HUMAN BEINGS AND TO REMEMBER THEIR EXISTENCE AND IMPORTANCE.
COME AT 10:00 A.M. IF YOU WANT TO HELP
PLACE THE FLAGS AND BANNERS.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
PLEASE CALL CHARLENE COMBA – 505-345-4423.
COMING EVENTS:
MEMORIAL FOR LIFE – JANUARY 22, 2015 – SEE ARTICLE IN THIS VIVA LIFE!
LEGISLATURE STARTS ON JANUARY 20, 2015
APRIL 18, 2015 – 45TH ANNIVERSARY OF RTLNM – MARK YOUR CALENDAR
PLEASE NOTE: THERE ARE TWO VERY IMPORTANT ACTS YOU CAN
TAKE TO HELP RTLNM KEEP ITS DOORS OPEN, ITS OFFICE OPERATING, AND
BOTTOM LINE TO SAVE LIVES.
FIRST – BE A MEMBER OF RTLNM. THERE IS A FORM IN THIS VIVA LIFE.
SECOND – JOIN THE 25 ALIVE DONATION PROGRAM. THIS AMOUNT
CAN BE ANYTHING OVER $5.00. THERE IS A FORM FOR THIS ON THE BACK
PAGE.
HAVING SAID ALL THIS – THANK YOU ONE AN ALL FOR ALL YOU HAVE
DONE WITH YOUR TIME AND YOUR DONATIONS IN 2014. WE HAVE
MOVED FORWARD IN A POSITIVE WAY BECAUSE YOU WHERE THERE. WE
WILL CONTINUE TO WORK FOR YOU WITH YOUR HELP!
WHAT LEGISLATION IS
RTLNM SUPPORTING, WHY,
AND WHY NOT OTHER BILLS?
For many years The Right to Life Committee of New Mexico’s Political
Action Committee was the organization finding sponsors and putting forth
information so that pro-life bills could be passed.
Always taken into consideration was the makeup of the legislature and
who was governor. We always made an attempt even when the odds were
against us.
Now there are many more organizations, and with the past elections, the
political climate has much improved. Having said that, there also needs to
be said, that pro-lifers MUST BE JUDICIOUS AND PATIENT.
RTLNM is having the Parental Rights (Parental Notification) and The
Woman’s Right to Know bill being introduced. Both these bills have passed
most of the states in the U. S. and from polling are very popular with New
Mexico citizens. Of course states have passed many other bills, and there is
the thought that since we have the votes in the House now to go all out and
get many of these bills passed.
My answer to that is “HOLD YOUR HORSES.” We aren’t the only ones
champing at the bit to get legislation that has waited for years to pass.
This session will be filled with all kinds of legislation to move the agenda
forward. Prolife legislation is very important, but it is not the only issue
on the legislator’s minds. We must not attempt to hold up committee
hearings and floor debates with just “our issue.” If we attempt that, we
will have even pro-life legislators upset with us, as we could make it that
there would not be time to address their important bills. 60 days is not a
very long time when bills have to go through committees in the House and
then have a floor vote on a very busy agenda and then go to the Senate to
go through the committees and then go to a Senate floor. Sometimes, bills
that are same subject but written differently in each legislative entity, has
to go to a conference committee to work out details to unite them into one
bill. That has to go back for a vote once again.
We can and must get the two bills passed we are submitting, and then
build on them. Bills such as the Unborn Child ban at 20 weeks, needs
to have far more education going to the people of New Mexico so that
they are involved in working with their legislators in getting this passed.
Most people do not know abortion is legal all nine months, let alone how
they develop and feel pain. Our media campaign could accomplish this,
but not in the 2015 legislative session. Defeats are used to say that the
people don’t want the legislation, which is not accurate, they want what
they understand. Our job is to help them understand.
So hopefully, we won’t put the cart before the horse, or that we will
bury our pro-life legislators with too many bills. We are on the road to
success, and to make progress on it, we must use common sense, patience
and to bring very good written constitutionally acceptable laws (Supreme
Court’s view) to our legislature.
Get ready for instructions on what you can do. We may only be able
to communicate by e-mail, so please provide your e-mail to Info@rtlnm.
org so you can be a part of the coming victories and solutions. WE MAY
BE DOING ROBO CALLS, AND HOPE YOU WILL LISTEN WHEN THEY COME.
ROE vs. WADE NEEDS TO BE REMEMBERED
& NEEDS TO BE REMOVED
On January 22, 1973, 7 out of 9 men on the U. S. Supreme Court ruled
that women had a Constitutional right to destroy their children in the
womb. Thus, overturning all 50 states, which had laws restricting abortion
except for the life of the mother (30), and others had exceptions for rape
and incest (16), which didn’t affect the abortion rate a great deal as most
abortions are not done for these reasons. Four states had no restrictions.
Abortions being done in the majority of the states were very few.
After Roe vs. Wade, the number started climbing immediately
However it took several years for the numbers to leap, and that is because
the abortion business took time to get in place, and to have abortion
clinics and organizations like Planned Parenthood promoting abortion to
our children, and the public (using our tax dollars).
Going back to the ruling itself, most people really don’t understand it,
thus trying to pass legislation to reduce abortions under that ruling, has
been difficult. Many states have been successful in promoting and passing
pro-life legislation such as Parental Involvement bills, Women’s Right to
Know legislation Partial Births restrictions, and now Pain Capable Child
(continued on page 2)
Roe vs. Wade… (cont. from page 1)
Protection Act (restricting abortions after 20 weeks). States that had prolife legislatures passed went eventually to the Supreme Court where they
were up-held, or in some cases part of the bill was upheld. This left it clear
what would be constitutional to pass in those states that, when they had a
good legislature, could go forth and pass.
The Supreme Court made abortion legal for ALL NINE MONTHS when
it ruled on the same day, Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton. The latter was
ruled first and defined health in such a manner that anything you want to
have could be under “health” which includes age, physical, psychological,
emotional, and familial (how the family and community feels). All these had
to be applied to the woman’s “well-being”.
With this wide range of applications besides the life of the mother, and
cases of rape and incest, a woman could get an abortion for any and all
reasons.
This definition was incorporated into Roe vs. Wade, which refers to
trimesters, 3 months, 6 months and 9-months or term. However, with
the additional “health” factors, the abortion is really legal for all 9 months.
Abortion could not be restricted before viability but this has greatly
changed since those days, as science can now save an unborn child in
the first trimester thus that no longer should come into play. But it is not
applied everywhere, as late term abortions are after viability.
States since then have modified Roe vs. Wade making far more
restrictions, yet it is very much in place. It still is the law of the land, and will
remain so unless: 1-The Court overturns Roe vs. Wade, 2-Congress takes
some action on the law, such as a Human Life Amendment, or 3-A case
could go to the Court and it would take that opportunity to let abortion laws
be taken up by each individual state. The latter is thought to be the scenario
we will face, if we get a majority of the Court who believe that Roe v. Wade
is unconstitutional and wants to return the issue to the states. We do not
have such a court at this time. To get that will need a pro-life President,
and a pro-life Senate that would put in place pro-life (or Constitutionalist)
candidates up for replacing retiring justices.
Progress has been made. But not for the over 59 million babies that
have been destroyed by this disastrous ruling. However, it is being replaced
by ObamaCare which has abortion for all 9 months for any and all reasons
in states that have exchanges and in other ways taxes being paid by all the
citizens to pay for abortions. This got around the Hyde Amendment which
restricted pay for abortions with tax money except in the cases of rape and
incest.
It really is up to the people to send the right people to Washington D.C.
and for them to help educate others on the Roe vs. Wade ruling so that they
will want to rid ourselves of this terrible ruling.
We have already replaced the scenario that took place in 1973 where
women with unplanned pregnancies had “no place to go”, which is not
entirely true. However, today there are more clinics to help women with
unplanned pregnancies than abortion clinics who want to kill the child as
a solution.
We have come a long way, but all working together we go farther and
we can rid ourselves of the abortion mentality and money making business.
For all our sakes, we must do this.
GO AWAY DOUBTING THOMASES
AND NAYSAYERS. THE PRO-LIFE
MOVEMENT IS ON THE MOVE!
By Dauneen Dolce
At both the National and the State level, the playing field for pro-life
legislation has greatly changed since the November elections. To give you
insight into these changes, here are two articles that should make the point.
THE DEPTH, HEIGHT, WIDTH, AND BREADTH OF THE DEFEAT SUFFERED
BY PRO-ABORTION FORCES ONLY NOW BEGINNING TO BE FULLY REALIZED.
– By Dave Andrusko - NRL News Editor
When I first started composing this editorial, it was the same day it
became quasi-official. The Associated Press and CBS News and NBC News
2 VIVA LIFE JANUARY 2015 all call the Senate race in Alaska: pro-life challenger Dan Sullivan had
defeated first-term incumbent pro-abortion Democrat Mark Begich.
As a result, Republicans have already made a net gain of eighth in the
Senate and will assume control in January. As noted above, Mary Landrieu
is in deep trouble. The outlook so bleak for Landrieu that last week the
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee announced it had pulled its
ad buy for Landrieu during the period of the run-off. (Note: the run-off has
taken place and the Republican Party added one more to the Senate having
a gain of nine more senators.)
But it gets better and better. In addition to Sullivan and Cassidy, let me
list just five items to whet your appetite.
#1) Writing for Gallup, Andrew Dugan concludes: After the midterm
elections that say the Democratic Party suffered significant losses in
Congress, a record-low 36% of Americans say they have a favorable opinion
of the party, down six percentage points from before the elections. The
Republican Party’s favorable rating, at 42%, is essentially unchanged from
40%. This marks the first time since September that the Republican Party
has had a higher favorability rating than the Democratic Party.
Dugan continues, These results come from a Nov. 6-9 Gallup Poll,
conducted after Republicans enjoyed a breathtaking week of important
contests throughout the country in this year’s midterms. The party gained
control of the Senate and will likely capture its largest House majority in
nearly a century. Additionally, the GOP now controls 31 Governorships
and two-thirds of state legislative chambers.
One more quote:
After the 2012 election, many political analysts focused on the GOP’s
‘image problem’. Now it is the Democrats who appear to have the more
battered image. Their favorability rating has never been lower, and they
are reeling from defeats that cost them control of the U. S. Senate and
strengthened the Republican House majority to levels likely not seen in
90 years. That 36% favorable rating for the Democratic Party is a drop of
16-percentage points from before the midterm elections and the lowest
favorability since Gallup began asking the question in 1992. As for the
President’s job approval numbers, they range between 39%-42%.
#2) The day after the elections, NRLC demonstrated the power and the
reach of the grassroots pro-lifers working with and motivated by National
Right to Life and its states affiliates. People heard from NRLC’s political
committees and the net advantage for the pro-life candidate among voters
who said the abortion issue affected their vote was a whopping 7 points
(23% said they voted for candidates who oppose abortion, just 16% said
they voted for candidates who support abortion.
Pro-abortionists have been grousing ever since and scrambling to
deflect attention away from the painful reality: their candidates lost
overwhelmingly. Last Tuesday pro-abortion stalwarts NARAL Pro-Choice
America and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund released a poll which
(the groups said in a statement) proves “There is no evidence to support
the contention that a focus on the ‘war on women’ ‘cost’ Democrats their
elections.”
The problem is no one else believes this. Tell this revisionist nonsense
to the likes of Mary Pryor, Kay Hagan, Mark Udall, Bruce Braley, Michelle
Nunn, and Alison Lundergan Grimes (not to mention abortion mega-star
Wendy Davis who was crushed in her contest against pro-life Greg Abbot
for Governor of Texas).
#3) It is symbolic of Barack Obama’s devastating impact on the fortunes
of younger Democrats that Hilary Clinton is the clear front-runner to be
the party’s next presidential nominee. If you combine the insights of a
piece that appeared in POLITICO over last weekend with the analysis of
Washington Examiner columnist David Freddoso as summarized by Noah
Rothman, two startling truths come out.
First, that “Democrats are coming to the grim realization that much of
the party’s talent pool was crushed on Tuesday.” Since they are invariably
pro-abortion, this means that the Abortion industry took a tremendous hit
November 4. Rothman, writing at HotAir.com, explains, “In two consecutive
midterms, Republicans have decimated the Democratic Party’s bench of
(continued on page 3)
2015 - WHAT HAPPENS TO
OBAMACARE NOW?
This question depends on the actions of others. First, the ObamaCare
are legislation is going back to the Supreme Court. Subsidizing ObamaCare
where there are exchange programs (provided by government) is not in
the law. Hopefully this will be seen as being wrong, and will not allow such
tax support in the future. If this happens, the whole “Insurance Plan” will
go down the drain. There will not be enough money. Of course they can
raise the rates on plans not under exchanges and this will create havoc, and
outrage. Prices are way too high already.
Meanwhile there is a new religious challenge to ObamaCare. Only a
few such organizations were spared by a “change of heart” of the Obama
administration. Others such as a Christian Colleges in Oklahoma, and four
nuns from Colorado have argued in the 10th U. S. Circuit Court that they
oppose having birth control, including the morning–after pill, in their health
plans. It is against their beliefs.
The groups don’t have to cover such contraceptives, as most insurers
must, but they do have to tell the government they object on religious
grounds in order to get an exemption. They argued, on Dec. 9, 2014, that
because they must sign over coverage to another party, the exemption
makes them complicit in providing contraceptives. “It is morally
problematic” to sign the forms, argued Greg Baylor, lawyer for Southern
Nazarene University in Bethany, Oklahoma. “There’s plenty of other ways
the government could put (emergency contraception) in the hands of the
people without us,” Baylor said.
But Adam Jed of the Department of Justice argued that the government
has done enough to accommodate religious exceptions to the birth control
mandate. He said that not requiring some sort of action by the groups
would force the government to act as a “detective agency” to determine
why any employer is not covering the contraceptives. “We disagree that
the act of opting out constitutes a substantial burden on their religious
belief,” Jed said.
Even opting out violates those beliefs, the groups said. “You can’t say,
Sister, you should really sign that form because it’s not really a big deal, said
Mark Rienzi of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, who argues for the
Denver nuns.
Then there is the new Congress beginning this January 2015. We have
the votes to defund and change ObamaCare, and it won’t be long before
some steps will be taken, thus jeopardizing the continued existence of
ObamaCare as it is now. It is more likely that bills will be introduced to
replace much of what is terribly wrong, while keeping that which is working
such as coverage of children to the age 26.
There are other legal suits floating out there from states, businesses,
etc. All of which will sooner or later make an impact
In the meantime, we are left leave with this anti-life legislation which is
hurting people in many ways.
A on the cost of ObamaCare was made by Casey Mullegan, a professor
of economics at the University of Chicago. The article below is an article
on a speech he made on October 14, 2014. For brevity’s sake, this is a
condensed version.
EFFECTS OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT ON ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY
The key economic concept required to understand the labor market
effects of the ACA is what economists call “tax distortions.” Tax distortions
are changes in behavior on the part of business or households for the
purpose of reducing their taxes or increasing their subsidies. We call them
distortions because they don’t occur for real business or real personal
reasons. They occur because of the tax code. A prime example of a tax
policy that creates distortions is the ethanol subsidy – technically is a
credit, not a subsidy – whereby gasoline refiners are subsidized on the
basis of how many gallons of gas they produce with ethanol. Because of
this subsidy, businesses change the type of gas they produce and deliver,
people change the type of gas they use – which affects engines – and
corn is used for ethanol instead of feed or food. Nor do the distortions
stop there. Arguably, food prices are increased due to the real-location of
corn to different uses – and when food prices are higher, restaurants and
households do things differently. There are distortions economy-wide, all
for the chasing of a subsidy.
THE EMPLOYER MANDATE/PENALTY/TAX
So what are the tax distortions that emanate from ACA? Here let me
simply focus on two aspects of the law: the employer mandate or employer
penalty –the requirements that employers of a certain size either provide
health insurance for full-time employees or pay a penalty for not doing so;
and the exchanges – sometimes they’re called marketplaces – where people
can purchase health insurance separate from their employer. The mandate
or penalty is intended, of course, to encourage employers to provide health
insurance. And the exchanges are where the major government assistance
is provided, since those who purchase insurance in an exchange typically
receive a tax credit. As I’ll explain later, taken together the penalty on
employers and the subsidies in the exchanges add up to a tax on full-time
employment – a tax that you pay if you work full time but not if you work
part-time or don’t work at all. And the problem with that, of course, is that
by taxing full-time work – which is the same as subsidizing part-time worker
and unemployment – you get less of the former and more of the latter two.
How does the employer penalty work? To employers who do not offer
health coverage, and it applies only in those months during which those
full-time employees are on the payroll. If an employer cuts back to parttime work, the employer no longer has to pay a penalty. The dollar amount
of the penalty doesn’t depend on whether the employee is rich, poor or
middle class – if he works full time, the employer must either provide
insurance or pay the penalty. And the penalty is indexed to health insurance
costs, so every year those costs increase more than the economy and more
than wages, the penalty will increase more than both. The current penalty
is usually described as $2000 per year per full-time employee. But it’s really
more than that, because the penalty, unlike wages, is not deductible from
business taxes. So in terms of a salary equivalent, the penalty is closer to
$3000.00 a head. Needless to say, this penalty reduces competition in
the labor market. It discourages employers from competing for full-time
employees – which, if you are an employee, is a bad deal. Also there are
a lot of employers who are not going to pay the penalty because they
don’t meet the size threshold of 50 or more employees, and employees
are going to suffer because these small employers won’t want to become
large employers and therefore subject to the penalty. Furthermore, this
mandate disproportionately harms low-skill workers. Think of it this way:
How many hours does a worker have to work each week to produce the
$3,000.00–per-year of value to justify keeping his job or being hired? For a
minimum-wage worker, that comes to eight hours a week, all year round –
one day of work a week for the government due to the ACA alone. Higherskilled employees can obviously produce $3000 worth of value in less time,
so the penalty will have less of an impact on them.
SUBSIDIZED HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGES
What of the tax distortions that come from the subsidized health
insurance health insurance exchanges or marketplaces? To begin to think
about this, imagine paying full price for your health care. How does full
price work? Well you pay the full price. The health care provider doesn’t
look at your tax return and adjust the bill accordingly. So we would never
call paying full price for health care an income tax of any kind. Or imagine
there is a discount on the full price – for instance, 30 percent off for
everybody, regardless of income. In that case it’s still not an income tax.
No matter how you earn, you pay the same price. But what if the discount
(or subsidy) is tied to your employment situation? Not to your income,
but to your employment situation. That’s how the exchanges work. If you
have a full-time job with an employer that offers coverage- which is most
employers in our economy- you don’t get the subsidy offered through the
exchanges, which happens only if you are part-time or off the job. In other
words this too is a tax on full –time employment. No politician will call this
a tax, but when you are in a group of people who doesn’t receive a subsidy
that people in another group receive, that’s a tax.
(continued on page 6)
JANUARY 2015 VIVA LIFE 5
Go Away Doubting Thomases…(cont. from page 2)
talent, not just on the Federal or statewide level but farther down the
ballot as well. The GOP now controls 69 of the 99 legislative chambers,
a dramatic reversal, according to Washington Examiner columnist David
Freddoso, from 2008 when Barack Obama’s party controlled 62 legislative
chambers. The GOP now has the total command of state government
– both chambers of the legislature and the governor’s mansions – in 23
states, while the Democrats command the levers of government in just
seven states. In addition to the Republican Party’s 31 governorships,
the GOP enjoys the allegiance of 32 Lieutenant governors offices and 29
crucial secretaries of state.”
#4) If you’ve listened and/or watched President Obama, you know he
is in deep – deep – denial. All that happened November 4 was that he
wasn’t a good enough salesman of his very successful policies, the “wrong”
electorate turned up to vote, and, in any event, he is not interested in the
least in genuine compromise. Another description might be petulant.
Thus, the results of another Gallup poll will likely only make Obama
double-down on his intransigency. As reported by Gallup’s Linda Saad,
“Following the midterm election that some have termed a Republican
wave, the majority of Americans want the Republicans in Congress -rather than President Barack Obama – to have more influence over the
direction the country takes in the coming year.”
And it’s not just that 53% say they want Congressional Republicans to
have more influence than Obama in the direction the nation takes, only
36% said the reverse – an advantage of a whopping 17 points! The “bottom
Line,” according to Saad? “The mid-term election provided a clear signal as
to which party voters want to control Congress. That message is echoed
in the results of the latest Gallup poll showing Americans expressly asking
for the Republicans – rather than Obama – to guide the direction the
country takes in the next year.”
#5) If I may return to Noah Rothman one more time, there are other
results very much worth mentioning. “The Democratic officeholders
who survived the routings of 2010 and 2014 are primarily entrenched
incumbents and are invariably of an older set,” Rothman observes. “The
Democratic Party is rapidly becoming a political organization that, as
liberals once said of the GOP, does not look like the constituents they seek
to represent.“
Quoting from national exit polling, Rothman explains, Republicans
improved with the voters aged 18-29 who turned out by 2 points over
the party’s 2010 standing. The GOP only lost young voters to Democrats
by an atypically close single-digit margin. Moreover, the GOP continues
to elevate a younger generation of leaders to high office, including
the youngest woman to serve in the House in history, 30-year-old
Representative-elect Elise Stefanik (R-NY) who had the added privilege of
turning her Empire State district from blue to red. She will replace Rep.
Aaron Schock (R-IL), who, at 33-years-old, will soon only be the second
youngest House member.
It is not to be over-confident – that is silly and can prove to be dangerous
– but only candid to conclude that the Abortion Lobby and its Democratic
Party enablers took an incredible pounding this past November.
EDITOR’S NOTE: To accomplish the win of 72% (now higher with Alaska
& Louisiana) much effort was made by National RTL. They contacted
3.3 million identified pro-life registered voter households in key races
with brochures detailing the positions of the candidates on the issues
of importance to the right –to-life movement. An additional 1.3 million
pieces of literature were hand-distributed by NRLC’s network of grassroots
volunteers among the 3,000 chapters. In addition, over 1.5 million prolife households were called in the days leading up to the election with
a reminder to vote for the pro-life candidate. (This was done in New
Mexico too.) National RTL’s political committees also aired more than
33,000 radio ads on over 1,200 stations in key states and congressional
districts. This also included New Mexico. Please remember this when
they ask for a donation as we the people are their only source of income.
THE COMING WAVE OF ANTI-ABORTION LAWS
– BY PAIGE WINFIELD CUNNINGHAM
The Republican gains in the November elections strengthened and
enlarged the anti-abortion forces in the House and the Senate. But it’s the
GOP victories in the statehouses and governor’s mansions that are priming
the ground for another round of legal restrictions on abortion.
Arkansas, for instance, already has strict anti-abortion laws. But
with a Republican governor succeeding a Democrat who had vetoed
two measures that would have banned most abortions beyond a certain
state of pregnancy, lawmakers plan to seek more restrictions- such as
barring doctors from administering abortion drugs through telemedicine.
Republican gains in the West Virginia legislature will redouble pressure
on Democratic Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin to accept a ban on most abortions
after 20 weeks, which he has previously deemed unconstitutional. And
Tennessee voters approved a ballot initiative that removes a 15-year barrier
to legislation limiting abortion legislation in that deeply conservative state.
Abortion rights advocates have had setbacks in the states for several
years, with a surge of legislative activity since 2011. Women seeking
abortions may face mandatory waiting periods or ultrasound requirements.
Clinics may face stricter building codes or hospital admitting privilege rules
that they can’t satisfy. Dozens of clinics have shut down in multiple states,
Texas, for instance, has fewer than 10 abortion clinics now. A year ago they
had 40.
Republican leaders who will control the U. S. Senate come January, say
they want to take up abortion this year, perhaps on a House-passed bill that
would limit the procedure after 20 weeks. But the reality is that Senate
Republicans will still fall shy of the 60 needed for controversial major
legislation. It’s the state where Republicans can enact abortion limits.
“We came out of Nov. 4th with a lot of momentum,” said Chuck Donovan,
president of the research and education arm of the Susan B. Anthony List,
which is dedicated to electing candidates who oppose abortion. He expects
the number of anti-abortion measures proposed in the states to reflect
that. “I think we’re about to get another uptick.”
Thirteen states have passed bans on most abortions after 20 weeks –
so-called fetal pain bills – and a couple have enacted earlier limits tied to
when a fetal heartbeat is first detected, which can be six or seven weeks
into pregnancy. Several of these states laws are being contested in court
and the arguments may eventually end up in the Supreme Court. But that
hasn’t deterred more states from eyeing such legislation; in Ohio, a House
panel approved a fetal heartbeat bill just a few days ago at the start of
December, 2014.
Planned Parenthood’s President Cecile Richards predicts that 2015 will
bring more attempts to enact restrictive state laws. She said she expects
“state legislative attacks on women’s health, even though the vast majority
of the public wants elected officials to protect and expand access to safe
and legal abortion, birth control and preventive health care.”
Anti-abortion legislation is especially likely to come up in two of the four
legislatures that meet every other year: Texas, which passed sweeping clinic
regulations in 2013, and North Dakota, which recently saw its medication
abortion restrictions upheld by the state Supreme Court. (Its heartbeat bill
is being contested in court.)
Activists say they’ll push on several fronts, seeking more restrictions
in states that have already enacted laws, as well as initiating legislation in
states where GOP has now gained ground.
“In some states where we’ve had success in the past we’ve gotten
stronger, and in some states where we weren’t able to pass anything we
were able to improve our vote count,” said Mary Spaulding Balch, state
legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee.
One State in the spotlight: Tennessee. Voters in November approved a
ballot initiative that says the state’s constitution does not protect abortion
rights. That cleared the way for state lawmakers to pass new abortion
restrictions for the first time in nearly 15 years. Republican state Rep.
Rick Womick already has filed bills requiring mandatory ultrasounds and a
three-day waiting period for an abortion.
(continued on page 4)
JANUARY 2015 VIVA LIFE
3
Go Away Doubting Thomases…(cont. from page 3)
Some activists want Tennessee to focus on restrictions that a court
struck down in 2000 but could now be permissible. Those include parental
consent for minors, a mandatory 24-hour waiting period and stricter clinic
regulations. But other measures may come up, too.
“The lawmakers are very strongly pro-life themselves – they are
probably going to want to go further than Tennessee Right to Life would
want to go at this juncture,” said its president Brian Harris. “We feel in good
faith we need to follow through on specifically those protective policies we
debated and discussed.”
Another eight states – Ohio, Arizona, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma,
Louisiana, Mississippi and Wisconsin – are considered top targets by
abortion opponents. Arkansas has several laws on the books but, in
addition to the telemedicine bill, may also pursue legislation that would
keep Medicaid dollars from any organization that provides abortions.
Still, activists acknowledge that GOP control of the legislative branch
doesn’t necessarily equate with anti-abortion majority, particularly if
there’s a gubernatorial veto. Both the Nevada Assembly and Senate
flipped Republican earlier this month, for example, but Republican Brain
Sandoval supports keeping abortion legal, making it less likely that abortion
restrictions will get through. Activists in the state are, however, eyeing a
bill creating a religious exemption for contraception and abortion insurance
coverage in the health law. New Hampshire’s two chambers also flipped
to the GOP, But Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan definitely backs abortion
rights, and a significant change to state law is not likely.
PLEASE NOTE: First, a baby’s heart starts beating between 18-20 days;
it just can’t be detected until later. Secondly, Cecile Richards’s remarks
that the American people want to protect and expand access to safe and
legal abortion, birth control, and preventive health care” is quite wrong.
The American people has shown through many polls over the past years
they want abortion restricted, and support much of the pro-life legislation
which brings this about.
Paige Winfeld Cunningham works for POLITICO PRO
WHERE IS NEW MEXICO
IN THIS PICTURE?
THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE
ANSWERS THAT QUESTION
GOP MAJORITY IN
NEW MEXICO LEGISLATURE
LEAVES REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS IN DOUBT
– BY TEDDY WILSON, REPORTING FELLOW,
RH REALITY CHECK
Republicans hold a majority of seats in the New Mexico state house
for the first time in 60 years. This change in the political landscape
could threaten abortion access not just in the state, but throughout the
Southwest, where anti-choice policy makers have severely limited abortion
rights.
Restricting abortion access might not be atop the new house majority’s
agenda; however, as it’s become clear the crushing labor union rights could
take precedence for New Mexico Republicans.
New Mexico Republicans were able to flip the Democrats’ 37-33
majority by defeating Democrats in November’s election.
The new Republican majority in the House will give Gov. Susana Martinez
(R) a newfound political advantage. New Mexico political observers said.
“That would give the governor an advantage pushing her agenda through,”
Gabriel Sanchez, a University of New Mexico political science professor,
told the Albuquerque Journal. While Republicans will enjoy a new majority
in the house, members of the senate were not up for this election year.
Democrats maintain a 25-17 majority in the chamber, and it remains to be
seen how the legislature’s partisan split will affect legislative battles.
During the process of selecting new leadership some house Republicans
stressed the importance of working with Democrats in the senate. Rep,
Don Tripp (R) – (Socorro) told KRQE Channel 13 that working across the
4
VIVA LIFE
JANUARY 2015
aisle would be important in the coming months. “When we get to the
session, the members of the legislature, they’re all interested in making
New Mexico a better place to live. So you just have to reach the common
ground to try to move that agenda forward,” said Tripp.
Tripp was selected to be the next speaker of the house in the upcoming
session, and told Albuquerque Journal that there are significant challenges
for the new Republican majority. “I think we have a monumental task
before us, trying to just make the transition, because there’s nobody alive
that had to go through this before,” Tripp said.
Targeting labor unions is among the priorities for the new Republican
majority in the upcoming legislative session.
At a meeting of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in
Washington, D. C., Rep. Yvette Herrell (R-Alamogordo) told Bloomberg
News that she would like to curb union rights to make the state more
attractive for business interests. “There are a lot of things to do and this is
our opportunity,” said Herrell. “We need opportunities in terms of jobs.”
Reproductive rights advocates in the state worry about whether the
new Republican majority will also attempt to pass restrictions on abortion
access. Anti-choice legislation has been defeated recently in committees,
but now Democrats in the house will be unable to block those bills.
“We know that if there’s a big shift that we would be facing a whole new
committee –which is where we have usually been able to defend women’s
reproductive health and get any harmful bills off the table.” Andriann
Barboa, field director for Strong Families New Mexico, told RH Reality Check
in the run-up to November’s election. During the 2014 legislative session,
there was one anti-choice bill introduced, but it failed to pass. There were
four bills introduced during the 2013 legislative session that would have
regulated abortion, but none received a hearing on a floor vote.
The new speaker has yet to address whether restrictions on abortion
will be among the new majority’s priorities. However, other members
of the Republican majority, including the newly elected members of the
leadership – have a history of pushing for abortion restrictions. Rep. Nate
Gentry (R-Albuquerque), who was elected to serve as the new majority floor
leader, has expressed support for parental notification laws. The newly
elected majority whip, Rep. Alonzo Baldonado (R-Los Lunas), introduced a
parental notification bill in 2011.
Rep. Herrell co-sponsored a bill in 2013 that would have criminalized
abortion by victims of rape as “tampering with evidence.” Newly elected
Republican caucus chair Rep. Kelly Fajardo (R-Belen) was also a co-sponsor
of the bill.
Any restrictions on abortion passed by state lawmakers would have
an effect on women’s reproductive rights not just in New Mexico, but
throughout the region. States surrounding New Mexico have instituted a
host of harsh restrictions on abortion pushed through by radical anti-choice
lawmakers. Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Utah, and Arizona all have severe
restrictions on women’s access to abortion, according to ratings by NARAL
Pro-Choice America.
Colorado was the only state bordering New Mexico that NARAL graded
higher than an “F” – grading the state’s abortion access at a “C-.“ NARAL
grades New Mexico access to abortion as an “A-“ Because of these
restrictions in surrounding states, more and more women have come
to New Mexico seeking reproductive health care. The situation spurred
Whole Woman’s Health, a network of health clinics, to expand its services
to Las Cruces in order to accommodate women from Texas, a state that has
severely restricted access under its omnibus abortion law.
Note: Even though this was written by an obvious pro-abortion writer,
the facts are accurate (it must have hurt to write them). What we as
citizens need to do is help get these laws passed. We are trying to raise
tax-deductible money for radio ads on the two bills we are introducing
(Parental Rights and Women’s right to know. You can send a donation
to: RTLNM, 2413 Wyoming Blvd. NE, Suite A, Albuquerque, NM 87112.
Just write Legis-media on the check. Also contact your legislator and tell
them you want to have this bill passed, and share this information with
others. You can, and must help or we will become the abortion mecca in
the Southwest, as we are already the worst.
Go Away Doubting Thomases…(cont. from page 2)
talent, not just on the Federal or statewide level but farther down the
ballot as well. The GOP now controls 69 of the 99 legislative chambers,
a dramatic reversal, according to Washington Examiner columnist David
Freddoso, from 2008 when Barack Obama’s party controlled 62 legislative
chambers. The GOP now has the total command of state government
– both chambers of the legislature and the governor’s mansions – in 23
states, while the Democrats command the levers of government in just
seven states. In addition to the Republican Party’s 31 governorships,
the GOP enjoys the allegiance of 32 Lieutenant governors offices and 29
crucial secretaries of state.”
#4) If you’ve listened and/or watched President Obama, you know he
is in deep – deep – denial. All that happened November 4 was that he
wasn’t a good enough salesman of his very successful policies, the “wrong”
electorate turned up to vote, and, in any event, he is not interested in the
least in genuine compromise. Another description might be petulant.
Thus, the results of another Gallup poll will likely only make Obama
double-down on his intransigency. As reported by Gallup’s Linda Saad,
“Following the midterm election that some have termed a Republican
wave, the majority of Americans want the Republicans in Congress -rather than President Barack Obama – to have more influence over the
direction the country takes in the coming year.”
And it’s not just that 53% say they want Congressional Republicans to
have more influence than Obama in the direction the nation takes, only
36% said the reverse – an advantage of a whopping 17 points! The “bottom
Line,” according to Saad? “The mid-term election provided a clear signal as
to which party voters want to control Congress. That message is echoed
in the results of the latest Gallup poll showing Americans expressly asking
for the Republicans – rather than Obama – to guide the direction the
country takes in the next year.”
#5) If I may return to Noah Rothman one more time, there are other
results very much worth mentioning. “The Democratic officeholders
who survived the routings of 2010 and 2014 are primarily entrenched
incumbents and are invariably of an older set,” Rothman observes. “The
Democratic Party is rapidly becoming a political organization that, as
liberals once said of the GOP, does not look like the constituents they seek
to represent.“
Quoting from national exit polling, Rothman explains, Republicans
improved with the voters aged 18-29 who turned out by 2 points over
the party’s 2010 standing. The GOP only lost young voters to Democrats
by an atypically close single-digit margin. Moreover, the GOP continues
to elevate a younger generation of leaders to high office, including
the youngest woman to serve in the House in history, 30-year-old
Representative-elect Elise Stefanik (R-NY) who had the added privilege of
turning her Empire State district from blue to red. She will replace Rep.
Aaron Schock (R-IL), who, at 33-years-old, will soon only be the second
youngest House member.
It is not to be over-confident – that is silly and can prove to be dangerous
– but only candid to conclude that the Abortion Lobby and its Democratic
Party enablers took an incredible pounding this past November.
EDITOR’S NOTE: To accomplish the win of 72% (now higher with Alaska
& Louisiana) much effort was made by National RTL. They contacted
3.3 million identified pro-life registered voter households in key races
with brochures detailing the positions of the candidates on the issues
of importance to the right –to-life movement. An additional 1.3 million
pieces of literature were hand-distributed by NRLC’s network of grassroots
volunteers among the 3,000 chapters. In addition, over 1.5 million prolife households were called in the days leading up to the election with
a reminder to vote for the pro-life candidate. (This was done in New
Mexico too.) National RTL’s political committees also aired more than
33,000 radio ads on over 1,200 stations in key states and congressional
districts. This also included New Mexico. Please remember this when
they ask for a donation as we the people are their only source of income.
THE COMING WAVE OF ANTI-ABORTION LAWS
– BY PAIGE WINFIELD CUNNINGHAM
The Republican gains in the November elections strengthened and
enlarged the anti-abortion forces in the House and the Senate. But it’s the
GOP victories in the statehouses and governor’s mansions that are priming
the ground for another round of legal restrictions on abortion.
Arkansas, for instance, already has strict anti-abortion laws. But
with a Republican governor succeeding a Democrat who had vetoed
two measures that would have banned most abortions beyond a certain
state of pregnancy, lawmakers plan to seek more restrictions- such as
barring doctors from administering abortion drugs through telemedicine.
Republican gains in the West Virginia legislature will redouble pressure
on Democratic Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin to accept a ban on most abortions
after 20 weeks, which he has previously deemed unconstitutional. And
Tennessee voters approved a ballot initiative that removes a 15-year barrier
to legislation limiting abortion legislation in that deeply conservative state.
Abortion rights advocates have had setbacks in the states for several
years, with a surge of legislative activity since 2011. Women seeking
abortions may face mandatory waiting periods or ultrasound requirements.
Clinics may face stricter building codes or hospital admitting privilege rules
that they can’t satisfy. Dozens of clinics have shut down in multiple states,
Texas, for instance, has fewer than 10 abortion clinics now. A year ago they
had 40.
Republican leaders who will control the U. S. Senate come January, say
they want to take up abortion this year, perhaps on a House-passed bill that
would limit the procedure after 20 weeks. But the reality is that Senate
Republicans will still fall shy of the 60 needed for controversial major
legislation. It’s the state where Republicans can enact abortion limits.
“We came out of Nov. 4th with a lot of momentum,” said Chuck Donovan,
president of the research and education arm of the Susan B. Anthony List,
which is dedicated to electing candidates who oppose abortion. He expects
the number of anti-abortion measures proposed in the states to reflect
that. “I think we’re about to get another uptick.”
Thirteen states have passed bans on most abortions after 20 weeks –
so-called fetal pain bills – and a couple have enacted earlier limits tied to
when a fetal heartbeat is first detected, which can be six or seven weeks
into pregnancy. Several of these states laws are being contested in court
and the arguments may eventually end up in the Supreme Court. But that
hasn’t deterred more states from eyeing such legislation; in Ohio, a House
panel approved a fetal heartbeat bill just a few days ago at the start of
December, 2014.
Planned Parenthood’s President Cecile Richards predicts that 2015 will
bring more attempts to enact restrictive state laws. She said she expects
“state legislative attacks on women’s health, even though the vast majority
of the public wants elected officials to protect and expand access to safe
and legal abortion, birth control and preventive health care.”
Anti-abortion legislation is especially likely to come up in two of the four
legislatures that meet every other year: Texas, which passed sweeping clinic
regulations in 2013, and North Dakota, which recently saw its medication
abortion restrictions upheld by the state Supreme Court. (Its heartbeat bill
is being contested in court.)
Activists say they’ll push on several fronts, seeking more restrictions
in states that have already enacted laws, as well as initiating legislation in
states where GOP has now gained ground.
“In some states where we’ve had success in the past we’ve gotten
stronger, and in some states where we weren’t able to pass anything we
were able to improve our vote count,” said Mary Spaulding Balch, state
legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee.
One State in the spotlight: Tennessee. Voters in November approved a
ballot initiative that says the state’s constitution does not protect abortion
rights. That cleared the way for state lawmakers to pass new abortion
restrictions for the first time in nearly 15 years. Republican state Rep.
Rick Womick already has filed bills requiring mandatory ultrasounds and a
three-day waiting period for an abortion.
(continued on page 4)
JANUARY 2015 VIVA LIFE
3
Go Away Doubting Thomases…(cont. from page 3)
Some activists want Tennessee to focus on restrictions that a court
struck down in 2000 but could now be permissible. Those include parental
consent for minors, a mandatory 24-hour waiting period and stricter clinic
regulations. But other measures may come up, too.
“The lawmakers are very strongly pro-life themselves – they are
probably going to want to go further than Tennessee Right to Life would
want to go at this juncture,” said its president Brian Harris. “We feel in good
faith we need to follow through on specifically those protective policies we
debated and discussed.”
Another eight states – Ohio, Arizona, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma,
Louisiana, Mississippi and Wisconsin – are considered top targets by
abortion opponents. Arkansas has several laws on the books but, in
addition to the telemedicine bill, may also pursue legislation that would
keep Medicaid dollars from any organization that provides abortions.
Still, activists acknowledge that GOP control of the legislative branch
doesn’t necessarily equate with anti-abortion majority, particularly if
there’s a gubernatorial veto. Both the Nevada Assembly and Senate
flipped Republican earlier this month, for example, but Republican Brain
Sandoval supports keeping abortion legal, making it less likely that abortion
restrictions will get through. Activists in the state are, however, eyeing a
bill creating a religious exemption for contraception and abortion insurance
coverage in the health law. New Hampshire’s two chambers also flipped
to the GOP, But Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan definitely backs abortion
rights, and a significant change to state law is not likely.
PLEASE NOTE: First, a baby’s heart starts beating between 18-20 days;
it just can’t be detected until later. Secondly, Cecile Richards’s remarks
that the American people want to protect and expand access to safe and
legal abortion, birth control, and preventive health care” is quite wrong.
The American people has shown through many polls over the past years
they want abortion restricted, and support much of the pro-life legislation
which brings this about.
Paige Winfeld Cunningham works for POLITICO PRO
WHERE IS NEW MEXICO
IN THIS PICTURE?
THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE
ANSWERS THAT QUESTION
GOP MAJORITY IN
NEW MEXICO LEGISLATURE
LEAVES REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS IN DOUBT
– BY TEDDY WILSON, REPORTING FELLOW,
RH REALITY CHECK
Republicans hold a majority of seats in the New Mexico state house
for the first time in 60 years. This change in the political landscape
could threaten abortion access not just in the state, but throughout the
Southwest, where anti-choice policy makers have severely limited abortion
rights.
Restricting abortion access might not be atop the new house majority’s
agenda; however, as it’s become clear the crushing labor union rights could
take precedence for New Mexico Republicans.
New Mexico Republicans were able to flip the Democrats’ 37-33
majority by defeating Democrats in November’s election.
The new Republican majority in the House will give Gov. Susana Martinez
(R) a newfound political advantage. New Mexico political observers said.
“That would give the governor an advantage pushing her agenda through,”
Gabriel Sanchez, a University of New Mexico political science professor,
told the Albuquerque Journal. While Republicans will enjoy a new majority
in the house, members of the senate were not up for this election year.
Democrats maintain a 25-17 majority in the chamber, and it remains to be
seen how the legislature’s partisan split will affect legislative battles.
During the process of selecting new leadership some house Republicans
stressed the importance of working with Democrats in the senate. Rep,
Don Tripp (R) – (Socorro) told KRQE Channel 13 that working across the
4
VIVA LIFE
JANUARY 2015
aisle would be important in the coming months. “When we get to the
session, the members of the legislature, they’re all interested in making
New Mexico a better place to live. So you just have to reach the common
ground to try to move that agenda forward,” said Tripp.
Tripp was selected to be the next speaker of the house in the upcoming
session, and told Albuquerque Journal that there are significant challenges
for the new Republican majority. “I think we have a monumental task
before us, trying to just make the transition, because there’s nobody alive
that had to go through this before,” Tripp said.
Targeting labor unions is among the priorities for the new Republican
majority in the upcoming legislative session.
At a meeting of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in
Washington, D. C., Rep. Yvette Herrell (R-Alamogordo) told Bloomberg
News that she would like to curb union rights to make the state more
attractive for business interests. “There are a lot of things to do and this is
our opportunity,” said Herrell. “We need opportunities in terms of jobs.”
Reproductive rights advocates in the state worry about whether the
new Republican majority will also attempt to pass restrictions on abortion
access. Anti-choice legislation has been defeated recently in committees,
but now Democrats in the house will be unable to block those bills.
“We know that if there’s a big shift that we would be facing a whole new
committee –which is where we have usually been able to defend women’s
reproductive health and get any harmful bills off the table.” Andriann
Barboa, field director for Strong Families New Mexico, told RH Reality Check
in the run-up to November’s election. During the 2014 legislative session,
there was one anti-choice bill introduced, but it failed to pass. There were
four bills introduced during the 2013 legislative session that would have
regulated abortion, but none received a hearing on a floor vote.
The new speaker has yet to address whether restrictions on abortion
will be among the new majority’s priorities. However, other members
of the Republican majority, including the newly elected members of the
leadership – have a history of pushing for abortion restrictions. Rep. Nate
Gentry (R-Albuquerque), who was elected to serve as the new majority floor
leader, has expressed support for parental notification laws. The newly
elected majority whip, Rep. Alonzo Baldonado (R-Los Lunas), introduced a
parental notification bill in 2011.
Rep. Herrell co-sponsored a bill in 2013 that would have criminalized
abortion by victims of rape as “tampering with evidence.” Newly elected
Republican caucus chair Rep. Kelly Fajardo (R-Belen) was also a co-sponsor
of the bill.
Any restrictions on abortion passed by state lawmakers would have
an effect on women’s reproductive rights not just in New Mexico, but
throughout the region. States surrounding New Mexico have instituted a
host of harsh restrictions on abortion pushed through by radical anti-choice
lawmakers. Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Utah, and Arizona all have severe
restrictions on women’s access to abortion, according to ratings by NARAL
Pro-Choice America.
Colorado was the only state bordering New Mexico that NARAL graded
higher than an “F” – grading the state’s abortion access at a “C-.“ NARAL
grades New Mexico access to abortion as an “A-“ Because of these
restrictions in surrounding states, more and more women have come
to New Mexico seeking reproductive health care. The situation spurred
Whole Woman’s Health, a network of health clinics, to expand its services
to Las Cruces in order to accommodate women from Texas, a state that has
severely restricted access under its omnibus abortion law.
Note: Even though this was written by an obvious pro-abortion writer,
the facts are accurate (it must have hurt to write them). What we as
citizens need to do is help get these laws passed. We are trying to raise
tax-deductible money for radio ads on the two bills we are introducing
(Parental Rights and Women’s right to know. You can send a donation
to: RTLNM, 2413 Wyoming Blvd. NE, Suite A, Albuquerque, NM 87112.
Just write Legis-media on the check. Also contact your legislator and tell
them you want to have this bill passed, and share this information with
others. You can, and must help or we will become the abortion mecca in
the Southwest, as we are already the worst.
Roe vs. Wade… (cont. from page 1)
Protection Act (restricting abortions after 20 weeks). States that had prolife legislatures passed went eventually to the Supreme Court where they
were up-held, or in some cases part of the bill was upheld. This left it clear
what would be constitutional to pass in those states that, when they had a
good legislature, could go forth and pass.
The Supreme Court made abortion legal for ALL NINE MONTHS when
it ruled on the same day, Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton. The latter was
ruled first and defined health in such a manner that anything you want to
have could be under “health” which includes age, physical, psychological,
emotional, and familial (how the family and community feels). All these had
to be applied to the woman’s “well-being”.
With this wide range of applications besides the life of the mother, and
cases of rape and incest, a woman could get an abortion for any and all
reasons.
This definition was incorporated into Roe vs. Wade, which refers to
trimesters, 3 months, 6 months and 9-months or term. However, with
the additional “health” factors, the abortion is really legal for all 9 months.
Abortion could not be restricted before viability but this has greatly
changed since those days, as science can now save an unborn child in
the first trimester thus that no longer should come into play. But it is not
applied everywhere, as late term abortions are after viability.
States since then have modified Roe vs. Wade making far more
restrictions, yet it is very much in place. It still is the law of the land, and will
remain so unless: 1-The Court overturns Roe vs. Wade, 2-Congress takes
some action on the law, such as a Human Life Amendment, or 3-A case
could go to the Court and it would take that opportunity to let abortion laws
be taken up by each individual state. The latter is thought to be the scenario
we will face, if we get a majority of the Court who believe that Roe v. Wade
is unconstitutional and wants to return the issue to the states. We do not
have such a court at this time. To get that will need a pro-life President,
and a pro-life Senate that would put in place pro-life (or Constitutionalist)
candidates up for replacing retiring justices.
Progress has been made. But not for the over 59 million babies that
have been destroyed by this disastrous ruling. However, it is being replaced
by ObamaCare which has abortion for all 9 months for any and all reasons
in states that have exchanges and in other ways taxes being paid by all the
citizens to pay for abortions. This got around the Hyde Amendment which
restricted pay for abortions with tax money except in the cases of rape and
incest.
It really is up to the people to send the right people to Washington D.C.
and for them to help educate others on the Roe vs. Wade ruling so that they
will want to rid ourselves of this terrible ruling.
We have already replaced the scenario that took place in 1973 where
women with unplanned pregnancies had “no place to go”, which is not
entirely true. However, today there are more clinics to help women with
unplanned pregnancies than abortion clinics who want to kill the child as
a solution.
We have come a long way, but all working together we go farther and
we can rid ourselves of the abortion mentality and money making business.
For all our sakes, we must do this.
GO AWAY DOUBTING THOMASES
AND NAYSAYERS. THE PRO-LIFE
MOVEMENT IS ON THE MOVE!
By Dauneen Dolce
At both the National and the State level, the playing field for pro-life
legislation has greatly changed since the November elections. To give you
insight into these changes, here are two articles that should make the point.
THE DEPTH, HEIGHT, WIDTH, AND BREADTH OF THE DEFEAT SUFFERED
BY PRO-ABORTION FORCES ONLY NOW BEGINNING TO BE FULLY REALIZED.
– By Dave Andrusko - NRL News Editor
When I first started composing this editorial, it was the same day it
became quasi-official. The Associated Press and CBS News and NBC News
2 VIVA LIFE JANUARY 2015 all call the Senate race in Alaska: pro-life challenger Dan Sullivan had
defeated first-term incumbent pro-abortion Democrat Mark Begich.
As a result, Republicans have already made a net gain of eighth in the
Senate and will assume control in January. As noted above, Mary Landrieu
is in deep trouble. The outlook so bleak for Landrieu that last week the
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee announced it had pulled its
ad buy for Landrieu during the period of the run-off. (Note: the run-off has
taken place and the Republican Party added one more to the Senate having
a gain of nine more senators.)
But it gets better and better. In addition to Sullivan and Cassidy, let me
list just five items to whet your appetite.
#1) Writing for Gallup, Andrew Dugan concludes: After the midterm
elections that say the Democratic Party suffered significant losses in
Congress, a record-low 36% of Americans say they have a favorable opinion
of the party, down six percentage points from before the elections. The
Republican Party’s favorable rating, at 42%, is essentially unchanged from
40%. This marks the first time since September that the Republican Party
has had a higher favorability rating than the Democratic Party.
Dugan continues, These results come from a Nov. 6-9 Gallup Poll,
conducted after Republicans enjoyed a breathtaking week of important
contests throughout the country in this year’s midterms. The party gained
control of the Senate and will likely capture its largest House majority in
nearly a century. Additionally, the GOP now controls 31 Governorships
and two-thirds of state legislative chambers.
One more quote:
After the 2012 election, many political analysts focused on the GOP’s
‘image problem’. Now it is the Democrats who appear to have the more
battered image. Their favorability rating has never been lower, and they
are reeling from defeats that cost them control of the U. S. Senate and
strengthened the Republican House majority to levels likely not seen in
90 years. That 36% favorable rating for the Democratic Party is a drop of
16-percentage points from before the midterm elections and the lowest
favorability since Gallup began asking the question in 1992. As for the
President’s job approval numbers, they range between 39%-42%.
#2) The day after the elections, NRLC demonstrated the power and the
reach of the grassroots pro-lifers working with and motivated by National
Right to Life and its states affiliates. People heard from NRLC’s political
committees and the net advantage for the pro-life candidate among voters
who said the abortion issue affected their vote was a whopping 7 points
(23% said they voted for candidates who oppose abortion, just 16% said
they voted for candidates who support abortion.
Pro-abortionists have been grousing ever since and scrambling to
deflect attention away from the painful reality: their candidates lost
overwhelmingly. Last Tuesday pro-abortion stalwarts NARAL Pro-Choice
America and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund released a poll which
(the groups said in a statement) proves “There is no evidence to support
the contention that a focus on the ‘war on women’ ‘cost’ Democrats their
elections.”
The problem is no one else believes this. Tell this revisionist nonsense
to the likes of Mary Pryor, Kay Hagan, Mark Udall, Bruce Braley, Michelle
Nunn, and Alison Lundergan Grimes (not to mention abortion mega-star
Wendy Davis who was crushed in her contest against pro-life Greg Abbot
for Governor of Texas).
#3) It is symbolic of Barack Obama’s devastating impact on the fortunes
of younger Democrats that Hilary Clinton is the clear front-runner to be
the party’s next presidential nominee. If you combine the insights of a
piece that appeared in POLITICO over last weekend with the analysis of
Washington Examiner columnist David Freddoso as summarized by Noah
Rothman, two startling truths come out.
First, that “Democrats are coming to the grim realization that much of
the party’s talent pool was crushed on Tuesday.” Since they are invariably
pro-abortion, this means that the Abortion industry took a tremendous hit
November 4. Rothman, writing at HotAir.com, explains, “In two consecutive
midterms, Republicans have decimated the Democratic Party’s bench of
(continued on page 3)
2015 - WHAT HAPPENS TO
OBAMACARE NOW?
This question depends on the actions of others. First, the ObamaCare
are legislation is going back to the Supreme Court. Subsidizing ObamaCare
where there are exchange programs (provided by government) is not in
the law. Hopefully this will be seen as being wrong, and will not allow such
tax support in the future. If this happens, the whole “Insurance Plan” will
go down the drain. There will not be enough money. Of course they can
raise the rates on plans not under exchanges and this will create havoc, and
outrage. Prices are way too high already.
Meanwhile there is a new religious challenge to ObamaCare. Only a
few such organizations were spared by a “change of heart” of the Obama
administration. Others such as a Christian Colleges in Oklahoma, and four
nuns from Colorado have argued in the 10th U. S. Circuit Court that they
oppose having birth control, including the morning–after pill, in their health
plans. It is against their beliefs.
The groups don’t have to cover such contraceptives, as most insurers
must, but they do have to tell the government they object on religious
grounds in order to get an exemption. They argued, on Dec. 9, 2014, that
because they must sign over coverage to another party, the exemption
makes them complicit in providing contraceptives. “It is morally
problematic” to sign the forms, argued Greg Baylor, lawyer for Southern
Nazarene University in Bethany, Oklahoma. “There’s plenty of other ways
the government could put (emergency contraception) in the hands of the
people without us,” Baylor said.
But Adam Jed of the Department of Justice argued that the government
has done enough to accommodate religious exceptions to the birth control
mandate. He said that not requiring some sort of action by the groups
would force the government to act as a “detective agency” to determine
why any employer is not covering the contraceptives. “We disagree that
the act of opting out constitutes a substantial burden on their religious
belief,” Jed said.
Even opting out violates those beliefs, the groups said. “You can’t say,
Sister, you should really sign that form because it’s not really a big deal, said
Mark Rienzi of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, who argues for the
Denver nuns.
Then there is the new Congress beginning this January 2015. We have
the votes to defund and change ObamaCare, and it won’t be long before
some steps will be taken, thus jeopardizing the continued existence of
ObamaCare as it is now. It is more likely that bills will be introduced to
replace much of what is terribly wrong, while keeping that which is working
such as coverage of children to the age 26.
There are other legal suits floating out there from states, businesses,
etc. All of which will sooner or later make an impact
In the meantime, we are left leave with this anti-life legislation which is
hurting people in many ways.
A on the cost of ObamaCare was made by Casey Mullegan, a professor
of economics at the University of Chicago. The article below is an article
on a speech he made on October 14, 2014. For brevity’s sake, this is a
condensed version.
EFFECTS OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT ON ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY
The key economic concept required to understand the labor market
effects of the ACA is what economists call “tax distortions.” Tax distortions
are changes in behavior on the part of business or households for the
purpose of reducing their taxes or increasing their subsidies. We call them
distortions because they don’t occur for real business or real personal
reasons. They occur because of the tax code. A prime example of a tax
policy that creates distortions is the ethanol subsidy – technically is a
credit, not a subsidy – whereby gasoline refiners are subsidized on the
basis of how many gallons of gas they produce with ethanol. Because of
this subsidy, businesses change the type of gas they produce and deliver,
people change the type of gas they use – which affects engines – and
corn is used for ethanol instead of feed or food. Nor do the distortions
stop there. Arguably, food prices are increased due to the real-location of
corn to different uses – and when food prices are higher, restaurants and
households do things differently. There are distortions economy-wide, all
for the chasing of a subsidy.
THE EMPLOYER MANDATE/PENALTY/TAX
So what are the tax distortions that emanate from ACA? Here let me
simply focus on two aspects of the law: the employer mandate or employer
penalty –the requirements that employers of a certain size either provide
health insurance for full-time employees or pay a penalty for not doing so;
and the exchanges – sometimes they’re called marketplaces – where people
can purchase health insurance separate from their employer. The mandate
or penalty is intended, of course, to encourage employers to provide health
insurance. And the exchanges are where the major government assistance
is provided, since those who purchase insurance in an exchange typically
receive a tax credit. As I’ll explain later, taken together the penalty on
employers and the subsidies in the exchanges add up to a tax on full-time
employment – a tax that you pay if you work full time but not if you work
part-time or don’t work at all. And the problem with that, of course, is that
by taxing full-time work – which is the same as subsidizing part-time worker
and unemployment – you get less of the former and more of the latter two.
How does the employer penalty work? To employers who do not offer
health coverage, and it applies only in those months during which those
full-time employees are on the payroll. If an employer cuts back to parttime work, the employer no longer has to pay a penalty. The dollar amount
of the penalty doesn’t depend on whether the employee is rich, poor or
middle class – if he works full time, the employer must either provide
insurance or pay the penalty. And the penalty is indexed to health insurance
costs, so every year those costs increase more than the economy and more
than wages, the penalty will increase more than both. The current penalty
is usually described as $2000 per year per full-time employee. But it’s really
more than that, because the penalty, unlike wages, is not deductible from
business taxes. So in terms of a salary equivalent, the penalty is closer to
$3000.00 a head. Needless to say, this penalty reduces competition in
the labor market. It discourages employers from competing for full-time
employees – which, if you are an employee, is a bad deal. Also there are
a lot of employers who are not going to pay the penalty because they
don’t meet the size threshold of 50 or more employees, and employees
are going to suffer because these small employers won’t want to become
large employers and therefore subject to the penalty. Furthermore, this
mandate disproportionately harms low-skill workers. Think of it this way:
How many hours does a worker have to work each week to produce the
$3,000.00–per-year of value to justify keeping his job or being hired? For a
minimum-wage worker, that comes to eight hours a week, all year round –
one day of work a week for the government due to the ACA alone. Higherskilled employees can obviously produce $3000 worth of value in less time,
so the penalty will have less of an impact on them.
SUBSIDIZED HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGES
What of the tax distortions that come from the subsidized health
insurance health insurance exchanges or marketplaces? To begin to think
about this, imagine paying full price for your health care. How does full
price work? Well you pay the full price. The health care provider doesn’t
look at your tax return and adjust the bill accordingly. So we would never
call paying full price for health care an income tax of any kind. Or imagine
there is a discount on the full price – for instance, 30 percent off for
everybody, regardless of income. In that case it’s still not an income tax.
No matter how you earn, you pay the same price. But what if the discount
(or subsidy) is tied to your employment situation? Not to your income,
but to your employment situation. That’s how the exchanges work. If you
have a full-time job with an employer that offers coverage- which is most
employers in our economy- you don’t get the subsidy offered through the
exchanges, which happens only if you are part-time or off the job. In other
words this too is a tax on full –time employment. No politician will call this
a tax, but when you are in a group of people who doesn’t receive a subsidy
that people in another group receive, that’s a tax.
(continued on page 6)
JANUARY 2015 VIVA LIFE 5
RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE
OF NEW MEXICO
NON-PROFIT
ORGANIZATION
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
Albuquerque, NM
Permit #471
2413 Wyoming Blvd NE, Suite A
Albuquerque, NM 87112-1164
INSIDE:
JANUARY 2015
Go Away Doubting Thomases… | 2-4
2015 - What Happens to
ObamaCare Now? | 5-6
RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED
vol. 33, no. 1
www.rtlnm.org
Newsletter of the Right to Life Committee of New Mexico
This newsletter is meant to be shared with at least ten others — copy as needed!
JANUARY 22, 2015 – MEMORIAL FOR LIFE
HOSTED BY ALBUQUERQUE RTL
ObamaCare… (continued from page 5)
There isn’t just one subsidy for everyone in the
exchanges. The subsidy depends on your income.
So there’s also an income tax built in. The folks
analyzing this decided only eight million people
will be in the exchanges, so only eight million
people will have a new income tax. But they were
oblivious of the fact that they were implementing
a full-time employment tax on the majority of
Americans workers and this is the biggest tax in
the law.
The economic impact from these taxes on
workers varies widely, affecting low-skill workers
the most. They create all kinds of productivity
problems and will have visible and permanent
effects on the economy. It is estimated that
employment will be 3% less over the long term
because of ACA, and that the national income,
GDP, will be 2% less. If you look at the productivity
costs alone, forgetting the fact that there will
be a number of people not working anymore –
they come to $6000 per person who gets health
insurance because of the law. And I am not
beginning to count the payments needed for
health care providers. Conclusion: If you like a
weak economy, you can keep your weak economy.
THE AMERICAN LEFT THINKS WE ARE STUPID,
AND WE MUST SHOW THEM WE ARE NOT
In a series of videos taken at various
conferences and lectures between 2010 and 2013,
Jonathan Gruber, key ObamaCare architect, claimed
that the effects of ObamaCare had to be hidden
from the Americans because of “the stupidity of the
American voter.” The Massachusetts Institutes of
Technology professor said that “lack of transparency
is a huge political advantage” in writing legislation
and likened its critics to “my adolescent children.”
Gruber was paid $6 million dollars for his various
services in designing and consulting on ObamaCare.
This attitude of the Washington political
establishment in general of the American public,
by liberal elites, is one that Americans cannot
make their own decisions, they must be cajoled,
mislead, threatened and flat-out lied to in order to
achieve the greatest good. A good example of this is
Gruber’s assessment of the tax-fee argument at the
heart of ObamaCare’s passage and later Supreme
Court fight: “This bill was written in a tortured way
to make sure CBO {the Congressional Budget Office}
did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored
the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Ok, so it was
written to do that.” This is all absolutely true.
They don’t know what is best for us, and we
must tell them with correspondence, votes and
involvement. There are many more people like
Jonathan Gruber in our government, and we must
eliminate them by voting them out and replacing
them with people who respect Americans.
Happy New Year!
Twenty-Five Alive Pledge 2015
Name:________________________________________________________________________________________
Phone:_______________________________________________________________________________________
Address:______________________________________________________________________________________
City:__________________________________ Zip code:_______________________________________________
I pledge:
$_____________ Monthly
$_____________ Every Three Months
$_____________ Every Two Months
One Time Pledge or Donation: $______________
Please return to: RTLCNM, 2413 Wyoming Blvd Ste A, Albuquerque, NM 87112
6 VIVA LIFE DECEMBER 2014
MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION
I understand that the Right To Life Committee
of New Mexico (RTLCNM) is a non-sectarian,
non-profit organi­
zation dedicated to the
right to life of all innocent human beings
from fertilization to natural death; that this
organization takes a stand only on those
issues that are directly related to abortion,
infanticide and euthanasia.
I support the goals of RTLCNM, including
a Human Life Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, and hereby make application for
membership (renewal) as follows:
Individual — $25.00
Corporate — $45.00 for business organizations
Family — $35.00
Life Membership — $500.00
Name____________________________
Address___________________________
City/Zip___________________________
Wish to: (check one)
Register to vote
Re-register
I am a registered: (check one)
Republican
Democrat
Other
________________________________
Signature
VIVA LIFE! is published by the
Right To Life Committee of New Mexico,
2413 Wyoming Blvd., NE, Suite A,
Albuquerque, NM 87112-1164 • 881-4563.
Verna Pochop. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . President
Kenneth lee. . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice President
Cherry Lyle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Secretary
Tom Taylor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Treasurer
Dauneen Dolce. . . . Natl. Delegate & Editor
VIVA LIFE! is printed by The Sherwood Co.
EVERY ONE IS INVITED TO BATAAN PARK ON LOMAS BLVD &
CARLISLE BLVD. ON JANUARY 22, 2015 FROM 11:00 A.M TO 3:00 P.M.
TO HONOR THE UNBORN CHILDREN LOST TO ABORTION IN NEW MEXICO.
FLAGS AND BANNERS WILL BE PLACED TO HONOR THESE INNOCENT
HUMAN BEINGS AND TO REMEMBER THEIR EXISTENCE AND IMPORTANCE.
COME AT 10:00 A.M. IF YOU WANT TO HELP
PLACE THE FLAGS AND BANNERS.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
PLEASE CALL CHARLENE COMBA – 505-345-4423.
COMING EVENTS:
MEMORIAL FOR LIFE – JANUARY 22, 2015 – SEE ARTICLE IN THIS VIVA LIFE!
LEGISLATURE STARTS ON JANUARY 20, 2015
APRIL 18, 2015 – 45TH ANNIVERSARY OF RTLNM – MARK YOUR CALENDAR
PLEASE NOTE: THERE ARE TWO VERY IMPORTANT ACTS YOU CAN
TAKE TO HELP RTLNM KEEP ITS DOORS OPEN, ITS OFFICE OPERATING, AND
BOTTOM LINE TO SAVE LIVES.
FIRST – BE A MEMBER OF RTLNM. THERE IS A FORM IN THIS VIVA LIFE.
SECOND – JOIN THE 25 ALIVE DONATION PROGRAM. THIS AMOUNT
CAN BE ANYTHING OVER $5.00. THERE IS A FORM FOR THIS ON THE BACK
PAGE.
HAVING SAID ALL THIS – THANK YOU ONE AN ALL FOR ALL YOU HAVE
DONE WITH YOUR TIME AND YOUR DONATIONS IN 2014. WE HAVE
MOVED FORWARD IN A POSITIVE WAY BECAUSE YOU WHERE THERE. WE
WILL CONTINUE TO WORK FOR YOU WITH YOUR HELP!
WHAT LEGISLATION IS
RTLNM SUPPORTING, WHY,
AND WHY NOT OTHER BILLS?
For many years The Right to Life Committee of New Mexico’s Political
Action Committee was the organization finding sponsors and putting forth
information so that pro-life bills could be passed.
Always taken into consideration was the makeup of the legislature and
who was governor. We always made an attempt even when the odds were
against us.
Now there are many more organizations, and with the past elections, the
political climate has much improved. Having said that, there also needs to
be said, that pro-lifers MUST BE JUDICIOUS AND PATIENT.
RTLNM is having the Parental Rights (Parental Notification) and The
Woman’s Right to Know bill being introduced. Both these bills have passed
most of the states in the U. S. and from polling are very popular with New
Mexico citizens. Of course states have passed many other bills, and there is
the thought that since we have the votes in the House now to go all out and
get many of these bills passed.
My answer to that is “HOLD YOUR HORSES.” We aren’t the only ones
champing at the bit to get legislation that has waited for years to pass.
This session will be filled with all kinds of legislation to move the agenda
forward. Prolife legislation is very important, but it is not the only issue
on the legislator’s minds. We must not attempt to hold up committee
hearings and floor debates with just “our issue.” If we attempt that, we
will have even pro-life legislators upset with us, as we could make it that
there would not be time to address their important bills. 60 days is not a
very long time when bills have to go through committees in the House and
then have a floor vote on a very busy agenda and then go to the Senate to
go through the committees and then go to a Senate floor. Sometimes, bills
that are same subject but written differently in each legislative entity, has
to go to a conference committee to work out details to unite them into one
bill. That has to go back for a vote once again.
We can and must get the two bills passed we are submitting, and then
build on them. Bills such as the Unborn Child ban at 20 weeks, needs
to have far more education going to the people of New Mexico so that
they are involved in working with their legislators in getting this passed.
Most people do not know abortion is legal all nine months, let alone how
they develop and feel pain. Our media campaign could accomplish this,
but not in the 2015 legislative session. Defeats are used to say that the
people don’t want the legislation, which is not accurate, they want what
they understand. Our job is to help them understand.
So hopefully, we won’t put the cart before the horse, or that we will
bury our pro-life legislators with too many bills. We are on the road to
success, and to make progress on it, we must use common sense, patience
and to bring very good written constitutionally acceptable laws (Supreme
Court’s view) to our legislature.
Get ready for instructions on what you can do. We may only be able
to communicate by e-mail, so please provide your e-mail to Info@rtlnm.
org so you can be a part of the coming victories and solutions. WE MAY
BE DOING ROBO CALLS, AND HOPE YOU WILL LISTEN WHEN THEY COME.
ROE vs. WADE NEEDS TO BE REMEMBERED
& NEEDS TO BE REMOVED
On January 22, 1973, 7 out of 9 men on the U. S. Supreme Court ruled
that women had a Constitutional right to destroy their children in the
womb. Thus, overturning all 50 states, which had laws restricting abortion
except for the life of the mother (30), and others had exceptions for rape
and incest (16), which didn’t affect the abortion rate a great deal as most
abortions are not done for these reasons. Four states had no restrictions.
Abortions being done in the majority of the states were very few.
After Roe vs. Wade, the number started climbing immediately
However it took several years for the numbers to leap, and that is because
the abortion business took time to get in place, and to have abortion
clinics and organizations like Planned Parenthood promoting abortion to
our children, and the public (using our tax dollars).
Going back to the ruling itself, most people really don’t understand it,
thus trying to pass legislation to reduce abortions under that ruling, has
been difficult. Many states have been successful in promoting and passing
pro-life legislation such as Parental Involvement bills, Women’s Right to
Know legislation Partial Births restrictions, and now Pain Capable Child
(continued on page 2)