Thursday, July 26, 2007


Thursday, July 26, 2007

Byrd dogged

By Gary DeMar
© 2007

Poor Michael Vick. The multi-talented quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons picked the wrong side business. Football doesn't seem to be enough to satisfy his interests. Vick and his associates got involved in the dog fighting business. His story has made front-page news across the country. USA Today carried an editorial that read, "Window on a cruel world." The editorial reports, "Vick and two associates allegedly 'executed approximately eight dogs ... by various methods, including hanging, drowning and slamming at least one dog's body to the ground.'" The editorial continues: "The animals' crime? They performed badly in 'testing' sessions to see how viciously they world fight."

If Vick had picked the abortion business, no one would have batted an eye. It would have been considered a shrewd business venture. In fact, he would be praised as a champion of women's rights. And if he had set up a "clinic" in a black neighborhood, he would have been called a "champion of the poor."

Every abortion is an execution. No, that's not right. An execution assumes a capital offense. Preborn babies are innocent victims. I heard CNN talker Nancy Grace describe the dog killings as murder and say Vick will probably get off like O.J. Simpson did because he's a celebrity athlete. How incredibly stupid!

(Column continues below)

A preborn baby's head can be crushed in the partial-birth abortion procedure, and it's touted as a fundamental right. But don't slam a dog to the ground. That would be cruel. Am I missing something?

West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd, who voted no on making harming or killing a preborn baby in the commission of a crime a criminal offense, indirectly called for Vick's execution. Byrd said he's witnessed one execution but wouldn't mind seeing another "if it involves this cruel, sadistic, cannibalistic business of training innocent, vulnerable creatures to kill." Now if we can only get him to stand up for the unborn like he stands up for dogs.

Alveda King, pastoral associate of Priests for Life and niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., said that the allegations of animal cruelty announced in the case against Michael Vick demonstrate the disparity in the way the media have more regard for animals than they do for the unborn: "The appalling cruelty to dogs described in the complaint against Michael Vick immediately reminds me of another kind of cruelty that is not only not punished, but is protected by our authorities," said Dr. King. "I'm talking about the incredible cruelty suffered by babies who are stabbed, have limb torn from limb, or have their skulls crushed in the womb by abortionists. The pain these children endure is undoubtedly excruciating, yet we close our eyes and look the other way in the name of 'choice.'"

Our society is sick. How is it possible to rationalize the killing of preborn babies and then protest mightily against animal cruelty?

Related special offers:

"ENDING ABORTION: How the pro-life side will win the war"

"On Message: The Pro-Life Handbook"

"Lime 5: Exploited by Choice"

Gary DeMar is president of American Vision, author of 23 books, including "Last Days Madness" and "Is Jesus Coming Soon?" and editor of The Biblical Worldview.
Planned Parenthood rape stats questioned
Activists say dozens of 'cases' missing

July 26, 2007

© 2007

A pro-life organization in Waco, Texas, is calling for an explanation of a huge discrepancy between statistics regarding statutory rape cases Planned Parenthood says it has reported, and the number of those cases documented by law enforcement or other authorities.

Officials with Prolife Waco say from all official sources, they were able to collect fewer than 10 reports of suspected statutory rape each year. The actual average compiled was 7.3 reports annually. Planned Parenthood, however, has made public statements that it is reporting such cases at the rate of 98 per year.

"Pro-Life Waco finds reports to the Waco [police department] and the [Texas Department of Family and Protective Services] of just 7.3 per year using very generous assumptions. WHERE ARE THE OTHER 91 REPORTS PER YEAR?" the organization asked.

(Story continues below)

Multiple messages requesting an explanation left by WND at Waco's Planned Parenthood office with answering services for the group's director, assistant, and education leader were not returned.

John Pisciotta, the co-director for Pro-Life Waco, said, "The differential is huge and the legal issue is even bigger. This is not just about make-believe conversations with Planned Parenthood counselors revealing an obvious intent to avoid the law for mandatory reporting of statutory rape."

The issue being raised in Waco has been addressed in other pro-life campaigns, as well as prosecutors. In Kansas, former Attorney General Phill Kline questioned how dozens of underage girls could be provided abortions in that state within a year, without a single case of statutory rape.

Pro-Life Waco, whose website quotes Mother Teresa's statement from 1997: "If we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?" said the missing cases are "where the bodies and souls of real children have been wounded by Planned Parenthood failure to report statutory rape of its child-clients."

Pro-life activists noted in Ohio in 2005, a lawsuit against a Planned Parenthood there alleged a 14-year-old was impregnated by her soccer coach who took her in for an abortion. But they said a required report to law enforcement never was filed.

A second Ohio case, Waco activists said, involved a young girl raped over a period of five years starting at age 13 by her father. She also was given an abortion and told a Planned Parenthood worker she had been raped by her father, but no law enforcement agency was told.

Pro-Life Waco said it obtained Planned Parenthood Waco's record of statutory rape reporting through an investigator who used Texas' open records law.

"For Planned Parenthood, the mandatory reporting of statutory rape would of course come into play when girls 16 and under seek abortions," Pro-Life Waco said. "But, this is by no means just an issue relating to abortion. Any indication of statutory rape as defined in Texas law would trigger a mandatory report to law enforcement. This would include an underage girl coming to Planned Parenthood for contraception or an underage girl coming into Planned Parenthood for a sexually transmitted disease."

Officials said they first sought the records from the Waco Police Department, and found only 20 reports had been made for the multiple-year period. And information from the state agency resulted in the addition of only about four reports per year, resulting in the average of 7.3.

However, the executive director of Planned Parenthood Waco was asked about the numbers for a story in the Waco Tribune Herald, and said there had been 147 reports in about 18 months.

Pisciotta noted the Texas law requires "a report to law enforcement when a health care facility encounters a sexually active female child 13 or younger. For girls 14,15, or 16, a report is mandated if the child's sex partner is three or more years older than the victim."

Pisciotta also noted in May UCLA sophomore Lila Rose visited two Los Angeles Planned Parenthood clinics and spun a story about being 15 and pregnant by her 23-year-old boyfriend.

"Both clinics encouraged her to lie about her age to circumvent a required statutory rape report under California law and to protect her boyfriend," he said.

And in 2002, Life Dynamics of Denton, Texas, did a nationwide investigation, making undercover calls to clinics presenting a similar scenario. In that assessment, 91 percent of the clinics contacted urged the girl to conceal or lie about her age.

The results of that study are at a Child Predators website.

Previous stories:

Court allows display of 'bloody' aborted babies

Abortion clinic director arrested

Christian ministry buys former abortion clinic

Botched procedure shuts down abortion business

StandUpGirls: 'You're not alone'

Dad returns baby's body to abortion clinic

Abortionist arrested in Florida investigation

'Child-rape cases being ignored'

IMs reaching women vulnerable to abortion

Mom, meet your (unborn) child!

Planned Parenthood access to public purse in jeopardy

Abortion business closes because clients 'too poor'

'Nurse' accused of handing out fatal abortion drug

Operation Rescue seeks abortion business closure.

Clinic shuts down after abortionist disappears

Pro-life group gets abortionist's license revoked

Rules convince another abortionist to quit

Yet another abortionist can't stand heat, quits

Half-dozen abortion clinics shut down

'Aborted' baby born alive, authorities say

Abortionists investigated for possible baby murder

10 million females illegally aborted in India

Operation Rescue buys abortion clinic

Indian tribe challenges abortion law with clinic

Related commentary:

Striking back at Planned Parenthood

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Suspect in child rape found dead

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Charges filed when protesters' photos prove trip to abortionist
Posted: July 24, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2007

A sexual assault suspect arrested after pro-life protesters gave police a photograph showing his vehicle at an abortion clinic where his victim reported getting an abortion has been found dead.

Authorities in Bryant, Ark., have confirmed to WND that Jeffrey Dean Cheshier, 41, was found dead of an apparently self-inflicted gunshot wound by deputies in Garland County who responded to a report of a suspicious vehicle in a private driveway.

Cheshier had been arrested after Angela Michael, who runs Small Victories with her husband and children, was able to document for police the fact that Cheshier's vehicle was at an abortion clinic in Granite City, Ill., at the time the victim reportedly claimed to have been taken there for an abortion.

Bryant, Ark., Det. Jimmy Long confirmed it was the photograph from Small Victories that helped secure a case against Cheshier.

(Story continues below)

An underage girl had accused him of rape, but she also reported he forced her to go to the "Hope" Clinic for Women abortion business in Granite City for an abortion, so there was no evidence.

The protesters' photograph provided an identifiable license plate number on the suspect's car at the abortion clinic when the victim claimed to have been there, police said.

The executive director of the abortion clinic, Sally Burgess, told KSDK television she knew nothing about this particular case but the business has safeguards in place to protect juveniles.

Authorities said Cheshier had been free on bond pending trial on the various charges against him.

According to reports, a witness heard a "pop like a bottle rocket" and a deputy found the body a short time later. Court officials confirmed Cheshier had been scheduled for trial starting the first week in September, and that the case had not yet been dismissed.

"This unfortunate crime of child rape is played out every day," Angela Michaels said in a prepared statement. "This one just got caught. Unfortunately, it ended tragically. One can only imagine the pain and guilt Cheshier felt after stealing this young girl's innocence that would force a man in the prime of his life to take the coward's way out of his problems."

She told WND the case was a tragedy for all involved.

"We knew this man had to face judgment, to go before a jury and a judge," she said. "We really had been hoping to reach this man, to save this man, to have this man repent of his crime."

The young girl, 13 when the assaults apparently started and now 15, now will have to deal with the trauma of being attacked without an assailant to confront, she said.

And she said equally important are the other victims.

"I think the world needs to take note of this. How many more victims are out there?" she asked. "And why is the abortion industry allowed to cover up these attacks."

The Michaels, for their Christian ministry, have spent more than 14 years outside the Granite City abortion business protesting and taking photographs of abortionists, clinic employees and customers.

The victim had reported to police that Cheshier had been assaulting her over a period of time when officers arrived at the home for a call regarding a domestic disturbance.

Angela Michael said the Granite City clinic is known nationwide because of the circumstances. Its abortionists do late-term abortions and the state of Illinois has no parental notification law.

The ministry parks its ultrasound van on the public street in front of the abortion business and encourages girls to miss their abortion appointments. Angela Michael said she's seen "an abundance" of cases where an older man obviously is forcing an underage girl into the clinic.

Former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline also unsuccessfully battled for charges to be developed in many cases apparently involving underage victims.

Kline had cited the 2003 Kansas state statistic that there were 78 abortions on girls under the age of 15. In a state where the legal age of consent is 16, how could 78 girls become pregnant and obtain abortions without a single report of sexual assault, or rape, on a child, he wondered.

He later lost his bid for re-election to an opponent who has expressed support for the abortion industry.

SUPREME FRAUD: Unmasking Roe v. Wade, America's most outrageous judicial decision

Previous stories:

Court gives 'Small Victories' right to posters

Ministry's photograph gives evidence of forced abortion

Thursday, July 19, 2007


Thursday, July 19, 2007

Court allows display of 'bloody' aborted babies
Case addresses 'America's bland indifference to this carnage'
Posted: July 19, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2007

Some signs used by pro-life protesters to spur a public reaction against abortion may be graphic, but that doesn't mean they're illegal and can be confiscated, according to a new ruling from the Minnesota Supreme Court.

The decision reversed the criminal convictions of pro-life protesters Ron Rudnick and Luke Otterstad, who displayed the signs on an overpass in the Twin Cities suburb of Anoka during the run-up to the 2004 national elections.

One sign displayed a large color photograph of an aborted infant; the other branded a local congressional candidate as "pro-abortion." The two were jailed by police, their signs were taken away, and they were convicted of causing a "criminal nuisance."

But the state's highest court unanimously reversed the convictions, determining that prosecutors simply failed to prove their case: that the signs created any danger to the public.

(Story continues below)

"Our decision does not foreclose the possibility that some sign might distract motorists in such a way as to endanger the public and constitute a public nuisance. Nor does our decision require a police officer on the scene to wait until an accident occurs or is threatened before intervening. An officer can and should use his or her experience and expertise to determine whether a sign constitutes a danger to a considerable number of members of the public before that danger manifests itself in injuries," the court opinion said.

"But to maintain a conviction … for endangering the safety of the public, the state must prove through testimony and evidence that the public was in fact endangered. Here, the state has not done so," the opinion said.

"Graphic photos are controversial even among pro-lifers," said Tom Brejcha, chief counsel of Thomas More Society, which argued the case. "We urge that they be used prudently and sparingly – with warning signs wherever possible.

"But our society has to confront the brutal, bloody realities of this murderous atrocity, as mere abstract rhetoric too often fails to trigger the deep, visceral reaction needed to overcome contemporary America's bland indifference to this carnage," he said.

The protesters were arrested and jailed twice for holding the signs in view of traffic in Anoka. Fines and prison sentences were imposed, although they were suspended pending the appeals.

But the court's conclusion in the case said the prosecution hadn't proven the signs were a criminal "nuisance" or that the city's sign ordinance even applied. Two other justices agreed with former NFL star-turned-judge Alan Page that the defendants' First Amendment rights were violated because the prosecution was "content-based," or targeting the pro-life message.

"It is impossible to convey certain messages, including the message that pro-lifers Rudnick and Otterstad sought to convey – with all its emotional content – without the use of graphic anti-abortion images," Brejcha said. "The First Amendment protects political speech that is annoying and even offensive, including speech that stirs people to anger or produces deeply unsettling effects. Those who disagree with a speaker's message must not suppress or criminalize it, but answer it with more speech."

Justice G. Barry Anderson, who wrote the main opinion for the court, said the two men described their actions as "a protest against abortion and Patty Wetterling's candidacy for the U.S. House of Representatives."

But, "as evidence of a danger to the public, the state presented: the fact that an anonymous phone call was made about the signs; the fact that an accident occurred … and that a second accident occurred earlier; the fact that a driver … yelled at appellants that they had created a traffic hazard, and the nature of appellants' display," Anderson wrote.

"None of those pieces of evidence, alone or in the aggregate, establishes that appellants' signs endangered a considerable number of members of the public," he wrote. "In short, nothing in the record connects the accidents with the display."

In Page's concurring opinion, he noted that "it is clear on this record that the state's prosecution of appellants under that statute was content-based and therefore barred by the First Amendment."

"[A]bove all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content," the concurrence said.

Thursday, July 12, 2007

Conservatives, Beware of Fred Thompson
ConservativeHQ ^ | 7-2007 | Richard A. Viguerie

He disappointed conservatives during his eight years in the Senate. Is there any reason to think this Washington insider and veteran trial lawyer would be any better as President?

The frustration of conservatives is understandable. Faced with the prospects of Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, or Mitt Romney as the next Republican presidential candidate, many are pinning their hopes on former Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee. Could this actor-politician be the new Ronald Reagan?

Mainstream media types assure us that he is. His record suggests otherwise.

This is the second time conservatives have pinned their hopes on Thompson. When he was first elected in the Republican sweep of 1994, he was seen then as the “new Reagan”—a charismatic movie star turned politician. Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole quickly picked Thompson to give the five-minute GOP rebuttal to President Clinton’s economic address, and no less than The New York Times swooned with its headline the next morning, “A Star Is Born.”

He turned out to be a shooting star—a dazzling flash in the sky, soon gone, not there dependably, night after night, like the Big Dipper. Or, as The Tennessean later put it, “A year ago [Thompson] looked like a rising star. Today he looks more like a fading comet.”

Especially to conservatives who have taken the time to examine his record.

Rumors circulated that Thompson was lazy, uninterested in the daily grind that comes with being a Senator—and one can understand that Capitol Hill is a lot more tedious and less glamorous than a Hollywood movie lot. More important were Thompson’s failures of will and his lack of leadership on any legislation that would promote the conservative cause. Instead what little leadership we got from Thompson advanced the liberal Establishment agenda.

Failure of will: Charged with investigating the Clinton White House’s Asia fundraising scandal (“Asiagate”), Thompson managed to draw a tiny blood sample from Bill Clinton but little more. If he’s that ineffectual against an easy target like Bill Clinton at the height of his parade of scandals, why should we expect Thompson to be any more effective against, say, the other partner in the Clintons’ 20-year plan to rule the nation?

On the wrong side of the fence: The McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill, championed by Fred Thompson, is the only important piece of legislation where he played a major role. And that is not an accomplishment to be proud of as a conservative. In fact, now that he’s running for President, Thompson is trying to flip-flop on this issue. Well, he can run, but he can’t hide from his record.

Why McCain-Feingold is so important—and so bad

Never mind that it was patently unconstitutional, as the courts are starting to declare. McCain-Feingold was also, from the beginning, a sham and a lie.

Its stated purpose—its claim to being a “reform”—was that it would take big money out of politics. Well, you can see how successful it’s been! The big corporate and union lobbies are more powerful than ever, and bored billionaires with nothing else to do are eyeing the Senate and the White House as the next trophies on their mantelpieces.

No, the real purpose of “reform” legislation like McCain-Feingold is to serve as incumbent-protection laws. Establishment politicians aren’t threatened by the K Street lobbyists: they feed off them. They are threatened by grassroots organizations that keep an eye on how they vote and pass that information on to their members.

From the National Rifle Association to the Sierra Club, from Right to Left, these groups call incumbents on the carpet. So the incumbents pass laws to restrict the activities of these groups.

McCain-Feingold, the most prominent recent addition to campaign regulations, does this by prohibiting these groups from broadcasting any issue ads that refer to specific candidates for federal office in the 30 days before a primary, or 60 days before a general election.

Why were those dates chosen? Because “that’s when people are most interested in the elections,” according to Congressman Martin Meehan (D-MA), one of the law’s most ardent supporters. In other words, McCain-Feingold and similar laws are intended to silence the voices of ordinary citizens who contribute to these organizations. And they are designed to do so at exactly the times when grassroots citizens can have the greatest impact.

The real purpose of McCain-Feingold-type laws is to silence your voice in the campaign process, by placing a gag on the organizations that represent you and your views. Such measures are the gravest threat to your free speech that exist today.

And who was the only other Republican Senator to join John McCain in pushing hard for this assault on your First Amendment free speech rights? Fred Thompson. Indeed, campaign finance “reform” was the only issue on which he seemed to show any passion.

Thompson was deeply involved in writing the law, lobbied for it among his fellow Republicans, and was even inclined to call it “McCain-Feingold-Thompson.” He and McCain were able to convince only five of their fellow Republicans in the Senate—but added to the Democrats, that was enough. “You were essential to our success,” Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) told Thompson in a gushing thank-you note after passage of McCain-Feingold.

Sunday, July 08, 2007

Friday, July 6, 2007
Coloradans aim to exploit hole in 'Roe'
Plan would declare personhood for unborn
Posted: July 6, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2007

A team of Coloradans wants to exploit a loophole in the Roe v. Wade U.S. Supreme Court ruling that overturned state laws banning abortion – by simply stating that an unborn child, from the moment of fertilization, is a person.

In a comprehensive plan that would ban all abortions, the Colorado Equal Rights organization is trying something that hasn't been accomplished – yet – in the battle against abortion.

"It is the only way we're going to bring before the Supreme Court the issue of personhood. It's a subject they have dodged for the last 30-plus years. It's an issue that needs to be addressed," spokesman Mark Meuser told WND.

The "hole" in Roe v. Wade is the little-publicized comment from Justice Harry Blackmun, author of the 1973 opinion, in which he noted, "[If the] suggestion of personhood [for the unborn] is established, the [abortion rights] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."

The same approach, Meuser said, was attempted in Michigan, where not enough signatures were verified, and is in process in Mississippi. In Georgia, as WND has reported, lawmakers are reaching for the same goal through a legislative process.

(Story continues below)

Noting Colorado was the first state to legalize abortion, due to the work of ex-Gov. Dick Lamm, then a state lawmaker, Meuser told WND, "We should be the first state to turn around and acknowledge our mistake and grant personhood to the unborn."

The state's Legislative Council already has approved the wording of the proposal, which would read:

Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado: SECTION 1. Article II of the constitution of the state of Colorado is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read: Section 31. Person defined. AS USED IN SECTIONS 3, 6, AND 25 OF ARTICLE II OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION, THE TERMS "PERSON" OR "PERSONS" SHALL INCLUDE ANY HUMAN BEING FROM THE MOMENT OF FERTILIZATION.

Meuser said the council asked a series of questions about the proposal and its expected impact.

"Our purpose is to protect all life and, thus, we want to start at the moment life actually begins," he told the group.

"The Legislative Council also asked what the effect of the amendment would be on the 'undue burden' test as established in Roe v. Wade," he reported.

He explained that the court created that test "because they could not find that 'person' was defined for state or national constitutional purposes."

"Because our amendment defines life as beginning at fertilization, it makes the 'undue burden' test a moot issue," he said.

Aiming for the 2008 ballot, he said he wants to work with a coalition of groups to collect the 76,000-plus signatures needed to put it on the ballot.

"We're in the process of talking with all the groups, letting them know what the vision is and how we plan to go about it," he said.

He said a team of abortion promoters also listened to his presentation to the state board, but the avenue he's using will leave little recourse if successful.

"I've read that decision multiple times. I've listened to the actual oral arguments. I'm very familiar with the loophole that was created in Roe v. Wade. We're attacking it. Why have we waited 30 years to attack the weakness the enemy showed us?" he said.

The new definition of person specifically would be applied to sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution.

Those sections confirm that all "persons" have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, including "the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties," that courts of justice shall be open to every "person," and no "person" shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

In Georgia, state Right to Life spokesman Dan Becker said the goal of that legislative plan is the same: no abortions, no exceptions. Not even rape and incest.

The precedent-setting plan already is on track to be presented to voters as a constitutional amendment as early as next year.

"The whole sanctity of life cause is based on Genesis 1:26-28, where it talks about man is created in the image of God and has worth at all levels," Becker said. "Hence, we are working at a state level for a paramount human life amendment to our constitution."

The Georgia plan was written by the Thomas More Law Center, which advocates for pro-life causes:

"The rights of every person shall be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life. The right to life is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person. With respect to the fundamental and inalienable rights of all persons guaranteed in this Constitution, the word 'person' applies to all human beings, irrespective of age, race, sex, health, function, or condition of dependency, including unborn children at every state of their biological development, including fertilization."

"If we're consistent with God's position in his Word, we expect him to fight our battles for us," Becker said. "We've seen success after success, and we can't claim that's due to outstanding organization or increased funding, even though all of that's true.

Sunday, July 01, 2007

Columbine Memorial-Pro Life Connection Missed?
by: Sandra Fish - Colorado Confidential
Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 07:12:40 AM MDT

Much is being made in Denver media about the dispute between Brian Rohrbough and the Columbine Memorial Committee over his message for the tile memorializing his son.
Rohrbough apparently won his battle this week after threatening to sue.

But a review of reporting about the dispute over Rohrbough's message indicates the Rocky Mountain News, the Denver Post, the Associated Press and local television stations have failed to mention Rohrbough's role as president of Colorado Right to Life. It's a role that gives a hint to what the father's message might be, based on his previous statements.

The disagreement centers on tiles commemorating each of the Columbine victims. Danny Rohrbough, 15, was among the dozen students and a teacher killed by two fellow students on April 20, 1999, in what was then the worst school shooting in United States history.
In reporting on the dispute on June 7, the Rocky Mountain News only notes that Rohrbough's message includes a Bible verse, which wasn't considered objectionable by the committee:

Rohrbough would not disclose the contents of his writing. He, like all of the families, agreed that the inscriptions will remain confidential until the memorial is dedicated.
Later in the article: "Some people will hate it and think it's inappropriate," Rohrbough said, "and many more will look at it and like it, and even more will look at it and consider what it has to say - and 50 years down the road what it has to say will be more valuable."

Although no one's talking about it (or reporting about it), it seems possible that the quote includes a reference linking abortion to the Columbine shootings. Rohrbough made that assertion publicly in 2006, first in a radio commercial and an interview on a local radio talk show.

He reiterated the connection in a "freeSpeech" segment on the CBS Evening News last October after the Amish school shooting in Pennsylvania:

This country is in a moral free-fall. For over two generations, the public school system has taught in a moral vacuum, expelling God from the school and from the government, replacing him with evolution, where the strong kill the weak, without moral consequences and life has no inherent value.
We teach there are no absolutes, no right or wrong. And I assure you the murder of innocent children is always wrong, including by abortion. Abortion has diminished the value of children.

Rohrbough was elected president of Colorado Right to Life last fall and enacted a no-compromise stance that led to his criticism of Focus on the Family leader James Dobson. National Right to Life subsequently severed ties with the Colorado chapter.

While the local media included Rohrbough's Columbine connection in reporting that dustup, Rohrbough's role in Colorado Right to Life goes unmentioned in the stories about the Columbine memorial. It's possible that connection will have to be made when the memorial is dedicated this fall.