The reason that the Democratic National Committee did not invite Gov. Casey to speak to the convention is quite simple: Gov. Casey wished to deliver a fervent pro-life speech in which he would defend the dignity of the unborn and voice opposition to his party's stance on abortion. [Very important note: Casey was not shunned just for his "pro-life views" per se, but for his clear wish to deliver a pro-life speech. This is an important distinction.²] 

A speech denouncing abortion would have been a disaster for the Democrats, and convention organizers knew this. Why? A pro-life speech would have turned the convention from an image of unity and strength into one of utter disarray. Imagine the ensuing media coverage: "A Party Divided!" "Casey Scolds Democrats!" "Casey Topples DNC Unity!" In the light of the full context of events, the decision by the DNC to forbid Casey from speaking is completely understandable.

Many Democrats angrily deny that Casey was improperly shunned. But after combing through contemporaneous media reports from 1992, even liberal journalist Kevin Drum (Washington Monthly) has concluded "that the real reason Casey was prevented from speaking was because he wanted to give a pro-life speech. Clinton was keeping a tight lid on the convention and wanted no dissent on an issue that he considered important." Drum also found that "virtually 100% of the news coverage … assumed that Casey's abortion stand was the reason he wasn't allowed to speak."³ Among the quotes he found:

July 15, 1992, CBS This Morning, Bob Beckel: "It's going to do a — take a lot to repair the damage there, I think. So they could have treated Casey better but don't underestimate — the Democrats are not going to try to fudge it on this issue. You've got to be choice on this issue."

July 15, 1992, Daily Oklahoman: Asked why Casey was not allowed to speak, [James] Carville said, "The convention schedule is set. The Democrats of the country have spoken as to the direction they want the country to go," he said in defending refusal to deviate from Clinton's agenda.⁴

+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+

There's more:

In his stirring autobiography called Fighting for Life (1996), Gov. Casey recounts his "banishment" from the 1992 convention, which was held at Madison Square Garden in New York City from July 13 to July 15. Eyewitness accounts also support Casey’s narrative.⁵

Historical context is very important in learning the truth about this story. Less than three weeks before the convention, Gov. Casey had been a defendant in the monumental Supreme Court case Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania vs. Casey. Casey was sued by Planned Parenthood after signing a law which required a 24-hour waiting period and parental consent (for minors) for abortions. The law also banned abortions for the purpose of gender selection.⁶ Gov. Casey's lawsuit nearly brought Roe v. Wade to the point of being overturned.

Needless to say, Gov. Casey was not a popular figure among the NARAL / pro-choice crowd, who was especially vocal during the '92 campaign. The pro-choice movement pulled out all the stops. The Feminist Majority mobilized millions of voters with the immensely popular "Rock for Choice" crusade. Using well-known rock groups who had the ears of impressionable young voters, "Rock for Choice" blared all over the national media, and its mission was not the re-election of President George H.W. Bush. Its objective was political change.

By becoming such a powerful lobbying and political force, the pro-choice movement gained the whole-hearted support of Bill Clinton. Witness the following:

On the very day of the historic Pennsylvania vs. Casey Supreme Court ruling (June 29), candidate Bill Clinton spoke directly with NARAL Pro-Choice America president Kate Michelman. According to Michelman's 2005 chronicle With Liberty and Justice for All, Michelman personally advised Clinton upon the ruling. In turn, Clinton told Michelman (emphasis added), "It's awfully good news that Roe was upheld … I want you to know that you can count on me to continue to stand up for a woman's right to choose."⁷

Check out this photo and caption from Michelman's With Liberty and Justice for All
(red and yellow underline added)⁸:

Notice the words "Pro-Choice President" behind Michelman and Clinton.

So here we have a confirmed alliance between candidate Clinton and the pro-choice movement. Is it any wonder why the DNC would not want Gov. Casey to stand in front of the nation and deliver a forceful pro-life address? Such a speech would have thrown the convention into bedlam!

What remains remarkable, however, is how events transpired before the July 13 start of the convention and the utter rudeness that ensued.

According to his autobiography, about a week and a half before the convention, Casey wrote a July 2 letter to Ron Brown, DNC chairman, requesting an opportunity to speak at Madison Square Garden. Casey's letter made it perfectly clear that he wished to address the convention about the Democratic Party's alliance with pro-choice factions. "The platform [committee] draft … has the effect of placing the national party even more squarely within the abortion-on-demand camp. I believe this is a serious mistake for the party and would like the opportunity to present this point of view." (emphasis mine)

Ron Brown never responded to Casey’s letter.⁹ Brown was later quoted as having told Casey, "Your views are out of line with those of most Americans."¹⁰

Gov. Casey tried another letter upon arriving at the convention on July 13. This one was addressed to Gov. Ann Richards of Texas, the chairperson of the convention. Richards did not respond either.¹¹ Said one observer, "Eighty percent of the Pennsylvania delegation were wishing Governor Casey would get lost on the subway."¹²

Casey eventually received a carbon-copy of a letter – not even addressed to him – that denied his right to speak because "it was out of order" (Casey’s words).

On July 14, the second day of the convention, a full-page ad which Casey organized was published in the New York Times. Entitled "The New American Compact," it was signed by pro-lifers, both Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives.¹³ It stated, in part, that,

"[I]n January 1973… [in Roe vs. Wade] seven unelected justices performed the most momentous act of exclusion in our history: they deprived every human being, for the first nine months of his or her life, of the most fundamental human right of all — the right to life."

Gov. Casey was determined to voice his "strong dissent based on the party’s historic commitment to protecting the powerless."¹⁴

What actually transpired at the convention itself, however, was simply a humiliation of Gov. Casey. "I would be publicly humiliated by my own party," wrote Casey.¹⁵

From his "nosebleed" seats far, far back in the arena, Gov. Casey watched as Kathy Taylor, a pro-choice activist from Pennsylvania, spoke to the convention. Less than two years earlier, the Republican Taylor had worked on behalf of Casey’s gubernatorial opponent, Barbara Hafer, whom Casey defeated to win reelection!¹⁶ Recalled Casey,

And so from my seat in the outer reaches of the Garden, I watched a pro-choice Republican supporter of my pro-choice Republican opponent, whom I had defeated by a million votes to be re-elected as Democratic governor, proudly proclaiming her allegiance to the pro-choice forces.¹⁷

The humiliation did not end there. After her address, in which she shared the podium with five other pro-choice women, DNC officials sent Taylor along with a camera crew to search for Casey and further humiliate him.¹⁸ Luckily, Casey was tipped off, and he avoided more national embarrassment.

The spectacle was so pathetic that the next day Al Gore called Gov. Casey to apologize.¹⁹

And there were even more insults. Karen Ritter, a Pennsylvania legislator, sold large buttons at the convention featuring a picture of Casey dressed as the Pope.²⁰ Classy, eh?

"But, wait!" you cry. "Casey did not endorse Bill Clinton! That was the real reason Casey did not speak."

This fake "reason" was rebutted years ago, by Gov. Casey himself. Again, from his autobiography (emphasis mine):

The official line from the convention publicity machine was that I was not permitted to speak because I hadn’t endorsed Clinton. But if that’s the case, why had Kathleen Brown, state treasurer of California and sister of presidential hopeful Jerry Brown, been permitted to address the convention? She hadn’t endorsed the nominee, either.²¹

In addition, only three days after the convention ended, the New York Times quoted Gov. Casey, "I support the ticket, period, end of quote."²²

So there you have it: The truth about Gov. Bob Casey and the 1992 Democratic National Convention.

^{____________________}

Notes:

1  Nat Hentoff, “Life of the Party,” New Republic, June 19, 2000. Downloaded January 2006 from https://swiss.csail.mit.edu/~rauch/no-violence/civil/hentoff_casey.html.

2  In fact, a number of pro-life Democrats did address the DNC convention, but no one stirred the abortion issue .

3  Kevin Drum, "Political Animal: The Curious Incident of the Governor Who Didn't Speak at the Convention," Washington Monthly, March 6, 2005. https://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_03/005787.php. (Note: Hentoff and Drum are both avowed liberals. Hentoff is pro-life. Drum: "My conclusion: In fact, [Casey] was prevented from speaking because he wanted to give a pro-life speech.")

4   Ibid.

5  William McGurn, “Life of the Party,” National Review, October 28, 2004. https://www.nationalreview.com/comment/mcgurn200410281138.asp.

6  Gov. Robert P. Casey, Jr., Fighting for Life (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1996), pp. 149-150.

7  Kate Michelman, With Liberty and Justice For All (New York: Hudson Street Press, 2005), p. 112.

8  Ibid. The copyrighted NARAL/Pro-Choice America photo is shown here and with the intended application and accordance of the "fair use" doctrine.

9  Casey, Fighting for Life, p. 186.

10  Nat Hentoff, “Life of the Party,” New Republic, June 19, 2000. Downloaded January 2006 from https://swiss.csail.mit.edu/~rauch/no-violence/civil/hentoff_casey.html. See also Kevin Drum, "Political Animal: The Curious Incident of the Governor Who Didn't Speak at the Convention," Washington Monthly, March 6, 2005. https://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_03/005787.php. (Note: Hentoff and Drum are both avowed liberals. Hentoff is pro-life. Drum: "My conclusion: In fact, [Casey] was prevented from speaking because he wanted to give a pro-life speech.")

11  Casey, Fighting for Life, p. 186.

12  Michael Decourcy Hinds, "The 1992 Campaign: Pennsylvania; Democratic Ticket Heads Into Fertile Territory," New York Times, July 19, 1992, section 1, page 20.

13  The text of the actual New York Times ad can be viewed at https://prolife.liberals.com/articles/compact.html.

14  Casey, Fighting for Life, p. 186.

15  Ibid., p. 190.

16  Ibid., p. 190.

17  Ibid., p. 191.

18  Hentoff, “Life of the Party.”

19  Hentoff, “Life of the Party.” The phone call is also recounted in Casey, Fighting for Life, p. 191.

20  Casey, Fighting for Life, p. 190.

21  Ibid., p. 191.

22  Michael Decourcy Hinds, "The 1992 Campaign: Pennsylvania; Democratic Ticket Heads Into Fertile Territory," New York Times, July 19, 1992, section 1, page 20.

There's a lot to this one, but here it goes:

1. WHO IS MARGARET SYKES?

This is not an ad hominem towards Ms. Sykes. I also don't want to be guilty of the genetic fallacy. However, some words about Ms. Sykes bear mentioning.

Ms. Sykes has billed herself as "a long-time writer on medical topics with a special expertise in women's reproductive issues: contraception, fertility, pregnancy and abortion" (see here, left-hand column). She is virulently pro-choice; she is even against parental notification when underage girls seek abortion (source). (I guess she would not vote Yes on 85, would she?) Also, in an especially angry 1999 article, Ms. Sykes wrote that she's "disgusted" at the "hypocrisy" and "muddled thinking" of pro-lifers. In other words, she doesn't think much of the pro-life position and the people who hold it.

Nevertheless, I've taken the time to peruse quite a bit of Ms. Sykes' writings (there's really not a lot), and I've found a number of instances of error, hypocrisy, and dishonesty from her. For example,

a. Ms. Sykes, 5/6/2001: "Having an abortion is not a life-changing decision for anyone" (source, scroll down to #9).

Yes, in a Q&A column, Ms. Sykes actually wrote that, and she wasn't kidding. "Not a life-changing decision for anyone"? Tell that to the scores of women at Silent No More Awareness (testimonies). Also check out these testimonies. Countless women have relayed how their abortion had a horrifically negative impact on their lives. (For example: Sharon Osbourne, wife of Ozzy Osbourne, The Daily Mail (UK), December 2004: "I howled my way through it, and it was horrible. I would never recommend it to anyone because it comes back to haunt you. When I tried to have children, I lost three – I think it was because something had happened to my cervix during the abortion. After three miscarriages, they had to put a stitch in it. In life, whatever it is, you pay somewhere down the line. You have to be accountable." (bold added) (source))

Quite simply, Ms. Sykes' remark that "having an abortion is not a life-changing decision for anyone" is flat-out irresponsible. (I won't even breach the fact that an abortion terminates an individual human life.)

b. Ms. Sykes, 2/13/2001: "Dr. [George] Tiller's clinic in Kansas will do a third-trimester abortion if a doctor has diagnosed a lethal defect in the fetus." (emphasis mine) (source)

Ms. Sykes' remark to a reader is certainly misleading, if not misinformed and dishonest. A fetus does not have to have a "lethal defect" for Dr. George Tiller to exterminate your fetus. Dr. Tiller's own web site acknowledges that he does perform elective late-term abortions (link).

In addition, here's Dr. Tiller in his own words, from a National Abortion Federation conference, New Orleans, April 1995. (I've transcribed Dr. Tiller's own words myself from the audio of a CD called "Fire & Ice" (available at Life Dynamics).)

"We have some experience with late terminations. About 10,000 patients between 24 and 36 weeks, and something like 800 fetal anomalies between 26 and 36 weeks in the past 5 years." (bold added)

Dr. Martin Haskell is another doctor who has performed late-term abortions. Here he is at the National Abortion Federation conference, San Francisco, March 1996:

"We seem to be taking a position that, in the case of the D&X, that the fetuses are dead at the beginning of the procedure, which is generally not the case. The second criticism has been that we are really skewing the debate to a very small percentage of women that have fetal anomalies or some other problem that really need the procedure versus the 90% who it's elected, at least through the 20 to 24 week time period; and as you get on up towards 28 weeks, it becomes closer to 100%." (bold added)

Do the math. Tiller says that about 8% of his late terminations are for "fetal anomalies." Following reason through Dr. Haskell's premise, the rest are completely elective! (Of course, in this case, I'm ignoring the argument that a "fetal anomaly" is a justifiable reason for an abortion. It is not.)

Again, Ms. Sykes has misled her readers and provided misinformation. (By the way, in another post, Sykes actually directs a reader to Dr. Tiller's web site for a late-term abortion.)

c. Ms. Sykes, 12/15/2000: Ms. Sykes takes issue with pictures of aborted fetuses that are shown on the internet. She writes, "[T]hose pictures aren’t what they are claimed (sic) to be. Most ‘aborted fetuses’ in photos shown by anti-choicers are either naturally aborted (miscarried) fetuses or stillborn babies. Others are rubber or plastic fakes.” She also accuses pro-lifers of “steal[ing] fetuses and mangl[ing] them to create propaganda." (source)

Yes … the ol' "the pictures are fake" argument. Ms. Sykes doesn't actually take issue with the age/development descriptions of the photos, but she feels her argument is effective anyways.

Ms. Sykes may wish to take a visit to the image galleries at Priests for Life. I direct her to this particular site because many of the photos of the fetuses have been authenticated and certified with a doctor's signature (like this one).

Again, Ms. Sykes performs a disservice to her readers.

d. Ms. Sykes: "Experience"?

On the pages at about.com where Ms. Sykes' answers to readers' questions have appeared (like this one, bottom/left-hand side), she highlights her "expertise" and "experience" that make her qualified to answer questions about abortion, contraception etc.

Can you find the problem in the following statement by her?

"Along with most others who look at the issue of abortion and birth control from a medical and public health point of view, I realize that contraception and abortion must be legal and available to women, regardless of personal religious or ethical views on the subject. However, I understand and sympathize with those who are uncomfortable with abortion, as long as they don't attempt to impose their views on others." (bold added)

Apparently, Ms. Sykes has no problem stating and imposing her view that abortion "must be legal and available to women." But she doesn't want pro-lifers to "attempt to impose their views on others"! Good grief. Hypocrisy, maybe?

Finally … It's fair that if Ms. Sykes is going to demand accuracy and accountability from pro-lifers (which she should!), it's also fair that we ask the same of her! As I've demonstrated above, Ms. Sykes is not holding herself to the same standard of accuracy that she wants pro-lifers to hold. Ms. Sykes has an established history of providing misleading and erroneous information to her readers.

2. "BRAIN WAVES"

First of all, Ms. Sykes underscores the crucial importance that pro-lifers be completely accurate and accountable when presenting their positions and arguments. As Steve Wagner says, "Given the stakes of the debate, we can't afford [not to defend our claims adequately]."

Ms. Sykes makes a persuasive case that the "'Brain waves'-are-present-in-a 40-day-old fetus" statement is not accurate. This is not to say that Ms. Sykes is not guilty of some sly wordplay of her own.

For example, at the start of her piece, Ms. Sykes tells us that the term "brain waves" is "a non technical term anyways," and she somewhat disparages pro-lifers for using the term. However, in the very last paragraph of her piece, Sykes writes, "So I have no objection to saying that 'a human life' or 'human personhood' begins when brain waves are measured on an EEG" (bold added). She apparently objects when pro-lifers use the term "brain waves," but she has no problem using the exact same words herself when it comes to making her own case.

Other issues:

a. Ms. Sykes writes, "Only two courses of study on still-living aborted human embryos and fetuses have ever been done: Okamoto and Kirikae in Japan in the 1940s, and Bergstrom and Bergstrom in Finland in the 1960s." What is her source for this claim? She doesn't tell us. If we are to believe her, the last "course of study on still-living aborted human embryos and fetuses" has been in the 1960's (40 years ago)?? Hmmm …

Ms. Sykes has a point that pro-lifers' references may be outdated. In the 21st century, a reference from 1964 may not be all that convincing to a lot of people. However, it appears there is ample recent research to support there is a level of "brain functioning" in the early stages of the human fetus.

Using the limited resource of the internet, I came across this article written by a Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D.: "Fetal brain &
cognitive development" (Developmental Review, 20, 81-98, 1999). In follow-up research, I found that Dr. Joseph has been published for several years. He has written considerably in the area of neuroscience, and his books can be found at Amazon.com. There's little reason to believe that the posted journal article is not genuine, as it appears on Dr. Joseph's own web site. It is not a pro-life web site; it is simply the personal web site of a scientist who has an extensive history of studying the brain. With that said, Dr. Joseph's journal article cites a number of references that suggest there is recent science that supports that there is brain activity in the early stages of the fetus. (All bold and underline are mine:)

ABSTRACT

The human brainstem is fashioned around the 7th week of gestation and matures in a caudal to rostral arc thereby forming the medulla, pons, and midbrain. The medulla mediates arousal, breathing, heart rate, and gross movement of the body and head, and medullary functions appear prior to those of the pons which precede those of the midbrain. Hence, by the 9th gestational week the fetus will display spontaneous movements, one week later takes its first breath, and by the 25th week demonstrates stimulus-induced heart rate accelerations. *snip*

It is now well established that the human fetus is capable of some degree of behavioral complexity. In fact, as early as the 9th week of gestation the fetus is able to spontaneously move the extremities, head, and trunk (de Vries, Visser, & Prechtl, 1985). *snip*

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MEDULLA: A FUNCTIONAL OVERVIEW

Broadly considered, the brainstem consists of the medulla, pons, and midbrain, and matures in a caudal to rostral arc–a process that begins around the 6th to 7th week of gestation and continues well into the first year of postnatal life (Debakan, 1970; Gilles et al., 1983; Sidman & Rakic, 1982; Yakovlev & Lecours, 1967). Hence, the nuclei of the medulla generally emerge and myelinate prior to those of the pons which precede those of the midbrain. As noted above, this pattern of functional development is also demonstrated behaviorally in the fetus and neonate. *snip*

SPONTANEOUS HEART RATE CHANGES, BODY AND BREATHING MOVEMENTS

The neural tube is first fashioned three weeks after conception and by the 7-8th week of gestation the major structures of the medulla have been established (Gilles et al., 1983; Sidman & Rakic, 1982). These include the hypoglossal, spinal accessory, vagus, and glosopharyngeal cranial nuclei, and the neurons of the reticular activating system. As noted, these nuclei and activating pathways subserve arousal, generalized body movements, head turning, shoulder elevation, heart rate, and breathing.

Likewise, beginning as early as the 7th week of gestation, the infant will display spontaneous movements, which by the 9th week come to include the extremities, the trunk, and the head (de Vries et al., 1985). Soon thereafter the fetus will take its first "breath" and by the 10th week of gestation spontaneous "breathing" (chest and abdominal) movements are observed (de Vries et al.,1985). *snip*

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MIDBRAIN: A FUNCTIONAL OVERVIEW

The midbrain is the least differentiated segment of the brainstem, and consists of the dopamine producing substantia nigra, the inferior-auditory and superior-visual colliculus, and the trochlear (IV) and oculomotor (III) cranial nerves which, in conjunction with the MLF and abducens (VI) control eye movements (Aitkin, 1986; Vertes, 1990). The midbrain is actually coextensive with the pons and these structures interact and share overlapping nuclei and coextensive pathways, such as the MLF and reticular core, which, in the midbrain becomes the tegmentum–the rostral extension of the pontine-medullary reticular formation.

The caudal to rostral pattern of brainstem maturation is also characteristic of the midbrain with the inferior-auditory colliculus beginning its cycle of maturation around the 6th week of gestation vs the 8th week for the superior-visual colliculus (Bayer et al., 1995; Sidman & Rakic, 1982).

Although Dr. Joseph's work is full of biological terminology, the layman can see that "something" is happening in the brain area early in the life of the fetus. Here is where Ms. Sykes is going to begin to run into a lot of problems. (More on this below.)

b. I also believe a healthy dose of common sense helps to clarify this entire issue. Look at this picture of a 7-week-old fetus:

Common sense dictates that this is a whole being that is alive and is growing. Something is happening in the head of the fetus, and whatever it is, it is contributing to its growth and sustainment. In three weeks, the fetus will look like this (10 weeks old):

In both pictures, the head accounts for what looks to be about 40% of the entire body! (Go look in the mirror now. The proportion is a lot less now, isn't it!) It defies common sense to say that nothing significant is happening here. Dr. Joseph's work reveals that there is early activity in the area of the brainstem that is contributing to the regulation of a heartbeat and other bodily functions. Real pictures are stubborn things.

c.  HERE'S THE GOOD STUFF:

In my research, I came across this site. Wow! There's lots of free video, including that of a fetus with hand movements at 6 1/2 weeks! The full DVD is called The Biology of Prenatal Development, and it is available from National Geographic. In another video clip, an 8-week-old fetus is shown moving, and the narrator states,

"At 8 weeks the brain is highly complex and constitutes almost half of the embryo's total body weight." (emphasis mine)

With live video to accompany this, it's hard not to believe her! Check it out. (Scroll down to "Chapter 30: 8 Weeks: Brain Development.") As I watched various clips, I wondered what Ms. Sykes would say about them. (I've guessed at what she'd say, but I won't print it.)

After witnessing such eye-opening video, I immediately felt that the issue of "brain waves" seemed almost picayune. What I was witnessing was so obviously a unique human life!

The DVD web site also contains a 42-page .pdf file that

So to bring this towards a close …

d. Ms. Sykes implies that an EEG should be the instrument to determine when a human life begins.

Some people will concur with this belief by saying, "Well, an EEG is used to determine death, so it should be used to determine life." Such a response is problematic. When there are no vital signs on an adult (e.g., breathing, heartbeat) and an EEG returns a "flat" reading, we know with almost 100% certainty that that person's body has died and will not "spring back" to life. Within hours, if left alone, the corpse will begin to rot. We know that bodily death has occurred.

While a reading on an EEG might not be obtainable on an early-stage fetus, we know that it will at some point in the future (barring any other biological interferences). There is no question that from the moment of conception, the unborn being is alive, whole, growing, innocent, and defenseless.

In addition, as this Wikipedia entry indicates, an EEG has "several limitations" and has "limited anatomical specificity when compared with other functional brain imaging techniques." In other words, just because an EEG can't measure it, it doesn't mean that it's not there.

3. THE BOTTOM LINE

At first blush, it appeared that Ms. Sykes had made a powerful rebuttal to a common argument by pro-lifers. But upon closer inspection, however, her use of selective research and a double standard approach only underscored the faults of her pro-choice position.

Nevertheless, pro-lifers should take a good lesson from this "Margaret Sykes/'brain waves'" episode. Accuracy, accountability, and proper semantics are crucial. The good news is that we have the truth on our side. (Did you watch the video?) Unlike our opponents, we don't have to cheat.

Yes, pro-lifers have been using the "brain waves at 40 days" case, and it appears that we do not know for sure if this is entirely true. However, our mistake has not been deliberately deceptive. We believed the sources that we saw, and we trusted them.

With that said, pro-lifers can easily correct and modify their case by saying something along the lines of, "At the 7th week

Finally, it is important to note that Ms Sykes is ultimately forwarding the position that a fetus which has not yet developed to a certain level has not yet reached the beginning of "a human life." Such a position discriminates against human individuals based on their function. Scott Klusendorf's use of the SLED acronym shows the inherent errors of this way of thinking. 'L' stands for 'Level of development.' Writes Scott,

Level of development: True, embryos and fetuses are less developed than you and I. But again, why is this relevant? Four year-old girls are less developed than 14 year-old ones. Should older children have more rights than their younger siblings? Some people say that self-awareness makes one valuable. But if that is true, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings. Six-week old infants lack the immediate capacity for performing human mental functions, as do the reversibly comatose, the sleeping, and those with Alzheimer’s Disease.

The bottom line is that in all of Ms. Sykes' talk about EEG's and the development of the cerebral cortex, Ms. Sykes is unable to explain how this diminishes the fact that a fetus is an individual human being that is alive and whole and growing and innocent.

(There's a lot more I could write on this, but, for now, … enough! Thanks for reading!)

Soderberg's claim would refer to the arrest of terrorist Ahmed Ressam at the U.S-Canada border on December 14, 1999. It was later learned that Ressam planned to bomb Los Angeles International Airport on or around New Year's Day 2000. Clinton defenders have often falsely cited this incident as evidence that Clinton proactively and successfully defended the United States against terrorism.

The truth? Although the federal government may have been on alert as the Millennium approached, the arrest of Ressam was simply the result of "sheer luck" and "gut instincts" of an alert U.S. Customs inspector named Diana Dean. Dean was responsible for halting Ressam at the border, at which time he was discovered to be carrying bomb materials.

An April 2004 NBC Nightly News segment (link with video) reported (emphasis mine),

"[Dean] says no one had told her anything about being on alert for terrorists.

"'I don’t recall any specific threats,' she added. 'I don’t recall anybody saying watch for terrorists.'

"Customs officials confirm that no alert had gone out to the field …

"[T]here’s simply no evidence that meetings in Washington stopped the planned attack on American soil.

"In fact, senior counterterror officials attribute catching Ressam to good training and sheer luck."

Also, the 9/11 Commission Report concluded about the incident,

"It appears that the heightened sense of alert at the national level played no role in Ressam’s detention." [p. 179, emphasis mine, link (pdf)]

"As one of [CTC Richard] Clarke’s staff noted, only a ‘chance discovery’ by U.S. Customs had prevented a possible attack." [p. 182, link (pdf)]

In other words, the Clinton administration did nothing that led to the arrest of Ressam and foiling a Millennium attack on the United States. As that NBC segment reported, any claim to the contrary would be "revisionist history."

(By the way, Al Franken repeated this same myth in his most recent book, (ironically titled) The Truth … Also, similar fallacies about this incident were made by Richard Clarke in Against All Enemies.)

TRANSCRIPT (O'Reilly and Soderberg are discussing Clinton vs. Bush on terrorism) (audiotape on file, emphasis mine):

O'REILLY: "Here's my point, and I'll give you the last word. It seems to me that the Clinton administration wasn't effective, even though everybody loved him abroad, in stopping these people [the terrorists]. It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that four-and-a-half years, the Bush administration has blunted their attacks on the U.S.A. Go."

SODERBERG: "Actually, you forget that President Clinton actually prevented direct attacks in the United States for the Millennium, and we had al Qaeda in our crosshairs and were trying to get him (sic) (bin Laden?). President Bush and President Clinton together have been trying to defeat this threat that remains out there …"

It appears they are trying revise the history that Oreo cookies were thrown in the direction of Republican Lt. Gov. Michael Steele at a gubernatorial debate on September 26, 2002 in Baltimore, Maryland. (Steele is a black man, and an "Oreo" is a terribly derogatory term to describe a black person who is perceived as "black on the outside, but white on the inside.") At the time of the debate, Steele was the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor. Steele was in the audience for the debate between Democrat Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend and Republican Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. weeks before he and Ehrlich went on to rack up a triumphant election victory over the incumbent Townsend.

The bottom line is in what Lt. Gov. Steele told Phillip Caston of Capital News Service three years ago, less than three weeks after the actual election, about his infamous encounter with the sweet. In a November 22, 2002, piece entitled, "Steele Makes History as First Black Governor," Caston wrote (emphasis mine),

"At the candidates' only televised debate in late September, there were reports that Townsend supporters passed out Oreo cookies to represent Steele, joking he was black on the outside but white in the middle.

"[Md. Democratic spokesman] Paulson denied the incident happened and said the only documented accusation came from Ehrlich spokesman Paul Schurick.

"Steele, however, said an Oreo cookie rolled to his feet during the debate.

"'Maybe it was just someone having their snack, but it was there,' Steele said. 'If it happened, shame on them if they are that immature and that threatened by me.'"

Notice how Steele initially makes a half-joke about it. It's hardly the sign of a person concocting a story. In addition, clear-thinking observers might want to ask themselves the question: Why would Steele want to engineer a lie after winning an election?

Daily Kos now asserts that Steele "lied." Media Matters is now referring to the Oreo-throwing episode as a "legend" and a "baseless allegation." Part of their craftiness is in spotlighting inconsistencies from sources recalling the event from one evening over three years ago. Are some inconsistencies all that surprising considering the time that has passed and the tumultuous nature of the event that evening? (Much was written about the crowd's very "passionate" behavior that night. Even the host of the event acknowledged "derisive behavior, that was an unfortunate circumstance" (10/1/02 Sun article cited below). ) 

These challengers also cite a recent November 13, 2005, Baltimore Sun article that claims that "several debate attendees" "could not corroborate" the incident. In the article, the Sun quotes the operations manager of the building in which the debate was held. He claims, "I was in on the cleanup, and we found no cookies or anything else abnormal." How anyone can fully remember what was on the floor in the cleanup of a room over three years ago is somewhat questionable, if not very compelling. Over 2,000 people attended the spirited debate that night, according to the Sun. (In addition, Steele himself recounts seeing only one or two cookies. It's not hard to imagine someone else besides the quoted individual cleaning them up.)

(Ironically, it was the Sun who first reported the presence of Oreos at the debate in an article days after the event entitled, "Crowd's Antics Quite Debatable" (October 1, 2002) (original no longer free, but an accurate text copy can be found here; hard copy on file of this writer).)

Gov. Ehrlich is quite angry about his political opponents attempting "revisionism" of this nasty and distasteful episode. Ehrlich has repeatedly claimed that his own father was hit in the head by one of the cookies as he walked to his seat that contentious night ("Steele weighs in on the Oreo incident," Baltimore Sun, November 15, 2005).

Today's edition (Wednesday January 5, 2005) features no less than three photos of the Illinois newcomer (one on p. A2 and two on p. A16). (To contrast, there are zero photos of President Bush.) An effusive, glowing article labeled Obama a "political rock star," although he's only been at his new job for one day.

Yesterday's edition (Tuesday January 4, 2005) featured another flattering photo of Obama on p. A16.

That's four photos two days in a row!

Yikes. And it was only a month ago that the Times published a fawning feature on Obama! (December 6, 2004: "Obama Pokes Fun at His Political Future, Fame.")

TheMediaReport.com says … The election is over, but the partisanship in the Times "news" coverage continues.

Alfie's breezy existence crashes to a halt, however, after he procures an illegal abortion at his apartment for a married woman he's impregnated.

After the sordid deed is completed by a seedy abortionist, Caine enters his kitchen and confronts the sight of the dead fetus that the abortion has produced. Although the viewer does not see what Alfie sees, we see the man become incredibly distressed and troubled at what he's faced. The scene is the critical moment of the film, as Alfie is now forced to confront what he's done and what he's made of his life. Alfie rushes from his apartment to visit his friend Nat, to whom he makes a startling confession.

ALFIE: I could've dropped on the spot with the shock. All I was expecting to see was — Well, come to think of it, I don't hardly know what I was expecting to see. Certainly not this perfectly formed being. I- I half expected it to cry out … And as it lay there, so quiet, so still, it quite touched me. And I started praying or something, saying things like, uh, 'God help me,' and, uh, things like that. And then I started to cry. The tears were running down my face. Oh, slowly, like I was a kid myself … Y'know, it don't half bring it home to you what you are when you see a helpless little thing like that lying in your own hands. He'd been quite perfect. And I thought to myself, 'Y'know what, Alfie? Y'know what you've done? You murdered him.'

The pro-life message of the movie is undeniable. It's also the reason that this film, considered a "classic" by many movie historians, is rarely, if ever, seen on network or cable television anymore.

This past weekend (11/5/04), Paramount Pictures released a stylish remake of Alfie starring Jude Law. Despite adhering to many aspects of the original, the abortion component has been emasculated in the new version. Instead of facing the gruesome realities of abortion, the title character confronts loneliness, alienation, and rejection. (Yawn.)

Major media outlets continue to refuse that pro-life themes be aired. It's too bad. Had it stuck to the riveting nature of the original, Paramount Pictures could have made a film that people would have really talked about!