Waiting at JFK for my Jet Blue flight back to California, I spent a half hour chatting with an inner-circle Newtonian. Earlier in the day Karl Rove had asserted on FNC that a brokered convention was not going to happen and that a new candidate emerging was as likely as life on Pluto, two positions I have been asserting on air for weeks. So I wanted to check with a Newt backer, who instantly agreed. As does this Romney backer David Parker, over at the blog Mitt Romney Central.
I haven’t asked anyone from Team Santorum or Team Paul, but think it through. The four remaining candidates have been out there shaking a millions hands, holding a thousand events and putting up with inane questions for a year, and they are going to stand aside for a group of “senior statesmen” to come up with a new candidate? Just absurd. Even if the extremely unlikely situation of a deadlock occurs, they’ll get into a room and pull a name out of a hat before that happens, with winner agreeing to pick one of the other two to be the Veep.
But the far more likely sequence is that Romney will in fact be the nominee and a strong one, just as the Chicago gang fears.
The emerging consensus is the obvious one: Romney will win Michigan and Arizona, and go on to a strong Super Tuesday showing and the nomination. MSM plus a few anti-Romneys among the conservative media can try and drive a message of impending doom, but it just isn’t there, and Romney overtaking Santorum in Michigan will be, like the victory in Florida, the latest and the last of the Romney of the MSM-generated “tests” of the likely GOP nominee. The Kos Kids and the UAW will try and bleed Romney by voting for Santorum in Michigan’s “open” primary, but the GOP base knows much more than the MSM gives it credit for and knows the Chicago gang and its allies are trying to bleed their strongest general election nominee. Many will vote for Rick Santorum on principle, but the idea that Romney is fatally wounded by a loss in Michigan is just as absurd as some from-the-sidelines “new” candidate emerging.
The latest PPP poll shows the race in Michigan moving towards Romney, and the only reason I cite a PPP poll is because the last PPP poll showed a large lead for Santorum. (Santorum was allegedly ahead by 15 points last week and by 4 now. Right.) The MSM cannot help itself and is systematically defining the former Pennsylvania senator as outside of the American mainstream by latching on to bits of his speeches or a single Q-and-A, such as his comments on prenatal testing, and turning them into entire news cycle, often distorting the key messages on the economy Santorum is delivering along the way. The left’s desire to wound Romney with a Santorum win in Michigan has been undermined by the left’s inability to let any discussion of abortion, religious liberty, contraception or genetic testing emerge that challenges the world view of the pro-choice absolutists.
The most recent example of this has to do with prenatal testing. I am producing below a background paper by my friend from Louisville, Mark Leach, a lawyer and expert on bioethics issues who has appeared on my program over the years to discuss the issue of genetic testing and the concerns among the families of those with special needs and very difficult conditions. The article speaks for itself but the key fact is that Senator Santorum is arguing against the emergence of a “Brave New World” of cost-benefit calculations driving medicine and “quality of life” driving decisions on whether to have babies who do have unique disabilities discovered in the womb.
The trouble that Santorum faces is that the MSM is simply not going to give him a fair shot on these issues, nor are they issues that ought to dominate the current election cycle. Being obliged to fight the wrong battles at the wrong time has greatly damaged the former PA senator’s campaign momentum. Santorum is an eloquent and absolutely committed defender of life, but complex arguments on such issues as well as on stem cells and end-of-life issues are nearly impossible to communicate in a media culture dominated by a lethal-to-reason combination of hard left ideology and not-very-bright talking heads.
The debate Wednesday night should be about Iran, Israel and the carnage in Syria, but expect it to be back on contraception to at least some extent. Incredibly, it will be the third time that John King moderates a GOP nominees’ debate, which is in itself absurd. King is a smart, affable professional, but does anyone think that he ought to have played such a key role in shaping the GOP primary season? We have ended up talking about contraception and not the massive time-bomb of debt, the acceptance of 8% unemployment, and the looming crisis in the Middle East because the MSM shaped the contest to date. After Super Tuesday, the party and its candidates are going to have to organize a refusal to allow the Manhattan-Beltway media elite to define the campaign and defend the president by doing so.
Here’s the piece by Mark Leach:
The Most Discriminatory Policy Ever The Obama Administration Seeks to Eliminate Entire Classes of People
By: Mark W. Leach, Esq.
Last year, before announcing his candidacy, Senator Santorum was the Friday host for Bill Bennett’s radio program “Morning in America.” I was a guest on the program to discuss developments in prenatal testing for conditions like his daughter Bella’s Trisomy 18 and my daughter Juliet’s Trisomy 21. Senator Santorum made the point that the purpose of pre-viability prenatal testing is to allow for the abortion of children like our daughters. I responded that its proponents justify prenatal testing as simply providing the expectant mother information about her pregnancy. It turns out the Senator was right and the new Health and Human Services (HHS) regulations have the express purpose of using prenatal testing to prevent future Bellas and Juliets.
[# More #]
The recent focus on the HHS regulations has been Catholic leaders’ objection to the requirement for no-cost contraceptive services. These same regulations, however, also require no-cost prenatal testing for genetic and developmental conditions. Sunday, White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew, made the rounds on the morning talk shows, stating that the President’s goal “was to guarantee that every woman had the right to all forms of preventive health care” Nothing about prenatal testing prevents a genetic condition. What it does do, as Senator Santorum forcefully argued, is to allow for abortion of the diagnosed fetus. Therefore, the Obama administration’s new regulations are designed with the purpose of providing no-cost prenatal testing so that those with genetic conditions may be “prevented” by being aborted.
America has had a long history of struggling with discrimination against those whose kind weren’t wanted by social elites: from slavery and Jim Crow laws, to the institutionalization and compulsory sterilization of the mentally ill and intellectually disabled. Each of these wrongs ultimately was the subject of intense social movements and public debate. The new regulations, however, espouse the policy that “we don’t want your kind being born anymore.” If allowed, then those targeted for discrimination will become ever fewer in number, making it all the more difficult to have the political power to protest the policy. With the Obama administration’s regulations, the president who was to reflect an overcoming of America’s discriminatory past has instituted the most discriminatory policy in America’s history, and done so by sneaking it through in a regulation.
Defenders of the President’s policy will argue that the requirement for all insurance policies to provide free prenatal testing is not institutionalized discrimination against those that society considers disabled. They will rely on the argument that because it is left to each mother to decide to accept testing and then to decide whether to terminate or continue her pregnancy, the policy is not designed to eliminate children with conditions like Trisomy 21 or 18. This is the standard defense made whenever a prenatal testing program is criticized. This defense, however, is a lie.
That statement can be made so declaratively because supporters of governmental programs and the companies that develop prenatal tests have expressly stated that the purpose of these programs and this testing is to reduce future generations born with the tested-for condition.
Since the 1980’s, California has poured millions of dollars into a prenatal testing program. One out of every 691 babies born in America has Down syndrome. Given this low incident rate, millions of California mothers have undergone testing for a condition that none of their fetuses had. To justify these needless costs, state administrators note the increased medical cost a life with Down syndrome is claimed to have and then crassly argue “cost-effectiveness” based on the number of children with Down syndrome who were avoided through prenatal testing and abortion. When the program was criticized as eugenics,1 the administrators used the same defense that the individual choices of expectant mothers prevented it from being considered eugenics.2 But then, researchers let slip the veil in reporting their findings on California’s program:
The California Prenatal Screening Program works to reduce the occurrence of birth defects and disability by offering prenatal screening and follow up services to pregnant women in California.3
The sham that prenatal testing is offered out of respect for a woman’s choice and not for the purpose of eliminating those considered “burdens” on society was further revealed last week.
Sequenom, a genetic testing laboratory, issued a press release reporting on developments of its new prenatal test based on a mother’s blood sample. Introduced last October as a test that detects Trisomy 21, Down syndrome, Sequenom’s testing now can detect Trisomy 13 and Trisomy 18, Bella’s condition. To tout the benefits of its new test, the press release concluded with a quote from Dr. Lee P. Shulman, Chief of the Division of Clinical Genetics, Northwestern University:
The additional published research expands the utility of the test to include additional fetal abnormalities and further validates our belief that genetic technologies can be extremely valuable in helping specialists provide better testing and counseling that can be used to improve maternal and fetal outcomes during the pregnancy.
(emphasis added). The Obama administration’s regulations embrace this nightmarish language of improving maternal and fetal outcomes by searching for those fetuses with what society considers abnormalities through prenatal testing and then “preventing” them through abortion.
What is more is that those who will come to the defense of the Administration’s neo-eugenics policy fail to appreciate that they, too, may be targeted for elimination by the same regulation. This is so because what is considered an “abnormality” is in the eye of the beholder. Today, it is little girls like Juliet and Bella who are labeled “abnormal” and a fetal outcome to be improved upon. But in certain countries and cultures, the genetic abnormality is not an extra 21st or 18th chromosome, but a duplicate of the X chromosome, i.e. female. The tragedy that has been called “gendercide” for the millions of baby girls selected against through prenatal testing has received much coverage in recent years. But the language of the regulation requiring prenatal testing for “genetic or developmental conditions” is broad enough to also entitle every mother to demand free prenatal sex diagnosis so that they can have a sex selective abortion. This holds true for whatever the genetic condition is. Researchers are looking for a genetic basis for autism as well as for homosexuality; if a genetic basis can be found, then Obamacare will allow parents to prevent against those lives being born as well.
This is why the Obama regulations are the most discriminatory policy ever in American history: their purpose is so that individuals living in a society still rife with bigotry and ignorance, particularly against those with special needs, have a right to demand free prenatal testing so that they may prevent a life from being born based on the very nature of that life. Last century, when a policy resulted in the slaughtering of millions based solely on their ethnic make-up, civilized society said “never again.” At the beginning of this century, the Obama administration says, “let’s try again to prevent lives unworthy of life.” This abomination demands attention. The requirement for no-cost prenatal testing must be rescinded from the HHS regulations if we are to live out our creed and before a governmental regulation remakes our society by preventing those considered created less equal than others from being born.
Mark W. Leach is an attorney from Louisville, Kentucky pursuing a Master of Arts in Bioethics.