Politics Daily

South Dakota Governor Signs Tough Abortion Bill Into Law

Politics Daily Staff — 2011-03-22T18:04:00+00:00

Filed under: Abortion

It's not easy for a woman to get an abortion in South Dakota. There is only one abortion clinic in the state.

As of Tuesday, it got even more difficult.

Republican Gov. Dennis Daugaard signed a bill requiring women seeking an abortion to wait three days after meeting with a doctor and receive counseling before undergoing the procedure, news agencies reported.

The measure brought condemnation from abortion rights groups. CBS News.com said that the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of South Dakota and Planned Parenthood Federation of America announced Tuesday they plan to file a legal challenge to the law, which is to take effect July 1.

Republican Sen. Scott Brown: GOP's Planned Parenthood Cut 'Goes Too Far'

Politics Daily Staff — 2011-03-22T15:44:00+00:00

Filed under: Senate, House, Democrats, Republicans, Abortion, Congress

Republican Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts has broken ranks with his party over an effort to defund Planned Parenthood, saying the move "goes too far."

"I support family planning and health services for women. Given our severe budget problems, I don't believe any area of the budget is completely immune from cuts," Brown said in a statement Tuesday.

"However, the proposal to eliminate all funding for family planning goes too far. As we continue with our budget negotiations, I hope we can find a compromise that is reasonable and appropriate."

Public Support for Gay Marriage on Verge of Surpassing Opposition

David Gibson — 2011-03-05T22:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Republicans, Abortion, Gay Rights, Race Issues, Polls, Obama Administration, Culture, Disputations, Poll Watch, Congress, Conservatives, Liberals, Moderates, 2012 Elections

Gay marriage is continuing to gain acceptance among the public -- the latest survey from the Pew Research Center shows Americans almost evenly split between those who oppose and those who support same-sex marriage.

According to the poll, conducted during the last week of February, 45 percent of Americans say gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry, up from 37 percent in 2009 (and just 27 percent in 1996) while 46 percent oppose same-sex marriage, down from 54 percent two years ago, and down from a 65 percent disapproval rate in 1996.

Partisan differences remain stark, with 57 percent of Democrats and 51 percent of independents backing gay marriage. Only one in four Republicans support the right of gays to marry, but that is up from 15 percent in 1996.

Newly released data from the General Social Surveys (GSS) shows an even more striking shift, with a solid majority of 46 percent supporting gay marriage and just 40 percent in opposition.

As Charles Franklin notes at the Huffington Post, recent polls on same-sex marriage show approval for for civil unions, which was once considered by many to be the "safe alternative" to gay marriage, has remained flat while support for same-sex marriage itself has surged. And the rise is occurring not only among younger Americans.

"The trends here show that opposition to gay marriage is becoming a less and less acceptable position through the public more generally," Franklin writes. "It is not merely the young who are shifting views. While individual states are certain to vary widely in the balance of public opinion, the national shift is so striking and so regular that it is hard to imagine this issue will remain in doubt for much longer."

The latest shift is especially notable in that it comes as social conservatives have drawn a line in the sand against gay marriage, and just after President Obama announced his administration would no longer argue in court on behalf of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman.

But Republicans are ascendant in Washington and in statehouses across the country. And pollsters note that the public often reacts to shifts in political power by backing issues of the party that is perceived to be losing influence, preferring that lawmakers not go too far one way, especially on uncomfortable and polarizing issues like gay marriage and abortion.

In fact, support for legal abortion dropped from 55 percent to 47 percent in the first year of Obama's term, perhaps reflecting concerns that he would move too far too fast in liberalizing abortion rights. Support for abortion rights had since rebounded, the recent Pew survey shows, to 54 percent -- again a possible backlash against the GOP's sweeping takeover of the U.S. House in January and the Republican decision to make curtailing abortion rights and funding its top priority.

Social conservatives can take some solace in the fact that the degree of support for the anti-abortion position has remained relatively stable.

But the trend lines on gay marriage do not bode well for the conservative cause, and as Politics Daily reported, the relatively low-key Republican response to Obama's DOMA decision suggested that waning public backing is going to translate into diminishing political clout.

Indeed, Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, told Focus on the Family's Jim Daly last week that "it's clear that something like same-sex marriage -- indeed, almost exactly what we would envision by that -- is going to become normalized, legalized, and recognized in the culture."

"It's time," Mohler added, "for Christians to start thinking about how we're going to deal with that."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Abortion Safer Than Childbirth, British Doctors' Group Wants Women to Know

Delia Lloyd — 2011-03-01T13:12:00+00:00

Filed under: Abortion, Health Care, Woman Up, International, Medicine

LONDON -- It looks like the U.S. isn't the only place where the abortion wars are heating up. According to new medical guidelines being proposed in the U.K., all pregnant women should be told that having a baby is more dangerous than having an abortion.

The guidance was written by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) and is intended for all doctors, nurses and women's health professionals advising women who contemplate terminating a pregnancy. The recommendations come in two parts, each of which represents a fairly radical departure from previous guidelines -- and each of which is proving controversial.

The first recommendation, under the heading "what women need to know," instructs health professionals that women "should be advised that abortion is generally safer than continuing a pregnancy to term."

Current guidance simply tells doctors and nurses that they should "be equipped" to provide accurate information about the relative dangers of the two outcomes. Now, for the first time, the RCOM is explicitly invoking comparisons between the relative "costs" of termination vs. childbirth.

The second recommendation is even more of a departure. Until now, the RCOG has advised medical practitioners to tell women that while rates of psychiatric illness and self-harm in women are higher among those who had an abortion, there is no evidence that termination itself was likely to trigger psychological problems.

The new proposal simply says that anyone deciding whether to have an abortion must be told that most women do not suffer any psychological harm.

These recommendations are only in draft form, but they have already sparked the ire of anti-abortion groups. Some critics have taken aim at the science behind the recommendations, noting that many complications caused by abortions are recorded in emergency room statistics and elsewhere, and are thus missing from the official count.

They further point out that the study vastly underplays, if not ignores, the long-term psychological effects of abortion. Patricia Casey, a consultant psychiatrist and fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, told the Sunday Telegraph: "The message this sends out is very worrying. There are more than 30 studies showing an association between psychological trauma and abortion."

Others are more incensed by what they see as the over-politicization of the abortion issue by this august medical body. Josephine Quintavalle of the Pro-Life Alliance accused the RCOM of "attempting to force an absurdly liberal agenda on women when they are at their most vulnerable." She and others note that the report's 18 authors include representatives from two of the country's largest abortion clinics, but not one psychiatrist.

"Asking this group to comment objectively and honestly about the physical and psychological consequences of abortion for women is like asking Philip Morris or British American Tobacco to review the health consequences of smoking or McDonald's to outline the adverse effects of fast food consumption," said Dr. Peter Saunders of the Christian Medical Fellowship.

In some ways, this debate is similar to one raging in the United States following the publication last month of a study in a prestigious American medical journal showing that having an abortion may be less damaging to a woman's mental health than having a baby.

But there are important differences. Sure, predictable conflicts arose when the first ad ever to offer advice on abortion services was screened on British television last autumn. Or when Ultrasound Jesus miraculously found his way onto billboards here just before Christmas. But as with so many issues, the abortion debate is way more measured in Britain than it is in the United States. Take, for example, an op-ed in the conservative Daily Mail by columnist Melanie Philips. Philips is dismayed by the RCOM's new guidance, arguing that "to suggest that having a baby is a dangerous procedure is a disreputable piece of scaremongering." She questions how it is that "doctors can have lost their ethical compass so badly that they dehumanize life in this way, and dress up as 'treatment' the manipulation of fragile patients."

But Philips also contends that abortion "is -- or should be seen as -- at best, a necessary evil." In her view, "what started as a humane response -- in this case to the dangerous back-street butchery of desperate women -- has turned into something quite different."

In short, Phillips worries about the causes of the U.K. having the highest teen pregnancy rate in Europe. But she doesn't want to criminalize abortion. She wants, like many of us, to see it as safe, legal and rare.

Contrast this to the States, where we've had the following developments in the last month alone:

- A bill in Arizona that bans abortion based on the sex or race of the fetus, and would impose penalties on abortion providers who knowingly perform such abortions.

- A bill in the Texas senate that would require women to see a sonogram of the fetus before having an abortion.

- A bill in Georgia that would require proof that a miscarriage occurred naturally.

- A pro-choice extremist was arrested by the FBI for threats to pro-life activists.

Sorting out the costs -- physical and psychological, long-term and short-term -- of ending a pregnancy is incredibly difficult and challenging. I really do hope scientists and medical experts come to their conclusions in a fair and balanced way that enables women to make informed decisions about all aspects of their health.

But I have to say that in light of the political climate around abortion in America right now, I'd much rather have that debate over here than over there.

Follow Delia on Twitter.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Pro-Choice Extremist Reportedly Arrested by FBI for Threats to Pro-Life Activists

David Gibson — 2011-02-26T21:05:00+00:00

Filed under: Religion, Abortion, Crime, Disputations, Conservatives, Liberals

The FBI in New York has reportedly arrested Theodore Shulman, a radical abortion rights campaigner with a long history of threatening pro-life activists, and charged him with making interstate threats against two abortion opponents who were not identified.

The 49-year-old Shulman was arrested on Thursday and was being held without bond at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City, according to pro-life activists who were alerted to Shulman's incarceration by federal investigators. An officer at the correctional center referred a calls about inmates to the public relations office, which is closed over the weekend.

"This is a huge relief to us that Ted Shulman is behind bars where he belongs," Cheryl Sullenger of Operation Rescue, a prominent anti-abortion organization, said in a story on the group's website. "He often posted threatening comments to our website and called me on my cell phone too many times to count."

Sullenger was not one of the two targets listed in the federal complaint, which has apparently been sealed (the FBI did not respond to requests for comment on Saturday). But she and a number of prominent abortion opponents and conservative activists -- including blogger Jill Stanek, Princeton political philosopher Robert P. George, Father Frank Pavone from Priests for Life, Bryan Kemper of Stand True Ministries, and scientist and pro-life activist Gerard Nadal -- have been frequent targets of Shulman's rants.

Nadal wrote of his relief over the "reprieve from death threats" to himself and his family in the wake of Shulman's arrest, and Sullenger and others were equally grateful.

"He was always brazen in his threats and openly identified himself, telling us not to bother calling the FBI because they would never do anything for us," Sullenger said. "Thankfully, he was wrong about that."

In fact, most stories of violence or threatened violence over the volatile issue of abortion tend to be connected to anti-abortion extremists rather than radicals in the abortion rights camp.

But Shulman is an unusual case in many respects.

His mother is Alix Kates Shulman, a feminist author and political activist who first achieved notoriety in 1972 for her novel "Memoirs of an Ex-Prom Queen," which drew wide coverage for its frank depiction of the sexual experiences of a young Midwestern woman who -- like Alix Shulman -- went off to college in the East. Shulman has spoken of having four abortions, "and not one was the result of carelessness." According to Jill Stanek, Ted Shulman has said two of his mother's abortions were before his birth and two were after.

For whatever reasons, Theodore Shulman -- who goes by Ted -- seemed to fixate on the issue of abortion rights and defined his activism by fierce and often extreme verbal attacks on pro-lifers that often threatened them with a violent end. He liked to allude to himself as the "first pro-choice terrorist" and started a blog called "Operation Counterstrike."

His mission statement says: "Right-to-lifism is murder, and ALL right-to-lifers are bloody-handed accessories. Swear it, believe it, proclaim it, and act on it."

In assisting the FBI over the past few years, Jill Stanek compiled more than 4,000 comments that Shulman posted or tried to post on her site over the last four years or so. One example: "I'm looking forward to watching a documentary entitled 'The Assassination of Jill Stanek'," Shulman wrote on Oct. 27 in a comment using one of his many online aliases.

Stanek told Politics Daily in an e-mail that Shulman's threats to her were not part of the criminal complaint against him.

It's not clear what Shulman may have done to push his actions and rhetoric across the line to alleged criminality. In its website report about Shulman's arrest Operation Rescue includes an audio recording of a threat to Cheryl Sullenger that the group says Shulman left on the group's voicemail:

"Hi Cheryl, I'm calling you to say you need to convert to pro-choice because your Maker is going to send an angel to gather you in very soon, and if you haven't converted to pro-choice by the time you get OFFED you will go to hell and burn!" the message says. "So quick, quick, quick -- convert to pro-choice during the few months you have left on this earth. Do it now!"

In its statement on Shulman, Operation Rescue says that threats to the group and its leader have increased in recent weeks, an increase it links to criticism of Operation Rescue from the liberal MSNBC cable host Rachel Maddow.

Last October, Maddow hosted a documentary, "The Assassination of Dr. Tiller," that examined the assassination on May 31, 2009, of George Tiller, one of just three doctors in the country who performed late-term abortions. While ushering at his church in Wichita, Kansas, Tiller was fatally shot by Scott Roeder, an anti-abortion extremist.

Maddow's show linked Operation Rescue, which led daily vigils outside Tiller's clinic for years, to extreme anti-abortion views.

According to pro-life activists, Shulman is also the subject of a federal investigation in Wichita, which could result in additional charges against him.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Gay Marriage Decision May Not Hurt Obama or Help the Religious Right

David Gibson — 2011-02-25T20:42:00+00:00

Filed under: George W. Bush, House, Republicans, John McCain, Religion, Mike Huckabee, Abortion, Gay Rights, Bill Clinton, Sarah Palin, Obama Administration, 2012 President, Culture, Disputations, Congress, Conservatives, Campaigns, Liberals, Tea Party, Barack Obama, John Boehner, 2012 Elections

When the Obama administration announced that it would adopt a matador defense on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the reaction from conservative Christian activists alternated between rage and celebration that the president had basically allowed the political right a slam dunk for the 2012 campaign.

The Justice Department declared that it would no longer argue in court on behalf of a key restriction against gay marriage contained in the law, which effectively gives gay marriage a pass from the executive branch -- and gives the religious right a debating point.

Arizona Bill Would Ban Abortion for Gender or Race Reasons

Eleanor Clift — 2011-02-24T22:01:00+00:00

Filed under: Republicans, Abortion, Race Issues, Woman Up, Conservatives, Analysis

In Washington and in state capitols around the country, newly empowered conservative majorities are introducing and passing a variety of laws aimed at curbing abortion rights. Much of it is straightforward, but in Arizona, anti-abortion advocates have titled their bill after two historic figures, a suffragist and a civil rights icon, presumably to make their legislation more attractive to more people.

The "Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011" handily passed the Arizona House on Monday and is expected to win Senate approval and then the signature of Gov. Jan Brewer to become law. It basically bans abortion based on the sex or race of the fetus, and would impose penalties on abortion providers who knowingly perform such abortions.

Six Anti-Abortion Protesters Arrested Outside Speaker Boehner's Office

Politics Daily Staff — 2011-02-23T17:24:00+00:00

Filed under: Senate, House, Democrats, Republicans, Abortion, Congress, Conservatives, John Boehner

Congress isn't in session this week, but that didn't stop anti-abortion protesters from blocking the hallway outside of the Capitol Hill office of House Speaker John Boehner.

Boehner (R-Ohio) wasn't there, and the six demonstrators were arrested and charged with unlawful assembly, the Associated Press reported. The protest was meant to pressure Republican leaders to stick with the $317 million defunding of Planned Parenthood that was part of the $61 billion spending reduction included last week in a House-approved budget bill.

Obama Administration Returns to Earlier Conscience Protections For Health Workers

David Gibson — 2011-02-18T21:18:00+00:00

Filed under: George W. Bush, Bush Administration, House, Democrats, Republicans, Religion, Abortion, Health Care, Obama Administration, Disputations, Conservatives, Liberals, Ethics, Medicine, Barack Obama

The Obama administration on Friday reversed most of the provisions of controversial federal conscience-protection regulations that were instituted by George W. Bush at the end of his presidency, thereby leaving Bush's successor with a politically difficult decision that would alienate either abortion rights supporters or opponents, or both.

The Bush administration had pushed the 11th-hour regulations through in December 2008, despite President-elect Obama's vow to rescind them; when Obama came into office, he instead said he would have the Department of Health and Human Services review the rules after considering input from all sides, and Friday's decision was the result.

The new rules -- meant to protect workers from having to perform certain medical procedures if they object on moral or religious grounds -- do away with Bush administration language that was seen as so far-reaching that it could allow health care workers to opt out of a broad range of medical services, such as providing the emergency contraceptive Plan B to rape victims, assisting on infertility treatments, treating gay men and lesbians, prescribing birth control to single women, and following end-of-life directives by patients if they conflicted with a health worker's beliefs.

The HHS statement said the previous wording "caused confusion and could be taken as overly broad." In fact, the Bush language faced court challenges in at least eight states.

Friday's move generally seemed to please pro-choice groups, and while the decision was anticipated to be handed down soon, it was an especially welcome boost for abortion-rights supporters on a day when the House voted to stop funding Planned Parenthood clinics.

The HHS decision was, as expected, a compromise that leaves in place some of the newer Bush language on exemptions regarding abortion and sterilization.

But because it drops much of the Bush language, the Obama rule was seen as a step back by social conservatives.

The Obama rule largely restores the previous policy that for decades protected health care workers and faith-based institutions like Catholic hospitals whose religious or moral convictions would prevent them from taking part in certain procedures.

It also retains a threat to withhold federal dollars from institutions that do not comply with conscience protections and it keeps the Bush-era mechanism by which those who feel their rights are being infringed can appeal to the HHS Office for Civil Rights. That makes the current regulation, at least in the abstract, stronger than anything in place at any time except the last month of the Bush administration.

"The administration strongly supports provider conscience laws that protect and support the rights of health care providers, and also recognizes and supports the rights of patients," said an HHS statement. "Strong conscience laws make it clear that health care providers cannot be compelled to perform or assist in an abortion. Many of these strong conscience laws have been in existence for more than 30 years. The rule being issued today builds on these laws by providing a clear enforcement process."

The department also announced a new "awareness initiative" for facilities receiving federal money to ensure they understand the conscience protections and the appeal process for those who believe their rights have been violated.

Conservatives had originally lobbied the Bush administration for stronger regulations because of what they said was increasing pressures on nurses, doctors, pharmacists and medical facilities -- mainly Christian -- to perform procedures and provide services they found morally objectionable. They also argued that stronger regulations were needed in light of Obama's victory and the anticipation that he would not be as vigilant in protecting the conscience rights of health care workers. And they wanted conscience protections to cover emerging issues, such as "morning after" pills and fertility treatments and the like.

The Bush regulations that were promulgated in December 2008 could have cut off federal funding for up to half a million entities, including state and local governments, hospitals, health plans and clinics, if they did not take the initiative to certify to the federal government that they would accommodate the beliefs of health care personnel.

The new regulation still ensures that no federal money can be used to "support coercive or discriminatory policies or practices in violation of federal law."

While pro-choice groups were pleased with the change -- Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, cast it as a much-needed victory on a day that the House voted to cut funds to Planned Parenthood -- social conservatives registered varying degrees of disappointment and outrage.

"Conscience Trampled by the Regime" was the title of a column by R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and a prominent voice among Christian conservatives, reacting to the administration's decision.

"Gone are all protections for those who object by conscience to abortifacient drugs and 'emergency' contraceptives, the treatment of gay men and lesbians, and prescriptions for birth control sought by single women," Mohler wrote. "In these cases, medical personnel have objected that their conscience and understanding of medical ethics do not allow them to facilitate acts and behaviors that are both immoral and unhealthy."

Mohler portrayed the move -- which actually leaves conscience protections stronger than they were during Bush's eight years in office -- as a signal that "the Obama administration is now ready to use the coercive power of the state to force medical personnel to perform acts they consider to be morally wrong and unhealthy for their patients." He cast it as "a tyrannical trampling of individual conscience by the power of the state" and suggested Christians should be prepared to face government sanctions for their beliefs.

Dr. J. Scott Ries, an official with the Christian Medical Association, an evangelical-oriented organization, also lamented the administration's rule changes. Ries said they would drive people of faith out of the medical profession and deprive the neediest of medical care that is often provided by religiously motivated health care workers.

The Catholic hierarchy, which had also supported the Bush rule, took a more measured view of the changes.

"The Administration's action today is cause for disappointment, but also offers reasons for hope regarding an emerging consensus in Washington on the need for clear conscience protections for health care providers," said Deirdre McQuade of the Pro-Life Secretariat of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The Catholic Health Association, which represents more than 1,200 Catholic health care systems and facilities, welcomed the regulations as vital protections for religiously-affiliated institutions like Catholic hospitals, as well as for individuals, who oppose abortion.

"In conjunction with the Catholic bishops of the United States, we were pleased to see the clarity of these federal conscience protections and were especially pleased to to see the provisions for education on conscience protection and the pathways for enforcement," Sr. Carol Keehan, head of the CHA, told PoliticsDaily.

Robert Vischer, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas Law School in Minneapolis who has written widely on conscience issues, saw the new rule as a mixed bag that would -- like the Bush regulations -- largely depend on how it was interpreted and enforced. And he said those who doubt the president's commitment on this issue are likely to be suspicious of his administration's preference to sort out problems on a case-by-case basis rather than through a single universal rule.

"There has been two years' worth of smoke surrounding federal conscience protection for health care providers, but it is difficult to discern exactly where the fire is when the debate plays out on the pages of the Code of Federal Regulations," Vischer wrote in an analysis at the website of the National Catholic Reporter.

"Apparently, the less said on the subject, the better," is how Vischer interpreted the administration's "punt" on conscience protections. "The problem, of course, is that Congress has never been especially astute at crafting user-friendly legislation. The implementing regulations, at their best, can provide a roadmap of the relevant legal rights, privileges, and obligations. Forsaking the opportunity to provide any sort of roadmap fosters doubt as to how seriously one takes the corresponding obligations."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Justin Bieber: 'I Really Don't Believe in Abortion'

Matt Lewis — 2011-02-16T13:31:00+00:00

Filed under: Abortion, Culture, Matt Lewis and the News

It finally happened: I'm writing about Justin Bieber. In case you've been waiting to find out what he thinks about abortion, Rolling Stone asked him:

"I really don't believe in abortion," Bieber told the magazine. "It's like killing a baby?"

When asked about abortion in cases of incest or rape, he answered: "Um. Well, I think that's really sad, but everything happens for a reason. I guess I haven't been in that position, so I wouldn't be able to judge that."

Steven Ertelt over at LifeNews.com asked some pro-lifers what they think of the news:

Erik Whittington of Rock for Life, a pro-life group that focuses on using music to reach out on the issue of abortion, says he's glad Bieber is pro-life, but hopes he will rethink his position on abortion in cases of rape.

"Great news, as Justin Bieber has huge influence on young people," he said. "But Justin, I thought you said, 'It's like killing a baby?' If it is, which it is that, what is the problem? Why the hesitation? How come it's OK to judge other situations but not this one?

"Don't get me wrong, I'm excited that he is making this bold statement in Rolling Stone magazine, but please let this be a learning experience for us all -- when asked about abortion in the cases of rape we must answer a bit more convincing than that," Whittington said.

This may serve as another indication of how young people are increasingly becoming anti-abortion.

But there is one huge downside to this: Now that Bieber has announced his position, I may have to rethink my stance . . .

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Exorcist Priest and Abortion Scold Falls From Grace, Rocks the Catholic Right

David Gibson — 2011-02-16T11:14:00+00:00

Filed under: Religion, Scandal, Abortion, Gay Rights, Disputations, Conservatives, Pope Benedict XVI, Catholic Scandal

A Catholic priest who traveled the country performing exorcisms and launching fierce attacks against anyone he viewed as insufficiently tough on abortion -- he once suggested Fox News host Sean Hannity was a "heretic" for saying birth control could be a better option than abortion -- has been removed from ministry for sexually exploiting at least one woman he was treating for demonic possession.

The surprising revelations about Father Thomas Euteneuer, who was for a decade the charismatic leader of Human Life International (HLI), a Catholic anti-abortion lobby, have not only stunned his many fans among church conservatives but have also left them sharply divided.

Some of Euteneuer's avid disciples continue to praise him as a prophet who confessed to a single and very human failing, while others feel betrayed and say the priest and his organization are so hypocritical they have hurt the sacred cause of protecting the unborn. Critics also say that the full story of Euteneuer's misdeeds has still not been told, and that policies on exorcism must be tightened to prevent further abuses.

"In my opinion, from now on, for the good of the faithful, all exorcisms should be done in the presence of at least one other person besides the priest," Matt Abbott, a Catholic columnist for the conservative website RenewAmerica.com, wrote in an e-mail. "That person, or persons, should be vetted by the Church and law enforcement and should not be a personal friend of the priest performing the exorcism."

Church officials say that there is currently no requirement that someone be present during an exorcism apart from the priest and the person who is possessed, though some dioceses and individual exorcists do encourage a "team approach" to exorcism.

Exorcism is enjoying something of a renaissance both in popular culture and in the Catholic Church. "The Rite," a movie about training priests to perform exorcisms and starring Anthony Hopkins, was released in January to strong reviews and box office returns. The movie is based on the real-life experiences of a California priest, Father Gary Thomas, who went to the Vatican to learn about exorcisms.

And just last November, 66 priests and 56 bishops turned out for a two-day seminar sponsored by the American hierarchy to teach clerics about exorcisms and hopefully ease the shortage of priests authorized to formally cast out demons; reports of demonic possession are overwhelming the handful of exorcists in the United States, church officials say.

Euteneuer was one of those few priests with a mandate to conduct exorcisms, and that job, along with his campaign against abortion for HLI (based in Front Royal, Va.), kept him traveling around the country and in demand in conservative Catholic circles. That popularity also made his fall from grace all the more disheartening for those who had seen Euteneuer as an inspiration.

"I'm drained and depressed, not to mention angry. Cynical as well," Abbott wrote in a Jan. 29 column.

Questions about Euteneuer, a handsome, square-jawed 48-year-old, first arose last August when he abruptly resigned as president of HLI. He had been living in Virginia while heading up the organization, but as a priest of the Diocese of Palm Beach, Fla., he was subject to the authority of Bishop Gerald Barbarito, who ordered him back to Florida.

Euteneuer portrayed the move as a return to the life of a parish priest that he had always wanted, and as a much-needed respite from his labors.

"It has been 15 years since I last had any significant time for renewal, and after traveling more than 1.1 million miles, authoring two books, visiting 58 countries and making thousands of public appearances, I am ready for a break!" Euteneuer wrote in the HLI bulletin. "I intend to continue to do pro-life work wherever I may be called to serve, and my bishop agrees that this is a vital charism of my priestly life. A true pro-lifer is not oriented to a job so much as to the daily task of fighting the culture of death and building the culture of life!"

Fellow conservatives like Deacon Keith Fournier praised him as a "heroic priest" and the board of directors of Human Life International released a statement on Aug. 27 effusively praising Euteneuer for 10 years "of meritorious service to HLI" and for "his leadership, hard work and dedication."

In reality, however, Euteneuer had been forced to resign after being accused of inappropriate relations with a "young adult woman" on whom he was performing an exorcism.

Euteneuer's departure from HLI, while lamented, did raise some eyebrows because it was such a sudden about-face from his longtime public profile.

Indeed, for years Euteneuer had been known as a no-holds barred campaigner against abortion who never missed any opportunity to blast a foe and earn a headline. When Sen. Edward Kennedy died in 2009, for example, he wrote that the liberal Democrat "will not be missed by the unborn who he betrayed time and time again, nor by the rest of us who are laboring to undo the scandalous example of Catholicism that he gave to three generations of Americans."

Euteneuer's verbal punch-up with Hannity during an on-air exchange in 2007 was also a classic, as Euteneuer suggested Hannity was a heretic and said he would deny him Communion because the Fox News host thought it might be better that non-Catholics use birth control rather than risk having an abortion.

In 2010, Euteneuer ripped a well-known Jesuit priest, Father James Martin, because Martin had criticized Pope Benedict XVI for seeming to rank gay marriage as a threat to life on par with abortion. "If the Holy Father's proclamation of the unchanging truth makes Father Martin uncomfortable, then it's time for Father Martin to hang up his collar," Euteneuer said.

Also in 2010, Euteneuer's high-octane campaign against an abortion clinic in Fort Pierce, Fla., became the subject of an HBO documentary, "12th and Delaware."

(Even small fry were not beyond Euteneuer's notice; he so disliked my report on the resignation of the bishop of Scranton -- a friend of Euteneuer's -- that he issued a statement calling me "anti-Catholic" and a "dishonest hack" with a "sick media mind." I've been called far worse, of course, and I was in good company in that Euteneuer included "many" American bishops in his condemnation.)

Finally, in January, The Palm Beach Post wrote a story raising questions about Euteneuer's fate, and noting that HLI had dropped Euteneuer's new book on exorcism from its website despite strong sales. But even then the pro-life organization denied anything was amiss.

"Rumors that the book was 'pulled' or 'recalled' are not true," HLI spokesman Stephen Phelan told The Post. He said the book, "Exorcism and the Church Militant," sold out in three months and HLI decided not to publish any more since Euteneuer was no longer president. (Used copies still sell for hundreds of dollars in the Internet.)

That story seemed to crystallize suspicions that Euteneuer was involved in a scandal, and on Jan. 31 the priest acknowledged in a lengthy statement that while performing an exorcism, "one particularly complex situation clouded my judgment and led me to imprudent decisions with harmful consequences, the worst of which was violating the boundaries of chastity with an adult female who was under my spiritual care."

It wasn't clear exactly what Euteneuer did with the woman, as he said the "violations of chastity happened due to human weakness but did not involve the sexual act." ("Bill Clinton would be proud of that," Hannity quipped on his show a couple days later.) Euteneuer insisted it was a lapse with one person only, and he apologized repeatedly and took full responsibility for his failure.

But he also could not resist taking a swipe at his detractors, writing that "I am shocked to the depths of my being at the malicious efforts by supposedly faithful Catholics to destroy a priest who has served the Church faithfully for 22 years." He denounced efforts to drag out the truth as a "sinful campaign" and asked that this single episode not undermine all his work on behalf of the unborn.

At the same time Euteneuer was coming clean, Bishop Barbarito circulated an internal memo to the priests of the Palm Beach diocese informing them that Euteneuer was "undergoing intensive evaluation and counseling to address admitted inappropriate crossing of adult heterosexual boundaries on the occasion of carrying out his priestly ministry." Barbarito said no decision had been made on when Euteneuer would return to ministry.

Then, two days later, Human Life International released a statement confirming that in fact they had received allegations against Euteneuer in August last year that led to his departure. But HLI defended its decision not to disclose any wrongdoing at the time by citing church teaching on "the duty to avoid scandal."

The HLI statement also noted that, contrary to Euteneuer's confession, HLI had "subsequently learned of additional allegations in connection with his exorcism ministry." The organization did not provide details on the other cases and there has been no further word from the Palm Beach diocese about where the investigation of Euteneuer stands.

On Feb. 4, the interim head of HLI, Monsignor Ignacio Barreiro-Carámbula of New York, added to the uncertainty about Euteneuer's case by announcing that the organization had been "under legal constraint not to speak publicly about the matter" and that the victim in the case had been "gravely harmed" by Euteneuer.

In the absence of further information, the Catholic blogosphere lit up with battles between Euteneuer's fans and foes. Hannity had a bit of schadenfreude over Euteneuer's predicament, but elsewhere Catholic conservatives have been arguing fiercely.

Blogger Mark Shea cut off comments on his post about Euteneuer, saying he had made "a manly and forthright act of contrition. Good enough for me. . . . There but for the grace of God go I."

And commenters at other blogs suggested that Satan was getting back at Euteneuer for his exorcism work. "Being exposed to demons is not an easy thing," one person wrote. "Sometimes the demons will purposely twist the bodies of their victims that will have their sexual parts touch the one who is trying to remove the demons. This, I am sure must have happened several times to Father Tom." Others pinned the blame directly on the women who accused Euteneuer.

Likewise, hundreds of supporters left comments on the site hosting Euteneuer's confession, almost all of them praising him for being "courageous" and "humble" and citing Jesus' admonition, "He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone."

But others, like Matt Abbott at RenewAmerica.com, who called Euteneuer's story "a whitewash," have argued that pro-lifers must be rigorous in calling out failures among their own if the movement is to maintain its credibility.

The woman behind the Catholic blog "Journey to Therese," who would only be identified by her first name, Adele, also took that approach and has published on her site some of the toughest criticism of Euteneuer.

Adele said she felt personally betrayed because Euteneuer had traveled to her home on more than a dozen occasions between 2008 and 2010 to try to treat what she believed was the demonic possession of a family member.

Adele told me she was deeply upset with Euteneuer over his failing and said she believed there were many other instances. But she also said that because of her critical coverage of Euteneuer she had received numerous "threatening" e-mails that were so disturbing she had referred them to the authorities for investigation.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

State Abortion Restrictions Still a Priority for Republican Lawmakers

Andrew Cohen — 2011-02-15T22:36:00+00:00

Filed under: Republicans, Abortion, Law

Republican state legislators around the country, holding the majority in most cases, have aggressively moved in the past few weeks to enact new abortion restrictions. If any of these measures pass into law, and many are predicted to do so, they will likely generate a new wave of litigation over the contours of Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 abortion decision. It has been five years now since the Supreme Court decided a major abortion case, and none are on its docket for the rest of this term.

Need a Condom in New York? There's an App for That!

David Gibson — 2011-02-14T17:30:00+00:00

Filed under: Religion, Abortion, Health Care, Michael Bloomberg, Disputations, Technology

A smartphone app to locate the nearest condom?

Yep, those hopeless romantics at the New York City Health Department marked Valentine's Day by launching a mobile application that uses GPS technology to help you locate the nearest free condom -- and provides tips for using it correctly.

In fact, the NYC Condom Finder app provides directions by car, foot or public transportation to more than 1,000 condom-distribution locations throughout the five boroughs. (Alas, there's no guarantee you'll find true love, but you can't have everything.)

"We are trying to reach everyone having sex," Monica Sweeney, the agency's point person for HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control, told The New York Daily News. "The younger generation uses their iPhone and we want to make it convenient for them to access condoms."

Actually, the NYC Condom Finder isn't exclusive to Apple's iPhone, and it can be downloaded to your Android as well. Both apps are free.

With a shockingly high abortion rate in New York -- two of every five pregnancies are terminated -- and sexually transmitted diseases spreading faster than elsewhere in the country, health officials have been doing anything they can to slow or reverse both numbers, but with little success.

New York City officials have been distributing free condoms since 1971, and since 2007, the Big Apple has had its own distinctive subway-themed wrapper. So the app launch shouldn't come as too much of a shock.

Still, if Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York had decided to run for president in 2012 -- he says he won't -- this condom app story would have provided fodder for some interesting campaign ads.

Not surprisingly, the new condom app is already generating a few laugh lines.

At the Gothamist, John Del Signore complained that on his Droid the app was taking a long time to load.

"Maybe we need to light some candles and put on some Al Green," Del Signore mused.

Apparently that didn't work either. "Guess we'll give our [D]roid a nice backrub and go back to sleep."

Of course, most New Yorkers would be happy to buy their own condoms if the city would provide as many free bathrooms as they do contraceptive dispensaries.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Donald Trump, Family Values Conservative -- Believe It or Not

David Gibson — 2011-02-11T07:06:00+00:00

Filed under: Republicans, Religion, Abortion, 2012 President, Disputations, Conservatives, Health Care Reform

Donald Trump stole the show on the first day of the Conservative Political Action Conference -- stealing the spotlight is his specialty, after all -- and he did it by making all sorts of brash and questionable declarations -- also a trademark.

Trump announced, for example, that potential presidential rival Ron Paul was a sure loser, which is hard to dispute, and also that he has been an enormously successful businessman, an assertion somewhat undercut by his long trail of bankruptcies and bailouts.

But it was Trump's declaration to the CPAC crowd that he is now "pro-life" that has some social conservatives scratching their heads.

Anti-Abortion Bills Crowding Onto U.S. House Agenda

Tom Diemer — 2011-02-09T11:17:00+00:00

Filed under: House, Democrats, Republicans, Abortion, 2010 Elections, Congress, Barack Obama, John Boehner

In a year when fixing the economy is expected to dominate debate on Capitol Hill, abortion -- an issue that won't go away -- is crowding onto the Republican agenda.

Two bills -- one permanently barring taxpayer funding of abortions and the other forbidding federally financed abortion coverage under the new health care law -- got hearings this week in the House. And they riled up activists on both sides of the debate.

Emotions came to the fore Tuesday at a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. It attempts to write into permanent law the 1976 Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal dollars from being used to pay for abortions through Medicaid or any other federal program. The Hyde Amendment must be renewed annually.

That bill, sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), would also re-impose a ban on government funding of abortion in Washington D.C. That provision brought out about a dozen red-bandana-wearing activists protesting what they saw as an infringement on the city's right to self-govern. They made their point and left the Capitol Hill hearing room without incident.

A supporter of the bill, Kelly Fiedorek, told the Washington Post that consideration of anti-abortion legislation is consistent with a focus on jobs. "We are in a financial crisis," said Fiedorek, a staff attorney for Americans United for Life, "so this ensures that federal taxpayer funds are going to things that are important to the American people and not to something like abortion."

The second bill in play would amend the health care reform law to ensure that it does not permit abortion coverage. Advocates for the law have argued that it already rules out using any federal money for abortions. President Obama even signed an executive order reiterating the restriction. But many Republicans insist that provisions of the law could subsidize abortion providers and they campaigned on the issue last fall.

The measure, set for a hearing Wednesday in an Energy and Commerce health subcommittee, has bipartisan sponsorship in Reps. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) and Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) It also would prevent the government from denying funding to hospitals or other institutions that don't want to provide abotions.

Action on the abortion bills comes as no great surprise, as House Speaker John Boehner is anti-abortion and promised to be the "most pro-life speaker ever." Boehner may well have enough votes to get both bills through the GOP-controlled House.

Even so, Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, questioned, "What happened to the jobs agenda?" when the legislation was introduced last month. "How many people will be employed as part of their campaign to attack a woman's right to choose?"

On Tuesday, Sen. Al Franken was one of a half-dozen Democratic senators objecting to the House bills. "Supporting a woman's right to make decisions about her health means ensuring that women can access the full range of reproductive health care services safely and with dignity," he said in a statement.

Sen. Barbara Boxer said, "We are sending a clear message to House Republicans that their agenda on women's health is extreme, it breaks faith with a decades-long bipartisan compromise and it risks the health and lives of women."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

'Forcible Rape?' Republicans Take Puzzling Language Out of Abortion Bill

Tom Diemer — 2011-02-04T10:55:00+00:00

Filed under: House, Republicans, Gaffes, Abortion, Congress

House Republicans have dropped language from an anti-abortion bill that critics said sounded like an attempt to redefine rape.

The offensive phrase, "forcible rape," was used in legislation seeking to permanently ban use of taxpayer funds to pay for abortions. It allows exceptions for pregnancies caused by incest or when the life of the pregnant woman is endangered. The original language also permitted an abortion exception for cases of "forcible rape," which angered women's groups who thought the term suggested some rapes were not forced.

The bill was quickly amended to cover all cases of rape, so as not to suggest that some types of sexual assaults -- statutory rape of someone underage, for instance -- were not covered.

A spokesman for chief sponsor Rep. Christopher Smith (R-N.J.) told the Washington Post the dropped language had been "misconstrued."

The bill, called the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, would simply write the "Hyde Amendment" -- an existing year-to-year ban on use of government money to pay for abortions -- into permanent law. That way, the prohibition would not need repeated reauthorization by Congress.

Folo Tom Diemer on Twitter http://twitter.com/tomdiemer

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Fox Rejects Super Bowl Ad Featuring Bible Verse John 3:16

David Gibson — 2011-02-01T21:45:00+00:00

Filed under: Religion, Humor, Abortion, Culture, Disputations, Video

Super Bowl ad controversies have become nearly as interesting as the commercials that get on the air, maybe more so, and that's surely the case with the latest spot rejected by Fox Sports: A 30-second ad aimed at getting viewers to check out the familiar gospel verse, John 3:16.

So far this year, Fox has nixed commercials over issues of bad taste and inappropriate content -- which is a pretty high bar, given the popularity of frat boy humor and double entendres in Super Bowl ads, or the single-entendre spots that focus the attention so intently on sexy women that viewers don't actually know what the sponsor does. (Quick, what does GoDaddy.com sell?)

Still, thanks to Fox's guidelines, viewers of this Sunday's Super Bowl matchup between the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Green Bay Packers won't see an ad for an online dating service aimed at spouses looking to have affairs. Or the dueling bobbleheads spot from the conservative comedy site JesusHatesObama.com, in which an angry Jesus doll pushes a smiling Obama doll into a fish bowl. And Fox also put the kibosh on an entry into the annual Pepsi-and-Doritos ad competition that envisioned the snack chip and soft drink as the bread and wine of the Eucharist. Not!

So Larry Taunton, head of the Fixed Point Foundation, an Alabama-based organization that seeks to defend Christianity in the public square, figured he was on solid ground with his professionally produced commercial featuring a group of friends drinking beer, eating chips and watching football -- and asking each other what the phrase "John 3:16" written in a player's eye black means. That was it.

"We thought in this case, let's put forward something that is understated, that feels secular," Taunton said. Click play to watch video:

It was not to be. The Fox Broadcasting Company rejected the commercial, which would have brought in $3 million -- the going rate for a half-minute ad this year -- because under company policy, it "does not accept advertising from religious organizations for the purpose of advancing particular beliefs or practices."

"The Fixed Point Foundation was provided with our guidelines prior to their submission of storyboards for our review," the company said in a statement. "Upon examination, the advertising submitted clearly delivers a religious message and as a result has been rejected."

It's hard to argue with Fox's point about the spot's religious content. The verse is one in which Jesus tells his listeners, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

If Fox execs hadn't understood the ad's religious message, then Taunton and Fixed Point would have to go back to the editing suite in order to produce something that would do what any good ad should -- communicate clearly. (The commercial cost Fixed Point just $50,000 to make, about a tenth of what such ads normally cost, and two Fox affiliates, one in Alabama and the Fox station in Washington -- of all places -- said they'll air it during the Super Bowl. Taunton said that if Fox had OK'd the ad for national distribution, he felt sure he could have raised the money to cover the $3 million broadcast fee.)

Of course, as always happens when an ad is rejected, the media coverage generated by the controversy is probably more effective P.R. than anything money could buy.

Taunton was also quick to exonerate Fox Broadcasting from blame for its decision.

"They were very courteous and gracious," Taunton stressed. "Fox Sports isn't the enemy. We aren't out to demonize them. We think this is more of a cultural issue than it is a Fox Sports issue. Their solution was just to run from it because they think this is something that would offend their viewership. I think we have become so utterly sensitive and politically correct that the result is we end up doing absurd things like this."

A more likely explanation is that Fox, like all broadcasters, doesn't want too much controversy, or rather the wrong kind of controversy -- think of Janet Jackson's infamous "wardrobe malfunction" from the 2004 Super Bowl. CBS, which broadcast last year's Super Bowl, found itself on the defensive for reversing its policy against advocacy ads and allowing a pro-life spot by Heisman-winning quarterback and born-again Christian Tim Tebow -- though the commercial wound up being so subtle it's hard to know if anyone got the anti-abortion message.

Moreover, in the case of the Fixed Point Foundation's ad, it's hard to see how a commercial whose only religious reference is a brief shot of a player's eye black and "John 3:16" could offend an audience of sports fans.

Evangelical Christians who consider the verse a kind of motto for their faith have been holding up signs displaying the verse at televised sporting events for years, starting in the 1970s with the "Rainbow Man," a.k.a. Rollen Stewart, who wore a distinctive, multi-hued afro wig to draw attention to his placard.

Taunton acknowledged that John 3:16 is by now part of the scenery in sports, and especially football, which has a reputation as a culturally conservative sport. There are on-field prayer circles after games, players thanking Jesus after every score, and big-time, publicly professing Christians like Kurt Warner, Drew Brees and Sam Bradford are commonplace.

But Taunton believes the John 3:16-themed ad was needed for that very reason.

"Our thought was this: We're not trying to import Christianity into a sport or into part of the culture where it isn't," he said. "We're trying to draw people's attention to the fact that it's already there . . . John 3:16 has become so ubiquitous in the game that people sort of become numb to it."

"It's sort of like seeing the Nike swoosh," he added. "How many people know what that means?" (Good question. Answer: it apparently represents the wing of Nike, the Greek goddess of victory. But that's not the kind of religious reference to get Michael Jordan ads barred from the airwaves.)

Taunton also noted that commercials airing during NFL games for the new exorcism movie, "The Rite," are loaded with religious imagery, though the intent seems to scare rather than convert viewers.

Indeed, it is religion itself, with its potential to incite furious reactions and its association with political divisions, that really seems to give broadcasters a fright.

Taunton agrees, which is why he said the ad was apolitical by design and "not in your face" with the faith message.

The ad's rejection, he said, sends the message that "religion, and more specifically Christianity, is increasingly being treated like smoking -- you can only do it in designated areas. You may not bring it into the public space."

As a sports fan, Taunton said he'd be happy to have some serious competition for the best religion-themed Super Bowl ad. It would beat another overrated Doritos spot or even race car driver Danica Patrick baring skin for a GoDaddy commercial.

"If the Hindus want to put out an ad, I'm all for it," Taunton said. "Muslims? Bring it on. I'd love to see it. It'd make the Super Bowl a whole lot more interesting."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Abortion May Be Less Traumatic Than Childbirth, Study Finds

Delia Lloyd — 2011-01-31T16:30:00+00:00

Filed under: Abortion, Health Care, Woman Up

As the abortion wars heat up once again, there's a new study out that's sure to add fuel to the fire. A leading medical journal reports that having an abortion may be less damaging to a woman's mental health than having a baby.

The study -- which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine last week -- tracked 365,550 girls and women in Denmark who had a first-trimester abortion or first-time delivery between 1995 and 2007. Researchers selected females with no history of mental health problems prior to getting pregnant. They then compared the rate of mental health treatment (as measured by an inpatient admission or outpatient visit) within the 12 months after the abortion or childbirth as compared with the 9-month period preceding it.

Who's John Thune -- and Why Is He on the GOP Short List for President?

Jill Lawrence — 2011-01-29T19:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Senate, House, Democrats, Republicans, Environment, Abortion, Gay Rights, Predictions, 2012 President, Conservatives, Arms Control, Campaigns, Analysis

John Thune is on every short list of Republican presidential prospects, which for most people raises two questions: Who? And why?

The South Dakota senator is renowned in political circles for ousting Democrat Tom Daschle, the Senate minority leader, in 2004. But he's not associated with any particular issue and he's certainly not a household name.

The past few days have shown why that could change, and not just because Thune is tall, dark and handsome. To be sure, he and New York Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand more than lived up to their advance billing as bipartisan nerd prom king and queen when they strolled into the House chamber together for the State of the Union address.

In Ohio, Newt Gingrich Handicaps 2012 GOP Presidential Field

Politics Daily Staff — 2011-01-28T16:20:00+00:00

Filed under: Primaries, Abortion, Budget, Energy, Sarah Palin, Campaigns, Newt Gingrich, 2012 Elections

Sandwiched between visits to Iowa and New Hampshire, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich made time for Ohio Friday, where he planned to screen a film at a Right to Life event and also take part in a discussion on ethanol.

The Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire Primary are scheduled as the first contests in the 2012 presidential campaign season. But voter-rich Ohio, currently set for a March primary, always looms large, especially for GOP hopefuls.

Gingrich, who is expected to announce in early March of this year whether he will run for president, said Friday that three of his potential rivals already have an edge. He told the Columbus Dispatch that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is "the frontrunner in fundraising, [Sarah] Palin is the frontrunner in celebrity status and [Mike] Huckabee is the frontrunner in polling data." All three of them, he said, "should feel pretty good about where they're positioned right now."

But Gingrich has a friend in Ohio -- a "very close personal friend," he says -- in new Gov. John Kasich, who as a congressman headed the House Budget Committee when Gingrich served as speaker in the 1990s.

President Obama's victory in Ohio in 2008 was a coup for Democrats who lost the state to George W. Bush in 2004 and 2000. Earlier this week, former Republican National Chairman Ed Gillespie talked about the significance of Ohio in the 2012 political picture. "It's hard to see Obama getting reelected or a Republican winning election without winning Ohio," he said. "I would start there if I were advising our nominee."

At St. Charles High School Friday, the Columbus newspaper said Gingrich was to show a documentary he co-produced, "Nine Days that Shaped the World," about Pope John Paul II's role in the liberation of Poland and fall of communism.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Politics Daily

South Dakota Governor Signs Tough Abortion Bill Into Law

Related Stories

Republican Sen. Scott Brown: GOP's Planned Parenthood Cut 'Goes Too Far'

Related Stories

Public Support for Gay Marriage on Verge of Surpassing Opposition

Abortion Safer Than Childbirth, British Doctors' Group Wants Women to Know

Pro-Choice Extremist Reportedly Arrested by FBI for Threats to Pro-Life Activists

Gay Marriage Decision May Not Hurt Obama or Help the Religious Right

Related Stories

Arizona Bill Would Ban Abortion for Gender or Race Reasons

Related Stories

Six Anti-Abortion Protesters Arrested Outside Speaker Boehner's Office

Related Stories

Obama Administration Returns to Earlier Conscience Protections For Health Workers

Justin Bieber: 'I Really Don't Believe in Abortion'

Exorcist Priest and Abortion Scold Falls From Grace, Rocks the Catholic Right

State Abortion Restrictions Still a Priority for Republican Lawmakers

Related Stories

Need a Condom in New York? There's an App for That!

Donald Trump, Family Values Conservative -- Believe It or Not

Related Stories

Anti-Abortion Bills Crowding Onto U.S. House Agenda

'Forcible Rape?' Republicans Take Puzzling Language Out of Abortion Bill

Fox Rejects Super Bowl Ad Featuring Bible Verse John 3:16

Abortion May Be Less Traumatic Than Childbirth, Study Finds

Related Stories

Who's John Thune -- and Why Is He on the GOP Short List for President?

Related Stories

In Ohio, Newt Gingrich Handicaps 2012 GOP Presidential Field