Tag Archives: Choose Life

Clinton-appointed judge rules that pro-life license plates are “patently offensive”

New York pro-life license plate
New York pro-life license plate

Here’s an interesting story from The Daily Caller. (H/T Mary from Marin)

It says:

A new decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals holds that New York’s state government has the right to ban “Choose Life” license plates on the grounds that such a statement is “patently offensive.”

The dispute stems from a now-suspended program offered by New York’s Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) which allowed private organizations to create custom license plates. If drivers purchased the plates, the purchasing price was split between the DMV and the non-profit.

The Children First Foundation (CFF), an organization promoting adoption as an alternative to abortion, submitted a design for a “Choose Life” license plate, which featured a drawing of two children’s faces in front of a yellow sun.

The proposed plate was rejected, with the DMV citing a policy that allows it to ban “patently offensive” plates in order to prevent incidents of road rage. The “patently offensive” category in U.S. speech is typically related to public obscenity laws, and allows for limitations on things like the public display of pornography or other materials that blatantly violate community standards.

Judge Rosemary Pooler, a Clinton appointee, agreed with New York’s position in her majority opinion. She took this view even though she also ruled that license plates are private speech subject to First Amendment protections. Despite these protections, however, she said that so many New Yorkers could find a plate advocating an anti-abortion position “patently offensive” that the DMV was justified in suppressing the speech.

I want to focus in on the life of the judge who made the decision.

I found her biography on Wikipedia. Look at how successful she was:

Rosemary Pooler was born in New York City. She earned a B.A. from Brooklyn College in 1959, an M.A. from the University of Connecticut, and a J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School.

Following graduation from law school, Pooler entered private law practice in Syracuse, New York. In 1972, she was appointed as Director of the Consumer Affairs Unit in the Syracuse Corporation Counsel’s Office, serving in that post for a year. From 1974 to 1975, she served on the Syracuse City Council. In 1975, she was appointed as Chairman of the New York State Consumer Protection Board, serving until 1980. The following year, she was appointed to the state Public Service Commission. In 1987, she served as a committee staff member for the New York State Assembly. Following a stint on the law faculty at Syracuse University College of Law, she served for a year as Vice President of Legal Affairs at the Atlantic States Legal Foundation.

In 1986, Rosemary Pooler decided to run for the United States House of Representatives. She challenged conservative Republican incumbent George C. Wortley, who was seeking a fourth term. She campaigned aggressively and came within less than 1,000 votes of winning.

In 1990, she was elected as a Justice for the Fifth Judicial District of the Supreme Court of New York. Four years later, she was appointed to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton, serving from 1994 to 1998, as federal district judge in the Northern District of New York. She received her current appointment as a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1998.

So, this license plate case, along with many of the other issues that I blog about, is the problem. What is the solution to all these problems? The solution is for us as Christians to get serious about our education, our work experience, our earning and saving, and our marriages and parenting in order to have an influence. We need to be the judges who make these decisions about whether pro-life license plates are legal or illegal. Failing that, our children need to be the judges. And that means that when it comes to education and career, instead of doing what makes us feel happy we have to work hard at having an influence. And when it comes to marriage, we should look at it less as something that is feelings-directed and happiness-focused, and more about making it serve God by raising influential, effective children.

Mother gives up her own life to save her unborn child

Totally awesome story from the Daily Signal.


In a selfless act, a mother from Aurora, Colo., made a decision during childbirth that put the life of her unborn baby son before her own. That decision ultimately ended her life while saving her seven-pound, four-ounce “miracle.”

“How do I explain to him that his mom is gone giving birth to him?” the woman’s husband, Wes Bugal, asked in an interview with NBC 9 News in Aurora. “I think about that all the time. How do I explain when he asks where’s Mommy?”

Karisa Bugal died Nov. 4, hours after giving birth the day before to the couple’s second child, a son named Declan. She had developed a rare complication called amniotic fluid embolism, which causes protective fluids around a baby to escape into the mother’s body, resulting in a breakdown of her organs.

After medical staff informed Bugal of the danger the embolism posed, she had two options: undergo surgery that could save her life but endanger Declan, whose heart rate had begun to dip, or get a Caesarean section to save her unborn baby’s life but put her own at risk.

Bugal chose the second option, a decision that a few hours later resulted in her death.

Friends set up a fundraiser page to help Wes Bugal raise the couple’s two children. In just one day, the site surpassed its goal of $20,000.

What a loss for the husband, though. Devastating.

What is the best single book on the pro-life position?

Do you like to argue about controversial things?

Here’s an excellent book review of the best pro-life book for ordinary people. It’s by Scott Klusndorf of the Life Training Institute.


The Case for Life by Scott Klusendorf is an absolutely outstanding defense of the pro-life position with regard to the abortion debate. Being familiar with Scott’s work through Stand to Reason I was looking forward to this book with much anticipation. Scott is one of the most able, articulate, persuasive, and winsome pro-life speakers in the country and his book does not fail to deliver.

He’s got chapter-by-chapter breakdowns! This is a serious book review.

Here are some of the chapters:

In chapter five Scott addresses the nature of truth and the topic of moral relativism, a view of morality our culture is saturated with to the core. Addressing this topic becomes absolutely necessary given its prevalence and the fact that often the claims of pro-lifers are misunderstood. This is seen in such cliches as “Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one!” or “I’m personally opposed to abortion but I think it should remain legal.” In short, pro-lifers are not making subjective preference claims when they say abortion is morally wrong but rather objective truth claims. Scott lays out some fundamental problems with moral relativism as well as a brief history outlining the move from moral realism to moral non-realism.

In chapter six Scott exposes the myth of moral neutrality. Both sides of the abortion debate have views they want to legislate and it is impossible for the state to remain neutral. However, it is often pro-lifers who are accused of trying to “legislate morality” while pro-abortion choice advocates get a free pass. In short, pro-lifers are dismissed as “religious” because of an unwillingness by pro-abortion choice advocates to address the issues. This is intellectually dishonest. How bout we stick with science?

And more:

In chapters ten through fifteen Scott addresses some of the most common arguments put forth by pro-abortion choice advocates. These include “Women will die from illegal abortions,” “You shouldn’t force your view on others,” “Pro-lifers should broaden their focus,” “Rape justifies abortion,” “Men can’t get pregnant,” and “It’s my body, I’ll decide.” The fundamental problem with most of these objections is that they beg the question. They assume the unborn is not a human person.

I’d read about those arguments in Frank Beckwith’s “Politically Incorrect Death”, but that’s out of print, and his new book with Cambridge University Press is too technical (although it looks good on my shelf at work). The Klusendorf book is a much better book for most people.

One more chapter – I’ve never seen chapters like this before:

In chapter sixteen Scott outlines four essential tasks that pastors concerned with biblical truth need to accomplish:

First, Christian pastors need to emphasize a biblical view of human value and ensure their congregation understands that abortion unjustly takes the life of an innocent human being. Second, they need to equip their congregation with pro-life apologetics so they can compete in the marketplace of ideas. Third, they need to emphasize the healing power of the gospel of Jesus Christ and preach repentance and forgiveness for post-abortion men and women. Finally, Christian pastors need to overcome their fear that abortion is a distraction, their fear of driving people away who might otherwise hear the gospel, and their fear of offending people with abortion-related content.

Even my Dad read this book. And he loved it!

Canadian pro-life student quarantined by public school principal

Here’s the story from LifeSiteNews.


16-year-old high school student Jennifer Rankin fully intended to unite her voicelessness with that of the unborn as part of the annual Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity when she arrived at school yesterday, reports Bill Henry of Sun Media.

She was impeded, however, by her school principal, who stated that the right to free speech does not apply on school property and who forced Rankin to remain in isolation for the entire day as long as she participated in the event.

Rankin, 16, arrived at Peninsula Shores District School in Wiarton, Ontario yesterday morning, with the red tape over her mouth and with the simple word ‘life’ written upon it.  She and her mother were stopped at the door, however, by school principal Patricia Cavan, while police cruisers stood nearby.  Cavan initially told Rankin that she could not enter school property, but then consented to allowing her in the building, separated from other students.

“I was taken directly into a small room that was opposite the vice-principal’s office and I was in there all day,” Rankin told Sun Media.  “I wasn’t allowed to speak with or see any other students and students were not allowed to come and see me and I was isolated in that room for the entire day.”

[…]The youth pastor at Rankin’s church, Ken Holley, expressed disappointment and insisted that the school’s actions violated her rights.  “It’s a day of silence and basically they lose their voice for those that never had a voice,” he said. “It’s pro-life. There’s no arguing. They can’t talk all day. They just stay silent and if anybody asks why they’re silent they hand out a little sheet that says this is why.”

[…]Cavan, who did not return a message left by LifeSiteNews.com, told Sun Media that the right to free speech does not apply on school property.  “School property is not a public place,” she said. “So while absolutely we support the right to free speech in a public space, that’s not school property.”  She said that school policy prohibits the dissemination of one-sided information on religious, political, or other issues that are controversial.

Pastor Holley pointed out that the school does an annual ‘Gay Pride’ day “where everybody wears pink shirts,” and that the school allows nude pictures on the wall to stand as ‘art’.

It’s strange because this school is located in a tiny town in a very rural area, hundreds of miles from any major city. I would think that a rural school would not be so backward as to thwart basic human rights like free speech. Oh well. It’s Ontario, Canada. Land of Chief Censor Jennifer Lynch and the Canadian Human Rights Commissions. You can read more about how Canada discriminates against Christians here. You can read more about how Canada discriminates against pro-lifers here.

UPDATE: It’s happening here! Student sues for right to wear pro-life shirt (via Ruth Institute Blog)

MUST-READ: Pro-abortion thugs arrested at McGill University pro-life event

After action reports from pro-life speaker Jose Ruba’s event at McGill University. (H/T Andrew) This is the same event that the student society voted to shut down, but that the Provost refused to shut down.

Mcgill Pro-Life Presentation Shut Down by Protesters – Two Arrested (LifesiteNews).


As Ruba began his presentation, about 20 students, including members of SSMU, began protesting, chanting, and singing children’s songs such as Old MacDonald and the hokey pokey.  They bombarded the stage, blocked the screen, and one protester even grabbed at Ruba’s written materials, before being stopped by campus security.

The police arrived and eventually warned the protesters that they would be taken away by force if they did not get off the stage.  Two resisted and were arrested, while others joined the audience and continued to heckle Ruba after police had left, until the designated time had run out and Choose Life ended the event.

Ruba told LifeSiteNews that he was able to present about half an hour of his presentation, but there was no moment where he was able to speak clearly.

Click here to read the whole thing (there’s more).

Here’s a more detailed story from the campus paper (McGill Daily).


Ruba had hardly finished the first sentence of his lecture when a protester near the front of the room stood up and announced that she believed he had no right to deliver his speech at McGill. The protesters proceeded by singing various songs, at one point completing an entire rendition of “99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall.”

Protesters held their arms, jackets, and signs in front of Ruba’s video projections, which included photographs from biology textbooks, videos of the early stages of an abortion, and images of the Holocaust.

[…]Ruba told the protesters he was open to discussion, and that Choose Life had asked for a pro-choice speaker to engage in debate.

[…]In the midst of the confusion, Ruba explained to The Daily why he felt it was important for protesters to hear his message.

“[The protesters] have accused us of all these things, and frankly they haven’t heard this presentation yet. When people pre-judge someone based on heresy and rumours, that’s called prejudice,” Ruba said. “We don’t mind protests; that’s what free universities and free societies do. But they don’t censure people simply because they disagree or prevent people from sharing their ideas. That’s no longer what protests should be about. That’s censorship.”

They won’t debate with Mr. Ruba, because they would lose. Violence, then, is the only option they have left. A one-sided, public school, cradle-to-job indoctrination doesn’t really prepare students for open debate. (Especially when coupled with binge-drinking, irresponsible sex and drug use). When a fanatical true believer encounters facts and arguments, their response can only be disbelief, rage and violence.

I doubt that any of these students will ever be exposed to books like Dr. Francis J. Beckwith’s magnum opus “Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice“, published by Cambridge University Press. Or maybe Princeton University professor Robert P. George’s book “Embryo: A Defense of Human Life“. Pro-abortionists have never been exposed to an academic case for the pro-life position. That’s why they rage and attack.

And it leads to cases like this, where peaceful pro-lifers are shot and killed or nearly killed by being run over with SUVs. After all, if a person is willing to kill a helpless baby, why should they be concerned about killing grown-ups? Only pro-lifers are consistently pro-life. Only pro-lifers oppose taking the lives of innocent people at all stages of life, born and unborn.

More news stories, with photos:

UPDATE: (from commenter Andrew)

I was present when the most fundamental rights of Mr. Ruba, the invited speaker from the Canadian Centre of Bio-Ethical Research and the rights of the students who actually wanted to listen to him were infringed upon. The anti-free speech mob refused the offer of a civilized debate and thus made it abundantly clear that they don’t espouse the same democratic values as the majority of Canadians.

To see this sad spectacle which took place at McGill, go to:


…integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square

%d bloggers like this: