If things slow down a touch here on Political Cowboy, I’m going to preemptively tell you why: there’s a new blog in town called the Wyoming Vote Tracker, founded and established by your’s truly.

This new blog is graciously hosted by Conservablogs.com, a conservative blog community that offers free (yes, I said free) WordPress hosting for bloggers of conservative mindsets. Not only is this a really cool deal, I’m also learning a whole new side of WordPress: Themes, plug-ins, trying to figure out how to edit the CSS so the theme functions right; this isn’t your freebie WordPress.com blog

Just heard this on the opening segment of KODI’s Speak Your Piece. State Reps Colin Simpson and Pat Childers (districts 24 and 50 respectively) are the guests. Here’s what Rep. Simpson had to say about his recent bid to become Wyoming’s neext Senator:

The Central Committee is a lot more conservative than I perceived it to be.

The Cody Rep. went on to talk about the apparent push to keep him out of the upper tier (though he did make the first cut), because of differences in positions that he has taken and the “extreme conservatives” in the Central Committee.

Rep. Simpson believes that he would do better in an election rather than a nomination/appointment process, on the notion that the voters (in his opinion) share his vales more than the Central Committee. For the record, this is one voter that wouldn’t vote for him, unless (and that’s a big unless) he had a huge change in his assorted undesirable-to-the-Central-Committee-positions.

Just before the close of the opening segment, he said “Historically, the Simpson family and the Central Committee haven’t played well.”

Though he didn’t go into the specific differences, this is probably the most honest that I’ve heard the Representative be about his “moderate-conservatism.”

I haven’t pulled a New York Times (see the FAQ’s/NSFAQ’s for an explanation) in a while, but I just saw this last night on my RSS service (and I forget which feed; sorry) so I went on a google rampage this morning and have finally found what I was looking for.

I know I have some Brownback fans in my readership, and I’m sure that they aren’t going to like this at all. I’ve long ago scratched him from my list over his support of building the yellow brick road to citizenship. So, here’s some food for thought on the Republican press conference hosted by MSNBC:

VERY curiously, the favorite of the Christian-conservative community, Sam Brownback, stated that he COULD support a pro-choice Republican if he agreed with that nominee on 80 percent of the issues. This is diametrically opposed to the stated position of many social conservatives who see the abortion issue as an absolute litmus test. Something tells me Sen. Brownback is going to have a lot of ‘splainin’ to do to a lot of people.

Meanwhile, Sen. McCain (R/D-AZ was recently photoed over the shoulder of “Teddy K” at a pro-amnesty Senate pep-rally, urrrr, I mean press conference.

April 24, 2007 in my opinion is an incredible day to have a pro-life event. Well, OK, any day is a great day to have a pro-life event, but especially on any April 24. The American Life League is holding it’s fifth annual National Pro-Life T-Shirt Day on April 24 this year. I was considering getting the shirt online, but you gotta have plastic to do so.

For those of you that are still wondering why I like the choice of Apr. 24 for a pro-life event, it is because it just so happens that I was born on Apr. 24.

HT: Pro-Life Blogs | digg story

From Wyoming Right to Life :

Pro-Life Friends:  We have received a couple of copies of the form letter the governor’s office has sent to many of you who wrote or called supporting the Laci Peterson bill. Below is a copy of an editorial responding to it. Please feel free to pass this on to friends and family.

Governor Freudenthal Misleads Constituents on Veto of Laci Peterson Bill
by Steven Ertelt, President
Right to Life of Wyoming

Cheyenne, WY — Last month, Governor Dave Freudenthal vetoed SF 118, a measure approved by the state legislature that would protect pregnant women and their unborn children from acts of violence.

The bill would allow prosecutors to charge criminals with two crimes when they kill a pregnant woman like Laci Peterson and her unborn child.

In a form letter Freudenthal’s office disseminated at the end of last week to constituents who contacted him supporting the bill, the governor’s policy analyst Robert Black misleads voters about the reasons why the governor vetoed the bill.

Black cites the Supreme Court’s 1973 abortion decision Roe v. Wade and says “SF 118 may also be unconstitutional” because the bill, “had it become law, would have implicitly defined any unborn fetus as a person.”

However, in a meeting I had with him before the veto, I told Governor Freudenthal that state and federal courts have upheld similar laws in 11 different states. Laws like SF 118 have never been found unconstitutional for any reason, including decisions relating to the landmark abortion case.

There is a unanimous decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in 1987 regarding a similar Georgia law where an attorney for a man, Richard James Smith, Sr., convicted under the law sued saying the statute conflicted with Roe.

“The proposition that Smith relies upon in Roe v. Wade — that an unborn child is not a ‘person’ within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment — is simply immaterial in the present context to whether a state can prohibit the destruction of a fetus,” the appeals court ruled.

There is also the 1989 case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services case in which the Supreme Court refused to invalidate a Missouri statute that declares that “the life of each human being begins at conception.”

The high court nullified a lower court’s ruling and held that a state is free to enact laws that recognize unborn children, so long as the state does not include restrictions on abortion that Roe forbids. SF 118 contains no reference to or restrictions on abortion.

The governor is misleading constituents in saying SF 118 would be unconstitutional because of the Roe decision.

Governor Freudenthal is an attorney and he should understand as well as anyone that courts have always upheld laws like SF 118. Courts have also upheld laws giving unborn children rights in a variety or circumstances that don’t conflict with Roe — including inheriting property, burial rights, and stopping executions until a pregnant woman on death row delivers the baby.

To send letters statewide to constituents erroneously claiming the bill is potentially unconstitutional in the face of Roe proves Governor Freudenthal is more concerned about abortion than he is protecting the women and children of our state.

In the letter, Black also says “there are already provisions in Wyoming law for protecting pregnant women” and points to existing statute giving a penalty enhancement for attacking a pregnant woman. As the governor said in his veto message, Black suggests that the legislature increase these penalties.

However, the sentence enhancement, considered a hate crimes provision by many, fails to address the issue.

Current Wyoming law fails to hold criminals accountable for killing the unborn child. We know that when Laci Peterson was killed, her son Conner was killed as well. There were two victims, two crimes and Scott Peterson was charged with two murders under California law. We need a similar law here.

Criminals should definitely be charged with attacking a pregnant mother, but they should also face repercussions for killing her baby as well. Failing to charge them will killing the baby is a travesty of justice and slap in the face for Wyoming women and children.

Right to Life of Wyoming would be working with legislators next year to pass the Laci Peterson bill again and to alter the language of the bill to address the governor’s concerns.

Well, here in the Cowboy State, certain Liberaltarian-Republicarats seem to think that a woman shouldn’t be presented with options when choosing abortion. After all, it’s the woman’s choice.

But over in Tennesee, there’s a state legislator that has his head on his shoulders:

The move would help track how many abortions are performed, said Representative Stacey Campfield, who introduced the bill. But it also could create a public record of which women are having abortions.

“All these people who say they are pro-life — at least we would see how many lives are being ended out there by abortions,” Campfield said.

Other states are going for the near all-out ban:

In South Dakota, lawmakers who watched voters turn down a proposed near-total ban on abortions last year have revived the legislation. Mississippi also considered a near-total ban last year, and Utah has legislation in progress that would ban abortion except for rape, incest and saving the mother’s health.

Amazingly enough, Planned Un-Parenthood has yet to condemn the introduced bill.

Edit: another pro-life piece of legislation has entered the Cheyenne battleground. HT: Sunflower Desert

Rush expounded on this today. I can’t not talk about it. Adoption is something that is obviously dear to me and my family. Before I start, I intend no disrespect for biological parents. I know a great many wonderful biological parents that take their calling seriously.

Indiana University released a study yesterday that shows adoptive parents are better at parenting than biological parents. Like alluded earlier, this caught my attention on the Rush Limbaugh show today If you don’t know, I am an adoptee and I love parents to pieces. I know my birth mom and we enjoy a great relationship.

Adoptive parents invest more time and financial resources in their children compared with biological parents, according to the results of a national study that challenges the more conventional view — emphasized in legal and scholarly debates — that children are better off with their biological parents.

The study, by sociologists at Indiana University Bloomington and the University of Connecticut, found that two-parent adoptive parents not only spend more money on their children, but they invest more time, such as reading to them, talking with their children about their problems or eating meals together.

“Society often tells people that adoption isn’t normal,” said IUB Professor Brian Powell, who focuses on the sociology of the family. “When people make the decision that they want to have children and then use unusual means to have them, they compensate for the barriers.”

It goes on to say,

The authors wrote that “recent court cases regarding same-sex marriage cite this body of research as evidence of the superiority of biological parenthood and, in turn, as a compelling rationale for the current legal definitions of marriage.” The article specifically cites two court cases in Washington and New York states that rely on this rationale: Andersen v. King County, which upheld a state law banning same-sex marriage; and Seymour v. Holcomb, where a same-sex marriage ban also was upheld.

I would love to see the opening paragraph changed slightly:

Adoptive parents invest more time and financial resources in their children compared with biological parents, according to the results of a national study that challenges the more liberal view — emphasized in legal and scholarly debates — that women made pregnant by rape, incest, or at an inconvenient time in life (single in school, etc…), are better off having an abortion.

But anyway, lets presume that the article and study have good intentions and are not politically bent on promoting non-traditional adoption arrangements (i.e. homosexual couples adopting). We know that the study won’t come out and slam abortion, because after all, it’s a woman’s choice, that’s why I did the edit above. It is an interesting article that at least says adoption can be a good thing and not all adoptive parents are evil.

Are all adoptions perfect? No. I won’t even say that mine is perfect, but God gave me a great deal! This study does have some problems, many were pointed out by Rush. Does this mean that every child conceived will have to be adopted? I hope not! I would love to be married some day and have a combination of kids that are biologically mine and my wife’s and adopted.

This got me to thinking about a discussion after Bible Study last night. A young man was talking about how he is going to be old here pretty soon when he turns that wonderful male age of 25. He feared this because he was still single and reaching 25. I’ve been there. Now I’m nearing 27 and still single, so I feel reeeeeeeeealy old!

I didn’t catch the entirety of the discussion, but somehow or another, adoption came up (presumably talking about future children). Apparently the bridge was missed, because the question was then raised, “How does one adopt a wife???”

I got to thinking that could be a fun way of getting married: adopt a wife. I can see the website now promoting the adopt-a-wife program. Maybe even legislation where you get a tax break for adopting a wife. Think of the registry; ladies looking to be adopted into wifehood and men looking to adopt such a one. Of course there would be the whole match-making process to go through, parental discussion, counsel, etc, but it could be quite the program.

So, all you godly, Christian single ladies out there, talk to your folks about the possibility of being adopted. I can only accept one, so please allow for time to sort through the applications.

Over on the forum side of Sharper Iron, a discussion has arisen regarding the potential of a GOP nominee named Rudi Gulliani. There is a poll attached to it, asking if he did get the GOP nomination, would you vote for him, the Democrat, a 3rd Party candidate, or not vote at all. The poll results so far  show just over a third of the respondents would vote 3rd Party.

Of course, if you’re not a member of SI, you can’t comment/vote on that thread, but, if you’d like to decently express your 2¢ on the matter as a non-SI member, you may do so here.

I got my Adoptee’s Christian Fellowship e-mail digest this morning and was intrigued when I read about an ABC News feature that was going on the night before. The names rang no bells, but I was curious that an ABC News cast was being highlighted and figured the named persons must be connected to adoption somehow or another.

I went to the group site (it’s a private group, thus, I’ve not put in a link) and just got through reviewing the topic. Before I finished that task, I went to the ABC News site and did a search and found the story (printer friendly view). This is incredible!!!

Turns out one Julie Makimaa had a baby at 21. She always knew she was adopted, but there was one thing about her beginning that she didn’t know. After giving birth, she tracked down her birth mom, Lee Ezell, and told the new grandmother congratulations.

When [Julie and Lee] met for the first time, Ezell told [Julie] she was conceived when Ezell was raped by a colleague. “I was a virgin teenager, and I had just become a Christian, and I was so confused. … Why is God letting this happen to me?” Ezell said….

“I thought, ‘I can’t do it. If God’s real, he’s gotta help me out with this one. I’m going to give birth to this baby,’” Ezell said.

Then Makimaa’s faith was tested, learning that she was conceived as the result of a rape. “I believe that there is a divine purpose and plan for everyone, and now it was time for me to say, ‘Well, do you think that’s a nice saying or do you really believe it?’” she said.

The story develops. Now the mother and daughter are anti-abortion activists, addressing church groups, conferences, and state legislatures. They give absolutely no exception to the rule.

Makimaa opposes that exception for women who are raped or who are the victims of incest. “Because I am the exception and I think my life has value,” she said. “It wasn’t my fault and [I] shouldn’t be punished.”

She has hit the nail on the head folks! I’ll admit that it’s only been in the last couple years that I’ve solidified on the pro-life in all circumstances position (that the mother should not take her circumstances out out on her unborn child), and it is a huge blessing to see other advocates getting some national press coverage when the popular pro-life line is “except for rape or incest.”

The report closes with some incredible food for thought:

It’s a controversial argument amplified by a compelling personal story. Makimaa, who is now a mother and a grandmother, notes that three generations would have been lost had her birth mother made a different choice.

In a related story, check out this report of crisis pregnancy centers outnumbering abortion clinics, compassionately reaching out to confused mothers, and saving the lives of the unborn.

And for the Republicans that think abortion won’t be an issue in ‘08, consider this interesting tidbit of info:

Last week, not a single presidential candidates showed up at NARAL Pro-Choice America’s annual dinner, which is tied to the anniversary of the passage of the landmark Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. At this same dinner before the 2004 elections, the six Democratic contenders appeared together in an unequivocal show of support and unity.

Granted, NARAL didn’t invite them this go around, but I’m not so sure that their reasoning of focusing on victories gained in ‘06 is all that accurate. Besides, it’s all about who has the bigger tent now:

So in an effort to enlarge their tent, Democrats are using their newfound power in Congress to pursue legislation focused on preventing unwanted pregnancies and providing support for women who proceed with unintended pregnancies. Similar bills at the state legislature level are receiving support on both sides of the aisle.

This is why I say to the GOP leaders, strike the “big tent-ology” from the platform and define the positions clearly. Sure, we’ll debate where exactly we need to be, but I don’t think it helps when you have the both major parties nationwide blurring the lines.

You won’t believe who said this:

This is a baby. This is a blessing from God. It is not a political statement. It is not a prop to be used in a debate by people on either side of an issue. It is my child.

While you ponder that, the state house thinks that you don’t have the right to know about the harm abortion can bring, not just to the unborn, but also the mother of the unborn. Yesterday, on a vote of 28-32, the House failed to pass the Women’s Right to Know Act. Nays included Representatives Childers and Simpson from their respective house districts of 50 and 24, covering most of Park County. Further action has been indefinitely postponed.

OK, back to the quote. Let’s have fun with this and see if you can guess who said it (without Googling or any other similar practice).