Good news for David Ogden, bad news for American families. 

The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times : DAG Nominee Ogden Wins Committee Vote, 14-5

“Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the committee’s ranking Republican, said the committee had received 11,000 phone calls, letters, and other contacts opposing Ogden. But, citing an opinion piece <http://www.law.com/jsp/dc/PubArticleDC.jsp?id=1202428401266>  in Legal Times, he said he was swayed by the principle that a client’s views cannot be attributed to a lawyer.”

Wrong.  First of all, Mr. Ogden has been nominated to a position whose duties are distinct, in some respects, from that of a federal judge.  The DOJ DOES have some policy role, and certainly some discrectionary power, particularly when it comes to specific cases.  Furthermore, the record of David Ogden suggests that he is likely to use this discretionary power broadly to seek policies, say by choosing not to prosecute a purveyor of child porn, that will endanger American families.

Ed Whelan made mince meat of these arguments on multiple occasions.  Here on our memo:

“One reader objects that the Fidelis memo largely faults Ogden for positions that he has taken in private practice representing clients, and I suspect that many other readers would make the same objection.  I do think that we need to be respectful of the range of arguments that an attorney must properly make on behalf of a client.  But the prior question here is how it is that Ogden has such a stable of hard-Left clients.”  

“My experience and impression are that a lawyer in private practice has broad freedom to represent, or not to represent, particular “ideological” clients.  I don’t buy into the prevailing ethos among lawyers that the practice of law is a moral-free zone.  So I think it’s fair to hold Ogden accountable for the hard-Left ideological cast of many of the clients and causes he has chosen to represent—and all the more so insofar as the representation has been unpaid or discounted.”

Also, here and here

The Dawn Patrol notes that the government’s WIC page links to Planned Parenthood, that MegaCorporation that kills unborn children and yet lives off the government dime.

I imagine if there was a government website that linked to the Klan, there would be an uproar.

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned a lower court injunction blocking South Dakota’s informed consent law from taking effect.

The 8th Circuit removed the injunction and sent the case back to the district court today, allowing the law to go into effect. Among its requirements is that a woman must be given a written disclosure, prior to an abortion that says: “the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.”

This is a huge victory for women, and for the pro-life legal movement.

AP just getting the story.

UPDATE: full AP story here 

8th Circuit – Planned Parenthood v. Rounds

Relevant excerpt:

The disclosure actually mandated by § 7(1)(b), in concert with the definition in § 8(4), is “[t]hat the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being,” § 7(1)(b), and that “human being” in this case means “an individual living member of the species of Homo sapiens . . . during [its] embryonic [or] fetal age[],” § 8(4). The State’s evidence suggests that the biological sense in which the embryo or fetus is whole, separate, unique and living should be clear in context to a physician, cf. Gonzales, 127 S. Ct. at 1627 (“[B]y common understanding and scientific terminology, a fetus is a living organism while within the womb, whether or not it is viable outside the womb.”), and Planned Parenthood submitted no evidence to oppose that conclusion.

More:

Casey and Gonzales establish that, while the State cannot compel an individual
simply to speak the State’s ideological message, it can use its regulatory authority to require a physician to provide truthful, non-misleading information relevant to a
patient’s decision to have an abortion, even if that information might also encourage the patient to choose childbirth over abortion. Therefore, Planned Parenthood cannot succeed on the merits of its claim that § 7(1)(b) violates a physician’s right not to speak unless it can show that the disclosure is either untruthful, misleading or not relevant to the patient’s decision to have an abortion.

Taken in isolation, § 7(1)(b)’s language “[t]hat the abortion will terminate the
life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being” certainly may be read to make a point in the debate about the ethics of abortion. Our role, however, is to examine the disclosure actually mandated, not one phrase in isolation. Planned Parenthood’s evidence and argument rely on the supposition that, in practice, the patient will not receive or understand the narrow, species-based definition of “human being” in § 8(4) of the Act, but we are not persuaded that this is so.

The Wall Street Journal features a front page story today on Planned Parenthood detailing the booming business. “Flush with cash…” is how the article begins. Enough said.

Kathryn Lopez of NRO also references the WSJ piece in her excellent article today:

Further, Planned Parenthood is a booming business. The Journal article this morning reports that PP took in $1 billion in its last financial report. According to the piece, about a third of that revenue comes from federal and state grants for low-income women. “The nonprofit ended the year with a surplus of $115 million, or about 11% of its revenue, and net assets of $952 million.”

The WSJ article implies, accurately in my opinion, that Planned Parenthood is quickly becoming the WalMart of the abortion industry – the ubiquitous national mega health center invading neighborhoods with their anti-women, anti-child billion dollar business. Their big box centers (see new 52,000 sq. ft. center opening in Denver) are growing larger and larger, all with the help of the American taxpayer.

Interestingly, the WSJ reports approximately 40% of the space in the new Denver center will be used for “meetings, including political work.” Thus it should come as no surprise that Obama opted out of public financing for his campaign when the American taxpayer is helping fund the infrastructure for some of his biggest backers, including Planned Parenthood, who has pledged to spend $10 million this election cycle.

Lopez urges McCain to push the issue:

John McCain has an opportunity to legitimately use his record to differentiate between himself and Senator Obama in a way that will both help social and fiscal conservatives support him. Opposing Planned Parenthood funding meshes with McCain’s contention that abortion is a human-rights issue and his continuing campaign against wasteful government spending. Planned Parenthood doesn’t need or deserve federal funding.

Students for Life along with the National Black Pro-Life Union and other pro-life activists held a big protest today outside Planned Parenthood in Washington D.C. urging Congress to end the taxpayer funding of abortion groups. The protest was especially relevant given the recently released phone call recordings of Planned Parenthood representatives eagerly accepting donations from callers who requested that their contributions be used for abortions on “black babies.”

African-American pastors joined with Students for Life and other pro-life organizations for a press conference to ask Congress to investigate Planned Parenthood for accepting donations targeted specifically to abort black babies. Day Gardner, Rev. Clenerd Childress, Rev. Jesse Lee Jackson and Dr. Lillie Epps spoke at the press conference and released a letter to all presidential candidates asking them to refund money from PP and not to accept further donations because of the organizations’ racist tendencies.

More photos here

ABC News reports that Planned Parenthood will spend $10 million this election cycle, three times more than they have ever spent. Not surprisingly, in addition to defeating McCain, the taxpayer funded abortion giant is focused on the Senate with a view toward vacancies on the Supreme Court.

NARAL too has budgeted $10 million, and will focus on three dozen House seats.

Could the reason that Planned Parenthood’s image is fading be due to the fact that they flaunt state laws aimed at protecting 13 year-old girls from being preyed upon by old men? Or is that Planned Parenthood has a history of targeting minorities? Gerald R. McDermott and Carol M. Swain seem to think so.