MnIndy file photo

Sen. Al Franken was the keynote speaker at the Roe v. Wade 37th Anniversary Luncheon in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday afternoon. Franken has championed several bills to address reproductive inequalities, including the much talked about “anti-rape amendment.” He’s one of the top recipients of campaign funds from reproductive rights groups.

But his appearance at the event was attacked (predictably) by Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, an anti-abortion group.

“Senator Franken should not be celebrating the deadly Roe v. Wade decision as keynote speaker at a NARAL luncheon,” Scott Fischbach, MCCL executive director, said in a statement on Tuesday. “As Senator Franken rejoices over abortion in Washington today, the majority of Minnesotans oppose abortion on demand, which has resulted in the deaths of 52 million unborn children.”

Photo: Andy Birkey, Minnesota Independent

Anti-abortion activists marched at a rally on the Capitol steps on Friday at an event featuring prayers, hymns, and speeches by Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Reps. Erik Paulsen and Michele Bachmann. Capitol police said that the rally, sponsored by Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, brought about 5,000 people to the Capitol steps. The annual event coincides with the anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade.

“As millions of Americans March for Life today, it’s important to remember what is at stake because in one year alone, we’ve seen an onslaught of attacks on life and the unborn from this Congress and this Administration,” said Bachmann. She attacked Democrats for supporting abortion rights.

“We saw Democrats vote overwhelmingly against an amendment that would make Planned Parenthood ineligible to receive money for so-called ‘family planning’ services through appropriations funding for the Department of Health and Human Services,” she continued. “We saw the ban lifted on abortion funding for the District of Columbia. Funding for abstinence education was eliminated as well. And almost a year ago to this day after Americans marched to remember the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the President rescinded the Mexico City Policy, thereby making available millions of dollars to foreign NGOs that promote and perform abortion. The list goes on.”

“We have made good progress, just in the last few years in Minnesota we have passed and signed into law the Women’s Right to Know Act and that has reduced abortions in Minnesota every year,” said Pawlenty. “I’ve also signed other legislation such as the fetal pain legislation and the positive alternatives to abortion act… that program has already served 12,000 Minnesota women.”

“For those of us to have true happiness and true liberty, we must ensure sure that millions of vulnerable citizens are not denied the right to life,” Paulsen told the crowd.

In a special edition of their newsletter (DOC), the group goes after President Obama, saying his facts are incorrect.

“Despite public statements by Pres. Barack Obama that ‘no federal dollars will be used to fund abortion,’ all of the major bills under consideration would put the federal government into the business of subsidizing elective abortion on a massive scale,” wrote MCCL, then going on to quote Factcheck.org. “‘Despite what Obama said, the House bill would allow abortions to be covered by a federal plan and by federally subsidized private plans,’ reported the independent FactCheck.org.”

But what FactCheck.org actually said was that it’s a grey area in between. “The truth is that bills now before Congress don’t require federal money to be used for supporting abortion coverage. So the president is right to that limited extent. But it’s equally true that House and Senate legislation would allow a new ‘public’ insurance plan to cover abortions, despite language added to the House bill that technically forbids using public funds to pay for them.”

The rest of the groups claims have also been debunked by Factcheck.org.

Health Rationing

MCCL says that all of the health reform proposals would dole out care based on age and disability. “In addition to the expansion of abortion, all major bills under consideration — as currently written — would likely lead to the rationing of care,” the group writes. “The bills addressing health care ‘reform’ all require the rationing of health care.”

Paul Stark, Student Outreach Coordinator, wrote, “The health care legislation pending in Congress would likely lead to the rationing of care for elderly, disabled and other vulnerable persons.”

When RNC chair Michael Steele used a similar line in an ad attacking health care reform, Factcheck.org corrected him. “It’s … false for Steele to imply that Democratic health care legislation proposes to ‘ration health care based on age.’”

While none of the bills specifically spells out a rationing of health care, Politifact took time to explore the issue. “Everyone hates the word rationing,” Katherine Baicker, a health economics professor at Harvard University, told the Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-checking site. “From an economics perspective, there’s no way around rationing. Some care is being rationed now. Everyone isn’t getting everything.”

But MCCL does not acknowledge — let alone condemn — the fact that health care is currently rationed.

Medicare cuts

Stark wrote, “[A] substantial part of the cost under the proposals would be paid for by ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’ − reducing Medicare funding for older people in order to cover the uninsured.”

MCCL president Leo Lalonde wrote about seniors’ reactions when MCCL told them at a fall meeting that Medicare would be deeply cut. “This information and much more was shared with Fall Tour attendees, who reacted with anger, fear and disbelief. Some people already understood this threat. But many more did not, and were deeply disturbed to learn that Medicare — the only source of medical care for many senior citizens— could be severely restricted under Obama’s plan.”

Factcheck.org found that claim to be false:

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the House bill would result in “savings” [to Medicare] of $219 billion after all increases and decreases are netted out. The House bill would trim projected increases in payments for hospitals, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and others, including home health care providers and suppliers of motor-driven wheelchairs. But it also proposes what CBO estimates is a $245 billion increase in spending for doctors, by canceling a scheduled 21 percent cut in physician payments. None of the “savings” or “cuts” (whichever you prefer) come from reducing current or future benefit levels for seniors.

Source: Wikipedia

Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, the state’s largest anti-abortion group, says the University of Minnesota is trying to clone human beings and is in violation of the law. The university says its research is legal and that the group is engaging in a “disinformation campaign” designed to halt stem cell research.

MCCL is going after the university in the wake of a new law passed by the Minnesota Legislature — at Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s demand — that bans taxpayer funding for human cloning.

MCCL called on the university to “cease its pursuit of human cloning and to end its violation of state law through its ongoing destruction of human embryos.”

The university says it does not engage in human cloning and that all stem cell research is legal and done with private dollars.

In a letter to MCCL, Wendy Burt, director of public and community affairs for the Academic Health Center, directed the group to “remove false statements” about the university and “issue a retraction visible to your members and the community containing the truth” about the university’s research.

MCCL shot back. “MCCL’s statements regarding the University of Minnesota’s pursuit of human cloning and its embryo-destructive research have always been accurate,” said MCCL executive director Scott Fischbach. “The university’s letter only serves to highlight its own dishonest portrayal of its efforts to clone human beings.”

But Burt says that MCCL is working to quash all stem cell research at the university. “Your characterization is irresponsible,” Burt wrote to the group. “Stem cell research is regulated by stringent federal oversight and is carried out within the strict guidelines of federal law and the National Institutes of Health.”

Burt added, “I ask that in the future you commit to ensuring any information about the university is responsible and accurate.”

If the group’s assertion is correct, the programs cost taxpayers more than $200,000 per woman successfully treated.

Data released by the Minnesota Department of Health show a slight drop in abortions among women on medical assistance between 2006 and 2007, the most current year that data is available. Medical providers were reimbursed by the state for 3,914 procedures in 2007 compared to 3,937 in 2006, a drop of 0.6 percent.

MCCL says Positive Alternatives, a state program that encourages women to carry their pregnancy to term, was responsible for the decrease.

Positive Alternatives awards grants to 37 groups, many of which are religion-based. The Highland LifeCare Center, Inc., in St. Paul, for example, tells pregnant women, “Having an abortion may affect more than just your body and your mind — it may have an impact on your relationship with God. What is God’s desire for you in this situation? How does God see your unborn child? These are important questions to consider.”

In a press release titled, “Positive Alternatives helped to save lives, reduce taxpayer funded abortions in 2007,” MCCL executive director Scott Fischbach said, “Positive Alternatives is making a real difference for pregnant women in need. The DHS report is more proof that women are receiving the help they need to successfully face the challenges of unexpected pregnancy without resorting to abortion.”

But reproductive health advocates aren’t buying that reasoning.

“MCCL’s statement … is disingenuous at best and is probably due to a decrease in unintended pregnancies,” said Linnea House, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota.

House added that if MCCL is correct, then the figures demonstrate a colossal cost to taxpayers. The difference between 2006 and 2007 is 23 abortions among low-income women, and the Positive Alternatives program costs $4.75 million every two years, she pointed out.

“Their numbers show that this is an investment of $206,521 per woman,” said House. “By comparison, an investment in family planning programs, programs the MCCL has consistently fought against, helps nearly 50,000 women and every dollar invested will save the state at least $5 in return.”

Kathi Di Nicola, communications director for Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota, agreed that the decrease is more likely attributable to family planning programs.

“We would attribute the decrease to fewer unintended pregnancies, which is likely the result of increased access to affordable, accessible family planning,” she said.

“One year’s data does not constitute a trend, but it is encouraging news for family planning providers,” she added.

House said the most effective state programs are those that prevent pregnancy in the first place.

“We know that family planning programs prevent unintended pregnancies and actually save the taxpayer money,” she said.

The group Planned Parenthood got much of the attention. Only hours after an anti-abortion activist slammed his SUV into a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Paul, rally attendees held up signs condemning the reproductive health organization and MCCL speakers called for the defunding of the organization they called the “abortion industry.”

Also condemned at the rally was President Barack Obama, who was accused of having an “anti-life” agenda.

The divide doesn’t split neatly by party. Even with a DFL-dominated legislature, anti-abortion and pro-choice numbers are close, as many greater Minnesota DFLers side with Republicans on the issue. Perhaps no other issue could cause a DFLer to break ranks and vote against the re-election of House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, but that’s what happened last week when DFL Rep. Mary Ellen Otremba from Long Prairie was the lone DFL objector because Kelliher is pro-choice and Otremba anti-abortion.

Pro-choice advocates see an opportunity this year to promote family-planning programs. Anti-abortion groups look to stop taxpayer funds for such initiatives and put controversial bills up for a vote.

Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life launches its legislative agenda each year at the March for Life at the Capitol on the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision which legalized abortion. Each year the event brings out big-name politicians. Last year featured Republican U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann. Democratic Reps. James Oberstar and Collin Peterson often send letters of support that are read to the gathered crowd. It’s rare that Gov. Tim Pawlenty doesn’t make an appearance.

This year, MCCL has an agenda that includes protecting Positive Alternatives, a state-funded program that helps women with unintended pregnancies find alternatives to abortion. The group says that the program has helped reduce the rate of abortion in the state. Supporters fear its funding might be cut in order to close the state’s budget deficit.

With little possibility of moving out of DFL-dominated committees, several other MCCL initiatives serve a different purpose: to embarrass pro-choice legislators in swing districts. A ban on saline abortions tops their agenda. This rarely used abortion technique has fallen out of favor with most physicians and constitutes 0.8 percent of procedures in the United States.

The bill to ban the procedure, which was introduced last session, didn’t make it out of committee. But the MCCL often cites votes against it, either in committee or if it makes it to a floor vote, in its campaign literature.

MCCL representatives declined to talk with the Minnesota Independent about the group’s legislative agenda or their take on what the session has in store for the anti-abortion movement.

On its Web site, the group claimed it had achieved “nearly all pro-life” goals in the 2008 elections, increasing the number of state legislators opposed to abortion and defeating pro-choice legislators.

Tim Stanley, senior director of government and public affairs for Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota, explained the strategy behind a bill such as a saline abortion ban:

“They use these to try and make legislators look bad. That’s been their agenda for some time. They offer these bills that have no chance of passing and then use the votes against opponents.”

And, despite a strong year for progressive voters, the strategy worked.

“They ran campaigns against [Rep.] Ken Tschumper [DFL-La Crescent] and [Rep.] Shelley Madore [DFL-Apple Valley] saying they took ‘19 votes to kill babies,’” said Stanley. “They make it difficult for people in close legislative districts.”

The MCCL Web site says the group targeted Tschumper and Madore because of their efforts to de-fund Positive Alternatives.

With a looming budget battle, fiscal issues will take priority in the politics of abortion. Planned Parenthood hopes to save the Prevention First Initiative, a state-funded program that provides family planning services as a tool to prevent abortion and unintended pregnancy. It’s a program signed into law in 2007 by Pawlenty, who is a strong supporter of MCCL.

“I give the governor credit for that one,” said Stanley. “I think the governor recognizes that you save money in the long term when you make an investment to prevent unintended pregnancy.” Stanley said programs like Prevention First save $4 in social services costs for every dollar spent.

With a budget battle in which leaders say “everything is on the table,” Stanley hopes to keep the program going. He says that 86 percent of the families and individuals have low incomes and are able to take advantage of the program at little or no cost.

For both sides, the Legislature is close. The Senate has a more pro-choice lean, while the House is closer with several DFLers whose commitment to either side is questionable and whose votes could make the difference. In short, the politics of abortion will remains highly contested in St. Paul.

Abortion and homosexuality dominate the discussion, as ever, but typical Republican talking points in 2008 include notes on oil drilling, immigration and taxes — and a seemingly growing number of Minnesota pastors find this degree of politicizing of their faith inappropriate.

Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL), the state’s largest anti-abortion group, is taking its message to the voters in two ways: direct political action and church meetings.

MCCL has a PAC that has endorsed candidates for office. “There would be little or no protection for unborn babies, their mothers or other vulnerable lives if Barack Obama were in power,” said MCCL PAC spokesman Scott Fischbach. “Minnesota citizens must look beyond his charm and realize that Obama is an extremist who intends to promote and expand abortion on demand — and force taxpayers to pay for elective abortions.”

The group also gives Sen. Norm Coleman an enthusiastic endorsement, and features quotes of Coleman’s speeches at MCCL’s annual March for Life. “Sen. Norm Coleman has been a dedicated friend of MCCL and the pro-life movement for many years. We need his strong pro-life voice in Washington!” said the group’s endorsement.

MCCL also endorsed Republican Reps. Michele Bachmann and John Kline and conservative blue-dog Democratic Rep. Collin Peterson. They have also endorsed 1st Congressional District Republican candidate Brian Davis.

In addition to directly endorsing candidates, MCCL is hosting meetings in nearly 50 churches around the state as part of their Fall Tour 2008. The meetings will include a “presentation about life issues and the importance of the November election.”

MCCL doesn’t present itself as overtly religious, but nearly all 50 events scheduled from the end of September to Election Day are being held in churches.

The Minnesota Independent reported on a MCCL Fall Tour meeting last year.

The Minnesota Family Institute (MFI), a division of the Minnesota Family Council, says in its postcards, “When godly people don’t vote … ungodly candidates get elected.” The group says it is trying to reach between 500,000 to 600,000 people.

The “Mobilize 2008! Vote Your Values” campaign contains voter guides that reveal a less-than-scriptural message. Privatizing Social Security, a border fence with Mexico, offshore drilling, troop withdrawals from Iraq and tax cuts overshadow “traditional values” issues in the presidential and Senate campaign scorecards.

The organization’s “Pro-Family Champions,” or those state legislators with a 100 percent “pro-family voting record,” are all Republican. Fifty-six legislators earned that distinction, comprising a large portion of Minnesota’s Republican caucus. That should be no surprise when homosexuality and abortion are mixed with issues like tax cuts and immigration.

MFI leaders are openly critical of Sen. Barack Obama. MFI president Tom Prichard recently wrote: “If Obama is successful on the tax front as well as on the health care and other social fronts, we’ll see a decidedly leftward shift in our economic and political culture… [T]he cost is clear. Less freedom and less prosperity for Americans.”

In early October, MFI rallied pastors in all corners of the state — Marshall, Mankato, Rochester, Bemidji and Duluth — for “Dare We Remain Silent” lunches urging pastors to get their congregations involved in politics.

The premise was to put the fear of God — or rather, Democrats — into the pastors. The main themes of the pastors’ luncheons: “The next President is likely to appoint from three to five Supreme Court Justices. Preaching God’s word could become a hate crime. Christian ministries and other employers may be forced to hire people whose lifestyles are contrary to God’s design and their beliefs. God’s design for marriage may be trampled by the courts and through legislation, opening the door for homosexual marriage nationwide.”

MFI is urging pastors to preach about the election, provide voter registration and MFI voter guides in their church, and place MFI fliers and signs in their church. The group also offers training for pastors on how to preach politics without running into trouble with the Internal Revenue Service, using materials from the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF). (The same ADF made political waves in late September by asking pastors to break the law by endorsing candidates for office.)

“[The] Minnesota Family Council, has been lighting up my phone and email in the last few weeks encouraging me to preach about the upcoming election from the pulpit,” says New Prague pastor Jamie Prip, whose church is an Assemblies of God congregation. “What concerns me is when Christians have such a hunger for political power (Liberal or Conservative) that they destroy the true mission of the church.”

Prip isn’t alone in his concerns. Rev. Greg Boyd of Woodland Hills Church in Maplewood, an evangelical baptist megachurch, has been an outspoken critic of the type of political involvement MFI is encouraging pastors to engage in.

“If they want to express their values, that’s fine,” Boyd told the Star Tribune recently. “I just wish they wouldn’t call it Christian, like there’s one Christian way to vote.”

Boyd and MFI met two weeks ago in Rochester during one of MFI’s “Dare We Remain Silent” pastor luncheons.

“I don’t know if it happened by design or by chance, but just before I got up to speak, several representatives of the Minnesota Family Council (a conservative Christian political action ministry) shared with the pastors why they felt America was a Christian nation and why it was the responsibility of pastors to encourage their church members to get out and ‘vote their biblical values,’” wrote Boyd. “These sincere folks then handed out a booklet to inform pastors on what they could and could not say as they steered their congregants in the right direction without getting into trouble with the law. They also handed out ‘voter registration guides’ that would help ‘inform’ Christians where the particular candidates stood on the ‘key’ issues (e.g. abortion, gay marriage). They finished by encouraging the pastors to distribute these guides in their churches.”

Boyd said it seemed like an odd notion to ask Christians to vote their values, since as Christians they already do. “It was a little awkward, but I basically gave a talk asking the question: ‘When did Jesus ever do anything like what you just asked to do?’

“I made the case that the church’s one and only job is to look like Jesus, humbly manifesting God’s love in sacrificial service to all people at all times, including our enemies,” he said. “By this criteria, I argued, the church in America is, as a whole, failing miserably. Christians are known for a lot of things, but humility and self-sacrificial love, especially for enemies, isn’t among them. (Folks, it’s not in the top 100!)”