NRLC archive at Haemet

From the Anchorage Daily News, Palins’ child diagnosed with Down Syndrome

She and her husband, Todd, showed their new baby, Trig Paxson Van Palin, to a few reporters and photographers and answered questions about his condition and the sooner-than-expected delivery.

Trig has Down syndrome, a genetic abnormality that affects a child’s intellectual and physical development, the governor confirmed.

“When we first heard, it was kind of confusing,” Palin, 44, said. She called the revelation “very, very challenging” and said she initially felt sad.

But the family has worked through that. Palin said she and Todd feel blessed and chosen by God. With a big family including four older kids, grandparents, aunts and uncles, Palin said, they will have lots of support for what’s ahead. In their eyes, she said, “he’s absolutely perfect.”

This is a very well-written article about Palin’s baby and children with Down Syndrome in general. Instead of focusing exclusively on the challenges that come with DS, the author also emphasizes the blessings that can come from having such a special child.

It’s odd, I haven’t seen this mentioned on any of the news or blogs I follow on my reader, but rather I received it via email from Dave Andrusko, editor of the National Right to Life News, who puts out NRLC’s “Today’s News & Views” daily on their website and on an email list. I would highly recommend subscribing to N&V. Dave’s topics range from human interest stories to political happenings to pop culture - all relating to the pro-life movement.

What I found most interesting about this story was this:

Because of prenatal testing, most families now know beforehand, said Judy Waldron, president of the Alaska chapter of the National Down Syndrome Congress, a support and education group that delivered a parent packet to the Palins in the hospital.

“They anticipate it and they kind of relish the challenge of having a child with special needs,” said Waldron, an Anchorage teacher whose 19-year-old daughter, Lyn, has Down syndrome.

While it’s “no walk in the park,” the joys are great, she said. “Just the fact that they require such great effort to complete some simple tasks and that’s real rewarding.”

Todd Palin said the family has gotten a flood of supportive e-mail from families around the country with special-needs children. He said he’s playing it by ear as far as his North Slope job.

Some people call them “angel children,” straight from God, Waldron said. They are usually sweet-natured but can be ornery, like anyone.

Left unsaid is that because of ignorance and sometimes blatantly false or biased medical information, some 80% of families choose to abort their Down Syndrome baby because they don’t think they are up for the challenge of one of these “angel children”. Let this serve as a reminder of the importance of S. 1810, the Prenatally and Postnatally Diagnosed Condition Awareness Act.

After hearing about S. 1, “A bill to provide greater transparency in the legislative process,” from multiple reputable sources (American Family Association, the ACLJ, Focus on the Family, GrassrootsFreedom.com, and many more), I finally decided to look a little closer.

The first warning sign before even reading the bill is that it is sponsored by the wonderfully ethical Sen. Reid of Nevada and cosponsored by other stellar characters such as Durbin, Feinstein, Leahy, Schumer, Webb, and get this - Trent Lott. Two things about that surprise me: 1 - that there are not more Democratic cosponsors and 2 - Trent Lott?! I mean, seriously? Who is he trying to suck up to by siding with these liberals? I never really cared much about Lott until October of 2005 when I covered an International Socialist Organization meeting on campus about Hurricane Katrina for our conservative newspaper. As I recall, the leader said something to the effect of, “One positive effect of the hurricane was that Trent Lott’s home was destroyed. That’s one less racist!” Those socialists are so friendly, really. Anyway, after that I thought that Lott must be a decent guy. His co-sponsorship of this S. 1 has me questioning his decency.

Why is S. 1 such a big deal? Well, I definitely encourage you to check out all of those links and do some additional research if you still have questions. It appears that, as the AFA so aptly put it:

Basically these new rules were written to isolate pro-family and conservative Christian organizations. Large corporations (which spend millions in lobbying expenses) would be exempt. Communications aimed at an organization’s “members, employees, officers or shareholders” would be exempt. That means that groups such as the AFL-CIO, MoveOn.org, National Education Association and other organized groups would be exempt.

From the ACLJ,

This legislation will drastically affect the operation of churches that speak out on major moral and political issues and Christian organizations using TV, radio, or the Internet to mobilize citizens around an issue.

The increased government regulation of churches is not only unwarranted but also unwise.

What happens, under such a law, if pastors speak out and work against partial-birth abortion? Same-sex marriage?

What happens if churches speak out in support of conservative judicial nominees, or military chaplains’ right to pray?

Under such a law, they are classified as ”lobbyists” - in essence, free speech is forbidden.

Plus, many churches, especially larger churches with TV and radio ministries, would be subject to registration as a lobbying organization - and - failure to register under this new law could result in criminal prosecution - fines of up to $100,000, six years in prison - even ten years in some cases.

So, besides supporting the corrupt big lobbying firms that the lefties claim to hate while attacking the grassroots they claim to love, essentially, S. 1 eliminates free speech if the targeted audience is 500 people or more.

A few nights ago, Dr. Dobson of Focus on the Family was on Hannity & Colmes to talk about S. 1. I found this part of the transcript quite interesting:

DOBSON: Well, it’s just outrageous. You know, the Democrats promised more civility and more bipartisanship. And here they are, the very first piece of legislation to come along has a provision in it that would muffle and stifle organizations like ours when they simply attempt to communicate with the grassroots. And it is — yes, it is, you know, obviously a contradiction to the First Amendment, and it is unconscionable and we’re going to fight it.

HANNITY: And I read a lot of what you have said about it. More specifically, you fear that group like Focus could be subjected to $100,000 fine or more. But if you could articulate and specifically tell us the language that you believe would do this if, in fact, it passed. It reminds me a lot of the fairness doctrine that would silence conservative radio hosts, for example.

DOBSON: I think it has very much the same motive to it. And it not only deals with conservative organizations, but liberal ones, too. I can’t understand why the liberals aren’t yelling about this, because the essence of it is that, instead of just having to report as a nonprofit to the IRS, we would now have to report to the Senate every single telephone conversation that we have with any elected official.

HANNITY: That’s insane.

Insane is right. I really don’t have time to quote every single organization that has made a statement about S. 1, but obviously it is a big deal. The inevitable effects of this bill are truly appalling.

I would say that it is surprising that anyone on either side of the aisle could support a piece of legislation like this, but the Democrats are hypocritical enough that it isn’t surprising at all. They can preach free speech out one side of their mouth and put a hundred thousand dollar price on it with the other side.