Thump, Thump, Thump (sound of head banging against the wall)

Sigh --

At a town hall meeting Tuesday, a GOP voter posed a question McCain has heard everywhere from Sparks, Nev., to Dayton, Ohio: Why should Republicans support him?

"I think I speak for a lot of conservatives when I say I'm not very excited about this election," the questioner said, noting that he differs with McCain on issues including "amnesty" for illegal immigrants and the senator's support for "the global warming crowd's agenda."

But rather than rattle off his most conservative positions -- his opposition to abortion and support for the war -- he launched into a long explanation of his role in a compromise on judges, something that conservatives often criticize him for.

He sparked applause from the Republican audience by mentioning his support for conservative Supreme Court Justices John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr., but he then noted that he had backed liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer as well.

McCain finished off what was supposed to be an explanation of why conservatives should back him with a pledge to push for a cleaner planet.

"I've stood up against my party many times," he said, "because I've done what I thought was right."

-- Washington Post, July 31, 2008

And you wonder why I think the guy is a disaster.

If it is simply a matter of us against them, we lose.

Someone on another site recently wrote -- "Pro-lifers will win. I'm convinced of it."

That is wrong, wrong, wrong. Disasterously wrong.

Pro-lifers are NOT going to win. Present-day pro-choicers are going to win -- but they will win it for the pro-life side.

To get into this whole idea and talk of pro-lifers defeating pro-choicers/pro-aborts is a guaranteed losing strategy. Such talk implicitly adopts a static, set-in-concrete, us-against-them worldview.

The problem is that there are more of them than there are of us - even with us having babies. There are more of them, and they have more power and resources. As such, pro-lifers will never defeat the pro-choicers/pro-aborts.

The only way to win is, not to defeat them, but to convert them -- and there is a BIG difference between the two. The war will be won for the pro-life side only by present-day pro-choicers being converted over to our side, i.e. by becoming pro-life. The war will be won for the pro-life side only when present-day pro-choicers demand an end to abortion, etc. It is only when THEY demand it, not when we demand it, but only when present-day pro-choicers demand an end, will abortion, etc. stop.

And one day they will. But not when we continue to think of their views as forever set in stone (even the views of someone like Obama). But not when the strategy is not to convert them, but to beat them down and defeat them. That only strengthens their resolve and ensures our own defeat.

What Would Jesus Do?

So Barack Obama goes to the Western Wall and puts a written prayer in one of the cracks. Someone later comes by, retrieves the prayer, and gives it to the media for publication. A few folks were outraged by this apparent invasion of privacy. But there are indications and suspicions that the Obama people themselves were responsible for the prayer being given to the press. Indeed, there are reports that a copy of the prayer was directly and openly given to the press by the campaign. So, now, there is outrage at the politization of prayer.

What is worse in my estimation, far worse, is the Obama camp’s use of campaign posters and banners at the Western Wall, which is not merely some prayer spot, but is part of the wall of the Temple Mount, which until the Incarnation of Jesus was deemed to be the holiest place on earth.

Such defamation of the grounds surrounding what used to be the Temple used to be pretty serious business. I seem to recall Jesus Himself getting rather ticked off about it.

So if the Obama camp could desecrate holy ground with their campaign rally signs, I’m sure that they could use a prayer to God as a political ploy. Sacrilege and blasphemy go hand in hand.

Cindy is the hero in the adoption of daughter Bridget, not John

At the risk of raining all over John McCain, yet again, let me suggest that the pro-McCain people pushing the episode about the adoption of Bridget does not necessarily prove his virtuous character, much less pro-life bona fides, as much as some folks have advocated.

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed entitled, Getting to Know John McCain, Karl Rove reports that

in 1991 Cindy McCain was visiting Mother Teresa's orphanage in Bangladesh when a dying infant was thrust into her hands. The orphanage could not provide the medical care needed to save her life, so Mrs. McCain brought the child home to America with her. She was met at the airport by her husband, who asked what all this was about.

Mrs. McCain replied that the child desperately needed surgery and years of rehabilitation. "I hope she can stay with us," she told her husband. Mr. McCain agreed. Today that child is their teenage daughter Bridget."

Accordingly, Gateway Pundit declares, "Obama Talks About Lifting a Child In Bangladesh From Poverty... John McCain Already Did" Well, the truth is, not really. It was Cindy who brought Bridget home. It was Cindy who brought Nicki to America. It was Cindy McCain who lifted these children from poverty, not John McCain.

Newsweek's story on Cindy McCain gives a few more details:

In 1984 Cindy was on a scuba-diving trip in Micronesia when a friend was injured and had to be taken to the hospital. She was sickened by the filthy conditions in the ER: "There were cats in the operating room and rats everywhere," she says. When she returned home, she began collecting medical supplies and sending them to the hospital. "Finally, the hospital called and said, really what we need is a good orthopedic surgeon," she says. "So I called some friends and we planned a trip … I don't know what made me do it."

She named her charity the American Voluntary Medical Team. In 1991, she camped in the Kuwait desert five days after the end of the gulf war to take medical supplies to refugees. That same year, she visited Mother Teresa's orphanage in Dhaka, Bangladesh, where she saw 160 newborn girls who had been abandoned. The nuns handed her a small baby with a cleft palate so severe that the infant couldn't be fed. Another baby, also just a few weeks old, had a heart defect. Worried they would die without medical attention, Cindy applied for visas to take the girls back to the United States. But the country's minister of Health refused to sign the papers. "We can do surgery on this child," an official told her. Frustrated, Cindy slammed her fist on the table. "Then do it! What are you waiting for?" The official, stunned, simply signed the papers. "I don't know where I got the nerve," Cindy told Harper's Bazaar.

When she arrived in Phoenix, she carried the baby with the cleft palate off the plane. Her husband met her at the airport. He looked at the baby. "Where is she going?" he asked her. "To our house," she replied. They adopted the little girl and named her Bridget. Family friends adopted the other little girl.

That says a great deal about Cindy's compassion and virtues. As for John? Both Karl Rove's WSJ op/ed and the Newsweek story make clear that John knew absolutely nothing about Bridget's existence, much less her plight, until Cindy carried her off the plane, and he had absolutely nothing to do with bringing the children to the United States. It was all Cindy, Cindy, Cindy.

Now, it is a very admirable thing that he did say "yes" when his wife went to the trouble of bringing the girls home. But could he realistically have said "no" to her when Cindy had already told him that Bridget was going home to their house? Yes, he gets credit for acquiescing in Cindy's wishes, but Cindy is the real hero here.

As for who raised young Bridget after John agreed to her adoption --

"For most of the 20 years we've been married, he's been in Washington all week while I'm in Arizona with the kids," she told The New York Times. . . . [After Cindy suffered a stroke in 2004,] she fretted about who would take care of her kids. Her friend Sharon Harper told her she should leave town and focus on recovering. That summer, Cindy moved to San Diego, and rented a condo on Coronado Island. Friends looked after her sons and young Bridget.

Again, it has been Cindy for the most part playing the hero at home, being the one taking care of the kids, Cindy and Cindy's friends, while John has been "wrapped up too much in Washington and [his] ambitions" (John McCain's words, not mine).

OK, maybe I suffer from John McCain Derangement Syndrome. Maybe I am totally irrational and my dislike for him is so great that I can never admit to any good that he has done (at least since returning from Vietnam), and maybe folks are sick and tired of me being a "maverick" against the McCain love train and always bad-mouthing McCain -- maybe that is all true. But in any event, it is Cindy who is to be admired on this count. She's the one who deserves the credit.

NYT rejects another inffective attack by McCain on Bush and Obama

So the New York Times has refused to print a rebuttal by John McCain to a prior opinion piece by Barack Obama, which the Times did see fit to print.

This action by the Times IS dangerously outrageous. Dangerous that the powerful MSM (and they are still powerful) could have so much say as to when someone gets heard or is kept silent.

At the same time, the opinion piece by McCain(’s staff) is, once again, little more than (a) McCain egotistically pushing his resume, as if he has been the only one with the answers, while once again enthusiastically jumping on the MSM bandwagon of bashing Bush with “mission accomplished”, and (b) McCain critiquing Obama. In the entire piece, McCain devotes only a couple of sentences to what he would do, what his plans are. But that is consistent with much of his campaign, which more and more appears to have only three prongs — attack Bush and attack Obama while pushing his resume.

Rarely, if ever, to we get a simple statement of philosophy or advocacy for some policy, and only such a simple statement, e.g. “we should do this . . . and we should do that . . .” Instead, the main focus is always on the narcissistic personal, “me good, they bad.”

What is McCain’s over-arching philosophy for the Middle East? What is his overall philosophy and strategy for combating and defeating terrorism beyond “stay in Iraq and Afghanistan until we decide to leave”? I don’t know. I have no clue. McCain’s maverick, ad hoc, “do whatever he feels like doing today” approach to everything gives me absolutely no indication of what his comprehensive geopolitical worldview is.

Clearly he does not subscribe to the Wolfowitz-Rumsfeld-Cheney strategy of destablizing and eventually conquering Islamic extremism and oppressive Islamic countries by boldly and audaciously planting a seed of Western-style freedom right in the middle of Islamodom. And I suppose that he does not subscribe to the Dem strategy of cut-and-run-and-hide-under-our-beds. But what is his philosophy and/or strategy? I dunno. “Peace with honor”? “Declare victory” and slink home? Some other throwback to the Vietnam era? I don’t know. And perhaps McCain doesn’t know either.

Farewell to a Good Man

.

Tony Snow, Political Commentator and Former White House Press Secretary, Dies at 53
Saturday, July 12, 2008

Tony Snow, the former White House press secretary and conservative pundit who bedeviled the press corps and charmed millions as a FOX News television and radio host, died Saturday after a long bout with cancer. He was 53.

A syndicated columnist, editor, TV anchor, radio show host and musician, Snow worked in nearly every medium in a career that spanned more than 30 years.

"Laura and I are deeply saddened by the death of our dear friend Tony Snow," President Bush said in a written statement. "The Snow family has lost a beloved husband and father. And America has lost a devoted public servant and a man of character."

Snow died at 2 a.m. Saturday at Georgetown University Hospital in Washington, D.C. * * *



His tenure at the White House lasted 17 months and was interrupted by his second bout with cancer.

Snow had his colon removed and underwent six months of chemotherapy after he was diagnosed with colon cancer in 2005. In 2007 he announced his cancer had recurred and spread to his liver, and he had a malignant growth removed from his abdominal area.

He resigned from the White House six months later, in September 2007 * * * At the White House, Snow brought partisan zeal and the skills of a seasoned performer to the task of explaining and defending the president's policies. During daily briefings he challenged reporters, scolded them and questioned their motives as if he were starring in a TV show broadcast live from the West Wing.

"The White House has lost a great friend and a great colleague," said Perino in a statement released to the media. "We all loved watching him at the podium, but most of all we learned how to love our families and treat each other." * * *

A sometime fill-in host for Rush Limbaugh, Snow said he loved the intimacy of his radio audience.

"I don't think you ever arrive," he said. "I think anybody who thinks they've arrived or made it, anywhere in the media — they're nuts."

Robert Anthony Snow was born June 1, 1955, in Berea, Ky., the son of a teacher and nurse. He graduated from Davidson College in 1977 with a bachelor's degree in philosophy, and he taught briefly in Kenya before embarking on his journalism career.

Because of his love for writing, Snow took a job as an editorial writer for the Greensboro Record in North Carolina and went on to run the editorial pages at the Newport News (Virginia) Daily Press, Detroit News and Washington Times. He became a nationally syndicated columnist, and in 1991 he became director of speechwriting for President George H.W. Bush.

"He served people, and we can learn from that. He was kind, and we can learn from that. He was just a good person," the senior Bush told FOX News. * * *

Snow is survived by his wife, Jill Ellen Walker, whom he married in 1987; their son, Robbie; and daughters, Kendall and Kristi.

Tony Snow Speaks About Life

Tony Snow later said that cancer was "the best thing that ever happened to me" because it brought him closer to his wife, Jill, and their three school-age children and made him appreciate what was really important in life. He was forced to think about the eternal things in a new way. He became an advocate for positive attitude and not letting cancer take over one's life.

In an interview with David Gregory, Tony Snow said "God put us on earth to help each other."

And, "when you die, you graduate."
.

The Character of John McCain

When did I begin to have such antipathy toward McCain?

It started back in early 2000. Actually, during that election season, I was open to supporting him and backing him for president. That's because I did not know that much about him except for his claim to be a conservative and his POW experience. But as I watched his conduct and remarks in the 2000 campaign, including listening live to his melt-down with on the Michael Reagan radio show, I began to oppose and then dislike the man. His opposition to overturning Roe played a big part. His paranoid-schizophrenic behavior played a part.

Also playing a part was learning, back in 2000, about how he dumped his faithful first wife -- the heroic first wife who remained faithful and diligently worked for his return when he was a prisoner of war. In return for first wife Carol's steadfast love and fidelity, John McCain gave her repeated adulteries and infidelities, before finally dumping her overboard into the ocean like refuse in favor of a newer, younger, prettier babe. (And if you read the Newsweek article on second wife Cindy, you will see that McCain has often treated her with abandonment and distain as well.)

This much I already knew about John McCain, and such dishonorable and contemptable behavior is enough to disqualify him to any authentic defender of marriage and family values. Now, the Los Angeles Times has picked up the story.
.

America

Land of the free for those who seek to destroy her and land of the oppressed for those who wish to preserve and save her?

.

The Crisis -- The Judiciary, the Left, and Islamic Terrorism

THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. . . .

I have as little superstition in me as any man living, but my secret opinion has ever been, and still is, that God Almighty will not give up a people to military destruction, or leave them unsupportedly to perish, who have so earnestly and so repeatedly sought to avoid the calamities of war, by every decent method which wisdom could invent. . . .

I call not upon a few, but upon all: not on this state or that state, but on every state: up and help us; lay your shoulders to the wheel; better have too much force than too little, when so great an object is at stake. Let it be told to the future world, that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive, that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet and to repulse it. . . .

It matters not where you live, or what rank of life you hold, the evil or the blessing will reach you all. The far and the near, the home counties and the back, the rich and the poor, will suffer or rejoice alike. The heart that feels not now is dead; the blood of his children will curse his cowardice, who shrinks back at a time when a little might have saved the whole, and made them happy. I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.

My own line of reasoning is to myself as straight and clear as a ray of light. Not all the treasures of the world, so far as I believe, could have induced me to support an offensive war, for I think it murder; but if a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to "bind me in all cases whatsoever" to his absolute will, am I to suffer it? What signifies it to me, whether he who does it is a king or a common man; my countryman or not my countryman; whether it be done by an individual villain, or an army of them? If we reason to the root of things we shall find no difference; neither can any just cause be assigned why we should punish in the one case and pardon in the other.

Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul by swearing allegiance to one whose character is that of a sottish, stupid, stubborn, worthless, brutish man, [such as those on the Supreme Court]. I conceive likewise a horrid idea in receiving mercy from a being, who at the last day shall be shrieking to the rocks and mountains to cover him, and fleeing with terror from the orphan, the widow, and the slain of America.

There are cases which cannot be overdone by language, and this is one. There are persons, too, who see not the full extent of the evil which threatens them; they solace themselves with hopes that the enemy, if he succeed, will be merciful. It is the madness of folly, to expect mercy from those who have refused to do justice; and even mercy, where conquest is the object, is only a trick of war; the cunning of the fox is as murderous as the violence of the wolf, and we ought to guard equally against both. . . .

This is our situation, and who will may know it. By perseverance and fortitude we have the prospect of a glorious issue; by cowardice and submission, the sad choice of a variety of evils -- a ravaged country -- a depopulated city -- habitations without safety, and slavery without hope. . . . Look on this picture and weep over it! and if there yet remains one thoughtless wretch who believes it not, let him suffer it unlamented.

COMMON SENSE.
.

Authentic Freedom of Choice

Why is it that "pro-choicers" and advocates of a "woman's right to choose" so adamently oppose authentic freedom of choice? For a choice to be freely made, it must necessarily be an informed choice, not a decision made in ignorance or, worse yet, misinformation. It must be made knowingly, intelligently, and willfully, with a full understanding of the nature and consequences of the choice and the action to be taken. Without such information, such as the living and human nature of the unborn in the womb, a decision such as whether to abort, and thereby terminate the life of that unborn, is made blindly, and to willfully and purposely withhold such information from the one making such choice and taking such action is to deprive her of the ability to make a free choice, it is to oppress her, not respect her liberty or autonomy. This is simple commonsense, and a court has FINALLY upheld the principle. --


Mike Rounds, Governor, et al. v. Planned Parenthood Minnesota, et al.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, No. 05-3093 (en banc)
June 27, 2008

The Governor and Attorney General of South Dakota ("the State"), along with the intervenor crisis pregnancy centers, appeal the district court's preliminary injunction preventing the 2005 version of South Dakota's statute regulating informed consent to abortion from becoming effective. For the reasons discussed below, we vacate the preliminary injunction and remand to the district court for further proceedings.

I.

In 2005, South Dakota enacted House Bill 1166 ("the Act"), amending the requirements for obtaining informed consent to an abortion as codified in S.D.C.L. § 34-23A-10.1. Section 7 of the Act requires the performing physician to provide certain information to the patient as part of obtaining informed consent prior to an abortion procedure and to certify that he or she believes the patient understands the information.

* * *

In addition, § 8(4) of the Act amended S.D.C.L. § 34-23A-1 to define "Human being" for the purposes of the informed-consent-to-abortion statute as "an individual living member of the species of Homo sapiens, including the unborn human being during the entire embryonic and fetal ages from fertilization to full gestation." A physician who violates the Act knowingly or in reckless disregard is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor. S.D.C.L. § 34-23A-10.2.

* * *

In June 2005, Planned Parenthood moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent the Act from taking effect as scheduled on July 1, 2005. In support of the argument that §§ 7(1)(b)-(d) would violate physicians' free speech rights by compelling them to deliver the State's ideological message, rather than truthful and non-misleading information relevant to informed consent to abortion, Planned Parenthood's evidence consisted solely of affidavits from Dr. Ball and bioethicist Paul Root Wolpe, Ph.D. In her affidavit, Dr. Ball described her professional background, including a board certification in obstetrics and gynecology. Without elaboration, Dr. Ball stated that the disclosures in §§ 7(1)(b)-(d) "are statements of ideology and opinion, not medicine or fact." Ball Aff. P 2. Dr. Ball also stated that she would be unable to clarify the disclosures upon a patient's request, as required by § 7, "because these are not medical statements or facts that I am trained as a Medical Doctor to address." Id. P 4. The affidavit made no reference to the Act's definition of "human being" in § 8(4).

Dr. Wolpe's affidavit included a curriculum vitae detailing his expertise in "the area of ideology in medicine and bioethics." Wolpe Aff. P 1. Dr. Wolpe stated that the proposition "that from the moment of conception, an embryo or fetus is a 'whole, separate, unique, living human being' . . . is not a scientific or medical fact, nor is there a scientific or medical consensus to that effect." Id. PP 2, 3. Dr. Wolpe further averred that "to describe an embryo or fetus scientifically and factually, one would say that a living embryo or fetus in utero is a developing organism of the species Homo Sapiens which may become a self-sustaining member of the species if no organic or environmental incident interrupts its gestation." Id. P 6.

In its opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction, the State introduced portions of the Act's legislative history and several affidavits. The legislative history includes testimony from several women who had obtained abortions in South Dakota and felt their decisions would have been better informed if they had received from their abortion providers the information required by § 7. In addition, the legislative history includes testimony from experts such as Marie Peeters-Ney, M.D., a physician and geneticist, explaining the scientific basis for the disclosure required by § 7(1)(b) that "the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being." Dr. Peeters-Ney testified that use of the term "human being" was accurate because:

Becoming a member of our species is conferred immediately upon conception. At the moment of conception a human being with 46 chromosomes comes into existence. These chromosomes, the organization, the chromosomal pattern is specifically human. The RNA, the messenger protein, the proteins are distinctly human proteins. So this new human being is a member of our species, and humanity is not acquired sometime along the path, it occurs right at conception.

Senate State Affairs Comm. Hearing at 25. Dr. Peeters-Ney also stated that an embryo or fetus is whole in the sense that "[a]ll the genetic information sufficient and necessary to mature, and the information that is needed for this human being's entire life is present at the time of conception"; that it is "separate from the mother" because "[t]he genetic program is totally complete and this human being will mature according to his or her own program"; and that it is unique because it has "a totally unique genetic code." Id. at 25-26.

The State augmented the points raised in the legislative history with eight affidavits from medical experts and eight from women who had undergone abortions or worked at crisis pregnancy centers. For example, David Fu-Chi Mark, Ph.D., a molecular biologist employed in the pharmaceutical industry, stated that the Act's definition of "human being" as an "'individual living member of the species Homo sapiens,' including human beings living in utero, makes it clear that the statement under [§ 7(1)(b)] is stated as a scientific fact and nothing more. As such, it is truthful and scientifically accurate." Mark Aff. P 1. The affidavit described in detail the DNA and RNA science supporting the accuracy of the statement. Similarly, Bruce Carlson, M.D., Ph.D., a professor of medicine and author of a widely used textbook on human embryology, stated that "[t]he post implantation human embryo is a distinct individual human being, a complete separate member of the species Homo sapiens, and is recognizable as such." Carlson Aff. PP 1, 5.

* * *

In Planned Parenthood of Southeast Pennsylvania v. Casey, the Supreme Court held that "a requirement that a doctor give a woman certain information as part of obtaining her consent to an abortion" implicates a physician's First Amendment right not to speak, "but only as part of the practice of medicine, subject to reasonable licensing and regulation by the State." 505 U.S. 833, 884, 112 S. Ct. 2791, 120 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1992) (plurality opinion). However, the Court found no violation of the physician's right not to speak, without need for further analysis of whether the requirements were narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, id., where physicians merely were required to give "truthful, nonmisleading information" relevant to the patient's decision to have an abortion, id. at 882. * * * Furthermore, the fact that the information "might cause the woman to choose childbirth over abortion" did not render the provisions unconstitutional. Id. at 883.

* * *

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 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 v. Carhart, 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. Indeed, Dr. Wolpe's affidavit, submitted by Planned Parenthood, states that "to describe an embryo or fetus scientifically and factually, one would say that a living embryo or fetus in utero is a developing organism of the species Homo Sapiens which may become a self-sustaining member of the species if no organic or environmental incident interrupts its gestation." Wolpe Aff. P 6. This statement appears to support the State's evidence on the biological underpinnings of § 7(1)(b) and the associated statutory definition. Planned Parenthood's only other evidence, Dr. Ball's affidavit, ignores the statutory definition of "human being." Finally, this biological information about the fetus is at least as relevant to the patient's decision to have an abortion as the gestational age of the fetus, which was deemed to be relevant in Casey. See 505 U.S. at 882. As a result, Planned Parenthood cannot meet even the less rigorous requirement to show a fair chance of prevailing, much less the more rigorous requirement applicable here to show that it is likely to prevail, on the merits of its claim that the disclosure required by § 7(1)(b) is untruthful, misleading or not relevant to the decision to have an abortion. See Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972, 117 S. Ct. 1865, 138 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1997) (per curiam) (emphasizing that a preliminary injunction "should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion" and presents proof even more substantial than that required on a motion for summary judgment) (quotation omitted).

* * *

Given Planned Parenthood's failure to produce sufficient evidence to establish that it is likely to prevail on the merits of its compelled speech claim, we need not address the remaining Dataphase factors. In summary, the district court abused its discretion by failing to give effect to the statutory definition of "human being" in § 8(4) of the Act. Planned Parenthood's evidence at the preliminary injunction stage does not establish a likelihood of proving that, with the definition incorporated, the disclosure required by § 7(1)(b) is anything but truthful, non-misleading and relevant to the patient's decision to have an abortion, and thus "part of the practice of medicine, subject to reasonable licensing and regulation by the State." Casey, 505 U.S. at 884. Accordingly, we vacate the preliminary injunction entered on compelled speech grounds by the district court. * * *

The larger question, raised by the implications of this decision, is whether the decision could be a vehicle by which to affirm in law the personhood of the unborn, or at least to, once and for all, torpedo Roe's reliance on "philosophy" and "theology," rather than scientific fact, to deny that the entity in the womb is a living and separate and distinct human being.

.