By: Amy Lutz

I think I’m having an identity crisis. When the news that Mitt Romney had selected Paul Ryan as his Vice Presidential running-mate broke late Friday night, I was ecstatic. However, according to NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, I reacted inappropriately because Ryan is “not a pick for women.” Now I’m confused. I’m a woman, yet still borderline giddy with excitement about the pick. I mean, have you seen Paul Ryan? But I digress… In all seriousness, I believe Mitt Romney made a strong, wise pick in Representative Ryan and his selection will bring the discussion back to the appropriate focal point: the economy. However, according to Andrea Mitchell and all the liberals who claim that the so-called ”War on Women” comes from the Right, I must be doing something wrong.

Not wanting to betray my gender, I decided to look a bit further into why exactly Paul Ryan is not a good pick for women. Mitchell claimed that Ryan’s opposition to both abortion and Obamacare place him in opposition to my gender. Think Progress continued along the same line of reasoning when they posted “5 Reasons Why Paul Ryan is Bad for Women’s Health” on Monday. The reasons included:

1. Ryan’s support of a “Personhood Amendment” which would give a fetus legal rights.
2. His opposition to all forms of abortion.
3. His desire to ban abortion coverage from state Obamacare exchanges.
4. Ryan’s comment comparing Roe v. Wade to the Dred Scott Decision.
5. His support of defunding Planned Parenthood.

Please Read More At The College Conservative 

By: Amy Lutz

I guess it’s time for women to duck and cover, at least according to the mainstream media. For months now, left leaning news sources and politicians have been preaching the existence of the GOP’s “War on Women.” In actuality, it’s nothing but a blatant attempt to pander to women voters. Under the liberal version of “war,” Republicans have been busy targeting women by “denying” us free birth control, aiming to restrict abortion, and defunding Planned Parenthood. However, if that’s what war means these days, then call me a pacifist. Fighting against a socially liberal agenda isn’t exactly the textbook definition of war. However, that does not mean there isn’t another version of “war” going on in our society against women. The real “War on Women” is a horse of a different color, and it’s not coming from the GOP. 
Please read more at The College Conservative

By: Amy Lutz

A few weeks ago, President Obama made headlines with his “flexibility” comment to President Medvedev of Russia, claiming that he would have more freedom to “get things done” after he is reelected in November. Well, that is if the election goes according to his plan. While “flexibility” is now synonymous with the arrogance shown by our Commander-in-Chief in Russia, I believe that there is a different sort of “flexibility” we should be worried about, a kind perhaps even graver than what Obama said to Medvedev.

Rather, liberals tend to be more “flexible” on their definition of “rights,” than those on the right, putting our personal liberties at stake. It’s clear that conservatives and liberals have different conceptions of “rights.” Conservatives tend to adhere to the natural law conception that rights are either given by God or inherent in all humans. Either way, they are unalienable and irrevocable. This tethers the rights to a stable foundation. How can anyone take something away that has been so deeply ingrained into humanity? This gives us a sense of security in our rights and protects against the selfish passions which prey upon people in power.

The liberal conception of rights, however, tends to be one of “flexibility.” It seems like every week, they are “creating” a new right. Congratulations America, you now have the “right” to healthcare, housing, proper food, etc. Yet, where do these rights come from? Often they are simply the product of political opportunism. Thus, they are not tethered to anything solid and can be easily revoked. Laws protect rights and should be solid. We must be able to have faith in our legal system. Without this common sense of adherence to law, the legal system is inefficient.

Please Read more at The Blaze

Christianity and the Intolerant Left
By: Amy Lutz

You know what I don’t like?  Tolerance. Ok, no I’m not opposed to the idea of accepting and respecting everyone. I’m opposed to the word “tolerance” itself, for it has become nothing but a politically correct tool in the hands of intolerant leftists. Yes, intolerant leftists.

For many liberals today, the word “tolerance” does not mean what it is intended to mean. Rather, it means being “tolerant” of everything…except things that disagree with the liberal ideology. When liberals preach “tolerance” under the guise of Christianity, it is particularly frustrating. While many liberals claim to be preaching the “words of Jesus,” they scoff at Christians who still support ideas like traditional marriage and the sanctity of life. Of course, both of these issues are core values in the Christian ideology. God forbid Christians have the “audacity” to follow the tenets of their faith. Liberals accuse conservative Christians of using their religion to revoke women’s “right to choose” or gays’ “civil rights.” They scoff at the “vast right-wing conspiracy” of conservative Christians set to enslave the world with their “outdated” values. Yeah right.

Please read more at The College Conservative
Not Just a Blob of Cells
By: Amy Lutz
When I was nine years old, my little brother Tony was born, but I got to know him long before his birth on October 10, 2000.  Months earlier, I caught a glimpse of him for the first time, when I saw my growing little brother in a black and white sonogram picture.

Months before his birth, I could feel nothing but love for him.  I felt an eternal connection with him long before I held him in my arms.  By witnessing such purity in a child yet unscathed by the turbulent world, it was impossible not to see a glimmer of hope for the future.  In a world that seems increasingly backward and hopeless, it’s nice to know that untainted goodness and innocence are still possible.Please read more on The College Conservative


By: Amy Lutz
I would like to post exactly what this health care plan means for abortions in this country:

*Here is a full transcript of HR 3590, the bill passed on Sunday:

I personally have read the sections regarding abortion (sec. 1303 specifically) and plan to finish the entire bill at some point.

*The National Right to Life Committee recently released an analysis of HR 3590 and it was updated on March 18. I recommend that the entire article as well as the NRLC's letter to Congress be read.

Here are the basic points of the article:
-The bill provides will allow direct federal funding for about 1250 community health centers. This provision (The Manager's Amendment) was added near the end of debate and Harry Reid immediately filed a cloture petition that limited debate on the provision. 
*There is no current legislation to prevent CHCs from performing abortions (except for the Hyde agreement to be discussed later). 
-The Manager's Amendment allocates $7 billion to the Community Health Centers.(Sec. 10503) Because these funds come directly from the health care bill, the funds will not be attached to the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services. Therefore, a loophole exists because the funds are not covered under the Hyde Amendment. 
*The Hyde Amendment is a provision attached to the annual bill that prevents federal funds to be allocated to abortion (except to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape and incest)
-"There is already an organized effort underway by the Reproductive Health Access Project to encourage Community Health Centers to perform abortions, 'as an integrated part of primary health care.'” (http://www.reproductiveaccess.org/getting_started/faq.htm)
-President Obama recommended the $7 billion to increase to $11 billion on February 22
-Although CHCs do not provide a large amount of abortions, the Reproductive Health Access Project (RHAP) is campaigning to increase the availability of abortions in CHCs. They suggest that practitioners mention to patients the availability of abortion services during individual examinations, which is in no way illegal.
-CHCs receive about 2/3 of their funds from the annual appropriations bill; therefore, they will still receive funds from outside sources that can potentially be used to provide abortions. 
-Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, receives millions of dollars from the annual appropriations bill. How it bypasses the Hyde Amendment, I am not entirely sure. Even if the funds are not directly allocated to abortion, this seems a little unconstitutional to me.
-There is nothing in the bill that specifically prevents any funds from being directed at abortion.

*The letter to the House of Representatives from the National Right to Life Committee provides more examples. The full text can be found here: http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/HouseLetteronAbortionProvisions.html

*The National Organization for Women is pursuing a repeal of the Hyde Amendment

*Regarding the Executive Order issued by President Obama to keep federal funds from being allocated to abortion: (http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/03/21/obama-executive-order-on-abortion-funding/) and (http://lungren.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=608&Itemid=86)
-Section 3 references the allocation of funds to CHCs, but restates that federal funds cannot be allocated for abortion under EXISTING law such as the Hyde Amendment. Again, since the $7 billion (or $11 billion) allocated for CHCs bypasses the Hyde Law, the executive order does nothing to change that. 
-Executive orders cannot override statutory law. Therefore, this morning when Obama signed HR 3590 into law, the executive order became almost completely null and void.
-Supreme Court precedence has proven that executive orders have been struck down in the past if they impeded statutory law. 
-An Executive Order cannot prevent insurance companies that pay for abortions from participating in the exchanges.
-Although Obama will probably not rescind the Executive Order in the near future, it still remains a possibility. Any of his successors can also rescind it if they so choose. I personally do not want an important issue such as abortion to depend on the whims of a single politician. 

So far, I have read parts of HR 3590, but not all. I will admit that the bill is confusing, difficult to read, and written almost completely in legal jargon so who knows exactly what is in it.