Rome News

CNN anchor Anderson Cooper conducted a five-minute long interview of Diane Elder, a woman who decided to let her infant daughter live despite her severe genetic defects, during his program on Tuesday evening. The interview came about after Elder wrote Cooper after watching a similar interview he conducted the previous night of Lynda Waddington, a ?Spro-choice? blogger for the Huffington Post and RH Reality Check, who decided to have a late-term abortion herself (the anchor did not mention Waddington?"s left-wing affiliations during the interview). (audio clips from the interview available here)

On Wednesday afternoon, the network?"s ?SSituation Room? program played an extended clip from the interview, which followed an additional segment with a different parent whose twins were aborted late-term at the hands of murdered abortionist George Tiller. During this second interview, the father of the twins described how Tiller had the two babies ?Swrapped up in a baby?"s blanket? and how the abortionist ?Sbaptized them.? Despite the two-to-one imbalance in the segments, CNN did at least try to balance the segments with the two supporters of late-term abortion with that of the interview of Elder.

During the interview with Cooper, Elder described her experiences during the four months after she found out that her daughter had Trisomy 18, a severe genetic disorder, and during the half-day that she shared with her daughter, whom she named Angela. Despite all the hardships that she and her family endured, Elder recounted how after her daughter was born, ?Swe were very taken aback when we found that, when she was placed in our arms, we were happy. We were- we were incredibly happy. And my husband was with me. A lot of family and friends showed up right after the birth. She was passed around from arm to- from arms to arms.? Cooper dealt with the subject very sensitively, and thanked her for her strength at the end of the interview.

The full transcript of Cooper interview?"s interview of Diane Elder, which began 20 minutes into the 10 pm Eastern hour of Tuesday?"s ?SAnderson Cooper 360? program:

ANDERSON COOPER: Diane Elder chose not to have an abortion, even though, medically and legally, she had every right to. She joins us now, and Diane, thanks so much for being with us. You actually sent me an e-mail earlier today because of- of an interview you read that we had on last night. We had a woman on who, in the 20- 20th or 21st week, chose to have a late-term abortion, because her baby had a severe- severe genetic defect. You had a similar situation. You made a different choice. Why?

DIANE ELDER, CHOSE NOT TO HAVE LATE-TERM ABORTION: Because I wanted my baby to have a natural death. I did not want my child to die at my hands. She-

COOPER: What did your baby have?

ELDER: My baby had a- had a syndrome called Trisomy 18, which is a very severe chromosomal abnormality that is incompatible with life. That?"s what -- that?"s the phrase doctors used to me.

COOPER: And you found this out what- at what stage of the pregnancy?

ELDER: I was somewhere in the fifth month of pregnancy.

COOPER: And, obviously, I mean, it?"s devastating news.

ELDER: It was devastating. I found out on Mother?"s Day, and all I can remember is collapsing to the floor, because I had been trying for this baby for a very long time. So, it felt like a cruel- almost a cruel joke to me that this happened. And so, I- I went forward with the pregnancy another four months, probably the most difficult four months of my life. We were prepared for basically a- a monster, because we were told she was going to not have a brain, and she was going to have possibly cleft palate, club feet, and she was born with all those things. She was born missing part of her brain. She had one club foot, one rocker-bottom foot. She had just everything that goes along with that condition, which is- is bad.

But we were very taken aback when we found that, when she was placed in our arms, we were happy. We were- we were incredibly happy. And my husband was with me. A lot of family and friends showed up right after the birth. She was passed around from arm to- from arms to arms. I told the hospital I did not want any extraordinary measures taken, because I wanted what happened to her to be natural. I didn?"t want to try to- to force her to stay alive with needles and tubes, if that would cause her pain and just prolong a very difficult life. But I didn?"t want to kill her either. So, I just decided to completely turn myself over to nature and let it take its course, and the resolution was really a very good resolution. She- she never suffered.

COOPER: How long did she live?

ELDER: Twelve hours. The nurse woke me up at 5 am, and said, ??Diane, I think you might want to get up now. The baby?"s having trouble breathing, and this might be her time, and she put Angela into my arms.

COOPER: You named her?

ELDER: Yes, Angela- Angela Diane Elder, and Angela looked- it was funny, because she was able to make eye contact with me, and it seemed as though she were looking into my eyes. I could hear her breath becoming more and more shallow, sort of a rattling breath, and then she took two large breaths, and then a very large breath, literally sat up, and then fell back, and she was gone. And it was a very difficult moment, even at this time.

COOPER: Do you- do you regret it, looking back on it?

ELDER: Not in one- not one minute of it. She died peacefully, with no pain. The suffering was ours. For two weeks, of course, at least two weeks, really a whole year, we were in mourning for her, as you would grieve over any loved one who dies. That?"s a normal part of life. You can?"t get away from the fact that- that people die and people get sick, and they die. And- but we felt very clean when it was over, and- and as though the situation was- there was closure. There was a resolution, and-

COOPER: Obviously, other women, other families in that situation make different choices.

ELDER: Right.

COOPER: Do you believe that- that women should have the right to make that choice?

ELDER: When a baby is a fully formed, living baby, I don?"t think that, really, we have ever had the choice to- to take a life at that stage. I think that- that?"s a -- that?"s a fully-formed baby. I mean, I think you had some of the pictures up there, and you saw her. She?"s a fully-formed baby. She was born early, by the way. She came out at eight months.

COOPER: And, when you heard about Dr. Tiller?"s death, your thought?

ELDER: Oh, I think that was awful. No one has the right to do that, particularly not someone who considers themselves to be an advocate for life. How can they take another life? It?"s inexcusable.

COOPER: Well, I- I appreciate you coming on and talking about this. I know it?"s not easy, and I appreciate you writing the e-mail to me and- and that we were able to have you on today. Thank you very much.

ELDER: Thank you so much.

COOPER: Thanks. Thanks for your strength.

ELDER: All right.?

While Wal-Mart is bent on maximizing returns for its shareholders--an appropriate goal, for a corporation--Craigslist is not. Instead, [Big Money's Mark] Gimein explains, Craigslist doesn't even try to profit from its economic activities, because its owners are devoted to a form of libertarian ideology:

For all the stories written about Craigslist and the profiles of its founder, the company can still baffle anybody trying to make sense of it. A telling episode was the performance of Jim Buckmaster, the CEO who runs Craigslist day to day, at an investor conference where he was asked to explain the company's strategy for maximizing revenue. Buckmaster answered that it didn't have one... or want one because that wasn't the point.

[Ellipses in the original.]

Instead of profits, Gimein shows, Craigslist's owners manage the organization in the service of an idea.

A lesson that it was hard for [me] to learn," [founder Craig] Newmark told Charlie Rose, "was that people are good and trustworthy and moderate." Craigslist is Newmark's vote of confidence in that lesson. ... Bad things don't come from what two individuals decide to do together. They come from the institutions that stand between them.

Fabio Rojas has a theory:

Via KMBC of Kansas City, MO, here's video from the scene of Dr. George Tiller murder suspect Scott Roeder's arrest -- including the little-reported detail that Roeder had a handwritten Operation Rescue phone number on his dashboard:

So whose number was on Scott Roeder's dashboard?

It turns out the number belongs to Operation Rescue senior policy advisor Cheryl Sullenger, who was convicted of conspiring to bomb an abortion clinic in 1988. Justin Kendall of The Pitch has the details:

The phone number is written on an envelope with the name "Cheryl" and "Op Rescue." Cheryl is Cheryl Sullenger, Operation Rescue's senior policy adviser, who in 1988 was convicted of conspiring to bomb a California abortion clinic. She served two years in prison.

Kendall spoke with Sullenger, who says she hasn't spoken with Roeder "recently."

"No, he hasn't called me recently," Sullenger said. "No."

"You know, he's somebody who's been around. My name is on the Internet. It's on every press release. My phone number is on every press release it. It's all over the internet. I don't know. He probably has lots of people's phone numbers. You know? So I don't know. I don't have any more comment other than that."

To recap: The man accused of killing George Tiller had on his dashboard the phone number of convicted abortion clinic bomber Cheryl Sullenger, the senior policy adviser for the very same organization that has been all over the airways today to saying that they are a strictly non-violent group.

According to Sullenger, who in 2006 was Operation Rescue's outreach coordinator, Roeder is "sombody who's been around." She says he hasn't called her "recently," whatever "recently" means to her.

Meanwhile, Operation Rescue has claimed the organization has had no connection with Roeder other than comments on their website.

At this point, the more we learn about the relationship between Roeder and Operation Rescue, the more questions there seem to be.

by Mark Silva

Now that Newt Gingrich has suggested that "racist'' was too strong a word to apply to Judge Sonia Sotomayor, radio's Rush Limbaugh is standing on a lonely perch.

But Limbaugh's still standing:

"I got a little grief from people for saying that there's no such thing as reverse racism -- just call her a racist,'' Limbaugh says of President Barack Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, who is poised to become the first Hispanic on the high court and has suggested that a Latina may have a better perspective on some issues than a white male.

"So, that is a racist thing to say, and it's bigoted,'' Limbaugh tells FOX News Channel's Sean Hannity. "And she would bring, no question about it, racism and bigotry to the court if she is confirmed."

In a two-part interview on FOX's Hannity, the first part airing at 9 pm EDT this evening, Hannity discusses not only his feelings about Sotomayor, but also why he believes Colin Powell supports President Obama.

And once again, race is in play.

""I think two things were a factor in his endorsement of Obama, The first one is race, clearly,'' Limbaugh says of the former secretary of state in the second Bush White House and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff in the first Bush White House. " Nobody has the guts to say that, but, I mean, what else could it be?... Race is clearly a factor.''

He sees something else behind Powell's support for Obama: "

As president of General Motors when Eisenhower tapped him to become Secretary of Defense in 1953, ?SEngine Charlie? Wilson voiced at his Senate confirmation hearing what was then the conventional view. When asked whether he could make a decision in the interest of the U.S. that was adverse to the interest of GM, he said he could.

Then he reassured them that such a conflict would never arise. ?SI cannot conceive of one because for years I thought what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa. Our company is too big. It goes with the welfare of the country.?

Wilson was only slightly exaggerating. At the time, the fate of GM was inextricably linked to that of the nation. In 1953, GM was the world?"s biggest manufacturer, the symbol of U.S. economic might. It generated 3 percent of U.S. gross national product. GM?"s expansion in the 1950s was credited with stalling a business slump. It was also America?"s largest employer, with over 460,000 employees. Its blue-collar workers received (in today's dollars) $60 an hour that year in wages and benefits.

Today, Wal-Mart is America?"s largest employer, the majority of whose employees receive just over $10 an hour. And General Motors is filing for bankruptcy. Wilson?"s reassuring words in 1953 now have an ironic twist. There will be little difference between what is good for America and for GM because it is soon to be owned by U.S. taxpayers who have forked out more than $60 billion to buy it.

But why would U.S. taxpayers want to own today?"s GM?

The answer, after the jump.

--Robert Reich

MORE...