Turn-Coat Nancy

Riley tries ’splainin’ herself

2008-10-27T10:25:00.000-07:00

http://www.oksenategop.com/blog/?p=53

Riley tries ’splainin’ herself

POLITICS: SD37: Riley responds to GOP “smear campaign”

http://okinsider.com/readstory.oki?type=headline&storyid=0EW10B7WD

07/10/2008 by Bryan Smith

(OK) In response to recent remarks by the Republican party that attempt to link her to U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Oklahoma Sen. Nancy Riley said she expected a smear campaign.

The story began on July 4, after Sen. Riley, D-Tulsa, gave an interview to the Broken Arrow Ledger in which she gave credit for Oklahoma’s relatively strong economy to high gas prices.

“It may sound crass, but thank goodness for high gas prices,” the article quotes her as saying. “That is what is helping sustain the state’s economy.”

A press release from Randy Swanson, director of the Oklahoma Republican Senatorial Committee, said that “Riley’s recent remarks about high gasoline prices are good for Oklahoma shows she’s out of touch with voters.”

In an interview on Thursday, Riley said she was not referring to gasoline, but rather to natural gas, which she said is an important part of the state’s economy. The context of the remarks is not known, as the article sandwiched them between a short-list of Riley’s legislative priorities and discussion of the state Senate’s 24 to 24 power split.

——————————————————————————–

So…Nancy isn’t for higher gasoline prices, but for higher prices to heat our homes and cook our food. We understand. Keep talking, Nancy.

This entry was posted on Monday, July 14th, 2008 at 2:18 pm

HIGH ENERGY COSTS -- RILEY WAS FOR THEM BEFORE SHE WAS AGAINST THEM

2008-10-25T14:08:00.000-07:00

For Immediate Release CONTACT: Randy Swanson
July 11, 2008 405.607.2971

*** NEWS RELEASE ***
HIGH ENERGY COSTS --
RILEY WAS FOR THEM BEFORE SHE WAS AGAINST THEM
Tulsa Senator Now Emulating John Kerry and Barack Obama

OKLAHOMA CITY – Just last weekend, Tulsa Senator Nancy Riley expressed her thanks for high gas prices because "That is what is helping sustain the state's economy" (Broken Arrow Ledger, July 5, 2008). Now, just four days later, Riley is quoted in another suburban Tulsa newspaper lamenting high energy prices because of their impact on local school districts.

According to the Sand Springs Leader (July 9, 2008), she bemoaned high energy prices, saying "They (local school districts) will now have to balance their budgets on the backs of our kids."

“So, it appears Nancy Riley was for high gas prices before she was against them,” said Randy Swanson, Executive Director of the Oklahoma Republican Senatorial Committee. “Another John Kerry moment from Nancy.”

Swanson’s reference to “another” refers to Riley’s vote against a pro-life bill which would have prohibited state-owned facilities from performing abortions (SB 714) in 2007, and twice to sustain Governor Henry’s veto of the bill -- only to later vote in favor of a similar bill (SB 139), which became law. This flip-flop came after she had signed a pledge to vote against any taxpayer funding of abortions when she first ran for the Senate.

Riley has also flip-flopped on lawsuit reform legislation over the past years. See was for lawsuit reform before she was against it.

“Nancy Riley can’t decide who she is or what she stands for,” said Swanson. “But it’s very clear who she patterns her political career after.

“First she runs for office as a conservative Republican, and then switches to become a liberal Democrat, much like Hillary Rodham Clinton.

“Then, she follows Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s lead in supporting higher energy prices -- but then bemoans the high cost of energy. She was for it before she was against it, a la John Kerry,” he continued.

“Throw in Barack Obama’s flip flops on the important issues of the day, and one clearly see can whose campaign playbook Nancy Riley has been studying.

“Does Nancy Riley have any core values? The voters of Senate District 37, and indeed the citizens of Oklahoma deserve to know,” Swanson concluded.

www.oksenategop.com

2008-10-25T13:54:00.000-07:00

For Immediate Release CONTACT: Randy Swanson

July 10, 2008 405.607.2971

* NEWS RELEASE *

SEPARATED AT BIRTH?

NANCY RILEY PROMOTES THE ‘PELOSI PREMIUM’

Tulsa Senator Happy With High Gas Prices

OKLAHOMA CITY – Who said the following? “Thank goodness for high gas prices." If you guessed Exxon Mobil CEO Lee Raymond or Chevron CEO David O'Reilly or any other big oil executive, you are incorrect. If you guessed Tulsa State Senator Nancy Riley you move to the head of the class.

In an interview with the Broken Arrow Ledger last week, Senator Riley expressed her thanks for high fuel prices, and the perceived benefits those prices provide to state coffers. “Yep, she said it,” said Randy Swanson, Executive Director of the Oklahoma Republican Senatorial Committee. “These sound more like the words of a candidate running for Congress from San Francisco than someone running for the State Senate in Tulsa.

“Come to think of it, perhaps Nancy Riley would be more comfortable serving under Nancy Pelosi’s leadership than she is serving Oklahomans,” Swanson continued.

Under the leadership of Speaker Nancy Pelosi – the San Francisco liberal – the United States Congress has reached an all-time low approval rating of 9%, according to national polling firm Rasmussen Reports (July 8, 2008). Under Pelosi’s leadership, America’s energy independence has been stifled through Congress’ refusal to open up the fertile areas within our own borders for drilling and production. Republicans in Congress are referring to the resulting increase in fuel prices as the Pelosi Premium.

Senator Riley of Tulsa appears to have embraced the Pelosi Premium in an interview last week when she declared “Thank goodness for high gas prices." (Broken Arrow Ledger – July 5, 2008).

“Clearly, the two Nancys are out of touch with real Americans, said Swanson. “If Nancy Pelosi thinks our dependence on foreign oil imports is good energy policy, and Nancy Riley thinks the energy prices that are cutting into our families’ budgets is good for Oklahoma, maybe Nancy Riley is running for the wrong office,” he continued.

”She may be more comfortable working with Nancy Pelosi in Washington, DC.”

When Nancy Riley was first elected to the Senate in 2000, her drive to the Capitol from Tulsa cost around $15 round trip. Today, that round trip costs almost $40.

“If Senator Riley is happy with the fact that higher energy prices are sustaining the state budget, we have no problem with that,” Swanson said. “But Republicans believe there are better ways to grow an economy other than consumer pain at the gas pump.

“We suggest Republican principles of responsible budgeting, reduced spending and a free-market economy.

“This stunning pronouncement by Nancy Riley is indicative of her compatibility on other issues that are important to her new political mentor. Both Nancys stand with big time trial attorneys when it comes to lawsuit reform, more government mandates on business and education, more spending and less tax relief,” he continued.

”We in Oklahoma can’t do anything about Nancy Pelosi, but we can send Nancy Riley back to her private life, and out of the business of supporting higher costs for Oklahoma families.” We can’t afford the Riley-Pelosi Premium here in Oklahoma,” Swanson concluded.

www.oksenategop.com

Riley Opposes Charter Schools and Tax Credits

2008-10-25T13:27:00.000-07:00

http://www.zwire.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=20161250&BRD=2754&PAG=461&dept_id=573976&rfi=8
From: The Sand Springs Leader

Correction: State Sen.'s positions corrected

By:	October 11, 2008

A story about a state senate candidate's open forum incorrectly stated State Sen. Nancy Riley (D-37)'s position on charter schools and tax credits. Riley is opposed to both. The Leader regrets the err

Riley Photo Gaffe: Unintentional...Or Planned?

2008-10-25T12:18:00.000-07:00

http://wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com/2008/10/riley-photo-gaffe-unintentionalor.html

McCarville Report Online
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Riley Photo Gaffe: Unintentional...Or Planned?

Bunny Chambers, Oklahoma's immediate past Republican National Committeewoman, longtime Republican activist and leader in the Oklahoma Federation of Republican Women, today thanked Democrat State Senator Nancy Riley for promoting a Republican Women's organization in her campaign materials by using a photo showing her wearing a GOP brooch.

It's unclear whether that's a Riley photographic gaffe or an intentional act designed to deceive GOP voters.
"I'd like to think it's gracious of Nancy to use a photo of her wearing her Oklahoma Federation of Republican Women's (OFRW) First Ladies brooch along side her Senate member pin on her campaign materials," said Mrs. Chambers, "but I'm not confident her motives are pure."

Riley, a Democrat, has used a photo of her wearing her OFRW First Ladies cameo brooch on several direct mail pieces and on her website over the past several months. Republican women are suspicious of her motives, perhaps trying to send messages to female Republican voters in her district that she's still "one of them," but Chambers and others in her organization aren't fooled.

"We appreciate her efforts to promote our organization and our cause," Chambers continued, "but the truth is, Nancy Riley ceased being a member in good standing of our organization over two years ago when she switched to the Democrat Party after finishing third in the Republican primary for Lieutenant Governor.

"And sadly, her voting record reflects her change in allegiance," Mrs. Chambers continued. "We don't want any Republican women in Senate District 37 to be confused.

"She may be using an old photograph of her days as a Republican woman, but Nancy Riley is decidedly not a Republican anymore, and I along with Republican women around the state of Oklahoma heartily endorse Dan Newberry for Senate in District 37," Chambers proclaimed.

Coffee Echoes Henry's Obama Invitation

2008-10-25T11:47:00.001-07:00

http://wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com/2008/08/coffee-echoes-henrys-obama-invitation.html

Friday, August 22, 2008
Coffee Echoes Henry's Obama Invitation

From Oklahoma Senate Republicans ~ Echoing Governor Henry’s invitation for Presidential candidate Barack Obama to campaign in Oklahoma, Senate Co-President Pro Tem Glenn Coffee offered to roll out the red carpet for the Democrat standard-bearer.

"Speaking on behalf of all Oklahoma Republicans, and in the spirit of true bi-partisanship, I want to join Governor Henry in inviting Barack Obama to Oklahoma. We’ll break out all of the Oklahoma hospitality we can if Obama would campaign alongside Nancy Riley, Robert Murphy, Keith Erwin and Richard Lerblance," said Coffee.

"Senate Republicans would welcome him with open arms," he continued. "Better yet, let’s take a statewide bus tour."

With public polls showing Obama running a distant second to John McCain in the state, Republicans are eager for a visit by Obama.

Coffee suggested a swing starting in Lawton with Democrat Senate candidate Keith Erwin; north to Stillwater with Senate candidate/judge applicant Robert Murphy; then to Tulsa to go door-to-door with Nancy Riley; and a wrap-up rally in McAlester with Senator Richard Lerblance.

"We’ll even pay for their meal at Pete’s Place or The Isle of Capri in Krebs, if Obama likes great Italian food," Coffee added.

"If that schedule is too taxing, a rally on the south steps of the Capitol, with a photo-op of Obama standing, arms aloft with Riley, Murphy, Erwin and Lerblance – and any other willing Democrat – would be sufficient," he continued.

"If Obama doesn’t have the time or inclination to visit his good friends in Oklahoma, I urge my Democrat friends in the Senate to make public their support for the top of their ticket.

"Why wouldn’t Nancy Riley, Robert Murphy, Richard Lerblance or Keith Erwin declare their allegiance?" Coffee asked. "They’re mysteriously silent on this issue.

"If the Democrats need any help in planning the logistics for the Obama visit, have them call me. I’ll be glad to put the full force of our campaigns behind this effort," he offered. "They know my number."

Swanson: Trial Lawyers Fund Demos

2008-10-25T11:34:00.000-07:00

http://wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com/2008/07/swanson-trial-lawyers-fund-demos.html

Thursday, July 31, 2008
Swanson: Trial Lawyers Fund Demos

The head of the Oklahoma Republican Senatorial Committee, Randy Swanson, said today that trial lawyers "are almost singularly funding key Democrat campaigns."

And, he charged, some of them are trying to do that while hiding their occupations.

Swanson said Senator Nancy Riley of Tulsa and candidates Robert Murphy of Stillwater and Diane Drum of Norman have received over 70% of their financial support from lawyers outside of their districts.

“Without the largesse of big-time lawyers who have a vested interest in seeing Republicans defeated at the polls, candidates like Nancy Riley, Robert Murphy and Diane Drum would barely have enough campaign money to buy that high-priced gasoline for which Riley is so grateful,” said Swanson, executive director of the GOP committee.

“The very lawyers who have financed Brad Henry’s campaigns, resulting in his consistent vetoes of lawsuit reform legislation, are now funding Democrat Senate candidates across the state and Democrat campaign committees.

“In the case of Nancy Riley, their investment is already paying dividends, due to the fact that she has flip-flopped numerous times on the important tort reform legislation we need to keep our business climate and medical services thriving,” Swanson said. “She was for it before she was against it.”

An analysis of Ethics reports over the past three reporting periods (4th quarter 2007, 1st & 2nd quarters 2008) indicate the following startling statistics, he said:

Senator Nancy Riley of Tulsa has raised $125,065 in individual, reportable (over $50) contributions. Of that figure, $85,425 has been raised from trial lawyers. Add the $5,400 her campaign has raised from lobbyists and Democrat legislators, such special interests account for 72.6% of Riley’s financial support.

Candidate Robert Murphy of Stillwater, the former judge, only recently announced his candidacy, and has filed one Ethics report. In that report, Murphy reports raising $51,600 from individuals, of which $35,900 – 69.6% -- has come from lawyers, most from outside of Stillwater or Payne County.

Candidate Diane Drum of Norman has raised $74,485 from individuals of which $56,115 has come from lawyers, most of whom live outside Norman and Cleveland County, accounting for 75.3% of her financial receipts.

"In a tactic indicative of haphazard campaign reporting or intentional misrepresentation, many lawyers list their occupations on these reports as Self Employed, Consultant, or some other innocuous title," Swanson's news release said. "However, a simple online search of their names belies their true occupations, and exposes the magnitude of the support from this special interest group enjoyed by Democrats."

“This is just the tip of the iceberg,” Swanson said. “A vast majority of the lawyers who have contributed to these and other Democrat Senate candidates have not yet given the legal maximum amount, so there are hundreds of thousands of dollars still on the table for their cause.

“With almost three of every four dollars in Democrat campaigns coming from the Democrat Party’s most affluent and reliable special interest group, the Trial Bar is making its last, bold stand to maintain its stranglehold on the Capitol, and the State Senate is their final beachhead. They won’t go down without a fight. Oklahoma voters need to be aware of who controls the Democrats in the Senate, and to whom they are beholden."

Lots of Turn-Coat Nancy Stories Here.

2008-10-25T11:02:00.000-07:00

http://www.google.com/custom?domains=wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com&q=riley&sa=Search&sitesearch=wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com&client=pub-4970037353315621&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&safe=active&cof=GALT%3A%23FFFFFF%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23990000%3BVLC%3AFFFFFF%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3A000000%3BLBGC%3AFFFF99%3BALC%3ACC0000%3BLC%3ACC0000%3BT%3ACCCC66%3BGFNT%3ACCCC99%3BGIMP%3ACCCC99%3BFORID%3A1&hl=en

Riley Kills House Bill 2470

2008-10-25T10:26:00.000-07:00

http://www.roemermanonrecord.com/2006/08/riley-kills-house-bill-2470.html

I received this press release from the South Tulsa Citizens Coalition detailing how State Senator Nancy Riley (Democrat) derailed a bill that would have forced the proposed toll bridge in South Tulsa to be competitively bid.

For the past nine months, the South Tulsa Citizens Coalition (“STCC”) has been working with Oklahoma State Representative Pam Peterson and Oklahoma State Senator Clark Jolley to firm-up Oklahoma’s law regarding the types of public contracts that are subject to competitive bid. House Bill 2470 clarifies the definition of a “public construction contract” under the Oklahoma Competitive Bidding Act by expressly including those types of public contracts that are derived from other forms of consideration besides cash, such as the pledging of a certain percentage of revenues or toll charges to a public entity.

On February 16, 2006, House Bill 2470 passed in the Oklahoma House of Representatives by a vote of 94 to 3. On April 25, 2006, the bill passed in the Oklahoma Senate by a vote of 43 to 2. However, Oklahoma State Senator Nancy Riley had the title of House Bill 2470 stripped*. Instead of the bill being sent to Governor Henry to be signed into law, Senator Riley’s actions basically killed House Bill 2470.

STCC spokesman Michael Covey said, “It just makes sense that a bridge that will cost over $30 million to construct should be put out for competitive bid. I can’t believe that our legislative system allows one senator, who received numerous campaign contributions from the principals of IVI, to derail a bill that had such overwhelming support of the people. Nevertheless, STCC will continue to work with state lawmakers to make sure that a situation like the South Tulsa bridge situation never happens in Oklahoma again.”

* - to change the title of a bill to a few words which are briefly descriptive but constitutionally unacceptable. The major intent of this action is to ensure that the bill will go to a conference committee. The same effect may be achieved by striking the enacting clause. Any Senate legislation being reported out of a Senate committee, with the exception of an appropriation bill, must have an enacting clause or resolving clause and a Senate and House author.

"Turn-coat" Nancy Just Keeps on Digging Her Own Hole

2008-10-25T10:22:00.000-07:00

To Watch the Video of the KOTV Channel 6 News Segment, CLICK HERE:
http://www.newson6.com/global/video/popup/pop_playerLaunch.asp?vt1=v&clipFormat=flv&clipId1=3059590&at1=News&h1=Senate Race Getting Dirty

http://www.explorepolitics.com/areas/kotv/33168844.html

Senate Race Getting Dirty
Newson6.com

Story Updated: Oct 24, 2008 at 1:03 AM CDT
TULSA, OK -- We're less than two weeks away from Election Day and in some races, the campaigning is getting dirty. When it comes to the state senate race between Nancy Riley and challenger Dan Newberry the gloves are off.

He's a rookie with no experience in elected office. She's a practiced politician who made headlines for switching parties.

Two-term senator Nancy Riley is attacking her Republican opponent and his livelihood.

"Newberry personally profited from selling risky loans with excessive interest rates," said the Riley ad.

That claim is False. Court documents show many homeowners defaulted and had to foreclose, but the loans weren't risky.

Newberry lends at adjustable rates, some loans going from 10% up to 16%. But he says defaults are rare, and that a six-percent maximum increase isn't excessive.

Tulsa's Better Business Bureau calls his company satisfactory.

Newberry's camp is also in attack mode.

"Riley supports higher property taxes, taxpayer funded abortions," said the Newberry ad.

We'll put the True stamp on that one. Riley opposed lowering the property tax rate from five percent to three percent. She says lowering the cap would have actually created tax increases.

And the abortion bill aimed to end taxpayer-funded abortions except to save the mother's life. Riley says she supports exceptions for rape and incest victims which was not included in the original bill.

"She first ran as a conservative, and now is a liberal who stands with Barack Obama," said the Newberry ad.

That claim is half-true. Two years ago Riley switched parties in the middle of her term. She says she was dissatisfied with the GOP's continual effort to kill her bills, calling the Republican caucus hateful and vindictive. But Riley has never publicly supported or opposed either candidate for President.

Riley's campaign says she's got the experience and proven ability to work with both parties.

Newberry's camp says forget the spin, switching party's mid-stream was a stab in the back.

Oklahomans for Life, Inc. on Riley's Record

2008-10-06T23:05:00.000-07:00

Oklahomans For Life Letter
Vol. 33, No. 2 www.OkForLife.org October 2008

State Senate Key to Unborn Child’s Future;
Republicans Consistently Defend Life
As pro-life Republican U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe is
defending his seat in Congress against pro-abortion
Democrat Andrew Rice, a simultaneous battle rages for
majority control of the Oklahoma state Senate, currently
split 24-24 between Republicans and Democrats.
The state Senate contest has serious ramifications for
the unborn child. All 24 Republicans are pro-life; of the
24 Democrats, about one-third are pro-life, one-third are
pro-abortion, and one-third have mixed voting records.
The majority party will set the legislative agenda, name
the committee chairmen, and organize and run the Senate.
In major races, pro-life Republican Dan Newberry
is opposing incumbent Democrat Nancy Riley of Tulsa
(on eight key Senate votes the past two years, Senator
Riley voted pro-abortion four times [see p. 2], pro-life
three times, and was absent once, when she was the only
senator missing [votes at www.OkForLife.org]);

Page 2

Oklahomans For Life Letter
www.OkForLife.org
October 2008, page 2

An Open Letter
To the Husband of
Senator Nancy Riley

Jerry Riley, husband of state Senator Nancy Riley,
took exception to our writing in the July Oklahomans For
Life Letter that “Senator Riley voted pro-abortion four
times” on key votes on the Senate floor over the past two
years. Below is our response.

Dear Jerry,
Your complaint about our description of Nancy’s
votes deserves a reply. Nancy did vote pro-abortion four
times on the Senate floor, as our July newsletter said, and
her votes (posted on our website, www.OkForLife.org)
prevented the pro-life bill from becoming law.

The legislation at issue, Senate Bill (SB) 714, was
introduced to get government out of the abortion business
by restricting the use of state facilities or state employees
for the performance of non-lifesaving abortions.

We described Nancy’s votes, not her position. Votes
are more important than positions because votes are
concrete actions that have tangible effects.

The member of Congress whose position you
compared to Nancy’s position has, in fact, voted pro-life
100% of the time during his 22 years in Washington. In
spite of his taking the “position” that abortion should be
legal in the case of rape or incest, that is rarely the way the
issue presents itself for a vote. The individual you referred
to has proven his priorities through his actions: on scores
of votes over more than two decades in Congress, he has
come down on the side of life 100% of the time.

Seldom, in Congress or in the legislature, is there an
isolated, separate vote on abortion in the case of rape or
incest. So a lawmaker who favors a rape or incest
exception is faced with a broader question: what shall my
priority be – voting against a pro-life bill on the grounds
that a very small number of abortions might occur
following rape, or voting pro-life because over 99% of the
unborn children affected were not conceived through rape.

There have been over 50 million babies aborted in
the United States since 1973.

I’ve had discussions in the past with one of Nancy’s
Senate colleagues who holds the same “position” that
Nancy now holds regarding abortion in the case of rape.
As he has said, the issue rarely presents itself in that way
for a vote, and so, in analyzing the concrete question
actually before him on the floor, he feels compelled to do
the greater good, and to come down on the side of life.

Nancy could have introduced an amendment to add a
rape-and-incest exception to SB 714, either in committee
or on the floor. (She was on the committee through which
the bill passed.) But she did not. In fact, on the day of the
committee vote, Nancy approached me at the Capitol and
said, “I want you to know that I’m still pro-life.” I inferred
that she meant she had not changed her position on
abortion, even though she had switched political parties
from Republican to Democrat. Having not offered a rape-
and-incest amendment to the bill, she voted, later in the
session, against the entire bill because, she said, it did not
contain a rape-and-incest exception.

Jerry, I reviewed our 2000 and 2004 Candidate
Surveys that Nancy answered when she ran for the Senate,
and the 2006 questionnaire she answered when she ran for
lieutenant-governor. In all three cases she answered “Yes”
to question #1 (life-of-the-mother exception only) – the
survey’s most important question. That question, from the
2006 survey (2000 and 2004 were virtually identical)
reads: “Upon reversal of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v.
Wade decision, will you vote for a law that would protect
the lives of unborn children and prohibit abortion except
to prevent the death of the mother?” Nancy answered
“Yes” all three years. Having expressed her support for a
life-of-the-mother exception only in 2000, 2004 and 2006,
Nancy’s abandoning of that position in 2007 resulted in
the defeat of the pro-life bill, SB 714. (It twice failed by
the margin of a single vote – Nancy’s vote.)
Moreover, we asked a question, #7, on our 2000
Candidate Survey that describes precisely the type of
legislation represented by SB 714. Nancy answered “Yes”
to the question, “Would you vote for a law to get
government out of the abortion business by preventing the
use of tax funds or state facilities to perform abortions
which are not necessary to avert the death of the mother,
and to prevent state employees from performing, referring
for, or counseling for abortions, other than those
necessary to avert the death of the mother?” Nancy’s
“No” vote on SB 714 ran directly contrary to the support
she had expressed for this identical type of legislation.
The votes on SB 714 were crucially important,
the most important abortion votes in many years.
Nothing we can do presently, under current Supreme
Court decisions, will prohibit abortion. So we are reduced
to saving lives at the margin: withholding government
encouragement or endorsement of abortion, recoiling from
public promotion or facilitation of abortion, refusing to
grant the state’s seal of approval for abortion... That is
what SB 714 would have done.

The U.S. Supreme Court said in the 1989 Webster
decision that states have this right. There is no public duty
to pay for the private “right” to destroy a life. We need not
grant the use of public facilities to carry out the killing.
We need not allow state-salaried employees to conduct
search-and-destroy missions against the most vulnerable
little members of our human family. We need not devote
tax dollars – paid by pro-life citizens across our state –
to the destruction of the next generation.

That’s the principle that SB 714 upheld (or, rather,
that it would have upheld). It would have made clear that
taxpayer endorsement of the taking of innocent human
lives is not the public policy of our state. It would have
made clear that, even though Roe v. Wade legalized
abortion on demand, Oklahomans chafe under that unjust
decision and continue to oppose and reject it.

Enclosed is a letter I wrote on April 23, 2007 to
Nancy and other Senators following Governor Brad
Henry’s veto of SB 714. Nancy subsequently voted two
different times to prevent the pro-life bill from becoming
law by voting to sustain the pro-abortion veto.

Dear Senator,
Planned Parenthood board member Eli Reshef,
MD, deferred to Planned Parenthood board member Dana
Stone, MD, when Governor Henry asked who wanted to
join him at the podium at Wednesday’s veto event. The
Veto Celebration – that’s how it was staged – was as sad a
spectacle as I have witnessed in my lifetime. Loud and
sustained applause by an excited and joyous pro-abortion
audience, and smiles as wide as they were incongruous...
Incongruous is the word that best describes the
event. A celebration for a continuation of unfettered
killing in state institutions . . . Apparently oblivious to
the irony, the Governor said he hoped there wouldn’t be a
‘political bloodbath.’ He didn’t offer any thoughts
regarding the actual bloodbath resulting from the babies
being killed by the state in public institutions by taxpayer-
salaried personnel.

It was appropriate that Planned Parenthood officials
were so prominently featured. Planned Parenthood
operates the biggest chain of abortion mills in the country:
over a quarter of a million babies are killed by Planned
Parenthood in their abortion “clinics” across the U.S. each
year.

Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Stone said SB 714 “didn’t
allow these very standard medical options to be given to
our patients.” Ironically, she had just said an obstetrician
has two patients, mother and baby. Sparing the baby the
unconsented-to “option” of being killed is the point of the
bill. But “very standard medical options” (note the
aversion to the word abortion) doesn’t tell the half of it for
Planned Parenthood: “preferred option” might be more
apt, given their advocacy for abortion on demand, abortion
at taxpayer expense, abortion as birth control . . . and a
death toll of their own of 250,000 babies a year.

The Governor said the bill “does not include
exemptions for cases of incest and rape.” That’s very
deceiving. Abortion would still be legal in cases of incest
and rape and abortions in cases of incest or rape could still
be paid for by Medicaid. The Governor said, “Many
victims of rape or incest would have no option but to carry
a fetus to term.” According to the Oklahoma Health Care
Authority, there was not one single rape or incest abortion
paid for by Medicaid last year, even though doing so is
legal (and would continue to be legal under Senate Bill
714 – just not in a state institution or by a state employee).
The Governor cited ‘a fetus with a fatal birth defect,’
saying we would be “forcing a woman to carry that fetus
to term.” That is not correct. Abortion would continue to
be legal in Oklahoma for any reason or for no reason. All
the bill would do in this regard is establish that, insofar as
state employees and state institutions are concerned, the
mere fact that a baby has been diagnosed with a disability
or a disease will not lead to the public-policy conclusion
that the state, therefore, shall kill the child.

The Governor said, “[I]t is highly questionable
whether this legislation could withstand legal challenges.”
The language was upheld by the highest court in the land
18 years ago, in the 1989 Webster decision of the U.S.
Supreme Court. The Governor said, “[T]his bill would
severely compromise healthcare.” That statement is true
only if one regards the killing of unborn children to be
“healthcare.” Please vote to override the Governor’s
veto of SB 714. Thank you.

Anthony J. Lauinger, State Chairman

Two attempts to override the pro-abortion veto
failed by the margin of one vote – Nancy’s vote.
Ethel Waters, the revered African-American vocalist
of blues and spirituals, had occasion near the end of her
life to recount its beginning: “My father raped my mother
when she was twelve years old, and today they’ve named
a park for me in Chester, Pennsylvania.” Recounted in her
autobiography, His Eye is on the Sparrow, her life is but
one of many of children conceived in rape who went on to
make great contributions to this world.

She might wonder how it makes sense, in logic or in
law, to execute a child for the crime of his or her father?
Abortion does not erase the trauma of a rape. Abortion
compounds the first tragedy with a second tragedy – one
for which the woman herself is responsible.

It is not valid to assume the best thing for a victim of
rape or incest is to abort her baby. For society, abortion
might seem to “solve the problem.” But for the woman
herself, it does not. Abortion often leads to psychological
anguish and emotional devastation. Britain’s Royal
College of Psychiatry issued a warning in March that
women may be at risk of mental health breakdowns if they
have abortions. They advised that women should not have
an abortion until they are counseled about the possible risk
to their mental health.

There are more than one million unborn babies being
killed by abortion in our country every year. One could
rely on the absence of a rape exception as an excuse for
opposing all manner of bills that seek to reduce abortions
and save the babies we can. Or one could support these
reasonable, modest regulations which, while not making
abortion illegal, at least give some unborn children – and
their mothers – a chance to avoid catastrophe.

That’s why Nancy’s votes against SB 714 were so
disappointing. When the opportunity to help these babies
came, she didn’t give the benefit of the doubt to life.

Respectfully,

Tony Lauinger

Info from Oklahomans For Life Survey

2008-10-06T22:58:00.000-07:00

http://www.okforlife.org/resources/Aug-10-2008-SURVEY.pdf

DISTRICT 37 - *Tulsa
Dan Newberry R YES yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yesyes yes
*Jan Megee R YES yes yesyesyes yesyes yesyesyes yes yes
Nancy C. Riley D NO yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yesyes yes

The 1st question was as follows:

1) In its 1973 rulings in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the U.S.
Supreme Court created a “right to abortion” for any reason until
“viability” and for any “health” reasons – including “emotional” health –
even during the final three months of pregnancy. Do you support the
reversal of the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, so that elected
legislative bodies may once again protect unborn children by limiting or
prohibiting abortion?

KEY VOTES of Nancy Turn-Coat Riley (Democrat)

2008-10-06T21:32:00.000-07:00

Oklahoma State Senate District 37
Key Votes -- 2007-2008

KEY VOTES - Nancy Riley

Flip-flopped on lawsuit reform (2007): In 2007 the State Senate passed a comprehensive lawsuit reform bill for the first time ever, sending SB 507 to the governor. Senator Paddack was the ONLY Democrat to support lawsuit reform. NR voted no, despite her previous support for SB 1657 in 2006, which was virtually identical to the 2007 reform bill.

For minimum wage increase (2007): NR voted to increase Oklahoma’s minimum wage by 41% independently of the federal minimum wage (Sen. Leftwich’s amendment to SB 694). This would have devastated Oklahoma’s small businesses.

Against property tax relief (2008): NR voted against SJR 59, a bill to SLOW THE GROWTH of property taxes in Oklahoma.

For expensive insurance mandates I (2008): NR supported SB 2114 by Sen. Wilson which would have mandated insurance companies to increase premiums to pay for ANY procedure that a “medical professional” declared to be “medically necessary.” (So if your psychiatrist said you are a man trapped in a woman’s body, and your mental health depended on changing your sex, your insurance company would have to pay for a sex change operation. The bill was opposed by Oklahomans for Life because it would also have required insurance companies to pay for abortions.) This bill would have sent insurance costs through the roof!

For expensive insurance mandates II (2008): NR voted to mandate insurance coverage for expensive autism treatments (“Nick’s law”) and clinical trials for cancer patients (“Stephanie’s law”). These mandates also would have increased insurance premiums.

Against accountability and innovation in government (2008): NR was one of only 15 senators to oppose SB 1865, which would have created the legislative Office of Accountability and Innovation. This office, which was modeled after the U.S. Congress’s Government Accountability Office, would have conducted performance reviews of state agencies, reviewed the effectiveness of state tax policy, recommended reforms to make government more efficient and innovative, and weeded out corruption in government. (Reference: Jeff McMahan, Auditor and Inspector, as casepoint #1).

Flip-flopped on life (2007): In her first session as a Democrat, NR flip-flopped on the pro-life issue. She was one of only 16 senators to vote against SB 714, which would have prohibited state facilities or funds from being used for most abortions. She also voted twice to uphold Henry’s veto of this bill. (Note: A subsequent version of this legislation – SB 139 – became law without Henry’s signature. NR voted for that bill.)

For kindergarten for three-year-olds (2007): In the Senate Appropriations Committee, NR voted to create a controversial, state-funded kindergarten program for three-year-olds (SB 518). The bill was defeated on a party-line tie vote.

Against better educational opportunities for our children (2007-08):
• Against Charters Schools I: NR voted against allowing universities to set up public charter schools in Oklahoma and Tulsa counties (HB 1589 in 2007)
• Against Charter Schools II: NR voted against allowing Native American tribes to set up public charter schools in Oklahoma and Tulsa counties (SB 1669 in 2008)
• Against school deregulation: NR voted against SB 2100, Third Reading, in 2008 that would have created a pilot program to reduce red tape for 10 school districts in an effort to improve student achievement
• NR voted to cut off consideration of Sen. Williamson’s Religious Views Freedom in Schools amendment to HB 2633. (The motion to advance failed, and NR subsequently voted for the amendment, which allows students to express their religious views in school work.)