Category Archives: Issues

A sad anniversary

Posted on by

Today  marks the 36th anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade decision of the Supreme Court legalizing the taking of life of those American citizens still in the womb. This has to be one of the saddest anniversaries of one of the most horrible decisions ever made.

Here are a few thoughts from around the web today:

Pastor Frank Sansone noted that within just moments after President Obama’s inauguration, the White House web site removed this message:

All human life is a gift from our Creator that is sacred, unique, and worthy of protection. On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, our country recognizes that each person, including every person waiting to be born, has a special place and purpose in this world. We also underscore our dedication to heeding this message of conscience by speaking up for the weak and voiceless among us.

And added this one:

President Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Adminstration (sic).

From author Robin Lee Hatcher:

I was feeling heartbroken that one of the new president’s first acts was to reverse a ban on the use of federal dollars by non-governmental organizations that discuss or provide abortions outside of the United States. First of all, why should my federal tax dollars be used to provide abortions elsewhere in the world? It’s bad enough that my tax dollars go to support countless abortions here in the US.

Jungle Mom writes about a barbaric practice among primitive Indians but wonders if our sanitary, scientific modern technological practices are any better.

I referenced Al Mohler’s prayer for President Obama on Inauguration Day. This part is especially applicable to this topic:

Father, we pray that you will change this president’s heart and mind on issues of urgent concern.  We are so thankful for his gifts and talents, for his intellect and power of influence.  Father, bend his heart to see the dignity and sanctity of every single human life, from the moment of conception until natural death.  Father, lead him to see abortion, not as a matter of misconstrued rights, but as a murderous violation of the right to life.  May he come to see every aborted life as a violation of human dignity and every abortion as an abhorrent blight upon this nation’s moral witness.  May he pledge himself to protect every human life at every stage of development.  He has declared himself as an energetic defender of abortion rights, and we fear that his election will lead directly to the deaths of countless unborn human beings.  Protect us from this unspeakable evil, we pray.   Most urgently, we pray that you will bring the reign of abortion to an end, even as you are the defender of the defenseless.

Father, may this new president see that human dignity is undermined when human embryos are destroyed in the name of medical progress, and may he see marriage as an institution that is vital to the very survival of civilization.  May he protect all that is right and good.  Father, change his heart where it must be changed, and give him resolve where his heart is right before you.

Father, when we face hard days ahead — when we find ourselves required by conscience to oppose this president within the bounds of our roles as citizens — may we be granted your guidance to do so with a proper spirit, with a proper demeanor, and with persuasive arguments.  May we learn anew how to confront without demonizing, and to oppose without abandoning hope.

Father, we are aware that our future is in your hands, and we are fully aware that you and you alone will judge the nations.  Much responsibility is now invested in President Barack Obama, and much will be required.  May we, as Christian citizens, also fulfill what you would require of us.  Even as we pray for you to protect this president and change his heart, we also pray that your church will be protected and that you will conform our hearts to your perfect will.

Father, we pray these things in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, the ever-reigning once and future King, the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.  He and he alone can save, and his kingdom is forever.  Above all, may your great name be praised.  Amen.

Amen.

National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 2009

Posted on by

Unfortunately I didn’t hear about this until late today:

[Issued January 15, 2009, The White House]

National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 2009
by the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

All human life is a gift from our Creator that is sacred, unique, and worthy of protection. On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, our country recognizes that each person, including every person waiting to be born, has a special place and purpose in this world. We also underscore our dedication to heeding this message of conscience by speaking up for the weak and voiceless among us.

The most basic duty of government is to protect the life of the innocent. My Administration has been committed to building a culture of life by vigorously promoting adoption and parental notification laws, opposing Federal funding for abortions overseas, encouraging teen abstinence, and funding crisis pregnancy programs. In 2002, I was honored to sign into law the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which extends legal protection to children who survive an abortion attempt. I signed legislation in 2003 to ban the cruel practice of partial‑birth abortion, and that law represents our commitment to building a culture of life in America. Also, I was proud to sign the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, which allows authorities to charge a person who causes death or injury to a child in the womb with a separate offense in addition to any charges relating to the mother.

America is a caring Nation, and our values should guide us as we harness the gifts of science. In our zeal for new treatments and cures, we must never abandon our fundamental morals. We can achieve the great breakthroughs we all seek with reverence for the gift of life.

The sanctity of life is written in the hearts of all men and women. On this day and throughout the year, we aspire to build a society in which every child is welcome in life and protected in law. We also encourage more of our fellow Americans to join our just and noble cause. History tells us that with a cause rooted in our deepest principles and appealing to the best instincts of our citizens, we will prevail.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 18, 2009, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. I call upon all Americans to recognize this day with appropriate ceremonies and to underscore our commitment to respecting and protecting the life and dignity of every human being.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fifteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

GEORGE W. BUSH

Odds and ends

Posted on by

I mentioned in my Fall Into Reading Challenge post that I had been wanting to reread Les Miserables by Victor Hugo. What I failed to mention is that I have been wanting to read an unabridged version. I’ve read two different abridged versions, and I wanted to read the whole thing. I ordered it from Amazon.com and got it a few days ago. It is a thick book!

Thick book!

1,463 pages! So this will keep me busy for a long while.

If you prefer listening to books rather than reading them, Focus on the Family Radio Theater has an excellent version here. It has been a long time since I heard it, but as I recall it was very moving. There is a brief sound clip there.

There has been some really good reading around the blogosphere lately:

Finally, Carolyn at Talk to Grams passed on to me this sweet award, which of which the originator says:

Many of you have touched my heart and life in ways that have changed me eternally! I thank you for being a faithful servant and being obedient to the upward calling every time you share a piece of His heart living out in you! I pray that you will share this award with others who have touched your heart by sowing seeds of love into your life! They will know we are His by how we love one another! Let us sow seeds of love throughout the blogging world and touch the hearts of those who come to read what we all share! To HIM be all the glory forever and ever! AMEN!

And Alice gave me the I Love Your Blog Award (a while back — forgive me for taking so long to acknowledge it!)

And also just today this Butterfly award:

Thank you so much, Alice and Carolyn!

Now here is my dilemma. Many people to whom I would love to pass these on just don’t “do” awards on their blogs. And so it ends up that I seem to pass awards on to the same people all the time, though that’s ok. And I am always afraid of leaving someone out or hurting feelings. So let’s just say if you read and comment here, please take the Faithful Servant award, because you are a blessing to me in that way. And I try to comment regularly, or at least occasionally, on the blogs I read, so if you have seen my comments on your blog, feel free to take the other two as well. I enjoy it or else I wouldn’t keep reading and commenting. 🙂

And the final finally: the dreaded root canal is tomorrow. I feel much better than I did a week ago — praise the Lord for antibiotics!! I am looking forward to getting it over with.

Have a good day!!

Book-banning and censorship

Posted on by

I saw at 5 Minutes For Books yesterday that September 27 – October 4 is National Banned Book Awareness week as deemed by the American Library Association. I left some comments there, but I’ve been thinking about it a good bit since then and wanted to expand on the topic.

In thinking about whether banning books is ever justified, my first thought was, “Yes!” I wish someone had banned things like Pl*yboy (though that is a magazine and not a book) and its ilk when it first came out, though that kind of thing is probably too ingrained in our society now to root it out. Honestly, has that kind of publication ever done anyone any good except to increase the finances of those involved in producing it?

There are two major problems with banning, however: 1) Who is doing the banning and what are their standards? After all, the Bible has been banned in certain times and places. And 2) Just the fact that a book has been banned will attract some people to it to see what it is all about.

Some have suggested a rating system like what the film industry uses. I think I like that idea. Though it is not a perfect system, it helps forewarn that there might be a problem and the reader can then research a bit to see whether the book would violate their own standards. It is not hard to look up a book or film on the Internet these days to learn more about it.

I do agree that questionable books need to be kept away from children’s areas in bookstores and libraries and kept off of required reading lists in schools.

Some would suggest that even that measure is an indication that parents want the government or library system or whomever to “do their work for them.” I disagree. I do believe it is the parents’ responsibility to set the standards and evaluate what their children read and discuss it with them, and keeping questionable books out of the way supplements rather than replaces their role.

The world’s view is that “anything goes” in the name of intellectual freedom. But what should the Christian view be? Should we censor ourselves?

Sometimes when a controversial book is making the rounds of discussion, some Christians will say exasperatedly, “It’s just a book.” But books are powerful things. What we read affects how we think. Jesus told stories to illustrate spiritual truth, and I have often said that the best of Christian fiction is like an extended parable or illustration of truth. A principle I have read in a story takes root and stays with me much longer than when I read it in an instructional format. But the same power than can be used for good can also be used for evil. I regret to say that off-color things I read in an unsaved home as a young person have also stayed with me much longer than I would have liked, often popping into mind at the most inopportune times, like while trying to pray or listen to a sermon.

A few guiding principles are here:

Philippians 4:8: Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

I Corinthians 6:12: All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

I Corinthians 10:23: All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

The Philippians passage focuses on the positive things we should be filling our minds with. The two verses from I Corinthians indicate that while all things are “lawful,” some things are not expedient (“tending to promote some proposed or desired object; fit or suitable for the purpose; proper under the circumstances” according to Dictionary.com), I shouldn’t allow things to exercise more power over me than they should, and some things are not edifying. Galatians 5:17 says, “For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would” and chapters 6-8 go on to describe the battle between and spiritual and fleshly natures. It is going to be even more of a battle if we’re feeding our fleshly natures. II Corinthians 10:5 says, “Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.”

I don’t think that necessarily means we should read only Christian books. Truth and beauty can be illustrated even in secular works. And I don’t think it means everything we read should have a “Pollyanna” viewpoint. Even the Bible deals with sexuality, but not in a way that inspires lust. It also contains violent encounters, but David says in Psalm 11:5, “The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth” — gratuitous violence is different from a battle scene. It discusses different philosophies, but not in a way that leaves you confused about what’s right.

It is honestly hard to know exactly where to draw the lines sometimes, as I mentioned when I discussed To Kill a Mockingbird. There are books I might read for information that I would not endorse wholeheartedly. Wisdom and discernment are needed when reading Christian books as well as secular ones: not everything that calls itself Christian accurately reflects Biblical truth.

Of course, the world will not have the same standards in most instances, and we can’t fence off every area of temptation and evil influence. Ultimately what people need are hearts changed by the gospel. While we try to take some kind of stand lest explicit books become ever more blatant, we need to remember out main purpose as Christians is to share Christ both in our lifestyles and character as well as with our verbal testimony.

Alarmed and appalled

Posted on by

Not long ago I discovered The Common Room from a link on someone else’s blog, but I don’t remember whose. But one thing I appreciate about The Common Room is links to and discussions of articles I otherwise would never find.

Several of the posts there recently have focused on an alarming increasing trend: the supposed “moral obligation” to do away with members of society who are less than fully functioning, particularly the demented elderly and preborn babies who have Down’s Syndrome or other disabilities. That there is a fringe element is no surprise, but in this article, Ed Morrisey writes:

In yet another revealing moment for nationalized health care, a highly respected British ethicist said that dementia sufferers should get euthanized in order to preserve resources for healthier people. Baroness Warnock, described as “Britain’s leading moral philosopher”, said that the government should license people to be “put down” and stop being a drain on society:

The veteran Government adviser said pensioners in mental decline are “wasting people’s lives” because of the care they require and should be allowed to opt for euthanasia even if they are not in pain.

She insisted there was “nothing wrong” with people being helped to die for the sake of their loved ones or society.

The 84-year-old added that she hoped people will soon be “licensed to put others down” if they are unable to look after themselves. …

Lady Warnock said: “If you’re demented, you’re wasting people’s lives – your family’s lives – and you’re wasting the resources of the National Health Service.

This is Britain’s “leading moral philosopher.”

In this post and this, The Common Room quotes an article saying:

Canadian doctor warns Sarah Palin’s decision to have Down baby could reduce abortions.

Sarah and Todd Palin’s decision to complete her recent pregnancy, despite advance notice that their baby Trig had Down syndrome, is hailed by many in the pro-life movement as walking the walk as well as talking the talk.

But a senior Canadian doctor is now expressing concerns that such a prominent public role model as the governor of Alaska and potential vice president of the United States completing a Down syndrome pregnancy may prompt other women to make the same decision against abortion because of that genetic abnormality. And thereby reduce the number of abortions.

As she says, this is the kind of reasoning that makes her call them pro-abortion rather than pro-choice.

There are several related posts there under the labels “disabilities” and “pro-life.”

Some would argue that the elderly and the disabled only live so long these days because of advanced technology, and if nature were allowed to take its course, that would not be the case. But if we allowed nature “to take its course” in every case, diabetics would die, as would those needing organ transplants, and we’d still be having polio outbreaks.

It is ironic that eugenic abortions are recommended now in this age when technology gives the disabled more ability to function than ever before, as this Common Room post says:

Christopher Nolan, poet, author, and wheelchair bound victim of Cerebral Palsy so severe he communicates only via keyboard writes of himself:

“‘A brain-damaged baby cannot ponder why a mother cannot communicate with it, and unless it gains parental love and stimulation it stymies, and thus retardation fulsomely establishes its soul-destroying seabed.’ Conscious of the breathtaking sacrifice involved in what his family did for him, yet he detected where destiny beckoned. The future for babies like him never looked more promising, but now society frowned upon giving spastic babies a right to life. Now they threatened to abort babies like him, to detect in advance their handicapped state, to burrow through the womb and label them for death, to baffle their mothers with fear for their coming, and yet, the spastic baby would ever be the soul which would never kill, maim, creed falsehood or hate brotherhood. Why then does society fear the crippled child…and why does it hail the able-bodied child and crow over what may in time become a potential executioner?”

Elsewhere in his writings young Christopher marvels at the age he lives in, recognizing that a hundred years ago a child like him would have been trapped in himself, unable to communicate beyond a rudimentary level with even the most doting of parents. He would scarcely have survived his childhood, and he certainly wouldn’t have published a book, spent any time in the public eye, or given national awards. The western cultural attitude towards disability is disturbing, especially given the technological advances that give the disabled lives they didn’t even survive to dream about in previous centuries.

I suppose those who believe in evolution would classify this as “survival of the fittest,” although in the animal kingdom I think that generally refers to the fact that the weaker usually don’t survive long rather than the stronger actually doing away with the weak of their own kind.

But don’t even those who believe in evolution believe man is more highly evolved than a wolf pack? Do they not regard compassion and mercy as desirable traits?

Conversely, those who believe in creation believe that God has a purpose for every life. “God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty” (I Corinthians 1:27b). We are instructed to “comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men” (I Thessalonians 5:14b), not do away with them.

What purpose could God possibly have for disabled or demented people? See my previous posts titled With All Our Feebleness, Why Am I Still Here? and Scriptural Reasons For Suffering,  Jason Jantz’s Fourteen Reasons For Fourteen Years, where he shares perspectives of what God accomplished through the fourteen years his brother lived in a persistent vegetative state after an accident, Michael G. Franc’s article “Your Brother Is a Blessing,” and The Common Room’s “Quality of Life, Quality of Mercy” about her own disabled daughter.

Remembering 9/11

Posted on by

911.jpg

(Originally posted 9/11/06)

I used to volunteer at my sons’ school every Tuesday. On that particular Tuesday morning in September, a little after 9 a.m., I turned on the car radio to catch a bit of news on my way to the school. I was confused at first — I could tell something serious had happened, but couldn’t make out what. Finally the newscaster explained that an airplane had hit the World Trade Tower. I was stunned. I sat in the parking lot at the school and listened to the news coverage for a few minutes. Then I went into the school office, with the words, “Did you hear…?” on my lips. They had heard and someone had set up a TV in the office. Many of us stood, motionless, stunned, shocked, and watched the coverage. We thought we couldn’t be any more stunned — then we saw footage of a second plane hitting the other tower. Then we saw people leaping out of windows to try to escape. Then we saw the first tower collapse.

I don’t remember how long I stayed there. The function that I usually helped with was canceled for the day. Several parents came to pick their children up and take them home: they just wanted to have them near. The principal had a TV set up in the gym for those students and teachers who wanted to watch the coverage. I think most of the high school classes were canceled and students could either watch the coverage in the gym or study quietly in one of the classrooms.

For the rest of the day and the next several days, with most of the country, I was almost glued to the TV as more news came in and pieces of the puzzle came to light. I clicked on news sources online and read coverage and looked at pictures in magazines.

There are several things I remember from that time:

  • Feeling in shock.
  • Feelings of vulnerability.
  • Feelings of horror that anyone could do such a thing to other people.
  • Feelings of fear, wondering if this was but the beginning of a larger effort, of a war.
  • Feelings of empathy with those who had died, those who had lost loved ones, those in parts of the world for whom terrorism is an almost everyday occurrence.
  • A feeling of unity in our country that I had never experienced in my lifetime. That is one thing I miss.
  • Feelings of…awe? gratefulness? wonder? inspiration? I am struggling with the right word to express what I felt on hearing the stories of heroism, of bravery, of decency.
  • Feelings of more joy upon hearing the stories of so many who unexpectedly missed flights or were late to work at the towers.
  • Feelings of comfort as the Lord ministered to hearts afterward.

Regarding that last item, one of the young men in my sons’ youth group shared this verse with the teens, I believe that first Wednesday afterward:

Isaiah 25:4: For thou hast been a strength to the poor, a strength to the needy in his distress, a refuge from the storm, a shadow from the heat, when the blast of the terrible ones is as a storm against the wall.

How that ministered to my heart! I shared it with many loved ones via e-mail. There is only one true Refuge.

The question has come to many a mind, “Why did God allow it?” I don’t know that we’ll have the answer until time is over and we are with Him. But, surely we don’t mean why did God allow that to happen to us? We’re such a blessed nation, even in the state of spiritual forgetfulness and indifference we are in now — do we think we’re exempt from the troubles many nations experience daily? This was of a greater magnitude, yes, but many countries face the possibility of car bombs and suicide bombers every day. Then we get into the larger question of why God allows evil at all. All I know is that He allows for us to have and exercise a free will, and that results in sin, because we all choose our own way over His all too often. There will be a time when “sin shall be no more,” when every tear shall be wiped away and there shall be no more sorrow, sadness, death, crying (Revelation 21:4). That time is not yet. Until then we have to deal with a fallen world. But those who love God have this promise:

Romans 8:28: And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

It is at the point of deep need that we learn the truth of that verse and others. We know it so well it almost become cliched to us, until we truly need it.

One of the “good things” to come out of 9/11 was the salvation of one of my son’s friends. He realized that life can end suddenly and unexpectedly and that he needed to be ready.

There are some who think we should remember 9/11 only with silence, who feel that replaying and reliving the events of that day only plays into the hands of the terrorists, inspiring more terror. I disagree. I can understand those for whom it might be too painful to reflect on much, but I disagree that we’re playing into the hands of the terrorists by remembering that day. It’s good to remember. We need to remember the fallen, to memorialize them. We need to remember those whom they left behind. We even need to remember our vulnerability. Psalm 9:20 says “Put them in fear, O LORD: that the nations may know themselves to be but men.” I can’t presume to say that that was one of God’s purposes for allowing this, but we do need to remember that we are “but men” (or women) even though we’re a “superpower.” We need to remember that “The horse [or the fighter pilot or the tank or whatever we might use in warfare] is prepared against the day of battle: but safety is of the LORD” (Proverbs 21:31). We need to remember the empathy, the inspiration, the acts of courage.

My husband and I were saying yesterday morning that we wished they would do away with the Labor Day observance and instead have a 9/11 observance. But then we thought that, after a while, it would just be another Monday holiday. It would seem the height of disrespect to turn it into another day for retailers to have sales. I wonder if WWII veterans are horrified that Memorial Day and Veterans Day, beyond the occasional parade and wreath-laying ceremonies, are regarded by most people as an opportunity to be off work and go to the mall. May we as a country remember all of our fallen better than that.

Living on machines

Posted on by

For some people, the thought of being hooked up to a machine in order to live is daunting. No, more than daunting…more like being the living dead.

This was the view of my brother’s fiancee when my father was found unconscious in his apartment after suffering what was apparently a small stroke several years ago. She had worked in a nursing home and had seen many people put on a ventilator for the rest of their lives. She felt if he needed a machine to live it was his time to go.

I believe she was wrong, though well-intentioned. Thankfully she was over-ruled.

My father was on a ventilator for about a week. We were called in from out of state, and thankfully he improved. Unfortunately he was taken off the ventilator only the day we had to leave, so we were only able to talk that one day, but we had been able to communicate through notes, eye contact, holding hands.

That last day in the hospital was the last we saw of him. He lived another six months before passing away in his sleep.

Some would say, “Well, the ventilator only bought him six more months. Was it worth it for so short a time?”

Yes, it was. A lot of good things happened in those six months. He lived with his son, who had often lived with him. Their relationship had not always been smooth, and I think it did my brother a world of good to give back to his dad in that way in his last months. My dad was able to attend his son’s wedding. He had lost a leg while in the hospital, but even with his physical limitations, he had an enjoyable final six months.

There are some people who actually live active lives on a ventilator full time for years. One of my heroes, Jim Lubin, has been on a portable ventilator for about ten years, since being paralyzed from the neck down with transverse myelitis. He began the Transverse Myelitis Internet Club, which has been one of my lifelines since my own diagnosis. He set up and maintains the disABILITY Information and Resources site, a Quad List Discussion Group, a Vent-Users Support Page, the Transverse Myelitis Association’s web site and others, all with a sip-and-puff method of using the computer, which you can see here (Jim is the second man speaking and later demonstrates how he uses the computer):

Some years ago I read a book called Charlie’s Victory by Charlie Wedemeyer, a coach who develops ALS, or Lou Gehrig’s disease. When his disease began to impact his breathing, his wife took him to a hospital, where the doctor told her it was time to let him go. A nurse told her about portable ventilators, and the doctor was actually angry when Mrs. Wedemeyer told him she wanted to try the portable ventilator. But she insisted, and Charlie left the hospital having many more years…in public motivational speaking!

Living on a ventilator would not be anyone’s first choice of lifestyle, of course. But these and many others are proof that being on a ventilator is not living death.

I know there are complicated situations, and I don’t presume to have pat answers to them. Joni Eareckson Tada very ably wrestles with such questions in her book When Is It Right To Die? She discusses there the difference between sustaining life and prolonging death.

But for this particular moment, the main point I want to make is that, if the time comes when someone suggests a ventilator or other machine for yourself or a loved one, don’t immediately dismiss it. Machines can be a great aid to many more enjoyable and productive years.

Alarming indeed

Posted on by

Through a series of links from other places, I discovered some alarming truths about Obama.

This is from an op-ed piece by Rick Santorum titled “The Elephant in the Room: Obama: A harsh ideologue hidden by a feel-good image.”

Granted, the first-term Illinois senator’s lofty rhetoric of bipartisanship, unity, hope and change makes everyone feel good. But it’s becoming increasingly clear that his grand campaign rhetoric does not match his partisan, ideological record. The nonpartisan National Journal, for example, recently rated Obama the Senate’s most liberal member. That’s besting some tough competition from orthodox liberals such as Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer.

John McCain’s campaign and conservative pundits have listed the numerous times in Obama’s short Senate career where he sided with the extremes in his party against broadly supported compromises on issues such as immigration, ethics reform, terrorist surveillance and war funding. Fighting on the fringe with a handful of liberals is one thing, but consider his position on an issue that passed both houses of Congress unanimously in 2002.

That bill was the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. During the partial-birth abortion debate, Congress heard testimony about babies that had survived attempted late-term abortions. Nurses testified that these preterm living, breathing babies were being thrown into medical waste bins to die or being “terminated” outside the womb. With the baby now completely separated from the mother, it was impossible to argue that the health or life of the mother was in jeopardy by giving her baby appropriate medical treatment.

The act simply prohibited the killing of a baby born alive. To address the concerns of pro-choice lawmakers, the bill included language that said nothing “shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right” of the baby. In other words, the bill wasn’t intruding on Roe v. Wade.

Who would oppose a bill that said you couldn’t kill a baby who was born? Not Kennedy, Boxer or Hillary Rodham Clinton. Not even the hard-core National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Obama, however, is another story. The year after the Born Alive Infants Protection Act became federal law in 2002, identical language was considered in a committee of the Illinois Senate. It was defeated with the committee’s chairman, Obama, leading the opposition.

Let’s be clear about what Obama did, once in 2003 and twice before that. He effectively voted for infanticide. He voted to allow doctors to deny medically appropriate treatment or, worse yet, actively kill a completely delivered living baby. Infanticide – I wonder if he’ll add this to the list of changes in his next victory speech and if the crowd will roar: “Yes, we can.”

How could someone possibly justify such a vote? In March 2001, Obama was the sole speaker in opposition to the bill on the floor of the Illinois Senate. He said: “We’re saying they are persons entitled to the kinds of protections provided to a child, a 9-month child delivered to term. I mean, it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal-protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child.” So according to Obama, “they,” babies who survive abortions or any other preterm newborns, should be permitted to be killed because giving legal protection to preterm newborns would have the effect of banning all abortions.

Justifying the killing of newborn babies is deeply troubling, but just as striking is his rigid adherence to doctrinaire liberalism. Apparently, the “audacity of hope” is limited only to those babies born at full term and beyond. Worse, given his support for late-term partial-birth abortions that supporters argued were necessary to end the life of genetically imperfect children, it may be more accurate to say the audacity of hope applies only to those babies born healthy at full term.

According to this source, these are Obama’s own words in arguing against the bill:

Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — a child, a nine-month-old — child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child. Then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.

The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we’re placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as — as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we’re probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality.

It is sad — beyond sad — that he is more concerned with how this bill would have affected the ruling on abortions than the effect and ramifications of it on human life. His reasoning is right that this ruling would recognize an aborted baby as a child, a person with rights: his conclusions are wrong that such a recognition means that such a child should be left to die.

I hope and pray this man is not elected as our next president.

One of the worst anniversaries

Posted on by

One of the saddest days in the history of our country was when the Roe v. Wade decision 35 years ago today. Crystal at Biblical Womanhood has a post here and another post here that convey my sentiments, plus a video of a testimony of one girl’s abortion at the latter. It’s heartbreaking.

Three abortion stories

Posted on by

Over the last few days three very different abortion stories have come to my attention.

I saw the first one linked to from Crystal’s about a woman who found she was expecting triplets and decided to abort two because,

“I worked freelance; and I would have to go on bed rest in March. I lecture at colleges, and my biggest months are March and April. I would have to give up my main income for the rest of the year. There was a part of me that was sure I could work around that. But it was a matter of, Do I want to?…When I found out about the triplets, I felt like: It’s not the back of a pickup at 16, but now I’m going to have to move to Staten Island. I’ll never leave my house because I’ll have to care for these children. I’ll have to start shopping only at Costco and buying big jars of mayonnaise. Even in my moments of thinking about having three, I don’t think that deep down I was ever considering it.”

She went on to say she is afraid of getting pregnant again because of the possibility of conceiving multiples again, and that if she was pregnant again with triplets she would again abort one or more of them. A note at the end of the article says this woman is an abortion rights advocate who has no regrets over her decision.

I felt both sick and sad after reading this article. Any honest parent would admit that yes, babies don’t always come at convenient times, and, yes, they do change your life — especially when they come three at one time. This mother didn’t feel as if she couldn’t handle it. She didn’t want to. Aside from the religious and moral implications, how sad that two lives with all their potential for who they could have been and what they could have accomplished were snuffed out with a shot of potassium chloride to the heart — an act that would be legally murder done to someone outside the womb — just because they were an inconvenience to the one who gave them life. How sad that life is only valued if it is wanted. There used to be some measure of self-sacrifice, of putting aside one’s own wants and pleasures for the sake of another’s life, even among non-Christians. Those are foreign concepts these days.

I have to admit the thought of triplets would be jarring. The thought of such a sudden and drastic life change would be unsettling. When I found out I was pregnant with my third, I’ll have to admit there were mixed emotions, just for a little while — my other two were older, and though we hadn’t decided on a certain number of children or a certain time frame for having them, there was a feeling as if we had moved past the baby stage of life, and entering it again was daunting. Maybe that’s part of the problem — we as Christians never talk about these things and we make it seem like parenthood is all bliss. It’s not. It’s wondrous, it’s fun, it’s beautiful. But it is hard. But there is help. By God’s grace I knew that He is the author of life, His timing is perfect, He has a plan for every soul (Psalm 139:13-17), and He gives grace to help in time of need, and therefore I would never have considered abortion. I wish this mother knew these things as well, and I hope she would have been accepting of them if she knew them. I am so glad He brought Jesse along when He did. he’s the sunshine of our family. I can’t imagine life without him.

The second story was one I saw linked to at Amy’s. For the past day or so I had been thinking about blogging about this one under the title “Doctor’s aren’t always right.” “When doctors found that Gabriel was weaker than his brother, with an enlarged heart,and believed he was going to die in the womb, his mother Rebecca Jones had to make a heartbreaking decision. Doctors told her his death could cause his twin brother to die too before they were born, and that it would be better to end Gabriel’s suffering sooner rather than later.” ”

Mrs Jones said: “They told us that if he died, it could be life threatening for his brother. We had to decide whether to end his life and let his brother live, or risk them both. They said it would be impossible to keep him alive afterwards as he was so poorly. It would be kinder to let him die in the womb with his brother by his side than to die alone after being born.” (That’s rather strange logic to me). “That made my mind up for me. I wanted the best thing for him.” (The best thing?)

Mrs Jones decided to let doctors operate to terminate Gabriel’s life.

Firstly they tried to sever his umbilical cord to cut off his blood supply, but the cord was too strong.

They then cut Mrs Jones’s placenta in half so that when Gabriel died, it would not affect his twin brother.

But after the operation which was meant to end his life, tiny Gabriel had other ideas.

Although he weighed less than a pound, he put up such a fight for survival that doctors called him Rocky.

Astonishingly, he managed to carry on living in his mother’s womb for another five weeks – until the babies were delivered by caesarean section.

Now he and Ieuan are back at home in Stoke – and are so close they are always holding each other’s hand.

When Mrs Jones reached 31 weeks doctors carried out a caesarian to deliver the twins. Ieuan weighed 3lb 8oz and Gabriel 1lb 15oz. Both were kept in hospital, but since going home they have thrived. At seven months, Ieuan weighs 15lb and Gabriel 12lb 6oz.

Mrs Jones said: “The boys are so healthy, they have huge appetites too. Ieuan is the noisy one, while Gabriel is always laughing, it’s like he’s just so happy to be here.

“There is such a strong bond between them.

“They are always holding hands and if one cries, the other reaches out to comfort him.”

“Doctors tried to break their bond in the womb, but they just proved it couldn’t be broken.”

I am so thankful for the outcome, thankful this little one lived and is thriving. And I can sympathize with the mother’s thought that she was sacrificing one child to help the other survive rather than lose both. But I wish the mindset among people in general and the medical community in particular was geared toward giving life a chance rather than thinking a fatal intervention is needed.

The last story was one I read just this morning about God’s amazing grace to a woman who had had three abortions. I don’t want to just quote pieces from it — go on over and read the whole thing. I pray that anyone reading this who is considering abortion or who has had an abortion would read this story and find the same amazing grace.