"Is it possible to be Christian and pro-choice at the same time?" NO…

Abortion has been a hotly debated topic in American culture for the past forty years. Proponents on both sides wave statistics and viewpoints that many sincerely believe to be the only right way. For the sake of clarity, let’s define the terms “pro-choice” and “pro-life.” For the purposes of this article, “pro-choice” will be defined as “the belief that a woman should have the legal right to abort her unborn child at any point in the pregnancy.” Pro-choice advocates believe abortion is a personal decision and should not be limited by the government or anyone else. “Pro-life” will be defined as “the belief that every human life is sacred and no one, including the mother, has the right to end an innocent life.” Pro-life advocates hold the view that life from the moment of conception should be protected.

So, should a Christian be pro-choice or pro-life? A Christian, according to the Bible, is someone who has accepted God’s offer of forgiveness through Jesus’ death and resurrection. Salvation is a gift of God through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ (John 3:16-18; Ephesians 2:8-9; Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9). What we believe about other things is a matter of growth, not of salvation. However, 2 Corinthians 5:17 says, “If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” When we give our lives to Christ, He begins to change us: our way of thinking and our way of behaving (see Isaiah 55:7). Our bodies become the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 3:16; 6:19). Our minds are renewed through the truth of God’s Word (Romans 12:1-2). Our attitudes, perspectives, and behaviors gradually change to be more like those of Christ (Romans 8:29; Galatians 5:22).

This transformation doesn’t happen overnight. Many Christians are still what the apostle Paul called “carnal” (1 Corinthians 3:1-3; Romans 8:6). Carnal Christians trust in Jesus for salvation, but they still think, act, and react like the world. Often, they are new to the faith or simply have not allowed the Holy Spirit free access to every area of their hearts. They are trying to live the Christian life in their own strength, while still being heavily influenced by the world’s way of thinking. The carnal mind has not been fully renewed by the Word of God and still seeks compromise with the world (James 4:4). Carnal Christians allow the persuasive viewpoints of the ungodly to sway their opinions on many things, including abortion. Spiritual growth requires us to shed our old ways of thinking as we become more like Christ. We begin to see things the way God does, and the closer to Him we become, the less we agree with the world’s system (Psalm 1:1-2). If a person continually refuses to allow the Word of God to transform his thinking, chances are great that he is not really a Christian (Romans 8:14).

Pro-choice advocates state that the Bible does not address abortion, so the decision should be the individual’s. While it is true that the term “abortion” does not appear in the Bible, the principles about the value of life are there. In Exodus 21:22-23, God wrote into His Law protection for the unborn. If a pregnant woman was injured, causing her to lose her child, then the one who caused the injury was to be executed: “a life for a life.” The phrase “life for a life” says a lot. God considers the life of the unborn just as valuable as that of a grown man.

God said to Jeremiah, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you” (Jeremiah 1:5). It was God who created him for a specific purpose. Psalm 139:13-16 gives us the clearest picture of God’s viewpoint on the unborn. David writes, “For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made… . My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret… .Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Your book were all written the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them.”

The Bible is clear that all human life is created by God for His purpose and His pleasure (Colossians 1:16), and a Christian who truly wants to know the heart of God must align his or her viewpoint with God’s. When we start justifying evil according to our understanding, we dilute the truth of God’s Word. When we rename adultery an “affair,” homosexuality an “alternative lifestyle,” and murder of the unborn a “choice,” we are headed for serious trouble. We cannot redefine what it means to follow Christ. Jesus said we must first “deny ourselves” (Matthew 16:24; Luke 9:23). Part of denying ourselves is letting go of comfortable lies the world has fed us. We have to let go of our own understanding and allow God to change us (Proverbs 3:5-6).

Some pro-choice advocates argue that they are not pro-abortion. They say they hate abortion, but support a woman’s right to choose. This makes as much sense as saying that you personally hate rape, but support a man’s right to commit it. The rhetoric sounds nice—the mention of “choice” makes it more appealing—but underneath is a direct conflict with God’s viewpoint in Scripture.

Pro-choice advocates often state that their position is “compassionate” and that pro-lifers don’t care about the woman or her child. This argument is a red herring. Whether pro-lifers “care” or not is irrelevant, just as it is irrelevant whether those opposed to robbery “care” about the banks being robbed. Robbery is against God’s moral law. So is abortion. And that’s the issue.

The Bible is clear: since God is the Creator of human life, only He can determine who lives or dies. And every person who claims the name of Christ has the obligation to make certain his or her views line up with His Word. Is it possible for a born-again Christian to be pro-choice? Yes. Is it likely that such a person will remain pro-choice? Not if he or she is allowing God’s Word to transform and renew his or her mind (Romans 12:2).

What a TRAVESTY!!! Having a man who blesses Planned Parenthood be honored in this way? Talk about Mocking God!!!

President Obama will speak next month at the celebration of the 20th anniversary of a Holocaust history foundation established by director Steven Spielberg, at which the acclaimed Hollywood director will give Obama the “ambassador to humanity” award [1].

It is a tragedy beyond words that a man who produced Schindler’s List, a producer who said “I ‘was put on this earth to tell the story of the Holocaust”[2] would now honor a president that has done more than any other president to further the American holocaust of the killing of babies in the womb. Such misdirected esteem reminds me of the words of scripture: “For what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God.” 

The butchery of millions of children in the womb is the result of man’s greatest and yet the most obscure of sins: idolatry. It opened the door to the Nazi holocaust. Hitler created his own image of God and then killed in his god’s name, and idolatry has opened the door to the taking of 60 million lives. America’s image of God is one of a divine butler, some sort of celestial Santa Claus. America’s god doesn’t mind pornography, adultery, fornication, homosexuality, blasphemy and abortion…and I lay the blame at the feet of our pulpits. 

Instead of men of righteousness who boldly preach the truth we have preachers who should have been motivational speakers or plumbers—or anything but those who represent Almighty God and His will for humanity. 

This is a movie that everyone should get behind. it is to tell the story of the prolific serial killer in the United States. He killed more people than Gary Ridgeway, John Wayne Gasy, The Zodiak Killer and Ted Bundy combined. He had a thirty year killing spree of the innocent. The Grand Jury investigating Kermit Gosnell’s horrific crimes said this:

 

This case is about a doctor who killed babies … What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable, babies in the third trimester of pregnancy – and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors …. Over the years, many people came to know that something was going on here. But no one put a stop to it. (Report of the Grand Jury)

ABOMINATIONS BEFORE OUR EYES… Tissue from aborted fetuses used to power Oregon homes….

Published April 24, 2014

Sam Brentano, chairman of the Marion County board of commissioners, said late Wednesday the board is taking immediate action to prohibit human tissue from future deliveries at the plant that has been turning waste into energy since 1987.

"We provide an important service to the people of this state and it would be a travesty if this program is jeopardized due to this finding," he said in a statement. "We thought our ordinance excluded this type of material at the waste-to-energy facility. We will take immediate action to ensure a process is developed to prohibit human tissue from future deliveries."

Kristy Anderson, a British Columbia Health Ministry spokeswoman, told The Associated Press that regional health authorities there have a contract with a company that sends biomedical waste, such as fetal tissue, cancerous tissue and amputated limbs, to Oregon, where it’s incinerated in the waste-energy plant.

The B.C. Catholic, a Vancouver-based newspaper, identified the plant as Covanta Marion, based in Brooks, Ore.  When contacted by The AP on Wednesday, a Covanta Marion representative said he did not know if fetal tissue was included in shipments from Canada or elsewhere.

The facility is owned and operated by Covanta in a partnership with Marion County. According to its website, it processes 550 tons per day of municipal solid waste, generating up to 13 megawatts of energy sold to Portland General Electric.

Marion County estimates that the facility processes about 700 tons of in-county medical waste each year and about 1,200 tons from elsewhere, making it a small percentage of the total waste burned. Out-of-town medical waste is charged a higher fee.

County spokeswoman Jolene Kelley said medical waste has been included in the program for some time, but the commissioners never had any indication that fetal tissue might be included.

"We learned that today," she said.

Commissioners did not say why they believe medical waste shipped to the plant should be free of fetal tissue.

Since they have no idea what’s been arriving in the sealed shipments, the commissioners decided to temporarily suspend all medical waste, Kelley said. They’ve scheduled an emergency hearing for Thursday and might rewrite an ordinance to clarify what type of material can be accepted.

Covanta Marion is believed to be the only plant generating energy from waste in Oregon.

The Environmental Protection Agency says medical waste from hospitals is generally excluded from the municipal solid waste used to generate electricity.

This 12-Year-Old’s Speech on Abortion Was Banned—Until Her Teacher Actually Heard It

This is a WIN for Pro-Life!!! Thank the Lord for good judges!!!

COURT SAYS GOVERNMENT CAN’T FORCE COUNSELORS’ SPEECH

Judge notes only pro-abortion volunteers complaining about centers

Published: 20 hours ago

A federal judge in Maryland has ruled that a county can’t force pro-life pregnancy centers that offer advice, diapers and other help to moms-to-be to post a sign advising women to go to another clinic for help.

The push for the mandatory signs came from the county, which adopted the demands of pro-abortion interests such as the National Abortion Rights Action League as its own.

But as U.S. District Judge Deborah Chasenow found, there simply was no evidence that such signs were needed.

“Even assuming … that [pro-life] centers are presenting themselves as medical providers and thus pregnant women are accepting their misinformation as sound medical advice, the county must still demonstrate the next supposition on the logical chain: that these practices are having the effect of harming the health of pregnant women,” the judge wrote Friday in banning the county from imposing its signage requirement.

“The county has failed this task. NARAL volunteers did not forgo medical care because of the [centers], they were merely testing the system as part of an investigation. Dr. Tillman, the county’s health officer and Rule 30(b)(6) expert, testified that she never received one complaint about [those centers] in the eight years she had been the county’s chief of public health, nor had any evidence that an actual pregnant woman – as opposed to a NARAL volunteer – delayed seeking medical care after patronizing a [center].

“Quite simply, the county has put no evidence into the record to demonstrate that [the centers’] failure clearly to state that no doctors are on premises has led to any negative health outcomes,” the judge said.

According to the Alliance Defending Freedom, which worked on the legal particulars of the case involving the Centro Tepeyac center, it was a good sign, because other lawsuits on the same issue are pending in Baltimore, New York City, San Francisco and Austin.

The issue is that pro-abortion interests are demanding that pregnancy counseling centers – which offer advice and sometimes financial help, diapers and and other services – identify prominently and publicly that they don’t have a licensed doctor on staff. In fact, the Montgomery County sign demand was for wording that advised women to go somewhere else.

However, the regulations are worded carefully so that similar advice from pro-abortion centers, such as Planned Parenthood, is exempt from the requirement.

“Pregnancy centers, which offer real help and hope to women, shouldn’t be punished by political allies of abortion sellers,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel Matt Bowman, co-counsel in the case. “The court rightly found no justification whatsoever for the government to force pro-life centers to speak a message designed to drive women away. The government cannot resort to coercing or shutting down someone else’s speech in violation of the First Amendment in order to achieve its political goals.”

ADF said the Montgomery County law forced “limited-service pregnancy centers” and individuals who have a “primary purpose” of offering information about pregnancy to post signage noting that a medical professional is not on staff and that the county health department advises them to speak with a licensed medical professional.

“The county intentionally crafted the law so that it doesn’t apply to pro-abortion centers, such as Planned Parenthood, even if counseling is offered there by non-medical persons,” ADF said.

The opinion of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland issued in Centro Tepeyac v. Montgomery County explained that “the critical flaw for the county is the lack of any evidence that the practices of [the pregnancy care centers] are causing pregnant women to be misinformed which is negatively affecting their health.”

The ruling said that “when core First Amendment interests are implicated, mere intuition [of a problem] is not sufficient. Yet that is all the county has brought forth: intuition and suppositions.”

The judge pointedly noted that “the only people” alleging a problem were “universally volunteers from a pro-choice organization sent to investigate [their] practices.”

The judge’s permanent injunction blocks the Montgomery County, Md., law entirely.

ABORTION/DOES LIFE START AT CONCEPTION?….

Before deciding how we ought to treat the unborn—a moral question—we must first be clear about what the unborn is. This is a scientific question, and it is answered with clarity by the science of human embryology.

When sperm fertilizes egg

The facts of reproduction are straightforward. Upon completion of the fertilization process, sperm and egg have ceased to exist (this is why “fertilized egg” is an inaccurate term); what exists is a single cell with 46 chromosomes (23 from each parent) that is called a zygote. The coming into existence of the zygote is the point of conception—the beginning of the life of a new human organism. The terms zygote, embryo and fetus all refer to developmental stages in the life of a human being.

Four features of the unborn

Four features of the unborn (i.e., the human zygote, embryo or fetus) are relevant to his or her status as a human being. First, the unborn is living. She meets all the biological criteria for life: metabolism, cellular reproduction and reaction to stimuli. Moreover, she is clearly growing, and dead things (of course) don’t grow.

Second, the unborn is human. She possesses a human genetic signature that proves this beyond any doubt. She is also the offspring of human parents, and we know that humans can only beget humans (they cannot beget dogs or cats, for instance). The unborn may not seem to “look” human (at least in her earlier stages), but in fact she looks exactly like a human at that level of human development. Living things do not become something different as they grow and mature; rather, they develop the way that they do precisely because of the kind of being they already are.

Third, the unborn is genetically and functionally distinct from (though dependent on and resting inside of) the pregnant woman. Her growth and maturation is internally directed, and her DNA is unique and different from that of any other cell in the woman’s body. She develops her own arms, legs, brain, central nervous system, etc. To say that a fetus is a part of the pregnant woman’s body is to say that the woman has four arms and four legs, and that about half of pregnant women have penises.

A whole organism

Fourth, the unborn is a whole or complete (though immature) organism. That is, she is not a mere part of another living thing, but is her own organism—an entity whose parts work together in a self-integrated fashion to bring the whole to maturity. Her genetic information is fully present at conception, determining to a large extent her physical characteristics (including sex, eye color, skin color, bone structure, etc.); she needs only a suitable environment and nutrition to develop herself through the different stages of human life.

Thus, the unborn is a distinct, living and whole human organism—a full-fledged member of the species Homo sapiens, like you and me, only at a much earlier stage in her development. She is a human being.

Affirmed by textbooks, scientists

This fact is confirmed by embryology textbooks and leading scientists, who could be cited here ad nauseam. “In The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology,” perhaps the most widely used embryology text, Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud explain: “Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell — a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”

Langman’s Embryology notes, “The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”

Adds Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth of Harvard Medical School, “It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception, when egg and sperm join to form the zygote, and this developing human always is a member of our species in all stages of its life.”

In 1981 a U.S. Senate judiciary subcommittee heard expert testimony on the question of when life begins. The official subcommittee report reached this conclusion:

“Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.”

The report also noted that “no witness [who testified before the subcommittee] raised any evidence to refute the biological fact that from the moment of conception there exists a distinct individual being who is alive and is of the human species. No witness challenged the scientific consensus that unborn children are ‘human beings,’ insofar as the term is used to mean living beings of the human species.”

Evidence is decisive

The evidence, then, shows that the unborn is a living organism of the human species from his or her beginning at conception. Thus, to kill the unborn by abortion or for embryo-destructive research is to kill a human being. This is not a moral claim about whether such killing is right or wrong, but a factual one, based on the scientific evidence of embryology.

Objections to this conclusion stem from scientific ignorance, confusion or misunderstanding. I consider common objections below.

FIVE MORE THINGS GOD TAUGHT US WITH THE ARK:
11. When people make fun of your faith, stay focused on God.
12. Share your faith Boldly or people will perish.
13. Sometimes God shuts doors to protect us.
14. God never breaks His promises to us. 
15. Be patient. Our storms will pass.
WE LOVE YOU GOD!

On Another Anniversary of Roe v. Wade: Four Issues to Consider (Part 1)

TUESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2014

Andy Woods

By Dr. Andy Woods 
Sugar Land Bible Church 

(The Word on Politics)—On January 19, churches throughout our nation will commemorate yet another Sanctity of Human Life Sunday. It has been over four decades since the infamous Roe v. Wade [1] decision, which legalized abortion-on-demand throughout our society. Over the past four decades, both sides in the debate have had ample opportunity to present their side of the argument to the public on the foundational issue: When does life begin? Since most Americans are probably already well-versed on what both sides have to say on that important issue, allow me to briefly focus on four issues that are less prominent in the abortion discussion.

Abortion

FOUR ISSUES TO CONSIDER

First, the so-called right to procure an abortion is nowhere found in the text of our Constitution. This is an important point to make since we have heard the slogan “a woman’s right to choose” so frequently repeated, that many Americans incorrectly assume that there is some kind of authority for this right found in America’s founding documents. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

The Roe v. Wade decision guaranteed women the constitutional right to procure an abortion. It is simply impossible to argue that the Constitution supports a right to have an abortion if this issue is analyzed from the perspective of original intent of the Constitution’s framers. Interestingly, any express reference to “abortion” or “privacy” cannot be found within the actual text of the Constitution.

Moreover, although the Roe court found a constitutional right to obtain an abortion on the basis of the word “liberty” found in the Fourteenth Amendment, the authorial intent of the Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with abortion. The Fourteenth Amendment was passed in 1868 in the post-Civil War era in order to guarantee specific rights to recently emancipated slaves. In fact, the authorial intent of the Fourteenth Amendment argues strongly against using this amendment as a means of justifying a constitutional right to acquire an abortion. The very states that ratified the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 had either passed or were in the process of passing laws prohibiting abortion.

However, Justice Blackmun, in writing for the majority, was able to “find” such a right by seizing the opportunity of reinterpreting or guiding the evolutionary “progress” of the Constitution. Because society had allegedly matured or progressed to the point where “reproductive freedom” should be honored, the Constitution needed to be reinterpreted in order to keep up with this new societal value.

In addition, Blackmun borrowed the right to privacy language from a case handed down a few years earlier called Griswold v. Connecticut. [2] InGriswold, the court struck down a state law restricting access to contraceptives. The court reached its decision on the grounds that such laws violated the constitutional right to privacy. Since the Constitution does not explicitly mention the right to privacy, where did the Griswold court base the existence of such a right? The court found it within the “penumbras” of the Bill of Rights. A penumbra is a shadow. In other words, despite the fact that the word “privacy” nowhere appears in the actual wording of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, the court “discovered” this right to privacy within the shadows cast by the Bill of Rights. In Roe, the court ruled that state laws restricting access to abortion are unconstitutional. Blackmun based this decision on the privacy language from Griswold. Blackmun reasoned that procurement of an abortion falls within the purview of this manufactured right to privacy.

Thus, Blackmun and the Roe court were able to guide the evolutionary progress of the Constitution so that it would guarantee a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion only by trampling upon the intention of its framers. Because no such right to privacy expressly exists in the text of the Constitution, Blackmun had to manufacture such a right from the shadows of the Bill of Rights. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, Blackmun found the right to an abortion in the liberty clause of the Fourteenth Amendment only by ignoring the historical context in which the amendment was written.

So there you have it. The king has no clothes! There is no foundational legal source guaranteeing a right to have an abortion. Thus, the Roedecision is bad law. Consequently, it is also unjust law. Millions of unborn children have lost their lives as a result of a decision “discovering” a constitutional right that came into existence through the mere stroke of a pen based upon nothing more than the judiciary’s personal predilection regarding the direction society ought to be headed.

Second, the Roe decision is contrary to both America’s founding Democratic and Republican ideals. Who ultimately is supposed to decide foundational questions, such as when does life begin? Prior to Roe, this decision was handled at the state level. In other words, the institution closest to the people and directly accountable to them through the ballot box resolved the question of when life begins. Roe changed all of this. In essence, the Roe court federalized the issue. By ruling that the choice to have an abortion is now a constitutional right, the question of life was taken away from the state governments and instead placed in the hands of federal judges. Thus, decision-making power in this instance was transferred away from the people and their representatives and instead placed into the hands of the national judiciary. Because federal jurists are appointed for life and thus insulated from, and unaccountable to the people,Roe transferred decision-making power on this critical issue away from the people and toward an unelected, oligarchical, elite group of decision makers. By allowing the final arbitrators to be those removed from the people, the American notion of “we the people, by the people, and for the people” suffered a catastrophic blow when the Roe decision was handed down.

At this juncture, it is appropriate to recall the following haunting words from Ronald Reagan’s 1964 speech entitled “A Time for Choosing.” Here, our future President warned:

If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth. And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except to sovereign people, is still the newest and most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man. This is the issue of this election. Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

(To Be Continued…)

On Another Anniversary of Roe v. Wade: Four Issues to Consider (Part 2)

FRIDAY, JANUARY 17, 2014

Andy Woods

By Dr. Andy Woods 
Sugar Land Bible Church 

(The Word on Politics)—On January 19, churches throughout our nation will commemorate yet another Sanctity of Human Life Sunday. It has been over four decades since the infamous Roe v. Wade [1] decision, which legalized abortion-on-demand throughout our society. Over the past four decades, both sides in the debate have had ample opportunity to present their side of the argument to the public on the foundational issue: When does life begin? Since most Americans are probably already well-versed on what both sides have to say on that important issue, this two part series briefly focuses on four issues that are less prominent in the abortion discussion. In the last installment, we noted Roe's lack of constitutional foundation and anti-democratic direction. In this installment, we focus upon two additional lesser discussed problems with Roe.

Margaret Sanger

RACIST ROOTS

Third, the Roe decision is ultimately racist at its roots. America’s current abortion-on-demand policies are sourced in the world view of Planned Parenthood. One need only examine the writings of this organization’s founder, Margaret Sanger, in order to grasp the organization’s racist origins:

Sanger published articles in her newsletter, the “Birth Control Review,” that depicted her opinions that certain groups of people…”never should have been born" and that birth control was intended to "create a race of thoroughbreds,” and ensure that society had “more children from the fit, less from the unfit.”

Eugenics-advocate groups like the American Eugenics Society, of which Sanger was a listed member until 1956, suggested that the government should consider putting birth control chemicals in the food and water supplies in certain areas of the nation, specifically in urban areas that were dominated by minority groups. Sanger even suggested imposing a law that would disallow women from having children without first obtaining a permit from the government—a permit that would be good for only one baby—and if approved, the couple would receive an antidote to counter the effects of the involuntarily ingested birth control chemicals.

The Planned Parenthood founder made her views even more blatantly obvious in a letter she wrote to a woman named Katherine Dexter McCormick in 1950, saying she thought that “…there should be national sterilization for certain dysgenic types of our population who are being encouraged to breed and would die out were the government not feeding them.” [2]

Furthermore, in order to counter leftist claims that Sanger was not a racist, Wesley J. Smith quotes several excerpts from Edwin Black’s history of Eugenics entitled War Against the Weak. [3] In order to establish Black’s objectivity as a historian, Smith notes that Black “is not a social conservative,” does not believe that Sanger was “personally racist,” and even “expresses great affinity for Planned Parenthood.” However, on page 127, Black notes:

Sanger was an ardent, self-confessed eugenicist, and she would turn her otherwise noble birth control organizations into a tool for eugenics, which advocated mass sterilization of so-called defectives, mass incarceration of the unfit, and draconian immigration restrictions. Like other staunch eugenicists, Sanger vigorously opposed charitable efforts to uplift the downtrodden and deprived, and argued extensively that it was better that the cold and hungry be left without help, so that the eugenically superior could multiply without competition from “the unfit.” She referred repeatedly to the lower classes and the unfit as “human waste” not worthy of assistance, and proudly quoted the extreme eugenics view that human “weeds” should be exterminated.

On page 133, Black further observes:

Sanger surrounded herself with some of the eugenics movement’s most outspoken racists and white supremacists. Chief among them was Lothrop Stoddard, author of The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy. Stoddard’s book, devoted to the notion of a superior Nordic race, became eugenic gospel. It warned,

“‘Finally perish!’ That is the exact alternative that confronts the white race…If white civilization goes down, the white race is irretrievably ruined. It will be swamped by the triumphant colored races, who will eliminate the white man by elimination or absorption…We now know that men are not and never will be equal.”

On page 135, Black summarizes:

Even though Sanger was not a racist or an anti-Semite herself, she openly welcomed the worst elements of both into the birth control movement. This provided legitimacy and greater currency for a eugenics movement that thrived by subverting progressive reforms to achieve its goals of Nordic racial superiority and ethnic banishment for everyone else.

Such a historical analysis causes Smith to conclude:

…Sanger was a racist. And indeed, Sanger enabled racists. Sanger gave them respectability. Sanger befriended them. Sanger viewed them as valued colleagues. Her wicked social Darwinism would have had a devastating and disproportionate impact on minority communities. Oh, and as the above embed—a reading of her autobiography—proves, she spoke to the Ku Klux Klan, and looked forward to receiving more invitations to speaking in front of similar groups. Add it all up, and Sanger was R.A.C.I.S.T.

Given these racist underpinnings as well as the stated goal of Planned Parenthood’s founder to reduce the population of the black race, [4] it is dismaying to watch African-Americans and other racial minorities overwhelmingly vote in favor of the Democratic Party and its candidates in virtually every election cycle. According to Jamelle Bouie:

At the moment, Democrats have a powerful hold on nonwhite voters. African Americans routinely vote Democratic by huge margins; 95 percent cast ballots for President Barack Obama, and on average 88 percent have voted for Democratic candidates since 1964, the year Lyndon Johnson guided the Civil Rights Act through Congress. Over the past decade, Latinos have also become a reliably Democratic constituency; 67 percent voted for Obama, and 60 percent supported Democrats in the 2010 congressional elections, when Republicans triumphed otherwise. [5]

Far more so than the Republican Party and platform, Planned Parenthood’s abortion-on-demand policies wield virtually unlimited and unrestricted influence in the Democratic Party and platform. I contend, that as more of this sordid history becomes common knowledge, the Democratic Party will one day find itself in a position where it can no longer take the black vote for granted.

OVERTURNING ROE V. WADE

Fourth, with the natural desire to see the Roe decision overturned given these aforementioned problems, it is tempting to place all of our hopes in the Republican Party. However, the Roe decision itself amply illustrates that salvation for the pro-life cause is not automatically found in the Republican Party. Justice Blackmun, the author of the decision, was a Republican Nixon appointee. Many falsely assume that having a Republican President automatically guarantees a conservative, constitutional Supreme Court that will be more interested in the framers’ founding vision for America rather than the shifting sands of politically correct thought. Here is a little historical perspective on this matter. With a Democratic President there is zero chance of getting a Supreme Court conservative or originalist appointed to the bench. All of Clinton’s (Breyer and Ginsburg) and Obama’s (Sotomayor and Kagan) nominees have one thing in common: each of them could care less about what the Constitution actually says. During their confirmations they typically give long-winded discourses about empathy, compassion, and fairness, but say very little about the Constitution’s original intent. Any future nominee whom Obama puts forward is virtually guaranteed to have this exact same mentality and philosophy.

With a Republican President, you have at least one in two chances of getting an originalist nominated. Although Reagan nominated originalists Anthony Scalia and Robert Bork, he also nominated non-originalists Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy. O’Connor was Reagan’s first nominee since he was making good on a campaign promise to place the first woman on the High Court. Many believe that Bork would have sailed through the confirmation process had he rather than O’Connor been nominated by Reagan first. While G.H.W. Bush (America’s 41st President) nominated originalist Clarence Thomas, he also nominated non-originalist David Souter. While the younger Bush nominated originalist Samuel Alito, he also nominated John Roberts, who was recently instrumental in upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare to the strained incredulity of most High Court watchers. In fact, such a split record has been a pattern of Republican Presidents for some time. While Richard Nixon gave us originalist William Rehnquist, he also gave us Harry Blackmun, the author of the majority opinion in the infamous Roe v. Wade decision.

While I am a registered Republican, in recent years, I have found myself quite disillusioned with my own party. I have had to “hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils” on more than one occasion. I no longer see the Republican Party as the automatic remedy for the pro-life cause. However, I also recognize that having a Republican President provides at least a greater probability for the reversal of Roe in comparison to having a Democratic President in power.

As we commemorate yet another Roe v. Wade anniversary, beyond the aspects of the issue that are already well-known, let’s also focus on those other negative elements lurking beneath the surface. Among them we find the decision’s lack of constitutional support, anti-democratic decision making, and subtle racism. My hope and prayer is that one day Roe v. Wade will be overturned thereby returning legal protection to the unborn. Its reversal will also slow down the progress of these other accompanying social evils. However, it must also be understood that correction of the Roedecision will not automatically be found in returning one party or the other to power. On the other hand, it is possible to see Roe overturned in our lifetime, as we carefully scrutinize the philosophy and values of each candidate for elected office, regardless of party affiliation, and as we return to our civic responsibility of acting as salt and light in a fallen world.

(End of Series)

Endnotes

Here is another great Hal Lindsey prophecy update for the week ending January 31, 2014… Maranatha!!!

This is one you shouldn’t miss!!!God bless you!!!

Prophecy Before Our Eyes… On Another Anniversary of Roe v. Wade: Four Issues to Consider (Part 1)…

TUESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2014

Andy Woods

By Dr. Andy Woods 
Sugar Land Bible Church 

(The Word on Politics)—On January 19, churches throughout our nation will commemorate yet another Sanctity of Human Life Sunday. It has been over four decades since the infamous Roe v. Wade [1] decision, which legalized abortion-on-demand throughout our society. Over the past four decades, both sides in the debate have had ample opportunity to present their side of the argument to the public on the foundational issue: When does life begin? Since most Americans are probably already well-versed on what both sides have to say on that important issue, allow me to briefly focus on four issues that are less prominent in the abortion discussion.

Abortion

FOUR ISSUES TO CONSIDER

First, the so-called right to procure an abortion is nowhere found in the text of our Constitution. This is an important point to make since we have heard the slogan “a woman’s right to choose” so frequently repeated, that many Americans incorrectly assume that there is some kind of authority for this right found in America’s founding documents. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

The Roe v. Wade decision guaranteed women the constitutional right to procure an abortion. It is simply impossible to argue that the Constitution supports a right to have an abortion if this issue is analyzed from the perspective of original intent of the Constitution’s framers. Interestingly, any express reference to “abortion” or “privacy” cannot be found within the actual text of the Constitution.

Moreover, although the Roe court found a constitutional right to obtain an abortion on the basis of the word “liberty” found in the Fourteenth Amendment, the authorial intent of the Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with abortion. The Fourteenth Amendment was passed in 1868 in the post-Civil War era in order to guarantee specific rights to recently emancipated slaves. In fact, the authorial intent of the Fourteenth Amendment argues strongly against using this amendment as a means of justifying a constitutional right to acquire an abortion. The very states that ratified the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 had either passed or were in the process of passing laws prohibiting abortion.

However, Justice Blackmun, in writing for the majority, was able to “find” such a right by seizing the opportunity of reinterpreting or guiding the evolutionary “progress” of the Constitution. Because society had allegedly matured or progressed to the point where “reproductive freedom” should be honored, the Constitution needed to be reinterpreted in order to keep up with this new societal value.

In addition, Blackmun borrowed the right to privacy language from a case handed down a few years earlier called Griswold v. Connecticut. [2] InGriswold, the court struck down a state law restricting access to contraceptives. The court reached its decision on the grounds that such laws violated the constitutional right to privacy. Since the Constitution does not explicitly mention the right to privacy, where did the Griswold court base the existence of such a right? The court found it within the “penumbras” of the Bill of Rights. A penumbra is a shadow. In other words, despite the fact that the word “privacy” nowhere appears in the actual wording of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, the court “discovered” this right to privacy within the shadows cast by the Bill of Rights. In Roe, the court ruled that state laws restricting access to abortion are unconstitutional. Blackmun based this decision on the privacy language from Griswold. Blackmun reasoned that procurement of an abortion falls within the purview of this manufactured right to privacy.

Thus, Blackmun and the Roe court were able to guide the evolutionary progress of the Constitution so that it would guarantee a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion only by trampling upon the intention of its framers. Because no such right to privacy expressly exists in the text of the Constitution, Blackmun had to manufacture such a right from the shadows of the Bill of Rights. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, Blackmun found the right to an abortion in the liberty clause of the Fourteenth Amendment only by ignoring the historical context in which the amendment was written.

So there you have it. The king has no clothes! There is no foundational legal source guaranteeing a right to have an abortion. Thus, the Roedecision is bad law. Consequently, it is also unjust law. Millions of unborn children have lost their lives as a result of a decision “discovering” a constitutional right that came into existence through the mere stroke of a pen based upon nothing more than the judiciary’s personal predilection regarding the direction society ought to be headed.

Second, the Roe decision is contrary to both America’s founding Democratic and Republican ideals. Who ultimately is supposed to decide foundational questions, such as when does life begin? Prior to Roe, this decision was handled at the state level. In other words, the institution closest to the people and directly accountable to them through the ballot box resolved the question of when life begins. Roe changed all of this. In essence, the Roe court federalized the issue. By ruling that the choice to have an abortion is now a constitutional right, the question of life was taken away from the state governments and instead placed in the hands of federal judges. Thus, decision-making power in this instance was transferred away from the people and their representatives and instead placed into the hands of the national judiciary. Because federal jurists are appointed for life and thus insulated from, and unaccountable to the people,Roe transferred decision-making power on this critical issue away from the people and toward an unelected, oligarchical, elite group of decision makers. By allowing the final arbitrators to be those removed from the people, the American notion of “we the people, by the people, and for the people” suffered a catastrophic blow when the Roe decision was handed down.

At this juncture, it is appropriate to recall the following haunting words from Ronald Reagan’s 1964 speech entitled “A Time for Choosing.” Here, our future President warned:

If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth. And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except to sovereign people, is still the newest and most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man. This is the issue of this election. Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

(To Be Continued…)

Endnotes

[1Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

[2Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).




Connect With Me:


   

Facebook Group:



POPULAR TOPICS:

abortion
addiction
alcohol
aliens
astrology
atheist
Bible
body piercings
bullying
Catholic
church
commandments
creation
day of worship
death
depression
disasters
drugs
emotions
end times
evil
evolution
faith
false prophet
family
fellowship
forgiveness
friendship
ghost
God
heaven
hell
Holy Spirit
homosexuality
idol worship
illuminati
Jesus
love
marriage
masturbation
movies
music
NIV
new age
ouija board
paganism
prayer
premarital sex
prophecy
Rapture
relationships
religion
salvation
satan
scripture
sex
sin
suicide
tattoos
temptation
self harm
symbols
tongues
tv
video games
witch craft


Affiliates: