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).

Prophecy Before Our Eyes… 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)

The “Night of a Thousand Cold-Blooded Murders” Fundraiser…..

On Jan. 19, vulgar “comedian” Sarah Silverman  will join The Hangover star Zach Galifinakis and Josh Homme of the band Queens of the Stone Age  to try to raise money for the Texas Abortion Fund.  The fundraiser is called a “Night of a Thousand Vaginas” and sponsored by the “reproductive advocate” organization “A is For” and will be held  in LA’s Largo comedy theatre.

sarahsilverman

Life News reported:

The organization A is For in LA, described as “an ally and advocate for organizations working to protect reproductive rights,” is holding the abortion rights event in LA’s Largo comedy theatre. There’s not much information yet about the festivities, but here’s the official ad for the occasion, with a full list of the night’s hosts:

A Is For: A Night of A Thousand Vaginas! Benefiting Texas Abortion Fund

Hosts: Retta and Laura Kightlinger, Zach Galifianakis, Sarah Silverman, Josh Homme of Queens of The Stone Age, Steve Agee, Jen Kirkman, Tiffany Haddish

Sadly, despite the less-than-classy title and tickets upwards of $100, the event has already sold out.

Just the fact that Silverman’s name is on the marquee should be enough to turn away any mature person. The “comedian” seems to thrive on using her lady parts for humor. In November, she hosted a pro-choice Texas telethon along with co-creator of The Daily Show Lizz Winstead. That event featured vagina costumes, filthy language and just plain vulgar gestures.

But, with all the flashiness and crude humor these pro-choice events engender, their “charity” is anything but funny. Abortion is not a cause and it is not to be celebrated. It certainly should not stand as a means for a fundraiser. But pro-choice groups continue to promote these unfortunate events:

I wonder if Ms Silverman knows who she is backing?  Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger  was a racist and not so Pro-Choice…

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, is often hailed as a champion of women’s rights in historical texts and classes.  However, chronically neglected is her true disdain for minority groups in America and how she saw birth control as a way of limiting the populations of those she deemed unworthy of bearing children, even going so far as to advocate that married couples must submit applications in order to have children!

Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger

Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger

Sanger published articles in her newsletter, the ”Birth Control Review,” that depicted her opinions that certain groups of people should have “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 suppliesin 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 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.”  McCormick was very wealthy and she later went on to assist Sanger in developing and funding the birth control pill.

That’s funny, because Planned Parenthood never mentions any of these views upon which they were founded in 1942.  Although they honor Margaret Sanger annually (with the “Maggie Award”), they conveniently pick and choose which of her values to publicly celebrate and which to sweep under the rug.  They would never consider condemning the twisted ideologies of this woman.

However, Sanger’s opinions are still apparent today in Planned Parenthood, and the true intention of birth control is still deliberately hidden under the guise of “women’s liberation.”  Their most recent epitome of this was portrayed when Planned Parenthood built the largest abortion facility in the western hemisphere in the center of four heavily minority areas; they blatantly showed that they still to this day target minority groups and continue to play out Sanger’s intentions for the organization.

As in the days of Noah so shall it be with the coming of the Son of Man. Matthew 24:37

Here are some quotes from Margaret Sanger and I will let you be the judge:

Margaret Sanger

Founder of Planned Parenthood

In Her Own Words


"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." 
Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race 
(Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

Copyright © 2001 Diane S.  Dew      www.dianedew.com 


Margaret Sanger (1883-1966)On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
"…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ‘spawning… human beings who never should have been born."  Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

On sterilization & racial purification:
Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial “purification,” couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

On the right of married couples to bear children:
Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her “Plan for Peace.” Birth Control Review, April 1932

On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was “to create a race of thoroughbreds,” she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:
"This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in the solution of marriage problems… Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable - these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation.” Margaret Sanger, Happiness in Marriage (Bretano’s, New York, 1927) 

On the extermination of blacks:
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

On respecting the rights of the mentally ill:
In her “Plan for Peace,” Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed “feebleminded.” Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107

On adultery:
A woman’s physical satisfaction was more important than any marriage vow, Sanger believed. Birth Control in America, p. 11

On marital sex:
"The marriage bed is the most degenerating influence in the social order," Sanger said. (p. 23) [Quite the opposite of God’s view on the matter: "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." (Hebrews 13:4)

On abortion:
"Criminal’ abortions arise from a perverted sex relationship under the stress of economic necessity, and their greatest frequency is among married women." The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.

On the YMCA and YWCA:
"…brothels of the Spirit and morgues of Freedom!"), The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.

On the Catholic Church’s view of contraception:
"…enforce SUBJUGATION by TURNING WOMAN INTO A MERE INCUBATOR." The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.

On motherhood:
"I cannot refrain from saying that women must come to recognize there is some function of womanhood other than being a child-bearing machine." What Every Girl Should Know, by Margaret Sanger (Max Maisel, Publisher, 1915) [Jesus said: “Daughters of Jerusalem, weep… for your children. For, behold, the days are coming, in which they shall say, Blessed (happy) are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the breasts which never gave suck.” (Luke 23:24)]

"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

CHURCH TAKES A STAND AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THEIR OBAMACARE MANDATE TO PROVIDE CONTRACEPTION AND ABORTION….

Southern Baptists fight contraception regulation

Tony Gonzalez, The Tennessean11:36 p.m. EDT October 14, 2013

Three non-profit religious groups are suing the federal government over mandate in health law.

 

NASHVILLE — Three non-profit religious organizations, including a division of the Nashville-based Southern Baptist Convention, are suing the federal government over a controversial contraceptives regulation that is a part of the Affordable Care Act.

The organizations Monday announced the class-action lawsuit against the federal requirement that employers cover the cost of contraceptives, including drugs that can cause abortions. The groups argue the requirement infringes on religious liberty.

The mandate has attracted dozens of similar lawsuits.

This latest filing, targeting the Department of Health and Human Services, was brought by GuideStone Financial Resources, the Dallas-based provider of health benefits to Southern Baptist churches.

GuideStone also provides benefits to more than 100 non-profit ministries. Those include Oklahoma City-based Reaching Souls International and Truett-McConnell College in Cleveland, Ga., two organizations that signed on to the lawsuit in order to represent the types of ministries expected to join in the class action, said Rod Miller, an attorney for GuideStone.

We know the other ministry organizations that we serve share the same views on the sanctity of life.

— Rod Miller, attorney for GuideStone Financial Resources

In the face of the criticism, the government created an exemption to its rule for churches and some church auxiliaries so they would not have to pay for contraception.

But religious organizations such as those suing still fell under the mandate based on the federal tax code, and their leaders are objecting to the regulations on the grounds that they violate religious freedom, Miller said.

"We know the other ministry organizations that we serve share the same views on the sanctity of life," he said.

The lawsuit asks for an injunction to block the mandate, which is scheduled to take effect Jan. 1.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Oklahoma by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and Locke Lord LLP, is the 74th against the government over its mandate, the groups said.

Earlier this year, the Catholic Diocese of Nashville sued over the same requirements, arguing that all Catholic groups should be exempt. The case was dismissed, and after briefly contesting the ruling, the diocese withdrew its appeal in April.

Heresy Before Our Eyes….

Pope Francis says church cannot focus only on abortion and gay marriage

Franco Origlia / Getty Images Europe

Pope Francis attends his weekly General Audience in St. Peter’s Square on Wednesday.

Pope Francis said in an interview published Thursday that the Catholic Church cannot focus only on abortion, contraception and gay marriage, and that the moral structure of the church will “fall like a house of cards” if it does not find better balance.

The pope acknowledged in the interview that he has been criticized for not speaking more about those three issues, but he said that the church must “talk about them in a context.”

While the teaching of the church on those subjects was clear, he said, “It is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.”

The Pope is making headlines once again for his candid interview with “America Magazine,” where he said the Church must not be obsessed with issues related to gay marriage or contraceptives. He called for new balance, warning that if the Catholic Church doesn’t make changes, it could fall like a house of cards. NBC’s Anne Thompson reports.

The pope’s remarks draw a contrast with both the doctrinal focus of his predecessors, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, and with church leaders in the United States and around the world who have urged him to speak more publicly about homosexuality, abortion and birth control.

“We have to find a new balance,” he said in the interview, published in Jesuit journals across the world. “Otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel.”

He added: “The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently.”

The pope, since his installation in March, has focused on the poor and those on the margins of society. He has also drawn praise from some parishioners for gestures of humility and frugality. He has declined some of the trappings of the papacy, and personally returned the phone calls of some of the faithful who have written to him.

On homosexuality, the pope said that he used to receive letters in Argentina, where he was a cardinal before his elevation, who were “socially wounded” and felt that the church had condemned them.

“But the church does not want to do this,” he said. “Religion has the right to express its opinion in the service of the people, but God in creation has set us free: It is not possible to interfere spiritually in the life of a person.”

He went on: “A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: ‘Tell me: When God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’ We must always consider the person.”

This story was originally published on 




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: