What the Blind Man Sees

Blind human rights activist Chen has reportedly died from the torture and beatings he has endured at the hands of the Communist Chinese.  However, as this story notes,  no one can be sure of whether Chen is alive or dead, given the fact that the Communist government has sealed off access to Chen and has even shot at those trying to get a closer look at whether he is still alive.

Chen Guangcheng has been very active in the past, calling the world’s attention to the barbaric enforcement of the Chinese one-child policy. Whether he is alive or dead, the truth is certain that this blind man could see so much better than most what the value of human life actually is.  The video below is an excellent (and short) overview of Chen’s life.


Life Is the Winner

A Baby in the Womb

The little boy came galloping into his living room with his six-guns a-blazing.  On cue, his dad made a series of agonizing contortions, grabbing his chest and groaning loudly as he fell to the floor in dramatic style, making sure his little gunslinger received full compensation for his cowboy skills.  The little boy loved the scene. Gunfights were always OK in this living room corral—as long as the little guy was allowed to win.

When dad decided to fire back his imaginary pistols, the pint-sized Paladin refused to die in agony.  Instead, his face switched from glee to gloom, and his lip slightly quivered: “No fair. Gunfighters don’t sposed to die.  I don’t want to die, daddy.”  Life and death games are always more fun if you are on the winning side of life.  We never really outgrow this lesson, do we?

I thought of this as I considered how most of us consider ourselves “pro-life,” but we are a little unsure of how far this conviction should take us.  Do we, for instance, refuse treatment for a life-threatening disease on the grounds that the treatment was derived from the stem cells of human babies who were aborted?  It is a dilemma which tests the seriousness of our pro-life convictions.  Like the little boy, we don’t want to die.  Sure, we don’t want to destroy babies in the womb just to harvest their stem cells, but we really don’t want to die.  Should we refuse treatments derived from human embryos?

Thank God, that isn’t a choice we actually have to make.  You may think this is a choice you will have to make, but it isn’t.  Here is the reason you won’t have to make that choice.  There are no treatments being successfully used to cure anything with embryonic stem cells.  None.  Nothing is being helped—much less cured—by embryonic stem cells.

You may not believe this claim, or you may be confused by it.  After all, you might have received stem cell treatments.  One of your loved ones may have been helped by stem cell treatments.  So, you think that stem cells are being used to treat disease, right?  You are partially correct.  Stem cells are being used.  However, the stem cells which are being used to treat diseases are adult stem cells—not from human embryos.

In fact, a group of doctors who form the Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics has compiled a list of stem cell success.  So far, according to their count, there are 73 successful treatments for diseases which use non-embryonic stem cells.  And there are 0 successful treatments using embryonic stem cells.  The score is 73-0 against taking stem cells from aborted babies.  In any game, 73-0 is a lopsided blowout.  Even in a staged gunfight, the dad insisted on at least 1 victory.  Embryonic stem cells have none.

Unfortunately, politicians have exploited the success of non-embryonic stem cells to continue aiding the abortion industry by encouraging embryonic stem cell research, but the science is against embryonic stem cells.  Common sense morality is against them, too.  Embryonic stem cell research destroys human life, while non-embryonic research extends it.  The choice is obvious, isn’t it?  The good news for us is that maybe we don’t have to die—thanks to non-embryonic stem cell research.  The sad news, on the other hand, is that some life has to die for embryonic stem cell research to take place.

China One Child Tragedy

I know the story of Xiao (pronounced “Sha-ow”) is not “news” right now, considering that it happened last fall, but, still, the tragedy of China’s one-child policy is brought out in such starkly human terms that it is hard to ignore. It is a sad story.  Xiao Ai Ying and her husband were expecting their second child.  Eight months pregnant, Xiao was already letting her first child feel the baby move and already talking about what it would be like when the new child arrived in their home.  But the new child never did arrive in their home.

The child became yet another victim of China’s one-child policy.  Police held Xiao in custody, and, after questioning her, they injected her womb with a solution to kill the child.  She was then taken to a hospital in order to deliver the dead child.  Xiao’s baby did die.  And now, in accordance with the “Family Planning” controls of the People’s Republic of China, life is supposed to be better for Xiao and her family.  If you watch the couple speak of the ordeal, you get the clear sense that their lives were not made better by the government’s family planning.

Interestingly, the news media who covered the incident seemed to get diverted by geography.  The story became less about the practice of forced abortions in China and more about the surprise that it happened in a metropolitan area.  The news reporters appear surprised, however, because they expect the Chinese government to uphold the value of life.  Forcing a woman to have an abortion while she is 8 months pregnant seems an awful lot like… well, like killing a baby.  This reality obviously made the NPR news crew a little nervous.  So, following the lead of the Al Jazeera reporter who originated the story, they made the story about how surprising it was that this happened in a metro area instead of in a rural area.

But, really, what difference does it make where this horror unfolded?  The reporter’s narrative is supposed to be that only in the “hick” and “backwoods” areas of China would one find these forced abortions, but that is a silly narrative.  All over China, there is a one-child policy for the sake of family planning.  Chinese officials admit that they vigorously promote family planning to lower the growth of their population.  Even in the supposedly more humane metro areas, women who violate this one-child policy are subject to a fine of up to $40,000 and then a forced sterilization after the birth of the child.  Granted, this is “more humane” than a forced abortion, but it is still inhumane.

This horror in China is a direct outgrowth of the policies of Communist government of China.  There is no inconsistency between the official policy and the practice of forced abortion.  The news reports make it sound as though there is this vast inconsistency between the Communist government and some of its overzealous local leaders who go too far.  In other words, the news reports make it sound as though this forced abortion is merely the result of zealous upstarts wanting to make for themselves a name, and that it isn’t connected to official Chinese policy.

But of course it is connected directly to the official Chinese policy, which is why some responsible lawmakers called on President Hu Jintao during his recent visit to the White House to reverse the forced abortion policy in China.  NPR assumes the news angle for this story is a vindication of Communist leaders.  The news agency goes to some lengths to assert that the central Communist commanders must be unaware of the awful realities of forced abortions.  But the argument doesn’t seem to fit.  The argument agrees that the  local government officials are dependent upon meeting their population target goals in order to advance their careers, but then the argument leaves the problem at the level of these local governments. Local officials supposedly get too excited about meeting their population goals, and so they go too far.  Rather than simply encouraging abortions, they actually cause abortions.

But wouldn’t that argument be something like a parent telling his child that he will get an allowance if he steals $10 per week worth of merchandise from Wal-mart and then, when the racket is made public, turning the child in as a thief?  Who is setting these population target goals? Why are they so important at the local level?  Isn’t it because they are deemed important at the higher levels, you know, at the levels of the people who decide who gets promoted and who does not?  Maybe rather than focusing on the supposedly overzealous local leaders, the news reports need to focus on the Communist leaders who insist upon setting population goals as a means of enforcing the one-child policy.

It is astounding how quickly the ugliness of abortion (I mean “family planning”) is colored over so that attention is diverted away from reality.  This news story about Xiao Ai Ying and the baby who had to die in the name of family planning tells us something about ourselves.  We know the awfulness of abortion.  The writers of the NPR story are uncomfortable with the reality of abortion and the reality of China’s forced abortion policy, but their problem is that they cannot face the reality of their own repulsion.  To do so would acknowledge the need to repent of supporting abortion.  To acknowledge the awfulness of this awful reality would be to surrender the “freedom” of after –the-fact birth control.  Though we know how hideous it is to kill babies in the womb, we still want the freedom to do it to escape the responsibility of parenthood and maintain our right to sexual promiscuity.  That seems to be all the abortion debate is really about–at least in America.  In China, women have more than the right to an abortion.  They have a duty.  The government sometimes enforces this duty.


Savior Siblings and Septic Sons

“Unto Us, a Savior Is Born in France,” such is the triumphant tone of the science headlines from across the pond in France, where the latest “savior sibling” has arrived.  He is a healthy baby boy, weighing in at just over 8 lbs.  The first “savior sibling” was born in the U.S. back in 2000.  His name is Adam Nash.  Blood from his umbilical cord was used to save his sister’s life and caused no physical harm to him.

Nevertheless, the concept of a “savior sibling” is troubling in at least 3 significant ways: (1) It devalues all human life by making one human being the instrument by which another human being prospers. Just as slavery devalued all human life by acting as though some people were not “really persons,” so, too, savior siblings have the same effect of saying that one person’s life is valued only insofar as it serves someone else, someone prior, someone superior.  (2) It leads to a kind of enslavement.  Consider, for example, the movie My Sister’s Keeper.  In that film, the savior sibling was expected to donate a kidney for her dying sister because this is what a savior sibling does.  Such scenarios are not potentialities; they are necessities of this way of thinking about human beings.  (3) It makes gods out of scientists—and that is never a good thing.  Through IVF, scientists screen and discard many embryos, getting down to the genetically perfect match for the ailing sibling.  Already, human entities have been discarded, and this new savior child has been designed for the purpose of serving as a farm-like feeding trough of anatomical parts for parents to use in saving their favored child.

Anytime any form of human life becomes “less than human” or “not worthy of life” (as the Nazis would say), then door is opened to killing for a “higher” cause, thus fulfilling Romans 3: “Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery.”  The concept of savior siblings is built upon the notion that someone has a right to design and utilize the birth of a human being for the purpose of enhancing the life of another human being.  This is wrong because it devalues one human being in the face of another, defying the reality that each one of us (male and female) is created in the image of God.

We have become a people who are comfortable with such concepts as savior siblings because we, already, believe that mothers (even teen mothers) have the right to decide whether their children should live or die.  If a mother has the right to determine whether her baby lives or dies, then why would she not have the right to determine whether the baby donates cord blood or even a kidney?  The logic is inescapable.

Because of abortion, we have become quite dull in discerning the value of a human life.  Consequently, we find that some women are comfortable with having abortions, while others are ok with flushing their babies down the toilet (or at least trying to).  How do we get to a place in which a woman thinks it is all right to flush her son into a cesspool to die?  By devaluing human life in the womb.  If she could have killed the baby while it was in the womb, then why should she not be able to kill the baby once it comes out?  Again, the logic is sadly unavoidable.

I don’t think we should be bit surprised that parents with the help of doctors and scientists are designing babies to serve the needs of their unhealthy offspring. Parents want healthy children.  And science wants something new–anything new.  Upholding the value of human life has never been the strength of a godless science.  The 19th Century seeded the scientific psyche with the eugenics that was quickly employed in Nazi Germany (more slowly in the U.S. through Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood).  The 20th Century saw the Tuskegee experiments, the perverted Kinsey “science” of sexuality, and the celebration of “Dr. Death.” These examples make clear that Science alone cannot uphold the value of human life because science is, primarily, nothing more than a method of inquiry designed to increase knowledge.  Science is a quest for knowledge; it needs to have philosophy to determine the boundaries of where its inquiries might take place.  With a Judeo-Christian philosophy as its guide, science is able to progress in a positive direction which heals.  Without such a philosophy, science doesn’t care if it kills.

We cannot trust science alone to advance humanity.  The task is too great.  Humanity is a subject to be defined by philosophy and theology.  We must be awakened from our darkened stupor concerning science and its limits or we will see further horrors in the days to come.  It really is bad enough that we have savior siblings and cesspool sons. These are not oddities. These are explainable phenomenon based on our devaluing of human life in the womb.  As long as we are comfortable embracing abortion, we will see more sickening displays of our disregard for humanity.

Is Abortion a Tea Party Issue?

I know there has been concern in the past about where the Tea Party stands on so-called “social issues.”  I think the Tea Party seeks to stay focused on economic issues, particularly free market principles and smaller government solutions.  However, Kathryn Jean Lopez raises a very interesting question: Is Abortion a Tea Party Issue?

In the wake of the scandal with Planned Parenthood (not to mention Dr. Gosnell), the time may be right for Tea Partiers to demand a clean cut with the abortion industry so that tax dollars aren’t wasted–no, that is much to polite a term–so that tax dollars don’t become blood money.  I, for one, think it is time to enshrine into law the practice we have followed forbidding tax dollars for abortion.  Now that we see what Planned Parenthood is capable of, we should ban all public money from them.  If not, could we at least make clear that we don’t want public money going to fund abortions, infanticide, sex trafficking, or sexual slavery?  Is this for real?

I honestly cannot think of a worse way to spend tax dollars than giving them to Planned Parenthood.

Abortion’s Opposite Effect

When religious zealots pressed down hard on Stephen and the early Christians, they intended to stomp out the nascent movement before it got any traction.  They were unsuccessful.  Chapter 8 of Acts tells the story of how Christianity spread in its early days: It spread through persecution.  Though the leaders of the day intended to stop the movement, they, instead, caused it to spread more rapidly.  As the Christians were persecuted, they fled to other places, where they preached the gospel to more people.  In this way, persecution had the opposite effect of what was intended by the persecutors.

A similar opposite effect phenomenon is found today in the outcome of abortion.  Abortion was touted as a giant step forward in women’s rights.  Its promise was liberty for women, giving them complete control of their bodies and their futures.  President Obama recently marked the anniversary of the 1973 Roe v Wade decision with comments, again, applauding the decision as a victory for women’s rights.  But I wonder if the foray into full “reproductive health” (as it is euphemistically referenced) isn’t turning out to have the opposite effect for women.

What do I mean?  Two recent studies are building a case against the goodness of abortion for women.  Specifically, Richard Stith, in the article “Her Choice, Her Problem” for First Things, chronicles the oppression which has followed women since the onset of abortion in 1973.  Clearly, this is an opposite effect.  Interestingly, he shows that even feminists could foresee this opposite effect. He traces the arguments from pro-abortion feminist Catherine MacKinnon which were made during the early debates on abortion but were never heeded by abortion advocates.  Stith shows through a review of MacKinnon’s arguments and present statistics on the declining freedom of women how abortion has actually had the opposite effect from that which pro-abortion feminists intended.  In short, his argument boils down to this:

“The presence in the sexual marketplace of women willing to have an abortion reduces an individual woman’s bargaining power.”

Men, it seems, hold the upper hand in sexuality, leaving the woman alone to deal with its consequences.  The man is free to have casual sex with the woman without fear of consequences.  At one time, she might use the fear of conceiving to opt out of sexual favors, but she has lost that bargaining power.  Now, she must yield because abortion “solves” the contraception problem.  If she won’t allow sexual favors, he will find a woman willing to have an abortion who will allow it.  Then, if there is a pregnancy, he is free to leave her all alone to decide what she does “with her body.”  Abortion empowers men and leaves women more vulnerable.  If you don’t believe that, compare the number of unwed mothers before abortion in 1973 and after abortion today.  Look at the number of women living in poverty today contrasted with 40 years ago.  Economists call this “the feminization of poverty.”

And, building on the reality pointed out by Stith, Maggie Gallagher points to a new book which studies sexuality in America: Premarital Sex in America by Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker.

Gallagher points out from their study that abortion appears to end with depression in women.  Even further, Gallagher points out that the depression comes at least partially from the drastic increase in low commitment sexual encounters.  Because the abortion culture has produced a freedom for men to use women for sex without commitment, it has further pushed women into the role of being used merely for sex—any sex which the man prefers without any commitment to the woman.

In short, Gallagher says, “…we have created a sexual culture that empowers young males (even as it stunts their incentives to grow to become successful, confident and happy family men) and disempowers women.”

Abortion may have had the opposite effect its original adherents intended.

The Supreme Court’s Back Alley Runs Through Philadelphia | The Weekly Standard

The Supreme Court’s Back Alley Runs Through Philadelphia | The Weekly Standard.

I just read this article, and it opened my eyes to the logical connection between the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 and the horrors uncovered in Philadelphia.  Most likely, there are a number of other such clinics out there, but they remain off limits because of the poor decision in 1973 and the court challenges since then which have labeled any regulations on abortion clinics as excessive burdens (and thus unconstitutional).

The supposedly medical procedure of abortion is not regulated, which means the old horror stories of back-alley butcher shops are a legalized reality in America.  In fact, what might be most disturbing about the Gosnell case in Philadelphia is all of the behavior he is NOT being punished for.  The crimes he is being charged with are related to partial birth abortion (which are heinous), but what about the conditions of the clinic? The baby parts all over the place?  The feet in jars?  Storing food and baby pieces in close proximity?  Are any of these (or the other grotesque findings from the clinic) against the law?

At first, I thought some local officials were negligent in not exercising any oversight of this horrific abortion clinic, but I am thinking now that the problem may not be that officials didn’t do anything:  The problem may be that they can’t.

Golden Gateway to Freedom?

I just read this remarkably encouraging pro-life article from where? San Francisco!  A great crowd rallied against abortion in San Francisco of all places.  According to this article, more than 40,000 marchers gathered together for the pro-life parade.   Walk for Life co-chair Dolores Meehan said, “We are here to break the bondage of the culture of death.”

If the movement is thriving in San Francisco, then it can thrive anywhere.  How encouraging to see.  And notice in the pics how young the women are who are holding the signs.  Encouraging indeed.


Human Life the Victim of Abortion

As this article by Michelle Malkin makes painfully clear, the real victim of abortion is humanity.  This week is Sanctity of Human Life Sunday in many churches, and there will be many sermons concerning abortion and other matters related to human life.  I hope that God will sober us through these sermons.

Although I understand that we should be politically active–especially when it comes to fighting off the horror of abortion, I think we need more than political action.  We need repentance.

Political action can enable pride, thereby setting us up for a fall later.  Repentance brings about sobriety which gives us a deadly serious outlook on life and a determination to stay fixed on what matters most.

What we really need is not focus groups, bipartisanship, less-heated rhetoric, or the freedom to choose.  What we need is the freedom to repent from this enslavement to death which we embraced the day we allowed abortion on demand.  May God grant us repentance so our minds can be set free, thus allowing us to discern good from evil.  (See here for further explanation).

A Mind to Sin

When you read 1 Samuel 22, you can’t help but to think to yourself, “How in the world can Saul be so blind?”  Saul, who was appointed king by popular demand of the people so that they could have a king like the rest of the nations around them, confronts the priest Ahimelech about whether he helped David.  Ahimelech answers that he did in fact help David by giving him the sword which belonged to him (Goliath’s sword) and inquiring to the Lord on behalf of David, something that he had done many times before.  In other words, Ahimelech says that he did for David what any priest would have done for David, particularly in light of how faithful David had always been to Saul.

In response to this confession, Saul ordered that Ahimelech and all of his house, along with all the priests at Nob, be killed.  Saul commanded his leaders to kill the priests of the Lord, but they would not.  They could not.  How could they slaughter the priests of the Lord?  Unfortunately, a slimy Doeg—an Edomite—was in the presence of Saul, and he was all too willing to slaughter the innocent priests on Saul’s behalf.  At Saul’s commands, Doeg, the Edomite, killed 85 priests.  Then, he killed their wives and children and their oxen, their donkeys, and their sheep—all at Saul’s command and with his hearty approval.  How could Saul be so murderously blind?

The answer is simple.  Sin was in the heart of Saul.  From the time that Saul heard ladies singing praises to David, he became consumed with removing David’s fame (along with his name) from the face of the earth.  He more and more became consumed with one thought only: Kill David.  So, he moved his armies and his affections from town to town in pursuit of killing David, although David never betrayed Saul and—on three separate occasions—could have killed Saul but did not.

The wages of sin is death.  Sinful thoughts of wishing David’s fame away (to preserve his own) took root in Saul’s heart and became the driving passion of his life.  Murder was all he wanted.  The 85 priests and their families were merely nuisances to Saul along the path of his murderous way.

We find a life lesson through the life of Saul, mostly by way of antithesis.  Saul teaches us how not to live a blessed life.  He teaches us how to move further and further away from God until we end consumed by a particular sin.  In the beginning of Saul’s service as king, he showed some signs of hope.  He prophesied with the prophets of God.  Yet, before long, he took upon himself the task of slaughtering animals for a sacrifice (1 Samuel 13:8) instead of waiting for Samuel, as he was instructed.  And, not too long after his unauthorized sacrifice, Saul also refused to execute God’s commands concerning Agag and the Amalekites.  Saul was supposed to execute justice over the Amalekites and was told to kill Agag and his animals, but he would not.

Ironically, Saul’s life became a pattern of killing those whom he should not kill and giving life to those who did not deserve it.  Between the priests of the Lord and Doeg the Edomite, Saul chose Doeg—a betrayer.  The reason he aligned himself with betrayers instead of with the priests of the Lord is that his mind was given over to sinful thoughts.

Like Saul, perhaps, we think we can allow sinful thoughts to percolate in our minds with no ill effects, but it simply is not so.  The wages of sin (including sinful thoughts) is death.

Saul’s mind—more and more—became tainted because of the sinful lusts in his heart.  As sin took root, disobedience inevitably followed.  As sin and disobedience became the pattern, Saul’s judgment became less and less astute.  Eventually, not only was Saul unable to discern good from evil, but he actually began exchanging evil for good, thinking that slaughtering priests and their children was a good thing.

It would be so easy to slide into a condemnation of Saul, but let us rather learn from him for our own good.  Disobedience begets dullness of mind.  Sinful thinking leads to ungodly thinking, which leads to a lack of moral discernment.  The pattern is plain in Romans 1: God gave them over to a depraved mind. In his example in Romans 1, Paul concludes with the example of people who can longer distinguish male and female (Gender confusion).  In the example of Saul, we see a man who cannot discern rightly between a betrayer and the priests of God.

In an example from our own culture, we will not be able to execute Major Nidal Hassan (the Ft. Hood shooter) or Jared Loughner (the Tucson shooter) without a major uphill battle against political groups and media elites.  Instead of executing him for murder, we celebrate Jack Kevorkian as Dr. Death.  And yet, we tolerate killing innocent babies—53 million of them—as long as we do it before they get completely out of the womb (although in some cases even that has been acceptable to some prominent Americans).

You wonder how we could ever get to the place in which we can’t see that murderers should be executed but babies should live.

New Ideas Aren’t New

As is often the case, someone comes up with a new idea that is going to alter humanity and forever redirect our course for the good.  The healthcare bill is an example of such a hope-filled new idea.  However, the healthcare bill contains within it some very old ideas, too, such as the idea that abortion is necessary for the health of a nation or a people.  That idea is not new.  Pharaoh thought it was necessary for the midwives to kill all the sons of Hebrew women–3,500 years ago (See Exodus 1).  More recently, Margaret Sanger thought it was necessary to kill black children for the good of America (See here).  Planned Parenthood (which arose from the work of Margaret Sanger) still targets blacks and minorities (See here).  So, these new “progressive” ideas aren’t new.  They aren’t good either.  It is never good or healthy for a people to kill their offspring.  It never will be good.

Principles and Power

I am an optimist.  I know the outcome–that all things will work together for good for those who love the Lord.  So, I am an optimist.  Yet, I am not optimistic about Obamacare ever being overturned.  I hope it is.  I will support the repeal of this terribly invasive healthcare reform.  I don’t think it will be overturned.  Here is why.

Entitlements are never overturned.  Once people begin getting something for “free,” they don’t want to give it up, even if it restricts their freedom and burdens their neighbors.  Everybody likes a free lunch.  Don’t get me wrong.  I believe there is a huge backlash coming for Democrats in November, and I know people are angry right now.  But that will change.  Public opinion always does.  The Democrats know this, too.  Once things calm down, the Democrats will simply bring up all that will be lost by overturning this bill.  We will begin hearing stories of all the terrible suffering which will result from “taking away” these “free” benefits for needy people.  When that happens, public opinion will swing back to the middle.

When public opinion swings back to the middle, then the true mettle of conservatives will be tested, and it will be found lacking, in my opinion.  Why do I say this?  Not simply because I have seen conservatives cower in conversations concerning life, though that is reason enough for saying conservatives often lack mettle, but, rather, because I have been listening to the majority of conservatives express their outrage at the notion of a congress and a president going against the will of the people.  Granted, I am outraged, too, that this congress and this president have ignored the voices of millions–and they really have completely ignored large swaths of the American landscape in this.

However, I find a glimmer of principled conviction in the actions of the Democrats.  Their leadership has accomplished something that conservative leaders have not accomplished much.  They have led on principle–even if it costs at the polls.  Sadly, we once thought it was virtuous to stick to your guns and stick to your principles.  I remember President Bush (I think it was in his debate with Gore?) stating that he would not lead by opinion polls, but by principles.  I thought that was admirable then.  I don’t like it much now because it involves principles against which my mind and body viscerally revolt.  Yet, one cannot claim that the Democrats did what they did by merely sticking their fingers in the wind to see which way it was blowing.

The Democrats acted out of their belief that women should have access to abortions everywhere, and we all ought to pay for it.  They did it out of their firm conviction that the federal government should decide how to pay doctors and nurses.  They did it from their soft, socialistic outlook on life.  Oh, I know they violated protocols in the House and in the Senate, and I know right now people are outraged about that, but they acted out of principled convictions–even if the principles were horrendously wrong-headed.

Outside of Congressman Ryan and a few others, the Republicans responded that the Democrats should have listened to the will of the people.  So, in the course of repealing this repugnant set of rules governing my private colonoscopy, the Republicans must hope that public opinion remains strongly opposed to Obamacare.  Even though I hope it does, I doubt that it will.  I doubt that public opinion will remain strongly opposed because the radical new policies don’t take place until 2014, conveniently after the next presidential election.  In fact, around the time of this election in November, there will be $250 checks going out.  If public opinion were the reason for opposing Obamacare, then public opinion may in the future become the reason for keeping it.

What I wish would happen is that Republicans would become steeled in their resolve repeal Obmacare on principled grounds.  Let conservatives learn to be passionate and unapologetic about ending abortion on demand, taking a principled stand for babies even if public opinion swings against them.  What I wish would happen is that an unwavering regard for liberty would gain a foothold in the minds of conservative leaders.  Real leaders don’t lead by looking at polls.  They are fixed on eternal principles such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  I fear that–even though for today we are outraged–in the future we will accommodate (as Europe has) to suckling our existence from the breast of a federal nanny who increasingly kills her unwanted children.

The Little Ones

A song by Phil Keaggy asks, “Who will speak up for the little ones, helpless and half-abandoned?”  It seems that no Democrat in America will any longer.  When Bart Stupak caved in to pressure from the national Democratic Party earlier today, he sent the message loudly and clearly that abortion is at the heart of what it means to be a Democrat.  Apparently, there is no place at the national level for pro-life Democrats.

I understand that I am not an expert on matters of legislation and executive orders, but I think I am alert enough to read such things.  The executive order from President Obama is made to sound nice and pro-life, but it cannot–in my opinion–be taken seriously.  If the healthcare bill does not fund abortion, then why is the executive order needed?  If it does, then the executive order will do no good because an executive order cannot overturn legislation.  Either way, the executive order is a meaningless show, which explains why the pro-abortion Obama could write it and why pro-abortion groups won’t raise even a whisper about it.  If the bill passes, it will ensure that we all pay for abortions through our tax dollars, even though the practice violates our consciences before God.

In addition, this healthcare bill will fundamentally change the way we think of ourselves and our government.  I am no longer free to determine whether I will receive a colonoscopy.  Someone in some bureau somewhere will decide if I really need one and whether I will ever get one.  We one time were accustomed to hearing folks say, “Keep the government out of our bedrooms.”  Well, we shall now have them in places heretofore considered more private than our bedrooms.

Catholic Clarification

I saw a news article yesterday stating that 59,000 nuns joined together to support the Obama health care plan, which had been opposed by U.S. bishops because of its funding of abortions.  Well, today, Kathryn Jean Lopez sets the record straight for Roman Catholics.  According to this blog post from KJL, the number of signatories in opposition was a mere 55, with one of the signatories voting twice.  It appears that a much larger number of nuns is on the other side of this one–on the side of life and thus opposed to federal funding of abortion.

Pro Choice (just not that kind)

If you read this article, you hear the complaints from so-called “Women’s” Groups decrying the Super Bowl ad from Tim Tebow and Focus on the Family.  These abortion advocates are lobbying CBS to get the ad pulled.  Ironically, they are upset with CBS because Focus on the Family is supposed to be “anti-choice” and homophobic and all the rest.  But the tables are turned on these women’s groups.  Does CBS not have the right to choose who gives them 2.5 million for an ad?  Does Focus on the Family not have the right to choose to buy an ad for its organization?  Does Tim Tebow not have the right to choose to speak up for what he believes?  And, does Pam Tebow not have the right to choose to give birth to a little boy who would later become the best college football player ever?  Pro-choice, it seems, only applies to abortion.