23 Yr. Old Lauren Richardson Being Starved to Death in Delaware

From the DefendLife blog:

Lauren Richardson, a 23-year old non-dying citizen of Delaware, is in grave danger of being dehydrated and starved to death by order of the state, against the wishes of her father.

Read the rest of the sad and shocking entry here.

This is so reminiscent of the Terri Schiavo tragedy. If there's anything you can do to help Lauren and her family (besides prayer), please do so asap.

Feminists for Life Slams Sarah Weddington for Betraying Women in Roe v. Wade Case

Texas attorney Sarah Ragle Weddington gained world-wide fame when she and Linda Coffee represented "Jane Roe" (real name Norma McCorvey) in the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade case in the United States Supreme Court.

This upcoming Tuesday, January 22, is the 35th anniversary of Roe v Wade.

Feminists for Life of America has something to say about Weddington's betrayal of women.

**********

Weddington's Betrayal of Women
Serrin M. Foster
President, Feminists for Life of America

On the thirty-fifth anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, many will focus on the undeniable humanity of the unborn child now seen clearly by millions through sophisticated sonograms on Oprah as well as in Life and Newsweek cover stories.

Meanwhile, I will be reflecting on the impact of the choice made by attorney Sarah Weddington in 1973.

As her arguments for abortion before the Supreme Court made clear, Weddington saw the discrimination and other injustices faced by pregnant women. But she did not demand that these injustices be remedied. Instead, she demanded for women the “right” to submit to these injustices by destroying their pregnancies.

Weddington rightly pointed out the unmet needs of students: “…there are many schools where a woman is forced to quit if she becomes pregnant.” But Weddington didn’t argue against pregnancy discrimination or even for alternate solutions for a pregnant student.

Weddington did no better for women in the workplace. “In the matter of employment, she often is forced to quit at an early point in her pregnancy. She has no provision for maternity leave… She cannot get unemployment compensation under our laws, because the laws hold that she is not eligible for employment, being pregnant, and therefore is eligible for no unemployment compensation.”

For women with serious medical needs, she further noted: “There is no duty for employers to rehire women if they must drop out to carry a pregnancy to term. And, of course, this is especially hard on the many women in Texas who are heads of their own households and must provide for their already existing children.”

Weddington clearly saw the bind low-income women face when experiencing unplanned pregnancy: “At the same time, she can get no welfare to help her at a time when she has no unemployment compensation and she's not eligible for any help in getting a job to provide for herself.”

Weddington repeatedly said that women need “relief” from pregnancy, instead of arguing that women need relief from these injustices.

What if Weddington had used her legal acumen to challenge the system and address women’s needs?

By accepting pregnancy discrimination in school and workplace and the lack of support in society for pregnant women and parents, especially the poor, Weddington and the Supreme Court betrayed women and undermined the support women need and deserve.

Since then, millions of women have paid the price, struggling in school and the workplace without societal support. After all, when “it’s her body, it’s her choice,” it’s her problem.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortion in America, half of all abortions are performed on college-age women.

Since 1994, Feminists for Life has worked to address the unmet needs of pregnant and parenting students and staff on college campuses. For the past decade FFL’s Pregnancy Resource Forums on campuses across the country have revealed the still-unmet needs of pregnant and parenting students — especially a lack of housing, child care, telecommuting options, maternity coverage and medical riders for additional children. FFL found there is rarely a central place on campus for pregnancy and parenting resources. Even when resources are available, they are often not publicized. For pregnant and parenting students kept in the dark about the help they need and deserve, perception is their reality.

This March, which is Women’s History Month, Feminists for Life is helping college students make history for women by hosting Rallies for Resources on campuses across the country — so that women don’t feel driven to choose between sacrificing their children or their education and career plans.

The proposed Elizabeth Cady Stanton Pregnant and Parenting Student Services Act, a bipartisan effort led by Senators Elizabeth Dole and Ben Nelson and Representatives Marcy Kaptur and Sue Myrick, would make grants available for up to 200 colleges and universities to host pregnancy resource forums, create resource centers on campus, and communicate available support on and off campus.

There was one thing Weddington got right. “Whether she's unmarried; whether she's pursuing an education; whether she's pursuing a career; whether she has family problems; all of the problems of personal and family life, for a woman, are bound up in the problem of abortion.”

Abortion is a reflection that we have not met the needs of women.

Thirty-five years after Weddington capitulated to inherently unfair practices against pregnant and parenting women, those on both sides of the abortion debate should unite and say “no” to the status quo. Clearly women deserve better.

Bill HB916 Affirms Georgia’s Right to Secede from USA over Abortion Law

Does it sound shocking to even think of the possibility? A US State seceding from the Union in 2008 over the injustice of abortion?

This news report What Do King George III and the U.S. Supreme Court Have In Common? from Georgia includes the following commentary:

Rep. Bobby Franklin, R-Marietta, who can always be counted on for provocative legislation, has a bill that, among other things, declares the U.S. Supreme court lacked authority to issue its Roe v. Wade decision some 35 years ago and that states have every right to disregard it.

That’s exactly what Franklin’s bill – HB 916 – does, and then goes on to declare the practice of abortion is murder and conspiracy to commit murder per se.

This bill, of course, won’t go anywhere, but it’s worth a read, anyway, for the impassioned argument he makes as to just how the U.S. Supreme Court – like King George III - overstepped.

But don’t dismiss the issue out of hand. A certain number of Christian conservatives are very anxious to pass the Human Life Amendment – HR 536 – which was introduced late last year, and which will be a center point of the annual Right To Life rally at the Georgia Capitol this year. (It will take place precisely two weeks before Georgia’s presidential primary. Gary Bauer is the guest speaker and Mike Huckabee has agreed to attend.)

The amendment’s chances of getting to the floor aren’t good this year. It requires a super-majority vote in both chambers, which it clearly cannot get. Given the math, House leaders want to keep it off the floor to keep from bogging down the House in an ultimately useless but highly controversial debate. Backers, however, don’t seem to see it quite the same way.

Here’s some of the language from the bill itself.

(4) The Supreme Court´s inability to determine what is human life cannot legitimately serve to prohibit Georgia from fulfilling its constitutional mandate to protect the lives of its citizens by prosecuting crimes against said person;

(5) The General Assembly knows the answer to that difficult question, and that answer is life begins at the moment of conception;

(9) Georgia has, therefore, reserved to itself exclusive jurisdiction over the definition and punishment of murder under Amendment X of the Constitution of the United States;

(12) The United States Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to hear or decide the case of Roe v. Wade;

(13) As it had no jurisdiction to hear the case, certainly the United States Supreme Court lacked the authority to pass, or order all states to strike or refuse to enforce, a law that is outside of its subject matter or federal jurisdiction;

(20) The nullification of a state´s properly promulgated laws is specifically delineated as an offense committed by King George against the states, for which separation became necessary; The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America;

(21) Compliance with, and continuation of, a fiat determination of the Supreme Court from nearly 35 years ago will cause the basis of this Union, and eventually the Union itself, to fall;

(24) As the United States Constitution confers to no federal branch either the authority over the definition or prosecution of murder, or the power to nullify the laws of a state that do the same, Roe v. Wade is 'no law,' is a nullity, and carries no legal effect in Georgia;

(25) The practice of abortion is murder and conspiracy to commit murder per se;

Controversial pro-life activist Neal Horsley, who is running a campaign for Governor of Georgia under the banner of The Creator’s Rights Party [CAUTION: Graphic images], has this to say about the bill:

FINALLY! Georgia Law Makers Make REAL Move To Outlaw Abortion

Suspect in Killing of Maria Lauterbach, Marine Cpl. Laurean, Could Face Federal Unborn Victims Law

Just two days ago I blogged on the horrific news about Lance Cpl. Maria Lauterbach and her eight month unborn child. It seems I might have been wrong when I said

Unfortunately, North Carolina is one of 15 states without a fetal homicide law so no crime is likely to be registered against the unborn child.

LifeNews reported some welcome news today:

If he is found and convicted, the federal unborn victims law could come into play because Laurean and Lauterbach are members of the military. That's because North Carolina is one of just 15 states that don't offer legal protection for pregnant women and their unborn children.

The question of whether the federal law can come into play depends on whether Onslow County District Attorney Dewey Hudson has jurisdiction in the case or if the military legal authorities are allowed to prosecute Laurean.

Children who are killed in this fashion deserve as much justice as their mothers. The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act might just provide that in this case.

I look forward to the day when we have the moral fortitude in Canada to enact similar legislation.

Huckabee Is The "Catholic" Candidate For 2008

...according to a prominent Catholic layman. He takes issue with a Catholic publication that featured an article which he said contained distortions about Mike Huckabee. He makes a case that Huckabee is a better choice for Catholics than Fred Thompson.

But I can’t remain silent about the unanswered distortions about Mike Huckabee over Fred Thompson in the presidential race found in California Catholic Daily’s Jan. 11 posting, “Keeping the coalition together is the key to success.” It was an article covering the California Pro-Life Council's endorsement of Thompson for president. It was totally one-sided and misleading to Catholic voters. CCD is a great publication and provides a valuable service to Catholics. I can understand how things like this can slip through trying to meet tight deadlines.

Rest of story here.

Janet Folger also thinks Mike Huckabee is the one. She makes a very ambitious, even extreme, prediction in this article. Pro-lifers would be rejoicing in the streets if her predictions prove correct.

Barack Obama Loved by Planned Parenthood

Told you so. How much more proof is required?

From Jill Stanek:

Obama's girls at Planned Parenthood are sending him plenty of love. This will be tricky since they're all heartless.

Obama loves PP, too. Actually, they prostitute one another. PP helps elect Obama so he can turn around and appropriate tax money to it. He's trying to legislate PP an abortuary load of cash at the moment. PP explains why in its Obama love note....

Jill's full posting here.

Barack Obama The Most Pro Abortion Candidate Ever

Yesterday, in the Townhall.com forum, columnist Terence Jeffrey defended his statement that “Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever.”

Jeffrey stated in his article,

He is so pro-abortion he refused as an Illinois state senator to support legislation to protect babies who survived late-term abortions because he did not want to concede -- as he explained in a cold-blooded speech on the Illinois Senate floor -- that these babies, fully outside their mothers' wombs, with their hearts beating and lungs heaving, were in fact "persons."

"Persons," of course, are guaranteed equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment.

I’ve posted a few entries dealing with U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama and his record on abortion, one this week, one this past June and one in July.

Earlier this week I received a comment from one reader who took exception to my position that Obama ought to be disqualified on the basis of his pro-child-killing stand. Here is the reader’s comment in full, followed by the response I offered him:

Patrick Furlong said...

On the looks of things, you and I would fall on opposite ends of the spectrum of Christian faith. One reason I love and support my faith is because of the variations amongst it's followers- like you and I.

I found a quote by a Catholic hero of mine, regarding the very issue of voting and abortion, and I thought it would be relevant to share with you...

Cardinal Joseph Bernadine of Chicago, an opponent of abortion, cautioned Catholics against turning abortion into a single voting issue: "Our moral, political and economic responsibilities do not stop at the moment of birth. "Those who defend the right to life of the weakest among us must be equally visible in support of the quality of life of the powerless among us: the old and the young, the hungry and the homeless, the undocumented immigrant and the unemployed worker. ... Consistency means we can't have it both ways."

And so, in the spirit of that urging by Cardinal Bernadine, I support Barack Obama with the belief that the value and dignity of human life DOES NOT END at conception, and I believe when I look at the issues holistically, Barack Obama is the best man for the job.

And so, in regards to health care, the issues in war torn areas like the Middle East, the Congo, and Sudan, as well as a host of other issues like gun control, taxes, social security, the environment, civil rights and immigration, Barack Obama is the man that is most in line with my ideals, with my morality.

I hope that helps you understand why I support the man. I assume we will disagree still, but for me, I just can't vote or not vote for a candidate on one single issue...

"It's not about taking the right stand on issues. It's about choosing to stand in the right place. With those on the margins, those whose dignity has been denied. To choose to stand with the poor and the powerless and the voiceless. To choose to stand with the easily despised and the readily left out. To choose to stand with those whose burdens are more than they can bear. To stand with the demonized so that the demonizing will stop. And so you stand against forgetting as you leave this place, that we belong to each other." Father Greg Boyle, S.J.

http://pjfurlong.blogspot.com

ELA said...

Patrick,

You said, “I just can't vote or not vote for a candidate on one single issue.”

What if the candidate was a racist, e.g. a card carrying member of the KKK? What if the candidate was a Jew-hater and a holocaust denier? What if the candidate was sympathetic to terrorism in order to achieve political ends?

Would any of these “issues” by themselves be sufficient for you to dismiss the candidate?

I hope you get the point. Without a doubt, for every voter, there are many “single issues” which would disqualify candidates. It’s simply a matter of starting to identify them and see where the “issue” of abortion might rank in that list of evils.

As we make clear in our voter’s guide:

*****

Imagine a politician saying, “I support terrorism.” And then a voter saying,” I disagree with you on terrorism, but what's your health care plan?” You'd think they were both mad! You wouldn't think twice about rejecting a candidate who supported terrorism. His stance, permitting the public to be killed, is dangerous to society and contrary to every principle of public service.

Consider abortion in the same light. Abortion is no less violent than terrorism and produces the same result-dead and bloodied human beings, most often in pieces.

*****

Regarding Cardinal Joseph Bernadine, his “consistent ethic of life” was dangerously flawed as evidenced clearly by the manner in which pro-abortion politicians interpreted his argument and used it to maintain the status quo on child killing. You might want to refer to this article.

Patrick, think about it. You’ve used the Cardinal’s point of view to nullify, for all practical purposes, your opposition in the public square to the killing of unborn children. This flies in the face of official Catholic teaching and the specific teachings of our last two Popes. Take some time to read and reflect on John Paul II’s "Evangelium Vitae," the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith entitled "The Participation of Catholics in Political Life" as well as Cardinal Ratzinger’s "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion."

Finally, if we consider the unborn to be the poorest of all human beings, a case which can easily be made, I believe your quote by Father Greg Boyle is an earnest plea to stand with the Unborn, unalterably opposed to their legalized murder and to all those who wish to maintain our evil status quo.

Links to news stories about Obama which have recently appeared on the Vote Life, Canada! blog:

Obama's Pastor: "True Gospel" only for poor and black!Town Hall - Washington, DC—If Dr. Jeremiah Wright is the spiritual mentor that guides Barack Obama then it becomes easier to understand how and why Obama himself may not have that Biblical of a grasp in terms of understanding the gospel.

La Shawn Barber asks a question of Barack Obama
Question for Obama: What faith is this?
For instance, Obama voted against a ban on infanticide while a senator in Illinois. A partial birth abortion, as child murder is euphemistically called, is when a “doctor” grabs the unborn baby’s body and pulls him down the birth canal.

The Audacity of Nuance
The Washington Times
…Barack Obama won a 100 percent rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America last year. "The issue of abortion, I don't think has gone away….I don't think people take the issue lightly. A lot of people have arrived in the view that I've arrived at, which is that there is a moral implication to these issues, but that the women involved are in the best position to make that determination.”

Barack Obama Promotes Abortion, Slams Abstinence in Iowa Speech
Des Moines, IA (LifeNews.com) -- Campaigning in Iowa over the weekend, pro-abortion presidential candidate Barack Obama attempted to moderate his views on abortion and abstinence education. However, he made it clear he has no interest in limiting or reducing abortions and his pro-abstinence stance is tempered by his backing of sexual education.

Obama backs Planned Parenthood clinic in Aurora
More on yesterday’s reported news that Obama backs Planned Parenthood clinic in Aurora
Sen. Barack Obama became the first Democratic presidential candidate to weigh in on the battle over a Planned Parenthood clinic in Aurora. Not surprisingly, the abortion rights supporter from Illinois said he would like to see the clinic open soon.

Warning: Catholics for a Free Choice Not Really Catholic At All

Breaking News from CNA

**********

Catholics for a Free Choice attempts to confuse voters, says Catholic Association

Washington DC, Jan 9, 2008 / 03:06 pm (CNA).- A new ad campaign from the group, Catholics for a Free Choice (CFFC), has drawn criticism from the Catholic Association for confusing the Catholic position on abortion and attempting to sway voters in the presidential primary elections.

Michael Hernon, president of the Catholic Association stated that “Catholics for a Free Choice will stop at nothing to advance abortion rights. Their latest campaign puts a new spin on their dizzying logic that promoting abortion is somehow ‘Catholic’. Catholics stand for life and will not be confused by the latest attempt of this abortion front group.”

The campaign entitled “Prevention Not Prohibition”, focuses on how policy makers can assist in the prevention of abortion through contraception, healthcare for all, sexual education and access to childcare, according to a CFFC press release.

It is the belief of the CFFC that, “Despite the protestations of a few conservative bishops, there is strong support among Catholics for policies that would reduce the need for abortion. The presidential election is a perfect place for serious candidates to take a stand and state that they too support providing women with real choices when it comes to dealing with an unplanned pregnancy.”

According to the Catholic Association, “the new campaign tries to confuse voters into believing that CFFC wants to ‘reduce the need for abortion’. They are trying to sway Catholics to vote for candidates who support abortion on demand but support other policies that may reduce the need for abortion. Catholics and people of good conscience can not tolerate or cooperate with the evil of abortion. Other policy initiatives do not mitigate a candidate's support for abortion on demand.”

The US Bishops’ Conference has called CFFC "practically speaking, an arm of the abortion lobby in the United States and throughout the world," funded by wealthy private foundations that seek to "promote abortion as a method of population control."

[Source]

Should Abortion Stance Be the Most Important Factor in Voting?

From OneNewsNow:

POLL: Abortion stance as a factor in voting

According to our most recent poll response, voters -- at least those who frequent our website -- appear to be giving priority to issues other than a candidate's position on abortion when determining who they will support for president.

OneNewsNow.com asked: Is a presidential candidate's stand on abortion your MOST IMPORTANT consideration when choosing who to support? You said:

Read the OneNewsNow.com article that inspired this question here.

Vote Life, Canada! advises all Canadians to make the defense of innocent human life their foremost voting criterion. Although this approach might be characterized as “single issue voting,” an approach to which many people object, it can hardly be described as unreasonable.

Let’s suppose you said, “I just can't vote or not vote for a candidate on one single issue.”

What if the candidate were a racist, e.g. a card carrying member of the KKK? What if the candidate were a Jew-hater and a holocaust denier? What if the candidate were sympathetic to terrorism in order to achieve political ends?

Would any of these “issues” by themselves be sufficient for you to dismiss the candidate?

I hope you get the point. Without a doubt, for every voter, there are lots of “single issues” which would disqualify candidates. It’s simply a matter of starting to identify them and see where the “issue” of abortion might rank in that list of evils.

As we make clear in our voter’s guide,

Imagine a politician saying, “I support terrorism.” And then a voter saying,” I disagree with you on terrorism, but what's your health care plan?” You'd think they were both mad! You wouldn't think twice about rejecting a candidate who supported terrorism. His stance, permitting the public to be killed, is dangerous to society and contrary to every principle of public service.

Consider abortion in the same light. Abortion is no less violent than terrorism and produces the same result-dead and bloodied human beings, most often in pieces.

Most election campaigns are not centred in basic principle but rather in policy, such as the method in which health care is delivered, or the degree of taxation levels, or the size of government. No politician questions the principle of healthcare or the principle of taxation or the principle of fighting crime. If such principles were to be abandoned it would not be surprising if the politician were considered as disqualified.

The protection of human life is a fundamental principle and the most foundational human right we possess in society. It is not a mere policy. To allow abortion, which is the killing of a human child in the womb, is to break the principle that every human life deserves protection. Those who would abandon this principle forfeit their right to political office, an office open only to those who would be a guardian of the public and of peace and good order.

To quote again from our voter’s guide:

Stop for a moment and think. If politicians aren't ready to respect the life of a small defenseless child, do you want to trust them with your life and future? If they will disregard the most basic of rights, what of your many other legitimate concerns as a citizen?

A leader’s stand on abortion certainly warrants “single-issue” voting for the Christian who believes in the justice and truth emanating from Christian revelation.

Day Gardner: Barack Obama Supports the Ruthless Culture of Death

Day Gardner: The Black Church and Obama

WASHINGTON, January 9 /Christian Newswire/ -- The following statement was released today by Day Gardner, president of the National Black Pro-Life Union:

I was very disturbed by an article published on January 7, 2008 in The Atlanta Journal which stated that Sen. Barack Obama garnered praise and prayers from several African-American pulpits for his landmark victory in the Iowa caucuses. I can't help but wonder…what are these pastors thinking? Of course, we all need prayer, that part was okay, but praise? I had to ask myself, do they realize what this man stands for?

Yes, blacks have continued to make great strides in breaking down color barriers and the walls of inequality and by the grace of God, some feel we have earned bragging rights with regard to our accomplishments. But, in our efforts to be bigger, brighter and best--I worry many of us have forgotten a huge part of what our struggle was all about. Racial equality was only part of it--the other part had to do with civil rights for ALL of our people.

Senator Obama doesn't care that abortion has obliterated the rights of more than 15 million black children since 1973. He doesn't care that abortion is the number one killer of African Americans surpassing deaths caused by accidents, heart disease, stroke, crimes, HIV-AIDS and all other deaths...combined!

He won't make one of his powerful speeches decrying the injustice of abortion providers as they plant killing centers firmly in black communities--making it easier to kill black children. Instead, he actually applauds their efforts! These children are denied their most basic human right –which is the right to life; a right which our ancestors so proudly worked for, marched for and many of them died for.

For those men and women who believe they are by God called to be ministers of the word, I ask them: What about God's plans for unborn children? Jeremiah 1:5 says: Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest out of the womb I sanctified thee; Psalm 139 states: Thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee for I am fearfully and wonderfully made--my substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of thee earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being imperfect...

Unfortunately, Barack Obama supports the ruthless culture of death, one that includes killing the smallest Americans—too small to flee or fight back—leaving the black church to contemplate Obama or the word of God, i.e. Jesus or Barabbas.

[Source]

Janet Folger: US Election Will End Killing of Unborn Children

Talk about sticking out your neck! I think Janet is really getting carried away here with Huckabee.

I said it before, I'll say it again: Values Voters are going to determine the outcome of this election. Don't believe me? Wait and see. One more prediction: With this election, we're going to take back the Supreme Court of the United States, stop the killing of unborn children, protect the institution of marriage and regain our freedoms of speech and religion. We're going to take back America. You heard it here first.

What do you think?

The Moral Weight of Abortion Demands Prioritized Voting

It’s refreshing at this point in the American Presidential race to hear a message designed to bring clarity and focus to the controversial practice of “single-issue” or “narrow-minded” voting.

It’s even more meaningful when the message is delivered by a high profile leader in a major Christian denomination, albeit one in America. I’d really like to see some of Dr. Land’s Canadian counterparts hammering away at this same crucial distinction in full public view. It would certainly help to add important perspective to our current skewed attitudes about politically correct poverty—and more recently, politically correct child abuse.

**********

American Moral Values: Narrowed or Prioritized?

It’s a cheap shot to criticize socially conservative American “values voters” for narrowing the political litmus test to abortion and same-sex “marriage,” because “narrowing” and “prioritizing” are two different things. Can there be a higher priority or a more compelling moral issue than three thousand six hundred babies dying every day? If a child is born poor, he at least has some chance of escaping poverty. If he is killed before he is born, he doesn’t have a chance of escaping his mother’s womb.

We lose more babies through abortion every year than the total fatalities in all of the wars in which we have ever participated, commencing with the French and Indian War and including the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, and Gulf War II. What’s wrong with religious people who are not making this their paramount issue?

Again, I would contend that supporting traditional marriage is not narrowing, but prioritizing. Marriage is the basic building block of human society. A couple of years ago, I was lecturing at Harvard. During the question-and-answer period, a student asked me the following question concerning my opposition to same-sex “marriage”: “You seem like a nice guy. Why would you want to interfere in the personal, private relationship of two individuals?”

I answered that marriage is anything but a personal, private relationship. That is one reason the state requires a license to get married. Marriage is a social and civic institution with profound social responsibilities, obligations, and impact. Every society in human history has severely regulated who may get married to whom, and under what circumstances they may dissolve the relationship, precisely because of this institution’s enormous importance to the entire society. Same-sex “marriage” is a cultural and social issue with profound moral, social, and public policy implications.

I am stunned when someone isn’t concerned about the threat of further unraveling the nation’s already frayed social fabric by redefining marriage through judicial fiat against the will of the people. Even Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, probably the current Supreme Court’s most liberal justice, has criticized Roe v. Wade as a misguided attempt to rewrite and liberalize the nation’s abortion laws through judicial imposition rather than through a democratic movement to liberalize abortion through legislation.

Had such a popular movement succeeded, it would have built a more lasting consensus on social policy. Instead, the Supreme Court’s rulings on abortion made the issue far more divisive than it otherwise would have been. If the courts try to force same-sex “marriage” on America, their judicial overreach will be equally destructive of the social fabric.

Criticizing social conservatives for prioritizing opposition to abortion and same-sex “marriage” is like criticizing Martin Luther King Jr. for being “preoccupied” with racial reconciliation and social justice. Did Dr. King have other concerns? Yes. And so should we. But, like Dr. King, we should understand that some moral issues take precedence over other issues in times when grave injustices are being committed. By the way, when Dr. King said his dream was a country in which people would be judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin, he wasn’t exactly espousing a secular, relativist vision.

What was his focus? He kept the main thing the main thing. The abolitionists in the nineteenth century kept the main thing the main thing. The twenty-first-century pro-lifers are keeping the main thing the main thing. The Bible specifically condemns the pagan practice of sacrificing children, and I’m happy to be criticized for taking on the issue of abortion as a grave moral crisis.

The bottom line is that one’s view of human life impacts (prioritizes) how one regards other serious social issues, such as the sex trafficking of women and children, the genocide in Darfur, and the grinding poverty that grips many in Third World countries and in sections of our nation. If innocent human life is indeed precious, then it deserves protections at all ages and in all places.

[Source]

Evaluation of 2008 Presidential Candidates against US Bishops' Criteria

If you are a pro-lifer following the US Presidential election campaign, here’s an unusual—but intriguing—system of evaluating the candidates.

I was alerted to this assessment of the candidates through a blog posting at Catholics for Ron Paul. The posting was entitled Ron Paul is Best Catholic Choice - US Bishops' Faithful Citizenship Guidelines.

Here’s the relevant portion of that posting with the link to Defend Life blogger Joe Healy who came up with this interesting and comprehensive system. There are some solid things to be learned here about qualifying true pro-life candidates. Canadian pro-lifers, please take a close look.

**********

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has been rated the Best Choice for Catholic Voters, based on an independent analysis by The Defend Life blog of Maryland. The analysis used the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' criteria in Faithful Citizenship - its guide for Catholic voters - to rate the various candidate's platforms and has determined that Ron Paul's positions are most compatible with the USCCB standards.

Using a point system that gave greater weight for "non-negotiable" issues such as abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, and gay marriage, the analysis lined up all the candidates to see where they stand on a broad array of issues.

Ron Paul (R) scored highest with a score of 99, with Alan Keyes (R) following with 70, and Mike Huckabee (R) third with 69. Dead last was the purportedly Catholic Rudy Giuliani (R) with -28 and Barack Obama (D) with -15. Hilary Clinton (D) scored a -11 and Fred Thompson (R) scored only a 4.

After 100 Years, Are Evangelical Christians Lining Up For Another Major Split?

Here’s a very intriguing look into the current state of America’s evangelical community from Sunday’s New York Times. I warn you though—it is a very long article. It amounts to ten pages online.

But if you’d really like to get a great overview of the intersection of American evangelicalism and politics, this is the best, most up to date primer I’ve seen for a while.

The primary engine driving these Christians from the pulpits and pews into politics and keeping them there—aside from the generic “culture war” concern—seems to be abortion. I’m not surprised. It’s just a wonder there’s not more following them.

I’ll introduce the article by quoting from the first page which sets the pace for the rest of the piece.

**********

The Evangelical Crackup

The hundred-foot white cross atop the Immanuel Baptist Church in downtown Wichita, Kan., casts a shadow over a neighborhood of payday lenders, pawnbrokers and pornographic video stores. To its parishioners, this has long been the front line of the culture war. Immanuel has stood for Southern Baptist traditionalism for more than half a century. Until recently, its pastor, Terry Fox, was the Jerry Falwell of the Sunflower State — the public face of the conservative Christian political movement in a place where that made him a very big deal.

With flushed red cheeks and a pudgy, dimpled chin, Fox roared down from Immanuel’s pulpit about the wickedness of abortion, evolution and homosexuality. He mobilized hundreds of Kansas pastors to push through a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, helping to unseat a handful of legislators in the process. His Sunday-morning services reached tens of thousands of listeners on regional cable television, and on Sunday nights he was a host of a talk-radio program, “Answering the Call.” Major national conservative Christian groups like Focus on the Family lauded his work, and the Southern Baptist Convention named him chairman of its North American Mission Board.

For years, Fox flaunted his allegiance to the Republican Party, urging fellow pastors to make the same “confession” and calling them “sissies” if they didn’t. “We are the religious right,” he liked to say. “One, we are religious. Two, we are right.”

His congregation, for the most part, applauded. Immanuel and Wichita’s other big churches were seedbeds of the conservative Christian activism that burst forth three decades ago. In the 1980s, when theological conservatives pushed the moderates out of the Southern Baptist Convention, Immanuel and Fox were both at the forefront. In 1991, when Operation Rescue brought its “Summer of Mercy” abortion protests to Wichita, Immanuel’s parishioners leapt to the barricades, helping to establish the city as the informal capital of the anti-abortion movement. And Fox’s confrontational style packed ever more like-minded believers into the pews. He more than doubled Immanuel’s official membership to more than 6,000 and planted the giant cross on its roof.

So when Fox announced to his flock one Sunday in August last year that it was his final appearance in the pulpit, the news startled evangelical activists from Atlanta to Grand Rapids. Fox told the congregation that he was quitting so he could work full time on “cultural issues.” Within days, The Wichita Eagle reported that Fox left under pressure. The board of deacons had told him that his activism was getting in the way of the Gospel. “It just wasn’t pertinent,” Associate Pastor Gayle Tenbrook later told me.

Fox, who is 47, said he saw some impatient shuffling in the pews, but he was stunned that the church’s lay leaders had turned on him. “They said they were tired of hearing about abortion 52 weeks a year, hearing about all this political stuff!” he told me on a recent Sunday afternoon. “And these were deacons of the church!”

[Source]

Are Americans Ignoring Sam Brownback—Only Presidential Hope for Legal Protection of the Unborn?

Ok, so we’ve had a born-again evangelical President in the White House for about seven years. Abortion rates are much the same as always. I don’t recall ever hearing President Bush say in blunt words that abortion should be made illegal, although I believe the Republican platform calls for the overturning of Roe v Wade.

Is it time now for a Catholic President? Does America’s desire to end abortion override its reluctance to consider the prospect of a President who is staunchly Catholic—unlike JFK?

It would seem not, at least up to this point.

But here’s a Presidential hopeful who is unafraid to say that abortion is the greatest moral issue in American politics today— not global warming, not the war in Iraq, not illegal immigration, etc.

Boston’s Cardinal O'Malley said, "There is no other presidential candidate in the United States at this moment whose positions really reflect Catholic social dogma in the way that" Brownback's do.

Are American pro-life leaders throwing their weight behind Brownback? I am hearing no such reports. They seem obsessed with “elect-able” candidates instead of principled voting. Thirty four years of that kind of thinking have not saved the lives of 4000 unborn Americans killed daily through “legal” abortion.

What are James Dobson and Tony Perkins saying about him? Why aren’t they saying more?

Perhaps more importantly we should ask why Catholic Bishops aren't drawing the attention of their flocks to candidate Brownback. Truly perplexing.

America: Why aren’t you looking more seriously at Brownback?

---

Sam Brownback Tells Iowans Abortion is Biggest Moral Issue in Politics

Dubuque, IA (LifeNews.com) -- Sam Brownback continued to press the pro-life themes of his Republican presidential campaign in a stop in Iowa on Thursday. The Kansas senator said abortion is the greatest moral issue in politics and shared the story of his adoptive daughters with the crowd of 100 people at Loras College.

Brownback discussed his "pro-life, whole life" theme that includes protecting people both born and unborn.

"This is the biggest moral issue of the day," he said, referring to abortion. "We've killed over 40 million people that should be here."

The senator also discussed his two adoptive children and how they came from nations where abortion and infanticide have targeted girl babies.

He also said the women who have had abortions and regret their decision have the greatest chance to break the gridlock over abortion in the U.S. and persuade more people to support the pro-life position.

"With every abortion there's at least two victims. One dead, one wounded," he said. "We believe all people are sacred and they're beautiful."

He also said he was confident that the work of pro-life groups in changing hearts and minds would eventually win the abortion debate.

"We can get this done here. Once we win this fight, it will reverberate around the world," he said, according to the Tribune Herald newspaper.

Once abortion is made illegal in the United States again, Brownback said, it would impact the worldwide abortion debate and help places like Russia and Japan, where abortion has left the nations with underpopulation problems.

"This isn't rocket science. But it is about sacred life," he said.

Brownback also said he backs a human life amendment to the Constitution but knows that isn't a political reality right now.

[Source]

The Dubuque Telegraph Herald in Iowa reported much the same story. To read their article, go here.

As if all this weren’t enough, yesterday the Boston Globe gave America another reason to support Brownback.

Obama Says So-called Leaders Of Christian Right Hijacked The Faith

Not often does this blog center a posting on a particular politician, but let’s be fair. If Nancy Pelosi or John Kerry were the subject of a discussion on this blog doubtless it would be because they are professedly “good” or “devout” Catholics who are in favour of the legalized killing of unborn children and we would be raising the roof so that Catholic Bishops would discipline them by withholding from them the Eucharist—the Body and Blood of Christ—until they repented of their objective evil.

After all, the Scriptures warn, “For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.” Furthermore, the Christian “cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.” Communion with Christ and communion with devils cannot be had at once. Christians, who by association, sympathies, and actions participate in devilish strategies that destroy life, family and the common good, cannot participate in Holy Communion.

So what happens when Protestant and Presidential candidate Barack Obama, who likewise supports child-killing, gets up in front of a church crowd of 10,000 and starts talking about doing “the Lord’s work” and accuses “the Christian right of ‘hijacking’ Jesus to polarize the public?”

"Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together. Faith started being used to drive us apart," he said. "Faith got hijacked partly because of the so-called leaders of the Christian right, who've been all too eager to exploit what divides us.

"At every opportunity, they've told evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage, school prayer and intelligent design," he said.

Apparently Obama would have Americans believe that it’s ok to be religious, all the while tolerating, even advocating, the killing of unborn children by the millions and also permitting the destruction of the foundations of marriage and family, yet focusing instead on other “issues.”

There’s a lot I’d like to say about Obama, much the same as I’d like to say to folks like Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and also Rudy Giuliani, but I’ll let Grant Swank say it for me. Grant is not always the most favorable in his comments towards the Catholic faith, but I’ll give him high marks for spotting hypocrites like Obama.

Hopefully, Christians don't need a voting guide in order to know that a vote for Obama is similar to a vote for Osama, the terrorist. Abortion is no less violent than terrorism and produces the same result-dead and bloodied human beings, most often in pieces.