I Know You Are...But What Am I?...

A Commentary

"A group of nine Hawaii senators held hands, bowed their heads and sought God's blessing Wednesday, signaling that they'll still pray despite a vote last week to abandon official invocations.
Fears of court challenges compelled the state Senate to end prayers, making it the first legislative body in the nation to do so."

We hear much about so called tolerance on a daily basis from the pop- psychiatrists to the talking heads on the nightly news. After reading the above story about the Hawaii senators, I had to pause and say a few things. As most Christians realize, society at large is "tolerant" of almost everyone except the true Christ confessing Born Again Christian. When someone is allowed on one of the so called news programs, the liberal-progressives try to shout them down sounding like Pee Wee Hermon and his, "I know you are, but what am I routine!"

I am reminded some of the facets Wesleyan Quadrilateral when considering the Christian history and background of our great nation. The Bible clearly outlines the consequences of nations and kingdoms that ignored God and continued in their pagan practices. History also paints a clear picture of nations who rejected God. Sadly our nation persists in continuing down this path that leads to nowhere at warp speed. Abortion on demand, same sex "marriage", spending like drunken sailors. I am thankful this group of senators had the backbone to stand up for what they believe. I hope and pray the rest of us will join them.

America Wants Pro-Life Majority!

Majority of Americans Want Pro-Life Republicans Running House, Senate

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
October 22, 2010

Email RSS Print

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A majority of Americans say in a new poll released today that they want pro-life Republicans running the House and Senate instead of the current pro-abortion Democrats who control the majority and work with pro-abortion President Barack Obama.

With Democrats pushing for the government-run health care reform bill that allows abortion funding and overturning other limits on abortion funds in other situations, Americans apparently have had enough.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 51% of likely voters say that if their vote next month determined which political party wins control of the Senate, they'd like that party to be the Republicans. Another 42 percent disagree and want pro-abortion Democrats to remain in charge.

With pro-life elected officials in the top leadership positions in the GOP in both the House and Senate, changing who controls Congress will change key abortion policy and approach.

"This marks a noticeable turnaround from just before the midterm elections in November 2006 when 47% wanted their vote to throw control of the Senate to the Democrats, while 37% preferred putting the GOP in charge," pollster Scott Rasmussen noted.

The identical numbers hold true when voters are asked which party they would like to see controlling the House of Representatives if their vote was the determining factor: 51% say the Republicans; 42% say the Democrats.

"Over 90% of GOP voters want to see their party regain control of the House and Senate, as do 12% of Democrats. Just over 80% of Democratic voters want their party to be in charge of both houses of Congress," Rasmussen noted. "Voters not affiliated with either party want to see Republicans in control of the Senate by a 50% to 35% margin and the House by a similar 52% to 36% margin."

There appears to be more intensity in this election cycle, too, Rasmussen indicates.

"Eighty-nine percent (89%) of voters now say in terms of its impact on their own lives, it is at least somewhat important which party controls Congress after next month's election. That includes 66% who say it is Very Important, 17 points higher than the finding four years ago. Only eight percent (8%) say it is not very or not at all important which party is in charge," he said in his analysis of the poll.

A Democratic-controlled Congress has had a major impact on the lives of unborn children.

In addition to passing the ObamaCare bill that authorizes abortion funding, Congressional Democrats approved establishing an Office for Global Women's Issues, headed by an ambassador-at-large who will report directly to pro-abortion Secretary of State Clinton and promote abortion as an international right.

The current Congress approved overturning the policy against taxpayer funding of abortions in the District of Columbia, which will increase what is already one of the nation's highest abortion rates.

The Democratic Congress defeated a measure to cut funding for the Planned Parenthood abortion business and moved abstinence education funding from abstinence groups to Planned Parenthood.

The Senate also started the process of overturning the longstanding ban on abortions at taxpayer-funded U.S. military base hospitals both domestic and abroad.

The Senate defeated a measure to restore the Mexico City Policy to prevent taxpayer funding of groups that promote and perform abortions in other nations and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi denied pro-life advocates a vote in the House.

Buzz up!

Fetal Pain Abortion Law...A National Trend?

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
October 15, 2010

Email RSS Print

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A new fetal pain law is taking effect today in Nebraska that targets late-term abortions based on the pain an unborn baby will likely feel during the abortion procedure. The law could set a national trend of other states and Congress considering such measures and could lead to a Supreme Court battle.

The Nebraska law, Legislative Bill 1103, relies on significant medical research and expert testimony to prohibit abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy on the basis that unborn children feel pain.

The legislation has been hailed by pro-life advocates across the country for its innovative approach and focusing the public's attention on unborn babies who have been medically documented as pain capable at 20 weeks gestation.

“This will take off like wildfire,” Julie Schmit-Albin, executive director of Nebraska Right to Life, predicted in comments to the Omaha World-Herald newspaper.

The Nebraska bill has already inspired Sen. Mike Johanns, a Nebraska Republican to press for a similar measure on the national level -- and he used it to challenge pro-abortion president Barack Obama.

“How does anybody -- pro-life or pro-choice -- oppose this?” asked Johanns. “If the baby feels pain ... then it is an issue of human compassion.”

The expected opposition -- in the form of lawsuits from pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood or the Center for Reproductive Rights, have yet to materialize.

Mary Spaulding Balch, a pro-life attorney who is the state legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, says abortion advocates may not want to have a national discussion on the pain unborn children feel because it draws attention to their humanity and need for legal protection.

But Crepps, deputy director of the New York-based CRR law firm, told the newspaper to expect a legal battle.

“National Right to Life Committee can speculate as much as they want, but it is just that — speculation,” she said. "We will file a challenge to this unconstitutional law when the circumstances are appropriate. We will not, however, discuss our decision-making process publicly.”

The pro-abortion law firm worked with late-term abortion practitioner LeRoy Carhart, who operates out of the Omaha area, to challenge the state's partial-birth abortion ban in 2000. That case ultimately resulted in the first Supreme Court opinion saying such bans are unconstitutional. The high court later reversed itself and upheld a national ban Congress passed during the Bush administration.

Planned Parenthood of the Heartland confirmed to the Omaha paper that it would not file a lawsuit against the new law.

But a lawsuit, Balch told LifeNews.com previously, would give the pro-life movement a chance to push back against prior Supreme Court opinion on abortion.

Balch says the law could make its way to the Supreme Court to alter national abortion law further and set a wide-ranging precedent.
"Although it will be a case of first impression, there are strong grounds to believe that five members of the current U.S. Supreme Court would give serious consideration to Nebraska’s assertion of a compelling state interest in preserving the life of an unborn child whom substantial medical evidence indicates is capable of feeling pain during an abortion," she said.

The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act could see the same group of five members of the Supreme Court who backed the partial-birth abortion ban uphold it as constitutional and allow more abortions to be prohibited.

Balch says the genius of the measure is the scientific fact that unborn children can feel pain.

"By 20 weeks after fertilization, unborn children have pain receptors throughout their body, and nerves link these to the brain," she told LifeNews.com. "These unborn children recoil from painful stimulation, which also dramatically increases their release of stress hormones. Doctors performing fetal surgery at and after 20 weeks now routinely use fetal anesthesia."

A first of its kind in the United States, the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act prohibits abortion after 20 weeks gestation except when the mother "has a condition which so complicates her medical condition as to necessitate the abortion of her pregnancy to avert death or to avert serious risk of substantial or irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function or...it is necessary to preserve the life of an unborn child."

When looking at abortion case law, NRLC says it hopes a new analysis can be established that would ultimately lead to overturning Roe.

Balch says the pro-life group wants the Supreme Court to redraw the line away from the viability standard about when abortions can be prohibited.

“What I would like to bring to the attention of the court is, there is another line,” Balch said. “This new knowledge is something the court has not looked at before and should look at.”

Fetal pain is not a new concept and the leading national expert on the topic confirms unborn children definitely have the capacity to feel intense pain during an abortion.

Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand of the University of Arkansas Medical Center has said he and other specialists in development of unborn children have shown that babies feel pain before birth as early as 20 weeks into the pregnancy.

Anand said many medical studies conclude that unborn babies are "very likely" to be "extremely sensitive to pain during the gestation of 20 to 30 weeks."

"This is based on multiple lines of evidence," Dr. Anand said. "Not just the lack of descending inhibitory fibers, but also the number of receptors in the skin, the level of expression of various chemicals, neurotransmitters, receptors, and things like that."

Anand explained that later-term abortion procedures, such as a partial-birth abortion "would be likely to cause severe pain."

Dr. Jean Wright, an anesthesiologist specializing in Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, has also confirmed the existence of fetal pain during Congressional testimony.

“[A]n unborn fetus after 20 weeks of gestation, has all the prerequisite anatomy, physiology, hormones, neurotransmitters, and electrical current to close the loop and create the conditions needed to perceive pain. In a fashion similar to explaining the electrical wiring to a new house, we would explain that the circuit is complete from skin to brain and back," she said.

And Dr. Richard T.F. Schmidt, past President of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, confirms, “It can be clearly demonstrated that fetuses seek to evade certain stimuli in a manner which an infant or an adult would be interpreted as a reaction to pain.”

An April 2004 Zogby poll shows that 77% of Americans back "laws requiring that women who are 20 weeks or more along in their pregnancy be given information about fetal pain before having an abortion."

Only 16 percent disagreed with such a proposal, according to the poll, commissioned by the National Right to Life Committee.

Related web sites:
National Right to Life Committee - http://www.NRLC.org
Nebraska Right to Life - http://www.nerighttolife.org

Buzz up!

Blood Money...

Remembering Terri Schiavo...

...Five Years Ago This Week*

---

The culture of death advances

By Patrick J. Buchanan
© 2009 Creators Syndicate, Inc

On Good Friday, as Terri Schiavo lay dying of thirst in Woodside Hospice, Gabriel Keys took her a cup of water. Gabriel was arrested, handcuffed and taken away.

Apparently, no one taught Gabriel that you do not disobey a judge's order, even to bring water to someone dying of thirst. As he is 10 years old, he is probably not yet conversant with the new morality, where a corporal work of mercy can be a crime. Perhaps his parents filled his mind with such subversive texts as, "Whoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones, a cup of cold water" shall not lose eternal life.

Before this column appears, Terri Schiavo may well be dead. If so, another milestone will have been passed in the long retreat of Western Civilization from a Christian-rooted culture of life to the pagan culture of death of pre-Christian Rome.

For Terri Schiavo will not have died a natural death. She will have been put to death by the state. The coroner's report should read: This was a state-sanctioned killing of a woman because she was brain-damaged, and the method of execution was by starvation and denial of water. These are methods most of us would protest if imposed on the Beltway snipers.

Why did Florida put Terri Schiavo to death? Because that was the demand of a husband who refused to divorce her and denied her medical care, while he lived with another woman. Michael Schiavo is the ACLU poster boy for family values.

In the Old Testament, King Solomon ruled that the mother who had been willing to give up her baby to the woman who had kidnapped the child rather than see the baby cut in half should have the child. Our Florida Solomon ruled that the husband who wanted Terri dead should have custody of her, not the parents who wanted her alive.

"Should Congress have intervened?" is an issue that has divided conservatives. But conservatives are constitutionalists. Under the Constitution, no person may be deprived of life without due process of law. This has traditionally meant a trial of one's peers, proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a heinous crime and no cruel or unusual punishment. Though she committed no crime, Terri was put to death in a manner most decent men and women would not use to put a suffering animal out of its misery.

Most conservatives believe in a God who is the Author of Life and has given us the laws by which we must live. Among the first of these is that we must not shed innocent blood. For that is forbidden by the teachings of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, and the laws of all the civilizations erected on these faiths. In all nations, killing of the innocent is the most despicable of crimes. Done on a vast scale, these are what were called at the Nuremberg trials, "crimes against humanity."

Americans must face a hard truth. The state of Florida put Terri Schiavo to death. Before Holy Week, she was neither dead nor dying. For 15 years, she had been cared for by nurses and visited by loving parents. She was not dying until the judge ordered her dead, by ordering her feeding tube removed. Then it has taken her nearly two weeks to die, as he blocked the reinsertion of the feeding tube and ordered police to prevent anyone from giving her water.

When the courts failed Terri, and Congress and the Florida Legislature failed Terri, the governor of Florida, who took an oath to defend the constitutional rights of Florida's citizens, should have taken custody of Terri, ordered the tube reinserted and let the federal courts proceed with the de novo hearing of the evidence, while Terri was still alive.

When Gov. John Peter Altgeld of Illinois came to believe that those convicted of murder in the infamous Haymarket Massacre of 1886 were innocent, that a judicial outrage had been committed, he pardoned them. "I am a dead man politically," he told Clarence Darrow.

Jeb Bush should have done the same thing, the right thing. He should have rescued Terri from the death sentence unjustly imposed upon her. If the court held him in contempt, so what? Who does not hold that Florida court in contempt?

From abortion on demand in 1973, to a right to die in Oregon, to a right to suicide in Holland, to involuntary euthanasia in the old folks homes on the old and dying continent of Europe, to America's death sentence for Terri Schiavo, the West advances steadily toward its own death.

As we find more and more justifications for ending life, we also find that not one Western nation has a native-born population that is growing. All are dying. Before century's end, the West ends, as T.S. Eliot wrote, "Not with a bang, but a whimper."

Its interesting that this same week, four years (and now five) after Terri Schiavo's senseless death,Assisted Suicide is approved in several states, Harry Reid wants abortion covered under a National Socialized Healthcare plan, and Joe Biden is given an A-plus rating on his treatment of animals...("change" we can believe in?)...keith 1 Cor 13

*I first published this a little over a year ago... With all the attention recently on government "healthcare" I thought I would re-post this article. The way our courts treated Terri should be a warning of things to come under a government run plan.

What John Wesley so aptly said about slavery, still applies today"Where is the justice in inflicting the severist of evils on those who have done us no wrong?"

Obama's ‘New’" Health Care Plan" Would Use Tax Dollars to Pay for Abortions

CNSNews.com

Monday, February 22, 2010
By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama unveiled his plan for health care reform on whitehouse.gov on Monday, but pro-life legislators and advocates said the “new” proposal mostly mirrors the Senate bill and, in particular, would allow for tax dollars to be used to fund health plans that cover abortion. “The health bill passed by the Senate in December (H.R. 3590) had become, by the conclusion of the Senate amendment process, the most expansively pro-abortion bill ever brought to the floor of either house of Congress since Roe v. Wade,” Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), said in a statement issued on Monday.

Johnson said Obama’s bill will not include the same prohibitions set forth in the Stupak amendment--named after Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.)--which was part of the health care legislation passed earlier by the House of Representatives. Instead, Obama’s bill allows federal funds to subsidize abortions through the structuring of programs and insurance plans.

“If all of the President's changes were made, the resulting legislation would allow direct federal funding of abortion-on-demand through community health centers, would institute federal subsidies for private health plans that cover abortion-on-demand, including some federally administered plans, and would authorize federal mandates that would require even non-subsidized private plans to cover elective abortion,” Douglas said.

House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio points out changes in the Senate health care bill during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Oct. 8, 2009 in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the release of Obama’s health care proposal ahead of Thursday’s televised discussion among the president, Democrats, and select Republicans could be counterproductive. He also said pro-life legislators are committed to creating legislation that reflects what Americans want in health care reform. “Republicans are also standing with the American people by calling for health care reform to protect human life and not use taxpayer money to fund abortion,” Boehner said in a statement. “The Republican bill would codify the Hyde Amendment and prohibit all authorized and appropriated federal funds from being used to pay for abortion, which the President’s proposal would allow.” “Pro-life Democrats in the House have already pledged to vote against this provision,” said Boehner. “Health care reform should be an opportunity to protect human life--not end it--and the American people agree.” When asked about the issue by ABC’s Jake Tapper at Monday’s press briefing at the White House, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the president does not want to pay for abortions but does not want to limit women’s choices. “And we're not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions," Gibbs said. "And I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test---that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions but, on the other hand, that we're not restricting women's insurance choices….” Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, said that with today’s release of the president’s health care plan, he can no longer say it is Congress that is promoting federally funded abortions. “Every time President Obama’s spokesmen are asked about the Senate health care bill that authorizes federal funds for abortion, they reply that none of the bills put forth are the president’s own,” Donohue said. “Moreover, the president has said that he would never sign a health care bill that funds abortion.”
“While it is true that the pro-abortion camp will not be happy with the president for not striking some restrictions it deplores, the fact remains that President Obama could have adopted the pro-life friendly language of the House bill,” Donohue said. “The fact that he didn’t is what matters most.”

Like this story? Then sign up to receive our free daily E-Brief newsletter

Is Mandatory "Healthcare" Constutional?

Prolife video: For Women Who Are Considering an Abortion

Tuesday, January 05, 2010

Prolife video: For Women Who Are Considering an Abortion

This prolife video, "For Women Who Are Considering an Abortion," is very powerful. The woman is excellent, composed and yet vulnerable, and the human dimension is very strong. Her words about those who have had abortions, after being victims of rape and incest, are right on. Wow.



(Click here if the video doesn't show up for you.)

Those who are preparing for Sanctity of Human Life Sunday on January 24 might like to browse the prolife article section on the Eternal Perspective Ministries website, which has dozens of prolife articles. Here's some selected resources from EPM related to this topic:

Is Abortion Right When Pregnancy is Due to Rape or Incest?

Can God Forgive Abortions?

50 Ways to Help Unborn Babies and Their Mothers


www.facebook.com/randyalcorn
www.twitter.com/randyalcorn
www.randyalcorn.blogspot.com

www.epm.org

Kudos to Bart Stupak

Senators Reject Stronger Pro-Life Language
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press

Senate Finance Committee member Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., during the markup of health care legislation on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Sept. 29, 2009. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

Washington (AP) - In a vote with far-reaching political implications, senators writing a health care overhaul Wednesday rejected a bid to strengthen anti-abortion provisions in the legislation - which could reach the Senate floor in the next two weeks.

The 13-10 vote by the Senate Finance Committee could threaten support for the health care bill from some Catholics who otherwise back its broad goal of expanding coverage. But women's groups are likely to see the committee's action as a reasonable compromise on a divisive issue that is always fraught with difficulties.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, argued that provisions already in the bill to restrict federal funding for abortions needed to be tightened to guarantee they would be ironclad.

But his amendment failed to carry the day. One Republican - Olympia Snowe of Maine - voted with the majority. One Democrat - Kent Conrad of North Dakota - supported Hatch.

Separately, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said that the full Senate could start voting on health care legislation the week of Oct. 12, after the Columbus Day holiday. Reid has to meld the Finance bill with legislation that the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee approved this summer.

Conservatives also are determined to strengthen prohibitions against illegal immigrants getting federal funding to buy insurance.

Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa offered an amendment that would have helped cut fraud in health care programs for low-income people. It would have required applicants to present a government-issued ID when applying for Medicaid or the children's health care program.

But Democrats said unscrupulous medical providers - not beneficiaries - are usually the ones responsible for fraud. They said current ID requirements for beneficiaries are strong enough. The vote was 13-10, against the amendment.

Emotions ran high over the health care issue in Congress.

In the House, a Democratic lawmaker angered Republicans when he summed up their health care alternative as the GOP wanting Americans to "die quickly" if they get sick. Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida has refused to apologize for his remarks on the House floor Tuesday night in which he called GOP health care proposals a "blank piece of paper."

Republicans are likening the remarks to Rep. Joe Wilson's widely criticized shout of "You lie!" during Obama's address to Congress earlier this month. They say Democrats should insist that Grayson apologize just as they insisted Wilson, R-S.C., should.

The abortion debate in the Senate Finance Committee is certain to be waged again - with higher stakes and greater intensity - on the Senate floor.

Finance chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., argued that his bill already incorporates federal law that bars abortion funding, except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. It would require health plans to keep federal subsidies separate from any funds used to pay for abortions in all other cases.

A major concern for abortion opponents - including Catholic bishops - is that those underlying restrictions have to be renewed every year. If Congress fails to renew the ban one year, plans funded through the health care overhaul would be allowed to cover the procedure, abortion opponents contend.

Abortion rights supporters respond that adding a permanent restriction on abortion funding to the health bill would actually go beyond current federal law - in which such curbs have to be renewed every year.

"This is a health care bill," said Baucus. "This is not an abortion bill. And we are not changing current law."

Hatch said his language, "would codify it, so we don't have to go through it every year."

Abortion rights supporters said the Hatch language could deny coverage for abortion to working women signing up for coverage through private plans.

Its approval would be a "poison pill ... if it is hung on this legislation," said Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash.

The committee also rejected 13-10 a second Hatch amendment that would have strengthened current legal protections for health care professionals who refuse to perform abortions or other procedures on grounds of moral or religious objections.

Abortion and immigration are also pending controversies in the House, where Democratic leaders hope to finalize legislation this week that would merge the work of three separate committees into one. House Democrats are struggling over how to pare the bill down to $900 billion over 10 years - Obama's preferred price tag and about how much the Senate Finance version costs.

___

AP writer Erica Werner contributed to this report.

(Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)

Fight the Fight!

Scott Wesley Brown shared this on facebook...thought you would like it!

Commentary from Life News.com-By Steve Ertelt

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- President Barack Obama supports abortion and has done everything possible to expand the number of abortions during his brief tenure as president. While Obama may not have racist motivations for backing abortion, black pro-life advocates are saying that is the outcome.

Two African-American pro-life leaders are saying that, because abortions disproportionately target the blackcommunity, expanding abortions brings a racial result.

Day Gardner, the president of the National Black Pro-Life Union, tells LifeNews.com that Obama's abortion promotion is evident.

"In less than nine months he has overturned the Mexico City policy -- which means American tax dollars will be used to pay for foreign abortions. Most of those killed will be the children of my beautiful brothers and sisters in Africa," she explained.

'President Obama's most recent effort is to push a health care bill that will mandate taxpayer funding of abortions. He has gone on record to deny this fact, which leaves many Americans wondering if he has bothered to read the 1000 plus-page monster circulating Congress," she says.

Gardner points out that, since the 1973 Supreme Court decision allowing the destruction of more than 50 million unborn children, 17 million of them were black. That represents a larger percentage of the abortions than black Americans as a portion of the American population.

"Today, for every black baby born, another black baby is killed by abortion," Gardner says.

'I find Mr. Obama's abortion push especially strange because the abortion industry purposefully targets black people," Gardner continued. "The Alan Guttmacher Institute and the Center for Disease Control, (CDC), show that Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion chain, has planted its clinics -- more than 75 percent --strategically in our urban and minority dense neighborhoods."

"Every day Planned Parenthood manages to convince pregnant black girls, especially in urban areas to abort by making them believe their pitiful lives will be better if their unwanted, unloved, worthless black ghetto child dies," she said.

"They are wrong! We come from a strong stock of people who survived slavery and Jim Crow. We don't have to kill our children to have better lives," Gardner told LifeNews.com.

"So, how can President Obama support an industry that goes to such great lengths to kill black children?" she asks.

The black pro-life advocate believes Obama is beholden to pro-abortion groups that strongly supported his presidential bid.

Meanwhile, Fox News host Glenn Beck had Dallas-area pastor Stephen Broden, who made some of the same points.

Broden argued that the health reform bill being debated in Congress will lead to a campaign to exterminate black people in America.

Broden plugged a documentary, Maafa 21, that points out how the founders of Planned Parenthood, such as Margaret Sanger, had racial motivations for promotion abortion.

“What’s going on in that documentary is what’s going to happen in the health care package,” Broden told Glenn Beck.

“I believe what we're seeing is an orchestrated attempt to radically change this country from what the founders had in mind,” Broden said. “There is a deliberate attempt on the part of Marxist, socialist and … Darwin atheists who are changing this country.”

Ultimately Gardner says abortion must be strongly opposed in the same manner as genocide in African nations.

"If we are truly the America that holds life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness so dear -- then we must obliterate the scourge of abortion from our midst otherwise we are no better than the those who perpetrate the conflict in Darfur, Rwanda, or any other country where human beings are enslaved, butchered or denied their rights just because they are meeker or weaker," she says.

Related web sites: National Black Pro-Life Union - http://www.NationalBlackProLifeUnion.com

A Glimpse of Government Run "Healthcare."

Two pro-life pharmacy owners have won the right, for now, to refuse to stock and dispense the morning-after pill.

The Circuit Court in Springfield, Il. has issued a preliminary injunction in the case, stating that the two pharmacists "are suffering irreparable harm in the form of an ongoing chill of their free exercise rights."

For the last four years, Glen Kosirog and Luke Vanderbleek have been facing off against the state of Illinois over their conscience rights. Both men oppose the morning-after pill because it can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.

Illinois boasts one of the strongest conscience protection laws in the country, but then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich overturned it in 2005.

CBN News spoke with Vanderbleek earlier this year about the issue.

"If the government says that Luke Vanderbleek can't enter his pharmacy without a moral conscience and do what my heart and the Spirit tells me to do with good conscience I won't be a pharmacist anymore in this state," he said.

Remembering Terri Schiavo

Monday, March 30, 2009

Remembering Terri Schiavo-Five Years Ago This Week*

---

The culture of death advances

By Patrick J. Buchanan
© 2009 Creators Syndicate, Inc

On Good Friday, as Terri Schiavo lay dying of thirst in Woodside Hospice, Gabriel Keys took her a cup of water. Gabriel was arrested, handcuffed and taken away.

Apparently, no one taught Gabriel that you do not disobey a judge's order, even to bring water to someone dying of thirst. As he is 10 years old, he is probably not yet conversant with the new morality, where a corporal work of mercy can be a crime. Perhaps his parents filled his mind with such subversive texts as, "Whoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones, a cup of cold water" shall not lose eternal life.

Before this column appears, Terri Schiavo may well be dead. If so, another milestone will have been passed in the long retreat of Western Civilization from a Christian-rooted culture of life to the pagan culture of death of pre-Christian Rome.

For Terri Schiavo will not have died a natural death. She will have been put to death by the state. The coroner's report should read: This was a state-sanctioned killing of a woman because she was brain-damaged, and the method of execution was by starvation and denial of water. These are methods most of us would protest if imposed on the Beltway snipers.

Why did Florida put Terri Schiavo to death? Because that was the demand of a husband who refused to divorce her and denied her medical care, while he lived with another woman. Michael Schiavo is the ACLU poster boy for family values.

In the Old Testament, King Solomon ruled that the mother who had been willing to give up her baby to the woman who had kidnapped the child rather than see the baby cut in half should have the child. Our Florida Solomon ruled that the husband who wanted Terri dead should have custody of her, not the parents who wanted her alive.

"Should Congress have intervened?" is an issue that has divided conservatives. But conservatives are constitutionalists. Under the Constitution, no person may be deprived of life without due process of law. This has traditionally meant a trial of one's peers, proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a heinous crime and no cruel or unusual punishment. Though she committed no crime, Terri was put to death in a manner most decent men and women would not use to put a suffering animal out of its misery.

Most conservatives believe in a God who is the Author of Life and has given us the laws by which we must live. Among the first of these is that we must not shed innocent blood. For that is forbidden by the teachings of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, and the laws of all the civilizations erected on these faiths. In all nations, killing of the innocent is the most despicable of crimes. Done on a vast scale, these are what were called at the Nuremberg trials, "crimes against humanity."

Americans must face a hard truth. The state of Florida put Terri Schiavo to death. Before Holy Week, she was neither dead nor dying. For 15 years, she had been cared for by nurses and visited by loving parents. She was not dying until the judge ordered her dead, by ordering her feeding tube removed. Then it has taken her nearly two weeks to die, as he blocked the reinsertion of the feeding tube and ordered police to prevent anyone from giving her water.

When the courts failed Terri, and Congress and the Florida Legislature failed Terri, the governor of Florida, who took an oath to defend the constitutional rights of Florida's citizens, should have taken custody of Terri, ordered the tube reinserted and let the federal courts proceed with the de novo hearing of the evidence, while Terri was still alive.

When Gov. John Peter Altgeld of Illinois came to believe that those convicted of murder in the infamous Haymarket Massacre of 1886 were innocent, that a judicial outrage had been committed, he pardoned them. "I am a dead man politically," he told Clarence Darrow.

Jeb Bush should have done the same thing, the right thing. He should have rescued Terri from the death sentence unjustly imposed upon her. If the court held him in contempt, so what? Who does not hold that Florida court in contempt?

From abortion on demand in 1973, to a right to die in Oregon, to a right to suicide in Holland, to involuntary euthanasia in the old folks homes on the old and dying continent of Europe, to America's death sentence for Terri Schiavo, the West advances steadily toward its own death.

As we find more and more justifications for ending life, we also find that not one Western nation has a native-born population that is growing. All are dying. Before century's end, the West ends, as T.S. Eliot wrote, "Not with a bang, but a whimper."

Its interesting that this same week, four years (and now five) after Terri Schiavo's senseless death,Assisted Suicide is approved in several states, Harry Reid wants abortion covered under a National Socialized Healthcare plan, and Joe Biden is given an A-plus rating on his treatment of animals...("change" we can believe in?)...keith 1 Cor 13

*I first published this a little over a year ago... With all the attention recently on government "healthcare" I thought I would re-post this article. The way our courts treated Terri should be a warning of things to come under a government run plan.

What John Wesley so aptly said about slavery, still applies today"Where is the justice in inflicting the severist of evils on those who have done us no wrong?"

Deathcare for the Unborn

Government Takeover of Healthcare

is

DEATH CARE

FOR THE UNBORN

Pro-ABORTION Congressional Leaders Plan

The Greatest Expansion of ABORTION since Roe v. Wade

A health care plan was approved by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee (HELP) on July 15. The Senate plan is called the Kennedy Bill because it is sponsored by Pro-ABORTION Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts. The House of Representatives Health Care Plan is called H.R. 3200.

CNSNews.com

Pro-Life Democrats Urge Pelosi to Exclude Abortion Funding from Health Care Reform Bill Tuesday, June 30, 2009 By Monica Gabriel

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) (AP Photo)

(CNSNews.com) – Nineteen pro-life House Democrats signed a letter last week to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) expressing their opposition to any health care reform that includes abortion funding. “We cannot support any health-care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan,” the letter read. The congressmen did not take a position for or against the so-called “public option” feature of the health care reform bill, which involves the creation of a government-sponsored health insurance poll, but the congressmen were blunt about what they do not want. “Plans to mandate coverage for abortions, either directly or indirectly (are) unacceptable,” they wrote. “We want to ensure that the Health Benefits Advisory Committee cannot recommend abortion services be included under covered benefits or as part of benefits package,” the letter further stipulated. “Without an explicit exclusion, abortion could be included in a government subsidized health care plan under general health care.” “Nineteen Democrats breaking the fold is a sign that not everybody within the Democratic Party is completely sold out to the abortion lobby,” Shaun Kenney, executive director of the American Life League, the largest grassroots Catholic pro-life education organization in the United States, told CNSNews.com. The fact is, taxpayer dollars are already going towards programs that fund abortion, Kenney said. “Planned Parenthood alone consumes about $349 million a year in federal and state tax subsidies,” he added. According to a report from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, research arm of Planned Parenthood, state policies restrict insurance coverage of abortion in only a few states. “A handful of states prohibit private insurers from covering abortion services, except in cases of life endangerment; more extensive coverage may be purchased at an additional charge,” the report said. Kenney told CNSNews.com that an amendment to prevent any and all taxpayer money going towards abortion and abortion-related programs would be a “rational next step” and “entirely consistent with the sentiments expressed in the letter.” Either way, Kenney expressed optimism no matter the speaker’s reaction to the letter. “What this ultimately is, is the spark, and whether or not Speaker Pelosi listens to them, it certainly is going to encourage the conversation as to whether or not the principles of social justice ultimately coincide with the principles of the abortion lobby,” he added. The letter was signed by Reps. Dan Boran (D-Okla.), Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), Colin Peterson (D-Minn..), Tim Holden (D-Pa.), Travis Childers (D-Miss.), Lincoln Davis (D-Tenn.), Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), Solomon Ortiz (D-TX), Mike Mclntyre (D-N.C.), Jerry Costello (D-Ill.), Gene Taylor (D-Miss.), James Oberstar (D-Minn.), Bobby Bright (D-Ala.), Steve Driehaus (D-Ohio), Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), Charlie Melancon (D-La.), John Murtha (D-Pa.), Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.), and Kathleen Dahlkemper (D-P

More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time
Also, fewer think abortion should be legal “under any circumstances”
by Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42% "pro-choice." This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.



The new results, obtained from Gallup's annual Values and Beliefs survey, represent a significant shift from a year ago, when 50% were pro-choice and 44% pro-life. Prior to now, the highest percentage identifying as pro-life was 46%, in both August 2001 and May 2002.

The May 2009 survey documents comparable changes in public views about the legality of abortion. In answer to a question providing three options for the extent to which abortion should be legal, about as many Americans now say the procedure should be illegal in all circumstances (23%) as say it should be legal under any circumstances (22%). This contrasts with the last four years, when Gallup found a strong tilt of public attitudes in favor of unrestricted abortion.


Gallup also found public preferences for the extreme views on abortion about even -- as they are today -- in 2005 and 2002, as well as during much of the first decade of polling on this question from 1975 to 1985. Still, the dominant position on this question remains the middle option, as it has continuously since 1975: 53% currently say abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances.

When the views of this middle group are probed further -- asking these respondents whether they believe abortion should be legal in most or only a few circumstances -- Gallup finds the following breakdown in opinion.

Americans' recent shift toward the pro-life position is confirmed in two other surveys. The same three abortion questions asked on the Gallup Values and Beliefs survey were included in Gallup Poll Daily tracking from May 12-13, with nearly identical results, including a 50% to 43% pro-life versus pro-choice split on the self-identification question.



Additionally, a recent national survey by the Pew Research Center recorded an eight percentage-point decline since last August in those saying abortion should be legal in all or most cases, from 54% to 46%. The percentage saying abortion should be legal in only a few or no cases increased from 41% to 44% over the same period. As a result, support for the two broad positions is now about even, sharply different from most polling on this question since 1995, when the majority has typically favored legality.

Senate Committee Defeats Pro-Life Amendment to Stop Health Care Rationing

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
June 22, 2009

Email RSS Print

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The Senate HELP Committee on Monday defeated a pro-life amendment that would help stop the rationing of health care in the Kennedy restructuring bill. The amendment concerned the section on comparative effectiveness research, which pro-life advocates say prompt euthanasia concerns.

Critics say the section would allow the government to create an arbitrary means to determining when medical treatments are allowed or could receive government funding.

Sen. Mike Enzi, a Wyoming Republican, sponsored a pair of amendments to curb the problem but they were defeated during the HELP Committee markup of the Kennedy bill by a party-line vote.

"President Obama promised that under his health reform proposal, every American who had coverage that they liked could keep it. This bill fails to deliver on that promise," Enzi said.

Enzi said the provisions in the bill "provide the government with an unprecedented role in the doctor-patient relationship. Government bureaucracy will end up dictating the treatment that we can and cannot have, and the result will be a delay and a denial of health care services."

Prior to the debate, Sen. Tom Coburn, expressed his support for such an amendment.

He said using the research to decide reimbursements could erode the physician-patient relationship because "government bureaucrats" would be in charge of determining what treatments a patient can receive based solely on cost.

"Medicine is individual, it's personal, it doesn't fit in a box," said Dr. Coburn, a physician.

Burke Balch, the medical ethics director for the National Right to Life Committee talked with LifeNews.com last week about the problems with comparative effectiveness research. Balch says the Kennedy bill would lead to the cutting off of certain treatments that the government doesn't consider cost effective.

He says the bill would employ a system similar to the “quality of life years” system, or QALY, in England where payment for treatment is only authorized if it extends the quality of life not the length of life. Under such a system someone in a wheelchair is determined to have a lower quality of life compared with an able-bodied person.

National Right to Life asked lawmakers to support the Enzi amendment, which would have said the government can't use that system to deny treatment to people on the basis of a disability or degree of medical dependency or quality of life.

Balch says National Right to Life is working with senators on the Senate Finance committee, including pro-life Sen. Charles Grassley, for a similar amendment to the companion bill that panel is crafting.

Amendments on the rationing issue could also come from Enzi or other lawmakers on the Senate floor.

The group is also working to ensure that the health care plan that comes out of Congress doesn't fund abortions or force insurance companies to cover abortions.

NRLC executive director David O’Steen told LifeNews.com last week that the plan will likely cover abortions and not be “up front” about it and that the pro-abortion nature of the plan would be a part of it unless an “overt” amendment is included making it abortion neutral.

ACTION: Go to http://help.senate.gov/About.html to see if either of your senators are on the committee and thank them or complain about their vote for or against the Enzi amendment.

Weekly Commentary-How much is a Life Worth?
by Keith Kiper/The Circuit Rider
A comparison was made last Monday between the assassination of Martin Luther King and the murder of late-term abortion provider Dr. George. Tiller has one relative of the slain civil rights leader outraged. Dr. Alveda King, a notable pro-life advocate and Martin Luther King's niece, lashed out to The Washington Times about comments made by Dr. Tiller's friend and colleague, Dr. LeRoy Carhart. What's next? Comparing Adolf Hitler with Abraham Lincoln? Martin Luther King, Jr. campaigned for equal rights for African- Americans. Surprising to some, the greatest resistance came from the Democratic Party who resisted anti-lynching and other laws until the mid 60's when Lyndon Johnson had to reach to the Republican Party for enough votes to pass his famous Civil Rights legislation. (Hard to believe,Click here to read in Democrat's and Republican's own words) This in ironic, considering that some African-Americans would not even consider EVER voting Republican.

I realize that no party or candidate is perfect, and as some would say, "I just vote for the man."
However, in this day of lobbyists and political party payoffs, there are only a few good men (and women) left. After all, we have seen some of the "Blue Dogs" turn yellow for Nancy Pelosi in recent weeks. Back to the Tiller/King comparison. Tiller snuffed out the life , by his own admission, of some 60,000 lives, more than the entire Viet Nam war. He often used the mental health exception as a ruse for his "practice." Dr. King risked his own life to better the lives of others. Not much similarity or sacrifice there. Tiller and others have made millions with the government sanctioned practice of infanticide. A large percentage of the abortions were performed on African-American women. Some would consider this to be a modern form of racism. We live in a day and age when there seem to some to be a lot of gray areas. They probably haven't read the same Bible I have read. Look at what 2 Peter Chapter two has to say,
"Many will follow their sensuality and because of them the way of truth will be maligned; and in their greed they will exploit you with false words..."2 Peter 2,3 (NASB)

I don't write these commentaries in an effort to promote or condemn a particular political party. Unfortunately, there are more differences than there used to be. A Christian should pray about this and seek God's guidance. Galations tells us,"It is fine to be zealous as long as the purpose is good."Jesus commands us to shed light where there is darkness. As John wesley said about slavery, we can apply to the sanctity of life,"Where in the justice of inflicting the severist of evils on those who have done us no wrong?" There are many resources available. Just check out the left hand column of this blog. What do you think? Your comments and differing points of view are always welcome and will not be criticized here. I'll close with Father Frank Pavone's Prayer for Life.


Lord God, I thank you today for the gift of my life,
And for the lives of all my brothers and sisters.
I know there is nothing that destroys more life than abortion,
Yet I rejoice that you have conquered death by
the Resurrection of Your Son.
I am ready to do my part in ending abortion.
Today I commit myself
Never to be silent,
Never to be passive,
Never to be forgetful of the unborn.
I commit myself to be active in the Pro-Life movement,
And never to stop defending life
Until all my brothers and sisters are protected,
And our nation once again becomes
A nation with liberty and justice
Not just for some, but for all,
Through Christ our Lord. Amen!

Fr. Frank Pavone/National Director, Priests for Life/Prayer to End Abortion