More good news: Abortion clinics closing at record rate

There is so much to like in this article from Baptist Press.

For Abby Johnson, the closing of a single Planned Parenthood center demonstrated her dramatic reversal from abortion clinic director to leading pro-life advocate.

But for pro-lifers throughout the United States, it marked another exhibit in a hopeful trend -- abortion centers are shutting down at an unprecedented rate. The total so far this year is 44, according to a pro-life organization that tracks clinic operations.

None was more telling for Johnson than the mid-July closing of the Planned Parenthood center in Bryan, Texas. It came less than four years after Johnson, burdened by her involvement with abortion, walked out of that clinic as its director and into the offices of the Coalition for Life.

"Knowing that the former abortion clinic I once ran is now closing is the biggest personal victory of my life," Johnson said in a written statement after the announcement of the shutdown. "From running that facility, to then advocating for its closure, and now celebrating that dream ... it shows that my life has indeed come full circle."

Since her celebrated conversion from Planned Parenthood director, Johnson has started a ministry to help workers leave the abortion industry. She has pledged, as she said in July, to "fight until every abortion clinic in this country has shut its doors."

This year, 42 clinics that provided surgical abortions have shut their doors, and two that offered chemical abortions by drugs also have closed, according to Operation Rescue, which monitors closings and health and safety violations by clinics nationwide. That number far surpasses the 25 surgical clinics shutdown last year and the 30 in 2011, by Operation Rescue's count. While others estimate a smaller number of closings, the pattern is clear.

Some of the shutdowns have been of major clinics. For instance, Virginia's No. 1 abortion provider closed, The Washington Post reported in July. NOVA Women's Healthcare in Fairfax, Va., shut down after state and local governments enacted regulations the abortion provider appeared unable to meet. The northern Virginia clinic performed 3,066 abortions in 2012 and 3,567 in 2011.

The reasons given for the upswing in closings are varied even among pro-lifers. They include:

-- the increasing state regulation and oversight of clinics;

-- a growth in pro-life opinion and activity, and

-- a decline in the abortion rate.

In some cases, clinics have shut down when abortion doctors retired or were no longer licensed.

State legislatures enacted 69 pro-life laws this year, according to a report released Thursday (Sept. 5) by Americans United for Life. In all, 48 states considered about 360 such proposals in 2013, AUL reported.

The legislative action this year continued a recent trend in states: 70 "life-affirming measures" became law in 2011 and 38 in 2012, according to AUL.

Some measures have targeted making the procedure and clinics safer for women, and have helped escalate the number of clinic shutdowns. This year, states such as Alabama, North Carolina and Texas passed varied laws either requiring abortion clinics to meet the same health and safety standards as outpatient surgical centers, or authorizing the state to enforce such requirements. Also, in 2013, North Dakota and Wisconsin joined Alabama and Texas in mandating abortion doctors have admitting privileges at local hospitals.

While pro-lifers assert the laws are for the protection of women, abortion rights advocates argue their purpose is to stop abortion. Regardless, the result appears to be abortion clinics are being held accountable in ways they have not been previously.

"Considering the growing body of medical evidence confirming the health risks of abortion for women, abortion cannot be left in the hands of an unmonitored, unregulated and uncaring industry feeding off fear and federal subsidies," AUL President Charmaine Yoest said in a written statement.

The Guttmacher Institute, a research organization affiliated with the abortion rights movement, charged in June such laws "are a solution in search of a problem, a cynical ploy to advance an agenda that seeks to make it more and more difficult for women to obtain an abortion, with the ultimate goal of eliminating U.S. women's access to safe and legal abortion."

The increased state government oversight of clinics is a response to pro-lifers spotlighting abuses by abortion providers, and to the scandals uncovered in recent years, said Cheryl Sullenger, Operation Rescue's senior policy advisor. Her research has produced disciplinary action against various abortion doctors.

Foremost among the scandals was that of abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell and his Philadelphia clinic. The regulatory failures in Pennsylvania appear to have made an impression on officials in other states.

Gosnell received three consecutive life sentences in May for the first-degree murder of three born-alive babies. Those children were only three of hundreds at least six months into gestation who were killed outside the womb after induced delivery at a clinic criticized for its unsanitary and unsafe conditions.

A 2011 grand jury report criticized the Pennsylvania Department of Health and Department of State for failing to oversee the clinic properly. Gosnell's clinic had not been inspected since 1993 despite many complaints, according to the report.

While the actions of state legislatures and agencies appear to have contributed to clinic shutdowns, the growing activism of pro-lifers also has been an important ingredient, said the national director of 40 Days for Life.

"I believe the increase in closures is due to record numbers of Christians praying for an end to abortion, and getting actively involved in pro-life efforts where they live -- recognizing that change is not going to come from politicians in Washington, D.C., anytime soon," David Bereit wrote in a statement for Baptist Press.

Since 2007, 40 Days has conducted its semi-annual campaigns of peaceful prayer vigils outside abortion clinics in more than 500 cities nationally and internationally. More than 575,000 people have participated, and 40 Days reports 39 clinics have closed permanently after their campaigns.

Both Bereit and Sullenger believe even more clinic closures are in the offing.

"The momentum is shifting dramatically in the pro-life direction, and as even more people answer the call to 'speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves' and 'rescue those being led to the slaughter,'" Bereit said, citing verses in Proverbs 31 and 24, respectively, "I believe we will see many more abortion centers closing in the near future."

Sullenger said in a written statement, "We do anticipate an increase in the number of abortion clinics as new laws are enacted and inspections increase. Enforcement of laws on the books has always been the key. We simply have never found an abortion clinic that complies with the law on all points.

"Couple that with a downward trend in abortion numbers and increased pro-life sentiment, [and] the abortion industry is in financial trouble," she said before adding a caveat. "However, an influx of money from the government via [the 2010 health-care reform law] and private sources could artificially keep some clinics open."

"Reproductive freedom" may be the stupidest movement in the history of the world

As evidence to support that contention, I offer this as Exhibit A (H/T to Stand Firm via MCJ):

Abortion is so often framed as a women’s issue by both those who advocate for abortion rights and those who seek to dismiss abortion as frivolous. And for abortion rights, a movement that took root in the late 1960s and early 1970s, this makes sense. Prior to a deeper understanding and problematizing of gender and the way that it works, in our social construction, only women had abortions because only women could get pregnant. But in 2013, we should know better, and we need to do better.

At this crucial moment for reproductive freedom and abortion access, the abortion rights movement stands at yet another crossroads: How do we adequately address and include those who have abortions but are not women?

We must acknowledge and come to terms with the implicit cissexism in assuming that only women have abortions. Trans men have abortions. People who do not identify as women have abortions. They deserve to be represented in our advocacy and activist framework. Honestly, I am guilty of perpetuating that harmful myth, both in my rhetoric and framing. I often frame abortion restrictions as misogynistic attacks meant to control women’s reproductive lives, and that is true. But abortion restrictions also affect the lives of people who aren’t women, and they hinder trans men and gender-non-conforming people and others who were Designated Female at Birth (DFAB) from accessing abortion care, as well.

“Stand with Ohio Women” and the “War on Women” may be great rallying cries, but they also very clearly reiterate the notion that abortion is both solely a women’s issue and that only women have abortions. This can make those in the trans community feel excluded, and it can deter them from both seeking the abortion care they may need or becoming actively involved in abortion rights advocacy.

There can be only one appropriate response to this kind of idiocy.

Virginia abortion clinic closes after killing woman in botched abortion

From LifeSite News.

This makes thirty (30) abortion clinics which have been forced to shut down this year. The only question is, how many more women and unborn children must die before all of them are closed?

Nova Women’s Healthcare, a Fairfax, Virginia, abortion clinic with a history of botched abortions and at least one patient death, will be forced to close at the end of June.

This closure is one of 30 abortion clinics to close in 2013 alone, more than doubling the number of closures over all of last year.

“With the increased attention on abortion clinic abuses, we are beginning to see a trend toward greater awareness and enforcement. Many of the 30 clinics to close this year have done so due to enforcement measures,” said Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue. “Others closed due to lack of business, which means the pro-life movement is succeeding at changing the public opinion and behavior toward abortion. In 1991, there were 2,176 surgical abortion clinics in America. After the closure of Nova at the end of this month, there will be only 630 surgical abortion clinics left. While we still have a long way to go to end the barbaric practice of abortion in this nation, we have shown real progress.”

Local activists working with Operation Rescue and other national groups learned the news when attending a City Council meeting on May 14, 2013, to oppose plans for relocation of the abortion clinic to a prominent location on Main Street. Nova’s lease in its current location was terminated via a lawsuit by the property owners on the grounds that the abortion clinic created a nuisance.

Nova had previously applied for a building permit but was denied because it was one parking space short of compliance with city ordinances. It attempted to reapply as a “Health Spa” to circumvent the need for the additional space, but the city manager saw through the rouse and again denied the application.

Pro-life activists once again heard of plans to relocate the clinic for a proposed July opening. Over 20 activists attended the City Council meeting on May 14 and spoke in opposition to the plan, noting the negative aspects of the abortion business. One activist noted that that often women were observed at the present location lying in the common areas, bleeding and vomiting.

Fairfax Mayor Scott Silverthorne informed the audience that the clinic had withdrawn its application the previous day, noting that if another application were to be submitted, he would “go the extra step” and make sure that the community and churches were well informed.

Operation Rescue had publicized a medical emergency at Nova involving a 35-year old diabetic patient suffering from heavy bleeding after an abortion who was rushed to the hospital on March 3, 2012. Operation Rescue had reason to believe that the clinic owner, Mi Yong Kim, may have been involved in the botched abortion even though her medical license had been surrendered in 2007 amid findings that she improperly sedated a patient in 2005 and failed to realize that the woman had gone into cardiac arrest. Kim did not attempt to resuscitate her and the woman died as a result. Operation Rescue filed complaints against Kim and the clinic.

An unannounced inspection of Nova was conducted by state officials two months later, which revealed numerous health and safety violations, generally substandard care, and an additional botched abortion patient that required emergency hospitalization.

Robert P. George: Abortion on trial

Concerning the impact of the horrific Kermit Gosnell affair, Robert P. George nails it.

Late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell has been convicted of first degree murder for killing babies after delivering them alive.

The trial now moves into the penalty phase, and we wait to hear whether prosecutors will seek the death penalty. But Dr. Gosnell is only the front man; and the real trial has only just begun. The defendant is the abortion license in America. The Gosnell episode highlights the irrationality of the regime of law put into place by the Supreme Court in 1973 and fiercely protected by Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and the polticians they and other “pro-choice” advocacy groups help send to Washington and the state capitols.

Something as morally arbitrary as a human being’s location—his or her being in or out of the womb—cannot determine whether killing him or her is an unconscionable act of premeditated homicide or the exercise of a fundamental liberty. Yet something like that is the prevailing state of American law under Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. Its incoherence and indefensibility have been laid bare by the prosecution of Dr. Gosnell. Whatever now happens to him, it will no longer be possible to pretend that abortion and infanticide are radically different acts or practices.

If we are to condemn snipping the neck of a child delivered at, say, twenty-four or twenty-six weeks to kill him or her, how can we defend dismembering or poisoning a child in the womb at twenty-six, thirty, or even thirty-four weeks? And even more fundamentally, if we are bearers of inviolable dignity and a basic right to life in virtue of our humanity, and not in virtue of accidental qualities such as age, or size, or stage of development or condition of dependency—if, in other words, we believe in the fundamentalequality of human beings—how can a right to abortion (where “abortion” means performing an act whose purpose is to cause fetal death) be defended at all?

It is time to end the slaughter!

Taking the Lord's name in vain and our national culpability

Via LifeNews.com:

During his speech to the Planned Parenthood abortion business today, President Barack Obama asked God to bless the number one abortion performer in the United States.

Here is how he ended his speech:

“As long as we’ve got to fight to make sure women have access to quality, affordable health care, and as long as we’ve got to fight to protect a woman’s right to make her own choices about her own health, I want you to know that you’ve also got a president who’s going to be right there with you, fighting every step of the way,” said Obama. “Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you.”

There is a term for invoking the name of the Almighty so carelessly (and flippantly) to imply a "blessing" upon an organization responsible for the murder of millions of innocent children.

It is called taking the Lord's name in vain. It is a particularly grievous sin which God, who is quite zealous about the appropriate invocation of his name, takes quite seriously.

You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain. (Exodus 20:7 ESV)

Moreover, the implication that an evil organization like Planned Parenthood is somehow worthy of divine blessing calls to mind another rather explicit Scriptural passage.

Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter!

(Isaiah 5:20 ESV) 

Still, before we rush to throw stones at President Obama, let us consider our own culpability. The fact that we as a nation have raised up a leader who can be so careless in invoking the Lord's name, and so callous in disregarding the lives of the innocent, is more an indictment on us as a nation than it is on the leader we have raised up.

Lord, have mercy upon us. 
Christ, have mercy upon us. 
Lord, have mercy upon us.

Friday "Tweetfest" to end media blackout of trial of murderous abortion doctor

Please help spread the word!

PHILADELPHIA, April 11, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Pro-life leaders are issuing a clarion call to grassroots activists around the country to help break the media blackout surrounding the trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell by joining in a “Tweetfest” tomorrow (Friday).

(Click here to join a Facebook event page with more info about the Tweetfest.)

In addition to asking pro-lifers to send out Tweets about the trial using the hashtag #Gosnell, organizers of the event are also asking them to contact their local media outlets to ask them why they’re not covering the trial.

Despite a continuous stream of dramatic, and often gruesome testimony coming out of the Pennsylvania courtroom where Gosnell is currently facing eight charges of murder, none of the major broadcast networks have covered the trial.

“If this was puppies that Gosnell was killing the media would be all over it,” Andy Moore, the director of AbortionWiki, one of the organizers of the “Tweetfest,” told LifeSiteNews.com in a telephone interview.

“However, if we can create enough of a groundswell of people talking about it, the media is going to have to respond," he said. "They’re going to have no other option but to respond with their version of what they think is going on.”

Other organizers of the Tweetfest include Bryan Kemper of Stand True Ministries & Priests for Life and Troy Newman of Operation Rescue.

Read more here.

If you still think pro-abortionists have any sense of decency. . .

. . . much less a conscience, you obviously haven't seen this ad.



Pure evil.

Mohler: No neutral ground when it comes to Planned Parenthood

Albert Mohler lays out the case succinctly in his observations on the Planned Parenthood/Susan G. Komen fiasco. If you don't have the backbone to take a principled moral stand, by all means, don't try to hide behind arguments about policy changes.

Crash and burn. The policy reversal by the Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure, which now means that its funding of Planned Parenthood will continue, is nothing less than a public relations disaster for the organization. More than that, the decision reveals a basic lack of moral conviction when it comes to the Planned Parenthood issue—and that is a story unto itself.

Just days ago, faced with growing controversy, Komen sought to break its relationship with Planned Parenthood, to which it had provided an annual grant of $700,000 for breast cancer screenings. Komen did not state the decision in these terms, of course, but instead described the decision in terms of a new policy not to fund any organization under legal investigation. It just so happens that Planned Parenthood is currently the focus of a congressional investigation.

For years, Komen has established a reputation as the nation's leading advocacy group dedicated to fighting the tragedy of breast cancer. It has made the color pink synonymous with the issue, and it has protected its turf energetically. Bridges, skyscrapers, and waterways have been turned pink in order to bring attention and funding to the fight against breast cancer deaths.

But breast cancer is not an isolated issue, and the group's funding of breast cancer screenings by Planned Parenthood could never be kept morally isolated from all that Planned Parenthood represents—and that is the machinery of death for the unborn.

Komen's decision to cease the funding of Planned Parenthood was bungled from the start. The organization lacked the confidence to stand on moral grounds and deny the funding because of Planned Parenthood's involvement with abortion. Instead, it tried to finesse the issue by adopting a policy that, on its face, was really not about Planned Parenthood at all. The ruse did not work.

The first sign of trouble came when pro-life groups applauded the decision. Komen was clearly uncomfortable with that attention, but it could do nothing to stop it—no one believed that the decision was not about Planned Parenthood and its controversies.

The real trouble came when Planned Parenthood and its powerful friends saw their big opportunity—to pressure Komen into capitulation. This was accomplished in record time. In less than a week, Komen caved and the deed was done. Planned Parenthood flexed its muscles and twisted all the right arms. Over 20 members of the U.S. Senate declared their outrage at the defunding of Planned Parenthood. Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York personally promised to make up much of the funding. Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards saw a golden opportunity and made the most of it—with increased donations to Planned Parenthood mixed with cries of outrage. Feminist groups announced cancelations of Komen events and threatened further retaliation.

On Friday, Komen declared its unconditional surrender: "We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women's lives. The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen. We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not."

In other words, Komen first made a decision that it said was not about Planned Parenthood and then faced a whiplash from Planned Parenthood and its friends, only to reverse itself on the policy and offer a groveling public apology … while still insisting that the controversy was not really about Planned Parenthood at all.

Komen has just learned the hard way a lesson that we must all take to heart—there is no neutral moral ground. Genesis 3 tells the story, and this controversy is just the latest reminder to come our way. It will not be the last.

All this is enough to make an evangelical lean into Reinhold Niebuhr's insistence that moral ambiguity is not moral innocence. There is no innocence here. In a sinful world, innocence is not to be found.

Fighting the scourge of breast cancer is a brave and urgent cause, unquestionably on the side of the angels.

But fighting that fight with Planned Parenthood as a partner? That means complicity with the dark side, and in a big way. It isn't just that Planned Parenthood is involved in abortion. That is a moral evasion. Planned Parenthood is the major engine of abortion in America, an organization that makes millions upon millions of dollars by ripping unborn babies apart. Its operation is vast, and it is inseparable from the involvement of its founder, Margaret Sanger, in the cause of eugenics. Planned Parenthood not only performs and profits by abortion, it openly celebrates abortion as it extends its reach.

The Susan Komen Foundation for the Cure tried its best to change a policy without taking a stand. Within just one week, it made itself into a national spectacle of moral confusion and political cowardice. What a pity, for Komen's mission is so truly important and worthy.

But when Planned Parenthood became the issue, Komen ran away from principle, only to find no refuge in policy. It refused to make a principled break with Planned Parenthood, and then made an equally unprincipled retreat.

The group is grasping at straws as it tries to land in a position of moral neutrality. There is no such place. There is no policy that will allow Komen to be neutral when it comes to Planned Parenthood and all that it represents. 

Komen has made a mess from which it may never recover. Planned Parenthood, on the other hand, never had anything to lose.

The whole disaster should serve as a warning to those who may be tempted to try to avoid taking moral responsibility even as they take actions with deep and inescapable moral consequences. If honest, we all know that temptation first hand.

It isn't easy being pink. You cannot hide behind even the noblest of causes, if you intend to do business with the most ignoble of partners.

Mark Hemingway with the Tweet of the Day

Mark Hemingway @Heminator

If Obama uses Jesus to argue tax rates, someone should ask him how Jesus informs decision to force churches to pay for abortifacients.

George Weigel: Child sacrifice in the 21st century

George Weigel reflects on the America created by Roe v. Wade. This article is neither for the faint of heart nor for those whose hearts have become so calloused as to believe "the fundamental constitutional right" to abortion somehow ensures "that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams."

The Hebrew Bible is not for the squeamish. And its harshest maledictions are called down upon those who practiced the abomination of child-sacrifice.

Thus the Psalmist:

“They sacrificed their sons and daughters to the demons/they poured out innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; and the land was polluted with blood./Thus they became unclean by their acts, and played the harlot in their doings./Then the anger of the LORD was kindled against his people, and he abhorred his heritage./… they were rebellious in their purposes, and were brought low because of their iniquity” (Psalm 106:38-40, 43).

And the prophet Ezekiel, delivering the word of the Lord:

“And you took your sons and your daughters, whom you had borne to me, and these you sacrificed to them to be devoured. Were your harlotries so small a matter that you slaughtered my children and delivered them up as an offering by fire to them?... Behold, therefore, I stretched out my hand against you, and diminished your allotted portion, and delivered you to the greed of your enemies…” (Ezekiel 16:20-21, 27).

Thirty-nine years after Roe v. Wade created an unrestricted abortion license in the United States, and during the week when hundreds of thousands of Americans pray and march for life, all Americans ought to ponder these words—and the kind of country to which Roe v. Wade led.

It was supposed to be a country in which women were liberated; it became a country in which women were ever more the victims of predatory and sexually irresponsible men, left alone with their “rights” to find a technological “fix” to the dilemma of unwanted pregnancy. It was supposed to become a more humane country; it became a country in which morally coarsened pundits can describe as “extreme” and “weird” the faith-filled response of the Santorum family to the loss of a newborn shortly after birth. It was supposed to be a country of greater equality; it became a country in which the fantasies of those who believed that America was for white Anglo-Saxon Protestants only, with emphasis on “white,” were realized beyond the wildest imaginings of the most crazed racists and eugenicists of the 1920s.

These hard truths have too often been hidden, especially where abortion is widely prevalent. Thus it is to the immense credit of the New York-based Chiaroscuro Foundation that it has compelled the New York City Department of Health to itemize separately abortion and pregnancy statistics in its annual reports. The 2010 numbers, just released, would make both the Psalmist and Ezekiel blanch:

Of the 208,541 pregnancies in New York City in 2010, 83,750 were terminated by abortion: 4 in 10. Among non-Hispanic blacks, there were 38,574 abortions and 26,635 live births: thus for every 1,000 African-American babies born, 1,448 were aborted. Those numbers were even more chilling among non-Hispanic black teenagers: for every 1,000 African-American babies born to teenagers, 2,630 were aborted. The overall teenage abortion rate was 63 percent in a city where 16 percent of all pregnancies were teen pregnancies.

New York City is not America, of course. And there is encouragement on various fronts in the battle for life. The national abortion rate is down over the past several decades. Science has vindicated the pro-life position. The pro-life/pro-choice opinion balance has tilted, if slightly, in favor of the pro-life cause. Younger people are more likely to be pro-life than aging baby-boomers. Legislated regulation of the abortion industry has driven abortuaries out of business in many places.

Yet the fact remains that America is a country in which almost 1 in 4 pregnancies ends in the willful, violent death of the unborn child. And this slaughter of the innocents has been going on, often in higher percentages, for almost four decades.

As the Psalmist and Ezekiel might have told us, feeding the demons inevitably leads to a terrible hardening of sensibilities. The warnings from ancient Israel about where that hardening leads are worth pondering in this election year, and indeed in every year.

Conscience regulations and the silence of evangelicals

I have long since disavowed the term "Evangelical," be it capitalized or not. The sector of the Body of Christ which goes by that name has become increasingly lukewarm over the last decade, and while I am more concerned with the theological, rather than the political, shift that is pulling evangelicalism away from the moorings of orthodox Christianity, the failure of evangelical leaders to stand with their Catholic co-laborers against the Obama Administration's determined effort to impose its culture of death agenda upon religious healthcare providers is yet another example of a movement that has lost its way.

Robert Schwarzwalder and Julia Kiewit chastise evangelical leaders for their silence.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has responded vigorously to the restrictive and unworkable “conscience regulations” being imposed on health care providers by the Obama Administration’s Health and Human Services (HHS) Department. The Catholic Archdiocese for Military Service has said “no” to allowing priests in the Armed Forces perform homosexual “weddings,” now that the historic prohibition on homosexuals in the military has been lifted. And most recently, eighteen Catholic colleges and universities banded together and, through the Alliance Defense Fund, submitted comments to HHS citing a violation of religious freedom regarding the interim final rules on preventative services.

We applaud the efforts of America’s Catholic leadership in defense of religious liberty. But we do so with a certain measure of consternation. As Evangelical Protestants, we wonder: Why is organized Evangelicalism so silent?

Where is the National Association of Evangelicals?

Where is the (Evangelical) Council for Christian Colleges and Universities?

Where are the editorials and feature articles in Evangelical publications?

At a time when our religious liberty is being eroded by an Administration that insists on forcing its anti-Christian policies on American public life, why are so many of our leaders shuffling their feet and staring at the ground?

Every Christian school in the nation that offers insurance to its employees or students will be affected by the 2010 health care law—as schools like the University of Dallas, Franciscan University of Steubenville, and Ave Maria University immediately recognized. While Evangelicalism does not have specific teachings on contraception in the way that the Catholic Church does, no Christian organization in the United States should be comfortable with the requirement that insurance must cover abortions. Since that is the intention of the Obama administration, why are Evangelical Protestant colleges and universities, and Evangelical leaders generally, not speaking out? Why are they not joining with Catholic leaders and institutions in opposition to these anti-religious liberty measures?

A university may be justified in wanting to avoid political controversies that could alienate students or donors. But there is no excuse for schools—or any Christian organizations—to ignore a debate that will have such permanent and negative repercussions on our country.

To be Christian is not to be anti-political or anti-cultural. Instead, it means understanding the truth of God’s Word so that we can discern how to shape culture and respond to politics. College campuses are places of education, and setting an example is an excellent pedagogical method. What better way to educate young students on Christian public involvement than by participating in the democratic process and engaging policy makers who shape the very choices we are allowed to make?

While ad hoc groups of Evangelicals have formed to fight the Obama administration’s efforts (e.g., the 2,000-strong Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty), those who should be leading our efforts nationally are quiescent. These leaders and organizations appear to be so embarrassed by what they regard as the excesses of political activism that they have become mute. But it’s time they spoke out.

Evangelicals may have missed this opportunity—the window for submitting comments to HHS regarding the rules on preventive services is closed—but the battle for religious liberty is far from over. Evangelical Protestants have stood by as Catholics have led the defense of our first freedom. It’s time we joined them in the fight.

Pelosi again claims to be "devout" follower of faith she openly defies

Truly devout Catholics, Protestants, evangelicals, or what have you should never find it necessary to remind everyone else of the depth of their devotion. On all matters pertaining to religious faith, Nancy Pelosi is a fraud and a charlatan. She deserves from her pastoral overseers nothing but the strongest, sharpest, and most explicit public rebuke. Her wanton disregard for the sanctity and dignity of unborn human life is beyond apalling and borders dangerously on imperiling her soul.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is at it again, bashing Catholics for their pro-life position when she has promoted abortion in defiance of Catholic Church teaching at every turn.

This time, Pelosi is upset that the nation’s Catholic bishops are protesting a potential Obama administration decision forcing insurance companies to cover birth control, contraception and drugs that could cause abortions. They say certain religious groups may not be exempt from providing the insurance, which would violate their moral and religious views.

Pelosi says the position is akin to having hospitals “say to a woman, ‘I’m sorry you could die’ if you don’t get an abortion,” she told the Washington Post.

“Those who dispute that characterization “may not like the language,’’ she said, “but the truth is what I said. I’m a devout Catholic and I honor my faith and love it . . . but they have this conscience thing” that the Post said Pelosi “insists put women at physical risk, although Catholic providers strongly disagree.”

Pelosi also defended controversial remarks she made about a bill to prevent Obamacare from funding abortions, where she claimed Republicans “want women to die on the floor.”

“For a moment, I want to get back to what was asked about the issue on the floor today that Mr. Hoyer address,” Pelosi said. “He made a point and I want to emphasize it. Under this bill, when the Republicans vote for this bill today, they will be voting to say that women can die on the floor and health care providers do not have to intervene if this bill is passed. It’s just appalling.”

She told the Post in a new interview, that she doesn’t think the assessment went to far.

“They would” let women die on the floor, she said. “They would! Again, whatever their intention is, this is the effect.”

Pelosi is bastardizing a portion of the bill that reinstates conscience protections for pro-life medical workers who don’t want to be involved in abortions.

The Protect Life Act makes it clear that no funds authorized or appropriated by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), including tax credits and cost-sharing reductions, may be used to pay for abortion or abortion coverage. It specifies that individual people or state or local governments must purchase a separate elective abortion rider or insurance coverage that includes elective abortion but only as long as that is done with private funds and not monies authorized by Obamacare.

The bill also specifies that insurance issuers may offer health plans that include elective abortion and may offer separate elective abortion riders, so long as they ensure PPACA funds are not used for premiums or administrative costs. The bill also clarifies that issuers who offer elective abortion coverage must also offer a qualified health benefits plan that is identical except that it does not cover elective abortion.

The pro-life measure also ensures that state laws “protecting conscience rights, restricting or prohibiting abortion or coverage or funding of abortion, or establishing procedural requirements on abortion” are not abrogated by Obamacare. It also makes it so any state or local governments receiving funding under Obamacare may not subject any health care entity to discrimination or require any health plan to subject any entity to discrimination on the basis that it refuses to undergo abortion training, refuses to require abortion training, refuses to perform or pay for abortions, or refuses to provide abortion referrals.

A hill for liberals to die on

Hunter Baker has some sobering words for Christians whose politics lean to the left.

Well, we’ve had our discussions about budgets as moral documents and now have reached a budget deal that went right up to the brink of a government shutdown.

To those friends of mine who are also Christians, but identify more with the left than the right, I have a question for you: Just exactly what hill was it the Democrats decided they wanted to die on in this battle? Where did they draw the line and say, “This far and no further!”

It turns out their one adamantine point of no compromise was . . . funding Planned Parenthood. Wow, that’s a real Mr. Smith Goes to Washington moment. Gets you right in the old ticker.

I suspect Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo are feeling a little uncomfortable as they review the bidding.

Not that this should come as a surprise. How many Democrat figures have been down this path and learned that they have to make a choice? Ted Kennedy was pro-life and was forced by his party’s realities to change. Jesse Jackson was pro-life. Same result. Ditto for one Albert Gore.

There is one orthodoxy in the party of the left that will not brook disagreement. Bob Casey the elder knew it. And Ramesh Ponnuru wrote a book about it.

Cizik Watch: Richard, you are in serious peril of losing your soul

The leftward slide of Richard Cizik, former vice president for governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals, has been chronicled here before. Having left a permanent scar on the NAE's commitment to sanctity of life issues (among others), Cizik has moved on to bigger and better things as the liberal media's favorite "evangelical," being ready in season and out to offer his unique perspective on controversial issues.

But Cizik's fall from grace is a serious matter which ought to be of grave concern to believers. Reading his latest collaboration with the forces of cultural accommodation, a Washington Post editorial co-authored with Unitarian-Universalist minister Debra Haffner, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Cizik has completely sold out his convictions in exchange for the adulation of the media and the favor of a rancid, decaying, and morally corrupt American religious establishment.

As religious leaders, we are both called to respond to the needs of the most marginalized, the most vulnerable, and the most likely to be excluded. Both of our organizations are committed to Goal Five of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals, calling for improved global maternal health by reducing maternal mortality by three quarters and achieving universal access to reproductive health. Both of us are committed to helping create a just and equitable world where no woman will die giving birth to the next generation.

Although we hold differing moral values about abortion, we share a commitment that because life is sacred, it should never be created carelessly or unintentionally. That is why we both support the Title X family planning program, which helps avert nearly one million pregnancies in the United States annually. That is why we have a shared belief in international family planning programs, because we know that maternal mortality around the world could be reduced by more than 70 percent by improved access to reproductive health services. We support domestic and international family planning because we know it reduces neonatal and maternal morbidity and mortality, including deaths attributable to unsafe abortions--and it helps build strong families and lives.

As religious leaders, we are called to improve women's and children's lives. It is simply inconceivable to either of us that those who oppose abortion services also have voted to cut or eliminate family planning, prenatal care, mother and infant nutrition programs, and community health services. We stand together in calling on people of faith across the religious spectrum to stand up for the needs of low-income families and their children. We are pro-faith, pro-family, and pro-child.

As people of faith, we call on the U.S. Senate to reject the draconian and ultimately immoral cuts proposed by the U.S. House of Representatives. As religious leaders called by God to co-create a better world where all may flourish and thrive, we can do no less.

Richard, you are in serious peril of losing your soul. Repent and return to the faith you once professed.

A second look at "Child Abuse, Inc." a.k.a. Planned Parenthood

From the House debate on defunding Planned Parenthood, these comments by Rep. Chris Smith present the hard truth which has long been suppressed by the dark forces of political correctness. Some will, no doubt, accuse Rep. Smith of "incivility." But if it is somehow a violation of "civility" to describe what happens during an abortion, what does that say about the act of abortion itself?

Administration's "Iron fist" crushes conscience clause but the issue is not going away

On the same day the House of Representatives voted to defund Planned Parenthood, the Obama Administration demonstrated once again that it is committed to crushing all opposition to the agenda of that organization and others like it who hide their evil agenda under the increasingly thin mask of "freedom of choice."

The Obama administration on Friday peeled back a rule defining when health-care workers can refuse to administer treatments they find morally objectionable, reversing a final act of George W. Bush's administration.

The Bush measure said that a wide variety of health-care workers could object to participating in abortions if they had moral objections to the procedure. Hospitals and clinics faced a loss of federal funds if they failed to uphold what the Bush administration termed workers' "right of conscience."

Liberal groups opposed the rule, saying it could open the door to a broader denial of services. They said it could allow insurance companies to deny claims for birth-control pills or enable hospitals to refuse emergency contraception to victims of rape.

While there was little evidence that such denials were happening with any frequency, the Obama administration said it needed to act to prevent ambiguity. It said decades of law already protect workers from participating in abortions if they don't wish to.

The Department of Health and Human Services said it wanted to make clear that existing conscience protections don't mean health-care providers can refuse to treat entire groups of people based on religious or moral beliefs. The agency said it was concerned the Bush rule could restrict access to contraception or other medical services.

"The administration strongly supports provider conscience laws that protect and support the rights of health care providers, and also recognizes and supports the rights of patients," the department said in a statement. "Strong conscience laws make it clear that health care providers cannot be compelled to perform or assist in an abortion."

The Obama administration's guidance, released Friday, nullified most of the Bush regulation, while leaving in place a piece that designates a federal office to receive complaints about violations of the earlier statutes.

Antiabortion [sic] advocates said the change could open the door for pressure on nurses, medical students and other health workers to provide abortion services. "Pro-life health-care providers need the strongest protections they can get," said David O'Steen, executive director for National Right to Life. Abortion-rights supporters hailed the change, saying it will prevent improper denials of service.

The administration said that rescinding the certification requirements under the Bush rule would result in a cost savings of $43.6 million each year to the health-care industry.

Wesley J. Smith notes that the general issue of conscience in healthcare is much larger than abortion in particular.

This Administration talks about building bridges across moral chasms and crossing difficult cultural divides. It talks the talk, but with this act, it walks in the exact opposite direction–again.

The administration says, that despite peeling back the rule it still respected the rights of conscience. I’ll have to see what the rule actually states, which may take a few days, before I’ll believe that. But conscience is about more than abortion. And this administration has shown a propensity to come down with an iron fist.

The conscience clause issue isn’t going away. In fact, I predict it will be one of the big fights in bioethics over the next decade as medicine increasingly becomes involved in actively taking human life as well as–or in conjunction with–saving human lives.

The new face of the Culture of Death?

The Culture of Death in the United States, given legal sanction by the Supreme Court's infamous Roe v. Wade decision thirty-eight years ago, has a new face with which it can be associated. It is that of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, a Pennsylvania abortion practitioner who carried that abominable piece of tortured legal reasoning to its logical outcome.

Over the years, Gosnell specialized more and more in late-term abortions, and his preferred method in cases of the most advanced pregnancies was to induce labor in the women who came to him. What resulted in hundreds of cases was a live birth. And thus the issue that has garnered the most attention to the Gosnell case: The doctor is charged with murdering seven babies born alive in his clinic, whom he, or one of his staff under his direction, killed in the first minutes of their post-natal lives by “snipping” their spinal cords (that was the doctor’s own word for it) with scissors at the neck. The grand jury is morally certain there were many hundreds of “snipping” victims, but these seven are the only ones of whose deaths there is solid evidence today.

The women who came to Gosnell’s clinic — poor and desperate, late in their pregnancies, and willing for whatever reason to endure the horrors of his ministrations — wanted to be rid of their babies. This result he provided them. But it is difficult to locate the moral difference between the deaths Gosnell brought about in utero and those he accomplished post-natally. Does an unborn child at 26 weeks of fetal development have less moral standing than a born child at 25 weeks of fetal development? Does the latter’s living and breathing outside the womb for ten minutes, or ten seconds, confer a status that the former lacks? How can that be? 

This is the absurd moral corner into which the Supreme Court backed us in 1973. Not that it bothered Dr. Gosnell. He was in the getting-rid-of-babies business, and no one was going to be sent home with a live one. Viewed in a coldly rational light, the doctor’s logic was admirably consistent: before birth, after birth, it made no difference.

In Roe, the Court’s majority opinion by Justice Harry Blackmun assured readers that in the late stages of pregnancy, when a fetus was “viable” and thus a live birth was possible, the state could prohibit abortion entirely. Except not really entirely: Blackmun carved out an exception where an abortion “is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.”

This seems a minor and reasonable exception. But in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton, decided the same day, Blackmun wrote for the Court that in determining what is “necessary” for the “health” of a pregnant woman seeking an abortion, a physician’s “medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.” Such broad language resulted, in practice, in the total elimination of the state’s power to prohibit post-viability abortions, not just a narrow exception to that power. All that is required to defeat any attempted prohibition is a woman who desires an abortion and a doctor who wishes to provide one. The pregnant woman’s emotional health or familial situation can always be cited afterward, if need be, as a complete and perfect defense.

This is how America’s regime of abortion on demand came about. Since 1973, states have been powerless to prosecute an abortion at any stage of pregnancy, if the charge is merely that the procedure was undertaken too late, or after viability. Thanks to Doe, prosecutors have simply desisted from bringing criminal cases on such a basis. And unscrupulous doctors have been licensed to kill viable unborn children. Hundreds, if not thousands, are aborted every year.

This is the legacy of Roe and Doe. A culture which had been rooted in respect for the sanctity of every human life has been unhinged from its moral moorings and cast adrift in a sea of moral relativism which not only elevates the value of one life over another but also celebrates the destruction of the less valued life as an exercise of a person's "fundamental rights." It is a despicable legacy of death, slaughter, and bloodshed. But while the Gosnell case puts his particular abortion practice in the spotlight, he is undoubtedly not the only one.

More good news: Local Planned Parenthood chapter drops national affiliation

Appropriately enough, this story comes out of Corpus Christi, Texas.

The local chapter of Planned Parenthood will drop its affiliation with the national organization and take a new name beginning Jan. 1.

Clients shouldn’t notice any changes in prices or services other than the office changing its name to Family Planning of the Coastal Bend, CEO Amanda Stukenberg said.

Planned Parenthood wanted to standardize its operations at all of its agencies nationwide, Stukenberg said.

That included a new requirement for all affiliates to perform abortions, something the Coastal Bend office didn’t see as necessary because of abortion services offered by local doctors, Stukenberg said.

“We have never provided abortions,” she said. “Our position is that if that is a need in your community, fine. There are far greater needs in our area than abortion. We feel that women here have options. We don’t need to duplicate services.”

It’s unclear how many Planned Parenthood affiliates are following the local chapter’s lead. National officials couldn’t be reached for comment Monday.

The Coastal Bend office focuses on education and sexual health, including an expanded focus on men’s health, Stukenberg said.

The local chapter office became a model clinic for its role encouraging men to share responsibility for family planning, sexually transmitted disease prevention and preventing unwanted pregnancies, Stukenberg said. Last year, 20 percent of clinic patients were men, she said.

Clinic staffing and prices for service will remain the same, Stukenberg said.

The office’s funding sources won’t be affected by the change, but the local office won’t have the benefit of bulk purchasing.

Scary, but oh so close to true!

Joe Carter illustrates absurdity by being absurd, but the truth hits too close for comfort!

Overheard at a local shopping mall:

Jan: “Marsha! How are you girl? I haven’t seen you in ages.”

Marsha: “Hey Jan, you’re looking great. How’ve you been?”

Jan: “Just peachy. Hey, guess what? I’m going to have a fetus!”

Marsha (excited): “That’s wonderful! Oh, I’m so happy for you. Isn’t it a blessing having parasites growing in us?”

Jan: “Yes, but I have to confess—I’m jealous. I wanted to have twins too.”

Marsha: “Oh, I only have one now. Greg didn’t get his promotion so we decided to selectively reduce one of them.”

Jan: “Aww . . . well, that’s a valid choice. I was hoping to have two fetuses because this one is going to be used to harvest donor tissue for Alice. It took us forever to find an IVF facility that would help us with a designer fetus”

Marsha: “I’m glad everything worked out. So when is it due?”

Jan: “My doctor says I’ll be delivering sometime in October.”

Marsha: “No, I mean when’s it due to become a human.”


Jan: “Oh, well, Bobby and I draw the line sometime within the first few weeks after birth.”

Marsha: “Hmm, Greg and I think it occurs in the third trimester but I can respect that. It’s a valid choice.”

Jan: “Hey, what happened to Cindy? I heard she was having complications with her pregnancy. Did she ever deliver her fetus?”

Marsha: “She did. Back in September. But the baby was born retarded so, you know, she did the right thing and took a trip to Holland.”

Jan: “That is so like Cindy. She has always been so compassionate.”

Marsha: “Oh, I know. She was really thinking about the child. I mean, what kind of quality of life would it have?”

Jan: “Exactly. It’s just a shame that she has to go all the way to Europe.”

Marsha: “Tell me about it. At least Cindy has the money to travel. Just think about the poor women that have to resort to back-alley euthanasia.”

Jan: “Oh, I completely lost track of the time. I gotta get going.”

Marsha: “Where’re you headed off too?”

Jan: “My local chapter of PETA is holding a protest to stop the clubbing of baby seals.”

Marsha (shocked): “Oh my goodness, I didn’t even know that horrible practice was still going on, that’s just. . . wait, we’re in California, where is the protest located?”

Jan: “Online. In World of Warcraft some of the characters bash baby seals with clubs. Activists from across the Eastern Kingdoms and Kalimdor are banding together to put a stop to the atrocious seal slaughter.”

Marsha: “Oh. Okay. I see.”

Jan: “All life is sacred, Marsha. Even virtual life. If we don’t stop it there who knows where the culture of death will lead.”

Marsha: “So true. Well, kisses. Give Bobby my love.”

Jan: “Bye dear, and don’t forget. September 14th. Margaret Sanger Day. Margaritas at my house—virgin margaritas, of course.” (pats belly)

You can take abortion out of the back alley, but you can't take the back alley out of abortion

Albert Mohler and Mary Rose Somarriba offer extensive reflections on a recent New York Times Magazine feature on "The New Abortion Providers." As support for abortion is declining in the United States, so is the number of medical professionals offering abortion "services." Conscientious younger OB-GYNs are not following in the footsteps of their older predecessors. The trend has thrown abortion advocates into full damage control mode, forcing them to start a campaign for new recruits. Writing for the Times, reporter Emily Bazelon tries to put a smiley face on an increasingly moribund industry that, nearly forty years after Roe v. Wade, has still not been fully welcomed into the mainstream of the American medical profession.

This abortion-rights campaign, led by physicians themselves, is trying to recast doctors, changing them from a weak link of abortion to a strong one. Its leaders have built residency programs and fellowships at university hospitals, with the hope that, eventually, more and more doctors will use their training to bring abortion into their practices. The bold idea at the heart of this effort is to integrate abortion so that it’s a seamless part of health care for women — embraced rather than shunned.

Mohler finds this new push disturbing.

Emily Bazelon’s report offers a fascinating and important look at abortion in American today — past, present, and future. She points sympathetically to this new movement and its aims, but she seems to sense that the medical profession is still resistant to abortion, and may remain so.

She writes with great skill and insight, but she lets her own disposition slip when she refers to the aborted contents of a womb as “pregnancy tissue.”

This new movement, fueled by fervent abortion advocates and financed, in part, by Warren Buffett’s billions, may make real headway. We must pray that it does not. The normalization of abortion within the practice of medicine would be a tragedy beyond words — the embrace of death within a profession dedicated to life.

The front cover of the magazine asks the question: “Is this the new front in the abortion wars?” If the magazine’s editors did not believe that indeed this is the next front in this long war, they would never have asked the question. Now, thanks to Emily Bazelon and this report, we all know the answer to that question.

But Somarriba sees it as an act of desperation.

With the facts as they are, the article’s optimism for increased abortion acceptance in mainstream America is at best wishful thinking, at worst willful delusion. The publication of the piece can’t help but seem a part of a pro-abortion agenda: trying to prop it up to be a successful, growing industry, supported by most of the public—despite the fact that it isn’t.

America and abortion have always been an uneasy match. Unlike in Europe, where abortion was legislated slowly over time democratically and with regulations built in from the start, abortion on demand in America was legalized overnight by a Supreme Court decision, which in part explains why it’s still such a volatile, unresolved issue in America today. Legalized abortion was rushed and forced from the start, and it’s been a hard, rocky road since. After a while the abortion supporters in this article start to sound like the infatuated person who’s in denial that her partner really isn’t right for her. She keeps thinking he’ll change, or somehow the road will smooth out and things will work, even though things have never gone smoothly with him. When it comes to widely accepted abortion, the shoe never quite fit for mainstream America, and, more than thirty years later, it doesn’t look like it ever will. Still, as this article reports, abortion providers are determined to keep trying desperately to make this relationship work.

But this is unfair, right? How can I say this? Well, really, because the abortion supporters say it themselves. They embody the single biggest indicator of delusion, which is this: In order to see things working out their way, they have to imagine the world different than it is. Bazelon describes one Planned Parenthood director who “looked out the window, at all the people who she wished could feel the urgency she does, and pointed out that change in medicine comes slowly.”

While we should certainly heed Mohler's call to pray for the failure of this well-funded campaign, there is a great degree of wisdom in Somarriba's observations about the uneasy conscience that haunts even the most fervent of abortion advocates. In the end, she says, "abortion will always be in the back alley of public life."

Despite the disingenuous (and anachronistic) spin of abortion advocates, support for abortion in America has declined slowly but steadily over the past few decades, resulting now in a tenuous but consistent pro-life majority. I remain convinced that it will ultimately go the way of slavery, and for much the same reason: The conscience of the nation simply will not be able to bear the burden forever.