My Questions for President Obama In Light of His Statement on The Anniversary of Roe. vs. Wade

President Obama:  "Today, as we reflect on the 41st anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, we recommit ourselves to the decision’s guiding principle: that every woman should be able to make her own choices about her body and her health. We reaffirm our steadfast commitment to protecting a woman’s access to safe, affordable health care..."

My question:  I agree! I want that for women too! But what about the other person inside of her?  What about the unborn female?  Does that female have any women's right?  Shouldn’t we be in favor of safety for that person too?  The process of abortion is the farthest thing from "health care" for the littlest women in the womb.  Why don't they get good health care too, even if they are unwanted?  Are you in favor of bad health care for a toddler if their parents don't want them?  We know that is not how you feel, so what is the fundamental difference between the toddler and the unborn, such that one should receive great health care, no matter what, and the other should receive the opposite of health care (termination) if their parents see fit?  It seems that you assume that the unborn person should have no rights whatsoever.  Why do you feel that way?


President Obama: "...and her constitutional right to privacy including the right to reproductive freedom."

My question: I agree that privacy is a really big deal and I too greatly value my personal privacy.  But what if a mother want’s to kill her six-month-old baby?  We don’t claim she has a right to privacy in that case.  So what is the fundamental difference between the unborn and the six-month-old baby,  where one should be protected by law with full human rights and the other has all their human rights stripped away?


President Obama:  "And we resolve to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, support maternal and child health..."

My question: But shouldn’t we care about the health of those children who are in the womb too?


President Obama:  "...and continue to build safe and healthy communities for all our children."

My question:  But if we truly cared about safety for all children, what about the unborn children in the womb? On what basis do they not count?


President Obama:  "Because this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams."

My question:  But who is protecting the right of the unborn to freely fulfill their dreams? Why don’t our laws protect the human rights of the unborn Mr. President?

Praying For The President

Jonathan Parnell writes about this important part of being a Christian.  His three points:

• Praying for the President is critical for faithful Christian living.
• Praying for the President is for the purpose of our own well-being.
• Praying for the President is beautiful in the eyes of God.

Click through to read his explanations.

President Obama and ‘Uncaring’ Pro-Lifers

President Obama:

For many, Planned Parenthood is their primary source of health care — not just for contraceptive care, but for lifesaving preventive care, like cancer screenings and health counseling.

So when politicians try to turned Planned Parenthood into a punching bag, they’re not just talking about you; they’re talking about the millions of women who you serve. And when they talk about cutting off your funding, let’s be clear: They’re talking about telling many of those women, you’re on your own. They’re talking about shutting those women out at a time when they may need it most — shutting off communities that need more health care options for women, not less.

My friend Owen Strachan interacts with this quote a bit.  It seems that our President sees very little value in a crisis pregnancy center.  This is quite unfortunate.

I can't seem to get over the implications of these two videos side by side

Remember, this should never be framed as a Republican vs. Democrat issue. I care very little for politics. But I do care about justice and human rights.  This is a human rights issue.  All political parties should be in favor of human rights for all.

The only question that matters is, "What is it in the womb?"

To Louie, From Barack

This is a fictitious letter that Timothy Dalrymple wrote but wishes would be sent from the President to Mr. Giglio. I found it to have been quite well written and would work to create a culture of true civility.  May we see more of that!

"We Now Have a de facto Established State Church"

Russell Moore explains.

As citizens, we ought to insist that the President stand up to his “base” and articulate a vision of a healthy pluralism in the public square. Notice that the problem is not that this evangelical wants to “impose his religion” on the rest of society. The problem is not that he wants to exclude homosexuals or others from the public square or of their civil rights. The problem is that he won’t say that they can go to heaven without repentance. That’s not a civil issue, but a religious test of orthodoxy.

As Christians, we ought to recognize that the old majoritarian understanding of church/state relations is outmoded. Our situation today is not to hold on to some form of American civil religion. Our situation today is more akin to the minority religions of America’s past: colonial Baptists, nineteenth-century Baptists, early twentieth-century Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, who are appealing simply for the right to exist at all, in the face of an established religion armed with popular support and, in the fullness of time, state power.

It turns out we’re circling around to where we should have been all along: with the understanding that religious liberty isn’t “toleration” and separation of church and state isn’t secularism.

We don’t have a natural right to pray at anyone’s inauguration. But when one is pressured out from a previous invitation because he is too “toxic” for simply mentioning once something universal in the Christian faith, we ought to see what we’re looking at: a state church.

And as one old revolutionary-era Baptist said, as he went in and out of prison for preaching: “There is nothing so offensive to an established church than the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

Read the rest.


Books by Russell Moore:

• Tempted and Tried: Temptation and the Triumph of Christ
• Adopted for Life: The Priority of Adoption for Christian Families & Churches
• The Kingdom of Christ: The New Evangelical Perspective

A Christian Vote for Obama

Anne Larsen VanderWeele:

In 2012, my vote is cast for Barack Obama because I believe that whatever the next four years bring, I know I can trust that he will continue to promote, advocate and enact a system of government that embraces so many of my Christian ideals. If we begin with policies that honor each other’s worth and end with a system that trusts in the ability to share prosperity in the face of abundance, surely we are closer to staking a claim in this corner of God’s world that others will recognize as His.

Disclaimer: This is my personal view, not the official view of my church. I hesitate to write along these lines too much since my community is harshly politicized and the mingling of politics and church life is extremely dangerous.

That being said, the stakes are too high to keep quiet on this. I understand the above comment and would be certainly willing to entertain a conversation on the merits of her views. But in short, I simply don't get it and for Christians, I honestly think it's a travesty.  John Piper has a helpful explanation:

Investigating dog life in Minnesota has solidified my decision to vote against those who endorse the right to abortion. So then what is my response to the charge of being a one-issue voter? 

No endorsement of any single issue qualifies a person to hold public office. Being pro-life does not make a person a good governor, mayor, or president. But there are numerous single issues that disqualify a person from public office. 

For example, any candidate who endorsed bribery as a form of government efficiency would be disqualified, no matter what his party or platform was. Or a person who endorsed corporate fraud (say under $50 million) would be disqualified no matter what else he endorsed. Or a person who said that no black people could hold office—on that single issue alone he would be unfit for office. Or a person who said that rape is only a misdemeanor—that single issue would end his political career. These examples could go on and on. Everybody knows a single issue that for them would disqualify a candidate for office. 

It's the same with marriage. No one quality makes a good wife or husband, but some qualities would make a person unacceptable. For example, back when I was thinking about getting married, not liking cats would not have disqualified a woman as my wife, but not liking people would. Drinking coffee would not, but drinking whiskey would. Kissing dogs wouldn't, but kissing the mailman would. And so on. Being a single-issue fiancé does not mean that only one issue matters. It means that some issues may matter enough to break off the relationship. 

So it is with politics. You have to decide what those issues are for you. What do you think disqualifies a person from holding public office? I believe that the endorsement of the right to kill unborn children disqualifies a person from any position of public office. It's simply the same as saying that the endorsement of racism, fraud, or bribery would disqualify him—except that child-killing is more serious than those. 

When we bought our dog at the Humane Society, I picked up a brochure on the laws of Minnesota concerning animals. Statute 343.2, subdivision 1 says, "No person shall . . . unjustifiably injure, maim, mutilate or kill any animal." Subdivision 7 says, "No person shall willfully instigate or in any way further any act of cruelty to any animal." The penalty: "A person who fails to comply with any provision of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor." 

Now this set me to pondering the rights of the unborn. An eight-week-old human fetus has a beating heart, an EKG, brain waves, thumb-sucking, pain sensitivity, finger-grasping, and genetic humanity, but under our present laws is not a human person with rights under the 14th Amendment, which says that "no state shall deprive any person of life . . . without due process of law." Well, I wondered, if the unborn do not qualify as persons, it seems that they could at least qualify as animals, say a dog, or at least a cat. Could we not at least charge abortion clinics with cruelty to animals under Statute 343.2, subdivision 7? Why is it legal to "maim, mutilate and kill" a pain-sensitive unborn human being but not an animal? 

These reflections have confirmed my conviction never to vote for a person who endorses such an evil—even if he could balance the budget tomorrow and end all taxation.

Here is my main question for Obama voting Christians:  Would you ever vote for a presidential candidate who endorsed the right of parents to kill their children up until six weeks of age? Of course you wouldn't. It would be unthinkable.

Now, if you are going to vote for Obama, you have to have worked out a clear explanation on the difference between a six week old baby and an unborn baby. What is the difference? You would never vote for killing a six-week-old. Everyone knows we should protect that child. What fundamental, ontological, difference is there between the unborn and the six-week-old that renders one unprotected and the other worthy of all the protections of the laws?

Now, there certainly are differences. For example, differences in size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependancy. But the key question is are those differences significant?

You'd never vote for the legalization of killing the six-week-old.  Why vote for the continued legalization of the killing of the 20-week-old in the womb?  What's the difference between the two?  My take is that there is NO significant difference.  But Christian, if you are voting for Obama this Nov., then you must surely know what that significant difference is.

But you say, "There are other issues to consider!"  But are there really?  If that law about killing the six-week-old was truly suggested by a candidate would you honestly be willing to listen to his/her stance on other issues or would you discard him/her outright?

Christian, in one sense, this is very simple and straightforward.  Think it through.  I plead with you.  Think it through.  You'd never align yourself with the hypothetical "legalize baby murder" candidate.  So what is the difference between that and abortion?

We All Have To Deny Ourselves

Collin Hansen with a must-read article surrounding all the discussion flying around right now pertaining to Obama, North Carolina, and same-sex marriage. Here is his conclusion:

Jesus said, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me" (Matthew 16:24; see also Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23). These hard words point us toward the only source of abundant life: "For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it" (Matthew 16:24; see also Mark 8:35, Luke 9:24). For presidents and paupers, gays and straights, there is no other way to true happiness than the one Jesus traveled, the way that ended in the agony of the Cross and the ecstasy of the Resurrection.

To deny ourselves is to welcome the God who delights in giving every good and perfect gift (James 1:17), especially freedom from the vain pursuit of self-fulfillment.

Read the whole thing.

President Obama Slow-Jams the News

Political views aside, this is pretty funny.

The FAQs: The Contraceptive-Abortifacient Mandate

Helpful post here from Joe Carter.

One helpful question and response:

I don't oppose contraceptives, so why should I care about this issue?

There are two reasons that all Christians, regardless of their view on contraceptives, should be concerned about this mandate.

The first is because it forces Christians to pay for abortion-inducing drugs. The policy currently requires coverage of Ulipristal ("Ella"), which is chemically similar to the abortion drug RU-486 (mifepristone) and has the same effect (to prevent embryos from being implanted or, if already implanted, to die from lack of nutrition). Additionally, RU-486 is also being tested for possible use as an "emergency contraceptive." If the FDA approves it for that purpose, it will automatically be included under the mandate.

The second is that it restricts religious liberty by forcing religious institutions to pay for contraceptives and abortifacients even if the employer has a religious or moral objection to such practices.

Rome, Obama, and Calm Assurance of Things to Come

You have probably observed the recent firestorm of publicity responding to the changes proposed by the Obama administration concerning contraception and religious institutions other than churches.

Chuck Colson has written that the issue of contraception is in fact only a symptom of a greater root issue:

Because what's really at stake here is whether or not there is any limit to government power. 

That's the point made by Daniel Henninger in his excellent piece . . . in the Wall Street Journal. "The American Catholic Church," he writes, "is now being handed a lesson in the hierarchy of raw political authority." 

But the question for all of us, Henninger writes, "is whether anyone can remain free of a U.S. government determined to do what it wants to do, at whatever cost." 

Friends, the answer to that question depends on whether we the people, and especially we Christians and people of all faiths will rise up and say, "Enough! You may not intrude on our religious beliefs, you may not prohibit us from living out our faith."

I join the chorus of voices that are grieved and outraged at the current proposal and the implications therein for people of faith. It signals an unprecedented shift in the relationship between government and religion that should be vigorously resisted through written persuasion, the voting booth, and if necessary, civil disobedience. Much has already been written along these lines. (See here, here and here.)

In no way should we minimize the current controversy. In my estimation, the current response from many thoughtful writers is warranted---indeed, necessary. But with any potential crisis that looms on the horizon due to the collision of Christianity and secular culture, we have centuries of church history to inform and perhaps, temper our response. Reflecting on church history does not censor our response but should define the tone.

Alarmist Media

Media in our culture tends toward alarmism. When media moguls smell fear they see dollar signs. But Christians are different. We have not been given a spirit of fear. And a view to church history should fuel hope in spite of challenging circumstances.

Let's remember that Christianity emerged in the shadow of a political regime that was the most ruthless force of bloody domination the world had ever seen. Said plainly, the Obama administration is child's play compared to the Roman Empire. Unlike the situation today, there was no limit to their power. Remarkably, contrary to Roman will, Christianity became the most explosive religious movement the world had ever seen. The mere fact that Christianity exists is a miracle of God and testimony to the power of the Holy Spirit.

Though we no longer live in the shadow of Rome, our culture is dark and will probably grow darker. But whether we lose our jobs because we refuse to participate in the abortion industry or, God forbid, one day an anti-Christian government actually murders children in the streets, the light of Christ will never be extinguished.

So let's respond to a political regime that is unjust and out of bounds. We have to. But as we do, our tone should not be driven by fear or panic, since we are receiving a "kingdom that cannot be shaken" (Heb. 12:28). There is no dichotomy between vigorously fighting for justice and a confident, quiet assurance that the sky is not falling. Let's embrace both. We fight for justice, but we know that even when the battle is lost, victory belongs to our God in the greater war. So let's proceed with hope, love, patience, and a superior vision that looks to the past to inform our future.

This article is cross posted at The Gospel Coalition Blog.

Chuck Colson on Potential Civil Disobedience for Christians

Chuck Colson:

We have come to the point—I say this very soberly—when if there isn’t a dramatic change is circumstances, we as Christians may well be called upon to stand in civil disobedience against the actions of our own government. That would break my heart as a former Marine Captain loving my country, but I love my God more… I’ve made up my mind—sober as that decision would have to be—that I will stand for the Lord regardless of what my state tells me.

Elections Do Have Consequences

Denny Burk:

Elections do have consequences. And all those who were arguing in 2008 that candidate Obama would favor policies that reduce abortions have been proven tragically wrong. Not only has he adopted policies that will expand abortions, he is favoring laws that coerce Christians into funding abortions. President Obama’s latest actions are an appalling overreach that will have sad implications for pro-life Christians. I don’t think we’ve ever seen a President open up a more radical and intrusive attack on religious liberty and on unborn human life than what we are witnessing right now.

Read the rest.

"How do pro-life Christians honor a pro-choice president?"

John Piper with a helpful answer here.

President Obama's Comment on Roe vs. Wade

President Obama:

As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right. While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue- no matter what our views, we must stay united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant woman and mothers, reduce the need for abortion, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption. And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.

Denny Burk comments well:

It was the last line of the statement that provoked me the most. The President says he wants “our daughters [to] have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons.” Who could disagree with that statement? I agree with it totally. The problem is that President Obama does not really mean it. At the same time he calls us to protect our daughters’ rights, President Obama praises the decision that has led to the legal killing of at least 25 million of our unborn daughters. Clearly he does not want to protect the rights of all of our daughters, but only some of them. How can he not see the moral absurdity of his own words?

There was no reason for President Obama to speak today. In fact, I would rather that he would have put his hand over his mouth and kept silent. On today of all days, his calloused indifference toward our unborn daughters is a stunning and sad spectacle.

Ever Wonder Why You Don't See Kids With Down's Syndrome Very Often Anymore?

I just got back from a run in our neighborhood.  On the way I passed a woman with Down's Syndrome.  These days whenever I see a person with this syndrome it always sobers me, saddens me, and angers me.  Why would that be?

Because today 90% of women who are given the news that their baby in the womb has Down's, elect to have that child terminated through abortion murdered.  I know that language sounds quite harsh and potentially inflammatory.  But shouldn't we call it what it is?  If we can agree that it is a human person in the womb, (we don't need a Bible to prove this, just a 10th grade science class) shouldn't we call it what it is?  If it is a human person in the womb, should we be shocked when we hear the word "murder"?  Shouldn't that shock lead us to stop the practice of it instead of softening language so that people's feelings don't get hurt by the word "murder"?

Technology is taking us to very a dark place.   We should see it coming.  The days are looming upon us when we'll be able to know everything about the baby in the womb.  Things beyond characteristics such as hair color, eye color and potential height to tendencies towards certain personality distinctions or even certain diseases.

Could we be inadvertently creating a "master race" of people through abortion?  Should this not cause us to shutter? (See Eugenics) Can you imagine a culture where people are constantly wondering, "Wow, how did they guy make it out?  He is a freak!  I wish he had been terminated."  If it is acceptable to terminated a child simply because they have Down's Syndrome and a parent doesn't want to deal with this challenge, what other types of kids should we add to the list?  The scope of technology in the future is going to allow our list to be extremely long.

Just to be clear, I am no fanboy of Republican politics.  I know there are as many crooked politicians on the right as the left (maybe even more!).  I don't have a FoxNews bummer stick on my truck and I actually think Bill O'Reilly is quite the buffoon.  But if you think you can align yourself with a president who believes that it should be a fundamental right to pursue the option of killing a child with Down's Syndrome just because it happens to resides inside the mother, you are sadly mistaken.  Tragically mistaken.

Yes, I know there are no perfect politicians and as I said above, I am not disillusioned enough to think that "we just need to get a Republican in office and then all our problems will be solved".  But politicians CAN do things to change laws.  How do you think we got abortion legalized in the first place?  Because of politicians and supreme court justices who are appointed by politicians.  If politicians can enact the freedom to abort they can also take it away.

Did Bush do a lot of horrible things in his tenure as president?  One could certainly make that case as many have.  Some believe that the war in Iraq was Bush's main crime against humanity and would cite this as evidence for why we should keep Obama in office.  But there is no moral equivalency between a war in Iraq and the systematic killing of children in the womb. In order for there to be moral equivalence we would have to kill 1.2 million people every year in Iraq and Afghanistan.   We are nowhere near that.  That is not to say that a war in Afghanistan may be unjust it's simply to say that you can't make the case that "pro-life politicians have really bad policies too, (like an unjust war), so let's just be ambivalent on the abortion issue."

Can you think of anything worse than the legalized, silent, and sterile murder of 1.2 million children every year?  Should not abortion be a trump card issue for Christians and all thinking people for that matter?

But if you are a Christian, we can't just place our hope solely in the legal system to change laws (as needed as that is).  Are there any women in your sphere of influence who you think might consider abortion if they got pregnant?  Does your life come into contact with unbelievers who typically see this as no big deal?  What are you doing to make the alternative of adoption be a compelling first response for women?  In this upcoming election season there will be ample opportunities to engage people with this issue.  Do you have the courage to engage them and do so in a way that is winsome and doesn't fit the stereo-type of the FoxNews freak?

Try to think of the last time you saw someone with Down's Syndrome.  If you are over thirty, you probably have memories of seeing them around quite a bit more.  That's no longer the case and this should cause us to weep, peacefully act, and pray.

(For more reading along these lines please pick up a copy of this book.)

Three Things Obama Got Right

John Mark Reynolds:

Christians, and Christian societies, honour dead bodies, because Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, had one.

We do not abuse the dead.

We do not kick corpses.

Traditional Christians do not encourage cremation.

President Obama made the right call to take out bin Laden, the right call to end torture of prisoners, and was right not to release the bin Laden photograph.

No person who doubts bin Laden’s death will be convinced by a photograph released by the American government. Photos are easily doctored and if both American political parties are lying about the DNA evidence, they will lie about a picture.

Terrorists forced Americans to see evil on 9/11, but our government will not return the favour by showing us the dead body of our foe. We are better than the terrorists. We are civilised.

bin Laden is dead. Nothing is to be gained by flaunting his remains. Justice does not demand revenge, gloating, or cruelty to the bin Laden family. Their evil son, father, and husband has received justice. Let it end at that.

Federally Funded Abortion Begins

LifeNews.com:

The Obama administration has officially approved the first instance of taxpayer funded abortions under the new national government-run health care program. This is the kind of abortion funding the pro-life movement warned about when Congress considered the bill.

The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new "high-risk" insurance program under a provision of the federal health care legislation enacted in March.

It has quietly approved a plan submitted by an appointee of pro-abortion Governor Edward Rendell under which the new program will cover any abortion that is legal in Pennsylvania.

The high-risk pool program is one of the new programs created by the sweeping health care legislation, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, President Obama signed into law on March 23. The law authorizes $5 billion in federal funds for the program, which will cover as many as 400,000 people when it is implemented nationwide.

"The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million in federal tax funds, which we've discovered will pay for insurance plans that cover any legal abortion," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee.

Johnson told LifeNews.com: "This is just the first proof of the phoniness of President Obama's assurances that federal funds would not subsidize abortion -- but it will not be the last."

Continue reading.  

Some Clarity on Health Care and Abortion

Kathleen Parker:

It is telling that the nation's largest abortion provider - Planned Parenthood - is claiming "victory" because "we were able to keep the Stupak abortion ban out of the final legislation and President Obama did not include the Stupak language in his executive order."

Several supporters of the bill have argued that this debate is otherwise irrelevant because abortions aren't performed at CHCs. While currently true, this doesn't mean that CHCs wouldn't like to offer abortion among their reproductive services.

Under the new law, they can. There's nothing to stop them.

Here's why. By statute, CHCs are required to provide all "required primary health care services," defined to include "health services related to ... obstetrics or gynecology that are furnished by physicians."

Federal courts long have held that when a statute requires provision of health services under such broad categories, then the statute must be construed to include abortion unless it explicitly excludes it. Voila.

One may believe that poor women should have affordable access to abortion. This is a reasonable position and it likely will be the outcome as a result of this bill. But it is not what Americans have been led to believe is true, nor is it what most want. A 2009 Quinnipiac University poll found that 72 percent of Americans oppose public funding for abortion.

Prediction: Abortions will be performed at CHCs, you can bet your foreclosed mortgage on that. There was always a will by this administration, and now there's a way.

Read the rest. 

Some Perspective on the Health Care Bill

If you turn on Fox News you will hear about the political and social sky falling in our nation right now.  Maybe it is.  Maybe it isn't.  I honestly don't know enough about politics to have any sort of educated comment on matters of health care, the Constitution, or political process.  But what I do know is this.  Even with serious problems in our government, I am very thankful to live in the United States.

Yesterday I went to lunch with a buddy of mine who grew up in South Africa.  Basically the infrastructure of that country (like many other African nations) is seemingly broken beyond repair.  The whole system is corrupt and is more dysfunctional than any American could ever imagine.  My friend's parents still live there but have told him to never consider moving back since there is nothing there for him anymore.  My friend wants to work as hard as he can so that hopefully someday he can afford to move is parents away from South Africa.  We are surely blessed to live in this country. 

I don't believe that this dose of perspective should lead me to keep quiet about structures of evil in our country but we should keep in mind that we can be both thankful and resistant.  It's not an either/or.  I know that having a spirit of thankfulness will temper my resistance and perhaps infuse it with a winsome spirit that could be attractive to an on-looking culture.  Most people already think that Christians are angry, homosexual hating, and arrogant.  We need to push back against this assumption with gentleness, humility, and love. 

So speak and vote against Health Care if you believe it is harmful to our society (I'll always speak out against abortion) but just keep in mind you don't live in South Africa, Iraq, or North Korea.  We have much to be thankful for and let that spirit temper your speaking.