Tag Archives: abortion

2010 Election, National Politics

What could be worse than the government paying for abortions?

6 Comments

Answer: The government mandating that ALL healthcare insurance pay for abortions.

That is precisely what H.R.3200 (aka Obamacare) will do. After the passage of the bill, although existing policies which did not include abortion coverage might be grandfathered for a while, they would not be allowed to enroll any new subscribers. New polices may only be issued by “qualified plans.” And “qualified plans” must provide coverage for a minimum level of services as determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Abortion supporters have invented a clever shell game in which some of the premiums collected by enrollees in the public choice plan will be segregated and used to pay claims from abortion providers before they ever technically become government funds. But this is but a shell game and is fooling no one.

Of far greater concerns will be the government mandates that will require ALL health insurance plans to provide coverage for abortion services. Easy, cost-free access to abortion will undoubtedly cause the abortion rate to rise dramatically.

And it will matter very little that an accounting trick will allow the government to claim that no government funds will be used to pay for abortion. The reality will be far worse. ALL Americans will be forced to pay for abortion.

ALL health insurance plans will be required to cover abortion.

Everyone will be required to purchase health insurance

Anyone who does NOT purchse a health insurance will be fined by the IRS and involuntarily enrolled in a health insurance plan.

God help us!

Is this what a majority of Americans want?

If this is NOT what you want, tell your congressman and senators now, before it is too late.

National Politics

Gravely wicked

1 Comment

Whoever killed George Tiller has committed murder.  For that they will have to give an answer to the civil authorities and, ultimately, to God.

As will George Tiller for his actions. But Tiller’s notorious guilt as a late-term abortionist does not make the act of murdering him any less wicked.

The best immediate quote I have seen today came from Prof. Robert P. George,  McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University:

Whoever murdered George Tiller has done a gravely wicked thing. The evil of this action is in no way diminished by the blood George Tiller had on his own hands. No private individual had the right to execute judgment against him. We are a nation of laws. Lawless violence breeds only more lawless violence. Rightly or wrongly, George Tilller was acquitted by a jury of his peers. “Vengeance is mine, says the Lord.” For the sake of justice and right, the perpetrator of this evil deed must be prosecuted, convicted, and punished. By word and deed, let us teach that violence against abortionists is not the answer to the violence of abortion. Every human life is precious. George Tiller’s life was precious. We do not teach the wrongness of taking human life by wrongfully taking a human life. Let our “weapons” in the fight to defend the lives of abortion’s tiny victims, be chaste weapons of the spirit.

Conversations I have had with a few friends today have prompted me to review the Christian and Biblical case for the use of the sword.

The sword is a symbol for civil authority. It is referenced as such in Romans 13:4:

for it [the governing authorities] is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

I am not a pacifist, though I do believe that for a private individual, gentleness and a soft answer are our first line of defense, and when confronted with a tyrannical authority it is our only appropriate response.

But there are those to whom God has legitimately entrusted the sword – the civil authorities. They not only may use force, they have an obligation to use force to protect those who are in their charge. Civil authorities are called “minister of God” (diakonos) twice and “servant of God” (leitourgos). They are directly commissioned by God as his servants and ministers. They have the responsibility to use the sword to restrain wickedness and punish evil-doers.

This is why a police officer may legitimately use force to arrest a law-breaker, and why the civil authorities may biblically, legitimately use corporal punishment, up to and including putting to death. It is also a justification for the use of military force – not in every instance, obviously, but to restrain wickedness in the world, and to be a terror to evil-doers.

But what is lawful for a civil magistrate, commissioned by God, is NOT lawful for those who have NOT been commissioned by God. NOTE: I am not saying that every use of force by the civil authorities is biblical or justified. All are subject to God’s law. But as individual Christians, we have NO authority to use the sword to punish evil-doers. Personally, I believe I have the right to use force to protect those in my charge – but not necessarily to protect myself. Translation: I may not fight back if you attack me, but if you attack my wife or one of my children, expect me to use any means at my disposal to protect them.

What has this got to do with the murder of George Tiller? Tiller did evil. The dismemberment of children in the third tri-mester of pregnancy is evil. Partial birth abortion is evil. But only the magistrates have a legitimate commission from God to punish evil-doers. The magistrates of Wichita and of Kansas had an obligation to stop him. They could have done so. They should have done so. When they first learned that he had killed the first child, they should have arrested him and punished him. It is an outrage that he was allowed to continue to commit his evil deeds. But we who are not magistrates have no commission from God to use force to punish him.

Many of these issues were worked out in thoughtful detail during the 16th & 17th century by Huguenot resistance leaders dealing with the persecution of French Protestants and then further developed by John Locke, the great English philosopher and father of political science. The French Protestants had to deal with the very real and troubling issue of how to respond when the civil authorities persecuted Christians. They concluded, after exhaustive study of the scriptures, and with special reference to Romans 13:4, that an individual Christian did NOT have the right to use force to resist the persecution of the civil authorities, but that lesser magistrates, who had been commissioned by God to bear the sword DID have a right to resist the persecution of those under their care and in their charge. This became known as the “right of resistance.” The right of lesser magistrates to use force, in some circumstances may very well prove to be an obligation to use force to protect those in their charge.

These ideas played a key role in the political thought of the English colonists in North America in the 1700s. They held that it would be illegitimate for private citizens to rebel and take up arms against the English authorities. But it would be legitimate for the colonial legislatures, and local magistrates to resist the attempt to impose tyrrany by the English government. There is a legimate use of force. There is, indeed, a legitimate right to resist tyranny. But it is limited to those whom God has commissioned with the sword.

The killing of George Tiller by a private individual was wicked and sinful. Though the deeds of Tiller were evil, it was the duty of the civil authorities to stop him and to punish him.

We may need to revisit this issue again in the coming days. . .

– Rob Shearer

2008 Election

What Bristol Palin’s pregnancy really reveals

Leave a comment


Before the news about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy was barely a few hours old, the hyenas of the left gathered — gleeful and gloating, set to make Bristol’s pregnancy as difficult and stressful as possible.

Every candidate takes a position on the Life issue, establishes himself or herself as either a pro-pro-life or an anti-pro-life. Everyone stakes out a position, but, very few candidates actually walk out those positions in the way the Palins have and are.

So how do Barack Obama and Sarah Palin come across?

Obama on what he would call “inconvenient” life:

Before birth: Abortion. After birth (when abortion fails): Infanticide. Severely handicapped adults like Teri Schiavo: Death by starvation and dehydration.

And yet, citing the Gospel According to Matthew, Obama tells Rick Warren that American’s biggest moral failing is selfishness. “We still don’t abide by that basic precept of Matthew: that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me.”

Of course, Obama conveniently redefines “least of these” to mean anything but the pre-born, accidentally newborn, or the handicapped adult.

Palin on what she would never call “inconvenient” life:

“We’ve both been very vocal about being pro-life. We understand that every innocent life has wonderful potential.”

Children born with so-called disabilities: “I see a perfect child.”

Pregnant, unmarried children: “Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We are proud of if Bristol’s decision to have her baby,”

Grandchildren conceived outside of marriage: ” . . .and [We are] even prouder to become grandparents.”

The Obama attitude toward babies:

“I’ve got two daughters. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby, I don’t want them punished with an STD.”

In other words, Obama’s position is that an unwanted baby is about as welcome as an STD.

The Palin attitude toward babies:

Whatever the circumstances of a baby’s conception, prenatal development, or birth, babies are beautiful, perfect, and cherished.

To the salivating hyenas of the left, one question: Whose grandchild would you rather be?

– Cyndy Shearer (wife of RedHatRob)