Is Killing a Newborn Any Different Than Killing an Unborn Child?

Does that sound like an absurd question? Believe it or not, it is already legal for physicians in the Netherlands to give newborns which are born with disabilities a lethal injection at the parent’s request. Hundreds have died as a result.  And, certain “ethicists” are recommending that we consider it for society as a whole.

Actually, in a way, we actually do practice a form of infanticide in our nation already. In yesterday’s blog, I wrote about Abby, a little girl who was born with a condition that affected her ability to swallow. One physician asked her parents what they wanted him to do if the baby experienced cardiac arrest, and responded with obvious disapproval when they told him they wanted him to do all he could to save her. One can only wonder how many babies are simply allowed to die if it is determined that they are “not worth saving.”

Until recently, an abortion technique was used in which a saline injection was used to suffocate babies in the womb. It was discontinued, however, when too many of those burned children actually survived and were born alive. Now, through more barbaric measures, abortionists make certain that no one survives.

However, in the years that some of the little ones did come out breathing, many abortionists would just leave the baby in a closet or somewhere out-of-the-way until, as the result of inattention, the breathing stopped. In the state of Illinois, a bill was up before the legislature to legally force these “doctors” to provide the living child with medical care. One of the legislators to vote against this bill, and therefore vote in favor of leaving newborns to die untreated, was our own President Obama. What is the real difference between allowing newborns to die without available medical care and giving them a lethal injection? With both, a precious life is lost that could have been cared for and saved.

Yesterday I gave three cases of children whom doctors had written off in the womb and suggested to their parents that it would be better off for them to be aborted than to face a possible medical condition.  All three of these children were, in fact, born with what we consider “handicaps,” and the road has been a difficult one for them, but all three are also now thriving and happy. The bottom line is that doctors are often wrong in their diagnosis. And, they are always wrong in handing out death sentences to unborn children as a solution for any situation, no matter how grim.

I read an article today about some so-called “ethicists” who have also come to the conclusion that children should not be aborted because of a condition which may or may not occur, or if the severity of the condition is not fully known. However, their solution is horrific and totally contrary to mine! These men, based in Australia and Italy, were making the argument that parents and physicians should wait until the child is born, and then, if the medical condition is severe enough, perform what they call a “post-birth abortion.”

Yes, you read that right.  Alberto Giubilin, from the University of Milan, and Francesca Minerva, of the University of Melbourne, made the case in a recent journal article, that we should wait until the child is born before making a decision to kill it or not. To quote them: “…parents of a child with a poor prenatal diagnosis should wait until the child is born, when they can make an informed decision about the chance that their child has of living a ‘satisfactory’ life.” They had the audacity to add: “We join disability activists who condemn the routine recommendation of abortions performed for no other reason than to prevent the birth of an affected baby.” Um, excuse me, but those activists are not in approval of killing them off after birth either.

Actually, it is not just disabled children that they are in favor of killing. No, they believe that unborn children and newborns both fit in the same classification as pre-humans who cannot yet make cognitive decisions concerning their own lives. They have determined that until they can defend themselves, they don’t have the “moral status of actual persons” and are “morally irrelevant.”

Huh? Personally I think both of them are “morally irrelevant.” Does that give me the right to kill them? And, what happens to any of us if we should have an accident and are lying in a coma, unable to speak up for ourselves? Does that make us “morally irrelevant?” Or, how about the elderly that have reverted back to an infantile state? Sadly, I know the answer to that. The Netherlands have already legalized both infanticide and euthanasia, under this very type of reasoning.

Once we eliminate conception as the beginning point of life and randomly select some point in the future as the designation of when our humanness begins, this type of thinking will always occur. Conception is the only scientific point that makes any sense. If we are allowed to pick and choose for ourselves, why not determine that we become human when we begin to walk, or talk, or even be able to express rational thoughts? Maybe we shouldn’t stop at newborns, maybe we should make wait until we find out how smart a child is before deciding if they are worthy of life and protection. It is all just evil nonsense!

As President Obama’s vote in Illinois shows, the whole infanticide debate is not far below the surface here or anywhere else. As long as we tolerate the idea that some life has more value than other life, born or unborn, we are all at risk. It all starts with abortion. Where it goes from there remains to be seen.

Keeping it true!  Barb

Texas Showdown: Refusing to Fund Planned Parenthood at the Risk of Losing Federal Money

The battle is on in the state of Texas! In 2011, the state passed a new rule which prohibited any federal or state Medicaid  funds from going to an organization which performs abortion. Hardest hit by this mandate is Planned Parenthood, which is both the biggest provider of abortions in the state as well as the largest recipient of federal funding in the Texas Women’s Health Program (WHP.)

On the one side, Texas claims that they have every right to make this mandate to not fund organizations that perform abortions. Says Stephanie Goodman, a spokeswoman for the WHP, “Under federal law, states administer Medicaid and have the right to set the criteria for providers in the program. That is what Texas is doing. We have a state law that our Attorney General says is constitutional, and it clearly bans abortion providers from taking part in the Women’s Health Program. We can’t violate a perfectly valid state law just to appease Washington.”

Just like in every other state that has voted to cut off funding to the abortion giant, our president is threatening to cut off federal funding to the women of Texas. It took me awhile to understand the convoluted thinking behind the decision, but here is my take on how it is being rationalized: According to an Obama spokesman, the refusal to fund Planned Parenthood is a violation of the Social Security Act. According to their interpretation of this act, “the state cannot restrict access to a qualified health provider simply because they provide services Medicaid doesn’t provide for.” Ergo, states must continue to let federal funds go to Planned Parenthood because the federal government believes that they are acting above-board and not allowing any of the funds that come to them to supply their abortion business.

Okay, just so I get this straight, do the states have to fund every provider of low-income health assistance to women that asks for it? Or is it just to those who spend millions supporting the present administration? (And whose president, Cecile Richards, attends lots of White House functions, as well as acting as an “unofficial” advisor?) Just curious.

Plus, there are other factors at play than just the fact that Planned Parenthood performs abortions (even though that would be enough for me.) As was pointed out during the two days recently when the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure attempted to stop funding Planned Parenthood (before they were bullied out of it!), the organization is under congressional investigation. Plus, there is documented evidence of fraud by Planned Parenthood in several states, which was discovered by the federal government itself through annual audits. We’re talking millions of dollars which the organization gained by lying and cheating. What is the point of such audits, if nothing is going to be done to penalize the guilty organization?

A congressman from Florida, Cliff Stearns, is the one who is carrying out the inquiry into false dealings by the abortion giant. His concern began when he watched a series of undercover videos done by Lila Rose and her team at Liveaction.org. In these videos, workers at several Planned Parenthoods were seen dealing with actors presenting themselves as a pimp and prostitute who had a ring of underage girls working for them. Instead of showing them the door or reporting them to the authorities, they were more than happy to arrange care for their group of “workers,” even when they made it clear that some were from other countries and working for nothing (in other words, sex slaves.) See my blog from 12/21/11 called “Planned Parenthood and Human Trafficking: War for the Truth!” for more on this scandal!

As for financially defrauding the government, there are audits on record in Washington, California, New York, and New Jersey in which Planned Parenthood was caught bilking us for millions of dollars. In 2008 alone, the amount came to close to $18,000,000! Recently, Karen Reynolds, a former worker at a Planned Parenthood in Texas, stepped forward to explain how she was forced to commit fraud everyday in her job.  This included falsifying patient records, billing the government for unwarranted services, and saying that patients received services which they actually did not.

However, the most disturbing thing about forcing states to continue to fund this organization is that, once inside their doors, too many women find themselves being coerced and pressured into having abortions, even if that was not their original intent. Countless Planned Parenthood employees have come forward to state that this is true. All of them declare that Planned Parenthood’s mission is to “pressure as many women into having abortions as they can.” Abortion is what makes Planned Parenthood a multi-million dollar business, with top employees making six figure salaries.

In her blog from last Friday, Jill Stanek makes an observation that Planned Parenthood makes the claim that hundreds of thousands of women would no longer have access to breast and cervical cancer screenings, birth control or STD prevention if they weren’t around. However, cervical cancer is primarily caused by the Human papillomavirus, an incurable STD. “And if women would stop getting abortions and taking artificial steroids (birth control pills), breast cancer would decrease dramatically. Planned Parenthood pimps all it claims to cure.”

It’s true! On their website for teens, they tantalize and encourage teens to fully experiment in all forms of sexual activity. Why not? Without teen sex, they wouldn’t exist. They are like vultures, only they provide their own food for the feast. It’s sickening and it needs to be stopped!

Yeah for Texas! Keep up the good fight! And, while we’re at it, let’s kick those Planned Parenthood supporters out of Washington.

Keeping it true!  Barb

Forcing Anti-Faith Values: Danger on the Home School and Medical Fronts

It seems like Christians today are always being accused of forcing their beliefs and values onto others. I’ve heard pro-abortion supporters accuse pro-lifers of “forcing women to have babies against their will,” and other such nonsense.  In all actuality, it is those on the left that are mandating certain actions, even if they violate personal beliefs and convictions.

This was a common theme as I scanned the internet this morning. Five distinct cases jumped to my attention, all affecting diverse groups of individuals. I think we can take these examples as a warning to us all that if we allow the government to continue to strip us of our rights, none of us will be exempt from the consequences.

The first takes place in the state of Wisconsin. In 2007, a regulation was passed with ordered pharmacists to dispense every type of drug, even if it violated their moral or religious views. Two pharmacists fought back stating that they could not dispense either Plan B or Ella, both of which can cause early abortions. In response, and in one case with a happy ending, a federal court just struck down the law, stating that it violated the First Amendment’s right to free exercise of religion.

This is very encouraging news, especially considering the second case, that of the ongoing battle between people of faith (particularly the Catholic Church) and the Obama administration’s mandate that all insurance companies must offer free birth control, including the same abortifacient drugs that the pharmacists had objections to in Washington. Many states have banded together and are threatening to take the issue to court. In light of the Washington ruling, I can’t really see where the administration has a leg to stand on. However, I have learned to never underestimate the power of politics.

On a different front, Democrats in Wisconsin attempted to block a bill which would protect women from being coerced into having an abortion. We have a similar law here in Nebraska, in which the abortion clinics must ask a series of questions to assure that the woman is there of her own free will and is not being forced by her family or the father of the baby to abort. We know from the women we talk to that this is a common occurrence.

Ironically, abortion advocates state their objection to these kinds of bills on the basis of invading the woman’s privacy. In other words, they don’t want too many probing questions asked lest she be scared off from having her baby destroyed. We assure our patients that no one can force them to abort. We tell them that when they are taken to the clinic, they just need to clearly state to the staff that they are there against their will and do not want the procedure done. However, crazy as it seems, they are not guaranteed that protection everywhere.

Wisconsin finally did pass the bill, in spite of the efforts of so-called “women’s advocates.” I ask you, who is protecting women: those who want to assure they are not forced into procedures against their will, or those who would deny them that protection? This is a crazy world we live in, but it gets even more insane than this.

In the state of Virginia,there is a law pending to require that women be given the opportunity to have an ultrasound before she has an abortion. Feminists in that state have countered with an accusation that is bizarre and outrageous, even for them. They are crying out that passage of this bill is equal to rape. That’s right, rape.

You see, at the beginning stages of pregnancy, most ultrasounds are done with a vaginal probe. Before twelve weeks, that is the only way that the baby can really be seen. Hence, the outlandish comparison to the sexual act. Now, if these ultrasounds were required before an abortion, that would still be a crazy comparison, but maybe remotely conceivable. However, the law stipulates only that the ultrasound must be offered. It is still the woman’s choice if she wants to see it or not.  The accusation is craziness, sheer craziness!

Another case of forced coercion took place recently in Massachusetts. Recently a leftist judge ruled that a mentally ill woman should be forced to abort her baby, and then, if that was not enough, that she should be sterilized against her will. Talk about flashbacks to the early days of Planned Parenthood when it was the American Eugenics Society. Fortunately, sanity reigned and not only was the decision overturned, but the judge was fired.

The last intrusion into values actually occurred in Canada, but I think it provides a warning of what could easily happen here if government intrusion is not stopped. A country that can mandate what parents send with the child for lunch, can certainly also determine what can be done and said in the privacy of our homes. The two are not as far apart as we might think.

In the province of Alberta, there is a proposed act which would mandate that all schools, including those in homes, must include information which includes their Human Rights Act, a bill which has been used to target Christians and churches with traditional views on things such as homosexuality.

To me, the alarming part of this law is that it places home schools into the same category as the public schools in regard to federal mandates. Granted, this has not taken place in the United States. However, if this is upheld in Canada, and we do not regain custody of our freedoms here, regulations like this are only a matter of time.

Millions of men and women in uniform have given their lives to secure our freedoms in America. Were their deaths in vain? After having fought off foreign enemies, will we find that the greatest danger was right here at home? Sadly, we are seeing that this is already true. The only question that remains is what we are going to do about it.

Why Marriage is Crucial for Our Children, Our Country and Ourselves!

Yesterday, I was part of a conference call with a team of directors of pregnancy centers just like the one I work with. The president of this organization was talking about how the women we see often are too focused on their crisis to see the bigger picture of their lives.

He told of an encounter he had with another couple that he and his wife were mentoring, who were living together and had a young son.  Point blank he asked them why they had never made a marriage commitment.

The young couple stated that they didn’t think marriage was any big deal. After all, wasn’t it just a piece of paper? I have been a strong proponent of marriage all my life, but his answer stirred my heart. My associate told them that marriage matters a lot. For one thing, it is essential for building a legacy for future generations. The couple was stunned: no one had ever explained marriage to them in such a powerful way before.

His comments inspired me to do some research on marriage. It led me to some research that was done almost 80 years ago by a British anthropologist named J.D. Unwin in a book named “Sex and Marriage.” In it, he studied 16 civilized and 80 uncivilized cultures spanning 5000 years of human history. In particular he focused upon “creative energy,” which is that energy which is directed towards endeavors which focus on the betterment of society. His strong conclusion was that “this creative energy was greater with cultures that held strong marital restraints on sex and greatly diminished in cultures with more liberal sexual ethics.”

He continued, “Those cultures which allowed sexual freedom…. their energy is consumed with meeting their physical appetites. They do not think large thoughts about the physical world, they are not interested in metaphysical questions regarding life and its meaning. In these cultures life is for now.” He concludes with this note of warning: “those cultures which began with a strong sexual ethic and later embraced a philosophy of sexual freedom for a period of at least three generations inevitably experienced cultural demise. There is not one example in all of human history where this social fact was not observed.”

Marriage is the foundation of a healthy society. It is a commitment which, when taken seriously, restrains us from living for ourselves, and helps us focus on what is best for those in our families, and, in turn, for society as a whole. Marriage is a selfless act in a world full of selfishness.

I spoke in yesterday’s blog about the fact that the majority of babies born to mothers under 30 are now born into a single-parent household. The future for such children, no matter how well-intentioned or loving their mothers (or parents) are is not encouraging. The largest factor in determining if a child will live in poverty is not race or education, but whether or not their parents are married. That is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact.

It is not only children who benefit from having a mother and father who have committed themselves to a marriage relationship. Wives have much better health and suffer less from disabilities and depression than those who are not married. It is the same with husbands, perhaps even better. In addition, their incomes are higher, as well as their standard of living. They even live longer than their single counter-parts.

As I mentioned yesterday, this can be somewhat accounted for by the fact that there seems to be a growing class divide as to who actually marries and who does not. Single mothers are found in a much greater percentage among the poor and uneducated. Some point to the welfare system as the cause of this disparity. And, the fact is that a greater number of men are missing from the home with those families who have been dependant on welfare for several generations.

However, single parents are not restricted to just one economic strata or another. Sex outside of marriage crosses all levels. It has gotten to the point where those who chose to save sex for marriage are derided as hopelessly prudish and outdated. They are made fun of on TV and movies, singled out as freaks. And yet, as I have pointed out many times, our society is falling apart as a result.

A society where sexual activity is unrestrained is one which focuses on individual interests and not that of society as a whole. Married men and women are more focused on what is best for their family and future generations. They are motivated to build a better world not just for today, but for their children and grandchildren. Marriage provides necessary stability in a world where everyone is grabbing for whatever will make them happy, at the expense of everybody else.

Anyone who is married knows that it calls for a lot of self-sacrifice. Most decisions are based not on what the individuals wants or doesn’t want, but, rather, on what is best for their family. I would imagine that this is why half of all marriages fail. Our society is not very big on sacrifice. Instead our mantra is that we need to put ourselves first and to do whatever feels good.  Neither marriage or a healthy society can be built upon such a selfish foundation.

I am incredibly grateful to have a strong family heritage on which I have been able to build my life. Not only are my parents still married after 58 years, but I grew up in a home where we ate together almost every night. I grew up believing that I could be whatever I wanted to be, but that I also needed to act like a responsible member of society. No one was going to hand me anything, and I should not expect to have anything I didn’t work for. My father only had an 8th grade education, but he worked hard and built a prosperous business.

Tragically, many children do not have such amazing role models to build upon. They are taught to believe that it is foolish to work if you can have it given to you. As a result, they will continue to be trapped in the same generational poverty as those before them. Our world compounds the lessons they have had modeled that marital commitment is a thing of the past, and that single mothers can do it on their own, leaving fathers to disregard their parental commitments.

Our world is crumbling around us, but we are too busy being entertained to see it. History does not lie: societies cannot survive if sex is not constrained by marital commitment. It just doesn’t happen. I don’t know about you, but I am too concerned about my children and grandchildren to let it go without a fight!

Keeping it true!  Barb

Single Parenthood Becomes the Majority for Women Under 30: What Does That Mean For Their Children?

An article came out in the New York Times last week which stated that we have now crossed a line in America, where the majority of births for women under 30 occur to single mothers.  If you look at mothers of all ages, 59% of births still take place within marriage. However, since two-thirds of all children are born to those under 30, this is a significant mile-stone.

The fastest growing group within this demographic are women with some college but no degree. Interestingly enough, women with a college degree still overwhelmingly marry before having a child. That statistic was followed by a quote in the New York Times which I found interesting: “That is turning family structure into a new class divide, with the economic and social rewards of marriage increasingly reserved for people with the most education.”

Why in the world would that be true? Has marriage become a luxury, only to be enjoyed among the well-to-do? I realize that I live in the mid-west, in a fairly conservative community, and that my sub-culture within Omaha is one made up of church-going people who have given their lives to Christ, but that certainly is not true of most of the individuals I know. In fact, marriage is often seen as a way to combine incomes to better survive the ever rising cost of living.

In my work, however, I have seen where there is a great divide occurring between those who are raised in families who depend upon government assistance and those who are not. As children, we learn our patterns of living from what has been modeled for us. Far too many have a heritage of generational poverty, in which out-of-wedlock births and welfare payments become the norm, with men conspicuously absent from the home.

However, I think the rise in births to single mothers is being seen more and more in the middle class. I have experienced that in my own extended family. The majority still get married, but there are an increasing number who think nothing of having their children before the marriage occurs. Fortunately, however, the fathers still seem to be very present in the lives of the children, even though a formal vow is not made with the mother. Fathers are crucial for the welfare of today’s boys and girls.

The point of today’s blog is not to cast dispersions upon single mothers. I know of many who are great moms and are working hard to do the best job they can. However, the facts are the facts. Sadly, those facts state that children who are raised in single-parent households, especially where there is no steady and committed father, do not do as well as those who are raised by both parents in a stable marriage relationship.

Study after study clearly demonstrates that children who are born outside of marriage face “elevated risks of falling into poverty, failing in school or suffering emotional and behavioral problems.” Statistics show that children of single mothers make up 80% of all prison inmates as well as 72% of all juvenile murderers and 60% of all rapists. Most teenage mothers come from single parent households, often where their mother was also in her teens when she conceived them.

Actually, most of the increase in non-marital births is occurring in couples who are living together.  As much as I personally do not approve of such arrangements, this would be better than the father not being on the scene at all if such relationships had real sticking power. However, couples that co-habitate separate at twice the rate of marriages, which are already at the dismal divorce rate of 50%! In a recent study, it was shown that two-thirds of couples living together break up before their children reach the age of ten.

In today’s world, there is a lot of incentive not to marry. One is the high divorce rate. Many young adults come from broken homes and have been soured to the thought of matrimony. In addition, by today’s rules of welfare, if a couple marries their combined incomes would prohibit them from receiving benefits like food stamps or child care from the government. The American family, once the backbone of our nation, seems under attack from all sides.  I am worried about this next generation of children and how they will survive.

I mentioned yesterday that I see a culture war brewing between those who fight for abortion on demand and those crusading for the rights of the unborn. When I look at the statistics, they paint a disturbing picture of a cultural divide as far as the family is concerned as well.

The first big chasm involves race: among African-Americans the single parent rate is 73%, compared to 53% of Latinos and 29% of whites. The second is with education: only 8% of college-educated women give birth out-of-wedlock, compared to 38% of those with some college and 57% of those with a high school diploma or less.

America was supposed to be a nation without class warfare. It was intended that anyone, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, could break free and rise to any level they wanted. Instead, a cultural and class divide seems to widen with every passing year. Solutions are not easy, but they are necessary!

Jesus Christ has to be part of the answer! If revival does not occur, I don’t see how real change can happen. I am thrilled to be able to share the Gospel as part of my job, because I know that only Jesus can set women free to transform their lives.

Believers, we need to fast and pray like never before! Our problems will only increase and the widening chasm of difference become larger if there is not a radical transformation in our thinking and the way we live our lives!

Keeping it true!  Barb

Battle Over Personhood: Is There A “War” Brewing?

Last week was a big week on the “personhood” front. Three states, Virginia, Oklahoma and Alabama, took definitive action on proclaiming that human life begins at conception, and, as such, deserves protection under the law. Pro-abortion forces are condemning the actions, derisively talking about giving “embryos” the same rights as fully grown adults. However, as the billboard at the left clearly states, “We’re All Just Grown-Up Embryos.” It is just the beginning stage of the whole continuum called life.

Last week, the Oklahoma Senate and the Virginia House overwhelmingly passed legislation which defines life as happening when the egg and sperm combine, otherwise known as conception. Actually, in unbiased scientific terms, this is the only point that can be set for the beginning of  human life. The new embryo which is created has a totally different set of chromosomes than the mother. In those chromosomes is the blueprint for the tiny person which will develop and become a fetus, then a newborn, and then will advance through all the stages a person goes through. There is biblical evidence to show that this new person is already endowed by a spirit which will live eternally, either with their maker or forever parted, depending on the choices they make. To assign the beginning of life to any other moment requires random assignation, making it a matter of opinion rather than fact.

The Alabama Supreme Court also reached a decision late last week that “from the moment of conception, the fetus or embryo is not a part of the mother, but rather has a separate existence within the body of the mother.” They also decreed that “each person has a ‘God-given’ right to life.” This was all in response to a young mother who sued doctors because they failed to administer regular ultrasounds, along with a refusal to see a specialist when her unborn son was diagnosed with a condition in-utero. He was still-born and she sued on his behalf.

Justice Tom Parker made the following statement: “Medical advances since Roe have conclusively demonstrated that an unborn child is a unique human being at every stage of development.” He continues, “I write separately today… to emphasize the diminishing influence of Roe’s viability standard.” He describes that standard as “arbitrary,” “incoherent,” and “based on inaccurate history.”

As I’ve mentioned in the past, it is on the state level that the battle over abortion is primarily being waged. Of course, President Obama kicked it up to a national level recently with requiring all insurance companies to provide contraception, with no co-pay, to every woman, even in companies and schools which are owned and supported by those whose religious beliefs stand against these things. The well-kept secret of the abortifacient nature of most types of birth control was suddenly making front page news.

Rick Santorum has been receiving a lot of grief over an interview which was dug up from years ago which appears to criticize the whole area of contraception, and he has been portrayed by the mainstream press as being an anti-birth control zealot. What he actually said was: “I don’t think it works, I think it’s harmful to women, I think it’s harmful to our society, to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated, particularly among the young, and I think we’ve seen very, very harmful long-term consequences to society.” He also recently made the comment that “one of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is… the danger of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea.”

Of course, the press and those in favor of abortion, are placing their alarmist spotlights on the “dangers” of this to our society; that Rick Santorum and others will inject themselves into private decisions made by married couples concerning the size of their family. In actuality, this whole battle is about two things: the death of unborn children and stemming the tide of unmarried sex in our nation, especially among the very young.

It is a fact that many types of birth control pills have a back up mechanism which prevents the implantation of the embryo into the uterine wall. This is especially true with morning after pills like Ella, and most types of standard pills as well. This has been true for years. In fact, I stopped taking the pill over 25 years ago when I discovered there was a chance I could be causing an early abortion instead of just pregnancy prevention. This is why I have always had a problem with most medicinal forms of birth control.

Secondly, as I have stated many times in my blog, something radical needs to be done to bring this country to its senses as far as rampant and irresponsible sexual activity is concerned. If we don’t, the rates of sexually transmitted disease is just going to continue to escalate, as well as the number of children in single parent households which results in rising crime and poverty. On and on the list goes of consequences which ravage our society.  I, for one, am glad to hear a candidate like Rick Santorum, who is willing to at least face these problems head on.

At the same time, I see our country heading straight for a culture war that could get very ugly.  Conservative states pass stricter and stricter legislation against abortion while liberal states make it more lenient. For pro-abortion supporters, the issue is all about the rights of women. As was witnessed in the case of Planned Parenthood and the Komen Foundation, that battle can get brutal and ugly. Many feminists admit they know that life in the womb is being destroyed, but that is not a viable issue for them. At heart, many just do not care.

Neither is compromise a possibility for pro-lifers. Life is precious from the moment of conception and innocent life should never be destroyed. Period! Roe vs. Wade turns 40 next year, and the two sides are more polarized than ever before. Where does it end?

I am so glad that I know that God is in control. Otherwise, I would be terrified by the upcoming election and its dire ramifications. The other side does not fight fair and they have most of the press on their side. They are already crying out that Republicans like Santorum want to tell even married couples what to do and to force women to have babies against their will.

Please don’t believe them. He just knows our society needs to change and that unborn babies have a right to live.  Please educate yourself, and don’t allow the enemy to set the debate for you. The survival of our nation is at stake!

Keeping it true!  Barb

 

Why Modern-Day Feminism Hurts Women: Exchanging One Type of Slavery for Another

As a woman, I know the feelings of vulnerability that women feel. If a man, even a relatively small and weak man, simply because of their innate body strength, wanted to overpower me, he could probably do so. Wisdom tells me that I should not take a walk alone at night or open doors to strangers. And yet, my vulnerabilities are nothing compared to women in other countries whose laws provide little protection against abuse.

Ever since the beginning of time, history spells out a dismal picture of life for women. We have been violated, abused, sold into marriages as well as slavery, kept from supporting ourselves by unjust labor laws or lack of access to education: basically kept bound under the rule of men. It is not a pretty picture, and the injustices continue around the world today.

Reasonable and compassionate people everywhere should be outraged when they learn of the human trafficking, most of it with vulnerable young women, that is rampant in our world (even in our own nation!) The abortion rate of unborn females is unconscionable; as is the way women are kept hidden away in burqa’s in Central Asia, enslaved in their own households without rights or education. Without strict laws (along with a commitment to enforce those laws) women are still brutally abused and degraded, and it is a huge blight on the fabric of our world.

The question is: what should be done about it? The feminism movement rose up in response to the cries of women for justice. I actually appreciate many of their early efforts. They evolved out of groups fighting for social reform such as the abolition of slavery, social purity, and against the evils of alcohol (the Temperance Movement.) In the early part of our nation’s history, women had few rights in their marriages or as far as their children were concerned. Women had to fight for the right for custody of their offspring,or even to own property. And, it took until 1928 to gain the right for women to vote.

My own grandmother is a good example of how things needed to change for women. In 1948, she found herself facing a divorce from a man who continually abandoned her and their eight children, and was now threatening to leave her for good. When she said she wouldn’t divorce him, he threatened to flee to Nevada, where he could get one of the earliest no-fault divorces. When she finally agreed, and the courts ordered him to pay alimony and child support, he packed up and moved to Missouri, a state he knew would not force him to pay what he owed to his family in Iowa.

My grandmother found herself alone, with no financial assistance, and eight children to provide for. There was no government support at the time, so she ironed and took care of other people’s children as well as her own. She raised a big garden and the people of her church took care of them as well. It was tough, but they survived.

In the 40′s and 50′s,  women’s groups began to fight for more “no-fault” divorce laws, which they have gained. They also joined forces with trade unions to form the modern welfare state. At first, both measures were intended to protect “society’s most vulnerable.” Certainly, we should not force women to stay in cruel and unhappy marriages. And, as a society, we should be more than willing to pay for those who are truly destitute and in poverty.

However, we have to look at the fruits of what both of these things have wrought in our world. I would venture to say that, like my grandfather, far more men have used no-fault divorce to abandon their families than women have to flee bad marital situations. And, statistics clearly show that the welfare system as we know it today has trapped millions in generational poverty, the majority of whom are single mothers and children. Both laws, which were intended to help women, have instead mired them in greater poverty and allowed male irresponsibility to flourish.

Now, of course, the rallying cry of feminism is setting women free from childbirth through contraceptives and abortion. I am not going to deny that many injustices have occurred to women in the reproductive process. In my work, I see far too many women who have been abandoned to face pregnancy all alone. Women down through the ages have faced persecution and death because they were the ones who bore the “proof” of illicit sexual relationships, while the men got off scott free.

As far as contraception goes, I have no problem with it unless it causes an abortion. And, of course you know that I don’t think anything will improve for women until we return to a conviction that sex belongs inside of marriage. Women will always be the greater victims as long as men are allowed to avoid their commitments to wife and family. And, I have countless blogs concerning the damage that abortion does to women. The destruction of unborn children can never be a solution to the problems that women face!

What is the answer? This is an evil world, and only a return to Jesus Christ will set any of us free. No matter what people think of Christianity, there is no denying that it is only in Judeo-Christian nations that women are treated with respect and dignity. Where Christ has been lifted up, wife beatings, forced marriages, female mutilations, honor killings, and human trafficking are not tolerated and are prohibited by law. Are all these nations perfect? No, but they are far more respecting of women and their God-given rights than nations who have never proclaimed the name of Christ.

Don’t misunderstand me, I am not saying that the Church is perfect. Nothing which is made up of people ever will be. I worked in a church for many years, and, unfortunately, sometimes felt discriminated against because I was a woman. However, when put in context, my life or safety were never at risk, and, often, all that was required to correct things was honesty and education. Only Christ can really change a human heart.

Today, feminists consider Christians to be one of their biggest enemies. They accuse Christians of wanting to keep them in “bondage” to the “slavery of reproduction.” That is very sad, because all Christ really wants is to set them free. Those who truly follow him believe that all life, even life in the womb, is sacred and created for a special purpose. The taking of innocent human life, for whatever purpose, is a gateway to bondage and slavery, not to freedom.

Jesus weeps for women who have been abused and abandoned. Our anger and pain at seeing young girls used for sex and then tossed away like garbage, sometimes facing a pregnancy all on her own, is nothing compared to His. Only a relationship with the King of Kings can truly set them free. Everything else just trades one form of slavery for another.

Keeping it true!  Barb

Turkey Sandwiches and Birth Control Mandates: If They’re Not Stopped Now, How Far Will They Go?

What in the world does a turkey sandwich have to do with the Obama birth control mandates? Well, if you haven’t heard, a preschooler in North Carolina had her home-packed lunch of turkey and cheese sandwich, potato chips, banana, and apple juice taken away from her by a state employee because it was not “nutritious enough.” It turns out that the Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services is requiring that all pre-kindergarten lunches have one serving each of meat, milk, and grains, and two servings of fruit and vegetables, even if they are brought from home. Even by those guidelines, I’m not sure why this one little child’s lunch was rejected, but that is not really the point. The things we give our children to eat is none of the government’s business! If we let them get away with this, where will it end?

The same is true for the new Birth Control Mandate. To those of you who are confused as to what in the world is happening, please read my blog from last Wednesday, February 8 (“Is Obama Forcing People of Faith to Violate Their Beliefs and Convictions?”)  Of course, since then the president made a pretense of “giving in” to the pressure of the churches by stating that it would be the insurance companies, not the religious institutions, that would be forced to provide coverage for birth control, some of which cause abortions. That really confused me, since it was always going to be the insurance companies that provided the coverage. As it turns out, I was correct: the president’s speech was merely an attempt to confuse us with semantics. Again, this is government telling us what we have to do!

May I please take a moment to interject here and  say that I LOVE living in Nebraska. Okay, I must admit I am not so fond of the winters. Oh, and the wind gets to me at times. However, as far as the politics and the pro-life climate, Nebraska is an outstanding place to live (especially now that we will no longer have Ben Nelson as senator!)

Jon Bruning, our Attorney General, announced on Monday that we are part of a 12-state coalition that is threatening to file a federal lawsuit to stop this Obama administration mandate from forcing all insurance plans to include free coverage to abortion-inducing drugs. In their letter to Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, they wrote: “Not only is the proposed contraceptive coverage mandate for religious employers bad policy, it is unconstitutional. We believe it represents an impermissible violation of the Constitution’s First Amendment virtually unparalleled in American history.”

As Jon Bruning told LifeSiteNews.com, “This is about much more than contraception. This is about the federal government once again stepping in and trying to tell people how to live their lives. I’m very troubled by it- not only troubled, I’m willing to use the litigation power of the state of Nebraska to file yet another lawsuit against the federal government, because it’s really our only option to push back.” Joining Nebraska is: Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Maine, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas.

There are also bills in the Senate and the Congress with which Republicans are attempting to fight back against this terrible mandate. Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri has authored the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, which would allow employers to decline coverage of any services which conflict with their religious beliefs. No one should have to provide coverage for things such as birth control and drugs that cause abortions if it goes against their beliefs.

Plus, what gives Obama the right to mandate to any company that they must provide a certain product, and then that they must give it away for free? If he is allowed to get away with this, what will come next? Will he insist that certain groups of people should not receive coverage? Perhaps there will come a day when parents of handicapped children will not be able to get their medical care covered if they refused to have them aborted. You think that is far-fetched? I don’t.

Again, if we are forced to feed our children certain things and pay for insurance coverage to which we are opposed, where will it end? What if the government decides that eating meat is wrong? Or that there should be no sugary snacks whatsoever? Oh, and that they will forbid lunches from home for all grades and force everyone to purchase their approved meals? Will we stand up then?

As far as insurance is concerned, I know that the goal is not just to force us to pay for birth control for others (and we will be the ones to pay; the insurance companies are not going to give away anything for free!) but for mandated payment of all abortions. If they get away with this birth control mandate, abortion coverage is just around the corner. Thank God for Jon Bruning and others who are fighting back. However, we need to stand up as well by making our voices heard!

Call your senator and congressman and let them know what you think about government intrusion in your life. Use your vote in November to show your disapproval.  The future freedom for ourselves and our children and grandchildren is at stake!

Keeping it true!  Barb

Valentine’s Day Starts National Condom Week: Let the Mixed Messages Begin!

Valentine’s Day is a holiday full of crazy emotions and contradictions. If you don’t have anyone special in your life, it can be a terrible day in which everything seems to focus a spotlight on your inadequacies. For those with someone, either a spouse or “significant other,” it can be a day filled with pressure to perform according to expectations. How much is enough? Should you get your loved one candy or flowers? Is dinner expected, and, if so, how fancy should it be? Yikes!

However, I feel very fortunate to not be a young person facing Valentine’s Day in this day and age. Back in the old days, when I was in school, there was not so much pressure to be sexually involved. And, as if all the hype in the media is not enough, February 14th marks the start of National Condom Week!

Reading through the hype surrounding this condom celebration, I was disturbed by the message being conveyed that using a condom was the ultimate sign of affection.  Commercials for condom use on YouTube proclaimed that it was okay to sleep with whomever you wanted, whenever you wanted as long as you used a condom every time! Yes, the sexual world can be a scary place, but that little piece of latex somehow makes everything okay.

One brochure which I read, which was put out by FeministCampus.org, stated that “Condom use really works in preventing HIV transmission and unintended pregnancy. HIV CAN NOT PASS THROUGH CONDOMS!” In reality, condoms only prevent HIV and pregnancy 85% of the time. In other words, out of every 100 condom users, 15 will get HIV from their partner. The same is true for pregnancy.  That is about 1 out of every 7. Are those odds good enough for you?

The statistics get even worse for other sexually transmitted infections (STI’s.) The National Institute of Health reports:

- Condoms provide no reduction in the transmission of the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV)

-Syphilis is only reduced by 29% with normal condom usage (it can be reduced 71% of the time if the condoms are properly used every time.)

-Gonorrhea and Chlamydia are only reduced by 50%!

According to the information on the official National Condom Week website, “1 in 2 sexually active young people will get an STI by age 25- most will not know it.” Their only solution to this frightening fact: “Use a condom!” In our society today, that is the only answer that is ever given.

And yet, if one goes by statistics, even if every young person uses a condom EVERY time, more than half will still get a sexually transmitted infection. No where did I read a warning that rampant sexual activity with several partners is what really places an individual at risk for STI’s. We have a poster up at the AAA Center for Pregnancy Counseling that shows that if a person has sex with 4 people and each partner has sex with 4 people, it will be like they have slept with 15 individuals. If each have slept with 8, the number of partners jumps to 255. And, if they’ve each slept with 12, the number of sexual contacts they’ve had skyrockets to 4095!  At that rate, avoiding STI’s is impossible, condoms or not.

In honor of National Condom Week, Planned Parenthood and others are holding celebrations of the event. In my opinion, most of them seemed more like a promotion of teenage sexual activity than condom usage. I am not sure what the benefit is of having people parade around in huge penis or female genitalia costumes or graphically demonstrating how to put a condom on. Don’t they realize that teen boys, especially, are only going to do one thing after seeing such explicit images and hearing such a graphic discussion about sex? It is hard to believe that Planned Parenthood’s entire purpose is not to encourage as much sex as possible!

Of course, I am fully aware that one of the biggest problems we face in our society is sexually active adults refusing to acknowledge that the same behavior in young people is the root cause of teen pregnancies and the STI epidemic! Since condoms are lucky to work even half the time, and other forms of pregnancy protection (pills, etc) do nothing to prevent disease, the only thing which can stem the ever rising tide is a radical change in behavior! Young people must be encouraged to save sex for marriage. Period!

Putting all arguments of pregnancy and STI’s aside, I am saddened by all the young hearts that will be wounded, and worse, tonight. Young people, especially girls, are looking for someone to love. They are dreaming that a handsome “prince” will ride in and sweep them away so they can both live happily ever after. Instead, they wind up being used and abused by a string of broken relationships, and end up in our office alone, abandoned and afraid. Or, their hearts have been hardened to the degree that one night stands are all they expect out of life. That’s what happens when the Day of Love evolves into a celebration of sexual protection.

Sexual purity is not a form of repressed slavery: it is actually sexual freedom. Saving sex for the safe confines of a loving marriage sets one free from fear of disease or a pregnancy when one is not prepared to parent a child. It is freedom from a broken and hardened heart, or being used as a sexual object. It means children that are raised in healthy, two-parent homes instead of mired in poverty.

Of course, such a world would put Planned Parenthood and the condom industry out of business. The entertainment industry would probably require a huge shake-up as well. Actually, such a world would require a revolution, the likes of which we have never seen. It would take a major movement of God. Most would say it is impossible. I say, let’s pray for it! The future of our world, and certainly of our children and grandchildren, is at stake.

Keeping it true!  Barb

Whitney Houston: A Beautiful Life Gone Wrong

Just like many of you, when a beautiful talent like Whitney Houston dies before her time, I want to know why. How did a little girl who grew up singing in church and with one of the most amazing voices ever, end up dead in a bathtub in a hotel? I never followed her story too closely, but it seems like her life has pretty much been a train wreck for years. What happened to her?

Fame has destroyed many people before Whitney, and, sadly, it will continue to do so.  Why is that? I always worry about young kids, especially those who have grown up in poverty, suddenly signing a multi-million dollar contract to become a  superstar. Often you read about their lives going totally out of control. Why wouldn’t they? They are not prepared to be thrust into such a life!

Whitney was born into a family which had already known its share of fame. Dionne Warwick was her cousin and Aretha Franklin her Godmother. Her mother, Cissy Houston, headed up a church choir at the New Hope Baptist Church in Newark, New Jersey, in addition to performing in New York City night clubs. Young Whitney would often perform with her.  She also became a very successful model before being discovered by Clive Davis of Arista Records at the age of 19.  She knew even when she was a child that her singing ability was “an infectious thing that God had given me.”

In those early days, Whitney had the image of being a sweet and wholesome young woman. Some say that her marriage to “bad-boy” Bobby Brown was her rebellion from that image. Whatever it was, the whole “bad-girl” transformation seems to infect many young women in Hollywood. Many start out as a clean-cut, Disney network type look, but then become more raunchy as time goes by. With Whitney it didn’t seem to be so much with the lyrics of her songs, as in the way she lived her life that went steadily down hill.

In a 2002 interview with Diane Sawyer, Whitney talked about the way her early handlers crafted everything for her: the way she looked, how she was presented, the songs she would sing.  She was a commodity to be used and sold to the public. She felt the pressure of having to perform with perfection every night, and the stress would often sideline her. What if she let her audience down? What if she couldn’t keep up what everyone wanted and expected from her?

I’ve written before in this blog about Rihanna (“Rihanna: America’s ‘Sexiest Woman’ or Angry and Lost Little Girl?” 10/27/11) and some disturbing trends that I have seen in her life. She and Whitney were both discovered in their teens, and seemed to start out as clean-cut, amazingly talented young women. Both became side-tracked on a self-destructive path: Rihanna with increasingly sleazy lyrics and lifestyle, and Whitney with drugs and a horrendous personal life. Were their actions just their way of seizing control of their lives in any way that they could?

Many people blame Whitney’s marriage to Bobby in 1992 for her downfall. Others say that she was already well on her way to a lifestyle of alcohol and drugs before Bobby came her way.  Which ever way it was, it was after her marriage that things really seemed to spin out of control.

The couple’s marriage was filled with notorious fights and escalating drug use. Whitney lost weight and appeared way too thin. She began to become erratic with showing up for concerts and commitments, and would often appear stoned or drunk if she did appear.

The train wreck of their life was played out before the world in a reality program called “Being Bobby Brown,” which appeared on Bravo in 2004. In it, the couple appeared at their worst, fighting and apparently out of control. Whitney refused to appear in the series 2nd season and it was promptly cancelled.

To many, it seemed that Whitney was recently getting her life back together. She had several big projects in the works, and it appeared that she and her daughter, now 18, were living happily together. There had been some signs that the quality of her voice was slipping and her performances were not quite the same as they had been. However, she had been working on a new musical film, and rumors were that she was being considered for a position of judge on The X Factor.

Tragically, and suddenly, Whitney Houston died last Saturday, February 11. Her body was found in a bathtub in a suite at the Hollywood Hilton Hotel. Her daughter, Bobbi Kristina, was reportedly hospitalized soon after from the stress of it all. (There were reports that she had been more of a care-taker of her mother than her mother of her.) It is just a sad, sad story all the way around!

Apart from Jesus, this world is an evil place. Satan is out to destroy everyone he can. I imagine Whitney as a beautiful little girl, singing hymns with a pure voice, knowing that God had giving her a special gift. Then my mind cuts to the sad woman, her body wracked by years of drug use and bad decisions, dying all too young and alone in a bathtub. God loved her, and I know He had a much greater plan for her than she ever realized. Instead, she reached for the glitter of the world, only to have it turn to dust.

I’m sorry, Whitney! I hope you’re with Jesus and are singing with the angels when I get there.  I also hope others will learn from your story and turn around before it is too late. Sadly, I know that far too many will not!

Keeping it true!  Barb