#2215 (1/31) "A Message for My Evangelical Friends"

"A MESSAGE FOR MY EVANELICAL FRIENDS" - Cal  Thomas: Jan 30, 2018; https://townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/2018/01/30/a-message-for-my-evangelical-friends-n2441281 [AS I SEE IT: You will note that for awhile now, as this article suggests, I've included prayer for the President and our leaders at the top of each post (as well as specific requests for each day). And yes, I did pray regularly for our former President as well (even though I rarely agreed with his policies). In fact, I still do regularly pray for President Obama and his family. - Stan]

"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." (Romans 13:1)

That verse, written by Paul the Apostle, is one of the most difficult for modern evangelicals to fully accept. It was written at a time when the Roman authorities were bad dudes. They actively discriminated against the early Christians, murdering some, imprisoning others, including Paul, who was among their most ardent persecutors before his conversion.

Modern Christians sometimes suffer from the notion that God is only active when someone they voted for wins an election and that He must have gone on holiday when the candidate they didn't vote for prevails.

My personal history with this attitude goes back to the days of Jimmy Carter, who openly proclaimed himself to be "born again," a phrase taken from the mouth of Jesus which caused many Republican evangelicals to vote for him in 1976 (but not in 1980 when he ran against Ronald Reagan, a divorced man who rarely attended church, but whose policies, like President Trump's, were lauded by evangelicals).

I attended church with Carter. He was an excellent Bible teacher and still is from what I hear. The problem for evangelicals occurred when it came to policy. Despite his fealty to Scripture, Carter enforced the "Roe v. Wade" Supreme Court ruling and was OK with same-sex marriage. He said Jesus never spoke against homosexuality, as if the rest of Scripture says nothing about it, or any other "social issue."

Some evangelical friends of mine are dumping on President Trump because of his personal history. Too many others are vigorously defending, even inexplicably excusing, his bad behavior.

Many conservative critics of the president prefer the image of a loving family exhibited by former President Barack Obama. And yet Obama's policies were antithetical to what many evangelicals believe. So are Hillary Clinton's, not to mention the "family values" portrait she and husband Bill have shown to the world. Some evangelicals have actually suggested they would have preferred Hillary as president, though Donald Trump is presiding over a roaring economy, naming solid constitutional conservatives to high courts, defeating ISIS, trying to control illegal immigration and putting America and Americans first, all issues with which they agree.

I like to ask Trump's evangelical critics if they ever pray for him, as Paul also instructed believers to do: "I urge you, first of all, to pray for all people. Ask God to help them; intercede on their behalf, and give thanks for them. Pray this way for kings and all who are in authority so that we can live peaceful and quiet lives marked by godliness and dignity. This is good, and pleases God our Savior (1 Timothy 2:1-3, New Living Translation).

The question could also be asked another way and I have asked it of evangelical friends: "How many of you prayed for President Obama when he was in office?" Not many I have learned, except perhaps in a perfunctory way while we "bless all the missionaries of the world and all those in authority."

It is a familiar analogy, but one that should be stressed again. If I am about to have surgery, I care less about a person's religion, sexual orientation or lifestyle than I do about how many of the surgeon's patients were healed of their afflictions.

It might make some evangelicals feel better to have a president who is one of them while also displaying conservative values, but if one has to choose, I'll take the issues and listen to my pastor, who speaks of a kingdom not of this world, which is far better than a corrupt kingdom that is passing away.

Thus ends today's "sermon." We can now take up the collection.

[italics and colored emphasis mine]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Can a Flawed Man Be a Good President?" - Ben Shapiro Ben Shapiro |Jan 31, 2018; https://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2018/01/31/can-a-bad-man-be-a-good-president-n2441822

#2214 (1/30) "The Incredible Testimony as a Former Gymnast Confronts Her Sexual Abuser in Court"

"THE INCREDIBLE TESTIMONY AS A FORMER GYMNAST CONFRONTS HER SEXUAL ABUSER IN COURT" - |Justin Taylor, Jan. 24, 2018; https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/incredible-testimony-former-gymnast-confronts-sexual-abuser-court/ [AS I SEE IT: I do not watch much mainstream news but I do not recall their giving air time to this testimony. It's a shame they continually choose to ignore what truth Christians have to speak; makes you wonder how much they care about Truth. - Stan]

...  former gymnast Rachael Denhollander had 40 minutes to address the court—and her abuser—during the sentencing hearing of Larry Nasser, the former Team USA gymnastics doctor who molested her 16 years ago at his Michigan State University clinic. What she said directly to the man—who gratified himself off of her innocence and abused countless other girls in a malicious and manipulative way—is an incredible testimony to the grace and justice of Jesus Christ.

(At the 25:40, she addressed Nassar directly and powerfully spoke the gospel into his life. But the previous 25 minutes are essential background for her conclusion, and they contains lessons for all of us, inside and outside the church, to prevent and report sexual abuse.)

You can read the entire transcript at - https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/24/us/rachael-denhollander-full-statement/  Here is an excerpt:

You have become a man ruled by selfish and perverted desires, a man defined by his daily choices repeatedly to feed that selfishness and perversion. You chose to pursue your wickedness no matter what it cost others and the opposite of what you have done is for me to choose to love sacrificially, no matter what it costs me. 

In our early hearings. you brought your Bible into the courtroom and you have spoken of praying for forgiveness. And so it is on that basis that I appeal to you. If you have read the Bible you carry, you know the definition of sacrificial love portrayed is of God himself loving so sacrificially that he gave up everything to pay a penalty for the sin he did not commit. By his grace, I, too, choose to love this way.

You spoke of praying for forgiveness. But Larry, if you have read the Bible you carry, you know forgiveness does not come from doing good things, as if good deeds can erase what you have done. It comes from repentance which requires facing and acknowledging the truth about what you have done in all of its utter depravity and horror without mitigation, without excuse, without acting as if good deeds can erase what you have seen this courtroom today.

If the Bible you carry says it is better for a stone to be thrown around your neck and you throw into a lake than for you to make even one child stumble. And you have damaged hundreds.

The Bible you speak carries a final judgment where all of God’s wrath and eternal terror is poured out on men like you. Should you ever reach the point of truly facing what you have done, the guilt will be crushing. And that is what makes the gospel of Christ so sweet. Because it extends grace and hope and mercy where none should be found. And it will be there for you.

I pray you experience the soul crushing weight of guilt so you may someday experience true repentance and true forgiveness from God, which you need far more than forgiveness from me—though I extend that to you as well.

Throughout this process, I have clung to a quote by C.S. Lewis, where he says:
     My argument against God was that the universe seems so cruel and unjust. But how did I get this idea of just, unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he first has some idea of straight. What was I comparing the universe to when I called it unjust?
    Larry, I can call what you did evil and wicked because it was. And I know it was evil and wicked because the straight line exists. The straight line is not measured based on your perception or anyone else’s perception, and this means I can speak the truth about my abuse without minimization or mitigation. And I can call it evil because I know what goodness is. And this is why I pity you. Because when a person loses the ability to define good and evil, when they cannot define evil, they can no longer define and enjoy what is truly good.

When a person can harm another human being, especially a child, without true guilt, they have lost the ability to truly love. Larry, you have shut yourself off from every truly beautiful and good thing in this world that could have and should have brought you joy and fulfillment, and I pity you for it. You could have had everything you pretended to be. Every woman who stood up here truly loved you as an innocent child, real genuine love for you, and it did not satisfy.

I have experienced the soul satisfying joy of a marriage built on sacrificial love and safety and tenderness and care. I have experienced true intimacy in its deepest joys, and it is beautiful and sacred and glorious. And that is a joy you have cut yourself off from ever experiencing, and I pity you for it.

I have been there for young gymnasts and helped them transform from awkward little girls to graceful, beautiful, confident athletes and taken joy in their success because I wanted what was best for them. And this is a joy you have cut yourself off from forever because your desire to help was nothing more than a facade for your desire to harm.

I have lived the deep satisfaction of wrapping my small children up in my arms and making them feel safe and secure because I was safe, and this is a rich joy beyond what I can express, and you have cut yourself off from it, because you were not safe. And I pity you for that.

In losing the ability to call evil what it is without mitigation, without minimization, you have lost the ability to define and enjoy love and goodness. You have fashioned for yourself a prison that is far, far worse than any I could ever put you in, and I pity you for that.

[italics and colored emphasis mine]

#2213 (1/29) "Trump Administration Strikes a Blow Against Identity Politics"

"TRUMP ADMINISTRATION STRIKES A BLOW AGAINST IDENTITY POLITICS" - Mike Gonzalez / @Gundisalvus / January 28, 2018 / http://dailysignal.com/2018/01/28/trump-administration-strikes-a-blow-against-identity-politics/

The Trump administration must take action to rid the country of the identitarian fever currently sweeping into all corners of society. (Photo: Chine Nouvelle/SIPA/Newscom)

Americans who are sick of identity politics and yearn for a return to the unifying notion of “e pluribus unum” will cheer the Census Bureau’s recent move to reject changes to the decennial survey that were proposed by the Obama administration.
    Briefly put, the Obama administration had proposed artificially creating yet another pan-ethnic grouping, for Americans of Middle East and North African descent. The administration also proposed reducing the choices of Americans of Latin American or Caribbean descent (the bureaucratically invented pan-ethnic group the census calls “Hispanics”) to identify themselves by a real race (such as black or white). The Obama administration made this proposal in late September 2016, no doubt fully expecting an incoming Clinton administration to rubber-stamp it (pasted below is the balkanizing census question that was proposed). Then history got in the way.

The decision, announced last Friday by the bureau, to stop this further slide into becoming a fractured republic is welcome, if only because not doing a very bad thing is itself a very good thing.
But now the Trump administration needs to go much further to rid the country of the identitarian fever currently sweeping into all corners of society.

It must start with the decisive step of getting rid of many of the silly ethnic boxes that since 1980 have found their way into the constitutionally mandated census. It must also break once and for all the lock that progressive organizations currently enjoy, through advisory bodies, on the formulation of the census. These steps will no doubt require political courage, but the administration prides itself both in its boldness and on understanding the centrality of the nation’s identity.

The breakup of the country into government-created ethnic categories has been a negative byproduct of the civil rights era, and the opposite of the equality the 1964 Civil Rights Act itself set out to create. As one of the foremost historians of the period, University of California, San Diego professor John Skrentny, put in his book “The Minority Rights Revolution,” policymakers and bureaucrats: " ... carved out and gave official sanction to a new category of Americans: the minorities. Without much thought given to what they were doing, they created and legitimized for civil society a new discourse of race, group differences and rights. This new discourse mirrored racist talk by reinforcing the racial differences of certain ethnic groups."

Our current racial and ethnic dispensation is more akin to apartheid-era South Africa than to anything the Founders intended, but it is strictly policed by special-interest ethnic organizations.
     The outsized sway of these organizations is increasingly the subject of academic attention. As Alice Robbin of Indiana University describes it, “They can be influential beyond their numbers in the public policy process” and have now made America into an “interest group society.”
    This actually understates the problem: there can be compromises, say, between labor and capital, but there cannot be compromises where identity, not money, is at stake (just witness the contradictory mess that is “intersectionality”).

The administration has shown it understands how liberal groups have insinuated themselves into policymaking over the past decades in other areas and has moved to limit their influence. The census deserves at least the same attention.
    The census “both creates the image and provides a mirror of that image for a nation’s self-reflection” is how Harvard professors Jennifer L. Hochschild and Brenna M. Powell put it.

Does President Donald Trump want to leave office knowing it has left progressive outfits such La Raza, NALEO, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, the Census Project, the Arab American Institute, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and many others in charge of determining who America is?
    The success of these special-interest organizations depends on brainwashing individual Americans into sorting themselves out by ethnic and racial categories, and seeing themselves as members of victimized and alienated minorities who need government protection from a supposedly cruel and irredeemably racist society. Even with the best of intentions, the incentives are all wrong.

The Census Bureau itself tells you that “The information the census collects helps determine how more than $400 billion of federal funding each year are spent on infrastructure, programs, and services.” In other words: “come and get it.”
    These groups are now so used to mau mauing census officials that when the Census Bureau made its announcement last Friday they complained almost in unison, and promised to take their case to the U.S. Congress.
    But the interest of any administration, right or left, should be to encourage Americans to see themselves as empowered citizens with agency and the ability to thrive in a country that, despite its faults, provides opportunities for those willing to take advantage of them. The goal for all Americans, especially for the left, should be social solidarity, a concept this president has emphasized, but that many in the left are now also understanding. This is why all Americans, liberal or conservative, should welcome the census news, and ask for further steps.

[bold, italilcs, and colored emphasis mine]

Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation, is a widely experienced international correspondent, commentator, and editor who has reported from Asia, Europe, and Latin America. He served in the George W. Bush administration, first at the Securities and Exchange Commission and then at the State Department, and is the author of “A Race for the Future: How Conservatives Can Break the Liberal Monopoly on Hispanic Americans.” Read his research.

#2212 (1/28) SUNDAY SPECIAL: “Turn in Your Hymnals to Number 287… - What We Lose When We Dump Hymns"

“TURN IN YOUR HYMNALS TO NUMBER 287… - WHAT WE LOSE WHEN WE DUMP HYMNS"- by Anne Morse, Breakpoint.org, Jan. 25, 2018; http://www.breakpoint.org/2018/01/turn-in-your-hymnals-to-number-287/ [AS I SEE IT: In the brief time I attended a seminary, I was stunned when a student confided in me, "When I become a pastor, we're just going to throw all the hymnals out!" I suppose the disagreement among Christians about hymns during worship services will go on for awhile yet. No, I don't claim to know music theory and sometimes think that it just may be a case of a senior citizen simply longing for 'the good old days'. However, I do know that there is a clear intensity to the singing during a service when those who gather with me for worship on Sundays - on the rarest of occasions - sing a traditional hymn, even when new words are sometimes added to it. The words of a hymn usually have so much depth of meaning that there have been many times that I felt that I had read Scripture as much as just sung a song. Sometimes I feel that speaking up for hymns is a lost cause. Maybe so. But one day, when I stand before the Throne, I know that I can be assured that there will be a section of the Heavenly Host that is sure to be singing hymns. I, for one, am sure to gravitate to that section standing before the Throne!  P.S. - I also find it sad that many of the great songs I grew up as a Christian singing in the 70's and 80's are also absent from worship today. That too is a real shame. - Stan]

      I grew up in a church that used hymnals, and only hymnals, during Sunday morning worship. Of course, that was pretty typical, as my sons used to say, “back when dinosaurs ruled the earth.”

Well, maybe we “dinosaurs” knew a thing or two. I recently ran across a blog post that noted how much we inadvertently lost when we traded hymnals for newly-composed music projected onto a screen. On his website, Toronto blogger Tim Challies notes that only a few decades ago, nearly every church had a goodly supply of hymnals; they were the best way to provide each worshiper with copies of all the songs they were to sing on a given Sunday. But today, many churches project the words of songs up on a screen—not just hymns, but songs of all types.

What’s lost, Challies writes , is the sense that the church “had an established collection of songs”– something well-worn hymnals suggested. Hymnals also communicated the idea that each song, before its inclusion, had been carefully vetted regarding its quality and its message.  “After all,” Challies writes, “great songs are not written every day and their worth is proven only over time .” This meant new hymns were “chosen carefully and added to new editions of the hymnal only occasionally”–about every ten or fifteen years, Challis writes.

Not so today. Now, congregations are asked to sing all sorts of newly-written songs, many of which, to put it charitably, are not likely to stand up to the test of time. Some songs are composed by enthusiastic musicians who often have little understanding of the theological messages hymns ought to convey. The loss—or downgrading–of traditional hymns means we now have the ability to add new songs to the service willy-nilly. The result: We “have far fewer of [the great hymns of the faith] fixed in our minds and hearts,” Challies observes.

And when was the last time your church harmonized its songs? Hymnals contain music for both melody and harmonies. But “the loss of the hymnal and the rise of the worship band has reduced our ability to harmonize, and, in that way, to sing to the fullest of our abilities,” Challies argues. The result? “We have lost the ability to sing skillfully. We “compensate for our poorly-sung songs by cranking up the volume of the musical accompaniment.”

In short, we sing mediocre songs enthusiastically, but badly, assuming we can be heard at all over the drums. Some years ago, when searching for a new church home, I immediately eliminated any church whose website noted the presence of a “worship band.” And “Christian rock,” if we must have it, should be confined to Youth Group meetings—preferably as far from the sanctuary as possible.

Of course, not all new music is bad, and not all 300-year- old hymns are worth singing today.  What we need to do is find a way to determine what music, old or new, is appropriate for worship and praise .

Professor Donald Williams of Toccoa Falls College has some advice on this matter. In an article in Touchstone, titled “Durable Hymns,” Williams writes that we should examine the music of the past to “learn the criteria by which to discern what is worthy in the present.”

Like Challies, Williams appreciates the judgement of the centuries—music and words that have endured because they are great. In order to determine what is good in modern music, he says, “We must know those marks of excellence that made the best of the past stand out and survive so long.” These marks of excellence derive “from biblical teaching about the nature of worship.” They come “from an understanding of the nature of music and how it can support those biblical goals.” Among them: biblical truth and theological profundity.

Consider the lyrics of a hymn by Charles Wesley :
    “’Tis mystery all: th’ Immortal dies!
    Who can explore his strange design?
    In vain the firstborn seraph tries
    To sound the depths of love divine.”
These verses help us obey God’s command to love Him with our minds as well as our hearts. By contrast, too many contemporary songs are “so simplistic and repetitive that theological reflection never has a chance to get started,” Williams notes.

Among the worst, “You Never Let Go,” especially the chorus, which we are meant to endlessly repeat :
    “Oh no, You never let go
    Through the calm and through the storm
    Oh no, You never let go
    In every high and every low
    Oh no, You never let go,
   Lord You never let go of me.”
   I get it! God doesn’t let go. Not. Ever .

Another sign of musical excellence is poetic richness, Williams notes. He points to “the simple but evocative word like “wretch” in Amazing Grace, and “the use of questions in What Child Is This? to capture the wonder of the Incarnation. By contrast, he asks, “How many ‘praise and worship’ texts would be worth reading simply as devotional poetry without the music?” Very few, I’m afraid.

And while poor quality hymns of the past have been weeded out, in some churches today, nobody seems to be weeding out contemporary music—especially music composed by church members. Why? Perhaps because the congregation can no longer discern good music from bad. Or if they can, they keep quiet, because nobody wants to hurt the feelings of the person who wrote it.

Musical beauty is also a sign of excellence in church music. There are, Williams writes, “certain contours, structures, and cadences that make for a singable melody and certain harmonic felicities that can make that melody more memorable or even haunting.” He points to “Be Thou My Vision” and “All Hail the Power of Jesus’ Name” as good examples of such beauty. By contrast, many praise choruses “seem to ignore all the rules of good composition, giving us not well-shaped melodies but just one note after another.”

The good news—if your church music committee embraces the kind of music that makes you want to cover your ears –is that we can sing hymns at home. Make hymn memory part of your daily devotions. Buy or bring home a hymnbook (especially if they’re simply gathering dust at your church), choose a dozen favorites, and commit to learning all the verses of each hymn over the space of a year. Tape a copy of the hymn you’re trying to memorize to the refrigerator or on your desk. If you’re out and about, bring the words up on your smart phone (as long as you’re not driving!) and memorize another line or two. My favorites: “O God Our Help in Ages Past,” “Guide Me O, Thou Great Jehovah,” and Charles Wesley’s magnificent “And Can It Be That I Should Gain.”

I’ve been memorizing hymns for several years, and I’ve noticed that if I start singing, my husband, working within hearing distance in our home, will often join in. When I’m stressed, I sing to God. And when I’m trying to comfort a crying baby, I rock and sing hymn after hymn until it falls asleep. 

Much as I hate to admit it—because I love the old hymns– there are SOME contemporary worship songs that are of good quality. (You’ll want to check out Warren Cole Smith’s interview with composer and musician Keith Getty about Getty’s music and his passion to renew congregational singing - http://www.breakpoint.org/2017/11/bp-podcast-keith-getty-getty-sing/)

But before churches give up the great hymns of the faith, or cut down on them to make room for songs written last week, we need to think carefully about what we might be losing: Music that teaches us to worship God with our minds; music that celebrates His great gift of salvation while joyously nourishing our souls.

Or, as Charles Wesley put it:
    “No condemnation now I dread;
    Jesus, and all in him, is mine!
    Bold I approach the eternal throne,
    And claim the crown through Christ, my own.”

[italics and colored emphasis mine]

#2211 (1/27) PRO-LIFE SAT: "Senate Will Vote on Pro-Life Bill Banning Late-Term Abortions After 20 Weeks Next Week"

"SENATE WILL VOTE ON PRO-LIFE BILL BANNING LATE-TERM ABORTIONS AFTER 20 WEEKS"- Steven Ertelt,  JAN 25, 2018| http://www.lifenews.com/2018/01/25/senate-will-vote-on-pro-life-bill-banning-late-term-abortions-after-20-weeks-next-week

SIGN THE PETITION! Congress Must Ban Late-Term Abortions -  https://www.gopetition.com/petitions/congress-must-ban-late-term-abortions.html [Have you encouraged YOUR Senator, esp. your Democrat Senator, to support this bill?]

The U.S. Senate will soon vote on a pro-life Senate bill to ban late-term abortions — a bill that would save as many as 18,000 unborn babies form abortions each and every year.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) informed members of the Senate lat Thursday that the Senate will vote on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act next week. During his remarks, McConnell lamented how the United States is one of just a handful of nations worldwide that allow babies to be killed in late-term abortions.
     “Last week, Americans from all across the country—including many from Kentucky—came here to Washington to speak up for unborn children whom our legal system has denied the right to life. Now, Congress has an opportunity to take a step forward,” he said. “The United States is currently one of just seven countries – including China and North Korea – that permits elective abortion after 20 weeks. It is time we begin to remedy this obvious and tragic moral wrong. This long-overdue legislation would do just that,” the Senate Republican leader added. “I am pleased to have filed cloture on this bill to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain. I am proud to co-sponsor it, along with many of my colleagues. And I look forward to voting for it early next week.”

The House has already approved the legislation but Democrats are expected to filibuster the bill in the Senate, requiring it to get 60 votes to move forward.
     In the House, the vote for the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act broke down on mostly partisan lines with Republicans supporting the ban on late-term abortions and Democrats opposing it. The House approved the bill on a 237-189 vote.
     President Donald Trump would sign the pro-life bill  into law.

     “Overwhelming majorities of Americans—some 60-64% according to pollsters—support legal protection for pain-capable unborn children,” said pro-life Congressman Chris Smith. “Today we know that unborn babies not only die but suffer excruciating pain during dismemberment abortion—a cruelty that rips arms and legs off a helpless child.”  During the House debate, Smith talked about the gruesome nature of late-term abortions.

A former abortionist, Dr. Anthony Levatino, testified before Congress that he had performed 1,200 abortions—over 100 late-term abortions up to 24 weeks.
     Dr. Levatino described what the abortionist actually does to the helpless child. “Imagine if you can that you are a pro-choice obstetrician/gynecologist like I was.”  Using a Sopher 13” clamp with rows of ridges or teeth, “grasp anything you can” inside the womb.  “Once you’ve grasped something inside, squeeze on the clamp to set the jaws and pull hard—really hard. You feel something let go and out pops a fully formed leg about six inches long.  Reach in again and grasp anything you can…and out pops an arm.” He noted that “a second trimester D&E abortion is a blind procedure.”  He said, “Reach in again and again with that clamp and tear out the spine, intestines, heart and lungs.”

Sixteen states have enacted similar laws that ban abortions after 20 weeks.  These include Ohio, Texas, Nebraska, Idaho, Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wisconsin, South Carolina, Kentucky and Kansas.

The House passed the measure in 2015 as well and that marked the second time the House has voted for the legislation — having approved it in May 2013. The bill was then blocked by pro-abortion Democrats who controlled the U.S. Senate.

During the hearing on the last bill, former abortion practitioner Anthony Levatino told members of the committee the gruesome details of his former abortion practice and how he became pro-life following the tragic automobile accident of his child.
     Another bombshell dropped during the hearing came from Dr. Maureen Condic, who is Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine. She testified that the unborn child is capable of reacting to pain as early as 8-10 weeks. This is when most abortions in America take place.

Americans strongly support legislation that would ban late-term abortions and protect babies who are capable of feeling intense pain during an abortion.
     Together, [similar laws in 16 states] potentially are saving thousands of babies from painful, late-term abortions. There were at least 5,770 late-term abortions at or after 21 weeks of pregnancy in 2013 in the U.S., according to the Centers for Disease Control. Another approximate 8,150 abortions took place between 18 weeks and 20 weeks, the CDC reports.

Though abortion advocates deny the science of fetal pain at 20 weeks, researchers have fully established fetal pain at 20 weeks or earlier. Dr. Steven Zielinski, an internal medicine physician from Oregon, is one of the leading researchers into it. He first published reports in the 1980s to validate research showing evidence for unborn pain.
     At 20 weeks, the unborn child has all the parts in place – the pain receptors, spinal cord, nerve tracts, and thalamus – needed for transmitting and feeling pain. The unborn child responds to touch as early as week 6; and by week 18, pain receptors have appeared throughout the child’s body.

Dr. Colleen A. Malloy, a professor of neonatology at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, told a U.S. Senate committee last year that “anesthesiologists, and surgeons use pain medication” for unborn babies at the 20 week stage when performing surgery, “because it’s supported by the literature completely.” “I could never imagine subjecting my tiny patients to a horrific procedure such as those that involve limb detachment or cardiac injection,” Malloy added.

[italics and colored emphasis mine]

#2210 (1/26) "Hollywood's Secular Clerics"

"HOLLYWOOD'S SECULAR CLERICS" - David Limbaugh: Jan 26, 2018; https://townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/2018/01/26/hollywoods-secular-clerics-n2439823 [AS I SEE IT: All I can say is "Hurrah, for David Limbaugh!" Finally, there is someone (and I hope there are many others) who calls out the Hollywood elites who we pay to entertain us. Now there is an interesting word, "entertain." I ask you, how many movies or television programs have been created recently that has truly entertained you? Is the acting we see any more really show skill and creativity... I mean honestly? Then there is the whole matter of "entertainment." Whether it's someone or some creation of Hollywood OR some athlete who promotes some cause by insulting our patriotism, they are being paid to "entertain" us. I mean, do we REALLY need to be "entertained" by those who insult our values? And why do we even need to be entertained so much? If we need a distraction from the work we do, whatever happened to just reading a GOOD book, one that educates as well as stirs our imagination. There are more good books that have been written and more films from the past that inspire me that I could read/watch again and again (not to mention well-crafted writings by new authors) that I could use to "entertain"me without having to waste my time with the stuff coming out of Hollywood and our failed culture. Finally, award shows? I mean do we really need to waste our time with programs that only present people who pat themselves on the back (for what?) or who give another unimaginative and nauseating political speech that only attacks and attacks? I say let's all start boycotting these productions, as well as paying money to see films that don't really entertain?  I for one will AGAIN not bother with the Oscars. How about you? - Stan]

--------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 Swell, our beloved Hollywood stars are busy crafting their politicized speeches for the Academy Awards program. I'll bet you can't wait.

Oscar-nominated English actor Daniel Kaluuya, in an interview with W magazine, opined that racism is more pronounced in America than in Britain. So happy to learn this and can't wait for his upcoming lecture.

Well, these mega-pundits might as well go three for three so far in 2018. Hosting the Golden Globes ceremony earlier this month, Seth Meyers caricatured President Trump as a xenophobe and lampooned him for alienating North Korea. A few weeks later, at the Screen Actors Guild Awards, host Kristen Bell humorlessly jabbed first lady Melania Trump for failing in her mission to end cyberbullying. They must measure up to the Trump-bashing standards of 2017's Emmy Awards, where, following the lead of smarmy host Stephen Colbert, the actors launched merciless volleys against the president, including one from Lily Tomlin: "And in 2017, we still refuse to be controlled by a sexist, egotistical, lying, hypocritical bigot."

I've attended many award ceremonies, and apart from politically related ones, I've rarely heard speakers wax political, not only because the events are nonpolitical but because they don't want to needlessly offend those with different views. It's apparent that Hollywood actors don't have these concerns and therefore exercise no restraint. That they so openly spout off about politics shows they have no fear of offending their like-minded colleagues and couldn't care less about alienating anyone in the viewing audience.


A few examples. "Grey's Anatomy" star Ellen Pompeo tweeted, "News flash... I don't want trump supporters for fans Einstein." Olivia Wilde, starring in "1984" on Broadway, tweeted, "Trumpy Trolls defending racism as free speech and threatening to boycott my movies, PLEASE F---ING DO." Don Cheadle, after tweet-slamming someone for being "woefully uninformed and egregiously bereft of empathy and insight," smugly followed up with this: "If I lose fans over this, they weren't real fans. And I'm only bitter about what's happening to our country. You good with all this? Why?" Michael Shannon, while promoting his movie "Nocturnal Animals," said: "This country's filled with ignorant jackasses. The big red dildo running through the middle of our country needs to be annexed to be its own country of moronic a--holes. You can call it the United States of Moronic F---ing A--holes." He also said, "If you're voting for Trump, it's time for the urn." And last year, Meryl Streep blasted Trump, without mentioning his name, as a powerful bully whose "violence incites violence."

I've sometimes wondered what makes Hollywood so ideologically unimaginative. Is there some common DNA strain among film industry players that makes them liberal? Were most of those who have grown up to become part of that industry raised by leftist parents? Do actors new to Hollywood arrive as politically blank slates and become instantly converted? Are they shamed into toeing the party line?

Of course, there are Hollywood conservatives, and I'm proud to call some of them my friends, but we all know they are a fractional exception; at least, those willing to publicly admit it are scarce.

I can't think of a group of people more cloistered, more isolated from dissenting viewpoints. How can any group of people -- other than political organizations, whose members join specifically to support the particular cause -- think so uniformly? They aren't just monolithic; they possess the self-certainty of religious cultists, who are contemptuous of those who disagree, thinking of them as lesser beings woefully ignorant and irredeemably immoral. You've surely witnessed their judgmentalism, their preachiness, their superiority, their ontological certitude. They obviously haven't a single electron of doubt about their own righteousness and our unrighteousness.

But if they are correct in their worldview and we flyover denizens are as depraved as they think, what kind of supernatural coincidence could have caused all of them to assemble in one place and work in one industry? Is there something about the performing arts that draws moral paragons? As there can be no divine sovereignty in the absence of God, maybe it's rather that thespianism constitutes the most advanced form of Darwinian refinement. Excuse us for being unaware that evolutionary perfection resulted in astonishing close-mindedness.
    It's noteworthy that their rejection of God doesn't deter them from mounting their secular pulpits to sermonize. Perhaps it's a blessing that they consider us such despicably lost causes that they merely scold us rather than try to proselytize us.

Are you curious as to whether any of them ever self-reflect or contemplate why, if they're such wonderfully kind and compassionate people, they are so filled with rage, rudeness, meanness and smug incivility?
    Isn't it ironic that these actors engage in political commentary to demonstrate their intellectual gravitas but, in the very process, instead display that they are malleable sheep, pawns of the most pernicious sort of groupthink, people who are intellectually incurious and shallow and whose free will has been hijacked by the most unsophisticated form of industry-coerced mind control?

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

#2209 (1/25) "‘America First’ Polls Poorly in Other Countries. Trump Backers Don’t Care."

"‘AMERICA FIRST’ POLLS POORLY IN OTHER COUNTRIES. TRUMP BACKERS DON'T CARE." - Fred Lucas / @FredLucasWH / Jan. 22, 2018 / http://dailysignal.com/2018/01/22/why-america-first-polls-poorly-outside-america/ [AS I SEE IT: The last analyst says it best: being a leader is not about popularity; it's about doing right - for your own country and for others  as well. Also note what is said about the way the polling was conducted. What's also not noted is that the President gets high marks from moderate Arab countries who look up to those who exhibit strong - and not weak, apologetic - leadership. I think that on reflection most Americans and those throughout the world appreciate as well. P.S. - Re: the title of this article - I think the same could be said about the hysterics with which progressives (liberals) are continually attacking the President - we just shouldn't care. I think that based on the many great accomplishments for the good of our country this President has done, more and more Americans should soon not care either. - Stan]

President Donald Trump is undaunted by Gallup polling in other countries showing they are not enamored of his "America first" stance. (Photo: Dennis Van Tine/Future Image /WENN.com/Newscom)

As a presidential candidate in 2008, Barack Obama asserted that he was a “citizen of the world.” By contrast, during his first address to Congress last year, President Donald Trump said, “My job is not to represent the world. My job is to represent the United States of America.”

Many around the world seem to have formed clear opinions on the contrast. A Gallup international poll released Thursday found that the median approval for U.S. leadership in 134 countries dropped to 30 percent during the first year of the Trump administration—a drop from 48 percent approval during the final year of the Obama administration.

Support for the U.S. dropped by at least 10 percentage points among 65 U.S. allies, the poll found. “Any president that puts American interests first might cause concern from the rest of the world that became accustomed to an ‘apology tour’ from the previous administration,” Jenny Beth Martin, founder and national coordinator of the Tea Party Patriots, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “President Trump has been clear that, in trade treaties and international policies, he will put American interests first, but he is still willing to work with the world,” she said.

In a bright spot from the poll, support for the United States’ global leadership increased by double digits in Israel, Liberia, Macedonia, and Belarus. The poll was taken from March through November. It notes that the 67 percent support from Israel came before Trump on Dec. 6 announced plans to formally recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Still, the Americas and Europe saw declines in support for the United States, according to Gallup. Portugal, Belgium, Norway, and Canada led the declines worldwide, with approval ratings dropping 40 points or more for U.S. leadership in each country.
    “I don’t think the poll is very surprising. We are seeing a wave of anti-American sentiment across the world,” Nile Gardiner, director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. “We saw this during the Bush administration. We are seeing it again under another Republican administration.”

Jason Miller @JasonMillerinDC 

    Of course certain countries upset America’s no longer a pushover. @realdonaldtrump is cutting off funding for terrorists, making allies pay their fair share and putting American jobs first - exactly what we elected him to do! 

“At the end of the day, world leadership is not a popularity contest,” Gardiner said in a phone interview. “When we have forceful U.S. leadership, we are bound to see pushback. President Obama’s administration polled quite highly, and he had the least effective U.S. administration on the world stage in decades.”

The survey itself lacks credibility, said David Bozell, president of ForAmerica, a conservative advocacy group. “The Gallup ‘poll’ is ridiculously stupid,” Bozell told The Daily Signal in an email. “The survey respondents include kids as young as 15, in some countries that only have state-run media. Anyone using this poll to further some agenda against President Trump can’t be taken seriously.”

[italics and colored emphasis mine]

#2208 (1/24) "Scientists and Christianity - It’s not What You May Think"

"SCIENTISTS AND CHRISTIANITY - IT'S  NOT WHAT YOU MAY THINK" - by: Eric Metaxas & Stan Guthrie, Breakpoint.org, Jan. 23, 2018;http://www.breakpoint.org/2018/01/breakpoint-scientists-and-christianity/

To paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the rift between science and Christianity have been greatly exaggerated.

Scientist Richard Dawkins, the combative author of “The God Delusion,” has said, “Faith can be very, very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong.” I wonder why the good doctor doesn’t just go ahead and tell us how he really feels?

Seeing such vitriolic quotes from high-profile scientists such as Dr. D, it’s no wonder that so many Christians believe that most scientists hate God, Christians, and religious faith. The good news is, it is simply not true!

That’s according to a fascinating new book, “Religion vs. Science: What Religious People Really Think,” by Elaine Howard Ecklund of Rice University and Christopher Scheitle of West Virginia University. As reported in Christianity Today, Ecklund and Scheitle found that, based on data from a nationally representative survey of 10,000 Americans, evangelicals are just as likely as most Americans to count scientists as close friends—but they tend to assume their friends are the exceptions, that most scientists want nothing to do with them.
    And while only 40 percent of all scientists say they believe in God, and about half have no religious affiliation, Ecklund and Scheitle found that a full 65 percent of those working in practical scientific fields such as medicine and engineering identify as Christians, including 24 percent as evangelicals.

Apparently there’s a link between faith traditions that emphasize helping other people and the kinds of professions that actually do so—who knew? Down through the centuries, of course, Christians have been eager to help the sick and many of us have taken to heart God’s call to be His stewards in the world, caring for and developing His creation, so these figures are no surprise.

We’re not doing quite as well in the basic and more theoretical sciences, however. Ecklund and Scheitle suspect there isn’t as strong a connection between our religious values and basic science, observing, “[I]t would be easier to see ‘new medical discoveries’ as spiritually connected to the ideals of faith than it would be to see ‘new scientific discoveries’ as promoting faith ideas.”

But of course the connection between scientific discovery and a Christian worldview is as strong as an electric current running through water. Years ago, Chuck Colson reminded us that many of the great scientists of history—Copernicus in astronomy and Newton in physics, among them—made epochal discoveries while operating out of a Christian worldview.
    That worldview says that God created the universe out of nothing, that He has set up a series of observable, rational laws to govern it, and that mankind—male and female—has been created in His image with the God-given ability to discover things about the physical world and bring order and blessing to it. As the eminent historian Rodney Stark has written, “Christian theology was necessary for the rise of science.” Indeed!

Yes, sometimes certain modern scientific trends and spokespeople have anti-religious agendas. But let’s never fear the battle, remembering that when we engage in science, we are firmly on our heavenly Father’s home turf.

Ecklund and Scheitle, for their part, suggest that our churches should take a more active role in recognizing and promoting science as a calling from God. They say that the church needs “faith leaders to celebrate the scientists within their congregations, and they need these scientists to speak out about how scientific knowledge is not a threat to their faith.”

So while the rift between science and faith may have been greatly exaggerated, we still have some work to do.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

RESOURCES - Scientific pursuit and faith in Christ are not mutually exclusive, as Eric has pointed out. Click on the links below for further discussion of scientists and Christianity.

"There’s Proof that Scientists Don’t Hate Christians" - Rebecca Randall | Christianity Today | Dec. 18, 2017; http://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2017/december/proof-that-scientists-dont-hate-christians-dawkins-aaas.html

"Columbus and the Rise of Science: We’ve Been Lied To" - Chuck Colson | BreakPoint.org | Dec. 4, 2003; http://www.breakpoint.org/2016/10/columbus-and-the-rise-of-science/
"The March for Science Isn’t Anti-Religion. Most Scientists Aren’t Either." - Elaine Howard Ecklund| Christianity Today | April 24, 2017; http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2017/april-web-only/march-for-science-isnt-anti-religion-just-like-most-scienti.html
"First worldwide survey of religion and science: No, not all scientists are atheists" - Rice University | Dec. 3, 2015; https://phys.org/news/2015-12-worldwide-survey-religion-science-scientists.html
"Scientists and Belief: Religion and Science in the United States" - Pew Research Center | Nov. 5, 2009; http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

#2207 (1/23) "The New Threat Children Face 45 Years After Roe v. Wade"

"THE NEW THREAT CHILDREN FACE 45 YEARS AFTER ROE V. WADE" - Monica Burke / @MonicaGBurke / January 17, 2018 / http://dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/KidSwingset-385x200.jpg

The ACLU's lawsuit against Michigan threatens to drive highly successful faith-based adoption agencies out of the state. (Photo: iStock Photos)

It’s been 45 years since Roe v. Wade, and the pro-life movement is stronger than ever.

[Last week], thousands of pro-life Americans [took] a stand for life at the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C. This year’s theme, “Love Saves Lives,” reminds us that women facing unplanned pregnancies have options besides abortion—like adoption—that protect life and demonstrate love.

Take Hannah Mongie, for example. She placed her son Tagg up for adoption after her boyfriend and Tagg’s father, Kaden, died suddenly. She created an emotional video telling Tagg her story before sending him home with his adoptive parents, Brad and Emily, “so that he would be able to look back and know that this decision was made purely out of love for him.”
    Hannah wrote: "I hope anyone who watches this will be able to gain a new perspective on what the birth mom goes through when she places her child for adoption. It is the farthest thing from a heartless act. It shows [t]he definition of love. To love someone this much is to give away your happiness for them."

Stories like Hannah’s remind us that adoption gives everyone—expectant mothers, children, and adoptive families—the chance to experience life and love to the fullest.
    Like any mother, Hannah had a unique set of needs and desires for her child. Through online resources, she was able to find a family that was “beyond anything [she] could have asked for,” given her “really, really high standards for anyone who is going to raise [her] child.”

Every mother should be afforded this wide range of options. Public policy needs to ensure that women facing an unplanned pregnancy have not only the option to adopt, but also to work with an organization that supports their unique needs.

That’s why a diversity of adoption agencies, including faith-based ones, is so important. Not only do they provide relief to the overburdened public foster care and adoption system, but they provide mothers and adoptive families with intangible yet invaluable resources: the spiritual, emotional, and relational support that state-run agencies are ill-equipped to offer.

But unfortunately today, some lawsuits and local policies are putting faith-based adoption agencies out of business. These agencies are unique within the industry, yet in very high demand.
    In November 2017, the American Civil Liberties Union sued the state of Michigan over a law that allows faith-based adoption agencies to operate according to their belief that children should be placed with a mother and a father.
    If the ACLU wins the case, it would drive highly successful faith-based adoption providers—which make up a quarter of adoption agencies in Michigan—out of business by forcing them to choose between their religious beliefs and fulfilling their mission.

This is not the first time faith-based providers have faced discrimination.
     In Boston, Illinois, and Washington, D.C., religious adoption agencies were forced to close their doors after decades of service when the state denied them the ability to place kids with a married mom and dad. Thousands of children were displaced in the process.
     The ACLU alleges that the religious beliefs of faith-based agencies are preventing the children from finding loving homes. But a diversity of adoption providers actually increases the likelihood that these children will find homes. Why is that? Because more providers means more agencies working to connect children and families, and that means more opportunities for kids to find homes.
    Faith-based adoption agencies take nothing away from anyone. They do not prevent anyone from adopting or fostering children. Individuals or couples are free to work with the majority of private adoption agencies and government-run programs.

Meanwhile, birth mothers and potential parents who prefer faith-based support services are free to work with a like-minded adoption agency. Some may even be persuaded to choose adoption due to these personalized support services and the promise of less bureaucratic red tape.
    Without these religious adoption agencies, expectant mothers would have fewer options. Children would wait longer to be adopted or simply age out of the system. And adoptive families would go without any spiritual resources, potentially have to wait longer to adopt, and may even forego the process altogether due to the inefficiencies of the public system.

The ACLU is targeting religious adoption agencies at a critical time. As the opioid epidemic has put thousands of children in foster care, more and more parents are leaving the foster care system. Around 80 percent of foster families drop out within two years.

That is why protecting faith-based adoption agencies must become a pro-life priority. As these organizations come under attack, those who stand the most to lose are the exact individuals that the pro-life movement seeks to protect: vulnerable children and mothers.

Promoting adoption as an alternative to abortion is not enough. Faith-based adoption agencies need legal protections from discrimination, like those of the Michigan state law in question or those proposed at the federal level in the Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act. When these organizations are free to operate according to their values, they are free to serve people like Hannah, Tagg, and Tagg’s adoptive parents.

Protecting the freedom of faith-based child welfare providers to act in accordance with their own convictions must become part of the pro-life agenda. To protect birth moms, children, and adoptive families, we must protect providers too.

[italics and colored emphasis mine]

Monica Burke is a research assistant in the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation.

#2206 (1/22) "Why the Pro-Life Movement Is a True Expression of America’s Founding Principles"

Jan. 22, 2219: TODAY we mark one of the darkest days in U.S. history - when 7 Supreme Court justices essentially declared the unborn a non-person in the infamous Roe v Wade decision 45 years ago. The parallel to when slaves were so deemed in another infamous Court decision in 1865. How many more will die because their value was determined not by God but by Man?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

"WHY THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT IS A TRUE EXPRESSION OF AMERICA'S FOUNDING  PRINCIPLES" - Jarrett Stepman / @JarrettStepman / January 19, 2018 / http://dailysignal.com/2018/01/19/pro-life-movement-true-expression-americas-founding-principles

March for Life protesters gather in the District Columbia. The rallies have occured annually since 1974. (Photo: Leslie E. Kossoff/Polaris/Newscom)

    The most successful social movements in American history have almost always channeled the philosophy of the founding generation, and in most cases, religion. Religious conviction along with the principles of the Declaration of Independence, which defines rights as both God-given and equally applicable to everyone, drove both the anti-slavery and civil rights movements.

    In many ways, the modern pro-life movement has followed in this tradition in defense of the individual right to life itself. Public opinion on the issue of abortion has certainly shifted over the last half century, with an increasing number of Americans identifying as pro-life, and an even higher number of people calling themselves pro-choice while actually holding more pro-life views.Undoubtedly, the work of a few dedicated organizations has contributed to this shift.

This year, the nation’s capital will host the 45th annual March for Life. The march initially began as a protest of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, which defined abortion as essentially a constitutional right under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Many Americans opposed this decision on both moral and legal grounds, and used events like the March for Life as a sounding board for their views. The rally has continued and grown over the years, attracting people from all over the nation who believe that abortion is fundamentally wrong.

While the pro-life movement has sharpened in focus and increased its scope over the last 50 years, the pro-choice movement has drifted further away from its more limited public goal, once famously articulated by President Bill Clinton: that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.”
    At one time, this argument held more sway. Its proponents said that abortion was simply going to happen regardless of legal restrictions, and that it should therefore be in a “safe” environment rather than in a back alley. 
   Hillary Clinton tried to revive this rhetoric in 2008, emphasizing that abortions should indeed be “rare,” but she then dropped that language in the 2016 election. She even advocated scrapping the Hyde Amendment, which prevents federal dollars from directly funding abortions.
   This must be pointed out, not to demonstrate the shiftiness of the Clintons, but to show how the pro-choice movement has become more strident and insistent on abortion being more than just a necessary evil, but a positive good for individuals and society. As scholar David Grimes said in an interview with the Los Angeles Times, “Abortion is good for you, your family, and society. … It’s a win-win-win.”
    
While pro-choice advocates would undoubtedly balk at this comparison, many have drawn similarities between the debate over abortion and the one over slavery in the 19th century.
    The original terms of the debate, in both cases, mostly revolved around the utility and practicality of an institution’s existence. Most of the Founding Fathers recognized slavery as an institution that was out of step with the philosophy of the Declaration of Independence, and sought its eventual extinction.
    However, by 1860, a sizeable clique of Americans believed that slavery was actually a moral positive and needed to be preserved forever. This sharp moral division proved intractable and led to war. In a provocative piece in the Public Discourse, Regent University professor Miles Smith IV wrote that the arguments for abortion on demand, couched in the language of individual autonomy, run parallel to the arguments of the more radical Southern slavery advocates.
    Defenders of slavery saw government intrusion on their “property” as a violation of their sacred rights. As a result, they sought to make sure that slavery remained accepted and protected to a maximum extent under all conditions. “In the same way,” wrote Smith, “modern abortion advocates have viewed any obstacle to abortion-on-demand—including waiting periods and parental consent for minors—as an entirely unwarranted invasion of women’s totalitarian authority over their unborn children.”

The terms of the abortion debate have shifted in the last 20 years from “safe, legal, and rare,” to no restrictions under any circumstances.This shift is evident in the left’s opposition to any reasonable limits on abortion practices. 
    For instance, the pain-capable abortion bill, which would prevent abortions after 20 weeks.
The 20-week limit was set because studies have shown this is around the time babies can feel pain. Even most European countries, which are generally more left-wing than the United States, place restrictions on abortions early in the second trimester.
    Yet, many pro-choice proponents attacked this legislation as dangerous. Abortion provider Planned Parenthood said of this measure on its website, “20-week bans are part of an agenda to ban all abortion. Anti-abortion politicians in Congress and in state legislatures are pushing their agenda, bit by bit, to ultimately outlaw abortion completely.”
    There has also been hostility toward the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which would extend legal protections to babies born after a botched abortion. It must be noted that killing a baby after birth stretches the limits of what could even be described as an abortion. Yet some, like former Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., have been willing to at least theoretically cross that line. Now, Democrats’ refusal to get behind the born-alive bill speaks even louder. The distinction between the pro-life and pro-choice camps is becoming more clear than ever.

    Which raises the powerful question faced by many past generations of Americans: Do we really believe that all men are created equal? Or shall we cast that belief aside when it’s convenient?
    Americans are quick to excoriate generations of the past for failing to uphold their convictions and for falling short of our founding ideals. It is worth noting that we, too, may be judged and found sorely wanting.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Jarrett Stepman is an editor for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Jarrett.

"Roe v. Wade Is My Generation’s Dred Scott" - Amy Swearer / @AmySwearer / Jan. 19, 2018; http://dailysignal.com/2018/01/19/roe-v-wade-generations-dred-scott/
"Why Pro-Lifers Have Cause for Hope" - Monica Burke / @MonicaGBurke / Jan. 21, 2018 / http://dailysignal.com/2018/01/21/why-pro-lifers-have-cause-for-hope/
"29 of the Best Signs at the March for Life" - Katrina Trinko / @KatrinaTrinko / Jan. 19, 2018 / http://dailysignal.com/2018/01/19/29-of-the-best-signs-at-the-march-for-life
"Q&A: Russell Moore Weighs in on Abortion, Adoption, and the Compassion of the Pro-Life Movement" - Daniel Davis / @JDaniel_Davis / Jan. 18, 2018 / http://dailysignal.com/2018/01/18/qa-russell-moore-weighs-in-on-abortion-adoption-and-the-compassion-of-the-pro-life-movement

#2205 (1/21 SUNDAY SPECIAL: "THE SANCTITY OF LIFE: The Faith, Given Once for All"

"SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE SUNDAY " is TODAY, Sunday, January 21st, where in churches around the nation, congregations will be shining a spotlight on an anti-biblical issue that has been plaguing our nation since 1973--abortion.  Healing, sharing, praying and interceding will happen in churches across the country. PLEASE CONTACT YOUR PASTOR AB0UT RECOGNIZING THIS SUNDAY IN SOME WAY; encourage him to ask for the free resources at https://www.focusonthefamily.com/pro-life/promos/participate-in-sanctity-of-human-life-sunday

"THE SANCTITY OF LIFE: The Faith, Given Once for All" - Chuck Colson, Breakpoint.org, Feb. 7, 2008; http://www.breakpoint.org/2008/08/the-sanctity-of-life/

    A few years ago, novelist Anne Rice, famous for her vampire stories, recommitted herself to her Catholic faith. She then announced that she was dedicating her writing talents to Christ. One result was the wonderful book, Christ the Lord, a story that imagines the childhood of Jesus. It is apparent that Rice's beliefs are deep and genuine—which is why I was so surprised to learn she is endorsing a staunchly pro-abortion presidential candidate.
   As Rice explained on her website, "My . . . vote must reflect my deepest Christian convictions. For me, these convictions are based on the teachings of Christ . . . which include feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison, and above all, loving one's neighbors."

    In response, my friend, Princeton professor Robert George, also Catholic, gently reminded Rice of the teachings of Mother Teresa: "We cannot fight credibly against other social and moral evils, including poverty and violence, while we tolerate mass killings by abortion."
George is right. Now, some of you may be thinking, "There Chuck goes again, mixing religion and politics." But as I write in my new book, The Faith, Christians did not leap into politics five minutes after Roe v. Wade was decided. Christian doctrine on the sanctity of life, coupled with the Church's involvement in politics, began 2,000 years ago.
    For instance, the Didache, a first-century manual of Christian discipleship, teaches: "In accordance with the precept of the teaching, 'you shall not kill,' you shall not put a child to death by abortion or kill it once it is born."
   Church father Justin Martyr put it equally bluntly: "We have been taught that it is wicked to expose even newly born children" to die in the elements, for "we would then be murderers."
     And in the Church's first political appeal in the second century, Christian apologist Athenagoras wrote this to Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius: "We say that women who use drugs to bring on an abortion commit murder."

    Medical advances confirm what ancient Christians took as a matter of faith—that the essential identity of every human life remains the same from conception to natural death. Whether we believe this and accept responsibility for the unborn child depends on our view of humanity. Do we believe that humans were created in God's image? Or do we believe, as the secularist does, that humans are just one more example of evolution's chance handiwork, no different in kind than lice and lungfish?

    If we believe that life evolved by chance, humanity must invent its own reasons for being, and the ethics by which we govern ourselves. That means, whose lives we value become a matter of what can be done to produce the greatest happiness for everybody, but that is a deeply dangerous view—for unborn children, the handicapped, the elderly, or the simply inconvenient.

   I hope you will read my new book, The Faith, because in it you will learn what Christians believe, why we believe it, and why it matters. We have defended, as you will see in the book, the sanctity of life at every stage through the centuries, including leading all the great human-rights campaigns. It may sound harsh, but in the book I say, "Christians who are pro-choice are denying the Gospel and have to question whether they have not separated themselves from the company of Christian discipleship."

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Martin Luther King Jr.’s Niece: ‘My Uncle Would Have Been Very Pro-Life’" - Rachel del Guidice / @LRacheldG / January 12, 2018 / http://dailysignal.com/2018/01/12/martin-luther-king-jr-s-niece-shares-his-legacy-of-unity-reconciliation-non-violence-and-respect-for-life/

#2204 (1/20) PRO-LIFE SAT: "‘We Were Crying’: One Woman Shares Why She Left Planned Parenthood"

"'WE WERE CRYING’: ONE WOMAN SHARES WHYH SHE LEFT PLANNED PARENTHOOD" - Rachel del Guidice / @LRacheldG / January 18, 2018 / http://dailysignal.com/2018/01/18/crying-one-woman-shares-left-planned-parenthood/

    (Photo courtesy: Myra Neyer)

    For Myra Neyer, a mom and former Planned Parenthood employee, there was one defining moment that influenced her to leave the abortion giant.

    “There was this one girl, young girl—maybe 19, maybe 20, young—she came in, [and] her boyfriend didn’t want any children,” Neyer, who used to work at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Baltimore, told The Daily Signal in an interview Thursday. “He was an older man.”
    “She came in and we signed her in, did the ultrasound and found out, well, she found out that instead of one [baby], there was four. And it wasn’t just four, they were all identical,” she recounted.
    Neyer, a mom of five children, said this particular girl did not want to have an abortion, but her older boyfriend was forcing her to have the procedure.
    “Her boyfriend was flipping out, and we just decided … I didn’t sign off on it,” Neyer said. “So she left, and what he ended up doing was taking her to what I call a butcher clinic, somewhere else, and they gave her the misoprostol and then the next day … she came in … in a lot of pain and bleeding.”
    The Planned Parenthood clinic Neyer worked for ended up finishing the abortion procedure, and she said she will never forget it: "She had to have been at least like 15, almost 16 weeks [along in her pregnancy], the babies were big … these two babies were holding each other … they were all boys, and they were just holding each other, and the last one was the one that we have to make sure we had all the pieces [of his body]. It was just horrible."
    And then the look on her face when this was all over, she just looked lost … I just remember looking at her, putting her in … her friend’s truck, and just her face was like this blank stare.

    This experience was a turning point for Neyer. “That did it for me, I have never seen anything like that,” she said. “I hit the wall with my co-worker and we were crying. We stayed in there and cried over these kids … I remember saying, ‘That’s a baby, that’s a baby, that looks exactly like a baby’ … we just stood in that room [storing the discarded baby parts] and cried,” Neyer said.

    It was the witness of a participant in 40 Days for Life, a campaign of fasting, prayer, and outreach to bring an end to abortion, that was instrumental in Neyer’s pro-life conversion.
“What did it for me was just 40 Days for Life,” Neyer said. “There was this lady, her name was Mary, I am actually trying to reconnect with her, she was just out there every day … a smile, just kind words, ‘I’m praying for you.’”

    Neyer said she took the job at Planned Parenthood to support her children and provide women with health care. But before leaving the clinic, she realized that Planned Parenthood was about making money.
    “I would tell them my story about my five kids and how I was a widow, and how I could do it, and she ended up choosing life,” Neyer said, referring to an instance when she talked with a patient who was considering an abortion. “And then the doctor was angry at me … [that] she changed her mind.”
    “That’s when I realized it wasn’t about choice, it was about a quota … the higher in the weeks, the more money it costs for the abortion,” Neyer added.

     After leaving the Planned Parenthood clinic, Neyer connected with a ministry called And Then There Were None, which does outreach to abortion clinic workers who want to leave the industry and also offers financial help to clinic workers who leave the industry, help in job searches, and emotional and spiritual support.
    Neyer said it is important for those who do outreach to abortion clinic workers to remember the humanity of those who work in the clinics. “We go in there every day with this gut-wrenching feeling inside like, ‘I really don’t want to go in here,’” Neyer said.

[italics and colored emphasis mine]

Rachel del Guidice is a reporter for The Daily Signal. She is a graduate of Franciscan University of Steubenville, Forge Leadership Network, and The Heritage Foundation’s Young Leaders Program. 

#2203 (1/19) "Why I’m Traveling 710 Miles to Attend the March for Life"

"WHY I'M TRAVELING 710 MLES TO ATTEND THE MARCH FOR LIFE"- Josh Holler / @JoshHoller / January 18, 2018 / http://dailysignal.com/2018/01/18/im-traveling-710-miles-attend-march-life/ [AS I SEE IT: TODAY, there will be another annual March for Life in Washington, D.C. - something which I doubt will get much if any coverage by the biased mainstream media, even though it is always participated in by hundreds of thousands gathered from across the country AND even though it will be the first March addressed by a sitting President on live video stream (I look forward to the day when the President will attend this event in person.) It is an event I hope to attend just once in my lifetime, the one event I most want to attend one day . BTW, if you do see a picture of the March, you are sure to note that it is led by young Americans, a sight that I'm sure frightens those of the abortion industry because it says that the present generation is ready to stand against what they do. - Stan]

Thousands of Americans gather on the National Mall each year for the March for Life. (Photo: Cheriss May/NurPhoto/Sipa USA/Newscom)

Can you imagine a society in which abortion is a foreign concept? Can you picture a time in which this grisly practice is an oddity from a distant past that has no place among us? If you’re like me and millions of other Americans born after Roe v. Wade, this is difficult to envision.

In the recent hit TV series “Victoria,” produced by Masterpiece, Prince Albert, the husband of the young Queen Victoria, takes up cause with abolitionists to end slavery. Using his clout and influence, he delivers a speech to an abolitionist society about the blight of slavery.
   The scene is obviously foreign to us on many levels. Abolitionist societies for slavery do not exist like this today. Bringing forth escaped slaves to give witness to the cruelties of slavery in North America is a notion of yesteryear. 
   Abolitionist societies were institutions that fulfilled their purpose. As such, they are an artifact of a troubling past in the history of Western civilization.

    As difficult as it would have been for an abolitionist society in the 19th century to imagine a day when slavery was no more, it is hard to envision an America where babies are not killed in their mothers’ wombs. This is one of the four reasons I am traveling from St. Louis to attend Evangelicals for Life and to participate in the March for Life. I’m traveling, first, to do something the pro-life movement should continue to do: 

1. To imagine a day when abortion is no more.
    I want to stand with thousands of others and imagine a nation where abortion is as foreign a concept as chattel slavery. A scar in the history of our nation, no doubt, but one we will one day be healing from and no longer afflicted by. Like others, I want to be reminded that this practice is not the way things are supposed to be.
    Abortion should feel alien. It should feel so wholly other that when we look back on the day when abortion was finally abolished, we will see with crystal clarity how much we took it for granted as a wrongful status quo.

2. To be encouraged.
    Second, I want to catch a broader vision of the forces at work in this movement—forces that are mobilizing and enacting changes that will bring about an end to the practice of abortion.
    I have never been to a March for Life rally. I want to come, see, and be encouraged that we in the pro-life movement are not a mere minority, not a radical fringe group, but that there are voices who represent a majority in our nation who yearn and ache to remove this blot upon our society and be healed.

3. To connect with others.
    Common cause leads us to make friends with those we would otherwise never know, connect with, or become allies with.
    Last week, I spent time training some activists affiliated with my organization, Churches for Life. In our small room were life-affirming Christians across a diverse spectrum of denominations. Current and future pro-life leaders were present among the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the Southern Baptist Convention, an independent nondenominational church, and the Presbyterian Church in America. Ending abortion was one of the common, unifying goals held among us all.
    Traveling to D.C. this week, I likewise expect to meet with others who, though sometimes divided across denominational or political boundaries, are choosing to affirm the value and dignity of human life.

4. Because I’ve been rescued.
    If there is any trait that defines me as a Christian, any attribute that is most compelling me to attend the March for Life, it is that I have been rescued by Christ. The good news of Christ’s own death, burial, and resurrection now compels me out of a changed heart to rescue others—especially those being led to death. [Prov. 24:11-12] 
    I’m traveling to D.C. to meet with other rescued rescuers who have likewise been impacted by the message of the gospel.
    I’m traveling to see and taste of a coming victory that this nation can have over abortion, resting in the confidence that if I have been saved, many others can and will be, too.

[italics and colored emphasis mine]

Josh Holler is the teaching and communications director of Churches for Life, a non-profit ministry in St. Louis, Missouri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Marching for Life" - by Kevin D. Williamson, Jan.18, 2018;
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455530/march-life-message-fetus-living-human-organism-dont-kill-it-ever