Monday, March 7, 2016

#1521 (3/7) "Erring on the Genocide"

"ERRING ON THE GENOCIDE" - Tony Perkins, Washington Update, Mar.01,2016;http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA16C01&f=WU16C01

When voters headed to the polls [last]Tuesday, they weren't just deciding Americans' fate -- but the fate of hundreds of thousands of Christians around the world. As hostile as this administration has been to believers in the U.S., its overseas legacy is worse. Abandoned, displaced, and penniless, the Christians lucky enough to survive ISIS's rampage have fled to other countries, living in refugee camps where there is just as much uncertainty. Even there, jihadists disguised as refugees are "killing inside the camps, and they're buying and selling ladies and even girls," aid workers are reporting.

And while Secretary of State John Kerry insists he shares "a huge sense of revulsion over these acts," the words are as empty as Iraq's once-thriving Christian villages. "It's time for America to act," Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) insisted during a congressional hearing with Kerry last week. "We are talking about the lives of tens of thousands of people who are being brutally slaughtered, targeted for genocide." More than 200 members of Congress understand this. The European Parliament understands this. Even former Secretary Hillary Clinton understands it. Yet a year into this faith-based bloodbath, the president refuses to use the eight simple letters that could help more Christians escape their terror: genocide.

With that one word -- a word that's already been invoked by most of the Western world powers -- President Obama could help add weight to the asylum requests of so many who are suffering. And, as the Washington Post points out in this great primer on the "genocide" label, terrorists and terrorist-harboring countries could start being held accountable. "ISIS doesn't care," expert Greg Stanton explained, "but they will if their people are starting to come back and get tried for war crimes."

While the U.S. hashes out a designation that should be a no-brainer, Canon Andrew White told me in a sobering interview on "Washington Watch" that "The Christians have really been forgotten." ... From his vantage point in Baghdad, he's witnessed the horrors first-hand. "It's real," he says. But, he laments, "The awareness is minimal... It's not in the media. Most of the churches don't even know what's going on." Of course, he says, "People will talk about it, but they do nothing about it." Dr. White, who has seen members of his own church targeted and killed, could only shake his head at a nightmare few Americans could comprehend. "Recently, my people have been massacred when they left Baghdad... They've gone to Northern Iraq, and most of them are living in refugee tents and camps in horrendous conditions."

Where do they go from there? No one knows. The U.N. and other nations have given these families -- most of whom have lost everything -- no assurance of a permanent home. "There are so many people waiting to immigrate -- literally thousands and thousands of people." And the latest U.S. statistics bear that out. Since the Paris terrorist attack in November, America has admitted 651 Syrian refugees. Three are Christians. Less than one half of one percent. Of the remaining 648,647 are Muslim. How's that for a religious test? While Christians languish in makeshift camps, often in fear of ISIS or other Muslim radicals, the administration continues to give preferential treatment to every faith except the one our nation was founded on.

And while the pressure on the White House has ratcheted up in recent weeks, Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the president is no closer to acting on his supposed "concern" than he was before. "We... know that they target Christians in the area too," Earnest said. "...That's one of the many reasons that we're concerned with [ISIS] and their tactics, which is that it's an affront to our values as a country to see people attacked, singled out, or slaughtered based on their religious beliefs." But, the reporter pressed, "You're not prepared to use the word 'genocide' yet in this situation?" Earnest, like Kerry, insisted they were reviewing "legal standards and precedents" -- something they've had more than a year to do.

Who knows how many Christians are paying for our silence with their lives? Every day that goes by without America's help is a lost opportunity. Pray for our brothers and sisters in Christ. And pray for our nation, which should always be leading on religious liberty -- not following.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Mr. President, Mr. Secretary: It is Genocide. Say so!"Ken Blackwell | Mar 07, 2016; http://townhall.com/columnists/kenblackwell/2016/03/07/mr-president-mr-secretary-it-is-genocide-say-so-n2129661

"... These murders, rapes, arsons, and kidnappings are taking place daily in regions where ISIS has extended its bloodstained reach.We see as well the destruction of homes, schools, and churches. Christians and other religious minorities are given the choice of conversion to Islam, paying extortionate sums (called jizya) to their persecutors, or fleeing.These are no “choices” at all. They are all violations of all internationally recognized human rightsEach act of ISIS violence further diminishes the moral weight of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. ...No persecution of Christians in history was more extensive than what we are seeing today."
"Pressure mounts on Obama to call Islamic State attacks on Christians ‘genocide’" - Olivier Knox, March 4, 2016;https://www.yahoo.com/politics/pressure-mounts-on-obama-to-call-islamic-state-163109049.html

Sunday, March 6, 2016

#1520 (3/6) SUNDAY SPECIAL: [God and Government]

[GOD AND GOVERNMENT]..."WHY WE HAVEN'T ENDORSED A CANDIDATE - Political Wisdom From Chuck Colson" - By: John Stonestreet|Breakpoint.org: March 2, 2016;
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/28952[AS I SEE IT: This article makes a great case for why government - and those who lead it - can never have the best answers for the problems our country faces. And I understand how a non-profit (and dare I say, "religious") organization or a church feels the need to be to refrain from endorsing any particular candidate (though I believe they tend to over-react and that he danger of negative consequences is not really there.) However, each believer is responsible to study the issues and the candidates to determine who they most trust to put in place the best public policies. (By the way, the reason I persevere in maintaining this blog and researching the best articles I can find regarding the issues of the day, is to help the readers to be informed citizens when they are called to select our leaders.) Further, I believe each of us should not only be sure TO VOTE for that candidate (tragically, on average only one-fourth of Christians actually vote) but should also not hesitate to share their choice with others. As for me, once again, I support TED CRUZ for President and if you read this past Wed's post #1516 you will learn why. - Stan]

daily_commentary_03_02_16
As I record this, it’s still hours before the results from Super Tuesday are in, and that’s intentional. I’m more convinced than ever that as we think about this election season, there are some pre-political Christian convictions that we need to remember.

Many evangelical leaders have publicly endorsed candidates, even earlier than usual, but the Colson Center will maintain Chuck’s practice of not doing so, as tempting as it is. But that ought not be confused with disinterest. Trust me—I’m very interested in this election, even more about what it’s revealing about the character of our nation than who will actually reach office.

But I’m also interested because, like each and every area of culture, Christ cries “Mine!” over politics and government, too. The question, as Chuck once said, is not whether Christians should be involved in politics, but how.

Because Americans are able to participate in a process that decides who governs us, it’s essential we do so. Simply put, Christians should vote because we can. This falls into the “whatever your hand finds to do…” category of Christian action.

But we ought not participate in order to gain political power. Christians are not, as Chuck used to say, a special interest group. And the only way to avoid becoming one is by being clear on the God-given purpose of the state. God intended government to preserve order and ensure justice. Obviously, it doesn’t always do so, especially after the fall. And so government has the additional purpose of restraining evil.

But we must not think that the state is the only institution, or even the most important institution, that shapes culture and impacts our lives. There are other divinely appointed institutions with their own scopes of authority. The family, churches, private associations, and local government structures also have “legitimate roles to play in a justly ordered society.”

Chuck Colson championed the importance of these other institutions, which Edmund Burke referred to as “little platoons. Chuck believed deeply in the Reformers’ idea of “Sphere Sovereignty,” the idea that God has ordained each institution to operate within certain boundaries of authority. And clearly, of all the institutions, the state is most prone these days to overstep its boundaries. In a BreakPoint commentary from 2010, Chuck declared, “Government has no legitimate interest in running car companies, the healthcare industry, or taking over student loans.”

Why? Well, in addition to exceeding authority, there’s also the issue of ability for each institution. The state’s tools are blunt and generalized, not precise and personal. Frankly, the state cannot solve all problems, and it oversteps its bounds when it tries to do so.

Here we have a clear window to look at our candidates and their grandiose promises. Pay close attention to what they say is broken and who they say is responsible for fixing it! Beware of any candidate promising to “fix” everything. They can’t—and it’s a problem if they try. Utopian thinking always fails, and very often results in tyranny.

And so, one of the best things Christians can do in this election cycle is to spend ample energy on rebuilding those “little platoons” that are upstream from politics and that strengthen civil society. After all, the best way to have a healthy state is to have a healthy culture. And the church and family are best suited for that.

And a final note. While there’s no religious test for office, there is a character test for leadership: integrity, honesty, and care for others. And ultimately, God decides elections. We ought PRAY that He’s gracious to us, and that He’ll give us better than we deserve.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

RESOURCES
"Student Loans and Uncle Sam: The Next Takeover"Chuck Colson | BreakPoint.org | March 11, 2010;http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/13973
BreakPoint This Week: Politics and Worldview - "How Belief Influences Government"John Stonestreet, Ed Stetzer | BreakPoint.org | December 12, 2015; http://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/discourse/entry/15/28601
"Politics and Virtue" - Glenn Sunshine | BreakPoint.org | October 15, 2012;http://www.colsoncenter.org/the-center/columns/indepth/18608-politics-and-virtue
God and Government -- Chuck Colson | Zondervan | January 2007

Saturday, March 5, 2016

#1519 (3/5) PRO-LIFE SAT: "How Gosnell’s Abortion ‘House of Horrors’ Led to This Week’s Supreme Court Case"

ATTENTIONPlease SCROLL DOWN this page to find the article titled on this post in LARGE BRIGHT BLUE CAPITAL LETTERS. Thank you.)

ATTENTION: "WHO'S LAND IS IT?"  - Check out the great video that explains what's behind the claim by "Palestinians" that Israel is THEIR homeland. - 

https://www.cbn.com/special/landdvd/landdvd.aspx?intcmp=A_FUND:ROS:LB:9O993WEERQA

PRAYER MATTERS:"To clasp the hands in prayer is the beginning of an uprising against the disorder of the world." - Karl Barth; "Prayer is inviting God into a seemingly impossible situation and trusting Him to accomplish His perfect and loving will." - Stan

PERSONAL PRAISE/PRAYER REQUESTS – 3/3 – 1)  PTL! My cat PURRTY is completely healed. 2) THANKS to my friends/former roommates Mike Rebholz and Dan Lum for helping me yesterday (3/2) to get my blog page restored to what it should be.! and 3) PRAY as I still have not determined the cause of a water overflow problem (?) on my property. (THANKS to friend Russ Martin for repairing the ONE working toilet I have.) 


PRAY FOR AMERICATHANK GOD for His many blessings on America throughout it's history. May we then ask that AMERICA once again be a blessing TO GOD, by once again submitting to HIS will in our affairs - both personal and national - that He may truly "heal our land." (2 Chron. 7:14) Short of that, we should not be saying "God Bless America"but instead "God be merciful towards America!" - Rev. Franklin Graham once delivered this insight to his Facebook friends: "I do know that the president defends Islam and chastises Christians, rebukes our allies and befriends our enemies, and fully supports gay marriages and abortion but denies the religious freedoms of those who don't agree. Our nation is ridiculed abroad and morally crumbling within. We are in trouble. We have turned our back on God.")

PRAY FOR OUR NEXT SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: We need to be praying that whoever fills Justice Scalia's seat on the Court will also exercise judicial wisdom and restraint. Pray that the next justice will consistently uphold the Constitution and not seek to make new law. For our sake and that of generations to come.

PRAY FOR OUR LEADERS Let's be praying that they might be Spirit-filled, leading us with Godly wisdom and integrity; that the Congress and the the President will find only pass legislation and enact policies that will benefit America today and future generations and NOT do any lasting harm.

Pray DAILY:1For the NATIONAL ELECTIONS IN NOVEMBER. Pray that Americans will elect leaders at the state (Governors, state legislators) and national(Congress and President)levels who have Spirit-filled wisdom, integrity, and a Biblical world-view, who will know and do what is best for us today as well as for future generations. 2For the the SUPREME COURTPray that the justices will demonstrate more judicial RESTRAINT rather than judicial activisim as it has the past few years, esp. on issues having negative impact for generations yet born. Pray in particular that religious liberty will be defended rather than eroded by any decision handed down."5 Cases To Watch At the S.C. In 2016" - IFA, On Watch in Washington, 2/3/2016;http://www.getamericapraying.com/blog/on-watch-in-washington-february-3-2016/#CASES

World-Wide Prayer Requests:
UPDATE ON PASTOR SAHEED"Prayer Need Is Great as Abedini's Consider Their Future" - CBN News,01-28-2016;
http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2016/January/Prayer-Need-is-Great-as-Abedinis-Consider-Their-Future;"Free at Last, Free at Last!" - Tony Perkins, Washington Update, Jan.26,2016; http://www.frc.org/updatearticle/20160126/free-last
UPDATE/1-15: "Asia Bibi Forgives Persecutors from Pakistani Prison" - CBN News; 1-15-2016;http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2016/January/Asia-Bibi-Forgives-Persecutors-from-Pakistani-Prison
7/24 - ASIA BIBI CONVICTION OVERTURNED! PRAY THAT SHE (IN VERY POOR HEALTH) MIGHT BE RELEASED WHEN HER CASE IS REVIEWED SOON. - A Christian mom had been sentenced to death in Pakistan for her faith. Asia Bibi was falsely accused of “blasphemy” – speaking against the prophet Muhammad. Now this wife and mother of five will hang for her Christian faith.She would be the first woman executed under Pakistan’s Shariah blasphemy law.This is the ultimate human rights violation. We’re mobilizing our international affiliate – the European Centre for Law and Justice – and its partner in Pakistan to stop this atrocity. Go to http://aclj.org/persecuted-church/breaking-pakistans-supreme-court-accepts-petition-to-hear-asia-bibis-appeal;please add your signature to over 300,000 others AND continue to pray for Asia Bibi.

PRAY for the ON-GOING crisis now happening in IRAQ/ SYRIA. Pray that coalition forces will be able to destroy the leadership and infrastructure of ISIS.

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

"HOW GOSNELL'S ABORTION ABORTIOIN 'HOUSE OF HORRORS' LED TO THIS WEEK'S SUPREME COURT CASE"Sarah Torre/ Mar. 1, 2016/ http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/01/how-gosnells-abortion-house-of-horrors-led-to-this-weeks-supreme-court-case/

Dr. Kermit Gosnell. (Photo: Yong Kim/Philadelphia Inquirer/MCT/ Newscom)

The Supreme Court [heard] oral argument in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt this week, a case challenging a Texas law that requires the abortion industry to follow commonsense health and safety regulationsPassage of the Texas bill was spurred by the discovery of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, the now infamous late-term abortionist who ran a filthy “house of horrors” in Philadelphia before he was convicted of murder.

The details of that case help explain why Texas (and other states) are requiring abortion facilities to meet the same basic cleanliness, safety, and staffing requirements as similar outpatient surgery facilities and ensuring doctors performing abortions can admit and care for patients in a hospital if something goes wrong.

* Read More About This Supreme Court Case in a New Heritage Foundation Legal Memo: "Abortion, Admitting Privileges, and the Supreme Court: Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt" - http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2016/02/abortion-admitting-privileges-and-the-supreme-court-whole-womans-health-v-hellerstedt

Gosnell’s ‘Filthy’ Facility and Incompetent Staff  - 
     On May 13, 2013, just a few weeks before the Texas legislature would pass H.B. 2, a Philadelphia jury convicted late-term abortionist Gosnell of first degree murder of three infants born alive after botched abortions and involuntary manslaughter in the death of a 41 year-old Karnamaya Mongar. The almost 300-page grand jury report published in 2011 describes Gosnell as someone who “under the pretext of providing medical care, routinely killed viable babies and irreparably damaged women.”

The grand jury report describes Gosnell’s clinic as a “wretched, filthy space”, where “[d]irty facilities; unsanitary instruments; an absence of functioning monitoring and resuscitation equipment; the use of cheap, but dangerous, drugs; illegal procedures; and inadequate emergency access for when things inevitably went wrong, all put patients at grave risk – every day.” In addition to outdated equipment, “[s]uction tubing, which was used for abortion procedures – and doubled as the only available suction source for resuscitation – was corroded.” Prosecutors noted the facility was marked by “blood-splattered floors, and blood-stained chairs in which patients waited for and then recovered from abortions.”

Many of Gosnell’s staff were “unlicensed and untrained” in the work they performed on mostly low-income women in Philadelphia, including a then-15 year old girl who sometimes assisted in abortion procedures and administered prescription drugs to patients.

The Death of Karnamaya Mongar - 
     Gosnell’s lack of concern for his patients, woefully inadequate staff, dangerous facility, and illegal use of prescription drugs came to a head in the tragic death of Karnamaya Mongar, a recent immigrant to the United States.

On Nov. 19, 2009, Mongar was given large and repeated doses of multiple sedative drugs in preparation for a late-term abortion procedure at Gosnell’s clinic. A few hours after first being administered the drugs, staff noticed that she was unresponsive but did not call 911. Mongar’s medical file was not handed to emergency responders upon request, but was allegedly modified to obscure how much medication had been administered and later brought to the hospital by one of Gosnell’s staff.

Gosnell failed to provide life-saving drugs and delayed calling 911 without any justification. When paramedics finally arrived, they attempted to resuscitate Mongar and take her to a hospital. But, as the grand jury report details, Mongar’s “slim chances of survival were seriously hampered because it was exceedingly difficult for responders to get her to the waiting ambulance. The emergency exit was locked…. After cutting the locks, responders had to waste precious more minutes trying to maneuver through the narrow cramped hallways that could not accommodate a stretcher.” ...
 The next day, Karnamaya Mongar was officially pronounced dead. The medical examiner noted that the cardiac arrest, which led to her death, happened “because somebody gave her a Demerol overdose.”

Many other women who made it out of Gosnell’s facility alive were either injured or exposed to infectious diseases because of the clinic’s unsanitary conditions and incompetent staff. Remarkably, state agencies charged with protecting health and safety had failed to inspect Gosnell’s operation for 17 years, despite numerous complaints.

Gosnell’s Unsafe Practices Are Not Unique and Neither Is Karnamaya’s Wrongful Death
     Sadly, while Gosnell is perhaps one of the worst offenders, many of his unsafe practices are not outliers in the abortion industry. As Denise Burke, Vice President of Americans United for Life explains: “Over just the last six years, more than 170 abortion providers in 30 states have faced investigations, criminal charges, administrative complaints, and civil lawsuits or have been cited for violating state laws governing the provision of abortion.” Some of those lawsuits, investigations, and criminal charges stemmed from women who lost their lives at the hands of an unscrupulous abortion industry.

For instance, in 2012, Tonya Reaves, a 24-yr old mother of a toddler, bled to death following a second-trimester abortion procedure and after the Chicago Planned Parenthood clinic’s staff reportedly waited over five hours before transferring Tonya to a hospital.

In 2010, 22-yr old Laura Hope Smith died during an abortion procedure in Massachusetts. The clinic reportedly did not have the equipment to monitor vital signs and the staff (including the abortion doctor) lacked certification in CPR. In 2013, Jennifer Morbelli, a 29-yr old teacher, died from complications of a late-term abortion procedure in Maryland by LeRoy Carhart, who had allegedly left town shortly after the procedure and was unreachable when Morbelli suffered emergency complications that led to her death.

The Need to Increase Health and Safety Standards - 
     In light of the disturbing evidence, the grand jury in the Gosnell case specifically recommended that Pennsylvania elevate the safety and cleanliness standards for abortion facilities to those of other outpatient surgical facilities: “If oversight agencies expect to prevent future Gosnells, they must find the fortitude to enact and enforce the necessary regulations. Rules must be more than words on paper. We recommend that the Pennsylvania Department of Health plug the hole it has created for abortion clinics. They should be explicitly regulated as ambulatory surgical facilities, so that they are inspected annually and held to the same standards as all other outpatient procedure centers.”

Since 2011, Pennsylvania and at least five other states, including Texas, have passed laws requiring abortion clinics to meet the same health and safety standards as ambulatory surgical facilities. More than a dozen require doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital.

The Texas law and others like it are reasonable and necessary. Yet, many of these laws could be in jeopardy should the Supreme Court block states’ ability to continue appropriately regulating abortion facilities and providers.All Americans, on either side of the abortion debate, should support elevating the health and safety of women and the Supreme Court should recognize state’s legitimate interests in doing so.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Sarah Torre focuses on policy issues related to religious liberty, marriage and family as policy analyst in the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation. Read her research.

Friday, March 4, 2016

#1518 (3/4) "5 Key Exchanges From Biggest Abortion Supreme Court Case in a Decade"

"5 KEY EXCHANGES FROM BIGGEST ABORTION SUPREME COURT CASE IN A DECADE"Elizabeth Slattery /  Hans von Spakovsky / March 02, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/02/5-key-exchanges-from-biggest-abortion-supreme-court-case-in-a-decade/

The justices would do well to uphold Texas’s reasonable law and reconsider the long, deadly shadow that its abortion decisions have cast over American law, medicine, and society. (Photo: Shawn Thew/EPA/Newscom)

Wednesday, while a huge crowd of protesters stood in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building, the justices heard oral argument in the first major abortion case in nearly a decadeIn Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the Supreme Court is considering whether Texas’ H.B. 2 law—a commonsense reform intended to increase women’s health and safety—has the purpose or effect of imposing an “undue burden” on women seeking abortions. The law requires abortion clinic doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic and clinics to meet the minimum health and safety standards that other ambulatory surgical centers have to meet.

* To Read More on This Topic: “Abortion, Admitting Privileges, and the Supreme Court: Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt” - http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2016/02/abortion-admitting-privileges-and-the-supreme-court-whole-womans-health-v-hellerstedt

Here are five key exchanges from the oral argument:
1. Scant Evidence of Clinics Impacted - Several of the justices pressed Stephanie Toti, the lawyer representing the abortion doctors and clinics, for evidence showing that the law has had an impact on clinics, causing their closure.

Justice Samuel Alito pointed out that in a similar case in Louisiana, the challengers included specific data on the number of abortions being performed and the capacity of each clinic. He wanted to know why Toti had not produced the same individual evidence on the relatively small number of abortion clinics that had closed.

Alito referred to an article in the Huffington Post that said that one of the clinics the plaintiff claimed closed due to the Texas law had actually closed due to a reduction in state funding, which had nothing to do with H.B. 2.

When Toti protested that that article wasn’t in the record, Alito pointed out that she had lots of items in her brief that were not in the record. In fact, Alito asked, wasn’t it true that at least three new clinics that meet the health and safety standards had opened up since the law passed? Toti couldn’t deny that.

2. Harsh Questions From Liberal Justices - While defending H.B. 2, Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller received some harsh questioning from several of the liberal justices, particularly Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who seemed shocked that Texas had passed a law requiring abortion clinics to meet the same standards as other ambulatory surgical centers or requiring their doctors to meet the professional standards of doctors admitted to practice in hospitals.

Justice Stephen Breyer also lectured Keller on various aspects of the case. But when Keller attempted to discuss the value of requiring admitting privileges, pointing out that the National Abortion Federation had made that same recommendation in 2000 (before it changed its mind), Breyer cut him off. Breyer acknowledged that he was not questioning the intent of the legislature in passing this statute; it was clearly done to advance the safety and health of women.

He was, however, concerned about the manner the state chose to advance those interests. Thus, Breyer’s line of questioning suggests that there may not be four votes in favor of the plaintiffs’ claim that the Texas legislators’ ulterior motive in passing this law was to close down abortion clinics, not improve the safety of clinics.

3.) More Fact-Finding - At one point, Justice Anthony Kennedy asked Toti whether the Court should remand the case back to the lower court for more fact-finding. Kennedy is considered the key vote in this case, and he seemed somewhat hesitant at today’s argument.

4.) Sotomayor’s Extra Question - At the end of Toti’s time at the podium (and after Chief Justice John Roberts had already given her additional time), Justice Sonia Sotomayor continued asking a question even after Roberts said, “Thank you, counsel,” which is the traditional manner in which the chief lets the lawyer know that her time has ended.

U.S. Solicitor General Don Verrilli, who had divided argument time with Toti, spoke second. He argued that if Texas’ law goes into effect, the remaining clinics will not be able to meet the increased demand of new patients if other clinics close. But as Alito noted, the plaintiffs hadn’t provided any evidence on that point, so the Supreme Court shouldn’t speculate about that.

5.) Potential Medical Complications

Several of the justices today did not seem to want to hear about the complications that can arise from abortions, including hemorrhage, infection, uterine perforation, anesthesia complications, and other problems that can lead to hysterectomies or death, which show why this law is necessary.

Sotomayor claimed that the Gosnell clinic was clearly an outlier, but Alito jumped in to note that one of the amicus curiae “friend of the Court” briefs that was filed in the case described “appalling violations” at plaintiff Whole Woman’s facilities, including “[h]oles in the floor—where rats could come in, the lack of any equipment to adequately sterilize instruments.” Suddenly Gosnell’s “house of horrors” didn’t sound like such an outlier.

* To Read More on This Topic: “How Gosnell’s Abortion ‘House of Horrors’ Led to This Week’s Supreme Court Case” - http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/01/how-gosnells-abortion-house-of-horrors-led-to-this-weeks-supreme-court-case/

As Texas has shown, admitting privilege are important for women’s health and safety because otherwise a patient who experiences complications following an abortion will arrive at an emergency room without the doctor who actually performed the abortion. This leaves the emergency room physician with no access to her medical records, her history, or information about the procedure. All this increases the likelihood of medical errors and harm to the patient. The admitting privileges requirement also ensures rigorous scrutiny of a doctor’s professional qualifications and surgical skills.

The same is true of requiring abortion clinics to meet the minimum standards set for other ambulatory surgical centers. These requirements improve the quality of care that women receive. This is true even in the cases of drug-induced abortions, where Sotomayor and Ginsburg questioned the need for such higher standards. But as Keller pointed out, drug-induced abortions actually have a higher complication rate than surgical abortions.

Opportunity to Ensure Health and Safety - In the more than 40 years since the Supreme Court invented a constitutional right to abortion, the abortion industry has evaded and fought commonsense regulations at every step. The result has been horrors like those found in the Gosnell clinic, which for years harmed women and killed children born alive.

The Supreme Court now has an opportunity to confirm that states have a legitimate interest in ensuring the safety and health of women who enter abortion clinics. The essence of the argument made by the plaintiffs in this case and all of their amici is that the ability of abortion clinics to remain open—even under substandard conditions—should outweigh the state’s ability to put women’s health and safety first.

The justices would do well to uphold Texas’ reasonable law and reconsider the long, deadly shadow that its abortion decisions have cast over American law, medicine, and society.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Elizabeth Slattery writes about the rule of law, the proper role of the courts, civil rights and equal protection, and the scope of constitutional provisions such as the Commerce Clause and the Recess Appointments Clause as a legal fellow in the Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Read her research. 
Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There’s a Lot at Stake With Texas Abortion Case"- Arina O. Grossu/ March 01, 2016 / 
http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/01/theres-a-lot-at-stake-with-texas-abortion-case/
"...Nationally, an estimated “26,500 women experienced complications and approximately 3,180 required hospitalization in 2011” for first-trimester abortions alone. In addition, as Federal Judge Edith Jones noted in her opinion for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on this case: “Planned Parenthood conceded that at least 210 women in Texas annually must be hospitalized after seeking an abortion...
"The 25 Craziest Pro-"Abortion Signs Outside the Supreme Court Today" - Katie Yoder and Mairead McArdle, Mar 2, 2016;http://www.lifenews.com/2016/03/02/the-25-craziest-pro-abortion-signs-outside-the-supreme-court-today/ 

Thursday, March 3, 2016

#1517 (3/3) "Oscars 2016 - UNDERSTANDING CULTURE THROUGH FILM"

"Oscars 2016 - UNDERSTANDING CULTURE THROUGH FILM" - By: Eric Metaxas|Published: March 1, 2016;
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/28944[AS I SEE IT: I used to never miss the Academy Awards (now called the Oscars) growing up but have become less and less inclined to recent years because of the poor quality of the films and the often political agendas promoted there. But somehow I admit I often end up getting sucked into watching it, even as there are always disappointing aspects. What saddens me is to consider the excessive decadence of wealth and glamour (in contrast to all that is going on in the REAL (vs. reel) world) that's put on display for people to drool over and the world to use to hold America in scorn. (BTW, did you know that each presenter was given a "gift package" worth over $200,000 for their 2 minutes of  "work.") ANYWAY, I was fascinated to read the cultural analysis of the movies highlighted this year in this article. I urge you to also not miss reading the article written by the late Chuck Colson that's noted at the end of the "Resources" section. - Stan]
daily_commentary_03_01_16
What do this year’s Oscars reveal about the culture and why Christians must join the conversation?

There are few movies as beloved as Gene Kelly’s classic musical, “Singing in the Rain.” It’s a story about Hollywood’s awkward transition from silent pictures to—as they called them in the 1920s—“Talkies.” During one scene in which the characters watch their first “talkie,” a mogul of the old-school silent film industry scoffs, “It’ll never catch on.”

Well, it’s clear that film as we know it has not only “caught on,” but as Sunday’s Academy Awards remind us, it’s become probably the most visible expression of culture. But the Oscars reveal another transition taking place in Hollywood.

At first glance, this year’s nominees look like very different movies. One takes place on Mars, another in the American wilderness, and another in a nightmarish, dystopian future. But on closer inspection, writer and producer Bryan Coley says the nominees all have one thing in common: They’re about survival.

Bryan, who’s the Founder and Chief Creative Director of “Art Within,” calls movies the “cultural texts” of our time. John Stonestreet spoke with him on our latest episode of “BreakPoint This Week,” and got his take on this year’s Oscar nominees. He explained that survival is a theme Hollywood has wrestled with for almost fifteen years. Since 9/11, Americans have been subconsciously frightened. And this year’s nominees for Best Picture reflect that same fear.

In “Mad Max,” “The Martian,” “The Revenant,” and “Room,” characters fight for their lives against forces outside of their control. In nominees like “Brooklyn,” “Spotlight,” and “The Big Short,” characters also struggle to survive, albeit figuratively.

What’s different about this year’s nominees is the answer they offer. For years, our culture has focused on superheroes who swoop in to trounce the bad guys and save the day.

But moviegoers aren’t looking to the skies anymore. Instead, we’re looking amongst ourselves for ordinary saviors. And in this year’s batch of Oscar hopefuls, survival depends not on our heroes’ ability to leap tall buildings in a single bound, but on their grit, their scientific knowledge, and their moral fiber.

Take “The Martian,” for example. When Matt Damon’s character, finds himself stranded on the red planet, he relies on his own ingenuity and determination to survive. And rather than the big wigs at NASA saving him, it’s his own crew—in an act of mutiny—who return to Mars and rescue him.

This theme of ordinary people banding together against corrupt institutions runs all through the year’s top films—not to mention politics. For American culture, explains Bryan, “us and them,” has been replaced by “we.”

He points to the “we-centric” way the millennial generation lives, [sharing] each other’s cars with Uber…each other’s bedrooms with Air BNB…each other’s experience with Periscope, and…each other’s statuses with Facebook.”

And this new reality has got to affect the way we Christians engage our culture—at least if we hope to be heard. In John’s interview on “BreakPoint This Week,” Bryan offered some practical suggestions on how to do that without compromising our message.

First, we’ve got to humble ourselves. Instead of acting like superheroes come to save the day, we need to recognize that we need saving, too! And when we point people to Christ, it’s got to be Christ manifested in our lives—not just to an abstract idea. And we must embrace the power of stories—or as Bryan Coley calls them, “moving pictures. This isn’t new. When Jesus wanted to communicate eternal truths to his culture, he didn’t use doctrinal treatises, but “moving pictures,”—so to speak—of His own.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

FURTHER READING AND INFORMATIONLearn the messages behind the movies, and do your part to promote the really great stories that are out there. Listen to Bryan Coley on the latest BreakPoint This Week broadcast as he talks about worldview in the movies and in our culture. And check out his website, Art Within, linked below. [Be sure to also check out Chuck Colson's article listed last.]
RESOURCES
BreakPoint This Week: "The Oscars—A Christian Perspective"John Stonestreet, Ed Stetzer | BreakPoint.org | Feb.26,2016; http://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/discourse/entry/15/28919
"Art Within" - website - http://www.artwithin.org/
"Is Anyone Out There?: The Moral Universe of Film & Television"Chuck Colson| BreakPoint.org;http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/breakpoint-commentaries-search/entry/13/10899
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Oscar Night: Hypocrisy Dressed to the Nines"Larry Elder | Mar 03, 2016;
http://townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/2016/03/03/oscar-night-hypocrisy-dressed-to-the-nines-n2127958/page/full

Wednesday, March 2, 2016

#1516 (3/2) "A Respectful Appeal To Trump Supporters"

"A RESPECTFUL APPEAL TO TRUMP SUPPORTERS" - David Limbaugh | Feb 26, 2016; http://townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/2016/02/26/a-respectful-appeal-to-trump-supporters-n2124824/page/full [AS I SEE IT: In my entire adult life, as a conservative Christian, I have never been as frustrated as I have been when I see the continued attraction of Donald Trump. As I said to a friend the other day, it's especially frustrating when I see those who call themselves evangelical Christians coming out to support this man who is clearly an opportunist and I believe a demagogue.The bottom line: Until now, I have resisted posting but a few articles related to the ongoing campaign for President as I try to focus this blog on issues, not personalities. And I will continue to do so. However, with THIS post I want it to be known that I fully agree with the writer of this article; AND I strongly urge you, when given the opportunity, to please consider TED CRUZ FOR PRESIDENT. Please read this article to learn why. And please note the links to other articles noted afterwards. - Stan]

As a Reagan conservative this is a particularly difficult primary season. We finally have what many of us consider a near-perfect candidate on the issues at a perfect time in our history, but obstacles persist.

Admittedly, it's not like America got in this desperate condition accidentally. For decades, we have been electing leaders who have been undermining the American dream, and in the last two presidential elections the majority has virtually furnished what could be the final nails in the nation's coffin. Thankfully, Obama had reverse coattails. His agenda was decisively rejected in both the 2010 and 2014 congressional elections, which led many of us to believe his policies weren't popular even if he was.

If there was any doubt about the public angst over the status quo, it has been removed with the rise of Trump on the right and Bernie Sanders on the left. It's bizarre that some voters' reaction to the failure of leftist policies is to double-down on them, but I've come to expect no less from leftist voters. Sophisticated analysis aside, it's clear that the public is mad as hell and is not going to take it anymore.

What a perfect storm for the quintessentially conservative candidate, Sen. Ted Cruz, a freedom lover's one-man dream team. He's not just an ideal constitutional conservative; he is perfectly situated to capitalize on the anti-establishment sentiment in the GOP electorate because he has been in the trenches, proving he'll fight the insiders from within.

Then in rides brash businessman Donald Trump -- a wildcard of a political maverick -- and sucks all the anti-establishment oxygen out of the politisphere. He apparently has just the right personality, just the right bluster, just the right bravado, and more than enough money and moxie to mesmerize the disenfranchised class -- those voters who have seen no evidence that any politician, once elected, has any intention of addressing their concerns.

But is their anger skewing their vision and sabotaging their judgment? They seem to have rallied around Trump because he's convinced them he would close our borders, rebuild our military, create jobs and, overall, "make America great again."But would he? And even if he would, would he inflict other damage? 

To the first question my honest answer is: I don't know. On the second, I think that given his history of supporting liberal causes and politicians and many recent statements betraying an instinct for statist solutions, there's a good chance he'd inflict damage, on the courts and elsewhere.

Given the alternatives, it would be a reckless decision to bet the survival of the nation I love and my children's future largely on powerful rhetoric tailored for itching ears. On something so critically important I have to have more assurance than bold promises from a man with -- viewed in the most favorable light -- a stunningly ambivalent political history.

Meaning no offense, to support Donald Trump for the GOP nomination is a crapshoot -- a blind wager based on nothing more than violently shifting sands. How does this make sense when I can choose the real deal in Ted Cruz -- a man whose genuine patriotism and constitutional conservatism seep from his very pores, a man who is off-the-charts brilliant and so right on the issues that one's authenticity as a conservative could be measured, quite literally, by how closely his views conform to Ted's views and record?

Cruz is a full spectrum Reagan conservative, on economic, defense and social issues. He has concrete plans, not generalities, to unleash economic growth, restructure entitlements and begin reducing the debt, rebuild the military, seal our borders, defeat our terrorist enemies, reform health care, appoint solid, originalist judges and protect our religious liberties and innocent life.

It is tragic that people have concluded that you have to have a person with no experience inside politics to take on the establishment. Under that theory, Donald Trump would immediately become tainted on his first day in office. Additionally, Ted Cruz has actually already fought the establishment -- at great cost to himself.

Cruz is the antithesis of a politician with his finger in the wind. He is the one who took on ethanol on the eve of the Iowa election. He took on his entire party in budget fights with President Obama because he promised his constituents he would and because he believes it was the right thing to do.

It's ironic that Donald Trump, hailed as the anti-establishment savior, has supported and funded establishment and liberal causes much of his adult life, and to this day is getting less opposition from the establishment than bad boy Ted Cruz.

Even though Trump and a number of other Republican candidates have ganged up on Cruz, he has not changed his positions midstream out of political expediency. Even though he's not the only one whose campaign has been accused of dirty tricks, Cruz is the only one who has apologized for anything and has recently fired his communications director.

I appeal to Trump supporters to reconsider your decision. Why take a risk on the unknown when you have from Ted Cruz an established record of bold, anti-establishment action based on tried and tested policy solutions? Don't be put off by the label "conservative" just because too many politicians self-identifying as such didn't deliver. Ted Cruz deserves your consideration precisely because he did. He is also, from all indications, more electable in the general election.

I believe you are patriots and I understand and share your frustration. But I implore you to channel it wisely, judiciously and constructively. If we bet wrong we might not get another chance.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

David Limbaugh, brother of radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, is an expert on law and politics. He recently authored the New York Times best-selling book: "Jesus on Trial: A Lawyer Affirms the Truth of the Gospel."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ted Cruz to Evangelicals: Upcoming Election More Important Than Ever" - CBN News,02-28-2016;
http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2016/February/Cruz-Makes-His-Pitch-to-Evangelicals [Go to this site to view an interview he did that demonstrates why he IS the best person to be our next President.]
"Ted Cruz For President" - By Steve Berman|Feb.29,2016,http://theresurgent.com/ted-cruz-for-president/
"Why Max Lucado Broke His Political Silence for Trump" - In the face of a candidate’s antics, ‘America’s Pastor’ speaks out. Interview by Richard Clark/ FEBRUARY 26, 2016;http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/february-web-only/why-max-lucado-broke-his-political-silence-for-trump.html?utm_source=ctweekly-html&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_term=18503153&utm_content=419314993&utm_campaign=email
"Pro-Lifers Shouldn’t Fall For Donald Trump’s Latest Abortion Con" - JULY 23, 2015;  By Philip Wegmann;http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/23/pro-lifers-shouldnt-fall-for-donald-trumps-latest-abortion-con/

Tuesday, March 1, 2016

#1515 (3/1) "Zika and Abortion Part II - HISTORY IS RHYMING"

"Zika and Abortion Part II - HISTORY IS RHYMING" - By: John Stonestreet|Breakpoint.org:Feb.29,2016;
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/28938
daily_commentary_02_12_16
American abortion advocates are using the Zika virus as an excuse to spread abortion in Latin America. We’ve seen this movie before.

More than fifty years ago, doctors in the U.S. and Western Europe prescribed the drug thalidomide to their female patients for, among other things, nausea and morning sickness in pregnant women.
The drug had tragic outcomes whose effects are still being felt today.

In the late 1950s, reports of abnormalities in children whose mothers had used the drug during pregnancy began to come in. The best-known and most heartbreaking of these abnormalities was missing limbs. Not surprisingly, within a few years the drug was taken off the market, but the tragic story of thalidomide doesn’t end there. As historian Daniel K. Williams tells us in his new book, “Defenders of the Unborn,” the thalidomide tragedy opened the door to legalized abortion in the United States.

Supporters of liberalized abortion laws seized upon the tragedy to justify expanding the availability of abortion, which at the time was mostly limited to cases where the mother’s life was in danger. They argued that women who had taken thalidomide should have the right to abort their unborn child, even though there was no way of knowing whether their babies had been affected by the drug. Their argument, as Williams documents, was that the fear of giving birth to a handicapped child was enough to justify expanding the availability of abortion.

The tragic pictures of children without limbs, along with some high-profile cases, swayed state legislatures, including California, in 1966. By 1972, twenty states had legalized abortion in instances where the mother’s life and physical health were not threatened.

Fifty years later, in a different part of the Americas, history, if not repeating itself, is at least looking to rhyme, as Mark Twain might have saidEric Metaxas recently told you on BreakPoint about how the Zika epidemic in Latin America is being used by abortion-rights supporters as a wedge against the region’s protection of unborn life. The “thin edge” of this wedge is the presumed link between Zika and microcephaly, “a ‘neurodevelopmental disorder’ characterized by significantly smaller head size.”

I say “presumed” because, as a recent New York Times article tells readers, “the link between microcephaly in infants and Zika has not been proven.” All we know for certain is that international health officials “strongly suspect” that there is a link. An example of this uncertainty is Colombia. While thousands of pregnant Colombian women are known to have contracted Zika, there are no confirmed cases of any of them giving birth to children with microcephaly. As Colombia’s Deputy Health Minister told the Times, “There’s a lot we don’t know about [Zika]. What we know [is that] there’s a growing disparity between what we’re seeing in Colombia with Zika and the experience in Brazil.”

Notwithstanding this “growing disparity,” the Times and others are certain that liberalizing abortion laws is now the way to go. This ignores not only the actual facts of the Zika epidemic, it ignores the most important fact of all: the humanity of the children in the womb.

As was the case fifty-plus years ago, anxiety over the possibility of giving birth to a child with disabilities is regarded as a sufficient reason to kill the unborn child. The message is clear: Anything less than a “perfect child” is disposable. In an age of prenatal genetic testing, the implications of this message are chilling.

And as history shows, it won’t stop there. Zika, like thalidomide, is part of a wedge whose goal is abortion for any reason. Fifty years ago, one tragedy led to a much greater one whose effects are still with us. Let’s pray that the same thing doesn’t happen again.

Maybe it’s the people of Latin America who should be building a wall on their border.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION - ... believers need to stand in the gap for the unborn, continuing to speak the truth that every child is made in God's image and has the right to life.  A possible disability does not negate that truth. For an in-depth study of the history of the pro-life movement, check out Daniel Williams' book Defenders of the Unborn, available on Amazon at the link below.

RESOURCES
"Zika and Abortion, A Tale of Two Viruses: The Imperialism of Death"Eric Metaxas | BreakPoint.org | February 12, 2016;http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/breakpoint-commentaries-archive/entry/13/28862
Defenders of the Unborn: The Pro-Life Movement before Roe v. Wade Daniel K. Williams | Oxford University Press | January 2016