#1673 (8/7) SUNDAY SPECIAL: "...Be Prepared To Share"

"Metaxas Speaks Out, So Can You - BE PREPARED TO SHARE" - By: John Stonestreet| Breakpoint.org: August 4, 2016; http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/29657

We may never get the chance to explain our Christian views on national television, but we have more opportunities than we often think.

Recently on CNN, my BreakPoint co-host Eric Metaxas demonstrated, live and in-person, how to talk with those with whom you clearly disagree. In a discussion with host Don Lemon about Hillary Clinton’s choice of Tim Kaine as running mate, Eric articulated that the Democratic platform had become synonymous with the most radical pro-abortion position possible.

Lemon replied, “Well, Planned Parenthood certainly has a very high opinion of Tim Kaine.” To which Eric replied, “Right, now that he’s out of the womb.”

It was a classic Eric line, that delivered truth about abortion and Planned Parenthood rarely heard on a network like CNN. And I think it was a demonstration of what it means to be “always be ready, in season and out of season,” as the Scripture exhorts us.

Now look, Eric and I don’t agree on everything. For example, though you’ll never hear Eric or me endorse a political candidate or party here on BreakPoint, Eric has voiced political opinions that I don’t share on his radio show and other platforms. And he’s completely free to do that.

Still, Eric is an example of how to speak truth in a hostile public square—even when people don’t want to hear it. That’s what he showed on CNN the other night.

It’s tempting for you and me to think, “I’ve never been on TV. I don’t have opportunities like he has.” No! We have all kinds of opportunities—over the backyard fence as Chuck Colson liked to say, across the Thanksgiving table with relatives who disagree, and certainly on social media every single day. These opportunities matter.

Now if we’re honest, we often feel pressure in those settings to be silent. My friend Michael Miller calls this “cocktail party pressure.” You know, an awkward topic comes up, like abortion, evolution, same-sex “marriage,” and you worry that if you state your views, you’ll risk the proverbial “record scratch” moment in the conversation.

Eric and I were on stage behind Chuck Colson as he was giving his last public speech. The topic was “The Spiral of Silence,” a theory developed by a German sociologist, which explains how people fear social isolation to the point that they generally go along with what they think is the popular opinion—even if they object to that opinion themselves. Instead of speaking up, they remain silent. And their silence encourages others to remain silent.

We must break the spiral of silence when it comes to these issues that matter. How? First, we have to have confidence in the truth of the Christian worldview: Not that Christian truth is true just for Christians, but simply true. In other words, that the Christian worldview is the best explanation of reality there is. When you have this sort of confidence, you know that speaking the truth is an act of love, whether or not it’s perceived as such.

Second, with that confidence, we can respect those with whom we disagree. After all, the Christian worldview establishes that the most important thing about any person is not their views, but their identity as bearers of God’s image. So we respect those with whom we disagree, even as we have the courage to disagree with them.

Chuck Colson often said that Christians don’t impose our beliefs on anyone: We propose a better way. And unlike if we were on CNN, we have the time, when we speak with friends and neighbors, to explain, to listen, to question assumptions, and to reaffirm our love and care for those in front of us. If tempers flare, we can walk away—and make an invitation for future discussion when emotions die down.

And, finally, we have to count the cost. There are essentials, and there are non-essentials. So let’s be wise as to when and where we speak. Social media battles are rarely won by anyone, for example. But when called upon, Christians must speak—with clarity, with conviction, and with compassion. And as Eric Metaxas showed Don Lemon, having a quick wit doesn’t hurt either.

[bold, italics, colored, and underlined emphasis mine]

FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION - As John has encouraged, let's be proactive in talking about and walking out our faith in Christ. Wherever God has placed us—on TV or at the backyard grill—we're to be witnesses to His love, truth, mercy and justice.

"Clip of Eric Metaxas and Don Lemon, CNN" - Carly Hoilman | The Blaze | July 24, 2016; http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/07/24/see-cnn-hosts-reaction-when-pro-life-guest-says-this-about-tim-kaine-and-planned-parenthood/
Onward: Engaging the Culture Without Losing the Gospel- Russell Moore | B&H Publishing Group| August 2015
Fool’s Talk: Recovering the Art of Christian Persuasion- Os Guinness | IVP Books | July 2015

#1672 (8/6) PRO-LIFE SAT: "America's Extreme Abortion Laws - THE SUPREME COURT VS. THE PEOPLE"

"America's Extreme Abortion Laws - THE SUPREME COURT VS. THE PEOPLE" - By: John Stonestreet|Breakpoint.org: July 29, 2016; http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/29633

We know what the majority on the Supreme Court thinks about abortion. But increasingly, the court of public opinion is issuing a different ruling.

It hasn’t even been a month since the Supreme Court handed down a decision many saw as a massive setback for the pro-life movement. But new data shows that it’s the supporters of legal abortion, not pro-lifers, who face an uncertain future. PR Newswire reports that the Catholic organization, the Knights of Columbus, conducted a scientific survey of a thousand Americans, 18 and over. And the results were stunning.

Although around half of Americans still call themselves “pro-choice,” seventy-eight percent—nearly eight in ten in this country—support substantial restrictions on abortion. It turns out not all Americans who call themselves “pro-choice” take the extreme position that abortion should be legal at any stage of pregnancy for any reason.

And the younger the survey participant, the less pro-choice they become. A similar study by Students for Life of America found that just seventeen percent of millennials support anything-goes abortion. Most, it turns out, want abortion heavily regulated and restricted to the earliest stages of pregnancy. In fact, an astonishing sixty-two percent of those who describe themselves as “pro-choice” believe abortion should be banned after the first trimester!

But it gets even more interesting and relevant to current debates.
* The study also found that over sixty percent of Americans oppose taxpayer funding for abortions, and nearly eight in ten want abortion clinics held to the same standard as other outpatient surgery centers—a rule the U.S. Supreme Court just struck down in Texas.
* And speaking of the Supreme Court, seventy percent of those surveyed say doctors who perform abortions should be required to have hospital admitting privileges—another Texas requirement declared unconstitutional by the Court.
* And most remarkably, Americans agree by a margin of 20 percent that religious healthcare providers should not be forced to perform abortions against their deeply-held beliefs.

Let’s be clear about something: This doesn’t amount to a pro-life revolution. Far too many Americans still think abortion should be legal at least in some cases—a position those of us who believe life begins at conception find inconsistent and unbearable. The overall goal of the pro-life movement is not that abortion becomes illegal; we want to persuade hearts and minds so that it becomes unthinkable.

Still, what this study does show is how profoundly out of touch many of our judges and lawmakers are with the American public. Liberals on the Supreme Court and elsewhere are basically keeping unrestricted abortion on “life support” in this country. The overwhelming majority of “we, the people,” favor cracking down on the practice.

But what about the rest of the world? The Left loves to tout Western Europe as a model for social democracy and progress. But as Cassy Fiano explains in a terrific video at Prager University, abortion laws in the United States are some of the most liberal in the world! Throughout Europe, where such laws were democratically-enacted rather than imposed by a court, abortion is widely restricted to the first trimester of pregnancy.

In Germany, Denmark, Belgium, and France, abortions after 12 weeks are virtually illegal. Waiting periods and parental consent requirements for minors are common. These kinds of laws raise cries of “theocracy!” in the United States. But they’re the democratically-enacted norm in much of famously secular Europe.

So what does all this mean? Though we still have a lot of work to do, the cultural winds are fair. Make no mistake: The Supreme Court’s recent edict striking down common-sense safety regulations on the abortion industry is an act of extremism.

Four decades of peering into the womb have forced most Americans to rethink abortion. Those on the bench and elsewhere who refuse to listen are getting lonely. And that’s why now is the time to press hard for change.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION- As John pointed out, the Supreme Court's recent abortion-case decision does not reflect the view of the majority of Americans. To find out what the citizens really think, check out the resources linked below.

"New K of C-Marist Poll Finds Americans Strongly Support Abortion Restrictions" - PR Newswire | July 25, 2016; http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-k-of-c-marist-poll-finds-americans-strongly-support-abortion-restrictions-300303062.html
"New Poll Finds Just 17% of Millennials Have the Same Pro-Abortion Views as Hillary Clinton" - Steven Ertelt | lifenews.com | June 30, 2016; http://www.lifenews.com/2016/06/30/new-poll-finds-just-17-of-millennials-have-the-same-pro-abortion-views-as-hillary-clinton/#.V3UzPiRT5x4.twitter
"Video: Abortion laws are more restrictive in Europe than in the United States" - Cassy Fiano | liveactionnews.org | May 24, 2016;http://liveactionnews.org/video-abortion-laws-are-more-restrictive-in-europe-than-in-the-united-states/

#1671 (8/5) "DNC Emails: An Optical Collusion?"

"DNC EMAILS: AN OPTICAL COLLUSION?" - Tony Perkins, Washington Update, July 26, 2016; https://www.frcaction.org/updatearticle/20160726/dnc-collusion

For years, it's felt like the mainstream press was just a satellite office of the DNC -- and in light of the 20,000 emails leaked [recently], we know why. The intimate relationship between the Democratic Party and the media isn't just a conspiracy theory dreamed up by paranoid conservatives. Turns out, there's more bias in some newsrooms than there is at a Lois Lerner auditing party. From reporters giving party officials a chance to edit or comment on their stories to outright dictating what questions Democratic officials will be asked on air, the collusion uncovered in the pages of messages is astounding -- even for the most cynical media critic.

Heritage's Daily Signal breaks down some of the most egregious examples, including the night-and-day treatment objective outlets like the Washington Examiner received for inquiries compared to the liberal press. When the Examiner asked a question about delegates to the DNC, a communications official coached his employees to ignore it and offered to tell state leaders the same. "I can send an alert to the state parties not to respond to this inquiry. Examiner is a right wing rag," he wrote.

When a Fred Lucas, who worked for Fox News at the time, asked a DNC official about Bill Clinton's prior indiscretions, he wrote to his team, "Is there a f*** you emoji?" The conservative name-calling was a common theme throughout the emails, as was the press's obvious political agenda. "A senior Politico reporter, Ken Vogel, sent an unflattering article about presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton to DNC officials on April 30 for review before publication," the Signal points out. "'Per agreement... any thoughts appreciated,' Vogel wrote in the subject line." It was a mistake, Vogel admitted this week -- but not an accident.

In our story yesterday, we pointed out the DNC's hardball strategy in North Carolina. One staffer asks if anyone has "relevant information for crafting a decent hit piece on the pro-prejudice backwater of the NC statehouse, but if you do, feel free to Slack it to me!" Slack, for those of you who don't know, is an app that lets you create groups for collaborating and file-sharing. Obviously, by telling members of the press to "slack" it to him, the DNC is actually forming groups to pass documents back and forth with the media.

The Left must know that it can't win the war of ideas on a level playing field, so it resorts to lying, slander, and outright distortion -- in many cases, with the liberal media's help. Of course, the people most hurt by the press's bias aren't conservatives -- they're the American people, who never really get to know the truth about their candidates. Now that the WikiLeaks has uncovered the media's agenda, it's time to make real headlines by doing something about it.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

#1670 (8/4) "Hostage Deal Is Latest Example of Obama’s Sell-Out to Iran"

"HOSTAGE DEAL IS LATEST EXAMPLE OF OBAMA'S SELL-OUT TO IRAN" - Genevieve Wood / August 03, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/08/03/hostage-deal-is-latest-example-of-obamas-sell-out-to-iran/? [AS I SEE IT: Do we really expect a Clinton administration to engage in less shady actions? Duh. - Stan]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only thing more pathetic than the Obama administration paying the Islamist Republic of Iran ransom for American hostages, and thereby ensuring more Americans will be taken hostage by thug regimes around the world, is that they expect us to believe, despite evidence to the contrary, that they didn’t.  Right.

First, President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry sidestepped Congress when negotiating the nuclear deal with Iran. Now we’re learning they also sidestepped America’s long-standing policy of not paying ransom for hostages when they secretly shipped $400 million to Tehran last January on the very same day American hostages were released. The White House now says this was just the down payment on the $1.7 billion settlement it had come to with Iran on an almost four decades old dispute.

If it’s that simple and the payment had absolutely no connection to the hostage release, why did Obama leave out that little $400 million detail when announcing the historic deal at the White House? Why all the secrecy around making it happen? Why is the money flown in on an unmarked cargo plane? Why refuse to explain, even when Congress asks, how the payment is being made? And why do senior Iranian officials publicly claim the payment was in fact a ransom payment?

Once again, Obama found a way to go around a U.S. law that got in the way of him doing what he wanted to do. In this case, the administration was hell-bent on legacy building, and Obama wanted as part of his legacy a nuclear deal with Iran, a deal we suspected then and now know was much more beneficial to Iran than the U.S. and our allies.

Iran, for its part, wanted money. That’s because economic sanctions were working and making it harder for Iran to get access to free flowing capital that they could then pass along to their pals in Hezbollah and Assad in Syria. Terrorism isn’t a cheap business.

But, for good reason, it is illegal under U.S. law to make any transaction with Iran that involves U.S. dollars. So the Obama negotiating whiz team found a way to break the spirit of the law without actually breaking the word of the law.  They sent U.S. dollars to banks in Switzerland and the Netherlands, had them changed to foreign currencies, including euros and Swiss francs, and then put them on a plane and shipped them to Tehran. Perhaps not a textbook example of money laundering, but you get the idea.

The White House response to all this? Nothing to see here. It’s all coincidence. Oh, and by the way, that $1.7 billion settlement we negotiated is a really good deal and the American taxpayer should be thankful we stood our ground and didn’t give the Iranians all they were asking for.

For the record, four American hostages, held on bogus charges, were released by Iran. In return, we released seven Iranian nationals facing charges in the U.S., and said we’d stop going after 14 others that were on an international police agency watch list. And it was on top of that lopsided agreement that we also threw in $400 million euros, francs, whatever.

And where do things stand today? Pretty much where you’d expect. Congress is mad and demanding the White House explain itself. Administration spokesmen say it’s all ado about nothing. Meantime, three more Americans are now being held hostage and Iran is back at the table demanding $2 billion in frozen funds be handed over.

Pathetic, indeed.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Genevieve Wood advances policy priorities of The Heritage Foundation as senior contributor to The Daily Signal.

"Republicans Consider Next Steps After News of Obama Administration Cash Transfer to Iran" - Josh Siegel / August 03, 2016; http://dailysignal.com/2016/08/03/republicans-consider-next-steps-after-news-of-obama-administration-cash-transfer-to-iran/?

#1669 (8/3) "Should Christians Engage the Culture? - OR SHOULD WE JUST LOVE PEOPLE?"

"Should Christians Engage the Culture? - OR SHOULD WE JUST LOVE PEOPLE?" - By: John Stonestreet|Breakpoint.org: August 1, 2016;

http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/29639

It can be hard for Christians to think clearly about culture. That’s because we’re soaking in it. But that’s no excuse for not seeking to change culture.

For more than two decades now, one of the most important voices on the subject of Christians’ relationship to culture has been Andy Crouch. From his work editing re:generation quarterly to books like “Culture Making: Recovering Our Creative Calling,” Crouch has helped countless evangelicals navigate the shoals where faith and culture meet without running aground. And that’s why I’m a bit puzzled by what he recently wrote about the subject of culture over at Christianity Today.

The piece had the provocative headline, “Stop Engaging ‘The Culture’ Because it Doesn’t Exist.” Now, as any writer will tell you, they usually don’t come up with the headline, so they shouldn’t be evaluated on the basis of it. But in this case, the headline did convey the gist of Crouch’s arguments. As he wrote, “A nation of 300 million people, especially one as gloriously diverse as the United States, does not have one monolithic ‘culture.’” While it does have a “national ethos,” that ethos “is constantly being contested, challenged, and reimagined by different groups within the nation, and ignored or actively resisted by others.”

Now, overall I agree with this analysis, with a few caveats I’ll get into in a moment. As recent events in Baton Rouge, Minnesota, and Dallas painfully remind us, there are very real differences in people’s experiences and perceptions of American life. I even largely agree with Crouch when he says that the best use of our limited time and resources is to “love our neighbor,” by whom he means “real people in a real place” and “living faithfully within our particular cultures and trusting God to weave out of our faithfulness the cosmic redemption he has promised and accomplished through his Son.” Absolutely.

Where I take issue with him is that this isn’t an “either/or” proposition. We can both love our flesh and blood neighbor and actively, strategically, and systemically oppose what Crouch calls the “systems of ideology and influence that operate independent of God.”

I am not sure what else our choice is, in fact. Not only can we walk and chew gum at the same time, sometimes we must.  Crouch’s analysis understates the impact of culture. While it’s true that American culture isn’t monolithic—after all, what culture is?—some ideas, trends, artifacts, and practices rise above the various subgroups that exist in our society and become part of our collective lives together. Here’s an example in two-words: Pokemon Go.

What’s more, as we have seen in the case of same-sex marriage and gay rights more generally, ideas and practices once associated with subcultures and small minorities, can, with the support of elite opinion makers and major television networks, become mainstream at astonishing speed. Once these ideas and practices become mainstream, real people are expected to conform in real-world ways, even if the ideas and practices contradict their deeply held beliefs.  Loving our neighbor requires identifying these ideas early enough to mitigate their impact wherever possible.

To state it simply, loving our neighbors requires cultural concern, analysis, and maybe even action. There’s no such thing as loving individuals without engaging the larger cultural trends that may adversely affect them.

As I said, I don’t disagree with Crouch so much as I thought, after reading his piece, that some clarifications were needed. Obviously, “engagement” will take on a different meaning depending on your circumstances. For some, it’ll be a concerned awareness coupled with prayer. For others, it’ll be a more “hands-on” approach in the marketplace of ideas, recapturing our creative calling and actually creating culture—again coupled with prayer.

And for all of us, it must be something we do for the real flesh and blood people around us—loving them in the midst of the real places and real situations where God has placed us. 

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

RESOURCES - Loving our neighbors and engaging the culture are not mutually exclusive. As Christians we're called to do both. For practical suggestions on what this looks like in real life, click on the links below.
"Critiquing Culture for Christ -- and Our Neighbor: Engaging, not Rejecting" - Eric Metaxas | BreakPoint.org | January 25, 2016; http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/breakpoint-commentaries-search/entry/13/28770
"What Does Cultural Engagement Look Like Now?" - John Stonestreet | BreakPoint.org | May 20, 2014;http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/breakpoint-commentaries-search/entry/13/25257
"Andy Crouch: Stop Engaging 'The Culture,' Because It Doesn't Exist" - Andy Crouch | Christianity Today | June 23, 2016; http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/julaug/theculture-doesnt-exist.html
Onward: Engaging the Culture Without Losing the Gospel - http://www.colsoncenterstore.org/product.asp?sku=9781433686177

#1668 (8/2)"Let’s Roll: Why Standing Up to a Terrorist Is Your Best Self-Defense"

"LET'S ROLL: WHY STANDING UP TO A TERRORIST IS YOUR BEST SELF-DEFENSE" - Glen Butler/ July 28, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/07/28/lets-roll-why-standing-up-to-a-terrorist-is-your-best-self-defense/ [AS I SEE IT: Some may say that the following are the thoughts of someone who has been trained to engage the enemy and that most Americans have not been. But his point is well taken; fleeing the enemy may be the right response initially, but there always comes a point where stepping forward to engage that same enemy - if not to protect ourselves but for the sake of others - is the better thing to do. Surely the heroes of United Flight 93 on 9/11 should inspire us always to do what is selfless, no matter how dangerous, because most times that is the right thing to do. - Stan]

Students training for a license to carry a concealed weapon practice shooting drills in Chino, Calif. (Photo: Jebb Harris/ZUMA Press/Newscom)

After the carnage like we’ve witnessed in American cities such as San Bernardino and Orlando, and more recently in Europe, the national conversation tends to shift temporarily back toward gun control legislation and how to best protect ourselves in the homeland from future terrorist attacks.

Sadly, however, what is always absent from these post-tragedy conversations is any mention of one change with enormous potential to save lives—one which would not require controversial legislation, millions of dollars, nor procurement of expensive advanced technologies. This change includes an overdue re-examination of how unarmed civilians should respond during these events, including how federal, state, and local authorities tell the public to respond.

Most every American has at some point either discussed or practiced an “active shooter response” based on guidance developed by the Department of Homeland Security. Originally created, in part, as a buffer against potential lawsuits in the wake of a Nebraska mall shooting in late 2007, the guidance teaches us to run away if possible, hide if you are unable to escape, and fight back only as a last resort.

Today, “Run, Hide, Fight” is taught to everyone and mandated not only by the DHS, but also by the FBI, law enforcement…and even the military, including for its own members. Fear of lawsuits (by grieving family members of victims who fought back) still drives this and indirectly paralyzes everyone into watching helplessly as the active shooter and terrorist menace rampages. Despite this public mandate to run away or cower when under attack, America vigorously celebrates those who violate this edict and confront the threat.

Three Americans were among those who famously thwarted an attack on a Paris train in August of last year; they’ve enjoyed celebrity status in the months since. Numerous other examples exist of average Americans bucking their government’s guidance, ignoring their survival instincts, and doing the right thing to help save others, and themselves.

Deciding how to respond in such a scenario is a personal choice, and it would be callous to criticize others who have experienced such trauma, no matter their response. But the mere suggestion of confrontation has somehow become controversial. Recall the widespread criticism of former presidential candidate Ben Carson in October when he said “I would not just stand there and let him shoot me … I would ask everybody to attack” in response to a question about the shooting at an Oregon community college. The world was aghast he would say such a thing.

Nevertheless, consider that in 2012 the Aurora, Colorado, theater gunman who killed 20 people and injured 70 had enough time to leisurely fire 76 shots without confrontation, and was standing casually outside the theater before the arrival of police, who initially mistook him for one of their own. More recently, an Orlando survivor told CNN he was hiding in the bathroom stall when the gunman’s gun jammed, and he initially thought someone would then use that pause to rush the attacker. “But no one did,” he said. That’s because they were all simply doing what they’ve been told to do, countless times.

The mindset that we are helpless without weapons is not only self-defeating, but dangerous, and government policy that reinforces this perception is a flawed one.

A September 2013 FBI report found that of the 160 active shooter incidents in the U.S. between 2010 and 2013, 21 (13.1 percent) ended after unarmed citizens made the “selfless and deeply personal choices” to confront the active shooters. In each of these cases, the citizens “safely and successfully disrupted the shootings” and “likely saved the lives” of many others present.

Another compelling reason to consider change is because future attacks are inevitable, and relying on police rescue might actually lower your own chance of survival.

The 2013 FBI report found that of those 160 active shooter incidents—incidents that generated 1,043 total casualties—60 percent ended before police arrived. These disturbing numbers warrant attention, especially when examined alongside CIA Director John Brennan’s recent remarks: “ISIL has a large cadre of Western fighters who could potentially serve as operatives for attacks in the West … our efforts have not reduced the group’s terrorism capability and global reach … [and] we judge that it will intensify its global terror campaign.”

Finally, our government-mandated response guidance is based on outdated models. Al-Qaeda’s recent Inspire magazine told its U.S. supporters to wage a “knife jihad” and stab civilians like they’re all “Israeli Jews.” A 17-year-old Afghan “refugee” recently attacked passengers in this manner on a German train, and an elderly Catholic priest was similarly butchered during a Mass in France.

Does it make any sense to hide behind a desk while a jihadi terrorist slowly slices your co-workers, fellow students, or other Americans to death with a knife or machete? Wouldn’t it be more practical, ethical, and effective to rush blade-wielding terrorists as soon as possible?Ultimately, this is something Americans should discuss, pundits should debate, and government officials should examine.

On 9/11, Todd Beamer’s simple “Let’s roll” directive inspired his fellow United Airlines Flight 93 passengers, and now stands as enduring testament to real American grit. It’s time we stop training to be lambs for the slaughter and have a national conversation about standing up to terrorists—a conversation that, for once, isn’t linked to either arming everyone with guns or to legislatively taking away those same weapons. It’s time to arm ourselves with knowledge about the benefits of action, and with training for such methods of defense and deterrence.

After all, you don’t need to be a Navy SEAL or a SWAT team leader to be a hero. You just need to reflect on the current plan’s flaws and be willing to take a better approach, to stand up together against the evil. Let’s roll, America!

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Glen Butler is a U.S. Marine from Virginia. The opinions expressed here are his personal views.

#1667 (8/1) "When Assisted Suicide Becomes Coercive"

"WHEN ASSISTED SUICIDE BECOMES COERCIVE" - Hans von Spakovsky / Jana Minich / July 28, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/07/28/when-assisted-suicide-becomes-coercive/?

“Supporters claim physician-assisted suicide gives patients choice, but what sort of a choice is it when life is expensive but death is free?” asks Dr. William L. Toffler. (Photo: Richard B. Levine/Newscom)

Even the best intentions cannot reverse the insidious effects of a wrong policy. When those who advocate for assisted suicide cite a benevolent desire to relieve suffering, the horrifying results of such a practice still lie just beneath the surface.

Recently, an elderly Vermont woman found herself repeatedly pressured to commit assisted suicide. Her grave ailment? Only a broken wrist. Nevertheless, staff at her rehab center “repeatedly asked the elderly woman if she was in pain or depressed; then they would remind her that she could commit doctor-prescribed suicide under the new law.”

Advocates of assisted suicide have blown off claims that these laws could lead to this sort of pressure to die. But in the face of high end-of-life costs, Guy Page of the Vermont Alliance for Ethical Healthcare said, “It doesn’t take a health care economist to see the shortest distance in finding ways to reduce health care costs is physician-assisted suicide.” This means that in some circumstances, the main factor in “choosing” to die could very well be more related to money than patient condition.

‘Life Is Expensive but Death Is Free’
   Oregon displayed a grim example of such pressures when the state Medicaid program began informing patients and doctors that many prescription medications and painkillers would not be covered—but assisted suicide would.
   Barbara Wagner, a lung cancer patient, received one such letter. She recalled, “I got a letter in the mail that basically said if you want to take the pills, we will help you get that from the doctor and we will stand there and watch you die. But we won’t give you the medication to live.”

As physician Dr. William L. Toffler wrote, “Supporters claim physician-assisted suicide gives patients choice, but what sort of a choice is it when life is expensive but death is free?”

Based on research concerning Oregon’s assisted suicide experience, those who choose to die frequently do so for reasons other than unbearable pain, such as loss of autonomy, dignity, or ability to engage in enjoyable activities. In other words, some who turn to death as a final recourse are suffering what could be alleviated by a society that values life enough to assist in healthy coping rather than death.

Slippery Slope
     The bottom line is that assisted suicide laws lead to an increase in suicide for all the worst reasons. And it is a slippery slope: In the Netherlands, euthanasia is now practiced on individuals who are not terminally ill, but suffer from depression and other psychiatric illnesses. Babies are being euthanized there, too, because their parents or doctors “deemed their suffering too difficult to bear.”
     As Wesley J. Smith, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism, has said, those pushing assisted suicide should “stop pretending” that it is “about terminal illness and admit it is much more about disability—which is why the disability rights movement remains so opposed as they are the primary targets.”

Value Life
     Instead of encouraging—or even pressuring—those most vulnerable, what if more terminally ill patients and their families were able to share an experience similar to that of Toffler and his late wife: "Last year my wife, Marlene, died of metastatic cancer. We’d been married for 40 years. The final five years we both knew she would inevitably die of her cancer. At one point doctors told her that she had only three to nine months left, yet she lived more than four times as long. While I treasure all of our years together, the last years of our marriage were among the best. There was great suffering but also great joy and meaning in the special moments we and our seven children shared together—moments that became all the more special the closer we came to the end of her life. I wouldn’t trade a nanosecond of those last years. She died peacefully and naturally at home surrounded by her family and friends. She never took an overdose, yet her death and life had great dignity."

As Smith says, the assisted suicide movement “is about allowing killing as an acceptable answer to many causes of suffering, whether terminal or chronic disease, disability, mental illness, or existential despair.” Once you open that door, it leads to “virtual death-on-demand.” And that is something we should all oppose.

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. Jana Minich is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.

"How Physician-Assisted Suicide Endangers the Weak, Corrupts Medicine, Compromises the Family, and Violates Human Dignity and Equality" - http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-doctor-assisted-disaster-for-medicine-1439853118