#1759 (11/4) "Quit Blaming the Rich. It’s the Government Ripping Us Off"

"QUIT BLAMING THE RICH. IT'S THE GOVERNEMENT RIPPING US OFF"- Walter E. Williams / November 02, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/11/02/the-rich-and-us/? [AS I SEE IT: What's described in this article might be described as "pay for play." Have you heard that regarding the scandal embroiling any particular candidate running for office? Her initials are H.C. Any questions? - Stan]

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, having a net worth of $81.8 billion, and Amazon.com CEO Jeff Bezos, having a net worth of $70.4 billion, are the nation’s two richest men. They are at the top of the Forbes 400 list of America’s super-rich individuals, people who have net worths of billions of dollars.

Many see the rich as a danger. New York Times columnist Bob Herbert wrote: “It doesn’t really matter what ordinary people want. The wealthy call the tune, and the politicians dance.” His colleague Paul Krugman wrote: “On paper, we’re a one-person-one-vote nation; in reality, we’re more than a bit of an oligarchy, in which a handful of wealthy people dominate.”

It’s sentiments like these that have led me to wish there were a humane way to get rid of the rich. For without having the rich around to be whipping boys and distract our attention, we might be able to concentrate on what’s best for the 99.9 percent of the rest of us.

Let’s look at the power of the rich. With all the money that Gates, Bezos, and other super-rich people have, what can they force you or me to do?
     Can they condemn our houses to create space so that another individual can build an auto dealership or a casino parking lot? Can they force us to pay money into the government-run—and doomed—Obamacare program? Can they force us to bus our children to schools out of our neighborhood in the name of diversity? Can they force us to buy our sugar from a high-cost domestic producer rather than from a low-cost Caribbean producer? The answer to all of these questions is a big fat no.

You say, “Williams, I don’t understand.” Let me be more explicit.
     Bill Gates cannot order you to enroll your child in another school in order to promote racial diversity. He has no power to condemn your house to make way for a casino parking lot.
     Unless our elected public officials grant them the power to rip us off, rich people have little power to force us to do anything. A lowly municipal clerk earning $50,000 a year has far more life-and-death power over us. It is that type of person to whom we must turn for permission to build a house, ply a trade, open a restaurant, and do myriad other activities.

It’s government people, not rich people, who have the power to coerce us and rip us off. They have the power to make our lives miserable if we disobey. This coercive power goes a long way toward explaining legalized political corruption.

Take just one of thousands of examples. The Fanjuls are among the biggest sugar cane growers, and they co-own the world’s largest refining company, American Sugar Refining, which markets its product under the brand names Domino, C&H, Redpath, Tate & Lyle, and Florida Crystals. During the 2014 election cycle, Florida Crystals contributed more than $860,000 to candidates and political spending groups. It spent more than $1 million lobbying Congress, the U.S. departments of Agriculture and Commerce, and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

Here’s my question to you: Do you think it forked over all that money to help our elected representatives uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution? Nonsense.
     The Fanjuls and other sugar producers want Congress to use tariffs to keep foreign-produced sugar out of our country so they can reap the financial benefits from being able to charge Americans two to three times the world price of sugar. 

      So here’s the ultimate question: If some rich people can line the pockets of politicians to do their bidding at the expense of the rest of us, who’s to blame? I think it’s we, the people, who are to blame for not using our votes to run such politicians out of town—and that’s most of them. But that might be deceitful of us, for we also ask politicians to enable us to live at the expense of others.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

#1758 (11/3) "3 Ways To ...Talk Taxes

FYI  - Today is my Spiritual Birthday! I prayed to receive Christ 43 years ago with Leonard Mahoe after a Campus Crusade for Christ outreach.

"3 WAYS TO ... TALK TAXES" - Beverly Hallberg / October 11, 2016 /  http://dailysignal.com/2016/10/11/three-ways-to-use-the-presidential-debate-to-talk-taxes/?

The presidential debate brought up an issue faced by every American: taxes. 

(Photo: Peter Muller/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom)

With the leak of Donald Trump’s tax records by The New York Times, and following round two of the presidential debates in which both candidates spoke about their tax plans, taxes are in the news to stay.

But like its code, taxes are complicated. There’s the corporate tax rate, the sales tax, personal income tax, and loopholes to apply. The likelihood anyone does their own taxes without the help of an online program or accountant is low. Ain’t nobody got time for that, even if they could figure it out.

Starting today, and over the next few months, tax reform will be a hot topic to discuss with neighbors, family, friends, and co-workers. So where do you begin, and what angle provides the best argument for tax reform? Here’s how to break it down.

1) Common Ground
     It’s a pretty safe bet that most people agree: 1) we should all pay our fair share, but 2) the current tax system is difficult to understand. Too many loopholes exist that authorize some to legally circumvent a hefty payment or pay nothing at all. It’s not fair, but reform can make it fair; transparency works wonders.

Even though there is an argument to be made for private vs. public management, taxes fund services we use every day—think infrastructure, public transportation, etc. If we have to pay our fair share to ensure these services continue, we’d appreciate if our neighbor pays his fair share too. Removing the loopholes and simplifying the tax code achieves this end.

So, start with “we’re in this together.”

2) Examples
     If we agree that all should pay their fair share, then the simplification of the tax code will better guarantee that happens. It will also reduce costs for families and small businesses.

The Daily Signal reported in August [http://dailysignal.com/2016/08/04/these-tax-code-changes-could-save-average-american-families-around-4000-a-year/] on how much money people have to pay just to file their taxes. The code is so complicated that a ridiculous amount of time and money is spent before the check is written to the state and/or federal governments. As the article notes: “Tax complexity is a charge on a charge.” What?

If that seems absurd, it’s because it is. Think of the possibilities if the time and money spent just to file taxes were eliminated with a simpler tax code—job creation! And other worthy endeavors. A bad tax system—unfair, complicated—decreases opportunity.

The Daily Signal also points out that the United States suffers from the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. We’re ranked 154 of 178 in reference to “fiscal freedom.”

Let’s talk Burger King. Not many in the media were reporting on the corporate tax rate at the time—and even fewer Americans had been paying attention—but in 2014, Burger King made an announcement that it was planning to move its headquarters to Canada because the corporate tax rate was lower. I repeat, Burger King left the U.S. for Canada in order to pay lower taxes. (A little-known fact: The U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world—higher than France!)

That caught the attention of the media and nearly every good, burger-loving American. All of a sudden, the corporate tax rate was in the news because everyone knows Burger King and nothing is more American than a burger!

3) Words
     In addition to using words like “fair” and “simple” to describe the tax reform you want, be mindful of the phrases you choose to frame your argument.

For example, the “estate tax.” This is the technical name for the onerous federal tax levied against the property or business of someone who has just died, before the inheritance is passed on to the heirs. However, the term “estate tax” sounds regal and out of touch. If you want to illicit an emotional response (and better describe the tax), use “death tax.”

And if you ever get hit with the 99 percent argument? I often say: “The rich can afford to pay more, but you know who can’t? Everyone else. The more money the rich have to give to Uncle Sam, the more they have to downsize, which often leads to fewer jobs for you and me. It’s a losing situation.”

Taxes are tricky, both to pay and talk about. But hopefully the common ground, examples, and the right words/phrases outlined are a great starting point to make an argument for tax reform. Keep it simple, and we’ll cross our fingers that the tax code will soon follow suit.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Beverly Hallberg is a contributor to The Daily Signal, a visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation, and president of District Media Group

#1757 (11/2) "The Election Is Coming - SO’S THE DAY AFTER"

"The Election Is Coming - SO’S THE DAY AFTER" - John Stonestreet, Breakpoint.org, Nov. 1, 2016; http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/30052 

Chuck Colson often said, “Salvation won’t arrive on Air Force One.” Ok, we all agree on that. So, how now shall we live?

Well, perhaps you’ve heard: there’s an election next week. And I’ve never seen the nation or the Church more divided over politics. For the most part, evangelicals are angrily—and I do mean angrily—split over whether to vote for one of the two most disliked candidates in history, to vote third party, or whether to even vote at all. The anxiety, the anger, and the vitriol are over the top. So with the election just a few days away, let’s take a breath and do a reality check.

First and foremost, the ultimate reality is this: Jesus Christ is risen from the dead. As I said recently on Focus on the Family with Jim Daly, this is not just a spiritual truth, it is the singular truth of the universe. The entire story of human history centers on Jesus’ resurrection from the dead.

Yes, we have two horrible candidates for the presidency. Yes, Supreme Court seats are at stake. Yes, the Church is coming under enormous and fiendish pressure from all sides. But none of that, not an iota, changes the fact that Christ is risen. To be a Christian in this world means to place our ultimate hope in that incontrovertible fact, not in the electoral process, in our nation, or in anything else.

And second, even so, you need to vote. And here’s why. God has placed you and me in this country, in our particular state, in our particular community at this particular time. And as my fellow Focus guest Carrie Gordon Earll said on that same broadcast, we—unlike many of our Christian brothers and sisters around the world—have the opportunity to vote, and to use that vote to do good.

I can’t and won’t tell you how to vote for President. But not showing up at the ballot box is not an option for a believer. Besides the presidential race, there are Senate and House seats up for grabs. Don’t forget state representatives. And of course ballot initiatives in your area. In Colorado, where I live, we have nine different initiatives on the ballot. Citizens in my state will be voting on whether to allow physicians to help their patients kill themselves—a law that would threaten the old, the disabled, and the mentally depressed. To stay at home and allow the march of death to continue unabated in our state and across the country is not an option. As James reminded us in his letter, “To him who knows to do good and does it not, it is sin” (James 4:17).

Third, as you consider your presidential, state, and local vote, remember this: Many issues are important. A few, however, are essential.

Take the dignity of human life from conception to natural death. When Chuck and many of us signed the Manhattan Declaration [see link below], we said we would gladly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but we would never render to Caesar what belongs to God. And human life belongs to God. Our dignity, our rights, come from Him, not from the state. We need to defend life with our vote.

And then there’s marriage. Undermining and redefining it weakens the key institution that—along with religious and civic organizations—promotes a healthy society.

And then there’s religious freedom and freedom of conscience. At this moment of American history, forces hostile to Christianity are trying to keep religious faith out of the public square. This radical shift is not only an attack on religion, it’s an attack on the Constitution itself.

And finally, remember, the election will be over soon. On November 9 we’ll still have lots of work to do, more important work—not only to heal the rifts within the body of Christ, but also to get back to the business of testifying to Christ and His resurrection—in the culture, on the job, at school, in each and every aspect of life. It may be harder to do after this election. But so what? Elections come and go every two and four years. But the task of being salt and light in this darkening culture never goes away.

This election demonstrates, again, that politics is downstream from culture. This election fiasco was decades in the making. The only way to see a healthier polis is to get to work upstream, rebuilding the institutions of civil society.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

RESOURCES - As John has pointed out, we are called to do good. So go do good in the voting booth this Election Day. Then get involved in the work of rebuilding a healthy culture starting at your community and local levels.
Manhattan Declaration - http://manhattandeclaration.org/#0

United States Constitution - http://constitutionus.com/

"The Importance of Voting" - John Stonestreet | Focus on the Family; http://www.focusonthefamily.com/media/daily-broadcast/the-importance-of-voting

How Now Shall We Live?- Chuck Colson, Nancy Pearcey | Tyndale House Publishers | September 1999; http://www.colsoncenterstore.org/product.asp?sku=2191_BKHNP

#1756 (11/1) "Media Made Right Call to Ignore Climate Change in Debates"

"MEDIA MADE RIGHT CALL TO IGNORE CLIMATE CHANGE IN DEBATES" - Nicolas Loris / October 26, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/10/26/media-made-right-call-to-ignore-climate-change-in-debates/?

Climate change ranked dead last in a recent survey of 16 issues Americans care about. (Photo: Jeff Malet Photography /Newscom)

To the dismay of some pundits, celebrities, and environmental activists, three presidential debates produced zero questions on global warming. Simply wishing an issue to be a priority won’t make it one. Americans and people around the world are apathetic to taking action on climate change. And for good reason. Chicken Littles have incorrectly predicted doomsday scenarios and, even in the event of climate catastrophe, costly policies offer a nonsolution.

Both domestic and international polls demonstrate how little individuals want to take action on global warming and even more important, how little they’re willing to pay for it.

Take, for instance, the United Nations’ “My World” survey that asked individuals to choose six issues that “are most important for you and your family.” Nearly 10 million people have responded, and out of a list of 16 issues, “action taken on climate change” ranked dead last. Education, health care, and better job opportunities came in as the top three.

Even climate polling data spun as encouraging isn’t all that impressive. A March Gallup poll reports that concerns over climate change are at an eight-year high. But that headline alone doesn’t provide the full context. While the percent of Americans who worry about global warming a great or fair deal is up to 41 percent (the  highest since Gallup asked the question in 1998), 57 percent still do not perceive global warming as a serious threat.

Another allegedly encouraging poll comes from a recent survey conducted by the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago and the AP-NORC Center. The New York Times heralded the results as “Americans Appear Willing to Pay for a Carbon Tax Policy.” But just how much are Americans willing to pay? A measly buck a month. Fifty-seven percent of respondents were willing to pay an additional dollar per month on their electricity bill to combat climate change. Forty-two percent weren’t even willing to pay that much. For proponents of an aggressive carbon tax, that’s not very encouraging.

At $20 a month, the public is more than 2-to-1 against paying to combat climate change, which is more telling that there’s no real appetite for this. Importantly, the poll fails to include how much abated warming Americans would receive from paying an additional $1, $20, or $50 per month. In every scenario, the answer is next to nothing.

Even if the U.S. cut 100 percent of its carbon dioxide emissions (which would cost Americans a lot more than $50 per month), it would not make any meaningful impact on projected warming.
Using the same estimated climate impact from a doubling of carbon dioxide emissions that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assumes in its modeling (which is arguably higher than reality), the world would only be 0.137 degrees Celsius cooler by 2100 if the U.S. shut down its entire economy. The entire industrialized world could cut carbon dioxide emissions by 100 percent and the result would be a whopping 0.278 degrees Celsius cooler by the turn of the century. Let’s see how our grandchildren feel about that sacrifice.

Polling data alone certainly isn’t a reason to ignore an issue. But the reality that we’re not headed toward catastrophic warming and  costly policies that ripple through the economy won’t mitigate global temperatures most certainly are.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Nicolas Loris, an economist, focuses on energy, environmental and regulatory issues as the Herbert and Joyce Morgan fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Read his research.

#1755 (10/31) "Honoring the Witnesses - ALL SAINTS DAY"

"Honoring the Witnesses - ALL SAINTS DAY" - By: Chuck Colson|Breakpoint.org: October 28, 2016; http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/30041

For Christians, there’s no more controversial day on the calendar than Halloween. So what did Chuck Colson have to say about it? This is Eric Metaxas. What’s the Halloween equivalent of a “scrooge?” While I wouldn’t quite put myself in that category, I’ve gotta admit I’ve never been a huge fan of trick or treating. Especially nowadays, with most kids dressing up as ghouls, goblins, demons, witches and what not. In any case, it’s safe to say that what began as a night to mark the eve of All Saint’s day has turned into a commercialized celebration of, well, darkness. Back in 2007 on this program, Chuck Colson took us back to the profoundly Christian roots of this holiday [in a broadcast entitled] “Honoring the Witnesses.” Here it is:

      It is Halloween again, and to be frank, I really don’t look forward to talking about it on “BreakPoint” every year. At best, Halloween has become an excuse to ask total strangers for candy. At worst, it's a celebration of the mindless paganism our ancestors wisely turned their backs on. So this year, I'd like to turn your attention to the often-overlooked celebration that Halloween calls to mind. In case you've missed it before, the name Halloween is a shortening of All Hallow’s Eve and signifies the night before All Saints’ Day.

For centuries on All Saints’ Day the Church celebrated the lives of Christians who went before us. And rightly so: We can learn so much from those whom the author of Hebrews calls that great cloud of witnesses. The tradition of remembering the Church triumphant dates back to the time of the first Christian martyrs. When soldiers of Marcus Aurelius Verus came to arrest Polycarp, a beloved church leader, Polycarp greeted them kindly. According to the third century historian Eusebius, Polycarp “ordered a table to be laid for them immediately, invited them to eat as much as they liked, asking in return a single hour in which he could pray.”

When Polycarp later stood in the coliseum, accused and surrounded by the jeering crowds, the governor pressed him to recant his faith. Instead, this man, who himself had been discipled by the Apostle John, said this: “For eighty-six years, I have been [Christ’s] servant, and He has never done me wrong: How can I blaspheme my King who saved me?” As they were preparing to burn him alive, Polycarp offered up prayers of faith and praise.

In the years following Polycarp’s death, Christians would gather annually to take communion beside his grave. There they would remember his brave witness and take courage from his example. As the years passed, the day shifted in focusing from remembering Polycarp to honoring all martyrs. By the seventh century, the Church created a holiday to honor all of God’s saints—heroes of the faith.

One of my favorite heroes was a woman named Monica, who lived during the fourth century. She would never face flames or jeering crowds, as did Polycarp, but she did face testing. That testing came in the form of her own longing for the return of her prodigal son, Augustine. His licentious lifestyle made this Christian mother weep. Later, when Augustine, who is now known as one of the foremost theologians of Christianity and scholars of Western civilization, did come to Christ, he wrote this prayer: “My mother, Your faithful servant, wept to You for me, shedding more tears for my spiritual death than others shed for the bodily death of a son. You heard her.”

I could tell you story after story like this, from Justin Martyr to Martin Luther to Amy Carmichael. But let me encourage you to do something this All Saints’ Day. Take the lead in your church to honor the great saints who set examples for us. Reacquaint your children with Halloween’s Christian origins. Research together and talk about the lives of Christian heroes.

Sure, go ahead and let the kids dress up like Batman and hit up your neighbors for candy. But when the hoopla of modern Halloween is over, encourage your kids to imitate some real heroes—not in what they put on, but in how they live their lives.(This commentary originally aired October 31, 2007.)

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION - Chuck provides a great idea for this particular calendar date. Why not celebrate the saints of the Christian faith? Click on the link below to read the fascinating stories included in Glenn Sunshine's series on "Christians Who Changed Their World."
RESOURCES
"Christians Who Changed Their World, series" - Glenn Sunshine | BreakPoint.org;http://www.breakpoint.org/the-center/columns/changed/

"The Christian Lessons of Halloween" - Beliefnet.com | November 2005; http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/2005/11/the-christian-lessons-of-halloween.aspx

"Happy Hallelujah Night!" - Beliefnet.com | December 2006; 
http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/christianity/2006/10/happy-hallelujah-night.aspx

A Chance to Die: The Life and Legacy of Amy Carmichael- Elisabeth Elliot | Revell Publishers | May 2005; http://www.colsoncenterstore.org/product.asp?sku=0800730895
- Elisabeth Elliot | Revell Publishers | May 2005; http://www.colsoncenterstore.org/product.asp?sku=0800730895

The Writings of Justin Martyr - Karen O. Bullock, Justin Martyr | B&H Publishing Group; http://www.colsoncenterstore.org/product.asp?sku=0805492208

Rediscovering the Church Fathers: Who They Were and How They Shaped the Church - Crossway Books | March 2011; http://www.colsoncenterstore.org/product.asp?sku=9781433510434

#1754 (10/30) SUNDAY SPECIAL: "Call to Church Discipline - THE COURAGE OF WATERMARK CHURCH"

"Call to Church Discipline - THE COURAGE OF WATERMARK CHURCH" - By: John Stonestreet| Breakpoint.org: October 26, 2016; http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/30030

Courageously doing the right thing these days, like practicing church discipline, is going to exact a cost.

What’s courageous church leadership look like these days? It looks like Todd Wagner, pastor of Watermark Community Church in Dallas, Texas. Recently, Watermark removed a man caught in sexual sin from its membership rolls. Watermark is one of those rare churches these days that practices church discipline. After the man’s Facebook post titled, “Watermark Church Dismissed Me for Being Gay,” was picked up by the Dallas Morning News, the church is, no surprise, being accused of religious intolerance. A Morning News columnist wrote an opinion piece titled “Watermark megachurch banned a gay man that it didn’t deserve to have as a member.”

What most of the media coverage neglects to tell is that the decision to remove the man was neither arbitrary nor sudden. After the man decided to actively pursue a homosexual relationship over a year ago, friends and church leaders began meeting with him to understand how to better love and help him.

But, as Pastor Wagner wrote, “this friend made clear to us that he no longer believed same-sex sexual activity was inappropriate for a follower of Jesus Christ and no longer desired to turn from it. Like any member whose beliefs move away from the core commitments, biblical convictions, and values of Watermark, it became appropriate to formally acknowledge his desire to not pursue faithfulness to Christ with us.”

And so the church did the only logical thing—it removed him from its membership rolls. But now, they are made the villain of the story for holding members accountable to live by Christian teaching on human sexuality. At the risk of repeating what I said about the recent story about InterVarsity, “News Flash: evangelicals have evangelical beliefs.”

But I also want to say this: the Church needs this kind of countercultural courage that Watermark leadership is demonstrating—not only by this story, but by practicing church discipline in the first place! That’s so rare.

The Protestant Reformers listed three marks of a true church—preaching the gospel, administering the sacraments rightly, and church discipline. Back in the 1800s, according to Jonathan Leeman, author of “Church Discipline: How the Church Protects the Name of Jesus,” Baptist churches in America removed about 2 percent of their members per year—and yet they grew faster than the overall growth in the population.

But somewhere along the way, many churches abandoned church discipline. Perhaps it was the growing trend of seeing churchgoers as consumers rather than as fellow sinners who need to be gently led to live the faith they profess. Or maybe it was the rise of a relativistic worldview, which made it hard for any of us to call sin, sin. No one likes being called judgmental or intolerant, which is exactly what Todd Wagner and Watermark Church are now facing.

The neglected art of church discipline needs to be recovered, and not just in order to target those who struggle with particular sins. As Pastor Wagner says, we all struggle with something. No, we do it because Scripture commands it, for the good of the Church, and by extension, the good of the world. Come to BreakPoint.org for some helpful resources on the subject, including some from Watermark Church itself.

But make no mistake—any firm stand for Christian morality, even within the walls of the church, is hard these days. Those who violate church discipline—especially when it has to do with sexual freedom—will be hailed as the good guys of the story.

Which makes the faithful the bad guys. As George Orwell once wrote, “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.” It’s not hard to imagine that lawsuits will likely accompany the bad press in the near future.

But as Todd Wagner and Watermark have shown us, being faithful to God’s Truth is our highest calling.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

RESOURCES - Discipline is a part of life, and church life is no exception. Practicing loving correction, and accepting that correction, contributes to maturity in the faith. Check out the links below for articles on church discipline, as well as biblical references on this subject.

"Watermark church's 'loving correction' helps members deal with sin" - Todd Wagner | Dallasnews.com | October 16, 2016; http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2016/10/16/watermark-churchs-loving-correction-helps-members-deal-sin
"What Is The Purpose Of Church Discipline" - Todd Wagner | wordsfromwags.com | October 22, 2016; http://wordsfromwags.com/purpose-of-church-discipline/
"Is a church anti-gay for practicing church discipline?" -Denny Burke | dennyburk.com | October 17, 2016; http://www.dennyburk.com/what-happens-when-a-church-practices-church-discipline/
"Our Uniquely Undisciplined Moment (limited access)" - Tom Oden | Christianity Today | October 15, 2007; http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/augustweb-only/130-54.0.html
"10 Things You Should Know about Church Discipline" - Jonathan Leeman | Crossway.org | October 3, 2016; https://www.crossway.org/blog/2016/03/10-things-you-should-know-about-church-discipline/

CHURCH DISCIPLINE REFERENCES, NEW TESTAMENT
1 Corinthians 5:1-5 - "It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this? 3 For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this. 4 So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh,[a][b] so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord."
Galatians 6:1 - "Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted."
Matthew 18:15-17 - “If your brother or sister[a] sins,[b] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[c] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector."
2 Corinthians 3:14-15 - "Take special note of anyone who does not obey our instruction in this letter. Do not associate with them, in order that they may feel ashamed. 15 Yet do not regard them as an enemy, but warn them as you would a fellow believer."

#1753 (10/29) PRO-LIFE SAT: "Hillary Clinton is Wrong: Research Shows Abortion is Never Necessary to Save the Life of the Mother"

"HILLARY CLINTON IS WRONG: RESEARCH SHOWS ABORTION IS NEVER NECESSARY TO SAVE THE LIFE OF A MOTHER"- David Reardon, PH.D., OCT 26, 2016 | http://www.lifenews.com/2016/10/26/hillary-clinton-is-wrong-research-shows-abortion-is-never-necessary-to-save-the-life-of-the-mother/

                  In the most recent presidential debate, Hillary Clinton claimed late-term abortions are sometimes necessary to save women’s lives. That’s great rhetoric, but it is not supported by even a single medical study.

Before examining the “abortion to save women’s lives” question, it is first important to note that only about 1.2 percent of abortions (about 15,000 per year) take place after 20 weeks of gestation. Of these, a good portion are due to partner abandonment or parental pressure. Another chunk are due to an adverse diagnosis of fetal development or simply fear of a fetal defect after exposure to some drug, for example. So only a small percentage of late-term abortions are done with the sole intent of saving the mother from complications with pregnancy.

But even that small number of “lifesaving” abortions is questionable, because the best medical evidence reveals that of the few women who die of disease while pregnant it appears there’s not even one cause of death abortion can prevent (see “Therapeutic Abortion: The Medical Argument,” in the Irish Medical Journal).

Abortion Is Never a Lifesaving Procedure
       Here’s a quick example. Abortion is often recommended for pregnant women who are diagnosed with cancer. But there is zero evidence that those who have abortions are more likely to beat cancer or survive compared to those who refuse abortion. Similarly, the researchers found, there was not a single death among the women who died that an induced abortion could have predicted or prevented.

Now, skeptics may rightly wonder if they should trust my reliance on a single study. In response, I’ll note this study has been around for more than 20 years and no one advocating an abortion has published a study to dispute these findings—despite the abortion industry’s access to hundreds of millions of abortion records worldwide. If they had data to support the myth that abortion saves lives, they would have published it. Absent any evidence, they simply ignore contrary evidence and continue to appeal to the “common sense” myth that abortion is necessary, at least in some hard cases, to save women’s lives.

The lack of medical evidence for any benefit from abortion (in saving women’s lives) is further magnified by the fact that record linkage studies have proven that abortion is associated with a decline in overall health and increase in short- and longer-term mortality rates among women exposed to abortion. There is even a dose effect, with the negative effects on longevity multiplied with each exposure to abortion. So not only does abortion fail to reduce mortality rates among women, it actually contributes to higher mortality rates (most notably in a three-fold increased risk of suicide compared to women not pregnant and a six-fold increased risk compared to those who carry to term), but also due to other negative impacts on women’s health.

Doctors Want Abortion to Save Themselves Trouble
     The real reason doctors recommend abortion for pregnant women facing a disease is that abortion makes it easier for the doctor to focus on just her disease. Abortion instantly reduces the number of patients doctors have to worry about by half. After an abortion, doctors no longer have to avoid treatments that may hurt the baby. Plus, they no longer have to worry about lawsuits in the unlikely event the baby will be born with any birth defects, which may or may not be associated with the doctors’ treatment decisions. In short, many, if not most, “therapeutic” abortions are of more benefit to the doctor’s interests than the woman’s interests.

It is also very clear in the medical literature that women who undergo a “therapeutic” abortion experience the highest rates of depression, grief, guilt, divorces, and other psychological problems. The negative psychological effects of late-term pregnancy are undisputed, even by pro-abortion experts. It’s doubtful parents considering a late-term abortion are informed of this, however, especially when there is any indication of fetal anomaly.

In these cases, those advising abortion are often operating from a eugenic mindset. They are ideologically biased to encourage abortion of the “unfit” and to exaggerate the negatives of carrying to term while underestimating the psychological, physical, familial, and spiritual costs of inducing an abortion.

As can be easily imagined, the psychological costs for women (and their families) who originally intended to carry to term are magnified by the fact that they were originally excited about having a child, have been bonding with their babies for many months, and only after this bonding have felt “obligated” to abort for therapeutic reasons.

Here’s the bottom line: even if a doctor is convinced abortion is necessary to save a woman’s life, he or she should disclose to the patient and her family that a “therapeutic” abortion poses its own risks to her future physical and mental health. The doctor should also admit that the recommendation to abort can only be justified by appeals to the “art of medicine,” not any actual statistically validated studies.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

LifeNews Note: David C. Reardon, PhD, is the director of the Elliot Institute and one of the world’s most published experts on the aftereffects of abortion on women.