DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
<
form action=&amp
;amp;amp;quot;https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; method=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;p
ost&
quot; target=&am
p;amp;amp;quot;_top&
amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;input type=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;hidden&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; name=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;cmd&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; value=&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot
;_s-xclick&a
mp;amp;quot;&amp
;amp;amp;gt; &am
p;amp;amp;lt;input type=&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;hidden&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; name=&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;hosted_button_id&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; val
ue=&
quot;DKL7ADEKRVUBL&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;quot;&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;input type=&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;image&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; src=&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;https://www.payp
alobjects.com/en_US/i/btn/btn_donateCC_LG.gif&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; border=&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;0&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; nam
e=&q
uot;submit&a
mp;amp;quot; alt=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;quot;PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!
&quo
t;&g
t; &
lt;img alt=&
amp;amp;quot;&am
p;amp;amp;quot; border=&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;0&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; src=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;https://www.paypalobjects.com
/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gif&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; width=&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;1&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; height=&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;1&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/form&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;
HTML https://3169.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Christian Threads
*****************************************************
#Post#: 9823--------------------------------------------------
Re: Abortion Is Murder - Change My Mind
By: patrick jane Date: January 22, 2020, 12:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img]
HTML https://www-images.christianitytoday.com/images/114993.jpg?w=700[/img]
HTML https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2020/january/pro-life-abortion-regret-study-post-abortive-ministry.html
Abortion Regret Isn’t a Myth, Despite New Study
What women may refuse to disclose to researchers at a clinic,
they’re confessing in Bible studies decades later.
Pro-life advocates and ministry leaders are challenging the
results of a new study that found that most women do not suffer
emotionally after an abortion, and that over time, they are less
likely to express regret.
Researchers from the University of California at San Francisco
followed 667 women across 30 clinics after they received an
elective abortion, finding that the majority had either positive
feelings or no emotion at all toward their decision both a week
later (71%) and five years later (84%), according to a study
released last week in the journal Social Science & Medicine.
Corinne Rocca, one of the study’s authors and a professor at UC
San Francisco, said that the study proves that the idea that
woman will develop negative emotions after an abortion is a
“myth” and a “red herring.” Rocca has also participated in
multiple research studies and written several articles for the
Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood.
While pro-choice advocates have used the findings to suggest
that the idea of “abortion regret” is merely a scare tactic from
pro-lifers, critics say the sample for the survey doesn’t
justify the debunking its authors have touted in the media.
Writing for the National Review, researcher Michael J. New noted
that women who volunteer to respond to questions following an
abortion are more likely to be the ones who feel positively
about it, and therefore the findings do not represent the full
spectrum of women who have had abortions. New—a professor at the
Catholic University of America and a scholar with the pro-life
Charlotte Lozier Institute—noted that of all the women asked to
participate, less than 40 percent agreed, and roughly 30 percent
of the 667 who participated had stopped responding by the end of
the five-year study.
Plus, Christians working in post-abortive ministry have seen
abortion regret stir up in women long after the five-year span
of the research.
“The majority of women we see are usually 15, 20, 30, 40 years
removed,” said Carrie Bond, former national training director
for Surrendering the Secret. Counselors and staff like Bond are
particularly likely to encounter those who have grown to regret
their abortions, or to discover that they had been holding back
the emotional weight of the decision.
Abby Johnson, the former Planned Parenthood staffer who went on
to become a pro-life advocate, shared a similar observation on
Twitter: “Here’s real talk. Trauma doesn’t usually present until
10-15 years post-traumatic event. Those women have NO idea how
they will feel about their abortions many years later.”
Bond said most women are culturally conditioned to either hide
their abortion or celebrate it. “Those are your two choices,”
she said. “Be silent, or say ‘It hasn’t affected me!’” Some may
not even realize that some of the negative symptoms they
experience in the years following their abortion—nightmares, or
an eating disorder, for example—may have been triggered by their
experience.
Bond also questioned the researchers’ conclusion that the lack
of emotion is positive. Far from a good thing, she said that can
be actually evidence of trauma. One of the most common symptoms
of post-abortion stress she sees in women is emotional numbness.
One study conducted in the early nineties by pro-life
researchers found that 92 percent of women experience some level
of “emotional deadening” up to 10 years after their procedure.
(That study surveyed 260 women who had actively sought
post-abortion counseling.)
While post-abortive ministries, by their nature, are likely to
draw in women who are experiencing regret and seeking a place
for healing—their work is not miniscule. As Julie Roys wrote for
CT in 2015:
In the past 20 years, abortion recovery groups have multiplied
in churches nationwide. Surrendering the Secret has trained
about 2,500 leaders in churches and crisis pregnancy centers.
Another leading recovery ministry, Rachel’s Vineyard, hosts
about 1,000 retreats annually in 48 states and 57 other
countries. Yet, these statistics pale in comparison to the
number of post-abortive women in the church (not to mention the
men who carry regret over their wives’ or girlfriends’
abortions).
The Silent No More Campaign, a project of Priests for Life and
Anglicans for Life, has hosted 6,469 women and men sharing their
abortion testimonies. “I Regret My Abortion” is a slogan on its
campaign protest signs.
Abortion rates have been falling for the past few years,
reaching an “historic low” of 625,000 in 2016, the latest year
data from the Centers for Disease Control are available.
Statistically, 625,000 abortions means there were 12 abortions
for every 1,000 women of child-bearing age in the US that year.
That number may be higher, given that reporting abortion numbers
to the CDC is voluntary for states. Still, it adds to a
staggering total. Researchers from varying ideological
backgrounds estimate roughly 60 million abortions have been
performed in the United States since the Supreme Court decided
Roe v. Wade in January 1973.
In the UCSF study, researchers approached possible participants
at abortion clinic sites. But that potentially left out a subset
of women: those who obtain medication abortions. In some states,
women can get prescriptions for the abortion medication protocol
via a video consultation with a doctor or nurse practitioner and
never have to step foot into a clinic.
The Guttmacher Institute reports that medication abortions are
on the rise, accounting for more than a third of all abortions
recorded in 2017. The most commonly-used medication abortion
protocol is only prescribed in the first trimester and includes
two drugs: the first blocks the embryo from receiving vital
progesterone. The second, taken 24 to 48 hours later, induces
labor.
The medications are currently regulated by the Food and Drug
Administration and in some states must be administered by a
licensed doctor or other medical professional, but pro-choice
groups are pushing against such regulations.
Chuck Donovan, president of the Charlotte Lozier Institute,
worries that medication abortions have the potential to cause
more trauma than an in-clinic procedure, as women may feel more
responsibility over the abortion when they have to take the
medication themselves. He also said a medication abortion
presents the possibility that a woman will see her deceased baby
after the medication runs its course.
Bond at Surrendering the Secret said she’s counseled many women
who had that exact experience. She agrees the trauma from
medication abortions may be even more acute than that
experienced after a surgical procedure. “You’re not told the
truth, and then left alone to suffer through the trauma: intense
cramping, hemorrhaging, delivery of baby,” she said
The UCSF study also reported that 95 percent of the women they
spoke to said they were confident that abortion was the right
decision for them. But Bond said even women who express strong
confidence at the time of their decision (or even shortly
afterward) are still at great risk for post-abortion stress.
Expressed confidence at the abortion clinic may in fact be
denial, she said, and that could fade later.
#Post#: 11033--------------------------------------------------
Re: Abortion Is Murder - Change My Mind
By: patrick jane Date: March 14, 2020, 6:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPPomGiShWs
#Post#: 11034--------------------------------------------------
Re: Abortion Is Murder - Change My Mind
By: patrick jane Date: March 14, 2020, 6:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF3cUjl2WG0
#Post#: 11055--------------------------------------------------
Re: Abortion Is Murder - Change My Mind
By: guest8 Date: March 15, 2020, 6:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=patrick jane link=topic=53.msg11034#msg11034
date=1584228807]
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF3cUjl2WG0
[/quote]
Ah you are correct...Abortion is Murder!
Blade
#Post#: 14012--------------------------------------------------
Re: Abortion Is Murder - Change My Mind
By: patrick jane Date: June 6, 2020, 1:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img]
HTML https://www-images.christianitytoday.com/images/117655.png?w=700[/img]
HTML https://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2020/june/why-i-protest-and-you-should-too.html
Pro ALL Life: Why I Protest and Encourage You to Do So Too
I've marched for life like lots of evangelicals. I encourage you
to march for black lives as well. Protests are part of who we
are.
I’m convinced that Christians need to speak out and to protest
at times. And the reality is, all Christians believe this about
certain issues. For example, it does not seem controversial when
we march for life. But it does seem controversial when we march
for racial justice, and I think it’s worth exploring why.
Earlier this week, I marched in the Bronzeville neighborhood of
Chicago to join thousands of others in a peaceful protest led by
African American faith leaders.
Yesterday, my family and I participated in a lament walk in
Wheaton. I tweeted at the time, "At the Wheaton lament walk with
my family. Communities all over the country are coming together
to mourn and work for justice. I’ve never seen a group like this
in Wheaton. It’s encouraging." And I meant it.
Now, mind you, I am doing more than protesting—things like
partnering churches together and giving to help impacted
communities, but I’m also headed out again right now to be a
part of a local protest.
I think protesting matters.
Let me explain.
Our Heritage
As Protestants, protest is a part of our faith heritage. That’s
part of why we are called Protestants.
Martin Luther protested abuses in the Catholic Church with his
95 Theses. When he was given a papal bull from Pope Leo X
calling him to recant, Luther burned it in protest. He was
called a heretic and worse, yet he stood on his convictions.
Indeed, we draw Protestantism from those who followed Luther in
“protest” after he broke from the Catholic Church at the Diet of
Worms in 1529.
Also, as a specific strain within Protestant Christianity,
evangelicals have long history of protest. We draw our
theological heritage from English Puritans who dissented from
the Church of England.
As Americans, it is part of our civic heritage (one which we
often venerate in textbooks and through holidays. The one that
sticks out in our national conscience is the Boston Tea Party,
one of the earliest protests of the American Revolution which
rallied people against the oppressive tyranny of King George.
And as Evangelicals, we are people defined in part by our
heritage of revival, reform, and renewal. We are at our best
when we are calling ourselves, our churches, and our communities
to resist both dead orthodoxy and empty moralism. At our core,
we are supposed to be people who work to protest spiritual
lethargy.
Christians have also protested moral wrongs throughout the
years.
Most recently, evangelicals and other Christians have
consistently—and against considerable public pressure—protested
abortion, including participation in a major national March for
Life every year.
Our Call
Far from a recent evolution, modern evangelicalism was born out
of a rejection of isolationism of fundamentalism. Carl F.H.
Henry’s The Uneasy Conscience of Fundamentalism drew attention
to the ways theological conservative Protestants in America had
lost sight of the social dimensions of the gospel. Later, in his
book A Plea for Evangelical Demonstration, Henry would focus
more practically on the issue of public protest in calling
evangelicals to take seriously our faith:
This is a call for authentic evangelical protest. A sensitive
Christian conscience must openly confront enduring and
intractable social injustices. Biblically concerned Christians
need not forego a moment of open identification with those of
other faiths and alien views in protesting what all together
recognize to be unjust."[1]
As Peter Heltzel rightly observed, this was “Henry on fire for
lasting social change as a vital expression of our gospel
witness.” Drawing a clear parallel to Martin Luther King’s
famous exhortation to moderate clergy that "injustice anywhere
is injustice everywhere,” Henry pleaded for Christians to
protest “what all together recognize to be unjust.”[2]
With unrelenting surgical precision, Henry repeatedly honed in
not only on the systemic nature of evil but also on the
necessity of a public response by the people of God. The result
was an unavoidable call to evangelicals to see the call to
protest as intimately and unavoidably connected to their faith.
Our Current Situation
Over the past two weeks, we have witnessed countless marches and
demonstrations to protest not only the killing of George Floyd,
but also the broader issue of systemic racism., Following other
tragic reports of African American deaths in the recent past,
Floyd’s death seems to be a tipping point in waking people to
action.
But there is a difference it seems between the protests over the
past two weeks and the litany of those I just noted above. The
difference in these recent protests is that some conservatives
(often evangelicals) seem intent upon focusing on other issues
so as to bypass the heart of the matter.
It’s worth addressing their argument.
Even as evidence of violence and prejudice mounts and the pleas
from their brothers and sisters of color intensify, their social
media feeds instead focus on the riots and looting. Tying the
protests and riots together, some are trying to dismiss the
former by way of the latter.
Here’s the challenge: You can simultaneously speak out against
systemic racism and looting and violence. Evangelicals sometimes
struggle with the former but demand the latter. Followers of
Jesus must do both.
Faith Leaders March
The faith leaders I marched with for justice in Chicago modeled
this duality. Walking through the streets, they called out
victims by name while proclaiming that black lives do matter.
I’m aware of concerns surrounding the BLM movement (and have
published about those concerns here) but that doesn’t negate the
significance of the phrase. We should be ashamed we have reached
a place where so many in the African American community believe
their lives do not matter to us. Regardless of politics, it
marks a tragic failure on our part to live out scripture’s
imperative to be known for our love.
Moreover, as we marched through Bronzeville for justice and
fairness, leaders of that condemned the destructiveness of
rioting and looting not only on the goals of the protest but in
the very communities we were trying shine lights upon.
No Christian affirms a violent riot but this is the straw man
some are using. Yet consider how this same tactic is used
against us when applied to other protests. When extremists bomb
an abortion clinic and kill an abortion doctor, we are defensive
when others try to use the incident to tar the entire pro-life
movement. Even as we join in condemning this violence as
antithetical to the movement, it can quickly become a talking
point to label the movement as violent, hypocritical, and
self-defeating.
As we ask for others to avoid straw man tactics to silence our
protests, we must resist the same temptation to silence others.
Behind the Protesting
One of the disappointing facts of debates over the nature of
protests is that the underlying message can get lost. Yet the
reality is that the act of protesting itself is not the issue.
Indeed, for too many, focusing on the protests can often be a
smokescreen to avoid dealing with the harsh reality.
Instead, we get endless debates of protesting the right way. If
only African Americans (and others seeking justice) would
protest the right way, then we would understand and deal with
the problem, we hear. Well, I can’t think of a righter way than
a peaceful protest walking through Bronzeville in a march led by
African American pastors.
It must not be lost that so many of these marches are saturated
in the gospel and lead by gospel ministers. Indeed, David Neff
reminds us that one of the most prominent civil rights song, "We
Shall Overcome," was adapted by Peter Seeger from Louise
Shropshire's "If My Jesus Wills (I'll Overcome)." That so many
white people see only the looting fringe and not their brothers
and sisters in Christ speaks to centuries of oppression must be
bridged.
It's my hope and prayer that the church today will be building
bridges rather than burning them. Otherwise, something far worse
than property will be destroyed.
Standing and Marching for Lives that Matter
For me, I stand with the unborn who’ve been ignored. It’s
interesting to see so many throw that back up on social media to
me, yet I wonder if they’ve joined us at the national March for
Life or even the Chicago march.
Many people have tweeted back at me mentioning abortion in the
last couple weeks. I’m glad that are concerned for the innocent
unborn. I’ve not tweeted back to ask how many have joined us for
such marches for life. Tweets are easy— action is hard. I hope
they will.
I assure you, it was pretty cold in Chicago when I spoke at that
Chicago march. And yet, I saw Anglican Bishop Stewart Ruch
there. And I saw him again this week. I tweeted, “I saw Anglican
Bishop @StewartRuch at the faith leaders March on Tuesday AND we
regularly see one another at pro-life marches. I love his
consistency.”
This weekend, many of your African American brothers and sisters
need to know you care. I was invited first by James Meeks—Meeks
is an evangelical pastor who is a trustee of Moody Bible
Institute and grad student in our Wheaton College graduate
program. How could I not stand by my brother in Christ when he
asked me to stand with him against injustice and stand by him in
his community’s pain.
I was surprised that James Meeks insisted I join him at the
front of the march—that’s me at the middle holing the Y and
James holding the D. (It’s blurry in the article picture at the
top, but here we are together—and I am glad to be by his side.)
I did not want to be up front, but he and Charlie Dates
explained to me that it is important that white allies be
present and evident. So I listened to them.
Lots of evangelical pastors where there that day, and I was glad
to be a part of it. You might consider joining such a peaceful
event in your own area this weekend yourself, because protesting
is what we Protestants have been doing since day one.
Don’t let the fringe voices on Twitter keep you from standing
for justice with your neighbor.
You already probably knew that the unborn need your voice. Well,
so do your African American brothers and sisters who have been
born into a world where they wonder if their lives really do
matter.
Endnotes
[1] Carl F. H. Henry, A Plea for Evangelical Demonstration
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1971), 13.
[2] Peter Goodwin Heltzel, Jesus and Justice: Evangelicals,
Race, and American Politics, 86.
Ed Stetzer is executive director of the Wheaton College Billy
Graham Center, serves as a dean at Wheaton College, and
publishes church leadership resources through Mission Group. The
Exchange Team contributed to this article.
#Post#: 14704--------------------------------------------------
Re: Abortion Is Murder - Change My Mind
By: patrick jane Date: June 30, 2020, 4:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img]
HTML https://www-images.christianitytoday.com/images/118068.jpg?w=700[/img]
HTML https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2020/june/supreme-court-abortion-louisiana-june-medical-services.html
Supreme Court Rejects Louisiana Abortion Regulations
John Roberts joins liberal justices, citing precedent.
The Supreme Court has ruled that a Louisiana law regulating
abortion places an unacceptable obstacle in the path of women
who want an abortion.
Pro-life advocates had hoped that the two new conservative
justices would swing the court in a different direction than its
2016 ruling on a similar case. Instead, the 5–4 decision
solidifies the court’s definition of “undue burden” on women
seeking the procedure and further limits states’ abilities to
regulate abortion.
“This decision is disappointing and wrong-headed,” said Russell
Moore, president of the the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics
and Religious Liberty Commission. “The Louisiana law was
directed toward the simple goal of protecting women from danger
by placing the most minimal restrictions possible on an abortion
industry that insists on laissez-faire for itself and its
profits.”
The Louisiana law required abortion providers to obtain
admitting privileges at a local hospital. Legislators said the
requirement would improve the level of care that clinics provide
for women. Abortion regulations in Louisiana and other
conservative states have resulted in clinic closures and
corresponded with falling abortion rates nationwide.
The court struck down similar requirements in Texas in 2016,
ruling that the regulation would have no positive effect on the
level of treatment women received but would likely cause some
clinics to close. The regulation was unconstitutional because it
placed an “undue burden” on women’s access to abortion.
On Monday, four liberal justices—Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader
Ginsberg, Sonya Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan—decided in June
Medical Services vs. Russo that the Louisiana law was
unconstitutional for the same reasons.
“Enforcing the admitting-privileges requirement would
drastically reduce the number and geographic distribution of
abortion providers, making it impossible for many women to
obtain a safe, legal abortion in the State and imposing
substantial obstacles on those who could,” wrote Stephen Breyer,
for the majority.
Chief Justice John Roberts joined the decision in a concurring
opinion. Even though he said the Texas decision was wrong, he
thinks the precedent is binding. Roberts appealed to the legal
doctrine of stare decisis, a Latin phrase meaning “to stand by
things decided.”
“Stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to
treat like cases alike,” Roberts wrote. “The Louisiana law
imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that
imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore
Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents.”
The legal argument did not please pro-life advocates.
“Chief Justice Roberts’ vote is a big disappointment,” said
James Bopp Jr., general counsel for National Right to Life.
“This decision demonstrates how difficult it is to drain the DC
swamp and how important it is that President Trump gets
re-elected so that he may be able to appoint more pro-life
Justices.”
Louisiana—like many conservative states—has passed numerous laws
regulating abortion in the last few years. Most abortions are
banned after 22 weeks. Every woman seeking abortion is required
to get an ultrasound and receive in-person counseling. And girls
under 18 are required to get parental consent.
The state has seen a 2 percent drop in abortions since 2016,
continuing a nation-wide trend. In the state’s four clinics,
there is currently about currently about 1 abortion per 100
reproductive-age women every year.
The Louisiana clinics do not have a good record of caring for
women’s health. A lower court—which sided with the abortion
providers—described the clinics’ disregard for basic levels of
medical care as “horrifying.”
In one case, a doctor did not sterilize the instruments used to
perform an abortion. The same doctor used single-use instruments
multiple times, court records show. In another case, a women
started to hemorrhage during her abortion. The doctor didn’t try
to stop the bleeding, according to disciplinary records, but
instead told her to “get up and get out.”
June Medical Services, the clinic at the center of the Supreme
Court case, was cited for failing to monitor breathing and
heartbeats while women were under anesthesia. Its doctors also
didn’t check medical histories and performed abortions without
documenting anything about prior complications with anesthesia,
or issues with menstruation, pregnancy, and childbirth,
according to the lower court’s findings.
Pro-choice advocates argued that requiring doctors who perform
abortions to maintain admitting privileges at local hospitals
will not improve the level of care. Sometimes hospitals evaluate
a doctor’s qualifications and record, but admitting privileges
can also be denied for bureaucratic reasons that have nothing to
do with the quality of care a patient receives. Functionally,
they argue, the requirement will only prevent some abortion
doctors from working in Louisiana.
Justice Samuel Alito, in his dissent to Monday’s ruling, argued
that “there is ample evidence in the record showing that
admitting privileges help to protect the health of women by
ensuring that physicians who perform abortions meet a higher
standard of competence than is shown by the mere possession of a
license to practice.”
Alito also argued the ruling shifts the standard for regulations
in favor of abortion providers, allowing them to say what counts
as an undue burden.
There has been much debate about what regulations are
“substantial obstacles” since the court established that
standard in 1992 with Planned Parenthood vs. Casey. Many
abortion rights advocates see all regulations as an undue
burden. They argue the state laws are just back-door attempts to
ban abortion.
During oral arguments, the attorney representing June Medical
Services said that even if there was no evidence that the
Louisiana law made it harder for a woman to get an abortion, the
regulation should not be allowed unless it was shown it made a
positive impact on women’s health.
Pro-life groups, on the other hand, have argued a state law
should be allowed unless it prevents all or nearly all abortions
from occurring. In a friend-of-the-court brief, Bopp argued that
regulations are not substantial obstacles until they rise to the
level of “absolute obstacles” and when a law incidentally
increases the cost or decrease the availability of abortion that
is not “undue as a matter of law.” He suggested the court
clarify its standard, to say that a regulation is permissible
unless it deprives women of abortion access “in a real sense” or
is clearly “designed to strike at the right itself.”
Justice Clarence Thomas, in his dissent, said the debates about
what regulations are acceptable do not go to the heart of the
matter.
“Today’s decision is wrong for a far simpler reason,” he wrote.
“The Constitution does not constrain the States’ ability to
regulate or even prohibit abortion. This Court created the right
to abortion based on an amorphous, unwritten right to privacy,
which it grounded in the ‘legal fiction’ of substantive due
process … the putative right to abortion is a creation that
should be undone.”
The case has been seen by many as a proxy battle over abortion,
despite the fact that the legal status of abortion wasn’t at
issue and abortions would continue to happen, regardless of the
court’s ruling.
The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association filed a brief with the
court arguing the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of the right to
legal due process should protect the unborn. “It is now well
known that a unique human being, a person, begins life at
conception,” the association’s lawyer wrote to the court. “That
has been indisputably established scientifically since the early
1800s.”
On the other side, the representative for 28 pro-choice
religious groups including the Methodist Federation for Social
Action, Presbyterians Affirming Reproductive Choice, and the
United Church of Christ, took the opportunity to argue for the
importance of abortion access.
“Being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term not only
exposes a woman to greater health risks, but is also an affront
to her right to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy, in
accordance with her faith and values,” the lawyer wrote.
“Religious commitments to the marginalized in our society,
including poor women, women of color, rural women, young women,
women in abusive relationships, and women unable to travel to
obtain abortion care, add to these concerns.”
The court’s ruling does not address the personhood of the
unborn, though. Nor did it challenge the question of a women’s
right to access abortion.
At least one justice wonders whether any Supreme Court decision
could get at the real issue dividing the nation and address the
deep ideological conflict over abortion.
“I have read the briefs. I understand there are good arguments
on both sides,” Breyer said during oral arguments in March.
“Indeed, in the country people have very strong feelings and a
lot of people morally think it’s wrong and a lot of people
morally think the opposite is wrong. … I think personally the
court is struggling with the problem of what kind of rule of law
do you have in a country that contains both sorts of people.”
#Post#: 14713--------------------------------------------------
Re: Abortion Is Murder - Change My Mind
By: guest8 Date: June 30, 2020, 7:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=patrick jane link=topic=53.msg14704#msg14704
date=1593553695]
[img]
HTML https://www-images.christianitytoday.com/images/118068.jpg?w=700[/img]
HTML https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2020/june/supreme-court-abortion-louisiana-june-medical-services.html
Supreme Court Rejects Louisiana Abortion Regulations
John Roberts joins liberal justices, citing precedent.
The Supreme Court has ruled that a Louisiana law regulating
abortion places an unacceptable obstacle in the path of women
who want an abortion.
Pro-life advocates had hoped that the two new conservative
justices would swing the court in a different direction than its
2016 ruling on a similar case. Instead, the 5–4 decision
solidifies the court’s definition of “undue burden” on women
seeking the procedure and further limits states’ abilities to
regulate abortion.
“This decision is disappointing and wrong-headed,” said Russell
Moore, president of the the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics
and Religious Liberty Commission. “The Louisiana law was
directed toward the simple goal of protecting women from danger
by placing the most minimal restrictions possible on an abortion
industry that insists on laissez-faire for itself and its
profits.”
The Louisiana law required abortion providers to obtain
admitting privileges at a local hospital. Legislators said the
requirement would improve the level of care that clinics provide
for women. Abortion regulations in Louisiana and other
conservative states have resulted in clinic closures and
corresponded with falling abortion rates nationwide.
The court struck down similar requirements in Texas in 2016,
ruling that the regulation would have no positive effect on the
level of treatment women received but would likely cause some
clinics to close. The regulation was unconstitutional because it
placed an “undue burden” on women’s access to abortion.
On Monday, four liberal justices—Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader
Ginsberg, Sonya Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan—decided in June
Medical Services vs. Russo that the Louisiana law was
unconstitutional for the same reasons.
“Enforcing the admitting-privileges requirement would
drastically reduce the number and geographic distribution of
abortion providers, making it impossible for many women to
obtain a safe, legal abortion in the State and imposing
substantial obstacles on those who could,” wrote Stephen Breyer,
for the majority.
Chief Justice John Roberts joined the decision in a concurring
opinion. Even though he said the Texas decision was wrong, he
thinks the precedent is binding. Roberts appealed to the legal
doctrine of stare decisis, a Latin phrase meaning “to stand by
things decided.”
“Stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to
treat like cases alike,” Roberts wrote. “The Louisiana law
imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that
imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore
Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents.”
The legal argument did not please pro-life advocates.
“Chief Justice Roberts’ vote is a big disappointment,” said
James Bopp Jr., general counsel for National Right to Life.
“This decision demonstrates how difficult it is to drain the DC
swamp and how important it is that President Trump gets
re-elected so that he may be able to appoint more pro-life
Justices.”
Louisiana—like many conservative states—has passed numerous laws
regulating abortion in the last few years. Most abortions are
banned after 22 weeks. Every woman seeking abortion is required
to get an ultrasound and receive in-person counseling. And girls
under 18 are required to get parental consent.
The state has seen a 2 percent drop in abortions since 2016,
continuing a nation-wide trend. In the state’s four clinics,
there is currently about currently about 1 abortion per 100
reproductive-age women every year.
The Louisiana clinics do not have a good record of caring for
women’s health. A lower court—which sided with the abortion
providers—described the clinics’ disregard for basic levels of
medical care as “horrifying.”
In one case, a doctor did not sterilize the instruments used to
perform an abortion. The same doctor used single-use instruments
multiple times, court records show. In another case, a women
started to hemorrhage during her abortion. The doctor didn’t try
to stop the bleeding, according to disciplinary records, but
instead told her to “get up and get out.”
June Medical Services, the clinic at the center of the Supreme
Court case, was cited for failing to monitor breathing and
heartbeats while women were under anesthesia. Its doctors also
didn’t check medical histories and performed abortions without
documenting anything about prior complications with anesthesia,
or issues with menstruation, pregnancy, and childbirth,
according to the lower court’s findings.
Pro-choice advocates argued that requiring doctors who perform
abortions to maintain admitting privileges at local hospitals
will not improve the level of care. Sometimes hospitals evaluate
a doctor’s qualifications and record, but admitting privileges
can also be denied for bureaucratic reasons that have nothing to
do with the quality of care a patient receives. Functionally,
they argue, the requirement will only prevent some abortion
doctors from working in Louisiana.
Justice Samuel Alito, in his dissent to Monday’s ruling, argued
that “there is ample evidence in the record showing that
admitting privileges help to protect the health of women by
ensuring that physicians who perform abortions meet a higher
standard of competence than is shown by the mere possession of a
license to practice.”
Alito also argued the ruling shifts the standard for regulations
in favor of abortion providers, allowing them to say what counts
as an undue burden.
There has been much debate about what regulations are
“substantial obstacles” since the court established that
standard in 1992 with Planned Parenthood vs. Casey. Many
abortion rights advocates see all regulations as an undue
burden. They argue the state laws are just back-door attempts to
ban abortion.
During oral arguments, the attorney representing June Medical
Services said that even if there was no evidence that the
Louisiana law made it harder for a woman to get an abortion, the
regulation should not be allowed unless it was shown it made a
positive impact on women’s health.
Pro-life groups, on the other hand, have argued a state law
should be allowed unless it prevents all or nearly all abortions
from occurring. In a friend-of-the-court brief, Bopp argued that
regulations are not substantial obstacles until they rise to the
level of “absolute obstacles” and when a law incidentally
increases the cost or decrease the availability of abortion that
is not “undue as a matter of law.” He suggested the court
clarify its standard, to say that a regulation is permissible
unless it deprives women of abortion access “in a real sense” or
is clearly “designed to strike at the right itself.”
Justice Clarence Thomas, in his dissent, said the debates about
what regulations are acceptable do not go to the heart of the
matter.
“Today’s decision is wrong for a far simpler reason,” he wrote.
“The Constitution does not constrain the States’ ability to
regulate or even prohibit abortion. This Court created the right
to abortion based on an amorphous, unwritten right to privacy,
which it grounded in the ‘legal fiction’ of substantive due
process … the putative right to abortion is a creation that
should be undone.”
The case has been seen by many as a proxy battle over abortion,
despite the fact that the legal status of abortion wasn’t at
issue and abortions would continue to happen, regardless of the
court’s ruling.
The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association filed a brief with the
court arguing the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of the right to
legal due process should protect the unborn. “It is now well
known that a unique human being, a person, begins life at
conception,” the association’s lawyer wrote to the court. “That
has been indisputably established scientifically since the early
1800s.”
On the other side, the representative for 28 pro-choice
religious groups including the Methodist Federation for Social
Action, Presbyterians Affirming Reproductive Choice, and the
United Church of Christ, took the opportunity to argue for the
importance of abortion access.
“Being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term not only
exposes a woman to greater health risks, but is also an affront
to her right to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy, in
accordance with her faith and values,” the lawyer wrote.
“Religious commitments to the marginalized in our society,
including poor women, women of color, rural women, young women,
women in abusive relationships, and women unable to travel to
obtain abortion care, add to these concerns.”
The court’s ruling does not address the personhood of the
unborn, though. Nor did it challenge the question of a women’s
right to access abortion.
At least one justice wonders whether any Supreme Court decision
could get at the real issue dividing the nation and address the
deep ideological conflict over abortion.
“I have read the briefs. I understand there are good arguments
on both sides,” Breyer said during oral arguments in March.
“Indeed, in the country people have very strong feelings and a
lot of people morally think it’s wrong and a lot of people
morally think the opposite is wrong. … I think personally the
court is struggling with the problem of what kind of rule of law
do you have in a country that contains both sorts of people.”
[/quote]
There was a piece of legislation in Texas that was put down last
year. Sadly, the justices did not look to the words of the
Lousianna Legislation but rather put it down because of
Precedent...Yet, it was different all together. So sad.
When a nations leaders, Scotus is one of those leaders.....They
have not change is 100 years.
Bill Graham once said that "If God did not Judge America, He
would owe Sodom and Gamorrah an apology"
unfortunately, we have become a nation of monsters that Kills
Children for what....The IDOL of ME-ME-ME. Wow....Beware
..Judgement is coming soon,......
Blade
#Post#: 15860--------------------------------------------------
Re: Abortion Is Murder - Change My Mind
By: patrick jane Date: August 4, 2020, 1:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
sad
#Post#: 17825--------------------------------------------------
Re: Abortion Is Murder - Change My Mind
By: patrick jane Date: September 21, 2020, 4:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=patrick jane link=topic=53.msg15860#msg15860
date=1596566572]
sad
[/quote]Evil
#Post#: 17954--------------------------------------------------
Re: Abortion Is Murder - Change My Mind
By: patrick jane Date: September 24, 2020, 2:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img]
HTML https://www-images.christianitytoday.com/images/119522.jpg?w=940[/img]
HTML https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2020/september-web-only/supreme-court-evangelical-issues-ruth-bader-ginsburg-trump.html
Why the Supreme Court Makeup Matters Beyond Abortion
Legal experts cite religious freedom and free speech among the
major issues for evangelicals in a post–Ruth Bader Ginsburg
court.
Last week’s death of Ruth Bader Ginsberg represents the third
opportunity for President Donald Trump to nominate a Supreme
Court justice.
A third of evangelicals by belief cited Supreme Court nominees
and abortion stance as reasons for voting for Trump in 2016.
Many evangelicals and pro-life Americans have celebrated the
possibility that another conservative justice could shift the
Court toward overturning Roe v. Wade and reshaping abortion law
in the country. Yet the new makeup of the Court will address
crucial issues for the church that extend far beyond abortion.
CT asked legal experts how a new Supreme Court appointment
replacing Ginsburg stands to affect evangelicals outside of Roe
v. Wade. Here are their responses, calling out issues such as
religious freedom, racial equality, child protection, and free
speech.
Barry P. McDonald, law professor at Pepperdine University:
As it stands, the Supreme Court is controlled by a majority of
five solid conservative justices who either have a strong record
of supporting religious freedom rights or give every indication
that they will develop such a record. If President Trump
succeeds in appointing Justice Ginsburg’s successor, that will
likely add one more justice to this coalition. While an
additional vote is not necessary to maintain this trend, it
could prove important to religious freedom proponents in cases
where Chief Justice John Roberts might moderate his vote in an
attempt to shield the Court as an institution from charges that
it has become too political and divisive (or where any
conservative justice moderates his or her vote for whatever
reason). This is most likely to occur in cases where religious
beliefs might conflict with laws prohibiting discrimination on
the basis of sexual and gender orientation. Indeed, both Roberts
and Justice Neil Gorsuch recently alluded to such future
contests in voting to interpret federal workplace laws as
barring such discrimination.
Kim Colby, director of the Christian Legal Society’s Center of
Law and Religious Freedom:
Justice Ginsburg’s replacement potentially could provide a more
secure footing for our basic human right of religious freedom.
In 27 years on the Supreme Court, Justice Ginsburg heard over 30
religious freedom cases. Unfortunately, her support for
religious freedom was lackluster.
Justice Ginsburg previously voted in favor of religious schools’
freedom to choose their teachers but then voted against that
right in a recent case. She voted once for—and three times
against—robust application of the Religious Freedom Restoration
Act. Her two votes in favor of prisoners’ religious freedom, as
well as a Muslim employee’s right to wear a hijab, were
commendable. But four times, she voted to uphold the
government’s exclusion of religious speech from the public
square.
Justice Ginsburg advanced a theory of the Establishment Clause
that excluded religious students from government programs
funding education. Several times she voted to remove religious
symbols from public property. When comparing her votes in recent
cases to votes by Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Brett
Kavanaugh, the comparison suggests that someone nominated by
President Trump likely will be a good steward of religious
freedom.
Lynne Marie Kohm, law professor at Regent University:
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s replacement can make a dynamic
difference for America’s children in three key cases—one past,
one present, and one (hopefully) future.
Past: Transgender rights—Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia. The
Court held that firing an individual for being transgender
violates Title VII. Ginsburg’s replacement could alter future
transgender rulings, particularly as biological female athletes
seek to protect their rights in girls’ sports.
Present: Foster care—Fulton v. Philadelphia. First Amendment
rights of Christians who provide foster care are at stake as the
Court soon determines whether the government can condition a
religious agency’s ability to participate in the foster care
system on practices that contradict its religious beliefs.
Future (hopefully): Child pornography. In 2002, Ashcroft v. Free
Speech Coalition struck down two provisions of the Child
Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 as overbroad, giving a
tremendous win to the adult-entertainment industry. Child
pornography has since proliferated. Children need protections
that a Ginsburg replacement could help deliver.
Beyond Roe, American evangelicals want to see all children
protected, born and unborn.
Thomas Berg, law professor at the University of St. Thomas:
One obvious evangelical priority for the Court’s new justice
(beyond abortion) is religious freedom, which the Court already
strongly supports. Majorities of 5–7 justices have protected
religious schools’ right to hire the religion teachers they
choose, employers’ right to object to covering employees’
contraception, and families’ right to choose religious schools
for their children and still receive government educational
assistance. Justice Ginsburg dissented from all those rights;
the new nominee will strengthen them.
But the nominee should also be questioned about another
priority: racial equality. Christians must care about this
because racism denies that some fellow humans have their full
God-given dignity. And justices should care because the
Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment was meant to eliminate
practices that had kept black people constricted even after
their formal enslavement ended. Republican appointees typically
commit to enforcing a provision’s “original meaning.” The next
justice should apply the amendment vigorously to racially unjust
practices of our day.
Carl H. Esbeck, law professor emeritus at the University of
Missouri:
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an effective legal activist,
first for the ACLU and later as a high court justice. To admire
her work depends on whether one believes the role of a judge is
to align the law with one’s sense of justice or is it to
subordinate the self to the nation’s organic documents and the
rule of law. Unlike Justice Ginsburg, we can aspire to a
successor who will interpret the US. Constitution in accord with
the original meaning of the adopted text. I also hope for
reconsideration of the free speech case of Hastings Chapter of
the Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. Authored by Justice
Ginsburg, this was a 5-4 decision denying student religious
organizations access to meeting space at a state university
campus without first agreeing that there be no qualification
that the organization’s student officers and members conform to
a statement of faith.
Rena M. Lindevaldsen, law professor at Liberty University:
Conservative justices view the Constitution as a source of, and
limit on, their power, recognizing that the separation of powers
best protects our God-given liberties and that the Constitution
contains an amendment provision to make changes when necessary.
Liberal justices circumvent that amendment provision and simply
change or create law to suit what they believe the culture
desires. But when those justices promote the “right” of people
to do whatever pleases them amidst a culture that promotes
“godlessness and wickedness” (Rom. 1:18), government punishes
those who proclaim the unchanging truth of Scripture.
That punishment takes many forms, including firing employees who
will not promote a particular agenda, arresting sidewalk
counselors, singling out churches for censorship, labeling the
truth of Scripture as hate speech, or stripping people of the
right to self-defense against a despotic government. Appointing
the right justice helps us, as Justice Scalia said, guard
“against the black-robed supremacy.”
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page