9 Things You Should Know About Planned Parenthood

Today, President Obama will give a speech at Planned Parenthood Federation of America's 75th anniversary gala, making him the first sitting president to address the group. Here are nine things you should know about the nation's largest abortion provider.

1. Planned Parenthood Federation of America has 95 affiliates and 865 health centers, according to its latest annual report, which covers the 2008-09 fiscal year. They require that at least one clinic per affiliate must perform abortions. PP performs over 320,000 abortions a year.

2. The motto for this year's gala is "Our past is our prologue." Part of the past the organization will be celebrating includes its founding by the notorious racist and eugenicist Margaret Sanger. Sanger wanted to control the reproduction of immigrants, the poor, certain religious groups, and anyone else she thought was from an "unacceptable" heritage. Sanger referred to such people as reckless breeders who were "unceasingly spawning a class of human beings who never should have been born at all . . ." In 1939 Sanger started the "Negro Project" and attempted to get Christian ministers to aid her effort. As she wrote in a letter to a fellow eugenicist, "we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."    Continue at Joe Carter

See also:  God Bless Planned Parenthood?

Military Blocks Access to Southern Baptist Website

The U.S. Military has blocked access to the Southern Baptist Convention’s website on an unknown number of military bases because it contains “hostile content” — just weeks after an Army briefing labeled Evangelical Christians and Roman Catholics as examples of religious extremism, Fox News has learned.

The Southern Baptist Convention is the nation's largest Protestant denomination known for its support of the pro-life movement and its strong belief in traditional marriage.

Southern Baptist chaplains reported the SBC.net had been blocked at military installations around the nation. The censorship was made public after an Army officer tried to log onto the denomination's website and instead - received a warning message.   Continue at Joe Miller

IMAGE

Famous German Homeschool Family, Persecuted for their Beliefs, Visits AiG

Earlier this month, I wrote a blog post about a Christian family—originally from Germany—that had been attempting to home educate their children in their homeland. The family had asked for asylum in America because of the persecution they were facing in Germany (which included fines and possible imprisonment). A judge in Tennessee granted them asylum, but the Obama Administration has challenged the asylum ruling. In Romeike v. Holder, oral arguments were heard in a U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati on Tuesday about the Romeike family’s asylum request. While in the area, the Romeikes, including their six children, toured the Creation Museum on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Not only is the Obama Administration threatening to send the family back to Germany, where they may even face the loss of custody of their children, but what should also concern Americans is the possible precedent their case might set in the USA. For instance, lawyers with the U.S. Attorney General’s office implied during the oral arguments on Tuesday that the government can deny the liberty of parents to direct the educational upbringing of their children. While U.S. courts have generally been favorable to parents in regard to how they want to educate their children, including in their religious training, this current administration apparently wants to chip away at the rights that Americans currently have in home education. I blogged about this threat in a recent post.   Continue at Ken Ham

Do Morning-after Pills Cause Abortions?

In my previous post, I made the claim that the government will fine Hobby Lobby $1.3 million dollars per day until it complies with Obamacare’s abortion mandate. In the comments, I have received a good bit of push-back from readers claiming that the HHS mandate does not require coverage for abortifacient drugs. In particular, critics are telling me to “check my facts” and realize that morning-after pills are not abortifacient. This erroneous objection reveals that there is some confusion out there about what the “facts” really are. For this reason, I think a response is warranted. 

 

First, pro-lifers define abortions as any measure that causes a fertilized egg or fetus to be destroyed. Pro-lifers believe that all human beings have an inalienable right to life from conception to natural death. Notice that it’s not from implantation to natural death, but from conception to natural death. When sperm unites with an egg, a new human life comes into being. In the normal course of events, that new human life travels down the fallopian tubes and into the mother’s womb where it implants into the uterine wall. Pro-choicers often say that an abortion can only occur after implantation. Pro-lifers contend that abortion can occur before or after implantation. Human life is at stake from the time of conception, and anything that destroys that life is abortifacient.  Continue at Denny Burk

Does Anyone Care What Happens to Hobby Lobby?

I am astonished that more Americans aren’t in an uproar about what is happening to Hobby Lobby right now. As many of you know, Hobby Lobby filed a lawsuit earlier this year to try and get relief from Obamacare’s abortion mandate. The case is still pending appeal, but the Supreme Court just rejected their request for an emergency injunction. In response, the Christian owners of Hobby Lobby have said they have no intention to pay for the abortion-inducing drugs required by Obamacare. That means that beginning on January 1, the United States government will fine Hobby Lobby $1.3 million dollars per day until Hobby Lobby complies.

This is the most egregious violation of religious liberty that I have ever seen. The United States Government is forcing these Christian business owners to pay for abortion inducing drugs in their employees’ insurance plans. It doesn’t matter that the law violates their religious liberty to conduct business in a way that is consistent with their conscience. Obamacare mandates that these Christians comply or face fines that will put them out of business.

When the controversy over the abortion mandate erupted earlier this year, the American public by and large got the impression that this was about conservatives who wanted to ban contraception. Nothing could be further from the truth. No one wants to outlaw contraception. This controversy is about the fact that the government is forcing pro-life business owners to pay for chemical abortions. If the federal government can force citizens to purchase items that they believe to be immoral, where will this end?   Continue at Denny Burk

Hobby Lobby Faces Millions in Fines for Bucking Obamacare

Washington (CNN)– Craft store giant Hobby Lobby is bracing for a $1.3 million a day fine beginning January 1 for noncompliance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, dubbed Obamacare.

The company opposes providing some contraceptives to employees through its company health care plan on religious grounds, saying some contraceptive products, like the morning after pill, equate to abortion.

After failing to receive temporary relief from the fines from the Supreme Court, Hobby Lobby announced late Thursday through its attorneys that it "will continue to provide health insurance to all qualified employees. To remain true to their faith, it is not their intention, as a company, to pay for abortion-inducing drugs."

In September, Hobby Lobby and affiliate Mardel, a Christian bookstore chain, sued the federal government for violating their owners' religious freedom and ability to freely exercise their religion.

"All they're asking for is a narrow exemption from the law that says they don't have to provide drugs they believe cause abortions," Hobby Lobby attorney Kyle Duncan, a general counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, told CNN affiliate KFOR in November. "Our basic point is the government can't put a corporation in the position of choosing between its faith and following the law."    Continue at CNN

See also: 60 Second Summary: The Biblical Billionaire Backing The Evangelical Movement

Did God Choose Barack Obama as President?

Habakkuk was confused, frustrated, and evidently just a little bit ticked at God.

“Oh, Lord, how long shall I cry for help and you will not hear? Or cry to you ‘Violence” and you will not save?”  (Hab 1:2)

His concern was focused on the wickedness that was so prevalent among God’s people, in his nation.

“So the law is paralyzed, and justice never goes forth. For the wicked surround the righteous; so justice goes forth perverted.” (Hab 1:4)

Read between the lines. “Where are you, God? Why are you allowing this wickedness to prevail?”

Then, God answered Habakkuk, but it was not an answer that the prophet wanted to hear. He expected God to say, perhaps, that he was going to restore Judah’s fortunes with a sweeping revival and bring them back to obedience that the blessing that would accrue to the obedient nation.  That is not what God said. You can almost see Habakkuk’s jaw drop as God says to him,

“For behold, I am raising up the Chaldeans (Babylonians), that bitter and hasty nation, who march through the breadth of the earth to seize dwellings not their own.” (Hab 1:6)

God goes on to describe the fierce and cruel Chaldeans, intimating that he would raise them up as a scourge to punish Judah’s wickedness. Habakkuk is nonplussed by this answer, asking God how he could possibly consider raising up an even more evil nation like the Babylonians to punish his own chosen people. He is irate now (it is fascinating how honest the prophets are when they are upset at what God is doing!). In Habakkuk 2:1, he issues an ultimatum to God to defend himself and his actions in punishing sinful Judah with uber-sinful Babylon.   Continue at Dave Miller

Legitimate Exceptions for Abortion?

Justin Taylor has put together an article entitled “Exceptions for Abortion?” which contains much wisdom about this very sensitive subject. He writes:

I assume by now that most readers are aware of the controversy regarding comments by candidate Richard Mourdock, who is running for Senate, regarding rape not being an exception for abortion. In a recent debate, when asked about the issue, he responded:

This is that issue that every candidate for federal, or even state, office faces, and I too stand for life. I know there are some who disagree and I respect their point of view and I believe that life begins at conception. The only exception I have [for abortion] is in that case [where] the life of the mother [is threatened]. I struggled with it for a long time, but I came to realize that life is a gift from God. And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape that it is something that God intended to happen.

President Obama, through a spokesperson, “felt those comments were outrageous and demeaning to women.”

There are many angles to this story, including media ignorance, media malfeasance, political clumsiness, bioethics, and Christian witness.

Many members of the media pounced on the story, reporting that Mr. Murdock said that rapes were intended by God. Al Mohler has an important commentary on this today. He writes:

The controversy over his statements reveals the irresponsibility of so many in the media and the political arena. The characterizations and willful distortions of Mourdock’s words amount to nothing less than lies.  Continue at John Samson

10 Questions a Pro-Choice Candidate Is Never Asked by the Media

The media almost always give pro-choice politicians a pass when it comes to questions about abortion. The questions that reporters ask rarely get to the heart of the issue—the humanity of the unborn. Moreover, reporters nearly always fail to ask tough follow-up questions of pro-choice politicians. This state of affairs has long been a frustration to pro-life people who are watching the media scrutiny only going towards one side. That is why I love Trevin Wax’s fantastic post over at his blog titled, “10 Questions a Pro-Choice Candidate Is Never Asked by the Media.” His list of questions includes this:

“You describe abortion as a “tragic choice.” If abortion is not morally objectionable, then why is it tragic? Does this mean there is something about abortion that is different than other standard surgical procedures?”

This is brilliant list, and I would add at least one more question to it. Here it is:

When President Barack Obama was State Senator in Illinois, he voted four times to deny lifesaving care to babies that are born alive after botched abortions. Do you believe that doctors should be required by law to provide lifesaving care to babies born alive after botched abortions?

If the question is posed to President Obama himself, here’s how I would like to see it asked:   Continue at Denny Burk

W.E.B DuBois Would Not Vote in This Election

I know. I was surprised at the notion myself. A tireless champion of Civil Rights, a participant of the Niagra Movement and one of the founders of the NAACP, one would expect DuBois to argue the moral responsibility of voting–particularly for a people recently disenfranchised.

But in a piece entitled, “Why I Won’t Vote,” delivered on October 20, 1956, DuBois made an eloquent case for not voting at all.  The entire speech really should be read; it’s haunting in its description themes and tensions in 1956 that could as easily apply to 2012. DuBois begins with a kind of biography of his voting record:

Since I was twenty-one in 1889, I have in theory followed the voting plan strongly advocated by Sidney Lens in The Nation of August 4, i.e., voting for a third party even when its chances were hopeless, if the main parties were unsatisfactory; or, in absence of a third choice, voting for the lesser of two evils. My action, however, had to be limited by the candidates’ attitude toward Negroes. Of my adult life, I have spent twenty-three years living and teaching in the South, where my voting choice was not asked. I was disfranchised by law or administration. In the North I lived in all thirty-two years, covering eight Presidential elections. In 1912 I wanted to support Theodore Roosevelt, but his Bull Moose convention dodged the Negro problem and I tried to help elect Wilson as a liberal Southerner. Under Wilson came the worst attempt at Jim Crow legislation and discrimination in civil service that we had experienced since the Civil War. In 1916 I took Hughes as the lesser of two evils. He promised Negroes nothing and kept his word. In 1920, I supported Harding because of his promise to liberate Haiti. In 1924, I voted for La Follette, although I knew he could not be elected. In 1928, Negroes faced absolute dilemma.   Continue at Gospel Coalition

See also:  John MacArthur Rebukes Democratic Platform

Homosexuality and Its Quest to be the New Normal

President Obama’s recent statement concerning his views of same sex marriage has generated no small amount of discussion and controversy. In what was doubtlessly a political calculation the President made that statement couched in political and attitudinal terms. That is, this new take is his personal view. He has personally has come to a place where he can now accept and stand behind same sex marriage.

This change is not restricted solely to the President. Advocates for Gay rights have tirelessly worked to change the public perception of same sex couples. Over the last 15-25 years America has done a near 180 on the issue. The attempt has been to sanitize and normalize homosexuality.

There have been countless actors, musicians, athletes, and politicians who have publicly spoken out in favor of Gay rights. Many from these same spheres have themselves disclosed that they themselves are gay. It has become commonplace to have television shows and movies with gay characters. Characters like Oscar on The Office have helped to gradually move the meter on public opinion.

Now NBC is set to debut a new show this fall entitled The New Normal. What is the premise? Two guys are married and of course can’t have a child of their own. They hire a surrogate to begin their family.   Continue at Erik Raymond

Evolution’s End? President Obama Calls for Same-Sex Marriage

Is President Obama’s “evolution” on same sex marriage finally complete? His call for the legalization of same-sex marriage yesterday is an historic and tragic milestone. An incumbent President of the United States has now called for a transformation of civilization’s central institution. And yet, no observer of this president could be surprised. The arrival of this announcement was only a matter of time.

The White House confirmed this within hours of the President’s announcement. As The New York Times reported on May 10, “Advisers say now that Mr. Obama had intended since early this year to define his position sometime before Democrats nominate him for re-election in September.”

Previous news reports indicated that the 2012 platform for the Democratic Party would likely include a call for same-sex marriage. The pressure was on the White House, with the President caught in an awkward and embarrassing situation in which major figures on both sides of the controversy believed that his public position did not reflect his true convictions.

In December of 2010, the President told Jake Tapper of ABC News, “My feelings about this are constantly evolving.” Last October, he told George Stephanopoulos, “I’m still working on it.” As Dan Amira of New York magazine summarized that comment, “President Obama won’t say if he’ll stop pretending to oppose gay marriage before the election.”   Continue at Al Mohler

See also: A Solemn and Sincere Warning to President Obama

What I Hope We Remember After President Obama’s Public Support of Same-Sex Marriage

 

The Blasphemy of Barack Obama

It’s one thing to support gay marriage. It’s quite another for a professed Christian to bear false witness about Christ to make the point. That is why Joe Carter doesn’t mince words in an open letter to President Obama. Carter writes:

Implying that Jesus supports same-sex marriage—and there really is no other way to interpret your statement—is nothing short of blasphemous.

No, Mr. President, Jesus does not support same-sex marriage. Even a liberal Christian like you should not be able to make such an historically and theologically absurd claim with a straight face. The history of Christian thought on sexual ethics from the time of the stoning of Stephen to the Stonewall riots has been consistent that engaging in homosexual behavior is strictly and clearly prohibited by God’s Word…

To imply that Jesus would support same-sex marriage is contemptible. I realize it probably won’t hurt you come election time—too many Christians are more concerned about saving your seat in the Oval Office than they are with slander against our Savior—but I encourage you to repent of your blasphemy.   Continue at Denny Burk

Five Reasons Christians Should Continue to Oppose Gay Marriage

Yesterday, to no one’s surprise, President Obama revealed in an interview that after some “evolution” he has “concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.” This after the Vice-President came out last Sunday strongly in favor of gay marriage. Not coincidentally, the New York Times ran an article on Tuesday (an election day with a marriage amendment on one ballot) about how popular and not controversial gay television characters have become. In other words, everyone else has grown up so why don’t you? It can seem like the whole world is having a gay old time, with conservative Christians the only ones refusing to party.

The temptation, then, is for Christians go silent and give up the marriage fight: “It’s no use staying in this battle,” we think to ourselves. “We don’t have to change our personal position. We’ll keep speaking the truth and upholding the Bible in our churches, but getting worked up over gay marriage in the public square is counter productive. It’s a waste of time. It makes us look bad. It ruins our witness. And we’ve already lost. Time to throw in the towel.” I understand that temptation. It is an easier way. But I do not think it is the right way, the God glorifying way, or the way of love.

Here are five reasons Christians should continue to publicly and winsomely oppose bestowing the term and institution of marriage upon same-sex couples:

1. Every time the issue of gay marriage has been put to a vote by the people, the people have voted to uphold traditional marriage. Even in California. In fact, the amendment passed in North Carolina on Tuesday by a wider margin (61-39) than a similar measure passed six years ago in Virginia (57-42). The amendment passed in North Carolina, a swing state Obama carried in 2008, by 22 percentage points. We should not think that gay marriage in all the land is a foregone conclusion. To date 30 states have constitutionally defined marriage as between a man and a woman.   Continue at Kevin DeYoung

How to Win the Public on Homosexuality

President Obama's support for same-sex marriage is making headlines but not news. That's probably because he was in favor of same-sex marriage before he was against it and now in favor of it again. Campaigning in 1996 for state senate in Illinois, Obama said in a typed statement, "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." Running for statewide and then national office apparently changed his perspective, at least temporarily.

But there's another reason much of the country has shrugged off no-news headlines about the culmination of President Obama's "evolution": 50 percent of Americans now agree with him. In the last 16 years, support for same-sex marriage has nearly doubled. Gallup shows an increase in support from just 27 percent in 1996 to a high of 53 percent in 2011 and now 50 percent in 2012. Since 1996, Christians have debated homosexuality almost non-stop, and several Protestant denominations have reached the same conclusion as Obama. He told ABC's Robin Roberts today:

In the end the values that I care most deeply about, and [Michelle Obama] cares most deeply about, is how we treat other people and, you know, I, you know, we are both practicing Christians, and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it's also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated.  Continue at Collin Hansen

SEE ALSO:

The President and Gay Marriage: The Truth at Last 

President Obama’s Scriptural Defense of Gay Marriage

 

 

What is a Christian?

Franklin Graham, Jr. scandalized the talking heads on “Morning Joe” earlier this week when he appeared on the program and suggested that President Obama might not be a “Christian” (see video below). I appreciate Rev. Graham and his bold commitment to Christ, but I think there was much in what he said that was muddled and inconsistent and that probably did very little to win folks over to his position. I for one wish that the conversation had gone differently.

Having said that, one item that needed to be clarified was exactly what is meant by the term “Christian.” It was very clear that Graham and his interlocutors were operating on two totally different views of what it means to be a Christian. For Graham, being Christian is synonymous with being born again and with all that the new birth entails. For the “Morning Joe” crew, being a Christian is simply about being personally affiliated with a church or a group that professes to be Christian. The former is a normative definition while the latter is a sociological one. Which definition is right? The normative or the sociological?

In terms of common usage, the term “Christian” can have both meanings. When someone says that Prince Charles is a Christian prince, they are using the sociological sense. They are not trying to say that he has been born again and professes the true faith. On the contrary, everyone knows that quite the opposite is true. Charles’ Christian affiliation is one that he was born into. It is a historical connection more than a personal conviction. There are many people who would claim to be “Christian” in this sociological sense. Continue at Denny Burk

A Milestone in the Betrayal of Marriage

Attorney General Eric Holder informed Congress yesterday that President Obama had ordered the Department of Justice to cease all efforts to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in the courts. The announcement came without public warning, even as the administration was dealing with an international crisis in Libya and a political showdown over unions in Wisconsin.


The Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] emerged in 1996 as at least one state — Hawaii — indicated the very real possibility that it would vote to approve same-sex marriage. The Act makes clear that no state can require any other state to recognize a same-sex marriage, and that the federal government is prohibited from extending marital benefits to same-sex couples. The Senate approved the measure by a vote of 85 to 14. In the House of Representatives, the vote was 342 to 67. Faced with such overwhelming congressional support, President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law.

But 1996 was a long time ago, politically and culturally speaking. President Obama vigorously and repeatedly declared his opposition to DOMA during the presidential campaign of 2008. Continue Reading>>>

In His Own Words: A Radical Pro-Abortion President

When Barack Obama was running for President, he was described by some observers as one of the most radical candidates in the nation’s history, in terms of support for abortion. Once in office, President Obama has done little to dispel that judgment. Even as the President is tracking to the middle on many issues, this is not the case when it comes to abortion. 

This past Saturday, on the 38th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, the President issued a statement that is remarkable, even for presidents who support legalized abortion. The President’s statement included not one word that indicated any recognition that abortion in in any case or in any sense a tragedy. There was not even a passing reference to the unborn child. President Obama did not even use the language used disingenuously by President Bill Clinton — the pledge that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” Keep Reading>>>

Barack Obama's Dream for a Secular, Non-Christian Nation

“Simply Unprecedented” — President Obama and the Gay Rights Movement

The President's promises were sweeping. Nevertheless, the most remarkable section of his address included a truly unprecedented promise. The President told the group that his expectation is that when they look back over the years of his administration, they would "see a time in which we put a stop to discrimination against gays and lesbians."

Then he spoke these words:

You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman. Read the rest HERE