|
|
In The NewsThe following are articles of interest to the Christian community regarding legislative updates, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and moral issues.
These are updated often to keep you aware of what is going on in our county, state, country, and world.  Saturday, April 21, 2007 Under Construction Saturday, April 21, 2007 56th National Day of Prayer
This year’s National Day of Prayer will be celebrated May 3rd.
from Shirley Dobson, NDP Chairman
On Thursday, May 3rd, all across our nation in church events and public venues from coast to coast, hearts and hands will be joined together for the 56th Annual National Day of Prayer.
This year’s theme, “America, Unite in Prayer,” comes from the promise the Lord gave us in II Chronicles 7:14:
“If my people, who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”
We hope this message will not only serve as a catalyst to encourage God’s people to take prayer for our nation seriously, but that it will draw believers closer together as they intercede corporately on behalf of our country.
I truly believe God is calling His people to be faithful for such a time as this. If you would like more information on how you might unite with your fellow citizens to intercede on behalf of this great nation, I invite you to visit our Web site at www.nationaldayofprayer.org.
Saturday, April 21, 2007 U.S. House to Take Up Legislation to Protect Life
by Jennifer Mesko, associate editor
Democratic majority threatens a dozen pro-life riders.
As Congress begins to take up annual appropriations bills, lawmakers also will have to decide on several pro-life riders to those bills -- riders are provisions regularly attached to unrelated legislation that's likely to pass.
In the past, the riders generally have survived. This year, with Democrats in charge, it could be a different story.
Such riders include the Kemp-Kasten amendment, which prevents funding for organizations that participate in coercive abortion programs; the Hyde Amendment, which bans federal funding of abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or life of the mother; and the Helms Amendment, which prevents foreign aid from being spent on abortion services.
“We have every reason to believe that (President) Bush will soon issue a letter that will basically say that he will veto legislation … if there is any attempt to weaken or nullify” current pro-life policy, Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., told LifeSiteNews.
“The use of these ‘riders’ really goes back to the 1970s,” said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee. “One of the few opportunities for the pro-life community to advance anything was the appropriations bills.”
An estimated 1 million preborn babies have been saved since 1976, thanks to the Hyde Amendment, Johnson said.
“The advantage is, of course, Congress does have to appropriate money to keep the government running,” he said. “These bills are vehicles that do get signed into law. The downside is … they have to be re-enacted every year.”
Johnson said “there are enemies for each and every one” of the 12 pro-life provisions. The Democrats will have to decide if they want to embroil their bills in an abortion fight and a veto threat.
“Numerous pro-life riders have provided a longstanding crucial framework within which to protect and expand the culture of life,” said Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst for Focus on the Family Action.
“People need to contact their representative and senators, urging them to protect these pro-life riders.”
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Click here to see the letter from the representatives and here to see the one from senators.
TAKE ACTION
Urge your representative and senators to protect the pro-life riders in the appropriations bills and to vote for pro-life provisions in the bills reported out of the Appropriations Committee. If you are a CitizenLink Daily Update subscriber, click on the blue "Protect Pro-Life Riders" button in the e-mail to be automatically logged in to our Action Center. Otherwise, click on this link. (Paid for by Focus on the Family Action)
Saturday, April 21, 2007 Senate Committee Will Vote on Suspending RU 486 Abortion Drug
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
April 17, 2007
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A leading pro-life senator is set to offer amendments to a bill on Wednesday that would put limits in place on the dangerous RU 486 abortion drug that has claimed the lives of at least six women in the United States and five more internationally.
The debate will come as the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee considers a bill related to the Food and Drug Administration.
According to documents provided to LifeNews.com, Senator Tom Coburn, a Oklahoma Republican, will be offering two RU-486 amendments to the bill.
The first amendment would suspend the availability of any drug approved under FDA’s subpart H category that has resulted in more deaths than lives saved. While the abortion pill has taken the lives of six women, it is not responsible for saving anyone.
The second would lift the liability protection that currently shields mifepristone, one of the two drugs in the RU 486 abortion process, so that women (and their families) who are injured, harmed or killed as a result of use of this drug can seek damages.
The Senate has never held a vote on the abortion drug, but, with Democrats controlling the chamber's committees, the amendments appear unlikely to be added to the bill.
Democrats control 11 seats on the Senate HELP Committee and neither of the two pro-life Democrats in the Senate sit on the panel. Meanwhile, all of the 10 Republican members of the committee have consistent pro-life voting records on the issue of abortion.
According to FDA reports as of December, there have now been eight known deaths associated with RU 486, nine life-threatening incidents, 116 blood transfusions, and 232 hospitalizations. In total, more than 1,050 women have had medical problems after using the drug.
The first victim of RU 486 was a Tennessee woman who died after using the abortion drug. She had an undetected ectopic pregnancy, and the drug is not supposed to be used in such situations.
Following her death, four California women died from using the abortion drug and the FDA announced last year that a Colorado woman had died as well.
Women have died from using the abortion drug in Canada, England, France and Sweden.
Saturday, April 21, 2007 U.S. House Poised to Vote on Grassroots Communication
by Jennifer Mesko, associate editor
This bill would effectively gag grassroots action groups and their constituents.
Legislation that would have silenced grassroots communication failed in the U.S. Senate this year after concerned citizens let their voices be heard. Now, the U.S. House is set to vote on the same issue.
The bill would bury organizations like Focus on the Family in needless paperwork and burdensome reporting requirements any time it communicates to constituents on public policy issues that are before Congress, with the threat of severe fines and criminal penalties.
Tom Minnery, senior vice president of government and public policy for Focus on the Family Action, sent a letter to members of the House Judiciary Committee that urges them to reject "any legislative attempts to stifle grassroots interactions with Members of Congress and the Executive Branch." "While we applaud efforts to make Congress more transparent and accountable," he wrote, "we have serious concerns that the legislative package will include provisions regulating grassroots communications - communication by individual constituents who are freely and voluntarily expressing their views on important issues to Members of Congress and the Executive Branch."
Peter Brandt, senior director of government and public policy for Focus on the Family Action, said it also would tie the hands of groups like the American Family Association, the National Right to Life Committee and others.
“It would tie up the ability of average people out on Main Street USA to be able to contact their elected representatives,” Brandt told Family News in Focus.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., promises to move quickly on the legislation.
“It seems like there’s an agenda being carried out in Washington to ignore the voice of the people,” he said. “This is very, very problematic.”
The bill is so egregious that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has joined the fight to oppose it.
"Obviously, (lawmakers) don’t understand that if a constituent picks up the phone, it doesn’t matter whether they were contacted by a business, or by Focus on the Family or whoever. They are a constituent," ACLU spokesman Marv Johnson told Family News in Focus.
The bill could get a vote in the House in the next two weeks.
“This is one of the most important bills to which our constituents will lend their voices because it affects Focus’ ability to spur our constituents to action in the future,” said Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst for Focus on the Family Action. “If members of Congress do not hear about the terrible effect a ‘grassroots gag order’ would have on their constituents, the future looks very dim for the average citizen to make his or her voice heard.”
TAKE ACTION
Urge your representative to oppose H.R. 984 and any other “Grassroots Gag Order" legislation. Because of the gravity of the situation, we're asking that you send an e-mail, sign a petition and call your representative.
-- We've prewritten an e-mail for you to send. If you are a CitizenLink Daily Update subscriber, click on the blue "Oppose Grassroots Gag Order Bill" button in the e-mail to be automatically logged in to our Action Center. Otherwise, click on this link. -- Then click here to sign the Focus on the Family Action petition. -- Finally, call your representative's office and let the office staff know your position on the grassroots lobbying bill. Such calls usually take less than a minute. You can find your representative's contact information on the House Web site. Look for "Find Your Representative" at the top of the page. (NOTE: Referral to Web sites not produced by Focus on the Family is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.)
(Paid for by Focus on the Family Action)
Saturday, April 21, 2007 The 'Emerging Church': Straying from the Gospel
Posted: April 14, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Rev. Jerry Falwell
© 2007
The late economist Peter Drucker said a few years ago: "Every few hundred years in Western history there occurs a sharp transformation. ... Fifty years later, there is a new world. And the people born then cannot even imagine the world in which their grandparents lived."
I believe we are witnessing a modern effort to transform the church into an institution that experiences broad cultural acceptance. This effort, known as the Emerging Church, is a much-talked about movement that has brought new challenges into the Church of Jesus Christ.
The so-called Emerging Church movement was formed out of frustration with dead and irrelevant evangelicalism. The problem is that it has decided to modernize and re-create the church so as not to offend sinners. This renders virtually meaningless the life-changing message of the Gospel.
(Column continues below)
John 8:32 tells us: "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." This is not truth that can be modified to fit cultural whims; it is as relevant today as it was when John was inspired by God to write those words around A.D. 170.
However, the website of The Leadership Network, the headquarters of the Emerging (or sometimes Emergent) Church movement, states that their outlook on "truth" offers a "flexible approach to theology whereby individual differences in belief and morality are accepted within reason."
The site further states that members wish to "reanalyze the Bible against the context into which it was written."
This is very dangerous territory.
Such a view opens perilous avenues that enable suggestions that Jesus is not the Christ, that the Bible is not inspired by God Himself and that there are ways to heaven other than through Jesus. Such notions counter the very fabric of the Gospel.
In this era of diversity and political correctness, we can ill afford to weaken the very foundations of the Gospel.
But the Emerging Church has determined that core doctrine and theology are sometimes roadblocks to converting the lost.
This is the epitome of contradiction.
Further, Emerging Church groups have decided that profanity and vulgar talk from the pulpit and elsewhere is acceptable because it is relevant to the culture. Such teachings counter the biblical teachings that Christians are "new creatures in Christ."
Another problem of the Emerging Church is that its leaders, who no doubt started out with good intentions, have very little theological training. Their emphasis has been on appearances. Many of its leaders have been to "conferences" that tell them how to do things, but they don't know why they are doing them. Thus, they have a little bit of knowledge, but no wisdom.
Dr. James McDonald spoke my feelings when he said: "I resonate deeply with much of the criticism flowing from the Emerging Church against current Western Christianity, but I am deeply grieved to see the emergent remedies accepted so uncritically by those who feel gratified by the accuracy of their critiques."
While I have no problem with the church adapting to the culture, we must ensure that we remain painstakingly true to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and that we remain obedient servants to His truths.
As Jesus stated: "He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me …" (John 14:21).
Saturday, April 21, 2007 Jesus vs. Muhammad: A Tale of Two Mockings
Posted 04/06/2007 ET
We are almost immune to the calculated disrespect with which the arts and entertainment community treats the most revered religious personality in American history. Last week, two artists produced versions of Jesus Christ for a shock to coincide with the Easter holiday.
Casimo Cavallaro unveiled a crucifixion sculpture, created from 200 pounds of milk chocolate. The figure raised immediate concerns when it was revealed that it would not feature a loincloth covering -- but would be anatomically correct and completely nude.
In the second instance, David Cordello, a senior at The Art Insitute of Chicago , fashioned a statue of presidential contender Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) as Jesus. Capped with a neon halo and lifting his hands in peace, the effigy is a physical enrichment of the senator’s recently elevated public persona.
These examples are not unlike last year’s mockery of another religious figure. When the Prophet Mohammad was ridiculed in a series of Danish editorial cartoons, the Muslim community worldwide reacted violently.
Flags were burned, nations were condemned, death threats were thrown like confetti and a media-fed frenzy built around the supposed defamation of Islam. American newspapers wouldn’t print the cartoons “out of respect” for the self-styled “religion of peace.”
When television stations refused to air the cartoons, syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin forced them on screen during a Fox News interview after finding frustration with the media’s cowardice. Of the current debacle, Malkin asked in a March 30 blog post, “Where's the MSM's [mainstream media] concern for avoiding deliberately provocative religious insults now?”
While the media declined to feed their otherwise insatiable ratings appetites by omitting the cartoons from their coverage last year, they now act intrigued and amused broadcasting the Jesus figures -- and have published material widely. Consider the public reaction had these latest stunts been perpetrated on the world’s purportedly most “respected” faith.
The Catholic League’s Keira McCaffery elementally pointed out, “They wouldn’t do something like this to Muslims…no naked chocolate sculpture of Muhummad, with genitals exposed, on Ramadan.”
The league did get the chocolate Jesus show canceled, but photos were still broadcast without concern for religious “respect.” The gallery’s creative director Matt Semler quit in protest, labeled the artist a “victim” and called it a “Catholic fatwa.”
The left constantly cries bigotry, homophobia, and judgmentalism at Christians’ questioning of immoral behavior. This is perfectly consistent with Fox News Chicago's coverage of the Jesus-Barack exhibit, in which a bystander said, “Jesus is a concept that hasn’t really unified the US . Christianity has also really kind of caused a lot conflict within our country and a lot of countries so it could be read in two different ways…”
If these words were said of Muhammad in an identical circumstance, the backlash would be deafening -- just as it was when the Pope read one line of a 14th century quote from a Byzantine emperor saying Muhammad brought only “evil and inhuman things to the world.” There would be no photos. There would be no acceptance. There would be no amusement. And you can bet the American press corps would march in straight-backed obedience out of “respect” for Islam.
In his book, “The Truth About Muhammad," Robert Spencer carefully documents the utter intolerance of Islam itself, concluding that, “People can be convinced of something they wish to believe, regardless of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.”
Believe this: Obama as Mohammad wouldn’t fly and encapsulating Christ in chocolate (a “sinful” treat no less) is demeaning. Also, the unnecessary nudity belies Christ’s last physical shred of dignity, adding to the offense.
Christians are instructed to use the Lord’s name and image reverently. By calculatedly employing it to the opposite shows utter disrespect for God’s holiness.
Many Americans prepare to celebrate the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus this Easter weekend. If only Christianity were as “respected” in America as Islam. Thursday, March 15, 2007
Ed Thomas
OneNewsNow.com
March 14, 2007
The Ford Motor Company will continue to be the target of a boycott by the American Family Association, after the automaker publicly announced its support for homosexual activism.
Hear This Report
AFA chairman Don Wildmon says his organization gave Ford the benefit of the doubt, based on the company's actions, that it had apparently decided to stop supporting homosexual causes and publications.
"We we're wrong," Wildmon admitted. "Ford simply, publicly reinforced the fact that they are still giving their support to the homosexual groups, which, incidentally, have as their top agenda item the legalization of marriage of two people of the same sex."
AFA reported last week to its supporters, that Ford was no longer advertising in prominent homosexual magazines, and had dropped support of The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) Media Awards.
But last week Ford was listed as a sponsor for the Detroit Motor City Pride Festival. And Wildmon says AFA's conclusion to its supporters that Ford was silently trying to withdraw, was denied by a company spokesperson in a Detroit newspaper.
"They went public to the Detroit News and said, 'No,' they're still supporting the homosexual festivals, 'gay' pride festivals, and they're still supporting the homosexual publications," Wildmon said.
Wildmon says Ford had not advertised in key homosexual publications for three months. But spokesperson Kristen Kinley said the dropping of the GLAAD awards, and all the automaker's advertising and sponsorship decisions, are "strictly driven by business considerations," and not pressure from AFA -- according to the Detroit News.
AFA's chairman now says the group's supporters will continue their boycott against Ford, in light of its media statements last weekend.
Editor's Note: The American Family Association is the parent organization of the American Family News Network, which operates OneNewsNow.com.
Thursday, March 15, 2007 Illinois High School Orders Students Not to tell Parents about Homosexual Propaganda Sessions
By Gudrun Schultz
DEEFIELD, Illinois, March 14, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Fourteen-year-old students at an Illinois high school were told to keep their attendance at a school panel discussion promoting homosexuality a secret from their parents, Concerned Women for America reported on Christian Newswire March 13.
Students at Deerfield High School were required to attend a “Straight Gay Alliance Network” panel led by upperclassmen identified as homosexual, as part of an advisory class that promoted homosexuality. Students were also required to sign a “confidentiality agreement” before attending the session that forbade them from telling anyone--including their parents--about the panel material.
Matt Barber, Policy Director for Cultural Issues with Concerned Women for America (CWA), said the school‘s policy was “unbelievable.”
“It's not enough that students at Deerfield High are being exposed to improper and offensive material relative to unhealthy and high-risk homosexual behaviors, but they've essentially been told by teachers to lie to their parents about it,” Barber said in a press statement.
“This goes to the heart of the homosexual agenda. The professional propagandists in the 'gay-rights' lobby know the method all too well. If you can maintain control of undeveloped and impressionable youth and spoon-feed them misinformation, lies and half-truths about dangerous, disordered and extremely risky behaviors, then you can control the future and ensure that those behaviors are not only fully accepted, but celebrated. That's what homosexual activists from GSA are attempting to do, and that's what DHS is clearly up to as well.”
Dr. George Fornero, superintendent of DHS' Dist. 113, told CWA that the district “made a mistake” by requiring children to sign the confidentiality agreement and that it would be entirely aboveboard and honest with parents in the future.
However, parents were told that they were not welcome to attend the “advisory” sessions and were denied access to the materials used on the curriculum.
“Until DHS and other government schools across the country are made to stop promoting the homosexual agenda, kids will continue to be exposed to -- and encouraged to participate in -- a lifestyle that places them at high risk for life-threatening disease, depression and spiritual despair,” said Barber.
A local pro-family group, North Shore Student Advocacy, wants the school to cancel the panel, Associated Content.com reported.
“The school makes heterosexuality and homosexuality equivalent, and our country is deeply divided on that,” said Lora Sue Hauser, a Deerfield resident and leader of the advocacy group.
The group published a full-page advertisement March 1 in the Deerfield Review, accusing the school of promoting the agenda of homosexual activist groups.
“We believe these students are being used to further the causes of gay activists,” the ad stated, demanding that school officials “rein in your staff who are using the school to promote their personal views.”
Parental efforts to prevent their children’s exposure to pro-homosexual material in the classroom have increasingly met with opposition, in some cases from the courts. In Massachusetts a federal court ruled Christian parents could not remove their children from an elementary school classroom during sessions advocating the homosexual lifestyle to students, WorldNetDaily reported.
U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf wrote in his decision, “An exodus from class when issues of homosexuality or same-sex marriage are to be discussed could send the message that gays, lesbians, and the children of same-sex parents are inferior and, therefore, have a damaging effect on those students.”
An appeal of the decision is pending.
Thursday, March 15, 2007 Study: Women Having Abortions More Likely to Engage in Child Abuse
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
March 13, 2007
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A new study finds that women who have a history of abortion are more likely to abuse children born from subsequent pregnancies. The study, published in the Internet Journal of Pediatrics and Neonatology, confirms previous research which suggests that there is a link between abortion and child abuse.
The study is based on an analysis of data on 237 low-income women in Baltimore who had physically mistreated or neglected at least one of their children or allowed someone else to do so.
While all the women in the study had some connection with child maltreatment or neglect, the authors found that those who reported a history of abortion reported significantly more frequent acts of physical violence, such as slapping, hitting or beating, directed at their children.
Dr. Priscilla Coleman, a researcher at Bowling Green State University in Ohio, was the lead author of the new report.
She talked with LifeNews.com about its findings and said that only a few studies have examined the association between abortion history and child maltreatment.
Coleman explained that there are many possible explanations for the association -- including "unresolved bereavement, disruption of mother-child attachment mechanisms, feelings of abortion-related guilt, and/or negative mental health effects of the abortion."
"In this particular study we found that the severity of abuse was more pronounced among mothers with a history of abortion compared to those without a history," Coleman said. "This makes sense since we do know that abortion can precipitate difficult to resolve anger issues."
"For many years the impact of abortion was believed to be minimal and time limited," Coleman told LifeNews.com. "However, it seems the more we study it, the longer and more
pervasive the effects of abortion seem to be on not only the women involved, but their families as well."
The study found that press to have an abortion may also be impact later cases of child abuse.
The research indicated that grief may be more difficult to resolve if women undergo an unwanted abortion due to pressure from others. In one study, cited by Coleman, 64 percent of American women with a history of abortion reported feeling pressured to abort by others.
Dr. David Reardon, director of the Illinois-based Elliot Institute and a leading researcher who has been involved in more than a dozen studies on the impact of abortion on women, responded to Coleman's study.
He said it confirms the general findings of previous studies linking abortion with a higher risk of abuse or neglect.
"Previous research has also shown that abortion is linked with a subsequent increased risk of alcoholism, drug use, anxiety, rage, anger and psychiatric hospitalization," Reardon said. "Any of these factors, individually or in combination, can significantly increase the personal and family stresses that can lead to maltreatment or neglect."
A previous study by Coleman found that a maternal history of abortion was linked to less supportive home environments for subsequently born children and that subsequent children exhibited more behavioral problems than the children of women without a history of abortion.
Other research conducted in New Zealand tracked young women from birth to 25 years of age found that young women who had abortions were significantly more likely to experience subsequent depression, suicidal behavior and substance abuse, even after the researchers controlled for previous mental health problems.
"Taken all together, these studies show that the mental health effects of abortion don't stop with women," Reardon said. "They will impact their families, too."
Coleman's team suggested that professionals should be aware of the links between abortion and maternal mental health problems.
She suggested that they "sensitively inquire about any history of abortion and related, unresolved negative emotions when working with women engaged in or at risk for aberrant parenting."
Finally, the authors concluded that while additional research is always needed, there can no longer be any doubt that abortion significantly impacts the health of women and their families.
"For years, abortion was construed to be a benign medical procedure carrying little if any potential for lasting adverse effects," they wrote.
However ... the last several years have brought greater understanding that abortion for many women is an issue with profound physical, psychological, spiritual and lifestyle dimensions that are intimately tied to many aspects of their lives," they said.
Related web sites:
Read the new study at the Internet Journal of Pediatrics and Neonatology website.
Thursday, March 15, 2007 U.S. Senate May Vote on Embryo Research
The U.S. Senate may vote this week on a bill that would force taxpayers to fund destructive embryonic stem-cell research. The House approved the bill earlier this year.
President Bush has promised to veto it.
"If history repeats itself, senators will hear some wildly inaccurate statements from their colleagues who are pushing this immoral legislation, including claims that the federal government 'bans' and refuses to fund embryonic stem cell research," said Carrie Earll, senior analyst for bioethics for Focus on the Family Action. "That's simply not true. This research is underway and limited federal funding has been in place for six years to the tune of $600 million dollars. The issue before the Senate will be whether our tax dollars will be used as an incentive for scientists to destroy living human embryos in the process."
TAKE ACTION
Contact your two senators and urge them to oppose any bill which uses your tax dollars to support research that destroys human embryos.
(Paid for by Focus on the Family Action)
Thursday, March 15, 2007 Gay Activists Take Aim at Tony Dungy
by Pete Winn, associate editor
Indianapolis Colts coach's Christian pro-family beliefs challenged.
Homosexual activists are upset that Indianapolis Colts coach Tony Dungy will appear next week at a banquet sponsored by an organization that supports the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Jim Buzinski, co-founder of OutSports.com, a Web site aimed at the homosexual audience, claims that Indiana Family Institute (IFI) is a political organization.
"He is speaking at the dinner next week in front of group that is very much a political organization," Buzinski said.
IFI President Curt Smith said neither the dinner nor the award is political.
"The purpose of this award is to celebrate those who live out the family ethic that we think is at the heart of a healthy and successful society," Smith said. "There was no five-point quiz where he had to agree with us on a number of public policy questions. In inviting him and then following up with a letter, we didn't discuss public policy."
Jim Daly, president of Focus on the Family Action, said gay groups would like to silence anyone they perceive as opposing the gay agenda -- even a celebrated athlete or coach.
It's called "Christophobia."
"Unfortunately, this is becoming a pattern for those that oppose Christianity," he added. "They want to control our speech in the public square, embarrass us and try to belittle us. It really is a form of fascism."
Dungy was not available for interviews, but the Colts organization issued a statement saying that the coach is free to speak to any group he wishes.
"The club does not take positions in political issues in which it is not directly involved," the statement said. "The Colts do not endorse any political or religious position taken by any group that any Colts employee decides to speak or lend his or her name to."
The Rev. J. Peter Gallagher, a chaplain for the Colts, told CitizenLink that Dungy has been up-front all along about who he is -- and Indianapolis is very comfortable with the coach and his beliefs.
"They know him to be a Christian man, who has placed his life in God's hands," Gallagher said. "I don’t think that's really changed. What he was before, he still is. The only thing that's changed is the fact that he's now a Super Bowl-winning coach."
Thursday, March 15, 2007 Protection of Religious Freedom Undertaken by U.S. Attorney General Initiative
Government will create Justice Department Task Force on Religious Liberty
By Gudrun Schultz
WASHINGTON, D.C., March 12, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – U.S. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales launched a new initiative Feb. 20 to better protect freedom of religion in the country, in a project known as The First Freedom Project—religious freedom is listed first in the Bill of Rights and is a “fundamental freedom on which so many of our other freedoms rest,” said a statement released by the Department of Justice.
“Preserving religious liberty requires an ongoing commitment to protecting this most basic freedom for people of all faiths,” Gonzales said. He announced the project in a speech to the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention last month.
"One of our most cherished freedoms, one we've sacrificed greatly to defend, is our religious liberty," the attorney general said at the SBC Building in Nashville, Tenn. "Nothing defines us more as a nation and differentiates us more from the extremists who are our enemies than our respect for religious freedom. Our great country was founded on these principles, and many of us today believe it continues to thrive because of, not despite, them."
The Freedom First Project is based on a foundational commitment to “continued expansion of enforcement of civil rights statutes protecting religious liberty,” the DOJ statement said.
Among the commitments set out by the Project is the creation of a Justice Department Task Force on Religious Liberty, set up to review current department polices on religious liberty, to oversee religious liberty cases and to work on improving communication with concerned communities.
As well, the Justice Department wants to hold a series of seminars throughout the country to better educate the public about the laws that ensure religious freedom is protected, and to offer instruction on how to file complaints.
"The attorney general's desire to address a major meeting of SBC leaders to announce this initiative shows both the importance of the issue and the commitment of the justice department at the highest levels to defend every individual American's religious freedom rights, particularly their free exercise rights, which are too often infringed," Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, told the Baptist Press.
"This initiative is needed and should make a real difference. When individuals find themselves in a confrontation concerning their free exercise rights, it helps to have the attorney general and the Department of Justice on your side."
The announcement of the initiative was accompanied by the release of a report documenting efforts taken by the DOJ to enforce religious liberty laws over the past five years. Entitled Report on Enforcement of Laws Protecting Religious Freedom: Fiscal Years 2001-2006, the document shows an increased emphasis on enforcing religious liberty legislation, including laws banning religious discrimination in employment and public education, and laws preventing zoning authorities from discriminating against houses of worship and religious schools.
"I am here to ask the Southern Baptist Convention, and all of you in this room, for your help," the attorney general said. "The Department of Justice has many tools to protect religious freedoms in this country, and we are using them. But even with all of our passion and our dedication to this cause, we cannot do it alone.... I am so very glad to be here among men and women who understand and share our commitment."
Thursday, March 15, 2007 Controversial Former US Senator Names Abortion as Culprit in US Population Shortages
“How could this great land of plenty produce too few people in the last 30 years?” Miller asks
By Peter J. Smith
MACON, Georgia, March 12, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Former US Senator Zell Miller blamed abortion as the reason why the United States faces shortages of military manpower, the impending collapse of its social security system, and depends on illegal immigration.
The pro-life former Democrat appeared as the featured speaker for a fundraising banquet last Tuesday for the Sav-A-Life Care Center, which counsels women contemplating abortion. The Center was raising money to buy ultrasound equipment in order to become a health clinic.
“How could this great land of plenty produce too few people in the last 30 years?” Miller asked his audience. “Here is the brutal truth that no one dares to mention: We’re too few because too many of our babies have been killed. Over 45 million since Roe v. Wade in 1973.”
“If those 45 million children had lived, today they would be defending our country, they would be filling our jobs, they would be paying into Social Security,” the former Georgia governor said. “Still, we watch as 3,700 babies are killed every single day in America. It is unbelievable that a nation under God would allow this.”
Miller praised the number of cures developed through adult stem-cell therapies, and condemned embryonic stem research as abortion on a smaller scale.
"It is not a proper fate for a human being made in God's image...killing is wrong when it is called abortion and it is just as wrong when it is called research."
Miller became a pro-life champion in the US Senate after a conversion that began in the 1990s, and has generated controversy by criticizing his party’s absolute dependence on ultraliberal activists and the abortion lobby, esp. in his 2003 book A National Party No More: the Conscience of a Conservative Democrat. The former senator even went so far as to break ranks with his party to endorse George Bush’s re-election in 2004 and give the keynote address at the Republican National Convention.
Linking abortion to the population shortage faced in the United States, however, has been politically dangerous and unpopular. Republican state Sen. Nancy Schaefer made a similar statement nearly a year ago only to retract her statements after an unfavorable reception in the mainstream media.
However, Miller made it clear he will not back down from his statements, and urged other Americans to take a courageous stand against abortion.
“And sometimes in the life of a nation, a time comes when men and women of conscience and courage have to stand up and be counted and say, ‘Enough! No more, this cannot continue.’”
Thursday, March 15, 2007
ADF attorneys file motion to dismiss criminal cases against silenced Gideons
Men were harassed, arrested after distributing Bibles on public sidewalk
PLANTATION KEY, Fla. — Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund filed a motion Thursday to dismiss two criminal cases against two members of Gideons International. Ernest Simpson and Anthony Mirto were arrested, charged with trespassing, and booked into jail after distributing copies of the Bible on a public sidewalk.
“The First Amendment applies to all protected speech on a public sidewalk, including Christian speech,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel David Cortman. “The Gideons had every right to continue their peaceful distribution of free Bibles.”
On Jan. 19, Simpson and Mirto began distributing free copies of the Bible on a public sidewalk outside Key Largo School but did not step on to school grounds. Both men were arrested, booked, and charged with trespassing after the school’s principal called police ( www.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4006).
The motion to dismiss filed by ADF attorneys in the County Court in and for Monroe County, Florida, in State of Florida v. Simpson and State of Florida v. Mirto is available at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/MirtoMTD.pdf.
“The charges against Mr. Simpson and Mr. Mirto, who were simply exercising their constitutional right to free speech, are entirely without merit and must be dropped immediately,” Cortman explained.
ADF is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
| Investing > Financial planning: How to save $100,000 |
![]() |
| |
|
By George M. Hiller
In order to have some measure of financial freedom, it is vitally important to be able to create and maintain a savings and investment plan. Let’s say you have a goal to build your savings and investments to $100,000. How could you save that amount?
The achievement of a major financial goal typically is the result of taking many small steps over time, maintaining discipline in keeping to your plan, and not giving up when you encounter setbacks.
Most people are capable of saving $100,000 or more if they are willing to follow a reasonable savings plan and be guided by biblical principles of financial management.
Biblical financial management is based on the fundamental principle that “God owns it all” and we are called to be faithful stewards of the financial resources that He has entrusted to us.
Adopting this principle and making it part of your basic belief system will profoundly impact your financial behavior. It will positively affect financial decisions that you make in the areas of spending, giving, saving, and increasing debt or paying off debt.
When you become a steward your financial behavior will change because your priorities will change. Typically, you may experience a desire to control spending, to give more and save more, and to become debt free. Biblically relevant help, together with commitment and a financial plan, can make it possible to achieve these objectives.
If your goal is to save $100,000 you can begin by breaking it up into smaller goals. Depending upon where you are starting, your short-term goal may be to save $1,000 or $5,000 or $10,000. Your mid-term goal may be to save $25,000 to $50,000. Your long-term goal would be to save $100,000 or more.
Your short-term goal is one that you plan to achieve within one year. Your mid-term goal typically may be achieved within five years. Your long-term goal may be one that you plan to achieve over a period of longer than five years.
Some people may feel that because of their particular circumstances, accumulating $100,000 in savings and investments is an impossible goal.
God wants the very best for you, and with His help and your willingness to learn and apply biblical principles of financial management, the impossible becomes possible. Let’s look at what it takes to achieve this goal.
We will assume that you can earn 6 percent on your investments. Currently, most money market funds, short-term certificates of deposit, and Treasury securities are paying less than 6 percent.
But investment returns in diversified large capitalization stocks over the last 80 years have averaged in the range of 10 percent to 11 percent.
If you have a mix of investments in money market funds, certificates of deposit and quality mutual funds, it is not unreasonable that you might expect to earn at least 6 percent over time. Most investments carry some degree of risk, and future returns are not guaranteed.
Let’s assume that you are starting from scratch and you want to accumulate $100,000. How much money must you save monthly at a net investment return of 6 percent and how long will it take to reach your goal?
The table below demonstrates the simple fact that the less you save the longer it takes to reach the goal. Another way to look at this is that as you get older, you have fewer years left to achieve your goal, and the amount of monthly savings required rises sharply. The lesson here is that the best time to start on your goal to accumulate $100,000 is right now.
HOW MUCH MUST I SAVE AND HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE TO REACH $100,000
(Assuming a 6-percent return on investment)
|
Monthly savings required
|
Years needed to reach $100,000
|
|
$49.96
|
40 years
|
|
$99.06
|
30 years
|
|
$143.58
|
25 years
|
|
$215.35
|
20 years
|
|
$342.15
|
15 years
|
|
$607.17
|
10 years
|
|
$1,426.15
|
5 years
|
|
$2,529.55
|
3 years
|
|
$3.912.50
|
2 years
|
|
$8,066.31
|
1 year
|
George M. Hiller, JD, LLM, MBA, CFP® is the founder and president of the George M. Hiller Companies, LLC, an investment management, tax, estate and financial planning firm based in Atlanta, Georgia. He is a member of the Christian Financial Professionals Network.
|
Thursday, March 15, 2007 For the Sake of the Planet?
By Chuck Colson
Friday, March 9, 2007
Joan Blades describes herself as, among other things, a “nature lover” and a “mother.” She is also a co-founder of the liberal activist group MoveOn.org and a regular contributor to the liberal blog The Huffington Post.
In a recent post, Blades wrote about an article she read in her local paper. It described a group that supports the kind of measures Blades expected liberals like Huffington Post readers to support: health care for children, “fair wages,” and flexible work schedules for moms.
What Blades found surprising were some of the comments that came into the paper’s website. One person “reasoned” that if he has to pay $25 for a dog license, why should parents expect help when they “choose” to have kids. Another commenter simply wrote, “Can’t feed ’em, don’t breed ’em.”
Of course, this is the Internet we’re talking about. Still, Blades felt compelled to refute the erroneous assumption underlying those comments, that “choosing to have a child is purely an individual act” and not “a contribution to society as a whole.”
Their response to Blades’s response was—what else?—more of the same. A “chunk of the replies” objected “to contributing to the wellbeing of children” because they did not want to “reward or encourage” “indiscriminate breeders.”
To be fair, many of the replies were supportive of Blades’s views. Still, there were enough people using terms like breed and critters, terms normally associated with animals, to prompt Blades to write another article.
This anti-natalism is not limited to liberals. A few years ago, at a dinner I attended, a conservative Christian advocated sterilizing poor women as a solution to welfare dependency. And today, leading immigration-reform groups have links to zero-population growth advocates.
The divide is not between Republican and Democrats or liberals and conservatives—it’s between those who regard children as a blessing and those who view them as, at best, a burden.
While Blades is right when she says that plain selfishness accounts for some of the hostility to families with children, there is something else at work here as well. As Catholic writer Erin Manning says, the belief that growth in human population should be controlled is “an important tenet of mainstream environmentalism.”
Environmentalists agree that “there are too many people on the earth,” and that repairing environmental damage requires “aggressive measures to limit and restrict human population.”
In contrast to the Christian idea of stewardship, which “wishes to conserve and protect the natural resources of the planet for the sake of future generations,” this viewpoint “wishes to eliminate future generations for the sake of the planet.”
This is only one example of the cultural message today driven home to Americans: that is, that large, or even medium-sized, families are an impediment to the good life. Even if the kids are not yours, their existence will have a negative impact on you—whether it’s higher taxes or global warming.
Blades was rightly disturbed by the sentiments expressed, but she should not have been surprised—not in a culture where being a “nature lover” and a “mom” is viewed as a contradiction in terms.
Thursday, March 15, 2007 The Numbers on Moral Decline
By Brent Bozell III
Friday, March 9, 2007
Most American parents display an optimism about their children living in a richer, more technologically advanced world and as they grow, that they'll be healthier with a longer life expectancy. All that said, there's also a remarkable pessimism about the moral decline they are bequeathing to the next generation.
A new cultural-values survey of 2,000 American adults performed by the polling firm of Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates for the Culture and Media Institute reveals a strong majority, 74 percent, believes moral values in America are weaker than they were 20 years ago. Almost half, 48 percent, agree that values are much weaker than they were 20 years ago.
Why the pessimism? Is the answer right in front of them, in their own children, or their children's friends? Or is the answer more indirect, gleaned from staring at the popular culture? For most, a leading indicator of moral decline is the media. Clearly, Americans look into their television sets and get a high-definition dose of Hollywood's take on values. Sixty-eight percent of Americans in the survey said the media are having a detrimental effect on moral values in America.
Americans place heavier blame on the entertainment media, but they blame the news media as well, with its emphasis on sex, violence and ditzy head-shaving celebrities. Why do even supposedly serious news outlets devote hours of airtime to airheads like Paris Hilton, whose ticket to fame was her old-wealth surname and her talent on "private" sex tapes?
The agreement is remarkable across political and religious subsets. Not only do 73 percent believe the entertainment media has a negative effect on America's commitment to moral values, that's a sentiment shared by Republicans (86 percent) and Democrats (68 percent); conservatives (80 percent) and liberals (64 percent); even religious types identified as orthodox (82 percent) and mostly secular progressives (62 percent).
Many worry every time a popular show like NBC's "Heroes" threatens to show a mutilated corpse or someone getting the top of their skull sawed off. Many are saddened by grotesque Comedy Central attempts to mock God in 735 creative ways. On the new series by "comedienne" Sarah Silverman, the audience was treated to Silverman having a one-night stand with God. When she wakes up the next morning disgusted with the deity, she tells him she has to help a friend move, and ultimately knees him in the groin when he tries to extend the relationship. People ask: What have we done to deserve gratuitous programming like this?
The media are a major influence on shaping our cultural values, and America knows it. Almost two-thirds of the people surveyed (64 percent) agree the media are an important factor in the culture. It sometimes seems almost impossibly pervasive and immune to complaints as they cross every new frontier of excess.
But they're reasonable in knowing that the media is ultimately not the most important factor. Good parents can be a much more direct moral influence than the TV, multiplex or radio. Of those who were asked who is most responsible for moral decline among young people, 57 percent blamed parents and families first, and only 21 percent blamed the media first. Parents need to be a gatekeeper to children's entertainment, to guide them through its treacherous passages and not merely let them hitchhike along the road alone.
Parents also need to go beyond teaching morality to living morally. Sadly, this cultural survey shows that while Americans have a great consensus on the importance of classic virtues like truthfulness, thrift, industry and charity, they often fail to follow through. America is becoming more situational in its everyday ethics. One-fourth or one-third of survey recipients admitted they would cheat on restaurant checks, tax returns and would break laws they considered outdated or if no one got hurt.
America needs a people who do not merely talk about public virtues, but embrace them with passion and humility. Reversing America's moral decline isn't just about the media. It's a daily fight in millions of homes and in billions of daily ethical situations. How much progress could we make by just trying harder to live the virtues so many of us profess to hold dear?
Thursday, March 15, 2007 Thousands of North Carolina Citizens Rally for Marriage at State Legislature
RALEIGH, March 8, 2007 ( LifeSiteNews.com) - Thousands of citizens rallied outside the legislature in Raleigh Tuesday to call for lawmakers to allow a vote on the state marriage amendment. Observers familiar with similar events said this was the largest crowd they had ever seen on the Halifax Mall behind the Legislative Building.
Bills similar to the 2007 Senate version of the bill, SB13-Defense of Marriage, have been introduced each of the last three years, in both the House and Senate, but have been referred to a committee and have never come up for consideration in either body. A similar bill, HB493-Defense of Marriage, was introduced in the House Tuesday and at least 62 members of the House have signed on as co-sponsors-more than a majority in the 120-member House.
If either bill passes both the House and Senate, it would set up a referendum for the people of North Carolina to vote on the amendment to our state constitution. The date for that referendum would be November 6, 2007, in conjunction with municipal elections.
For more information see the North Carolina Family Policy Council
http://www.ncfpc.org/index.html Thursday, March 15, 2007 Illinois Professor Refuses to Issue Grade to Christian Student
Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) intervened after a professor at Southern Illinois University refused to grade the paper of a Christian student.
Christine Mize, a social work graduate student, had to create an eight-week therapy program based on a topic of her choice.
She chose to create a therapy model for women who suffer from post-abortion syndrome and told her professor, Laura Drueth Zeman, that the recovery portion would be faith-based. Drueth Zeman told Mize that she would downgrade the paper if it included a faith-based element.
Mize handed in her paper without the contested section, but also provided the professor with legal information to avoid any such misunderstandings in the future.
Amy Smith, litigation counsel for ADF, said Drueth Zeman has had the paper since December and has refused to issue a grade -- leaving Mize, a 4.0 student, with an incomplete in a class required for graduation.
"The professor's actions are neither constitutional nor fitting for a venue universally known as the marketplace of ideas," Smith said. "Christian students do not forsake their constitutional rights to express their faith-based views the minute they step on a university campus."
Thursday, March 15, 2007 Bill Offering Families Tax Relief Introduced
from staff reports
Bill aims to encourage more parents to stay home with children.
Families could receive some much-needed tax relief under a bill introduced in the U.S. House and Senate today.
The Parents' Tax Relief Act would make permanent the $1,000 child tax credit, which is set to expire in 2010. The bill would also eliminate the marriage-penalty tax, offer a dependent-care tax credit to stay-at-home parents, and extend $2,500 in tax breaks to home-based businesses. And it promises to protect parents’ Social Security by allowing up to 10 years of flexible employment credits for those who stay home to raise their children, age 6 and under.
The bill is sponsored by Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., in the Senate and Rep. Lee Terry, R-Neb., in the House.
“It looks at how do we keep the family unit together,” Terry said.
Tom McClusky, vice president for government affairs with the Family Research Council, said the bill would enable more moms or dads to stay home with their kids.
“It’s good to finally see that the role that parents play in raising children is recognized,” he told Family News in Focus.
Coree Stewart, a stay-at-home mom in Colorado, runs a CD-duplication business in her basement. It allows her to be home with her two young daughters, while supplementing her husband’s income.
“I know the $2,500 tax credit could really enable me, as a home-based business, to put more money into my business,” she said, "and into our family.”
(Paid for by Focus on the Family Action)
Thursday, March 15, 2007
'God' Sidelined, 'Liberty' Missing, From New Dollar Coins
Susan Jones
(CNSNews.com) - "In God We Trust" is the national motto, but you may need a magnifying glass to find it inscribed on the edge of those new one-dollar coins.
The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm, is urging Americans to avoid using the coins altogether.
"It is astounding that Congress has effectively done what atheist litigants have been unsuccessfully trying to do for years -- erase all reference to God from our money," said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Law Center.
"This is just another step on the road to a secular society where all religious symbols are removed from public view."
The Law Center wants Congress to repeal the law under which the new coins are being minted.
The Presidential $1 Coin Act, enacted in 2005, requires the government to issue $1 circulating coins featuring the images of presidents. That law requires the United States Mint to place "In God We Trust" and "E Pluribus Unum" on the edge, rather than the face, of the coins.
But placed on the coin's edge, "In God We Trust" appears to be nothing more than scratches, the Thomas More Law Center said.
Also missing from the new coin is the word "Liberty," which appears on all other U.S. coins.
According to the U.S. Treasury, the motto "In God We Trust" was placed on U.S. coins because of increased religious sentiment during the Civil War. Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase received "many appeals from devout persons throughout the country," urging that the United States recognize God on its coins.
"In God We Trust" first appeared on the two-cent coin in 1864, and since 1938, all United States coins have borne the inscription on their faces.
The phrase "In God We Trust" was declared the national motto by an Act of Congress in 1956 and first appeared on paper currency in 1957.
In a related story, the U.S. Mint announced on Wednesday that an unknown number of the new $1 coins are missing the words "In God We Trust" altogether -- a mistake, the Mint said.
"The United States Mint understands the importance of the inscriptions 'In God We Trust' and 'E Pluribus Unum' as well as the mint mark and year on U.S. coinage. We take this matter seriously," the Mint said in a statement.
The first batch of $1 coins released last month feature the image of George Washington. Coins with images of Adams, Jefferson, and Madison also will be issued in 2007. Four presidents will be featured on the coins every year thereafter.
The Thomas More Law Center describes itself as an organization that defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities.
__See also:
__'In God We Trust:' Our Money's Message for 141 Years (Nov. 16, 2005)__
Find this article at: http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11531245/
Tuesday, March 06, 2007 Dobson, Others Seek Ouster of NAE Vice President
Interim president Leith Anderson says he supports Richard Cizik's work on creation care.
Adelle M. Banks, Religion News Service | posted 3/02/2007 04:02PM
More than two dozen evangelical leaders are seeking the ouster of the Rev. Richard Cizik from the National Association of Evangelicals because of his "relentless campaign" against global warming. In a March 1 letter to L. Roy Taylor, chairman of the NAE Board, Focus on the Family Chairman James Dobson and others said the NAE vice president's activism on global warming is "a threat to the unity and integrity" of the organization. "The issue that is dividing and demoralizing the NAE and its leaders is related to global warming," wrote the leaders, none of whom are members of the association. "If he cannot be trusted to articulate the views of American evangelicals on environmental issues, then we respectfully suggest that he be encouraged to resign his position with the NAE."
Taylor could not be reached immediately for comment. Cizik said, "I have no intention of resigning." The NAE's interim president, Leith Anderson, said Friday he expects the board to stand by Cizik, who directs the NAE's Washington office.
"I'm supportive of Rich Cizik," Anderson said. "I think that he is highly respected in Washington and is a forthright spokesman for creation care and that's good."
When read a list of the signatories, Anderson said, "We would normally look to our own constituency … and not to those who have chosen not to be members of the NAE … for counsel."
The letter comes as some leading conservative Christians have been vocal in their criticisms and doubts about global warming, arguing against leading scientists who say global warming is human-induced, and saying the issue is not an appropriate focus for evangelicals.
"I am today raising a flag of opposition to this alarmism about global warming and urging all believers to refuse to be duped by these 'earthism' worshippers," the Rev. Jerry Falwell said in a Feb. 25 sermon on "The Myth of Global Warming" at his Lynchburg, Va., church. Earlier in February, World magazine founder Joel Belz wrote in an essay in his conservative Christian weekly that "Cizik has made it way too easy for the public to conclude that his own views are also the views of the NAE." Cizik said he is addressing issues included in the NAE's vision statement, including support of the traditional family, sanctity of human life, religious freedom and care for creation. Cizik considers his attention to the environment to be part of a "biblical mandate" he follows as a Christian and NAE staffer, but said the association has not reached a consensus on global warming.
"There are people who, because of my views on climate change, which are very mainstream, want to pin a label of being a political liberal on me, which, of course, is not true," he said.
The letter's signers, who included American Family Association Chairman Don Wildmon and Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, charged that Cizik has a "preoccupation" with climate concerns. Referring to a January USA Today article on evangelical identity, they said, "We believe that some of that misunderstanding about evangelicalism and its 'conservative views on politics, economics, and biblical morality' can be laid at Richard Cizik's door." Copyright © 2007 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information. Focus on the Family sent out its call for the NAE to restrain Cizik as a special alert. The letter from Dobson and others is available at the Focus website. Christianity Today's earlier coverage of global warming includes news
Tuesday, March 06, 2007 Will Miracle Baby Change the Abortion Debate?
Preemie Amillia's survival may force America to rethink those Supreme Court trimesters, if the media will allow the discussion.
![]() By Kristen Fyfe
Culture and Media Institute
February 26, 2007
Is “Hurricane Amillia” about to blow the abortion village down? Not if the media can help it.
Last week tiny Amillia Taylor made her public debut. Amillia was delivered at 21 weeks and 6 days, the shortest period of time a child has been carried in utero and lived to survive. She was introduced to the press in anticipation of her going home after four months in the hospital.
ABC World News Tonight was the only broadcast news outlet to make the connection between Amillia’s gestational age and laws governing abortion. The vast majority of the 21 broadcast stories that ran about Amillia last week merely dealt with the baby’s homecoming.
Kudos to ABC anchor Charlie Gibson for leading with Amillia on Feb. 20, 2007, and acknowledging the greater significance of the story. “The fact that she has survived and grown to more than four pounds and is about to go home is a miracle, yes, but a miracle that may have an effect on the debate over abortion, and it may change what people think about life.”
ABC made a point of presenting both sides of the story. Reporter Dan Harris warned that “anti-abortion activists” would make Amillia a “national poster child.” He closed the story by quoting a bioethicist, Professor Arthur Caplan, “We don’t have new treatments. There isn’t anything to be done differently to try and save 21-week old premature infants. And so, I think it would be wrong to just say, because this one made it, we ought to treat everyone, when we don’t have any new treatments.”
CNN’s Anderson Cooper, 360 also tackled the abortion-related issues surrounding Amillia’s birth, but couched the discussion in terms of “fetus viability.” The CNN story emphasized the potential problems extremely premature babies face and the developmental hurdles that Amillia must surmount. The same bioethicist quoted by ABC, Arthur Caplan, was given substantially more time to air his pessimistic opinion in the CNN report.
When asked by anchor Kiran Chetry if Amillia’s birth and survival would lead people to try to redefine medical standards regarding “fetus viability,” Caplan answered, “I think it will. You see people out there really opposed to abortion, looking for evidence that it’s time to make a change in any way they can restrict abortion. And I think some people will point to the survival of this baby and say, here is a 21-week-old baby, we’ve got a line in the sand in the Roe decision that says 24 weeks, maybe that’s too old, let’s restrict it, let’s take it down a couple of more weeks.”
Chetry then threw a softball question to Caplan that allowed him to expound on the many problems that prematurely born babies can face, including learning disabilities, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorders, mental retardation and physical disabilities. Caplan then showed his true colors when he said, “… it isn’t just a question of biological life, it’s also a question of at what price to the child.”
What price to the child? Living with disabilities is a small price to pay, considering the alternative – not living at all.
In that statement, Caplan made a remarkable value judgment about life. To Caplan, the issue is the quality of life as he perceives it. What does that say about the countless children born with the problems he lists? Are their lives worth less because of their disabilities?
The contrast between the ABC and CNN stories is stark. ABC asked whether Amillia’s birth and survival change the abortion debate and gave each side of the issue a fair airing. CNN asked the same question but spent more time talking about Amillia’s potential future problems, making her survival seem more like an ominous prologue to an existence fraught with disabilities and challenges, than a miraculous gift of life. That may not have been great journalism, but CNN still did a better job than most of the media, which opted to ignore the abortion angle rather than address it.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007 Poll: Support for Abortion Dropping, More Americans Want it Illegal
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
March 5, 2007
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A new national poll conducted last month by ABC News and the Washington Post finds that the level of support for legalized abortion is on the decline. Meanwhile, the number of people who say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases in on the rise.
The media outlets conducted the poll from February 22-25 with telephone interviews with 1,082 American adults and it has a three percent margin of error.
The poll asked respondents: "Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases or illegal in all cases?"
Pro-life advocates say such polls are inaccurate because the question leaves it up to the respondent to determine when abortion is typically done.
Though many Americans may think abortion is frequently done in cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother, statistics from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a Planned Parenthood affiliate that tracks abortion figures, finds less than two percent of all abortions are done for those reasons.
The poll found 55 percent of Americans want abortion legal in all or most cases while 43 percent want it illegal in all or most cases.
The support for abortion is dropping as 57 percent wanted abortion legal all or most of the time in their December 2005 poll. The new survey also showed that the percentage of Americans who want abortion legal in all cases has dropped from 20 percent in April 2005 to 16 percent today.
Meanwhile, more Americans are taking a pro-life view as 40 percent wanted abortion illegal in all or most cases in December 2005 and 43 percent favor that view today.
Factoring in the poll's bias in favor of abortion based on the inaccurate wording and it appears that Americans are evenly split on the issue of abortion.
Other surveys show that a majority of Americans want to prohibit abortions in all or most cases or want greater restrictions on abortions.
A January CBS News poll found 47 percent of Americans want to prohibit all or most abortions and 16 percent want them to be greatly restricted. About 30 percent of those polled want to limit abortions to the very rare cases of rape, incest or life of the mother and another 12 percent want abortions allowed only in when the pregnancy threatens the mother's life. Another 5 percent said abortions should always be illegal.
Just 31 percent of the public wants to permit abortion in all cases.
A November Newsweek poll found the number of pro-life Americans rose 5 percent while the number of Americans who support abortion fell four percent compared to a previous poll it conducted in 2005.
Meanwhile, a March 2006 Zogby poll also found that Americans support limits on abortion by wide margins.
It showed 69 percent of voters agree with prohibiting federal taxpayer funds from being used to pay for abortions, 69 percent support parental notification for girls 16 or younger and by a 55 percent for girls 18 and younger.
Zogby found 56 percent of Americans back a 24-hour waiting period on abortion, 64 percent would charge criminals with a second crime for killing or injuring an unborn child in the course of an attack on a pregnant woman, and 69 percent don't want their tax money to pay for abortions or promoting abortion in other nations.
Printed from: http://www.lifenews.com/nat2961.html
Copyright © 2003-2006 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved. For free daily/weekly pro-life news, email us
|
|
Comments (0)
