Does a pro-life stand matter?

Buster Brown and the baby

Does a pro-life stand matter, or will more modern approaches reduce the number of abortions more? Apart from the moral issues raised by the government's condoning of child murder, consider this quote from an interesting article by Michael J. New:

As Election Day approaches, the mainstream media is, as usual, showcasing self-identified ''pro-lifers'' who are supporting the Democratic Party's pro-abortion presidential nominee. In 2004, a number of media outlets cited an analysis by ethicist Glen Harold Stassen which claimed--wrongly--that the number of abortions had increased slightly since President Bush's inauguration in 2001. The New York Times published an op-ed by Dean Mark Roche of Notre Dame encouraging pro-life Catholics to vote for John Kerry. This year the story is similar. Former Reagan administration Assistant Attorney General Doug Kmiec and Duquesne University Law Professor Nicholas Cafardi, both of whom claim to be opponents of abortion, have received plenty of media attention for their support of Barack Obama.

Their arguments are the same ones put forward in 2004. They have not improved with age. Most of these authors attempt to make one of two points: either a) that there is little that elected officials can do to curb abortion through legislation, or b) that the pro-life movement has not reaped any real benefits from supporting candidates who oppose abortion. Voters should, therefore, they argue, place greater emphasis on other issues. However, an examination of the history of the pro-life movement and a careful analysis of abortion trends demonstrate that these arguments are deeply flawed. In fact, the success of pro-life political candidates has resulted in substantial reductions in the abortion rate.

For instance, the 1990s decline in the abortion rate--a decline that is eagerly touted by these Obama and Kerry supporters--had virtually nothing to do with policies enacted by President Clinton, and much to do with the dramatic increase in the number of states that were enacting pro-life laws. The information below comes from NARAL's Who Decides, an annual publication which provides information about abortion legislation:

- In 1992, virtually no states were enforcing informed-consent laws; by 2000, 27 states had informed-consent laws in effect.

- In 1992, no states had banned or restricted partial-birth abortion; by 2000, twelve states had bans or restrictions in effect.

- In 1992, only 20 states were enforcing parental-involvement statutes; by 2000, 32 states were enforcing these laws.

Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence which suggests that these and other types of pro-life legislation have been effective at reducing the incidence of abortion.

Read the whole thing here.

Choose life - and vote life!

We're not Catholic but I thought this video from CatholicVote.com was outstanding. Please see also the quotes on abortion below attributed to Mother Teresa.



"America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts -- a child -- as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters.

And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners. Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being's entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign."

(Mother Theresa -- "Notable and Quotable," Wall Street Journal, 2/25/94, p. A14)

"But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child - murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love, and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even his life to love us. So the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love - that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts. By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion."

"Please don't kill the child. I want the child. Please give me the child. I am willing to accept any child who would be aborted, and to give that child to a married couple who will love the child, and be loved by the child. From our children's home in Calcutta alone, we have saved over 3,000 children from abortions. These children have brought such love and joy to their adopting parents, and have grown up so full of love and joy!"

"What is taking place in America is a war against the child. And if we accept that the mother can kill her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another."

"Any country that accepts abortion, is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what it wants."

"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."

Dr. Dobson weighs in on Connecticut gay marriage

Connecticut has captured what little market there is in the news for anything other than the global economic meltdown. Dr. James Dobson is chiming in:

“Today’s ruling by the Connecticut Supreme Court to impose same-sex 'marriage' adds another tragic example of runaway judges trampling on citizens’ right to decide public policy for themselves. In doing so, the court has placed the desires of adults over the needs of children, who, social science research proves, do best when they are raised by their married mom and dad living in the same home.

“We decry this decision by justices unelected and unaccountable to the people, and will do whatever is necessary to oppose it. Not only have these judges knowingly deprived Connecticut children of a mother or a father, but they have usurped the role of the legislators to create law. Short of a federal marriage-protection amendment, marriage can only be truly protected by defining it in state constitutions. I pray the citizens of California, Arizona and Florida will seize the opportunity next month to settle this marriage crisis in their states once and for all.”

Gay Marriage Comes to Connecticut

It has happened. The Supreme Court of Connecticut has issued its long-awaited decision in the Kerrigan case, and has effectively legalized homosexual marriage by judicial decree.

I haven't read the decision yet, but you can download a copy here (large PDF file).

As a recovering lawyer I will give you my analysis at some point FWIW.

There are several dissenting opinions:

• Justices Borden and Vertefeuille (who always did right by me when I appeared in front of her)
  

• Justice Vertefeuille separately
  

• Justice Zarella.

Kudos to Justice Zarella, who bravely stated:

The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry. If the state no longer has an interest in the regulation of procreation, then that is a decision for the legislature or the people of the state and not this court. Therefore, I conclude that the equal protection provisions of the state constitution are not triggered. I further conclude that there is no fundamental right to same sex marriage. Accordingly, I dissent.

Columnists starting to sound like preachers...

And, who can blame them?

Ultimately, however, we must address the deeper roots of this financial crisis. There is a moral crisis that infects every aspect of our society. Since the 1960s, American popular culture has waged a relentless war against ethical absolutes and Judeo-Christian morality. This has been replaced with a shallow secular humanism, which champions materialism, consumerism and individual gratification. In short, our culture has done everything to destroy what used to be called "character." What happened to individual restraint, thrift and personal responsibility? These are the virtues that built the most impressive capitalist economy the world has ever created.

We are now facing more than just a financial mess; almost every other major institution is under threat. The political system is adrift; public schools are failing; the borders are porous; the intelligence agencies are dysfunctional; the inner cities are infested with drugs and gangs; the family is broken; and millions are fleeing their churches.

And they say I'm dour sometimes! More here from Jeffery Kuhner at the Washington Times.

The reality of the foreclosure wave: the "trashout"

Watch this absolutely shocking video about what is really happening in California. To what extent is this happening in other places or spreading? It seems that the American middle class is being gutted and filleted like a fish.

Watching this video will improve your prayer life.

What happens when same-sex marriage is permitted?

Think it can't affect you or affect many different spheres in society? Think again! Watch this video which is being used to rally people to the pro-family cause in California. You will be alarmed at what happened in Massachusetts when same-sex "marriage" was legalized there. As we await the Connecticut's Supreme Court decision in the Kerrigan case, please keep praying earnestly for our State.

Be sure to use the video menu to email it to others who care about our State and our children.

Thank God for America

Yesterday was D-Day, a day which is receding into the background of our public life and our private memory. Some 2,500 American soldiers paid the ultimate price to begin the last chapter in the story of Hitler's defeat. It's also a day we need to hold on to in a world that still demands sacrifice - not the hundred trendy calls to action which are thrown at us these days and which I suspect, ultimately, are only meant to enslave us while making us feel noble.

In my mind's eye I can still see the World War II vets in the parades of my boyhood. They were only in their late forties then and seemed so full of good cheer, still able to march along with the Cub Scouts and the Little League teams. For them, every parade and gazebo celebration was a chance to laugh and remind each other that they had survived and had gotten a chance to build something other than a defensive perimeter.

This video is a parody of how the D-Day landings might be covered today. It tells you everything you need to know about where we have arrived.

Obama and the Book of Romans

Barack Obama weighs in on the Scriptures:

I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in the hospital or transfer property to each other.

I don't think that it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state.

If people find that controversial, then I would refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think, you know, is in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans.

That's my view.

But we can have a respectful disagreement on that.

Here's the obscure passage I think Sen. Obama is referring to:

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. Romans 1:26-27.

Why people can't tolerate the MSM

I'm not pulling for Gov. Romney, but here's why people have just had enough of the mainstream media, in this case an AP reporter.

Can you shake the hand of a Jew?

I received this commentary from Glory of Zion:

"So they served him [Joseph] by himself, and them by themselves, and the Egyptians who ate with him by themselves, because the Egyptians could not eat bread with the Hebrews, for that is an abomination to the Egyptians" (Genesis 43:32; emphases ours).

The verse above was included in the Torah Reading for this week, and released in us a corresponding note to a bizarre happening at the recent "Annapolis" conference. Referring to her childhood as an African American girl in the segregated American South, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was quoted as saying, "I know what it is like to hear that you cannot go on a road or through a checkpoint because you are a Palestinian. I understand the feeling of humiliation and powerlessness." Yet at the conference, bowing to Saudi demands, the Americans refused to allow the Israeli delegation to enter the hall through the same door as the Arabs. The Israeli Foreign Secretary Tzipi Livni was reportedly required by Rice to instead enter the conference hall through the service entrance. At a meeting of foreign ministers, Livni was driven to explain, "Why doesn't anyone want to shake my hand? Why doesn't anyone want to be seen speaking to me?" This at a conference to which Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries had been invited for "contributions" they might have towards furthering peace between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs.

In fairness, I'm aware from other reports that Ms. Rice also drew parallels between her childhood sense of terror and the Israelis' fears of terrorism, but why should the U. S. government bend over backwards to legitimize the hatred of Jews?

Ousted Portland Selectman speaks out

Back in October we wrote about the case of one of the selectmen in Portland, CT, a Mr. Scott Adamsons, who had dared to say he was acting not just as a responsible public official but as a Christian when fighting so-called "adult entertainment." Mr. Adamsons has just left a very thoughtful comment and I wanted to run his remarks in the posts so that more of you could see his reply.

I am Scott Adamsons and I am a member of the Colchester Bible Baptist Church in Colchester, CT. Being a Christian is more than a choice, it is a lifestyle. While I do not push this lifestyle on anybody else, I do recommend it. On the flip side, I do not wish to have others (the world) push their way of life on me or my family. It is not unrealistic for a community that is comprised primarily by Christians, Jews, and some Muslims to fight against a developer opening an adult-entertainment establishment in their town. In fact, one would expect a fight if their faith is true. If a reader is caught off guard by this position, then they should consider why they have the beliefs that they do and how their daily decisions and actions are impacted by them. Most of us fall short of our beliefs in our daily walk (just being honest here), but where our hearts are directs the path that we go in. It’s a sobering picture some days. Other days are laced with victory.

Those who would use the first amendment of the US Constitution to claim a right to lewd conduct should know that Christians and those people of other faiths have a first amendment right to freedom of religion. How do lewd conduct and explicit images violate my rights? The mere presence of those types of establishments in the public arena assaults my senses, and undermines the values that I am trying to raise my children under. The advertizing of those establishments in public places accomplishes the same result.

If a vast majority of a town's population has beliefs against such behavior, then perhaps the will of the majority should prevail (for once). There are towns where such establishments are allowed. They are nearby and therefore people who have a strong desire to exercise their “right” of expression have existing outlets that they can use. Given this, for a town that has no such businesses, preventing their influx is not a violation of a developer’s first amendment rights.

Another thought: Over the past 200 years our small community has developed with business districts that are essentially integrated into the residential areas/uses of the town. There just isn’t a “good” place for such an establishment to operate in our community, not one that is far away from children anyway.

In conclusion, the comment in the article of being a "career threatening" move was more accurate than you'd think. I was not re-elected last week. As a close friend of mine has said many times over, “It’s going to get a lot worse before it gets better.” It is my hope that this position will encourage people in their own communities and on a personal level. What makes you a Christian and why do you have the beliefs that you do? Do your actions reflect those beliefs? It ain’t easy, but it is rewarding.

Respectfully Submitted,
Hon. Scott A. Adamsons
Selectman (out-going), Town of Portland, CT

What does Connecticut believe?

Apparently we're not in Kansas any more:

It's not that people in the state aren't religious - 62 percent said religion was an "extremely important" or "very important" part of their lives.

But even the state's most devout residents draw a clear line between religion and politics: 51 percent of those who said religion was "extremely important" to them said religious leaders should stay clear of politics.

"One of the things that make Connecticut distinct is that even the most religious residents believe that religious leaders shouldn't get involved in politics," said Monika McDermott, research director of the center and an assistant professor of political science at UConn....

The survey provides further evidence of just how different Connecticut's political culture is from that of the bulk of the nation. A Newsweek poll of 1,004 Americans conducted in March found that only 32 percent of the respondents said religion has too much influence on public policy - and 31 percent believe it has too little influence. Only 17 percent of Connecticut respondents said religion has too little sway.

The results don't surprise David A. Roozen, director of the Hartford Institute for Religion Research at Hartford Seminary. Though evangelical Christians are the dominant voice of religion in American politics these days, their views are sharply out of step in a socially liberal state such as Connecticut, he said.

"Here in the Northeast, we're blue states," he said. "The perception of religion in politics is that it's this conservative, reactionary evangelical Christian movement. ... That's not our religion."

I hadn't noticed! See more here at The Courant.

State Senate votes to investigate one of its own

From Capitol Watch:

The Senate unanimously voted today to create a bipartisan committee that will recommend if Sen. Louis C. DeLuca of Woodbury should face disciplinary action for conspiring with a trash hauler to threaten his granddaughter's husband.

DeLuca, a Republican who pleaded guilty in June to conspiracy to commit a threat, was one of three senators who spoke during the brief, solemn debate. He left the chamber before the vote, barred by Senate rules from voting on a measure that directly affects him.

“The course of action that we take today is not easy, but it is necessary, and we do not embark upon it lightly,” said Senate President Donald E. Williams Jr., D-Brooklyn.

No indeed. Equal time from a leading Republican by way of Channel 8:

One of DeLuca's Republican colleagues, Senator David Capiello of Danbury, has called for his resignation for the good of the Senate.

"Frankly, I'm concerned about Senator DeLuca and his family and what he will be going through. This is not going to be a good time for anyone involved," said Capiello.

Time profiles Billy Graham

Be sure to read the Time Magazine profile of the "Pastor in Chief," which explores the fascinating relationships Billy Graham has had with presidents going back to 1955.

One day [President Lyndon] Johnson took Graham on a walk around his Texas ranch, to a clearing in the trees near where his parents were buried. Johnson wanted to know if he would see them again in heaven. And then another question: Would Billy preach at his funeral? Johnson knew the world listens when a President dies. "Don't use any notes," he said, and no fancy eulogizing either. "I want you to look in those cameras and just tell 'em what Christianity is all about. Tell 'em how they can be sure they can go to heaven. I want you to preach the Gospel." And just one more thing. "Somewhere in there, you tell 'em a few things I did for this country."

Read the rest here.

Pray Connecticut listed among the State's most influential political blogs

We've been ranked # 19 on Blog Net News's list of Connecticut's most influential political blogs. Although we are not a political blog per se, nowadays it's not easy to separate the political world from the religious world!

Thanks to all our readers and users of our main site for helping us grow!

Courant profiles Peter Wolfgang of Family Institute of Connecticut

The Courant has a profile piece on Peter Wolfgang, who has assumed leadership of the Family Institute of Connecticut from Brian Brown.

Wolfgang's steady voice and earnest, scholarly demeanor are markedly different from the in-your-face style of his predecessor, Brian Brown, who has been the group's public face since 2001.

Brown, who hails from Orange County, California, predicted that Wolfgang's Connecticut roots will serve him well in the land of steady habits.

"Peter has connections around the state," said Brown, who is leaving to take charge of a new group dedicated to fighting same-sex marriage at the national level. "He's very much a go-getter and he's in this for the fight."

We wish Peter all the best as he carries the ball forward for Connecticut's leading pro-family organization!

Prayer for Connecticut's Youth

Churches and individual Christians should urgently consider establishing regular prayer for the youth of our State. Every day seems to bring more and more disturbing cases of violence and abuse committed against our young people.

• A 15-year-old girl, missing for a year, is found locked away in an Edgar Allan Poe type secret room hidden under a staircase and blocked from view in a West Hartford house.
  

• Three East Hartford men were in Hartford Superior Court to face charges of various assaults. Two of the three were charged with offenses against children and two with offenses against mentally retarded persons.
  

• A Vernon man already facing charges for allegedly having sexual contact with five minors was charged with new internet sex charges.
  

• Another man pled not guilty to charges that he was soliciting sex from an undercover officer whom he thought was a teenage girl and whom he planned to meet in Stamford.
  

• A 66-year-old man is arrested in Watertown for allegedly assaulting a child.

I am incredulous over the fact that all these stories were reported in a single day, in a small State. When are we going to wake up and admit that pornography is creating a generation of dangerous predators who are totally inflamed with lust - and who are not content to merely view, but to act out what they see and think about?

When will we enforce the obscenity laws of the State and of the United States?

Enough is enough.

Rally for Marriage brings out 300 to Hartford

Yesterday's Rally for Marriage brought out an estimated 300 people - on a Wednesday morning no less, according to the Family Institute of Connecticut. We give thanks for the representation from our elected representatives, which, according to the FIC, included Rep. Marilyn Guiliano (R - Lyme, Old Lyme, Old Saybrook, Westbrook), Al Adinolfi (R - Cheshire, Hamden, Wallingford), Vincent Candelora (R - East Haven, North Branford, Wallingford), Bruce Morris (D - Norwalk) and T.R. Rowe (R - Trumbull).

Channel 8 has some reporting here, and there's an AP story here which quotes FIC's Brian Brown on the need for a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage. Many media outlets seem to have ignored this story altogether.

Major rally for marriage scheduled for this Wednesday

From the Family Institute of Connecticut comes this notice:

On Wednesday, May 23rd at 10:00 a.m. the Family Institute of Connecticut will hold a second Rally for Marriage and Lobby Day on the east grounds of the state capitol in Hartford. After the Rally all of those interested will make their way over to room 1B of the Legislative Office Building where we will receive packets of pro-family information. From there we will go to meet with our individual legislators to ask them to vote against same-sex "marriage" whenever it comes up again--and to vote for a referendum to let the people decide.

Anti-family activists already plan to bring back the defeated same-sex "marriage" bill at their earliest opportunity. And several of Connecticut's Supreme Court Justices have hinted that they might be willing to impose same-sex "marriage" by judicial fiat.

At the Rally FIC will discuss a mechanism in our state constitution that provides our best opportunity to let the people decide the future of marriage. But it to make happen, we will need your support.

We need your help to get the word out about our May 23rd Rally to your churches, friends and families. We especially need the help of homeschoolers who were central in making the previous rally so successful. The next fight to protect marriage begins on May 23rd!

Please call your state representative and state senator and make an appointment to meet with them on May 23rd. House Democrats can be reached at 800-842-8267 and House Republicans can be reached at 800-842-1423. Senate Democrats can be reached at 800-842-1420 and Senate Republicans can be reached at 860-240-8800.

Directions to the Legislative Office Building (LOB)
(The Legislative Office Building is located at 300 Capitol Avenue, Hartford.)

Traveling on I-84 East - Take Exit 48, Capitol Avenue, get into the right lane of the exit ramp. At the end of the exit ramp turn right onto Capitol Avenue. Take the first right past the Legislative Office Building, proceed to the back of the garage and take a right to enter the garage using the left hand lane.

Traveling on I-84 West - Take Exit 48, towards Asylum Street, go straight onto Spring Street. Turn right onto Asylum Avenue, stay straight onto Farmington Avenue. Turn left at the YWCA (will be diagonally to your left in front of you) onto Broad Street, proceed through two stop lights, immediately after the Armory building take the first left into the driveway and then another left at the end of the driveway. Follow this road around the garage to the back and take a right to enter the garage using the left hand lane.

Traveling on I-91 North or South - Take Exit 29A, Capitol Ave., stay over to the far left. You will come to Pulaski Circle, travel halfway around and take a right onto Elm St. Go to the end of Elm St., you are now facing the Capitol Building. Take a left onto Trinity St. At the first traffic light take a right onto Capitol Ave. Go past the Capitol building and the I-84 entrance ramp, all on your right. Take the first right past the Legislative Office Building, proceed to the back of the garage and take a right to enter the garage using the left hand lane.

Parking Instructions - Parking is extremely limited. Allow yourself extra time to park.

• Limited public parking is available on level one of the Legislative Office Building.
• Across the street from the Legislative Office Building, and across Capitol Ave. is Hungerford Street. There is street parking in this entire neighborhood, free of charge.
• When all else fails, on Oak Street (diagonally across to the left from the Legislative Office Building) off of Capitol Ave., there is a public parking garage in the CT Education association Building (CEA building - across from CT Supreme Court Library). This garage costs money, but will save you the time and aggravation of having to park.
• There is also parking available on the street next to the parking garage.