The Patriot Post® · Life and Death in Virginia
Virginia’s abortion-up-until-birth bill (HB 2491) may be dead, but the matter is far from resolved as Virginians — and Americans all across the country — have been awakened by the Left’s abortion blitz. Earlier this week, Virginia Delegate Kathy Tran, a Democrat, admitted her bill would allow abortion throughout all stages of pregnancy including during labor. In what was supposed to be a rescue mission for big abortion’s push to expand their abortion business in the Commonwealth, Governor Ralph Northam (D), a pediatric neurologist, appeared on radio Wednesday to defend Delegate Tran’s bill. When asked if he supported Tran’s abortion-up-until-birth bill, and if he cared to comment on Tran’s admission that the bill would allow abortion in the 40th week of pregnancy, Northam didn’t just come to Tran’s defense — he left many wondering if he supports allowing infants born alive after a failed abortion to die:
“When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician by the way. And it is done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that is non-viable…
If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensure between the physicians and the mother.”
Northam seems to admit that he’s perfectly ok with letting babies born-alive die after a botched abortion, so long as that is the wish of the parents and their physician. During the interview, Northam did mention the rare instances in which some late-term abortions are performed when a fetus is “non-viable,” or for cases of severe deformities. But he didn’t discuss hospice care for born alive babies with a serious illness. Instead, his comments were anything but clear.
A follow-up statement from Northam’s office attempted to justify the governor’s comments saying: “[n]o woman seeks a third trimester abortion except in the case of tragic or difficult circumstances, such as nonviable pregnancy or in the event of severe fetal abnormalities, and the governor’s comments were limited to the actions physicians would take in the even that a woman in those circumstances went into labor.” But this isn’t exactly accurate. In fact, the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute admitted in a 2013 study that those are not the only reasons a woman would seek an abortion in the third trimester: “most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.”
Northam may try to rewrite his comments to mean it’s acceptable to deny life-saving treatment only in cases when there are severe deformities, or a fetus is non-viable, but that’s not what he said. Northam may not be backing down from his statement, but Virginia Delegate Dawn Adams (D), a nurse practitioner, and co-sponsor of the abortion-up-until-birth bill issued an apology to her constituents for supporting the bill.
It’s a rare moment of honesty from the pro-abortion crowd acknowledging that their abortion-expansion agenda might be going too far. But if HB 2491 were to become law, it would remove the requirement in current law that two physicians certify in writing that the abortion is necessary to prevent the serious harm to the health, or life, of the mother. In other words, it makes it much easier for an abortionist to claim the abortion was necessary. We should all agree that the killing of a baby born alive, whether by withholding lifesaving care, or by any other means (intentional or not), is repugnant.
In 2002, President George Bush signed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which recognized and defined any child surviving a botched abortion as a full person under the federal law. While this is a good start, federal law still lacks an enforcement mechanism to hold abortionists accountable for killing, harvesting organs, or denying medical care to infants born alive. The good news is Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse’s (R) Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act does exactly that. This is something Congress should surely have bipartisan support passing.
Originally published here.
Rocky Mountain Risk
This week Colorado Democrats, emboldened by taking the Colorado state Senate last fall, are taking advantage of winning an election by pushing through as many radical bills as possible. On Wednesday, the House Health Committee held a hearing on House Bill 1032, which would require schools providing sex education to teach “comprehensive sex education” as defined by the radical Left. They want schools to teach students about unsafe sexual practices, rejecting the overwhelming social science that demonstrates that sex in the context of marriage offers the best advantage for the health and wellbeing of individuals and children.
The bill threatens this sexual risk avoidance (SRA) education model by potentially associating it with religious dogma, and/or by disqualifying religious entities that provide SRA-based education. It also would ensure sex ed promotes information regarding so-called “emergency” contraceptives that can act as abortifacients. House Bill 1032 would also remove local control over curriculum requirements and require parents to opt out of (rather than opt-in) for sex ed for their children despite the controversial ideology it promotes.
In fact, the bill expressly requires an inclusive curriculum that normalizes sexual orientation and gender identity and requires that federal funding for education be overseen in Colorado by an advisory board comprised almost entirely of minorities that “have been or might be discriminated against,” including LGBT advocates. Colorado does currently receive federal funds for sexual risk avoidance education under the Title V state block grant program, which teaches students to avoid risky behavior when it comes to sex.
Risk avoidance, not risk reduction, is the type of public health model used to address other risky behaviors such as underage drinking or drugs. But for the proponents in Colorado of this sex ed bill, teaching sexual risk avoidance, abstinence education, or delaying sexual behavior is not acceptable. In fact, what it does is place political correctness over and above the health of kids by encouraging them to make risky choices rather than positive ones when it comes to sexual behavior.
Parents are having none of this. Hundreds packed into the hearing, which lasted 10 hours as citizens testified against the bill. Legislators got an earful, and one seemingly-exasperated legislator asked a priest testifying against the bill how he got his expertise on sex. “I hear confessions,” the good-natured priest replied.
The bill passed on party lines, 7-4, and now heads to the House floor. If you or your friends and family live in Colorado, click here to contact House and Senate members about the bill. Just remember, these are the consequences of elections.
Originally published here.
Pastors under Pressure: A New Challenge for Preachers?
Pressure shapes things. A tire doesn’t take shape unless it’s filled to the correct air pressure. Pressure applied to heated metal shapes the tools we use for everyday life. We warn our kids about the dangers of negative peer pressure shaping their character. Good or bad, pressure moves us toward action or inaction, and shapes the way we live our lives.
It’s no secret that being a pastor is a high-pressure vocation. From composing weekly sermons and studies, to counseling church members, to weddings, funerals, to property management, there’s no shortage of daily stress for those who follow the call to shepherd God’s people. In one sense, pressure comes with the territory, but a new report reveals that pastors are sometimes pressured from the wrong places.
In a new study called Faith Leadership in a Divided Culture, Barna Group found that when it comes to the pressing issues surrounding religious freedom in our culture today, many pastors feel pressure to avoid certain controversial topics, “including those related to the LGBT community, same-sex marriage rights, abortion, sexual morality and politics.” The study found that “Half of Christian pastors say they frequently (11 percent) or occasionally (39 percent) feel limited in their ability to speak out on moral and social issues because people will take offense.”
The report also shows that many of these same pastors who feel limited in their ability to speak on these issues also feel pressured (69 percent) by people in their congregations to speak out on these issues:
“As the research reveals, the issues pastors feel most pressured to speak out on are the same ones they feel limited to talk about. In other words, the squeeze comes from all sides: those demanding that the church take a stand and those outraged when it does (or outraged when that stance is other than what they’d hoped).”
The fact that a pastor might feel pressured by a congregation is nothing new. The Apostle Paul, imprisoned in Rome facing execution, warned about this in his second and final letter to Timothy:
“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.” (2 Timothy 4:3-5, ESV)
The remedy for being shaped by the pressures of the world is also given by Paul in the preceding verse when he charges the young pastor Timothy to “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.” A pastor who worries about pressure from those who hear his preaching will forever be a slave to preaching what will be least offensive and least likely to rock the boat. He’ll be shaped by his congregation rather than by the word of God.
A pastor should instead be pressured from above — shaped by the word of God. A pastor doesn’t have to preach a topical sermon on LGBT issues or on abortion or religious liberty. A pastor who simply preaches the whole counsel of Scripture will never be lacking in opportunities to engage on the relevant issues of the day because the Bible speaks to every one of these issues. Preach the Bible and you won’t and can’t avoid controversial topics, but you won’t avoid the remedy for these cultural maladies either!
Serious Christians appreciate serious truth, and need pastors who are shaped by clarity of truth revealed in the Bible. The pastor who is pressured by the world will begin to take its shape very quickly.
[…]
Originally published here.
This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC Action senior writers.