+- +-

+- User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 117
Latest: relentlesshiker
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 14157
Total Topics: 816
Most Online Today: 459
Most Online Ever: 771
(July 30, 2019, 01:13:39 am)
Users Online
Members: 1
Guests: 61
Total: 62

Author Topic: Abortion Is Murder - Change My Mind  (Read 4028 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Bladerunner

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1735
  • Karma: +1010/-0
  • My Friend
  • Location: Tennessee, USA
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Abortion Is Murder - Change My Mind
« Reply #39 on: November 19, 2019, 08:07:30 pm »

https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2019/november/planned-parenthood-suit-undercover-pro-life-cmp-daleiden-lo.html






Planned Parenthood Wins $2.2M Suit Against Pro-Life Investigators




The jury said the pro-life activists who exposed the organization’s sale of fetal parts could not use journalism as a defense.


Pro-life advocates decried an award of more than $2.2 million to Planned Parenthood in a suit involving undercover investigations that provided evidence the country’s leading abortion provider traded in the sale of baby body parts.

A federal jury in San Francisco issued the penalties last Friday against the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) and, among others, two investigators who secretly recorded videos of Planned Parenthood executives discussing their sale of fetal parts, as well as their willingness to manipulate the abortion procedure to preserve organs for sale and use. David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt also clandestinely recorded conversations with officials of fetal tissue procurement businesses that worked with Planned Parenthood.

The jury agreed with Planned Parenthood that the defendants were guilty of fraud, trespassing, illegal recording, racketeering and breach of contract, according to The San Francisco Examiner. It awarded Planned Parenthood $870,000 in punitive damages, about $470,000 in compensatory damages and—under a federal anti-racketeering law—triple compensatory damages of more than $1.4 million, The Examiner reported. The total was $2.28 million.

“Regardless of what any court decides, the videos of Planned Parenthood speak for themselves,” said Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics andn Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), in written comments for Baptist Press. “They reveal an organization whose profit structure is built on violence against women and their unborn children.

“Whatever questions some may have about the legality of the recordings, we should not forget what the recordings revealed: The cruelty, dishonesty and lawlessness of Planned Parenthood.”

The National Right to Life Committee called the judgment “chilling for anyone acting in good faith to reveal what they feel is criminal activity or behavior. This judgment is a miscarriage of justice and threatens [First Amendment] rights and investigative journalism.”

Planned Parenthood was “thrilled with today’s verdict,” said Alexis McGill Johnson, acting president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA). “The jury recognized today that those behind the campaign broke the law in order to advance their goals of banning safe, legal abortion” in the United States.

The legal organizations representing the pro-life investigators criticized the decision and said they would appeal.

“It is as though the jury completely disregarded every piece of evidence we produced,” said Alexandra Snyder, executive director of the Life Legal Defense Foundation. “Not only does Planned Parenthood engage in illegal and morally repugnant practices, but its agents never bothered to tell the defendants that the conversations about things like ‘crushing above and crushing below’ to get more desirable and salable body parts were confidential.”

Peter Breen, lawyer for the Thomas More Society, said the lawsuit “is payback for Daleiden exposing Planned Parenthood’s dirty business of buying and selling fetal parts and organs. His investigation into criminal activity by America’s largest abortion provider utilized standard investigative journalism techniques, those applied regularly by news outlets across the country.”

(Editor’s note: In the wake of the video clips, Planned Parenthood ended its practice of accepting payment for fetal tissue and parts, and CMP called the move an admission of guilt: “If the money Planned Parenthood has been receiving for baby body parts were truly legitimate ‘reimbursement,’ why cancel it?”)

Following the 2015 release of the first undercover videos, Daleiden, CMP’s founder, spoke at the inaugural Evangelicals for Life conference in January 2016 in Washington, D.C. The ERLC sponsors the event.

At the time, Daleiden explained his ethical approach to the clandestine operation: “I think that undercover work is fundamentally different from lying, because the purpose of undercover work is to serve the truth and to bring the truth to greater clarity and to communicate the truth more strongly.”

Federal Judge William Orrick, who presided over the trial, ruled journalism could not be a defense in the face of Planned Parenthood’s claims, thereby dealing a blow to the defendants’ arguments. Testimony during the six-week trial appeared to affirm statements made by Planned Parenthood officials and others on CMP’s secret videos.

Those undercover videos included evidence of the dissection of live babies outside the womb to remove organs.

Planned Parenthood centers performed more than 332,000 abortions nationwide during the most recent year for which statistics are available. PPFA and its affiliates  a  $563.8 million in government grants and reimbursements in its latest financial year.[rte]
boy are they PPH in for a surprise.
1 Cor 15:3-4.."For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:"

Acts 17:11.."These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

patrick jane

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7434
  • Karma: +1010/-0
  • Research Jesus Christ - Research Flat Earth
  • Location: Homeless in God's Flat Earth
  • Referrals: 40
    • Theology Forums
Re: Abortion Is Murder - Change My Mind
« Reply #40 on: January 22, 2020, 12:24:07 pm »

https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2020/january/pro-life-abortion-regret-study-post-abortive-ministry.html






Abortion Regret Isn’t a Myth, Despite New Study




What women may refuse to disclose to researchers at a clinic, they’re confessing in Bible studies decades later.


Pro-life advocates and ministry leaders are challenging the results of a new study that found that most women do not suffer emotionally after an abortion, and that over time, they are less likely to express regret.

Researchers from the University of California at San Francisco followed 667 women across 30 clinics after they received an elective abortion, finding that the majority had either positive feelings or no emotion at all toward their decision both a week later (71%) and five years later (84%), according to a study released last week in the journal Social Science & Medicine.

Corinne Rocca, one of the study’s authors and a professor at UC San Francisco, said that the study proves that the idea that woman will develop negative emotions after an abortion is a “myth” and a “red herring.” Rocca has also participated in multiple research studies and written several articles for the Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood.

While pro-choice advocates have used the findings to suggest that the idea of “abortion regret” is merely a scare tactic from pro-lifers, critics say the sample for the survey doesn’t justify the debunking its authors have touted in the media.

Writing for the National Review, researcher Michael J. New noted that women who volunteer to respond to questions following an abortion are more likely to be the ones who feel positively about it, and therefore the findings do not represent the full spectrum of women who have had abortions. New—a professor at the Catholic University of America and a scholar with the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute—noted that of all the women asked to participate, less than 40 percent agreed, and roughly 30 percent of the 667 who participated had stopped responding by the end of the five-year study.

Plus, Christians working in post-abortive ministry have seen abortion regret stir up in women long after the five-year span of the research.

“The majority of women we see are usually 15, 20, 30, 40 years removed,” said Carrie Bond, former national training director for Surrendering the Secret. Counselors and staff like Bond are particularly likely to encounter those who have grown to regret their abortions, or to discover that they had been holding back the emotional weight of the decision.

Abby Johnson, the former Planned Parenthood staffer who went on to become a pro-life advocate, shared a similar observation on Twitter: “Here’s real talk. Trauma doesn’t usually present until 10-15 years post-traumatic event. Those women have NO idea how they will feel about their abortions many years later.”

Bond said most women are culturally conditioned to either hide their abortion or celebrate it. “Those are your two choices,” she said. “Be silent, or say ‘It hasn’t affected me!’” Some may not even realize that some of the negative symptoms they experience in the years following their abortion—nightmares, or an eating disorder, for example—may have been triggered by their experience.

Bond also questioned the researchers’ conclusion that the lack of emotion is positive. Far from a good thing, she said that can be actually evidence of trauma. One of the most common symptoms of post-abortion stress she sees in women is emotional numbness. One study conducted in the early nineties by pro-life researchers found that 92 percent of women experience some level of “emotional deadening” up to 10 years after their procedure. (That study surveyed 260 women who had actively sought post-abortion counseling.)

While post-abortive ministries, by their nature, are likely to draw in women who are experiencing regret and seeking a place for healing—their work is not miniscule. As Julie Roys wrote for CT in 2015:

In the past 20 years, abortion recovery groups have multiplied in churches nationwide. Surrendering the Secret has trained about 2,500 leaders in churches and crisis pregnancy centers. Another leading recovery ministry, Rachel’s Vineyard, hosts about 1,000 retreats annually in 48 states and 57 other countries. Yet, these statistics pale in comparison to the number of post-abortive women in the church (not to mention the men who carry regret over their wives’ or girlfriends’ abortions).

The Silent No More Campaign, a project of Priests for Life and Anglicans for Life, has hosted 6,469 women and men sharing their abortion testimonies. “I Regret My Abortion” is a slogan on its campaign protest signs.

Abortion rates have been falling for the past few years, reaching an “historic low” of 625,000 in 2016, the latest year data from the Centers for Disease Control are available. Statistically, 625,000 abortions means there were 12 abortions for every 1,000 women of child-bearing age in the US that year. That number may be higher, given that reporting abortion numbers to the CDC is voluntary for states. Still, it adds to a staggering total. Researchers from varying ideological backgrounds estimate roughly 60 million abortions have been performed in the United States since the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade in January 1973.

In the UCSF study, researchers approached possible participants at abortion clinic sites. But that potentially left out a subset of women: those who obtain medication abortions. In some states, women can get prescriptions for the abortion medication protocol via a video consultation with a doctor or nurse practitioner and never have to step foot into a clinic.

The Guttmacher Institute reports that medication abortions are on the rise, accounting for more than a third of all abortions recorded in 2017. The most commonly-used medication abortion protocol is only prescribed in the first trimester and includes two drugs: the first blocks the embryo from receiving vital progesterone. The second, taken 24 to 48 hours later, induces labor.

The medications are currently regulated by the Food and Drug Administration and in some states must be administered by a licensed doctor or other medical professional, but pro-choice groups are pushing against such regulations.

Chuck Donovan, president of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, worries that medication abortions have the potential to cause more trauma than an in-clinic procedure, as women may feel more responsibility over the abortion when they have to take the medication themselves. He also said a medication abortion presents the possibility that a woman will see her deceased baby after the medication runs its course.

Bond at Surrendering the Secret said she’s counseled many women who had that exact experience. She agrees the trauma from medication abortions may be even more acute than that experienced after a surgical procedure. “You’re not told the truth, and then left alone to suffer through the trauma: intense cramping, hemorrhaging, delivery of baby,” she said

The UCSF study also reported that 95 percent of the women they spoke to said they were confident that abortion was the right decision for them. But Bond said even women who express strong confidence at the time of their decision (or even shortly afterward) are still at great risk for post-abortion stress. Expressed confidence at the abortion clinic may in fact be denial, she said, and that could fade later.
Hearing, believing and trusting the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross; His death, burial and resurrection for the forgiveness of sins and REPENTING, seals us with that Holy Spirit of Promise - EPHESIANS 1:10-14 KJV - The Lord is not slack concerning His promise. 2 Peter 3:9 KJV - 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV - Ephesians 1:10-14 KJV - Romans 10:9-10 KJV - Romans 10:13 - Romans 10:17 - Ephesians 1:7 KJV - Colossians 1:14 KJV -


Copyright Disclaimer: All audio and music belongs to the owner/creator. This is a non-profit. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.

patrick jane

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7434
  • Karma: +1010/-0
  • Research Jesus Christ - Research Flat Earth
  • Location: Homeless in God's Flat Earth
  • Referrals: 40
    • Theology Forums
Hearing, believing and trusting the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross; His death, burial and resurrection for the forgiveness of sins and REPENTING, seals us with that Holy Spirit of Promise - EPHESIANS 1:10-14 KJV - The Lord is not slack concerning His promise. 2 Peter 3:9 KJV - 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV - Ephesians 1:10-14 KJV - Romans 10:9-10 KJV - Romans 10:13 - Romans 10:17 - Ephesians 1:7 KJV - Colossians 1:14 KJV -


Copyright Disclaimer: All audio and music belongs to the owner/creator. This is a non-profit. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.

patrick jane

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7434
  • Karma: +1010/-0
  • Research Jesus Christ - Research Flat Earth
  • Location: Homeless in God's Flat Earth
  • Referrals: 40
    • Theology Forums
Hearing, believing and trusting the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross; His death, burial and resurrection for the forgiveness of sins and REPENTING, seals us with that Holy Spirit of Promise - EPHESIANS 1:10-14 KJV - The Lord is not slack concerning His promise. 2 Peter 3:9 KJV - 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV - Ephesians 1:10-14 KJV - Romans 10:9-10 KJV - Romans 10:13 - Romans 10:17 - Ephesians 1:7 KJV - Colossians 1:14 KJV -


Copyright Disclaimer: All audio and music belongs to the owner/creator. This is a non-profit. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.

Bladerunner

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1735
  • Karma: +1010/-0
  • My Friend
  • Location: Tennessee, USA
  • Referrals: 0
1 Cor 15:3-4.."For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:"

Acts 17:11.."These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."
Like Like x 1 View List

patrick jane

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7434
  • Karma: +1010/-0
  • Research Jesus Christ - Research Flat Earth
  • Location: Homeless in God's Flat Earth
  • Referrals: 40
    • Theology Forums
Re: Abortion Is Murder - Change My Mind
« Reply #44 on: June 06, 2020, 01:50:01 pm »

https://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2020/june/why-i-protest-and-you-should-too.html







Pro ALL Life: Why I Protest and Encourage You to Do So Too












I've marched for life like lots of evangelicals. I encourage you to march for black lives as well. Protests are part of who we are.


I’m convinced that Christians need to speak out and to protest at times. And the reality is, all Christians believe this about certain issues. For example, it does not seem controversial when we march for life. But it does seem controversial when we march for racial justice, and I think it’s worth exploring why.

Earlier this week, I marched in the Bronzeville neighborhood of Chicago to join thousands of others in a peaceful protest led by African American faith leaders.

Yesterday, my family and I participated in a lament walk in Wheaton. I tweeted at the time, "At the Wheaton lament walk with my family. Communities all over the country are coming together to mourn and work for justice. I’ve never seen a group like this in Wheaton. It’s encouraging." And I meant it.

Now, mind you, I am doing more than protesting—things like partnering churches together and giving to help impacted communities, but I’m also headed out again right now to be a part of a local protest.

I think protesting matters.

Let me explain.

Our Heritage

As Protestants, protest is a part of our faith heritage. That’s part of why we are called Protestants.

Martin Luther protested abuses in the Catholic Church with his 95 Theses. When he was given a papal bull from Pope Leo X calling him to recant, Luther burned it in protest. He was called a heretic and worse, yet he stood on his convictions. Indeed, we draw Protestantism from those who followed Luther in “protest” after he broke from the Catholic Church at the Diet of Worms in 1529.

Also, as a specific strain within Protestant Christianity, evangelicals have long history of protest. We draw our theological heritage from English Puritans who dissented from the Church of England.

As Americans, it is part of our civic heritage (one which we often venerate in textbooks and through holidays. The one that sticks out in our national conscience is the Boston Tea Party, one of the earliest protests of the American Revolution which rallied people against the oppressive tyranny of King George.

And as Evangelicals, we are people defined in part by our heritage of revival, reform, and renewal. We are at our best when we are calling ourselves, our churches, and our communities to resist both dead orthodoxy and empty moralism. At our core, we are supposed to be people who work to protest spiritual lethargy.

Christians have also protested moral wrongs throughout the years.

Most recently, evangelicals and other Christians have consistently—and against considerable public pressure—protested abortion, including participation in a major national March for Life every year.

Our Call

Far from a recent evolution, modern evangelicalism was born out of a rejection of isolationism of fundamentalism. Carl F.H. Henry’s The Uneasy Conscience of Fundamentalism drew attention to the ways theological conservative Protestants in America had lost sight of the social dimensions of the gospel. Later, in his book A Plea for Evangelical Demonstration, Henry would focus more practically on the issue of public protest in calling evangelicals to take seriously our faith:

This is a call for authentic evangelical protest. A sensitive Christian conscience must openly confront enduring and intractable social injustices. Biblically concerned Christians need not forego a moment of open identification with those of other faiths and alien views in protesting what all together recognize to be unjust."[1]

As Peter Heltzel rightly observed, this was “Henry on fire for lasting social change as a vital expression of our gospel witness.” Drawing a clear parallel to Martin Luther King’s famous exhortation to moderate clergy that "injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere,” Henry pleaded for Christians to protest “what all together recognize to be unjust.”[2]

With unrelenting surgical precision, Henry repeatedly honed in not only on the systemic nature of evil but also on the necessity of a public response by the people of God. The result was an unavoidable call to evangelicals to see the call to protest as intimately and unavoidably connected to their faith.

Our Current Situation

Over the past two weeks, we have witnessed countless marches and demonstrations to protest not only the killing of George Floyd, but also the broader issue of systemic racism., Following other tragic reports of African American deaths in the recent past, Floyd’s death seems to be a tipping point in waking people to action.

But there is a difference it seems between the protests over the past two weeks and the litany of those I just noted above. The difference in these recent protests is that some conservatives (often evangelicals) seem intent upon focusing on other issues so as to bypass the heart of the matter.

It’s worth addressing their argument.

Even as evidence of violence and prejudice mounts and the pleas from their brothers and sisters of color intensify, their social media feeds instead focus on the riots and looting. Tying the protests and riots together, some are trying to dismiss the former by way of the latter.

Here’s the challenge: You can simultaneously speak out against systemic racism and looting and violence. Evangelicals sometimes struggle with the former but demand the latter. Followers of Jesus must do both.

Faith Leaders March

The faith leaders I marched with for justice in Chicago modeled this duality. Walking through the streets, they called out victims by name while proclaiming that black lives do matter.

I’m aware of concerns surrounding the BLM movement (and have published about those concerns here) but that doesn’t negate the significance of the phrase. We should be ashamed we have reached a place where so many in the African American community believe their lives do not matter to us. Regardless of politics, it marks a tragic failure on our part to live out scripture’s imperative to be known for our love.

Moreover, as we marched through Bronzeville for justice and fairness, leaders of that condemned the destructiveness of rioting and looting not only on the goals of the protest but in the very communities we were trying shine lights upon.

No Christian affirms a violent riot but this is the straw man some are using. Yet consider how this same tactic is used against us when applied to other protests. When extremists bomb an abortion clinic and kill an abortion doctor, we are defensive when others try to use the incident to tar the entire pro-life movement. Even as we join in condemning this violence as antithetical to the movement, it can quickly become a talking point to label the movement as violent, hypocritical, and self-defeating.

As we ask for others to avoid straw man tactics to silence our protests, we must resist the same temptation to silence others.

Behind the Protesting

One of the disappointing facts of debates over the nature of protests is that the underlying message can get lost. Yet the reality is that the act of protesting itself is not the issue. Indeed, for too many, focusing on the protests can often be a smokescreen to avoid dealing with the harsh reality.

Instead, we get endless debates of protesting the right way. If only African Americans (and others seeking justice) would protest the right way, then we would understand and deal with the problem, we hear. Well, I can’t think of a righter way than a peaceful protest walking through Bronzeville in a march led by African American pastors.

It must not be lost that so many of these marches are saturated in the gospel and lead by gospel ministers. Indeed, David Neff reminds us that one of the most prominent civil rights song, "We Shall Overcome," was adapted by Peter Seeger from Louise Shropshire's "If My Jesus Wills (I'll Overcome)." That so many white people see only the looting fringe and not their brothers and sisters in Christ speaks to centuries of oppression must be bridged.

It's my hope and prayer that the church today will be building bridges rather than burning them. Otherwise, something far worse than property will be destroyed.

Standing and Marching for Lives that Matter

For me, I stand with the unborn who’ve been ignored. It’s interesting to see so many throw that back up on social media to me, yet I wonder if they’ve joined us at the national March for Life or even the Chicago march.

Many people have tweeted back at me mentioning abortion in the last couple weeks. I’m glad that are concerned for the innocent unborn. I’ve not tweeted back to ask how many have joined us for such marches for life. Tweets are easy— action is hard. I hope they will.

I assure you, it was pretty cold in Chicago when I spoke at that Chicago march. And yet, I saw Anglican Bishop Stewart Ruch there. And I saw him again this week. I tweeted, “I saw Anglican Bishop @StewartRuch at the faith leaders March on Tuesday AND we regularly see one another at pro-life marches. I love his consistency.”

This weekend, many of your African American brothers and sisters need to know you care. I was invited first by James Meeks—Meeks is an evangelical pastor who is a trustee of Moody Bible Institute and grad student in our Wheaton College graduate program. How could I not stand by my brother in Christ when he asked me to stand with him against injustice and stand by him in his community’s pain.

I was surprised that James Meeks insisted I join him at the front of the march—that’s me at the middle holing the Y and James holding the D. (It’s blurry in the article picture at the top, but here we are together—and I am glad to be by his side.)

I did not want to be up front, but he and Charlie Dates explained to me that it is important that white allies be present and evident. So I listened to them.

Lots of evangelical pastors where there that day, and I was glad to be a part of it. You might consider joining such a peaceful event in your own area this weekend yourself, because protesting is what we Protestants have been doing since day one.

Don’t let the fringe voices on Twitter keep you from standing for justice with your neighbor.

You already probably knew that the unborn need your voice. Well, so do your African American brothers and sisters who have been born into a world where they wonder if their lives really do matter.











Endnotes

[1] Carl F. H. Henry, A Plea for Evangelical Demonstration (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1971), 13.

[2] Peter Goodwin Heltzel, Jesus and Justice: Evangelicals, Race, and American Politics, 86.

Ed Stetzer is executive director of the Wheaton College Billy Graham Center, serves as a dean at Wheaton College, and publishes church leadership resources through Mission Group. The Exchange Team contributed to this article.
Hearing, believing and trusting the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross; His death, burial and resurrection for the forgiveness of sins and REPENTING, seals us with that Holy Spirit of Promise - EPHESIANS 1:10-14 KJV - The Lord is not slack concerning His promise. 2 Peter 3:9 KJV - 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV - Ephesians 1:10-14 KJV - Romans 10:9-10 KJV - Romans 10:13 - Romans 10:17 - Ephesians 1:7 KJV - Colossians 1:14 KJV -


Copyright Disclaimer: All audio and music belongs to the owner/creator. This is a non-profit. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.

patrick jane

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7434
  • Karma: +1010/-0
  • Research Jesus Christ - Research Flat Earth
  • Location: Homeless in God's Flat Earth
  • Referrals: 40
    • Theology Forums
Re: Abortion Is Murder - Change My Mind
« Reply #45 on: June 30, 2020, 04:48:15 pm »

https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2020/june/supreme-court-abortion-louisiana-june-medical-services.html







Supreme Court Rejects Louisiana Abortion Regulations










John Roberts joins liberal justices, citing precedent.


The Supreme Court has ruled that a Louisiana law regulating abortion places an unacceptable obstacle in the path of women who want an abortion.

Pro-life advocates had hoped that the two new conservative justices would swing the court in a different direction than its 2016 ruling on a similar case. Instead, the 5–4 decision solidifies the court’s definition of “undue burden” on women seeking the procedure and further limits states’ abilities to regulate abortion.

“This decision is disappointing and wrong-headed,” said Russell Moore, president of the the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. “The Louisiana law was directed toward the simple goal of protecting women from danger by placing the most minimal restrictions possible on an abortion industry that insists on laissez-faire for itself and its profits.”

The Louisiana law required abortion providers to obtain admitting privileges at a local hospital. Legislators said the requirement would improve the level of care that clinics provide for women. Abortion regulations in Louisiana and other conservative states have resulted in clinic closures and corresponded with falling abortion rates nationwide.

The court struck down similar requirements in Texas in 2016, ruling that the regulation would have no positive effect on the level of treatment women received but would likely cause some clinics to close. The regulation was unconstitutional because it placed an “undue burden” on women’s access to abortion.

On Monday, four liberal justices—Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Sonya Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan—decided in June Medical Services vs. Russo that the Louisiana law was unconstitutional for the same reasons.

“Enforcing the admitting-privileges requirement would drastically reduce the number and geographic distribution of abortion providers, making it impossible for many women to obtain a safe, legal abortion in the State and imposing substantial obstacles on those who could,” wrote Stephen Breyer, for the majority.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined the decision in a concurring opinion. Even though he said the Texas decision was wrong, he thinks the precedent is binding. Roberts appealed to the legal doctrine of stare decisis, a Latin phrase meaning “to stand by things decided.”

“Stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike,” Roberts wrote. “The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents.”

The legal argument did not please pro-life advocates.

“Chief Justice Roberts’ vote is a big disappointment,” said James Bopp Jr., general counsel for National Right to Life. “This decision demonstrates how difficult it is to drain the DC swamp and how important it is that President Trump gets re-elected so that he may be able to appoint more pro-life Justices.”

Louisiana—like many conservative states—has passed numerous laws regulating abortion in the last few years. Most abortions are banned after 22 weeks. Every woman seeking abortion is required to get an ultrasound and receive in-person counseling. And girls under 18 are required to get parental consent.

The state has seen a 2 percent drop in abortions since 2016, continuing a nation-wide trend. In the state’s four clinics, there is currently about currently about 1 abortion per 100 reproductive-age women every year.

The Louisiana clinics do not have a good record of caring for women’s health. A lower court—which sided with the abortion providers—described the clinics’ disregard for basic levels of medical care as “horrifying.”

In one case, a doctor did not sterilize the instruments used to perform an abortion. The same doctor used single-use instruments multiple times, court records show. In another case, a women started to hemorrhage during her abortion. The doctor didn’t try to stop the bleeding, according to disciplinary records, but instead told her to “get up and get out.”

June Medical Services, the clinic at the center of the Supreme Court case, was cited for failing to monitor breathing and heartbeats while women were under anesthesia. Its doctors also didn’t check medical histories and performed abortions without documenting anything about prior complications with anesthesia, or issues with menstruation, pregnancy, and childbirth, according to the lower court’s findings.

Pro-choice advocates argued that requiring doctors who perform abortions to maintain admitting privileges at local hospitals will not improve the level of care. Sometimes hospitals evaluate a doctor’s qualifications and record, but admitting privileges can also be denied for bureaucratic reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of care a patient receives. Functionally, they argue, the requirement will only prevent some abortion doctors from working in Louisiana.

Justice Samuel Alito, in his dissent to Monday’s ruling, argued that “there is ample evidence in the record showing that admitting privileges help to protect the health of women by ensuring that physicians who perform abortions meet a higher standard of competence than is shown by the mere possession of a license to practice.”

Alito also argued the ruling shifts the standard for regulations in favor of abortion providers, allowing them to say what counts as an undue burden.

There has been much debate about what regulations are “substantial obstacles” since the court established that standard in 1992 with Planned Parenthood vs. Casey. Many abortion rights advocates see all regulations as an undue burden. They argue the state laws are just back-door attempts to ban abortion.

During oral arguments, the attorney representing June Medical Services said that even if there was no evidence that the Louisiana law made it harder for a woman to get an abortion, the regulation should not be allowed unless it was shown it made a positive impact on women’s health.

Pro-life groups, on the other hand, have argued a state law should be allowed unless it prevents all or nearly all abortions from occurring. In a friend-of-the-court brief, Bopp argued that regulations are not substantial obstacles until they rise to the level of “absolute obstacles” and when a law incidentally increases the cost or decrease the availability of abortion that is not “undue as a matter of law.” He suggested the court clarify its standard, to say that a regulation is permissible unless it deprives women of abortion access “in a real sense” or is clearly “designed to strike at the right itself.”

Justice Clarence Thomas, in his dissent, said the debates about what regulations are acceptable do not go to the heart of the matter.

“Today’s decision is wrong for a far simpler reason,” he wrote. “The Constitution does not constrain the States’ ability to regulate or even prohibit abortion. This Court created the right to abortion based on an amorphous, unwritten right to privacy, which it grounded in the ‘legal fiction’ of substantive due process … the putative right to abortion is a creation that should be undone.”

The case has been seen by many as a proxy battle over abortion, despite the fact that the legal status of abortion wasn’t at issue and abortions would continue to happen, regardless of the court’s ruling.

The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association filed a brief with the court arguing the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of the right to legal due process should protect the unborn. “It is now well known that a unique human being, a person, begins life at conception,” the association’s lawyer wrote to the court. “That has been indisputably established scientifically since the early 1800s.”

On the other side, the representative for 28 pro-choice religious groups including the Methodist Federation for Social Action, Presbyterians Affirming Reproductive Choice, and the United Church of Christ, took the opportunity to argue for the importance of abortion access.

“Being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term not only exposes a woman to greater health risks, but is also an affront to her right to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy, in accordance with her faith and values,” the lawyer wrote. “Religious commitments to the marginalized in our society, including poor women, women of color, rural women, young women, women in abusive relationships, and women unable to travel to obtain abortion care, add to these concerns.”

The court’s ruling does not address the personhood of the unborn, though. Nor did it challenge the question of a women’s right to access abortion.

At least one justice wonders whether any Supreme Court decision could get at the real issue dividing the nation and address the deep ideological conflict over abortion.

“I have read the briefs. I understand there are good arguments on both sides,” Breyer said during oral arguments in March. “Indeed, in the country people have very strong feelings and a lot of people morally think it’s wrong and a lot of people morally think the opposite is wrong. … I think personally the court is struggling with the problem of what kind of rule of law do you have in a country that contains both sorts of people.”

Hearing, believing and trusting the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross; His death, burial and resurrection for the forgiveness of sins and REPENTING, seals us with that Holy Spirit of Promise - EPHESIANS 1:10-14 KJV - The Lord is not slack concerning His promise. 2 Peter 3:9 KJV - 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV - Ephesians 1:10-14 KJV - Romans 10:9-10 KJV - Romans 10:13 - Romans 10:17 - Ephesians 1:7 KJV - Colossians 1:14 KJV -


Copyright Disclaimer: All audio and music belongs to the owner/creator. This is a non-profit. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.

Bladerunner

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1735
  • Karma: +1010/-0
  • My Friend
  • Location: Tennessee, USA
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Abortion Is Murder - Change My Mind
« Reply #46 on: June 30, 2020, 07:34:53 pm »

https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2020/june/supreme-court-abortion-louisiana-june-medical-services.html







Supreme Court Rejects Louisiana Abortion Regulations










John Roberts joins liberal justices, citing precedent.


The Supreme Court has ruled that a Louisiana law regulating abortion places an unacceptable obstacle in the path of women who want an abortion.

Pro-life advocates had hoped that the two new conservative justices would swing the court in a different direction than its 2016 ruling on a similar case. Instead, the 5–4 decision solidifies the court’s definition of “undue burden” on women seeking the procedure and further limits states’ abilities to regulate abortion.

“This decision is disappointing and wrong-headed,” said Russell Moore, president of the the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. “The Louisiana law was directed toward the simple goal of protecting women from danger by placing the most minimal restrictions possible on an abortion industry that insists on laissez-faire for itself and its profits.”

The Louisiana law required abortion providers to obtain admitting privileges at a local hospital. Legislators said the requirement would improve the level of care that clinics provide for women. Abortion regulations in Louisiana and other conservative states have resulted in clinic closures and corresponded with falling abortion rates nationwide.

The court struck down similar requirements in Texas in 2016, ruling that the regulation would have no positive effect on the level of treatment women received but would likely cause some clinics to close. The regulation was unconstitutional because it placed an “undue burden” on women’s access to abortion.

On Monday, four liberal justices—Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Sonya Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan—decided in June Medical Services vs. Russo that the Louisiana law was unconstitutional for the same reasons.

“Enforcing the admitting-privileges requirement would drastically reduce the number and geographic distribution of abortion providers, making it impossible for many women to obtain a safe, legal abortion in the State and imposing substantial obstacles on those who could,” wrote Stephen Breyer, for the majority.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined the decision in a concurring opinion. Even though he said the Texas decision was wrong, he thinks the precedent is binding. Roberts appealed to the legal doctrine of stare decisis, a Latin phrase meaning “to stand by things decided.”

“Stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike,” Roberts wrote. “The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents.”

The legal argument did not please pro-life advocates.

“Chief Justice Roberts’ vote is a big disappointment,” said James Bopp Jr., general counsel for National Right to Life. “This decision demonstrates how difficult it is to drain the DC swamp and how important it is that President Trump gets re-elected so that he may be able to appoint more pro-life Justices.”

Louisiana—like many conservative states—has passed numerous laws regulating abortion in the last few years. Most abortions are banned after 22 weeks. Every woman seeking abortion is required to get an ultrasound and receive in-person counseling. And girls under 18 are required to get parental consent.

The state has seen a 2 percent drop in abortions since 2016, continuing a nation-wide trend. In the state’s four clinics, there is currently about currently about 1 abortion per 100 reproductive-age women every year.

The Louisiana clinics do not have a good record of caring for women’s health. A lower court—which sided with the abortion providers—described the clinics’ disregard for basic levels of medical care as “horrifying.”

In one case, a doctor did not sterilize the instruments used to perform an abortion. The same doctor used single-use instruments multiple times, court records show. In another case, a women started to hemorrhage during her abortion. The doctor didn’t try to stop the bleeding, according to disciplinary records, but instead told her to “get up and get out.”

June Medical Services, the clinic at the center of the Supreme Court case, was cited for failing to monitor breathing and heartbeats while women were under anesthesia. Its doctors also didn’t check medical histories and performed abortions without documenting anything about prior complications with anesthesia, or issues with menstruation, pregnancy, and childbirth, according to the lower court’s findings.

Pro-choice advocates argued that requiring doctors who perform abortions to maintain admitting privileges at local hospitals will not improve the level of care. Sometimes hospitals evaluate a doctor’s qualifications and record, but admitting privileges can also be denied for bureaucratic reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of care a patient receives. Functionally, they argue, the requirement will only prevent some abortion doctors from working in Louisiana.

Justice Samuel Alito, in his dissent to Monday’s ruling, argued that “there is ample evidence in the record showing that admitting privileges help to protect the health of women by ensuring that physicians who perform abortions meet a higher standard of competence than is shown by the mere possession of a license to practice.”

Alito also argued the ruling shifts the standard for regulations in favor of abortion providers, allowing them to say what counts as an undue burden.

There has been much debate about what regulations are “substantial obstacles” since the court established that standard in 1992 with Planned Parenthood vs. Casey. Many abortion rights advocates see all regulations as an undue burden. They argue the state laws are just back-door attempts to ban abortion.

During oral arguments, the attorney representing June Medical Services said that even if there was no evidence that the Louisiana law made it harder for a woman to get an abortion, the regulation should not be allowed unless it was shown it made a positive impact on women’s health.

Pro-life groups, on the other hand, have argued a state law should be allowed unless it prevents all or nearly all abortions from occurring. In a friend-of-the-court brief, Bopp argued that regulations are not substantial obstacles until they rise to the level of “absolute obstacles” and when a law incidentally increases the cost or decrease the availability of abortion that is not “undue as a matter of law.” He suggested the court clarify its standard, to say that a regulation is permissible unless it deprives women of abortion access “in a real sense” or is clearly “designed to strike at the right itself.”

Justice Clarence Thomas, in his dissent, said the debates about what regulations are acceptable do not go to the heart of the matter.

“Today’s decision is wrong for a far simpler reason,” he wrote. “The Constitution does not constrain the States’ ability to regulate or even prohibit abortion. This Court created the right to abortion based on an amorphous, unwritten right to privacy, which it grounded in the ‘legal fiction’ of substantive due process … the putative right to abortion is a creation that should be undone.”

The case has been seen by many as a proxy battle over abortion, despite the fact that the legal status of abortion wasn’t at issue and abortions would continue to happen, regardless of the court’s ruling.

The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association filed a brief with the court arguing the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of the right to legal due process should protect the unborn. “It is now well known that a unique human being, a person, begins life at conception,” the association’s lawyer wrote to the court. “That has been indisputably established scientifically since the early 1800s.”

On the other side, the representative for 28 pro-choice religious groups including the Methodist Federation for Social Action, Presbyterians Affirming Reproductive Choice, and the United Church of Christ, took the opportunity to argue for the importance of abortion access.

“Being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term not only exposes a woman to greater health risks, but is also an affront to her right to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy, in accordance with her faith and values,” the lawyer wrote. “Religious commitments to the marginalized in our society, including poor women, women of color, rural women, young women, women in abusive relationships, and women unable to travel to obtain abortion care, add to these concerns.”

The court’s ruling does not address the personhood of the unborn, though. Nor did it challenge the question of a women’s right to access abortion.

At least one justice wonders whether any Supreme Court decision could get at the real issue dividing the nation and address the deep ideological conflict over abortion.

“I have read the briefs. I understand there are good arguments on both sides,” Breyer said during oral arguments in March. “Indeed, in the country people have very strong feelings and a lot of people morally think it’s wrong and a lot of people morally think the opposite is wrong. … I think personally the court is struggling with the problem of what kind of rule of law do you have in a country that contains both sorts of people.”



There was a piece of legislation in Texas that was put down last year. Sadly, the justices did not look to the words of the Lousianna Legislation but rather put it down because of Precedent...Yet, it was different all together. So sad.   

When a nations leaders, Scotus is one of those leaders.....They have not change is 100 years.

Bill Graham once said that "If God did not Judge America, He would owe Sodom and Gamorrah an apology"

unfortunately, we have become a nation of monsters that Kills Children for what....The IDOL of ME-ME-ME.   Wow....Beware ..Judgement is coming soon,......

Blade
1 Cor 15:3-4.."For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:"

Acts 17:11.."These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."
Winner Winner x 1 View List

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
173 Replies
6055 Views
Last post June 20, 2020, 07:16:46 pm
by patrick jane
11 Replies
4022 Views
Last post March 23, 2019, 11:08:35 am
by patrick jane
13 Replies
2233 Views
Last post August 07, 2019, 05:40:45 pm
by truthjourney
4 Replies
1419 Views
Last post July 24, 2019, 09:32:01 pm
by Bladerunner
2 Replies
4935 Views
Last post February 25, 2020, 08:13:46 pm
by Bladerunner

+-Recent Topics

Do you study scripture or the teachers you feel are right? by Bladerunner
Today at 12:36:32 pm

What does Love for God look like? by Bladerunner
Today at 12:33:42 pm

Agenda 21 = List of 21 Goals of the International Ruling Elite From 1993 by Bladerunner
Today at 12:27:25 pm

Trump 2020 - Winning !!! by patrick jane
Today at 03:07:39 am

Politics Today by patrick jane
Today at 03:07:27 am

Re: Trump 2020 - Winning !!! by patrick jane
Today at 03:06:56 am

Re: Politics Today by patrick jane
Today at 03:06:29 am

Black Spring With Autumn Political Commentary by patrick jane
Today at 02:56:49 am

Expectations of the Antichrist - Chuck Missler by patrick jane
Today at 12:59:44 am

Are our prayers powerful? by Bladerunner
July 11, 2020, 11:49:10 pm

Why stay awake and pray? by Bladerunner
July 11, 2020, 11:40:58 pm

Christianity Today Magazine - July 2020 by patrick jane
July 11, 2020, 09:58:28 pm

Mark & La Shonda Songwriting by La Shonda
July 11, 2020, 08:44:20 pm

Is scripture given to us for academic reasons or practice reasons? by patrick jane
July 11, 2020, 08:26:04 pm

Coronavirus hoax to declare martial law (FEMA) by Bladerunner
July 11, 2020, 06:21:39 pm

Biblical Theology - Video and Audio Bible Lessons - For Serious Students by Bladerunner
July 11, 2020, 06:19:04 pm

Tiny Houses, Affordable Living and More by Bladerunner
July 11, 2020, 06:12:19 pm

Wesleyan Theology by Bladerunner
July 11, 2020, 06:00:52 pm