Marching to Zion

Perhaps it's time to step away from weighty issues for a bit and indulge in something happy and uplifting. It's March, gateway to spring--and few things are more happy and uplifting than a good "march." Maybe that's one reason you're so fond of Marching On! And among the happiest marches I know is the rousing hymn Marching to Zion. This delightful piece was written and first published in 1707 by the great English hymnodist Isaac Watts; it was later put to music by the American gospel composer Robert Lowry (1826 -- 1899) (who composed another of my favorite hymns, How Can I Keep from Singing?). I was introduced to this hymn several years ago while practicing with the Fear Not Choir before the annual Civil War reenactment at the Genesee Country Village & Museum in Mumford, NY. To me, it unashamedly proclaims the joy of faith and our confidence in eternal life with God--and declares our right, even our duty, to "speak our joys abroad," something the atheistic elites are trying hard to discourage or prevent us from doing.

The original composition had several more verses, but these are the most widely sung today:

Come, we that love the Lord,
And let our joys be known,
Join in a song with sweet accord,
Join in a song with sweet accord
And thus surround the throne,
And thus surround the throne.

Chorus:
We're marching to Zion,
Beautiful, beautiful Zion;
We're marching upward to Zion,
The beautiful city of God.

Let those refuse to sing
Who never knew our God,
But children of the heav'nly King,
But children of the heav'nly King,
May speak their joys abroad,
May speak their joys abroad.

Chorus

The hill of Zion yields
A thousand sacred sweets
Before we reach the heav'nly fields,
Before we reach the heav'nly fields,
Or walk the golden streets,
Or walk the golden streets.

Chorus

Then let our songs abound
And every tear be dry;
We're marching through Immanuel's ground,
We're marching through Immanuel's ground,
To fairer worlds on high,
To fairer worlds on high.

Chorus

If you're wondering just what the second verse is all about, the following explanation from the Scrpture and Music web site may be helpful:

Should we sing psalms or hymns in our church services? This was the controversy stirring many congregations during the 17th and 18th centuries. Isaac Watts was the life-long champion of the “humanly composed” hymn, while the majority of the English-speaking churches insisted on the traditional psalm settings. Tempers frequently flared, and some churches actually split in the heat of this decidedly inharmonious musical conflict. In some churches a compromise was reached. The psalm setting would be sung in the early part of the service with a hymn used at the close, during which time the parishioners could leave or simply refuse to sing.

Isaac Watts may have written this hymn to refute his critics, who termed his hymns “Watts’ Whims.” This hymn first appeared in Watts’ Hymns and Spiritual Songs in 1707 and was titled “Heavenly Joy on Earth.”

Below is a very enjoyable rendition of this sweet hymn, apparently sung by a real congregation in a real church:



Try singing Marching to Zion whenever you're discouraged or have a bad case of the blahs--it will lift your spirits high!

Life and "Choice"--A Vital Debate

I'm starting to look like a "one-trick pony"--only three posts in five weeks, and they're all about abortion. It turns out that work and home demands keep my from posting much more often than that, but my ongoing discussion of the abortion issue with my son Colin is as important and engaging as anything else in my life right now. I could be wrong, but it seems like the distance between us on this issue is narrowing, and that's a wonderful thing. Maybe we've never been as far apart as either of us thought, since our basic values and principles are much the same even if our fundamental beliefs and approaches to social policy differ. I can't put into words how happy I am that we're able to explore such a difficult subject and still respect, admire, and love each other. If a civil discourse like this could be replicated in society generally, we might find a solution to this knotty problem that satisfied most people. Nevertheless, I think we're kept apart largely by divergent assumptions about why abortions are sought and the effect of limitations on the procedure.

I was encouraged by Colin's statement that abortion "should always be used as an absolute last resort, something to pursue only after all other avenues have been exhausted." Sadly, that's not how things typically happen between pregnancy and abortion. If adoption is regarded as one of these "other avenues," far more more women are opting for the "last resort" of abortion: according to AbortionFacts.com, only four percent of non-marital births are placed for adoption, or about 50,000 non-related adoptions a year as compared to over a million babies aborted annually.

Indeed, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health organization, nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion. Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion. From 1973 through 2008, nearly 50 million legal abortions occurred. Clearly, since Roe v. Wade, abortion has not been treated by most women who have had one (or, by almost half, more than one) as a "last resort."

There is also a widespread misconception (if not a knowing deception) among abortion-on-demand proponents that a large portion of, if not most, unintended pregnancies don't result from a deliberate choice on a woman's part to have sexual relations. For example, Colin states that "I think most health and law enforcement officials would wholeheartedly disagree with you that rape-induced pregnancy is rare. Unfortunately, especially in big cities, it is quite common, and that fact alone should be strong enough to keep abortion legalized." However, multiple studies by law enforcement and medical researchers have calculated that, on the average, at most 8 per 1,000 women who are raped or the victims of incest become pregnant in the United States. This is equivalent to 0.8 percent, or less than one percent. Even the most "liberal" estimates place the adult pregnancy rate associated with rape at about 4.7 percent.

Additional information provided by the Guttmacher Institute is revealing. Among the reasons surveyed women gave for having an abortion, three-fourths cited concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths said they couldn't afford a child; three-fourths said that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half said they did not want to be a single parent or were having problems with a husband or partner. This data suggests that most women seeking abortion are doing so to avoid the expense, burdens, and complexities of bearing and caring for a child.

"Pregnancy often poses a massive threat to the health of the mother, and if abortion were illegal then that mother would have no choice but to risk her own life to carry out the pregnancy, which would surely be a violation of human rights." Pregnancy itself always poses some risk to the mother, but the danger is "massive" only in cases of ectopic or other "defective" pregnancies, or when the mother suffers from an unusual medical condition that is or could become life-threatening due to the increased physical and mental stresses of carrying a child to term (some doctors have observed that abortion is almost never a medical necessity to save a woman's life). As I noted in my earlier posts, relatively few people who consider themselves pro-life would oppose abortion in the very rare cases when it is truly, and professionally certified as, necessary to save the mother from death or life-long physical or mental disability.

As noted in an article by the University of Toronto Students for Life:

Pro-choice advocates tend to appeal to hard cases, which are rare, and then extrapolate to all abortions. “What if a woman was raped? What if a woman’s life is in danger?” These are serious and complex issues — but they account for a small percentage of all abortions. These are bad arguments for all abortions being legal, ethical, or “medically necessary,” and honest pro-choicers know it.

The hard cases are a red herring. The real issue, and what most concerns "pro-choice" advocates, is whether and how to confine abortion to those hard cases--that is, whether access to abortion should be restricted or denied in the overwhelmingly typical case of a woman (or parents; it takes two to tango) who seeks to avoid the unintended (if entirely natural and foreseeable) consequence of a free and deliberate (or careless) act because she (or they) deem it too difficult, painful, burdensome, expensive, or embarrassing to endure. To be sure, some of these situations, as where the mother is a young teenager entirely unprepared to raise a child, might even approach the "hard case" category. In any event, what the pro-life movement seeks is a legal process by which abortion is limited to those situations in which it is a true medical "necessity" or the only reasonable answer under the circumstances, with the burden of proof and justification on the person who seeks to terminate the unborn child's life. Colin and others favoring unrestricted abortion object that "such a process could take weeks or even months to complete, and by that time the baby could be only weeks away from birth." But judicial systems in many states and localities already provide specialized courts for juvenile and other family matters, including expedited hearings and relaxed rules of evidence. Such procedures need not take weeks and months to complete, and the judges who typically preside tend to be highly experienced in domestic matters and know how urgently some matters need to be resolved.

Changing the rules on abortion certainly won't solve all social problems associated with unwanted children, nor would it come without a price. Such a change could put serious strains on court systems, medical resources, adoption and public assistance agencies, and child protective services--and ultimately, taxpayers. And yes, despite all the prenatal support and postnatal adoption resources available, many women will resort to black-market abortion providers rather than follow the law and endure the burdens of childbearing. Ending abortion-on-demand would save many children's lives, but merely changing the law isn't enough to avert a potential host of new problems. Clearly a much greater investment in maternal, child support, and adoption services would be necessary. But a change more fundamental even than this is necessary: a new--or renewed--culture of personal responsibility, sacrifice, commitment, and love; a culture of marriage, and of life. As much as abortion-on-demand has undermined the moral fabric of society, I think it's also a symptom of a breakdown that began years before Roe vs. Wade, as moral relativism, hedonism, materialism, and the state came to replace common decency, religious faith, and the family in American life. Only when we embrace these ideals anew, individually and as a society, can we hope to replace today's culture of selfishness, depravity, and death with one that encourages and supports life. Mothers and children deserve nothing less.

More Thoughts on Life and Roe

I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live . . . ~ Deut. 30:19

My post of January 30 prompted a thoughtful and well-written comment from one of my most avid readers--my son Colin! In it he makes several points in favor of the "legal right to terminate a fetus." His position is generally in line with that of most defenders of legalized abortion, so I thought a response from one holding a different view might help illuminate the issue--and hopefully touch the heart and change the mind of someone near and dear to me.

First, I'm very glad we agree that to what reasonable extent abortion should be permitted is a decision properly made by state legislatures, not by the federal courts. The central issue turns on such things as when human life begins and at what point an unborn child should enjoy legal protection, as well as on what role the father or a minor mother's parents should play--matters which should weigh in the balance together with the privacy interests of the mother. These are issues of social policy and governance that only democratically elected legislatures are competent to determine. The federal courts have no proper powers or jurisdiction in such matters; they can only apply the Constitution as it is written, and then only to the extent (if at all) it extends to the mother's privacy interest. Necessarily, this is an inadequate and one-sided approach to some of the weightiest issues confronting society. So, if for no other reason, Roe v. Wade should be set aside in favor of allowing the states to resume their traditional authority in "family matters," subject only to federal constitutional oversight to make sure that these legitimate public purposes are rationally served by such limits on abortion as the people decide to impose.

At least as important as the issue of who should decide the permissibility of abortion is whether, or to what extent, it should be permitted at all. And here is where so many part ways. Here is where purely rational social policies collide with fundamental convictions about what human life is, when it begins, and how, if at all, it can be weighed against other interests.

Colin points out that while some people deplorably use abortion as a “backup” method of birth control, “having the legal right to terminate a fetus can be a godsend to people in many different situations.” He may not be aware of how sadly ironic is his choice of words: rather than the coldly clinical phrase “terminate a fetus,” why not just say “kill a child”? And how could “the legal right to kill a child” be a “godsend”? To those of us who believe that an unborn baby is a person, that baby is the “Godsend”--literally--and killing it, at least without any legal showing of necessity, would be an awful crime and the most terrible tragedy.

Here lies the rub: if one believes that a “fetus” is not a person at least until live birth, or “quickening,” or “viability,” or ____ weeks, or some other gestational point selected by the medical or bioethical establishment (and changed by them from time to time according to developments in medicine or the prevailing culture), then it might make sense to relieve the mother, if she so chooses, of the tremendous physical and psychological burden (not to mention the danger to her) of carrying to term what, until that moment, would essentially amount to an inflamed uterus. But if one accepts the proposition that the “fetus” (or embryo, in its more primitive stage of physical formation) is a unique and infinitely precious human being from the moment of conception, then even the direst circumstances facing the mother would not justify its killing without any kind of legal process. In today’s enlightened society, people may not abuse or kill animals with impunity; so, if it were generally recognized that any unborn child is a human being, we wouldn’t countenance its wanton destruction.

This divergence of belief is the very heart of abortion as a social policy issue. Those who want abortion to be freely available generally do not (and cannot, consistently with their own humane principles) accept that a human embryo or fetus is (or could be) a person entitled to as much legal protection as the mother, at least until whatever point the medical and legal professions say that it’s convenient and acceptable to so recognize it. Until that point, they reason, the needs, interests, convenience, or even whims of the mother (or parents) are all that legally matter. Those who oppose the free availability of abortion generally do so because they accept that conception results in the creation of a person whose own life and future, in a humane society where the helpless aren’t forgotten, deserves as much protection as does the mother’s. Without such protection, they reason, countless human lives are casually sacrificed in the interest of whatever is deemed safe, convenient, desirable, or even economical by people who at least had a chance at their own lives and (except in cases of rape or undue influence) a choice how to use their own powers of creation.

Before I get bogged down in discussing whether these fundamental views can ever be reconciled on a legal or political level, let me respond to some of Colin’s specific points as one who believes in human life from conception, and therefore opposes today’s liberal abortion regime. I must confess rather passionate feelings on this issue, as to me there is nothing in all Creation more miraculous, more precious, or more pregnant with hope and promise--nor more helpless and needful of care and protection--than a human child, inside or outside the womb.

A woman is raped, becomes pregnant, and isn't in a situation where she can face 9 grueling months of carrying a baby. This is an awful situation for a woman to be in; fortunately, it's rare, and most proposed restrictive abortion laws would significantly relax restrictions on abortion in this case.

The pregnancy will risk the safety or health of the mother. Every pregnancy involves a significant risk to the mother's safety and health. Unless we're to embrace abortion as a routine safety measure in all pregnancies, it would have to be limited to situations in which carrying the child to term would present an unusually high risk of death or permanent physical or mental disability to the mother. Most proposed restrictive abortion laws that I am aware of would significantly relax restrictions on abortion in this case as well.

The fetus has a severe mental or physical handicap that will inhibit it from ever being able to live a normal life, and the parents aren't emotionally or economically capable to care for a child in that condition. Suggesting abortion as a solution to birth defects or genetic disability breaks my heart. Just imagine the countless millions of precious children afflicted with congenital blindness (e.g., Stevie Wonder) or deafness, Downs' syndrome, cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis, dwarfism, autism, missing limbs, etc. who would never have a chance to have a life at all, let alone a "normal" one--never know laughter, music, beauty, joy, kindness, friendship, love (at least in this world). How do we know whether they would choose life or oblivion if they were allowed a choice? Does anyone have a right to make that choice for them? Anyone who has been close to such a child knows what a tremendous challenge, and what a marvelous blessing, they can be. Should we the “normal” deny ourselves the opportunity for learning and growth that having disabled children among us provides?

A responsible married couple is practicing safe sex, but the condom breaks, the woman becomes pregnant, and the couple can't afford to have a baby at that point in their life. No method of birth control is foolproof, and every “responsible married couple” does, or should, know this. Yet, they take the risk inherent in having relations. That’s not a bad thing, but nevertheless we all need to be responsible for the foreseeable consequences of our actions, as difficult as they may be. In fact, this “planned-against-but-it-happened-anyway” situation is very common. At least two of my own children came along in this way. In the first instance we were just three months into the pregnancy when I lost my job, and we were initially denied insurance coverage for it through my next employer. By any rational measure we couldn’t “afford” to have a baby at that point in our life, but abortion wasn’t remotely thinkable for us, and we had our wonderful Donna anyway--Praise God! (our other unplanned pregnancy, for which we were better prepared, was--Colin himself!)

Indeed: faith, and the loving support of family, friends, and other helpers, are the keys to surmounting the tremendous challenges common to all of these scenarios. Carrying a child through pregnancy and birth, especially in such situations, can certainly be an exhausting, frightening, faith-testing experience. But it’s not impossible; it’s done every day, and monuments for valor should be erected to the mothers and the legions of caregivers who sustain them and their children through that difficult time.

Aside from life-threatening or (perhaps) rape-induced pregnancy, today there is rarely any compelling reason to abort an unborn child when there are so many health and support resources commonly available, so many organizations and people eager to help women in distress, and a range of other life-affirming options, such as adoption. We shouldn’t be treating the unborn as just another disposable item in our throwaway culture. Rather than rationalize and take the quick, (apparently) easy, and self-centered way out, expectant parents can and should dare to be heroes--to be brave, have faith, tough it out, and do what’s right, deep down in their hearts. What greater thing could one do for another person, for themselves, and for the world, than give the gift of life?

As I adverted to earlier, the stand one takes on the issue of abortion boils down, ultimately, to what one believes, at the core of his or her soul, about when human life begins. This is an extensive and evolving subject all by itself, and beyond the scope of one blog post. I only hope that readers will honestly and openly consider all sources of wisdom on this subject, religious as well as scientific, and not jump to a conclusion simply as a means of justifying his or her preferred position on the abortion issue. Personally--and with an increasing body of scientific evidence that essential human life begins at conception--I find the religious basis for this principle compelling. Nothing in the scripture of any faith more poetically or persuasively testifies of it than Psalm 139:

For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

Psalm 139:13-16

I must confess to strong emotions on this issue, too, though I think they’re natural and right. In preparing my Roe v. Wade “anniversary” post I wanted to add a few pictures, so I naively ran an image search using the single term "abortion." You can probably guess at the results (bloody, dismembered fetuses, among other indescribable things); I just hadn't thought beforehand about what might come back. Well, what I saw on that screen no human eyes should ever see, because no "human" being should ever do such things to another. Once I realized what I was looking at my soul screamed in agony; I deleted the page as fast as I could, and was on the verge of throwing up. My eyes were full of tears, and I sobbed almost out loud, "God, please MAKE IT STOP! Please don't let this happen again!" I thought of my own children, and of the beautiful grandson I gained just a few months ago--none of whom were really “planned,” none of whom came along at a very “affordable” time for their parents--and realized that those dead and mutilated children I saw could have been them, had we made a different decision.

Given the strong moral case and deep-rooted conviction of many that human life begins at conception--and the undeniable damage that unrestricted abortion inflicts on the mother, the father, and society in general--is it not time to extend a measure of due process to the unborn child and everyone concerned? Many states prescribe court proceedings when someone seeks to end life support for a terminally ill and comatose person who hasn’t left a valid health care proxy or end-of-life directions. Judicial review is mandated for committing to a hospital someone who is alleged to be mentally ill or incompetent. Would it really be an intolerable burden, an outrageous invasion of privacy, to require some showing in court that an abortion is necessary and the only meaningful alternative in the particular case, before a helpless life is snuffed out?

As sensible and right as this seems, the idea is likely to be resisted by those who value personal and sexual freedom above all else, and who believe (or must maintain, in order to preserve abortion’s ethical legitimacy) that a fetus is a mere part or extension of the mother’s body rather than a person with rights. Can a compromise on abortion, acceptable to both belief/value systems, ever be found? Perhaps not. Wherever a democratic assembly of the people is pushed to a decision on what the law should be, one fundamental view or the other is likely to weigh more heavily and result in an abortion law that favors one or the other set of convictions about human life. But if we allow the states to have the autonomy and freedom of action they were meant to enjoy under the Constitution, each of these communities will be able to resolve the abortion issue in a way deemed wisest by a majority of its people--restrictively in, say, North Carolina, and liberally, most likely, in California. In other words, the pro-life cause is also pro-choice! That choice, that opportunity to peacefully resolve the abortion controversy in a way everyone can live with, is the main reason Roe v. Wade should be abandoned.

ADDENDUM: Please check out some marvelous videos on the Manhattan Declaration website, produced by ordinary citizens, that explore various aspects of the abortion issue. If you find some you especially like, you can even post them to Facebook! Also check out the website of the Women’s Health Center in Jacksonville, Florida, where my sister Patti works. Consider making a donation, if you can, to aid their work in helping expectant mothers to give life to their unborn children.

A Matter of "Choice"

Last weekend marked the 38th anniversary of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, which struck down most state-law restrictions on abortion, and recognized that a right to "privacy" distilled from the Due Process Clause of the federal Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment includes a woman's decision to abort her pregnancy. This past Monday, hundreds of thousands of people from across the nation and the world gathered in the streets of Washington, DC for the 2011 March for Life, demonstrating their commitment to life over legalized killing, and praying for a dramatic change in the law to protect the lives of unborn children. Encouragingly, observers noted an especially high rate of participation by young people.

President Obama marked the milestone with this statement:

Today marks the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that protects women's health and reproductive freedom, and affirms a fundamental principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.

The President's statement reflects the myth that Roe vs. Wade and its progeny somehow affirm the principles of free choice and limited government, things libertarians and conservatives claim to support. In reality, Roe v. Wade represented a profound intrusion of federal government power into matters traditionally within the states' jurisdiction. Worse, by "choosing" personal privacy and convenience above the sanctity of life as fundamental national values, Roe contributed mightily to the development of a culture of selfishness, perversion and death that undermines society itself and the physical and moral health of everyone in it--not least the most helpless and vulnerable class of all, unborn children.

One questionable aspect of the President's statement is the suggestion that "government" has no business getting involved in "private family matters." To many today this idea seems almost self-evident, but in fact it doesn't comport with legal practice in this country now or for most of its history. In fact, America is rife with laws regulating "private family matters" in general and and sexual behavior in particular: laws against bigamy, incest, rape, and sex with children, the helpless, and animals; laws against pornography and sexual exploitation; laws governing marriage, separation, divorce, property division, spousal support, and the custody and support of children; laws against domestic violence and the abuse or neglect of partners, children, and the aged; laws governing medical care and education of children; laws providing for adoption, emancipation, and personal health-care decisionmaking; laws regulating wills and the distribution of property upon death--and so on. Almost all such laws are enacted and administered at the state level, and the regulation of "family matters" has long been regarded as a responsibility primarily of the states. Until the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, state statutes restricting or prohibiting abortion were part of this considerable body of law designed to promote, strengthen, and assist families and to protect children, mothers, the elderly, and other especially vulnerable persons in the domestic sphere. Singly and taken together, these laws "infringe" significantly on personal and family privacy. But they were enacted democratically by the people's elected representatives, and so reflect a deliberate decision by the people to surrender a modicum of privacy and personal freedom for the sake of ensuring our future by protecting children and promoting family life.

Roe v. Wade, however, effectively denied the right of the people to provide for their own children, their families, and their future in this way. Formerly, the citizens of one state could decide democratically, in their own legislatures, that the unborn should be protected from the moment of conception and severely restrict or even prohibit abortion at an early stage of pregnancy, while the people of another state, applying different values, could choose to regulate abortion much more liberally. In Roe v. Wade the United States Supreme Court took away this "choice" and said that the Federal Constitution, as the Supreme Court interpreted it, would decide the limits of what legal protections could and could not be afforded to the unborn. In effect, Roe moved the authority to decide this issue from the the people of the several states, acting democratically through their legislatures, and gave it to the federal courts, acting through Presidentially-appointed judges who serve for life and have the last word on the Constitution's meaning and reach. This assumption of power might be defensible were a right to abortion mentioned in the Constitution, or were such a right a clear and necessary extension of some specific freedom expressly guaranteed in that document. Instead, the right to terminate a pregnancy recognized in Roe was based on a vague right to "privacy" that itself is not mentioned in the Constitution, but was extrapolated from the malleable Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and developed within parameters laid down by other Supreme Court justices in earlier Supreme Court cases. Roe thus made clear that the autocratic Judicial Branch of the Federal Government, rather than the democratic assemblies of the people, will decide whether, and just how, state laws may intrude into "private family matters."

Even more damaging than this loss of choice for the people is Roe's exaltation of the the individual's freedom and convenience over the rights and interests of everyone else affected by the decision to terminate pregnancy--the father, families generally, civilized society, and of course, the unborn child itself. Making the pregnant mother's "choice" paramount above all, even above the life of her own helpless child, would be morally and legally untenable except on the principle that that entity in the mother's womb not a human being at all--at least until what the Supreme Court decides is "viability"--but is just so much medical waste. By elevating personal freedom and self-interest over life and all the duties--and blessings--that go along with it, the Supreme Court energized the growing culture of selfishness, irresponsibility, materialism, promiscuity, and perversion that is now corroding the very foundations of society. Roe gave a green light to the development of a whole industry, funded with billions of (many of them taxpayer) dollars, devoted to the destruction and removal of fetal life. What this has done to the national conscience and soul, not to mention the millions of lives lost to legalized abortion since 1973, is incalculable. It is this culture, and this industry, that leads to things like the "house of horrors" maintained by Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell. This is the "freedom of choice" that has forced some health-care professionals to participate in abortions against their will. These are the consequences of the Supreme Court's choice of self over life that have resulted in forty-one percent of all pregnancies in New York City ending in abortion (48 percent in the Bronx alone).

So, while President Obama "chose" to celebrate Roe v. Wade last week, I and millions of others "chose" to mourn--the loss of millions of innocent lives, the loss of a people's honor and soul, the loss of freedom to resist the death culture and of our democratic power in the states to protect unborn life. But we can still choose: to speak out loudly and unashamedly public and private in favor of fetal life, to work and vote for political candidates who do likewise, to lovingly counsel and support expectant mothers in choosing life for their unborn children. Most importantly, promote a culture of marriage and of life in your own home and teach it to your children. We can choose to fight selfishness with love, despair with faith, death with life, every day--for another 38 years or longer, if need be.

More Fallout from Tucson

Some interesting developments/revelations regarding the tragic Gabrielle Giffords shooting:

As I predicted just last night, proposals for legal restrictions on free speech are already sprouting up like spring flowers (and it's only January). For example, a Democratic Congressman, Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.), is planning to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to "use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress." In an interview with CNN, Brady referred to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in remarking, "You can't put bull's-eyes or crosshairs on a United States congressman or a federal official." Of course, as I showed in last night's post, she did no such thing. I suppose, under the proposed legislation, I could go to jail for posting this:


Oh, wait . . . I already did. My bad. It's not a cross-hair symbol, but you get the idea, right? ;-) Unless you're a pot-smoking, demented anarchist, in which case, please disregard this post. Please.

And as you might expect, South Carolina Dem. Congressman James E. ("Jim") Clyburn says that in the wake of the Tuscon attack, he "wants standards put in place to guarantee balanced media coverage with a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine." Curiously, Clyburn's daughter Mignon Clyburn is an FCC commissioner; it's reported that she took a stand on the issue during her confirmation hearings and said that she opposed such a policy in "any way shape or form."

We've also been reminded that after Maj. Nidal Hasan opened fire at an Army base in Ft. Hood, Texas last November, killing 13 people, legions of news media types and government officials issued statements imploring the public not to "jump to conclusions" that the shooting was an act of Islamist violence--even though, within hours of the attack, it emerged that Hasan shouted "Allahu Akbar!" before he began shooting, visited violence-oriented Islamic websites, wrote Internet posts justifying Muslim suicide bombings, opposed American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as wars on Islam, and told a neighbor shortly before the shootings that he was going "to do good work for God." Now--despite steadily mounting evidence that Giffords shooting suspect Jared Loughner has been a paranoid leftist-anarchist and angry with Giffords for at least three years, before anyone south of Anchorage had ever heard of Sarah Palin--many of the same people are insisting that the shooting was an act of terrorism prompted by Palin's right-wing political vitriol, and are clamoring for limits on free speech. Where was all this righteous indignation when George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were being hung, drawn, quartered and burned in effigy on an almost daily basis by left-wing zealots? Where were the calls for "better judgment" and "cooler heads" when Bush was being angrily blamed for everything from Hurricane Katrina to swine flu to economic collapse to Democratic failure at the polls--as he still is today?

Speaking of limits on speech, you might be surprised to learn that the father of nine-year-old Christina Taylor Green, Jared Loughner's youngest victim, regards this terrible tragedy as part of the price of living in a free society, and does not want more restrictions on our liberties. I can't fathom this man's grief, or his nobility.



The lesson we need to take from the Tucson tragedy is Mr. Green's, not Rep. Clyburn's or Brady's. We must NOT let the violent act of a lone madman, acting for no one's twisted purpose but his own, become the excuse for a stifling of free expression by the powers of law or of political correctness. Everyone must speak and act with common decency and common sense. But we must not delegate to any governmental agency or social/political elite the power to decide in advance, for everyone else, just what expressions fall within and without those limits.

Christina Taylor Green

I (and Sarah Palin) Shot Gabrielle Giffords

It's distressing to start off a new year's posts with commentary on a tragic event like the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 18 other people in Tuscon, Arizona yesterday. Needless to say, we all pray for the families of the slain and for the full recovery of the wounded, and that the perpetrator(s) be brought to justice.

But what most appalls and frightens me now, observing others' reactions to this event--in the media, and in comments to online articles and Facebook posts--are the wild and irresponsible conclusions people are leaping to that this single act of violence was somehow "caused" by the angry rhetoric and hostility toward politicians stirred up by conservative critics of government. By some hysterical pretzel-logic, most of the blame-throwing seems to be directed at--who else?--Sarah Palin. Their "reasoning" goes something like this:

PREMISE: An atmosphere of incivility and hostility toward government and politicians prevails in America today.
PREMISE: That atmosphere has been fostered by Sarah Palin (among others, including Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and members of the Tea Party movement).
FACT: Someone committed an act of violence against a government official.
CONCLUSION: Sarah Palin and her allies are responsible for that act of violence.

In other words, anyone who has publicly and angrily criticized the government and its officials in recent years--presumably including me, and maybe you too--is at least jointly responsible for the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords.

Before the suspected shooter had even been officially identified, and without the slightest evidence of what his motives might have been, mainstream media news stories (for example, this one from the AP) were noting that "Giffords has drawn the ire of the right in the last year, especially from politicians like Sarah Palin over her support of the health care bill"; that "[h]er Tucson office was vandalized a few hours after the House voted to approve the health care law in March"; that "Palin listed Giffords' seat as one of the top 'targets' in the midterm elections because of the lawmakers' support for the health care law"; and that "[t]he shooting comes amid a highly charged political environment that has seen several dangerous threats against lawmakers," including one by "a San Francisco man upset with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's support of health care reform" and one by another California man "known for his anger over left-leaning politics" who shot at highway patrol officers and planned to attack the ACLU. It was pointed out that Rep. Giffords' opponent in the November elections, a former Marine, was pictured on his website in military gear holding an automatic weapon.

Left-leaning Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, in several press conferences and interviews only hours after the shooting, referred to it as evidence that his own state had become a “mecca for racism and bigotry”, and blamed the act on "the vitriol that comes out of certain people’s mouths about tearing down the government, the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country" (this is the same county sheriff who, a few months ago, called the new Arizona Immigration law unwise, stupid and racist and that he would not enforce it).

A lead article in Sunday's New York Times makes this incredible statement:

While the exact motivations of the suspect in the shootings remained unclear, an Internet site tied to the man, Jared Lee Loughner, contained antigovernment ramblings. And regardless of what led to the episode, it quickly focused attention on the degree to which inflammatory language, threats and implicit instigations to violence have become a steady undercurrent in the nation’s political culture.

"Regardless of what led to the episode"? This statement encapsulates the problem with the current debate over the Arizona shooting's relationship to the "emotionally charged political climate" and who's responsible for it. Even though Loughner's motivations are presently unclear, at best, and may have little or nothing in particular to do with Ms. Giffords' politics or current government policies--and almost certainly nothing to do with Sarah Palin or campaign ads ran months ago which this youthful, mentally disturbed suspect probably never saw--liberals in the government, media, and general populace are eagerly leaping to the conclusion that they do, with no factual basis whatever. "What led to this episode" should have everything to do with the debate, and if investigation shows that this was the irrational act of a raving lunatic, that should be the end of it.

Of course, the Left won't let that be the end of it; by some twisted quasi-logic "Sarah Palin and her allies," through their passionate rhetoric and antigovernment attitude, will be fixed with responsibility for inspiring, emboldening, or enabling an unbalanced individual to commit such an act. As far as they're concerned, the case is already closed.

But we're thinking people. So, let's look at what evidence there is at the moment before we make judgments. And what little there is doesn't lend much credence to the wave of self-righteous indignation against conservative political rhetoric. An article on MSNBC last night, which quotes Loughner's YouTube videos and MySpace postings extensively, says that:

The videos are not blatantly political, in the sense that they do not mention the congresswoman or federal judge that he's suspected of shooting, nor any specific legislation. They do complain that too few people in the area speak English — immigration has been a hot-button political issue, particularly in the border state of Arizona, and the federal judge who was killed had handled high-profile cases about immigration, after which he received threats. (The sheriff said Saturday night that it appears the judge was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, and the gunman went first for the congresswoman.)

If you proceed to read the article's own quotes of Jared Loughner, you'll find that he complains that too many people are "illiterate"--he never once mentions Mexicans or the Spanish language, or that people can't speak English, and he talks more about "grammar" and how the government is using it for "mind control." He says absolutely nothing about immigration.

In fact, here's essentially all he says about government or politics:

I know who's listening: Government Officials, and the People . . . Nearly all the people, who don't know this accurate information of a new currency, aren't aware of mind control and brainwash methods. If I have my civil rights, then this message wouldn't have happen . . .
*****
I can't trust the current government because of fabrications. The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar.
*****
The majority of citizens in the United States of America have never read the United States of America's Constitution. You don't have to accept the federalist laws. Nonetheless, read the United States of America's Constitution to apprehend all of the current treasonous laws.
*****
In conclusion, reading the second United States Constitution, I can't trust the government because of the ratifications: The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar.

No! I won't pay debt with a currency that's not backed by gold and silver!

No! I won't trust in God!

What's government if words don't have meaning?

The MSNBC article lists among Loughner's favorite books, as indicated in an online profile, "Animal Farm," "Brave New World," "The Wizard of OZ," "Aesop's Fables," "The Odyssey," "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland," "Fahrenheit 451," "Peter Pan," "To Kill A Mockingbird," "The Communist Manifesto," "Gulliver's Travels," "Mein Kampf," and "The Republic." This article, and another posted this evening, quotes a former friend of Loughner who described him as a "pothead" and his past politics as "left wing, quite liberal, & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy."

I don't know about you, but I find it hard to see what in all this suggests any responsibility for Loughner's actions on the part of Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, the Tea Party movement, the Republican Party, or political conservatism in general. Given that several of the authors of Loughner's favorite books were critical of governments and social systems of their day, it seems just as logical to infer that Aldous Huxley, Kurt Vonnegut, Lewis Carrol, Karl Marx, or Plato inspired him to shoot Gabrielle Giffords.

Sarah Palin has been singled out for criticism by liberals and the media for publishing a "target map" on her PAC website using small "cross-hairs" symbols to roughly identify the districts of 20 House Democrats up for election in last year's mid-term elections, including Rep. Giffords'. The Congresswoman's face is not on the map, nor is anyone else's, and her name is only one of twenty listed on the map. The map doesn't mention "targeting" or shooting anyone. Interestingly, the ultra-left blog Daily Kos also posted what it called a "target list" identifying Giffords in a 2008 post, which listed Giffords as one of dozens of representatives with "a bull's-eye on their district" for being a "bad apple" Democrat.

The Left's and media's response to the Arizona shooting evinces the sort of political scapegoating and witch-hunting that liberals claimed to abhor back in the 1950s and '60s. Today, they're all to happy to pin responsibility for a lone maniac's actions on certain individuals (other than the actual perpetrator), and a whole class of people (conservatives), they don't like. Presumably, they would find the many vocal critics of John F. Kennedy's policies complicit in his assassination by Lee Harvey Oswald. Oddly, I haven't heard anyone on the Left condemning Muslim leaders or the atmosphere among Muslims of hate against Christians, Jews, and Americans generally for Nidal Malik Hasan's massacre of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas in November 2009. Nor have I heard any of them denounce the attitude of divisiveness that drove the "New Black Panthers" to intimidate voters in Philadelphia in 2008, or the spirit of hate that impelled SEIU thugs to terrorize a bank executive's children in their own home last May.

The point of this post, however, isn't so much to defend Sarah Palin or Tea Partiers against hysterical, groundless attacks as it is to warn my readers about the impact that these denunciations and demands for "civility" could have on free expression and the political future of this country.

We should remember that in 1933 the Nazis used the setting of a fire in the German Reichstag building, by an unemployed, mentally disturbed Communist sympathizer, as an excuse to push through the German Parliament a suspension of civil liberties and for mass arrests of political opponents, which enabled the Nazi party to consolidate its hold on power. Five years later, the Nazis used the shooting of a minor German diplomat in Paris, by a young Jewish man upset at his family's forced deportation from Germany, as an excuse to launch the Kristallnacht, a nationwide pogrom against Jewish homes, businesses and synagogues that marked the beginning of the Final Solution and the Holocaust.

Today in the United States, the Giffords shooting and the "uncivil, antigovernment atmosphere" from which it supposedly sprang will undoubtedly fuel a campaign to have the Federal Communications Commission and other government agencies regulate talk radio and the Internet (the latter move has already begun on transparently innocuous grounds, as discussed here and here) so as to prevent the spreading of "divisive", "hateful," or seditious rhetoric. The FBI and the Treasury Department (including the IRS and Secret Service) will be called upon to "investigate" people and organizations who do the spreading and to threaten their funding and tax-exempt status. At a minimum, open and forthright criticism of the government and of political figures will be discouraged as "uncivil" and as a potential incitement to violence. This will be true not only for high-profile figures like Sarah Palin, but also for ordinary folks like you and me, who like to express our opinions in easily-monitored online forums like this blog, or on Facebook (or in bars, buses, or anywhere else snoops might be employed).

Of course, everyone wants peace and civility. But people aren't angry for nothing, and it wasn't Sarah Palin or any other conservative spokesperson who "made" them angry. Their fury was, and is, the direct result of the relentless campaign within governments, the media, and other elements of society to negate the Unites States Constitution and fatally undermine all that this country has traditionally stood for. Let's deal with the causes of popular anger, not merely the symptom.

It's sobering to think that the American Revolution might never have happened if the plainly inflammatory antigovernment statements of firebrands like Samuel Adams, Thomas Paine, and Patrick Henry had been suppressed. Career politicians, bureaucrats, socialists, public employee unions, and their running dogs in the media and academia would like nothing better than to make sure that ordinary people in this country could never rise up against their masters again. They'll use any excuse--even the impulsive shootings of a Congresswoman, a judge, a little girl, and some old ladies in a mall parking lot by a crazed, pot-smoking loser like Jared Loughner--to stifle dissent and advance their agenda.

Don't let them. Don't shut up. Don't hide. Don't stop exposing their corruption and evil schemes. Don't stop defending your liberties, whatever it costs, and no matter what others try to embarrass you with. Don't surrender, and don't retreat--not one inch.

God Be With You in 2011!

Another year draws to a close! From one hour or one day to the next, often seems to drag by--especially when we're mired in some unpleasant task or situation. But when we think back on precious moments with our family and friends, they slip through our hands like rushing water, even as we try to hold onto them. Perhaps we'll have them abide with us only on the other shore, when--washed clean and all basking in the eternal light of our Savior's love--we meet again to share them in perpetual joy. Such a vision helps us lay aside old cares, and enter on the morrow with renewed hope and confidence.

So, to end this brief chapter called 2010, I'd like to offer you a few minutes' blissful peace in the fine old "closing" hymn God Be With You Till We Meet Again. This is one of my all-time favorites, and one that I'd like sung at my funeral--not to be morbid or anticipate the event! The text was written in 1880 by Congregational minister Jeremiah Eames Rankin (1828-1904), and the music in the same year by William G. Tomer. Rankin explained that the hymn "was written as a Christian good-bye; it was called forth by no person or occasion, but was deliberately composed as a Christian hymn on the basis of the etymology of 'good-bye,' which means 'God be with you.'"

I think this hymn is altogether fitting as a gentle good-bye to the old year and all that was, and all who were, dear in it, and as a bright looking-forward to a new year filled with God's blessings. The rendition in the video below is by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, and the text follows it (the second stanza is omitted in the video rendition). May this wonderful hymn touch your heart with warmth and peace tonight, and throughout the coming year!

God be with you till we meet again,
By His counsels guide, uphold you,
With His sheep securely fold you,
God be with you till we meet again.

Chorus.
Till we meet, till we meet,
Till we meet at Jesus’ feet;
Till we meet, till we meet,
God be with you till we meet again.

God be with you till we meet again;
'Neath his wings protecting hide you,
Daily manna still provide you:
God be with you till we meet again.

Chorus.

God be with you till we meet again,
When life’s perils thick confound you,
Put His arms unfailing round you,
God be with you till we meet again.

Chorus.
God be with you till we meet again,
Keep love’s banner floating o’er you,
Smite death’s threat’ning wave before you,
God be with you till we meet again.