Life: On Hold Until June

Killing a baby just seconds before it can take the first precious breath of life exceeds the cruelty of abortion and amounts to “infanticide.” That’s the argument Paul D. Clement, solicitor general for the Department of Justice, presented exceptionally well last week as he urged justices of the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the ban on partial-birth abortions passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2003.

“The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was a marvelous piece of legislation,” said Pastor Rod Parsley, who was present at the White House when President Bush signed it. “It was an act that expressed the will of Congress and the will of the people.”

The justices voted on Nov. 8 a few hours after hearing the arguments, but their decision is not expected until June.
Click Below to read the transcripts from Wednesday’s oral arguments:

• Gonzales v. Carhart
• Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc.

Or visit C-Span and click on Recent Programs to download and listen to audio of the oral arguments.

For roughly two hours, the eight justices present Wednesday sharply questioned attorneys on both sides of the legal battle. Justice Clarence Thomas was absent due to illness last week; however, he is expected to participate in the court’s ruling on the two cases heard on Nov. 8.

A key question raised by six members of the court – Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg, David Souter, Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stephens – focused on congressional findings regarding the procedure. During hearings before Congress passed the ban, medical experts testified that partial-birth abortions are never medically necessary.

In the method as normally practiced, the baby is delivered feet first until only the head is left in the birth canal. Then the doctor pierces the base of the infant’s skull with surgical scissors before suctioning out the brain, killing the baby.
Although abortion advocates disputed the congressional findings, their lawyer acknowledged Wednesday that there was no evidence on record as to how often a medical need for a partial-birth abortion might arise.

In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a similar ban in Nebraska by a 5-4 vote because it did not contain an exception that would allow the procedure to preserve a woman’s health. There is a significant difference between the Nebraska law and the federal prohibition on partial-birth abortion that came six years later.

Although the Nebraska ban contained no factual findings to corroborate the Bush administration’s position that partial-birth abortion is unnecessary for a mother’s health, the federal ban contains substantial findings based on extensive hearings held during the 104th, 105th, 107th and 108th Congresses.

In addition to disputing the possibility of any medical necessity for the procedure, medical experts noted that partial-birth abortion might very well be dangerous to women. Historically, the Supreme Court has deferred to Congress on findings.

So how are the justices likely to rule? In the Nebraska case, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas voted to preserve the sanctity of life. They have indicated they have no inclination to switch sides. Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito, who replaced Sandra Day O’Connor, are expected to uphold the partial-birth abortion ban based on their records at the appellate level. That’s four in support of life.

Another four members of the court – Associate Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer – voted with the majority in 2000 to strike the Nebraska ban. Justice O’Connor, the fifth vote in the majority, has since retired.

The swing vote is in the hands of Justice Anthony Kennedy. In the 2000 case, Kennedy expressed his vehement distaste for partial-birth abortion. However, in recent arguments, he has noted concern over whether the congressional findings were correct: that the procedure is never necessary to protect a woman’s health.

Given the extensive medical evidence that abortion providers could not refute, Bible believers have reason for optimism. It’s encouraging to think that the brutal killings could come to an end in June.

Source:  www.centerformoralclarity.net

Science and Scripture on the Same Page: Preserving Life

There’s wonderful news in the Nov. 7 issue of Cytotherapy, a journal of medical research. A report from the University of Minnesota describes a remarkable and promising breakthrough by researchers. For the first time, stems cells found in umbilical cord blood have been transformed into a kind of cell found in lungs.

“As Christians, we should seize the moment and capitalize on these advances, rather than destroy human life,” said Pastor Parsley.” Click here to read the Center for Moral Clarity’s position on medical research.

Although the benefit for now is limited to research purposes, this newly discovered technology should be advanced because of its potential to help cure or treat such diseases as emphysema and cystic fibrosis. The best result, though, is that this innovation does not jeopardize existing life. That’s the problem Bible believers have with human embryonic stem-cell research.

The issue of stem-cell research encompasses two types of stem cells – those taken from embryos and those taken from children or adults. Advances for treatment of Alzheimer’s Disease, Parkinson’s Disease, diabetes, degenerative diseases of the eye and leukemia are just a few of the diseases that have benefited from some form of adult stem-cell research. Research on adult stem cells does not place the donor at risk, so there isn’t an ethical dilemma for Christians to consider.

The Center for Moral Clarity heralds the exploration of cord blood cells for that same reason. These cells have characteristics like an embryonic stem cell, yet using them does not put existing life at risk for the sake of medical advances. It’s refreshing when science and Scripture aren’t approaching life from opposing corners.

Source:  www.centerformoralclarity.net

Property Owners Prevailed, Too

Analysis of the Nov. 7 election focused heavily on values voters’ support for constitutional amendments protecting marriage across the country. But there was another issue that also garnered their broad endorsement: eminent domain. Eminent domain is all about justice for property owners.

Eight states – Arizona, Florida, Georgia, New Hampshire, Michigan, North Dakota, Oregon and South Carolina – overwhelmingly passed measures to limit the government’s power to take land from its citizens. Action at the ballot box was prompted by anger over the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Kelo v. New London, a case originating in Connecticut.

In that ruling, the nation’s highest court upheld the right of local officials to sell homes and business and give the land to private developers in an effort to increase a city’s tax base. That was an outrageous decision, and voters were correct to protect their property by limiting their local governments.

“The abuse of eminent domain contradicts justice,” said pastor Parsley. “The government exists to protect the people, not profit from them while promoting the interests of wealthy developers.”

In the year since the Supreme Court handed down its unjust ruling, citizens in 34 states have adopted laws or passed ballot measures to reverse the effect of the ruling, and that demonstrates very clearly that the people do have power, when they choose to use it.

Source:  www.centerformoralclarity.net

Massachusetts Moves Farther from God’s Covenant of Marriage

Massachusetts is the only state in America where it is legal to defy God’s definition of marriage. The travesty grows. Efforts to override the egregious 2003 court ruling and restore the only biblically sanctioned union – between a man and a woman – were dealt what appeared to be a fatal blow last week. A proposed constitutional amendment to preserve traditional marriage died in the state legislature.

In a flurry of strategic maneuvering, supporters of marriage between people of the same gender managed to persuade enough legislators to vote for recessing a constitutional convention until the afternoon of Jan. 2, the last day of the legislative session.

On that day, it’s expected that the legislature will simply adjourn without voting on the measure, effectively killing it. Unfortunately for Bible believers who have been diligently working to dismantle the results of homosexual activists, for all intents and purposes, the debate has ended.

The prevailing attitude among lawmakers seems to be that the issue of marriage has been discussed enough. Until last week, the marriage protection amendment had a promising change of garnering the 50 votes required from the 200 legislators as the first step toward making same-sex marriages illegal.

Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican who opposes same-sex marriage, said that he would “explore any alternatives” to try to force a vote. Still, he conceded that his options are limited.

Members of the Center for Moral Clarity living in Massachusetts are encouraged to send an e-mail to Gov. Romney and urge him not to throw in the towel. Marriage is worth fighting for, right up until the last minute of the legislative session. This could be the governor’s last – and most memorable – official contribution to the state. Last week’s blow to marriage came two days after Massachusetts voters elected Deval L. Patrick, a same-sex marriage supporter, as the state’s first Democratic governor in 16 years.

The fact that the amendment had enough supporters to pass the first 50-vote round is worth noting. It indicates that the issue of same-sex marriage remains divisive three years after the state’s highest court ruled that such marriages were constitutional. Perhaps there is still hope for Massachusetts.

Despite the setback, the Center for Moral Clarity applauds the perseverance of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which gathered 170,000 petition signatures to bring the amendment before the legislature.

Polls have generally found that just more than half of the state’s citizens support same-sex marriage, but about the same number wanted the constitutional amendment to come before voters.

The 170,000 people who signed the petition seeking a referendum deserve the right to be heard.

Source:  www.centerformoralclarity.net

Mexican Capital Another Massachusetts

The United States is not the only country fighting to preserve God’s plan for marriage and family. Last week, lawmakers in Mexico City overwhelmingly approved a bill legalizing same-sex civil unions in the Mexican capital.

With a vote of 43-to-17, Mexico City became only the second Latin American city to authorize gay unions, following Buenos Aires in 2002.

While gay activists are reinvigorated, the movement has inspired Bible believers south of the border to do whatever they can to prevent the trend from spreading to other Latin American cities. Next on the activists’ agenda is Coahuila, a city near the Texas border.

Since 1997, Mexico City has been governed by the left-leaning Democratic Revolutionary Party, or PRD, which has clashed with the church about such issues as marriage and abortion.

The law allowing civil unions is expected to take effect early next year and could be a stepping stone to full recognition of same-sex marriage and other measures.
The pressure on society to accept the audacious behaviors and disastrous consequences of homosexual activity is not a matter of cultural drift or shifting morals. Rather it is a carefully orchestrated, highly organized and extremely disciplined political program. And it is a program that has achieved extraordinary success in recent years.

“We must bombard heaven with prayers and intercessions, not just for our nation, but everywhere around the world where homosexual lobbyists and activists are turning the culture away from God,” said Pastor Parsley, who reminds Bible believers of God’s promise in 2 Chronicles 7:14. “If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.

Source:  www.centerformoralclarity.net