New HHS Rule Protects Pro-Life Health Care Workers

Under Trump, federal policy keeps shifting away from abortion rights in favor of religious conscience protections.

May 3, 2019 by KATE SHELLNUTT

 

New HHS Rule Protects Pro-Life Health Care Workers

 

Update (May 2): A year after establishing a new division to safeguard health care workers’ freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, the Trump Administration has formalized protections for those who decline to participate in certain medical treatments like abortion, sterilization, or assisted suicide due to their faith or moral convictions.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed the new rule last January (see below) and issued a final version in a 440-page document on Thursday. The policy is meant to provide stronger protections and more guidance around enforcing conscience protections passed by Congress, according to HHS.

“This rule ensures that healthcare entities and professionals won’t be bullied out of the health care field because they decline to participate in actions that violate their conscience, including the taking of human life,” said Roger Severino, director of the HHS Office of Civil Rights and former legal council with the religious liberty group Becket Fund. “Protecting conscience and religious freedom not only fosters greater diversity in healthcare, it’s the law.”

This updated policy represents a major religious freedom victory, particularly for pro-life evangelicals who fear being forced to violate their conscience on the issue of abortion.

In a Barna Group survey released last month, the issue of “religious hospitals being required to perform abortions and other services they deem to violate their religious convictions” was US faith leaders’ top religious freedom concern (71% deeming it a “major or extreme” threat). A majority also worried about “religious organizations being required to provide healthcare options they object to” (64%) and “religious owners of businesses being required to provide healthcare options they object to” (61%).

—–

Original post (“New HHS Division Defends Pro-Life Health Care Workers,” January 18, 2018): Ahead of Friday’s annual March for Life, pro-life Christians celebrated new federal protections for health care workers who decline to administer procedures such as abortion, sterilization, or euthanasia on religious or moral grounds.

The Trump administration announced a new division of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) dedicated to hearing complaints from those who face discrimination for refusal to accommodate services that violate their beliefs.

The new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division of the existing Office of Civil Rights (OCR) enforces existing laws designed to protect conscience rights, including new provisions under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that specifically allow providers and insurers to decline abortions and assisted suicide.

Thursday’s announcement continues the administration’s efforts to beef up federal protections for religious liberty, as President Trump laid out in a May 2017 executive order. In contrast, the Obama administration had rescinded conscience protections for health care workers, despite pushback from religious leaders.

“President Trump promised the American people that his administration would vigorously uphold the rights of conscience and religious freedom,” said acting HHS secretary Eric Hargan. “That promise is being kept today. The Founding Fathers knew that a nation that respects conscience rights is more diverse and more free, and OCR’s new division will help make that vision a reality.”

Evangelicals fighting for religious liberty have tried to resist efforts to confine expressions of faith to within church walls, and have pushed for greater protections for their beliefs in the workplace and public life—particularly when it comes to increasingly unpopular ones around LGBT and life issues.

“It’s not the ability to have a religion and practice it in your house of worship; it’s the ability to have a faith and practice your faith wherever you are,” said Sen. James Lankford, a Baptist from Oklahoma who introduced a 2017 bill defending conscience protections.

“There is a long tradition of providing this protection—especially in the abortion context—and that tradition was, until very recently, a bipartisan one,” according to Richard W. Garnett, professor at Notre Dame Law School.

“To me, there should be nothing particularly surprising or troubling about an administration—this one or any other—deciding that the civil rights should allocate resources to make those protections meaningful.”

OCR is already tasked with enforcing several nondiscrimination and conscience protection statutes, including the Church, Coats-Snowe, and Weldon amendments. But the new division indicates that such cases will take greater priority under Trump.

“Unlike the administration’s useless gestures around the Johnson Amendment, these regulations signal meaningful enforcement of existing protections for religious liberty,” said John Inazu, a law professor at Washington University and a First Amendment expert.

“But it’s important to remember that this emphasis is merely executive branch policy that can—and in all likelihood, will—be narrowed or reversed by a subsequent administration.”

Already, the conscience division has drawn criticism from civil groups concerned that the protections will be used as a license to discriminate, particularly against gay or transgender patients, as well as from abortion rights groups.

Everett Piper—the president of Oklahoma Wesleyan University, which sued the federal government over the ACA birth control mandate—and Montse Alvarado—executive director of Becket, a leading religious liberty law firm which represented the Little Sisters of the Poor in their contraceptive fight—spoke at the HHS announcement and applauded the new office, as did Jewish and Muslim representatives.

“I just want to say how good it is to be here thanking [HHS and OCR] rather than suing them,” Piper quipped.

Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, also applauded the move.

“I am thankful that HHS recognizes how imperiled conscience rights have been in recent years in this arena, and is actively working and leading to turn the tide in the other direction,” he said in a statement. “Health care professionals should be freed up to care for the bodies and minds of their patients, not tied up by having their own consciences bound.”

In recent years, Christian pharmacists have fought in court for their right to decline to dispense emergency contraception. A 2015 case in Washington ruled against pharmacists who refused to carry the drugs; however, state law allows that “an individual pharmacist with religious objections may refuse to fill the prescription if another pharmacist working for the pharmacy does so.”

Prior to the new division, the Trump administration had appointed multiple pro-life advocates to positions of leadership within HHS, including former Americans United for Life president Charmaine Yoest and former National Right to Life lobbyist Teresa Manning, who reportedly stepped down last week.

 

Original here

Advertisements

Did The President Make False Claims About Infanticide?

 

May 3, 2019 by Dr Michael Brown

As expected, pundits on the left are in an uproar at the president’s claims that a doctor conspires with parents as to whether to execute their newborn baby. In Trump’s words(spoken at a recent rally in Green Bay), “The baby is born, the mother meets with the doctor, they take care of the baby, they wrap the baby beautifully. Then the doctor and mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby.”

In response, Rolling Stone senior writer Jamil Smith tweeted:

“President Trump keeps telling the same lie about abortion doctors murdering healthy fetuses after delivery. This doesn’t happen. Yet he said it again last night. This is precisely the kind of hysteria that inspires people who murder doctors and patients.”

Julia Pulver, a former neonatal nurse, said this:

“When a baby dies in the hospital, it is a very sad thing but it is not something that is ever chosen. It is a horrible situation thrust upon parents who want their baby, who have prepared for the baby, who have framed sonograms sitting on their desks.”

According to Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America:

“What Trump asserted, for the second time, is false, illegal, and simply not happening — nor would it happen.”

She claimed that:

“The president “not only straight-up lied but also vilified women, families, and doctors facing situations every single one of us prays we never encounter.”

And Huffington Post adds this:

“The recent focus on the alleged horrors of late-term abortions is especially fact-free. Only 1.3 percent of abortions take place after 21 weeks, and experts say these involve pregnancies that endanger the mother (and by extension the baby) or severe fetal anomalies that are incompatible with life.”

Let’s address these claims one at a time.

First, President Trump said nothing about the baby being healthy (contra the tweet of Smith). Instead, he spoke about the very real situation in which a baby survives an abortion (or, presumably, is born with a life-threatening defect) and is allowed to die. That’s why Congress keeps trying to pass the Born Alive Protection Act.

In its current form, the bill reads:

“To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.”

This is a real bill designed to address real, life and death situations.

Not only so, but it was Virginia governor Ralph Northam who provided Trump with his main talking points about infanticide.

As Northam infamously said during a radio interview:

“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. So I think this was really blown out of proportion.”

Yet the left rails on Trump for calling this out rather than on Northam for saying it.

To repeat: These things are really happening.

An official government document dated September 23, 2016, notes that, “In 2002, Congress responded by passing the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which was signed by President George W. Bush and is current federal law. This law recognized a child who is born alive after a failed abortion attempt, as a legal person under the laws of the United States. The legal definition of live birth includes any sign of life, such as breath, heartbeat, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles.

“Unfortunately, incidents involving born alive children being killed after an attempted abortion have continued after this law was passed. Infanticide is unacceptable in a civilized society, regardless of what one may think about abortion itself. It should be uncontroversial for the federal government to supplement current law with enforcement protections for born-alive children after attempted abortions. That is why Congress must pass the proposed legislation known as the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (H.R. 3504/S. 2066).”

Trump is not lying. These things are happening. They may happen just as he described (with the baby being wrapped in a blanket) or they may not (perhaps the baby is left naked and crying on a table). But they are happening, nonetheless.

Yet, to repeat, there’s no outcry from the left about these horrors. The outcry is about the president drawing attention to the horrors.

As noted by Tony Perkins;

“Liberals certainly thought infanticide was real enough in 2002, when protecting infants was so uncontroversial that it passed without a single Democratic opponent. Since then, the CDC’s data only confirms these atrocities — as do mountains of eyewitness testimonygrand jury reportssurvivors’ own stories, and admissions by doctors like Northam himself!”

Second, what point is made by saying:

“Only 1.3 percent of abortions take place after 21 weeks”?

What if the sentence read:

“Only 1.3 percent of abortions take place after birth”?

Would that lessen the severity of the crime? We only kill a tiny percentage of babies once they’re born!

Let’s also put this in real-life numbers.

According to a just-released CDC report, in New York City in 2015:

“the number of abortions at or after 21 weeks was 1,485 while the number of homicide victims was 352.”

Shall we celebrate the fact that this (allegedly) represents “only” 1.3 percent of abortions?

These, in short, are the facts: States like New York have passed laws allowing for abortions right up to the time of delivery. Infanticide is taking place. And in countries like the Netherlands, “650 babies a year [are] euthanized so that their parents don’t have to witness them struggle with disability or disease.”

In light of all this, I’m glad that President Trump continues to speak up. He is addressing something terribly evil, and it behooves every person of conscience to stand with him in standing for the rights of “the least of these.”

 

Original here

Do Certain Miracles Abide By Logical Natural/Spiritual Laws? OR, Are They Just Arbitrary Acts?

 

29/04/2019 by Ihagh G. T.

Whenever “impossible things” become possible, people call them miracles. Miracles could be regarded as acts that make people to wonder—even long after their occurrence. On the other hand, no matter how awesome miracles are, they are just natural events because they occurred in real life.

Some people believe that all things are possible. In fact, many awesome earthly experiences of the greatest envoys (Prophet Elijah, Moses, etc.) of GOD support one of the greatest statements made by Jesus Christ about 2 thousand years ago: “with GOD, all things are possible”—Matthew 19: 26.

The most astonishing miraculous acts that cannot be explained by logic:

  • the heavens and Earth were created. In my humble opinion, this is the first and greatest miracle. Why? Because GOD commanded void space to turn into the wonderful creation which exists in uncountable forms around us—Genesis 1: 1.
  • the parting of the Red Sea—Exodus 14: 1―31.
  • the sun stood still under the command of Joshua—Joshua 10: 12.
  • Daniel’s life was preserved in the lions’ den—Daniel 6: 21.
  • Jesus walked on water.
  • Jesus calmed a raging storm.
  • etc., etc., etc.—too many acts to list.

Lack of a certain degree of logic behind certain miracles, could make them look arbitrary

Typically, most human beings use logic to explain or understand occurrences, phenomena, or acts. Whenever certain occurrences cannot be explained by logic (or science)—especially when spiritual or divine power seems to be at play—people tend to think that the GOD’s natural or spiritual laws might have been altered in order to spring such occurrences into life.

The hype around certain miracles could make anyone think that miracles associated with envoys of GOD—and GOD in particular—are somewhat arbitrary because GOD is omnipotent, and does whatever he wants, and whenever he wants, or likes to.

Let’s take a look at certain things GOD cannot do—even though it’s believed in some quarters, that with GOD, all things are possible:

  • GOD cannot lie—Hebrews 6: 18.
  • GOD cannot change—Malachi 3: 6—he is the same yesterday, today and forever.
  • GOD cannot break covenants, or alter anything that comes out of his mouth—Psalm 89: 34.
  • GOD cannot stand evil—Isaiah 59: 2.
  • GOD cannot be pleased without faith—Hebrews 11: 6.

So, you see; there are quite a number of things the great and almighty GOD cannot do, despite all the power under his control.

Funny enough, even though quite a number of people know that GOD cannot do certain things, they feel that he can twist natural or spiritual laws arbitrarily in order to make certain miracles occur.

People tend to think GOD circumvents his laws because they assume he has human nature which is prone to making changes in order to suit shallow desires. Well, GOD is not human like we are.

In the view of certain people, a miracle is something that is possible, only because of the application of mystical, mysterious, divine or spiritual power. For others, miracles are possible because, GOD in his omnipotence, acts arbitrarily and twists laws in order to suit his desires; based on these views, some people believe certain miracles are arbitrary acts.

If miracles are arbitrary, then I could bet that such miracles are not from GOD

Inasmuch as there is still a lot to learn about GOD and his unseen laws, many of us still believe that GOD’s work is logical, perfect, and has no flaws or gaps.

Perfection implies a precise and logical sequence of events in every respect; it doesn’t matter whether we have full knowledge about such precision/logic or not.

Based on this view, miracles should be seen as a natural acts that would ordinarily have taken a longer path and unparalleled speed to occur—either as a result of an individual’s special knowledge/gift, or some other causes.

Lack of sufficient knowledge (natural or spiritual) could make people feel that some miracles are arbitrary acts

If we study events in the history of mankind, it would be easy to understand that certain acts were/are called miracles because they occurred during a time when there was insufficient knowledge about what made them to occur—either natural or spiritual.

For instance, certain diseases in the past (which are easily cured today), only existed because there wasn’t sufficient knowledge to cure them in the past. The same applies to many natural processes that science and technology can control today, but which posed a serious problem in the distant past.

When diseases are healed or natural forces are controlled (which until a few years ago were believed to be incurable and uncontrollable), it doesn’t mean an arbitrary change in natural or spiritual laws has taken place; rather, it shows that there were gaps and many deficiencies in human knowledge.

Regardless of the reason behind any miracle, none of them could possibly occur outside GOD’s natural or spiritual laws, which are the foundation for everything we can and cannot see.

The author of this article is of the opinion that nothing that is imprecise and deficient in logic, can/will ever emanate from God.

Knowledge is power: the acquisition of more natural and spiritual knowledge could erase thoughts of arbitrariness behind certain miracles

All miracles occur at much higher level and speed, and should be looked upon as absolutely natural acts, irrespective of how great, wonderful, and appealing they look.

As we aim for more knowledge, we have to be grateful to GOD for sending his envoys and giving pure-minded individuals special power which they have used for the welfare of suffering humanity.

The recorded experiences of many great envoys of GOD has shed a lot of natural and spiritual light, and strengthened our faith to believe that anything can be achieved.

And, irrespective of religion, there have been people who have had natural or spiritual insight/abilities which are “out-of-this-world” and cannot be gained by indulging in earthly or scientific endeavors.

Faith in too much logic, earthly knowledge and scientific study seem to naturally hinder the possibility of receiving higher knowledge, gifts and abilities from GOD.

Thank you.

It could be difficult to agree whether some miracles are arbitrary acts or not; that’s why comments about your opinion will be appreciated in the comment section.

 

Original here

Reputation Or Foundation ???

April 22, 2019

 

If life is likened to a rope, human life is like a rope that’s not visible where the ends are. We know when it has started, we also know how long it has been done, but we don’t know when it will arrive at the end node. How much time we have left cannot be measured by how long it has taken, because each person has a different length of rope. To be sure, everyone only has one chance to live life in this world.

Now let’s pause from all the busyness to reflect on the life we have been through. Some of us have gone through it for decades, some may have been a dozen years. What kind of life have we lived? What kind of deep impressions and images are captured by others about us? Have all of our behaviors built a good or bad reputation? Has our reputation been established on a solid foundation? If in a moment we are faced with a choice between reputation or foundation, which one will we prioritize? Do we attach importance to displaying a glorious reputation or prefer to build the right foundation even though for a moment we seem to lose our reputation ??

Saul: Concerning the Image in the Human Eye

In 1 Samuel 9-10 Saul was anointed as king by Samuel. The people exclaimed “Live the king” cheering him because they were happy to have a king for the first time. Even the valiant men followed Saul because their hearts were touched by God. However, in the midst of the respect he received there was a group of people who doubted and even insulted him. Saul’s reaction to this matter is really interesting: But Saul kept silent.” (1 Sam. 10: 27 NIV)  It seems that Saul didn’t care, but apparently it hurt him. This can be seen from the decisions that show how much Saul thirst for recognition and respect from others.

One of the events that clearly shows how people’s recognition and respect is very important to Saul is when Israel fought against the Philistine forces: Jonathan attacked the Philistine outpost at Geba, and the Philistines heard about it. Then Saul had the trumpet blown throughout the land and said, “Let the Hebrews hear!” So all Israel heard the news: “Saul has attacked the Philistine outpost, and now Israel has become obnoxious to the Philistines.” And the people were summoned to join Saul at Gilgal. . . .  Saul remained at Gilgal, and all the troops with him were quaking with fear. (1 Samuel 13: 3-7 NIV)

Jonathan fought and defeated the Philistine army but Saul made it in the eyes of the people as if he had defeated the Philistines. Saul’s goal was for the people who were afraid of the retaliation from the Philistines to become dependent on him. Until this stage the goal seemed successful. Saul went to Gilgal according to Samuel’s instructions and the people followed him. But that didn’t last long. The people who followed him began to leave because Samuel had not arrived yet, while the Philistine army was ready to attack.

Knowing that he had begun to lose control of the people, Saul decided to take a shortcut by offering burnt sacrifices without waiting for Samuel. This is a violation because Samuel clearly ordered Saul to wait (1 Samuel 10: 8). When Samuel rebuked his folly, Saul made the excuse: “When I saw that the people were scattered from me . . . .” (1 Sam. 13: 11 )  For the sake of not being abandoned by his people, Saul chose to violate God’s decree.

What happened next further reinforced the tendency of Saul’s heart which emphasized reputation rather than obedience to God, namely when Saul was ordered to crush Amalek. Since Israel was still in the wilderness, in Exodus 17: 14 the Lord commanded them to crush the Amalekites to extinction because of their wickedness. This command was further confirmed by Moses in Deuteronomy 25: 19. Then Samuel commissioned Saul to carry out the Lord’s command (1 Sam. 15: 2-3). Unfortunately Saul was disobedient. He only killed everything that was despised and weak, but Agag, the king of Amalek, was left alive. He also took the best sheep and oxen. When Samuel rebuked him, Saul used his people twice as an excuse and shield to justify his disobedience: The soldiers took sheep and cattle, . . .  . Then Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned. I violated the Lord’s command and your instructions. I was afraid of the men and so I gave in to them. Now I beg you, forgive my sin and come back with me, so that I may worship the Lord.” (1 Sam. 15: 21, 24-25 NIV)

Saul twice on behalf of others for his mistakes and twice he asked Samuel to return with him. The second request was even followed by words so that Samuel would honor him before the people: “I have sinned. But please honor me before the elders of my people and before Israel; come back with me, so that I may worship the Lord your God.” (1 Samuel 15: 30 NIV)  This is an insincere confession of sin. Saul confessed to sin only so that Samuel would not leave him.

Saul asked Samuel to remain with him not because Saul realized that he needed God’s guidance, but because he was afraid that the people would leave him if Samuel left him, because at that time the priest had a huge influence. This shows that Saul’s actions and words were controlled by what people say and how people perceive him. We know how Saul became angry and jealous of David because the people sang “Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands.” Saul was very angry; this refrain galled him. “They have credited David with tens of thousands,” he thought, “but me with only thousands. What more can he get but the kingdom?” And from that time on Saul kept a jealous eye on David. (1 Samuel 18: 8-9 NIV)

Saul was very concerned about the words, impressions, and views of people about him. Saul is concerned with reputation, even if necessary he will violate the truth if his reputation is disturbed. The end was Saul losing what he had been chasing and trying to maintain it in various ways. The Spirit of God departed from Saul and the king’s position was given by God to David.

David: Prioritizing the Right Heart

In many ways, David’s attitude was the opposite of Saul’s. Saul cared too much about his image in the eyes of others, David did not. For example, when David left the palace because of Absalom’s rebellion. Knowing this, Shimei, one of Saul’s family, cursed David and pelted David and his troops with stones along the road. David who was accompanied by soldiers and heroes didn’t counter at all. Instead, when Zeruiah was about to avenge Shimei, David said: “What does this have to do with you, you sons of Zeruiah? If he is cursing because the Lord said to him, ‘Curse David,’ who can ask, ‘Why do you do this?’”. . . . Leave him alone; let him curse, for the Lord has told him to. It may be that the Lord will look upon my misery and restore to me his covenant blessing instead of his curse today.” (2 Sam. 16: 10-12 NIV)  Compared to anger, feeling insulted, and retaliating, David prefers to subject himself to the authority of God.

Saul did everything he could to maintain his image, David did not. More than once David had the opportunity to kill Saul but he didn’t do it (1 Sam 24, 26). In fact, if Saul died then David’s life would be calmer because no one hunted him again. If Saul died, the way to become king would soon be realized because he had indeed been anointed as king. But David didn’t do it because he didn’t want to touch the Lord’s anointed person. David respected God and feared God. Compared to doing it in his own way, David prefers to trust God.

Saul never truly repented, while David quickly regretted his sin. When the Prophet Nathan rebuked him for taking Bathsheba, David immediately said: “I have sinned against the Lord.” (2 Sam. 12: 13 NIV)David didn’t excuse or blame others for his sin.

In many instances, David prefers his heart to remain right before God. For him, God’s words are more important than human words. Most of the Psalms are the outpouring of David’s heart to God. How in joy and sorrow, in strong and weak, in various situations, he always comes closer to God. He isn’t afraid of being abandoned by humans, he just doesn’t want God to leave him. He doesn’t care about being antagonized by humans as long as God sided with him. The most valuable for him isn’t the treasure and throne, but God. That’s why God is pleased with David.

BUILDING THE TRUE FOUNDATION

A reputation, good or bad, will stick to someone as long as the person lives. Even for some people who have a big influence, their reputation will continue to be remembered even if the person is gone. As children of God, we must have a good reputation because a bad reputation will be a stumbling block. But a good reputation is not everything. The most important thing is whether that reputation has been built on the true foundation. The true foundation here isn’t true according to man, but true in God’s view.

The only absolute truth for believers is the Bible. So, whatever attitude and behavior of the children of God must be in accordance with God’s word written in the Bible. When we think, say, and act according to God’s word, what comes out of us is everything that is good and right, which in itself will build a good and right reputation. Indeed obedience to the word of God doesn’t always make us favored by others, or even makes us despised, because many of the values of this world are contrary to God’s word. But our duty isn’t to please people but to please God. What is the point of having a good reputation in human measure, but finally we are wrong before God.

A good and true reputation built on the true foundation will have eternal impact, not just to impress others. Conversely, if we try to build a reputation by relying on power, wealth, expertise, even good deeds, then we will be trapped in what people say about us. We can be encouraged to become hypocrites. We will easily compromise to please others. We will do good things just for the sake of good name, but there is no love and sincerity. We must remember that God always sees the heart, not what is in sight. If reputation is everything to us, then we will fall into arrogance and unnecessary competition with other people.

Therefore let us ensure our lives have been built on a solid and true foundation, namely the word of God. Don’t be like Saul who was more concerned with his name and image in the eyes of others than obedience to God. Be like David who was obedient and gentle in heart and makes God the most valuable treasure. Don’t put our values on the words and views of people towards us, but put our values in God. We are valuable not because we are successful, good, even godly. We are valuable because we are created like God and God loves us so much.

Let’s focus on what’s inside, whether our foundation is right or not, by always connecting with God. At the time we diligently build relationships with God and put God above all else, that’s the time we are actually building a solid foundation for our reputation. And at the time we choose to obey the word of God even though for that we will be left behind by people, that’s the time we are actually laying the right foundation for our lives. The foundation is indeed invisible but the foundation greatly determines the strength of whatever is built on it. Foundation will form reputation. Bad foundation means bad reputation. So, prioritize building the true foundation, not just a reputation.

 

By: Sella Irene – Beautiful Words

Photo Credit: https://pixabay.com (edited with pixlr apps)

Original here

It’s Not The Equality Act, It’s The Pedophile Protection Act

May 3, 2019 By Bryan Fischer

 

 

The hideously misnamed “Equality Act” begins its journey through Congress this week. It’s designed “to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation.”

Now the 1964 Civil Rights Act already makes it illegal for discrimination to occur on the basis of “sex,” by which the authors of the bill meant “male or female.”

One significant thing to note in passing is that the authors of this bill evidently agree – whether they realize it or not – that the CRA of 1964 does NOT provide special protections based on “gender identity” or “sexual orientation,” because if the term “sex’” was expansive enough to include both, there would be no need for the Equality Act.

So, we should all be able to agree that, while “sex” in the 1964 CRA referred to the division of humanity into males and females, protections were not extended to lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders. Hence the felt need for the “Equality Act,” to address this lacuna in civil rights law.

“Gender identity” contains a raft of problems all by itself, for the category seems limited only by the hyperthyroidal imaginations of gender activists. Facebook allows you to choose from no less than 71 – count ‘em – genders. The old “male and female” thing is so last century. Now you can adopt a veritable cornucopia of sexual identities, starting with “asexual,” “hermaphrodite,” or “intersex,” and working your way up to “gender variant” or “pangender.”

Mind you, there is no biological or genetic marker for these various departures from the norm – it’s all in your head. Which makes the whole concept enormously subjective and fluid, and allows you to slip into it just about anything you want.

But what is truly pernicious is that “sexual orientation” is nowhere defined in the bill. Now everyone has a working definition of “sexual orientation” in their heads, a definition that begins with “male” and ends with “transgender” or some such thing. But “sexual orientation” is not defined anywhere in the bill or anywhere else in federal law. Everyone, including off-the-reservation judges, will get to make up their own definition.

This means that “sexual orientation” will mean anything you want it to mean, INCLUDING PEDOPHILIA OR BESTIALITY.

On 5 May 2018, the University of Würzburg in Germany held a conference with the theme of “Future Societys” [sic] that featured a presentation by Mirjam Heine, a medical researcher. Here’s what she had to say (emphasis mine):

“According to current research, pedophilia is an unchangeable sexual orientation, just like for example heterosexuality. No one chooses to be a pedophile. No one can cease being one.”

Snopes investigated the report of her remarks and found it to be “True.” In fact, organizers admitted that “a speaker (at their conference) described pedophilia as a condition some people are born with.”

So now we have medical professionals saying pedophiles are born that way, God made them that way, they can’t stop being one no matter how hard they try, and if you’ve got a problem with that, your problem is not with the guy who wants to rape kids but with the God who made them that way.

If the “Equality Act” were to become law, pedophiles would have special privileges and protections under law that you and I would not have. Because religious exemptions are specifically forbidden in the bill, pedophiles could not be prevented by Trail Life USA (the conservative Christian alternative to the Boy Scouts) from becoming leaders of small boys. And if you have a problem with that, you’re the one who is going to wind up in jail.

Churches could not prevent pedophiles from working with their children and their youth groups. The Roman Catholic Church could not prevent self-admitted pedophiles from becoming priests and working with altar boys.

It will not be long before bestiality (sex with animals) becomes a protected category. Prostitution will soon follow, as will incest and necrophilia (sex with dead people).

This is what the future holds if this law passes. If you want to keep our country from becoming the Disneyland of Deviancy, it’s time to bombard our congressmen with phone calls urging them to vote against the “Equality Act.” Why? Because it, in reality, is the “Pedophile Protection Act.”

Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at “Focal Point”

Host of “Focal Point” on American Family Radio, 1:05 pm CT, M-F  www.afr.net

(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)

 

Original here

Love One Another

Scary Things Happen When Adults Fail to Do Their Duty, Celebrities Not Excepted

May 1, 2019 By Steve Pauwels

This has been skittering around the media lately:

Charlize Theron loves her kids. She can’t talk about them without holding back tears and in a recent interview with the Daily Mail she illustrates why she’s a truly great parent. In 2012 the actress adopted her second child, Jackson. … “I have two beautiful daughters,” she says. The actress goes on to explain that upon adopting Jackson, “I thought she was a boy…Until she looked at me when she was three years old and said: ‘I’m not a boy!’” … Theron says, “just like any parent, I want to protect [them] and I want to see [them] thrive.” … Theron’s response is a perfect example of how to deal with children transitioning.

The actress herself isn’t afraid to speak her mind on other topics … when it comes to dating, demanding men need to “grow a pair” and ask her out.

We’re supposed to cheer and swoon over this report, correct? That’s the unmistakable vibe. Still, newsflash: the superstar’s choices are a grievous example of an adult parent’s abdicating her responsibility toward her children. It’s nice she gets all dewy-eyed when speaking about them — but letting a three-year-old call the shots? Are you pranking me? Best case scenario, kids are regularly muddle-headed over any number or life-shaping issues well into their teens — and Yahoo is gushing because Charlize Theron celebrated her toddler son’s announcing he’s really a girl?

(And how about that “grow a pair” crack? She obviously thinks said “pair” is irrelevant if her little boy can essentially wave it away with one pre-pubescent pronouncement.)

What next from Trendy Parenting 101?

Hey, momma, I’m a bird! I’m gonna jump out the window and fly around the yard, okay?

That’s fine, dear. Just be back for dinner. And don’t poop on the car.

Jackson is ominously confused, and that tragedy is compounded by his equally, but less excusably, misguided mama.

The popular — and woefully overworked — expression “time to put on your big boy pants!” turns on a self-evident understanding: Mature individuals are supposed to engage necessary tasks which juveniles might avoid because they are difficult or unpleasant. In an earlier, less arch, era, it would have been framed this way: “Time to act like a grown-up!”

The “big-boy-pants” construction loses all logical traction if kids and adults are essentially the same — except smaller, bigger, younger or whatever. Seems to me “time to act like a three-year-old!” just doesn’t carry the same oomph.

Back in the early 1980s, I heard a favorite Bible teacher articulate, “Parents are not first called to be their children’s friends, but their parents.” Some may have classified it a rather mundane observation, but nearly four decades ago it left an impression on me; and, I concede, I had no idea what was on the way culturally. A pre-schooler with a penis and XY chromosomes announces he is actually a girl, and mom throws the thumbs up? Well …

God invented mothers and fathers to guarantee the propagation of the species; not just reproducing offspring, but raising them to fruitfully continue the process themselves later in their lives. Parents are to birth children, then protect them, guide them, introduce them incrementally to reality so they can survive when they achieve their own independence. That routinely involves setting limits; telling the wee ones “No” when appropriate; informing them “Your wrong” when, in fact, they are.

It entails a willingness to be a temporary “bad guy” in the eyes of their children (accent on temporary); to risk their progeny’s “disliking” them for a season because they intend the long-term best for that very same progeny.

Sure, that approach might elicit a tantrum from those momentarily on its receiving end; screaming and foot-stomping could ensue, water-works flow. That’s where the elder participant is supposed to remind the youthful one that human beings aren’t mere beasts; we aren’t to be controlled by our passions, rages, instincts or brute physical impulses. Turns out, we’re blessed with the ability to delay gratification when that’s the prudent course; to deny our transitory appetites; to refuse foolishness even when it tantalizingly beckons.

Time was most adults would shrug their shoulders at that arrangement – perhaps not especially enjoying it, but accepting that’s the way it is; recognizing there’s no profit pretending otherwise. Meantime, nowadays, “pretending” has become fashionable, even sophisticated.

Mommy, I’m going to pretend I’m the opposite of what my birth certificate says!

Terrific, darling! I’ll pretend along with you that’s normal and healthy.

Responsible caretakers, conversely, understand: If they hang in there “adulting”, it’s a good wager the kids will come around eventually. In 1944’s Going My Way, Father O’Malley (Bing Crosby) muses, “You know, when I was eighteen, I thought my father was pretty dumb … [W]hen I got to be twenty-one, I was amazed to find out how much he’d learned in three years.” One of my now-grown sons, who gave us our share of fits during his school-age phase, still apologizes occasionally for those boyish indiscretions.

Today, a generation is marinating in the potentially lethal preposterousness that just wanting something or saying something makes it so. What’ll they do when facts on the ground demonstrate otherwise? When their new boss shoots them down the first day of their job for insisting they deserve the same perqs as a twenty-five-year veteran? When the coach tells them that, despite their protestations, they won’t be starting quarterback because they can’t complete a pass? When the bank requires their mortgage payments arrive by the due date even though they complain they ought to have a few weeks’ grace?

Mind you, in sixteen states and the nation’s capital, the apparatus of government presently requires some parents play make-believe along with their sons and daughters: “Conversion Therapy Laws” decree it officially illegal for a concerned mom or solicitous dad to take their gender-confused minor for licensed counselling to help him work through his possibly transitory, hormone-driven identity issues. Catch that? In America 2019, parents’ attempting to help their child reconcile himself to reality — Illegal.

State-enforced fantasy. Delusion courtesy of government facilitation.

Ms. Theron and those sharing her parenting philosophy likely consider these policies positively peachy. Of course, they’re manifestly an atrocity – a failure of family and state to carry out their inherent duty to the youngsters in their purview.

The Academy Award-winner gets emotional commenting on her children? Thanks to her currently reckless behavior, more tears could await her and her son down the road – only not the warm-n-fuzzy kind to which they’ve become accustomed.

Original here