The Point

Canadian columnist Barbara Kay recently posted this article on the proven medical link between induced abortions (IA) and an increased risk of preterm births (PTB) in future pregnancies. As she points out, the long-term health risks for women who have had abortions (and for their future children) are known, but pro-abortion supporters prefer to keep this information to themselves. Here's her conclusion: 

"Given the accessibility of these studies to abortion providers, if I were the mother of a post-IA, PTB infant or toddler with autism or cerebral palsy, and had not been informed as a matter of regulatory course of IA's risk for a future PTB, I'd be angry. Litigiously so." 

Perhaps these women will go beyond personal lawsuits: perhaps they'll get angry enough to become pro-life and help us bring an end to the abortion genocide.

What is this?

You lovers of literature might want to check out my recent piece on John Milton's "When I Consider How My Light Is Spent" over at the Wilberforce Forum's new website. While you're there, check out some more of the most recent pieces, such as this and this.

(Image courtesy of The Wilberforce Project)

What is this?

Last week, I posted my response to Emmie, who, in the valley of decision regarding what to do with an unwanted pregnancy, left the valley for an arena of opinions. She decided to terminate the pregnancy.

I joined the arena and was sincere in what I said, though I regret understating the joy it is to have a daughter. But several of the claims and conclusions in this series continue to grieve me. I will focus only on three:

Claim #1 (by Emmie): I will do good because of my [bad] abortion. “If I get my degree then maybe the path it will take me on will lead me to work on women’s issues. Maybe one day I’ll make a million dollars and start a scholarship program for pregnant graduate students. I can’t believe that nothing good can come of this, I know I’ll do something right one of these days.”

Emmie clearly does not believe abortion is a harmless act. She is already planning to try to atone for it in the future. It might ease her conscience, but I'm afraid it will do little more.

What is this?

• "How to Make It in the Afterlife"
• "Most Want Health Reform but Fear Its Side Effects"
• "Who's Calling Who Unconvincing?"

What is this?

What kind of love is this anyway?

What is this?

• "Gov. Sanford admits to extramarital affair"
• "Giving the green light to suicide"
• "Huckabee and Stewart on abortion"
• "Tenn. Planned Parenthood loses gov't funding"
• "I Would Die for You: Life and death of a 15-year-old missionary"
• "Selflessness Amid Tragedy Offers Solace"
• "Ideas Online, Yes, but Some Not So Presidential"
• "The uninsured: A bogus excuse for trillions in new welfare spending"

What is this?

• "Bad check?"
• "Planning Commission OKs Islamic Saudi Academy"
• "Catholic Nun Appointed Dean of Presbyterian Seminary"
• "Get a Life, Holden Caulfield"

What is this?

• "George Tiller, Abortion, and Moral Clarity"
• "The Mr. Potato Head Constitution" (via Wittingshire)
• "PBS Blesses Old Religious Shows, but Bans the New"
• "Have we given up on the two-parent family?"
• "Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer"
• "President Obama's Adams quote" (via The Corner)
• "Marilyn Monroe and the Cheapening of Women" (sexual themes)
• "Don't Worry, the Post-apocalyptic Costner Stuff Is Still a Few Months Away"

What is this?

A recent post from Jill Stanek pointed me towards this piece by William Saletan on Dr. George Tiller. Saletan is trying to argue that pro-life arguments don't hold together -- but it's his own arguments that strike me as being on very shaky ground:

To me, Tiller was brave. His work makes me want to puke. But so does combat, the kind where guts are spilled and people choke on their own blood. I like to think I love my country and would fight for it. But I doubt I have the stomach to pull the trigger, much less put my life on the line. . . .

The people who do late-term abortions are the ones who don't flinch. They're like the veterans you sometimes see in war documentaries, quietly recounting what they faced and did. You think you're pro-choice. You think marching or phone-banking makes you an activist. You know nothing. There's you, and then there are the people who work in the clinics. And then there are the people who use the forceps. And then there are the people who use the forceps nobody else will use. At the end of the line, there's George Tiller.

He's right about one thing: The military does a dirty job, a job that needs to be done, but one that many of us know we're not strong or brave enough to do.

But the last time I checked, we hadn't declared war on the unborn.

At least, not officially.

(Image courtesy of Mark Mallett)

What is this?

Dear Emmie,

This morning, I had some plans. They were simple, but they were plans, and, once again, they were interrupted. I closed my laptop and swiveled away from my desk to lean over my crying baby. This time she needed a new diaper and to be fed. Her arms and legs were slowly waving, her eyes squeezed shut, and her mouth squared open in seeming anguish--a little melodramatic, to be sure, but she was very uncomfortable! In those moments of certain inconvenience, somehow her needy face--melodramatic though it is--makes my heart melt. She needs care.

You are free to proceed with the abortion, Emmie--and, just as you've felt a weight lifted with the decision, you may never regret it. As many have said, giving birth is not easy. But, if you allowed the baby to be born, and if you let that baby receive care, whether from your hand or another's, you would not regret it. And I think you would realize then, and only then, that aborting him or her would have been a terrible thing to do.

So, you have the option of aborting now and possibly feeling no guilt--or you have the option of carrying to term, feeling no guilt, and allowing the dependent baby to receive care and someday make decisions for him or herself.

Have you been able to read my comment before aborting? Has it influenced you at all?

One last question--how can you be sure you will be happy in graduate school?

My baby began crying again, so I should stop here. But I had to write you. When I looked into my daughter's face this morning, I feel I peeked at your baby's face, too.

Bless you.

(Image © Block magazine)

What is this?

Naysayers are predicting the end of Christianity in America, and since their pessimism is repeated incessantly, many people have come to believe it. Is their prediction true? World magazine editor Marvin Olasky says the predictions don't match reality. Find out why.

What is this?

• "Iran: Election Aftermath and World Reaction"
• "America's 'Bermuda solution' angers Britain"
• "Obama Admin Hearts DOMA (For Now). Do Gays Still Heart Obama?"
• "Is My Marriage Gay?"
• "U.S. Births Hint at Bias for Boys in Some Asians"

What is this?

Mary DeMuth has a really good article in the current issue of BreakPoint WorldView Magazine on how fiction can bolster our faith, make us think about eternal truths, and generally be in step with a Christian approach to life. Mary just happens to be one of those rare individuals who can successfully write both fiction and nonfiction. I have a copy of her novel Daisy Chain on my reading pile right now and can't wait to get to it. 

I thought about this topic of fiction's impact last night as I finished up a Jodi Picoult novel, Perfect Match. The story involves a parent who kills the man she believes has molested her young son. Picoult manages to walk the reader through the process of thinking about whether something could be morally just and legally wrong at the same time without coming off as preachy and while resisting the temptation to spoon feed the answers. She does this by using a lot of first person narrative and showing her characters wrestling with their decisions.

I picked up Perfect Match because my library didn't have Picoult's book My Sister's Keeper, which is hitting the big screen later this month. My Sister's Keeper tells the story of a girl who was genetically engineered to donate any number of possible things (platelets, bone marrow, a kidney) to her older sister who is battling cancer. It looks like a tear-jerker of a movie, but it also looks like the kind of story that will find moviegoers leaving the theater to find a good restaurant where they can sit and talk for hours about ethics and family and love.

And that, to me, seems to suggest another reason why fiction is important. Imagine debating the topic of medical ethics with your neighbor or co-worker or friend who rejects the notion of a just and good God. Now, imagine how that conversation might be different after reading a book like My Sister's Keeper in your neighborhood book club, or watching the movie with a group of friends.

(Image © Simon and Schuster)

What is this?

• "Study: Megachurch crowds tend to be younger"
• "Pastor's comments on Tiller 'unbiblical'"
• "The Virtual Public Square"
• "Why aren't women happy? Who knows?"
• "Green Beret Loses Race and Wins a Battle"

What is this?

• "S.F.'s blast at Vatican was legal, court says"
• "Wilders Causes Another Row. Pre-Captivity Stockholm Syndrome"
• "Guantanamo Bay Detainee Brought to U.S. for Trial"
• "Palau (Who?) to Take in 17 Uighurs"
• "N. Korean Women Who Flee to China Suffer in Stateless Limbo"
• "Family of Slain Doctor Shutters Abortion Clinic"
• "Atheists keep faith with Barack Obama"
• "Sex without Intimacy: No Dating, No Relationships"
• "When Less Is More: Finding Inspiration in Severe Disability"
• "Box Office Busters from 'Godlywood'"
• "Creating tracts that look like money"

What is this?

• "Is Pain a Moral Good?"
• "Yes I Can"
• "Stop, in the Name of Love"
• "Sonia Sotomayor and bootstraps"
• "Classic"
• "Clinton Invites Controversial Muslim Leader on Conference Call"
• "People Choose News that Fits Their Views"
• "Megan Fox: Another Nail in the 'Movie Star' Coffin" (some vulgarity in comments)

What is this?

As if any were needed. . . . While women in other countries are getting stoned to death, tortured to death, or wiped out before birth, we whine that there aren't enough female characters in Pixar movies.

(Image © Pixar)

What is this?

A few weeks ago, I posted a short blog post about the pictures from the Hubble telescope, the wonders of the universe, and as LeeQuod puts it, "a small dig at the New Atheist types," i.e. the problem of materialism. An interesting discussion ensued. 

Under that post, Rolley recently answered a question posed by Ben W., who had raised the question of the Church's seeming indifference to the problem of slavery. Rolley discusses the problem of proof-texting versus principles, and I thought everyone might benefit from reading his comments.

(Image courtesy of Bible.ca)

What is this?

• "Sarkozy: 'The Islamization of Europe is inevitable'" (via Five Feet of Fury)
• "Teen's tale of escape from Rwandan genocide to high school graduation in America"
• "Preacher Don't Publish"
• "Antiabortion Efforts Move to the State Level"
• "Court rejects challenge to 'don't ask, don't tell'"
• "'Do you really believe anything happens after you die?'"
• "Daddy Can't Come Home: He's in Jail"
• "Hollywood, Music, and the Death of Class" (contains vulgar terms and images)
• "Of God and Politics"

What is this?

You will recall my mention of a menacing piece of correspondence from Down Under—way Under, which recently came to my attention. What follows is another dispatch that has surfaced, bearing the scrawlings of that hellish mystagogue . . .

Dear Swillpit,

Your latest report on the American front contained an item that is sure to be a watershed for our cause: the government funding of embryo destruction. It seems their decision makers really believe that it’s all in the interest of noble medical goals. Give rein to their folly. Later, we will have an eternity enjoying their shock at how they were played like a hand of rummy.

The quotes in the press clippings you included were particularly stirring. Statements like, we will be guided by “scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology,” and our decisions need to be “based on the recommendations of experts and scientists outside of politics and religion,” indicate that the guardrails we have been tugging on for centuries are at last, everywhere, crumbling.

Thanks to the efforts of field agents who have been patiently conditioning them with wileful whisperings, I feel that our long-fought outcome is within grasp.

In the not too distant past, the question before them was, “What should be done to improve their lot?” Now, by our incremental influences, they only think in terms of what can be done without regard to whether it should be done. Step by step, we have ushered them along a path which, just a few decades ago, they would have shuddered to look upon, but now course down in full stride! ...

Continue reading here.

What is this?

I'm old. And I'm, to my surprise, getting mellower with age. (Really.) Part of this senescence-induced mellowing is an increased appreciation for some of the more -- let's say -- gentle expressions of '70s pop music.

Now, I have my standards: no Orleans or America for me. But I've never stopped loving James Taylor and I'm not ashamed to admit that I shed a tear on hearing of Dan Fogelberg's passing. (A guy who listens to "Leader of the Band" and doesn't get a lump in his throat is no friend of mine.) 

All of this is to say that I've been re-acquainting myself with Seals & Crofts. The problem is that my favorite, or least most memorable, album and song of theirs was unavailable. You could get all the "Diamond Girl," "We May Never Pass This Way Again" or "Summer Breeze" you wanted from iTunes or Amazon but, until recently, not "Unborn Child."

For those of you who are too young to remember, the album was released about a year after Roe v. Wade. It's a concept album whose theme is life, innocence and a mother's love, all of which are incompatible with abortion. As the title song went:

Oh little baby, you'll never cry, nor will you hear a sweet lullabye.

Oh unborn child, if you only knew just what your momma was plannin' to do.
You're still a-clingin' to the tree of life, but soon you'll be cut off before you get ripe.
Oh unborn child, beginning to grow inside your momma, but you'll never know.
Oh tiny bud, that grows in the womb, only to be crushed before you can bloom.

Oh no momma, just let it be. You'll never regret it, just wait and see.
Think of all the great ones who gave everything
That we might have life here, so please bear the pain.

What is this?

• "Presidential Proclamation: LGBT Pride Month"
• "Obama Says U.S. Could Be Seen As a Muslim Country, Too" (via The Corner)
• "Starvation by Court Order"
• "Susan Boyle and the celebrity machine -- when will we learn?"
• "Brazil Finds More Wreckage from Jetliner Crash"

What is this?

While President Obama is busy promising taxpayer money to further embryonic stem cell research, here's another success story about adult stem cell therapy, which causes no harm no foul to tiny human beings. What's really interesting about this story is the secondary benefits of the procedure: 1. It was not expensive; and 2. The trauma of corneal surgery was eliminated.

(Image © Reuters)

What is this?

Gov. Sarah Palin draws an important, and largely overlooked, connection:

The stories of two very different lives with similar fates crossed through the media's hands yesterday — both equally important but one lacked the proper attention. The death of 67-year old George Tiller was unacceptable, but equally disgusting was another death that police believe was politically and religiously motivated as well.

William Long died yesterday. The 23-year old Army Recruiter was gunned down by a fanatic; another fellow soldier was wounded in the ambush. The soldiers had just completed their basic training and were talking to potential recruits, just as my son, Track, once did.

Whatever titles we give these murderers, both deserve our attention. Violence like that is no way to solve a political dispute nor a religious one. And the fanatics on all sides do great disservice when they confuse dissention with rage and death.

(Image © AP)

What is this?

It appears the noosed chicken [in the window of an Illinois abortion mill] turned off many of the mill's African-American clients, so staff recently hung it instead on a cross. . . .

Jill Stanek, "Abortion mill replaces Christ with rubber chicken," June 1, 2009 (other disturbing images and profanity at link)

(Image courtesy of Jill Stanek)

What is this?

Has anyone else noticed the blatant incongruity in President Obama’s positions when it comes to abortion and torture?

He believes it is fine for a woman to abort her unborn child for any reason and at anytime during the pregnancy. Even if the child initially survives an abortion attempt there should be no attempt to save that child and the doctors will not be held accountable. YET, he finds it totally unacceptable to use waterboarding on a terrorist who may know something about a possible attack on Americans, even if the information obtained could prevent that attack from happening and save many lives.

Irony #1: Abortion always causes the child to die while waterboarding never causes the terrorist to die.

Irony #2: Abortion tears the child’s body apart while waterboarding at most causes the terrorist to swallow water. Ronald Reagan said, “The abortionist who reassembles the arms and legs of a tiny baby to make sure all its parts have been torn from its mother's body can hardly doubt whether it is a human being.”

Irony #3: The government wants to go after those that have allowed waterboarding and have them prosecuted or disbarred while those that uphold abortion are given positions in President Obama’s administration.

Irony #4: President Obama calls waterboarding torture, abortion a choice.

Barack Obama condemns the use of torture but isn’t it time for him to recognize that abortion IS torture and condemn it as well?

Jesus said, “'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'" (Matthew 25:40)

(Image courtesy of LifeSiteNews)

What is this?

• "Fighting for control of Somalia" (contains graphic images)
• "Another One Gets Off the Evangelical Bus: Thoughts on a De-Conversion"
• "U.S. student, 20, emerges as anti-abortion crusader"
• "Abortion debate changing" (via CitizenLink)
• "Hillary Clinton May Have Misled Congress on Brazil Botched Abortion Claims"
• "Surviving church as a single"

What is this?

In the last few days a couple of headlines have popped up that have an interesting running theme: excommunication. I’m not talking about the common use of the word, namely expelling Catholics from the Catholic Church. Rather, I’m referring to Protestants breaking communion with a church or religious organization.

A few days ago, the Associated Press reported that Liberty University will no longer recognize the College Democrats club on campus.  Vice President of Student Affairs Mark Hine told the club’s president, Brian Diaz, that the Democratic Party stands against the principles of the university and therefore cannot be facilitated or supported by the University any longer.  Some of the issues that clearly divide the values of the College Democrats from those of the school’s founder, Jerry Falwell, are abortion, socialism, and the gay rights agenda.

Similarly, a little later, the Associated Press reported on the “ousting” of 61 Episcopal clergy due to their opposition to “consecrating” an openly gay bishop. As former Bishop John-David Schofield said, "The Episcopal Church needlessly isolates itself from their brothers and sisters around the world." In this case, though the clergy were officially ousted, it's the Episcopal Church that is ousting itself from the worldwide Anglican Church.

The Associated Press has presented the Liberty University situation as an “ousting,” or a “barring” of participation of a radically liberal group from engaging in communion with Liberty University. I have trouble with this because neither institution has been vague about what it believes. I hope it comes as no surprise that Liberty University, the same institution founded by the conservative Baptist Jerry Falwell, stands firmly against homosexuality, abortion, and socialism. Likewise, the Anglican Church worldwide does not believe in homosexuality as part of God’s plan. 

When both of these institutions align themselves so closely to specific values, aren’t violators of these values ousting or barring themselves? The institutions have done nothing except uphold what they have always believed. 

What is this?

The controversial late-term abortionist was shot to death this morning . . . in church, of all places. Details are few right now, but we'll update later when we find out more. (Thanks to Laura for the tip.)

I wanted to lose no time in emphatically denouncing the crime. This is not something that any of us here would have wished on Dr. Tiller. Despite his own acts of violence, we are not to take the law into our own hands. Better to leave his life in God's hands and let him have every chance to repent and turn from his sins before facing his Creator.

But now we can only pray, may God have mercy on his soul.

Update: A 51-year-old male suspect is in custody.

Update: The "person of interest" has been identified as Scott Roeder -- possibly the same Scott Roeder who, as a member of an anti-government group, was arrested in 1996 after being caught with a bomb-triggering device. Also, President Obama released a statement on the killing.

Update: The following people and organizations have also denounced the killing:

National Right to Life Committee

Tony Perkins, Family Research Council (scroll down)

Troy Newman, Operation Rescue

Father Frank Pavone, Priests for Life

Kansans for Life

Marjorie Dannenfelser, Susan B. Anthony List

Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, Americans United for Life

Concerned Women for America

Jill Stanek

Gov. Sarah Palin

Shaun Kenney, American Life League

Dr. James Dobson, Focus on the Family

(Special thanks to Kathryn Lopez for much of this information.)

What is this?

• "Couple: County Trying to Stop Home Bible Studies" (via Some Have Hats)
• "On Sotomayor, Some Abortion Rights Backers Are Uneasy"
• "Review: Up"
• "Beat the Dealer"

What is this?

• "Ralph D. Winter dies at 84; Christian missionary was one of America's most influential evangelicals"
• "Referenda could undo same-sex unions in two states"
• "Liberated and Unhappy"
• "Why ask why?"
• "Al Pacino circles Kevorkian biopic"
• "The Worst Thing about Gay Marriage"
• "Some Industries Deserve Bankruptcy"

What is this?

Rethinking word usage just might make a huge difference when talking about weighty matters like life and liberty. Mike Metzger says that political speeches used to be filled with the word "duty," and the word "choice" was rarely used. It seems that American evangelicals helped regulate "duty" to the closet and have helped further the pro-abortion campaign by embracing the word "choice."  

Words matter!  

What is this?

I'll be the first to acknowledge that the Republican party needs to make some changes, but I don't think this is the way to go about it. (Note: sexual themes.)

(Image © Comedy Central)

What is this?

Thanks to Michael Cook at BioEdge for alerting readers to the legal conundrum that is being caused by IVF procedure. 

In 1973, then again in 1992, the Supreme Court conjured up new rights of privacy and liberty over one’s body regardless of the right to life of the other person involved. With the technological advancements in the fertility industry, some people are questioning the right to determine whether a person can control his or her genetic material. 

In the Southern California Law Review, I. Glenn Cohen suggests that we need to “unbundle” genetic parenthood from legal or gestational parenthood. We have the “Constitutional right not to procreate” (that is, to have an abortion), but once we’ve used IVF technology, we might lose the right to determine whether others can use our genetic material.    

Sadly, technology is busily turning the sacredness of life and parenthood into mere machine-like procedures, thereby making us redundant. In a lecture, “Technology and Technique: Master or Servant? Reflections on Reading Ellul, Huxley, and Lewis,” Dr. Joseph Gibes says, “The real danger [of technology] is that we as a society are moving ever closer to Subjectivism, we worship efficiency, and cannot say no to technology.” Human dignity and moral order are being sacrificed at the altar of technology.

So when Cohen writes of “unbundling” parenthood from procreation, what he’s doing is permitting technology to assume ultimate power over humanity -- and if left unchecked, technology's alluring power just might destroy us.

What is this?

My daughter, Rebecca, sent me that Gallup survey showing that Americans are becoming more pro-life than pro-death. Hurray for our country! (Here's a little heartwarming story: When Rebecca was a young teen we watched a show featuring a remarkable fetal surgery, and she became pro-life after watching the little guy's hands curl around the physician's fingers.)

Yesterday, I saw this article about that same little boy, whom many would have targeted for termination. I pray we're becoming a country where such advocacy would be unthinkable.

(Image © the Armas family)

What is this?

When listening to the president's commencement speech before the graduating class of 2009 at Notre Dame, I didn't feel particularly offended. I don't expect much from liberals when it comes to "finding common ground," so as long as he didn't demonize Catholicism I wasn't going to lose much heart. 

That is, until I read George Weigel's recent posting on National Review Online. He lays out an interesting argument that the president decided to tell America what Catholicism is all about. He didn't stop at defining Catholicism. He seemingly went so far as to partition Catholics into two groups:  ObamaCatholics and "the others." ObamaCatholics are gentle, peaceful, unifying, and willing to accept liberal nonsense. 

Here is an excerpt from Weigel's argument:

What was surprising, and ought to be disturbing to anyone who cares about religious freedom in these United States, was the president’s decision to insert himself into the ongoing Catholic debate over the boundaries of Catholic identity and the applicability of settled Catholic conviction in the public square. Obama did this by suggesting, not altogether subtly, who the real Catholics in America are. The real Catholics, you see, are those like the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, who are “congenial and gentle” in persuasion, men and women who are “always trying to bring people together,” Catholics who are “always trying to find the common ground.” The fact that Cardinal Bernardin’s undoubted geniality and gentility in bringing people together to find the common ground invariably ended with a “consensus” that matched the liberal or progressive position of the moment went unremarked — because, for a good postmodern liberal like President Obama, that progressive “consensus” is so self-evidently true that one can afford to be generous in acknowledging that others, less enlightened but arguably sincere, have different views.

Whether Catholic or not, it's a scary idea to think that the leader of the political world is now telling one of the largest religious forces in the world what they believe and how they should believe it.

What is this?

The choice of a commencement speaker at Notre Dame University could have been, should have been, a reminder to the world that some things are phenomenally more important than others--that honoring God's teachings is more important than the prestige of having the President of the United States honor YOU by agreeing (for political reasons) to be your commencement speaker. Notre Dame's leaders chose not to send this message. Instead, they chose to drape a robe around the most aggressively pro-abortion president in history--one whose actions are increasing the number of abortions performed both here and around the world.

By inviting Obama, Notre Dame's leaders were saying, in effect, "Abortion doesn't matter very much." Perhaps those who invited Obama should review John 12:43 ("For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God").

During his address, Obama had the audacity to lecture his audience about "living together as one human family." How about starting by simply allowing its youngest and most helpless members to live, period, Mr. President?

Which leads to another question: Are there any Centurions living in or around South Bend? The Notre Dame Class of 2009--which was applauding Obama's "reducing abortion" lines--desperately needs someone to teach them how to think. Has it not occurred to them to question the logic (and motives) of someone who claims to want to "reduce" something he supports? If there's nothing wrong with abortion, why bother reducing it? And if there IS something morally wrong with abortion (Catholic teaching calls it a grave injustice) why does Obama enthusiastically support it, fund it, and export it?

What is this?

An interesting feature of President Obama's commencement speech at Notre Dame yesterday (transcript here, video here):

The president spoke of the need "to reconcile our ever-shrinking world with its ever-growing diversity -- diversity of thought, diversity of culture, and diversity of belief . . . [to] find a way to live together as one human family." On some subjects, he spoke as though this need to cooperate -- to find "common ground," as he said elsewhere in the speech -- were the highest goal:

The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in an admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son's or daughter's hardships can be relieved.

But on other subjects, he spoke as if the highest goal were for right to win and wrong to be defeated:

After all, I stand here today, as President and as an African American, on the 55th anniversary of the day that the Supreme Court handed down the decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Now, Brown was of course the first major step in dismantling the "separate but equal" doctrine, but it would take a number of years and a nationwide movement to fully realize the dream of civil rights for all of God's children. There were freedom rides and lunch counters and Billy clubs, and there was also a Civil Rights Commission appointed by President Eisenhower. It was the 12 resolutions recommended by this commission that would ultimately become law in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Under which category does abortion fall? In the president's mind, it appeared to fall under the first: "When we open up our hearts and our minds to those who may not think precisely like we do or believe precisely what we believe -- that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground. . . . That's when we begin to say, 'Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions.'" This isn't how he spoke about the freedom rides and the lunch counters and the Billy clubs.

Considering that, at this moment, the tide of popular opinion -- perhaps even the tide of history -- appears to be shifting against Obama and his view of abortion, he may want to rethink that position.

(Image © Nancy Stone for the Chicago Tribune)

What is this?

• "Pro-lifers, including elderly priest, arrested at Notre Dame"
• "What a Little Vitamin A Could Do"
• "Unwed Mom Boom Threatens Sanctity of Gay Marriage"
• "Judy Blume's Planned Parenthood Pitch"
• "Angels & Demons"

What is this?

Recently, readers of the Washington Post have been subjected to large and unhealthy helpings of treacle during breakfast, to the point where we're starting to think about keeping a bucket handy. A couple of weeks ago, it was television columnist Tom Shales who had readers sputtering into their cornflakes with an account of President Obama at a press conference that read like a 12-year-old girl’s description of Edward Cullen. The star of The Barack Obama Show was “comfortingly cool and collected,” “articulate,” “friendly,” “accessible,” “gracious to a fault,” a man of “perfect comic timing,” and, on the whole, “flabbergasting.” Apparently he had even developed superpowers, as Shales swore that Obama “made eye contact with us folks at home” through the television screen.

But the pièce de résistance was an adverbial pileup that would have made a high school writing teacher send the author back to write another draft: “You ask, he’ll answer—earnestly, disarmingly, enchantingly even.”

The piece caused unbridled hilarity among commenters on the Post’s website, leading ombudsman Andrew Alexander to point out that TV columns, unlike straight news stories, are not supposed to be objective. He missed the point: The majority of objections were inspired not by the piece’s lack of objectivity, but by its resemblance to something out of Teen People.

Yet Shales’s love letter looked positively cold next to Sally Quinn’s Mother's Day ode to Michelle Obama’s arms. It’s hardly the first such tribute, of course—like severed appendages in an old B movie, the First Arms have taken on a life of their own, earning widespread awe. They even have their own blog. But Quinn’s tribute left all others in the dust. These are not just arms, she explains: They are “transformational.”

What is this?

• "Two Practical Politicians, Obama and Barry, Draw the Line at Same-Sex Marriage"
• "Top Senator: Obama's Pro-Abortion Legal Counsel Pick Dawn Johnsen Lack[s] Votes"
• "'Can I Vomit Right Now?': MSNBC Anchor Slams Trump Decision on Miss CA USA"

What is this?

• "Mideast's Christians Declining in Influence"
• "Gay marriage activists target California Catholics, Mormons"
• "Naked in the Naked Public Square"
• "Blume 101"
• "A Shotgun Blast to the Face of the Green Movement"
• "Soda Tax Weighed to Pay for Health Care"

What is this?

Notre Dame officials have their hands full these days with alumni and friends, both Catholic and Protestant, who have a problem with having a pro-choice President like Barack Obama give the commencement address at this year's graduation exercises in South Bend, Indiana. As our readers know by now, it's a story that doesn't die.

No doubt, President Obama will try to give a speech that pours cool waters on this fire of controversy. But what is interesting here is how little deference is paid to the feelings of those thousands of Notre Dame supporters who find this whole incident so distasteful. We live in an age where the Pope himself feels obliged to quickly exit the stage when anti-Semitic talk takes place in his presence. Good for him! Yet when traditional Catholics' sensitivities--and on their key social issue--are bruised, few in the mainstream press seem to care at all. 

In fact, we're already hearing from the hard left that this is just a shabby show of political posturing and "hysteria" on behalf of the pro-life cause. Perhaps, deep down, the chattering classes know that the only way they can win against convictions is to decry the manner in which the protesters are stating their case.

All the more reason for the Notre Dame protesters to continue to take a page out of the playbook of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., being both wise as serpents, and innocent as doves (Matthew 10:16). If the protesters can state their case with as much eloquence as Obama will try to do as commencement speaker, then people will take note of their cause.  

It would be unfortunate for the protesters to allow the President to play the martyr before the country. That could set the pro-life cause back, not advance its aims.

Thankfully, with only a few exceptions, the protesters have engaged in a very civil confrontation with Notre Dame's foolish administrators who, wittingly or unwittingly, caused this unnecessary brouhaha. The amount of money lost from the Notre Dame Foundation this year should be brought up by savvy members of the school's Board of Trustees when their President, Rev. Jenkins, has his contract up for renewal.

(Image courtesy of WSBT)

What is this?

At least some Catholic leaders in this country understand the moral incongruity of a Catholic university inviting the most pro-abortion president in history to speak on its campus. Bishop Thomas Wenski held a Mass of Reparation "to make amends for sins against God" for those Catholics who are outraged with Notre Dame's "clueless" decision to have Obama speak at its commencement service on May 17. 

Those who oppose Obama's presence at Notre Dame point to a 2004 bishops' statement that says, "The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors, or platforms which would suggest support for their actions." Wenski claims that he doesn't like conflict or fights, but that this case is "egregious enough that we have to be clear. We're standing on principle...." 

Ironically, as I read the second article linked above, it was not the "cluelessness" of the leadership at Notre Dame that struck me: it was the cluelessness of the average American Christian who just doesn't get what all the uproar is about (evidently, 50% of Catholics don't mind). In one sense, the Notre Dame controversy is a small thing: the president will give his speech and the world will move on. But his apprearance at Notre Dame represents the spirit of our age -- a spirit of lukewarm faith and a willingness to compromise with the world rather than a willingness to embrace, however unpopular, our biblically mandated position as spiritual non-conformists (Romans 12:1-2). 

Obama will give his speech, the flap will die down, but -- as Christians -- we will have taken one more step down the ladder of spiritual decline. And most of us will be none the wiser about what we've just lost.

(Image courtesy of Catholic News Agency)

What is this?

Well, what did we expect? Any reason is a good reason, according to Swedish health authorities....

Read here.

What is this?

• "In Pakistan, 'Great Rage, Great Fear'"
• "Sending of Explicit Photos Can Land Teens in Legal Fix"
• "Maine and N.H. Move to Expand Gay Rights"
• "Lila calls Memphis Planned Parenthood's bluff"
• "Obama Offers D.C. Voucher Compromise"

What is this?

Chuck Colson has been asked to deliver the eulogy for his friend Jack Kemp at the National Cathedral on Friday. But he's already offering a tribute in today's BreakPoint commentary.

Jack might well have been President—and would have been a great one—were it not for two things: He would never compromise his convictions, nor would he attack his opponents. Sadly, it’s hard to resist those things and still get to the White House.

His courage was on display to the very end. During the times I visited him over the last months of his life, I was taken by how he kept his spirit up even as the cancer devastated his body.

Jack was a giant in our midst. He had a heart for the same kind of people Prison Fellowship serves—the poor, the oppressed, and the downtrodden. His wife, Joanne, has been a board member at Prison Fellowship for many years.

He also shared our Christian commitment to human life, telling the New York Times how a personal tragedy made him “more aware of the sanctity of human life, [and] how precious every child is.”

This and more is why Jack’s death is such a great loss to me personally. Joanne and his four beautiful children—all Christians—are in my prayers. How proud of them Jack was. This family’s Christian witness has touched countless lives.

Read more.

(Image © Prison Fellowship Ministries)

What is this?

In discussing Harvard Law professor Mary Ann Glendon's decision to decline the University of Notre Dame's Laetare Medal, MSNBC described the medal and previous recipients thusly:

The Laetare medal (pronounced Lay-tah-ray) was established in 1883, and is considered one of the oldest and prestigious awards that can be given to an American Catholic. It’s given out annually at the University of Notre Dame commencement ceremony. Previous recipients include President John F. Kennedy, Catholic Worker founder Doris Day, and fictional American president Martin Sheen, who received the award last year.

Did you catch that? The Catholic Worker movement was founded by a bubbly blond actress who starred in "Pillow Talk" with Rock Hudson!

MSNBC has since fixed its error, but the story is another reminder that when it comes to covering religion, the MSM is two-plus-two-is-three brainless.

Or as the other Miss Day might say, "Que sera, sera."

For more on the REAL founder of the Catholic Worker movement, click here.

What is this?

• "Swine flu and a calm, reasonable, rational Church"
• "God Talk"
• "Hare-Brained Kansas Planned Parenthood Employee Covers Up Rape"
• "Scottish Report on Gay and Lesbian Parenting"
• "Outrage over primary school's plan for disabled dress-up"
• "Children's book features lesbian mums and sperm donors" (sexually explicit language)

What is this?

"Forced abortions shake up China wombs-for-rent industry"

(Image © Reuters UK)

What is this?