Welcome! Opinions on family, faith, life, politics and now, Christian Fiction

Archive for January, 2009

Pastor John Piper, where were you in October?

Posted by MDViews on January 29, 2009

John Piper is my pastor. He preached a sermon on 1/25/09 that I wish everyone could hear or read. He takes Mr. Obama to task for his pro-abortion acts since he has become president. I love him for it. I respect him more than any pastor I have sat under. He is a man who loves God and shows us God.

But I have a beef with him about this issue. He seemed surprised by Mr. Obama. It seemed like he thought Mr. Obama’s “official” stance, which was neither pro-life or pro-abortion, was the truth. He sounded betrayed by Mr. Obama. Following is the written portion of the sermon regarding Mr. Obama taken from here.

As everyone knows, our new President, over whom we have rejoiced, does not share this reverence for the beginning of human life. He is trapped and blinded by a culture of deceit. On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, he said, “We are reminded that this decision not only protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters.”

To which I say . . .

  • No, Mr. President, you are not protecting women’s health; you are authorizing the destruction of half a million tiny women every year.
  • No, Mr. President, you are not protecting reproductive freedom; you are authorizing the destruction of freedom for a million helpless people every year.
  • No, Mr. President, killing our children does not cease to be killing our children no matter how many times you call it a private family matter. Call it what you will, they are dead, and we have killed them. And you, Mr. President, would keep the killing legal.

Some of us wept with joy over the inauguration of the first African-American President. We will pray for you. And may God grant that there arises in your heart an amazed and happy reverence for the beginning of every human life. [His actual sermon deviated from the written text and was so powerful.]

Pastor Piper is a guest columnist for WORLD magazine and wrote a piece on November 4, 2000 which defended those who are called “single-issue voters”. He argues that there are many singe issues which would disqualify one for high office. Would a sexual molester of children qualify? He notes that people face bigger penalties for cruelty to animals than taking human life from the womb. In 1989, he was arrested for picketing an abortion clinic. Pastor Piper is no marginal, fair weather pro-lifer. He is passionately pro-life.

As I listened to his sermon on Sunday, I had tears as well. Not tears of joy for Mr. Obama’s inauguration. Tears that Pastor Piper did not preach that sermon against Mr. Obama’s pro-abortion stand in October when hearts could have been changed and votes would have mattered. It dawned on me as I listened that Pastor Piper did seem betrayed and surprised, so I wonder if he was hoodwinked into believing the lies or ignoring Mr. Obama’s past because he was black. Pastor Piper is also passionate about racial reconciliation. I’ve written to Pastor Piper about this matter and would not have brought it up here except that his sermon and its content is featured on where public comments have been made. Since it is all public, it is fair game for public debate and comment. His sermon can be watched, listened to or read from the web site.

“Red and yellow, black and white. All are precious in His sight. Jesus loves the little children of the world,” so the old Sunday School song goes. So I don’t care if Mr. Obama is red, yellow, black or white. If he won’t stand for the unborn, he will not be my choice for office.

I had tears on his inauguration day as well. Tears of regret for all the unborn who will die because of Barrack Obama.

Posted in Abortion, Faith and the Glory of God, Politics | Leave a Comment »

OB/GYN Organization Wants More Abortion Training and More Abortionist!

Posted by MDViews on January 23, 2009

In the spirit of updating those of you who are not OB/GYN doctors, I’m reporting on the latest American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) Committee Opinion, #424 issued this month, January 2009.

The title is Abortion Access and Training. The abstract from the document follows.

ABSTRACT: Despite a decrease in abortion rates over the past decade, numerous political, social, and provider barriers limit access to abortion services. Barriers include state restrictions and mandates limiting access, lack of public funding for abortion services, and the decrease in abortion providers. Abortion education and training are limited in medical schools and in residency programs. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists supports education in family planning and abortion for both medical students and residents and abortion training among residents. In addition, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists supports availability of reproductive health services for all women, including strategies to reduce unintended pregnancy and to improve access to safe abortion services.

Some comments about the article. They cite the decrease in abortions (2005 was the lowest per capita rate since 1974) to better family planning, more contraception and better contraceptives which led to fewer unintended pregnancies. Funny, what else happened in 2000 that might have led to a decrease in unintended pregnancy, something that gets no mention? How about abstinence education. The decrease in abortion corresponded to more widespread acceptance of abstinence education which embodies a respect for life.

The article bemoans no federal funding for abortion and  lack of universal insurance coverage for abortion, two development for which I praise God.

State mandated restrictions on abortion, such as waiting periods, mandatory consent forms, parental notification are all given the thumbs down by the authors. Which must means those laws are helping. How wonderful!

Abortionist’s numbers have declined from 2,042 in 1996 to 1,787 in 2005.  How heartwarming! What follows is the paragraph at the end of that section which should give hope to all those pro-life people who walk outside abortuaries, picket abortionists homes and expose abortionists publicly.

Abortion may take place in an atmosphere of controversy, harassment, and sometimes violence (13). [I disagree. Prolife folks are some of the most kind and gentle people in the world. The pro-aborts just wish we were violent. We are not.]The highly charged emotional and political debate stigmatizes the women who undergo abortion and the providers who offer abortion. In addition to creating a barrier for seeking care, this negative atmosphere may be a deterrent to training providers and offering reproductive health services.

In other words, our efforts are worthwhile and working!! Big time! It’s one thing for an abortionist to knock down big bucks for easy work (killing is never hard) in the privacy of some clinic in the inner city where none of his friends can see. It’s ugly and shaming, however, to have several people on his sidewalk where all his neighbors can see carrying signs identifying him as an abortionist! His kids don’t like it. His spouse doesn’t like it. The neighbors don’t like the attention. The news people may show up. Dear, oh dear. The light of day has such a sanitizing effect.

Next, the article discusses the unfortunate occurrence of “opt-in” for abortion and family planning training for medical students. In other words, medical students have to make an effort to take a course that exposes them to abortion. Not many do. In OB/GYN residencies, abortion training is also more of an “opt-in” event than a required event as well. Doctors who object to abortion on moral or religious grounds can opt out. (It was not always so.) In 2004, 51% of programs offered routine abortion training, 39% offered elective training and 10% offered no training at all.

My own experience in residency training was, well, terrible. I was pro-life but had to help in the abortion clinic. It’s a long story which I have told to many pro-life groups through the years. Stories like mine are what led to the abortion service being made elective in residencies. Maybe I’ll post my story one day.

They end the article with a call for all medical student and OB/GYN residents to be educated about family planning and abortion as a routine part of medical school and residency training.

Overall, the Committee Opinion lifted my spirits. They would not write something like that unless they were frustrated with the state of things and worried about the graying of the abortionists in America. Praise God!

Posted in Abortion, Doctoring, Medical Issues | 5 Comments »

The American Association of Pro-life OB/GYN’s Annual Meeting

Posted by MDViews on January 20, 2009

The American Association of Prolife Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) held their annual meeting in Ft. Lauderdale this last weekend. AAPLOG is a somewhat small group of OB/GYN physicians made up of conservative Christians and practicing Catholics.

We heard from Gene Rudd, MD, who is a leader at the Christian Medical and Dental Association (CMDA) who spoke on rights of conscience issues, a topic that affects (and will affect even more as the new administration takes office) we pro-life OB/GYN’s greatly.

Donna Harricson, MD, president of AAPLOG, spoke on maternal mortality. Joel Brind, PhD, spoke on the link between abortion and breast cancer. Bryon Calhoun, MD spoke on early pregnancy failure.

We were all moved by the presentation of Fredrick Brown, MD, who told of his journey from an abortionist to a pro-life Christian. God bless him.

Priscilla Coleman, PhD, a psychologist, spoke about the American Psychological Association’s (APA) recent statement saying there is no such thing as post-abortion syndrome, a stand not supported by the evidence.

Allen Sawyer, MD, told about coding issues related to abortion. All elective abortion codes are lumped in with tubal pregnancies and molar pregnancy in a purposeful way to hide data on abortion. Mary Davenport, MD, spoke about oral abortifacients.

AAPLOG with CMDA has been at the forefront of the political debate surrounding abortion. They were instrumental in getting Secrtary Leavett to pass the right of conscience rule, short lived as it may be. They testified in the Partial Birth Abortion Bill debate stating that there is never a reason to perform a partial birth abortion. As a pro-life physician group, they tend to carry more weight than some other groups. 

It is not easy for doctors to stand for life in our current medical culture. One is looked at a a neanderthal misogynist with no compassion for the plight of women with unintended pregnancies. Fully 88% of OB/GYN’s in the country support legal abortion. We are a minority. Of course, I tend to think that God and I make a majority. I have no intention of backing down in this fight, and neither do the wonderful doctors at AAPLOG. We covet your prayers.

Posted in Abortion, Doctoring, Medical Issues | 1 Comment »

The Third Way? No Way.

Posted by MDViews on January 15, 2009

Why is it people want to “end” the “culture wars?” Why is public disagreement over important cultural issues something to be avoided? What is wrong in a pluralistic, semi-democratic society with expressing ones views in the market place of ideas, arguing effectively for those views and rejecting the opposite views?

I thought our uniquely American experiment was built on just such a concept.

But, along comes a group called the “Third Way“, an ostensibly Christian group of progressives and self-proclaimed evangelicals who want to call a truce in the culture wars by following their superior ideas. This group thinks there is entirely too much rancour in politics, and, with the new administration coming in, we need to seek common ground to get things done.

Oh dear, oh dear. So, dear reader, what wonderful, brand-spanking new ideas are they propogating, you may ask? Well, these ideas.

  • Reducing abortions (reducing abortion through reducing unintended pregnancies, supporting pregnant women, and increasing support for adoption)
  • Supporting employment protections for gay and lesbian people (protecting the rights of gay and lesbian people to earn a living, while protecting the freedom of religious organizations to follow their own beliefs)
  • Renouncing torture, and
  • Creating secure and comprehensive immigration reform

    Unfortunately, good intentions do not good policy make. The devil is in the details. And the details are ugly and liberal.

    1) To reduce abortions, they recommend a comprehensive sex education program which would be medically-accurate, age-appropriate and contain complete contraceptive information with a discussion of abstinence. Also, they would provide [government] support for teen pregnancy prevention programs, after school programs and increased access to contraception for low income women.

    This is lunacy. Everything listed is already done! Comprehensive sex-education already claims to be age-appropriate, medically accurate and claims to contains complete contraceptive information. Those sex educators even give lip service to abstinence. That’s the whole point! The program promotes an immoral lifestyle shown to increase sexual activity in teens. Contraception is ineffective in teens, almost always. Anything that encourages teen sexual activity will increase pregnancy rates and therefore teen abortion. Age-appropriate to sex educators means “Heather has Two Mommies” in the first grade, advocacy for deviant sexual behavior, and graphic information about mechanics of sex before young minds can comprehend such adult behavior and concepts. I call it child abuse.

    The only sex ed course needed is this: Don’t have sex until married and have one partner for life. You need a whole course for that? I’ll even write it again. Don’t have sex until married and have one partner for life. There. Is that so hard to say?

    But, you chuckle, if it were only so simple. Such an approach does not work, does it? Well, yes! Teens can be challenged to a higher, more moral behavior. Abstinence-based programs have shown again and again that they work, but only if they are strictly abstinence-based. They cannot be included with the “If you do have sex, use a condom-or the pill-or the IUD-or I’ll help you get an abortion if you get pregnant” group. The education must be totally abstinence.

    Liberal sex educators gleefully report their studies saying abstinence-based programs don’t work. Hogwash. It’s the same reason pro-abortion researchers never find post-abortion syndrome, which, I can assure you, dear reader, does exist and is tragic.

    Notice also that these recommendations include no restrictions on abortion. So, reducing abortions through common ground policies is just a rehash of the liberal policies. It must be opposed.

    2) Protecting the rights of Gay and Lesbian People to Earn a Living. The Third Way would make it illegal to fire, refuse to hire, or refuse to promote employees simply based on their sexual orientation, except for an exemption for churches and other religious organizations.

    Oh dear, oh dear–again.

    That policy is no different than the way it is now. Gays already earn a living. The mean income of gay and lesbian people is significantly higher than the general population! What problem earning a living? I don’t see it.  The exemption for churches or other religious organizations is a joke.  Who defines what a religious organization is? Is a home school a religious organization? Is a Christian school a religious organization? How about a business that sells mostly Christian literature? Is a book publisher a Christian organization? What about the association of Christian businesses that ascribes to a Biblical definition of sin? Should a Christian gynecologist be obligated to hire a homosexual medical assistant? Such a law would effective remove Christianity from the day to day public square and confine it only to churches. Such a law would be a huge advance for the gay agenda, placing gays in multiple business with a Christian emphasis, diluting the Christian message and witness in the world.  Christians have a long history of respecting civil rights of all groups which continues to this day. But a sinful lifestyle is not the same as being asian or black or Hispanic or disabled or old or a woman or a man–categories used through the ages to exclude groups of people. One can do nothing about one’s sex, age, race or disability. But, homosexuality is in the mind of the person claiming to be gay. Anyone, at any time, could claim gay status and special privilege. Want the job? Whisper to the interviewer that you are gay, but still in the closet, but you will sue if you don’t get the job. Also, you will sue if you get outed. Who can deny such a statement? Who is to say one is not gay? Would a law require a Muslim business to hire homosexual employees? In many Muslim countries, gays are stoned. I cannot change my race, my disabilities, my sex or my age. All are right out there for everyone to see. But I can fool anyone on my sexual orientation, depending on whether or not I would benefit from such a declaration. How Darwinian.

    3) Renounce torture. Do these people understand what war is? This statement is hardly worthy of a response. People who believe such nonsense do not understand that enslavement by an enemy is more horrible than death in battle to defend freedom. War to defend freedom means pulling out all the stops to win. There are no do-overs in war. If you don’t win, you lose. Losing a war is worse than death. Patrick Henry had it right.

    4) Create Secure and Comprehensive Immigration Reform. Their proposal would involve “strict border enforcement” (no wall), a path to citizenship for illegal aliens, a “guest worker” program and “keeping families together”.

    This is just code for amnesty for illegal aliens who have broken our laws, no wall to stop illegal immigration and a guest worker program which effectively opens our border to anyone. Once across the border, a guest worker could then disappear into the mist.  Full citizenship for a woman who races across the border in labor to have her baby in the US would be granted not just to her and her baby, but to the family. I guess that means the husband, brother, sister and on could come across the border, too. And be citizens. Just like that.

    All these proposals this group advocates are just liberal re-hash and not a third way at all. Such advocacy is deceptive in its approach and provides cover for those Catholics who were always democrats and want to vote for democrats but feel guilty voting for abortion advocates. Such advocacy provides cover for those marginal Christians who populate church pews because they like the music and the feel-good sermons and want to be accepted and cool in their liberal workplace.

    There is no need for “peace” in the culture wars. Standing for life is offensive, but must be done. Advocating for justice is right. Law-breakers must be punished. Children should be protected from those who advocate for immorality. Wars are fought to be won. Defeat and  enslavement are not options. I, for one, plan to loudly speak truth. Let the culture wars rage.

    Posted in Abortion, Faith and the Glory of God, Family, Politics | 5 Comments »