To be or not to be is not a question of compromise. Either you be or you don't be.
--Golda Meir (Israeli Founder and Prime Minister. 1898-1978)
Most of us have heard of the "Hyde Amendment" named for Henry Hyde, the Republican Congressman from Illinois, who served in Congress for 32 years.
Hyde was a strong, uncompromising pro-life lawmaker. His pro-life "Hyde Amendment" has been attached to Congressional spending bills since 1976. He passed away in 2007.
His goal with the "Hyde Amendment"? It was to bar the use of federal funds to pay for abortions.
A change---a compromise, in Henry Hyde's amendment in 1977, has now become a stumbling block for pro-life legislators seeking to bar state spending on abortions. Reuters says if Hyde knew, he would "turn over in his grave."
It all happened with a little compromise allowed by pro-life advocates. A little so-called "fairness" a little "bi-partisanship" on an absolute principle--the sanctity of life.
You've read what the "little foxes do to the vines," well, here's what has happened.
In 1977, pro-life advocates allowed a slight change to Hyde's Amendment. They agreed to allow exceptions on funding for pregnancies that result from rape and incest.
Keith Mason, founder and president of Personhood USA, told the press that in a strange twist of fate, the "Hyde Amendment" ---whose purpose was to deny federal funding of abortion, has now become a stumbling block in efforts to stop state funding of abortions altogether.
He said, "A compromise in legislation that was part of the pro-life movement is the very hurdle that we have to overcome."
Pro-life leaders and state legislators are dealing with this issue.
For example, Louisiana State Representative John La Bruzzo, who sponsored a bill in his state to eliminate funding for abortion said, "The Hyde Amendment, or rather the exception to the Amendment, is our primary obstacle right now."
The Louisiana law, that has been de-railed for the moment, would have been a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade.
I have linked the story above. Note the bias on the part of "news" provider Reuters.
Also note where compromise takes us on absolute truth and principles.
Bi-partisanship is not the equivalent of patriotism, nor is compromise a Christian virtue when it is dealing with the sanctity of life.
There may have been a time in a far away place, when the political parties were not that far apart. This is not that day. A call for "bi-partisanship" from the far left is, in reality, a call for compromise on the part of people of faith and conservatives.
It has been said, "Peace won by the compromise of principles is a short-lived achievement."
I would say it again.
Be Vigilant. Be Firm. Be Certain. Be Discerning. Be Active. Be Prayerful. Be Blessed.
Faith and Freedom
Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.