Thursday, January 22, 2015

Republicans Already Divided Over Abortion Bill

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

Forget President Obama's secular progressive pro-abortion, anti-marriage enablers in Congress.

We learned yesterday there is already a division among Republicans on an abortion bill scheduled for debate today.

HR 36, the "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act," would ban virtually all abortions for pregnancies of 20 weeks or longer.

Associated Press says, "The bill would offer some exceptions, including for victims of rape that have already been reported to authorities."

Rep. Renee Ellmers, R-NC says with the exceptions, "we are questioning the woman's word," and, "We have to be compassionate to women when they're in a crises situation."

The other side of the issue says if the requirement of having had to report the rape to authorities is removed, the bill will have little effect, because in every case a woman could simply claim rape and get the partial birth abortion, which this bill is seeking to eliminate.

House Republicans held a private meeting yesterday to, as AP reports, "work out the rift" before public debate on the bill begins today.

This, in and of itself, is an important bill. It's important to see how those whom we elected vote as well.

It also raises a larger question.

Is it enough for a political candidate to tell us they are "personally opposed to abortion?"

Or, that they are "personally opposed to redefining marriage?"

Should there be linkage between what we claim to believe and what we actually do?

AP reports that President Obama has already threatened to veto the legislation, calling it "An assault on a woman's rights" ---underscoring again why we must have a pro-life president.

But is it enough for a candidate to tell us he or she is "personally pro-life" or "personally pro-natural marriage?"

Kristi Burton Brown asks the same question this week. She says a couple of years ago she wrote an article titled, "There is no such thing as being 'personally pro-life'." That article is linked in the article linked above.

In revisiting the question this week she asks, "Is it possible to be 'personally pro-life'?", raising a question I think is worthy of some thought by biblical Christians and conservatives.

Her comments were directed at the moral issue of abortion. She says "since abortion seems to be a hard topic to wrap ourselves around these days, let's bring up a few easy ones."

Is it good enough to be "personally pro-consent" when it comes to rape? 
Is it good enough to be "personally pro-designated driver" when it comes to drunk driving? 
Is it good enough to be "personally pro-paying for what I buy" when it comes to theft?

Most likely we will take the right action in these situations. But some do not.

"But," she says, "if we think its important enough for women to have to consent to sex and not be raped, why wouldn't we support a law about that? If we think we would never drink and drive because it puts innocent lives at risk, why wouldn't we support outlawing it? "

Brown says if something is truly important, societies usually put the weight of the law behind the convictions. You can read the rest of her article linked above. It is directed at the abortion issue.

But it has a wider application.

She says, "It's not just wrong for me to kill this 6-7 week-old-baby; its wrong for anybody to kill her."
If a value is only a "personal" belief, requiring no action on the part of the person who believes it, is it a value at all? Or is it simply a position at this particular time?

Secular progressives, who do not believe in absolutes, are fond of asking, "What right do you have to force your religious (or moral) beliefs on me? Or others?

That has often been sufficient to silence the conservative Christian. Conservatives and Christians, however, are becoming more informed. And more vigilant. And more discerning.

Politicians are also fond of saying, "I personally believe in the sanctity of life, but I do feel a woman should have a legal right to choose to have an abortion." Or. "I personally believe in marriage between one man and one woman, however I do believe in equality--people have a right to love whom they choose"---or something close to that.

But can you actually believe in the sanctity of life and simultaneously believe in a woman's right to have an abortion?

Same on marriage, and all moral issues.

Brown says, "Either I'm pro-slavery or I'm pro-freedom. Either I'm pro-rape or I'm pro-consent. Either I'm pro-abortion or I'm pro-life. There's nothing 'personal about it'."

This "personal" posture, especially with politicians, is merely an attempt to have it both ways. It opens the door to more easily "evolve" on moral issues that are biblically absolute. Secular progressives have no fixed moral compass because ethics and morality is relative to your circumstances.

Lack of conviction is often disguised as compassion.

Today the House of Representatives, with a strong Republican majority, will begin the debate on HR 36, the "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act."

Planned Parenthood has been working the halls of Congress trying to get this bill defeated since Congress convened a few days ago. We know where they stand. They have very strong convictions regarding a woman's right to kill an unwanted unborn child.

But where will those folks whom we elected stand? Those who perhaps told the public, "Well, I personally am pro-life or pro-marriage."

Will they "personally" be pro-life, but feel the need to honor a woman's right to choose, masking their deception behind a veil of compassion, or will they really be pro-life?

The Bible speaks to the issue of being without conviction. It also speaks to the relationship between a person's beliefs and their actions.

Consider this:

  • A double minded man is unstable in all his ways (James 1:8).
  • Purify your hearts you double minded (James 4:8).
  • Faith by itself, without works is dead. A body without a spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead (James 2:14, 26).

The Greek word translated "double minded" in your Bible occurs only in the book of James and literally means "one who has two souls" and is applicable to the person who has no settled principles.

Be Informed. Be Discerning. Be Vigilant. Be Prayerful. Be Pro-Active. Be Blessed.


  1. If they would just humble themselves, get together, talk about what abortion really is, then pray in sincerity and truth, and ask God what his opinion is on the if they really needed to ask. I'm sure many already know, and they can help the others, if they would only gather themselves together in his name, for his purposes in Christ Jesus. There's a need to get real isn't there? Let's pray for them.

  2. I believe it's important for them to go as far as they can get against abortion, even if that means agreeing with something that only goes most of the way, but not all of the way, if the alternative, when realistically and honestly accessed, would be a complete failure to do anything to stop abortions. Not much later they can pick up the fight again, and keep on keeping on.

    What this means is making the best decisions that are in front of you day by day, and keep on doing that. It means learning to walk.

    If people can get used to the idea of stopping the majority of abortions, and that becomes a common way of life, maybe then they will find those that are willing to go further.

  3. What comes to mind is what Jesus said about letting our yes be yes and our no be no. Whatever is more than that, he said, comes of evil. (see Matt 5:37)

  4. You would have to be double minded to vote for this bill. If you believe that abortion is the taking of a human life why would you vote for stopping the carnage only after 20 weeks . It would take a person with no settled principles to in effect say abortion is OK up to 20 weeks. Another problem is why is this a federal matter? As James Madison said the legislative limits of Congress are enumerated in Article 2 of the Constitution and abortion is not listed there. Instead of violating Article 2 and Amendment 10 Congress should apply Article 3 and overturn Roe vs. Wade.

  5. Not only do you guys have a problem with women voters in general, now you're even too extreme for the women in your own party. Don't change a thing!!!!

    1. Or maybe we're right where we ought to be for the unborn children.

    2. Don't change a thing!

  6. About requiring the crime of the rape to be reported - Insurance companies will not cover loss of property by theft until the crime is reported. I guess that makes them unfeeling as well, requiring someone who has already had the humiliation of being the victim of the theft, also to report that victimisation to the police.

    1. I just heard something on the news tonight about lots of "rape kits" the Seattle police have which may contain DNA, which have not been sent in to be processed, many apparently because the apparent rape victim did not want to be involved any further. Now apparently these kits are going to be processed for DNA and possibly identifying some people. What this all means, I'm not sure.

      Even in rape cases, it seems to me that if a pregnancy occurs the mother ought not to be allowed by law to abort the child. I believe she ought to be able to give it up for adoption if she wishes. I believe the life of the child should be saved. I think a good mother would like to do that only for the sake of the child who did no wrong in the matter, and should not have to have it's life ended for something it had nothing to do with. I think that if the father could be identified, he should be held financially and legally accountable.


Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.