Tuesday, February 28, 2006

Communists Advocate Separation of Church & State

February 28, 2006

For most of the past generation, we have heard the mantra of “separation of church and state”. It is such a common phrase that one could be excused for assuming the language was part of our historical heritage – words from the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution itself. But of course they do not appear in those hallowed documents.

No, they are words carefully crafted by America’s Left to intimidate, confuse and clear the field of problematic moral principles.

I was struck by that thought after reading a news report out of Hong Kong. The Pope has just honored Bishop Joseph Zen by naming him a Cardinal of the Catholic Church. Apparently this man has been a thorn in the side of the communist Chinese government for some time now. They issued a statement in response to his promotion, warning the new Cardinal not to mix religion with politics.

“We advocate that religious figures should not interfere with politics,” said a spokesman for China’s foreign ministry.

Sound familiar?

I bring this story to your attention because it throws a unique light on the history and roots of this attack on Christian influence in public policy debates. At least in western societies, that attack is a rather recent phenomenon. The fact is, Christianity has had a fundamental influence on the whole development of human rights, democracy and limited government. Our history is dominated by Christian leadership, inspired by the Bible to protect the dignity of the individual.

It is a heritage we must fight to defend.

Meanwhile, the new Cardinal responded to the Chinese government by saying that he is too old, at 70, to change and will continue to advocate for democratic reform and religious freedom. We pray the Lord’s blessing and protection on him.

Monday, February 27, 2006

March of Dimes Seeks Congressional Largesse

The Elliot Institute, headed by Dr. David Reardon, has just issued a report critical of the March of Dimes. That once noble organization is pressing members of Congress to finance something they call “The Preemie Act”. It would expand federal funding of research, education and health services in an effort to reduce premature births.

The March of Dimes itself reports that the number of preterm births has risen by some 27% over the past twenty five years – but continues to posture behind an official expression of puzzlement. Dr. Nancy Green, Medical Director for the March of Dimes, calls the increase “a mystery”.

But there is not much mystery here at all – except that the March of Dimes continues to hold credibility with anyone interested in actually solving this very serious problem.

One must believe that an organization supposedly dedicated to improving the lives and health of preborn children would be well aware of the mountainous volume of research showing that abortion is a primary cause of premature delivery in subsequent pregnancies.

In fact, there are at least 48 such studies already in print. Brent Rooney, Director of the Coalition to Reduce Preterm Risk has reported that the British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology has alone published 4 articles in the past 7 years showing that an abortion history substantially raises the risk of a future premature baby.

But what is more: premature births have been conclusively linked to things like cerebral palsy and mental retardation.

You might think the March of Dimes would be pretty worried about that; but it is hard to conclude anything but that these folks are primarily concerned with funding themselves.

Sunday, February 26, 2006

Feinstein Seeks to Block Randy Smith

We have often talked about the profound challenges posed to Idaho’s pro-Life Movement because of the oppressive politics practiced by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. This structural problem undermines Idaho’s self-governance. Our problems are compounded, of course, by the presence of a dominating liberal Democrat on our own district court bench.

But we’re not the only ones to recognize this court system as a serious problem. Even Republicans like Mike Simpson have expended considerable energy to free Idaho from the clutches of the 9th Circuit. That congressman has worked for several years to create a new circuit court.

Our situation is exacerbated by the fact that liberals in the Senate have blocked the nomination of William Meyers; he would be the only Idaho judge on the panel. In other words, we now have not a single person on the circuit court. California has 14, and is about to get 2 more.

That will help you appreciate the outrageousness of a move by California Democrats Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer to block President Bush’s nomination of a second Idahoan to the 9th Circuit. They claim it would be “unfair” for Idaho to get another judge on the panel; they are demanding that Bush nominate instead another Californian.

The dispute centers on Bush’s nomination of Idaho’s state District Judge Randy Smith; this respected jurist now serves the Pocatello area.

Senators Crapo and Craig have vowed to battle the California Democrats, arguing that the great number of California judges on the 9th Circuit gives that state about a 90% chance of having at least one Californian on any case in front of the appeals court.

What’s really at stake here, of course, is the absolute stranglehold these two liberal senators have on the fate of the West. And the heart of their agenda is defending abortion rights.

U.N. Report Exposes Lie of “Back Alley Abortions”

LifeNews.Com made a startling report this week about a U.N. report on abortion. It is a news bit which may help right the great wrong of legalized abortion.

The United Nations Population Division – a hotbed for abortion politics – has released a study of the impact legalized abortion has on maternal deaths. In short, nations with legalized abortion have not produced lower mortality rates than those nations which have held the line on legalizing abortion.

The data is part of a larger report called “World Mortality Report: 2005”. It is the first report of its kind, and details infant and maternal deaths for each country.

In the United States for example, there are about 17 maternal deaths for each 100,000 live births. But the rate is actually lower in Ireland and Poland, for example, which have remained hostile to legalized abortion.

And the point of this data?

Let’s remember one of the primary selling-points of the Abortion Lobby: Criminalizing abortion drives women to commit abortions on themselves, or to seek “back-alley abortions” which are lethal to women. Back in the ‘60s, groups like NARAL claimed 5000 women died each year because abortion was illegal. We know from the testimony of an insider, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, that those numbers were just made up.

Now we have hard numbers to prove Nathanson’s claim. After all, if the theories of the abortion crowd were true – we would expect to see much higher rates of maternal death in nations without legalized abortion.

As the debate over Roe v. Wade intensifies, as new court cases come before a more conservative Supreme Court – you can bet big money that Planned Parenthood and the rest of the Abortion Lobby will hold up coat hangers and peddle fear. This U.N. report gives us data to carry the day; in fact, it may even help persuade the Supreme Court that its blind belief that abortion is necessary to protect women’s health is just plain wrong.

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Cancer Society Makes Nod to ABC Link

February 22, 2006

Cancer Society Makes Nod to ABC Link

Yesterday’s story was about the American Psychological Association’s political treatment of abortion. Despite contentions over decades that abortion poses no substantial harm to women and girls – some of the truth has finally been revealed. Dr. Nancy Russo, in speaking for the association to a reporter, flatly declared that, “it doesn’t matter what the evidence says” about harms to women; the profession’s support of abortion is not a matter of health policy, or of what is good for mothers – but politics.

This is a very important development – because the American Psychological Association has been at the fore-front of abortion rights since 1969. It continues to file briefs in court cases, and lobbies against things like Parental Consent in state legislatures. All under the guise of practicing “medicine”.

But the corruption of medicine certainly doesn’t end there.

We’ve received a press release from the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer challenging the politics of the American Cancer Society. The Cancer Society declared progress last week because, for the first time in some 75 years, the number of cancer deaths in America declined a bit. Most of that decline is the result of lower smoking rates.

But Karen Malec of the Abortion/Breast Cancer Coalition berated the organization because the number of deaths from breast cancer continue to rise. And the Cancer Society is part of the establishment keeping women and girls in the dark about research linking abortion to breast cancer.

Still – even here, there is another glimmer of light: Malec reports that the Cancer Society now has the following information on its website:

“Much of the underlying increase in breast cancer … is due to historical changes in reproductive patterns, such as delayed childbearing and having fewer children.”

Wow. They don’t use the “A” word – but abortion is clearly the single greatest change in women’s reproductive patterns over the past forty years. Maybe there’s hope for the medical community. More importantly, there is reason to hope that edifice of lies built around abortion rights is beginning to crack.

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Abortion About Politics

February 21, 2006

Abortion About Politics, Not Women’s Health

There’s been some important fall-out to a story we told you about last week – the New Zealand study on girls and abortion. This study used the medical records of some 500 girls over the course of 25 years. That is possible because of the socialized medical system used in that nation.

Anyway, a team of “pro-choice” researchers were rather shocked to find that serious mental and emotional problems ensued for girls who committed abortion. They were shocked because of their political agenda – but also because of the conventional wisdom within the mental health industry. They decided to review a number of studies cited by the American Psychological Association, which has officially claimed that abortion is beneficial or, at least, not harmful to women’s mental health.

This New Zealand team concluded that the APA had largely ignored research like theirs, and relied instead on studies with serious scientific problems to support their political agenda.

A reporter for the Washington Times was curious enough about the controversy that he called the American Psychological Association for comment. They sent him to Dr. Nancy Russo – a well known advocate for abortion. She told the Times that the APA position on abortion was established on the belief that it is a civil right – not as a question of health policy. Therefore, she said, research like that of the New Zealand team is “not relevant” to question of whether abortion should be restricted. In short – don’t confuse us with the facts. The nation’s mental health professional have made a blatantly political decision to support abortion, regardless of the harm to women.

That is truly an unbelievable admission – one we’ve long suspected – to have from the lips of the nation’s leading association of mental health professionals. It demonstrates in the most concrete way the politicization of medicine, the corrupting influence of abortion on the nation’s health care providers.

Monday, February 20, 2006

Death Penalty Order Focuses on Medical “Mis-Ethics”

I received a fascinating press release from a group called “Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty”, obviously an anti-death penalty group based in California. They are pretty worked up about a recent ruling by U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel in that state.

He has issued a ruling that California must either change the drugs they use in executions – or have an anesthesiologist present in the execution chamber to monitor the prisoner.

That all seems rather strange to me, but that’s not the subject of my curiosity.

What intrigues me is that his order has generated a blistering response by some in the medical community, who argue that it would be unethical for a doctor to participate in the execution of a prisoner sentenced to capital punishment.

Dr. Jonathan Groner, a professor at Ohio State College of Medicine, has issued a statement saying that any physician who participated in an execution would be violating the ethical standards of the American Medical Association. The guidelines state that a physician is “a member of a profession dedicated to preserving life…”

Dr. Groner goes on to argue that “physicians are supposed to be healers, not killers….No patient should ever have to receive treatment from a doctor who participates in executions.

That view makes a lot of sense of to me. Regardless of one’s position on the death penalty, the question of requiring doctors to participate in the killing is a separate matter.

And that is where my wonder begins: Why are these folks up in arms about the death penalty – but have no qualms about “doctors” who violate these same ethics by killing preborn children for bags of cash? Why are abortionists afforded professional treatment?

Obviously it is because the ethics of our modern medical profession are sorely compromised by the politics of the day.

Friday, February 17, 2006

Clinton Hung by Her Own Crocheted Noose

I ran across a news story laced with dark humor to share today.

Sen. Rick Santorum, one of the mighty men of the U.S. Senate, recently told the story of his floor battle with Senator Hillary Clinton over the Ban on Partial Birth Abortions.

Santorum used visual aids, including posters on the floor to describe in some detail what is involved with the killing of a child during the very process of birth. Clinton objected, claiming the pictures were somehow inaccurate. As a ploy to relieve tension in the chamber, and to help distract the media – Clinton asked Santorum why he was not showing photos of the deformed and disabled babies. These “hard cases”, Clinton challenged, were the vast majority of cases where the Partial Birth Abortion procedure was used.

Santorum, who is clearly pretty quick on his feet, said that he would be happy to use such photos. But it wouldn’t make any difference to him, Santorum said, because there is no difference between a “perfect” baby and one with disabilities. Pro-Life champions do not see a difference between people simply because of their health problems or age.

Clinton clearly felt her self-crocheted noose tightening: She said that she respected the right of women to abort babies with disabilities – but at the same time, she claimed, “I want the record to be clear that I value every single person.”

Santorum responded, “I will let the record speak for itself.”

Indeed. The record of liberals speaks volumes. Those who claim to be friends of the disabled lead a movement to kill thousands of them in the womb. Those who claim to champion minority rights also lead a death machine that kills most black babies in the womb.

But most of all, the Clinton record shows a person willing to value some of the people some of the time. It just depends on the politics.

Thursday, February 16, 2006

Some GOP’ers Backtrack on Terri Schiavo

Here’s a disturbing story from Florida. In a news show this last weekend, the Sun Sentinel reports that Republican Mel Martinez declared that he had made a mistake when he pressed to save Terri Schiavo’s life. He was just elected to the U.S. Senate as a pro-Life Republican, but now he thinks that intervening to save Terri from a death-by-starvation was wrong. It should have remained a state court matter, he says, and the federal courts really shouldn’t have been brought into it.

Terri died a year ago next March.

Now Martinez has a rather sordid history in the matter. Internal staff memos were made public as the case hung in the courts in which staff memos described Terri’s case “as a great political issue”.

Martinez’ repentance comes just two weeks after Majority Leader Bill Frist publicly declared that he, too, was wrong to intervene to help Terri. He has been looking at polling data, I guess, which raises concerns for him.

It is clear that both men are having trouble finding the moral center. Both seem to view the protection of human life as a matter of political convenience. Which tells us quite a bit about why things are moving so slowly on questions like preventing the transport of girls across state lines to outwit state parental consent laws. Or why funding for Planned Parenthood keeps escalating.

This is not the first hint that Frist is having trouble grasping fundamental pro-Life principles. He has also gone soft on the question of providing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

It is clear our national leaders need greater prayer.

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

Study Documents Damage to Girls

The National Center for Policy Analysis has issued a press release, bringing attention to a major study on the impact of abortion on teenage girls and young women.

The study comes out of New Zealand, and has been published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry just this past January. It was headed by a team of scientists led by Professor David Fergusson.

While this is not exactly new information, the methodology and clarity of findings should help compel legislators and even judges to assess anew the damage being done by unfettered access to abortion.

The New Zealand team studied a group of young women for mental health issues. They were aged between 15 and 25. About 41% of this group became pregnant. 14.6% of the whole group had an abortion. Those girls choosing abortion had substantial problems with depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviors and drug abuse.

Fergusson found that girls who not gotten pregnant had a 31% chance of suffering major depression. Those who became pregnant, but did not kill their babies had a 36% rate of depression. But girls who committed abortion experienced major depression at an astonishing 79%. The trend lines were similar for suicidal thoughts and behavior.

In rebutting previous studies which have found similar problems with abortion – some have argued that one cannot say for sure that abortion was responsible. Maybe they were having problems beforehand. But Fergusson and his team eliminated those possibilities by studying girls before-and-after.

This report should put pressure on the Idaho Legislature to get our Parental Consent Law back on line. I ask for your prayers and calls to legislators. It is time to restore protection for Idaho’s daughters.

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

South Dakota House Votes to Ban Abortion

The South Dakota House of Representatives overwhelmingly gave approval last week to a bill that would ban nearly all abortions in that state. The vote was 47 for, 22 against House Bill 1215.

Sponsors of the legislation, led by State Representative Roger Hunt, hope the legislation is a viable strategy for challenging Roe v. Wade. Hunt answered critics by saying that the time was right to challenge Roe. “It is important, I believe, at this time in our history, to protect the lives of the unborn,” Hunt said during debate.

Numerous attempts were made to amend the bill, including language to provide exceptions for rape, incest and health of the mother. Those amendments were rejected.

Hunt also had to deal with several arguments about the costs and wisdom of challenging Roe. He was able to announce that a private citizen had committed $1 million to pay for the cost of litigation. And for those critics, some in the “pro-Life” community, who argue that the timing of such an action is unwise – Hunt pointed to the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito and the suspected resignation of several pro-abort justices in coming months.

More importantly, the question before the pro-Life community is this: When will be the time to prepare a direct assault on Roe?

The South Dakota legislation provides for criminal prosecution of any abortionist who performs an abortion in the state. Those who do can be sentenced to prison for up to five years. The only exception is performing an abortion to save a mother’s life.

We’ll keep you appraised….

Monday, February 13, 2006

Planned Parenthood’s Agenda for Our Kids

Last week we talked with you about the expansion of Planned Parenthood into Nampa. They are building a bridgehead into this community right across the street from the Nampa High School.

Most of our listeners don’t have Planned Parenthood operations in their communities. (Praise the Lord for that.) Perhaps you have only a vague idea as to how noxious an organism this is.

Our friends at the American Life League have issued a report on various Planned Parenthood activities around the nation.

In Massachusetts, Planned Parenthood is pushing a bill in that legislature which would mandate, as in force, every public school child to participate in a “Comprehensive Health Education Program”. The bill requires students take classes on such topics as abortion, sexuality, birth control and sexual identity. Proposed curriculum dictates that children as young as five must be able to identify various components and functions of the reproductive system; and “define sexual orientation using correct terminology”.

Or consider the weekly gatherings sponsored by Planned Parenthood of Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Once a week, they invite kids, 14 to 21, to meetings of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning and “allied” youth for education and socializing.

In case you didn’t catch all that – this program is designed to enculturate kids into the world of sexual deviancy. That is a core part of Planned Parenthood’s agenda for our kids, for our society. In a healthy society, this organization would be recognized as an obvious threat to the community, a harbor for young men to prey upon the immature and fragile. But in modern America, we have government leaders actually forcing taxpayers to support such an assault on the innocence of our children.

Friday, February 10, 2006

Bush Builds Legacy in Lives Spared

We talked yesterday about the victory handed Planned Parenthood by the socialist government of Great Britain. They did it as something of an answer to President Bush’s refusal to use American tax money to finance abortions in foreign countries. England’s action is undoubtedly evil – but it also highlights one of numerous things for which George Bush is to be commended.

Just this year, the President used the State of the Union address to challenge Congress and the nation on the matter of human cloning. As numerous states sell themselves to repeat the tragic mistakes of the South Korean government – the President declared that Congress ought to meet the dire abuse of science and medial research. Congress should enact a national ban on cloning – including the creation of embryos just so their stem cells can be harvested.

The President’s use of his bully pulpit to educate and lead is probably his single greatest contribution to the pro-Life movement.

But this is not the only work for which he should be heralded.

Concerned Women of America has compiled a list of the President’s contributions. Our U.N. delegation has led the world in providing pro-Life leadership. He has preached and supported abstinence education; and in 2001, the President instituted a federal ban on funding for stem cell research. He signed a Ban on Partial Birth Abortions, and the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.

Bush also issued an Executive Order allowing preborn children to participate in the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which has yet to benefit Idaho’s babies and mothers because of sorry political leadership at the Statehouse.

And then there is the overriding matter of his appointments to the federal bench.

But the President is building a legacy which is ultimately not to be measured in laws or speeches, but in lives spared.

Wednesday, February 08, 2006

Planned Parenthood Expands Into Nampa

Planned Parenthood of Idaho has struck again, expanding its territory of prey. This past Saturday, Planned Parenthood opened a new satellite office in Nampa, right across the street from the Nampa High School.

The location alone tells us everything about who Planned Parenthood is hunting: young people who can be easily seduced into taking action on the “easy sex” message of the organization. These kids then become customers for the many services Planned Parenthood now offers Idaho youth – including abortions at the new Boise offices of Planned Parenthood.

They were greeted by about a hundred pro-Lifers as they opened their doors for sordid business on Saturday. Folks are at work to make sure that they are greeted again on Saturday, March 4th – when Planned Parenthood again holds their offering.

This new operation is part of an aggressive marketing strategy by Planned Parenthood of Idaho to build market share. They call it “Planned Parenthood Without Walls”. Basically they are looking to establish a foothold in new communities by renting office space at existing doctors’ offices. The first to work is now in Nampa. And the families and children of this conservative community will pay a steep price.

But in this case, Planned Parenthood had a good deal of help. They opened this so-called “clinic” with a grant they received from a group of Boise “do-gooders” called the “Idaho Women’s Charitable Foundation”. This is a group of wealthy women who feel called upon to finance groups like Planned Parenthood. Among the more prominent are Cathy Silak, of Supreme Court fame and Velma Morrison, Alice Hennessey, Debra Guth and Diane Myklegard.

Perhaps we should send them a thank you note.

Pro-Aborts Getting a Bit Cranky

Many of us have sensed that things are looking up in the struggle to defend preborn children. Polling numbers indicate stronger convictions about babies in the womb. At least nationally, abortion numbers are on the decline. And, as we said in previous reports to you – data is emerging which shows more women are choosing to give life to their babies, even in situations in where the pregnancy was not planned.

And, then of course, there is the Alito confirmation.

But perhaps the most compelling evidence of pro-Life momentum comes from the Abortion Lobby. They are clearly getting a bit cranky, even militant.

Take the statements coming from Illinois. The National Organization for Women in that state is pushing a “Freedom of Choice Act” in the General Assembly. The act would ensure that abortion remains legal in Illinois, even if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.

“We’ve all kind of rested a bit because we were dependent on the courts,” said Bonnie Grabenhofer in an interview with the Illinois Journal Register. “The federal courts have been keeping some of the restrictions in tow. But now we’re scared.”

And the NOW chapter has also issued threats to its Democrat pals in the state: They made it publicly clear that they are going to be reconsidering endorsements of politicians if they balk at defending abortion rights in Illinois.

What this all means for us is that we need to recognize that opportunity is knocking. The enemies of preborn children realize this as well. They are busy organizing at the state level in preparation for what was once unthinkable: the repeal of federal protection for abortion-on-demand.

PBA Ban Primed for New Supreme Court Review

It is no big surprise – but our infamous 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban enacted by Congress in 2003. The three judges – one of whom just happened to be the notorious Judge Stephen Reinhardt of Pledge of Allegiance fame – wrote that they had tried very hard to find a way to uphold the law, but alas, they were forced to invalidate the entire statute.

Forgive me if I am less than convinced by this liberal’s protests.

But I don’t want to waste your time reviewing the whole sordid history of the 9th Circuit or Judge Reinhardt.

On the same day that the 9th Circuit issued its stay so did the 2nd Circuit also issued an injunction. That, too, is not surprising. The lower courts are pretty much stuck with a previous ruling by the Supreme Court in 2000 on the PBA.

What interests me is the dissent by Judge Chester Straub of the 2nd Circuit. He wrote that the federal courts should show some respect for the legislative findings of Congress, who found that the partial birth abortion procedure is never necessary to protect the health of a woman. Congress found that the three-day-long procedure can actually harm a woman’s health.

Even more to the point: “I find the current expansion of the right to terminate a pregnancy to cover a child in the process of being born morally, ethically and legally unacceptable,” wrote Judge Straub.

And even the majority opinion from the 2nd Circuit challenged the Supreme Court to provide better guidelines on abortion law: “Is it too much to hope for a better approach to the law of abortion – one that accommodates the reasonable policy judgments of Congress and the state legislatures …?” wonders Chief Judge John Walker.


Friday, February 03, 2006

Alito’s Confirmation

Now that Judge Alito has been confirmed by the U.S. Senate, it becomes more rational to talk about the end of Roe v. Wade. Of course, we will not know how Samuel Alito will comport himself on the highest court. There are some in the pro-Life community who believe he is destined to be a disappointment. They point to his rulings as an appellate judge, in which he seemingly supported Roe. But what those critics fail to acknowledge is the fact that judges are under oath to uphold the findings of superior courts.

Still – we will not know until the moment comes.

But let’s assume that he votes pro-Life. That would seemingly give us four solid pro-Life votes on the Court. Justice Kennedy becomes a pivotal vote on crucial cases. As we’ve mentioned before, he has traditionally not been with us. It would seem that the President needs another vote on the Court.

We are not the only ones beginning to contemplate the end of abortion-as-constitutional-right. A recent news story indicates that some in the Abortion Lobby believe that “Roe will be dismantled” – at least in the short term. Nancy Keenan, President of NARAL, predicts that Alito will help pull the Court to the right.

John Green a senior research fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Policy predicts that the next ten years could bring a series of changes to abortion law. Thus, our work these next few years in the Idaho Legislature could prove of great importance to the well-being of America’s families.

We ask for your prayers.

Thursday, February 02, 2006

Indiana Bill Challenges Assumption of Roe

A House committee in the Indiana Legislature just approved a bill that would declare human life begins at conception. That single legislative finding, if it becomes law, poses a simple and direct challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Roe v. Wade opinion made the point, on the way to legalizing abortion, that if these little creatures in a mother’s womb were human beings – then clearly they would be protected by the U.S. Constitution.

These same bunch of folks went on to protest that settling the issue of when life begins was simply beyond their wisdom.

I have long been annoyed by this feigned modesty. The Supreme Court had no qualms about its wisdom in sentencing millions to death – overturning centuries of protection for preborn children – but it couldn’t figure out where babies come from. How convenient for them.

The Court’s disingenuous modesty is like an enticing invitation for the Congress and state legislatures. For over thirty years, our legislative bodies have failed to respond to the question of when life begins. After all, state legislatures have codified the definition of death – so it makes sense that legislatures can consider scientific testimony to issue official findings on the beginning of life.

The Abortion Lobby is howling madly back in Indiana. They claim that the legislation defining life – and requiring that women be told about that finding before they commit abortion – is a violation of church/state separation. They claim there is nothing but theological whimsy for declaring that human life begins at conception.

While the Bible certainly supports that claim – we need only look to the compelling story of human experience and the scientific evidence.

We’ll watch developments in this crucial state.

Sleep Disorders Plague Post-Abortive Women

Yet another story about the consequences of abortion. A new study published in the medical journal, Sleep, the official journal of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies, found that post abortive women have greater trouble with healthy sleep than those women who allow their babies to live.

Post abortive women are more likely to be treated for sleep disorders than women who do not carry the burden of an abortion history – those are the findings of a very intense study conducted by Drs. David Reardon and Priscilla Coleman. Coleman is a professor at the University of Bowling Green.

The two researchers studied the actual medical records of some 56,000 women from California who gave birth or committed abortion in the first six months of 1986. After building this pool of women, Coleman and Reardon followed their medical history through 1994.

They found that up to four years after an abortion – post-abortive women were more likely to suffer sleep disorders, similar to people who suffer serious trauma. The problem was most intense in the first six months following an abortion. And these are not minor disorders – but ones in which the problem was sufficiently acute that the women actually sought medical treatment.

At first blush this may not seem like such a big deal. And certainly it is not as serious as the death of the baby, or even the long list of serious health risks associated with abortion – like breast cancer or increased risk of later preterm births.

But good sleep is essential to good health. More to the point: widespread sleep disorders are a powerful indicator of the spiritual and emotional damage done to the mother. Like our mothers used to tell us – a guilty conscience does not make for peaceful sleep.