Not Viable for Life but Viable for Sale

If “fetal tissue” is the woman’s right to destroy, should she not be reimbursed for the parts of the baby that are sold?  Would it not make sense that the body of the destroyed baby belongs to the mother and therefore she should be paid for giving these body parts to the clinic or at the very least offset the cost of the surgical procedure of the abortion?  If a body part is good enough to harvest and sell, dead, then how is it not of more value intact and alive? Why is there more value in piecing out a baby’s body, then in the infinite value of a living child?  But wait, it is ILLEGAL to sell body parts, not to mention IMMORAL.

The much talked about undercover video produced by Center for Medical Progress interviewed Dr. Deborah Nucatola, the senior director of medical services, over lunch.  She shared the need for these body parts in medical research. She is heard on the video saying, “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact…”  She also discusses the estimated dollar amounts for various body parts, admitting the illegality of selling parts, yet also seemingly looking for reasons to get around the law.

§274e. Prohibition of organ purchases

(a) Prohibition

It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human organ for valuable consideration for use in human transplantation if the transfer affects interstate commerce. The preceding sentence does not apply with respect to human organ paired donation.

(b) Penalties

Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(c) Definitions

For purposes of subsection (a) of this section:

(1) The term “human organ” means the human (including fetal) kidney, liver, heart, lung, pancreas, bone marrow, cornea, eye, bone, and skin or any subpart thereof and any other human organ (or any subpart thereof, including that derived from a fetus) specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services by regulation.

Planned Parenthood’s rebuttal statement was as follows:

“In health care, patients sometimes want to donate tissue to scientific research that can help lead to medical breakthroughs, treatments and cures for serious diseases. Women at Planned Parenthood who have abortions are no different. At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does — with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards. There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or Planned Parenthood. In some instances, actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue to leading research centers, are reimbursed, which is standard across the medical field. A well-funded group established for the purpose of damaging Planned Parenthood’s mission and services has promoted a heavily edited, secretly recorded videotape that falsely portrays Planned Parenthood’s participation in tissue donation programs that support lifesaving scientific research. Similar false accusations have been put forth by opponents of abortion services for decades. These groups have been widely discredited and their claims fall apart on closer examination, just as they do in this case.”
Because unborn babies are fetal tissue and Planned Parenthood is altruistic, they “…help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research”.  Obviously the tissue belongs to the mother and it is her consent alone that matters in the donation of a heart, liver, leg or head of her unborn child, and thus this is for the greater good.

The full video, unedited can be seen here.
The Center for Medical Progress edited the video to get across their message, that baby body parts are for sale for “scientific research”. Whether one disagrees with their method of procurement of this video dims in light of the greater question of morality. What is more immoral, the undercover nature and editing of this video, the “entrapment”, or the sale of aborted baby body parts?

To Sing or Not to Sing in Church, That is the Question for the Gilroy High School Choir

4efb31eb4f085.imageChoir practice in a church makes sense, unless it is the Gilroy High School choir, which was told it was no longer allowed to utilize church buildings for practices or performances as mandated by the Superintendent, according to Jeremy Tedesco of Alliance Defending Freedom.

Senior Legal Counsel, Jeremy Tedesco, disagrees, “Gilroy Unified School District is wrong to end its longstanding tradition of allowing choir groups to perform in acoustically superior churches, hurting both the musicians and the local community. The choirs are not performing in the churches for any religious reason.”

Gilroy High School choirs have been performing for years in acoustically superior facilities, ranging from a variety of church buildings,  to the South Valley National Bank and the Elks club, to showcase their exceptional talent in the best facilities. The district is updating their facilities and talking to acoustic experts to make their own facilities a better place for the choir to practice, according to Jaime Rosso, Board President of Gilroy Unified School District. The board says it desires the students to use the facilities that are available in the school district.

Yet in the mean time, the choirs miss out on great sounding venues due to a few misguided complaints, and a Superintendent who does not understand the Establishment Clause. In a letter written by Jeremy Tedseco to the School board, he states that the nature of choosing a variety of neutral venues, based on the excellent acoustics upholds the Establishment Clause, and by denying the choir access to these venues, the School District may very  well be violating it.

Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 839 ( “[A] significant factor in upholding governmental programs in the face of Establishment Clause attack is their neutrality towards religioñ’); see also Gaod News Club, 633 U.S. at 114 (“For the `guarantee of neutrality is respected, not offended, when the government, following neutral criteria and evenhanded policies, e~ttende benefits to'” religious and secular beneficiaries alike).

The board is re-evaluating their decision according to Central Coast News and will allow the choirs to practice in whatever facility they desire until the school buildings are renovated and the acoustics meet a higher standard.

Tim Donnelly and Rob Schneider Make Strange Bedfellows

1375916_439283946180400_1314186376_nHear ye! Hear ye! Will the people of California in favor restoring freedom and liberty to this great State, by removing Jerry Brown from his throne say, “Aye”?

This is a call that every Californian, no matter where their political ideology falls, should be able to support. The state of our State is grim, the leadership is negligent and the people are suffering at the hands of a progressive governor and legislature who are not only out of touch with the people, but aloof to the needs of those for whom they work.

We need someone who listens and represents the people. We need leaders who are defined by their actions, as servants of the people, not taskmasters. We need a Governor who has spine and stands up for the everyday citizen who daily rolls out of bed to support his family or the small business woman who dreams of growth, but is hampered by regulations and taxes. California needs a man or woman who will use this position of leadership and authority to move on behalf of the people and not on behalf self or special interest groups.

Is this impossible? Many say that it is, that this state is too far left and entrenched in a socialist agenda that it is past the point of return. Many say the Leviathan has grown too large. The State, however, is the People. The People are the ones who either starve the Leviathan, or feed it by not removing the corrupt caretakers from office. It is truly up to the citizens of California to give an “Aye” vote and replace Governor Brown.

Does anyone meet these demands? Who can rally both sides of the political spectrum to work together to restore this State?

Tim Donnelly, Assemblyman for the 33rd District, has been actively pursuing the hearts and minds of the people in California. He is fairly new to politics, running for Assembly in 2010, but has been successful in Sacramento, gaining unanimous support for his bills. His voting record demonstrates his core beliefs.

For the past year, Donnelly has been out talking with the people of California, listening to their needs and sharing his hope for California. In a conference call, he shared his strategy on garnering support. He said, “No one has really attempted a real grassroots campaign, a year solid, building out an infrastructure. I am grass-rooting business owners. One of the things that will help me is that I take an extremely strong position on the issues. (Such as) Immigration and the 2nd Amendment….” He gave numerous accounts on issues that both parties can get behind, and therefore where he can gain support. Single-issue voters can find a voice in Donnelly. He is willing to use his position as a bully pulpit to get the message out, and hammer away at the issue until there is resolution.

Conservatism and Hollywood generally don’t come together, they are more like archenemies, than playground buddies, yet early in October, Rob Schneider of Saturday Night Live fame endorsed Tim Donnelly. Schneider is a life-long Democrat.  He is giving his support to Donnelly in an all out effort to save California. He told the Washington Times, “As a lifelong Democrat, I am horrified by what’s happening in this State with the Democrat Supermajority now in the legislature in California. The Democrats in my party have abandoned me, and so I have abandoned them…..It’s not about being a Republican, it’s not about being a Democrat … it’s about doing what’s best for the State of California.”

Donnelly  finished his interview saying, “Most think this battle is impossible. It is an uphill battle. All I can say, that if the original Founders felt that way, we would not have a Country. I feel that about California, something has changed in the air. People who have money are sitting down with me. Sometimes we were born for such a time as this. There is nobody else in this state who wants to fight it. I understand the media gorilla warfare, I do. I think that this is one of those times that you have a message that appeals to people’s hearts, the message transcends political party.”

Photo Credit: Tim Donnelly Facebook

The School Success and Opportunity Act aka California’s Transgender Student Bill

ab-1266-dunk3Once again, my dear state of California has stepped out in what some call ground breaking legislation, paving the way for other states to follow.  It is ground breaking for certain, even earth shaking, which is apropos, coming from earthquake prone California.  Governor Brown has signed AB1266 into law, which “gives students the right “to participate in sex-segregated programs, activities and facilities” based on their self-perception and regardless of their birth gender.” This K-12 legislation will take effect in January 2014, but will face many lawsuits stemming from it implementation.

“They will be able to participate in activities, consistent with their gender identity…. rather than singling kids out specifically who are transgender identified, this is a way for them to feel like, they are just like their peers. They are treated exactly the same way” stated an advocate on a interview.  Yet, this legislation, which helps such a small minority in comparison to the overall population of school children, does not in fact treat the students exactly the same but creates a legislative niche for the few, amongst the majority, whose voice has been muffled over the din of the organizations which have supported it.  For the transgender student who has had to deal with the struggle of which bathroom to use, the individual school district should make arrangements and not make it a big government mandate.

Proponents claim that this legislation will help with bullying, yet I submit that we have only seen the beginning of bullying that this legislation will ultimately foster.  Because the language of the legislation does not require bona fide evidence that one is transgender, any student may decide to be transgender for the day, giving them license to enter the opposite sex’ bathroom and locker room at will.  Bullying at it’s worst will happen.  I can imagine initiations and hazings to benefit from this law, where the perpetrators can cry protection under it’s umbrella, while the victim will be forever violated by what was supposedly meant to protect students.  Imagine showering after physical education, or a track meet with your fellow athlete, only to discover one’s body parts don’t match.  Imagine the junior high girl who has just gotten her period, walking out to find a junior high boy washing his hands in your once private sanctuary.  Imagine the 7th grade boy, hormonal, confused and naked with a bunch of girls, eager to humiliate the kid they are forced to shower with. The restroom, a place of escape and privacy, is now a facility of discomfort and embarrassment for all who don’t embrace this law. Bullying will take on an entirely new meaning.

According to, Randy Thompson of, says the law would “damage” kids.

“This radical bill warps the gender expectations of children by forcing all California public schools to permit biological boys in girls restrooms, showers, clubs and on girls sports teams and biological girls in boys restrooms, showers, clubs and sports teams,” Thomasson said. “This is insanity.”

The very kids which this legislation was intended to “help”, will ultimately hurt all and the indoctrination of the youngest child “protected” by this law is perhaps the most heinous aspect.   What parent really supports telling their kindergarten boy that his gender identity, his penis, doesn’t matter now, and that if a little girl comes into his bathroom, he is just to be polite and ignore her?  The confusion that will occur at school for the elementary age child, a place where learning and play should be the priority, cannot be understated.  No longer is grammar school about reading, writing and arithmetic, but for the promotion of extreme propaganda, with the intent to inoculate young children to this radical agenda.

Parents of public school kids must have a new conversation with their children.  No longer is the golden rule enough, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, but rather the new rule, “avert your eyes when your transgender peer comes into your locker room or bathroom”.   “It’s not polite to stare” takes on a new meaning under AB1266.  No longer does the benign question, “how was your day at school” have an equally benign answer, as parents could have in response “fine, until a six foot tall man walked into the bathroom while I was changing.”  This is what progress looks like?

The supporters of this law have cataracts that cloud their mental vision and ultimately their ability to see the unintended consequences of the legislation.  They blindly lead their followers to the answer the seems to be the best, without regard for the whole of society.  It is “all about them” and their desires, without reflecting on how to meet the need they represent with the least amount of damage and disturbance to the rest of society.  If the need is a bathroom for the transgender student, then give them a bathroom, like a family restroom one finds at a department store.  If the transgender student wants to play on the opposite sex’ sports team, then allow the districts to work it out at the local level.  The organizations that have pushed for this legislation don’t want to take into account the whole of society, but want to force society to revolutionize from the top down, in a mass power grab.

The majority is without a voice in California.   We speak, and the liberal courts over turn, at the beckoning of the radical few who scream the shrillest.  We protest and we are labeled as haters. The good of society as a whole is no longer what drives the legislature here, but rather the radical ideas propagated by the loudest and many times most politically connected voices.  Our school kids suffer for it, and ultimately, the fate of California lies in the ayes of it’s liberal leaders.

Papyrus Fragment Claiming Christ had a Wife

Matthew was written A.D. 65-70, Mark was written A.D. 48-55, Luke was written A.D. 57-62, and John was written in A.D. 90, all of the authors were disciples of Christ or in the case of Luke, able to talk with eye witnesses about  the events of Christ’s life. This is the verified truth. Any document, especially one that comes several hundred years after Christ walked on the earth and does not line up with biblical record must be found wanting. Jesus talked about the Church being His bride, thus His wife, and perhaps this is where an error was made in this manuscript.  To believe that the inspired Word of God would leave out the fact that Jesus was married, when it covered every other aspect of His walk here on earth is absurd.

Papyrus Fragment Claiming Christ had a Wife

Karen L. King,  Hollis Professor of Divinity, a historian on early Christianity did caution that this fragment of papyrus, which according to the article in the New York Times is smaller than a business card and its origin unknown,

“should not be taken as proof that Jesus, the historical person, was actually married. The text was probably written centuries after Jesus lived, and all other early, historically reliable Christian literature is silent on the question, she said.”

Her excitement hinges on her hope to show that marriage and sex, was part of Christ’s life and therefore a life of celibacy not a requirement to be a follower.  However, the translation of the text is lacking much context and similar to the Gnostic writings of Gospels of Thomas and Mary, and not included in the Canon of the Bible.

Somehow the idea of a tiny fragment, lacking clarity and context, hundreds of years after Christ walked the earth, and  upheld as the proof text that Jesus was married, seems reaching at best.  The documents most closely written to when Jesus walked on earth are  the Gospels found in the New Testament and these do not allude to such a life.   Because God  created marriage and does say much about it through out the Bible, it follows that had Jesus been married, He too, being God, would have spoken about His own married life and how to live and love successfully.  But the text of the Bible, not silent on marriage, but deathly silent on Jesus being married, makes suspect any text found that makes such claims, especially when it is so many years past the time of Christ.

Phoenix Father Begins Jail Sentence For Hosting A Bible Study In His Home

Micheal Salmon, who arrived at Maricopa County jail to self surrender and serve his sixty day sentence was sent home by jail officials back in mid-June. Today, July 10, 2012, Salmon began serving his sentence. Salmon was convicted of several fire and zoning code violations in conjunction with the Bible study he hosts at his home.

In 2009, more than a dozen police officers raided Salmon’s home and the 2000 square foot building in his backyard, Fox News Radio reported in its coverage of the arrest. Micheal contends that his Bible study is not a church, nor is his building a commercial building, but just a regular meeting with friends to study the Bible, but City Code enforcement states that it is in fact a church and therefore in violation of sixty-seven codes. Some of the violations ranged from not having fire sprinklers, to exit lights above the doors or having handicap parking. In an earlier report, Salmon explained that his guest do not park on the street, they are friends who come to visit in his private home.

“If I had people coming to my home on a regular basis for poker night or Monday Night Football, it would be permitted,” he said. “But when someone says to us we are not allowed to gather because of religious purposes – that is when you have discrimination,” said Michael Salmon.

Tony Perkins of Family Research Council told Fox News Radio:

“Any time religious freedom or the freedom of speech is infringed upon, Americans should be concerned. We are seeing jurisdictions using zoning ordinances to crack down the exercise of religious freedom.”

Salmon and his attorney plan to file a motion with the U.S. Ninth Circuit of Appeals Court in hopes to quash the sentence, reports Ray Stern of the News Times.

Salmon’s wife, in a video made in response to her husband’s arrest, pointed out that God is faithful and the Micheal will be sharing the Gospel to those in jail. She courageously thanked those who have reached out and who are praying for them as they stand for what the believe is their right as American’s, to worship God, with others, in the privacy of their own home. The video documenting the tearful good-bye can be found here.

Counter Argument to Spanking Linked to Mental Illness

Misleading. The American Academy of Pediatrics shared its findings in a July 2, 2012 press release stating evidence that: Spanking (is) Linked to Mental Illness.  The article would have been more accurately titled:  Of those with Mental Illness, Only 2-7% Were Exposed to Harsh Physical Punishment based on the data collected by the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions during the years 2004 and 2005.   There is a definite angle to the press release and without reading the entire article, as well as the linked study, one would jump to the conclusion that the Bleeding Heartland blog opined in Evidence mounts against spanking children. However terms are ill defined and manipulated to make the case against spanking in the Bleeding Heartland blog, as well as in the study’s results articulated in the in the press release.

The study states, “The current research investigated the possible link between harsh physical punishment (ie, pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping, hitting) in the absence of more severe child maltreatment (ie, physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, physical neglect, emotional neglect, exposure to intimate partner violence) and Axis I and II mental disorders.”

The results of the study according to the AAP:  “Harsh physical punishment was associated with increased odds of mood disorders, anxiety disorders, alcohol and drug abuse/dependence, and several personality disorders after adjusting for sociodemographic variables and family history of dysfunction.”

The conclusion gleaned from the study:  “Harsh physical punishment in the absence of child maltreatment is associated with mood disorders, anxiety disorders, substance abuse/dependence, and personality disorders in a general population sample. These findings inform the ongoing debate around the use of physical punishment and provide evidence that harsh physical punishment independent of child maltreatment is related to mental disorders.”

The aim of the study was to investigate a possible link between harsh punishment and mental disorders, such as, mood disorders, anxiety disorders, substance abuse/dependence, and personality disorders.  The result of harsh punishment, defined by the study as “pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping, hitting” was increased odds of having an Axis I or Axis II disorder.

The following is a description of these type of disorders found in the DSM-IV.

Axis I lists most major mental disorders, such as schizophrenia, mood disorders, and anxiety disorders. In general, researchers view these disorders as acute problems that are superimposed on individuals’ preexisting functioning.

Axis II lists personality disorders and mental retardation, which ostensibly differ from Axis I disorders in their greater persistence over time. Personality disorders are extremes of personality traits, such as impulsivity, dependency, and anxiety, that are inflexible, maladaptive, or both. Mental retardation is characterized by an IQ (intelligence quotient) of approximately 70 or below, severe deficits in adaptive functioning (e.g., inability to cook or dress oneself), and onset prior to adulthood.

According to a 2005 study, conducted by Ronald Kessler and his colleagues, it was found that “between 25 percent and 30 percent of Americans suffer from anxiety disorders such as phobias, about 20 percent suffer from mood disorders such as depression and bipolar disorder, and about 15 percent suffer from substance-abuse disorders such as alcoholism.” The survey also revealed that there are “important gender differences in the prevalence of some mental disorders, as well as some notable race differences found is specific psychopathologies such as post traumatic stress syndrome and alcoholism.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics findings of “possible link and increased odds” states that 2% to 5% of Axis I and 4% to 7%  of Axis II disorders reported experiencing harsh physical punishment.  In context of the numbers found in Kessler’s report of 25-30% Americans who sufferer from these disorders, the results are very small.  To conclude that “These findings inform the ongoing debate around the use of physical punishment and provide evidence that harsh physical punishment independent of child maltreatment is related to mental disorders” is misleading and erroneous.  To make the leap that spanking is the cause of these disorders is also an egregious error, with an obvious agenda tainting the findings of the report.

Many have argued, including the American Association of Pediatrics that spanking should not be practiced and they utilize any evidence that helps support their claim.  However there are a great many people who have properly and sparingly used spanking as a way of discipline and have children who model the very essence of a well brought up child, secure in the love of his parents and able to live well in society.

Child abuse is heinous. No child should ever endure harsh physical, emotional or mental punishment.  Children need love and consistency in their lives to grow into well adjusted citizens.  Children also need discipline, wise and loving guidance that many times include penalties for behavior that is unacceptable.  Chip Ingram, pastor and author says, “The discipline should fit the misbehavior and the age and understanding of the child.  Sometimes, spanking does come into use, but only in a calm and loving manner, after a clear warning to help lead the child away from danger and a clear understanding that the action was not a mistake, but a case of disobedience. The discipline of spanking should always include these seven steps, or it should not be used.”

  1. Clear warning- Your first interaction with your child about a situa­tion should be verbal. It should always be preceded by a clear warning, both for her sake and for yours. You want to know whether your child deliberately crossed a line or made an honest mistake. A clear warning will help her steer clear of danger and will help you know you’re correcting intentional disobedience.
  2. Establish responsibility- It’s important for your child to own up to his misbehavior.Remember that your child can’t learn without being able to own up to his responsibility. No one can. When you put your child in a position of having to do that, you’re preparing him for responsible adulthood. Remember to always keep your focus on the child’s behavior, not his identity.
  3. Avoid embarrassment- Never embarrass your children in front of their friends, siblings, or even strangers. Embarrassment can do a lot of damage that you’ll have a hard time undoing later on.
  4. Communicate grief– Let your children  know that more than being angry, you are disappointed and heartbroken when they disobey. Early on in their lives, let them know that you trust them and when that trust has been violated, they need to know that the relationship is wounded.
  5. Provide a sting as a deterrent- Remember the point of a spanking: It’s to sting, to provide a painful deterrent to misbe­havior, not to injure.
  6. Sincere repentance– Help them clearly relate the discipline to the behavior, not to them as a person. Tell them how special they are, both to you and to God, and that they were disciplined to correct mis­behavior, not because they were a bad person.
  7. Unconditional love– after disciplining your child, let me encour­age you to take him in your arms and pray, give him a big hug and go do something fun. He’ll know he’s still accepted and that there’s absolutely no barrier between the two of you.  (Taken from: The Biblical Approach to Spanking, Seven Steps to Disciplining Your Child, by Chip Ingram)

If the goal of the study, “Physical Punishment and Mental Disorders: Results From a Nationally Representative U.S. Sample,” was to help those with mental disorders live a well rounded life, or even to determine how actual child abuse can be prevented in these types of living situations and scenarios, then the findings could lead to better ways in which to help this percentage of the population.  But the desire and driving motivation came with an agenda and a misinterpretation of the findings. In the authors own words, the reduction of physical punishment and therefore spanking is the desired end.

Study authors conclude pediatricians and other health care providers who work with children and parents should be aware of the link between physical punishment and mental disorders. From a public health perspective, study authors conclude reducing physical punishment may help decrease the prevalence of mental disorders in the general population.

Once again, all forms of abuse are never acceptable.  We should be looking for ways in which to help those with mental disorders. But for the scientific community to make a connection between a possible link and the increased odds of mental illness as related to harsh physical punishment, while manipulating the terms and statistics to push an agenda, is insincere.  Spanking has not been proved to be linked to mental illness in this report, but rather the facts were manipulated with the intent to build a case for opponents of spanking. When a child misleads his parents he or she is taught not to lie.  When a scientific community misleads the public they too should be reprimanded.  Perhaps a spanking is what is needed.

SCOTUS: Dissenting Opinion Wins, Majority Opinion Fails, In My Opinion

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL., it became evident early on that double talk was part of  Justice Thomas’ legal scholarship found in this case.  Immediately one question became apparent, which was how can the Government and the Majority Opinion argue that The Requirement to Maintain Minimal Essential Coverage, also known as § 5000A, is not a tax but a penalty in order to comply with the Anti-Injunction Act, but is a tax in order to be found constitutional?  Ironically, later in the brief, found in the dissenting opinion, the very question is asked, “The Government and those who support its position on this point make the remarkable argument that   §5000A is not a tax for purposes of the Anti-injunction Act, see Brief for Petitioners in No. 11-398 (Anti-Injunction Act), but is a tax for constitutional purposes, see Petitioner’s Minimum coverage Brief 52-62.” (Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., dissenting).   How does the Court decide to hear the case based on the argument that this is not regarding a tax, but rather a penalty, and how then does it decide that the Congress meant  a tax when it specifically used the term “penalty” eighteen times in § 5000?  The Majority Opinion minced the meaning of these words in order to uphold the Constitutionality of the Affordable Healthcare Act, while using the opposite term in order to find merit in hearing the case. Evidence of this is found in J. Roberts’ briefing on page 2 of the syllabus,

“But Congress did not intend the payment to be treated as a “tax” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit. Pp. 11–15.

The dissent responded to this issue in these terms:

“What the Government would have us believe in these cases is that the very same textual indications that show this is not a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act show that it is a tax under the Constitution. That carries verbal wizardry too far, deep into the forbidden land of the sophists.” pg.27-28 of J. Scalia, J.Kennedy, J. Thomas and J. Alito’s dissenting.

A penalty implies that a law has been broken and justice must be served in the form of said penalty.  The Government argued that this is no longer a penalty but a tax for choosing not to spend income on the mandated health insurance requirement.  The Dissent argued that the Court has made a clear line between a tax and a penalty saying, “‘…a penalty…is an exaction imposed by statue as punishment for an unlawful act.'” (United States v. Reorganized CF&I Fabricators of Utah, Inc.).  The language that Congress used was specific to a mandated requirement and it attached a punishment in the form of a penalty to said requirement, not a tax.  The Court decided to rewrite the legislation, over reaching it’s powers, by changing the terminology from penalty, as prescribed by Congress, to tax, in order to find constitutional the Government’s petition that because Congress has the power to tax and  The Requirement to Maintain Minimal Essential Coverage is indeed constitutional.

Again Scalia in dissent states:

The values that should have determined our course today are caution, minimalism, and the understanding that the Federal Government is one of limited powers. But the Court’s ruling undermines those values at every turn. In the name of restraint, it overreaches. In the name of constitutional avoidance, it creates new constitutional questions. In the name of cooperative federalism, it undermines state sovereignty.

Justice Thomas and the majority became part of the Legislative Branch in their opinion.  Instead of letting  Congress correct the issues at hand, keeping it close to the people, and therefore allowing the people to have a voice and the ability to throw out of office those who do not listen to their concerns regarding this issue, the Court became sovereign in this matter by upholding the constitutionality of a section that affects the individual, as well as the State and the Nation as a whole.  Judicial activism joined hands with a Congress bent on pushing through a flawed legislation while ignoring the majority its citizens who voiced its disapproval of this bill. The Court has again changed the face of this Nation leaving “We the People” gagged and bound on this issue that most would like to see repealed.

According to Rassmussen, on Monday, June 25, 2012, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 54% of Likely U.S. Voters at least somewhat favor repeal of the health care bill, while 39% are at least somewhat opposed.  The report stated that most voters feel the same as they did when Congress passed the bill in March 2012, and that the desire for repeal has been steady for years.  The turn over in Congress after the bill passed, as well of the fight, and subsequent lawsuit demonstrates the voice of the people, and yet, the Court has found a way, through verbal shenanigans, to reword the Congressional bill, while ignoring the vast over reach of power that will ultimately hurt the very citizens for which the represent.

Ironically, the very people the Government says it desires to help, it hurts by strong arming the States to follow suit or look like the bad guy by refusing to go along with the new Medicaid expansion.  Once again this Administration passes the buck of responsibility for its policies onto others, only claiming victory when something positive happens.  The Court states that “Congress may not cross the ‘point at which pressure turns into compulsion, and ceases to be inducement.” (Steward Machine, 301 U.S., at 590. Accord, College Savings Bank, supra, at 687; Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority v. Citizens for Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc.). If this applies to States when they refuse to accept grants and money from the Government, how is it that the citizens that make up the States do not achieve the same meaning when they choose to not buy mandated insurance?  How is it coercion at the State level, but constitutionally acceptable at an individual citizen level?

The Administration ignores the very concept of balance of power put in place through Federalism by attempting to force the States hand into accepting the Medicaid Expansion.  J. Kennedy dissenting in Davis, states, “Coercing States to accept conditions risks the destruction of the “unique role of the States in our system.” Again, as stated in Printz, and presented in the dissent, “it may be state officials who will bear the brunt of pubic disapproval, while the federal officials who devised the regulatory program may remain insulated from the electoral ramifications of their decision.”

This is precisely what has happened to the individuals who make up the States and this very Nation.  The Federal Government that has ignored the voice of its electorate regarding this issue and by placing it in the hands of the Supreme Court, has taken away the built in electoral ramification and blocked its ears ignoring the people.  The Court itself has violated the citizen of the United States by disregarding this very argument when the individual is concerned. The ability to “un-elect” the Supreme Court Justices makes this ruling all the more grievous as it makes it all the more difficult to undo foolish policy.

When a State chooses not to accept the Medicaid Expansion, the Court finds the penalty as coercion and therefore unconstitutional;  but the Court finds, at the individual citizen level, the coercion of taxation for not accepting the Individual Mandate as constitutional.  The tax is not a tax, but a penalty, that becomes a tax and again and the citizens are hurt by the very people who are elected to be our servants.

All is not lost, but the fight for liberty has again been highlighted by a Government that has grown too big for its britches and a Court that continues to rewrite the Constitution that belongs to the People of the United States. We have the election, we can decisively fight back, but we cannot lay down, until the Government heeds the voice of its constituents and this failed legislation is repealed.

A final thought,

“The peculiar circumstances of the moment may render a measure more or less wise, but cannot render it more or less constitutional.” Chief Justice John Marshall, A Friend of the Constitution No. V, Alexandria Gazette, July5, 1819, in John Marshall’s Defense of McCulloch v. Maryland 190–191 (G. Gunther ed. 1969).

This ruling is less wise, it is unconstitutional and therefore we must fight back in the coming election.

GOP Debate, The First of Many Interviews for a Leader

It’s back… the day of campaigning is upon us, with the kick off being the first GOP debate for presidential hopefuls.  The discussion has begun asking who is “Presidential Material” and of those who participated in the debate, who won. Conversations on talk radio run the gamut from  “Who can defeat Obama in 2012?” to “Who is the fiscal conservative?”  If the goal of the Republican  party is merely to soundly defeat Mr. Obama, then no one at this point seems to fit the bill; YET.

It is early, but each individual has been living a lifetime, and that lifetime represents whether he or she possesses the qualities that make for a strong, honest, courageous and Presidential character.

After searching the internet for thoughts on leadership and what makes  a good leader, I ran across this video.  The qualities found in leaders who have affected the world for the good can be summed up in what these young men describe as leadership.  Great leaders recognize their role as servants.  Great Presidents recognize their role as a servant of the people.

Numerous books and websites discuss what characteristics make a man or woman a leader.  These five leadership traits/leadership qualities  seem to resonate with those in the leadership business.

  1. Honest
  2. Forward-Looking
  3. Competent
  4. Inspiring
  5. Intelligent

It is good to see that honesty tops the list, as it is imperative for a leader to be trusted by others with power and decision making: yet humility is lacking in this list.  Humility allows a leader to lead by example. It is the trait that taught him to respect, serve,  and submit to the leaders in his life.  As stated by Aristotle,   “He who has never learned to obey cannot be a good commander.”

“Without vision, the people will perish,” according to the book of Proverbs.  A leader looks to the future, plans for the future, yet learns from the past.

Leaders must be competent.  In other words, they must have the needed skill, knowledge and ability to do what their job demands of them.  An individual running for President will not have all the working knowledge needed for such a powerful position, but one will be surrounding oneself with those who do have expertise in a given area. Competent leaders recognize that they need a support system to fill in those areas in which they are weakest.

Leaders are inspiring.  President John Quincy Adams said, “If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.”  A rousing speech may temporarily inspire, but it is what one does with one’s life that has lasting affects on others.  Inspiration is more than being charismatic, rather it is living a life worthy of emulation.

Leaders are intelligent.  They are not however found only in Ivy League Universities.  It seems that our culture has defined intelligence as being educated in the most prestigious halls of learning.  Merriam/Webster defines it as: “the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reasonalso : the skilled use of reason(2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one’s environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests).”  According to this definition, understanding and reason are foundational to intelligence.  One may have a gilded frame holding a parchment diploma from Yale or Harvard and yet be lacking in the area of intelligence.

The GOP must not choose a man or woman to serve as a presidential candidate because they are the best shoe in for victory over Obama.  We the people must be actively engaged in this interview process for the next President of the United States.  The leader of the free world works for us and we get to read the resumes and interview the candidates over the next few months to determine who is the correct man or woman for the job.  Our due diligence is mandatory in finding the leader who is humble, honest, forward looking, competent, inspiring and intelligent.  Of the 307,006,550 people living in the United States, someone must be exactly right for the job.

A Conversation About Home Schooling

Sixteen years of my life, thus far, have been dedicated to the education of my children.  I have home schooled all four and can proudly say, that it continues to pay in eternal dividends.  My first graduate is now a junior at Biola University studying journalism and effectively navigating the world of higher education.  My younger three are in high school and junior high, and they get to expand their home schooling horizons through the Biola STAR Academics program, where they take core classes, while enjoying the benefit found only in home schooling.  It has been a road less traveled and many times exhausting, but it has been worth all the late night preparations of essays and tears of “just not getting it” when faced with an algebraic equation.  The dividends that are gained through the diligent side by side work with my children, not just in their academic life, but as a family are priceless and something that could not be recreated if an institution had my children for 8 to 10 hours a day.  It is the best school choice we as a family ever made.

My co-worker at STAR Academics and I were discussing the following parent-teacher conference film in light of education in general. Having home schooled for so long and having been actively involved with the teaching of other home schooled students, I have found that most home schooling families have counted the cost of sending their children to the local assembly line of education and have made the choice to swim against the status quo. Those who come from the public schools, are usually shocked by the vigorous program we offer two days a week at STAR Academics, and the time and dedication that is demanded of the parents themselves. There is also the surprise that the “A” easily gained at the public school may not be as easily achieved in our home schooling program. The kinds of conversations that many times take place are, “How come Jimmy is not excelling like he was at his old high school? Why is he only getting a “B-“, when he used to get all “A”s in his A.P. classes?” To this type of question, my site administrator explains that, colleges will ultimately look at the scores of SAT or ACT tests as these compare apples to apples, and that different grading standards of the various schools in the valley, be it private, public or home schooling will be measured in that standardized test.

She gave the example of a school that takes remedial students, just trying to prepare them for the California High School Exit Exam, who end up getting “A”s as seniors while passing an eighth grade level math course. Their GPA may look good, but the comparison of strenuous academic criteria and standards found at the neighboring Christian school makes the “A” student from the remdial school not even compare to a “B” student at the private school. Therefore a standardized test for universities to weigh the student’s academic aptitude is necessary.

The goal of most home schooling families I have been privileged to work with goes deeper than just academics and involves the educating and nurturing of the whole child: body, soul and spirit. Because the parent is the teacher, he or she recognizes the areas of strength and weakness in the individual student and can make adjustments to meet those needs. Remaining diligent to the call, finding outside help when needed and realizing that the goal should be to instill a love of learning, will help when the daily grind gets rough.

Whether one chooses Private, Charter, Public or Home Schooling for their children, ultimately the training of the child rests solely on the parents and their involvement in the process. One can not enter a parent teacher conference and place all the blame on the teacher, as the closest teacher a child will ever have is the parent. Too many times, the following video, is the scene in a parent teacher conference. Watch and learn how not to be like this mother portrayed in this telling scenario.

The State of the Union

Listening to the State of the Union while driving home, without the benefit of seeing the President give his speech, allowed me to hear his words and digest them without television bias. The thing that I came away with is that nothing he said had a kernel of truth in it, as it is redundant with past promises that have not been kept.

President Obama reminds me of the boy who called wolf and America is onto him,  his words mean nothing.  He spoke of reaching out to the Republicans in various areas of policy and legislation, and yet, where was this in the past two years? Where was it when the Republicans had ideas to offer in the health care debate? They were willing to play, but the Democrats forced them to sit on the sideline. Why now is he willing to work with the Republicans?

America has called Obama’s bluff, and like a bully who has been caught in the school yard and reprimanded, he is now trying to win the trust of the people by tickling their ears with niceties. Our President is a good speech maker and he promises pie in the sky; but the American people are hungry, for he has not delivered on anything that he has said that he will do.

This year is a crucial time in America history to radically do what must be done.  Like a cancer, and this debt and deficit are just that; must be cut out, radiated, and chemo-ed. These treatments hurt, but they save lives.  America’s life needs to be surgically saved and tough cuts must be made.

Are we the people willing to go through the treatment that will revive the health of this country?  Let us hold our representatives to their word and get the job done this time!

National School Choice Week: What’s My Role?

A full house, at the Nixon Library,  greeted nationally syndicated talk show host Hugh Hewitt and Dick Morris, author and political commentator, jointly hosting an evening dedicated to School Choice Week.  The Education Revolution Tour:  Restoring America’s Pride is touring America to offer a bright hope for the future of America’s kids.

We should be leading the world in education, yet our 15-year-olds rank 35th out of 57 countries in literacy and math; we are behind most industrial nations!

According to the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) involving a half-million students in 41 countries,  U.S. fourth-graders are performing poorly, middle school students worse, and high school students are unable to compete. By the same criteria used to say we were “average” in elementary school, “we appear to be “near the bottom” at the high school level.”

What is school choice?  Dick Morris answered saying that a “revolution is happening this year in the United States.”  He shared that only 15% of American kids attend Private or Parochial schools and “the rest go to the only remnant of socialism in the United States = Public School.  This is the only area in a parent’s life that they don’t have a choice.”

In 1990, per student spending was $7,300  and today, $10,000: resulting in 0% improvement in reading and 4/10% in math.  More money has not improved our students, but it has paid for more bureaucracy and teacher’ unions who push for teacher tenure and seniority pay.

“We have to let the kids, who are trapped (in bad schools), find a way to excellency,” said Hewitt. “School choice isn’t just a tool, it is a higher calling.  Academic performance of students to other kids internationally is down because we gave up on doing difficult things. There is too little return for the hard work.”

“One size doesn’t fit all.  Kids are unique and should have the option to find a school that fits their needs.  If we empower the parents, we will reform education,” stated Morris.

So what is the answer? School Choice.

“Our message is simple: we need a K-12 education system that provides a wide array of options. We need an effective education system that has the flexibility to personalize and motivate students and allow parents to choose the school that is best for their child.”  National School Choice Week

Not all schools are in bad shape and do in fact produce quality students exceptionally educated, but this is the exception. Most are following in the footsteps of Detroit, “where a report from the Detroit News Monday suggested that without government aid, the city of Detroit will be forced to close down nearly half of the city’s public schools in the next two years. Additionally, the paper warns that average high school class sizes will swell to 62 students by the following year.”

Detroit is an example of what ultimately happens when teacher pensions and union contracts continue to grow as the economy slumps.  The students and the community suffer when learning comes to a stand still at the hand of unions and bureaucrats.

This is a-political, it is about American children everywhere, who need an exceptional education and deserve to have the best schooling  provided in the greatest nation on earth.  We can do this and we must demand that it gets done. Choice is the answer through vouchers, tax credits and scholarships; as well as providing creative educational experiences utilizing virtual learning, specialized schools with paths to various vocations and careers and outcome based standards so the tax dollars won’t be wasted.  Charter schools, home schools, private and public should all play a unique part in the educational landscape of America.

Get involved.  Become active as School Choice advocate.  Attend an event and hear the exciting ways  schools will see the light at the end of this dark age, in 2011.

“The modern issue of school integration is school choice,” Morris said.  It is THAT important.

Leadership Material: Sarah Palin

An animated conversation ensued around the lunch table, as Sarah Palin, her leadership and potential as a Presidential candidate was heatedly discussed.  The women, all home schooling moms and conservative Christians from various backgrounds, passionately voiced opinions that ranged from a high level of respect for Governor Palin, to a concern for her family, if she runs for President.

One mom held the conviction that women should not be in positions of leadership over men.  I respect her opinions, though I do not agree with them.  I decided to do some Biblical digging to see what women in the Bible were leaders and what qualities they possessed.  The woman that immediately came to mind was Deborah, the Judge of Israel around 1200 B.C. found in the book of Judges chapters 4 and 5.  One commentary stated the following:

Deborah was unique among the women and men of  Bible history in that she was a prophetess, a judge and a military leader all in one – a powerful triple combination of authority and responsibility held by only two other Israelites, Moses and Samuel.
She was referred to as the “mother of Israel” because of her leadership in the battle against Canaanite oppression.

Biblically, women have been raised up “for such a time as these“, and have been mighty leaders, used to serve God in various capacities. Deborah is an inspirational woman who not only led in a judicial and legislative role, but also led in a victorious military role as well.  The Bible says that under her leadership Israel enjoyed peace for forty years.

Many women throughout history have demonstrated an exceptional ability to lead.  Sarah Palin is such a woman, and perhaps this is what has caused intense fear in those who oppose her point of view.  She is, in fact, a threat, because she stands against everything women on the left have put forward as leaders.  Her point of view reflects that of millions of American women; where as the feminist voice that has had the bully pulpit for so long, has finally been muffled by one that rings truer to most.

Is Sarah Palin the next President?  Maybe.  Is Sarah Palin a leader that speaks of a reality that millions of Americans live and adhere to everyday?  Absolutely!  Perhaps she has also been raised up for such a time as these.

Whistling and Cheering at a Memorial Service?

I have attended many memorial services. Some have been healing, some have left me with nostalgic tears flowing because of wonderful memories, and most have been a celebration the life of the deceased; but I have never been to a service where those in attendance cheer, whistle and shout during the eulogy. What was experienced during the Tuscon Memorial Service was extremely irreverent.

I kept wondering what the families were thinking as their loved one’s honor was being over shadowed by the cheers for President Obama. I don’t believe he thought it was appropriate to outshine those he came to honor. I almost think he should have told the crowd to be respectful, like a father would to a disruptive child in the same situation. I wonder greatly what this says about society and this generation?

The words shared by the President were poignant as he reflected on the lives of those who had died; and I am sure it was an honor to have the President part of this momentous event for the victim’s families; but I just can’t help being saddened by the raucous crowd who attended for reasons that elude me. Was there a true desire to uplift these families in their time of distress, or was it a once in a lifetime chance to be at an event where the President was? The behavior was juvenile at best. Decorum and respect for the dead was lacking in the whistling and cheering crowds. I kept wondering who raised these individuals and where were their manners.

Yet, in spite of the rudeness factor, beautiful thoughts were shared and honor was bestowed on the six victims. I pray that each family and friend can begin their journey to healing tonight.

Thanks for the Memories Nancy Pelosi

Should Boehner be Under Fire for his First Cuts?

Responding to the question of whether John Boehner will keep a tight leash on the troops, Patrick O’Connor responded to The News Hub by saying,  “Actually no, he’s not….. (they will be) Doing more symbolic legislating than real legislating. They are going to pass a package of cuts, I believe on Thursday or Friday, that would trim operating budgets for member offices, committees and leadership staffs; $25-$35 million, a pittance when you are looking at a budget of $3 1/2 trillion.”

A scoffing tone can be heard in the term pittance, in light of the first cuts that Boehner desires to make. And it may be a mere molecule in the cosmos of Congressional spending, but it is in fact, a movement toward decreasing the budget. If a message is to be sent to those who hired this new Congress, a message of personal belt tightening is a good way to begin. The newly elected, who elect to cut their own pay, may well then be trusted to cut those things not quite as near and dear to them.

“There has to be a visible gesture that people can immediately relate to,” said Pete Sepp, the executive vice president of the conservative National Taxpayers Union.

“And cutting pay would be one of the best symbols, because unlike virtually anything else the federal government does, when Congress spends money on its own salaries and benefits, people can make a direct comparison to their own situation,” Sepp said.

Pittance or not, cutting one’s own pay to demonstrate the new direction of this Congress is a smashing way to start their new inning.

One Vote, One Person

The fight for “One Vote, One Person” in the case of  Clemons v. U.S. Department of Commerce was decided upon on Monday, December 13, 2010.

“The judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.”

Scott Sharpen shared his disappointment after a two year fight to bring this case before the U.S. Supreme Court. “The lack of jurisdiction” reference is the Court saying that it doesn’t have the authority to get involved. While we strongly disagree, the Court gets to make the call.”

His passion for the Constitution and love of country is evident in the personal dedication he gave to press forward in this difficult battle to correct the unconstitutionality of  The Re-apportionment Act of 1929 and equal representation.

Scott stated, “The Constitution is self evident that it is apportioned equally.”

Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution reads,

The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least oneRepresentative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

Up until 1920, Congress had applied this rule of re-apportionment, growing the House, as the voice of the people, proportionally after each census.  In 1920, Congress went against the Constitution.  The House wanted to grow to 483, but the Senate realized that their power was threatened and thus they killed the bill for 483 House seats.

The Re-apportionment Act of 1929 was the result of this stalemate and has locked the number of House seats at 435. Though the population continued to grow substantially, Congress ignored the Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers that the House was to be the representation closest to the people and reflect the population in terms of growth.

Equality of the people and equality of representation is the fundamental goal of the House of Representatives.  Whereas in 1790, each House member represented approximately 33,000 people, the average size of each House district today is over 700,000 people and growing. This fundamental goal set forth in the Constitution has been radically altered by the number 435.  No longer are “We the people” the voice of government, through representation, but rather a block of 700,000 per representative.  A House Representative can not possibly do what is best for his or her constituents, individually, with such a disproportionate number to represent.

The Government argued in Clemons v. U.S. Department of Commerce that “It has always been this way.  As long as we pick a number between 50 and 10,000, we are fine.”  Yet, it has not always been this way and only in the last 100 years has the number not grown with population.  At the state levels, equal representation has been Constitutionally mandated by the Supreme Court.  In Westberry v. Sanders (1964), the Court stated that representation “needs to be as equal as practical.”

Karcher v. Daggett (1983), the court said that the deviation in New Jersey districts at 0.6984% was too great, and must be accurate within a fraction.  The national level of deviation found in Montana with a population of 805,00 and Wyoming with a population of 495,00 is an 82% deviation. The federal government is the only governing entitiy that doesn’t uphold a one person, one vote standard.

Gregory Korte, of USA TODAY wrote, “Some political scientists see other benefits to a bigger House. It would put members closer to constituents and provide more opportunities for women and minorities to get elected, says Brian Frederick of Bridgewater State University in Massachusetts, author of Congressional Representation and Constituents: The Case for Increasing the House of Representatives.

If the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of  equal representation at all other levels of government across the United States, it certainly has jurisdiction and a mandate to apply the same standards at a federal level.  The newest census calculations for apportionment are demonstrated in this interactive chart here. The balance of power will shift in light of the new census numbers and perhaps that will raise the ire of a few, but this matter must continue to be acted upon, even if the Courts and Congress refuse to act within the guidelines of the Constitution.  It may be that a movement of the people, a grassroots uprising that calls for “One vote, One Person”, is what will be needed to regain a truly democratic body in the House.

“[T]he people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived.” – Federalist No. 49

The Physician’s Crusade Against Abortion: A Review and a Prayer

“Life begins at conception” is the cry of Dr. Horatio Robinson Storer and many other physicians in the mid-nineteenth century, who crusaded to educate their society in the midst of an abortion epidemic.  Frederick Dyer’s, The Physicians’ Crusade Against Abortion meticulously documents the passionate campaign waged for the unborn by Dr. Storer and other physicians. This crusade was directly responsible for influencing abortion laws in the United States, as well as educating women to the fact that abortion is murder, at any time of pregnancy.  Dyer’s employment of biology, medical terminology and practices, as well as the Hippocratic Oath “I will do no harm or injustice ” is fundamental to the argument for life.

Dr. Frederick Dyer gives a detailed account, utilizing letters, essays and speeches to major medical journals and societies that laid the ground work for new laws to protect the unborn, as well as the protection of women, who many times sought abortions, not recognizing the moral and physical ramifications. Storer also reprimands the clergy for not standing against criminal abortion in their churches, and calls on the newspapers to condemn the advertisers of abortion and quack abortion remedies.  Dyer states that we have Storer to thank for our very lives, as statistically speaking, many would not be alive today had not the efforts to stop this abortion epidemic been waged in earnest.

Dr. Horatio Robinson Storer passionately states,

“And now words fail. Of the mother, by consent or by her own hand, imbued with her infant’s blood; of the equally guilty father, who counsels or allows the crime; of the wretches who by their wholesale murders far out-Herod Burke and Hare (William Burke and William Hare were indicted in 1828 for 16 murders in one year in Scotland); of the public sentiment which palliates, pardons, and would even praise this so common violation of the all law, human and divine, or all instinct, or all reason, all pity, all mercy, all love, -we leave those to speak who can.”

The battle against abortion is not limited to the twentieth century and Roe v. Wade, but strikes at the heart of a Christian nation.  The Physicians’ Crusade Against Abortion is a necessary read for all who are in the fight for life and the unborn.  The comprehensive details of the book may make for a lengthy read, yet it is well worth the effort.  What struck at my heart was the realization that abortion is not only tied to Roe v. Wade, but was a very serious issue in the Church during the mid 1800s.  That most abortions were attained by married Protestant women, calls into question the moral health of society in the nineteenth century and perhaps sheds light on where we are today.

Dr. Dyer’s bio is impressive:

“Frederick N. Dyer obtained his Ph.D. in Experimental Psychology from Michigan State University in 1968. He has published numerous scientific articles and two major reviews during four years as a university professor and more than twenty years as a research psychologist at the Army Medical Research Laboratory and elsewhere.

“In 1993, Dr. Dyer actively pursued a long-held interest in the history of abortion in the United States and in the key figure in that history, Horatio Robinson Storer. Dyer’s biography of Dr. Storer, Champion of Women and the Unborn, was published in 1999. Storer’s influence on other physicians was profound and the total of these physicians’ efforts, the subject of the current book, produced a huge impact not only on abortion legislation, but on women’s behavior with thousands of women changing their minds about abortion.”