President Obama and Abortion by Guest Columnist

By Dr. George Sochan

One of the most significant documents in world history is the Declaration of Independence, which, when it was penned and signed, was a revolutionary document. The first two paragraphs put forth such principles as limited government and inalienable rights. One inalienable right is that of life, which is guaranteed by the Constitution in the Fifth Amendment and in the Fourteenth Amendment. Unfortunately, today, as in the past, the inalienable right to life has not always been protected by the federal and the state governments. Today the group denied governmental protection of life comprises persons still in the womb who are about to be born. As Barack Obama enters Washington, DC for his inauguration, many Americans have warranted, reasonable concerns that the federal government will lessen its support for the right to life of about-to-be-born citizens.

As usual, abortion did not receive much attention during the campaign; for instance, there was very little discussion of this issue during the debates. However, some statements made by the president-elect at that time and his brief career in the Illinois Senate may provide enough information to indicate what an Obama administration would portend on this matter. On 31 March 2008 at a rally in Jonestown, Pennsylvania, Obama stressed the importance of sex education that includes more than abstinence-training. In an unprepared remark, he stated, "Look, I've got two daughters, 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." Many members of the Pro-Life Movement were horrified, and even disgusted, that Obama would consider pregnancy a punishment. In whatever way one may view a pregnancy, including one resulting from a rape, it is essential to perceive two lives in this condition. Relieving a woman of a pregnancy by an abortion because the condition is considered some sort of unwanted burden ultimately deprives another person, who is about to be born, of his or her life. Apparently, Obama would continue support for abortions for those persons who assign a negative value to any given pregnancy.

During the summer of the campaign and peaking in August 2008, some interest was generated on the Born-Alive Infants Protection Acts. Such laws were passed by certain state legislatures and Congress during 2000-2003 because, according to testimony given in a House of Representatives’ committee report, "physicians at Christ Hospital have performed numerous ‘induced abortions’ or ‘live-birth’ abortions, a procedure in which physicians use drugs to induce premature labor and deliver unborn children, many of whom are still alive, and then simply allow those who are born alive to die." To countervail a cultural environment in America which has permitted medical staff to allow a born-alive human to die, Congress passed and President Bush signed into law the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act in August 2002. This law asserts that a "member of the species homo sapiens" includes "every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development…regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion." Being defined as a human who has been born alive in the United States would afford such a living being of citizenship and, hence, protection under federal and state laws. At the same time that the federal government passed its version of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, Obama, as a state senator, repeatedly opposed a similar law in Illinois because he claimed that the Illinois law would have undermined Roe v. Wade, which, until President Bush had signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2003, had included the killing of infants who have been almost completely extracted from the mother.

The killing of a born-alive infant and even the killing of a baby that is in the process of being born, as in being partially extracted from the mother’s body, should be considered murder. Such an obvious ethical determination should be so obvious that, as the website Religious Tolerance suggests, "One wonders who could possibly be against it." Apparently, based on his record of non-accomplishments in the protection of life for certain persons, Barack Obama is against "it." He seems to be like millions and millions of Americans who live their lives day by day without more than a rhetorical concern for the thousands of defenseless, about-to-be-born Americans that are slaughtered in abortion centers day after day. After noon on January 20, 2009 the difference between Obama and most Americans is that he will have a powerful position in the government. As president, Obama will be in a position to affect some change, whether for good or ill, on the protection of life for the about-to-be-born Americans. A negative change from the little that had been achieved during the Bush years would obfuscate even further the supposedly self-evident truth that the right to life for all humans is inalienable in the United States and protected by the government.

George Sochan
Assistant Professor
Bowie State University

Beware of So-Called Inclusive Churches

by Matthew Pasalic

I recently received an invitational flier through the mail from Immanuel United Church of Christ in Catonsville, an “open and affirming congregation.” I read the brochure in its entirety and I would like to take this opportunity to provide some discerning analysis and reflective questions in response to what this church is affirming.

The emphatic question, “Are you looking for an inclusive church?” appeared in bold print followed by four declarative statements about the church. The first assertion indicated that the church welcomes and honors the “participation of all folks regardless of race, gender, economic status, and sexual orientation.” This is another unfortunate example of sexual orientation being amalgamated with the identity of race, gender, or economics. Perhaps this is a surreptitious invitation to homosexual offenders in the name of inclusion. Would this congregation eagerly extend the same invitation to persons of even more licentious lifestyles to include people who practice pedophilia and bestiality? What about persons who willingly engage in extramarital copulation or fornication? I certainly would not want to leave my children under the “child care” of any of the aforementioned individuals. The Apostle Paul exhorts believers not to associate with others who profess Christianity but willingly live in sexual immorality among other unrepentant sins (1 Corinthians 5). The fact that an increasing number of churches encourage people to come and be accepted for their sexual perversion sans true conversion is most repugnant to orthodox Christianity.

The second statement on the flier states that “we teach that the Bible is God’s holy, living Word that need not be taken literally in order to be taken seriously.” While I do not believe that every single word written in the Bible is to be interpreted literally, it should be understood that the very way it was written is how it should be deciphered. The Bible contains many parables, allegories, and metaphors and while this does not undermine the authenticity of the Word of God, it actually serves to strengthen it. Therefore, my response to the statement from the Immanuel United Church of Christ is: How can Scripture be taken seriously if none of it is to be taken literally?

“We think that good, faithful people can have honest differences with each other and still be united in Christ’s love” is the third tenet. This statement has some truth to it if it is referring to Christian people, however, denominations continue to develop and increase over differences in the faith regarding numerous, challenging issues. There has to agreement among Christians regarding the imperative doctrines of the faith to maintain unity. I do not fathom how Christians can disagree about an issue such as the ordination of homosexual clergy and still be “united in Christ’s love.”

The fourth statement declares that “we know that the church is not a perfect place, but we strive to practice God’s language of love in worship, service, and speech.” Many of the progressive churches of our era talk so much more about God’s unconditional love and compassion while conveniently forgetting about His wrath (Romans 5:9) from which His people are saved. A careful study of Romans 9 reveals that God chooses to have mercy on whom He wants to have mercy. He loved Jacob, but He did hate Esau. It is disillusioning that some professing Christians have the notion that God’s love is omnipresent and unchangeable, accepting everyone for who they are without any consequences for wrongdoing.
The brochure further indicates that “informal worship begins at 10:30” and that “dress is casual.” If the worship is informal, why have an official time to begin the service? Tragically, the liberationist movement has de-emphasized the necessity of formal worship. I prefer to dress properly out of respect and dignity when I attend church regardless if it is increasingly unpopular in America.

Finally, the flier contains the church’s contact information, including the female pastor’s name, who was surprisingly identified by the formal title of reverend. The ordination of women serves as another rebellion to God’s authoritative Word, the Bible ( 1 Timothy 2:12). In summary, I thank Immanuel United Church of Catonsville for the informative invitation to their inclusive church, but I tend to believe that my view of traditional Christianity would not be openly affirmed nor would I want to think of myself as included.

Unnecessary And Lengthy Appeals Lead Jurors To Decide Life In Prison Over Death

by Matthew Pasalic

In the April 6th 2006 edition of the Laurel Leader, it was reported that Robert Mark Billett was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for murdering Cpl. Steven Gaughan and three 20-year sentences for attempted murder. Although County State’s Attorney Glenn Ivey had asked for the death penalty, he “hailed” the verdict and concluded that county residents have sent a “strong message” that the killing of a law enforcement officer has “serious consequences.”

I am pleased that Billett, a miscreant, will likely never walk the streets again, yet this case raises many concerns that I have about the pursuit of justice. After reading the article, it became evident that Gaughan’s family was reluctant to seek the death penalty because of the insurmountable pain of having to endure lengthy appeals processes. Several officers were disappointed with the decision to drop the death penalty, but they likewise were concerned about an excessive trial coupled with years of appeals.
I totally respect the decision of Gaughan’s family not to pursue the death penalty. They are more qualified than I to determine the fate of Billett in a court. Yet, I have several objections to Mr. Ivey and others who assessed that this verdict sends a “strong message.” Prince George’s County has more homicides than any other county in the state of Maryland, but when is the last time that a criminal was sentenced to death? There are lengthy and costly appeals processes and this is because of ultraliberal judges and judicial activism. As a result, it becomes burdensome for the victim’s family members to seek the death penalty. Conversely, this may be favorable news for those convicted of murder, as a life sentence seems to be the maximum penalty, but rarely imposed.

Furthermore, the Laurel Leader also reported that Circuit Court Judge Jackson insinuated that if Billett had allowed Gaughan to “arrest him rather than run, they may have gotten along” (how often does this happen?) and that they “probably would have made each other laugh.” This is because both men had an ability to make others laugh, according to the sentencing testimony. Yet, such a diversion is irrelevant, humorless, and diminishes with the disconcerting reality that a courageous officer was abruptly murdered and leaves behind a compassionate wife and loving family.

Mandatory Gay Pride Horror

In response to “Firefighters seek to sue over forced ‘gay pride,’ The Washington Times A 5, August 10th), I must react with absolute outrage and disgust. The four firefighters should be commended for suing their department for the overt abuse and sexual harassment that they endured from homosexual perverts. Although the firemen were also subjected to ridicule from Christian conservatives who opposed the gay parade, it was not surprising that it was the liberated, boisterous homosexuals who conducted themselves in a domineering and unruly manner. The Family Research Council reported through email that lesbian chief Tracy Jarmen apologized for the mistreatment that the firefighters received acknowledging all forms of harassment as unacceptable, but went on to indicate that the department “has an established tradition of accepting invitations from diverse community groups…to march in parades” (Family Research Council, August 8th).

Somehow, I have much doubt that the “diverse community groups” would include activism from a conservative worldview. For further edification, I would like to know how many invitations the San Diego Fire Department has accepted from the local National Right to Life? Would firefighters be required to participate in a three-hour parade for the rights of the unborn? How about a march to protect America’s borders from invading illegal immigrants? Here is an even better example: Suppose a Bible-believing Christian fundamentalist fire chief required four of his firemen, who happened to be homosexuals, to attend a pro-marriage rally. During the event, the four homosexuals were derided as pro-family advocates referred to them as “queers,” and “sinners,” along with other insulting terms. Bible tracts were tossed at them as they were told that they are going to burn in hell for eternity. There is no doubt that such a story would dominate the headlines of every newspaper in this country. If a demagogue fire chief with blatant political activism were to require his firemen to attend a parade for any of the aforementioned causes, there would undoubtedly be a firestorm of protests from liberals, feminists, and other activists groups such as the ACLU. Any fire chief would likely be terminated for violating the ethos of the firemen along with the improper authority of using the city department to endorse a parade of political propaganda.


Furthermore, what does the mandatory attendance of a homosexual parade have to do with the job description of a firefighter and why were these four men coerced into being a part of this corrupting parade? One could fully understand a fire chief requiring some of his men to participate in a Memorial Day parade or some other traditional holiday observed by Americans. It would likely be a responsibility that most firemen would gladly want to be a part of.

In summary, I am disappointed, but not surprised, with the lack of media coverage over this most disturbing case of sexual exploitation. Perhaps my strong disapproval of homosexual crusaders as sordid and misguided sinners in defiance of God and basic biology is a waning position to maintain in the United States. However, it is the Biblical view regarding the recruiting indoctrinators of sexual immorality.