Tag: protect
What!? Things Abortion Advocates Say
Posted on June 5, 2014 in Life by Nathan Cherry
A recent article at LifeNews.com captures the words of abortion advocates. These aren’t made up, these are real supporters of abortion speaking. The things they say are downright scary, angering, and absurd. See if you agree.
Have you ever wondered what Planned Parenthood’s real agenda is? Have you ever considered the real goals behind abortion? Have you ever thought about what abortion really is, according to the people who do it every today?
Wonder no longer. Instead, consider – really ponder – these eight scary statements said by abortion activists. The people who said these things aren’t random humans pulled from an aisle in a grocery store; they’re people who are deeply involved with abortion. They know the truth; they know the facts; they know how tragic and cruel abortion is to real, living human beings.
So listen up.
1) “I don’t know that [when life begins] is really relevant to the, relevant to the conversation.” ~ Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood
Author Says Efforts to Defend Religious Freedom A Scam – Christians Haven’t Lost Any Rights
Posted on April 23, 2014 in Religious Freedom, Uncategorized by Nathan Cherry
I recently came across an article titled “The Christian Rights ‘Religious Freedom Law’ Scam” by Vanessa Sheridan, writing at the Huffington Post.
This might be one of the worst mischaracterizations of efforts to secure religious freedom through legislative action by anyone I’ve read in recent memory. The article is so full of misstatements and absurd claims that it’s hard to decide if it should be at The Huffington Post or The Onion.
Ms. Sheridan first accuses a small group of people of seeking to pass laws that would legalize open discrimination. She is, presumably, talking about laws like the one recently vetoed by Arizona governor Jan Brewer that would have protected the religious convictions of business owners from forced government violation. But in her words this bill would:
Governor Tomblin Playing Political Games with Unborn Children
Posted on April 1, 2014 in Life by Nathan Cherry
Last week Gov. Tomblin vetoed the Unborn Pain Capable Child Protection Bill (HB 4588) saying it was unconstitutional. Never mind that the bill passed in 10 other states and even the U.S. House of Representatives, Tomblin’s legal team advised him that the bill was problematic.
And article this morning at the Daily Caller quotes Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser regarding the incident:
“This high profile hypocrisy is producing justified outrage in West Virginia and across the nation. Shame on Governor Tomblin for turning his back on unborn children and women by vetoing a compassionate, common sense limit passed with overwhelming bipartisan support…This bill has passed in 10 other states and even the U.S. House of Representatives – none of which considered the bill to be unconstitutional, as the Governor claimed. I believe this was the plan of the Democratic Leadership in West Virginia all along, to allow the bill to pass so their vulnerable Democrat members could vote pro-life before an important election and then have lame-duck Governor veto the bill. That’s not leadership.”
I couldn’t agree more with that assessment as the only plausible explanation for the weak, barely there “unconstitutional” reason for the veto. My contention is simple, if Gov. Tomblin was truly pro-life he would eagerly sign the bill and let the courts decide if it was constitutional or not. His primary goal would be protecting the unborn. If his primary goal is his own career, and creating a sound bite for fellow Democrats up for re-election, veto the bill. By doing so he tells national Democrats – of which I believe Tomblin wants to join in Washington – that he will be a “team player” on the issue. He gives Democrats in the state legislature a good talking point on the campaign trail and once again the desires of the people of West Virginia are ignored.
Tell Gov. Tomblin if you agree with his decision. Let him know if you will or will not support him should he decide to run for federal office. Personally, if he won’t defend the unborn here in West Virginia there is no reason to believe he will do so in Washington. That’s not a candidate I can support.
Contact the Office of Gov. Tomblin.
Breaking: Texas Abortion Ruling Has Implications for West Virginia
Posted on March 28, 2014 in Life by Nathan Cherry
This is not only important for Texas and the lives that will be saved there, this is important for West Virginia as well.
Right now Gov. Tomblin is still waiting to sign the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act that passed in the state legislature earlier this month. The bill passed with an overwhelming bi-partisan majority that should have made it a no-brainer for the governor to sign. And yet he is waiting, and hedging, saying that he is concerned about the “constitutionality” of the bill.
Those concerns should have been relieved when the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group, sent a letter to Gov. Tomblin assuring him of the constitutionality of the bill. Now that the Texas law, which is must more stringent in its legal scope than the West Virginia law, has been upheld yet again as constitutional, there is really no reason for Gov. Tomblin not to sign the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. That is, unless his claim to be pro-life is little more than a campaign slogan.
LifeNews: Gov. Tomblin Should Sign H.B. 4588 and Protect Babies
Posted on March 13, 2014 in Life by Nathan Cherry
Lifenews.com: Over the weekend the West Virginia House and Senate put the finishing touches on a hugely important bill. If Gov. Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin signs HB 4588– The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act– West Virginia’s unborn babies, who can feel pain, will be protected from abortion. If there is not a compelling state interest in protecting unborn children from such a hideous death, what would qualify?
If Gov. Tomblin signs the bill into law, West Virginia will join ten other states and the United States House of Representatives that have passed similar bills. If Governor Tomblin signs the bill into law, he will be recognizing what huge majorities in both the House and Senate saw clearly. That HB 4588 is grounded in a moral empathy that resonates loudly with the people of West Virginia: “You don’t kill unborn children who are capable of feeling pain.” If Governor Tomblin signs the bill into law, he will be doing the right thing.
AG Holder: State Ag’s Can Ignore Marriage Laws
Posted on February 28, 2014 in Marriage by Nathan Cherry
In what I can only describe as both typical of the Obama Administration and egregious, Attorney General Eric Holder has said that it would be acceptable for state attorney’s general to ignore state laws regarding marriage. A recent article reports:
“Attorney General Eric Holder has given the nod to his state counterparts that they do not have to defend laws they consider discriminatory — effectively giving the green light for states to stop defending bans on gay marriage. Speaking to the National Association of Attorneys General, Holder said that any decision not to defend individual laws must be ‘exceedingly rare’ and reserved for ‘exceptional circumstances.’ He indicated that legal challenges to gay marriage bans would qualify as such a circumstance.”
Typical of the Obama Administration, if you don’t like a law, just stop defending or enforcing it. Never mind that it was enacted by the people of the state, or supported by those people, just stop defending it. Make the law up as you go and do what you want regardless of the state or federal Constitution.
The encouragement for AG’s to dereliction of duty by Holder is egregious. Would AG Holder encourage every person to decide which laws we will and will not live by? What if an AG decided to ignore 2nd amendment protection laws? Would that be acceptable for AG Holder? His words and “advice” are repugnant and offensive to everything that America stands for. It’s no wonder even his own party is calling for his resignation.
Does the Bible Justify Refusing to Serve Homosexual Weddings?
Posted on February 27, 2014 in Public Policy, Religious Freedom by Nathan Cherry
Note: This article is a follow up to yesterday’s post in which I discussed the article by Kirsten Powers and responses to her article.
Predictably, the pending law in Arizona that would allow businesses to refuse service to homosexuals based on their religious convictions has stirred up controversy around the nation. Proponents of the legislation say it is needed to ensure the religious and conscience rights of Christian business owners are protected from government coercion and mandate. Opponents say the bills are just an excuse for people to discriminate.
What was not predictable in this discussion was how divided Christians themselves would be on the issue. Some Christians are saying no one should have the right to refuse service – not even Christians, and not even when rendering service would violate a person’s convictions. Other Christians are baffled by that position and reiterate that the government should not be allowed to force a person to violate his or her deeply held religious convictions. Dr. Albert Mohler recently said that this was “perhaps the strangest and most disappointing dimension of the current controversy.”
Russell Moore, Kirsten Powers, Erick Erickson: Should Christians Be Forced to Bake Cakes for Homosexuals?
Posted on February 26, 2014 in Marriage, Public Policy by Nathan Cherry
Are Christian vendors being hypocrites for refusing to provide services to same-sex ceremonies citing a violation of their faith while continuing to provide services for other unbiblical weddings?
That is the question that is beginning to swirl in light of several state bills that would give Christian business owners the right to refuse service to homosexual couples seeking their services for weddings. Those bills, introduced in Tennessee, Ohio, Kansas, and awaiting the governor’s signature in Arizona, are a response to lawsuits by homosexuals against “wedding vendors” that refused to render services saying to do so would violate their faith.
Does Anything On This Flier Seem “Ludicrous” to You?
Posted on December 20, 2013 in Marriage, Religious Freedom by Nathan Cherry
A group in Indiana is under attack for speaking truthfully about the danger same-sex “marriage” presents to religious freedom. The group put out a bulletin insert to churches which listed “Just Four Dangers of Same-Sex Marriage” that is being blasted as “promulgating panic” by those who don’t agree. The flier says the four dangers are: