One Person Can Change the World

When I was a kid, I loved reading comic books - especially those about super heroes who saved the world. I dreamed about being like Batman, Spider Man, and, of course, Super Man. I longed to do their exploits - I wished I could fly or turn invisible, to leap tall buildings with a single bound, to run faster than a speeding bullet, and to be more powerful than a locomotive. And I dreamed about making a difference. Alas, I was just plain old me. What could I do of significance?

Now that I am older by quite a bit, I like reading biographies of more regular heroes. This gives me hope, especially when I read about my current hero, William Wilberforce, who spearheaded the fight against the British slave trade. He was an unlikely hero. His contemporaries called him short and ugly with too long a nose. But even though tiny in stature, he was tall in significance. As J. Douglas Holladay would say, "Wilberforce arguably led the single most effective stand against evil and injustice in all history." Or as John Pollock wrote in his biography, William Wilberforce was "a man who changed his times." Indeed, this one proved that one man can change the world.

In spite of great opposition including the Royal Family and Admiral Lord Nelson (Wilberforce became the most vilified man in England), and in spite of the vast revenue it brought to the British Empire (hundreds of ships and thousands of sailors depended on the trade for their livelihood), Wilberforce overcame.

It was not without cost. It cost Wilberforce his health. He was physically attacked on several occasions. As one of his friends remarked to him,

"I shall expect to read of you being carbonadoed (scored and broiled) by West Indian planters, barbecued by African merchants, and eaten by Guinea captains, but do not be daunted, for - I will write you epitaph."

Indeed, there is great personal cost to changing the world for good. The devil doesn't give up any ground without a fight.

Most Englishmen of the time thought the Slave Trade was a nasty business, but they also thought that economic ruin would come to their country if it was outlawed. Few thought it wrong or evil. Wilberforce, on the other hand, saw it differently. He told the House of Commons,

"So enormous, so dreadful, so irremediable did the Trade's wickedness appear that my own mind was completely made up for abolition. Let the consequences be what they would, I from this time determined that I would never rest until I had effected its abolition."

Like today, most people agree that abortion is nasty business, but most think it is politically untouchable. Few see it as the horrific moral evil that it really is. But those who understand the true nature of this slaughter of the innocent can never rest until it is eradicated.

Wilberforce answered the question, "Can a culture that is drifting from it's original ideals ever be won back?" He answered it with a resounding, YES! Sometimes all it takes is one determined person. Boris Pasternak concurred, writing, "It is not revolutions and upheavals that clear the road to new and better days, but. . . someone's soul, inspired and ablaze." That was Wilberforce. In his diary on October 28, 1787, he wrote, "God almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the Slave Trade and the reformation of manners (meaning attitudes and morals)." He was motivated by a deep belief in a God who was concerned about individual human justice. It took a full 46 years for the British Parliament to vote to abolish the Slave Trade, and it happened just three days before his death. But he overcame.

We currently live in a world filled with great evils. Since 1973, over fifty million unborn babies have been slaughtered in the womb. There is now a full scale onslaught to destroy and redefine marriage. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion are under attack by this administration. Like Wilberforce, we have suffered defeat after defeat. But William Wilberforce would not be denied. We will not be denied either. By bringing to light the atrocities, Wilberforce changed the thinking of a society.

As he told Parliament, "The nature and all the circumstances of the Trade are now laid open to us. We can no longer plead ignorance. We cannot evade it." Likewise, since ultrasound technology became common giving us a window into the womb, no one can any longer deny that the life aborted in the womb is anything other than a human baby. And as God Himself said in Proverbs 24:12 immediately after calling on us to rescue those being led to slaughter,

"If you say, 'Surely we did not know this,' does not He who weighs the hearts consider it? He who keeps your soul, does He not know it? And will He not render to each man according to his deeds?"

Each person must make a difference. One person can change their world.

When the Nation of Israel was enslaved in Egypt for 430 years, God heard their plight and raised up Moses. When the evil Persian Prime Minister Haman was bent on exterminating the Jews, God raised up a reluctant young woman named Esther. Her uncle encouraged her with these words in Esther 4:14, "Who knows whether you have come into the kingdom for such a time as this?" Maybe now is your time to make a stand.

An interesting ice-breaker is to have everyone in a group write their own obituary. It isn't that morbid. Everyone thinks about how they want to be remembered by those they leave behind. Usually, after awhile and after the jokes quiet down, people begin to think about what truly makes a difference. As someone said, "It is easy to make a fortune, but harder to make a difference." We long to live lives that count for something.

The cynic claims that the individual can do nothing to change the world. William Wilberforce proved one person can. But will you? Will you make a difference within the group of people you influence? We can't all be members of Parliament like Wilberforce, but we have those we can influence, if we want to.

Susan G. Komen: A curious case of temporary sanity

Susan G. Komen and their "Race for the Cure" events has been the biggest breast cancer charity around. One can applaud their zeal and their efforts to save lives. But for the past seven years, pro-lifers have had difficulty getting involved without holding their noses. Why? Because part of the money raised by Susan G. Komen every year is given to Planned Parenthood - somewhere in the neighborhood of $600,000.00.

It really begs the question: What is an agency dedicated to saving lives doing in a partnership with an agency that has as its primary cash cow the taking of human lives through abortion? This sounds like insanity. If the goal is to save the lives of women, why would they support an organization dedicated to the taking of unborn lives, half of which would be women?

There is also the well know, if little reported, link between abortion and breast cancer. For decades worldwide, researchers have been pointing out through voluminous studies that induced abortion is a contributing factor. That story doesn't fit into the politically correct template, however, so it is usually ignored by the media. But certainly the Komen foundation knows. What rationale would cause them to associate with the nation's biggest abortion provider?

Someone I was conversing with recently tried to justify the connection by pointing out all the good that Planned Parenthood did in other venues. But as I told them, isn't that like commending a mass murderer because he sent his mother a card on her birthday? I know. That's a bit of an exaggeration, sure, but so is the claim that Planned Parenthood is engaged in a lot of good things. Whether they are or not doesn't change the fact that they are the nation's largest provider of abortion.

And Susan G. Komen came to that conclusion as well, if only temporarily. As the January page on our calendar was flipped, the Komen foundation announced their support of Planned Parenthood was ending.

Since 2005, the justification for the Komen Foundation giving money to Planned Parenthood was that they insisted the money would only be used to fund breast cancer screening, education, and health programs. But the truth has a pesky way of creeping to the top. It seems Planned Parenthood never provided mammograms. So under Komen's new proposed policy their foundation will only award grants to organizations that actually do provide mammograms. That makes sense, doesn't it?

The Weekly Standard's John McCormack writes,

"Why does Planned Parenthood feel entitled to a private charity's donations, especially considering the fact that Planned Parenthood's president falsely claimed on national television that the group provides mammograms? Isn't Komen free to give its money to organizations that provide more than mammogram referrals and breast cancer screening?"

One would think so. Don't they have the right to decide who they fund?

Oh, but not everyone thinks that. Within 24 hours a veritable firestorm of fury was unleashed on Komen by Planned Parenthood and those in the media who support their slaughter of the unborn. How dare Komen politicize the issue, the media cried. Even 26 pro-abortion Senators signed a letter condemning the Komen decision. Who has politicized the issue? Talk about pressure.

In its own defense, the Komen foundation pointed out that Planned Parenthood is under investigation for misusing taxpayer funds; and unlike Congress, Susan G. Komen wants to be a good steward of their donor's funds. Any check of the allegations against Planned Parenthood should cause any legitimate business to back away. I was tickled pink by the decision of the Susan G. Komen Foundation, and I sent them an e-mail thanking them for their brave stand.

Alas, the sanity was short lived. The Susan G. Komen foundation bowed to the political pressure within a couple of days. In spite of the fact that donations were up 100% and in spite of the fact that supporters of the decision outnumbered those who were opposed by 2:1 in the e-mails received, Komen beat a hasty retreat. This was a curious case of temporary sanity.

The moral? Bullying wins again. Planned Parenthood was able to get their way through intimidation. They always will until people have the courage to stand up against the political pressure. Susan G. Komen did not.

When is it OK to Kill a Baby?

On January 22nd, our country commemorates the 39th anniversary of the infamous Roe v Wade decision, the case in which the Supreme Court legalized abortion. It should be a time of reflection for our nation. To help you reflect, let me ask a question. Ponder this for awhile: When is it OK to kill a baby? Can you kill a baby from six minutes to six months old? How about six minutes before birth? How about the third month of pregnancy? Is there a moral difference? When is it OK to kill a baby?

What about the national media attention a couple of years back over the student at Lincoln Memorial University who delivered a baby, ripped the umbilical cord off, wrapped the baby in a sweatshirt, and threw the baby into the trash? She went to jail. Had she aborted that same baby the moments before birth, she would have been within the law. Does this make any sense? Is there really a moral difference? When is it ever OK to kill a baby?

Does it matter when human life begins? All the genetic information we possess existed at the moment of conception. When our mother's egg and our father's sperm united, our body size, hair color, eye color, basic intellect, and personality were all laid out.

A baby's brain begins functioning enough to generate measurable brain waves at 40 days. The baby appears to smile as early as 12 weeks. At 22 days, the baby's heart begins to beat. When is it OK to kill that baby? What would you say?

A number of years ago, a group of 60 prominent physicians, which included former presidents of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and the American College of Neurology, met in Cambridge, MA and presented a declaration that said,

"The fetus is not a sub-human species . . . the embryo is alive, human, and unique in the special environmental support required for that stage of human development."

When is it OK to kill a baby?

Addressing God, Psalm 139:13-15 claims,

"You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth."

God personally forms every child in the womb. We are all a product of His handiwork. We each bear the image of our maker. When is it OK to kill that baby?

Legally America has determined that babies can be killed in the womb at any age up to the moment of birth. Innocent babies, some old enough to leave the womb, are killed at the rate of 3,000 per day. That's around 1.2 million babies a year. Since Roe v Wade, some 54 million babies have been killed in the womb. That equals the number of people that populate California, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington combined. That is the scope of the American Holocaust. Under the banner of Pro-Choice, we have chosen death.

But shouldn't we choose life? In Deuteronomy 30:19, Moses set forth this choice,

"This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live."

America, choose life.

The Case of the Missing Girls, and Joe Biden's Bungles

There is an amazing phenomena happening worldwide. There is a shortage of girls. According to a Fox News article by Debra Saunders,

"In China, the sex ratio is 121 boys to 100 girls. In India, it is 112 to 100. Sex selection is a force in the Balkans, Armenia, and Georgia."

How can this be happening? It happens through selective abortions.

In her book, Unnatural Selections: Choosing Boys Over Girls and the Consequences of a World Full of Men, journalist Mara Hvistendahl writes that ultrasound has allowed women to determine which child should be kept and which to abort. The result? She writes, abortion has "claimed over 160 million potential women and girls - in Asia alone." By the way, that is more than the entire population of females in the USA.

Recently, a mother told me her daughter couldn't find a decent, godly man to marry, claiming there weren't enough out there. But apparently worldwide it is the other way around, and it is the men who can't find wives. One would think it would make girls more valuable, and it does, but not in the way one might think. Saunders remarked,

"As surplus men have trouble finding mates, young girls are forced into prostitution. Others are forced into arranged marriages."

Hvistendahl writes that on Taiwan's eBay three Vietnamese women were on sale for $5,400.

But I thought abortion was a good thing for women? Isn't that what we've always been told? It looks like we've been sold a bill of goods. The truth is the feminist agenda has always done more damage to women than it has ever helped them, and abortion is one of the biggest culprits. Abortion has backfired on women.

Which brings us to Joe Biden, our less than eloquent vice-president, and his remarks concerning China's one child per family policy. On Sunday, August 21st, at the Sichuan University in Chengdu, Biden told his Chinese audience,

"Your policy has been one which I fully understand - I'm not second guessing - of one child per family."

He understands? Our own State Department in their latest human rights report has affirmed that China's one child policy "in some cases resulted in forced abortion or forced sterilization." The report also said,

"Female infanticide, sex-selective abortions, and the abandonment and neglect of baby girls remained problems due to the traditional preference for sons and the coercive birth control policies."

Didn't Joe Biden know that?

The London Sunday Times reported the trauma of Zhang Linla, the mother of a four year old daughter, who happened to get pregnant again. The paper quoted her account as follows:

"Six days before the due date, 10 strong strangers came to my house, forced me into a truck, then took me to the family planning clinic, where the doctor gave me the injection (a drug to induce labor). The child began to struggle in my womb and one of the scum kicked me in the abdomen. Then the baby came out and they threw it in the rubbish bin. I could even see it was still moving."

Didn't Biden know that over and over that kind of barbarism is repeated on woman after woman - on baby after baby? Even as a U.S. Senator, rather than vote present as he usually did, Barack Obama voted against a law that would have given protection to U.S. babies born alive from botched abortions. Obviously Obama would approve of China's policy too.

But wasn't the whole abortion issue about choice? No! It never was. Just take a few minutes some time to read the words or Margaret Sanger. She was the founder of Planned Parenthood and a prominent abortion advocate. On blacks and immigrants, she wrote, ". . . human weeds, reckless breeders, spewing . . . human beings who never should have been born." In her plan for peace, she argued that couples should be required to submit applications before being allowed to have a child. She wrote that the purpose of birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds." She wrote, "Eugenics is the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political, and social problems." Page after page the quotes could could go on and on. Adolf Hitler was a big follower of her ideas, with predictable results.

Thank you, Joe Biden, for showing us the true color of abortion advocates like you. Abortion has nothing to do with choice. It has everything to do with getting rid of unwanted human beings. It is a population control device first and foremost. And the ones who suffer most are the women.

Don't Nibble Around the Edges of Abortion, End It!

A Public hearing was held on yet another bill that nibbles around the edges of the abortion debate. This bill is L.D. 1463, which would assign a degree of legal standing to unborn babies so that those who injure them could be charged with a crime. Many states already give unborn babies this legal standing. Maine is just now considering getting on board, and it would join other bills under consideration that would require informed consent.

The opponents, as usual, argue that this is yet another attempt to erode constitutionally protected abortion rights. Alysia Melnick of the Maine Civil Liberties Union stated, "This bill would clearly separate a woman from her fetus in the eyes of the law." Her argument is that to consider the baby as more than a blob of tissue attached to the mother would get people to thinking this blob of tissue with a beating heart and a unique genetic code was a person. If people began to think that way, they might get the idea that the person had a right to live.

Horrors! Thus they accuse the sponsors of the bill of wanting to erode abortion rights. Oh, no, they were told, implying that we would never do something as stupid as challenge a woman's right to choose. This bill's sponsor, Senator Debra Plowman, R-Hampden, assured them, "At no point is this intended to affect a woman's right to choose [abortion]." Apparently she doesn't want to be accused of that. But, why wouldn't we want to? Do you really believe, Senator Plowman, that our Constitution guarantees a woman's right to an abortion? I've read the Constitution a number of times, and I can't find it. It's not there!

What I do find in the Constitution is that the fourteenth Amendment reiterates the Fifth Amendment and the Declaration of Independence by saying, "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Our Constitution guarantees the right to life, not the right of a woman to choose death for her baby. Now the right to privacy has trumped that right to life, and abortion is the law of the land. As a result, 50,000,000 precious babies have been denied the right to be born.

Why would we not want to affect a woman's right to choose abortion? Why are we such cowards to say so? Are we afraid they will ridicule us? Why should we give up the debate over Roe versus Wade? Why do we accept the argument that Roe versus Wade is established, settled law? As established, settled law, they claim, it has somehow become sacred and untouchable. Hogwash!

Unfortunately, that was the same argument that was used to preserve slavery. The Dred Scott Decision by the Supreme Court was established law, and it allowed property rights of slave owners to trump the rights of the slaves to be free. It should have been the moral imperative of every decent citizen to oppose that wrong headed decision. It should be the moral imperative of every decent citizen to fight for the right to life for unborn children. To not argue for a total end to abortion is cowardice.

Can you imagine William Wilberforce standing before parliament arguing, "No, sir, we do not want to end the slave trade. We understand that it is established law. We merely want to pass some bills to make sure the slave traders are informed and can make an intelligent choice about whether to traffic in human lives." How ridiculous! does anyone actually think that would work? No!

Wilberforce had to attack the trade itself as evil. Yes, it was evil to trade in human lives, and the practice needed to be ended. There wasn't room for compromise. Yes, abortion is evil in that it destroys innocent human life, and the practice needs to be ended. Yes, Roe verses Wade needs to be reversed. Let's say it.

Let's have the guts to say, "Yes, we will do everything we can to overturn Roe versus Wade because it is bad law and was made through faulty reasoning." Yes, because of the currently political situation, we can work toward partial measures that will limit it, but we will not rest until it is overturned.

Time to Shut Planned Parenthood's Cash Spigot

This Saturday, I plan to participate in the "Walk for Life" sponsored by First Step Pregnancy Center in Bangor. This is one of the many ways that they raise funds to help in their effort to save innocent, unborn babies from death. They are doing a good work, and they have to raise their own funds to do it. Planned Parenthood doesn't have to do that. They receive $300 million in subsidies from the Federal Government, plus additional funding from many state governments, to carry out their agenda of ending the life of unborn babies through abortion. Something is wrong with this picture. It's time Planned Parenthood's government funding spigot is shut.

Why shouldn't Planned Parenthood have to hold their own fundraising events? Maybe they could have their own walk too. They could call it the "Walk for Death." But why should all of us be forced through our tax dollars to fund an organization that practices what many of us consider a great evil? Actually, since our Federal Government is broke, why should we borrow to fund their efforts so they can continue to end the life of future taxpayers?

There are those who disagree with shutting off the spigot. Our President and the Democrats in the Senate have drawn a line in the sand. They and other Planned Parenthood allies always want to trot out the "good things" that Planned Parenthood does to justify continued funding. But the problem is, those things don't change the fact that Planned Parenthood is the nation's number one provider of abortion.

One of our children's newest favorite movies is "Tangled." There is one scene in the movie where the heroine is lured into a tavern with a benign sounding name but filled with an assortment of thugs, toughs, and criminals. Fearing for her life, she explains her dream to them. Touched by the beauty of it, they all begin telling their own dreams. Deep inside they are really wonderful people with admirable dreams. One wants to be a concert pianist. Another wants to be a mime. Still another collects miniatures. Ah, but alas, they really are all thugs, toughs, and criminals who make their living through crime. None of their dreams change that fact.

Everyone wants to be thought well of. that's human nature. Everyone will always present their best side - even Planned Parenthood. But it is kind of hard to hide reality. That's the situation with Planned Parenthood. For all of its "good intentions," they remain the nation's number one provider of abortion. As such, they do not deserve one cent of public support. Please do not use our tax dollars to fund them. Shut off the cash spigot.

The Culture War Won't End

I recently received a picture from a family friend showing her beautiful baby boy. The picture showed a perfect baby with an adorable face. My wife and daughter "cooed" over him. Oh, I forget to tell you, the pictures were by ultrasound, and her baby is still two months from birth. This beautiful little baby could still be killed should his mother "choose" and should a doctor be paid to take his life. Beautiful babies like this are killed everyday in this country up to the moment of birth, most of them for the convenience of the parents. That is why the issue of abortion remains such a volatile and intensely fought battle in our country.

Not long after the Roe v Wade decision was handed down by the Supreme court on January 22, 1973, Carl Sagan, the popular TV astronomer, wrote an article in Parade Magazine, a magazine inserted in most Sunday papers. The headline over the article read, Abortion, Finding the Middle Ground. I read on to see if there could be such a thing. Sagan wrote, "One would have thought that the controversy was over when the Supreme Court took the middle ground." The middle ground? How could Roe v Wade, a decision that virtually allows abortion for any reason up to the moment of birth, be called the middle ground? No, that is the most extreme position, not anywhere near middle ground.

One would have thought the controversy was over when the Fourteenth Amendment to our Constitution reiterated the Fifth Amendment and the Declaration of Independence by saying, "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Our Constitution guaranteed the right to life. Now the right to privacy has trumped that right, and abortion is the law of the land. As a result, 50,000,000 precious babies have been denied the right to live.

For those of us who believe that every life is a gift from God and that we are created in the image of God, this is an atrocity. That we have legalized the killing of our own children, mothers hiring their death in the womb at the hands of those committed to saving lives, is barbaric. Add in the fact that decent human beings should protect innocent life, and it is obvious why we can never give up the pro-life fight.

That's why I find it encouraging that bills have been drafted and sent to the Judiciary Committee in Augusta calling for a 24-hour waiting period before a woman can have an abortion and to require parental notification before a minor can get an abortion. These are logical first steps, but only first steps, in the effort to overturn Roe v Wade.

Some would argue that Roe v Wade is established law as our local paper has said. As established law, they claim, it has somehow become sacred and untouchable. Unfortunately, that was the same argument that was used to preserve slavery. The Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court was established law, and it allowed property rights of slave owners to trump the right of the slave for freedom. It should have been the moral imperative of every decent citizen to oppose that wrong headed decision. It should be the moral imperative of every decent citizen to fight for the right to life of the unborn children.

When laws are made by man regardless of the transcendent laws of God, those laws are not sacred. They should be changed. As long as wrong laws are in force, people of character like William Wilberforce, who spent a lifetime fighting the slave trade, will be around. As long as abortion continues to take the lives of innocent, unborn babies, there will be people who oppose it.

Should we expect an end to the culture war? No! the war will continue. Those who would destroy the moral culture of this country have been winning battles over the past few decades, but the war of values isn't over. In the same issue of the Bangor Daily News on February 28Th that told of the bills to curtail abortion, you could also read articles on transgender bathroom use in schools and the decision by our President, who is our chief law enforcement officer, who announced he would not defend the Defense of Marriage Act. Can anyone say that we are better off as a country with these and other of the new social experiments? The culture war must continue because the stakes are simply too high.