Skip to main content

Trump, Kavanaugh, and Roe



President Donald Trump's nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court has caused the national conversation to turn once again to Roe v. Wade. Supporters of abortion are nervous that this right might be taken away, while those of us who rightly believe that abortion kills an unborn child would love to see this slaughter brought to a halt.

In my book which was released last Friday (Asleep in Heaven’s Nursery, 2nd Edition) I included a new chapter that deals with why the Judicial and Legislative Branches need to act. I analyze the majority opinion in Roe, highlighting Justice Blackmun’s conclusion that the Court disagreed with any notion that a woman should be able to have an abortion at any time and for any reason, and how women should have a consultation from a responsible doctor before having an abortion. The abortion business has taken us light years away from that decision.

Most people think the Supreme Court waded knee-deep in science and expert opinions before issuing its ruling; the reality is there was no settled science, nor was there a consensus among religious institutions. What the Supreme Court called for was an agreement from the religious community, for scientific data, and for legislation from lawmakers. Now 45 years later, the science could not be clearer, and the faith-based communities could not be more in agreement that life begins at conception. Now it is time for the law to change.

Many think the Supreme Court saw a woman’s right to kill her baby in the Constitution, but again, the majority opinion shows us otherwise. Blackmun conceded that the unborn child’s right to life would trump the mother’s right to privacy, but in 1973 there was no way to prove that the unborn child was alive. Now we know they are alive, and by Blackmun’s own words, the baby’s right to live should trump the mother’s “my body, my choice” mantra.

To read the full analysis of this topic, or to read about all the other topics covered, please check out the new expanded 2nd Edition of Asleep in Heaven’s Nursery. The book is available wherever books are sold, including at the links below:








Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The “Christians Hate Gays” Myth

During these Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) hearings before the Supreme Court I keep hearing how much Christians hate gay people. This was news to me since I am a Christian and I don’t hate gay people. I also go to church with over 1000 other Christians, and if any of them hate gay people, they sure haven’t told me. Before moving to South Carolina I worked at or attended several churches in Texas; prior to that I spent a decade going to church in Florida. Guess what? No one hated gay people. In fact, I don’t know any Christians who hate anybody. The very uniform of a believer is his love, and if a person does not show consistent love, then he is not actually a believer. Are there non-believers who hate gay people and claim to be Christian? Of course. But that doesn’t represent Jesus or His church. Equating  hateful sign-wavers with Christianity is like equating a kindergarten baseball team to the New York Yankees. They may claim to be playing the same

To Save a Life

(Like my blog about the peace symbol, this blog was written as a default response to all the parents, students, and other people who are asking my opinion of To Save a Life.) By now you have probably heard of the movie To Save a Life, which opened nation-wide in theaters on January 22nd. The movie deals with so many issues that teens face today, like suicide, cutting, drinking, drugs, premarital sex, teen pregnancy, and abortion. At first glance this movie looks like an awesome resource that we should recommend for our teens, parents, youth pastors, and youth workers. But a closer look at the movie reveals a few disturbing things. For starters, according to pluggedin.com, there are 2 uses of the “A” word, 5 uses of hell (used as a curse word), and once the “D” word is used. There are other crude terms used to describe a girl, and crude terms for referring to sexual activity. There is also a bedroom scene that shows a girl removing a boy’s shirt, then afterwards the girl putting he

Famous Frauds in Homosexual Science Part 2: Twin Studies

A second piece of shoddy science has been heralded as proving people are born gay. This time, instead of cadavers, living twins were studied. This study compared male identical twins to male fraternal twins; in each set of twins, at least one man was homosexual. 22% of the fraternal twins showed both brothers to be gay, compared to 52% of the identical twins. Since identical twins are closer genetically than fraternal twins, this study claimed that genetics play in to homosexuality, or that people are born gay. But an obvious question that arose from this study is, why did 48% of the identical twins only have one gay brother? If they are so close genetically, then 100% of the identical twins should have two gay brothers. This study does more harm than good to the argument from genetics. There are other factors to be considered. One is that the men doing the study (Richard Pillard and Michael Bailey) could have intentionally picked fraternal twins that the