For my readers who understand legalese, the information I posted was very basic and that was just a miniscule slice of what is available to read. Last night as I was wading through info about Roe (yeah, my brain really does work this way...bear with me), I was just weighed down with the amount of legal explanations. Some of it can be taken in context and as mentioned before.....the content is horrific.
I could feel the tension and the temperature rising as I read and heard the oral arguments of Sarah Weddington. There's so much to Roe that the public doesn't know. As the poll (October 29th, "Just the Facts") suggests, there's a disconnect between what the public knows about Roe (and even Doe) and what the public feels about abortion restrictions.
Many people do not know that Norma McCorvey never had an abortion. Many people still do not know that she later became pro-life and at one time had worked in an abortion facility. I highly recommend reading her autobiography, Won By Love. She tells about her life leading up to that landmark decision and she shares her conversion to Christ. Yes, Norma McCorvey is a Christian and she has been a warrior for babies' lives ever since. Several years ago, she gave her testimony to Congress to put on record that she wanted Roe to be reversed. http://www.endroe.org/mccorveytestimony2.aspx
When I say many people don't know.....let me say upfront that I certainly didn't know these things. My thirst for knowledge on this subject came about 12-13 years ago. All of this information was new at that time and yet, I am STILL learning!!!
Then there was Dr. Bernard Nathanson. Of his own admission, he was responsible for (and oversaw) 75,000 abortions including his own child. He helped found the National Association for the Repeal of the Abortion Laws in 1968. He and Lawrence Lader's goal was to "settle for nothing less than striking down all existing abortion statutes and substituting abortion on demand."
Dr. Nathanson and Mr. Lader implemented a strategy:
1) Capture the media
2) To Play the Catholic Card
3) The Denigration and Suppression of All Scientific Evidence That Life Begins at Conception (will post the link to this interview when my computer isn't moving like sludge).
"I remember laughing when we made those slogans up," recalls Bernard Nathanson, M.D., reminiscing about the early days of the pro-abortion movement in the late '60s and early '70s. Slogans like "Women must have control over their own bodies", "Safe and legal abortion is every woman's right", "Who decides? You decide!", and "Freedom of choice--a basic American right" (no doubt there were others).
We face a lot of lies daily. Some are bald-faced lies to our faces and then there are the subtler (yet just as deadly) lies of omission. Facts about abortion and the history of its forced advancement are left out of the press, the textbooks and yes, even sermons and pulpits of many churches. Sadly, there are very high numbers of people who spout these lies and slogans to this very day. It's all over the internet....go to any discussion on abortion in any newstory, social network or political board and you can just start counting how many people are regurgitating the very catchy and cynical slogans and lies created back in the 1960's. Lies have been with us of course, since the serpent asked "Has God indeed said...?"
What are we NOT told? Nathanson admits that they inflated numbers of illegal abortions performed. There were around 100,000 illegal abortions done yearly but they repeatedly reported there were 1,000,000. Abortion deaths (always a difficult number to determine exactly) were somewhere around 200-250 annually but Nathanson and Lader's number that was fed to the media was 10,000. The public believed it......after all, the nightly news and newspapers reported it so it must have been true. I started listening to Weddington's argument last night. She started spouting statistics of deaths/maternal deaths, abortion "facts" and there was not one shred of credibility to it. She was just another NARAL player and nothing more.
This was not a law based on truth or care for individuals. On the contrary, Justice Ruth Ginsberg revealed, "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of".
Oh really?
Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun's second-born daughter, Sally reminisced about her father's involvement in Roe. Her father's papers (of which she was executor) were released to the public in 2004. "Roe was a case that Dad struggled with," Blackmun told the feminist news service, WomensEnews. "It was a case that he asked his daughters' and wife's opinion about."
I may not be a legal scholar but I did learn in school that our Supreme Court was created to interpret our nation's laws. Our founding document is the Constitution and it's that document that our Supreme Court justices are supposed to employ in those legal interpretations.
This interview revealed that in 1972, Justice Blackmun sought his daughter's opinion on the Roe v. Wade decision. At the time of the decision, Sally Blackmun lived and worked in Washington. Her father gave her advance notice that he was to disclose his ruling, in order for her to be present when it was revealed.
"I was very pleased with the decision and the fact that it gave women that right of choice," she told WomensEnews. "Dad always felt that it was the right thing to do and the necessary thing to do toward the full emancipation of women in this country. So we certainly were in favour of what he did."
(I FEEL a Barry Manilow song coming on.......)
"FEEEEEELINGS!!! Whoooooowhooooooowhoooooo FEELINGS!!!!"
Does anyone know what a judge is supposed to do or be? Do the words fair and impartial mean anything anymore in the judicial field? Isn't justice supposed to be blind?
In Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong's book The Brethren, (a book about the inner workings of the Supreme Court from 1969 to 1975). "Judge Harry Blackmun, author of Roe, was heavily influenced by his wife, who actually told her husband's proabortion clerk that while he was lobbying Blackmun at the office, she was working on him at home." Let's see......his wife, three daughters (middle daughter Sally got pregnant at age 19 out-of-wedlock in 1966), AND his law clerk were lobbying and "working on him". In Mark Levin's book, Men in Black, it was revealed that Mrs. Blackmun told one of his pro-abortion clerks, "that she was doing everything she could to encourage her husband in that direction. "You and I are working on the same thing,' she said. 'Me at home and you at work.' Blackmun later claimed that she (and his three daughters) never tried to influence his decion" (Lyle Denniston, Baltimore Sun, March 5, 1999). So which is it? Who is right? Blackmun or his wife and three daughters?
Don't forget about his statement, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer" (sounds like NARAL's strategy of "Denigration and Suppression of All Scientific Evidence That Life Begins at Conception "worked" on Blackmun too).
I am wrapping up here for now. I'll go into more detail in the future about Doe vs. Bolton very soon. Like the Roe decision, it was all based on deceit. Nathanson wasn't kidding when he said that their goal was abortion-on-demand.....with Doe vs. Bolton, they achieved that very desire. To sum up for now, Roe vs. Wade dictated that no state could put any legal restrictions on abortion in the first three months of pregnancy. Abortion was allowed until birth provided only that one physician considered it necessary for the mother's health. Doe vs. Bolton (decided on the same day as Roe), went on to define "health" as just about any factor. Health could be "physical, psychological, familial, and the women's age, relevant to the well-being of the patient."
Lies.....Satan is the father of ALL lies.....and abortion is all based on lies.
Romans 1:25: "Who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen."
Genesis 3:1- 7 "Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’” Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.
Welcome!
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Just the Facts
Busy day today...it has flown by quickly. I have been perusing different websites for the past 2 hours with my heart growing heavier and heavier. Even just gleaning for facts, it's such a large amount of sad and depressing information and it wearies the soul very quickly.
Roe vs. Wade was argued December 11, 1971. It was reargued October 13, 1972 and decided on January 22, 1973. The decision was 7-2. There was an accompanying case of Doe vs. Bolton decided on the same day (of which I will address in detail another time).
The case:
Jane Roe, et al. v. Henry Wade, District Attorney of Dallas County
Holding
Texas law making it a crime to assist a woman to get an abortion violated her due process rights. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas affirmed in part, reversed in part.
Supreme Court Membership:
Chief Justice: Warren E. Burger
Associate Judges: William O. Douglas,
Majority
Blackmun, Burger, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Powell
Concurrence: Douglas, Stewart and Burger
Dissenting: Byron White and William Rehnquist
In 1969, Norma McCorvey "Jane Roe" got pregnant with her third child. She sought an abortion using the claim that she had been raped as that would have been one way to obtain one legally. Lacking a police report and documentation, she dropped the claim and later admitted she had lied about the rape. She also tried to obtain an illegal abortion but found the facility shut down. She was referred to lawyers Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee who filed a suit on her behalf to obtain an abortion legally even though no rape had taken place and her life was not in danger. The process took so long though, Norma ended up giving birth and the baby was adopted.
The Roe vs. Wade decision, in short, was decided based on two premises: a claim to the right of privacy and the belief that the beginning of life could not be determined. Justice Harry Blackmun wrote, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."
Also stated:
"3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.
(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.
4. The State may define the term "physician" to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined. P. 165.
Blackmun also stated, "A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." Dissenting opinion of Justice William Rehnquist, "The decision here to break pregnancy into three distinct terms and to outline the permissible restrictions the State may impose in each one, for example, partakes more of judicial legislation than it does of a determination of the intent of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The fact that a majority of the States reflecting, after all, the majority sentiment in those States, have had restrictions on abortions for at least a century is a strong indication, it seems to me, that the asserted right to an abortion is not "so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental," Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934). Even today, when society's views on abortion are changing, the very existence of the debate is evidence that the "right" to an abortion is not so universally accepted as the appellant would have us believe.
Dissenting opinion of Justice Byron White: "The Court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries. Whether or not I might agree with that marshaling of values, I can in no event join the Court's judgment because I find no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States. In a sensitive area such as this, involving as it does issues over which reasonable men may easily and heatedly differ, I cannot accept the Court's exercise of its clear power of choice by interposing a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it."
In conclusion, I will enclose this link if anyone wants to hear the actual audio of the case being argued. It has a transcript that is very easy to read along with the audio. It's about an hour long. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_18#argument
Roe vs. Wade was argued December 11, 1971. It was reargued October 13, 1972 and decided on January 22, 1973. The decision was 7-2. There was an accompanying case of Doe vs. Bolton decided on the same day (of which I will address in detail another time).
The case:
Jane Roe, et al. v. Henry Wade, District Attorney of Dallas County
Holding
Texas law making it a crime to assist a woman to get an abortion violated her due process rights. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas affirmed in part, reversed in part.
Supreme Court Membership:
Chief Justice: Warren E. Burger
Associate Judges: William O. Douglas,
Majority
Blackmun, Burger, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Powell
Concurrence: Douglas, Stewart and Burger
Dissenting: Byron White and William Rehnquist
In 1969, Norma McCorvey "Jane Roe" got pregnant with her third child. She sought an abortion using the claim that she had been raped as that would have been one way to obtain one legally. Lacking a police report and documentation, she dropped the claim and later admitted she had lied about the rape. She also tried to obtain an illegal abortion but found the facility shut down. She was referred to lawyers Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee who filed a suit on her behalf to obtain an abortion legally even though no rape had taken place and her life was not in danger. The process took so long though, Norma ended up giving birth and the baby was adopted.
The Roe vs. Wade decision, in short, was decided based on two premises: a claim to the right of privacy and the belief that the beginning of life could not be determined. Justice Harry Blackmun wrote, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."
Also stated:
"3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.
(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.
4. The State may define the term "physician" to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined. P. 165.
Blackmun also stated, "A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." Dissenting opinion of Justice William Rehnquist, "The decision here to break pregnancy into three distinct terms and to outline the permissible restrictions the State may impose in each one, for example, partakes more of judicial legislation than it does of a determination of the intent of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The fact that a majority of the States reflecting, after all, the majority sentiment in those States, have had restrictions on abortions for at least a century is a strong indication, it seems to me, that the asserted right to an abortion is not "so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental," Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934). Even today, when society's views on abortion are changing, the very existence of the debate is evidence that the "right" to an abortion is not so universally accepted as the appellant would have us believe.
Dissenting opinion of Justice Byron White: "The Court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries. Whether or not I might agree with that marshaling of values, I can in no event join the Court's judgment because I find no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States. In a sensitive area such as this, involving as it does issues over which reasonable men may easily and heatedly differ, I cannot accept the Court's exercise of its clear power of choice by interposing a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it."
In conclusion, I will enclose this link if anyone wants to hear the actual audio of the case being argued. It has a transcript that is very easy to read along with the audio. It's about an hour long. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_18#argument
The poll found 87 percent of respondents favored laws requiring doctors to tell women about the possible risks of abortion, 71 percent favored parental consent laws, 69 percent favored a 24‑hour waiting period before an abortion, 64 percent favored a ban on partial birth abortion and 50 percent favored a law requiring women seeking abortions to be shown an image of their ultrasound. …the vast majority of Americans oppose abortion after the first trimester, more than 2/3 of poll takers (71 percent) thought abortion should be illegal in the second three months of pregnancy and nearly 90 percent favored making abortion illegal in the third trimester. If Gallup had asked these same poll takers whether they thought Roe v. Wade was a good decision, the majority of them would have probably said “yes.” … 58 percent of Americans [think] Roe v. Wade was a good decision. So how can 71 percent of Americans favor a policy which can’t happen because of ruling 58 percent of Americans think was good? The answer is Americans don’t know Roe."
Well, these are just the facts for now. Discussion will come later. I am technically late for my promised blog for Friday (besides I WAS at my computer for about 2+hours!! I was here!). It's about 35 minutes late but fortunately, I know a great many forgiving individuals read this blog so there probably won't be a huge scolding. Good night for all of my American friends and good morning for all of my friends across the pond! God Bless ya'll! :)
Thursday, October 27, 2011
How Did We Get Here?
First of all, we need to pray for a 16 year old old in New Jersey. Her parents are forcing an abortion on her and while they have been served the "Dear Parent" letters instructing them on legal ramifications for coercion, the parents are still proceeding. The next step has been taken and that's to warn all the abortion facilities in the area. The letter "Dear Abortion Facilitator" will be sent as a warning to let them know that a female is about to enter their facility who is being forced into an abortion against her will. This makes her "radioactive" to the point that abortionists will refuse to go through with it.
I sent out a prayer request for this situation yesterday and I was asked, "How is this legal?" "What about the father's rights?" "Can't adoption be the answer for this?" This is truly a muck-filled marsh when it comes to the explanation of how it's perfectly acceptable to dismember a human being with a crowd cheering in approval. Where are the cheering crowds? They comprise of the Supreme Court judges and the lawyers who pushed forth Roe vs. Wade, Doe vs. Bolton, Griswold vs. Connecticut, Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri vs. Danforth and many other cases. It also includes the many workers of Planned Parenthood, NARAL members, and a good 95% of Hollywood and press, mainstream media peddlers. Nothing new is under the sun though is it? A thought popped into my mind as I typed this. It's no different than a whole coliseum cheering when people were torn apart by lions. Same bloodthirst, just a different time and place.
This post has been a long time coming and the fact that it has taken me this long to address it has been more out of a concern to get it correct. As I told a friend, it has been like a school research project in which I need to hit the library with my index cards (yeah, I am dating myself). Only there's no real deadline other than an absence of posts showing I have maybe forgotten or abandoned this blog.
I am not a legal scholar and I know there are so many knowledgeable and talented authors who can explain these cases better and with great detail. Of course, there's always worldview too. Those who are for abortion will explain in a way that makes Roe vs. Wade the pinnacle of history. Of course, there are those like me who recognize that abortion is an evil act and we saw Satan dance for joy on January 22, 1973 (well, we did).
Since this is the page for new pro-lifers, here's the plan. First of all, I'll explain simply the "overview" aka "Just the facts, ma'am" approach. When I first became pro-life, all I had ever heard of Roe vs. Wade but I didn't know what it said or how it came to be. I had never heard of Doe vs. Bolton nor the other cases. All I knew was that Roe made abortion legal. I didn't know any legalities of WHY it was bad law. I still scratch my head as to how it all came to pass but hey, I wasn't there!!! This all happened when I was just a month short of being 7 years old! This didn't get taught in schools. We heard about Marbury vs. Madison and Dred Scott but Roe was either ignored or mentioned in quick passing. I frankly don't remember Roe in any of my classes of government or social studies.
When will I start? Tomorrow. My time is up for today as it's a full day of activities. I have baby booties to crochet. You really wouldn't want to prevent me from keeping some babies' feet warm would you? :) Those little toes need to be covered!! We give out to each girl or woman a pair of handmade baby booties when the pregnancy test comes up positive. I'll have to post some pictures of the cute baby booties that our volunteers have crocheted (or knitted). Many other things are given for free to the mommies such as blankets, baby clothes, baby furniture, maternity clothes, formula, diapers, baby food and most importantly the Gospel/love. They can refuse the Gospel of course, but we DO love on them!!! And we really do love them.
Seriously, I need to get a move-on because I forgot we were sorting candy today too (in like 15 minutes!!!) ACK!
I'll admit I got this from verse-of-the-day but it applies to today's subject when we talk about truth and about the thoughts and intents of the heart. We had human judges' thoughts and intents when it came to what would happen to a baby in the womb. Where was truth in these men's judgments when it was announced it was acceptable to dismember that infant based on "privacy" and that the unborn baby wasn't a person deserving of protection?
Hebrews 4:12
“For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”
I sent out a prayer request for this situation yesterday and I was asked, "How is this legal?" "What about the father's rights?" "Can't adoption be the answer for this?" This is truly a muck-filled marsh when it comes to the explanation of how it's perfectly acceptable to dismember a human being with a crowd cheering in approval. Where are the cheering crowds? They comprise of the Supreme Court judges and the lawyers who pushed forth Roe vs. Wade, Doe vs. Bolton, Griswold vs. Connecticut, Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri vs. Danforth and many other cases. It also includes the many workers of Planned Parenthood, NARAL members, and a good 95% of Hollywood and press, mainstream media peddlers. Nothing new is under the sun though is it? A thought popped into my mind as I typed this. It's no different than a whole coliseum cheering when people were torn apart by lions. Same bloodthirst, just a different time and place.
This post has been a long time coming and the fact that it has taken me this long to address it has been more out of a concern to get it correct. As I told a friend, it has been like a school research project in which I need to hit the library with my index cards (yeah, I am dating myself). Only there's no real deadline other than an absence of posts showing I have maybe forgotten or abandoned this blog.
I am not a legal scholar and I know there are so many knowledgeable and talented authors who can explain these cases better and with great detail. Of course, there's always worldview too. Those who are for abortion will explain in a way that makes Roe vs. Wade the pinnacle of history. Of course, there are those like me who recognize that abortion is an evil act and we saw Satan dance for joy on January 22, 1973 (well, we did).
Since this is the page for new pro-lifers, here's the plan. First of all, I'll explain simply the "overview" aka "Just the facts, ma'am" approach. When I first became pro-life, all I had ever heard of Roe vs. Wade but I didn't know what it said or how it came to be. I had never heard of Doe vs. Bolton nor the other cases. All I knew was that Roe made abortion legal. I didn't know any legalities of WHY it was bad law. I still scratch my head as to how it all came to pass but hey, I wasn't there!!! This all happened when I was just a month short of being 7 years old! This didn't get taught in schools. We heard about Marbury vs. Madison and Dred Scott but Roe was either ignored or mentioned in quick passing. I frankly don't remember Roe in any of my classes of government or social studies.
When will I start? Tomorrow. My time is up for today as it's a full day of activities. I have baby booties to crochet. You really wouldn't want to prevent me from keeping some babies' feet warm would you? :) Those little toes need to be covered!! We give out to each girl or woman a pair of handmade baby booties when the pregnancy test comes up positive. I'll have to post some pictures of the cute baby booties that our volunteers have crocheted (or knitted). Many other things are given for free to the mommies such as blankets, baby clothes, baby furniture, maternity clothes, formula, diapers, baby food and most importantly the Gospel/love. They can refuse the Gospel of course, but we DO love on them!!! And we really do love them.
Seriously, I need to get a move-on because I forgot we were sorting candy today too (in like 15 minutes!!!) ACK!
I'll admit I got this from verse-of-the-day but it applies to today's subject when we talk about truth and about the thoughts and intents of the heart. We had human judges' thoughts and intents when it came to what would happen to a baby in the womb. Where was truth in these men's judgments when it was announced it was acceptable to dismember that infant based on "privacy" and that the unborn baby wasn't a person deserving of protection?
Hebrews 4:12
“For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”
Thursday, October 6, 2011
My Revolving Door Week
Back home again!
I am chomping at the bit to address several newsworthy items of late. However, one has to be present and have the blocks of time to do it and I have had little opportunity of neither. Even now I realize that there are loads of laundry to finish, packing (again) and a few events going on today that will keep this post very brief. Let's say, I'll "try" to keep it brief.
This past week, I was very blessed to go to a retreat and yes, tomorrow is another one that is slightly different. The retreats are out-of-town and in the same location and in perfect timing in that I have needed them. Definitely NEEDED them. God is so good!! The messages have been perfect, the fellowship sweet and the work He is doing in me welcomed greatly....even though it stings to have that mirror show me how unloving and disgraceful I am. "Oh, you are SWEEEEET" or "Oh, you are NOT unloving".....um, YES, I AM!!! Someone said to me the other day when I was sharing how I came to Christ, "Really? You? Cynical?" Yes, very cynical and the sad thing is I can STILL be very cynical and edgy....although it has taken a different form and it's not as on the surface as it used to be. It went underground and it is directed differently.
So, my sclerosis of the heart needs to be treated and my narrowing of spiritual arteries needs to be stented. I need to be humbled on His operating table.....His instruments incising and excising my self-exaltation, pride and hatred. OUCH. I LOVE His recovery room though. :) He has the perfect bedside manner, His diagnoses are always correct and His treatments are always perfect. The sin of the world keeps us on a steady track of entropy of the mind and body.
So part one of the surgery is over....need to go back in again though to take care of more. To carry this medical analogy a little further....what happens when we ignore the maladies? What happens when we don't go for the regular visits to the Great Physician? The disease advances and we really let ourselves go. It's not too much for Him....but we still pay the consequences for our inattention to health...physical or the spiritual health.
God willing, I WILL share soon though. Pray I can get the things done without destraction or interruption. The Good News is that He died for our sins (my sins) and my citizenship is in Heaven and I'll be with Him forever. That's the best!
Other news is that the Rockford abortion facility has closed down and we pray that it STAYS shut down!!! More on that later. Another news item is that Steve Jobs died of pancreatic cancer. Why report his death HERE? Well, he was ADOPTED. Much of the technology we possess today is attributed to Jobs. We can't ignore that had his mother sought an abortion, we would not have the Apple, Ipad, Iphone etc. Steve Jobs was born in San Francisco in 1955. Abortion became legal in 1967 in California. Abortion was a crime unless a doctor deemed it fit to abort for the life of the woman. San Francisco most likely offered opportunities to women to abort without much problem given that California has been a frontrunner in pushing sinful agendas from a very early time. Steve's mother could have obtained an abortion...legal or not, women still got abortions before 1967 and 1973....in hospitals by physicians.
It's time for me to close this but I hope to be back in awhile to explore the impact of these events. The retreat I attended emphasized God's grace so I share this:
2 Corinthians 12:7-10-
And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure. Concerning this thing I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might depart from me. And He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
I am chomping at the bit to address several newsworthy items of late. However, one has to be present and have the blocks of time to do it and I have had little opportunity of neither. Even now I realize that there are loads of laundry to finish, packing (again) and a few events going on today that will keep this post very brief. Let's say, I'll "try" to keep it brief.
This past week, I was very blessed to go to a retreat and yes, tomorrow is another one that is slightly different. The retreats are out-of-town and in the same location and in perfect timing in that I have needed them. Definitely NEEDED them. God is so good!! The messages have been perfect, the fellowship sweet and the work He is doing in me welcomed greatly....even though it stings to have that mirror show me how unloving and disgraceful I am. "Oh, you are SWEEEEET" or "Oh, you are NOT unloving".....um, YES, I AM!!! Someone said to me the other day when I was sharing how I came to Christ, "Really? You? Cynical?" Yes, very cynical and the sad thing is I can STILL be very cynical and edgy....although it has taken a different form and it's not as on the surface as it used to be. It went underground and it is directed differently.
So, my sclerosis of the heart needs to be treated and my narrowing of spiritual arteries needs to be stented. I need to be humbled on His operating table.....His instruments incising and excising my self-exaltation, pride and hatred. OUCH. I LOVE His recovery room though. :) He has the perfect bedside manner, His diagnoses are always correct and His treatments are always perfect. The sin of the world keeps us on a steady track of entropy of the mind and body.
So part one of the surgery is over....need to go back in again though to take care of more. To carry this medical analogy a little further....what happens when we ignore the maladies? What happens when we don't go for the regular visits to the Great Physician? The disease advances and we really let ourselves go. It's not too much for Him....but we still pay the consequences for our inattention to health...physical or the spiritual health.
God willing, I WILL share soon though. Pray I can get the things done without destraction or interruption. The Good News is that He died for our sins (my sins) and my citizenship is in Heaven and I'll be with Him forever. That's the best!
Other news is that the Rockford abortion facility has closed down and we pray that it STAYS shut down!!! More on that later. Another news item is that Steve Jobs died of pancreatic cancer. Why report his death HERE? Well, he was ADOPTED. Much of the technology we possess today is attributed to Jobs. We can't ignore that had his mother sought an abortion, we would not have the Apple, Ipad, Iphone etc. Steve Jobs was born in San Francisco in 1955. Abortion became legal in 1967 in California. Abortion was a crime unless a doctor deemed it fit to abort for the life of the woman. San Francisco most likely offered opportunities to women to abort without much problem given that California has been a frontrunner in pushing sinful agendas from a very early time. Steve's mother could have obtained an abortion...legal or not, women still got abortions before 1967 and 1973....in hospitals by physicians.
It's time for me to close this but I hope to be back in awhile to explore the impact of these events. The retreat I attended emphasized God's grace so I share this:
2 Corinthians 12:7-10-
And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure. Concerning this thing I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might depart from me. And He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Facepalm
Don't we all have these moments when God taps us on the shoulders and says, "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding...?" What about those moments when He says, "The people are still too many; bring them down to the water, and I will test them for you there."
That realization kind of (and finally) hit me tonight. A sweet Christian sister had encouraged me recently that unless God revealed to me otherwise, this blog should continue. I was very appreciative and I took it to heart.
This past evening (as I see it's now midnight) we started another class for training new lay counselors for the pregnancy resource center. It's something I always look forward to every time for a variety of reasons which I will detail another time. I was sitting amongst the new trainees listening to my dear friends explaining God's calling in this ministry. They were both encouraging the women that like Gideon, we are to look to God to equip us. We are weak and we get overwhelmed by the thought of what God has called us to do. Then He changes plans like whittling down our armies. Why? So everyone will see that it's not about US....it's about HIM and the glory is all for Him. He is to be exalted....not us. Not me.
Exact words kind of escape me now (it has been a long day) but the charge was this..."You may feel weak and may feel ill-equiped, but you are His Gideons and HE will equip you". This a big world with a lot of evil and there's a lot of fighting to do in the spiritual realm but God has called you to do your part. He wouldn't call you to do something and then send you out with nothing. Oh yes.....here's another confirmation.....it was an email from the sister I mentioned above. From Anne Graham Lotz (which I'll post below in its entirety so it may encourage you too). The title was, "With God, You're a Majority". Another nudge and tap.
Okay, okay, okay, God. I get it. I really do. It was confirmation. Head down....face in palm. Sigh.
Ya' know...I HAVE been wrong before......so one would think this isn't such a big deal to just be wrong AGAIN. It won't be the last time either. It's just a reminder that I have to be continually reminded......He's in charge, I am not. I just want to be in the center of His will and to be obedient. I just don't want to be one of those people who have a form of godliness and denying its power. He owns the cattle on a thousand hills, and He owns the hills. Trust, trust, trust. It's not about the blog. It's not about the lay counseling of clients. It's about trusting in Him for everything. I am so glad and grateful that He keeps putting up with THIS sheep who needs her Shepherd. I am grateful for His mercy, His grace, His forgiveness, His power and His Love.....and His Son.
I love Him so.
AnGeL Ministries Website
That realization kind of (and finally) hit me tonight. A sweet Christian sister had encouraged me recently that unless God revealed to me otherwise, this blog should continue. I was very appreciative and I took it to heart.
This past evening (as I see it's now midnight) we started another class for training new lay counselors for the pregnancy resource center. It's something I always look forward to every time for a variety of reasons which I will detail another time. I was sitting amongst the new trainees listening to my dear friends explaining God's calling in this ministry. They were both encouraging the women that like Gideon, we are to look to God to equip us. We are weak and we get overwhelmed by the thought of what God has called us to do. Then He changes plans like whittling down our armies. Why? So everyone will see that it's not about US....it's about HIM and the glory is all for Him. He is to be exalted....not us. Not me.
Exact words kind of escape me now (it has been a long day) but the charge was this..."You may feel weak and may feel ill-equiped, but you are His Gideons and HE will equip you". This a big world with a lot of evil and there's a lot of fighting to do in the spiritual realm but God has called you to do your part. He wouldn't call you to do something and then send you out with nothing. Oh yes.....here's another confirmation.....it was an email from the sister I mentioned above. From Anne Graham Lotz (which I'll post below in its entirety so it may encourage you too). The title was, "With God, You're a Majority". Another nudge and tap.
Okay, okay, okay, God. I get it. I really do. It was confirmation. Head down....face in palm. Sigh.
Ya' know...I HAVE been wrong before......so one would think this isn't such a big deal to just be wrong AGAIN. It won't be the last time either. It's just a reminder that I have to be continually reminded......He's in charge, I am not. I just want to be in the center of His will and to be obedient. I just don't want to be one of those people who have a form of godliness and denying its power. He owns the cattle on a thousand hills, and He owns the hills. Trust, trust, trust. It's not about the blog. It's not about the lay counseling of clients. It's about trusting in Him for everything. I am so glad and grateful that He keeps putting up with THIS sheep who needs her Shepherd. I am grateful for His mercy, His grace, His forgiveness, His power and His Love.....and His Son.
I love Him so.
AnGeL Ministries Website
With God, You're a Majority
He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ.
Philippians 1:6, NKJV
God is looking for a few good men and women. Men and women who are willing
to go against the current of popular opinion,
to hold firm convictions in a world where "anything goes,"
to speak the truth when it is not politically correct,
to walk with God when everyone else is running away from Him.
God is looking for those who believe
that what He says is more important than what anyone else says,
that what He thinks is more important than what anyone else thinks,
that what He wants is more important than what anyone else wants.
that His will is more important than their own.
God is looking for another Noah. Another Meshach. Another Shadrach. Another Abednego. One person with God is not alone but a majority!
Blessings,
Anne Graham Lotz
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)