Posts
All Comments
This is a fun thing to do compliments of www.wordle.net. I must say my blog must be quite boring judging by the words picture. :-) Of course, the three words from my signature figured prominently into the analysis.
As a follow up to the last post, I thought I should share this.
I just ran across this very challenging (short) message from Pastor John and felt led to pass it on. His condemnations are pointed, and I believe spot on. But, I think that beyond the obvious heresies common to the prosperity gospel, Pastor John's question about whether converts of/to the prosperity gospel will fulfill the Great Commission is particularly thought provoking. If we are known by our fruits and the prosperity gospel teaches that growing closer to God will make things better for us in terms of riches, wealth and comfort, thereby making prosperity and comfort a type of fruit, then what would a prosperity gospel advocate say regarding it's (the prosperity gospel's) lack of fruit or motivation in fulfilling the Great Commission?
1 I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: 2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. 3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. 5 As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.
6 For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. 7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. 8 Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing.
Here is a wonderful reminder and challenge that I told a dear friend I would post.
God bless and veritas supra omnis!
Health care issues: Paying for abortions
By The Associated Press (AP) – Oct 9, 2009
A look at key issues in the health care debate:
THE ISSUE: Would new health care legislation allow abortions to be funded with tax money?
THE POLITICS: Abortion opponents say proposed government-sponsored health insurance plans would change federal policy by paying for abortions in many cases. For years, a restriction in the law that governs Medicaid — health insurance for the poor — has barred federal funding of abortions except in cases of rape, incest and danger to the mother's life. The proposed legislation would permit government-sponsored health plans, open to non-Medicaid patients, to cover abortions. In seeking a political compromise, a House version would require publicly sponsored plans to pay for abortions with private funds from customers' premiums, not tax dollars. Critics call the requirement meaningless. They say public and private sources of insurance funding would essentially go into, and come out of, one big pot.
WHAT IT MEANS: Women with private insurance plans that cover abortion might be able to switch to a less-expensive public plan without losing that coverage. Anti-abortion activists would feel they've lost an important battle, as taxpayer funds mingle with some insurance plans that, one way or another, pay for abortions.
_ Charles Babington
Hello all!
Check out this new ad from AUL and be sure to pass it on to those who may not be aware of the information contained in the ad.
God bless and veritas supra omnis!
Hello all!
When I checked my email this morning, I found this latest Heritage Foundation "Morning Bell" update and thought it warranted passing on. I know I've already made some of the the same basic points made in the article on this blog, but this "Morning Bell" does a very good job of summing up the key issues, so it's worth your time to read through it.
This Morning Bell is the third in a five-part week-long series on how Obamacare will affect you.
“Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions,” Or so President Barack Obama promised to the American people in his health care address before a Joint Session of Congress on September 9th. But then why did the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops send a letter to Congress on October 8th writing: “No one should be required to pay for or participate in abortion. … No current bill meets this test”?
Who is telling the truth? The President or the Bishops? Last Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked this question during his daily press briefing and answered: “Well, I don’t want to get me in trouble at church, but I would mention there’s a law that precludes the use of federal funds for abortion that isn’t going to be changed in these health care bills.” Unsatisfied, the CNS News' Fred Lucas again pressed on Friday: "The Catholic bishops have repeatedly said that the Hyde amendment would not apply to the health care bill and yesterday in the letter that they sent to Congress they said that if language expressly prohibiting abortion funding is not added to the health care bill, they will vigorously — “vigorously oppose” — that’s a quote — the bill. My question on that, does the President support the bishops on this?"
Gibbs replied: "My answer isn’t different than it was on Wednesday. There may be a legal interpretation that has been lost here, but there’s a fairly clear federal law prohibiting the federal use of money for abortion. I think it is — again, it’s exceedingly clear in the law."
How to put this politely … it is safe to say that Gibbs’ above statement is less than true. The next time anyone tries to convince you otherwise, that the White House is telling the truth ask them where in the Federal Code it says this.
The truth is…it doesn’t. But what about the Hyde amendment mentioned by the White House reporter? Is the Hyde amendment not the law of the land? No, it is not even a statute. First passed in 1976 by Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) as a rider to the Health and Human Services appropriations bill,the Hyde amendment my be passed again every year as part of hte HHS appropriations bill and even then it only applies to current HHS programs. The Hyde amendment would do nothing to stop Obamacare from funding abortions and all the versions of Obamacare passed by Congressional committees so far do exactly that.
Conservatives introduced amendments in all five committee markups (three in the House and two in the Senate) that would have specifically prohibited federal funds from being used to cover abortion. None of them passed. Worse, the “compromise” the White House has adopted is an amendment sponsored by Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) who has a 100% pro-abortion voting record according to the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Not only does the Capps amendment allow for federal money to subsidize abortions in private plans and mandate federal funding for abortions in the public option (this according to FactCheck.org), it also requires that at least one insurance plan cover abortion in every geographical region in the country.
In 2007, then candidate Barack Obama promised Planned Parenthood: “We’re gonna set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don’t have health insurance. It will be a plan that will provide all essential services including reproductive services. … We will also subsidize those who choose to stay in the private insurance market, except, the insurers are going to have to abide by the same rules in terms of providing comprehensive care including reproductive care.” A Rasmussen poll released last month showed that only 13% of Americans want the health-care reform bill to use tax dollars to fund abortions, clearly demonstrating thateven most pro-choicebelievers do not favor taxpayer funded abortions. A Pew Research Center poll two weeks ago showed that support for legalized abortion has dropped to its lowest level in years to 47%, down from 54% last year. Obama can either please NARAL and Planned Parenthood or he can honor the beliefs of the overwhelming majority of Americans. He can’t do both."
"24"But I do not consider my life of any account as dear to myself, so that I may finish my course and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify solemnly of the gospel of the grace of God.
25"And now, behold, I know that all of you, among whom I went about preaching the kingdom, will no longer see my face.
26"Therefore, I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men."
Hey all!
Some of you may be a little confused or wondering as to how exactly the government health-care proposals on the table would effect abortion, specifically, whether government funds could be used to fund abortions under the guise or category of "health-care".
Charmaine Yoest, President of Americans United for Life (AUL), from the beginning of the health-care debate has been on top of the issue and in the front line of the health-care fight, bringing much clarity to the issue and fighting to keep government health-care dollars from funding abortion. In the imbedded video she explains how the current health-care proposals would indeed inevitably lead to abortion funding through...the courts? Yes...and I believe she is absolutely correct. Be sure to watch the video...
Additionally, I've linked below an article written by Yoest in The Washington Times. For those who don't have time to read the entire article I have pasted the key portion of article directly below, so be sure to read that if you can. Remember this is an important issue!
The truth is that the health care packages under consideration do include abortion funding. Without a specific statutory amendment that includes an explicit ban on federal funding and coverage, we face health care reform that includes abortion.
Lost in the debate over whether or not abortion is "in there" - whether or not you can flip to a certain page and point to a particular clause related to abortion funding - is an understanding among political elites that this is a watershed battle over definition. It's existential, if you will, and comes down to a very straightforward question: Is abortion health care, or is it not?
An inadvertent answer from the abortion advocates' side emerged during the debate over H.R. 3200 in the House Education and Labor Committee on July 22 after Rep. Mark Souder, Indiana Republican, offered an amendment to exclude abortion funding from health care reform. Rep. Lynn Woolsey, California Democrat, clearly miffed, responded:
"[Abortion] is a legal medical practice and by even having to talk about it ... we're not talking about having your tonsils out. ..."
No, indeed we are not. As a matter of public policy, we still have the ability to differentiate between an abortion and a tonsillectomy. But this is precisely the debate we confront.
Planned Parenthood and the abortion lobby define abortion as health care, as being morally equivalent to a tonsillectomy, and health care reform is their vehicle for imposing that view definitively with the full force of the federal government.
For the record, the Souder amendment to bar federal funding of abortion failed, as have all similar attempts to provide a clear and unequivocal abortion exclusion.
This is literally a defining moment for the pro-life movement. On Planned Parenthood's Web site, the very first category under Health on the navigation bar is Abortion.
Hello all!
I was blessed this morning to come across this video clip and thought it was definitely worth passing on.
God bless and veritas supra omnis!
Blogger Template base thanks to Ourblogtemplates.com 2008; Design by: Kalistablogworks 2009
Back to TOP
