Christian without compromise

In an ostensibly conciliatory commentary about the need to transcend "partisan divisiveness" and "incivility," Tom Krattenmaker tars conservative Christians engaged in the public square as "evangelical kingmakers," "mean-spirited, truth demolishing," "partisan hacks" who are "fixated on politics." (By significant contrast, an abortion lobbyist is a "fighter for women's reproductive rights.")

Mr. Krattenmaker rightly advocates that even in the barroom-brawl world of politics, Christians should remain Christ-like: charitable, humble, temperate, truthful, forgiving. Yet the Prince of Peace also intriguingly proclaimed that He "did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Political and faith leaders throughout history such as Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Jr., Ronald Reagan and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn have fought for social justice and mercy by wielding a sharp-edged separation of good and evil, a clear exposition of truth versus deception. The policy stances our nation takes on issues like abortion, human trafficking, assisted suicide and war accommodate no middle ground or prevarication; such policies lead to either life or death, freedom or slavery for millions of individuals.

Civility in dialogue, yes. Compromise on principle, no.

Obamacare: Somehow "hope and change" translated into "kneel and obey."

As the Supreme Court hears arguments for and against Obamacare, supporters of the massive intrusion of the federal government into the physician-patient relationship are ginning up the old talking points. Like the one about the supposed freedom to keep your health insurance without change. But the contraceptives mandate has already blown the lid off that cover-up: now virtually every plan must change to cover life-ending contraceptives, regardless of moral persuasion.

Supporters are also dusting off the old talking point about increasing access to health care--without mentioning that this administration's gutting of conscience protections, disdain for religious liberty and heavy-handed regulations threaten to drive out of medicine many faith-based and pro-life health professionals.

And then we hear yet once more about how Obamacare is just the medicine we need to save costs in health care, without disclosure of the unpleasant side-effect: the government will be deciding instead of you and your physician whether you get the most effective cancer treatment or merely the cheapest.

In all of this, it's becoming clearer and clearer that the American people are not buying the golden rhetoric like they did four years ago. Somehow "hope and change" translated into "kneel and obey." 

Now it's up to the Supreme Court or the next session of Congress to restore our liberties.

House committee takes step to prevent transporting minors across state lines for abortions

Taking a step closer to making it a federal crime to transport a minor across a state line in circumvention of a state law requiring parental involvement in the minor's abortion, yesterday the House Judiciary Committee approved the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA), H.R. 2299 by a vote of 20 to 13. The bill also requires parental notice for abortions on minors who are from a state other than where the abortion will take place. 

Several polls indicate that roughly seven in ten Americans support parental involvement laws. 

• Video and roll call votes on the amendments offered during the markup: here.
• Video of Rep. Lamar Smith, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee: Opening Statement
• Video of Rep. Trent Franks, Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution: Opening Statement

Oregon hides assisted suicide stats but problems still leak out

"Dr. Death" assisted suicide advocate Jack Kevorkian

Assisted suicide proponents argue that getting the government to sanction medically induced death results in patient autonomy. Of course, they may be the only people nowadays who believe that increased government involvement results in increased individual autonomy.
They would also have us believe that bureaucrats in a state like Oregon, which sanctions medical killing, are going to be forthcoming about problems with the assisted suicide law the state has adopted. The law actually mandates secrecy, which of course prevents any patient protections that might otherwise result from transparency and public and media oversight.

The Physicians for Compassionate Care Education Foundation recently issued the following critique of the Public Health Department of the Oregon Health Authority's report for physician-assisted suicides for the 2011 year, noting:

• There were more prescriptions and deaths than in any previous year; the number of prescriptions written for lethal doses of barbiturates increased from 97 in 2010 to 114 in 2011, and the reported deaths from assisted suicide increased from 65 to 71. This is indicative of an increase in hopelessness and despair among a vulnerable population with serious illness.
• 62 doctors wrote 114 prescriptions, with some writing up to 14 prescriptions each. Some doctors knew the patient for only one week before writing the prescriptions. It is known that some doctors are prominent prescribers of lethal barbiturates for assisted suicide.
• As has occurred in prior years, not all who attempt to take the drugs will die. Two patients ingested the medication but failed to die. Each regained consciousness and died more than a day later, 30 hours and 38 hours respectively, of their underlying illness; they were not considered to have died from the ingested drugs. These are not easy drugs to take, they are bitter and foul-tasting, and vomiting does occur despite anti-emetics..
• As in previous years, there was virtually no formal evaluation for underlying depression, anxiety or other serious mental health issue. Only one of the 71 patients was referred for psychiatric evaluation. OHSU researchers in 2008 reported that 25% of patients requesting assisted suicide were considered to be depressed.
• As in previous years, pain has not been a major concern; only one third of patients had inadequate pain control or concern about it. The most commonly expressed concerns of those dying from physician-assisted suicide were unchanged from previous reports: less able to engage in activities making life enjoyable, losing autonomy, and loss of dignity.
• In only six cases was the prescribing physician present at the time of ingestion, in 3 other cases another provider was present. Thus, very little is known or reported regarding events at the time of ingestion of the medications. For 62 patients there was either no provider present or the information regarding presence of a provider was unknown. Physicians appear to be disengaged with patients at the end.
• In essence then, complications were unknown for 59 patients, and any information regarding minutes between ingestion and unconsciousness and death was unknown for 63 patients.
• The shroud of secrecy surrounding assisted suicide is heavier than ever. With each passing year, Oregonians know less and less about what is really happening with assisted suicides in the state.

Inaugural oath more than a pledge to create jobs

Karen Tumulty's commentary-as-news article in the Washington Post, "Recent debate over contraception comes as GOP loses gains among women," left out the voices for constitutional principles in what she described as a "national shouting match over reproductive issues."

The First Amendment unambiguously protects the free exercise of religion from state coercion. Yet the Obama administration is audaciously denying the free exercise of religion by coercing faith-based organizations and individuals to violate their conscience by participating in what the FDA labels as potentially life-ending contraceptives such as ella and Plan B.

The article suggests that presidential candidates should shut up about the contraceptive mandate, throw religious groups under the bus and focus on jobs. Yet statesmen left and right, from Jefferson to Lincoln to King, have advanced Constitutional principles even when many in the country fiercely favored Constitution-violating actions involving free speech, slavery and civil rights.

As Thomas Jefferson declared, "No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.”

How can a candidate unwilling to brave opposition in defense of constitutional liberties take the inaugural oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States?"