"Among these are Life..."

This Independence Day we celebrate a declaration, not only of the independence of 13 colonies, but also of some timeless truths that our Founding Fathers recognized: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

When Congress or the Supreme Court or anyone else tells us what rights we have or don't have, let us never forget that it is God Himself that has given rights to all men, based on the fact that He created them in His own image. Human rights come from God, not from government. Our Founding Fathers knew that, and we must not forget it.

The rights to life, liberty, and property are all under assault, but the chief among these is the right to life--a right which our laws fail to protect before birth (and in some cases after an injury or debilitating disease).

There are many fronts in the battle for God's gift of life. Some battle the forces of death in the legislatures. Some in the courts. Some in the battle for the hearts and minds of Americans. Some educate young people about the dangers of immorality and urge them to abstain until marriage. Others volunteer at pregnancy helping centers, persuading women not to abort. Still others stand as a last line of defense at the abortion clinics themselves, either protesting or doing sidewalk counseling. With so many different fronts, there are many gaps in which to stand.

Our Founding Fathers pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to defend the freedoms they held dear. As we honor all the patriots who have risked and given their lives in defense of our freedom, let us commit to defend the God-given right to life with equal resolve--and with equal reliance upon the Author of life and the Giver of liberty.


Wesley Wilson

--
Wesley Wilson is the President of Let Her Live, a nonprofit dedicated to saving babies by showing the beauty and value of life to women considering abortion. Please learn more about the Let Her Live pro-life billboard campaign. Donations are tax deductible.

So Much for Free Speech

I commented recently on penalties imposed on "hate speech" (a.k.a., speech the government doesn't approve of) in France. With the political left pushing for hate speech laws in the United States, it is a battle that every American who values his or her right to say things that are unpopular, will soon have to fight.

But we don't have to wait long. Elaine Huguenin, a wedding photographer in New Mexico, will be brought before the New Mexico Human Rights Division because she refused to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony.

It remains a mystery why the agency has even agreed to hear the complaint, as a spokesman for the state said the agency handles discrimination claims "in the areas of employment, housing, credit or public accommodation." Last time I checked, wedding photos didn't fit in those categories. I haven't read the New Mexico constitution, but I seriously doubt it protects the basic human right to have photographs taken of you. But we all know about the rights that courts can find in "living" documents.

How can minor "rights" override major ones? How can a supposed right not to be discriminated against trump the right to free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment? For that matter, how did the "right to privacy" discovered in Roe v. Wade trump the right to due process of law before an individual is deprived of life?

As we have just seen in the California rulings banning home schooling and legalizing homosexual "marriage," the courts are free to make up the rules as they go. The judiciary was intended to be the most conservative branch (in the sense of resistant to change) of government. It has become the most radical. Change should come as the people's representatives propose it and pass laws. The judges should see that the laws of the land (and in some cases, its traditions) are followed.

The courts are out of control, and the legislature is the only body capable of removing the judges who violate their trust and make new laws. We must get our representatives to undertake that responsibility. And it might not be a bad idea to start working toward constitutional amendments at the state and federal level allowing voter recall of all judges.

If we don't get the courts to follow the laws of the land, we won't have a Constitution left, nor will we have the freedoms it guarantees.


Wesley Wilson is the President of Let Her Live, a nonprofit dedicated to saving babies by showing the beauty and value of life to women considering abortion. Please learn more about the Let Her Live pro-life billboard campaign. Donations are tax deductible.

Totalitarian Tolerance is Nothing New

The inflexible forces of tolerance have scored another victory against intolerant speech. French actress Brigitte Bardot was fined 15,000 euros for the statement: "I've had enough of being led by the nose by this whole population which is destroying us, (and) destroying our country by imposing their ways." She was referring to the Muslims of course, specifically to what she views as their inhumane killing of animals. So to demonstrate she was wrong, the government imposed the fine for even writing the statement.

This is where the politically-correct movement is heading in the United States and Canada too. We musn't criticize Islam. We can't preach against homosexuality or we risk going to jail (in Canada and some states). Those who work against illegal immigration are called racists.

Many would also love to silence pro-life activists. Have we forgotten the police brutality against Operation Rescue and other pro-life people participating in peaceful civil disobedience? Or the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances law that was finally struck down for violating first amendment rights? Or the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that limits political speech?

In the pro-life movement, we look back to the anti-slavery movement of the 1800's for inspiration. They faced much worse restriction of their first amendment rights than we have seen. In the 1830's, the postal system in many parts of the country refused to deliver "incendiary publications," such as those that criticized slavery. John Quincy Adams fought for years to overcome Congress' gag order that kept them from even considering citizens' petitions against slavery. Anti-slavery newspaper editor Elijah Lovejoy was murdered in Alton, Ill., because he refused to stop his abolitionist writing. And the unlawfully-elected proslavery government of "Bloody" Kansas made mere possession of Uncle Tom's Cabin a crime punishable by death.

Repression wears many "respectable" faces. Today it is the face of tolerance. Evil must not be criticized, for that would make someone feel bad. So evil and oppression go on while too many nice people enable it by their silence. Martin Luther King, Jr. condemned the silent compromise with racial oppression, and the leaders of the Moral Majority movement condemned the silent compromise with other forms of evil, such as sexual immorality, perversion, and abortion.

Ms. Bardot has pledged that she will not be silent on the Islamic takeover of her country. Respectable citizens of France may be too polite to say what she says, but when they go to bed worried that the Muslim riots will spread to their city, they have to know in their hearts that she is right. Tolerance of evil is always easier, but we must always stand against that oppression that would silence all dissidents, whether in the name of tolerance or for any other reason.

Perhaps King Solomon put it best: "They that forsake the law praise the wicked, but such as keep the law contend with them."

And again: "He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord."


Wesley Wilson is the President of Let Her Live, a nonprofit dedicated to saving babies by showing the beauty and value of life to women considering abortion. Please learn more about the Let Her Live pro-life billboard campaign. Donations are tax deductible.

Ron Paul Views License as Liberty. Life Loses.

Although I've never agreed with Ron Paul's isolationist foreign policy, some of his answers at the Values Voter Debate on Monday evening should cause great alarm among pro-life and pro-family supporters. He showed a lack of understanding of true liberty, which explained his "No" answer on these two questions:

Bobby Schindler: My beloved sister Terri Schiavo was starved and dehydrated to death in the land of abundance while the world watched – because she was disabled and unable to speak for herself. Would you pursue or support legislation that would protect the cognitively disabled and vulnerable people from being dehydrated to death by having their food and water taken away?

Dr. Rick Scarborough: Will you agree to prosecute the broad range of illegal adult pornography rather that just the most extreme material, and prosecute all violators of federal obscenity law, including the new, so-called "white collar pornographers"?

(For a transcript of questions, see http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57685)

How could Ron Paul--widely hailed as a pro-life candidate--refuse to support legislation to protect innocent life? He explained his reasoning (libertarian more than conservative) in his closing statement:

We cannot go to Washington to dictate to us how we improve our personal behavior. You don't dictate--you don't legislate virtue.... You do that from your family, your friends, and your neighbors, but not from the federal government.

We come back to a fundamental question: What is the role of government? I agree with Rep. Paul that our federal government has greatly exceeded its proper role. But the Bible teaches that God established government to restrain and punish evil. (See Genesis 9, Romans 13, and I Peter 2:13-14.)

Moreover, the liberty that Rep. Paul prizes was given to man by God at creation. God gave us the ability to decide our own actions. But God placed limits on those actions. True liberty exists only within the boundaries of morality. No porn addict can legitimately claim he is exercising freedom. He is a slave to his own sinful desires. Although governments cannot break that slavery--only the blood of Jesus does that--governments have the responsibility to curtail it as much as possible to restrain evil, promote good, and protect the innocent victims of pornography.

As Alan Keyes has said, "No one has the right to do wrong."

We don't want to take this idea to the extreme of having government dictating our faith, but we must understand that every law is an attempt to dictate someone's idea of virtue. It is wrong for Mexicans to flood our southern border to take advantage of our benefits without putting back into the system, so we made it illegal. It is wrong for other nations (or terrorists) to attack us, so we have a strong national defense. It is wrong to murder, so we have laws against it--unless you are not yet born or are disabled.

Before Monday, I thought Ron Paul was firmly pro-life, but now I know better.

Monday night he made it clear that he doesn't believe the government has any business protecting the disabled from "being dehydrated to death by having their food and water taken away."

So the list of announced presidential candidates with a clear and consistent pro-life record includes: Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, John Cox, Alan Keyes, and Hugh Cort.

Wesley Wilson

Wesley Wilson is the President of Let Her Live, a nonprofit dedicated to saving babies by showing the beauty and value of life to women considering abortion. Please learn more about the Let Her Live targeted pro-life billboard campaign. Donations are tax deductible.

Disclaimer: Let Her Live does not endorse or oppose any political candidates, and political views expressed on this blog represent only the personal views of their authors.

Freedom of Conscience vs. the Right to Contraception

A liberal friend of mine recently asked me what I thought about doctors refusing to prescribe "emergency contraception" such as Plan B to rape victims. He referred to an MSNBC article on the subject.

In summary, a woman who had been raped went to an emergency room where she talked to a rape counselor and was examined by an ER doctor. The rape victim asked for the morning-after pill, and the doctor refused to prescribe it, allegedly because it was against his religion. She went back to the rape counselor who referred her to another doctor who wrote the prescription.

This happened a few years ago. Plan B is now available over the counter to people 18 and older.

The issue, however, remains. Should a person's desire for some form of medical care force the doctor to act against his or her conscience?

I believe the answer is a clear and resounding "No."

First, the doctor's objection to "emergency contraception" for moral, ethical, and medical reasons is reasonable. He has an obligation to "first, do no harm." We require new drugs to be approved by the FDA for this reason. We expect doctors to follow this principle in prescribing treatment to be sure the cure is not worse than the disease. Based on this principle, American Medical Association policy prohibits doctors from being involved in executions.

Plan B, the best known "morning-after" pill, works by preventing ovulation, preventing fertilization, and preventing implantation of a fertilized egg. A doctor treating a rape victim should be aware that he may, in fact, have two patients, as fertilization can occur in less than one hour. In that case Plan B would prevent the newly-formed human from attaching to the uterine wall, causing the death of the embryo.

Second, medical care, as nearly every other industry in the United States, is an open market. If you don't like your doctor, go to another one. My doctor might not be willing to try a treatment that works for some people but injures others. He is fulfilling his ethical obligation to do no harm with a treatment he believes is harmful. My doctor's knowledge of the treatment's risks may be my greatest protection. I can always go to another doctor who believes the treatment has a chance of success.

Third, freedom of conscience is one of the most basic human freedoms. It led to the settlement of many of the early American colonies. It is still sought by millions of legal immigrants. Freedom of conscience was recognized in the First Amendment right to freedom of worship; in the long-standing exemption from combat for conscientious objectors to all killing; in the patient's right to refuse medical care; and in the AMA's policies.

The MSNBC article alleges: "Catholic and conservative Christian health care providers are denying women a range of standard, legal medical care." Really? What standard, legal medical care? The article lists birth control prescriptions, abortion referrals, infertility clinic services for lesbians and unmarried women, and sterilizations. None of these are medically necessary, life-saving procedures.

What solution would the article's author propose? Perhaps a government mandate that physicians must do certain procedures on request, regardless of their best judgment? I certainly wouldn't want the government telling me how to do my work, and in my line of work, not one life depends on my judgment.

The article acknowledges: "In the end, the women in all of the incidents above were able to get the treatment they wanted, even if they had to go elsewhere." So the free market and respect for a doctor's freedom of conscience is denying needed medical care to no one.

Let's continue to let doctors be doctors, not victims of an ideology that would deny one of the most basic human rights—freedom of conscience—to them.

Wesley Wilson

Wesley Wilson is the President of Let Her Live, a nonprofit dedicated to saving babies by showing the beauty and value of life to women considering abortion. Please learn more about the Let Her Live targeted pro-life billboard campaign. Donations are tax deductible.