About Me

Name: PLH
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Baltimore Abortion Counseling Law Shows Once Again Freedom of Speech Only for the Left

     Monday night (November 23) the Baltimore, MD city council passed a law requiring crisis pregnancy centers to post signs at their clinics stating they "do not provide or make referrals for abortion or birth-control services." The sponsor of the bill, Council President Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, said the vote was a "victory for women's well-being" and claimed women are being misled in crisis pregnancy centers.
 
     How is it the left in this country goes about with the belief they have the right to stifle the speech and opinions of those on the right? Imagine a city council passing a law requiring Planned Parenthood to put up signs in their clinics stating they "primarily won't be helping you plan parenthood but instead seek an abortion." The left would go crazy.
 
     Understand what the crisis pregnancy centers in Baltimore, and for that matter throughout the country, are doing. They give advice and free (or relatively inexpensive) medical care to women, usually single and/or poor, who are pregnant but do not have the support structure around them to properly care for their child. They are non-profit organizations (unlike the business driven Planned Parenthood which of course receives insurance money for abortions performed) that help these women with "utility bills, job referrals, maternity clothes, or prenatal vitamins" (to quote Carol A. Clews, executive director of the Center for Pregnancy Concerns, one of the affected centers.) This is of course sinister stuff since in the eyes of the Baltimore Council it would be better if they first advised the women on how to kill their baby instead of doing what is natural for a mother, which is to nurture her child. People are not "being misled," they are being given advice on their pregnancy and are being helped. How is this anymore misleading than the abortion clinic telling a young pregnant mother that her child will not have a chance to succeed and that the young mother will not be able to properly raise her child?
 
     Abortion is, unfortunately, legal in this country. I am willing to bet, nearly every woman who walks into one of those pregnancy centers is aware they can get an abortion, and not need anyone's permission. Could it be these women decide to go to these centers to hear what other options they have? (Again, since Planned Parenthood doesn't plan for parenthood.) Listening to the elected leaders of Baltimore, you would think the pregnancy centers are holding these women hostage until they decide to keep their children. (Speaking of which, since taking hostages isn't terrorist activity anymore, maybe this option should be considered.)
 
     Clearly the Baltimore Council passed this law just to make a statement on the abortion debate and showed us how stupid they think the regular folk are in their city. (They may have a point though seeing as people still pay to see the Orioles play baseball, but I digress.) Maybe next they can require Christian churches to place signs stating Islam is not taught there.
 
     What this boils down to though is an attack on the freedom of speech of those running the crisis pregnancy centers. They are not doing anything illegal, they are not preventing someone from doing something they have a legal right to do, and the services they provide could not even be attacked as false advertising. Obviously pro-lifers operating these clinics have a vested interest in women choosing life. (The vested interest being the human life.) In a sense, it is no different than the makers of Coke having a vested interest in promoting Coke. Should a Coke distributor (this being Baltimore, I'm referring to the drink, not the narcotic) have to put up a sign that says no Pepsi products are distributed here? Of course not, but just as we frequently see those on the left wanting to limit talk radio (to shut up the conservative voices that dominate the airwaves), they act as if they have carte blanche to limit the speech of conservatives, in this case pro-lifers.
 
     My hope is the mayor of Baltimore, Sheila Dixon, will veto this ordinance when it reaches her desk, but my fear is that she, like many on the left hold to the viewpoint that freedom of speech is only for those with opinions like hers.   
 
*For other random comments on politics, religion, and sports, follow me on Twitter at @plh55.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

LAPD Having to Defend Itself Over Homicide of Domestic Violence Victim

     This morning I read of the tragic death of a Los Angeles domestic violence victim, Flor Medrano. If you are not familiar with the events, Medrano reported to LAPD patrol officers she had been the victim of a rape and identified the suspect as a man she had been seeing "off and on" who had been "abusing her physically." Medrano declined to press charges, was contacted by the suspect during the LAPD investigation, and was advised on obtaining a restraining order while going to a shelter, but she still wished to go home. LAPD officers and/or detectives, went beyond the requirements of their duty and took Medrano home, checked her apartment, and remained outside should the suspect return. Somehow, the suspect was able to gain access to Medrano's apartment through a rear window where he proceeeded to stab Medrano to death. The officers outside, realizing something was happening in the apartment when Medrano's phone was cut off, responded and used lethal force to kill the suspect. It is extremely important when events like this occur, to remember the primary responsibility for our protection resides with the individual person, not law enforcement.

     Of course the single-minded view of the media reporting this has been questioning of the LAPD. How could this killer elude the police? Why weren't more officers there? Frequently when there is a murder, it is common to hear, "Where were the police this happened?" These questions create the misguided perception that the LAPD, and other police agencies, exist as a protection force.

     You may read my last sentence and ask, "Isn't the LAPD motto 'To protect and serve?" And its easy to think of police officers being there to protect you. In a sense, this is true. If officers respond to a call or see someone being harmed, an officer's training dictates they seek to deescalate a situation and protect the innocent people involved. The problem with this line of thinking however is our society has created the perception of protection=police instead of protection=individual primarily.
 
     Any citizen and police officer can tell you a police officer cannot be everywhere. Even if police departments tried to be, they would be solely reactive, with little proactive crime-fighting or prevention. There is however an option every law-abiding citizen has. This option will always be in your home, has a much quicker response time, and is designed to defend. What is this option? Its called a GUN.
 
     The problem of course is society treats guns as if they are evil. My hunch is, Medrano never considered this as an option, even though she was enduring an ongoing abusive relationship with this guy. After all, she had a three year old daughter so how can you bring a gun into a home when you have a child? Of course, even if she had desired to purchase a gun after this suspect's rape of her, she would not have been able to buy one because of a waiting period. Her gun would have been ready for pickup 15 days after she died. This line of thinking guns are evil needs to stop. Obviously people need to be responsible with guns and know how to use them. But how many people would be alive today if they considered a firearm as their primary protection, instead of the police? The answer of course is unknown because you cannot scientifically quantify it. I would only add that a gun elevates those most victimized in our society, women and elderly, to a level playing field to defend themselves against the relatively strong male assailants who prevail upon them.
 
     I do not know the Medrano's or know what she had thought of regarding protection. Her death is certainly a tragedy and I have no doubt the involved officers wish there had been some way they could have been there for her in her time of need. The blame however should not be on the LAPD for failing to protect her. This, and incidents like it, should motivate us to consider what is real protection. When we think of guns, the first thought should not be evil. We should think of guns as a good object, used regularly for good purposes, occasionally used by evil men.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Different Disasters - Different Mindsets

Last night my wife and I watched the Weather Channel's "When Weather Changed History." This particular episode focused on the Great Chicago Fire. I was struck by the mentality of the people following the disaster. Instead of wallowing, they immediately went back to work to make Chicago a better city than it was before the fire. City father, William Ogden, at the age of 67, dedicated himself to fixing the problems that fed the flames. This despite his own home and belongings being destroyed, as well as the business that earned him his wealth which was destroyed in a similar fire storm in Wisconsin. Many of the residents returned to their burned down properties to clean the debris and immediately begin rebuilding. Young architect Louis Sullivan, saw an opportunity to establish himself and came to Chicago. He ended up designing numerous famous structures and earned himself the title "Father of Modernism." Chicago ended up rising from the literal ashes, all without the help of FEMA.

Contrast this with the attitudes which came out of New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. The focus was not on what the people of New Orleans could do to make their city better, but on what the federal government was going to do to solve their problems. Many people who could have provided needed services were turned away because they did not have proper FEMA credentials. Many New Orleans' residents, instead of going home and beginning to rebuild, were responsible for widespread looting. Many were also provided trailers (by FEMA of course), to give them temporary shelter until their homes were rebuilt. Most of these trailers are still being used homes, now nearly three years later.

Why mention this? This presidential election campaign has brought the argument from Senator Obama that capitalism and the desire to earn profits is evil and seeks to take advantage of the needy, while the government is good and desires to help people. Louis Sullivan, instead of being hailed as a hero for helping rebuild Chicago, would be denigrated today as greedy capitalist. Further, he would have not been allowed to help today, because government "experts" would be utilized instead. Our economy is in a rough state right now. Which method of rebuilding would you want? Chicago's, where the city became bigger and better? Or New Orlean's, which continues to be dependent on the nipples of the federal government and refuses to take their city to another level? If you choose Chicago, the choice Tuesday is clear, John McCain and Sarah Palin.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Book Review: "The Gospel and Personal Evangelism" by Mark Dever

Over our Christmas vacation and our trip to Oregon, I had the opportunity to read Mark Dever's (senior pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church, Washington D.C. and 9Marks.org) book on evangelism. For me, as I'm sure it is for many of you, evangelism is lot like prayer. You know it is something you should spend much more time in. Dever's book is not only challenging in encouraging the reader to tell the lost the truth of the Gospel, it is very helpful in teaching us how to do it.


Dever begins with the premise that none of us would have a problem telling our friends about a great occurrence in our life, such as winning the lottery, etc. How true that is! I think of how easy it is to converse with people about politics or sports, but shy away from the most important truth there is.

Dever then gets into the heart of the matter, forming his chapters based on common questions regarding evangelism. Chapters include "Why Don't We Evangelize?", "What is the Gospel?", "Who Should Evangelize?", "How Do We Evangelize?", "What Isn't Evangelism?", and "Why Should We Evangelize?" Each chapter was informative and counters any argument you could possibly make to avoid evangelism.

Especially important to me, Dever emphasizes the gospel is not simply that man is neutral toward God and that "God is love", but that man is at war with God. Too often you hear people talking about coming to Jesus for their self-esteem, to have fellowship, or to have freedom from guilt. Dever's point, as the Bible clearly teaches, is that man has offended a holy God and will be punished eternally in hell as a result. Unless of course they come to Christ. This book teaches how that can happen, and how to communicate that truth to others.

Finally, Dever covers three reasons why Christians should evangelize the lost; a desire to be obedient, a love for the lost, and a love for God. I know for myself it is very easy to ask someone to church and let the pastor do the evangelism. Dever reminds us the church is for believers, its our job to tell others the gospel and bring them when they are saved.

Sharing Christ with others can be quite intimidating. Its amazing to think however that in America the only type of persecution we most likely will face is either some small mocking or indifference to the truth. Its almost unheard of that we face "real" persecution such as torture or execution, yet, as Dever points out, "our fear of man is greater than our fear of God."

I highly recommend this book and hope that you and I will put its wise words into practice.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »