Wednesday, April 18, 2007

News Roundup 4/18/07

There is lots of other news to share. Will post more here later. However, this video, post, and comments over at Hot Air are just too good to pass up!!

Tammy Bruce does a number on exposing the far-left Soros loonies who are obsessed with destroying conservative voices in the media.

HT: Hot Air

*******

Did you notice this too? Speakers at the Virginia Tech convocation yesterday called on Allah and Buddha in their efforts to minister to the survivors, family and friends of victims of the shooting massacre at the school but Jesus wasn't mentioned by name.

As WorldNetDaily reports in the article, I certainly was also dismayed and disappointed that they had:




A Liberal Lutheran Minister talking about 'healing,' etc. and how everyone needs to come together (blah, blah, blah…); BUT NOT ONE EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN PASTOR/PREACHER. NO INVOCATION OF THE NAME OF CHRIST JESUS."

Most of the other official statements of condolence released also ignored the Savior of the Christian faith.



Should we be surprised? Probably not...

*******
Update @ 7:00 p.m. PT

REALLY Good News to report today!


Supreme Court upholds constitutionality of federal ban on partial-birth abortion!

Praise God for this victory for LIFE!!


***more later***

4 comments:

Doug said...

The SCOTUS ruling was too close for comfort, but a move in the proper direction nonetheless.

I'm constantly amused in a bad way about how the left tries to portray those of us who care about innocent unborn life as the ones who are a threat to freedom.

ebsfwan said...

I'm glad that this decision was allowed but it's not really a win as no baby's life will be saved by this decision.

The ruling is very clearly limited to "partial-birth abortion," and notes that the alternative of dismembering the fetus is available. In fact, it expressly allows the procedure to be done if the doctor simply uses an injection to kill the fetus prior to sucking out the brains or crushing the skull.

So it's a move in the right direction but make no mistake...it's an extremely tiny move.

Here's what I'm wondering:

Up until recently, you had a Republican President, a Republican Congress and a Republican Congress. Why didn't they ban abortion?

You could argue that SCOTUS would have overturned it but so what? Why not make the moral point?

Christinewjc said...

Hi Doug,

The most important rulings always seem to be 5-4 or 4-5 rulings.

I was curious to see if the SCOTUS would try and trump the legislative branch on this issue. I think that Pres. Bush's appointees made all the difference. If O'Connor was still in there, I think she would have turned it the other way.

I agree with what you said regarding the pro-abortion crowd's opinion of pro-life advocates:

"...how the left tries to portray those of us who care about innocent unborn life as the ones who are a threat to freedom."

They have that "marketing of evil" uncanny way to twist things around and make conservatives look like the "bad guys."

Christinewjc said...

Ebsfwan,

The short answer to your question is that "money," "politics," and "powerful lobbies" often prevent even those in Congress who agree with the pro-life side of the issue to back away from heavily promoting it.

I doubt that we will ever get to the point of totally banning abortion. However, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, then it would be left up to each individual state to legalize or ban it. That is the way it always should have been (IMO).