By: Mary Jefferson
A long, long time ago (ca. March 15, 2012) the spotlight of the news media was shining on the reaction of the Catholic Church and other sympathetic Christians and politicians to the news that church institutions (hospitals, schools, colleges, adoption agencies, etc.) would be required, in opposition to their religious convictions and despite their First Amendment rights to freely exercise their religion, to provide their employees and students with "free" contraceptives, including "the morning after pill" which is, in reality, not a "contraceptive" (a substance that would prevent conception) but an "abortifacient" (a substance that prevents an already formed embryo from implanting in the womb, thereby causing a very early abortion) or IUDs, which work similarly to "the morning after pill."
On March 15th, Maureen Dowd wrote in her syndicated column, "The attempt by Republican men to wrestle American women back into chastity belts has not only breathed life into President Barack Obama, it has roused and riled Hillary."
Huh? Who, exactly, is trying to "wrestle American women back(?) into chastity belts?" Who even knows for sure what a chastity belt is or what it looks like? It's my understanding that they went out of style with the last of the Crusades or some other time during the Middle Ages.
On "Ruckus," that evening (a Thursday evening program on KCPT), Mary O'Halloran was indignant because women's "right" to have contraceptives "paid for" was being questioned. Having contraceptives paid for by taxpayers has never, to my knowledge, happened before - unless through Medicaid. Up to this point, most women took care of their own expenses along these lines, most probably receiving assistance from their "significant other." How did having contraceptives paid for in insurance policies suddenly become a "right" that was being questioned? What gives any person the "right" to reach into the pockets of others to subsidize their habits that they don't want the public to control? If their business is their business, why are they asking others to pay for it?
And what, exactly, is wrong with being chaste anyway? How did that become an imposition?
I was listening to Focus on the Family several years ago. The speaker was a black woman who was addressing a room full of other women. She was talking about God breathing new life into her "dead" marriage, but in the course of her talk, she made a statement about sex that I considered profound. She said that sex was God's "wedding present" to couples. She pointed out that too many of us "open it too soon," and, in doing so harm the special relationship with the opposite sex that God intended for His children to have.
Consider how different life would be in this nation and world if people were obedient to the plan that God had for Mankind. If people did wait until marriage before entering into a sexual relationship and remained faithful to one another afterward, the couples involved would have no worries about giving to or receiving from their spouse any of the myriad STDs that have become so commonplace today. (More about that later.) They would know that their spouse was the only person on earth with whom they had such an intimate relationship. There would be no doubt that any children born to the marriage were biologically related to both of them. (None of this "Mama's baby; Daddy's maybe.)
In another program on Focus on the Family, Dr. James Dobson pointed out how premarital sex is so injurious to women. He said, "Women play at sex to get love; men play at love to get sex." When the sex is over, the man has gotten what he wanted, but many times, the woman is left without the love she wanted. He talked about a hormone that bonds a man to his wife (that might require that she be his "first"), but causes him to despise other women to whom he has made no such commitment. The story about Amnon and Tamar in II Samuel 13 illustrates such a phenomenon.
Premarital sex does not only lead to concerns about unwanted pregnancies, but, as I mentioned above, it can lead to a host of STDs. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) reported that there are 19,000,000 new STD infections every year! These cost the healthcare system $17 Billion!
Getting more particular, there were 300,000 reported instances of gonorrhea in 2010. That is evidently a smaller number than reported previously, but, these cases are resistant to the only available treatment option.
Chlamydia has been increasing steadily over the past 20 years. There have been 1,300,000 cases reported, but the CDC suspects there are many more unreported cases because half the female population does not get health screenings. Chlamydia does not have a lot of symptoms, but because it doesn't have many symptoms, it can grow undetected for quite awhile and can cause sterility among other problems.
Syphilis is down 1.6% overall, but increased dramatically since 2005 in young black men who have sex with other men. There is also a sharp increase in HIV in that population. We were warned by Paul nearly 2,000 years ago that such relationships can lead to disease (Romans 1:26-27).
If we seek God's best for our lives, He blesses us. If we stray from His path, we are often left with several unsavory choices and plights.
Many women consider abortion to be a "cure" for an unwanted pregnancy, but it can present a host of unforeseen problems. More about that next time.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Monday, March 12, 2012
Are We Headed for Another Civil War?
By Mary Jefferson
In pondering the beginning of the Civil War in America, it is impossible to ignore the proximity in time of the election of Abraham Lincoln and the start of the Civil War.
There are those who would like to disparage the memory of Abraham Lincoln by "pooh-poohing" the idea that Abraham Lincoln was "anti-slavery," but any research into the matter would show that, of all the candidates for office in 1860, Abraham Lincoln was the most vociferously opposed to the institution of slavery.
One of the legal matters that most aroused the ire of the Abolitionists was the passage of the "Fugitive Slave Laws," whereby people who lived where slavery had already been outlawed were "drafted" into aiding slave owners in "recovering" their fugitive slaves or face legal action. (Many of the black people captured and "returned" to the South had been "freemen.")
It seems the slave owners were not content to merely own, work, and profit from slaves; they felt the need to enlist the aid of their countrymen who were opposed to the institution of slavery. Moreover, they were not content to keep it legal where they lived, they wanted to expand it to western territory. There would not have been a Civil War if those opposed to slavery had not stood their ground in opposition to the pressure from the slave owners to go against their consciences and simply give in to the pressure to allow the entire country to become dominated by slavery.
A similar thing appears to be happening in this country again, but with abortion being the issue today. There are those who favor abortion. They prefer to call themselves "pro-choice" but the choice they favor always seems to be abortion as can be witnessed by their strenuous opposition to "informed" choice when legislators attempt to pass laws telling women exactly what is happening when a baby is aborted, or what kinds of physical threats they may face as a result of abortion, or to give women time to ponder the effects of abortion, or to escape pressure from boyfriends, husbands, employers, or parents to have abortions.
Now legislators of one stripe are attempting to force druggists who oppose abortion to carry and fill prescriptions for "abortifacients," such as RU486 or go out of business or employment; to force doctors and hospitals to perform abortions or lose federal funding or possibly licensing; and now to force churches and para-church agencies such as hospitals, colleges, etc., to pay for insurance (whether self-insured or not) to cover "contraceptives" including abortifacients and abortions despite the fact that the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and the free exercise of religion and to people who believe that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," abortion is tantamount to murder.
A huge smokescreen is being erected to change the issue from First Amendment rights to the availability of contraceptives. Contraceptives have been available for at least 50 years, and no one, NO ONE is attempting to come between a woman and her choice of contraceptives. But, for as long as contraceptives have been available, it has been the woman's choice whether to purchase them or not. Now certain legislators are attempting to scare women into believing that choice will be entirely removed if it is not funded entirely by taxpayers!
The question today is whether the people of this nation who are pro-life today will stand their ground in opposition to such infringement on our civil rights or whether we will be cowed into co-operating with the pro-abortion forces to permit such coverage on the national health "insurance" that is being imposed from Washington.
Where will you stand when it is your time to be counted?
In pondering the beginning of the Civil War in America, it is impossible to ignore the proximity in time of the election of Abraham Lincoln and the start of the Civil War.
There are those who would like to disparage the memory of Abraham Lincoln by "pooh-poohing" the idea that Abraham Lincoln was "anti-slavery," but any research into the matter would show that, of all the candidates for office in 1860, Abraham Lincoln was the most vociferously opposed to the institution of slavery.
One of the legal matters that most aroused the ire of the Abolitionists was the passage of the "Fugitive Slave Laws," whereby people who lived where slavery had already been outlawed were "drafted" into aiding slave owners in "recovering" their fugitive slaves or face legal action. (Many of the black people captured and "returned" to the South had been "freemen.")
It seems the slave owners were not content to merely own, work, and profit from slaves; they felt the need to enlist the aid of their countrymen who were opposed to the institution of slavery. Moreover, they were not content to keep it legal where they lived, they wanted to expand it to western territory. There would not have been a Civil War if those opposed to slavery had not stood their ground in opposition to the pressure from the slave owners to go against their consciences and simply give in to the pressure to allow the entire country to become dominated by slavery.
A similar thing appears to be happening in this country again, but with abortion being the issue today. There are those who favor abortion. They prefer to call themselves "pro-choice" but the choice they favor always seems to be abortion as can be witnessed by their strenuous opposition to "informed" choice when legislators attempt to pass laws telling women exactly what is happening when a baby is aborted, or what kinds of physical threats they may face as a result of abortion, or to give women time to ponder the effects of abortion, or to escape pressure from boyfriends, husbands, employers, or parents to have abortions.
Now legislators of one stripe are attempting to force druggists who oppose abortion to carry and fill prescriptions for "abortifacients," such as RU486 or go out of business or employment; to force doctors and hospitals to perform abortions or lose federal funding or possibly licensing; and now to force churches and para-church agencies such as hospitals, colleges, etc., to pay for insurance (whether self-insured or not) to cover "contraceptives" including abortifacients and abortions despite the fact that the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and the free exercise of religion and to people who believe that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," abortion is tantamount to murder.
A huge smokescreen is being erected to change the issue from First Amendment rights to the availability of contraceptives. Contraceptives have been available for at least 50 years, and no one, NO ONE is attempting to come between a woman and her choice of contraceptives. But, for as long as contraceptives have been available, it has been the woman's choice whether to purchase them or not. Now certain legislators are attempting to scare women into believing that choice will be entirely removed if it is not funded entirely by taxpayers!
The question today is whether the people of this nation who are pro-life today will stand their ground in opposition to such infringement on our civil rights or whether we will be cowed into co-operating with the pro-abortion forces to permit such coverage on the national health "insurance" that is being imposed from Washington.
Where will you stand when it is your time to be counted?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)