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?
