Click or Tap Icons to Share! Thank you!

Authored By  :
Published On :
Last Updated :



Continuing our discussion from part one, ironically, while millions of American citizens across the USA find themselves financially challenged and just struggling to survive, George W. Bush has approved tax breaks which will only benefit the extremely rich. At the same time, the U.S. Government spends billions of dollars annually on its foreign war efforts, and billions more in the form of annual bribes, in order to keep certain countries under the American sphere of influence. So we must ask ourselves "What about the people at home? Where do they come into the picture?" The Bible plainly teaches us:

"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."


This Biblical principle applies on a national level as well. By taking care of his rich friends through tax breaks, and wasting billions of dollars on foreign wars, and supporting foreign governments through billions of dollars spent in annual bribes, while at the same time ignoring and denying the needs of the American people, and in fact, making their situation worse, is it possible that Bush and his cronies are infidels, according to the Biblical definition?

As I mentioned earlier, many conservative Christians voted for George W. Bush because of his position regarding three key issues which are of importance to us Christians. These issues are abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and the gay and lesbian agenda. So the big question in my mind is this: If you voted for Bush, did your investment pay off? Do you honestly believe that your vote during the last two elections really counted for something? Did your vote make a substantial difference, particularly in light of all of the negative things which have occurred during the past eight years? In other words, do you believe that the good done by the Bush Administration has outweighed the bad? Well, let's examine these three areas, and then you decide.

George W. Bush has had eight full years to put an end to Roe v. Wade, (legally known as 410 U.S. 113), the 1973 US Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion by overturning all state and federal laws that outlawed or restricted abortion, based upon its holding. While the Federal Government has not been successful at totally nullifying Roe v. Wade, some successes towards this goal during the Bush Administration are worthy of note. In fact, it is evident that the Conservative Right has chosen to take a steady, incremental approach in order to eventually defeat the Roe v. Wade ruling.

For example, George Bush's appointment of some conservative judges to the US Supreme Court has undoubtedly had a direct effect on the legal status of abortion in the USA. In one of its more recent decisions, in April of 2007, by a vote of 5 to 4, the Supreme Court put its weight behind and upheld the highly controversial Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. As you may recall, this bill was passed by the U.S. Congress, and signed into law by President Bush in November of 2003. This important piece of legislation makes it a crime for doctors to perform any "overt act" to "kill the partially delivered living fetus". Those who violate this law may face criminal prosecution, fines and up to two years in prison. It is important to note that President Bill Clinton vetoed this same law twice during his term in office.

In addition to his controversial Supreme Court appointments, during his tenure as president, George W. Bush has appointed sixty-one conservative-leaning judges to the federal appeals courts. This court system is comprised of thirteen circuits, of which ten are controlled by Republican-appointed judges, according to an October 2008 article in the New York Times. During his term in office, President Bill Clinton appointed sixty-five judges to the federal appeals courts. It has been estimated that the number of federal judges appointed by the Republican Party, most of them conservative, will have risen about twelve per cent, from fifty per cent to sixty-two per cent, since George W. Bush first took office. The movement to advance a "conservative legal revolution" actually began during the Reagan Administration.

Just over two years ago in 2006, the Child Custody Protection Act, (a.k.a. the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act), was amended to title 18 of the Federal Criminal Code; or the United States Code, as it is also known. This bill makes it a crime for a doctor to perform or to induce an abortion on an out-of-state minor in violation of parental notification requirements. The act also requires that a physician give a twenty-four hour actual or constructive notice to a parent of the minor seeking an abortion. Violators of this act are subject to a fine, and could spend up to a year behind bars as well. However, as passed, this bill does allow for an exception if:

1) the physician complies with parental notification requirements in the physician’s state;

2) the physician is given documentation that a court in the minor’s state of residence has waived parental notification or otherwise authorized the minor’s abortion;

3) the minor provides a written statement that she is the victim of sexual abuse, neglect, or physical abuse by a parent and the physician notifies appropriate state officials of such abuse;

4) the abortion is necessary to save the life of the minor (written notice must be given to the minor's parent within 24 hours after the lifesaving abortion is performed): or

5) a person accompanying the minor provides documentation to the physician that such person is the parent of the minor.

As you can see, this act is not bullet-proof, and does allow for legal loopholes. But there is more. While these two acts do make it more difficult for a minor to obtain an abortion, they don't make it entirely impossible for them to do so. The reason for this is simple; and that is because abortion laws differ from state to state. At this current time, there are forty-four states that have abortion laws which require that a minor's parents be involved in the decision-making process. However, the level of parental involvement varies. The level of parental involvement can be broken down as follows:

a. In twelve states, a minor can obtain an abortion without parental consent; however, she is required to notify at least one of her parents ahead of time regarding her decision. The one exception is the state of Minnesota, where both parents are required to be notified of the girl's decision to have an abortion.

b. In twenty-three states, a minor cannot obtain an abortion unless she first acquires parental consent from one parent. The exception to this are, I believe, Mississippi, North Dakota and Texas, where the consent of both parents is required before an abortion can be granted to a minor.

c. In two states, Oklahoma and Utah, parental consent and parental notification must both be provided before an abortion can be performed on a minor.

d. In nine states, the situation is rather nebulous, as parental involvement laws have either been blocked by a particular court order, or else they are simply not being properly enforced.

e. Tragically, there are six states where there are no laws concerning parental involvement. These are Vermont, Connecticut, New York, Washington, Oregon, and Hawaii. Also included in this group is the District of Columbia.

As if the situation isn't already loose enough, as we saw a moment ago, in some situations, the Child Custody Protection Act does allow judges to issue court orders which permit a girl to obtain an abortion even without her parents' consent. For example, in the state of West Virginia, a physician who can demonstrate that he/she has no financial attachments to the abortion provider, can perform an abortion on a minor. There are likewise some states where it is acceptable for grandparents, or other family members, to be involved in a minor's choice to have an abortion, instead of the parents.

While the state of Mississippi has very strict anti-abortion laws, so that only one abortion clinic has managed to survive there, (at least legally), it is obviously not the only state where the abortion war is being waged. In March of 2006, two- term Governor Michael Rounds of South Dakota signed into law a bill which made it a felony to perform an abortion, unless it could be proved that it was absolutely necessary in order to save a woman's life. The general consensus in both camps was that the purpose of the South Dakota law was to challenge Roe v. Wade head-on. As was expected, abortion proponents went on the attack, and the law was ultimately repealed by a voter referendum in November of that same year. However, the battle is not over there just yet. On November 4, 2008, voters will have an opportunity to accept or reject a new amendment which would ban abortion except in the case of rape, incest or when there is a serious health threat to the mother.

While I have used the phrase "abortion proponents", at this point in our discussion, it would be good to identify some of the people and organizations which have publicly come out in favor of abortion, and have defended it to some degree. These include, but are not limited to the following:

American Civil Liberties Union
Center for Reproductive Rights
Former President William Jefferson Clinton
Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
Former Vice President Al Gore
Guttmacher Institute (former division of Planned Parenthood)
Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, Democrat of California
Naral Pro-Choice America
National Organization for Women
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
President-elect Barack Hussein Obama
Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California
Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy
Supreme Court Justice David Souter
Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer
Vice President-elect Joseph Biden

One comment I came across while conducting research for this series, which I found rather disturbing, was made by Doctor Vanessa Cullins, who currently serves as vice president for medical affairs for Planned Parenthood Federation of America. In a statement, this woman made a remark regarding how, in her opinion, "draconian parental notification laws endanger the health of young women".

Are we then to simply trust that young teenaged girls, who are obviously already under stress due to their situation, and still minors, actually have the wisdom, as well as the maturity, that's needed to make such an important decision on their own, without any input whatsoever from their wiser parents? I think not. Obviously, some of these minor girls are fearful that their mistake will be discovered; and then not only will they suffer embarrassment, but they'll have to face their parents' disappointment and anger as well. But, in many cases, while the parents may not approve of what the child has done by getting pregnant, they will offer the girl the comfort, understanding and support that she will need at such a time, and they will encourage the girl to keep the child, even if it is only to offer it up for adoption later on. Isn't this better than murderous abortion? I think so.

The problem is that some of these abortionists don't want to allow this to happen. These unscrupulous baby killers know how vulnerable a young pregnant girl can be; and they also realize that the minor may not go through with the abortion, (meaning the abortion clinic will lose money), if the child has any opportunity to consult with her parents first. Thus, it seems to me that their goal is to break the parental bond when it comes to the all important issue of abortion. They want to isolate the child, and in fact replace the parents, and substitute their opinion, for the parents' opinion. Of course, they will comfort the girl prior to the abortion; but once the deed has been done, it's done, and it most certainly cannot be reversed; and the child will have the rest of her life to regret her decision, while the abortion clinic goes on its merry way, and continues to turn a profit.

I am reminded of another cold-hearted statement from a case which made the news towards the end of 2002. It involved one gynecologist/abortionist in the state of New Jersey by the name of Sheldon Turkish, and a woman named Rosa Acuna. News reports state that Ms. Acuna sued the abortionist, because at the time of her abortion in 1996, he failed to inform her that aborting a baby in the first trimester was in reality terminating the life of a human being. According to Acuna, when she asked Turkish whether or not a baby was already in her womb, he responded that it was "nothing but some blood." This deceptive abortionist in fact admitted in depositions, that he informs pregnant women that there is "nothing but some tissue". Sadly, this is the attitude of many of these cold-blooded, licensed killers. Thankfully, this is not how God views a fetus or an embryo. He sees us as real, living human beings, even before we are conceived or born. As I've pointed out before, in Psalm 139, we find the following enlightening verse:

"Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them."


In conclusion, in spite of President Bush's personal position regarding abortion, and despite the fact that he succeeded in appointing conservative-leaning judges to the Supreme Court, as well as to many courts of appeal, legalized abortion still remains the law of the land, and surely, this is to our shame. Furthermore, to this day, a woman retains full control over her body when it comes to the issue of abortion. Under normal conditions, neither her spouse, boyfriend, or anyone else, can override her personal decision to obtain an abortion.

To make matters worse, we now have sex education occurring in the American public school system, when this is something which should be taught at home. To add insult to injury, it is also now common practice for some schools to make condoms available to their students. In my view, this practice only adds to the problem of sexual promiscuity, which in itself increases the opportunity for abortions to occur.

Sadly, this is not all. As a result of the current status of abortion laws in some states, a teenaged pregnant girl can now receive counseling at school, without her parents even being notified about it. Abortion supporters claim that this is a privacy issue, even though the girl is still a minor, and her parents are legally responsible for her. As we saw earlier, in some states, a pregnant minor can not only get counseling regarding her pregnancy, but she can proceed to have an abortion without her parents' consent, or without their being notified, or without both. I find it rather odd that this same minor is not old enough to vote, and yet she is deemed wise enough to make a decision regarding abortion, which will terminate the life of another human being. Surely, this is the epitome of hypocrisy and madness.

While some of these developments did not begin during the Bush years, they have been further advanced during the Bush Administration, in spite of all that Bush has said and done. The question then is this: Do you personally believe that George W. Bush did all that he could possibly do insofar as the abortion issue is concerned, during his eight years in office? Or do you think that Bush allowed politics to get in the way and that he could have done more? Should Roe v. Wade have been overturned after eight years of Republican rule?

Let's move on to the next issue. Publicly, George W. Bush has stated that he views marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman. In his 2004 State of the Union address, Mr. Bush said the following regarding judges who were going against the conservative grain, and proceeding to rule in favor of legalizing gay and lesbian "marriages":

----- Begin Quote -----

". . . if judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process."

----- End Quote -----

Several weeks later, in February of 2004, President George W. Bush reiterated his position regarding the gay and lesbian "marriage" issue, with the following statement:

----- Begin Quote -----

"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman . . . If activist judges insist on re-defining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."

----- End Quote -----

Based on statements like the previous ones, many Christians voted for George W. Bush, not once, but twice, believing that the president would do his best to protect this God-ordained, and God-blessed institution. As we read in the very first book of the Bible, Genesis:

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."


"And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."


Sadly, it has become evident to many Christians, that in the past eight years during Bush's tenure as president, the gay and lesbian activists have not only grown much stronger, and more organized, and more vocal with their demands, but they have also obtained their most significant victories to date. As you will undoubtedly already realize, I am referring to the tragic fact that three states, (California, Connecticut, and Massachusetts), have now legalized gay "marriages"; and I have no doubt that other states will follow suit in coming months and years, motivated in large part by the financial incentive that is provided by legalizing gay "marriages".

The battle between the Conservative Right and the Liberal Left is currently at a high pitch. As I write these words, in less than twenty-four hours, voters in three US states, California, Florida and Arizona, will hold referendums, in order to determine whether or not amendments will be added to their state constitutions, in order to ban these gay and lesbian "marriages". While we can all hope for the best, as a realist, and one who studies God's Word, I sense that a dark, evil tide is slowly rolling over the American land; and soon, many more cities and states will be engulfed by it, to the chagrin of conservative, God-fearing people.

While they blatantly deny it, the supporters and promoters of the gay and lesbian agenda are indeed radicals. While they claim that they just wish to be left alone in order to live their lives as they please, this is the furthest thing from the truth. It is an undeniable fact that these people have been making concerted efforts to see to it that their sinful lifestyle is accepted by American society at large. This is evidenced by the fact that this social disease has now spread to not only American television networks, as well as to the movie industry, and to the music industry, and is on display in public "gay pride" parades, but sadly, it has also found its way into the American public school system.

In case you have not yet been made aware of this development, in some states, young elementary school children can now find books in their library, which try to teach them that gay and lesbian relationships are another alternative and acceptable lifestyle. These damnable books teach young, impressionable children, who obviously have very little wisdom and spiritual discernment, that while some families have one mommy and one daddy, others have two mommies or two daddies; and according to the authors of these books, this is perfectly fine. As a Christian parent, it should absolutely anger you that these gay and lesbian radicals have the audacity to target the most vulnerable members of American society.

If you are a Christian parent, and if you discover that your child's school offers these kind of books to their students, I hope that you will demonstrate Christian courage, and take the steps that are necessary in order to reverse this awful trend. As the Apostle Jude wrote, we must be willing to stand up for, or contend, for our Christian faith:

"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."


The sad thing about this current situation, is that it could have been halted years ago. It is a matter of public record, that when the Senate was in a position, not once, but twice, to put an abrupt end to the legalization of gay and lesbian "marriages", it failed to do so. In 2004, when the proposed amendment came before the US Senate, it failed to pass by a slim margin of 48 to 50. Two years later, in 2006, a similar amendment failed to pass in the Senate by a vote of 49 to 48. They weren't even able to obtain a bare majority on such an important issue. What you may find interesting regarding the latter of the two votes, is that John McCain was one of the seven Senators who failed to support the gay "marriage" ban amendment. At that time, the Washington Post, among other American news outlets, reported the following:

----- Begin Quote -----

A constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, backed by President Bush and conservative groups, was soundly defeated in the Senate yesterday after proponents failed to persuade a bare majority of all senators to support the measure.

Although most states have acted to prevent same-sex partners from marrying, seven Senate Republicans were wary of wading into the politically risky issue and voted against bringing the proposed amendment to a final vote.

But Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who opposed the measure, said: "Most Americans are not yet convinced that their elected representatives or the judiciary are likely to expand decisively the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples."

----- End Quote -----

As I commented to our mailing list members at the time, in my view, the failure to pass this amendment exposed the soft- bellied, career politicians who run Washington, DC. They are more interested in keeping their high-paying jobs, than they are in standing up for what is true and right in the eyes of God. They bowed to political correctness. As to John McCain, he was obviously dead wrong. I wonder what he has to say for himself, now that three states have legalized these ungodly relationships. Perhaps John McCain isn't as conservative as you think he is, and is just playing for your vote.

So, when all is said and done, despite his personal stance concerning the gay and lesbian agenda, and in spite of his efforts to expand the influence of the conservative base via the judiciary system, George W. Bush hasn't really been all that effective at slowing down or stopping this ungodly tide. We Christians have lost some serious ground when it comes to the issue of legalized gay and lesbian "marriages". We've all watched and waited for these two scourges, (abortion and gay "marriages"), to be eliminated for the past eight years, but it simply has not happened. So again, the question arises: Do you honestly feel that George W. Bush delivered on your expectations of him? Did he make your vote really count? Or do you feel that you were duped again by yet another shrewd political fast-talker who knew how to yank your strings, in order to obtain your vote?

The third key issue which was used to garner the support of the Christian voting bloc, was embryonic stem cell research. As you may recall, early on, George W. Bush publicly stated that he was strongly opposed to the practice of artificially developing embryos, for the purpose of extracting their stem cells for medical research. As you should already know, this immoral, unethical practice results in the immediate death of the days-old embryos, which are the beginnings of new human life. However, after he won the 2000 election, Bush began to soften in his position by August of 2001. At that time, Bush reached a compromise, whereby he didn't totally put an end to embryonic stem cell research, but rather, he placed serious limitations on the embryonic stem cell lines which were still available at the time. He also refused to make Federal funds available for the continuation of said research. A New York Times article from the first week of September of 2001, (just a week prior to 9/11), reveals how Mr. Bush had already begun to weaken in his position, which came as a big surprise, and disappointment, to many conservative thinkers:

----- Begin Quote -----

Mr. Bush struck a careful compromise that he said would encourage potentially lifesaving research but discourage experiments on human embryos, which are destroyed in stem cell experiments. He confined public financing to work on those stem cell colonies, or lines, created before 9 p.m. on Aug. 9 — the moment he announced his decision to the nation in a televised speech.

For his part, Mr. Bush is determined not to let his delicate stem cell compromise unravel. He has vowed to veto any legislation that goes beyond the parameters he specified.

That the discussion is occurring at all, however, reflects how much the public discourse on embryonic stem cell research has changed in a short time. Lawmakers, patients, scientists and bioethicists all say they are struck by how far Mr. Bush has moved the debate.

"By virtue of his speech, President Bush has fundamentally declared that it is ethical not only to do this research but to fund this research," said R. Alta Charo, a professor of law and medicine at the University of Wisconsin. "So the debate has shifted from whether the research is ethical to a debate about how to go about it. That is a profound shift."

Opponents of stem cell studies are deeply troubled by this shift, but they say it seems inevitable that the federal government will pay for some stem cell research.

Mr. Bush's decision has no effect on research in the private sector. The real issue, said Harold E. Varmus, president of Memorial Sloan- Kettering Cancer Center and a former director of the National Institutes of Health, is not the quality or number of lines, but the fact that scientists cannot use federal money to study new ones that will be developed with private money.

----- End Quote -----

Please go to part three for the continuation of this series.

⇒ Go To The Next Part . . .

Click or Tap Icons to Share! Thank you!

---

---

Please avail yourself of other areas of the Bill's Bible Basics website. There are many treasures for you to discover.