A recent article on the Christian Life Resources website (christianliferesources.com) had the following statement:
"A federal appeals court has upheld a pro-life law in Texas allowing women a chance to see an ultrasound of their unborn child prior to an abortion." Note the phrase "allowing a woman the chance..."
Here is a quote from the story in the Chicago Tribune:
"The Texas law, enacted in 2011, requires abortion providers to display the ultrasound images and describe them in detail. Women cannot decline to hear the physician's description of the image unless they qualify for an exception under the statute. Exceptions include if the woman suffered rape or incest or if the fetus has abnormalities." (emphasis added) Note that the law requires, rather than allows the viewing of the ultrasound.
I don't have any quarrel with their opposition to the law, but I wonder why Christian Life Resources--a supposedly Christian organization--finds it necessary to misrepresent the law? If you favor the law then why would you be embarrassed to describe it accurately? Is it okay to misrepresent because you think it serves a higher purpose? Smacks of moral relativism.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Christian Life Resources and Politics (Part 9)
Christian Life Resources (CLR) just created its new website, and it's even worse than before. We used to get articles from LifeNews. Well, okay, articles isn't really the right word. They are biased right-wing Republican opinion pieces masking as pro-life news articles.
Well, now in addition to these propaganda pieces we also get to have links to Robert Fleischmann's personal blog (he's the executive director of Christian Life Resources). Why he thinks that his personal opinions belong on the CLR website is beyond me. One of the postings (http://www.robertfleischmann.com/?p=47) is basically his personal opinion as to why he opposes the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act. He kind of says he's not opposed to ways to assure everyone has access to health care, but he doesn't like this law. But I closely followed the debate and where CLR positioned itself in the debate. They clearly never had any interest in encouraging common ground. It's interesting that I never once saw a discussion of the possibility that access to healthcare might actually reduce the demand for, and number of, abortions. The fact that they avoided this kind of discussion calls into question CLR's true motives in opposing the law. They opposed the law from the beginning and published articles on their website to that effect. Some articles they published opposed any sort of national health care. If he is serious about wanting more universal healthcare, I encourage Pastor Fleischmann himself, or one of his Republican bedfellows, to lay their plan out there for all to see, rather than sniping at the only serious proposal that someone actually had the courage to enact. Perhaps if he had encouraged his Republican friends to stay at the table, he might have gotten a bill more to his liking. You kinda had your chance, so stop your whining....
The most troubling part to me is that the positions taken in this regard are not Biblical. In fact, they are often specifically un-Biblical. CLR is a WELS-affiliated organization. I challenge the leadership of WELS, as well as its parish pastors, to call out Pastor Fleischmann on his false teachings.
Well, now in addition to these propaganda pieces we also get to have links to Robert Fleischmann's personal blog (he's the executive director of Christian Life Resources). Why he thinks that his personal opinions belong on the CLR website is beyond me. One of the postings (http://www.robertfleischmann.com/?p=47) is basically his personal opinion as to why he opposes the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act. He kind of says he's not opposed to ways to assure everyone has access to health care, but he doesn't like this law. But I closely followed the debate and where CLR positioned itself in the debate. They clearly never had any interest in encouraging common ground. It's interesting that I never once saw a discussion of the possibility that access to healthcare might actually reduce the demand for, and number of, abortions. The fact that they avoided this kind of discussion calls into question CLR's true motives in opposing the law. They opposed the law from the beginning and published articles on their website to that effect. Some articles they published opposed any sort of national health care. If he is serious about wanting more universal healthcare, I encourage Pastor Fleischmann himself, or one of his Republican bedfellows, to lay their plan out there for all to see, rather than sniping at the only serious proposal that someone actually had the courage to enact. Perhaps if he had encouraged his Republican friends to stay at the table, he might have gotten a bill more to his liking. You kinda had your chance, so stop your whining....
The most troubling part to me is that the positions taken in this regard are not Biblical. In fact, they are often specifically un-Biblical. CLR is a WELS-affiliated organization. I challenge the leadership of WELS, as well as its parish pastors, to call out Pastor Fleischmann on his false teachings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)