January 15th, 2011 by M. French

According to a recent study, unborn twin babies socialize as early as week 14 of gestation. The scientists that conducted the research summarized their findings in the following way:

“We demonstrate that by the 14th week of gestation twin foetuses do not only display movements directed towards the uterine wall and self-directed movements, but also movements specifically aimed at the co-twin, the proportion of which increases between the 14th and 18th gestational week”

In cases in which the mother’s health is not at risk due to her pregnancy, it is currently legal to kill unborn children in America well past 14 weeks. The following summary of abortion laws was compiled based on information from the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute:

  • 12 states do not prohibit abortions at any point in pregnancy
  • 38 states prohibit abortions in which the life of the mother is not in question after a certain point in pregnancy.
    • 23 states initiate prohibitions at fetal viability (when the attending physician determines “there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support,” generally b/w 22-24 wks).
    • 5 states initiate prohibitions in the third trimester (28 wks).
    • 10 states initiate prohibitions after a certain number of weeks (24 in most, 20 in a few).

Posted in Life & Family, News Tagged with: , , , , , , ,

December 28th, 2010 by M. French

“It’s OK for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home…How is this so different? We have to figure out why some behavior is tolerated and some is not.”

Matthew Galluzzo, the lawyer representing Columbia University Professor David Epstein, who is charged with having a “consensual” sexual relationship with his 24-year-old daughter.

Posted in Law & Politics, News Tagged with: , ,

August 24th, 2010 by Frank Turek

Editor’s Note: Originally published on TownHall.com, used with permission. Frank Turek is a speaker and author, and a leading Christian apologist. Learn more at his website www.CrossExamined.org.

We’re in the middle of the Top Ten false “facts” reported by Judge Vaughn Walker in his decision to overturn Proposition 8 in California—a decision that could erode marriage and First Amendment rights in the entire country. See yesterday’s column here if you missed the first five false “facts.”

6. “No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation.” (FF 46)

I guess thousands of ex-gays just don’t exist in Judge Walker’s special-pleading universe. Neither does renowned Columbia University psychiatrist, Dr. Robert Spitzer, who concluded that some highly motivated individuals can change their orientation from homosexual to heterosexual through reorientation therapy.

This is significant because Spitzer is no propagandist for the religious right. Quite the contrary—a self-described “Jewish atheist,” Spitzer has been a hero to homosexual activists since 1973 when he helped get homosexuality declassified as a mental disorder. Recently, however, they’ve turned on him because he reported the truth.

Dr. Spitzer said that his 2003 study “has been criticized severely by many people, particularly gay activists, who apparently, feel quite threatened by it. They have the feeling that in order to get their civil rights, it’s helpful to them if they can present the view that once you’re a homosexual you can never change.”

When asked whether the American Psychiatric Association should now change their position statements that say orientation cannot be changed, Dr. Spitzer said, “I think they should, [but] they will not be. . . . There’s a gay activist group that’s very strong and very vocal and is recognized officially by the American Psychiatric Association. There’s nobody to give the other viewpoint. There may be a few who believe it but they won’t talk.”

Dr. Spitzer then acknowledged explicitly that politics often trump the scientific facts at organizations like the APA (an organization cited to bolster Judge Walker’s conclusion). He also said that the APA should stop applying a double standard by discouraging reorientation therapy, while actively encouraging gay-affirmative therapy that’s intended to confirm and solidify a homosexual identity. Good point by Dr. Spitzer. After all, if people can be talked into it, then why can’t they be talked out of it?

Sexual orientation isn’t like race either. You’ll find many former homosexuals, but you’ll never find a former African American.

Of course Walker’s “fact” even if true is irrelevant anyway. Marriage does not need to be redefined just because people can’t change their sexual desires. Otherwise a legal “marriage” relationship must be created for every particular sexual desire.

7. “The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment.” (FF 70)

Incredibly, Judge Walker says that this conclusion “is accepted beyond serious debate.” Citing a study by the politicized APA, Walker never admits that not enough research has been done to evaluate the well being of children living with homosexual parents. And he ignored evidence presented by the defense that contradicted his “fact.”

But does one really need a study to know that Walker is wrong? Was your father different as a parent than your mother? To say no is laughable. In fact, even Rodney Dangerfield could expose this false fact. “No respect at all—when I was a baby, I was breast fed by my father!”

Later in the opinion, Walker makes the unbelievable assertion that, “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.” Who sez? The imperial Judge Walker.

Questions for the Judge: Why do you assert that men and women are interchangeable as parents but not as sex partners? After all, if gender really is irrelevant to marriage as you maintain—if men and women are interchangeable—then why argue for same-sex marriage at all? Why not just tell homosexuals, “Gender is irrelevant to marriage, so instead of making a fuss, why not just go ahead and marry someone from the opposite sex”?

Why not? Because when it comes to their own personal gratification, homosexual activists like Judge Walker clearly recognize the big difference between the sexes. But when it comes to the more important priority of raising children, they say there is no difference between the sexes. Children are just going to have to take a backseat to their sexual desires. Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse sums up the attitude of homosexual activists well. She writes, “[Homosexual] adults are entitled to have what they want. Children have to take what we give them.”

8. “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.” (FF 77) Really? Do religious beliefs that drunkenness is sinful or inferior to sobriety harm alcoholics? No, those beliefs help such people by telling them the truth about destructive behavior instead of enabling them with liberal fantasyland talk about how all behaviors and lifestyles are equal.

9. “Proposition 8 results in frequent reminders for gays and lesbians in committed long-term relationships that their relationships are not as highly valued as opposite-sex relationships.” (FF 68) This is not meant to be offensive, but what if certain relationships really are more valuable to society than others? Clearly, the procreative committed relationship of a man and a woman is more valuable than any other relationship in society because it is necessary for society’s very survival. To comprehend the impact of this, you just need to consider two questions.

1) What would happen to society if everyone lived faithfully in natural marriage? Our country would thrive with a drastic reduction in numerous social problems including illegitimacy, crime, welfare, and abortion.

2) What would happen to society if everyone lived faithfully in same-sex marriage? Society wouldn’t thrive because it wouldn’t even survive. It would end the human race!

This is not to say that such a law would cause this, but merely to point out that certain relationships are more valuable to a society than others. The truth is that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are not the same, can never be the same, and will never yield the same benefits to individuals or society. No law can change that fact; only deceive people into thinking so.

If this point offends you, then you have a problem with reality not me. I didn’t make up the facts of nature. I’m just admitting them—something Judge Walker and many same-sex marriage supporters seem unwilling to do.

10. “Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.” (Conclusion)

The real fact is that Judge Walker fails to provide any “rational basis” for overturning Proposition 8—no rational basis from the constitution or common sense. While lecturing the people of California that their “private moral views” cannot be used to make their laws, Judge Walker has simply imposed his own “private moral view” that same-sex marriage must be sanctioned. That is objectively immoral and unconstitutional itself.

He claims that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage “exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.” If that’s true, that’s not for him or any judge to decide. The people of California have said that time has not passed.

Disagree? Then you have the burden of persuading your fellow citizens to pass a constitutional amendment sanctioning same-sex marriage. That’s what the amendment process is for! When judges short-circuit that process, we are no longer a free people who govern ourselves.

(For more about this complicated and sensitive issue, get my compact book from which some of this article is adapted: Correct, Not Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone.)

Posted in Law & Politics Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,

February 24th, 2010 by M. French

Controversial filmmaker Molotov Mitchell (often featured on WorldNetDaily) recently released a video entitled “Uganda is right, Rick Warren is Wrong” concerning Uganda’s proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill which would criminalize homosexuality, allowing for the death penalty in certain situations.


[Link to Video]


The video certainly contains some food for thought and some important American and Ugandan historical information, but one section gave me particular pause. At the 35 second mark, Mitchell states:

According to the Bible, God created the death penalty, not man. And it was God who determined what crimes deserved it.

So unless there’s some passage in scripture that I have missed where Jesus said “I have come to abolish the law,” then Ugandans are right, and Rick Warren is wrong.

During this segment, he displays a reference to Leviticus 20:13 which states:

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Mitchell, then, is claiming that since Jesus did not come to “abolish the law,” then the Old Testament law that requires the death penalty for those caught engaging in homosexual acts should be enforced in obedience to God. Thus, “Uganda is right, and Rick Warren is wrong.”

It is true that Jesus did not come to abolish the Old Testament law, as Michael Brown has stated in response to the Anti-Missionary claim that “Jesus abolished the Law”:

“As Messiah, Yeshua was the ultimate Torah teacher, showing us how the entire Hebrew Bible reached fulfillment in him and also giving us deep spiritual insights into how the Torah could remain relevant for the Jewish people in generations to come, even when we would be scattered throughout the world, without a Temple, a sacrificial system, or a functioning (earthly) priesthood…”
– Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: Volume 4

Does this mean, however, that all nations are bound to issue the laws of capital punishment given to Israel through Moses? If so, when governments refuse to carry out the judgments required in the Old Testament, are Christians required to perform them in their stead? (Gay activist sites have been concerned about this very thing, stating “This is what incitement to violence looks like” and “It’s this nation’s conservative movement, who must condemn this kind of behavior wholly and loudly before someone’s literal blood permanently stains their movement!”)

In the video, Mitchell seems to be quite at ease with this conclusion. But if we are required to put homosexuals to death for the OT laws they have broken, then are we not also required to put adulterers, Sabbath breakers, and rebellious teenagers to death? All of these are capital offenses according to the Old Testament. Does Mitchell really want to go in this direction? (Would Mitchell himself be alive under such a regime?)

As Frank Turek has pointed out, governments have three choices when it comes to legislating a behavior. They can prohibit it, permit it or promote it. Serving as salt and light in the places in which we reside as believers in Jesus, we stand firmly against governmental promotion of homosexuality, adultery, and other behaviors that are detrimental to society. Reasonable minds can disagree as to whether detrimental behaviors should be permitted or prohibited (take the use of alcohol and drugs for instance), and reasonable minds can also disagree with regard to which (if any) behaviors should require the death penalty (for example, first degree murder). The idea however that governments (and perhaps even individual Christians) are required to put homosexuals to death because God required it of ancient Israel, and, after all, Jesus did not come to “abolish the law,” is one that, if it is followed through consistently, would result in either a theocratic state consisting of very few people (imagine loading everyone that has worked on a Saturday into trucks and hauling them off to the electric chair) or a chaotic Christian killing spree (is this at all consistent with the model put forth in the New Testament of Jesus and the early Church?)

Such scenarios are, of course, completely ludicrous, and that is the point. It is true that Colonial America criminalized homosexuality, but they also criminalized adultery and sex outside of wedlock. How many conservatives would hold up to such requirements today? (Need I mention the number of conservative politicians that have failed in this area? Should they be put to death?) Gay activists often unfairly accuse believers in Jesus of “cherry-picking” Bible verses to suit their needs, using scripture as a “prop behind which to hide their bigotry.” I’m afraid statements like the ones made in this video regarding the application of Old Testament law must come from either a place of ignorance (perhaps he had not fully thought through his argument before making it) or as a direct fulfillment of these very accusations. One thing is clear, the scriptures are not to be used in some cavalier fashion, as if we were free to use these precious divine words to attack others and justify ourselves as we please. In the end, “in the same way [we] judge others, [we ourselves] will be judged, and with the measure [we] use, it will be measured to [us].” Let us therefore judge rightly… resisting the homosexual agenda with courage, and reaching out to the homosexual community with compassion.

Posted in Law & Politics, News Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,

November 22nd, 2009 by M. French

A Kansas City abortion clinic employed rammed into a noticeably pregnant pro-life volunteer. According to Operation Rescue:

An abortion clinic employee attacked a pregnant pro-life volunteer outside the Central Family Medicine abortion clinic in Kansas City, Kansas, while she was engaged in peaceful, First Amendment activity.

On November 14, 2009, an unidentified abortion clinic employee came out of the Central Family Medicine abortion clinic and began to taunt the pro-lifers. Her verbal abuse escalated into violence as she rammed her shoulder into sidewalk counselor Jennifer McCoy, who is noticeably six months pregnant. A photograph taken by protest leader Mark Gietzen of the Kansas Coalition for Life shows McCoy recoiling and bracing for the hard impact that occurred a split second later.

Police were summoned, but the abortion worker attempted to flee the scene before they could arrive. McCoy followed the woman to keep her from evading the police. After realizing that she could not get away, the worker returned to the abortion clinic where she hid behind locked doors.

Moral Outcry points out that an abortion clinic bubble law exists in Chicago:

The measure creates 8-foot zones around people within 50 feet of an abortion facility. Anyone who enters that space without consent could face a $500 fine.

As most people that have been part of abortion clinic protests and outreaches can tell you (including this present author), in reality those that are seeking to save the lives of the babies being destroyed in the facility are the ones that are most often in danger of being attacked, as this present story shows. Perhaps we can take a cue from Planned Parenthood (who praised the “bubble” law) and seek to create a legal bubble of protection around pro-life volunteers! Moral Outrcy declared:

… perhaps we need protection from abortion workers! You know, the ones who care about women so much they ‘ram’ a six months pregnant woman on a sidewalk. And then run inside the clinic to escape police.

Now that’s “Women’s Healthcare”.

Posted in News, Revolution & Justice Tagged with: , , , , , ,

October 7th, 2009 by M. French

Here’s a sign that was held at a Boston Gay Marriage Protest from a few years ago:

Here’s the biblical text the sign is referencing in its entirety:

If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, ‘I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin,’ then the girl’s father and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of the girl’s virginity to the elders of the city at the gate.

The girl’s father shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her; and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, “I did not find your daughter a virgin.” But this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city.

So the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him, and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give it to the girl’s father, because he publicly defamed a virgin of Israel. And she shall remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days.

But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father’s house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you.

How would you respond?  Here are some thoughts Dr. Brown shared on the subject:

There were certain laws that God gave to ancient Israel before Jesus came into the world in order to maintain certain standards of purity and in order to keep Israel separate from the nations. Those laws are not applicable to Christians today. There were other laws based on universal principles of morality and holiness, including the prohibition against murder, the prohibition against child sacrifice, and the prohibition against homosexual practice. Those laws are still in full force today.

Posted in News, Philosophy & Science Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,

July 9th, 2009 by M. French

From The Christian Institute:

Police officers told an open-air preacher in Gainsborough, Lincolnshire, it is a criminal offence to identify homosexuality as a sin. They said this to Andy Robertson, even though he had not mentioned homosexuality in his preaching.

He was recording his preaching because the local council had been making allegations about the content of his message. The conversation with police officers was caught on tape.

Posted in Law & Politics, News Tagged with: , , , , , ,

May 23rd, 2009 by M. French

In Sweden, babies can be aborted simply because they are a gender the mother doesn’t want. According to The Local:

Swedish health authorities have ruled that gender-based abortion is not illegal according to current law and can not therefore be stopped, according to a report by Sveriges Television.

The Local reported in February that a woman from Eskilstuna in southern Sweden had twice had abortions after finding out the gender of the child.

The woman, who already had two daughters, requested an amniocentesis in order to allay concerns about possible chromosome abnormalities. At the same time, she also asked to know the foetus’s gender.

Doctors at Mälaren Hospital expressed concern and asked Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen) to draw up guidelines on how to handle requests in the future in which they “feel pressured to examine the foetus’s gender” without having a medically compelling reason to do so.

The board has now responded that such requests and thus abortions can not be refused and that it is not possible to deny a woman an abortion up to the 18th week of pregnancy, even if the foetus’s gender is the basis for the request.

Shocking? Yes. The inevitable result of “pro-choice” laws? Yes as well. But then, is killing a baby because it is unwanted or inconvenient (for any reason), as is the case in 98% of abortions in the U.S., really any better?

Posted in News, Revolution & Justice Tagged with: , , ,

May 6th, 2009 by M. French

According to the Portland Press Herald:

Democratic Gov. John Baldacci today signed into law a bill allowing gay marriage, making Maine the fifth state to allow same-sex marriage.

The governor’s signature came barely an hour after the measure won final approval in the state Legislature, with a final 31-8 vote in favor in the Maine Senate.

Baldacci said in a statement that while he has opposed gay marriage in the past, “I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and ofequal [sic] protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.

10% of U.S. states have now completely redefined the definition of marriage. It is not a “question of fairness and [of equal] protection under the law,” homosexuals have just as much a right to marry as anyone else, we are simply asking that the definition of marriage not be changed.

Posted in Law & Politics, News Tagged with: , , , , ,

May 5th, 2009 by M. French

Maine’s House of Representatives will vote today on a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage. The bill was approved by the Senate last week, and a live video stream from the House can be viewed here.

Update: The bill was passed by the House, and is heading back to the Senate for a final vote

Posted in Law & Politics, News Tagged with: , , ,