The Salt & Light Mission

The Salt and Light Mission

There is a commercial playing right now that claims heart disease is the number one killer of women in America. It is a lie. One in every four Americans, and therefore one in every four American women, under the age of 33 has been murdered by abortionists (see Lies And Statistics on the Sanctity of Life Sunday). Scripture is plain on this matter. "Thou shalt not murder," (Exodus 20: 13). Read the article Not You Shall Murder for more on this verse and how it applies to the abortion issue, but the point here is that there are a host of people in this nation who need to repent.

Abortionists, the nurses who assist them, the support staff who work in their clinics, the women (and men too) who seek out their services all need to repent. But they are not the only ones. This nation is full of average people who have never had an abortion but who also need to repent nonetheless. I'm talking about the average person who tacitly approves, by way of passive acceptance, of abortion. Most Americans do not feel strongly one way or the other about abortion, and so they accept the idea that it's okay because their government tells them that it's okay.

And as the Church it is our responsibility to call them to repentance.

The legislative battle; People believe their government,

During the Revolutionary War some Americans were avid revolutionaries and some were patriotic subjects of the King. But most didn't care one way or the other. Most just wanted to live their lives in the peace and security. During the Civil War some Americans were avid abolitionists and some Americans were slave owners. But most Americans didn't care strongly about slavery one way or the other. They didn't own any slaves themselves, but they accepted that others might choose to do so. And as long as the government said it was okay, they accepted that it was okay.

Today you can't find an American who thinks we should be subject to the crown of Great Britain. Try to find an American today who thinks slavery should be a matter of personal choice, or even for the states to decide. You simply can't. But you can find plenty of people who say that they would never have an abortion, but that they wouldn't want to impose their choice on anyone else. They accept as truth what the government tells them, and we can bring all of these people to repentance just by winning the legislative battle.

Once that battle is won, once the government says that it is murder to kill unborn babies, pro-choice Americans will become as scarce as advocates of slavery. Once upon a time it was a given that a man had the right to beat his wife and children. But no one would allow some argument about privacy rights to sway them to accept that premise anymore, because the government says it's wrong. Won't it be a great day in America when people who cling to a pro-choice philosophy will be as shunned as Klansmen.

So how do we win this battle?

At the time of this writing South Dakota has passed a bill (HB 1215) to abolish abortion, and the same has been signed into law by Governor Mike Rounds (R). Emboldened by the recent confirmations to the Supreme Court of Justices Roberts and Alito, there are five states (Georgia, Indiana, Ohio, South Dakota and Tennessee) working on passing similar legislation with the express intention of overturning the Supreme Court decision in the case of Roe v Wade. And if these five are known, I suspect there are more that simply haven't made headlines yet.

In any case, South Dakota got it done first. So when I started the early planning for this mission I intended to challenge each of you to reach deep into your pockets and send contributions to the State of South Dakota to help defray the cost of defending their effort in court. But then I read their new law.

I can not in good conscience support the South Dakota law challenging Roe v Wade. I will explain why later, but for now it is sufficient to note that South Dakota's anti-abortion law is fundamentally flawed. It is indeed self-defeating. Moreover I've seen nothing to indicate that the other state level efforts underway are any better.

Instead, I am calling on each of you to support a federal legislative proposal, a bill currently in Congress (H.R. 552) that I learned of when I was contacted by telephone solicitors on behalf of Senator Jim DeMint (R, SC) and The National Pro-Life Alliance. Again, I will explain why shortly, but for now I will note that if passed as it is written this bill will effectively, in one fell swoop, end the atrocity of abortion in America as a whole. It will preemptively quash the protracted state-by-state efforts. It will not simply overturn Roe v Wade, it will make Roe v Wade moot. It will settle, once and for all and in the affirmative, the question of whether or not it is murder to kill the unborn. If you are a Christian, you need to contact the Representatives and Senators from your State and pressure them to do what is necessary to pass this bill without corruption of amendment. Now let me explain why.

Wise as serpents, and harmless as doves

I must confess that I was somewhat taken aback to learn that not everyone in the pro-life movement is happy about challenging Roe v Wade at this time. Many believe that a vote in the Supreme Court right now would go 4 to 5 in support of Roe v Wade, and that we should therefore bide our time until one more pro-life justice can be sworn in. I have been specifically advised that we should "be wise as serpents" (Matthew 10:16) and therefore we should wait until we can win, lest we haplessly motivate and mobilize those who would oppose us in time that they could still defeat us.

Before I go any further I want to be clear on this point. Nothing I write or say should be construed as to impugn any in the pro-life movement. The fact is that I always welcome sage counsel, and those I have spoken with in this matter are far more knowledgeable than I in matters of the body politic. Nonetheless, I cannot subscribe to their position. I reject that it is ever the wrong time to do the right thing, especially when that thing is to call the nation to repentance (Ezekiel 3: 18 - 21). On the other hand, there have been times that people errantly did what they thought was right, even though it wasn't. So it is incumbent on us all to make certain we know what is right, and not merely accept what seems right at the moment.

Again, I reject that it is ever the wrong time to do the right thing. And so I do not accept that we should delay the battle for fear of defeat. Like David in the battle that gave rise to this ministry's very name, I will do only as the Lord leads me, trusting Him for the victory if one is to be had. And no, it's not a given that the Lord will give us the victory.

When David fought Goliath and the Philistine host he was confident that God would give him the victory (I Samuel 17: 46) But Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego had no idea whether God would give them the victory or not. They only knew that they would be obedient to Him regardless (Daniel 3: 16 - 18). Moreover, Ezekiel knew that his mission would be a complete failure. God told Ezekiel repeatedly that he was to go whether the Israelites would listen or not, and in Ezekiel 3: 7 God outright tells Ezekiel that they will not listen. But He also tells Ezekiel to go anyway.

If God says go, we must go. If there is to be a victory, it will be God's victory by His hand, not by ours. That means that if we concern ourselves with knowing what is right, we need not concern ourselves with what seems expedient. Even if there is to be no victory, we are still to be obedient. It may very well be the case that our nation is beyond repentance. But if they are, and if they are to perish in that unrepentant state, do not let it be with their blood on our hands (Ezekiel 3: 18 - 21). To quote Charles Spurgeon, "If sinners be damned, at least let them leap to Hell over our bodies. If they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees. Let no one go there unwarned and unprayed for."

So, as expressed in that aforementioned advise, let's be "wise as serpents." But let's remember the rest of the verse and be "harmless as doves" as well (Matthew 10: 16). And I don't think that standing by while 1.5 million more babies are murdered each year, while 3 million more parents become murderers each year, is being harmless.

More importantly, I do not believe that trying to "chip away" at Roe v Wade is being very wise. Let me state this more plainly. Incrementalism will not work. A little unleaven will not unleaveneth the whole loaf. True, we could choose to think of incrementalism as "saving the few we can." And while that thought may assuage our consciences it will not alter the basic fact that we abandoned the rest to murder. To be sure, we should absolutely save as many as we can, by convincing pregnant women that they have better options and by helping them to make those choices, by calling them to repentance, but never by accepting that murdering fewer is better. This kind of sophistry leads inevitably to a "Sophie's Choice," one we simply must refuse to make.

Many are doubtlessly thinking, "But isn't it right that we should save as many as we can?" So let me ask you some questions in response. Who is it that you want to save? The babies? What is it that you want to save those babies from? Do you believe that God sends the murdered innocent to Hell? I will save the explanation as a topic for another time, but for now let me simply say emphatically that I do not. I am quite happy trusting God to deal with them mercifully. I am not saying that we shouldn't support a ban on partial birth abortions. I am simply pointing out that we must be certain that in doing so we do not tacitly concede that a first trimester dilation and curettage is any less an atrocity. If this is troublesome for you, then I suspect that you also to remember what I wrote earlier, that it is the abortionists, not the babies, that we need to bring to repentance.

Yes, I touched on this just a few paragraphs earlier, but I want to reiterate for both clarity and emphasis. It is the abortionists we need to be concerned for. They're the one's who need to repent lest they face God's judgment. Likewise, it's the men and women who work for and hire abortionists that we need to be concerned for. They're the ones who otherwise will have to answer to God. They're the ones in danger of Hell's fires.

South Dakota House Bill 1215

As I wrote earlier, South Dakota has passed an anti-abortion law ( HB 1215) which was reported to prohibit all abortions except those necessary to save the life of the mother. So that we may better understand the issues, let's look at the flaws of this law.

There are five problems with this bill as follows.

Section 1 of HB 1215 asserts that life begins at conception, and that therefore the unborn human being is equally protected. They should have clearly and unambiguously stated that from the moment of conception, the unborn human being is legally a person.
In Section 2 they prohibit abortions, but then define any violation of Section 2 as a Class 5 felony. This, I believe, is a problem because I infer that a Class 5 felony is punished less severely than a Class 1 felony. I could be wrong on this point since I was unable to find the distinction defined on the South Dakota web site, but for our purposes it is a safe assumption. Even if errant, this assumption does not change the final conclusion about this bill as the remaining problems are sufficient to kill it on their own. It is, nonetheless, instructive to consider the bill on the basis of this assumption.
The next problem is the whole of Section 3, wherein they attempted to make clear that contraceptives are not banned. The bill reads, "Nothing in section 2 of this Act may be construed to prohibit the sale, use, prescription, or administration of a contraceptive measure, drug or chemical, if it is administered prior to the time when a pregnancy could be determined through conventional medical testing and if the contraceptive measure is sold, used, prescribed, or administered in accordance with manufacturer instructions," (emphasis added). This is a huge hole through which the abortion industry will drive a host of prophylactic abortifacients (e.g. RU-486, IUD).
In Section 4 they make an exception for saving the life of the mother, but they do so in a way that will not pass Constitutional muster.
Also in Section 4 they completely exempt the pregnant mother on whom the abortion is either performed or attempted from any legal liability.

In order to understand why these are problems, we first need to know some things about the Supreme Court decision in the case Roe v Wade, and the Constitution of the United States.

Roe v Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) and the U.S. Constitution

In the matter of Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court of the United States held, in pertinent part, that, "State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy."

Immediately we find that in order to understand this ruling we must know what the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment stipulates. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment states that, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The yellow highlighted clause is the Due Process Clause. It is a reiteration of the same clause in the Fifth Amendment. The green highlighted clause is the Equal Protection Clause.

In Section IX of Blackmun's Opinion of the Court, we read, "The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [p157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds the fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."

In footnote 54 of Section IX Blackmun writes, "When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment- protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists. The exception contained in Art. 1196, for an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, is typical. But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother's condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment's command?"

In the same footnote he goes on to write, "There are other inconsistencies between Fourteenth Amendment status and the typical abortion statute. It has already been pointed out, n. 49, supra, that in Texas the woman is not a principal or an accomplice with respect to an abortion upon her. If the fetus is a person, why is the woman not a principal or an accomplice? Further, the penalty for criminal abortion specified by Art. 1195 is significantly less than the maximum penalty for murder prescribed by Art. 1257 of the Texas Penal Code. If the fetus is a person, may the penalties be different?"

Deliberation

I know I have given you a number of facts to retain while we deliberate this matter. I've specified five problems with the South Dakota bill to ban abortion. Then I gave you the finding of the Supreme Court in the matter of Roe v Wade accompanied by at least four relevant statements, in three paragraphs, taken from the Opinion of the Court. And in the middle of all that I threw in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. Now, just in case you aren't already overwhelmed enough, I'm going to shock you by showing you that the Supreme Court was, in point of fact, correct. (Note I do not say they were right.)

Much has been made of the fact that the right to privacy is not explicit in the Constitution. Some suggest that because the right is penumbrous, or inferred, that it was simply "made up." I disagree. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments make explicit that just the opposite is true. In particular the Tenth Amendment states unambiguously that unless a power is explicitly delegated to the United States, then the United States does not have that power. Furthermore, the Ninth Amendment states explicitly that just because a right is not explicitly enumerated to the people in the Constitution, that does not mean that the right does not exist. Thus, unless a power to restrict a personal liberty, any personal liberty, is explicitly enumerated to the government, then the government is expressly enjoined from usurping that liberty and by default it lies with the people (or the States). And the Due Process Clause, expressed in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, protects those rights, those liberties, from undue government infringement.

Now let's be clear on this point. I am not saying that in matters other than abortion that the Supreme Court hasn't done just that, infringe on liberties they were Constitutionally powerless infringe upon, only that it was in those cases that they erred, not this one.

Wait one minute! How can this be? How can I be against abortion and yet agree with the fundamental underpinning of the pro-abortion position? In yet another breech of the etiquette of civil discourse, let me answer that question by asking a question. Why is abortion wrong?

Stop! Don't recite a litany of pro-life bumper-sticker platitudes to me. This is not a rhetorical question. Think about the answer. In the final analysis, at the bottom line, in the most axiomatic sense, why is abortion wrong? Abortion is wrong because it is murder, the shedding of innocent blood, the unjust taking of innocent human life. If it is not murder, then it is not wrong. No, I'm not playing rhetorical games. If abortion is not murder, then abortion is not wrong.

Instead of asking about abortion only, lets consider murder in general. Why is it wrong to murder another person? We kill animals all the time, often for what some consider to be no good reason. We kill deer and geese for sport. We kill cows and pigs just so we can eat. In fact, we raise cows and pigs for the express purpose of killing them to eat. We kill our pet dogs if they're just too sick or injured to survive, and all across Asia and Europe whole flocks of birds are being rounded up and killed just to try and contain the spread of a virus. In none of these cases is it murder, but it would be murder if we killed a person in any such case. Why?

It's wrong to kill a person, without just cause, because we are created in God's image. Animals are not. That is why it's murder to kill a person for trespassing and stealing your crops, but it's okay to kill a coyote for the same reason. And if the unborn fetus is not a "person," then it is not murder to kill it and the Constitution forbids the government from depriving a pregnant woman of her liberty to do the same (beyond the extent necessary to protect and fulfill the legitimate functions and purposes of the government). This is the salient point of the Supreme Court's finding in Roe v Wade. If the baby is not a person, it's not murder.

In the Opinion of the Court, Section IX, Blackmun explicitly states that if the fetus were a person, everything else becomes moot because the fetus would then enjoy that same Equal Protection of Due Process. This is why South Dakota's HB 1215 should have stated explicitly that the unborn baby is a person. In fairness, the South Dakota legislature was writing their bill to be interpreted in light of the South Dakota Constitution, with which I am unfamiliar, and so this point might have been resolvable in federal court as being implicitly equivalent, (assuming there were no other problems with the bill). On the other hand, the South Dakota legislature wrote this bill with the express intent of overturning Roe v Wade, so this is certainly among the concerns they should have born in mind. Unfortunately there are severe problems with the remainder of this bill. Far from being implicitly equivalent, the remainder of HB 1215 makes clear that, human or not, protected or not, the fetus is not considered to be a person, either in relation to the Fourteenth Amendment or any other standard, by the State of South Dakota and therefore can not dispossess the mother of her Constitutionally protected rights.

In footnote 54 of Section IX, Blackmun points out that if the fetus is a person, with respect to the Fourteenth Amendment, then no statute can dispossess that person (the fetus) or any other of its life without Due Process of Law, which is precisely what happens when a legislature, as South Dakota did in Section 4 of HB 1215, makes an exception to save the life of the mother. This is not to say that it's wrong to kill in defense of the life of another. In point of fact it is both right and legal to kill anyone if they are threatening the life of another. This is called justifiable homicide, or self-defense, and it is already codified into the laws of the States. If the State of South Dakota, for reasons of political expedience, wanted to reiterate or otherwise clarify that an abortion would be allowed in such cases, they should have taken care to expressly state that the same self-defense laws that apply to everyone would apply here as well. Of course, whether they stipulate it or not is ultimately irrelevant since the same laws that apply to everyone else will automatically apply to the fetus once their personhood is asserted and established.

Blackmun went on in the same footnote to point out that if the fetus is a person to be equally protected, then a legislature can not exempt the mother from criminal liability in seeking to deprive that person (the fetus) of it's life. Yet this is precisely what South Dakota does in Section 4 of HB 1215. Consider this. Would it be reasonable to pass a law that says an assassin may not kill the husband of a disgruntled wife, but if he does then the disgruntled wife who hired him to kill her husband is not a party to the crime? No, if it is a crime to kill someone, it's also a crime to hire another to do the killing. And again we see that South Dakota doesn't think its as severe a crime if the victim is a fetus, so obviously the fetus, in the mind of South Dakota, isn't really, fully a person.

Finally, still in the same footnote, Blackmun points out that, if the fetus is a person, and if it is a capitol offense to murder a person with premeditation, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that it can not be less of a crime against the fetus. Yet in HB 1215 South Dakota specifies that it is a Class 5 felony to kill an unborn human being. I confess again that I could not confirm this, but I suspect that this is a far less serious offense than a capital crime. And again we see that South Dakota doesn't really believe that the fetus is really, fully a person.

The point to be taken from all of this is that whatever rules apply to everyone else, those same rules must apply to the unborn. If the fetus is a person from conception then the Fourteenth Amendment already requires this, and any legislative "exception" would be unconstitutional. On the other hand, if the fetus is not yet a person then its rights can not dispossess the mother of her liberty.

If this is an oversimplification of the issue, it is only slightly so. There are nuances involved in Roe v Wade that balance the right of the State to govern against the right of the people to enjoy protected liberty. So while acknowledging these matters, I do not wish to obfuscate the issue at hand with them. The salient point that needs acknowledgement is that in none of these nuanced considerations are the rights of the fetus considered, only the rights of the States and the mother.

So South Dakota's HB 1215 is a classic example of a law that the Court would strike down as "vague." You might be asking, "What's vague about it? Even if it's unconstitutional, it's pretty clearly written. I don't see what's supposed to be vague about it." Instead of the word "vague," think of the word "ambiguous." All this means is that the law leads to logical conflicts, or mutually exclusive conclusions.

In other words, if the baby is a person then you can't say murdering it is any less a crime than murdering anyone else. And if it's not a person then the government can't take away the woman's right to choose. But the South Dakota law says that it is less of a crime to kill the baby than it would be to kill anyone else, but that the mother can not just choose to have it killed. The prior assertion leads one to conclude that the baby is not a person, while the later leads one to conclude that it is. The law is therefore ambiguous, or vague, not to mention morally wrong and compromised. It should, therefore, be overturned and struck down, or better yet not passed in the first place.

Call to Action

As I wrote earlier, I had every intention of encouraging everyone to contribute monies to help cover the legal expenses of fighting the challenges to South Dakota's HB 1215, but no longer. The South Dakota legislature is wrong, and you and I would also be wrong to subscribe to the notion that the unborn should be less protected than every other person. Not only do I believe that this law will be struck down, I believe it should be struck down.

But all is not lost. There is a bill, introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R, CA) and 36 cosponsors, called House Resolution 552 (H.R. 552). It cleanly and succinctly declares that all human beings, from the moment of conception, are persons with respect to the Fourteenth Amendment. It makes no exceptions. It does not corrupt itself with contradictions and vagaries. It simply asserts what is right.

Thus I am calling on everyone to support this bill. Call your Representatives and your Senators. Make them understand that you want this bill passed without corruption of amendment. As I have just shown, any additional caveat added to the legislation, other than defining all human beings as "persons" from conception, is to nullify on pain of vagary the bill. And don't be fooled into thinking that an exception for the life of the mother is necessary. It isn't. You can already kill anyone in defense of self, if contemporaneous circumstances warrant.

So lets you and I be wise as serpents, and harmless as doves, by standing firm on what we know to be the truth, what we know to be right. Do not allow anyone to deceive you into believing that any compromise is either expedient or necessary. Understand that obfuscation and confusion are the tools with which deception is wrought, and stand firm.

As long as H.R. 552 is uncorrupted, there is no excuse for the Supreme Court to strike it down. If it is made vague, if exceptions are added, then it should never be passed to begin with. Otherwise, to legitimately overturn H.R. 552, assuming again that it is uncorrupted with vagary, would require that it be shown that the fetus is either not alive, or not human, at conception. And these are empirically known facts not subject to either argument or dispute.

As I close please note that I said, "..., to legitimately overturn H.R. 552, ...." If we are successful in calling this nation to repentance, in getting H.R. 552 passed as written, it is still possible that 5 hard-line unrepentant Supreme Court justices could still overturn the law (it would be a law at that point) without comment. In other words, 5 justices could simply strike it down for no reason whatsoever. And if that did happen, our task would be incomplete. But that is another matter for another day. In the meantime, and as a foreshadowing of things to come, you can take solace by reminding yourself that, despite the popular lie to the contrary, judges, even those on the Supreme Court, are not appointed for life.

Say it with me, "Judges are not appointed for life."

I Samuel 17: 46 This day will the LORD deliver thee into mine hand; and I will smite thee, and take thine head from thee; and I will give the carcases of the host of the Philistines this day unto the fowls of the air, and to the wild beasts of the earth; that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel.

Daniel 3: 16 - 18 16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we [are] not careful to answer thee in this matter. 17 If it be [so], our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver [us] out of thine hand, O king. 18 But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.

Ezekiel 3: 7 But the house of Israel will not hearken unto thee; for they will not hearken unto me: for all the house of Israel [are] impudent and hardhearted.

Matthew 10: 16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

Ezekiel 3: 18 - 21 18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked [man] shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. 19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul. 20 Again, When a righteous [man] doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand. 21 Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous [man], that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul.

penumbra (n) 1) An area in which something exists to a lesser or uncertain degree. 2) An outlying surrounding region. 3) A partial shadow between regions of complete shadow and complete illumination. adj. penumbrous.

amicus (n) Latin for friend. Counselor of the court (as in amicus curiae). pl. amici.