A few days ago, I came upon an article about a certain Episcopalian priestess named Rev. Nina Churchman. Rev. Churchman wrote a letter to Episcopal Life Online “expressing her outrage upon learning that her church has developed a healing rite for post-[abortive] women who feel sorrow over their abortion. Churchman is offended by language contained in the rite such as ‘sin’ and ‘guilt.’”
What’s really bizarre about this minister is that she claims to have an inside line to God, Who, according to her, actually “rejoices that women facing unplanned pregnancies have the freedom to carefully choose the best option – birth, adoption or abortion – for themselves and their families.” In other words, in her mind, there are three choices equally pleasing to God: affirming His gift of a child, sharing His gift with a family better suited to raising the child, or murdering the child.
Churchman wrote that
she was sickened to discover that the rite for abortion is couched wholly in terms of sin and transgression. The Episcopal Church, by resolution, has long held that women have the freedom to choose an abortion. It is not considered a sin. That this new rite begins with the words, "I seek God's forgiveness…" and includes "God rejoices that you have come seeking God's merciful forgiveness…" is contrary to the resolution. Women should be able to mourn the loss of an aborted fetus without having to confess anything.
This nation has experienced 36 years of judicial denial of the obvious, as courts across the nation have repeated the tragic error of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions. Churchman’s letter illustrates exactly how inane and obtuse those decisions were, by making far-fetched statements based not on the Word of God, but rather on the twisted ideology spawned by the father of lies.
Those of us who understand the real meaning of God’s commandment “Thou shalt not kill,” find Churchman’s position extremely offensive, but we also have to admit that, unfortunately, she has allies in all sorts of strange places—among those who will do or say anything to justify killing a preborn baby—even if it means defying common sense.
For example, a spokesman for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals recently decried President Obama’s fly swatting, claiming PETA has compassion for even the smallest animal. But how about preborn babies? A PETA pokesman finds it "loathsome" and "grotesquely hypocritical" that pro-lifers oppose abortion, "but are unconcerned about the mistreatment of chickens and other animals used in the food industry," according to LifeSiteNews.com (June 23).
In exactly the same vein as Churchman, who does not believe that aborting a child should be defined as a sin, PETA’s Bruce Friedrich explained that he wants those of us who struggle to defend preborn babies to “remove the log from your own eye, and then come after the speck in the eye of the animal protection movement. But until the pro-life movement does that, they have zero credibility in my book.” In other words, Friedrich equates killing a human being prior to birth with abusing and/or slaughtering a chicken. How any right-thinking person could make such a statement with a straight face is beyond me, but these are extremely strange times.
Think about the Ohio Supreme Court's recent ruling that the parents of a Cincinnati teen who had an abortion at a Planned Parenthood clinic in 2004—at age 14—do not have the right to review medical records that are highly relevant to their daughter’s case. The reporter writes,
The parents of “Jane Roe,” who had an abortion in March 2004 as a 14-year-old, filed suit against Planned Parenthood, alleging the clinic didn’t properly get parental consent for the abortion or notify authorities of suspected sexual abuse of a minor. Although the clinic staff called a man who Jane said was her father and received consent, it turned out that it was her 21-year-old soccer coach, John Haller, on the other end. Later police found that Jane had been sexually abused and impregnated by Haller.
The lawsuit claimed Planned Parenthood’s handling of Jane’s case was part of a pattern involving minors who had obtained abortions.
As part of their lawsuit, the Roe family wanted copies of all medical records and child abuse reports for every minor who sought an abortion from the clinic in the last 10 years.
The court found that state law in effect at the time of the suit did not create a right to confidential medical records of people not involved in the lawsuit, even if the records redacted personal identifying information. The justices also said the earlier version of the law did not allow for civil damages for the clinic’s alleged failure to report the suspected abuse of Jane.
Or, we might say, the law is written to protect sexual abusers, child abusers and faulty medical practices. Mind you, if this girl had suffered a complication from the abortion itself, Planned Parenthood would not have rushed to pay the medical bills … the parents would have had to take care of that. And if “Jane Roe” suffers any long-term emotional problems stemming from the sexual abuse and the mishandling of the case in the first place, Planned Parenthood cannot, according to this court’s decision, be held accountable.
Finally, I bring you the most bizarre example of the contemporary world and the manner in which our hard-earned tax dollars are being abused to deceive the young, discredit the virtue of chastity and discredit any notion that children need to be subservient to their parents.
Watson Pharmaceuticals recently announced that its subsidiary, Watson Laboratories,
has received approval …from the United States Food and Drug Administration on its Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) for levonorgestrel tablets, 0.75 mg, for women seventeen years and younger. Levonorgestrel is the generic equivalent to Duramed Pharmaceuticals' PLAN B(R), which is indicated for the prevention of pregnancy following unprotected intercourse or contraceptive failure.
Please note that the government has used our tax dollars to approve the distribution of a chemical to children younger than 17 years of age who may experience pregnancy due to “unprotected intercourse.” In other words, promiscuity is not the problem according to the FDA; the possibility of becoming pregnant is the problem.
Individuals such as Churchman, Friedrich and certain Ohio Supreme Court justices would probably advise us pro-lifers not to use pejorative language, even when the well-being of our children and grandchildren is jeopardized by a sex-crazed society. Obviously, our foes would appreciate it very much if we would just sit down and shut up! These people reflect a culture that would rather protect child abusers and hair-brained ministers—and punish chicken abusers—than face the truth. They have no difficulty in turning a blind eye toward heinous crimes that violate the human person. They cannot afford to acknowledge the tragic impact of abortion and its progeny on the American family, because there are too many competing interests at play in the culture of death.
Churchman, chickens and "choice"—symptoms of a disordered mentality that flatly denies the obvious as its proponents destroy this nation and her families—one human being at a time.