Indicted Planned Parenthood Whistleblowers: Consider Yourselves Honored

New documentation of Planned Parenthood selling aborted body parts for profit emerged from videos of the Gulf Coast, Texas, facility Jan. 29.

Such sales are illegal in every state. The new video shows a University of Texas official negotiating with PP director of research Melissa Farrell for human flesh priced per-item.

Farrell reveals techniques she uses to disguise invoices on camera. Worse than that, since the fetal tissue is sold to a public university, it is clear taxpayer money makes the purchases.

Yet when the district attorney of Harris County, Texas, is tasked with investigating this mess, she instead induces a grand jury to indict undercover journalists David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt for using a fake ID, standard journalistic behavior since dinosaur days and never thought to be anything more than tools of the trade.

This is the same DA who subpoenaed pastors’ sermons and counseling notes in 2015 because they publicly opposed a gay rights ordinance. These gross violations of the pastors’ rights disappeared after a public outcry.

One might think Houston-area district attory Devon Anderson would now be mega wary of the appearance of more corruption – but no. Truth is these indictments should be worn like a badge of honor. Any American should long for such a proof of both courage and commitment – to human life and the God Who creates it.

Daleiden and Merritt face up to 20 years in prison if convicted, although the indictments fail the smell test miserably. For openers, a Planned Parenthood board member works for Anderson – forget unbiased investigation. The DA, tasked with investigating PP and not the journalists, managed to ignore the mountain of evidence against the abortion giant. Mainstream media analysts – no friends of the pro-life movement – conclude the indictments are more expressive of grand jury distaste for pro-life activism than serious suspicion.

Meanwhile, the case against Planned Parenthood is far more damning.

Beginning last year, the Centers for Medical Progress began releasing videos obtained undercover of Planned Parenthood officials laughing and bragging about how much money there was in the sale of body parts from aborted babies. The chief medical officer of one clinic spoke of the luxury car she could buy with her profits.

Another doctor spoke on camera of the demand for intact baby bodies and demonstrated the technique for withdrawing the unborn child from the womb without damaging the all-important brain. These revelations followed many exposures over the years of – for example – Planned Parenthood counselors hiding child molestation and underage prostitution in clients, advising pimps and perverts how to conceal these grisly acts.

But the release of the first two videos sparked – for the first time – sustained calls for defunding and investigations leading to criminal charges against the abortion juggernaut.

Let’s be clear: An organization that was spawned by the virulent racism of founder Margaret Sanger – her strong belief in the inferiority of blacks explains the presence of two thirds of PP facilities in black neighborhoods although blacks account for about 12 percent of the national population – cannot be expected to stand atop the moral high ground.

But the firestorm that greeted the release of the videos was shock-and-awe of the intimidation-by-the-schoolyard-bully variety. A national chorus of the rich, the famous and the powerful shrieked that the videos were faked.

When that was disproved the story morphed to creative editing. After even the New York Times admitted the uncut versions of the videos were released, a federal judge barred further publication despite clear violation of the constitutional prohibition of censorship by prior-restraint (speech and publication can be punished if libelous but cannot be banned prior to release).

The videographers released new footage anyway; they were not penalized because they acted within their constitutional rights and the judge knew it.

Daleiden and Merritt have a good legal team to defend them – at no cost to themselves. The rest of us need to ask whether the Lord Himself will defend us if we simply look on as spectators while His prophetic warriors suffer persecution at the hands of a corrupt prosecutor protecting her staff person.

He has this habit of reminding us that what we hear whispered we ought to shout from the rooftops; His justice and mercy meet at the Cross and join forces in the mouths of His people. And should we fear, let us recall He promises (Matthew 10, Mark 13, and Luke 21) to teach us in that very hour what we are to say and what we are to do. His speaking into us is more powerfully protective than any legal team.

Who wants to be first to call Houston and demand we be indicted alongside our brother and sister?


Calling For Media Integrity In An Age Of Lawlessness

When multiple California newspapers report on the court battle over AB 775, they lie by omitting and distorting facts.

They say the state law mandates providing accurate information to pregnant women about contraception and abortion. But the state has unlimited resources at its disposal for this purpose. AB 775, in fact, requires pregnancy care centers – whose cause and faith is life – to encourage clients to seek abortions at taxpayer expense.

This law compels speech; it defies state and federal constitutions. Integrity in media requires the truth that care centers are being compelled to act as agents of the state in violation of their constitutional rights. Even the judge acknowledged this as she ruled against the centers; this too went unreported. People of California need to compel integrity in our sources of information.

Courts decide against the Catholic school that fired a food services employee when it learned he was in a homosexual marriage. The court says his constitutionally absent right to work trumps the free exercise of faith claim of the school. What media fail to report is the man lied on his application for employment regarding his domestic status. That alone is grounds for termination; holding it back is more evidence of media dishonesty.

Presidential candidate Ted Cruz is roasted by the Washington Post and the Canberra (Australia) Times for claiming rapes rose in Australia following implementation of anti-gun legislation. The papers accuse Cruz of fudging facts because – they say – there was no dramatic spike in rapes after banning firearms.

But the truth – which even the papers acknowledged – is rape has enjoyed a steady rise in Australia. Media simply put words in Cruz’s mouth he never uttered and castigated him with the truth he actually spoke.

Some would say these are examples of the media reporting facts and confining analysis to editorial pages, as they should. But reality is when facts are omitted or spun – as they are in these cases – it is the facts themselves that suffer. We are entitled to expect a little integrity from those who want to supply us with information.

The right does it too. I recently read an article lambasting Barack Obama for spying on Israel. Our president and his regime have stabbed Israel in the back on numerous occasions, but it is just as true that Israel spies on us – and has been caught at it. Truth is truth, and we are all obligated to it.

Pundits love to opine about the demise of print versus electronic media. They cite instantaneous quality of internet and social media alongside egalitarian access to the new platforms. Reality is – though these media are as thick with inaccuracies and fabrications as print press – people think them more reliable. But equal access is real; there are so many voices in the new media it is possible to listen to enough of them – and sift what is heard – to triangulate on something true.

Yet smorgasbord information is not itself the answer. The authentic alternative is a public requiring recognizable truth, and willing to do its homework to secure it. It is a movement within media of re-dedication to letting the truth stand for itself. It is corporate rejection of the notion what we believe true is served by distortion of facts in its favor.

That answer is furthered by re-commited digging to the roots of a story. Perhaps the coverage of AB 775 wasn’t deliberately falsified. Maybe the writer accepted at face value what she was told by the law’s enforcers. But if that is journalistic integrity, we need no reporters. The latest press release from the government will do.

El Nino and California’s drought are the next opportunity for journalists to rise or sink. Last fall, secular science predicted high rainfall for California from the returning El Nino – a warm water current periodically off the California coast. They ruled out significant snowfall, the most important factor in relieving the worst drought in state history. As predicted, rainfall is overwhelming, but snow levels are also wonderfully plentiful throughout California’s mountains. So far the media has conveniently forgotten the no-snow prediction for El Nino – never mind thanking a God Who intervenes to bless people when they pray (2 Chronicles 7:13-14) – as we did for a year-plus prior to the Trifecta of Repentance last September.

We acknowledge the drought is far from over; as people of faith we credit God’s mercy and grace for so-far-relief. My question? Will media show real integrity here? Will people of faith continue to pray and repent to God (Matthew 5:33-37) – and confront media (Matthew 10:26-27) – over simple integrity?


Trump And The Muslims — The Shortsightedness Of Rage

Franklin Graham is one of the men I most admire. Donald Trump is not. How the two make common cause on the issue of Muslim immigration has me scratching my head and reaching for the migraine meds.

Both agree national security requires at least a temporary ban on immigration for foreign practitoners of Islam. Both are dead wrong – on constitutional and scriptural grounds. And this is as much a life issue as the right of the unborn to enter this world intact and alive.

To be fair, let me say again both men are calling for a temporary ban, and only until Muslims seeking to enter the U.S. can be properly vetted for their intentions and possible resources for terror. There is no doubt such vetting can and must be done. There is equally no doubt the Constitution specifically forbids administration of religious tests – for office holders – for any purpose or privilege or right.

There is simply no way to say Christians and Jews and Hindus and atheists are welcome but Muslims are not and remain faithful – or even in compliance – with our Constitution. And there is no way to justify such arbitrary discrimination while remaining faithful to the Word of God that commands particular kindness to the sojourner who comes in peace from the Pentateuch to Isaiah to the Gospels.

There is another and far more effective way that passes constitutional and Word of God muster. It works well for the Israelis – who have more terrorists attempting to infiltrate than the rest of the world combined – and it is called profiling.

Profiling violates no constitutional right, whether we speak of warrantless searches or self-incrimination. Law enforcement is forbidden to force incrimination and required to have a warrant or at least (reasonable) probable cause to detain and search suspects.

But terrorists have definable characteristics and Israel has become adept at identifying these; identifying what an individual publicly exhibits – whether clothing or mannerism or attitude – applies no force, nor is it invading privacy. Yet we Americans shrink from it on grounds of political correctness.

Possibly the most disheartening dimension of last year’s slaughter in San Bernardino is the multiple witnesses who were suspicious of the murderers and said nothing for fear of being labeled bigots. As a result, 16 (including two jihadis) are dead and nearly 30 were seriously hurt because Americans have so intimidated one another we dare not report suspicious behavior for it might bring us under suspicion.

We have so marginalized one another we force all to wait in lines at airports instead of only those who pass a terrorist litmus test and still the terrorists sneak through. This is too pathetic for my vocabulary to adequately describe.

Just as pathetic is the view that desperate times call for desperate (read unconstitutional) measures. One of the many things that distinguishes our culture from that of the jihadis is our freedom to practice thought, faith and speech as we feel led by conscience and consciousness. If we surrender that freedom, the enemies of freedom have won without firing a shot.

Don’t get me wrong — Graham and Trump are mostly right. Graham cites Pew Research studies that 8 percent of Muslim adults in America – a number equivalent to the Biblical 144,000 – endorse suicide bombings and other violence in the name of Islam. According to the Center for Security Policy, 51 percent of Muslims living in America assert their right to be governed by Sharia Law rather than by the U.S. Constitution and laws.

Graham says 29 percent of Muslim adults in America agree violence is acceptable against those who insult Mohammad and fully one quarter endorse violence against their adopted nation in the name of global jihad. This is a lot more than 144,000, and so the situation is every bit as serious as Graham and Trump contend.

It gets worse. Pew reports Muslims – comprising 1 percent of our population – commit half of all terror attacks. That makes a Muslim 5,000 percent more likely to attack than non-Muslims.

The situation is too serious for a shortsighted and unconstitutional solution. It is much too serious to shortcut or end around either Constitution or Word of God. The jihadis and potential jihadis are already here. Learning from the Israelis how to profile – should we not know – greatly reduces the danger.

Respecting the Constitution in emergent situations reduces danger to our identity as a people. Developing the guts to defy politically correct bullying and call in what we suspect reaffirms our human dignity as a people by re-assuming responsibility for ourselves, our families and our neighbors.

It also passes Biblical muster – “By their fruits you shall know them.” I like it.

Mandated Speech Precludes Freedom of Faith

California apparently gets the distinction between compelling and forbidding speech, because it is doing both.

Two newly enacted laws — AB 775 and SB 1172 — are subject to ongoing lawsuits, praise God, in actions brought by Pacific Justice Institute. The former orders pregnancy care center leaders to refer clients for free abortions, while the latter forbids counselors to treat young clients who desire healing from homosexual feelings.

Both laws are the fruit of legislative true believers – acolytes of political correctness on whom neither science nor informed compassion has any impact. These laws need to go down in flames; they are an assault on the freedom of those both for and against them.

Both address life issues in a most destructive way. The AB 775 law props up Planned Parenthood by directing business to the behemoth. In California there are too few doctors to perform 25 percent of the nation’s abortions in a state with 10 percent of its population. Imagine if Ford were ordered to refer clients to Chrysler. Escalate that to the point where life and death for some is at stake, and you see what this law does to the First Amendment and the cause of life itself.

As of this writing, U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller has ruled against the clinics protesting AB 775 (an appeal is pending). She agreed with the clinics that it threatens the First Amendment and will cause irreparable harm to them – the two needed elements for a successful legal action – but she overrode the Constitution because she decided the interest of the state in providing abortion information to clients justifies her constitutional bypass.

In other words, she says the state may trump the Constitution that provides and shapes its legitimacy.

The logic is not lost on legislators and Judge Mueller. Yet believing the right to kill a sacred trust, they sacrifice the Constitution to what they see as justice. Such is the obsession of true believers, the Joseph McCarthy’s of today. Like McCarthy in the ’50s they must be stopped by a body politic led by an aroused Body of Christ.

SB 1172 is another life issue, albeit concerning sexuality. It doesn’t get more horrific for adolescents than the sometime struggle over hetero versus homosexual attraction. California leads the nation in suicide; this is one of the prime triggers. Add in the reality that life is about free choice – for freedom Christ set us free is how Galatians 5 puts it – and you have a fundamental life challenge.

True believers in California are convinced Frankenstein-like therapists and bigoted family members are waiting to pounce on teens coming out as gay and are determined to protect them. But the law forbids treating young people who come out of self-professed need and consigns them to gay activists who maintain there is no way out – and should not be. This logical absurdity is lost on the true believers. The constitutional protection of the professional’s right to make informed and conscientious decisions on treatment based on expertise and conviction? That never seems to come up for zealots.

PJI first took the issue to the trial court as the free speech issue it is. They lost at both lower and appellate levels. They are back in court on free exercise; most or all of the counselors affected are Christians. They believe they have a strong case because the language of the law itself targets Christians.

Granted, films like 2014’s The Imitation Game illustrate the barbaric practices of a bygone era seeking to force homosexuals to adjust to a socially correct template for sexuality; some of them were driven to suicide. But that nightmare ended before the Vietnam War got seriously started.

Today the shoe is on the other foot and the bullies of our era are the gay activists and their allies. They, too, are driving the innocent to self-destruction in the militant dash to enforce conformity to a new and even more death-dealing social template. If the Constitution fails to guarantee life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – it is nothing but a piece of paper if good men and women do not rally for its integrity – it is time for the people to remember the ultimate source of our liberties and stand duty in the name of that source.

How do we do that – whether we stand against compelled speech or for speech forbidden?

The prayer piece is self-evident; if we are Christians we are to pray without ceasing per 1 Thessolonians 5:17 and pray blessing on our enemies per Romans 12:14. Standing – literally – with those impacted by these laws is just as evident for Christians or not, and splashed liberally throughout the New Testament letters. But the most important piece flows from the praying, the blessing and the standing.

The Great Commission calls us to go forth in the power of the Spirit not just to preach salvation for the humble, but to demonstrate the power of the submitted life. That is the core of teaching one another to obey all things He commands. That, and the challenge to be ambassadors of the very reconciliation we have received.

The takeaway is abundant life for ourselves and for those we once thought enemies.


A Referendum For Life

California is now one of five states whose governments actively promote the death of their citizens.

Gov. Jerry Brown signed ABxs15 – the legalized suicide law – stating he would not want to be left in prolonged agony. Brown knows – or would if he listened to dozens of medical professionals who testified before legislative committees – that no one need be left to such a fate. Palliative care – management of incurable conditions to assure comfort until the end – has advanced to the point chronic agony can be eliminated.

Seniors Against Suicide, a partner in the Californians Against Suicide Coalition, launched a Veto Referendum effort to place the question on the 2016 ballot, an effort that failed to gather enough signatures by deadline.

The course of legalizing assisted suicide in California is as ghoulish as the law itself. A young California woman named Brittany Maynard became suicide’s icon in 2014; she suffered from glioblastoma, a disease both painful and fatal in late stages.

Maynard published plans to die in 2015 before the disease ran its full course, and moved to Oregon to commit suicide legally. Two days before her scheduled death – long before the pain began – she announced a desire to live. The next day someone other than Maynard posted on social media she was “back on schedule” and the next day she was dead.

The circumstances were so bizarre that sponsors pulled the bill from consideration before a vote could be taken.

Within days of her death a cure for the glioblastoma she so feared – using adult stem cell therapy – was announced. Since adult stem cells use no fetal tissue, it appeared life had won a great victory. However, backers of legalized suicide snuck the bill onto an appropriations measure and slipped it past publicity.

The ghoulish aspects of this law transcend one suspicious death. Records show non-terminal patients take their own lives at an accelerated pace wherever assisted suicide gains legitimacy. In Oregon alone, the rate jumped 49 percent.

It is a short road from assisted death to euthanasia; the Netherlands and Scandinavian nations rode that road to its end some time ago. In this country we already face the spectre of killing babies who survive abortion, not to mention the harvest of body parts by Planned Parenthood.

All these things are the inevitable components of a culture of death. It is the only destination once we designate human arbiters of life and death.

California’s death backers claim safeguards against mistakes, miscommunication, mental instability – and mercenary friends and family. Truth is the law does not require a psych evaluation of the patient, nor even a mental health professional signing the death request. There is no re-opening the question before death begs all questions, and no way to confidently declare a person six months from death – as the law provides.  An anonymous person posted Brittany Maynard’s “re-dedication to death” on social media. Even the Netherlands, where defective infants are put to death under suspicious circumstances, has more protection.

No Californian is guilt free in the culture of death we have created – through the government we elect yearly. We lead the nation in elective abortion, suicide, and the historic massacre of indigenous peoples. Yet we have a golden opportunity to walk the path of repentance on behalf of our state. This referendum represents such an opportunity.

The Hebrew prophet Jeremiah was a sinful man like the rest of his people. Yet when God called him, he turned away from earned status – first his personal inadequacy and then on behalf of his people. Our God is a God of do-overs; by Chapter 32 of his book, Jeremiah knows Israel is going down despite his post-repentance efforts and he asks God, “What now?”

God tells him to go to his home village of Anathoth where there is a piece of Real Estate he is to buy. Jerusalem and the nation are about to fall and God wants His servant to engage in land speculation? No. God plans to redeem the nation and each of her people who turn to him for life. Jeremiah has already made that commitment and God offers him a ground floor chance to participate in the redemption.

We in California have the same opportunity in the face of our culture of death; we can choose life and become first fruits of the rollback of that culture into a culture of life.

Let each of us Google the Californians Against Suicide Coalition, our local senior advocacy group, or any Catholic church – they tend to take the lead in life issues – and sign their petition. Then let us vote this grisly law off the books and begin the road back to a culture of life.