Moral Outcry

What would possess someone with 2 small toddlers and a medium-size special needs child to consider adopting? Let me explain. No, explaining would take too long. Let me sum up. It was God.

Our firstborn was born at 24 weeks. That he lived was a miracle, and years later I had twins at 24 weeks that only survived a few days. We started considering adoption after the twins were born, but my heart started really being wrecked for orphans several years ago. We prayed and we looked at the process, and then we got intimidated by the process and quit. After that, I spent about 2 years on bed rest and had 2 more preemies.

In the 3 years of relative peace following their births, I again found my heart so desperate to find the heart of God for orphans. I would weep while I heard stories of rescued ones, babies who had almost been aborted, or who had been snatched from foster care or overseas orphanages and placed in families. I started to get a picture of redeeming destinies.

I won’t be terribly theological here, since I’m not terribly theological. In the next weeks, I will talk about what God says about orphans, and what He says about adoption, but for today, I’ll talk about my own journey.

The Kagan confirmation hearings are over and she is well on her way to being seated on the Supreme Court. What we have been left with, however, is a pretty good look at discussion's of constitutional law.

Some of the questions asked to Kagan sounded basic - like this one asked by Sen. Coburn - but in reality were meant to expose a key fundamental issue: Do we have rights because the government gave them to us, or do we have "certain inalienable rights" whether the government chooses to recognize them or not? Legitimate law requires the consent of the governed. This kind of thinking is, of course, what lead to our Declaration of Independence.

A C-SPAN poll reveals that 81% of Americans have no idea who Elena Kagan is. Why should they care?

On Wednesday I got to sit in on Elena Kagan's hearings to pray. Susan Tyrrell, on of the writers here at Moral Outcry, was able to get guest seating from her Senator. We were supposed to be in an observation booth, but were offered special seating when we got there directly behind Kagan. It was a great place to pray and resist the kind of ideology that Kagan represents. What has become clear to the pro-life community is that she is an activist figure to the core that is unfit for the Supreme Court. She has no prior judicial experience, so we have no evidence to believe that she will suddenly become impartial on the bench and abandon her extreme political activism.

Remember yesterday's blog post entitled Kagan's Abortion Distortion? It dealt with a well manufactured memo which just happen to be a bold face lie. The purpose of the deceitful memo was to sway the opinion of the Supreme Court toward preserving partial-birth abortion.

Well, yesterday during the Kagan confirmation hearings Sen. Jeff Sessions asked her about that memo. Her response, while well rehearsed, was shady at best.

via Human Events:

Kagan was asked by Senator Jeff Sessions about a memo from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). That memo stated, [A] select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which [the partial-birth] procedure would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman. Kagan notated next to this sentence, This, of course, would be disaster.


When asked about it, first she tried to deny that she had written it; she would admit only that it is my handwriting. Later she acknowledged that she was in fact responsible for the comment.


Then she obfuscated with wild philosophic and legal gyrations that would put a stripper to shame: President Clinton had strong views on this issue and what he thought was that this procedure should be banned, in all cases except where the procedure was necessary to save the life or to prevent serious health consequences to the woman and those were always his principles. And we tried over the course of the period of time when this statute was being considered, actually twice, to get him absolutely the best medical evidence on this subject possible.