Wednesday, March 30, 2016

SD 4 for 4 Pro-Life Laws


South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard (Republican) signed an informed consent bill into law last week … making the fourth pro-life law passed and signed this legislative session.  The three other pro-life bills signed into South Dakota law (1) ban abortions on pain-capable babies, (2) require the state health department to make its abortion facility inspection records public, and (3) make the sale of aborted baby parts a felony.

The pro-life governor signed H.B. 1157, “[a]n Act to require that a doctor provide a woman additional information as a part of informed consent prior to performing a first trimester abortion.”  The law requires that no less than 2-hours before committing an abortion, the doctor must share certain facts:
  • ·         The abortionist must make sure the woman knows “that the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.”
  • ·         The abortionist must give the woman “a scientifically accurate statement describing the development of the unborn child” at his/her gestational age.
  • ·         The abortionist must also tell the woman the true risks associated with abortion, including “infection, hemorrhage, danger to subsequent pregnancies, and infertility,” as well as the possibility of negative psychological effects, such as depression, distress, and suicide ideation.
  • ·         The abortionist must tell the woman the “accurate rate of deaths due to abortions.”

Key to the new law is that the abortionist must inform the woman if she is considering a 1st-trimester chemical abortion that even after taking the first abortifacient pill, her chemical abortion can be reversed.

Medical, or chemical, abortions involve taking 2-pills that deprive an unborn child of progesterone before expelling the child from the womb.  (Doctors found that they could save the child by administering progesterone to the mother between the 2-pills.)

Dr. Matthew Harrison says this “Emergency Abortion Pill Reversal Kit” has saved more than 100-children from abortion.

State Senator Brock Greenfield (R-District 2) explained, “Should the female decide that she has regrets relative to her decision, we are just asking that it be very clear [to her] that there is still a very real chance of a viable pregnancy and birth should she continue the process.”

Rep. Fred Deutsch, who also serves as South Dakota Right to Life president, told LifeSiteNews, “This completes the slate of bills South Dakota Right to Life helped develop and introduce this year.  We are four for four!”

Also by South Dakota law, at least 24-hours before a woman undergoes an abortion, she must be informed that medical assistance benefits may be available for prenatal care, childbirth, and neonatal care, and that “the father of the unborn child is legally responsible to provide financial support for her child following birth,” and give the woman the address and phone number of a pregnancy help center.

The law also provides for a governmental website featuring “fetal development at various gestational ages,” abortion procedures and risks, and adoption options.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a national informed consent bill, sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), requiring women to be notified of the possibility that they may reconsider and save their babies even after taking the first abortifacient pill.  The bill has never passed the U.S. Senate.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Monday, March 28, 2016

Warning: Gender Ideology Harms Children


The American College of Pediatricians (ACP) issued a position statement last month entitled “Gender Ideology Harms Children,” which will be followed by a peer-reviewed statement on the subject that’s expected to be released by summer, ACP told CNSNews.com.

“The American College of Pediatricians urges educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex,” the statement issued on Feb. 2 stated.  “Facts — not ideology — determine reality.”

This statement — written by Dr. Michelle A. Cretella, president of the ACP, Dr. Quentin Van Meter, vice president of the ACP and a pediatric endocrinologist, and Dr. Paul McHugh, university distinguished service professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School and the former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital — cites eight reasons why “gender ideology” instead of treatment based on biological facts is harmful to children.

The first point is, “Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: ‘XY’ and ‘XX’ are genetic markers of health — not genetic markers of a disorder,” with the purpose of male and female being “the reproduction and flourishing of our species.”  It notes “exceedingly rare exceptions of sexual differentiation,” which are disorders but do not represent a “third sex.”

Secondly, “No one is born with a gender.  Everyone is born with a biological sex.  Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one.”  The statement added that self-awareness develops over time and can be “derailed” by the experiences and information a child receives from infancy forward.  Further, no matter what sex a person imagines themselves to be, they remain either a biological male or a biological female.

The third point is that, “A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking” or the child could suffer from gender dysphoria — “an objective psychological problem ... that lies in the mind not the body, and it should be treated as such.”

Fourth, “Puberty is not a disease and puberty-blocking hormones can be dangerous” by inhibiting growth and fertility, according to the position statement.

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the statement fifthly says, “as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.”

The sixth point is that “children who use puberty blockers to impersonate the opposite sex will require cross-sex hormones in late adolescence.  Cross-sex hormones are associated with dangerous health risks including – but not limited to – high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke and cancer.”

The seventh point states, “Rates of suicide are 20 times greater among adults who use cross-sex hormones and undergo sex reassignment surgery, even in Sweden which is among the most LGBQT affirming countries.”

The eighth point calls chemical and surgical treatment of children based on “gender ideology” child abuse.  “Endorsing gender discordance as normal via public education and legal policies will confuse children and parents, leading more children to present to ‘gender clinics’ where they will be given puberty-blocking drugs.  This, in turn, virtually ensures that they will ‘choose’ a lifetime of carcinogenic and otherwise toxic cross-sex hormones, and likely consider unnecessary surgical mutilation of their healthy body parts as young adults.”

ACP is a non-profit organization founded in 2002, and states as its mission: “The Mission of the American College of Pediatricians is to enable all children to reach their optimal physical and emotional health and well-being.  To this end, we recognize the basic father-mother family unit, within the context of marriage, to be the optimal setting for childhood development, but pledge our support to all children, regardless of their circumstances.”

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Friday, March 25, 2016

FL Pastors Get Legal Protection If Refusing to Preform Gay ‘Marriages’


I wrote about it last week [blog posting for March 16 – “FL Legislature Seeks to Protect Churches Refusing Gay Marriages”].  Pastors in Florida are now legally protected from potential lawsuits if they refuse to perform same-sex ‘marriages.’

FL Governor Rick Scott (R) recently signed into law HB 43, known as the “Pastor Protection Act.”  It protects clergy, churches, and religious organizations and their employees from civil action if they choose not to perform a wedding for homosexual couples.

FL Rep. Scott Plakon, who sponsored HB 43, said, “The law provides that churches or religious organizations, related organizations, or certain individuals may not be required to solemnize any marriage or provide services, accommodations, facilities, goods, or privileges for related purposes if such action would violate sincerely held religious beliefs,” according to a news release from Liberty Counsel.  (A similar law has been adopted in both Texas and Georgia.)

Liberty Counsel’s Matt Staver said, “I am pleased that the Pastor Protection Act is now law in Florida.  However, more protections are needed beyond just pastors and churches performing weddings.”  He continued, “We should pass broad legislation that protects the religious freedom and conscience of all people who refuse to be conscripted into service of the so-called LGBT agenda.”  Staver went on to say, “This assault on marriage is really an attempt to obliterate Judeo-Christian morality, to destroy marriage and family, and is an attack on God who created male and female.”

I absolutely agree, and have stated many times, that gay ‘marriage’ isn’t the real end-all; it’s merely a means to the end.  The LGBT agenda is far, far more.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

The U.S.-Wide Aftermath of the SCOTUS Opinion on Gay ‘Marriage’


In the aftermath of the June 2015 U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) opinion regarding same-sex ‘marriage,’ yet another state is moving to protect faith-based organizations that are fearful of being forced out of business.

In Nebraska, there are typically 5,600-children … on an ongoing basis … who are in need of temporary or permanent placement or adoption in the child welfare system.  Nebraska Senator Mark Kolterman tells OneNewsNow there are only 21-organizations that work to serve the needs of these children.  “My concern has been that we cannot afford to lose any one of those organizations, whether they’re faith-based or whether they’re secular,” says Kolterman. 

Kolterman says that since the SCOTUS recognized homosexual marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges), he’s concerned those agencies may be forced to adopt a definition of marriage that they oppose.  That, he says, presents a problem for faith-based organizations that don’t want to have to go against their religious convictions.  The lawmaker explained, “And so rather than be forced to go against their religious beliefs, they’re just asking for some protection so they can continue to do business in the State of Nebraska and not be forced out of the business.”

Faith-centered child adoption placement organizations in Massachusetts and Illinois closed down after the state demanded that they place children with homosexual couples. Kolterman is sponsoring Legislative Bill 975 – a measure that would make sure that doesn’t happen in Nebraska.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Monday, March 21, 2016

The Bible Returns to KY Public Schools


Kentucky public schools are now authorized to create an elective social studies course on the Bible.  The move comes after the Kentucky Senate approved legislation last week.  The new elective study will teach courses on Hebrew Scriptures or the New Testament, or both.

Senator Robin Webb, D-Grayson County, who sponsored the bill, said the course will serve historical purposes, not as religious instruction.  “What this does is to allow Bible literacy courses in the form of a social studies elective,” she said.  “This bill would not have religious connotation as much as a historical connotation.”

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) expressed concern that the course could result in proselytizing.  “Although the current version of the bill incorporates constitutional standards, additional safeguards are necessary,” the ADL said in a statement.  “Without this training, it would be all too easy for these Bible courses to lead — intentionally or inadvertently — to unconstitutional proselytizing or endorsement of religion, which would inevitably lead to students feeling excluded and schools being subject to costly lawsuits,” the statement continued.

Former state Senator Jack Westwood, who is now a policy analyst for the Family Foundation of Kentucky, says the bill would not result in instructors teaching the Bible.  As the course’s focus will be on Biblical content, character, poetry and narratives, Westwood told the Lexington Herald-Leader newspaper that students should know how the Bible influences culture. 

Senator Webb said, “I had a Bible class in high school and it was very beneficial to me from a historical position.”

I want to commend the KY legislator for the return of the Bible to the public schools as an elective course.  Even a historic study of the Bible can result in the same Holy Spirit – who inspired the recording of the Word – can bless to student’s hearts an understanding of God’s holy and inspired truth.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Friday, March 18, 2016

We Need More Justice Moore’s Who Judge by Rule of Law


Earlier this month, the Alabama Supreme Court (ASC) openly rejected the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) marriage opinion … labeling it “illegitimate” and without legal or precedential authority.  This is a clear victory for the rule of law.  The ASC judgement rejects the opinion of 5-lawyers on the SCOTUS and prohibits AL probate judges from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Chief Justice Roy Moore and Justice Tom Parker issued concurring opinions openly criticizing the SCOTUS marriage opinion.  Using SCOTUS Chief Justice John Robert’s term of “five lawyers” when referring to the Supreme Court Obergefell opinion, Alabama Chief Justice Moore wrote a blistering 105-page concurring opinion.  Among his words are these: “I agree with the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts, and with Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, that the majority opinion in Obergefell has no basis in the law, history, or tradition of this country.  Obergefell is an unconstitutional exercise of judicial authority that usurps the legislative prerogative of the states to regulate their own domestic policy.  Additionally, Obergefell seriously jeopardizes the religious liberty guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

Chief Justice Moore went on to say: “Liberty in the American system of government is not the right to define one’s own reality in defiance of the Creator … But the human being, as a dependent creature, is not at liberty to redefine reality; instead, as the Declaration of Independence states, a human being is bound to recognize that the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are endowed by God.  Those rights are not subject to a redefinition that rejects the natural order God has created.”

Chief Justice Moore then said: “In short, the majority acts not as a court of law but as a band of social revolutionaries.  The Chief Justice [Roberts], amazed at this presumption, exclaims: ‘Just who do we think we are?’ … Indeed, as the Chief Justice warns, the plenary power the majority asserts to redefine the fundamental institutions of society offers no assurance that it will not give birth to yet further attacks on the social order. … If, as the Chief Justice asserts, the opinion of the majority is not based on the Constitution, do state judges have any obligation to obey that ruling?  Does not their first duty lie to the Constitution?”

Chief Justice Moore then concluded: “If, as an individual who is sworn to uphold and support the United States Constitution, I were to place a court opinion that manifestly and palpably violates the United States Constitution above my loyalty to that Constitution, I would betray my oath and blatantly disregard the Constitution I am sworn to uphold. Acquiescence on my part to acts of ‘palpable illegality’ would be an admission that we are governed by the rule of man and not by the rule of law.  Simply put, the Justices of the Supreme Court, like every American soldier, are under the Constitution, not above it.”

Senior Attorney Matt Staver of Liberty Counsel is correct when he says: “Justices and judges are bound to interpret the U.S. Constitution.  When they write opinions that have no legal foundation, then their opinions lack legal legitimacy.  That is what the five lawyers did on the U.S. Supreme Court in the marriage opinion.  They ignored the Constitution, the Court’s precedents, and millennia of human history.  Their opinion calls into question the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.  When we the people lose trust in the Justices, the authority of the Supreme Court is undermined.  If the people accept this 5-4 opinion, then we have transitioned to a despotic form of government.  The people must now decide if we are governed by the rule of law or the whim of unelected judges.”

Let us pray that more state Supreme Court Justices come to recognize that such SCOTUS opinions are not the rule of law, but of man.  This is why the nomination of SCOTUS Justices must be “originalists” not social revolutionaries who have agendas for social engineering.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Wednesday, March 16, 2016

FL Legislature Seeks to Protect Churches Refusing Gay Marriages


The Florida state Senate passed a bill last week that protects churches from being forced to marry same-sex couples.  The bill will take effect July 1st … if Governor Rick Scott (R) signs it into law.

FL Senate Democrats who opposed the bill argued that churches are already protected by the U.S. Constitution.  But Republican state Senator Aaron Bean said the measure would protect churches after the U.S. Supreme Court decided last year that same-sex marriage is legal.  He said the bill is about protecting churches from what could happen in the future.

“Have you ever heard of a senator or a representative that hopes their bill is never used or tested?  I’m the first,” said Bean.  “Hopefully no one will ever challenge somebody in the practice of their religion.  That will be a sad day in our nation, in our state.  Some say that's where our nation is headed.”

I wish my own state of Minnesota would do the same.  This is why, after 40-years of delightfully officiating a weddings, I’m not longer participating in civic marriages.  As long as I’m signing a government issued marriage license as an ‘agent’ of the court, without protection from a legal charge of discrimination, I can’t do weddings.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Monday, March 14, 2016

Why Didn’t the Chicken Cross the Street?


Last January, a hubbub started when campus students at the University of Nebraska-Kearney were asked to select a new dining option for the student union.  Their choices included: Chick-fil-A, Panda Express, IHOP, A&W and Sbarro.  The students chose Chick-fil-A … in a landslide.  However, the majority does not rule at this University.  

A vocal minority demanded that Chick-fil-A be banished from campus.  Among those opposed were members of the University’s Queer Straight Alliance (QSA).  “We only hope to create dialogue on the importance of being aware of issues facing diverse and minority students,” QSA president Tiff Weekley told the Kearney Hub.  “Though majority voices are most often heard, it is important to listen to what issues are facing all students and to start conversations around those.”

All the anti-chicken contingent needed for their disreputable plan to succeed was a weak student government; and they got what they were looking for.  “We decided, after much consideration, to poll students again,” student body president Evan Calhoun wrote on his Facebook page.  Calhoun then went on to explain why Chick-fil-A would not be included in their new poll.  “When we learned more about Chick-fil-A and its corporate values and discriminatory policies, and after hearing these concerns raised by a section of our student body, we concluded that these corporate values are not aligned with our values as a student body, and it is not in the best interest of our UNK community to pursue Chick-fil-A right now,” he wrote.  Calhoun did not provide any evidence that Chick-fil-A has ever discriminated against anyone … especially the LGBT community.

The University’s spokesman, Todd Gottula, told the local newspaper that Chick-fil-A has not been banned.  Well, that depends on what your definition of ban is.

The conflict stems from 2012, when Chick-fil-A’s president spoke out in support of traditional marriage.  That prompted all sorts of protests and outrage from militant LGBT activists.

Meanwhile, all those students who wanted to eat more chicken are fighting mad, the website Campus Reform reported.  Student Aaron Ohri fired off a letter calling the student government’s decision a “complete and total slap in the face to many of us on this campus who believe that Chick-fil-A is not wrong in what they believe.  I understand that a Christian lifestyle in this day and society is completely ‘disrespectful’ but please do not ever again send me an email speaking for the ‘whole student body’ when you do not have a clue what most of us actually think,” he wrote in a letter to the University.

Gottula commended on their behavior.  “It’s a shame that one piece of the puzzle, a chicken restaurant, is kind of hogging the story, when there’s some value here in seeing what our students like and would like to see in the union that would benefit them and make it a more enjoyable place to hang out,” he told the newspaper.

The disturbing national trend is this: Those who do not affirm the LGBT agenda are systematically being silenced.  Unless you ascribe to their point of view — you are not welcome to participate in the public market-place of ideas or commerce.  You will be made to conform — resistance is futile.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Friday, March 11, 2016

TX Joins Other States in Ruling for Transgender Athletes


Texas district superintendents voted (586-32) to require student-athletes to provide a birth certificate to determine gender identification.  The University Interscholastic League (UIL) will implement the new rule starting on August 1st.

Steve McConkey applauds Texas for taking this stand.  McConkey of 4 Winds Christian Athletics, a ministry located in Madison next to the University of Wisconsin football stadium, took on the International Olympic Committee in 2003 for allowing transgenders in the Olympics.  At the time, he was the only person publicly doing this.  Also, Steve recently opposed the homosexual agenda that the International Olympic Committee, the U.S. Olympic Committee and the NCAA has promoted.  “Common sense is thrown out the window in our politically correct culture,” states McConkey.  “A 6-foot/10-inch male basketball player who decides to play as a female has skeletal and muscular advantages that would take years to reverse by hormones.  The PC advocates avoid this subject or give faulty research trying to prove their point.”

TransAthlete.com lists 7-states that require high school athletes to provide birth certificates, gender reassignment surgery documentations, or proof of hormone therapies (Texas, Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, New Mexico and South Carolina).  15-other states allow athletes to compete based on gender identity (including: Minnesota, California, and Washington, D.C.).  The site says 14-additional states need modification of their policies and 14-states have no policy.

Given the national and international athletic competitions, this will eventually become a federal decision.

This is the agenda of the LGTB advocates.  It’s not about ‘equal rights’ – it’s all about imposing their definition of tolerance … which is intolerant of religions whose sacred text speaks clearly against their lifestyle.

4 Winds encourages Christian athletes to be involved in good churches that preach the truth, and to be involved in high school groups that do the same.

Amen to that!  Amen!

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Wednesday, March 9, 2016

Giving Voice to Injured Women of Abortion


Last week, representatives of the 3,348 Women Injured by Abortion who filed an Amicus Curiae brief at the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in support of the Texas law protecting women’s health and safety (Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt) appeared at Family Research Council, (Media Center).  Cindy Collins, Myra Myers, and Nona Ellington, Women Injured by Abortion, and their lawyer, Allan E. Parker, President of The Justice Foundation, were present to answer media questions concerning their brief at SCOTUS.  Also, appearing was Jen Brown, the producer of the documentary film “3801 Lancaster: American Tragedy,” about the imprisoned abortionist Kermit Gosnell whose horrific practices and lack of health and safety standards led to the death, disease, and depression of women.  The story brought national attention to the issue of health and safety standards for women at abortion clinics; specifically, a woman named Karnamaya Mongar, who died as a result of Gosnell’s actions.  Attorney Jonathan Saenz of Texas Values filed an Amicus Curiae brief at SCOTUS on behalf of Jen Brown and the film project  … which led to the Texas law for the health and safety of women being enacted.

As women injured by the abortion industry, these women know first-hand that the abortion industry misleads and deceives women and does not adequately protect their health in the abortion context.  The Justice Foundation has collected the legally admissible testimonies of over 4,500 women injured by abortion and represents 3,348 of these women in their Amicus Curiae brief at SCOTUS.

The women’s brief also makes the legal point that hemorrhaging, punctured uteruses, colons and other severe problems often occur during or after an abortion.  Texas is not seeking to eliminate abortion through this law, as evidenced by the fact that any doctor in Texas, including obstetricians and gynecologists, can perform up to 50-abortions in their own office which would provide far more than the 63,849 abortions which were performed in Texas the last year data was available.

Based on the Plaintiff/Abortionists’ own expert witnesses, 210-Texas women must be hospitalized for abortion each year.  10-patients per week have to go to an emergency room after an abortion ... thus showing that serious injuries are common enough to require ER or hospital type assistance and, therefore, serious safety regulations are needed.

Planned Parenthood’s defense is defenseless!  Don’t argue that your clinics should remain open while putting women at risk.  That is the height of hypocrisy!  

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Monday, March 7, 2016

SCOTUS Hears Biggest Abortion Case in 25-Years


Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) heard its biggest abortion related case in nearly 25-years – Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.  The case involves a Texas law, House Bill 2, that implements safety standards for abortion clinics that match up with the regulations of other surgical clinics.  The standards include: requirements to uphold quality of care, cleanliness and safety; proper staffing; and safe laboratory services.  For example, the law requires hallways to be wide enough for gurneys to transport women into an ambulance.  The law also requires abortion clinic doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30-miles of the clinic.  Clearly, these standards are in the best interest of women’s health.

Those who oppose the law say it’s an “undue burden” on women and a way to restrict access to abortions.  They believe the extra expense to implement the safety standards will cause abortion clinics to close.  In fact, opponents say the Texas legislature’s goal in passing the law was to shut the doors of abortion clinics and “single out abortion for heightened medical regulation.”

Texas says its law is a way to prevent what happened at the clinic of late-term abortionist Dr. Kermit Gosnell in Philadelphia, PA.  A jury convicted Gosnell of three counts of murder for killing three infants born alive by cutting their spinal cords with scissors.  He also was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the death of a 41-year-old immigrant who died from a drug overdose during a botched abortion.  In addition to the murder convictions, Gosnell was found guilty on 21-felony counts of performing illegal abortions and 211-counts of violating the 24-hour informed consent law.  Investigators described his clinic as a “house of horrors,” with bloodstained walls, unsterilized medical equipment and fetal remains stored in the employee refrigerator.

In Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, SCOTUS will consider if the regulations outlined in the Texas law pass the “undue burden” standard expressed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).  The “undue burden” test bans states from putting into effect abortion regulations before viability— regulations that have the “purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion.”  SCOTUS determined viability to be 23-24 weeks gestation because of medical advances.

Texas says there is enough evidence that the regulations under its law are vital to promote the health and safety of women.

With the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, SCOTUS could tie 4-4, which would uphold the appeals court decision in favor of the Texas law.  A conservative or liberal justice would have to break ranks to avoid a tie.

“Abortionists should not be given a free pass to elude medical requirements that everyone else is required to follow,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Steven H. Aden.  “The 5th Circuit was on firm legal ground in its decision, and we have asked the Supreme Court to affirm it.  The law’s requirements are common-sense protections that ensure the maximum amount of safety for women,” Aden said.

Be sure to read my follow-on to this blog posting on Wednesday, March 9th.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Friday, March 4, 2016

State Lawmakers Protect People of Faith


Mississippi lawmakers are moving to protect people of faith in a stronger way.

A proposal that proponents argue became necessary when the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) legalized same-gender “marriage” has passed in the Mississippi House and has been forwarded to the state Senate for consideration.

What the SCOTUS’s decision failed to do is provide for the 1st Amendment rights of Christians and others who have Biblical views to the contrary. 

Rob Chambers, National Field Director for American Family Association Action (AFAAction), points out that homosexual activists complain the proposal is a license to discriminate against them.  “It’s not a sword to use against people to discriminate against people,” he asserts.  “It is an act designed to help defend people who have views that marriage is between one man and one woman; and also that sex is within that confines; and also who believe that gender identity is something that is fixed at birth.”

So if this measure is approved, men would not be allowed in women’s restrooms or locker rooms, bakeries would not be forced to promote the homosexual message, and so on.  “If there’s an adoption agency that believes that children should only be placed into the home of a heterosexual, monogamous couple, then state funds in other states have been refused or denied from those adoption agencies,” Chambers poses.  But that would not be so in Mississippi if this proposal passes.

The AFAAction spokesman adds that where the SCOTUS created a right for homosexuals, it also opened season on Christians and other faith groups.  But the Mississippi proposal is designed to correct that.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Wednesday, March 2, 2016

It’s Not About Discrimination, But Pushing An Agenda


Last week, events in Jacksonville, FL proved that an enlightened and energetic public can do big things.

The Jacksonville City Council was considering adding sexual orientation and gender identity to its non-discrimination policy.  Such a move would have given the local Human Rights Commission the right to investigate discrimination complaints, issue fines, and refer cases for criminal prosecution.  However, says attorney Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, the public voiced disapproval - and loudly.  “Especially the more that it came to light how far-reaching this so-called transgender bathroom bill really is ... allowing men to use women’s restrooms, shower facilities and impinging on religious freedom, even impacting churches and certainly faith-based or Christian-operated businesses,” says Staver.

Staver added, that it’s interesting that pastors who opposed it motivated their congregations to get into action, and that can be done in virtually any community with success.  “I think what we’re now starting to see is that people are finally becoming educated as to what these so-called transgender or bathroom bills or sexual orientation bills are really about,” says Staver.  “It’s not about discrimination at all - it's about pushing a radical homosexual agenda on the populace.  And I think the more people realize that, the more they’re saying no - and this is another good indication.”

After the pressure became so great in Jacksonville, the lead sponsor of the ordinance withdrew it from consideration.

Praise God for vocal citizens who will stand up to pro-LGBT ordinances.  May God raise-up more God-fearing (honoring) constituents in communities across America!

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel