Originally, I was planning on continuing my discussion of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. However, two editorials in today's Peoria Journal Star have altered that plan. The first was by the Star's editorial board. They are upset because a Congressional committee has been looking into a practice dictated by Illinois's governor. He has issued an order restricting the ability of a pharmacist to refuse to fill an order for an abortion pill. Of course, the editorial does not refer to it as an abortion pill because that would convey that an unborn baby is being murdered.
The editorial basically presents two arguments. First, control over pharmacists and pharmacies should be left to the states. Second, the pharmacies exist for the benefit of the customers and therefore no pharmacist should allow his conscience to interfere with his disbursing abortion pills. Finally, they couldn't help but take a cheap shot at any Congressman who dares to disagree with them. The editorial board continues the usual practice of name calling because that is much easier than discussing facts.
Just as they did in the Terry Schiavo incident, they also try to trivialize the importance of refusing to participate in the murder of unborn babies. In the Terry Schiavo case they tried to equate the starvation death of an injured woman to the need to repair a torn rotator cuff. In this instance, they argue that if pharmacists are allowed to refuse to disburse an abortion pill then they can refuse to disburse other types of medicines as well. (Not that an abortion pill is a medicine!) Medicines that are not intended to murder an unborn baby.
Of course, they ignore the obvious. The law can place strict restrictions on which medicines they may refuse to distribute. They try to make it seem as if an abortion pill is no different than a pill that cures insomnia or removes a blemish from a woman. There is a great deal of difference between being involved in the murder of an unborn baby and dispensing other types of medicine. Duh!!!
Their first argument is let states not Congress regulate pharmacies. I've got an idea. Let states not the U.S. Supreme Court regulate abortion! It is because the Supreme Court rewrote the U.S. Constitution in relation to state abortion laws that the issue has become national in scope. In fact, the courts made abortion a national issue including all related aspects of it such as the provisions for abortion pills. By the way, the ability to even disburse an abortion pill was a national policy not an individual state policy. I wish these people would at least attempt to present the truth!
Secondly, they assert that the perceived needs of a customer are more important than the individual conscience of a pharmacist even if that pharmacist believes his action is aiding the murder of an unborn child. The fact is that some sixty years ago the U.S. and other countries tried and convicted individuals at the Nurnberg Trials for crimes against humanity who argued they were just following orders and following the rule of law as established by the German government. They killed millions under the rule of law and were punished for it. Today, the U.S. courts have allowed the murder of millions of unborn babies under the rule of court law.
The problem for Christians is that they also have to answer to GOD. Do you think GOD will accept the argument that we were forced to participate in the murder of unborn babies because of a governor's edict or a court ruling. If the victorious nations of World War II did not accept that argument, why would GOD? Personally, I would stop being a pharmacist before I would participate in the murder of unborn babies. Can this country afford to lose twenty five percent (my rough guess) of the pharmacists in this nation?
The second editorial was by William Raspberry. Normally, I don't agree with much of what he writes. This time I do! He does an excellent job of pointing out the necessity of fathers in the family. He is writing about Black families but it pertains to all families. GOD intended a family unit of father, mother, and children. When you digress from GOD's plan which HE allows us to do, you do so at your peril! We are reaping the results of that digression. "Do not be deceived: GOD cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows." (Galatians 5:7) Congratulations William. You got it right!
The editorial basically presents two arguments. First, control over pharmacists and pharmacies should be left to the states. Second, the pharmacies exist for the benefit of the customers and therefore no pharmacist should allow his conscience to interfere with his disbursing abortion pills. Finally, they couldn't help but take a cheap shot at any Congressman who dares to disagree with them. The editorial board continues the usual practice of name calling because that is much easier than discussing facts.
Just as they did in the Terry Schiavo incident, they also try to trivialize the importance of refusing to participate in the murder of unborn babies. In the Terry Schiavo case they tried to equate the starvation death of an injured woman to the need to repair a torn rotator cuff. In this instance, they argue that if pharmacists are allowed to refuse to disburse an abortion pill then they can refuse to disburse other types of medicines as well. (Not that an abortion pill is a medicine!) Medicines that are not intended to murder an unborn baby.
Of course, they ignore the obvious. The law can place strict restrictions on which medicines they may refuse to distribute. They try to make it seem as if an abortion pill is no different than a pill that cures insomnia or removes a blemish from a woman. There is a great deal of difference between being involved in the murder of an unborn baby and dispensing other types of medicine. Duh!!!
Their first argument is let states not Congress regulate pharmacies. I've got an idea. Let states not the U.S. Supreme Court regulate abortion! It is because the Supreme Court rewrote the U.S. Constitution in relation to state abortion laws that the issue has become national in scope. In fact, the courts made abortion a national issue including all related aspects of it such as the provisions for abortion pills. By the way, the ability to even disburse an abortion pill was a national policy not an individual state policy. I wish these people would at least attempt to present the truth!
Secondly, they assert that the perceived needs of a customer are more important than the individual conscience of a pharmacist even if that pharmacist believes his action is aiding the murder of an unborn child. The fact is that some sixty years ago the U.S. and other countries tried and convicted individuals at the Nurnberg Trials for crimes against humanity who argued they were just following orders and following the rule of law as established by the German government. They killed millions under the rule of law and were punished for it. Today, the U.S. courts have allowed the murder of millions of unborn babies under the rule of court law.
The problem for Christians is that they also have to answer to GOD. Do you think GOD will accept the argument that we were forced to participate in the murder of unborn babies because of a governor's edict or a court ruling. If the victorious nations of World War II did not accept that argument, why would GOD? Personally, I would stop being a pharmacist before I would participate in the murder of unborn babies. Can this country afford to lose twenty five percent (my rough guess) of the pharmacists in this nation?
The second editorial was by William Raspberry. Normally, I don't agree with much of what he writes. This time I do! He does an excellent job of pointing out the necessity of fathers in the family. He is writing about Black families but it pertains to all families. GOD intended a family unit of father, mother, and children. When you digress from GOD's plan which HE allows us to do, you do so at your peril! We are reaping the results of that digression. "Do not be deceived: GOD cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows." (Galatians 5:7) Congratulations William. You got it right!
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 11:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home