This is an interesting development regarding the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research as reported by World Magazine:

A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked government rules on embryonic stem cell (ESC) research funding, a blow to the Obama administration which by executive order had lifted Bush-era restrictions and a victory for pro-lifers fighting to stop the destruction of human embryos.

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth granted the preliminary injunction because he held opponents of Obama’s executive order had demonstrated they are likely to succeed at trial. Lamberth’s injunction is also important in that it rejects the government’s legal rationale for getting around federal law explicitly forbidding the use of taxpayer dollars to destroy a human embryo.

Last year I wrote a series of posts on the ethical implications of embryonic stem cell research. Here are the links if you want some more information on this subject:

    • Scott Klusendorf on Embryonic Stem Cell Research
    • Alternatives to Embyronic Stem Cell Research
    • They’re Going to Die Anyway

I would also direct you to Joe Carter’s excellent A Brief Primer on Stem Cell Research.

I know, more politics. But if not now, when? Charmaine Yoest in the Wall Street Journal provides a clear and succint explanation of why the health bill in its present form will lead to federal funding of abortions and how the White House can easily prevent this from happening.

It’s now becoming clear that Barack Obama is willing to put everything on the table in order to be the president who passes health-care reform. Everything, that is, except a ban on federal funding for abortion.

Last September, the president promised that “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.” Yet the legislation most likely to move forward in Congress would be the single greatest expansion of abortion since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

The White House knows how to turn Mr. Obama’s September commitment into legislative action … Only adding a so-called Hyde Amendment to the health-care reform bills would fulfill the president’s promise to protect Americans from subsidizing abortion … Similar amendments have been added to health-care bills ever since [1976]. Without specific language prohibiting the practice, history has shown that the courts or administrative agencies end up directing government dollars to pay for abortions …

Over the past year, language similar to the Hyde Amendment was crafted by Reps. Bart Stupak (D., Mich.) and Joe Pitts (R., Pa.) and inserted into the health-care bill that passed the House. When asked about the Stupak-Pitts Amendment in November, Mr. Obama talked around the issue. He said that “there is a balance to be achieved that is consistent with the Hyde Amendment.” When asked if Stupak-Pitts struck this “balance,” the president replied “not yet.” That’s an odd reply. The question of abortion funding doesn’t have any Zen to it: The funding is either prohibited or it’s not …

The president’s latest proposal mirrors legislation that has passed the Senate, which doesn’t include a Hyde Amendment, and would inevitably establish abortion as a fundamental health-care service … The president’s plan goes further than the Senate bill on abortion by calling for spending $11 billion over five years on “community health centers,” which include Planned Parenthood clinics that provide abortions.

With one simple step the White House can keep its promise to keep federal funding of abortions out of the health bill. So why won’t the White House take that step? (HT: Denny Burk and Vitamin Z)

Related posts:
    • The Sanctity of Human Life in the Womb (Sermon from Psalm 139)
    • Barack Obama on Health Care Then and Now

Click here for more posts on the subject of abortion.

I have stayed pretty quiet about politics on this blog for the past year, but in light of the White House’s current initiative to push Health Care Reform through the Senate with only 50-plus-one votes, I thought it worthwhile to revisit President Obama’s words on health care in the past.

Barack Obama on health care in 2004:

My understanding of the Senate is is that you need 60 votes to get something significant to happen, which means that Democrats have to ask the question: Do we have the will to move an American agenda forward [emphasis mine], not a Democratic or Republican agenda forward?

Barack Obama on health care in 2005:

A change in the Senate rules that really, I think, would change the character of the Senate forever … And what I worry about would be that you essentially still have two chambers, the House and the Senate, but you have simply majoritarian, absolute power on either side, and that’s just not what the Founders intended.

Under the rules, the reconciliation process does not permit that debate. Reconciliation is therefore the wrong place for policy changes. In short, the reconciliation process appears to have lost its proper meaning: A vehicle designed for deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility has been hijacked.

Barack Obama on health care in 2006:

Those big-ticket items, fixing our health care system. You know, one of the arguments that sometimes I get with my fellow progressives, and some of these have flashed up in the blog communities on occasion, is this notion that we should function sort of like Karl Rove, where we identify our core base, we throw ‘em red meat, we get a 50-plus-one victory. See, Karl Rove doesn’t need a broad consensus because he doesn’t believe in government. If we want to transform the country, though, that requires a sizeable majority.

Barack Obama on health care in 2007:

[Health care reform] is an area where we’re going to have to have a 60% majority in the Senate and the House in order to actually get a bill to my desk. We’re going to have to have a majority to get a bill to my desk that is not just a 50-plus-one majority….

You gotta break out of what I call the sort of 50-plus-one pattern of presidential politics. Maybe you eke out a victory with 50-plus-one but you can’t govern. You know, you get Air Force One and a lot of nice perks as president but you can’t deliver on health, we’re not going to pass universal health care with a 50-plus-one strategy.

So, how does one reconcile (no pun intended) these past statements with the administration’s current plan to push health care through the Senate with a simple fifty-plus-one majority vote?

Related posts:
    • Abortion and The Health Bill
    • Congratulations Senator Barack Obama!
    • The Obama Burger

The Bush deficits look really bad …

… until you place them next to the Obama deficits (projected).

For the record, I was against the large deficits under President Bush, and I am even more against the larger deficits under President Obama. At some point we need to cut government spending and balance the budget. (Wasn’t that one of Obama’s campaign promises?)

HT: Instapundit

I found this news story out of New Hampshire disturbing. I do not believe the definition of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples, so I should be glad that the New Hampshire House of Representatives did not pass this bill. However, I am disturbed because of the reason why it did not pass.

Reuters:

A bill that would have made New Hampshire the sixth state in the United States to authorize gay marriage stalled unexpectedly Wednesday over concessions to religious groups opposed to such unions.

The state’s House of Representatives objected to language in the bill that would have allowed religious groups to decline to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies or to offer gay couples other services …

A version of the bill with more limited religious protections passed the state’s House of Representatives on March 26.

So as I understand it, the New Hampshire House of Representatives would have voted to pass the bill if it did not contain language protecting the right of conscience for religious groups. This would imply that they want to use the bill in the future to require religious groups to participate in same-sex ceremonies — even if such participation were to violate their conscience and religious beliefs. That would seem to be a dangerous precedent as well as a violation of First Amendment rights. (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”)

HT: Stand to Reason

Question: If President Obama’s policies are supposed to reduce abortions (as my pro-life Democrat friends keep telling me), then why is NARAL Pro-Choice America celebrating Obama’s first 100 days in office?

Related:
President Obama’s Statement on the 36th Anniversary of Roe v Wade
See also Kevin DeYoung: Does Rhetoric Reduce the Number of Abortions?

This picture from last week …

reminded me of this post from last fall:

Forty-five years ago a terrorist bomb ripped through the walls of a church in Birmingham, AL, killing four young blacks girls (Denise McNair, Cynthia Wesley, Carole Robertson, and Addie Mae Collins) just getting out of Sunday School. This bomb not only ripped through the church, but it also ripped through the heart of America. It tore a wound in the fabric of our country that has been a long time healing … Someone has said that the moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice. God’s redemptive purposes sometimes ripen slowly in our estimation, but they do ripen nonetheless. You see, with the election of Barack Obama, we will soon see two little black girls, Malia and Sasha Obama, running the hallways and playing on the lawn of the White House. Hearts that were broken with the tragic murder of little black girls in a house of worship will be somewhat mended by the playful laughter of two beautiful young black girls in the White House. (Anthony Carter)

I have been pretty quiet around here on anything Obama related, but I got a laugh out of this report from yesterday’s Tea Party in Greenville, South Carolina. Apparently, they were selling Obama Burgers — you pay for one and they cut it in half and give the rest to the guy behind you for free!!

HT: National Review

According to U.S News and World Report, the Obama administration is vetting the prayers offered by various religious leaders before President Obama’s appearances. White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki says that this has “been standard since the campaign.”

In a departure from previous presidents, [Obama's] public rallies are opening with invocations that have been commissioned and vetted by the White House … Though invocations have long been commonplace at presidential inaugurations and certain events like graduations or religious services at which presidents are guests, the practice of commissioning and vetting prayers for presidential rallies is unprecedented in modern history.

Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, (who is against prayers being offered in State settings) said, “The only thing worse than having these prayers in the first place is to have them vetted, because it entangles the White House in core theological matters.” Dr. Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, comments:

I rarely find myself in agreement with Barry Lynn, but I am with him on this issue — at least with respect to his argument that this practice “entangles the White House in core theological matters.” Of course it does. When a White House approves or edits prayers, it has entered theological territory and takes on a theological function … The government has no authority and no proper role in the vetting of prayer. No Christian should allow any prayer to bear the label, “This prayer approved by the White House.”

What do you think about the practice of vetting prayers for government occasions?

Related posts:

• Rick Warren’s Inaugural Prayer
• Palin, Prayer and Precedent
• Palin, Prayer and Pipelines

With Congress debating the current trillion-dollar stimulus package, it might be good to stop and ask ourselves, “Just how big is a trillion?” Yes, it is a “1″ followed by 12 zeros, (1,000,000,000,000), but how big is that in dollars? Here are some numbers from The Family Research Council:

• If you stack up $1,000 bills, $1 trillion would need a pile that is 80 miles high.
• $ 1 trillion is more than the combined gross revenues of Wal Mart, Exxon, General Motors and Ford Motors.

With a trillion dollars:

• We could pave the entire U.S. interstate highway system with 23.5-karat gold leaf.
• We could buy 16.6 million Habitat for Humanity houses
• We could hire 1.9 million additional teachers

Amanda Shaw notes the cost of other large items in our past:

* The Marshall Plan cost $12.7 billion ($115.3 billion, adjusted for inflation)
* The space race cost $36.4 billion ($237 billion with inflation)
* The Korean War cost $54 billion ($454 billion with inflation)
* The New Deal cost $32 billion (estimated; $500 billion with inflation)
* The invasion of Iraq cost $551 billion ($597 billion with inflation)
* The Vietnam War cost $111 billion ($698 billion with inflation)

So, the total cost of the Marshall Plan, the Korean War, and the New Deal—using all figures adjusted for inflation—is less than that of the current economic stimulus package. That’s how much $1.1 trillion is.

And Mary Rose Ryback points out that $1 trillion is more than $1 million spent every day since Christ’s birth.

So, yes I know we are in a time of economic trouble, but we should think very carefully about whether and how we are going to spend a trillion dollars that we don’t even have. What do you think?

HT: In Light of the Gospel

Related post: Bailing Out the Bailout

Here is the video and full text of Rick Warren’s invocation given at Barack Obama’s inauguration earlier today:

(Video length: 4:44)

Almighty God, our Father: Everything we see, and everything we can’t see, exists because of you alone. It all comes from you, it all belongs to you, it all exists for your glory. History is your story. The Scripture tells us, “Hear, O Israel, the LORD is our God, the LORD is one.” And you are the compassionate and merciful one. And you are loving to everyone you have made.

Now today we rejoice not only in America’s peaceful transfer of power for the 44th time, we celebrate a hinge point of history with the inauguration of our first African American President of the United States. We are so grateful to live in this land, a land of unequaled possibility, where the son of an African immigrant can rise to the highest level of our leadership. And we know today that Dr. King and a great cloud of witnesses are shouting in heaven.

Give to our new president, Barack Obama, the wisdom to lead us with humility, the courage to lead us with integrity, the compassion to lead us with generosity. Bless and protect him, his family, Vice President Biden, the Cabinet, and every one of our freely elected leaders. Help us, O God, to remember that we are Americans—united not by race or religion or blood, but to our commitment to freedom and justice for all.

When we focus on ourselves, when we fight each other, when we forget you—forgive us. When we presume that our greatness and our prosperity is ours alone—forgive us. When we fail to treat our fellow human beings and all the earth with the respect that they deserve—forgive us.

And as we face these difficult days ahead, may we have a new birth of clarity in our aims, responsibility in our actions, humility in our approaches, and civility in our attitude—even when we differ. Help us to share, to serve, and to seek the common good of all. May all people of good will today join together to work for a more just, a more healthy, and a more prosperous nation and a peaceful planet. And may we never forget that one day, all nations—and all people—will stand accountable before you.

We now commit our new president and his wife, Michelle, and his daughters, Malia and Sasha, into your loving care. I humbly ask this in the name of the one who changed my life—Yeshua, ‘Isa, Jesús, Jesus—who taught us to pray:

Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name.
Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil,
For Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever.
Amen.

At 12:05 p.m. today (EST) Barack Obama took the oath of office and officially became the 44th President of the United States. The Constitution, Article II, Section 1 states that before he enter on the execution of his office, the President shall take the following oath or affirmation:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Let us all join together in praying for our new President and giving thanks to God for yet another peaceful transfer of power for the United States of America.

Related posts:

• Good-bye Mr. President
• Congratulations Senator Barack Obama!