Obama Forces Tax-payers To Fund Abortions

Today President Obama signed an executive order that will force tax-payers to pay for abortions. Here’s how ABC News is reporting it:

“President Obama signed an executive order today reversing the ban that prohibits funding to international family planning groups that provide abortions . . .”

At the debate last year at Rick Warren’s church (and elsewhere), Obama promised to support measures to reduce abortions. He’s been in office for four days, and his first action vis a vis abortion ensures that abortions will increase worldwide. What’s worse, he is making American taxpayers foot the bill for infanticide abroad.

Any “pro-life” person who is still willing to defend this president as a friend of the pro-life cause is delusional.

37 Responses to Obama Forces Tax-payers To Fund Abortions

  1. Darius T January 23, 2009 at 6:30 pm #

    “Delusional”… I like that word. Quite appropriate. To think that a friend of mine said I was either “ignorant or shamelessly spreading propaganda” to suggest Obama was pro-abortion.

  2. Adam January 23, 2009 at 7:02 pm #

    Are there Pro-Life supporters who claim Obama is a friend of the Pro-Life cause? I don’t understand how one can eb intellectually honest and arrive at that conclusion.

    I suppose this move was to be expected as Clinton did the same thing when he took office. This brings an interesting discussion to the table for Christians. In light of the concepts in Romans 13, what am I to do when my tax dollars are used to endorse something such as abortion?

  3. Michael Metts January 23, 2009 at 7:38 pm #

    He is doing things so rapidly. I was not really expecting such a radical and immediate reversal of policies with nil regard for any Christian or moral conscience.

    But I guess the faster “we arrive” the more quickly sensibilities will return. It’s a dead end road.

    What is most disappointing, more than the brainless glorification of Barack, are confessing Christians who chose to ignore these very crucial issues and observe other “important” matters like the economy. That is the greater tragedy. And likely the greater judgment.

    Just some of my observations.

    I will be continuing to pray for the President.

    Michael

  4. Thomas Twitchell January 23, 2009 at 9:37 pm #

    I have written before on Obama’s abortion stance and recently on Warren’s prayer. I wonder just how Warren is feeling knowing that his support for Obama helped insure O’s victory.

  5. Darius T January 24, 2009 at 12:11 am #

    Twitchell, let’s be fair. Warren didn’t support Obama (at least, to my knowledge… if he did, please give a source). From what I’ve seen, Warren has extended his hand to Obama as a way to reach out to him and bring him to a right understanding of God and morality.

  6. Darius T January 24, 2009 at 12:13 am #

    “Are there Pro-Life supporters who claim Obama is a friend of the Pro-Life cause? I don’t understand how one can be so intellectually honest and arrive at that conclusion.”

    Adam, I had Christian friends of mine who claimed that Obama was pro-life and had a plan to lower the number of abortions. Those same friends belittled me for saying otherwise. We live in a highly irrational age.

  7. rach January 24, 2009 at 12:46 am #

    i thought the same thing Adam, about our tax dollars going to pay for murder…do you have an opinion yet, Denny?

  8. Darius T January 24, 2009 at 2:20 am #

    Re: tax dollars

    I don’t believe that a Christian should withhold taxes (or a certain portion of taxes). The same amount of money will still go to abortions and the Christian will go to jail. All it does is make the Christian feel good or righteous, but is utterly moronic. Instead, put twice the amount of time or resources into helping crisis pregnancy centers as you usually would. That will ultimately help much more than some symbolic tax evasion.

  9. Darius T January 24, 2009 at 2:21 am #

    There is a time and a place for rebellion against the state… tax evasion is rarely one of them.

  10. volfan007 January 24, 2009 at 2:27 am #

    Denny,

    Surely a politician wouldn’t lie to get votes and get elected?

    Heaven’s to Betsy!

    David

    🙂

  11. Chris Garner January 24, 2009 at 2:43 am #

    Darius,

    I’m curious to hear what you think would be the the time and place for rebellion? This country went to war over the issue of the slavery of innocent people. Would the lawful murder of innocent people not be even more severe?

    chris

    PS I’m not condoning a rebellion, just continuing a point I found intriguing.

  12. Denny Burk January 24, 2009 at 10:51 am #

    The Bible teaches us to submit to god-ordained authorities, be they governmental (Rom 13), familial (Eph 5:21ff), ecclesial (Heb 13:17), etc.

    All earthly authorities derive their authority from God (John 19:11). Thus their authority is not absolute, but derivative. That is why the apostles in Acts 5:29 did not obey the governing authorities when those authorities commanded them not to preach the gospel. They said, “We must obey God rather than men.”

    All of that to say, I think the Bible gives us direction about when civil disobedience is necessary. When the government (or some other authority) commands us to do something that God forbids or forbids us from doing something God commands, then we must obey God. Because it’s better to obey God rather than men when the human authorities are in conflict with God’s.

    I hope that’s helpful.

    Thanks,
    Denny

  13. Thomas Twitchell January 24, 2009 at 1:37 pm #

    First forgive me Denny for this clip and paste.

    Darius-

    There is more than one way to support someone:

    From the Associated Baptist Press- Among Obama and Warren’s critics is Wiley Drake, pastor of First Southern Baptist Church in Buena Park, Calif., and second vice president of the 16 million-member Southern Baptist Convention.

    In a personal e-mail to Warren that Drake also released to media outlets Nov. 28, he echoed the pro-life leaders’ request for Warren to rescind the invitation “to the enemy Sen. Obama.” He said he was “very disappointed at this move,” adding “this is bad for the Kingdom of God.”

    Drake addressed the missive to a “fellow Southern Baptist pastor.” Saddleback is affiliated with the SBC and is in the same local association of churches as Drake’s….

    Saddleback, with an estimated average weekend worship attendance of approximately 20,000, is one of the largest congregations in the SBC and in the nation.

    From The NextRight (thenextright.com) Most people have only a very superficial intersection with politics, so trivial gestures – like inviting an evangelical preacher to deliver the invocation for a Democratic President – are powerful. They send the signal to a low-information public that Obama is one of them, sympathetic to them, respectful of them…without actually requiring substantive political concessions of the Obama administration. And if the noisy Left cries foul at Obama’s un-progressive rhetoric…well, so much the better for the substantive progressive agenda.

    From USA Today: In accepting Obama’s invitation to give the invocation at next month’s inaugural, Warren gives some pressure relief to Obama, who was backed by just 24% of white evangelical voters. Three-fourths of these Christian conservatives voted for John McCain.

    Republicans won’t be able to seriously challenge Obama in 2012 without the strong backing of the party’s Christian conservative base. Obama’s outreach to Warren threatens to undercut GOP efforts to make Obama the target of any cultural battles.

    Just as Roosevelt used Washington to keep blacks from deserting the Republican Party, Barack Obama’s effort to befriend Rick Warren could prevent evangelicals from massing in opposition to his presidency.

    From Christian Today: Not all Christian leaders have been happy with this news. Operation Rescue’s Troy Newman had this to say about the decision: “Barack Obama not only supports the grievous sin of abortion, but has vowed to promote, subsidize, and protect it. The hands that shed innocent blood are among the things God particularly detests. As a minister of the Gospel, it is a betrayal of innocent children and, more importantly, betrayal of the God in whose image they are created to turn a blind eye to the shedding of innocent blood and join hands with those that are responsible for shedding it.”

    …Another Christian leader offers similar sentiments. Says Albert Mohler: “Would I deliver the invocation at the inauguration of Barack Obama as President of the United States? Well, I have not been asked, but I can imagine that it would be difficult to turn down this invitation. After all, the inaugural ceremony is a national event, not a personal ceremony. Yet, in the end, the context of this inaugural ceremony would not allow me to accept.”

    Mohler’s conclusion is telling. The tacit approval by either not directly condemning Obama, or by participation without any true call for Obama’s repentance lends credance to the idea that Obama is not that bad of a guy. The evidence is that Obama garnered a largest yet percentage of the evangelical vote. The margins are where the political game is played. By Warren’s tacit support of Obama, Warren helped his campaign succeed. Agree with me or not, I stand by the position that Warren is dangerous to the cause of Christ and to the freedom of the people of the USA because he loves the approval of men more than that of God. Warren has his own political agenda of reconstruction and the realization of the Kingdom at the expense of involuntary servitude to those ends. Obama fits Warren’s own vision more than others did and Obama will serve to further Warren’s better. His refusal to condemn Obama and his all too willing accomodation makes him a supporter.

  14. Darius T January 24, 2009 at 3:05 pm #

    Thomas, I would caution you about judging people’s motives. That is unbiblical. I’m uncertain about Warren, but let’s leave the judgment of his heart to God. Thanks.

  15. Thomas Twitchell January 24, 2009 at 3:24 pm #

    This is not about judging hidden motives as is obvious by the clips I pasted, Warren’s agenda is obvious to all who do not have their heads in the sand. Beyond that Warren has hosted and taken part in liberalism’s reconstructionist agenda functions and makes no bones about extending his vision of the kingdom world wide. It was even reflected in his prayer.

  16. Darius T January 24, 2009 at 4:01 pm #

    I don’t see any motives that are “obvious” in the stuff you pasted… a motive is only “obvious” or undeniable when the person to whom you are assigning said motive blatantly affirms it with their words. I have seen no such confirmation in your comments. Again, I would strongly caution you to avoid assigning motives to a person unless you are absolutely certain (and even then, judge the man’s actions, not his motives). This was perhaps the most disgusting part of the last eight years; liberals would say that Bush “hated black people” or invaded Iraq for the oil. Don’t fall into the same Pharisaical tendencies. Keep in mind 1 Samuel 16:7.

    That said, I too have been worried about Warren’s embracing of some of the more liberal political agendas. But that doesn’t necessarily make him “dangerous to the cause of Christ.” Let’s not forget what the “cause of Christ” is. He’s a brother in Christ and until he either embraces bad doctrine or utterly evil politics (he still fights against abortion and same-sex marriage, for example), he’s just a Christian trying his best to reach the most people for Christ. You and I may disagree with some of his politics (or leanings), but just because he MAY be a goof on some political issues like global warming or economics doesn’t change the FACT that we should treat him as a brother.

  17. Chris Garner January 24, 2009 at 4:59 pm #

    Well said, Darius.

  18. Greg January 24, 2009 at 7:23 pm #

    I would agree w/ Darius in that only God knows the true condition of Warren’s heart. However; If I say I am a believer then the fruit that comes from my life should be consistent with my belief.

    We would be well advised to watch Warren very closely…very closely.

  19. Darius T January 24, 2009 at 8:44 pm #

    I agree Greg, which is why I said to judge his actions (or fruit, if you will). We should avoid statements such as these: “Warren has his own political agenda of reconstruction” and “Warren is dangerous to the cause of Christ” and “he loves the approval of men more than that of God.” They are vulgar and have no place in the Christian body. Rather than watch him so closely (or in addition to), why not pray for Warren? Satan would love to have him, and the political influence he is beginning to get will try to warp him. Pray that he stays the course and remains a prophetic voice like Dobson or Micaiah from 1 Kings 22 as opposed to a Campolo or Zedekiah.

  20. Jonathon January 25, 2009 at 6:23 pm #

    Denny,

    The above response concerning when to “rebel” against civil authorities seems a little vague in connection with the posed question.

    Is giving tax money (submitting to governing authorities) that are then used to destroy human life (contrary to God’s will) seems to call for rebellion. Thoughts?

    Darius said:

    “I don’t believe that a Christian should withhold taxes (or a certain portion of taxes). The same amount of money will still go to abortions and the Christian will go to jail. All it does is make the Christian feel good or righteous, but is utterly moronic. Instead, put twice the amount of time or resources into helping crisis pregnancy centers as you usually would. That will ultimately help much more than some symbolic tax evasion.”

    Darius,

    I don’t follow your logic. Just because the same amount of money goes to abortions doesn’t seem to be very convincing. Are we only to stand up for life when it makes “a difference?” You seem to say our rebelling makes no difference so why worry aobut it. The issue is making sure we stand on the side of God’s Word…He will handle the rest.

    You seem to be juding the motives of those who think rebelling is an option by saying it just makes them feel good and righteous. Many may think this and be worried, not with feeling good or righteous, but with being in line with God’s standards.

    I return to Dr. Burk. Can you give more clarity?

  21. Denny Burk January 25, 2009 at 9:29 pm #

    Jonathan,

    When you read Romans 13, you have to remember that the “powers that be” was the Roman Empire. Paul commanded obedience to a state that did not have a flawless human rights record. The idea that a government was somehow beholden to its people was totally foreign to the 1st century mindset. Anyway, hope that’s helpful.

    Thanks,
    Denny

  22. Tom Fuerst January 25, 2009 at 10:38 pm #

    Just wanted to drop you a line and say that I think the title of this post is really defaming and misleading.

    I understand that you mean “Obama forces tax payers to pay for abortions…”, but the title leads one to believe that he is forcing people to have abortions.

    I’ll trust this was unintentional, considering that no matter one’s politics, you, as a Christian, want to promote fairness and truth.

  23. Denny Burk January 26, 2009 at 12:23 am #

    Tom (#22),

    Thanks for the heads-up. I didn’t even notice the possibility of that interpretation. I changed the title.

    Thanks,
    Denny

  24. Tom Fuerst January 26, 2009 at 1:01 am #

    No problem – I’ve been there before where what I meant to communicate wasn’t actually what I did communicate.

    Cheers

  25. derek January 26, 2009 at 8:45 am #

    denny,

    thanks for putting pro-life in quotation marks rather than something like christian. this is greatly appreciated.

    btw, why was there no post regarding obama’s decision to stop GTMO? while i do think that the decision obama has made that is discussed in this post is terrible and will have terrible consequences, i do think his decision on GTMO was a good one. would you agree? if so, why only discuss the problems with the current president and not mention any of the good things?

  26. Darius T January 26, 2009 at 10:39 am #

    Derek, I assume you mean Gitmo… so why is that a good decision to close a place that has been very useful?

  27. Brian Krieger January 26, 2009 at 11:09 am #

    derek:

    I know you meant Dr. Burk, but Ted Slater had an interesting take on closing gitmo (is it an acronym? I never noticed.).

  28. Nathan January 26, 2009 at 4:30 pm #

    I always find it interesting when discussions surrounding a Christian’s responsibility to abide under the government’s control citing Romans 13, that very little (if anything) is said about the founding of this nation.

    It is clear that many of our founders were not simply Christian but revolutionists who oppose the government they were under authority to, the British Empire. Moreover, they revolted citing the providence of God and formed a nation, much of which is based on Judeo-Christian principles, yet based on Romans 13, it would have been a sinful formation.

    So it puzzles me when people speak of not opposing the government today under the guise of Romans 13, when we are a country, many of whom were Christian, that opposed Britian.

    So what did our founders conceive Romans 13 to stand for, and doesn’t it show that determining a government’s ungodliness is not as black and white as it may seem.

  29. derek January 26, 2009 at 6:55 pm #

    darius,

    i meant to write GTMO. i thought it was common knowledge that this was short for guantanamo (just like gitmo is), as in JTF-GTMO (which is joint task force guantanamo). and, yes, i think it is good to shut it down. i am a little surprised that you are unaware of the arguments for shutting it down bc you usually seem fairly well-read in the political sphere. surely you are aware of some of the negative attention that the center has gotten over the past several years. while you may say that all the negative attention is leftist anti-bush propoganda, i would simply disagree. and hopefully that does not make me some sort of crazy liberal. i just do not see the need for a place with such more negative attention and such less accountability than traditional prisons. please let me know why you think we should keep GTMO. i would be genuinely interested to hear what you think on the issue.

    brian,

    thanks for the link. the take that slater presents is certainly an interesting one. i think there may be some valid points he makes, but i would strongly disagree with his argument overall. his tone seems much too strong and makes his argument come off as “make sure those crazy muslims get what they really deserve.” this makes the article, as well as the articles he hyperlinks to, reek of rightist bias.

    thanks for the responses guys! hopefully i will get to read your responses 🙂

  30. Darius T January 26, 2009 at 8:34 pm #

    Derek, I am aware of the arguments (or at least most of them). I was wondering what your reasons were for it closing. The negative attention is largely unfounded, as the prisoners are treated BETTER than a normal prison and whenever the liberal politicians went down to visit it, they always came back with glowing reports which contradicted their previous ignorant rants. The only reason GITMO has ever needed to be closed is that Bush used it. I have heard no good reason for it being closed. As others have wondered, where do those prisoners now go?

  31. Darius T January 27, 2009 at 1:02 am #

    Derek, this is what a 9/11 family member wrote about the Gitmo closing:

    “With his shameful order to close Guantanamo Bay, President Obama has perfectly filled the stereotype of the classic clueless ultra-Liberal – the one who can generate great passion for the rights of the guilty defendant and none for the innocent victim.

    With a single stroke of the pen, Obama has delayed justice for the victims of 9/11, and in essence granted a reprieve for Al Qaeda mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the architect of 9/11.”

  32. derek January 27, 2009 at 8:47 am #

    the obvious bias of a quote like the one above is surely for nothing more than show, since it will hardly convince anyone other than those that already agree with it.

    can we simply agree to disagree on the handling of GTMO?

  33. Darius T January 27, 2009 at 9:58 am #

    That’s fine… I just wondered what your reasons were, which you have failed to give. But we can just drop it.

  34. derek January 27, 2009 at 3:22 pm #

    darius,

    i must make one final comment (and by doing so have caved into the temptation you provided by taking it upon yourself to attempt to call me out in your closing remarks). i did not fail to give reasons, i chose not to give them. this decision was made based on your statement that you were aware of many of the arguments for closing GTMO. i found the statement to leave me with no reason to expound on my reasoning bc i was not about to pretend (like so many do) as though i had done some sort of groundbreaking research on the issue or discovered some unsung song.

    since you are already familiar with the common arguments, and i have no original material, what would be the point of my restating points i already know beforehand you will not be convinced by? this would have been nothing more than fodder (like your comment #31) for faux conversation in which we both refused to accept the other’s position regardless of what was stated.

    this is also the reasoning behind my comment #32. i hope that clears things up a little bit. i did not intentionally skirt your question of what my reasons were, and i am sorry if you felt as though i did; i simply found that a listing of my reasons would have been in vain.

    now, we can hopefully lay this to rest 🙂 Godspeed.

  35. Darius T January 27, 2009 at 3:38 pm #

    Fair enough. I completely understand.

  36. Winta February 13, 2009 at 6:27 pm #

    You do realize that helping to fund abortions will be better for the world in many ways. First off, poor countries are becoming increasingly overpopulated. It is hard for them to feed their children. These children die of Aids, starvation, and other things. Soon, (probably in our lifetime…) the world will have too many people to hold. Not so good. This is basic Human Geography we are talking… Obama is ending a lot of unnecessary suffering in my opinion. Secondly….would you rather help pay for a woman who can’t afford to raise a baby get an abortion, or spend the next 18 or so years paying for that woman to be on welfare? Umm…easy choice for me…

  37. Darius T February 14, 2009 at 10:54 am #

    Since some poor people might die anyway, might as well kill them early? Nice moral compass you got there.

    Regarding overpopulation, this is a hysteria that has been around for 4 decades now, proven wrong repeatedly, but still people keep saying it. It’s like the wannabe prophets who keep predicting the end of the world and though they are wrong 15 times, they keep getting more believers in their next prediction. Amazing how irrational some people are…

    The world population is predicted to crest in the next few decades, and people keep evolving better ways of producing food.

    “Would you rather help pay for a woman who can’t afford to raise a baby get an abortion, or spend the next 18 or so years paying for that woman to be on welfare? Umm…easy choice for me…”

    Really??? While I would prefer neither choice, I’m not so selfish as to prefer my money of a child’s life (though that’s a false dichotomy many times). Just because the government has dumb welfare rules doesn’t mean that we should circumvent them by killing all the poor babies. It is amazing how little regard you have for the lives of the poor… ironic though that you actually seem to believe that you’re being compassionate toward them.

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes