New Warhorn Media post by Tim Bayly:
Thanks for working through the bill. What you say needs to be said. I know the authors of the bill wouldn’t disagree with your analysis, but they are in the midst of a body that will not allow them to be doctrinaire. Already they are pushing far past any point in recent history. The conservatives simply will not pass a bill that inhibits in vitro and contraception, or criminalizes abortion properly. Holly Gatlin, the director of the SC branch of NRL, has incredible clout and almost single-handedly determines the direction of the conservative caucus. She’s drawn those lines and most conservatives won’t cross them.
So, I say, pass the bill and then continue the work to form the consciences of the Republicans and a few pro-life Democrats on the remaining battle fronts.
Will there be consequences from its passage that we don’t foresee? Probably. There always are, even with what we might consider a perfect bill.
Meanwhile, we teach the truth to the souls in our churches and make sure they understand that there are lines they must not cross because to do so would be sin against God, even and especially when the State remains obtuse about it.
Dear Andrew, I understand compromise, but two things: first, it’s entirely possible to compromise without being deceitful, and the language throughout this bill is deceitful concerning that most important thing they assume others will fill in their own definition of, which is conception. They know they’re misleading everyone, but they do it anyhow. What they should have said was “implantation, not conception.” They knew it. You know it. I know it.
Second, it’s one thing to compromise on writing in protection of (the majority) babies being murdered. Go ahead, if they must, and leave most of their state’s little ones unprotected. Sadly, though, what they did was positively protect the murderers and their methods of murder. IVF, preventing implantation through hormonal birth control, and so on.
I can think of a number of ways they could have avoided the lies of equivocating concerning conception; of signing onto protecting the majority of murders in their state; and yet still moved forward on anti-abortion legislation. The problem is they think their electorate won’t know the meaning of their smooth words they themselves wrote, edited, and are promoting.
Politics is dirty work. Legislation of every sort obfuscates.
The point is never about writing the clearest or honest legislation, but one that will garner sufficient support for it to pass, and of course that is limited by virtue of the constituents for each member voting.
After they vote, they need either the full support of the people in their districts, or slick language that will give them cover from too harsh a criticism.
The old joke remains: politics as in “poly” meaning many and “tics” being blood sucking insects.
You are right. They should clarify by defining conception as the moment of fertilization. There is a place in the bill where it is implied:
“‘Pregnant Woman’ means the human biological female reproductive condition of having a living unborn child within her body throughout the entire embryonic and fetal stages of the unborn children from fertilization to full gestation and childbirth…”.
I know there are at least a few men in the legislature who understand the way the word ‘conception’ has been manipulated. Perhaps they will work to enlighten their colleagues in subsequent bills dealing with in vitro and contraception. And if they submit subsequent bills concerning those issues they’ll be able to point back to this legislation as the impetus for more just laws based upon unclouded definitions. It’s good that the word “conception” is there, even if it means this legislation begs for more clarity. There is a proper definition of conception and it is on the side of science.
Whether good or bad, I continue to fall for the farce of “conception.”
I think many of these men are unaware of the reality of the word switch, some of them maybe intentionally making sure they don’t know the details, but a good many others out of ignorance. This is not to excuse them. But I consistently hear the word conception and think it means fertilization, even though I’ve known the opposite for years.
The men who wrote the bill likely know this, but I would wager many of the men voting on it do not know the difference.
True, and it is their pastors who bear the responsibility for their ignorance, while the civil authorities (who knowingly lie) themselves who bear the responsibility for their constant equivocation. Now though, their pastors know their legislation lies, so their pastors bear responsibility for teaching and rebuking them.
Keep in mind it’s always easier to be a prophet from a distance. Outside the abortuary. Outside the floor of the general assembly. Outside the governor’s office. Outside the medical group. What requires faith is welcoming the governor and state assemblyman and lawyer and physician into your church, then loving him with warnings of God’s justice, and not just encouragements of His mercy and grace. Watch yourselves, men; the Epistles are filled with indications, not of the Apostle Paul and Peter speaking truth to power outside the church, but inside the church, inside the congregation, inside the session meeting. Love,
The SC Senate Medical Affairs Committee is currently debating the abortion ban bill (H.5399). Arguments are being made about Plan B and the necessity of “clinically diagnosable pregnancy.” It’s being said—even by the most conservative senators—that there is no threat to Plan B because a woman can’t know she is pregnant until about 2 weeks after conception. What no one will say is that she could be pregnant because she has been sexually active…and therefore, on some level, she’s culpable for her actions afterward. The intent of Plan B is undeniably to kill a child. She may or may not be killing a child—but if there is one in her womb, she’s attacking it.
A result of much of this legal work will be women stockpiling Plan B and M&M for regular use.