Archive for March, 2009|Monthly archive page

“Uhhh” = inklings Mr. Obama might believe…

In Uncategorized on March 25, 2009 at 1:40 PM

(Before I begin this post, please know this is me reading into what Mr. Obama did/did not say. This is a post that simply wonders what’s going on inside the mind and heart of our President, not facts about what he said.)

John Ward, of the Washington Times, asked an interesting question that sparked an interesting answer last night in the White House.

Here’s John’s question to the President, “In your remarks on stem cell research earlier this month, you talked about a majority consensus in determining whether or not this is the right thing to do, to federally fund embryonic stem cell research. I’m just wondering though how much you personally wrestled with the morality or ethics of federally funding this kind of research especially given the fact that science has shown a lot of progress with adult stem cells and not a lot with embryonic.”

And here is the answer that provoked my mind to ponder…

(Then click on “Obama talks stem cells”)

When Barack Obama said, “I believe in strong moral guidelines when we deal with stem cells or anything that touches on… (and the stuttering began) uhhh, ummm, uhhhhh…”

I wonder if the President was about to say, “anything that touches on (life)” but stopped himself, knowing that if he said that embryos are something that touches on life, or people, (as I believe they certainly are), his policies and pro-choice rhetoric would be assisting in the taking of life.

Amidst the stuttering and uhhhming, he finally landed on, “anything that touches on… the issues of possible cloning… or issues related to… you know (more uhhh, sttutering) human life sciences.”

Human Life Sciences… if you consistently use technical science sounding words when discussing life within the womb, you are free from comprehending the possibility that abortion is murder.

The President then stated, “I have no investment in causing controversy. I’m happy to avoid it,” Which is obvious. He avoided controversy last night, but just barely. He stuttered around giving people in the womb the dignity they deserve once created. He uhhmmed around saying that they are life.

The belief that we, all of us who stand against abortion, are standing up for people is a position of hope. Hope for those who have no voice. Hope for an entire nation where all people are created equal. Hope for the equal opportunity to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for everybody. Hope for people, no matter how young or old.

Standing against abortion is standing for hope.

Maybe  Mr. Obama is starting to believe that life and human rights begin in the womb. Maybe he is struggling with the Genocide of the American Unborn. Maybe we are seeing small steps in the progress of justice to end abortion.

I hope his struggles continue. Prustice; even if the progress is small, it’s always significant because every human life is significant, including you.


The Jenny Perspective

In Uncategorized on March 24, 2009 at 12:53 PM


In this delicate discussion of abortion, the perspective of a woman’s personal story holds significant weight of importance.

The following is again an excerpt from the conversation that happened in late February on the blog post, The O. Presidency, What Obama’s Doing Wrong, a post about abortion.


I call this, The Jenny Perspective…

“As a woman who has lost four babies within the time frame of 11-21 weeks gestation, the phrase “freedom of choice” troubles me. Life and death are not choices. If they were, no one would choose the latter. I would not have chosen for my babies to die. That situation was thrust on me due to the natural course of life and death that we encounter on a daily basis. My babies were wanted by myself and my family. So therefore, to me and my family, their lives had value. No person in the medical field can convince me otherwise and no one in their right mind would even try. Why is it that wanted babies are valuable and unwanted babies are not? Is it our opinions of people that determine their worth? To believe that my children were valuable only because I wanted them is narcissistic of me. They were valuable because they were created with a design making them uniquely human from the moment of conception. I held my 8.2 ounce son in my very hands and let me tell you he was absolutely as human as I am.

Even among “pro-life” individuals there are many who do not truly understand the value of “the fetus.” Any woman who has ever had a miscarriage can tell you that. It is dismissed by many in the medical community as well as Christ followers as an unfortunate medical condition. We are expected to simply “get over it” and try again. No one would expect a mother to “get over” her child dying and resume life as normal as if that child had never existed.

I say all this not as a rant from a bitter woman. I say this simply to put in perspective that as a whole our community, pro-life and pro-choice, does not put enough value on the “products of conception.” Until we as a people begin to value the miraculous and complex design that we are as well as the designer Himself, we will continue to be flippant about the human being in it’s earliest form.

I can’t propose to know how a woman faced with the decision to terminate a pregnancy must feel. I believe that it must be an agonizing decision for most of them. And I believe it’s agonizing because at the core of who they are, they know that there must be a better way. My husband and I have adopted a child who could have become just one more abortion statistic. For whatever reason or series of reasons, he is here. There are those who can’t bear children. There are those who can parent the children that others cannot. It is my hope that women faced with the heart wrenching decision to terminate will consider those who would lavish love on their child with a reckless abandon. It is my hope that they would consider that child not as an unwanted burden but as a bittersweet gift.”

Jenny, February 23

Abortion Conversation 1

In Uncategorized on March 24, 2009 at 12:40 PM

Last month, February, A discussion was sparked about our President and abortion policy. So if you weren’t following the Comment Thread on the post, The O. Presidency, What Obama’s Doing Wrong, this is a part of the conversation that I found worth sharing… enjoy.


(February, 19 from A Concerned Citizen to Prustice)

“On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I’ve said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn’t have that.

Part of the reason they didn’t have it was purposeful, because those who are opposed to abortion have a moral calling to try to oppose what they think is immoral. Oftentimes what they were trying to do was to polarize the debate and make it more difficult for people, so that they could try to bring an end to abortions overall.”

“I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don’t make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions, in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy, and I think that’s where most Americans are.” -Barack Obama

I believe this is rhetoric. I believe there is a solid record to be found. I can also glean from this a willingness to compromise on late-term (not partial-birth, as those procedures are so rare as to not even be a statistic) abortion. This took me a good five minutes to find. If you’re unwilling to do even the basic research, why should your arguments be credible?

Let’s ignore for a moment the medical side of the argument, the legal side of the argument; all positions on the issue with a basic in scientific fact or precedent going back decades. It’s true, Thatcher or Gandhi could have been aborted. But so could Hitler, Ted Bundy, Lee Harvey Oswald, Timothy McVeigh, and countless others responsible for the taking of ADULT lives. I find that argument ludicrous, one which appeals to those who choose not to think. And for those in impoverished nations who need access to family planning, what would you suggest? Abstinence? That’s a concept best understood by industrialized, majority-Christian nations, not the underdeveloped countries the policy is trying to help. But that’s the problem with this particular social issue. Those on your side fail to see eye to eye on any issue, because you have been told all your lives the procedure is evil. Is removing a blastocyst evil? A fetus? Am I going to Hell if I am a doctor who does my job? To you, yes. To me, I understand what makes a human being a human being, and know that abortion in no way takes human life. Partial-birth procedures are the exception, but there is not a medical procedure that is so rarely practiced in this day and age, unless leeching is included.

In response to your use of rhetoric, all I can say is rhetoric is most effective when there is no need to call attention to it, something which you’ve done multiple times in your posts. Only when properly administered can rhetoric affect the positions of others, and I fail to see how these posts will win anyone over, based on what I have seen.

I’m sure you’ll post some sort of defense, and I look forward to reading it. However, I think you are being intellectually dishonest, perhaps without intending to. There is certainly a bias here, and I will be surprised if it doesn’t show through in future posts. I will be watching closely.

A Concerned Citizen


(February 23 Prustice’s response)

A Concerned Citizen,

You said, “If you’re unwilling to do even the basic research, why should your arguments be credible” You are right and I apologize. Obama has made some statements that tell us he stands on the side of continuing abortions. I’m sorry I overlooked this, and thank you for pointing it out.
You made a point saying that if people like Hitler were aborted less “ADULT lives” would’ve been taken. My question to you is, why are adult lives more valuable than the lives of growing infants? Age should have no bearing on human rights and that’s where this blog stands, (read Prustification).
You said, “for those in impoverished nations who need access to family planning, what would you suggest? Abstinence? That’s a concept best understood by industrialized, majority-Christian nations, not the underdeveloped countries the policy is trying to help.” I’ve been overseas in impoverished nations. I have friends in underdeveloped countries and they are just like you and me. They’re driven and smart. If taught, just like us, they can understand abstinence and birth control as means of family planning. Why do you think terminating their children is the help needed? I think faith in their intellect is low with Obama’s policy.
As for the, “Am I going to Hell if I am a doctor who does my job? To you, yes,” statement, my question is simple. Why are you bringing “going to Hell” into this discussion? I never wrote, nor believe, anything close to that. This is the creation of an off-topic straw man, built to tear down and support your bias, instead of responding to what I wrote and nothing more.
This discussion won’t be constructive for readers if we don’t get back to the topic, President Obama and abortion policy.
You asked, “Is removing a blastocyst evil? A fetus?” and stated, “To me, I understand what makes a human being a human being, and know that abortion in no way takes human life.” Well, I too believe I understand what makes a human being a human being, and I firmly believe that abortion in everyway takes human life.
The blastocyst stage ends after week 4. The heart, circulatory system, and neural tube are forming in the little embryo during week 5. Nose, mouth, and ears are taking shape while intestines, pituitary gland, brain, muscles, and bones are forming, the heart is beating at about 100 to 160 beats per minute as blood moves through their system in week 6. (Abortions performed during or after week six are stopping a heartbeat.) Their liver is pumping out red blood cells, the umbilical cord has distinct blood vessels to transport oxygen and nutrients, and an appendix and pancreas both exist in week 7. Webbed fingers and toes are showing themselves, breathing tubes are heading to their lungs as nerves in the brain connect to each other during week 8. The embryo, that has a beating heart, becomes a fetus, after all this human growth has occurred, eight weeks after conception. And more significantly, their soul is bearing the image of God from day one.
When someone’s heart ceases to beat, that person dies. Majority of abortions (77% or 500,004/642,170 lives in 2000) stop a beating heart.
Yes, I am biased. I have firm beliefs about human rights that guide both my life and this blog. So expect it; my beliefs will be undeniable.
I don’t know if I’ll win you over and that’s ok because I’m loving your contributions to this discussion. My hope for people like us is that we could debate issues with respectful vigor and still be able to sit and enjoy a cup of coffee together once the closing words are expressed.

Have a great week,
-Jeff (Stats from Tables 6 & 7)

More than Bad Luck for Darfur

In Uncategorized on March 11, 2009 at 4:08 PM

            So I’ve been told that 13 is an unlucky number… well in the realm of the Sudan, the number 13 holds much more weightiness than luck.

            The Sudanese President Omar Hassan Al-Bashir has ordered the removal of 13 non-governmental organization (NGO) humanitarian aid groups from his country. According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, there are an estimated 70 other organizations that will continue to operate in Darfur, but these thrown out 13 account for more than half of the humanitarian assistance.

            Halting their operations would leave 1.1 million people without food, 1.5 million without healthcare and at least one million without drinking water, as claimed by the UN. Aid totaling around $2,000,000,000 annually.

            This Sudanese Presidential move by President Al-Bashir came the day after the International Criminal Court at The Hague issued an arrest warrant for him for the five-year campaign of violence in his country.

            “We will fill the gap left by the NGOs,” claimed the insolent President at a rally on March 8 in the North Darfur state capital El-Fasher. Government spokesman Kamal Ibaid gave more explanation, “What had been provided by those organizations to people in Darfur could simply be provided by national organizations,” And if these aren’t enough to calm your worries check out a website titled, Sudanese Media Center. The site reports Undersecretary Ministry of Foreign Affairs Mutrif Siding, as saying, public service and security are the sole responsibility of the government. The first, and only seen, plan that would prove this to be true is in three months stock worth of medicine.

            Three months of medicine among the hordes of unattended problems about to be exposed by the NGO expulsion… sounds like a plan.

            How can a government that allows one of the worst genocides in history be entrusted with the relief work of 13 successful humanitarian organizations? They can’t. It’s their tangled heap of problems, and until they cease to continue building this heap of a mess, they can’t be trusted to clean it up.

            For example, it’s like the Sudan government is a guy spilling/pouring coffee on beautiful white silk cloth (Darfur being the beautiful cloth) and the NGOs are a dry cleaner. If the dry cleaner is removed and the guy, who is continuing the spilling, says he’s going to clean it, the problem will only get worse.

            At the White House, last Thursday night March 5, officials in the Obama administration congregated with NGOs currently operating in the genocide-ridden country to discuss these recent developments.

            “U.S. officials listened to the concerns of the NGOs, particularly regarding humanitarian needs that will go unmet in the wake of the expulsion of aid groups,” acting State Department Spokesman Gordon Dugiid told reporters. Dugiid also reported that the Obama officials “expressed deep concern.”

            The United States is one of many countries urging the Sudanese government to reconsider the decision. Prustice will be watching.



Rescinding Health-Care Workers Refuge

In Uncategorized on March 9, 2009 at 4:12 PM

           During their closing months, the Bush administration and the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), led by Secretary Michael Leavitt at the time, implemented regulations to protect health-care workers, who had ethical convictions against abortions, from being forced to perform them.

            On February 27 of this year, the White House Office of Management and Budget announced it was reviewing an HHS proposal to lift these regulations. The Washington Post reported, once the office has reviewed the proposal it will be published in the Federal Register, opening a 30-day period for public comment. An unidentified HHS official told the Post, “We are proposing rescinding the Bush rule.”

            The HHS official told the Post that the Bush rules are too broadly written and that the Obama administration supports a “tightly written conscience clause.” These rules apply to only the facilities that receive federal funding. “We recognize and understand that some providers have objections about abortion, and we want to make sure that current law protects them,” the HHS official said. “We want to be thoughtful about this.”

            It is interesting to me that this official says, “We want to be thoughtful” about taking the physicians freedom to abstain from performing abortions away, yet they are, (same person’s words again) “proposing rescinding the Bush rule.” The Bush rule is being thoughtful. This is contradictory. This isn’t good.

            David Stevens, CEO of the Christian Medical Association, said in a statement that rescinding the rules would negatively impact thousands of pro-life healthcare workers. “We hear a lot of rhetoric from abortion advocates about the government not interfering with the physician-patient relationship,” Stevens said. “Why is this argument no longer employed when the physician and the patient disagree with abortion on demand? It would appear that for all the abortion ‘choice’ rhetoric, ‘choice’ is really a one-way street. When it comes to pro-life individuals, abortion choice quickly turns into abortion mandate.”



Prustice Impressed with Obama’s Address2

In Uncategorized on March 3, 2009 at 3:33 PM

President Obama


           In my last post I began with; Last Tuesday night, our President addressed our nation speaking, for the most part, about our economic recovery (something Prustice isn’t following). However, towards the finale of this oration, the mentioning of two particular issues had me smiling. I discussed the first, now here is the second.

            Today is a different day. There are new solutions. And Obama knows it. “To meet the challenges of the 21st century — from terrorism to nuclear proliferation, from pandemic disease to cyber threats to crushing poverty — we will strengthen old alliances, forge new ones, and use all elements of our national power.”

            Why should “We the people” care about the suffering and extreme poverty outside the borders of this country? Why should our Chief Executive bring up pandemic disease and crushing poverty in a speech in our capital to our citizens? Former President Bush answered these questions in a speech on the 2008 World Aids Day. The answers are underlined.

            “A president must have a firm set of principals from which he will not deviate,” Bush said. “I believe in the universality of freedom, and I believe freedom is universal because of an almighty God. It’s not just freedom from tyranny that the U.S. must become involved in, I believe it’s freedom from disease, freedom from hunger, freedom from deprivation. If you believe in the universality of freedom, then you should not shy away from doing your duty.”

            Discussing the success of PEPFAR, “They call what’s taking place in Africa ‘The Lazarus Effect’—people given up for dead now realizing there is life,” Bush said. “We are a better nation when we save lives. I wish the American people could see what we have seen after this PEPFAR initiative: People literally lining the roads in Tanzania all waving and anxious to express their love and appreciation to the American president who represents the American people.”

            “I believe to whom much is given, much is required,” Bush said. “And when you have somebody say ‘There’s a pandemic that you can help,’ and you do nothing about it, then you have frankly disgraced the office [of president].”

            A beautiful truth of this generation that should call us to action is revealed in the U2 song, Crumbs from Your Table, “Where you live should not decide. Whether you live or whether you die.”

            The United States of America is represented through the actions of the Oval Office. So thank you for your dedication to continue this initiative Mr. Obama, millions of lives hang in the balance and “We the people” care. Prustice.


Prustice Impressed with Obama’s Address

In Uncategorized on March 3, 2009 at 12:26 AM


President Obama addressing, for the first time, a joint session of Congress            

            Last Tuesday night, our President addressed our nation speaking, for the most part, about our economic recovery (something Prustice isn’t following). However, towards the finale of this oration, the mentioning of two particular issues had me smiling.

            First, in an eloquent section that gave thanks to our military and established a vision for the future of our wars, President Barack Obama said, “To overcome extremism, we must also be vigilant in upholding the values our troops defend, because there is no force in the world more powerful than the example of America. And that is why I have ordered the closing of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and will seek swift and certain justice for captured terrorists, because living our values doesn’t make us weaker. It makes us safer, and it makes us stronger.”

            “And that is why I can stand here tonight and say without exception or equivocation that the United States of America does not torture. We can make that commitment here tonight.”

            For the overall trajectory of our common defense, “We cannot shun the negotiating table nor ignore the foes or forces that could do us harm. We are instead called to move forward with the sense of confidence and candor that serious times demand.”

            In the pursuit of protecting our country, President Bush committed massive mistakes. (Read The W. Presidency, What Bush Did Wrong) Breaking our values to protect our values is inexcusable.

            President Obama is committed to renewing our country’s values, pertaining to this issue, because he understands that monsters don’t stop monsters; they just create more violence.

            This is the change we needed in Washington. It’s here and I’m excited. Prustice.


(The SECOND issue mentioned by Obama that had Prustice smiling will be posted soon…)


The O. Presidency

In Uncategorized on March 1, 2009 at 2:42 PM

Prisoner at GuantanamoPresident Barack Obama capping the pen that closed Guantanamo










What Obama’s Doing Right:

2) Closure of Guantanamo Bay Detention Center.

            In the blog post of, “The W. Presidency, What Bush Did Wrong” I discussed how the creation of the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center led this country too close to the brink of tyranny. (If you haven’t read it, read it.) Now, I’m happy to say that President Obama has put a well-justified end to this destructive prison.

            On January 22, 2009, as on of his first acts as President, Mr. Obama signed the “Closure Of Guantanamo Detention Facilities” Executive Order.           

            According to the Order, “Over the past 7 years, around 800 individuals whom the Department of Defense (DOD) has determined to be, or treated as, enemy combatants have been detained at Guantanamo.” Our government has released 500 of those detainees, either back to their home country or transferred or released to a third country. The DOD has found that many of the current prisoners are eligible for the same release or transfer.

            If you’re curious where the tragedies surrounding this issue lay, here they are, “The individuals currently detained at Guantanamo have the constitutional privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Most of those individuals have filed petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in Federal court challenging the lawfulness of their detention.” No writ of habeas corpus is un-American. No questions asked.

            This is a legal action through which a person can seek relief from their own, or another persons, unlawful detention. A legal action protecting “individual freedom against arbitrary state action” is how wikipedia describes it. And our country denied people, human beings, this American valued right.

            On June 12, 2008 the Supreme Court ruled, in Boumediene v. Bush, that habeas corpus rights for the prisoners at Guantanamo must be recognized. A few months later, in October, a court considering habeas corpus petition released the first prisoners.

            Today, the actions of President Obama will seek both prosecutions for the guilty and justice for the innocent being held without confidence of their crimes.

            His Executive Order states that closure should occur as soon as practicable and no later than January 22, 2010. This my friends, is Prustice.