Americans United for Life has released its annual ranking of the 50 states for their track records on life issues. According to AUL’s Executive Summary, states are evaluated according to these five categories:
Laws related to abortion including informed consent, parental involvement, abortion clinic regulations, limitations on funding for abortion, and support of abortion alternatives.
Laws that protect unborn victims of violence.
Laws related to biotechnologies including human cloning, stem-cell research, uses of prenatal and genetic testing, and assisted reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilization.
Laws impacting the end of life.
Laws protecting the freedom of conscience of health care providers, institutions, and payers.
A friend recently pointed me to an exciting new technology in disaster housing. I hadn’t heard of this concept before, but Reaction Housing has created a system involving pods that stack a bit like cups and can be transported easily via semi trailer, train, cargo ship, or plane. Each pod contains core essentials: beds that fold out, a power outlet, and a light. They are heavy duty and reusable (simply hose them out), and they can be set up in communities with common “bath pods.”
The best part is that the estimated cost for producing these is $5000 each – a much better deal than other options commonly used for disaster relief housing.
Anyway, here is a video the company has posted on their site – very exciting technology that may make future relief efforts a lot more humane and manageable (click here to go to the organization’s website):
Norman Horn of LibertarianChristians.com wrote for The Washington Post a couple of weeks back, asking “Can a Christian be a Libertarian?” (click here to read the whole article). The answer of course, implied by the title of his website, is yes. He correctly delves into questions of the nature of man, sin, and social interaction. One particularly interesting bit:
Libertarianism treats man’s sinful nature realistically. James Madison famously quipped that if men were angels no government would be necessary. Christian libertarians take this a step further, saying that it is precisely because men are not angels that government must have extraordinarily limited powers. God does not show favoritism nor does he give special privileges of position. Everyone is accountable to the moral law in the same way. When governments and politicians extend their power so that they can abridge people’s natural rights with impunity, they have crossed the line into immorality.
This is a core difficulty in the understanding of mankind’s sinfulness. Is it better that a government of sinful men attempt to protect and enforce justice? Or is justice better achieved by allowing every man and woman to do as they wish? Obviously, throughout history (and the Bible for that matter), government is seen as a necessary force for ensuring some amount of justice and security in society.
That said, Horn is right that governments can be corrupt. Indeed, they are always tainted by the sin of those who participate in them. They key is in limiting government and centering its focus on enforcing justice. In a society, government’s primary purpose is to establish justice – that is why it bears the sword.
I don’t consider myself a libertarian (though I definitely hold to many libertarian principles), but I can absolutely agree with Horn that governments must be limited.
If you hadn’t heard of it before, you definitely encountered “SOPA” on the Internet today. The House’s Stop Online Piracy Act and its Senate counterpart the Protect IP Act have caused quite a kerfuffle on the Internet.
The bills are complex, but essentially they attempt to stop online piracy (worthy goal) by giving government lots of power and copyright holders lots of privileges over possibly infringing websites. Among other powers, the bills make it relatively easy to cut funds to sites accused of pirating, and they threaten to hold sites accountable for all content posted by their users.
Anyway, if any of this interests you (or you’re just generally concerned about limiting the federal government or the future of the Internet), here are some interesting links on the topic. Working to punish piracy while protecting the wonderful free exchange of ideas on the Internet is an essential question that we must tackle, so it’s good to be informed:
Here are the summaries of the two bills from Wikipedia:
I encourage you to spend a few minutes learning about the issues at stake and create your own opinion. I promise you’ll learn something new and be better for having wrestled with these questions.
The New York Times shares an inspirational story about Verona Peters, a 67 year old woman who takes 300 pills a month to deal with her various ailments. When her husband died several years ago, she was forced to move into a nursing home. She was frustrated by the many restrictions placed upon her by the home, so she made plans to move out. Now, with a variety of help and aid, she is able to live on her own. She worked hard to make it happen, but now she’s living with some amount of freedom and independence again. From the article (click here to read the whole thing):
Sitting on a recliner in a cozy first-floor apartment in Peekskill, N.Y., recently, Ms. Peters, 67, said happily: “This is my home. I’m my own person. I watch TV until I feel like it, and I go to bed when I feel like it.”
Of course, she has the help of a visiting nurse, a home health aide and her family, Ms. Peters said, but she is living on her own terms, something that seemed out of reach after her health deteriorated.
There are a variety of options that allow the aging and ailing to remain at home. It only takes work to seek them out. The help of loved ones and support structures can be a great benefit to the many people who believe they are forced into nursing homes. With the coming boom in our aging population, these alternatives will be necessary.
A 14-year-old girl in Corpus Christi, TX, received a temporary restraining order on Dec. 21 to stop her family from forcing her to get an abortion. A state district judge appointed an attorney for the teen and extended the restraining order until Jan. 19, when a hearing will determine whether the order will remain in place for the duration of the girl’s pregnancy….
Family members who appeared in court told the judge the teenage girl was mentally unstable and incapable of caring for a baby.
The Pro-Choice camp should be up in arms about this family’s efforts How does forcing a young girl to get an abortion against her will support choice? If the baby lives, there are several options (raising the child, receiving family/church/private aid, or putting the child up for adoption). Killing the child ends all choices and options. That such an act might also be forced upon the mother against her will compounds the horror.
