The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) made grants to only four efforts that involve embryonic stem cells, while making 10 others to non-embryonic projects, according to The New York Times. CIRM, the $3 billion, 10-year effort approved by voters in 2004, began in response to President Bush’s policy that barred federal funds for stem-cell research that results in the destruction of human embryos. Extracting stem cells from an embryo destroys the days-old human being.

Also in this edition: Down diagnoses in unborn babies up, births down, Ex-Baptist minister admits killing babies in abortion and Chinese bust child-trafficking ring.

One project approved for funding Oct. 28 involves extracting stem cells from a person’s heart and inserting them back into his heart to repair heart-attack damage, The Times reported. The study leader, Eduardo Marban of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, said embryonic stem cells may not help such patients. “The last thing we want to do is grow rogue heart cells,” he said, according to The Times. Embryonic stem-cell research has been plagued by the development of tumors in lab animals.

Bioethics specialist Wesley Smith said of Marban’s comment, “Funny when [embryonic stem cell research] opponents used to make that very claim, they were hooted down by ‘the scientists’ and their camp followers in the media.”

Stem cells provide hope for producing cures for a variety of diseases, because of their ability to transform into other cells and tissues. The biotech industry has long promoted research with embryonic stem cells because of their pluripotency, which means they can transform into any cell or tissue. ESCR has not proven nearly as effective as experiments with other types of stem cells, however.

Trials using adult stem cells have produced therapies for at least 73 ailments in human beings, despite the fact such cells are not considered pluripotent, according to Do No Harm, a coalition promoting ethics in research. Among the afflictions treated by adult stem cells are cancer, juvenile diabetes, multiple sclerosis, heart damage, Parkinson’s, sickle cell anemia and spinal cord injuries, according to Do No Harm.

Scientists have discovered induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells in the last two years, producing great promise for cures without the ethical problems of ESCR. In iPS research, scientists convert adult cells into cells that have nearly the identical properties of embryonic ones.

Neither procuring stem cells from non-embryonic sources nor transforming adult stem cells into embryonic-like ones harms the donor.

Down diagnoses in unborn babies up, births down

The number of unborn babies diagnosed with Down Syndrome in Great Britain has increased greatly in the last two decades, but the number of babies born with the condition has declined.

A study published in the British Medical Journal showed a 71 percent increase in the number of unborn children detected with Down Syndrome between 1989-90 and 2007-08 in England and Wales. That reflected a rise from 1,075 cases to 1,843.

The same survey found, however, the number of live births of babies with Down Syndrome decreased by one percent, according to the Daily Mail. The wide disparity resulted from improved testing for the condition and the vast number of parents who chose to abort in such situations. The percentage of couples who choose abortion when their unborn child is diagnosed with Down Syndrome has consistently been 92 percent, the British newspaper reported.

Rosa Monckton, 56, has a 14-year-old daughter with Down Syndrome. Domenica has caused her to understand what is important in life, said Monckton, who has worked to raise awareness of the condition.

Aborting babies with Down Syndrome is “a totally wicked thing to do,” Monckton said, according to the Daily Mail. “I look at my daughter and see the wonderful things she has given our family and I cannot imagine life without her.

“The medical community puts pressure on women to abort their babies at one of the most vulnerable times in their lives and they can spend the rest of their life regretting that decision.

“Doctors should not play God . . . ,” she said.

Ex-Baptist minister admits killing babies in abortion

A Baptist minister turned abortionist is straight forward when it comes to his practice.

“Am I killing?” Curtis Boyd said in an interview with a Dallas television station. “Yes, I am. I know that.”

Boyd, who opened the first abortion clinic in Texas in 1973, unveiled his latest clinic – this one a center that performs abortions up to 24 weeks into pregnancy – the last week of October, according to WFAA-TV, the ABC affiliate in Dallas.

He was ordained as a Baptist minister but is now a Unitarian, Boyd said. WFAA did not report if Boyd said what Baptist church ordained him.

Boyd said, however, he often prays regarding the abortions he performs.

“I’ll ask that the spirit of this pregnancy be returned to God with love and understanding,” he told WFAA.

Chinese bust child-trafficking ring

Chinese police have broken an alleged child-trafficking ring that appears to benefit from the Communist regime’s coercive population-control policy.

Authorities arrested 42 members of the ring that had reportedly earned more than $58,000 by selling 33 girls and 19 boys over two years’ time, according to a LifeNews.com, which based its report on an article from the Xinhua News Agency.

Beijing instituted a one-child policy in the late 1970s in an effort to slow the birth rate of the world’s most populous country. The policy limits couples to one child, although exceptions are made in rural areas and in some circumstances.

Penalties for violations of the policy have included fines, arrests and the destruction of homes, as well as forced abortion and sterilization. Infanticide, especially of females, also has been reported.

The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission works to protect the sanctity of human life. If you would like to learn more about this issue, additional resources are available here. If your church is interested in purchasing bulletin inserts or other materials on the sanctity of human life, please visit our online bookstore and erlc.com.

The GOP’s Chris Christie and Robert McDonnell won New Jersey and Virginia, respectively, over more liberal candidates for the Democrats. The victories came in a state, New Jersey, that has been solidly Democratic and in another, Virginia, that has been trending Democratic for several years.

Christie, a former U.S. attorney, deposed incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine by 49 to 45 percent, with 99 percent of the precincts reporting, according to Fox News. McDonnell, Virginia’s attorney general, defeated state Sen. Creigh Deeds by a 59-to-41 percent margin, with all precincts in.

The twin losses for Democrats came one year after their nominee, Obama, took New Jersey with 57 percent of the vote and Virginia with 53 percent. The losses also came despite campaign visits by the president to both states.

Independent voters went heavily for Obama in 2008, but this year exit polls in both states indicated they favored the Republican candidates for governor by about a 2-to-1 margin, according to Fox.

In Virginia, Deeds attacked McDonnell’s pro-life position and record without success. The GOP nominee, a pro-life advocate during his 14 years in the state legislature, focused on the economy during the campaign. Republicans not only won the governorship of Virginia by a wide margin but took the lieutenant governor and attorney general races easily.

There was some evidence Corzine’s endorsement of “gay marriage” hurt his chances with New Jersey voters. “Our friends at the New Jersey Family Policy Council pointed to several recent polls that link the governor’s support for same-sex ‘marriage’ to his underperformance among minority voters,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said in a written release.

Some observers saw the results as a reaction to policies promoted in the last year by the Democratic-controlled White House and Congress.

“I’ve been saying ever since President Obama took office and began to implement his extreme economic and social agenda that he and his advisers, along with Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi and Majority Leader [Harry] Reid, had fundamentally misread the 2008 election results,” said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. “The Democrats won because the economy was in the tank, and when the economy is in the tank the party in power [in the White House] loses. It’s one of the oldest truisms of American politics.”

Land cited exit polling in 2008 that showed 63 percent of voters said the economy determined how they voted.

“Unfortunately, President Obama and the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate took the election results as a mandate to take the country on a hard left turn in terms of massive growth of government and redistributionist tax policies,” he told Baptist Press. “The massive government spending has not fixed the economy, which isn’t surprising, because massive government spending couldn’t fix the economies in Japan and Europe either.”

“Last night the people of Virginia and New Jersey sent a vivid reminder to politicians in Washington that this is still a center-right country that wants the economy fixed as its No. 1 priority,” Land said.

Gary Bauer, president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for Working Families, said in a written statement, “It’s clear that voters, especially independent voters, do not like the change they have experienced” since the 2008 election.

“These results show that the voters are rejecting runaway deficit spending, higher taxes and bigger government,” Bauer said. “If the White House and Congressional liberals are listening, they will pull Obamacare off the agenda and stop the march to socialized medicine.”

Pro-life leader Marjorie Dannenfelser said the results in New Jersey and Virginia “should serve as a cautionary tale to Congress and the White House, whose overreach on health care could experience a similar demise.”

Dannenfelser is president of the Susan B. Anthony List, which supports pro-life women in political races.

The Republican wins in New Jersey and Virginia came the same week House Democrats are seeking to gain approval for health care legislation that will provide federal funds for abortion and cost an estimated $1.2 trillion or more over 10 years.

The White House said Nov. 4 the results in the two states would not scare off moderate Democrats who are needed to pass health care reform.

“I don’t think they will [bolt] and I’m not concerned,” Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters, according to Politico.com.

Gibss said the only Nov. 3 races with national significance were House elections in New York and California, where Democrats prevailed. “Those are people that’ll take part in participating in the president’s agenda,” he said, Politico reported.

Democrat Bill Owens defeated Doug Hoffman, running as an independent, in a right-leaning congressional district in upstate New York after liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava dropped out of the race and endorsed Owens only days before the vote. In a liberal northern California district, state Lt. Gov. John Garamendi won over Republican Doug Harmer.

The election results, Land said, may signal problems next November for one group — incumbents.

He cited the five-point win by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg in a race some predicted he would win by at least 10 points. Bloomberg “barely won re-election, although he outspent his opponent by more than 20 to 1,” Land said. “This should serve as a warning that 2010 will be a tough year for incumbents of any party.”

Abby Johnson, 29, turned in her resignation Oct. 6 after working for eight years at the Planned Parenthood in Bryan, Texas.

Also in this edition: 40 Days of Life reports more than 540 babies saved and Nightlight Adoptions begins scholarship fund.

She had a “change of heart” after observing an abortion by means of an ultrasound machine in September, Johnson told Fox News. She saw the unborn child “crumple” as he was vacuumed from the mother’s womb.

“I just thought, ‘I can’t do this anymore,’ and it was just like a flash that hit me and I thought, ‘That’s it,’” Johnson told KBTX-TV, the CBS affiliate in Bryan. She told Fox, “I would say there was a definite conversion in my heart . . . a spiritual conversion.”

Johnson already had become disillusioned with her job, saying her regional supervisor had urged her in recent months to find ways to increase profits by producing more abortions, she told Fox.

“Every meeting that we had was, ‘We don’t have enough money, we don’t have enough money – we’ve got to keep these abortions coming,’” Johnson said, according to Fox.

For Planned Parenthood, “there’s not a lot of money in education,” she said. “There’s not as much money in family planning as there is abortion.”

Planned Parenthood is the country’s leading abortion provider. Its affiliates performed more than 305,000 abortions in 2007, the latest year for which statistics are available..

After leaving her job, Johnson began meeting with Shawn Carney, executive director of Coalition for Life, a pro-life organization with an office near Planned Parenthood’s facility. She has participated with Coalition for Life volunteers in prayer vigils outside Planned Parenthood, including during the recently completed 40 Days for Life campaign.

“Abby’s amazing conversion demonstrates the importance of a constant, persistent, peaceful prayer presence in front of abortion facilities,” said David Bereit, national director of 40 Days for Life.

Beginning with the first 40 Days for Life campaign at the Bryan Planned Parenthood in 2004, “we’ve prayed for Abby — and for all abortion workers — that they would come to see what abortion really is, and that they would leave the deadly business,” Bereit said in his Nov. 3 email report. “In this case, those prayers have been answered.

“We are so proud of Abby’s courage to leave the abortion industry and publicly announce her reasons for leaving.”

40 Days of Life reports more than 540 babies saved

The 40 Days for Life campaign completed Nov. 1 recorded 542 unborn children saved and eight abortion clinic workers who left the business.

The initiative, which began locally in Bryan, Texas, in 2004, surpassed 2,000 unborn babies saved in the waning days of this fall’s effort, national director David Bereit reported.

The 40 Days for Life effort involves peaceful prayer vigils outside abortion clinics and Planned Parenthood offices, as well as fasting for the end of abortion. The latest campaign was expected to involve tens of thousands of people in 212 cities in the United States, Canada and Denmark.

In his Oct. 29 email report, Bereit shared about a mother and baby who were spared from abortion:

“It was a stormy day at the 40 Days for Life vigil in Bakersfield, California. Yet people ignored the wind and rain as they stood and prayed outside the abortion center.

“A young woman from outside the Bakersfield area soon arrived at the clinic for an abortion appointment. She was already stressed out; the drive across the mountains and through the storm left her in no mood to listen to the Christians on the sidewalk.

“She looked at the group, shouted profanities, and told the vigil participants to leave her alone. One of the people on the sidewalk told her that if she thought the sky was dark, it was nothing compared to the darkness abortion could bring into her life.

“She ignored the words and walked in.

“But the ‘simple procedure’ she had come for turned out not to be so simple — and she might not be able to have the abortion that day. She had come for the abortion pill, but the staff said she lived too far away to return to the clinic if any complications developed.

“When she learned that, she became even angrier at the people praying out on the sidewalk — she even went back out to yell at them several times. Finally, after she realized there would be no abortion, she gave up and left the clinic.

“But on her way out, the prayer supporters on the sidewalk offered to pray with her. As they did, the sun suddenly broke through the clouds and the sky instantly became bright.

“It was like a new day.

“The vigil participants explained the situation to Terri, one of the counselors, who helped arrange an appointment for an ultrasound at the pro-life pregnancy help center.

“Terri could tell that the ultrasound had a significant impact on the young woman. ‘I knew that it was a good sign when I heard her talking to her baby,’ she said.

“After the ultrasound, Terri and the woman hurried back to the vigil site. Bursting with joy, the woman showed the prayer supporters the ultrasound picture of the baby she had intended to abort, exclaiming ‘your Jesus heard your prayers!’”

Nightlight Adoptions begins scholarship fund

Nightlight Christian Adoptions, which has become known for its Snowflakes frozen embryo adoption program, now has a scholarship fund for prospective parents.

Nightlight has established a $50,000 scholarship fund for couples who would like to adopt but lack the finances to do so, the agency announced Oct. 28. The fund was started in honor of Nightlight’s 50th anniversary. The agency expects to seek donations to the fund next year.

Couples will be eligible for scholarships of between $2,000 and $5,000 for domestic, international and embryo adoptions, based on their needs and the children they seek to adopt, said Kathryn Deiters, Nightlight’s director of administration, in a written release. “Eligible children will include special needs children, children over 10 years of age and other children for whom there are fewer waiting adopting parents.”

Interested couples may gain more information by emailing Deiters at Kathryn@Nightlight.org or calling her at (714) 693-5437.

The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission works to protect the sanctity of human life. If you would like to learn more about this issue, additional resources are available here. If your church is interested in purchasing bulletin inserts or other materials on the sanctity of human life, please visit our online bookstore and erlc.com.

The president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission collaborated with Paul de Vries, president of the New York Divinity School and leader of the New York Evangelicals, and Joseph Potasnik, executive vice president of the New York Board of Rabbis, in issuing a statement Nov. 2 urging all governments to apply sanctions in order to produce effective diplomacy and encourage the human rights efforts of Iranians living under a militant Islamic regime.

The evangelical and Jewish groups recommended two actions proposed by some members of Congress:

• Sanction banks that work even indirectly with Iranian banks;

• Sanction firms or governments that export refined petroleum to Iran.

“Such actions could quickly damage Iran’s economy, shrink the regime’s domestic popularity, provoke real diplomacy, and engender significant steps toward ending the Iran regime’s murderous pursuit of nuclear weapons,” their statement said. “Leading nations should then engage in effectual diplomacy, resulting in enforced guarantees of an Iran without weapons of mass destruction, nuclear or otherwise.”

Iran contends it is developing nuclear power for non-military purposes, but other countries are concerned the effort is to establish a nuclear arms program.

The Iranian government has hesitated in recent days to follow through on a tentative agreement it had made. The regime now desires to make changes in a deal it had reached to send a large portion of its low-enriched uranium to other countries to be processed, according to The Washington Post.

Iran is building its second uranium-enrichment facility, which an official said could produce enough material for a nuclear bomb each year, The Post reported in late September. The Middle East country also completed both long-range and short-range missile tests during the same week.

Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has been especially provocative toward Israel, denying the Holocaust and threatening to destroy the Jewish state.

Upon release of the document Nov. 2, Land said, “We stand in solidarity with all people of goodwill both in the region and around the world in seeking to stop a nuclear Iran from grievously imperiling Israel, the Middle East and the world’s peace.”

“Jesus commanded His followers to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world [Matt. 5:13-16],” he said.

“In seeking meaningful sanctions against the current Iranian regime, we are attempting to be salt in preserving Israel and the entire region from bloody conflict and terrible loss of life,” Land said. “We are seeking to be light by expressing our commitment to the intrinsic value and invaluable worth of all of our fellow human beings, both inside and outside Iran, whose lives and liberties are in peril by the dangerous rogue regime which presently oppresses the Iranian people.”

The endorsers of the Nov. 2 statement gave 10 reasons for sanctions, including: Iran’s status as the top state sponsor of terrorism, its brutalization of the human-rights movement within its borders, its potential control of half of the world’s oil reserves and the threat of a nuclear arms race in response to Iran’s weapons program.

“We need to apply as much pressure as possible on Iran because the status quo is unacceptable,” Potasnik said in a written release. “Iran has a government without a conscience, so we must stand together — evangelicals, Jews and all others.”

Land signed onto a Sept. 22 letter to President Obama and Congress making a similar appeal regarding sanctions seeking to produce change in Iran’s nuclear policy. Other Southern Baptists among the nearly 50 signers of that letter included current SBC President Johnny Hunt and former SBC presidents Jack Graham and James Merritt.

Iran is one of only eight countries to be classified by the U.S. State Department as “countries of particular concern,” a designation reserved for the world’s worst violators of religious freedom.

A House floor vote on the Affordable Health Care for America Act, H.R. 3962, may occur as soon as Nov. 5.

As expected, the massive legislation includes a “public health insurance option” managed by the federal government that would fund elective abortions and a federal subsidy program for private plans that cover abortion, pro-life organizations reported.

There are indications Democratic pro-lifers may have enough votes to block passage of the health care measure by defeating the rule governing consideration of the legislation. The House leadership is expected to try to bring the bill to the floor under a rule that would prevent a vote on a pro-life amendment that would bar federal funds from paying for abortions in both the public and private plans. If the procedural vote on the rule fails, the legislation will not be able to go to the floor for consideration.

Rep. Bart Stupak, D.-Mich., leading the Democratic pro-life effort to amend the bill, and Democrats for Life of America (DFLA) both have signaled they have enough votes to defeat the rule and block the health care proposal if their allies don’t change their minds. Speaking to CNSNews.com, Stupak has said there are about 40 Democrats who have agreed to vote with him, while DFLA Executive Director Kristen Day said Oct. 29 there are about 43 Democrats committed to joining Stupak.

Pro-lifers have little margin for error. There are 256 Democrats and 177 Republicans in the House, with two vacancies to be filled Nov. 3 in special elections. If the vote takes place before the two vacancies are filled and if all 177 Republicans and 40 Democrats oppose the rule, it would fail 217-216.

“Anyone voting to forbid amendments to this bill is in effect voting to set up a federal government program that will directly fund abortion on demand, with federal funds,” said Douglas Johnson, the National Right to Life Committee’s legislative director, in an Oct. 29 written release.

Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life (AUL), said in a written statement Oct. 29 the language in the legislation creates “a dramatic change from the status quo — currently no federal dollars are used to pay for elective abortions or plans that cover abortion…. Explicit language must be added to this health care bill to prevent unprecedented federal funding of abortion.”

Also on Oct. 29, Stupak said in a written statement he is disappointed the abortion-funding language from a previous House bill “has remained intact in H.R. 3962, mandating abortion services for the first time in our nation’s history. I will continue to work with leadership to find satisfactory language on this issue.”

Pro-lifers continued to refute contentions by supporters of the abortion-funding language that only private funds would be used for abortions under the “public option.”

“The public plan will be a federal agency program [under the Department of Health and Human Services], and all funds spent by the agency are federal funds,” Johnson said, citing an Oct. 9 memo from the Congressional Research Service that “confirmed that all funds spent by the bill’s public plan will be federal funds. Prominent Democrats who have claimed that the federal government could pay for abortion with ‘private’ funds have been engaged in a big snow job….”

A different health care reform bill approved by the Senate Finance Committee Sept. 30 also covers abortion. The panel voted 13-10 against an amendment that would have prohibited federal funds from paying for abortions in plans or subsidies established by the legislation. The full Senate has yet to take up the measure.

The president’s signature on the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act put into effect not only an annual bill for the U.S. military but enshrined into federal law the most significant legislative advance to date for homosexual activists. The Human Rights Campaign, America’s largest homosexual organization, had described the measure as the country’s “first major piece of civil rights legislation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.”

Obama reserved his remarks at the White House signing ceremony primarily for the focus of the bill, the Department of Defense’s reauthorization. He commented only at the end on the hate-crimes provision. The president called that portion of the legislation a “long-awaited change” intended “to help protect our citizens from violence based on what they look like, who they love, how they pray or who they are.”

The president, however, also was to speak at a special White House commemoration of the hate-crimes expansion later in the day.

The hate-crimes language in the new law adds “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” as well as disability, to the current categories — such as race, religion and gender — protected from hate crimes. “Sexual orientation” includes homosexuality and bisexuality, while “gender identity,” or transgendered status, takes in transsexuals and cross-dressers.

Advocates of freedom of religion and of speech, as well as of the biblical view of sexuality, expressed dismay at the development, even though they oppose violence against homosexuals. They fear the measure, combined with existing law, could expose to prosecution Christians and others who proclaim the Bible’s teaching that homosexual behavior is sinful. For example, if a person commits a violent act based on a victim’s “sexual orientation” after hearing biblical teaching on the sinfulness of homosexual behavior, the preacher or teacher could be open to a charge of inducing the person to commit the crime, some foes say.

“I am disappointed that President Obama has signed the hate-crimes bill into law, but I am not surprised,” said Barrett Duke, vice president for public policy of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. “The president has been clear, even before he was elected, that he intends to champion the homosexual agenda. This is merely one of a number of steps he will take in fulfilling that commitment.

“It is my prayer that people of faith will not be deterred from sharing God’s truth about homosexuality because of this law,” Duke told Baptist Press. “Our nation needs that truth now more than ever.”

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), an alliance of Christian lawyers who seek to protect religious liberty, said the hate-crimes expansion “is another nail in the coffin for the First Amendment.”

“All violent crimes are hate crimes, and all crime victims deserve equal justice,” ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley said in a written statement. “This law is a grave threat to the First Amendment because it provides special penalties based on what people think, feel, or believe.

“Bills of this sort are designed to forward a political agenda and silence critics, not combat actual crime,” Stanley said. “The bottom line is that we do not need a law that creates second-class victims in America and that gives the government the opportunity to ignore the First Amendment.”

The final version of the bill approved by the Senate and House included language designed to protect freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion, but at least some religious liberties organizations do not consider the protections adequate.

Obama signed the bill six days after the Senate voted 68-29 for the overall defense measure, which was used as a vehicle for the hate-crimes legislation even though it is not directly related to the controversial provision. The House of Representatives voted 281-146 on Oct. 8 for the same defense bill.

The House voted 249-175 in April for hate-crimes expansion as a stand-alone bill. The Senate approved similar hate-crimes language as part of the defense authorization bill in July. The different versions of the defense legislation went to a conference committee made up of members of both chambers selected to negotiate a compromise. That committee reported the bill out with the hate-crimes language included.

According to the hate-crimes language in the bill, it “applies to violent acts motivated by actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of a victim.”

Under the provision in the defense bill, people convicted of a hate crime would be subject to more prison time and penalties than people who commit a crime that falls outside the class of hate crimes.

The law authorizes the attorney general to provide assistance to state and local officials in the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.

In written testimony submitted Oct. 26, the president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) told the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics an effort to legalize “same-sex marriage” should be decided by a vote of the district’s citizens and not “solely by legislative, executive, or judicial bodies.”

Land’s comments were provided for a hearing by the elections board, which is considering whether to place on the ballot an initiative to preserve marriage as the union only of a man and a woman.

The Oct. 26 elections board hearing was held the same day a committee of the D.C. Council heard testimony on a bill to grant marriage rights to same-sex couples. Ten of the council’s 13 members are sponsoring the proposal, which would become law without a vote by D.C. citizens.

Southern Baptists “have opposed same-sex marriage consistently,” Land said in his testimony. Since 1996, messengers to the convention’s annual meeting have approved five resolutions opposing the legalization of “gay marriage” and supporting one-man, one-woman marriage, he said. Included with his testimony were copies of eight SBC resolutions dating to 1937 that called for the protection and strengthening of marriage.

The legalization of “same-sex marriage” in D.C. would harm families and society, Land told the elections board.

Studies in the last decade have shown that marriage between a man and a woman “is a social good that reduces child poverty, decreases infant mortality, and lowers rates of crime and substance abuse, among other things,” he said. “While aiding in the development of children and the happiness of adults, marriage also improves communities, making them more stable and less susceptible to dangers.”

Data from Sweden and other Scandinavian countries suggest the legalization of “same-sex marriage” has weakened marriage as an institution, Land said. The number of marriages has declined in Scandinavia since “gay marriage” became legal, and divorce is more common among same-sex couples in Sweden, he said. The information shows “legalizing same-sex marriage is certain to counteract the positive social attributes of traditional marriage, by leading to fewer marriages and more divorces,” Land said.

Legalizing “gay marriage” also would probably limit the expression of religious belief by those who oppose it, he said.

“It will lead to the violation of the consciences of children in schools as they are subjected to teachings in an authoritarian environment that same-sex marriage is a legitimate form of marriage,” Land said. “Changing the definition of marriage would likely also result in government restrictions on the religious freedom of religious groups, potentially exposing them to government reprisal for honoring their faith convictions” regarding homosexuality.

Six states have legalized “same-sex marriage” — Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine. Maine’s citizens will decide Nov. 3 whether to overturn the state’s law.

D.C. appears destined to join those states in endorsing “marriage” between people of the same sex.

The D.C. Council voted 12-1 in May to recognize “same-sex marriages” performed in other jurisdictions. The law enables homosexual couples living in D.C. to have wedding ceremonies in states where “gay marriage” is legal and have those unions recognized by the district.

In addition to a strong majority of D.C. Council members sponsoring the bill, the elections board appears unlikely to allow the issue to be placed before voters.

Pastors in the area, however, have led vocal opposition to the effort to legalize “gay marriage.” Several led in the filing of the ballot initiative that says: “Only marriage between a man and woman is valid or recognized in the District of Columbia.”

They also led an Oct. 25 outdoor rally in downtown Washington asking the issue be placed on the ballot. Land wrote to 165 Southern Baptist pastors in the D.C. area warning them of the pending legislation and encouraging them to attend the rally. Barrett Duke, the ERLC’s vice president for public policy, spoke to rally participants.

The Oct. 26 hearing on the “gay marriage” bill before the D.C. Council’s Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary drew so many witnesses a second date was scheduled. There were 100 witnesses set to appear before the committee on the original date, leaving 170 waiting to speak at the second part of the hearing Nov. 2, a council spokesman said.

David Bereit, national director of 40 Days for Life, said in his daily email report 411 babies have been spared since the latest campaign began Sept. 23. The initiative, which became a national movement two years ago, reported 1,561 children saved from abortion in four previous campaigns.

Also in this edition: Baltimore City Council targets pregnancy centers and Brits: Womb transplants in 2 years possible.

The 40 Days for Life effort involves peaceful prayer vigils outside abortion clinics and Planned Parenthood offices, as well as fasting for the end of abortion. The latest campaign is expected to involve tens of thousands of people in 212 cities in the United States, Canada and Denmark by the time it concludes Nov. 1.

In his Oct. 26 report, Bereit included the following reports from 40 Days volunteers:

In Dallas, a woman entered an abortion clinic “and left 30 minutes later, telling people on the sidewalk she was scared, and that the conditions in the clinic were troublesome. She was invited to go instead to the very clean clinic across the street—the pro-life pregnancy resource center. She found that help was indeed available, and chose life for her child.”

In Atlanta, a mother went to pray at a vigil “with her 7- and 10-year-old daughters. At the time, they were the only ones at the clinic. But after Paige explained to her girls why they were there, they all began to pray and sing.”

“When a woman got out of her car and walked towards the clinic, one of the girls said, ‘Let’s sing “Jesus Loves Me.”’

“‘They sounded so sweet,’ Paige said. ‘I know the lady could hear them.’

“A bit later, a man pulled up and got out of his car to talk. ‘He was very noticeably angry,’ said Paige, and he wound up making a threatening remark before driving off.

“‘I told the girls what Jesus said, “Blessed are you when they persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you, because of me.” But it was hard staying there.’

“It’s a good thing they stayed! The woman that the girls had sung for earlier in the hour walked out of the clinic and towards the parking lot—all the time, looking at a sign with the number of a pro-life pregnancy counseling hotline. She picked up her cell phone and made a call.

“As she pulled out of the parking lot, the woman made a point of looking right at them, giving thumbs-up and shaking her head in an emphatic ‘yes.’ She was smiling at them, though it looked like she had been crying.

“‘The girls were thrilled,’ said Paige. ‘We really have no idea of the good that may come of people standing outside of clinics.’”

Information on the initiative and the locations of the prayer vigils may be found online at www.40daysforlife.com.

Baltimore City Council targets pregnancy centers

Most of the members of the Baltimore (Md.) City Council are promoting a measure that would require pregnancy help centers to post a sign saying they do not provide abortions or contraceptives.

Baltimore’s Roman Catholic archbishop criticized the bill as a form of harassment.

Stephanie Rawlings-Burke, the City council president, and 10 other council members are sponsors of legislation that would levy a fine of $500 a day for any pregnancy center that does not abide by the requirement, according to The Catholic Review, the newspaper of Baltimore’s Catholic archdiocese. Including the president, the council has 15 members.

Archbishop Edwin O’Brien told Rawlings-Burke in an Oct. 16 letter the proposal discriminates against pro-life centers.

“The bill does not on the other hand seek to fine abortion clinics for not posting a list of services they do not provide (e.g., parenting classes, maternity and infant clothes, formula),” he wrote.

The measure is similar to one backed by Planned Parenthood last year in the Maryland legislature, The Catholic Review reported. Planned Parenthood, which is the country’s No. 1 abortion provider, also is promoting the Baltimore bill, said Nancy Paltell of the Maryland Catholic Conference’s respect life office.

“We are providing community services that the city doesn’t provide and now they’re going to harass us for it,” Paltell said, according to the newspaper. “We’re saving the city money, but does the city give one dime to these pregnancy centers? No.”

Brits: Womb transplants in 2 years possible

Some British scientists have predicted a human womb transplant could occur in the next two years.

The researchers made the forecast after experiments at the Royal Veterinary College in London resulted in two rabbits living with successfully transplanted wombs for 10 months, according to the British Broadcasting Corp. (BBC) News. Scientists had transplanted wombs in five rabbits, connecting major blood vessels in the process.

Researchers next plan to impregnate rabbits with transplanted wombs by means of in vitro fertilization (IVF), the BBC reported. The same method would then be tried on larger animals.

They hope eventually to provide an option to surrogacy or adoption for women with damaged wombs.

Skepticism was expressed about the effort, however.

“I think there is a big difference between demonstrating effectiveness in a rabbit and being able to do this in a larger animal or a human . . . ” said Tony Rutherford, chairman of the British Fertility Society, according to the BBC.

The Senate finalized congressional action on the effort to extend hate crimes protection to homosexuals by passing the controversial proposal Oct. 22 as part of an annual military bill. Senators voted 68-29 for the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act.

The bill will go to President Obama, who has promised homosexual activists he will sign it into law. When Obama signs the legislation, it will mark the most significant federal legislative victory to this point for the homosexual-rights movement.

After the Senate vote, Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign described the hate crimes provision as the country’s “first major piece of civil rights legislation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.” The Human Rights Campaign is the country’s largest homosexual rights organization.

The hate crimes language, however, could result in threats to the freedoms of those with biblically based convictions regarding homosexual behavior, some of its foes said afterward.

The legislation has the “potential for chilling religious speech regarding homosexuality,” said Barrett Duke of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC).

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said in a written statement the bill “is part of a radical social agenda that could ultimately silence Christians and use the force of government to marginalize anyone whose faith is at odds with homosexuality.”

The hate crimes provision in the defense bill would add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” as well as disability, to the current categories — such as race, religion and gender — protected from hate crimes. “Sexual orientation” includes homosexuality and bisexuality, while “gender identity,” or transgendered status, takes in transsexuals and cross-dressers.

The ERLC and others fear the measure, combined with existing law, could expose to prosecution Christians and others who proclaim the Bible’s teaching that homosexual behavior is sinful. For example, if a person commits a violent act based on a victim’s “sexual orientation” after hearing biblical teaching on the sinfulness of homosexual behavior, the preacher or teacher could be open to a charge of inducing the person to commit the crime, some foes say.

The final version of the bill approved by the Senate and House included language designed to protect freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion, but some religious liberties organizations do not consider the protections adequate.

The hate-crimes language “allows for federal prosecution of someone whose speech was ‘intended to’ incite violence against homosexuals,” Duke, the ERLC’s vice president for public policy, noted in a written commentary. “The concern here is over how ‘intention’ will be determined. No doubt, there will be instances where federal prosecutors will be scrutinizing sermons about homosexuality, parsing the language that is used and the inflection in the voice, to attempt to discern whether or not the speaker intended to incite violence.”

Another concern is the measure’s approach to a person’s attitude toward homosexuality, he said.

“The bill leaves open the possibility that someone could be prosecuted for a hate crime on the basis of what he thought about homosexuality, whether this attitude motivated the attack or not,” Duke said. “In this case, Congress has opened the door to special federal prosecution not only for the act of violence but for what the attacker thought about the victim at the time of the attack.

“Whether or not these possibilities become realities is yet to be seen,” Duke said.

He also said,” [N]o one should engage in an act of violence against another person because that person is a homosexual.”

Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, told Christianity Today the language to protect freedom of speech and religion was insufficient.

“While the wordings are nice, the amendments are really meaningless,” Stanley said. “Treating them as a panacea that would treat the problems of the hate crimes law would be wrong.”

During floor debate Oct. 22, Sen. Jim DeMint, R.-S.C., expressed concerns that the bill would lead to the policing of thoughts and words. He pointed to a case in Canada in which a youth pastor, Stephen Boissoin, was fined $7,000 by the Alberta Human Rights Commission for writing a letter to the local newspaper critical of homosexuality. The ruling is being appealed.

Boissoin wrote, in part, “From kindergarten class on, our children, your grandchildren are being strategically targeted, psychologically abused and brainwashed by homosexual and pro-homosexual educators. Your children are being warped into believing that same-sex families are acceptable; that kissing men is appropriate.”

DeMint said, “Canadians right now live under this kind of regime, where so-called human rights commissions operating outside the normal legal process prosecute citizens for espousing opinions the commissioners disagree with. Today in the United States only actions are crimes. If we pass this conference report, opinions will become crimes. What is to stop us from following the lead of the European countries and American college campuses where certain speech is criminalized?

“Can priests, pastors and rabbis be sure their preaching will not be prosecuted if it says certain things are right and wrong?”

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder commended the Senate’s action, saying enactment of the hate crimes legislation has been one of his “highest personal priorities” since he took office in January.

In a written statement, Holder called congressional passage “a milestone in helping protect Americans from the most heinous bias-motivated violence. Hate crimes victimize not just individuals, but entire communities. Perpetrators of hate crimes seek to deny the humanity that we all share, regardless of the color of our skin, the God to whom we pray, or whom we love.”

The legislation would authorize the attorney general to provide assistance to state and local officials in the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.

The House of Representatives voted 281-146 on Oct. 8 for the same defense bill, which was used as a vehicle for the hate crimes measure though it is not directly related to the controversial provision.

The House voted 249-175 in April for hate crimes expansion as a stand-alone bill. The Senate approved similar hate crimes language as part of the defense authorization bill in July. The different versions of the defense legislation went to a conference committee made up of members of both chambers to work out a compromise. That committee reported the bill out with the hate-crimes language included.

The Senate roll call Oct. 22 saw eight Republicans join with 58 Democrats and two independents in voting in favor of the defense bill. Opposing the measure were 28 Republicans and a Democrat, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin.

Before their vote on final passage, senators voted 64-35 to invoke cloture, or stop debate, in order to bring the defense legislation to the floor. In the cloture vote, 34 Republicans and Feingold voted “nay.” Cloture requires 60 votes to be successful.

Under the provision in the defense bill, people convicted of a hate crime would be subject to more prison time and penalties than people who commit a crime that falls outside the class of hate crimes.

According to the hate-crimes language in the bill, it “applies to violent acts motivated by actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of a victim.”

Attorney General Eric Holder, in announcing the new guidelines for federal prosecutors, made official a policy he had signaled in March and which he said the Department of Justice had been following since January when President Obama took office.

The three-page guidelines affect prosecutions in 13 states that have legalized the use of medical marijuana, even though federal law prohibits the sale of the drug for therapeutic purposes. The states in which medical marijuana is legal are Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, according to the Drug Policy Alliance Network.

The guidelines mark a switch from that of the previous administration. During the Bush administration, federal agents raided medical marijuana distributors in California, even though that state’s law allowed its distribution and use for such a purpose.

“It will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws on medical marijuana, but we will not tolerate drug traffickers who hide behind claims of compliance with state laws to mask activities that are clearly illegal,” Holder said in a written statement Oct. 19. He called the new policy a “sensible approach” in which the department will “effectively focus our resources on serious drug traffickers while taking into account state and local laws.”

Rep. Lamar Smith, R.-Texas, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, criticized Holder’s decision, saying it undermined the enforcement of federal anti-drug laws.

The Obama administration “is tacitly condoning the use of marijuana in the U.S.,” Smith said in a written release.

“[W]e cannot hope to eradicate the drug trade if we do not first address the cash cow for most drug trafficking organizations — marijuana,” he said.

Supporters of decriminalizing marijuana found hope in the action by the Department of Justice. Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said on his organization’s weblog it was “a MAJOR victory for citizens who support” marijuana law reform.

In March, a Southern Baptist public policy specialist responded to Holder’s indication of a reversal of the Bush approach by saying the policy shift “is not the kind of change America needs.”

Barrett Duke, vice president for public policy of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said the Obama administration’s decision “to surrender to bad state policies on so-called medicinal marijuana will have disastrous effects. Medicinal marijuana is the Trojan horse of the marijuana decriminalization movement.”

Marijuana has not been shown to be especially helpful in relieving pain, Duke said. Its greater medicinal use likely will lead to increased usage by young people, potential legalization for recreational purposes and widespread drug-related problems, he said.