Category Ethics | Hannah Ihms

February 14, 2015 by Hannah

How Do You Live for God?

My cousin Carrie Otte recently wrote this essay. I was so blessed by it I wanted to share it with you. It’s not every day that you meet a high schooler with this much wisdom!

There are two ways to live your life: God’s way or the world’s way. In the book Pilgrim’s Progress, Christian had to make the important decision of starting his pilgrimage to the Celestial City. Just as he did, we will also have to make the life-changing decision of either living for God or living for the world. Can you live in the world and not be of the world? Let’s search the evidence and see which path you should choose.

The path of living for the world will try to draw people, young and old, to vanity in how they should look: what size they should be or what they should wear. The world tries to make people believe that the world has everything they should desire, so they should live without limits while they are here. Young people are brainwashed from TV, radio, magazines, and books. Young people compare themselves to popular people who are what the world considers “perfect,” and if they compare themselves to them and they are different, they think that something is wrong. All that the people of this world care about is their outward appearance. Living for the world will not get you anywhere in life, but will get you stuck in a constant search for superficial perfection.

Living for the world will not get you anywhere in life, but will get you stuck in a constant search for superficial perfection.

The path of living for God is totally different. God wants His followers to spend their time on earth wisely because we do not know the hour that Jesus will return. In the Bible we learn that God focuses on our heart, so we should not try to draw the wrong kind of attention to ourselves. We should want to be noticed for our works for others and not for ourselves. Here is a list of things we can do to learn what God wants of us:

Reading, memorizing, and meditating on God’s Word
Praying, asking God to guide your path each day
Seeking God’s will daily

Attending church and surrounding ourselves with godly people who will encourage us to walk with God will be beneficial for us when we have to make difficult decisions about our faith.

I believe that we can live in this world and not be of this world. Every day we make decisions that will affect our future. Many things we choose are temporary and will pass away, such as a big house, money, cars, etc. We need to put our faith in Jesus Christ because He is the one and only thing that will last forever.

Bibliography

Courtney, Vicki. Five Conversations You Must Have with Your Daughter.
Bunyan, John. The Pilgrim’s Progress.
God, The Bible.

January 22, 2013 by Hannah

Touching the Face of God

On January 22, 2013, the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I gathered with others in the Urbana-Champaign community to commemorate the human lives lost through abortion. In this opportunity to speak at the Community Ecumenical Pro-Life Prayer Vigil, I wanted to share hope. The prolife movement is alive and well because of young people like the ones I met at the University of Illinois.

“In the beginning, God…” (Genesis 1:1)

Why does Scripture open with these words? Because God is the center of reality: “…[I]n Him we live, and move, and have our being…” (Acts 17:28)

During creation, God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness…” So God created man in His own image… male and female He created them. (Genesis 1:26–27)

God stamped His likeness upon us, and shared His divine being with us.

Because He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life… the man became a living being.”

This is at the heart of the prolife movement. A person is alive and is human because he is made in the image of God. Humanity has nothing to do with age, ability to learn, or net worth.

The future of the prolife movement is bound up in our ability to communicate this to others.

And to speak to this generation, we need to know where it’s at.

When I was on campus, I invited medical students to attend a screening of the film Maafa 21. I sent this question out to the med school listserv: “What is the leading cause of death among African-Americans?” I listed several options to choose from: heart disease, cancer, stroke, or abortion.

The answer is abortion.

I thought that the students would challenge the fact that I would group abortion with the other causes of death, and say that a fetus isn’t really alive, or human.

The email sparked a lot of debate, but no one questioned the fact that unborn children are humans. They took exception to the fact that some children should be born.

One student wrote, “By ‘Planned Parenthood’s aggressive agenda against minorities’ do you mean showering them with condoms and birth control pills?”

Another student said, “Yes, black women have the highest rate of abortion in this country. But it is also true that hispanics and blacks are also much more likely to be below the poverty line…”

She continued, saying: “I grew up in DC, a city where minorities are the majority. I volunteered at planned parenthood, where primarily black nurses and black doctors cared for primarily black women. This is an opinion–but I don’t think they were trying to kill off their race. I think they were trying to provide sexual health care to a population that desperately needed it.”

It’s logical that this young woman would say this, because it’s what she’s very likely been taught throughout her life. The anti-life side has been much more shrewd about instituting “sex-ed” programs to convey their viewpoint and our educational establishment is dominated by worldviews such as secular humanism. They know how influential peers can be, which is why here in Champaign
Planned Parenthood has a program of “Peer educators”: highschoolers trained to convince other highschoolers of how great Planned Parenthood is.

Is it any wonder that so many students believe what they are taught?

I quickly found how unpopular my viewpoint was. Of the emails that came through, only one other student spoke up in support of the unborn.

But that student gave me so much hope.

Meg

The fact that a medical student from here at the U of I was a passionate spokesperson for the unborn made me rejoice. Meg helped restart the Christian Medical Association chapter on this campus. Today she unashamedly speaks about the sanctity of life and takes a public stand against Obamacare.

Even though there is intense pressure to conform on the issue of abortion, I have hope for my generation because I have met valiant prolife advocates all over this campus.

Students like Meg carry the image of our Heavenly Father wherever they go.

You’ve heard about some of the incredibly passionate prolife young people who are active on a national scale—people like Lila Rose with Live Action and James O’Keefe with the Veritas Project. But I want to take a few minutes and share with you what I’ve seen right here on our campus.

Jane

There are currently 1061 Registered Student Organizations here at the University of Illinois. Very few tackle the issue of abortion, but one that does is Illini Collegians for Life, a group affiliated with Students for Life of Illinois.

I got to know a student named Jane at Quad Day, when many of the thousand organizations try to reach new students. Our Illini Collegians for Life booth was directly next to a pro-abortion group. They were loudly promoting their “safe sex” freebies, and it was super uncomfortable being right next to them!

One especially vocal young woman decided to leave her booth and come over to ours. She pointed to some of the literature on our table and loudly proclaimed she didn’t believe fetuses looked like that. Jane didn’t shout back. She just calmly showed her a brochure on fetal development with actual photos of babies as they grew.

The change in the woman was phenomenal. She’d come over to our table to start a shouting match, but Jane’s gentleness was something she couldn’t fight with.

Chris

College can be an intense time of change, and many students are won over by the Leftist climate. A student named Chris actually went in the opposite direction. Chris came to the U of I believing that abortion was acceptable, but by doing independent reading and thinking, he realized he was on the wrong side.

He became ardently prolife. He testified before the Illinois Student Senate on prolife resolutions and during one 40 Days for Life campaign here in Champaign, he signed up to go to the clinic every day.

John-Paul

I’m sure that many of you have heard about or know John-Paul. He was active on campus while he was studying engineering at the U of I, and when he graduated he founded Students for Life of Illinois. He is intensely active in lobbying for prolife legislation, providing resources for prolife campus groups across the state, and organizing statewide events to make abortion unthinkable. Like John-Paul says, life is good.

He taught me an incredible amount about what it means to be prolife. He taught me that abortion affects people of all ages. The babies aborted in 1973 would be celebrating their 40th birthday this year if they had lived. So I’ve lost teachers because of abortion. The babies aborted in 1983 would be turning 30 this year. So I’ve lost classmates to abortion. The children who would have been born in 1993 would be hitting 20 this year. I’ve lost students to abortion.

But during these 40 years under Roe v. Wade, many prolife young people have also been born.

Jerry

Young people like Jerry. Jerry is extremely prolife and extremely political. He worked with Living Alternatives locally so they could provide free pregnancy tests inside the Student Union.

He also campaigned hard for prolife candidates. You need someone to go door to door? Ask Jerry. You need to know how prolife a candidate is? Ask Jerry. His enthusiasm is so infectious I think it’s something viral. And his willingness to jump into challenging situations is legendary.

There’s definitely times when you shouldn’t go into battle alone.

Another Student

Each year the University sponsors an event called “Sex Out Loud.” I avoided it like the plague, until one year when I was invited to help with a booth. The booth was sponsored by a Newman group highlighting chastity and emphasizing the Theology of the Body. The event was held in the Illini Union, and was surprisingly poorly attended. Most of the people were the ones working for groups offering stuff like anonymous sex. Some poor students were required by their professors to go to every booth and get a signature proving they’d been there. Our booth was the only one offering anything besides “if it feels good, do it.” But that was our drawing point. We were so different we stuck out like a sore thumb!

People came up wondering what in the world we were about. The student I was working with quoted from a movie where Cameron Diaz tells Tom Cruise, “Don’t you know that when you sleep with someone, your body makes a promise whether you do or not!” He was able to ask students thoughtprovoking questions that challenged what society considers “normal.”

Folks from every booth were also given the chance to speak to the entire gathering. This other student did that, giving a concise description of God’s plan for sexuality.

Diana

Another student I met and got to know well was Diana. Diana obtained her Ph.D. here at the university, and is pursing a career in academia. Her mother worried that if she betrayed her prolife sympathies at this early stage, it might hurt her chances.

But what Diana decided was that to hold back when she would speak would change who she was. And she wasn’t willing to be silent when she would speak. She was one of a handful of students that testified before the Illinois Student Senate when they were considering options to diversify their healthcare options. She eloquently pointed out that many gynecological needs are not covered by the student health insurance plan because only a very few students ever need them.

This was only one way that she lived out her prolife beliefs. Her research focus was influenced by her beliefs about human embryonic stem cell research.

Stephanie

Diana is not the only young woman who’s broken out of the world’s mold for women. Because of the media attention given to women such as Sandra Fluke, it’s easy to think that all single women in school are die-hard abortion fans. But they’re not. Even though it can be intimidating to voice an opposing viewpoint, one of my friends, Stephanie, wrote a class assignment on Feminists for Life. This group advocates for a new definition of feminism, a feminism that values women that are born and those that are unborn.

These are just some of the students I have met here on the U of I campus. There’s many others, too, like:

Mike

Mike, who organized busfulls of students from several campuses to attend March for Life, and

Lazaro

Lazaro, who set up a prolife flash mob on the Quad.

The reason I have hope is because I know students from this campus who recognize the deep definition of dignity, which stems from our Creator God.

Their lives bear His image—the likeness of God.

August 8, 2012 by Hannah

A Threat Isn’t a Guarantee

The following article was originally published by Illinois Review.

“[T]o the organizer, compromise is a key and beautiful word… If you start with nothing, demand 100 per cent, then compromise for 30 per cent, you’re 30 per cent ahead.” That’s Saul Alinsky’s advice in Rules for Radicals.

Unfortunately for Leftists, sometimes when you start with nothing and demand everything, you end up with nothing. That’s what happened when the student chapter of the ACLU and other organizations tried to kick Chick-fil-A off of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign campus.

The first public sign that something was afoot was two articles published on February 10, 2011 in the Daily Illini, the dominant campus newspaper. In one article, a student opinion columnist roasted Chick-fil-A as a whole because a Pennsylvania Chick-fil-A franchise donated chicken to the Pennsylvania Family Institute: “I’m not a fan of sleeping with the enemy (or feeding the enemy), and that’s what Chick-fil-A virtually did. Just because you’re not Hitler doesn’t make it OK to supply ammo to the Germans.” She went on to call for a boycott and the removal of the campus Chick-fil-A: “We sometimes forget it, but our voice is pretty strong, and if we protest hard enough, we have the power to get certain food chains we find displeasing out of the Union.”

The second article showed a small metal crucifix embedded in a Chick-fil-A sandwich and stated, “University students may be biting into more than they can chew.” It gave no details on the infamous Philadelphia exchange, simply saying, “Chick-fil-A, an original Southern restaurant and fast food chain, has been openly criticized for its transparent Christian values and conservative religious ideals.” The leap in logic was that Christian values suppressed LGBT rights, though this was never explicitly stated. Two students quoted in the article not only supported a boycott of the campus Chick-fil-A, but called for it to be banned.

A week later action on the issue was reported in a third article, which featured a photo of the campus Chick-fil-A’s “Closed on Sundays” sign. Representatives from the student ACLU chapter and OUTlaw (a campus organization formed by LGBT law students) had written a letter against Chick-fil-A to the University President and Interim Chancellor. Interestingly, two students invited to comment on the developments did not lend personal support for Chick-fil-A, but affirmed a business’s right to do what it pleased: “The University isn’t forcing us to buy Chick-fil-A. They aren’t forcing us to eat Chick-fil-A.” A member of Building Bridges, a religious LGBT group said, “I don’t think that it is necessary to try and go close it down as some of the universities have tried to do and some movements on campus are doing,”

Thus, while campus activists pulled off the gloves, they didn’t necessarily have the support of the bulk of campus.

Four days later the Daily Illini editorial board weighed in, saying “Many companies make political and social donations, and if your convictions lead you to take your business away from a company – including Chick-fil-A – that is completely within your rights. But banishing the restaurant from campus based on its adherence to religious convictions would be true discrimination.”

While the students quoted by Daily Illini articles were either dead-set on removing Chick-fil-A from campus, or viewed Chick-fil-A as entitled to distasteful actions, a steady current of pro-Chick-fil-A sentiment ran through the campus news outlet’s comments section. The newspaper did not print any pro-Chick-fil-A Letters-to-the-Editor (though not for lack of trying), but at least in the comments sections students could share their thoughts, such as: “Since when is having ‘traditional Christian values’ a crime?” and “Don’t you believe in diversity of viewpoint and belief?” Two Facebook pages cropped up in support of the campus Chick-fil-A.

Beyond drumming up support among registered student organizations and writing letters to campus administrators, the next key step was to pass an anti-Chick-fil-A resolution in the student-run Illinois Student Senate. This organization has elected representatives of each college in the University. While its resolutions are not formally binding, they offer significant weight for campus activists who can use the ISS’s decision to advance their goals.

When the vote was moved back a week, the president of the campus ACLU wrote in to the campus newspaper. He affirmed Chick-fil-A’s right to donate where it wanted, but called students to protest it by boycotting and taking action to remove Chick-fil-A from campus. He said, “This is not an attenuated, symbolic movement by GLBT groups. This is about taking a pragmatic look at the causes of anti-gay oppression and attempting to directly address those causes. This is saying that we are against University space being used to facilitate the filtering of funds from students to groups that wish harm upon members of our campus community.”

His views, though passionately expressed, did not reflect the views of the campus as a whole. Ultimately, after heated debate, the Illinois Student Senate voted against the resolution.

Interestingly, the failure didn’t even get a headline: the decision was buried in the middle of another article. It deserves a headline, however. It shows what can happen when political activists put political correctness above others’ rights. They can be defeated.

This is important to remember as we consider what’s happening with Chick-fil-A now. As Mayor Emanuel and Alderman Moreno try to set aside Chick-fil-A-free zones, Equality Illinois has set its sights even higher. The largest LGBT organization in Illinois has called for all 19 Illinois Chick-fil-As to be removed.

For students who will be on campuses with Chick-fil-A this fall, prepare now. Bring up the issue with your campus representatives. Get involved in your campus newspaper, or start your own. Your circulation may not rival the established campus outlets, but you can give a place for people to openly voice their views. Start a petition showing your support of Chick-fil-A. Talk to your friends, so they know what’s happening. And keep in mind that even the Illinois ACLU supported the Chick-fil-A CEO’s freedom of speech!

There will be mixed feelings about Chick-fil-A. And there must be freedom to criticize or applaud this company accordingly. For now, that freedom is alive and well at the University of Illinois. Just this summer, one student publicly expressed his displeasure with the campus restaurant, and others started a Boycott Chick-fil-A UIUC Facebook page, but others made a special effort to show their support there on Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day and support a Keep Chick-fil-A at UIUC Facebook page.

If activists try to close down your Chick-fil-A, remember that the Left is making it up as they go along, and wanting something isn’t the same as getting it. A threat carries no guarantee of inevitability.

in Ethics / Politics 0 comments

July 26, 2012 by Hannah

Planned Parenthood’s War on Women

This article was originally published by Illinois Review.

There’s a two-tier system of abortions in the U.S.: those for the haves, and those for the have-nots. President Obama may fundraise for Planned Parenthood, but he’d never send his daughters there. Who would, if they could send them anywhere else?

The Left’s public enthusiasm for Sanger’s brainchild plasters splashy wallpaper on prison walls and plants a smiley face on an urn.

Planned Parenthood is corrupt to the core. Just look at their marketing. The more sexually active the population, the more Planned Parenthood stands to profit. Expecting Planned Parenthood to give abstinence information is like waiting for McDonald’s to hand out dieting advice. It may talk about “safe sex,” but not even “protected sex” halts the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. No matter. This isn’t about health; it’s about sales. If people want birth control, Planned Parenthood can sell it to them. When the birth control fails, they can sell them an abortion. And, while Planned Parenthood promotes equal opportunity sexual activity (females with females, males with males) we can’t neglect females-with-males, because that’s what keeps the abortion stream going.

It gets worse. The standard of care is that if a patient is going to undergo a procedure, they should give informed consent. This implies two things: that the patient has been adequately informed of the risks and benefits of the procedure, and that they are freely choosing to carry out the procedure. Planned Parenthood can market to the desperate mother who feels she must have an abortion at any cost, or the mother who needs convincing.

Former Planned Parenthood staff have confessed the levels of manipulation they have used to convince a woman to abort. Even when this line isn’t crossed, there’s still a highly emotional decision happening, with possible pressure from family, friends, husband, boyfriend, or pimp. But if you have been sexually exploited or emotionally manipulated, don’t expect Planned Parenthood to help you. As Live Action has abundantly demonstrated, implausible deniability even in cases as clear-cut as sex trafficking is alive and well at Planned Parenthood.

Adequate information is another fiction. While claiming “We’re here to give you the medically-accurate information you need to decide what is best for you,” Planned Parenthood misrepresents the inherent risk involved in having an abortion. Their website states, “Abortion is legal in the U.S. and is one of medicine’s safest procedures.”

Given the fact that many medical procedures are no more than skin deep, such as removing a mole, it’s surprising that the organization would make such a bald-faced claim. But then, those kinds are less likely to be suspected. No supporting information is given to support this claim, and the probability of various complications from abortion is not presented. One key risk factor that gets inadequate treatment is late-term abortions. All of the women and girls presented in Planned Parenthood’s featured tutorial video on in-clinic abortions are 14 weeks or less pregnant, and none has even an inkling of a baby bump.

While 88% of abortions are done within the first trimester of a child’s life, Planned Parenthood provides abortions through the third trimester. It makes sense to have one tutorial directed toward women at an earlier stage of pregnancy, but where is the tutorial for women further along? Toward the end of the video, the calm, measured voice of the narrator promises that Planned Parenthood will provide referrals for women who experience complications from their abortion.

Elsewhere, it’s claimed that abortions through 20 weeks are 11 times safer than childbirth, but that after that abortion and natural childbirth have equal risk. Again, no evidence is given to substantiate this claim. Instead of bracing for serious complications, wouldn’t it be better if women were told there are viable options beyond abortion?

The results of a procedure depend not only on the inherent risk, but also on the skill of the individual physician. The average rate of mishap for a certain procedure may be very low, but with a careless physician it will be very high. But a Planned Parenthood patient shouldn’t expect to know anything about their abortionist before they show up. If she was going to a doctor or a dentist for the first time, she could look up their name, specialty, and most likely even their picture online. Not with Planned Parenthood. The Illinois Planned Parenthood website assures potential clients:

“For nearly 90 years Planned Parenthood of Illinois (PPIL) has been Illinois’ most trusted provider of reproductive health care. Our skilled health care professionals in the Chicago area and central Illinois work to ensure that each woman receives personal, sensitive and confidential care in a professional setting. All of our physicians are board certified or board eligible in Obstetrics and Gynecology or board certified in Family Medicine.”

It declines to list anything more than this, so it’s impossible for a first-time visitor to research their physician by name. Clients put their lives into the hands of a complete stranger. If abortionists were gifted physicians, wouldn’t they be proud to list their credentials publicly?

Placing clinics in low-income neighborhoods increases Planned Parenthood’s access to minorities, but it also removes accountability and ready access to emergency personnel and resources. Of course, even great physicians sometimes make mistakes, which is why hospitals regularly hold Morbidity & Mortality conferences. It’s here that the medical staff discusses cases that went wrong so that the core issues can be identified and mended.

For abortionists running solo practices, who provides this level of accountability? Are they ever questioned by their medical peers on their techniques, or botches? The ghastly findings in Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s abortion practice in Philadelphia last year spurred nine abortion clinic inspections in Illinois. Some hadn’t been inspected for over 15 years, and two were closed because of what was found. The inspections stopped short of any Planned Parenthood clinics, however, because these clinics are not licensed or inspected due to their similarity to doctor’s offices. This includes the clinic where Tonya Reaves was treated.

Tonya Reaves Planned ParenthoodIf the Planned Parenthood clinics had been adequately monitored, might Tonya Reaves be alive today? How many abortion clinics have emergency plans? Who vets the skill levels of physicians applying for jobs? Is the convenient location of clinics enough justification for their isolation from trauma units?

If Planned Parenthood of Illinois had fully informed Tonya Reaves of the risks she faced in her second-trimester abortion, would she have continued with her decision? It’s a question we will never know. But each woman should be given a fully informed choice. When it comes to abortion, it’s not just a woman’s body that’s at stake: it can be her life.

in Ethics / Health / Law 0 comments

July 24, 2012 by Hannah

The Root of Law

The following article was originally published by Illinois Review.

When a small band of American colonists took on the world superpower of their day, they didn’t speak from a position of military superiority. They also didn’t cite a Rasmussen poll or make an emotional appeal. They presented the facts: King George III’s actions assaulted God’s laws.

Their actions weren’t based on a moral majority; they were based on a moral authority. This appeal to a higher law is not to be underestimated. The Founders were deeply motivated by a Judeo-Christian worldview which showed that the unchanging God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was the definition of all that was good, and that He had revealed absolute truth by embedding it in each person’s soul, and providing a written, unchanging account of His Word. The Founders freely acknowledged the role that Judeo-Christianity played in the framing of this new nation’s laws. As John Adams said, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” James Wilson, U.S. Supreme Court Justice and signer of the Constitution, said, “Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine… Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other.”

According to Judeo-Christianity, each person has inherent worth because he is created in God’s image. But because man is fallen, he is not perfectible in this life. God is the ultimate authority, and no man is “above the law.” Anyone’s actions can be weighed against the ideal that God provided. The Founders established a system where all laws were compared to the Constitution, and, ultimately, to the absolute law of God. Americans could pursue a “more perfect” union by studying the ideal God provided for their nature and human systems and work to more closely approach the ideal. The Founders’ understanding of this and their first-hand experience with a tyrant allowed them to build a system that affirmed personal freedom and provided a limited government with separated powers. They gave us something they had not inherited from the Crown: a Constitution.

The words of our Declaration and Constitution were not intended to molder behind glass; they were intended to be read and understood by every American citizen. They can stand up to detailed legal scrutiny, but they can also be grasped by someone who wants to understand the Founders’ original intent. Interpreting the Constitution isn’t a privilege reserved for nine men in black robes; it’s something each of us should do. How else can the policeman, soldier, judge, or President’s oath to uphold the Constitution have any meaning? How can any of us obey a law we don’t understand?

The genius of the Founders’ system is evident, even as we see it crumbling through misuse. A person did not have to be a Jew or a Christian to survive and thrive in America, but he did need to respect the principles that governed the nation’s founding: principles such as the equality of all people before the law, the right to own private property, and the requirement for multiple witnesses to testify in criminal proceedings.

Law was not arbitrary, but purposeful. Laws could be found to be good or bad based on how they compared to the highest law of the land, and the Law of God. Even after many of our leaders ceased to be personally guided by Judeo-Christianity, a latent memory of this worldview maintained the original design of our nation.

All that is changing. Clay and iron are being mixed, and the amalgam is brittle. Various worldviews overlap to a point, but some of their core properties are completely incompatible. One must gain the ascendancy. A battle of worldviews is taking place in America, and it’s unclear which will dominate. Six of the major players are Biblical Judeo-Christianity, Secular Humanism (“liberalism”), Marxism-Leninism (“Leftism”), Cosmic Humanism (“New Age”), Postmodernism, and Islam.

All offer very different approaches to ethics, history, law, theology, and other aspects of a worldview. If Judeo-Christianity offers a bounded sandbox for statecraft, Marxism-Leninism stokes animosities between sandcarriers and sandcrafters, Islam demands a pre-fab home, and Postmodernism questions the existence of sand. Since many of the worldviews deny the very existence of God, they lift up man to the throne of absolute judgment. They see truth not as a fixed ideal, but as an evolving mass, which the more ambitious seek to shape. All have different answers to the question “What is the basic nature of man?” which is why they differ so completely on questions such as the ethics of taxation and redistribution, union lobbies, abortion, and homosexuality. Many worldviews do not see the Constitution as a guide to understand ultimate reality or a protective barrier that applies the truth discovered in a triumph over tyranny, but shackles on human development.

Several key battlegrounds between the worldviews are the education, culture, and politics. The trend in these institutions is not for a person to critically evaluate ideas on their merits, but to find the consensus and conform to it. Our educational system could be a location for the free interchange of ideas, but more often it radically transforms a person’s worldview by making full use of authority structures. The process that began inside the classroom can continue outside, if a person does not critically evaluate the messages of worldviews blazing to them through films, celebrities, and the news feed. Finally, as Sharia Law’s codified dhimmitude so eloquently demonstrates, a person does not have to convert to be manipulated and subjugated. A worldview can dominate others by occupying positions of power, even if its adherents are in the minority. Because the laws of our nation reflect our lawmakers, as the elected officials go, so goes the nation.

If we are to reclaim our nation, we must do what our Founders did. We must compare our laws and our leaders to the ultimate standard, draw our own conclusions, and take action. This country is too precious to surrender.

in Ethics / History / Politics 0 comments

July 19, 2012 by Hannah

Inside Mike Madigan’s 22nd District Voting Machine

The following article was originally published by Illinois Review.

What’s inside Mike Madigan Democratic Party Voting Machine? I met some cogs and found some loose washers when I pollwatched in his district during this year’s Illinois primary.

140 of us volunteered in a Team 200 Project sponsored by the Illinois Election Integrity Initiative, John Reeves, and the Republican Renaissance PAC. Our goal was to ensure ballot integrity by watching the election process. As Carol Davis from the Illinois Election Integrity Initiative points out, “[I]f our vote doesn’t have integrity behind it, then what do we have in this country? That is the fountainhead from which everything else springs.”

Anyone can pollwatch if they’re registered to vote, have proper credentials, and want to sit tight for 13 hours. But it’s nice to have some idea of what you’re doing before you show up. We were trained and equipped the night before the election. One extremely helpful resource was the Chicago Judge of Election Handbook. We were encouraged to make sure the ballot scanner was zeroed, keep a vote tally throughout the day, bring home a copy of the vote tally printed at the end of the day, and as much as possible ensure that proper procedures were followed in the precinct. I couldn’t touch anything, but I could sit within eye and earshot, and ask questions.

Another useful document in this process was a list prepared by Team 200 organizers. It listed the registered voters in my precinct, and showed their age, sex, address, whether their voting status was “active” or “inactive,” and whether they were alive or dead. It turns out that there’s some delay in removing a person’s name from the registration list. If the state has a compelling reason to think the voter’s name should be removed (i.e. they moved or died), they deem them “inactive.”

If a person has been labeled “inactive,” but shows up to vote, they should be challenged by an election judge to prove their identity by showing a picture ID and answering a question about personal information such as date of birth or Social Security Number. If they cannot establish their identity, they should be issued a provisional ballot. A provisional ballot allows a person to vote, but its results aren’t added to the official tally unless the voter’s case is proved.

The final piece of information showed whether by government records each person was deceased. It was an important point: five of the people in my precinct were deceased, yet active–at least when it came to voting. My zombies didn’t show up. But then it was only the primary.

As each voter came into the room, they were asked “Republican or Democrat?” That information was first recorded on the call list of the Democrat precinct captain who checked in periodically. Blue, if the person voted Democrat, red if he voted Republican. No identification of any kind was required, beyond their signature. They were asked to sign a sheet of paper, and their signature could be compared to the signature on file in the voter registration files. From what I could see, the judges did not compare the two signatures, and no election judge challenged any voters based on their signature throughout the day.

You’d like to think that there’s at least a system of checks-and-balances, but not enough Republicans volunteer to be election judges in Chicago, so there’s some “Republican-for-a-day” activity going on. One guy who voted in my precinct voted Democrat–while wearing a “Republican Election Judge” sticker.

Election judges were also very unfamiliar with how to handle routine election practices: even though I challenged two inactive voters to the election judges, one was not asked to supply any additional information, and the second showed a picture ID but was not asked to provide any other information. Both were not issued provisional ballots, but allowed to vote with regular ballots. Chicago’s Board of Election website shows pride in the fact that over 4,000 high school and college students served as student election judges during the 2008 and 2010 elections, but I saw how student judges could easily be intimidated by seasoned political operatives.

Three of the judges in my precinct were student judges. At one point, I had slipped out to use the restroom, and when I came back into the room, the precinct captain was closely questioning the head student judge. When he asked her how things had been going, she mentioned that someone had tried to vote whose name wasn’t on the list. He asked, “But you let her vote, right?” She saw me coming up and didn’t answer the question. But you could tell she was pretty upset.

Many people that voted in the precinct where I was working showed their ID because they thought they should and were mildly surprised or even shocked when they found out they didn’t need to. I could quickly see why the confusion went on, however. Some voters who showed their IDs weren’t told that it wasn’t necessary, and thus will continue in their delusion through at least the next election cycle.

One man, when told he didn’t need to show his ID, held it higher and said solemnly it was a matter of principle. Another man came in very upset because he couldn’t find his voter ID and he was worried someone had taken it. The election judges couldn’t understand his concern: he didn’t need it, after all.

A slow but steady stream of Democrats came through all day, with a few Republicans sprinkled in. Throughout the day, the local precinct captain was back to take down the names of those who had not yet made an appearance so he could call them in. It was easy to keep track, because an election judge was marking it off for him.

While most of the hours had been relaxed, as closing time came on, the tension increased exponentially. The election judge overseeing the process was a young college student, and was unsure of what needed to happen to close the polling place. The votes from the paper and electronic ballots were collated, one tape printed the final vote tally for the precinct, but before another one could be printed, the polling place administrator accidentally turned off machine printing the tapes. Panic ensued and the election judge called the Election Board, but their instructions were to bring all the equipment to the main office—nothing more could be done at the precinct itself. Even though I couldn’t take a copy of the tape (which all pollwatchers can request), I did compare my vote tally to that listed on the tape. They were the same.

Here is what several other pollwatchers experienced during their time in the district that day:

One polling place was using the wrong ballot, and electioneering was happeningless than 100 feet from the door. After everything was said and done, leaders in this initiative gathered to discuss the outcome:

From what we could see, voter turnout was a competition among precinct captains. It lead one precinct captain to absurd heights: his precinct’s polling place was installed in his own basement, and he placed an eye-catching, two-story-tall inflatable eagle in his front yard. In case this wasn’t enough, he donned an Uncle Sam outfit to welcome voters.

Much of what I saw firsthand and heard about from the Team 200 recap boiled down to marketing or cluelessness. But the Chicago election process is a world of opportunity for those who only care about the final number tally. Plus, we saw the machine on a slow day. I hate to see what happens when it chugs up to full speed.

in Ethics / Politics 0 comments

June 28, 2012 by Hannah

Kinzinger Plans to Fight Government Takeover of Health Care

The following article was originally published by Illinois Review.

Shortly after the Supreme Court released its decision on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Representative Adam Kinzinger (IL-11) weighed in on the ruling making a formal statement and then answered questions from Washington DC via a phone press conference call. Mr. Kinzinger further explained his thoughts on Obamacare to reporters from various media agencies:

Wanda Rohl this morning said, “The government already makes people buy auto insurance. The government already makes people do other things, and we are already paying for the uninsured anyway, so she’d rather have everybody covered. Could you respond to that?”

Kinzinger: “I think Wanda’s made it clear that she believes that there’s a huge role for basically a full government takeover of healthcare. It’s an area where we fundamentally disagree. State government—and keep in mind it is state—can make people buy car insurance, but they can’t force people to drive. You don’t have to have a license to simply exist as a person. In this case, it looks like the Supreme Court agreed that the Federal government does not have the power to do that. However, again, [Obamacare proponents] went and said, ‘This is actually a tax increase and the Federal government does have a right to tax.’

“So, from that perspective, this is a tax increase on the American people and it is not saying that the federal government has a right to make people buy something simply for existing.”

What is the next step?

Kinzinger: “The reality is, the Supreme Court says the healthcare law can survive today, but I think the healthcare law ends on November 6th when Obama is not reelected. We’re going to vote to repeal this once again. We’ve already voted many, many times to repeal this law, and just because the Supreme Court upheld it today doesn’t make it anymore popular. The American people are still very upset. This is the law that’s going to put us deeper into debt and reduce the quality of healthcare that people are getting, and so we are going to continue to fight to repeal this entire bill.”

What will happen if the Republicans don’t get veto-proof majority control of the Senate in November? Won’t we still have this quagmire?

Kinzinger: “That’s the reality, but the fact is, the American people are pretty upset about this law. It’s just like what you saw back when the law passed initially: there were a lot of Democrat defections because they felt the wrath of the American people. I tell you: a lot of people out here in Washington, D. C. are political folks and they understand what public pressure is. I think that if the Senate is going to stand in the way of a repeal of this very unpopular law, some of these more moderate Democrats or these Democrats in tough districts are going to understand that the American people are not happy and potentially flip. There’s no doubt that today the news of the Supreme Court’s decision was a blow to the efforts to repeal it, but that’s not going to stop us from fully repealing or making attempts to fully repeal this law.”

Is this going to be primarily what the election is about as we head into November? Do you think other issues are going to be droned out now?

KInzinger: “No, I think the election is always about unemployment, about the terrible economy we’re in, the fact that the President, when he was elected, said, ‘If I don’t turn this economy around, it’ll be a one-term proposition.’ I think that’s going to be number one. The American people are hurting. They want jobs. They want a president that actually understands that and tries to lead. Is this going to be one of the top issues? Yes, it will be. Healthcare will now be one of the top issues discussed. The number one issue is still going to be the fact that too many of our neighbors do not have the opportunity to go out and get jobs, and it’s going be a referendum, partially, on the fact that the President has not lead the American people and still refuses to lead on that issue.”

What would the Republicans replace the Obama healthcare bill with?

Kinzinger: “Well, as I mentioned in my statement, there’s a lot of it, including allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines. Portability for health insurance: you shouldn’t have to lose your health insurance when you switch jobs. That actually stems from back in the day when somebody would work for the same corporation for twenty years. Now, if you leave a company, you should be able to take your insurance plan with you. We need tort reforms, so doctors don’t have to spend [money] on unnecessary tests to practice defensively; they can practice the best for that doctor-patient relationship.

“Allowing small businesses to band together with the buying power of big businesses to dilute the pre-existing conditions that may have somebody have to pay way too much money. There’s a lot of potential things that we can do to replace this law. The fact is, we’ve got to bring the cost of healthcare down, and then we’ve got to figure out how to fully cover everybody through lower costs. But you can’t do that with just the government takeover of healthcare like we see here, and with writing a big, blank government check when the government’s out of money.”

in Ethics / Politics 0 comments

June 26, 2012 by Hannah

Illinois Review Interviews State Senate Candidate John Bambenek

The following article was originally published by Illinois Review.

Illinois Review recently interviewed John Bambenek, a conservative Republican candidate running for the 52nd State Senate district which stretches from Champaign to Danville.

Where did you grow up and what do you do for a living?

I grew up in the Chicago suburbs, in Oak Grove. I moved to the University of Illinois for college and that’s where I met my wife and never left. I’ve been in Champaign for seventeen years. Professionally I do electronic fraud prevention, so essentially I deal with Russian hackers trying to steal your credit card and bank account information.

How did you decide to run for State Senate?

I’ve been active in politics for a while, most actively since I’ve had children and seen the direction of the state in terms of its ever-increasing tax burden, debt burden, and the amount of jobs and opportunities leaving the state. I’m much more conscious as to what kind of future my children will have. With this status quo, they won’t have the kind of opportunities I’ve had, and as a father that’s not really acceptable to me. The way to change that is to change the people who are there.

Speaking of economic opportunities, I’m thinking of the number of graduates coming out from the Urbana-Champaign campus in your district. How would having you as a State Senator affect the students from that campus?

I think it would provide them the opportunities to, when they graduate, find jobs in Illinois. Right now, an overwhelming majority of U of I graduates end up in other states with their first jobs. And increasingly we see recent graduates, a higher percentage than at least in recent history, unable to find their first job after graduation. Sometimes it takes upwards of two or three years to get their first opportunity after getting a degree. All of the time the student loans are pending repayment. So first and foremost is economic opportunity.

But the state currently owes the University of Illinois about $400 million. The only reason that that is so–the only reason–is because legislators have spent more money than we’ve had. The state obviously can’t print money, so what they’ve done is delay bills. [It’s telling agencies]: “Well, the state’s out of money this fiscal year. We’re going to have to pay you in next fiscal year–and you can expect a five-month delay.”

That’s just a basic failure in budgeting, by spending more money than we have. That pressure has increased tuition fees, it’s created various problems with University employment, and I think just getting that under control will alleviate a large amount of financial pressure on the University of Illinois. At least they can be confident that the number they are budgeted is actually the number they’re going to get. And nobody has that confidence today.

On your website you talk about reducing the corruption and dysfunction in Springfield. This definitely sounds like one of the issues you care about. What are some of the other issues you want to see changed?

Obviously, in part, corruption is a fiscal issue. There are various estimates of how much money has been lost due to corruption, whether it was Blagojevich, George Ryan, or corruption that is still ongoing. There is certainly an indication that a lot of state business, how the state contracts services and how people are paid, tends to be more on who you know, so obviously that’s a big issue. The financial issues are what everybody’s focusing on right now. Between the state budget, state debt, and other bills, that feeds into the general jobs climate. Businesses see our pension debt, the continuing growth of Medicaid, the past two bills, and the income tax hike that was passed in the middle of the night last year. They’re wondering what’s next in terms of how they’re going to be hit to pay those bills, based on bad decisions made over the past few years and decades. That lack of economic certainty is the biggest prohibitor of job growth in Illinois. Businesses say, “Well, I can grow jobs here in Indiana,“ because in Indiana they know what the next five years is going to hold for the most part, as much as you can know. With Illinois, every year’s a struggle in terms of “What’s next?”

We need to create a stable economic climate in Illinois so businesses can feel free to invest here, and know what they’re getting into.

Do you think that what just happened in Wisconsin with Scott Walker has broader implications in Illinois as well?

I certainly think so. Obviously, he approached some of the problems they were facing in a particular way and some of the excesses there, and I think the first major indication you’re going to see is that Wisconsin now appears to be in play for the presidential race. A lot of resources were spent in Wisconsin and essentially the election results on election night in 2010 when Scott Walker won were about the same, percentage-wise, as the recall. So nothing really moved in terms of where the voter disposition was in Wisconsin. But I think those are the questions that will be sorted out at the ballot box, in terms of which economic and policy vision the voters in Illinois, the Midwest at large, and the voters nationally want. That’s what this November election is going to come down to.

I just saw one of your recent tweets where you’re talking about 43% of local Illinois governments ignoring Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. This is another example of a choice between visions: is this acceptable or do we need more transparency, not just a promise, but it actually being delivered on. From that tweet, what could be a change on that specific issue?

I think you mentioned it: transparency’s one thing, but the question is accountability, or probably more accurately, enforceability. The FOIA law on the books says the government must disclose acts. Well, what if they don’t? There’s no real penalties or teeth in the law. I’ll give you another example. There’s the Open Meetings Act, where governing bodies need to do their deliberations, policy decisions, and lawmaking in public. That law has criminal sanctions, that if your city council passes a budget, but does it privately and doesn’t let anyone know about it, that’s actually a criminal act and someone can go to jail. Now on the flipside of that, there hasn’t been a prosecution of that since the 70’s, as I understand it, and there’ve certainly been Open Meetings Act violations since then. The question comes as a question of enforceability. To make that be disclosed, you can go to court, spend thousands in legal fees, tell the judge to issue a court order, and that court order comes with sanctions if they don’t comply with the court order. But probably what we need to get to is where these officials who are denying these requests are held personally accountable for frivolous denials. I mean, ignoring FOIA requests is flagrant, and the fact that we have it at that level shows that we really need to put some teeth in this—some enforceability—and that the FOIA reform of two years ago didn’t go far enough.

In the idea of holding someone personally responsible, what are actions that your opponent Mike Frerichs has taken that you think he should be held personally accountable for?

Ultimately, it’s just policy decisions that voters can weigh in on at the ballot box. He was certainly a supporter of the massive income tax increase last year, and he is by-and-large a supporter of almost every tax increase that has ever come before the General Assembly, including the gross receipts tax. A couple of months ago he had a press conference, again calling for a Constitutional Amendment to make it easier to hike taxes. His policy ideas with the budget problems tend to overemphasize tax increases versus spending reductions. So I certainly think that that will be a big issue: his vote on Workers’ Compensation Reform, or I should say his lack of vote on comprehensive workers’ comp. There was a bill in front of the Senate. Essentially, if you get a workers’ comp, you have to prove your injury was actually related to your job. Whereas now, you just have to basically be injured. You can hurt your back doing handstands at a weekend BBQ and essentially you can get a comp claim now. Well, that’s obviously a problem.

He voted present when that bill came to the floor. Well, when you talk to businesses, particularly manufacturers, on why they don’t locate in Illinois, it’s always workers’ compensation costs. So this is a very big, competitive disadvantage because of our system, where you can get a worker’s comp claim and pay, but don’t actually have to prove that your injury had anything to do with your job. Well, common sense would dictate that that’s a problem. He voted present on that, and that I would hold as a failure of leadership. I mean, take a stand on the big issues. Yes or no, we can have a discussion. Voting present is just hiding.

A number of issues like that are related to jobs and taxes, and there’ll be those kinds of policy differentiations.

You’re talking about these competing visions, between taxing and spending more, or making actual cuts. You’re going door-to-door and talking with voters. As you bring up your vision of policy changes, what kind of feedback are you getting?

Well, it’s generally very positive right now. Voters are generally just angry. Usually the first question I get is, “Is this your first time running, or are you there now?” They hear I’m the challenger and then they’re supportive. They’re just angry at everybody because, in fairness, both parties have a share in the blame and that’s how the state’s where it is. We need new leadership that comes with a fresh perspective to say, “No, really, we can’t continue on the path we’re going down.” So with that particular question, sometimes we don’t even get to a policy discussion. They’re like, “You’re not there now? OK, I’ll support you.” But people are aggravated about taxes, and they get aggravated about jobs. They’re looking for somebody that will bring order to the state’s finances, get our debt paid down and paid off, and then cut taxes and do things to bring jobs back to the district and to the state.

Would you say there’s any experience you’ve had in running your own business that will play into how you will work things as a state senator?

I think there’s two things. What anybody’s who’s started a business kind of understands is that there needs to be up-front investment and up-front costs. One of my staff members, for instance, is starting a fitness business and he looked at the states where he could locate it. He ultimately decided on Texas because he could either do it in Illinois or in Texas. If he did it in Texas, he would save $35,000 a year in costs just associated with being in Illinois compared to Texas. Every three years he can start a new studio and create the according level of jobs. Looking at that, that’s a competitive disadvantage with other states. When you start a business you kind of understand you’re competing with other people and you have to have something that they don’t. The reality is, in the modern economic climate we find ourselves in, we are competing with all fifty states, and for that matter, every country in the world for the most part, for jobs and for these businesses. So we can either create a competitive package of all the resources we have, or we can not do that and watch other states win out on these companies, where we lose. And the reality is, Illinois has a lot of natural advantages, which is keeping things from being worse than what they could be. We’re an essential transportation hub for the country; we have a very vibrant transportation industry. We have good soil; we have great agriculture here. We can capitalize on those things, fix our bad policy decisions, and bring jobs back very, very quickly.

What kind of timeframe—saying you were able to address some of these policy changes—what kind of timeframe are you looking at?

Well, to be honest, if I was elected, on day one I’m going to start introducing legislation to accomplish that. There’s really no sense in waiting on some of these issues. We need to fix our budget issues now. We need to fix our backlogged bills now. We need to reduce the tax burden on our working families and small businesses now. As far as I’m concerned, if I was elected, November 6 is Election Day, November 7 I’ll rest, November 8 I’ll start getting to work on crafting those legislative packages to move the ball forward. Now I’m not going to get anything passed on Inauguration Day in January, but introducing legislation is the first step to beginning those discussions, beginning those debates, and trying to move the ball forward.

If folks are interested on hearing more on where you stand on the issues, where can they go?

My website is johnbambenek.com and for any issues that aren’t on the website, just contact us through the contact form.

in Ethics / Politics 0 comments

June 22, 2012 by Hannah

Did the Founding Fathers Care about the Unborn?

The following was originally published on the Howard County Right to Life blog.

On January 22, 2012, community members from across Howard County gathered at the courthouse in Kokomo, Indiana to remember the unborn children claimed by abortion. Mr. Bill Federer, a historian, author, and President of Amerisearch, spoke about the Christian roots of our nation and the God-given mandate to care for all humans.

Mr. Federer began with a look at the changes in America over the last three decades: “I look at the Scriptures: Deuteronomy 28. It says, ‘These are the blessings if a nation hearkens to the voice of the Lord. They will be a lender and not a debtor. And these are the curses if a nation does not hearken to the voice of the Lord: they will be a debtor and a stranger amongst them will rise up and be their ruler.’

“Do you realize in the last thirty years America has gone from the largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation? We are the most in-debt nation in world history. So, ladies and gentlemen, we’re on the judgement side of the page.

“What has happened in the last thirty years? Well, we have aborted millions of children. And the same thing that God told Cain [applies today]: ‘Your brother Abel’s innocent blood cries out from the ground.’ There’s a cry that’s going up to Heaven and I believe that what’s staying the hand of judgement is us: is you and me, here.”

He then looked back at the U.S. during the days of slavery, when we were also under judgement. Abraham Lincoln in his Second Inaugural Address, said:

“Fondly we hope, fervently do we pray that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsmen’s 250 years of unrequited toil should be sunk and every drop of blood drawn by the lash shall be repaid by a drop of blood drawn by the sword, let it be said: The judgements of the Lord are altogether true and righteous.”

As Mr. Federer pointed out, “Here’s Lincoln. He had the audacity to connect the judgement of the war with the sin of slavery. Is anybody going to connect the dots today?”

History provides more than cautionary tales, however. Mr. Federer relates how President Lincoln lead a national day of fasting and praying, and three days later the course of the Civil War was staggeringly altered.

This course is open to us today: “You are here because you’re stirred in your heart to leave your nice, warm home and come here and stand in the cold because there’s something burning on the inside of you: a flame that’s strong that says I’ve got to do something for our country.”

“I was with Alan Keyes last week. We were talking about the Constitution and he explained that the judge that gave the Roe v. Wade decision said if it could ever be proved that the unborn are considered by our Constitution to be citizens, then this decision is void. And Alan Keyes says, ‘I found it. I found where the unborn are mentioned in our Constitution.’

“I said, ‘Wow! Where?'”

“He says, ‘In the Preamble. It says, “To secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, we establish this Constitution.”‘

“Posterity. What’s posterity? Well, those are your descendants that you’ll never meet. Well, if you’re going to care about these descendants that are generations in the future, you’re going to care about the ones that are just one generation in the future. You’re going to care about the ones that are right there in the womb about to be the next generation in the future. You’re going to care about the unborn.

“Our Founders sacrificed their prosperity for their posterity. They pledged their lives and their fortunes and their sacred honor for a generation yet unborn. Today our government is doing the opposite. We’re sacrificing our posterity for prosperity, saddling the unborn with an unpayable debt–besides killing the unborn.

“George Washington, in 1776, stands before his army and he says, “The fate of unborn millions now depends on the courage of this army. We have to resolve therefore to either conquer or die.”

Though the lives of heroes loom large above our mind’s eye, Mr. Federer reminded the crowd assembled that God has placed them here on earth at this time for a reason, and thought forward to the day when our lives are over and we’re listening to the heroes of the Bible tell their life stories.

“One by one, Gideon, the Apostle Paul, and Deborah–all of them [are going to tell their stories]–and then everybody’s going to look at you and say, ‘You: we haven’t heard from you yet! What did you do when it was your turn to be on earth? Tell us what was going on… all the courage and faith you had to stand against injustice and [stand] up for righteousness.’

“Y’know, I don’t want to squirm in my seat and say, ‘Uh, can you call on someone else for a minute and let me think about this?’

“No, I want to say, ‘Let me tell you what they were doing! They were killing babies, they were changing marriage, they were doing everything and I said I’m going to stand up. I don’t know all the stuff they know. I just have my little sling. I’m just going to let the Lord use me.’ Y’know, if anybody’s around when I die, I’ll tell them to put on my gravestone, ‘Not ability, but availability.’ Y’know, you make yourself available and the Lord’ll add the ability. So I look forward to the day that we’re all up there and you get to tell your story and we’ll remember together being here this day.”

For more information about the events at the rally, see this article by Splash!Kokomo. For more of Mr. Federer’s research into the history, see www.americanminute.com.

in Ethics / History / Politics / Sociology / Theology 0 comments

June 21, 2012 by Hannah

The Fallout of Lesbian Motherhood

The following article was originally published by Illinois Review.

One children’s book proclaims, “Heather Has Two Mommies,” but an updated edition could read, “Heather Has Two Mommies, an Increased Chance of Depending on Welfare, Being Forced to Have Sex, and Being Less than 100% Heterosexual.”

This is the legacy of lesbian motherhood as shown in the recent study “How Different are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships?” written by Dr. Mark Regnerus and published in the journal of Social Science Research on June 10.

Dr. Regnerus compiled data from over 3000 American adult children aged 18 to 39 from a variety of households and analyzed 40 major questions. While other studies on heterosexual and homosexual parents have focused on data from children, with parents answering questions, he decided to interview adults because they could speak for themselves.

The summary generated by the Washington Times is shown below:

There are distinct differences in children raised by heterosexual parents and those raised by lesbian mothers. Not only are children of lesbians more likely to grow up dependent on public assistance, they are also more likely to continue this dependence into adulthood and be under- or unemployed. Even more seriously, such children are more likely to be abused sexually and commit adultery as adults.

Not every child raised by lesbians follows the overall pattern, but when it comes to probabilities, the study concludes that “children appear most apt to succeed well as adults—on multiple counts and across a variety of domains—when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father, and especially when the parents remain married to the present day.”

Previous studies have showed either no difference between children raised in homosexual or heterosexual families, or even a benefit to children raised in homosexual families. Dr. Regnerus points out that many earlier studies suffered from small sample sizes and “convenience bias,” with respondents recruited from privileged venues such as lesbian events and women’s bookstores. Dr. Regnerus, by contrast, sampled more people from a wider swathe of the population using a method similar to that of the U.S. Census Bureau.

Organizations such as the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) have been quick to take issue with Dr. Regnerus’s study, claiming that his methods were flawed because he did not account for family transitions and that his conclusions disagree with common knowledge.

The common knowledge truly challenged, however, is the carefully crafted image of a committed pair of homosexuals deciding to bring children into their home. Not every homosexual who decides to adopt is in a committed, long-term relationship. Also, there are variations in how a child comes to a homosexual family. Every monogamous homosexual couple is infertile, but can participate in artificial insemination, surrogacy, or adoption if they decide to add children to their home. These methods are becoming more common in younger homosexual families, but many of today’s adult children of homosexual parents were the products of dissolved heterosexual unions.

In a recent Daily Texan article, a lesbian mother criticizing Dr. Regnerus mentions in passing that her children were the product of a heterosexual marriage, that she had multiple lesbian relationships, and has only been in her current lesbian relationship for three years. For her children and others like them, a family transition was how they joined the family and is thus impossible to exclude from the results.

This study’s findings about children raised by lesbian parents is challenging many established notions and demonstrating the importance of moving beyond the results of a few select families to the broad-based results from average families. In the end, the fundamental question is not over Dr. Regnerus’s methodology, but over the rapidity in which lesbian adoption is being accepted. Homosexual parenting is a new social experiment with broad implications ethically, politically, and economically.

Going forward, parents and policy makers should heed Dr. Regnerus’ concluding words of caution: “Insofar as the share of intact, biological mother/father families continues to shrink in the United States, as it has, this portends growing challenges within families, but also heightened dependence on public health organizations, federal and state public assistance, psychotherapeutic resources, substance use programs, and the criminal justice system.”

in Ethics / Politics 0 comments

March 10, 2011 by Hannah

Prolife, Proactive

This interview was originally published by The Orange and Blue Observer.

Robert Black is a junior here at the U of I, and the new president of the registered student organization Illini Collegians for Life. We here at the OBO recently had the pleasure of talking with Robert about being involved on campus–especially on the prolife issue.

What is the absolutely best thing about the U of I?

The amount of opportunities we have. Faculty and staff allow us to do so much with our four years here.

What are you studying?

I’m studying communications/pre-med.

So you’re planning on going on to med school?

Yes–I’m studying for the MCAT right now; I’ll be taking that in April.

What do you want to do in medicine?

I’m thinking about pediatrics or neonatology, which is especially appropriate for the club I’m now president of (Illini Collegians for Life).

Lately there’s been a lot of buzz on campus about abortion and Planned Parenthood. I know some people first hear about abortion through news coverage. How did you first hear about it?

When I was 7 or so, maybe even 6, I went with my mother and grandmother to a hospital that performed abortions. Of course, it was years later that I fully understood all of what that meant.

What are your views on abortion?

It should be illegal. It’s 100% equivalent to putting a gun to the head of my brother or sister and pulling the trigger. And the thing is, from a federal standpoint, you don’t need to cling to religion or faith to say abortion is wrong. Look at the facts. Despite the [economic or emotional] position a woman is in, it [her unborn child] is a human life. Any scientist who’s worth his lab coat can tell you that from the moment of conception that’s a human life.

What does it mean to be “prolife”?

Being adamantly opposed to abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, and any other infringement on the human being’s right to live. I think a lot of people who call themselves prolife don’t realize that to be prolife means to be proactive in defending these rights.

It doesn’t have to mean picketing, going on March for Life in Washington, D.C., but when it comes up in conversation, [being prolife means] defending it; it doesn’t mean backing down.

It really does cover all aspects: physician-assisted suicide, abortion, early abortion (contraception).

Does abortion really matter on a college campus?

Yeah, of course! I think it really matters everywhere, because it happens everywhere. The sad reality is that we have a Planned Parenthood on our campus. I don’t care what percentage of their business is abortion: they’re targeting young women who are infinitely stressed out. They have school to worry about, work to worry about; they have their whole lives ahead of them.

Here is where we need it most. Other places it matters, and yet here’s where we’re constantly bombarded with what we do with our bodies. We’re told if we want to do it, do it. It’s easy to pull from all this that abortion is OK.

It matters here very, very much, and I think it’s up to myself and others to be active on this. The future of America and the future of academia is here. Our future politicians, teachers, and engineers are all here. It’s a cultural thing, and this is where it all starts, on a college campus.

Does abortion ever come up in your classes or casual conversations? If so, how do other students or your professors view it?

To a certain extent. It came up in a class once. It was Philosophy 214–Introduction to Bioethics; it was on the syllabus. The professor seemed to have a view toward the prolife side, but was very hesitant to present his own view, possibly because of the department he was in, or the students.

It’s very polarizing to a certain extent. We have this false sense of freedom instilled in us: we think her body is hers, which is true, but it’s a unique child inside of her.

As far as casual conversations, I am an RA in Newman, the Catholic dorm on campus. It comes up pretty often. We want to know how to reason through the questions that come up. Practicing being a devil’s advocate really helps solidify my own position. A large majority of them [the other Newman students] are prolife, so we can help each other in this.

How did you decide to get involved in the prolife movement here at the U of I?

Through Newman, I have had many opportunities. John Paul Deddens, the director Students for Life of Illinois–freshman year I got to know him, and my roommate and good friend Mike Hamoy, who coordinated March for Life for the past three years. He was definitely an inspiration for getting involved in ICFL. This year they were looking for people to be officers. I decided to step up to the plate, because it’s something I’ve always held dear.

To a certain extent, being prolife means being proactive. This, to me, is about giving back.

You mentioned Illini Collegians for Life. What is it, and what kinds of things does it do?

We are the prolife group here on campus that coordinates with Students for Life of Illinois. The cornerstone of our work is putting together the March for Life every year. We also help out with Students for Life of Illinois activism days each month, and we do roundtable discussions every week. We’re prolife and we want to learn more and be able to defend it publicly.

We want to do a little bit more of pregnancy resources. Also, we have a couple events coming up: general meetings, speakers, film showings (for example, Blood Money, a documentary on the business aspect of abortion).

How can interested students learn more about this?

Definitely contact myself (illiniforlife@gmail.com), and visit us on our website (www.illiniforlife.com) or on Facebook. We also have a general meeting coming up–look for fliers around campus.

As an upperclassman and now club president, do you have any parting words of advice for freshmen and others looking to become more involved on campus?

Go to Quad Day, go around, sign up for as many clubs as you think you’d ever go to. When you get all the emails, do something you could see yourself being in for four years, something you could be an officer in during your junior or senior year. Go to meetings.

Your first year, ask the officers, “How do I get more involved?” You really want to take ownership of your passion in college. Get involved, and by your senior year, you’ll be happy.

in Ethics 0 comments

October 13, 2010 by Hannah

Our Generation’s Pearl Harbor

On October 13, 2010, Middle east scholar Dr. Daniel Pipes gave a speech entitled “Does the War on Terror Still Exist?” at Foellinger Auditorium on the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign campus. I had the honor of introducing him.

Good evening! Thank you for coming! My name is Hannah Ihms, and I’m president of the campus club the Illini Conservative Union. This club is only one of the many organizations and individuals that made this event possible, including Stand With Us, the David Project, the Jewish Community Relations Council, the Hillel Foundation at the University of Illinois, the Chabad Jewish Center at the University of Illinois & Champaign-Urbana, the American-Israeli Student Coalition, Great News Radio, and the Orange and Blue Observer. In addition, I want to especially thank Tahli Hanuka, Tali Segev, and Erez Cohen for their dedication and hard work at all stages of this event.

In a moment Dr. Daniel Pipes will share with us his insights after years of academic research. As students we all respect the freedom of speech and the right for academic freedom. Therefore we expect that Dr. Pipes will be given a stage with no interruptions. Following his formal lecture, there will be time for questions-and-answers. Every respectful question will be greeted with a respectful answer.

9/11 was our generation’s Pearl Harbor. It opened our eyes to something that our friends in Israel, Iran, and other countries had known for years. Today we can say with certainty that our lives have been altered by radical Islam. That’s why each of us has a stake in this talk tonight. There’s questions we need to raise, and answer.

Tonight, an expert on the Middle East will be joining us in answering some of these questions. Dr. Pipes has devoted his entire adult life to researching Middle Eastern issues. He studied Arabic in Cairo, and obtained his Ph.D. in Medieval Islamic History from Cambridge about the time that Ayatollah Khomeini was rising to power in Iran.

His understanding of the motives behind the headlines has helped him analyze events that others find mystifying. Dr. Pipes has addressed audiences across the world, and has taught at the Naval War College, the University of Chicago, and Harvard, as well as serving at the U.S. Institute of Peace. Today he directs the Middle East Forum, a thinktank he founded. He also oversees Campus Watch, a project that critiques work published by North American Middle East departments.

He carefully distinguishes between moderate Islam and radical Islam, and with his lifetime acquaintance with this topic, he is uniquely qualified to guide us in our pursuit of truth.

Please join me in welcoming Dr. Daniel Pipes.

in Ethics / Politics 0 comments

March 1, 2010 by Hannah

Biking for Babies

Spring break for many of us evokes sublime visions of palm trees or the family couch. But for three students here at UIUC, spring break will involve something entirely different. Like many of us, Mike Schaefer, Stacy Hague, and Jimmy Becker will be traveling hundreds of miles. Unlike us, they’ll be biking.

The name of their trip says it all: Biking for Babies. Each of the three will bike 600 miles, in five days. While we may start preparing for break soon – buying a plane ticket or clearing out the fridge – these students have already started their preparations, with intense physical conditioning.

Writing on the team’s blog at www.bikingforbabies.com, Mike recently described what’s motivating him to do this: “My mom, especially, always instilled in me the value of respecting life at every stage and growing in my faith… I’m pumped to be having all of the new riders joining the B4B ride with such determination and commitment to fight for this most serious of causes that we face today.” In another post, Stacy wrote: “Each mile we ride and each calorie we burn is really our burning desire for the freedom and right of every individual to LIVE, no matter how small. This ride is making the invisible, visible.”

Stacy, a junior majoring in nutrition and psychology, Mike, a junior majoring in crop science and minoring in Spanish, and Jimmy, majoring in materials science and engineering, are all raising funds for local crisis pregnancy centers and pro-life initiatives. Their goal is to raise a total of $25,000. All funds will benefit the babies and families who are impacted through the Champaign Pregnancy Resource Center and Students for Life of Illinois.

Last year Mike and Jimmy teamed up to travel 600 miles, and this year they’re back at it, though the enterprise has expanded. Now, instead of just one trip, the two will be leading two different teams. Both teams will be biking 600 miles, so between March 24th to April 2nd, they will cover a total of 1200 miles of long, cold asphalt. First, Team Illinois (Mike and Stacy) will bike north from Cairo to Peoria. Then Team Wisconsin (Jimmy and a trio of University of Wisconsin students) will bike south in an S-shaped curve starting in Aurora and ending in Champaign.

You can follow Team Illinois and Team Wisconsin as they train and bike! See their website at www.bikingforbabies.com to read team members’ blogs, buy a $5 t-shirt, spread the word, or support their team! Because it’s all about saving babies.

in Ethics 0 comments

March 1, 2010 by Hannah

Stop Killing the Dream

Martin Luther King Jr. once described his dream that “my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

In direct contrast to this dream, Planned Parenthood has targeted its services to those of particular skin colors, with the result that minorities are disproportionately affected by abortion. What’s the leading cause of death among African-Americans? Heart disease? Stroke? Cancer? Abortion? If you guessed abortion, you’re correct. Abortion accounts for more deaths among African-Americans than the seven next-most common causes of death.

Students on our campus are gathering together to change this grim reality, and help increase the life expectancy of all African-Americans.

Illini Collegians for Life (ICFL), an RSO dedicated to sponsoring a culture of life on campus, recently sponsored a viewing and discussion of the film Maafa 21. This film documents the racist agenda motivating Planned Parenthood to target minorities by, among other things, overwhelmingly locating its clinics in minority neighborhoods and accepting donations earmarked for minorities.

ICFL is also sponsoring the local initiative of 40 Days for Life. Students and other community members, now through April 4th, are gathering at the local Planned Parenthood clinic to pray and fast. Some hold signs with pro-life messages, others pray the rosary, while still others provide sidewalk counseling.

Since this clinic focuses on abortion services and does not offer prenatal counseling or services, sidewalk counselors often tell those entering the clinic about other local organizations such as Living Alternatives and Birthright that provide free pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, prenatal counseling, and maternal and infant clothing.

As a result of 40 Days for Life initiatives, and consistent efforts of dedicated sidewalk counselors throughout the year, numerous women have decided against abortion. One woman who several years ago decided not to go through with her abortion recently told a sidewalk counselor that whenever her little boy puts his arms around her and tells her he loves her, she knows she made the right decision.
May other children be given a chance to live out Martin Luther King’s dream.

in Ethics / Health 0 comments