When I went to nursing school in 1967, abortion was illegal in the U.S. and so-called “back alley” abortions were universally condemned.

The American Medical Association was established in 1847 and the “AMA was keen to be taken seriously as a gatekeeper of the medical profession, and abortion services made midwives and other irregular practitioners—so-called quacks—an easy target.”

Accessible abortion gives women power, or so they say. As they put it, a baby on the way potentially jeopardizes a woman's professional career or even her social life. In short, if women aren't able to decide when to—excuse the euphemism—"terminate their pregnancies," then they are necessarily reduced to second-class citizens who cannot control their future.

The Old Testament chapter of 2 Kings 21 is dedicated to the most wicked king of Judah/Israel, who was named Manasseh. His father, Hezekiah, had been one of the greatest and most faithful kings. What a horrible reversal in just one generation... I share this history as a sad illustration and comparison to Mayor Brandon Johnson of Chicago....

Sometimes you hear of an event, experience a situation, or even meet a person who really convicts you about something, and then you feel you have to tell others about it even though you haven’t mastered it yourself yet. That is just what happened to me in the recent past, so I'm writing this article to myself as much as to you.  

In our recent discussion of fatalism contrasted with the biblical worldview, we saw that physical resources are only as good as the theology that wields them. That is, some otherwise wealthy cultures are shackled by fatalist worldviews positing that there is little point in trying to improve anyone’s lot in life—people are irrevocably bound by their social class or by their circumstances. Societies like these might be given the resources to help those in need, but if they fatalistically refuse to help the lowly or distressed, the suffering may very well go on suffering.

Recently, we celebrated one year in a post-Roe America. As we acknowledge this important milestone, it’s worthwhile to look at how a decision handed down by a U.S. Supreme Court Justice still shapes the way our nation thinks about the humanity and rights of the pre-born after five decades — especially since a closer examination of the standard the Court offered reveals it to be capricious and arbitrary at best.

In articles like these, I, and other writers, tend to focus on the alarming decay of the Christian worldview and value system in the United States. And, since the enemy's attacks on our culture truly are alarming, we are indeed making good use of our time in exposing them. However, it's also important to step back and consider just how much Christianity has influenced—and still persists in influencing—our culture. We still have many blessings to thank the Lord for, and there is still much to defend.

Kings and others have used the Bible and assumptions based upon narratives in it to support the divine right of monarchs, but their arguments were weak. History is largely the story of governments coming and going, kings and rulers rising and falling. It is a rather bleak narrative and is not complimentary to humanity. It begs the question, “Does the Bible address human government?”

California is currently in the process of passing a bill that redefines what it means to be fertile. SB 729, approved by the California Senate late last month and now on its way to the Assembly, expands insurance coverage for in vitro fertilization to cover those who fall under their new definition of infertility. And who, you might ask, falls under this definition? Literally everyone.

Children don’t exist in the mind of the radical Left...Every one of these is an example of forcing concepts, causes, and irreversible, life-altering decisions upon minds and bodies that are too young to correctly handle, process, or act on them. But since most of the Left believes children are simply miniature adults, this isn’t a problem for them. As a result of this tragic lie, in our nation, childhood gets shorter and shorter with every passing year, with innocence no longer considered a gift to be protected or a value worth upholding.

If a woman decides to abort her child, but chooses to put the child up for adoption using an artificial womb, does that make it a pro-life decision? A challenging question to be sure. The very kind of issue that...

Sometimes our pro-life arguments can become overcomplicated by statistics, rabbit-trails, and long rebuttals to straw-man arguments from the other side. We want to defend the pro-life position with everything we can muster, but sometimes it seems like we must have an answer to every argument from a pro-abortionist to properly defend life.

In the midst of so much bad news about our disintegrating culture nowadays, sometimes there is a bright light that appears to cheer us up. This is potentially one of those moments. U.S. Representative Doug Lamborn (R-CO) has introduced a "Life Resolution" declaring that children in the womb are living people who are protected by the 14th Amendment.

Americans are big on choice. We can choose restaurants, automobiles, our clothing, and even where to live. We can make good choices and bad choices. Our prisons are packed with those who’ve chosen the wrong path. Leaders in government often make us wonder, “What were they thinking?” One of the saddest of choices millions of Americans have made is the decision to terminate a human life through abortion. In bizarre fashion, we even call this a “pro-choice” decision. Frightening.

The problem of child sexual abuse in the United States is far greater than most people realize. Sixty million American adults are sexual abuse survivors. Twenty percent of us. Thirty-nine million of the victims were abused before turning twelve years old. Because most of them will never tell anyone about their experiences, the scope of the problem remains largely a hidden evil.