George W. Bush raises money for Indiana crisis pregnancy centers

The most pro-life President ever

Story here from Life Site News.

Excerpt:

Former President George W. Bush on Thursday gave the keynote address for a fundraiser for Life Centers, a Christian organization that helps women facing unplanned pregnancies in central Indiana, and encouraged the group to continue with its life-saving work.

Cameras and media were not permitted inside Conseco Fieldhouse, where the fundraiser took place at 7 PM.  Roughly 4,000 people attended the event, which Life Center leaders said would be the largest-ever fundraiser for the nonprofit organization.

“He wants to encourage us to continue doing what we’re doing and helping those girls in our city who really need to seek our services and don’t have places to go,” said Julie Rupprecht of Life Centers of Bush’s message, according to local news station WTHR 13.

[…]Life Centers President Brian Boone had called the event a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to celebrate life – with a keynote address from a public servant who made the sanctity of human life a priority.”

During his term as president, Bush signed into law several protections for the unborn, including the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. He also appointed pro-life justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court, and reinstated the Mexico City Policy, which required all non-governmental organizations receiving federal funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortions in other countries.

In January Legatus, a membership organization for Catholic business leaders, presented Mr. Bush with its prestigious Cardinal John J. O’Connor Pro-Life Award in recognition of his work advancing the rights of the unborn.

Obama is the most pro-abortion president we’ve ever had, and he’s no friend of traditional marriage or stay-at-home parents, either. Bush was the most pro-life. Everyone hated him because he was a Christian, but for people like me who actually cared about life issues and traditional marriage, he was the best president ever. We will never get pro-life judges like the kind that Bush nominated, (e.g. – John Roberts and Sam Alito) under Obama. Obama is nominating pro-abortion radicals to the bench. Elections matter.

MUST-READ: New York Times critiques socialized medicine

Ed Morrissey links to this New York Times article from Hot Air.

Excerpt:

New York’s insurance system has been a working laboratory for the core provision of the new federal health care law — insurance even for those who are already sick and facing huge medical bills — and an expensive lesson in unplanned consequences.

[…]The problem stems in part from the state’s high medical costs and in part from its stringent requirements for insurance companies in the individual and small group market. In 1993, motivated by stories of suffering AIDS patients, the state became one of the first to require insurers to extend individual or small group coverage to anyone with pre-existing illnesses.

New York also became one of the few states that require insurers within each region of the state to charge the same rates for the same benefits, regardless of whether people are old or young, male or female, smokers or nonsmokers, high risk or low risk.

Healthy people, in effect, began to subsidize people who needed more health care. The healthier customers soon discovered that the high premiums were not worth it and dropped out of the plans. The pool of insured people shrank to the point where many of them had high health care needs. Without healthier people to spread the risk, their premiums skyrocketed, a phenomenon known in the trade as the “adverse selection death spiral.”

Obama plans to get around the problem of healthy young people opting out of paying for other people’s health care by fining them.

The new federal health care law tries to avoid the death spiral by requiring everyone to have insurance and penalizing those who do not, as well as offering subsidies to low-income customers.

[…]Under the federal law, those who refuse coverage will have to pay an annual penalty of $695 per person, up to $2,085 per family, or 2.5 percent of their household income, whichever is greater. The penalty will be phased in from 2014 to 2016.

How does this reduce health care costs? It doesn’t. But it does explain why we have so many uninsured in this country – they don’t buy insurance because government regulations requiring mandatory coverages have made it a bad deal for them. Young men don’t need to pay for in vitro fertilization and sex changes. They don’t use it, so why should they agree to pay for other people’s problems? They have their own lives to live.

Ed Morrissey explains:

If nothing else, this proves a couple of points that critics have made all along.  The mandates are nothing more than a way to get the young to create a proxy welfare state by forcing them into a usurious insurance model.  It does nothing to reduce actual costs, and in fact makes cost increases both more likely and more amplified.

Now you understand socialized medicine. The left plays on people’s fears and insecurities in order to gain control of the economy. They promise to take care of people, so that people can stop worrying about taking responsibility for their own choices. Once the leftists are elected, they take money from the young people who don’t understand what is happening to them, and they give it away to special interests in order to buy votes.

Do you all agree with Wes Widner about the doctrine of original sin?

His post at Reason to Stand is here.

Excerpt:

When dealing with the doctrine of “original sin” it is important to understand what this doctrine does and does not mean. Simply put, it does mean that because of the sin of Adam and Eve (though, Biblically, the full weight of responsibility for this sin falls on Adam’s shoulders) sinful proclivities have entered into the hearts of men.

[…]What the doctrine of original sin does not mean is that we are all borne owing the debt of sins Adam incurred.

[…]“Original sin”, if understood in the sense that we are guilty of sin from birth logically leads to the untenable conclusion that all children go to hell (unless one holds to the unbiblical stretch known as covenantal theology) for sins they did not freely choose to commit.

Romans 3:23, which tells us that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God“, is not a prescriptive phrase, that we will by necessity sin, but rather a descriptive phrase about what we all freely choose to do. Given long enough, after reaching the age of accountability, we will come to know the difference between good and evil and we will freely choose to sin of our own accord.

The fact is that we are actually borne innocent and freely choose to sin thereby breaking ourselves and disqualifying ourselves from participating in a relationship with a holy God.

Do any of my readers have a different understanding of original sin than this one?