Home »

Search Result

Search Results for Maryland

Videos

Leaving Egypt - Pastor Stacey Shiflett Message by Pastor Stacey Shiflett Text: Acts 7:23 July 25, 2021 - 11AM Calvary Baptist Church 7321 Manchester Road Dundalk, Maryland 21222 Tel: ...
The Expectations (Part 1) - Pastor Stacey Shiflett Message by Pastor Stacey Shiflett Text: 2 Thessalonians 2 July 21, 2021 - 7PM Calvary Baptist Church 7321 Manchester Road Dundalk, Maryland 21222 Tel: ...
Reasons to Rejoice - Pastor Stacey Shiflett Message by Pastor Stacey Shiflett Text: Philippians 4:4 July 18, 2021 - 5PM Calvary Baptist Church 7321 Manchester Road Dundalk, Maryland 21222 Tel: ...
Someone Like You - Pastor Stacey Shiflett Message by Pastor Stacey Shiflett Text: Psalm 8 July 18, 2021 - 11AM Calvary Baptist Church 7321 Manchester Road Dundalk, Maryland 21222 Tel: ...
A Favorite Psalm for a Fainting Soul - Bro. Buster Mullins Message by Bro. Buster Mullins Text: Psalm 27 July 15, 2021 - 7PM Calvary Baptist Church 7321 Manchester Road Dundalk, Maryland 21222 Tel: ...
Show all results in videos 

News

Here are “The 7” top trending items at FRC over the past seven days:1. Update: The Boy Scouts: A Case Study in CompromiseAfter 100 years of teaching future presidents, explorers, and civil rights leaders to follow their moral compass, it’s been sobering to watch the Boy Scouts lose their own bearings. And yet, the unhappy ending for one of America’s proudest traditions was easy to predict once the organization started chasing the approval of critics it could never win.2. Update: ‘I’m from the Government, and I'm Here to Vaccinate’Most people were shocked when the president wanted to go door-to-door with his vaccine campaign—but that’s only the half of it. According to a Pentagon spokesman, the White House is also planning to go barracks to barracks—requiring the men and women of our voluntary military to surrender their freedom and take an unproven shot some of them don’t want.3. Blog: How to Respond to Your Friend Who Is Leaving the FaithMany Christians are taught how to share the gospel with non-Christians, but what’s often not taught is how to respond when those who were raised within the church, have heard the truth, and even perhaps once believed in the gospel walk away from the faith. How can Christians respond to our friends’ situations and choices with grace, humility, and compassion?4. Blog: How California’s New Sex Ed Program Will Harm KidsProverbs 22:6 says, “Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old, he will not depart from it.” As Christians, we are called to raise our children with biblical truths and morals. However, the public education system is implementing curricula that teach children beliefs that go directly against biblical truths and create long lasting psychological problems for children.5. Washington Watch: Craig Parshall, Mo Brooks, Meg KilgannonTony was joined by Craig L. Parshall, attorney for the American Center for Law and Justice, to discuss President Biden’s executive order on Big Tech. Mo Brooks, U.S. Representative for Alabama, talked about the implications of a mandatory COVID vaccine for the U.S. military. And, Meg Kilgannon, FRC’s senior fellow for education studies, gave an update on Chicago Public Schools’ new sex education policy.6. Washington Watch: Andy Harris, David Curry, Grace Chao, Andrew BrunsonTony was joined by Andy Harris, U.S. Representative for Maryland, to discuss the situation in Cuba among other topics. David Curry, President and CEO of Open Doors USA, shared Open Doors’ recent report on religious liberty in India. Grace Gao, Daughter of Gao Zhisheng, shared her story of the Chinese government targeting her father, who has been missing for the past four years. And, Andrew Brunson, FRC’s Special Advisor for International Religious Freedom, gave highlights from this week’s IRF Summit 2021.7. Pray Vote Stand Broadcast: America’s Crime WaveOn this edition of Pray Vote Stand, Tony Perkins was joined by Rep. Mary Miller, Wiley Thompson, and Pastor Phil Hotsenpiller to discuss and pray about the rise in crime around the country and what we, the church, can do.
Editor’s note: This is part of an ongoing series about key provisions that states have advanced in 2021 to defend the family and human dignity.Modern medical technology can detect genetic characteristics and diagnose many disabilities in the womb. Unfortunately, these scientific advancements have increased the potential for abortions that are motivated by bias against an unborn child’s race, sex, ethnicity, national origin, and/or disability.Babies who are prenatally diagnosed with a disability may be the most common victims of discriminatory abortions. An international study found that 63 percent of babies prenatally diagnosed with spina bifida and 83 percent of babies prenatally diagnosed with anencephaly are aborted. Another study revealed that an estimated 67 percent of women in the United States who receive a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome choose abortion. In Denmark, more than 95 percent of mothers who receive a prenatal Down syndrome diagnosis choose to abort their child, and in 2019, 15 years after screening became universally available, only 18 babies with Down syndrome were born in the whole country.State legislators across the country are becoming increasingly aware of this problem and are introducing prenatal nondiscrimination acts (PRENDAs) to protect children from discriminatory abortions. In 2019, they were emboldened when Justice Thomas penned a lengthy opinion in Box v. Planned Parenthood in which he cited abortion’s eugenic roots and its continued eugenic potential.Much like other pro-life bills, support for PRENDAs has been growing over the past few years. From 2013 to 2020, an average of 10 state-level PRENDAs were introduced each year. In 2021, a record-high 31 were introduced. So far, two have been enacted, in Arizona (SB 1457) and South Dakota (HB 1110). Fourteen other states have enacted some version of these protections. In fact, the past three years have seen more PRENDAs enacted (seven) than in all the preceding years combined.These bills typically have four key provisions:Prohibit anyone from knowingly aborting the unborn child of a woman who sought the abortion solely on the basis of an inherent characteristic (e.g., sex, race, ethnicity, national origin) or disability of the child.Provide a penalty for noncompliance (criminal, civil, and/or professional).Indemnify the mother (i.e., absolve the mother of legal liability).Create a civil cause of action (i.e., abortion businesses who violate the law can be sued).In addition, some bills may mandate information be provided to the mother about perinatal palliative care if the unborn child has a life-threatening illness or abnormality. This year, four out of the 31 bills introduced do this (all four are from Texas).Of the PRENDAs introduced this year, 16 protect unborn children from abortion on the basis of sex, 11 on the basis of race, 22 on the basis of a disability or genetic abnormality diagnosis, six on the basis of ethnicity, and one on the basis of national origin.So far, Arizona’s SB 1457 and South Dakota’s HB 1110 have been enacted this year. Arizona’s law builds on existing PRENDA law, adding “genetic abnormality” to the list of characteristics protected against discriminatory abortions (in addition to sex and race). This bill weakens the penalty from a class three felony to a class six felony. Existing law in Arizona indemnifies the mother and creates a civil cause of action. South Dakota’s bill is strong, prohibiting abortions sought on the basis of a Down syndrome diagnosis and imposing the criminal penalty of a class six felony for noncompliance. Additionally, this bill indemnifies the mother and creates a civil cause of action.Texas introduced four strong PRENDAs (HB 3218, SB 1647, HB 3760, SB 1173) that include each of the key provisions listed above as well as provisions for mothers to learn more about perinatal palliative care. Seven states—Pennsylvania (HB 1500), Massachusetts (H 2409), Michigan (HB 4737), Texas (HB 4339), South Dakota (HB 1110), Washington (SB 5416), and Arkansas (SB 468)—also introduced strong bills that include each key provision. Each of these bills prohibits abortions sought because of one or more of the following characteristics of the unborn child: diagnosis or potential diagnosis of Down syndrome, diagnosis of a disability, genetic abnormality, race, ethnicity, or sex.Four states—Florida (CS/HB 1221, SB 1664), Texas (HB 1432), South Carolina (HB 3512), and Washington (HB 1008)—introduced moderate bills, missing one or two of the key provisions (a civil cause of action and/or indemnification of the mother). Florida, Washington, and South Carolina’s bills prohibit abortions based on a diagnosis of a disability or genetic abnormality of the unborn child (Washington’s is specific to Down syndrome). Texas’ bill prohibits abortions based on the ethnicity or national origin of the unborn child, and South Carolina’s bill additionally prohibits race and sex-selective abortions.Seven states—North Carolina, Arizona, Arkansas, Illinois, Maryland, West Virginia, and Oregon—introduced relatively weak or limited PRENDAs missing more than two of the key provisions. Some of these bills included other limitations that made them especially weak. North Carolina’s bill (H 453) adds to an existing ban on sex-selective abortions by also prohibiting abortions on the basis of the unborn child’s race or Down syndrome. This bill contains no other provisions. Arizona’s bill (SB 1381) adds to existing PRENDA statutes by adding “disability” as a protected trait for which a child may not be aborted. This bill is weakened by the fact that “disability” is not defined. Arkansas’ bill (SB 519) amends a section of law prohibiting sex-selective abortions and requires the physician carrying out the abortion to attempt to obtain the woman’s medical records to determine if she has previously undergone an abortion due to the child’s sex. This bill does not contain any other provisions. However, to Arkansas’ credit, the state already does prohibit sex-selective abortions. Illinois’ bills (HB 3047, HB 1893, HB 3043, HB 3053, and HB 3046) prohibit abortions sought solely based on the sex of the unborn child. Besides containing no other PRENDA provisions, these bills include a weakening statement that allows abortions sought because of a genetic disorder linked to the child’s sex. This goes against the purpose of PRENDA laws, to protect unborn children from being aborted due to an immutable trait. Maryland and West Virginia’s bills (MD HB 846 and WV HB 3024) prohibit abortions based on a diagnosis of Down syndrome but include no other provisions. Oregon’s bill (SB 654) prohibits sex-selective abortions but limits this protection to the third trimester. This too goes against the purpose of PRENDA laws since the sex of babies can be determined as early as 14 weeks. In effect, this would prohibit few, if any, discriminatory abortions.Discriminatory abortions are a grim reality in the United States and around the world, but they are not going unchallenged. Thus far, state legislators have introduced PRENDAs in over 35 states and successfully enacted them in 16. If the surge of state-level PRENDA bills in 2021 is any indication, these numbers are sure to rise in the coming years. There is cause for optimism that states’ laws will one day reflect American’s rightful opposition to discriminatory abortions, and eventually to the eugenic roots of abortion itself.For more information on why PRENDAs are essential, please refer to FRC’s issue analysis.
So far since arriving back in the US, or “the land of plenty” as Becky Ebanks, a friend on the island calls it, we’ve been visiting with family. It’s been nice to reconnect with our children and grandchildren. We’re still looking for the vehicle God has chosen for us. We’re looking for one that seats […]The post Visiting Family in Maryland appeared first on Mom's Blog.
Editor’s note: This is part of an ongoing series about key provisions that states have advanced in 2021 to defend the family and human dignity.Since 1973, pro-life Americans have prioritized overturning Roe v. Wade and its companion Doe v. Bolton, two U.S. Supreme Court decisions that made abortion on-demand legal in all 50 states. The ruling in Roe, which in the words of late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, “entirely removed the ball from the legislator’s court,” prevented countless pieces of state-level pro-life legislation from coming into effect. But that has not stopped pro-life state legislators from passing pro-life legislation.In 1992, an effort from the Pennsylvania State Legislature to challenge the Roe decision led to Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Sadly, the Court once again usurped the power of state legislatures to regulate abortion, but pro-life state legislators have remained motivated to change this.Since 2018, 19 states around the country have seized the opportunity to introduce legislation that bans nearly all abortions and directly challenges Roe and Casey.In 2019 and 2021, Alabama and Arkansas successfully passed legislation banning almost all abortions (Alabama H.B. 314, 2019; Arkansas S.B. 6, 2021). These pro-life bills recognize that all persons—not just persons outside the womb—have the right to life. They define life as beginning at the moment of conception and call upon the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.Although both of these bills have been blocked in lower courts and are pending litigation, their passage signaled to the Supreme Court that states are demanding the power to make their own laws regarding abortion.In addition to Alabama and Arkansas, three other states—Colorado, Iowa, and Mississippi—have introduced similar abortion bans. Colorado’s ban, HB21-1017 (2021), is nearly identical to those of Alabama and Arkansas, but instead of asking the Supreme Court to overturn Roe, it asserts the 10th Amendment to nullify any federal laws that would keep Colorado from protecting preborn children within the state. Also introduced this year, Iowa H.F. 267 (2021) seeks to establish that life begins at conception. Similarly, in Mississippi, H.B. 338 (2021) looks to ban abortion at all stages.Oklahoma enacted H.B. 1102, a bill making it unprofessional conduct to carry out an abortion. This bill will cause physicians who carry out or induce abortions to lose their medical licenses for at least one year. Although not as strong as Arkansas and Alabama’s bans, this bill is notable because it is the only total abortion ban that has passed outside of Alabama and Arkansas.Five other states—Kansas, Missouri, North Carolina, West Virginia, and Wisconsin—have taken another approach. They have attempted to amend their state constitutions. These amendments would guarantee equal rights to preborn humans. In North Carolina, the Republican-controlled state legislature introduced H.B. 158 (2021), a constitutional amendment that seeks to outlaw abortion within the state. In Kansas, after the state supreme court wrongly interpreted their constitution to grant a right to abortion, lawmakers introduced S.C.R. 1604 (2019), which similarly granted preborn citizens of Kansas the same rights as those outside the womb. In 2020, West Virginia introduced H.J.R. 4, which sought to define the word “person” in the state constitution to include anyone from the point of fertilization or in cases of cloning. That same year, Missouri introduced H.J.R. 28, which sought to change the definition of “person” in the Missouri Constitution to include preborn humans. Wisconsin introduced S.J.R. 86 (2020) and A.J.R. 130 (2020), which sought to remove the word “born” from the state constitution to signify when human rights begin.Furthermore, 10 states—Alaska (H.B. 206, 2021), Arizona (H.B. 2650, 2021), Idaho (H. 56, 2021), Indiana (H.B. 1539, 2021), Maryland (H.B. 0997, 2021), Missouri (H.B. 2285, 2020), Oklahoma (S.B. 495, 2021), South Carolina (H.B. 4046, 2021), Texas (H.B. 3326, 2021), and Washington (H.B. 2154, 2019)—have introduced bills totally abolishing abortion. These bills assert state sovereignty to abolish and criminalize abortion within the state. They ban abortion from the moment of conception without exception and classify abortion as homicide in the state criminal code, thus treating preborn children the same as born children. These bills also order the state executive branch to nullify any federal mandate or court opinion that orders the state to allow abortion. However, it should be noted that these bills do not accomplish the goal of challenging Roe in the courts.Pro-life activists should be encouraged that, since 2018, nearly 20 states have taken action to attempt to ban most or substantially all elective abortions. Arkansas and Alabama, in particular, are examples for the rest of the country. State efforts to ban abortion must continue. The Supreme Court’s decision to review Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health is proof that state legislators’ efforts have not gone unnoticed. Let us pray for a day when state legislators’ efforts are rewarded and the laws of all 50 states protect and defend the right to life of the unborn child in the womb.Nicolas Reynolds is Legislative Assistant for State and Local Affairs in FRC’s Policy & Government Affairs Department.Alexander Ioannidis is an intern in State and Local Affairs with FRC’s Policy & Government Affairs Department.
Show all results in news 

FamilyNet Top Sites Top Independent Baptist Sites KJV-1611 Authorized Version Topsites The Fundamental Top 500

Powered by Ekklesia-Online

Locations of visitors to this page free counters