1) “New EPPC Study Confirms Previous Findings of Abortion Drug Dangers” (Chuck Donovan, Washington Stand)
From the article — The study is significant in many ways in addition to the size of the study population. First, it covers a sample of women who have taken the drug in recent years, whereas prior safety and efficacy studies date back a decade or more. The EPPC study examined the impact of the drug under the loose conditions that have actually prevailed in the past decade. These conditions, as prior investigators have warned, include deletion of multiple medical visits originally recommend by the FDA, the use of “no test” protocols designed to confirm pregnancy and to assure it is not ectopic, online distribution of the pills, and use for at least three and sometimes more weeks later in pregnancy than when the drug was originally approved in the year 2000. Mifepristone is known to become less effective and more hazardous for women as the pregnancy proceeds.
Mifepristone now dominates abortion provision in the United States, constituting nearly two-thirds of the procedures carried out in the country. It is tailor-made for a laissez-faire national policy on abortion as our already weak system of abortion incidence and injury reporting makes tracking safety especially difficult when women experience harms and are treated not by the medical personnel who have supplied the drug but by third parties who may be unaware of or misinformed about their medical history. In its first 16 years, mifepristone harms, including injuries and deaths, were subject to mandatory reporting to the FDA. In 2016, that mandate was lifted, and the FDA required the reporting of harm only when use of the pill led, as it sometime does, to a maternal fatality.
For more on this matter, see “The Importance of the EPPC Study on Health Risks of Chemical Abortions” by Michael J. New and “New Report: The Abortion Pill Harms Women” by John Stonestreet.
2) “Advice For The Class Of 2025: Never Put Your Hope In Earthly Kingdoms” (Nathanael Blake, Federalist
From the article — Of course, we see liberalism as a contributor to, rather than the cure of, said handbasket’s trajectory. But our answer to depressed left-liberal students looking for hope should not be primarily political. Rather, we should tell them that if Trump’s election has destroyed their hope, then they put their hope in the wrong place.
Yes, we think that the left’s political and cultural beliefs and programs are wrong, but many of us know that even the best politics will not and cannot provide the fullness of hope we need. Politics matters, of course, but a hope based in politics, regardless of right or left, will always disappoint. All the social justice dreams of the left, or all the MAGA schemes of Trump’s most ardent fans, cannot save us from despair, because politics cannot cure what ails us.
It may seem sensible to hope in politics. After all, politics is about power, and it is tempting to believe that power can fix the world’s problems. In some cases, it can ameliorate matters. But our fundamental problem is not politics, it is sinful hearts. And dealing with our selfish, sinful natures isn’t a matter of votes or laws or court rulings, but of repentance, starting with oneself. A people given over to wickedness will ruin even the best political system. Nor can we vote our way to righteousness; politics cannot make us love our neighbors as ourselves.
3) “Keeping the Main Thing the Main Thing” (Denny Hartford, Vital Signs Blog)
From the article — When it comes to theology and biblical interpretation, beware the “new and improved” claims…
Of course, this begs the following kinds of questions. Are not changes required of even longtime believers? Must not even mature Christians learn new things, adapt to different situations, accept correction and even rebuke when called for? Certainly. After all, the Christian life is by biblical definition an existential and growing thing. Becoming more and more conformed to the image of Jesus Christ is not merely the goal, but the process itself.
That does not mean, however, that we should carelessly allow unprecedented, contrarian, and “creative” teachings that break on the scene to steer us away from those historic, Bible-based convictions our spiritual forefathers passed along to us. Furthermore, a healthy skepticism of these new doctrines, discoveries, and hermeneutic methods is especially crucial when the adherents of the same are full of categorical put-downs of well-established Bible teachings of the Christian heroes who have gone before us — heroes of the Faith who have shown both by precept and personal practice their value as Bible interpreters.
4) “What Does ‘Separation of Church and State’ Really Mean?” Our Constitution does not forbid government entities from working with religious groups, and the ‘separation of church and state’ is an ahistorical misnomer. (Andrea Dill, Alliance Defending Freedom)
From the article — The phrase “separation of church and state” is nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution. The term has been based on the First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, but those clauses merely state that Congress “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The phrase “separation of church and state” rather originates in a letter sent by President Thomas Jefferson to a group of Baptists in Connecticut. The Danbury Baptist Association, a group of 26 churches in the state, had written to Jefferson to congratulate him on his election and convey their concern that Connecticut’s system of government (in which the Congregational Church was the official or “established” denomination) had led to their ill treatment.
In their letter, the Baptists affirm their belief in religious liberty—“That Religion is at all times and places a Matter between God and Individuals”—and express their dismay that they enjoy this freedom only as “favors granted” rather than as an inalienable right.
Replying to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson agrees that “religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God.” Further, the president notes that the language of the First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses build a “wall of separation between Church & State.” This context clarifies that Jefferson was speaking of protecting religious exercise from an overbearing government. His response to the Danbury Baptists was a reassurance that the United States Congress would not impede their free exercise of religion.
5) “Who are You? Voter ID law and election integrity should be top priority in new Congress. Voters want it, and with good reason.” (Glenn Harlan Reynolds)
From the article — At any rate, the GOP should make a national photo ID requirement for federal elections a top priority in the next Congress. And it should go further.
There are other tools, used in countries we’ve liberated but not in our own country, like dyeing people’s fingers purple so they can’t vote more than once. And of course, maintaining trustworthy voter rolls, so that when someone shows up claiming to be entitled to vote, there’s good reason to believe that they actually are. If a person shows up with a photo ID, and it matches a person who is entitled to vote, the odds are very good that they are who they say they are, and they are entitled to vote. Rules in other countries are generally stricter than what prevails in the United States…
In the United States, of course, even basic safeguards are wildly controversial among Democrats. The photo ID requirement, for example, though consistently upheld by courts, is always denounced in the press as racist and claimed to be unconstitutional. But it’s also favored by huge majorities of, you know, actual voters. “Majorities of Republicans and Democrats favor early voting as well as requiring a photo ID to vote, although large party gaps exist on these as well. Having an early-vote option for all voters is backed by virtually all Democrats (95%) as well as 60% of Republicans, while requiring all voters to show photo ID is supported by 97% of Republicans and 53% of Democrats. Independents’ views fall about halfway between Democrats and Republicans on most of the policies tested. However, independents’ 84% support for photo identification is significantly closer to Republicans’ level of support than to Democrats’.”
Getting a national photo ID requirement, as well as requiring states to keep voter rolls up to date, and to count votes openly and transparently, would go a long way toward restoring confidence in the system.
And the “count votes openly and transparently” part needs to be stressed as well, with federal guidelines that require that counts take place under public observation, with not only poll watchers from all parties, but also members of the public, able to observe what is going on, and with everything from voting itself, to the collection and counting and reporting of votes, generating a reliable audit trail.