Dear Mr. President George W. Bush,

Joseph Farah writes below about what many of us prolife supporters are greatly perplexed about. We've campaigned for you for constitutional, originalist, justices because we believe words have a meaning that is significantly knowable, and because we value human life, marriage, family, society, country and yes because we are pro-life. We've done the same in backing your ban on embryonic destruction for stem cell research.  Like you, we didn't find the "because they were going to die anyway" argument persuasive as such was used in justifying experiments with black males in Tuskegee and we only wondered why you didn't use the bully-pulpit to discourage the private sector from messing with human embryos as well. We've backed your ban but apparently now un-enforceable ban on partial birth abortion.

Your pro-life stand, justices, and stand for marriage are some of the rock solid reasons why you are highly admired by many including myself. And yes, your stand on the war on terror and backing of our friend Israel too. But Mr. President I believe you have surrounded yourself with advisors that help you triangulate and doing so for a term and a half has put you on the compromise fence a few times and this recent decision about the abortion pill has put you sadly, discouragingly, and dispassionately on the very wrong side of this issue.

There are ways to change this and dislodge yourself. Frankly Sir, you should have listened to the highly supportive and passionate, middle American voices that helped you defeat Kerry and Gore. People like the Christian Legal Society, the Christian Medical Dental Society, Family Research Council, Mr. Charles Colson, and others. I think Joseph Farah's article should have contained some qualifying words and conditions in its bottom line but none the less, I resonate with his article on this issue more than with your recent FDA person's decision and his (frankly) defiling of your legacy with it.  

Please get this changed. Pro-Lifers are numerous and we notice. I'm hoping this was a case of Bill Frist recommendation and friendship loyalty that wasn't well researched. Bill is not doing himself or the Republican Party much good in the highly partisan Senate. Not on life issues and not for us values voters, Sir. Thanks for considering this appeal seriously.  I hope the public doesn't punish conservative Republicans in the House for compromised 'correctness' in the Republican Senate.  You Sir, are no John Kerry or Edwards as this ad well underscores.  It shouldn't take Harriet Meirs kind of media heat for your moral compass to discern what is happening here and adjust. Fortunately an error in FDA judgment isn't likely to be as front page damaging IF corrected. See Joseph Farah's article below.

Yours sincerely,

Joe B. Whitchurch

----------------------------------------------------------------

Bush Approves Abortion Pill?  by Joseph Farah

Just what does Bush believe?  © 2006 
Farah's article is rather cynical and can be read by clicking here.

I was sent this article by my friend Kevin Johnson who apparently got it from his friend Fred.  The link is to the Smithsonian Magazine.  Like many debates these days the question framing tells everything.  Is the earth billions of years old with punctuated supernatural creative acts as most in the ID movement endorse, or older and with no special, intelligent, creative interventions or acts?  That's the big question.  But hold your breath, could even the ID model be granting too much age to the earth?  Try not to pass out and read the article below.

The persistent denial that the existence of soft tissue in a dinosaur can mean that the dinosaur is not millions of years old, reminds me of the joke about the man who went to the psychiatrist because he thought he was dead.  The doctor showed him repeatedly in an empirical way that dead men do not bleed by taking him to morgues and sticking cadavres. He asked if the man were convinced that dead men do not bleed? When the man answered in the affirmative the doctor stuck him in his finger with a small needle. When the blood appeared the man shouted out, "Dead men do bleed after all!" This is akin to the "scientists" saying that this means that they must be mistaken about "the process of decay!"

The lead paleontologist who claims that she likes the idea that God cannot be proved evidentially from the Creation must not be aware of these words in Romans1:20: "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."

It is hard not to think this debate between old earth naturalists and old earth ID people isn't bleeding and dead to certain inconvenient truths.