Can I bring NARAL to class, please?



This post first appeared on Live Action News. 


NARAL is calling on abortion supporters to sign a petition urging Nebraska to investigate Judge Peter Bataillon, after he denied a request for a Judicial Waiver of Parental Notice of Abortion. Because he made a decision they disagree with, NARAL now wants Judge Bataillon investigated on the basis that he once represented members of the pro-life group Operation Rescue, and was once the President of a local Right to Life organization. Apparently, NARAL thinks being pro-life means you aren’t qualified to be a judge.

Unfortunately for NARAL, there is no way for Nebraska to investigate the judicial decisions made by a judge due to a little thing called “Judicial Immunity”. Basically, this means that a judge cannot be held liable in civil or criminal court for a ruling made from the bench. In the case Bradley v. Fisher in 1872, the Supreme Court ruled that “A judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, should be free to act upon his own convictions, with out apprehension of personal consequences to himself. “ This is precisely what Judge Bataillon did, and he cannot and should not be punished for doing his job.


These allegations are clearly false- not only did the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that Judge Bataillon made the correct ruling, but in his 2012 State Bar Association Rankings 89.6% of lawyers recommended that he retain his position on the bench, with impartiality and fairness being factors in that ranking.

But even if Judge Bataillon had done something wrong in this case, which is not the case, the law is clear that even when an act is acts are in excess of their jurisdiction AND are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly, Judges cannot be held liable for them under the principle of judicial immunity.

Not only are NARAL’s accusations false, but they are dangerous and fly in the face of long established law. Imagine what would happen, if every decision a judge made could lead to an investigation, or a lawsuit; judges would be afraid to rule on important issues that might not be popular, or against parties that have political influence or are wealthy enough to cause them trouble. It would completely cripple our legal system! NARAL should end their witch hunt against Judge Bataillon, instead of continuing to persecute Judge Bataillon for pro-life beliefs.

Evolution: Lying to a Generation

So I usually stick to political issues on this blog, but I ran across an old paper today and thought I’d share it. It is from junior year of high school, so it’s not going to win any writing awards, but I think it’s a valid (though undeveloped) critique of evolution. I have no hesitation in declaring my belief in Intelligent Design, and in the Biblical God, over the god of “science” evolution and atheism has created.

On a side note, I apologize in advance for citing Wikipedia, but this was before it had been completely discredited as a source!
Sooo…. here it is:

On a recent trip to Washington D.C., a friend and I stumbled upon a book of quotations entitled something along the lines of The Stupidest Things Democrats Have Ever Said. I was enjoying the book and its many humorous quotes, until I cam across a particularly intelligent quote that someone must have mistakenly included in this compilation. “All the ills from which America suffers can be traced back to the teaching of evolution. It would be better to destroy every book ever written and save just the first three verses of Genesis.” The quote was from William Jennings Bryan, the famous prosecutor for the legendary Scopes Trial in 1925. The fact that this particular quote was included in this book, and labeled as “stupid” shows exactly the depth at which the creationism vs. evolutionism battle really wages. This battle crosses more than merely political and educational boundaries; it threatens the very foundation upon which this nation was founded. Both are accepted by faith, and cannot be scientifically proven, and neither one can survive as fact until the other one is no longer in the memory of man. It is my opinion that the theory of evolution is a shaky one at best, and can be disproved easily using Biblical knowledge and common sense.

The History of Evolution

            Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 180919 April 1882) was a British naturalist who achieved lasting but undeserved fame by convincing the scientific community of the occurrence of evolution and proposing the theory that this could be explained through natural and sexual selection.

Darwin developed an interest in natural history while studying medicine, and then theology. Darwin’s five-year voyage on the Beagle, and subsequent writings about his voyage and the varied animal life he encountered on the Galapagos Islands brought him eminence as a geologist, and fame as a popular author. His biological observations led him to study the transmutation of species and to develop his theory of natural selection in 1838 (Wikipedia).

Darwin popularized the theory of evolution when he published The Origin of Species in 1859.   In his book, Darwin proposed that all life forms on earth, including man, evolved, or came into being by a sequence of mutations caused by natural processes.

According to some theories, a “big bang” occurred.  For this to be true, then it must be as Dr. Jonathan Sarfati explained in his book Refuting Evolution, “non-living matter gave rise to life, single-celled organisms gave to rise to many-celled organisms, invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates, ape-like creatures gave rise to man, non-intelligence and amoral matter gave rise to intelligence and morality, and man’s yearning gave rise to religions” (47).

An incredulous thought at the least, the proposal of a big bang goes against a number of established scientific laws, including the laws of thermodynamics and the laws of conservation of matter.  So why is such a completely unbelievable theory acknowledged?  According to Professor D.M.S. Watson, “Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation is clearly incredible” (qtd. in Sarfati 16).

The Real Deal

“In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).  How much more simple than that can you get? It’s all there: God created the earth, God created the plants, God created the moon and the stars, God created the animals, and God created humans. The Bible has repeatedly been found to reveal scientific truths before humans even consider the possibility of their existence, and the Bible has in no way been contradicted by proven science, or recorded history.  The only reasoning that is keeping science from accepting the Bible is their unfaltering evolutionary preconception (Ham 8).

Evolutionary Contradictions

Many scientists believe that the carbon-14 method of dating disproves the Biblical time scale of history (Creation Evidence Museum Staff).  The problem with this however, is that the ratio of C14/C12 in the atmosphere has not always been constant.  The ratio was higher before the beginning of the industrial era, when the massive amounts of fossil fuels burned, released tons of carbon dioxide that was depleted in the C14 (Ham, Sarfati and Wieland).  Other potential factors, such as the heavily debated presence of a water canopy in Biblical times, might have significantly lowered the quantity of C14 in the pre-flood world, causing fossils from that time period to test older than they truly are (CEM Staff).  The strength of the earth’s magnetic field could also alter the ratio, because it affects the amount of cosmic rays allowed through the earth’s atmosphere.  The more cosmic rays allowed the more C14 in the atmosphere.  In recent years the earth’s magnetic field has greatly weakened, causing more C14 to be the atmosphere now than in the past.  This can cause some fossils to appear older than they truly are (Ham, Sarfati and Wieland).  Even recent times the faultiness of carbon-14 dating methods have been shown, such as when the shells of living snails were dated to show that the snails had died 27,000 years ago (CME Staff).  Scientists have used carbon dating to illustrate fossils to be millions of years old, in order to prove their theory of an old, slowly evolving earth.  But in reality, C14 has a half life of 5,730 years.  According to that data, any organism over about 50,000 years old should have no detectable C14 left, thus disproving the “old, slowly evolving earth” theory, due to the fact that all organisms, living or dead currently on record contain C14 The carbon-14 theory actually supports the Biblical notion of a young earth, rather than the evolutionary viewpoint (Ham, Sarfati and Wieland).

If everything evolutionists say is true, many fossils of birds with fins, mammals with wings and fish with arms and legs, would be found on a regular basis, representing the transitional organisms in-between evolutionary stages. But have never been found, despite evolutionary supporters many attempts to manufacture counterfeit “links” out of ordinary fossils.

One example of such a “link” is the Archaeopteryx, an alleged “feathery reptile” that lived approximately 150 million years ago. But Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, disproves that claim stating that, “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earthbound feathered dinosaur. But it is not. It is a bird, a perching bird” (qtd. in Sarfati 58).

Other than missing “links”, there is still the problem of many species that are still around, despite the fact that according to the theory of natural selection, or “survival of the fittest”, they should have died out as the evolutionary process of man progressed. If evolution was true, wouldn’t it stand to reason, that as new species evolved, the species it from, would die out due to the “survival of the fittest” rule? The newly evolved creature would seize control of the environment, forcing the older creatures into extinction. If this did not take place, then evolution would be meaningless.

Another kink in the tangled chain of evolution is spontaneous generation, or the belief that something can come from nothing. This is yet one more example of the preposterous fallacies evolutionist support. According to the laws of the conservation of matter, matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Nevertheless, matter exists. But how can that be possible, save the existence of a supreme being, such as God, having brought the said matter into existence? This belief also goes against the laws of thermodynamics, which states that the natural tendency of all things is towards disorder. To put it in a bit more straightforward terminology, it means that everything in the universe is getting worse as time progresses. New matter is not being created, and the matter we have at the present is getting older by the second. This is a direct contradiction to every evolutionary theory, particularly those theories which show evolution as organisms altering themselves through mutations as times progress for the better.

The Educational Battlefield

In a poll of American voters, 55% believe that God created man just as we are now, while only 13% believe that God had nothing to do with our creation (CBS News). Yet for years, people have fought to keep evolution in schools. In his media-evangelism seminar, Dr. Kent Hovind reads an excerpt from a first grade science book that refers to evolution on earth. If we are teaching our children such fallacy at such an early and impressible age, and we then continue to reinforce it throughout their lives as fact, what other alternative do they have but to acknowledge it as such? According to CBS News, the support for evolution is much more highly concentrated among those Americans with the most education. This is  not altogether a surprising piece of information, taking into consideration that evolution is all we teach students in our current school system. It is not difficult to comprehend then, that the more education one receives, the more evolutionary ideas have a chance to reinforced.

Creationism was forced out of the classroom so that it would not impose religion on any person who did not have the inclination to believe that God created the earth and everything in it. Evolution however, is centered on the same basic thought pattern as creation, belief. As Kent Hovind puts it, “You have to believe there is no God.” So if believing there is a God makes you religious, should it not as well be considered religious to not believe in a God? After all, both stances necessitate that you believe something (Ham 21).

If we take that line of thought even further, it is not incredibly difficult to wonder why if creationism cannot be taught in our schools, for fear that it may be offensive to someone who does not believe in God, then how is it that evolutionism can still be taught, regardless of that fact that it directly offends all those who do believe in God. For this predicament to be solved, one of two things must take place.

The first option is that evolution ought to be dropped from every public school curriculum due to the fact that is of a religious and extremely offensive nature. It should be removed from all science books and teachers ought to be reprimanded for even mentioning it in their classrooms, just as they are when it comes to creation.

The second option is that teachers ought to be required to teach students both evolution and creationism together. They ought to present the arguments for each side in a clear manner, give all the evidentiary support for both sides, therefore allowing the students to arrive at their own informed conclusions pertaining to what it is they chose to accept as true about their origins.

Either one of the previous options is preferable to our existing method, which is the teaching of an unproved, inadequate, imperfect, anti-Christian theory, that today’s educators present to our young people as factual information. In fact, the same poll mentioned earlier shows results that state 65% of Americans think that creationism should be taught alongside evolutionism in our public school system, and that 37% of Americans think that creation, and only creation should be taught in schools (CBS).

On the whole, I tend agree with William Jennings Bryan in his belief that the moral foundation of America has been destroyed by the teaching of evolution. If one believes in evolution, then as a consequence, one cannot believe in God. Without God to judge man, there would be no accountability. Without accountability to God, man is free to do whatever it is he wishes whether that be thieving, murder, rape, racial discrimination, genocide, infidelity, pornography, abortion, homosexuality, or drugs (Ham 83-89). Without God, the moral fabric of society will completely unravel. Unfortunately, this unraveling has already begun thanks to teachers planting seeds of ungodliness in the hearts of impressionable first graders who will believe anything you tell them (Hovind).

In the end, if you truly believe in God, then there is only one conclusion you can possibly come to, and that is that evolution has far too many contradictions and imperfections to be taken seriously as a scientific theory, much less to be taught to children and young people as truth, and should be dismissed.

“If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their  wicked ways, then will I hear from Heaven and will forgive their sins and heal their land” (2 Chronicles 7:15).

Works Cited

Creation Evidence Museum Staff. Carbon Dating. May 11, 2006 <http://www.creation>.

Ham, Ken. The Lie: Evolution. El Cajon, CA: Creation-Life Publishers, 1987

Ham, Sarfati and Wieland. What about Carbon Dating?  May 11, 2006.  <http://www.>

Hovind, Kent. Creationism vs. Evolutionism. In Windows Media format.

Sarfati, Jonathan. Refuting Evolution.  Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999

“Poll: Creationism Trumps Evolution.”  November 22, 2004. CBS News Service. May 11, 2006 <


The Holy Bible, KJV.  Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 1979.

Wikipedia Staff. Charles Darwin. <;.

“Adopt an Anti” instead of “Adopt a Child”

(this post first appeared on Live Action News)

The West Alabama Women’s Center is asking pro-abortion supporters to “adopt” an “anti” by donating a certain amount of money each time pro-life activists show up at the clinic to offer support and information for women facing crisis pregnancies. Among those listed is my friend and fellow Student for Life Wilberforce Fellow, Claire Marie Chretien, who is the president ofBama Students for Life at the University of Alabama and a contributor to Live Action News. Claire is apparently worth $5, which is an obvious and massive undervaluing if you’ve ever seen her in action!

Screen shot from The West Alabama Women's Center Facebook Page.

Screen shot from The West Alabama Women’s Center Facebook Page.

Far from being discouraged by this, members of Bama Students for Life are proud to add this distinction to their already impressive pro-life résumés, which include hosting the Genocide Awareness Project, which has led to repeated attacks on the group in the student paper, The Crimson White.

When I asked Claire how it felt to be personally targeted by the clinic, she said:

Nothing screams desperate more than an abortion center’s fake fundraising off of Tuscaloosa 40 Days for Life.  While we save babies from abortion, the West Alabama Women’s Center is trying to get people to send them checks to fund even more abortions.  This certainly isn’t helping their reputation as a greedy business or as “pro-choice,” given that the only choice they’re promoting, while mocking adoption, is abortion.  Bama Students for Life is not about to cease our peaceful presence outside the West Alabama Women’s Center just because abortion supporters are uncomfortable with how effective we are.

As Claire points out, there is a glaring irony in an abortion clinic using “adoption” as a fundraiser to promote the killing of children who could otherwise be given a better life through a true adoption.

As someone who was adopted, I find the use of adoption in this way to be completely disgusting. This clinic is already making money off desperate women who feel they have nowhere else to go, and trying to profit from a perversion of adoption is disrespectful and tasteless.

Imagine if groups like the West Alabama Women’s Center actually spent this much time, effort, and money promoting actual adoption! But of course they would never do that, because it would affect their pocketbooks – they can’t profit from real adoption. As Live Action has repeatedly pointed out (hereherehere, and here, just to show a few), abortion is not about offering women choices. It’s about making money – so we really can’t be surprised that this business is seeking to fill its coffers even more.

Protecting Women: Why Texas’ HB 2 Will be Upheld

(this article appeared at

I was proud to travel to Austin this summer with SFLA to see the Texas legislature pass HB 2, which protects women and innocent children from shoddy abortion practices. While we were elated that HB 2 passed, we knew a legal challenge was coming, and on September 27th Planned Parenthood, along with other abortion providers, filed suit against Attorney General Greg Abbot and other Texas governmental officials.


Planned Parenthood’s lawsuit currently challenges only two of the provisions included in the bill: 1) the requirement that doctors performing abortion have active admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion facilities; and 2) that medication abortions using RU-486 must follow the already-existing FDA protocol for administration and follow-up. The 20 week ban is based onscientific research stating that at least 20 weeks, preborn children can feel pain, is not being challenged. It is rumored that this is because the Federal Court of Appeals in Texas is conservative enough to rule against Planned Parenthood, and they don’t want any rulings that could give the Supreme Court a reason to uphold such a ban.

In the lawsuit filed last week, Planned Parenthood claims that one third of the abortion providers in Texas would be forced to close because of these two regulations, though they never actually show how they reached that estimate. Only the admitting privileges requirement should have an effect on the operation of these abortion clinics, as the RU 486 regulation only affects how it is administered, and doesn’t ban the practice altogether.

After falling back on tired and disproven claims like “abortion is safer than childbirth”, Planned Parenthood attacks Texas’ decision to require clinics to follow the FDA approved regimen for use of the dangerous RU 486 drug. Currently the FDA regulations dictate that the drug is safe for use at the recommended dose up 49 days into a pregnancy, yet many clinics vary the dosage and use the drug two weeks past the FDA approved date. This requirement would also prevent clinic staffers who are not doctors from administering the drug, and would require the patient to return to the clinic for the second dose of the drug instead of taking it without any supervision at their home. Finally, it would require a flow-up appointment to assure that the abortion was completed, and that no part of the aborted child remains in the womb which, left un-removed, leads to infection and even death of the mother.

Planned Parenthood is hinging its argument against the RU-486 regulations on the idea that they are medically unnecessary, and cite a few organizations (including one outside the US) who agree.  But as Justice Kennedy pointed out in the 2007 case Gonzales v. Carhart, “Medical uncertainty does not foreclose the exercise of legislative power in the abortion context any more than it does in other contexts.”

The Supreme Court also noted in Planned Parenthood v Casey, that “not all burdens on the right to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy will be undue”, and acknowledged that a state’s interests in protecting unborn life,  in preserving the integrity of the medical profession, preventing the coarsening of society’s moral sense, and promoting respect for human life more generally, are strong enough to warrant restrictions prior to viability that make abortion more difficult or expensive to obtain.

At the trial level, both sides will present medical evidence in regards to this issue, but it is in keeping with precedent for the courts to defer to the Texas Legislature’s medical regulations on the administration of the RU-486 abortion drug, despite some doctors disagreeing with the judgment. Additionally, as there are alternative abortion methods available, the undue burden argument is hard to support. However, Planned Parenthood challenges this by contradicting their own multiple claims regarding the safety of abortion, saying that it could significantly endanger a woman’s life to have to use an alternate method of abortion.

The second regulation deals with requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic.  Planned Parenthood makes two allegations in regards to this requirement: 1) that it places an undue burden on women seeking abortion, due to its potential to limit the number of doctors who can perform abortions in Texas, and 2) that the requirement is “unconstitutionally vague” because, apparently, Planned Parenthood doesn’t know what the word “active” means in the context of “active admitting privileges”.

Now the first allegation is based on their previous claim that this would force one-third of Texas’ abortion clinics to close, which again, is not supported by the factual statements contained in the lawsuit. In fact, Planned Parenthood admits that some of their providers have already been able to secure admitting privileges, and many are still waiting to hear back from hospitals.

Additionally, this whole argument is based on Planned Parenthood’s opinion that the criteria Texas’ hospitals use when deciding whether to grant admitting privileges, is “unrelated to a physician’s ability to provide high-quality abortion care.” But some of those criteria include things like board certifications, malpractice history and reported complications, level of experience and expertise, and validation of educational credentials- how are these issues not relevant to the quality of care a woman receives in these clinics? The country recently saw the reality of what takes place in abortion clinics with the horrifying Gosnell trial. There is no doubt in the minds of many people that a regulation like this one would have exposed Kermit Gosnell as the murderous man he really was- but instead he was able to escape notice due to a lack of enforced regulations.

Since Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a State has a compelling interest in the safety of the mother who is undergoing an abortion, in the preservation of the integrity of the medical profession, and in recognizing the dignity of human life. Additionally, since Casey the swing vote on abortion – Justice Kennedy – has not voted against any regulations on abortion that has been proposed. Therefore, there is precedent for being permissive in relation to abortion regulations. For these reasons I believe it is likely that the Texas regulations will be upheld.