Showing posts with label Ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ethics. Show all posts

Thursday, January 17, 2013

RAD is bad part 5


This is series of articles designed to help professing Christians to turn from their wicked ways and get back to following New Testament ethics.  Compromise is increasing in the church.  Popular opinion among churchgoers is often in stark contrast to the very words of Jesus on many issues.  Christians need to know the word of God and get back to using it as a reference book when they are faced with important decisions.

RAD is my acronym for remarriage after divorce This is the fifth article in a sub-series on this topic.  In review I wrote:

1. RAD is sin.  It is the moral equivalent of adultery.
2. There is only one exception given in the Bible.  A divorced man can remarry without sinning only if the reason for the divorce was his wife’s fornication (i.e. it must be a sin of a sexual nature--the NIV incorrectly translates that word as “marital unfaithfulness”). 

These are the scriptures which form the basis for this teaching:

Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:12, Luke 16:18, Romans 7:2-3 and I Corinthians 7:10-11, 39.

This week I will conclude this sub-series by relating my own personal experience with this topic.  I have never been married myself, but once I courted a woman who was twice divorced.  I knew what the Bible said about RADs.  I knew it was wrong.  But I tried to do it anyway because I was an idiot.  I told this woman to read the above Scriptures thinking that there would be Scriptural loophole that she would use to say that it would be OK.  But instead she (rightly) criticized me trying to rationalize something unbiblical.  But sometime later this woman started dating another man and said that it wouldn’t be wrong for her to marry again.  When I heard this, I was really, really hurt.  I have learned my lesson.  I will never court a divorced woman again and I make absolutely no exceptions.  Furthermore, I will not marry a woman unless she is either a virgin or widow who has not had consensual relations with anyone except her husband.  I hope that someone reading this will take heed and the commission of a sin will be avoided.

Thursday, January 10, 2013

RAD is bad part 4


This is series of articles designed to help professing Christians to turn from their wicked ways and get back to following New Testament ethics.  Compromise is increasing in the church.  Popular opinion among churchgoers is often in stark contrast to the very words of Jesus on many issues.  Christians need to know the word of God and get back to using it as a reference book when they are faced with important decisions.

RAD is my acronym for remarriage after divorce This is the fourth article in a sub-series on this topic.  In review I wrote:

1. RAD is sin.  It is the moral equivalent of adultery.
2. There is only one exception given in the Bible.  A divorced man can remarry without sinning only if the reason for the divorce was his wife’s fornication (i.e. it must be a sin of a sexual nature--the NIV incorrectly translates that word as “marital unfaithfulness”). 

These are the scriptures which form the basis for this teaching:

Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:12, Luke 16:18, Romans 7:2-3 and I Corinthians 7:10-11, 39.

As I mentioned before, there are many legitimate grounds for divorce such as physical abuse, alcoholism, and abandonment.  But this fact does not mean that it is morally acceptable remarry afterwards.  But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t some gray areas on this topic or that the scriptures can’t be legalistically interpreted.  Here are some examples:

1.  What if the (only) ex-spouse of a divorced man or woman dies?  Would it then be acceptable for this divorcee to remarry?  Romans 7:2-3 seems to lean toward saying yes to this, at least in the case of a divorced woman.  But the passages in the gospels and I Corinthians 7:10-11 seem to lean the other way.  It is possible that in this case, the man or woman is classified as a widow or widower and not really a divorcee.  I am not sure about this.

2.  What if a man divorces his wife because he believes that his wife committed fornication, but finds out later that it didn’t really happen?  Would it then be OK for the man to marry another woman anyway?  Where does the burden of proof lie when a man is to claim the exception of Matthew 19:9?  Should the church determine the fact in these cases?  These are hard questions.  I know of a case where, for spite, a woman told her husband that she was having affair with someone but it was a lie.  After the divorce, he found out that it was not true. 

3.  I have deleted this example because I no longer agree with it.

Click here for the next article in this series.

Thursday, January 03, 2013

RAD is bad part 3



This is series of articles designed to help professing Christians to turn from their wicked ways and get back to following New Testament ethics.  Compromise is increasing in the church.  Popular opinion among churchgoers is often in stark contrast to the very words of Jesus on many issues.  Christians need to know the word of God and get back to using it as a reference book when they are faced with important decisions.

RAD is my acronym for remarriage after divorce Two weeks ago I started a sub-series on this topic.  In review I wrote:

1. RAD is sin.  It is the moral equivalent of adultery.
2. There is only one exception given in the Bible.  A divorced man can remarry without sinning only if the reason for the divorce was his wife’s fornication (i.e. it must be a sin of a sexual nature--the NIV incorrectly translates that word as “marital unfaithfulness”). 

These are the scriptures which form the basis for this teaching:

Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:12, Luke 16:18, Romans 7:2-3 and I Corinthians 7:10-11, 39.

Now I will debunk some common misconceptions about additional exceptions that some Christian scholars try to argue for.

I don’t believe that you have to search the whole Bible to be sure that a commandment doesn’t have exceptions.

Other than the exception mentioned in Matthew 19:9 (which is mentioned above), I Corinthians 7:15 is the only passage in the New Testament which could possibly be construed as an exception by any stretch of the imagination.  But upon close examination of this passage, you can see that it isn’t.

I don’t believe that “not bound” (NIV or NAS translation) in this passage really means “OK to remarry”.  In Romans 7:2-3 it says that a woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives and if she marries another man while he is still alive, she is an adulteress.  The Greek word for bound (Strong’s # 1210) means legally binding or literally bound as with ropes.  In other words, the word for bound is chosen to indicate that the woman is prohibited from doing something which is in perfect agreement with the context. 

Note also that I Corinthians 7:39 says the same thing as Romans 7:2-3 and uses the same Greek word for bound.  This is important because someone might think that Romans 7:2-3 is just hypothetical because Paul is just using it as an analogy.  But it is clear from the context in I Corinthians 7:39 that Paul is here talking about a real commandment from the Lord which applies to all Christians.

But the word for bound in I Corinthians 7:15 is not the same Greek word.  The word used here means bound to slavery or servitude (Strong’s # 1402).  It is not saying that the deserted spouse is free from the type of bondage mentioned in Romans 7:2-3, but rather it is that he or she is free from the obligation to perform the biblical duties associated with marriage.  Some of these duties are mentioned in this chapter (especially verses 3-5).  The main theme of the chapter is about the pros and cons of getting married and whenever reference is made to a woman considering marriage she is always referred to as a virgin or a widow (e.g. verse 8--It goes without saying that all other women shouldn’t even consider marriage).  There is also a strong implication that I Corinthians 7:15 releases the deserted spouse from his or her obligation to try to keep the marriage alive.  And notice the phrase at the end of the verse: “God has called us to live in peace.”  Certainly someone could live in peace without being remarried, but to have to try to fulfill the obligations of marriage in this situation certainly would rob someone of their peace.  God is not the author of confusion--I Corinthians 7:15 does not contradict or provide an exception to the rule that women can never remarry after divorce.

Some people say that various exceptions come from the Old Testament.  I know of no such exceptions, but I think it is very clear from the teachings of Jesus that even if there was one, it would be superseded by Mark 10:12 and the other similar passages.  Paul said “by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” Galatians 2:16, Acts 13:39.  More specifically, the Pharisees tried to justify their divorces (and by implication remarriages) using the Law of Moses (Matthew 19:7).  The Pharisees were not mistaken about divorce certificates being provided for in the Mosaic Law (Deuteronomy 24:1-4).  But Jesus clearly indicated that fulfilling the requirements of the Law was not good enough (Matthew 5:20, 19:9).  The implication here is that the laws concerning divorce in the Law of Moses were only a type of civil law and were meant to constrain even the wicked (Matthew 19:8), not to be confused with a moral justification of divorce and remarriage.  Jesus clearly holds his followers to a higher standard than the Law of Moses in these passages (Matthew 19:11).  And it is not that Jesus is creating a new teaching or making a new law here, but He is only teaching what was true from the beginning (Matthew 5:17-19, 19:4-6).  Morality did not change from the beginning, only the civil laws changed.  Passages like these and Mark 10:12, Luke 16:18, and Romans 7:2-3 can stand on their own without further interpretation.  The Bible does not contradict itself. 

If you are divorced and you think that you are an exception to the rule--so that you can remarry, you had better be really, really sure.  
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (KJV)

Click here to read the next article in this sub-series.


Thursday, November 29, 2012

Teaching Children How to Commit Fornication is Wrong


This is series of articles designed to help professing Christians to turn from their wicked ways and get back to following New Testament ethics.  Compromise is increasing in the church.  Popular opinion among churchgoers is often in stark contrast to the very words of Jesus on many issues.  Christians need to know the word of God and get back to using it as a reference book when they are faced with important decisions.

The week I am reposting an article that I wrote several years ago.  It is still true now just as much as it was then.

Some Christians say that “safe” sex education is important because more and more teenagers are getting pregnant and contracting STDs at younger and younger ages.  They do not want to teach abstinence only because that would “impose their faith” on others.  Real Christians could never believe in making sinful, sexual suggestions to children.  They will never believe in giving any advice about sin except to condemn it and to help bring people out of it.  Romans 13:14 says, “Put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and MAKE NOT PROVISION FOR THE FLESH, TO FULFILL THE LUSTS THEREOF.” 

II Timothy 4:2, 3 says, “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but AFTER OWN LUSTS SHALL THEY HEAP TO THEMSELVES TEACHERS, having itching ears.”  1 Timothy 4:16 says, "Pay CLOSE ATTENTION to yourself and to your TEACHING; persevere in these things; for as you do this you will INSURE SALVATION both for YOURSELF and for THOSE WHO HEAR YOU."

This “safe” fornication education plants dirty, lustful thoughts into the minds of children.  Sin should be treated like deadly poison and the minds of children should be treated as if they are the most precious, valuable, and vulnerable thing on the planet.  “When lust has conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” (James 1:15)  Therefore, there is no “safe” sin.  If you imply that there is, then you are being deceitful even if you’re giving factual information.  Suppose a man had a disease that his knows will soon become deadly and painful, and there is complete cure that his doctor knew would work.  Would this doctor lecture him about over-the-counter pain medicines as if that were a satisfactory alternative?  Would he give him a lollipop to make him feel good?

“But among you there must not be even a HINT of sexual immorality, or any kind impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people.  Nor should there be obscenity…” (Ephesians 5:3, 4)  “Have NOTHING TO DO with the fruitless DEEDS OF DARKNESS, but rather expose them.  For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret.”  (Ephesians 5:11, 12)  Ephesians 4:29 says, “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.”  The “safe” fornication advocates should have their mouths washed out with soap and water.  

Proverbs 22:6 says, “Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it.”  It sometimes seems like passages like this need not be in the Bible.  Isn’t this obvious?  Not to some people.  They think that sometimes it’s better to train a child in the way he shouldn’t go.  God had the foresight to see that Satan would twist their minds.  

A real Christian would never put a stumbling block in the way of a sinner.  (Leviticus 19:14b)  Not only do the false Christians corrupt their own children, but they arrogantly force this disgusting teaching on our children at our expense (through taxes).  If someone causes a Christian child to sin, it would be better for that person to be thrown into the sea with a millstone around his neck.  (Matthew 18:6-9)  II Peter 2:14 says, “Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children”.  II Peter 2:17-19 says, “These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever. For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they ALLURE THROUGH THE LUSTS OF THE FLESH, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While THEY PROMISE THEM LIBERTY, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is HE BROUGHT IN BONDAGE.”            

It does not matter whether the statistics show that this “safe sex” teaching “works”.  Pregnancy and STD prevention are not worth the price of leading children down a path of sin.  What an unholy bargain with the devil this is!  No man can serve two masters:  for either he will HATE the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and DESPISE the other.  (Matthew 6:24)  A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit.  (Matthew 7:17)  Some may say, “Teenagers are going have sex anyway, so we may as well reduce the suffering and negative economic impact of it.”  But the Bible says, “So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view.” (II Corinthians 5:16)  This passage, taken in context, shows the difference between someone who has only head knowledge of what the cross means and one who really believes it in his heart.  “For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, NOT WITH FLESHLY WISDOM, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward.”  (II Corinthians 1:12)

Some people say that I am self-righteous for saying these things.  What could be more SELF-righteous than saying, “I’m going to be a virgin until marriage, but I am going to teach children how NOT to be a virgin.”?  Romans 1 says that “God gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves” because they know “the judgment of God, that they which commit such are worthy of death”.

They also say, “how dare you judge me?”  (Matthew 7:1 says, “Judge not lest you be judged.”)  I am not judging, but warning.  If someone wants to warn me of something that I am doing that will cause me to go hell so that my soul will be saved, then they should by all means do so.  I can take it.  Judging means passing sentence on someone (compare verses 47 and 48 of John 12).  Jesus said, “Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.”  Putting filthy ideas into someone’s mind is passing a sentence on them.  “For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”  God will allow Satan to put filthy thoughts and sickening lustful urges into their flesh forever.  “God is not mocked.  For whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” (Galatians 6:7)  Whatever deeds you have done, you will receive the same in your own body.  (II Corinthians 5:10, Galatians 6:8)

There is, however, something that you should teach your children to put on to protect themselves.  It’s the armor of God.  “For we wrestle NOT against FLESH and blood, but against PRICIPALITIES, against POWERS, against the RULERS of the darkness of THIS WORLD, against spiritual WICKEDNESS IN HIGH PLACES.”  (Ephesians 6:12)

To anyone reading this that claims to be a Christian and is still not convinced, I would say this:

How can you believe in suggesting to a child a way to commit a sin that Jesus Christ had to be beaten, whipped, and nailed to a cross for?  Could you look a bloody, exhausted, battered Jesus in the eye and still say that this is the right thing to do?  In order to be saved, you must believe in the simple, common sense idea that it is always good to teach good things, and always bad to teach bad things.  Unless you change and become like a little child, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.  (Matthew 18:3)  “Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent, and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you.”  (James 1:21)  “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,”  (II Corinthians 6:17).  “Whosoever is a friend of the world is the enemy of God…cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.”  (James 4:4, 8)

Thursday, November 08, 2012

The Election is Over, But Who Cares? Let’s Turn Over a New Leaf


Barack Obama and most of the thieving, murderous, perverts retained their positions in the Government.  So what.  God is more powerful than Obama and the God-haters who voted for him. 

Even though Obama won, we can still defeat him.  No, I’m not talking about impeachment (though I am all for that).  We can defeat Obama and the forces of Satan by getting back to basics of New Testament ethics.  I am not talking about voting and campaigning (though I have nothing against that).  I am talking about how you live your daily life and how to make right choices.   

On the A Good Choice Blog, we often focus on issues like abortion, homosexuality, and the like.  God’s will concerning these issues are evident from the Scriptures.  Most evangelical Christians acknowledge this.  But on other important issues (which are not necessarily political issues), even most evangelical Christians have missed the boat.  Certain things which were not acceptable in the Church 100 years ago are now commonplace.  Little by little, compromise has set in.  It seems like everywhere I go, Christians use human arguments to justify their actions rather than using New Testament ethics.

We cannot expect to defeat the forces of Satan if we are not using the Bible as a guide for our live in every situation.  It’s not just about voting.  Therefore, I am starting a series of articles on this blog about some of the issues which I believe are the most blatantly ignored by most American Christians.  I believe that God is not happy with how we voted in this election, but He is also very unhappy with us in many other ways.  I am beginning to believe more and more that we need to first preach a message of repentance, and then the return of righteous in government will follow.

Thursday, December 29, 2011

Newt “Green Grinch” Gingrich


The tough talking, but spineless politician, is at it again.  He did a commercial with Nancy Pelosi touting job killing environmental regulations.  He has taken campaign contributions from ethanol-producing corporations hoping to get their cut of your tax dollars.  Now the Newt “Green Grinch” Gingrich is in hot water for two counts of violating elections ethics charges.  He took walking lists which didn’t belong to him and sold them under his company and took the profits personally.  

Thursday, June 16, 2011

The Tactics of the ACLU Should Not Be Our Tactics














Last week, when I was circulating the Ohio Healthcare Freedom Amendment petition at popular spot for that sort of activity.  It is a place with a public sidewalk and a lot businesses but not much parking, so it gets a lot of pedestrian traffic.   Then I saw two young girls with ACLU shirts on and they had clipboards like mine, so I asked them what petition they were circulating.  They said that they weren't circulating a petition, but were fundraising for the ACLU.  But I asked them if they would sign my petition.  After explaining what the amendment was, one of the girls said that she didn't know whether or not she should sign it because she didn't know if "they" would want her to.  I wondered who "they" were.  The girl, who couldn't sign because she was not an Ohio resident told her that she could sign it if she wanted to.  I guess whenever someone from the ACLU (especially women from the ACLU) hear the word "healthcare", they think it means abortion.  (But it could just be that she actually agreed with the content of the OHCFA--I don't know.)  As this girl was signing the petition, she told me that sometimes she had signed petitions before, but put a false address on it on purpose because she didn't really believe in what the petition was for and wanted the petitioner to stop bothering her.  She also implied that she did this to thwart the efforts of the circulators.  Nice.  But she told me not worry, she was not going to that to me.  I'm not very confident that she was telling the truth, but it doesn't really matter because if it is a false signature, they will just throw it out and no harm will be done.  But what an idiot!  All this goes to show the mentality of these people.  I was anticipating a confrontation and/our dialogue about the mission of the ACLU, but the two girls didn't stick around long enough for that.


A lot of people in the liberty/patriot movement have become members of the ACLU.  I actually agree with them on some issues, like their opposition to airport security screenings and the Patriot Act.  (Even a broken clock is right twice a day.)  But everyone should know that the ACLU has fought to:

1. By federal judicial fiat, make it illegal to even have a voluntary moment of silence in a public school, even when there is no mention God, Jesus, or anything about religion.
2. By federal judicial fiat, make it illegal for high school biology textbooks to have a sticker in its front insider cover which simply says that there are alternative theories of the origins of man and other species to the theory of general evolution.  Again, there was no mention of God, Jesus, creationism, or even of Intelligent Design.
3.  Take away the right of the states to have laws against abortion.
4.  By federal judicial fiat, take away the right of the states to impose term limits on its U.S. Representative and Senators.
5.  Take away the right of parents to know what their children are being exposed in the public schools
6.  By federal judicial fiat, abolish all laws against any form of pornography, even child pornography.

I must say, though, I had previously circulated the petition for the OHCFA at a local BMV because someone told me that I could.  (I learned later that the Ohio Project itself is telling people to do this.)  But as I later realized, this is really an illegal practice* and it should be stopped immediately.  There are a host reasons why this is a bad idea.  This can be used as propaganda against us and it makes us look no better than those Democrats who broke the law by offering teenagers ice cream if they would take a bus downtown to vote.  Even though you may get permission from some BMV employee, that doesn't change the fact that it is illegal.  The employees at the BMV could get in trouble for it.  The front window clearly says "no solicitation". And its just plain wrong to break the law.  We should all want this victory to be completely above board.  Let's not be like the ACLU and their "win at all costs" mentality.

*But note that at most BMV locations (that I have seen) there are adjacent businesses.  If you were to get permission from such a business you could circulate the petition on their property as long as you don't go cross over into the part which belongs to the BMV.  And maybe there are some BMVs where the sidewalk in front of it is public (but I don't know of any) and so in that case it might also be OK.  

Tuesday, October 06, 2009

Big (Joke) Whoopi

Cartoon by Glenn McCoy as found on Townhall.com 10/5/09


Whoopi Goldberg said that film director Roman Polanski’s statutory rape charge of a 13 year-old girl was not a case of ‘rape rape’.

“Now does that make Whoopi just an idiot, or an idiot idiot?”


- - NewsBusted, Episode 10/6/09

.

COMMENT
.

Whoopi Goldberg and other Hollywood elites have recently come to the audacious defense of the criminal, decadent, and immoral behavior of one of their favorite comrades, film director Roman Polanski. This makes Whoopi and Polanski's defenders complicit in the crime. How in the world can such an egregious crime be overlooked, condoned or ignored?


NewsBusted is a conservative comedy webcast about the news of the day, uploaded every Tuesday and every Friday. Their newest NewBusted episode includes the excerpt above.

See right panel of this blog and click on the picture to watch this 2-3 minute comedy YouTube video.

Monday, March 09, 2009

New Prez Making More Pro-Death Moves

Demise of America

STEM CELLS
.

As fellow blogger, Matt, wrote on Friday, the American Pro-Death president wishes to appease and fulfill promises made to baby-killing scientists to fund the evil practice of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). He is doing so despite the fact that little or nothing has been achieved through ESCR. However, virtually all stem cell breakthroughs and accomplishments have been made using ethical adult stem cells.

Not only is ESCR unnecessary, it is wasteful of funding that could go to adult stem cell research were there has been noted success. There has been little private funding of ESCR. There is a reason. It is also morally repugnant to kill human beings for the purpose of some pie-in-the-sky unproven hope for future cures. What does this say about our society, our culture? We are barbarians at best, baby killers at worst. Shame on you President Soetoro (a/k/a Obama), because your wicked intent to allow the creation of life in order to kill it in some unfounded hope to cure some. Really, you are only enriching some research centers and scientists you will allow to blatantly murder innocent human beings.

Both the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/) and ABC are reporting that President Soetoro (a/k/a Obama) plans to rescind the Bush policy limiting federal funding for destructive human embryonic stem cell research on Monday (March 9, 2009). According to news reports, a signing ceremony will take place on Monday at 11 A.M. This despite the progress made with ethically noncontroversial stem cells, which makes expanded taxpayer funding of human embryonic research untenable.

According to the Washington Post, “proponents expect Soetoro (a/k/a Obama) will simply lift the restriction without caveats and let the NIH work out the details.” Obama has said, "I strongly support expanding research on stem cells. I believe that the restrictions that President Bush has placed on funding of human embryonic stem cell research have handcuffed our scientists and hindered our ability to compete with other nations."

OneNewsNow.com ran an AP story on its website over the weekend which quoted Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council (FRC). He spoke in opposition to this move to provide funding to misuse human beings in experimentation. He said, "Taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for experiments that require the destruction of human life. President Soetoro's (a/k/a Obama) policy change is especially troubling given the significant adult stem cell advances that are being used to treat patients now without harming or destroying human embryos."

I conclude that either the president is a fool or he is so bent on marginalizing life that he will stop short of nothing to degrade and disrespect it.


CONSCIENCE CLAUSE


The following information was received from the Life Legal Defense Foundation (LLDF).

The Soetoro (a/k/a Obama) Administration is also taking action to rescind Conscience Clause regulations enacted under the Bush Administration by the Department of Health and Human Services. The Proposed Rule to rescind the Conscience Regulations has been published in the Federal Register.

The proposed rule can be read in its entirety at http://www.federalregister.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2009-05067_PI.pdf.
Excerpts of the regulation state, “The Department is proposing to rescind in its entirety the final rule entitled “Ensuring That Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices in Violation of Federal Law,” published in the Federal Register on December 19, 2008 (73 FR 78072, 45 CFR Part 88).

Commenters asserted that the rule would limit access to patient care and raised concerns that individuals could be denied access to services, with effects felt disproportionately by those in rural areas or otherwise underserved.

The Department believes that the comments on the August 2008 proposed rule raised a number of questions that warrant further careful consideration. It is important that the Department have the opportunity to review this regulation to ensure its consistency with current Administration policy.

Accordingly, we believe it would benefit the Department to review this rule, accept further comments, and reevaluate the necessity for regulations implementing the statutory requirements. Thus, the Department is proposing to rescind the December 19, 2008 final rule, and we are soliciting public comment to aid our consideration of the many complex questions surrounding the issue and the need for regulation in this area.”

You may wish to submit comments by email at proposedrescission@hhs.gov . (See the proposed rule for detailed information about other submission options.) You can also call or write letters:


The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20201
Telephone: 202-619-0257
Toll Free: 1-877-696-6775

According to the Proposed Rule comments should address the following:

1. Information, including specific examples where feasible, addressing the scope and nature of the problems giving rise to the need for federal rulemaking and how the current rule would resolve those problems;

2. Information, including specific examples where feasible, supporting or refuting allegations that the December 19, 2008 final rule reduces access to information and health care services, particularly by low-income women;

3. Comment on whether the December 19, 2008 final rule provides sufficient clarity to minimize the potential for harm resulting from any ambiguity and confusion that may exist because of the rule; and

4. Comment on whether the objectives of the December 19, 2008 final rule might also be accomplished through non-regulatory means, such as outreach and education.”

Information on the Conscious Clause was taken from information received from the Life Legal Defense Foundation, P.O. Box 2105, Napa CA 94558, (707) 224-6675 (http://lldf.org)