June 28, 2024

2024 Presidential Debate, Emergency Abortions in Idaho, SCOTUS and Social Media

June 28, 2024


June 28, 2024

Together with:

“It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.”

George Washington

Emergency Abortions in Idaho

The Supreme Court declined to rule on whether Idaho's strict abortion law conflicts with federal law requiring stabilizing care for emergency room patients, including pregnant women who may need abortions. By dismissing Idaho's appeal due to standing, the lower court's ruling, which allows doctors in Idaho to perform abortions in emergencies, remains in effect. This decision, expected after a premature online posting, leaves the issue unresolved and without impact on other states, with the Supreme Court potentially addressing it in a future case. Attorney General Merrick Garland emphasized that the Justice Department will continue advocating for its interpretation of federal law, ensuring emergency care access for women in Idaho.

First, let us say that SCOTUS must need some sort of two-factor authentication when it comes to their office logins. Second, the need for emergency abortions (and the touted restricted access to them) is one of the great fallacies used by pro-abortionists to pressure people into thinking that “abortion saves lives” rather than taking them (Ephesians 4:14).  

The two primary life-threatening situations put forward by pro-abortionists are the risk of sepsis or hemorrhage after “early labor.” Any honest OBGYN or medical professional will assure you that many, many steps of intervention can be taken to prevent and even treat sepsis and hemorrhage before it gets to a life-threatening stage. Additionally, in many cases where the water breaks early, even as early as 22 weeks, a child can be safely delivered and receive life-saving care in a NICU. If a baby in utero is too young to survive a premature birth, the act of delivering that baby is not an abortion. The act of delivering or removing a baby who has died in the womb (medically referred to as a spontaneous abortion) is not abortion but rather a routine, and sometimes medically necessary, procedure associated with miscarriage. An abortion is the intentional murder of a child in the womb or the intentional withholding of care after a premature birth to ensure death. 

In tragic situations where mothers must abstain from certain cancer treatments or risk organ damage to give a baby the best chance at full-term gestation (as can be the case with pre-eclampsia), a calculated risk is taken, but the “possibility” of saving a life does not justify the intentional extinction of another.    

Abortion doctors and activists rightly complain about the difficulty of discerning “how imminent death must be” under the current law in order to perform an abortion, likely because death is not imminent “enough” in many of the cases they are tasked with addressing.

As Christ-followers we must seek the truth always and not be confused by the “cunning” words or convenient “spin” of those opposed to truth and opposed to life (Psalm 58:3, Colossians 2:8). As we seek to be ready to give an answer for our hope and belief (1 Peter 3:15), may we be equally as ready to give a home, support, and care to mothers in crisis (Isaiah 58:10, Hebrews 13:16, Proverbs 19:17).

By: Kirby Mankin

2024 Presidential Debate

Donald Trump and Joe Biden faced off in the first Presidential Debate of the 2024 election cycle. While critics sound off online, analyzing every aspect of the debaters and their responses, there is agreement nearly across the board that President Biden seemed to struggle. Having come to the debate “with a cold,” Biden appeared sluggish and fumbled through many responses. Some are even reporting that there will be a call to replace him (with some even claiming this has been the play all along). 

The debate covered expected talking points from immigration and abortion rights to Jan 6 and the 2020 election. Meanwhile, RFK Jr. offered a real-time response to questions at a “rival” event. 

Anyone with an “ear to the ground” should not be surprised by the takeaways from last night’s debate. Biden and Trump have, for the most part, been forthright and unchanging in their positions on every topic addressed. Equally unsurprising, albeit merited, should be the disappointment felt after watching our nation’s top contenders for the Oval Office fall short of the leadership we long for (Romans 3:23, 1 Peter 4:12). In fact, that longing felt nationally should incite in every man a desire to know the only one who does not disappoint (Isaiah 49:23). We should not be surprised that heavily funded and highly motivated politicians, conventions, etc., may have a trick or two up their sleeve to try and impact or manipulate the outcome of our nation’s future. We also know things “getting worse” is a sign that our King’s return is imminent (2 Timothy 3:1-5). May our hope be continually fixed on Him (1 Peter 1:13). 

Read this article for some excellent thoughts on last night and what we need not debate about as Christians. 

By: The Remnant News Team

SCOTUS and Social Media Misinformation

In Murthy v. Missouri, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, dismissed a lawsuit challenging government influence on social media content moderation policies, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. The decision allows the government to call on tech companies to remove false information.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, found no concrete link between government actions and the plaintiffs' content moderation issues, suggesting any court order against government communication would likely not affect platforms' independent policies. Dissenting justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch argued for broader First Amendment considerations, contending that government coercion of social media platforms to suppress certain speech, particularly related to COVID-19, warranted judicial review.

There is a clear danger in allowing the government to ask companies to censor the voices of the people (Deuteronomy 19:15; Matthew 18:16). Social media allows for men and women to have a voice, but it is also our job to be discerning, not being “carried to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes” (Ephesians 4:14). It is our duty as Christians to test information we take in, and what we allow into our minds and hearts (Matthew 6:22–23; Romans 12:1–2).

Anytime a government official has the opportunity and desire to censor information, it is often bad news for the public (1 Kings 13:1–10; 1 Kings 19:2; 2 Chronicles 24:21; Matthew 14:1–12). Although it might seem good that the government is attempting to crack down on false information, all of us should remember that the standard of what’s true is rooted in the Word (John 14:6; Hebrews 4:12; Revelation 1:16). As our society has moved away from this standard of truth, there needs to be constant vigilance in evaluating what the government calls true or false, for they have been given up to a debased mind (Romans 1:28). Whatever the case, may we continue to pray for our government officials as they have to navigate how to handle the new frontier of social media (1 Timothy 2:1–2).

By: Jack Mueller

Other news you should know

🤑 The NFL hit with pretty big antitrust verdict.

🧸 Generative AI and ToysRUs

🚫 Respectfully, I don’t know if its the Holy Spirit you felt ma’am.

🚜 Tractor Supply back tracks.

🚔 Uvlade school police chief indicted.

🏀 Father/Son NBA history being made.

🤒 Willie Nelson forced to miss another show on tour over health concerns.

Share your thoughts at [email protected]