Sign up for Our Newsletter

* indicates required

Reeder: Believers ‘speaking up’ made real difference in adoption tax credit provision


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Listen to the 10 min. audio

 

Read the transcript:

TOM LAMPRECHT:  Harry, I want to go through three stories today which ought to give believers a little ray of hope and to feel optimistic about the sanctity of life issue.

First story up out of World Magazine, “FBI Seeks Documents for Planned Parenthood Probe.” The FBI has requested unredacted documents the Senate Judiciary Committee obtained from abortion providers, signaling a broader probe into the abortion industry according to a report from The Hill.

This all came about through the videos that were done by the Center for Medical Progress that made it very evident that Planned Parenthood was selling aborted baby body parts for profit, which is against the law.

The second story – which we did cover just the other day but, again, it’s a positive story – the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a California case in which pro-life ministries and other organizations must share information with pregnant mothers about their abortion options.

And, lastly, positive news, in the new tax bill, they have reinserted the tax credit related to adoption.

DR. REEDER: Clearly, Planned Parenthood has violated the law. Planned Parenthood has basically become a wholesaler on baby parts in order to enhance its financial status.

It’s big business and, because it’s big business, then it becomes a difficult issue to deal with so the willingness of the FBI to pursue this and to unearth the documents that have been established before the Congress that investigated this in terms of criminal wrongdoing, No. 1, sends a welcome shot across the bow of the abortion industry and this burgeoning profit-seeking industry.

“We can get it done in a way that preserves organs and body parts. By the way, boy, can we make some money off this and you can take the parts and make money off that.” That whole industry now has the scrutiny of the FBI.

Of course, it remains to be seen in terms of the integrity of the probe, but at least there’s a probe, at least that shot went across the bow and this now-exposed development of body part selling, that is a good news factor. The second one that you bring up, Tom – something that we’ve covered not long ago – is this irrational law that was passed and pushed in its implementation in the State of California about these non-profit and religious organizations that are providing crisis pregnancy care, adoption and clinic care for women who are in crisis pregnancy.

However, they are focused upon the sanctity of life and that, “Yes, this is a crisis and, yes, we are here to help you, but the answer is not the killing of the baby. That will produce greater problems in your life in the future emotionally, and spiritually and psychologically. Here’s a better answer. We can nurture you, nurture the life, and if you are not able to take the life of this baby and nurture the baby after its birth, we will provide an avenue toward an adoption instead of the murder of the unborn infant. That is not a solution to the crisis.”

Well, now, the State of California says, “Before you can ever talk to them about their healthcare, the mental, the spiritual, the physical, adoption alternatives – before you can ever do any of that – you have to give them contact information and lay out for them how they can go and get an abortion, a free abortion.

And you have to, as it were, be the initial marketing agent to this woman as to that choice of an abortion, which, in reality, is what they are attempting to eradicate from the American culture – this culture of death that destroys children.

Well, California, of course, is a leading fascist movement as they take the power of the government to enforce the right of abortion.

It is a religious entity for the secular humanists that you must not only provide abortion, you must not only approve abortions and they must not only be legal.

You can forget this legal and rare thing – you must promote them and celebrate them and even those who have a religious conviction based upon the sanctity of life, you must celebrate it, you must propagate it, you must market it and you must propose it.

Thankfully, there have numerous entities that have sued the State of California, that have brought appropriate lawsuits as the fact that this law is in direct opposition against our Constitution, in general, and the Bill of Rights, in particular, and the First Amendment, specifically, in two areas.

One is freedom of speech. Freedom of speech includes not only what you are allowed to say, but that you are not coerced to say.

Secondly, it is also obviously a strike against the freedom of religion in that one’s deeply held religious beliefs on the sanctity of life must not be violated by the power of the state in that they could close the crisis pregnancy center or fine those who are in the crisis pregnancy centers if they do not propagate and market the abortion industry.

And, thankfully, that’s going to the Supreme Court. I have every hope and desire that there will be an appropriate ruling upholding free speech so that they do not have to communicate this under the coercion of the State and the freedom of religion is that they can hold to the sanctity of life.

And then, finally, Tom, another piece of good news: as we have said, the real change in our country is going to be as Christians do evangelism and discipleship and people’s lives are changed by the grace of God and transformed and then that’s what transforms culture, when Gospel transformation takes place.

However, there is a place for Christians to enter the public square for the public good with public policy from the sanity of a Christian world and life view.

In the new tax reform, in an effort to find places to cut down on the deficit, there was a removal of a number of provisions, whereby, you could deduct from your income tax and one of those was you could deduct up to a certain amount the money that you spend on adoption, which is anywhere from $20,000.00 to $40,000.00. And there are many people who could provide a wonderful home but just cannot afford that.

Well, again, that strikes at the sanctity of life if we price out the provision of adoption in our nation so the State has a vested interest in encouraging adoption because, with the option of adoption, then there is a the fact that a number of those facing crisis pregnancies would be more open to hearing the plea for the sanctity of life and carrying their child to birth, knowing that the child would be taken care of by a family that was qualified and ready to provide a nurturing environment, yet, that family, perhaps, doesn’t have the means to do that financially so the adoption tax credit has been something that promotes the sanctity of life.

Well, there was an appropriate, well-constructed communication from many believers –systematically in some cases and spontaneously in others – and both the Senate and the House now agree to reinsert this provision that upholds the sanctity of life by giving relief to those who are in this expensive endeavor of seeking to adopt children that have been unwanted, but are wanted by many. And, therefore, they get some relief through the income tax credit.

TOM LAMPRECHT: Harry, it is so easy to get discouraged and think, “My voice will not matter,” but it does.

DR. REEDER: Many times, when you speak up, you say, “Well, what’s the use? There’s going to be no consequence.” No, if it’s right, do what’s right. Speak up. You never know what God will use.

When you say the truth, say it in love and say it the right way. That includes not only the Gospel of saving grace, but the same thing’s true of your ministry as believers and as the church in the arena of common grace.

Speak up because it’s right and do it in the right way at the right time and for the right reasons. The Lord, many times, surprises us with wonderful consequences such as the ones that we have mentioned today.

Dr. Harry L. Reeder III is the Senior Pastor of Briarwood Presbyterian Church in Birmingham.

This podcast was transcribed by Jessica Havin. Jessica is editorial assistant for Yellowhammer News. Jessica has transcribed some of the top podcasts in the country and her work has been featured in a New York Times Bestseller.

7 hours ago

Aderholt named ranking member of appropriations subcommittee critical to north Alabama’s economy

On Tuesday, Congressman Robert Aderholt (AL-4) was named ranking member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science, which funds NASA and the FBI, amongst other important economic engines.

In a statement, Aderholt said, “It is a great honor to be named the ranking member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science. This subcommittee is certainly important to America, but even more so for North Alabama.”

193

“This subcommittee is directly responsible for funding NASA and the FBI, along with the Department of Commerce,” Aderholt explained. “The FBI and NASA are two very important agencies to the economy of not only Huntsville, but also the northern portion of our state. NASA, of course, has a long history in this region and gave rise to Huntsville’s name as the Rocket City. And in just the past few years, the FBI has built a presence on Redstone Arsenal and is in the process of growing to a level of approximately 4,000 jobs.”

The congressman concluded, “With my leadership on this subcommittee, I will work to ensure that North Alabama continues to lead as we return to the moon, put boots on Mars and travel into deep space. And with the FBI’s Hazardous Devices School, and growing footprint in North Alabama, I will also be a voice to let my colleagues know that North Alabama is in a prime position to be a hub for matters concerning our national security.”

Aderholt also serves on the powerful House Appropriations Committee.

Sean Ross is a staff writer for Yellowhammer News. You can follow him on Twitter @sean_yhn

8 hours ago

Is Doug Jones a foot soldier in the Democrat Civil War for taking a shot at liberal darling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?

If you are Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL) right now, you probably know you have almost no chance of being elected to a full term as a United State senator.

This obviously could change. Roy Moore could continue to crave the spotlight and enter a Republican primary field in 2020, but this is obviously a long-shot for him.

Complicating Jones’ life right now is a number of new Democratic members of the House of Representatives. They are outspoken, silly and contrary to the carefully crafted image Jones wants to sell to Alabama. Jones wants to be Mr. Moderate, a conservative-ish Democrat in the mold of former Congressman Bud Cramer (D-Huntsville), but he can’t do that if he is constantly dealing with a 24-hour news cycle where his fellow Democrats are acting nuts.

281

Jones seems to know this, and the clearest way to distinguish himself from members like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) is to directly scold her to The Hill.

He said, “I think it skews what’s really there for the Democratic Party.”

Jones seems to want to differentiate himself from Ocasio-Cortez’s brand of non-stop Twitter trolling will endear her to the same media that can’t let a Trump tweet go without an analysis of its impact. But Jones didn’t stop there. He also thinks this style of bomb-throwing is ineffective politics.

“When it gets time to get things done, that’s what people are going to be looking at — they’re going to be looking at the middle-of-the-roaders because it’s the only way to get anything done,” Jones stated.

If recent history is any judge, Ocasio-Cortez will not let these comments slide without a response. The fight for the soul of the Democratic Party is on and Jones will likely find himself out-gunned and without many powerful allies.

In response to similar criticism from former Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Lieberman (D-CT), Ocasio-Cortez responded with the following tweet:

Will Jones double-down or will he slink back to his backbench for fear of his party’s base if she hits back?

For now, Jones sounds like he thinks his voters want him to get stuff done, but considering that Jones’ main accomplishment at this point in his Senate career is his vote against now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation it is likely most Alabama voters would prefer he enjoys his time in Washington D.C. as a spectator before being sent home in 2020.

@TheDaleJackson is a contributing writer to Yellowhammer News and hosts a talk show from 7-11 am weekdays on WVNN

9 hours ago

Trump AG nominee: Sessions ‘probably did the right thing’ in recusing himself from Russia probe

Attorney General-nominee William Barr on Tuesday said Jeff Sessions “probably did the right thing” in recusing himself from the investigation into alleged collusion with Russia by the Trump campaign, according to The Washington Post.

Barr previously served as attorney general from 1991-1993. During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Barr was asked by committee chair Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) about Sessions’ decision to recuse himself from the probe because he was involved in the Trump campaign.

“I am not sure of all of the facts, but I think he probably did the right thing recusing himself,” Barr said.

132

This came the day after Sessions attended Alabama’s Inaugural Day festivities, including the swearing-in ceremony for all statewide elected officials and reception for state Attorney General Steve Marshall.

During Marshall’s event in the attorney general’s office building, Sessions said, “Do the right thing every day and usually things will work out… [well,] not always.”

After the laughter of the room started to subside, he added, “At least in the United States, when they fire you, they don’t shoot you like they do in some countries.”

Sessions’ relationship with President Donald Trump was eroded by the recusal and the president’s public attacks on both that decision and Sessions personally. He resigned at the request of the president in November.

Sean Ross is a staff writer for Yellowhammer News. You can follow him on Twitter @sean_yhn

10 hours ago

State Sen. Gerald Allen responds to judge striking down Alabama Memorial Preservation Act — ‘Judges are not kings’

On Tuesday afternoon, State Senator Gerald Allen (R-Tuscaloosa), the sponsor of the Alabama Memorial Preservation Act, criticized Jefferson County Circuit Judge Michael Graffeo’s ruling that the law is unconstitutional.

Graffeo made the ruling Monday.

“Under the Constitution, judges are to be neutral umpires who apply the rule of law fairly,” Allen said in a statement. “A judge’s personal beliefs, whether about politics, sociology, or history, have no bearing on how he is to apply the law.”

He continued, “Judge Graffeo has taken it upon himself to know and declare that it is ‘undisputed’ that the majority of residents of Birmingham are ‘repulsed’ by the Linn Park monument, and has thus ruled the Alabama Memorial Preservation Act void. But judges are not kings, and judicial activism is no substitute for the democratic process.”

92

“The Memorial Preservation Act is meant to thoughtfully preserve the entire story of Alabama’s history for future generations. The law was vigorously debated for months by the people of Alabama’s duly-elected representatives in the State Legislature, and passed with overwhelming majorities in both the House and Senate,” Allen advised.

He concluded, “The Attorney General’s Office is confident that the Memorial Preservation Act is constitutional, and I look forward to the Attorney General’s appeal of Judge Graffeo’s ruling.”

Sean Ross is a staff writer for Yellowhammer News. You can follow him on Twitter @sean_yhn

10 hours ago

Judge voids Alabama law protecting Confederate monuments

A judge has overturned an Alabama law meant to prevent the removal of Confederate monuments from public property, ruling the act infringed on the rights of citizens in a mostly black city who are “repulsed” by the memorial.

The 10-page ruling issued late Monday by Jefferson County Circuit Judge Michael Graffeo said a 2017 state law barring the removal or alteration of historical monuments wrongly violated the free speech rights of local communities.

The law cannot be enforced, Graffeo ruled, but the state could still appeal.

256

The attorney general’s comment had no immediate response to an email seeking comment Tuesday.

The state sued the city of Birmingham after officials tried to remove a 52-foot-tall (16-meter)-tall obelisk that was erected to honor Confederate veterans in a downtown park in 1905.

Rather than toppling the stone marker, the city built a 12-foot (3.6-meter)-tall wooden box around it.

Birmingham’s population of 210,000 is more than 70 percent black, and the judge said it was indisputable that most citizens are “repulsed” by the memorial.

He rejected the state’s claims that lawmakers had the power to protect historical monuments statewide.

The law includes a $25,000 penalty for removing or altering a historical monument, but the judge said the penalty was unconstitutional.

The city has not had to pay while the lawsuit worked its way through court.

The ruling came hours after the inauguration of Republican Gov. Kay Ivey, who signed the law and opened her campaign last year with a commercial that prominently showed Confederate monuments.

“We can’t change or erase our history, but here in Alabama we know something that Washington doesn’t. To get where we are going means understanding where we have been,” Ivey said in the ad.

Supporters of the law contend it protects not just Confederate memorials but historical markers of any kind, but rebel memorials have been an issue nationwide since a white supremacist gunman killed nine worshippers in a black church in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2015.
(Associated Press, copyright 2018)

Sign-up now for our daily newsletter and never miss another article from Yellowhammer News.