I’ve written extensively in the past criticizing pro-life legislation for the compromises it usually makes. One particular realm, however, I view as an extremely valuable avenue for change, simultaneously avoiding the nearly impossible difficulties on passing a personhood amendment and obviating the need for compromise.

Recently, the Tennessee senate voted to pass a bill updating their wrongful death legislation (which makes it a criminal offense to cause the death of an unborn person, for example in the murder of a pregnant mother) to replace the word “fetus” with “embryo.” Last year, they had altered the wording from “viable fetus” to simply “fetus.” What is the impetus behind these semantic shifts? In both cases, the intent was to protect life from the moment of conception, the only reason making a second change necessary being an apparent misunderstanding on the part of Tennessee law makers (the term “fetus” describes those unborn after 8 weeks, whereas embryo is all-encompassing).

Currently almost half of the States have similar laws protecting the unborn at any point of development. The key strength of this legislation is that establishes the intrinsic value of the unborn in law without making anyone the enemy except those criminals that would attack a pregnant mother (something that’s hard to vote against). As we applaud Tennessee for their attention to detail in protecting the unborn, I only wish that other states would consider investing more political resources in similar efforts, rather than wasting time with virtually meaningless legislation like the virtually meaningless 20 week ban that our own state, Arizona, just passed.

The official bill information can be found at the other end of this link.

Time Magazine is currently running polls for the Time 100, and Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood is a candidate for the list. Unfortunately, it seems that Time misplaced the proper description, so I have taken the liberty to try to reconstruct it.

“Planned Parenthood’s forces assembled to crush legislation requiring basic information prior to an operation when seven states began to enforce laws requiring ultrasounds prior to abortions. It also publically bullied the breast-cancer charity Susan G. Komen for the Cure after Komen decided to no longer give money to a highly controversial organization that has little to do with breast cancer anyway. Richards orchestrated the pressure that pushed Komen to give in and reverse its decision. For that, countless unborn women will never have the chance to be grateful.”

If you want to read the one that they used instead, visit this link. While you’re there, take a second to vote against her, and then share that vote via Facebook or Twitter.

Update: The list is out, and Cecile Richards is on it. Fortunately, there is a new description. Unfortunately, they didn’t pick the one above.

In the interest of honesty, I feel obligated (and also excited!) to share with you that I am officially the chair of the Teens for Gingrich Coalition in Arizona. For more information on that, you can visit the Facebook page for it, and I (of course), encourage you to like that page.

It is important to note that this is not an endorsement by Voices for the Voiceless of a particular candidate, and that within the group there is a diversity of opinion; what we agree on is that any of the current Republican candidates would be a far better option for the defense of the unborn and promotion of the concept of universal human value than would be and has been Obama.

For those interested, I wrote a piece on journalistic ethics before, and still stand by it, and, as I feel, within its principles. You can read it here on our website.

I just finished reading the Steve Jobs biography; it’s a book I would recommend to anyone; it’s a book that grabs you, pulls you in, and never lets you go. It tells the timeless story of a man who took the company he started in his parents’ garage and transformed it into the most valuable company in the world, and who changed the world in the process. Many see this career and see glaring contradictions; they watch the famous 1984 Super Bowl ad where Apple is the scrappy rebel overthrowing the evil empire of IBM and then try to juxtapose that against Apple as it stands now, the master of the technology industry, with an ecosystem of services and devices tightly integrated and maniacally controlled. Where once was a hero now is the very villain it once fought so hard to overthrow, and yet Steve Jobs never really changed, even though he changed all the world around him.

The world wants to see revolution; they want to see the people on top get upset by anonymous firebrands from the lowest levels of society. The world wants to see the overthrow of the fat, rich and powerful, and yet there is so much more to be had. To merely be against—to always be the underdog, the revolutionary, the protester—is not enough, and Steve Jobs realized this. His dream was never to simply build one great product and leave it at that. His dream was never to merely vanquish the IBM’s of the world and then to establish some open-source utopia. No, his dream was to build a company to last a century, a company centered on values, held together by key beliefs. IBM was not the enemy because there had to be an enemy; rather, it had to be cast down because it lacked the values Apple held dear. Steve Jobs fully grasped a concept that most of the world entirely misses out on. To truly live is not to live as the revolutionary or to live as the emperor, relegated to one caste or the other; to truly live is to soar, to fly high beyond the petty divisions of society, held aloft by the winds of an idea.

We’re on Google+ now! For those of you who use said network, you should add us to your circles.

There’s a new pro-life pledge out for Republican presidential hopefuls, this time from Personhood USA. It joins The Susan B. Anthony List’s pledge and Mitt Romney’s personal pledge in what is becoming an increasingly crowded field.

Notably, this pledge differs from the SBA List’s in that it is much more a statement of belief than a list of actions, and also in that it centers on personhood, whereas the SBA List’s has a strong emphasis on pain-capable unborn child protection act, which has some issues. Also, more candidates have signed the SBA List’s pledge (it being significantly older). Only Bachmann, Santorum, and Gingrich have signed the Personhood pledge, while all of those three as well as Paul and Perry have signed the SBA List’s.

The key strength of these pledges is that they act as firm statements from those who sign them, allowing us to better understand their positions and beliefs. Unfortunately, pledges cannot be used to pass any sort of judgment on those who do not sign them, as there can be a host of reasons not to; for example, Huntsman simply doesn’t sign pledges. In the end, pledges are helpful, but only additive.

Update:

Both pledges are now on equal footing, with five of the seven major candidates having signed them, and of those seven, only Romney and Huntsman abstaining.

180: Changing the Heart of a Nation is a prolife documentary produced and directed by Ray Comfort, an evangelist and author. Originally from New Zealand and a self-proclaimed “Jew who was open to Jesus Christ”, Comfort has written over 65 books and tracts and produced several films. His latest project however, might be his greatest work yet.

180 takes deep a look into the mind of average Americans. The film opens with a simple question: who was Adolf Hitler? You’re thinking, “Who wouldn’t know the answer to that question?” Prepare to be blown away. You see every type of people, and each have a different way of looking at things. A college kid who has very little clue about the subject; a Russian who lost relatives in WW2; a Neo-Nazi who believes that everyone should have spiky blue hair and hates Jews and Christians. The point isn’t where you’re from, what you know or don’t know, it’s what you believe. And Comfort finds that few actually know what they believe. Take a look:

Read the rest of this entry »