If you are a Southern Baptist and you care about the pro-life cause in the SBC, now is the time to make your voice heard. Speak up for the incremental gains we have made over the last several decades, and keep pushing the ball down the field until we get into the endzone.

I am writing this short essay as an appeal to Southern Baptists who care about the pro-life cause. Right now, there is an effort underway by what I believe to be a tiny minority in the SBC to reverse the SBC’s longstanding commitment to the pro-life cause. They call themselves “Abolitionists,” but they are not the only ones who support the abolition of abortion. All sides of this debate want to see abortion abolished. The Abolitionists, however, condemn and repudiate the pro-life movement’s efforts to restrict abortion in whatever measure possible.
After the Roe decision in 1973, the pro-life movement eventually coalesced around an incrementalist strategy to abolish abortion. Pro-lifers realized that because Roe prevented them from passing laws to outright end abortion, they would have to take whatever ground they could to save as many unborn lives as possible. So we have tried to pass parental notification laws. We’ve supported the Hyde Amendment to prevent taxpayer funded abortions. We’ve supported fetal heartbeat laws in an attempt to outlaw abortion. We supported and passed a ban on the reprehensible procedure known as partial birth abortion. Etc.
The so-called Abolitionist movement condemns all of these measures as compromises with evil. The abolitionists even oppose any exception to save the life of a mother. The only laws or public policies they support are ones that completely abolish abortion all at once. Anything short of that fails to honor the humanity of the unborn. Not only do Abolitionists oppose pro-life policies, they also publicly condemn and shame pro-lifers as compromisers with evil.
To use a football analogy, pro-lifers would love to have a 100-yard touchdown run. But if that isn’t possible, then pro-lifers are eager and willing to take 5-10 yard runs in a sustained drive down the field toward the same end. Abolitionists only accept 100-yard touchdown runs. Anything short a 100-yard touchdown run should be condemned and repudiated as a grave compromise with evil. That’s the difference between the pro-life movement and so-called Abolitionism. It’s not about the final goal of abolishing abortion but about how to get there. Pro-lifers will take whatever ground they can get. Abolitionists are all-or-nothing.
If we had followed an Abolitionist strategy, we would not be on the cusp of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade. The Mississippi fetal heartbeat law that is the basis for the Supreme Court’s recently-leaked Dobbs decision is a pro-life, incrementalist law. Abolitionists oppose that law and thereby support an all-or-nothing approach that would have undermined the most significant pro-life victory in two generations.
Southern Baptists have expressed themselves clearly decade after decade in resolution after resolution to be on the side of the pro-life movement. Southern Baptist resolutions have long supported incrementalist measures to abolish abortion. We have put ourselves on the side of those moving the ball down the field 5-10 yards at a time. We would welcome a 100-yard dash for the endzone. But short of that, we’ve been more than willing to support measures to take whatever ground we can get. That is why we have supported legislation to outlaw partial birth abortion, to keep the Hyde Amendment in place, to pass parental notification laws, etc. Our record on this goes back at least 41 years.
Read More
Related Posts:

In his book, Inventing the Dream, author Kevin Starr writes: “Hollywood, as Horace and Daeida Wilcot envisioned their city-to-be, would be a model Southern Californian community: Christian, righteous, and very dry—no saloons, no liquor stores, with free land offered to Protestant churches locating within the city limits.” (p. 284) The city incorporated in 1903, eleven years after the death of Mr. Wilcot.

This year is the 100th anniversary of the Hollywood sign. It used to say “Hollywoodland.”
But today the city is on hard times. A recent headline at deadline.com is, “Hollywood Jobs Down Nearly 20% This Year, & Not Just Because Of The Strikes, Study Says.”
The article notes, “Despite the now-resolved writers and actors strikes shutting down Hollywood production for several months, the loss of tens of thousands of Tinseltown jobs this year actually is part of a larger economic contraction, a just-released study claims — and those gigs might not be coming back.”
I see these constant stories on how Disney is producing one flop after another in the box office. In their effort to be as woke as possible, they purposefully violate the maxim that “the customer is always right.” They also seem to have forgotten the adage of “Let kids be kids.”
Whether you’re a person or a company or a nation, you can never escape from an important principle in life found in the Bible.
Paul said, “Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.” We can never escape the consequences of our actions, good or bad. That’s why we need the Savior whose birth we celebrate at this time of year.
There was a time, during the Golden Age of Hollywood, when the movie moguls were not at war against America, against Christianity, against Biblical morality.
Dr. Ted Baehr is an author and the publisher of Movieguide, which provides a Biblical perspective on the movies. I reached out to him for a statement along the lines of: “What, if anything, did the Church have to do with the Golden Age of Hollywood?”
His email to me was so lengthy I posted his whole answer here.
Read More
Related Posts:

As Dr. Sanford demonstrates, taken together, all of this evidence indicates that every man and woman on earth today is a direct descendant of one man—“Y Chromosome Adam”—and one woman—“Mitochondrial Eve”—who were created in a state of genetic perfection, less than ten thousand years ago, just as God revealed in the sacred history of Genesis.

Part I
(LifeSiteNews) — A recent article in the journal Scientific American by Allison Hopper entitled “Denial of Evolution is a Form of ‘White Supremacy’,” managed to pack an enormous amount of scientific, historical and theological misinformation into a brief attempt to convince her readers that an acceptance of the “science” of human evolution would destroy the traditional Christian reading of Genesis which, she alleges, is and has been used to promote “white supremacy” for hundreds of years. In this series of articles, we will show that the pseudo-scientific molecules-to-man evolutionary hypothesis has actually been used and continues to be used to justify racism and to destroy faith in the only firm foundation for a culture of universal brotherhood: The Catholic doctrine of creation and the traditional Catholic reading of the sacred history of Genesis.
Genesis and the Myth of White Supremacy
Hopper begins her article by alleging that the Mosaic account of the creation of Adam and Eve and history of their descendants Cain and Abel has long been used to justify “white supremacy.” Without citing any evidence from the Bible or from Church Tradition, Hopper claims that Genesis has led Christians to believe that Adam and Eve were white-skinned and that “dark skin” was a consequence of the curse that befell Cain after murdering his brother. According to Hopper, recognition of the “fact” that the first humans evolved from a common ancestor with chimpanzees in Africa would redound to the glory of dark-skinned people in Africa and throughout the world and help to dissolve the myth of “white supremacy” that the Christian reading of Genesis has promoted for so many centuries.
It is a sad testimony to the extent to which contemporary western intellectuals receive indoctrination rather than education that a contributor to Scientific American was allowed to publish libels against the Mosaic account in Genesis without any serious “fact-checking” by her editors. Where, we would like to know, do the Scriptures or the Fathers of the Church, tell us that Adam and Eve were “white-skinned”? Where does the Bible or the Tradition of the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church teach that Cain acquired dark skin as a consequence of murdering his brother Abel?
These falsehoods may have been bandied about by some anti-Catholic members of the KKK, but they have no basis in the Word of God as understood in God’s Church from the beginning. The mere fact that a writer for Scientific American would publish this libel, with the full permission of the journal’s editors, shows that the first prejudice that all of them need to overcome is the myth of molecule-to-man evolution’s “supremacy” over the traditional Catholic doctrine of creation as a coherent account of the origins of man and the universe that fosters universal brotherhood.
Genetics, Paleoanthropology and the End of the Evolutionary Hypothesis
In recent decades several excellent books have been written refuting the alleged evidence for human evolution. In a short article like this, we can only summarize the most important evidence against the hypothesis of human evolution and refer our readers to the sources of that evidence.
Read More