The Kuyperian Commentary

Politics, Economics, Culture, and Theology with a Biblical Viewpoint

Archive for the category “Healthcare”

Universal Healthcare, Universal Drone Strikes

by Adam McIntosh

Who else remembers the progressive-liberal movement displaying such moral outrage towards George W. Bush because of the “war on terror” and his unconstitutional invasion of Iraq? We’re talking impeachment-level outrage. Bush was deemed a war criminal worthy of imprisonment. He was condemned for passing the Patriot Act, a bill that essentially repeals the fourth amendment. Celebrities made a mockery of him and thousands upon thousands of protesters gathered all over the world in defense of peace and the rule of law.

The anti-Bush hysteria certainly included independents, libertarians and constitutionalists, but the majority aligned themselves with the Democratic Party. Riding the coattails of the anti-war movement was Senator Barack Obama, identifying himself as one who was against unconstitutional wars and the Patriot Act. He promised to bring the troops home from Iraq within the first year of his presidency. This sealed his White House victory quite easily. The movement had finally found their man. So, where aantiwarleftre they now?
Read more…

We are Kermit Gosnell

Justin Donathan is a husband and father of two precious little girls.  He is a graduate of Covenant Theological Seminary  and the University of Oklahoma, and he lives in St. Louis, Missouri where he is currently working in the legal field as he pursues a call to pastoral ministry.  You may contact him at jdonathan@gmail.com.

The details of the trial of abortionist and infanticidist Kermit Gosnell have been haunting me, and I’m sure many of you, for some days now.  What this man did, and how he got away with it are so difficult to process on so many levels.  I’ve felt anger, sadness, desperation, horror, and more reading the testimony and editorials.  And then there are all the issues with the trial itself. Read more…

Whither the Wicker?

Guest Post by Rob Hadding

I’ve been watching politics since I was about ten. My earliest political recollections are of the 1972 Republican and Democratic conventions. I was captivated by the theater of it all. The speeches were full of pathos, the nominating process was full of drama, and it seemed like everyone was full of enthusiasm for the possibilities that lay ahead if their man (or woman – Shirley Chisholm ran that year) won the day. It all seemed so important. I’ve watched coverage of almost every political convention since, if with significantly less awe.  Somewhere along the way since 1972, I began to see what every other informed observer of American politics sees. To say that I’ve grown cynical is to say a true thing.

My political cynicism found an easy friend in the hell-in-a-handbasket eschatology of Dispensationalism, and quicker than you could name the next candidate for antichrist, I was a full-blown pessimist. But over time, I found pessimism to be exhausting – there was never a payoff. When things just keep going from bad to worse to worser, the only thing there is to feel good about is the destruction of the universe, and, frankly, that kind of a downer.

Imagine my relief, then, when I was introduced to a more hopeful eschatology. It took me a long time to sort out, but once I finally did it was like I had been given permission to feel good about the creation that God called good in the first place. He isn’t just going to blow it to smithereens; he is going to put it all back together again, but this time more glorious than ever. In fact, new creation had already begun in the resurrection of Christ. Antichrist, meet Jesus Christ. You lose.

But in a sense, this just caused me further consternation. I had abandoned the theological titanic that is Dispensationalism, but my political cynicism had only grown. Speeches, conventions, elections, and bad leaders accumulated, and things only appear to grow worse. How can someone remain optimistic when the handbasket is moving so fast?

Well, last week something happened that sparked hope. Now, it’s only a spark, and the kind of hope it inspires is not in any sense ultimate, but it was like nothing I’ve seen in some time. On the floor of the United States Senate, the junior senator from Kentucky stood for thirteen without a pee break on principle. In accordance with Senate rules, and armed with the conviction to stand up and say, “Hell no,” Rand Paul hijacked the Senate for the day to make a point. The filibuster of John Brennan’s confirmation to the job of CIA Director was not to block Mr. Brennan’s appointment (he admitted at the outset that he did not have the votes to succeed in doing so), but to call attention to the use of drones against American citizens, both on and off American soil, without benefit of due process. Specifically, Mr. Paul was calling out President Barack Obama and his chief lawyer, Eric Holder, to give a clear answer on whether they understood it was within the president’s power to order a hit on an American without a trial to establish guilt. Up to this point a clear answer had not come, though the question was clearly asked.

This moment is probably not in itself a tide turner. Even though it seems that Mr. Paul did get a clear, yet terse, response from Mr. Holder the following day, and even though Mr. Paul raised awareness on the issue of drones – both of which were his stated objectives – this event does not in itself change the course of the nation, or usher in a new age of openness in government, or make the president any less likely to do everything he can to drive the America Bus into oncoming traffic.

But something very real happened on that day that gives me reason to think that the handbasket could take another direction. This is evident in the way the day unfolded. At the beginning, it looked like Rand Paul, a chip off the nutty ol’ Paul block, was going to make a long-winded speech. It would be well reasoned, of course, and would score some points with the Tea Party crowd, but would accomplish just north of nothing. But as the day progressed, a swell of tweets and status updates formed. A website emerged to clock his filibuster. Activity in the Senate Chamber increased. Other senators rose, requesting time to ask questions without asking Senator Paul to yield the floor as a show of support and to give him a moment to rest his voice. C-SPAN 2’s existence was justified. I went to bed that night before he had finished. I said to my wife as I turned out the bedroom light, “I hope he’s still going in the morning.” But by the time the day had ended, Mr. Paul had done something that hadn’t been done in a long time – he captured the imagination of the political right, and gave them something to be excited about.

In just thirteen hours – which is a long time to stand without peeing, but not so long if you’re talking about the history of the world – a freshman senator breathed life into his party and into those of us who had lost all confidence in the Republican Party after the nomination of Mitt Romney. In a single moment of political theater one began to think that all just might not be lost.

Let me be clear: I don’t think the answer to our ills is political (in the common sense of the term). I don’t think that Rand Paul is the great hope of the nation, or even of the Republican Party. I am not sure he would make a great president. But on the day of the filibuster, he lit a match in the political darkness, and it may be that that match touches a candlewick – or a fuse. One thing is certain: Rand Paul stock went up that day, and he may just be the leader conservatives have been looking for.

But what really strikes me about the whole thing is something more hopeful. That is, as fast as that things can change. Even though things look like they are hurtling toward certain disaster, in just a moment things can change. Who knows what the effects of this event will be? It could be the beginning of a massive re-framing of the conversation about the economy, morality, and so on. It might not be. But for me, it has persuaded me that good things can happen, and I am free to be optimistic even in the face of what appear to be overwhelmingly bad circumstances. It can all change quickly.

Rob Hadding is the Senior Pastor of Christ Church in Pace, Fl.

The Battle in Bear Country » Sullivan v Wilson: Is Civil Marriage for Gay Couples Good for Society?

The University of Idaho hosted a public debate, to a crowd of over 800, on February 27, 2013. The debate was participated in by Andrew Sullivan, blogger and former senior editor of The Atlantic, and Douglas Wilson, pastor of Christ Church of Moscow, ID, author and educator. The topic of the debate: Is Civil Marriage for Gay Couples Good for Society?

Battle of the Beards

Battle of the Beards

Read more…

Jesus the Socialist Hippie?

This past weekend I had the privilege of seeing this photo on the internet:

I say “privilege” with all the sarcasm you can possibly fathom. There are so many false assumptions being made in this short statement that it is hard to know where to begin. Perhaps I should just roll my eyes and forget about it. But no, this is a very misguided statement that requires a serious response.

Liberals like to use biblical admonitions to take care of the poor as justification for government-run healthcare, but a logical leap of this magnitude never sets foot on solid ground. Jesus certainly does give away free healthcare and he commands his followers to do the same:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed.” – Luke 4:18

“Go and tell John the things you have seen and heard: that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have the gospel preached to them.” – Luke 7:22

“If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” – Matthew 19:21

“They will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” – Matthew 25:37-40

“…when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you; for you shall be repaid at the resurrection of the just.” – Luke 14:13

None of these verses prove what the liberal wants to prove. For starters, the healthcare that Jesus gives away is his own. The eternal Son of God heals by his own life-giving power and blood. This is completely reversed with government-run healthcare. The government has no life-giving power on its own. It must necessarily take from someone else, by force, to provide its services. The way of Christ is one of mercy and self-sacrifice; the way of socialism is theft and coercion.

Secondly, Jesus gives the responsibility of taking care of the poor to individuals within the Church. Does Jesus say, “Sell what you have and give it to the government, so that the government can give it to the poor”? Does Jesus say, “Let the government take your property away from you so that they can provide for the needy”? No! Jesus wants his people to be people of charity, people who bring healing to their communities in the spirit of mercy and self-sacrifice. The early Christians followed Christ’s example by giving tithes and offerings to take care of themselves and the community (Acts 2:44-45; Acts 4:32-35). They didn’t lobby the Roman Empire to pass welfare legislation.

I believe most liberals have good intentions in wanting the government to provide healthcare, but that doesn’t mean it’s a legitimate method. Ignoring the needs of others is wrong, but forcing charity is wrong as well. Doing the right thing in the wrong way is never right.

So, is Jesus a socialist hippie? Far from it. Jesus is our great high priest, through whom we find healing and rest. In him, every Christian is a priest (1 Peter 2:9) and we share the responsibility of sacrificial service to our communities. The Church is supposed to be the institution that cares for the sick, clothes the naked and feeds the hungry – not Washington, DC.

by Adam McIntosh

Former Pro-Life Surgeon General C. Everett Koop dead at age 96

Dr. Charles Everett Koop, MD (October 14, 1916 – February 25, 2013)

Former surgeon general C. Everett Koop


USA today
is reporting that Pro-Life bulwark C. Everett Koop has now passed:

“C. Everett Koop, the former surgeon general who brought frank talk about AIDS into American homes, has died at his home in Hanover, N.H., officials at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth announced Monday. He was 96.

Koop, a pediatric surgeon with a conservative reputation and a distinctive beard, was surgeon general from 1981 to 1989 during the Reagan administration and the early months of the administration of George H.W. Bush.”

A Pro-Life Legacy

For us in the Pro-life world, Dr. Koop has had a significant impact in the debate about abortion and the value of human life. For more than a quarter of a century he specialized in the care and surgical treatment of physically impaired children. His work was devoted to restoring and saving lives. He worked alongside thousands of parents and understood the economic and social burdens associated with “right to live” decisions. His experiences encouraged him to speak up for the unborn and his work has inspired an entire generation of pro-life activists.

Whatever Happened to the Human Race?Whatever Happened to the Human Race?

Koop teamed up with Francis Schaeffer to analyze the widespread implications and frightening loss of human rights brought on by today’s practices of abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia. They produced a book and a video series on the issue. Koop understood that choices were being made that undermine human rights at their most basic level. Practices once labeled “unthinkable” by physicians were now considered acceptable. They pleased for the end of the destruction of human life, young and old, which being sanctioned on an ever-increasing scale by the medical profession, by the courts, by parents, and by silent citizens. Koop also authored a book called, The Right to Live: The Right to Die continuing to appeal to the American public as a pro-life physician.

Buy Whatever Happened to the Human Race? (Revised Edition)

A Few Quotes

“We live in a schizophrenic society. We will fly a deformed newborn baby four hundred miles by airplane to perform a series of remarkable operations on such a youngster, knowing full well that the end result will be far from perfect. We will ship food to a starving nation overseas, and, at the same time, supply arms to its enemy…While we struggle to save the life of a three pound baby in a hospital’s newborn intensive care unit, obstetricians in the same hospital are destroying similar infants yet unborn.”

“Wherever and whenever the respect for human life is cheapened and diminished there is an educational effect upon that culture and society.”

“Protection of the life of the mother as an excuse for an abortion is a smoke screen. In my 36 years of pediatric surgery, I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted to save the mother’s life. If toward the end of the pregnancy complications arise that threaten the mother’s health, the doctor will induce labor or perform a Caesarean section. His intention is to save the life of both the mother and the baby. The baby’s life is never willfully destroyed because the mother’s life is in danger.”

5 Best Pro-Life Sermons

Jan. 22 marks the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, a decision that has taken the lives of over 50 million children. A decision the Church has been actively seeking to dismantle.

To help us understand this issue, I have compiled a small list of the best pro-life sermons against the works of darkness and the abortion industry. I pray that this will encourage Pastors to preach against abortion this Sunday.


Moloch Worship by John Weaver, Freedom Ministries
Text: Deuteronomy 18:9-14 
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=310082111298


Feminism and The Abortion Holocaust by Rev. Brian Schwertley, Westminster Presbyterian Church
Text: Psalm 139
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=4807163739


Fools Love Death by Pastor John Stoos, Church of the King Sacramento
Text: Matthew 2
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=120081913285


Godly Children: Arrows of Mighty Warriors by Rev. Joe Morecraft III, Chalcedon Presbyterian Church
Text: Psalm 127
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=12212171587


Adultery and Abortion by Pastor Dennis Tuuri, Reformation Covenant Church
Text: Deuteronomy 22:13-30
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=21011168326

The President has the power to buy voters and everyone knows it

This is an excellent analysis of how much can be wasted over wishful thinking. But it also pretty much spells out the producers v. dependents scenario that most Conservative/Libertarians fear (which I guess slipped through in the article because it was off topic). I’d love to get the writer in a room and ask him some questions about what he thinks this all means.

Romney advisers say it was impossible to compete against Obama’s huge war chest. They also envy his ability to leverage the presidency for his campaign. Young voters were told about new provisions for student loans and Obama’s support for same-sex marriage, an issue that appeals to young voters. Hispanic voters were wooed by the president’s plan to waive the deportation of children of illegal immigrants. One Romney aide also included the much-debated changes to welfare requirements as a policy aimed to win over African-American voters. “It was like they had a calendar,” said one Romney aide. With each month, the Obama administration rolled out a new policy for a different segment of their coalition they hoped to attract.

via Why Romney was surprised to lose: His campaign had the wrong numbers, bad assumptions, and underestimated Barack Obama’s campaign team. – Slate Magazine.

Conservatives have two things (humanly speaking) going for them.

1. Hatred of slavery. Romney didn’t believe in this. He figured if the 47% didn’t pay taxes/or were dependent (which? I was never clear on this). But while more dependency will obviously favor the giver of gifts, it isn’t going to be that great experience for everyone. Some will hate it. If they get the idea that the government has destroyed the economy and is benefiting from that destruction by moving more people into dependency, we have every reason to hope for a backlash.

2. Greece Benefits are only attractive when the government actually gives them to the people who are voting for them. Obama is gambling that he can spend and spend some more and not feel the repercussions while he is still in office. Maybe he will make it and escape offshore after he leaves office. But there is a debt Doomsday about to hit. Republicans have contributed to that horrible situation, but Obama has made their sins look almost insignificant. We need to put out a consistent message so when the Obamalypse hits, everyone knows its name.

As a Christian, there is also a lot more to do. But on the level of appealing to a secular culture on economic issues, I think these two points are really important.

(This article derived from a slightly longer version at my website.)

Doug Wilson on the Roberts’ Decision

I am generally in 90% agreement with Doug on political issues. He is sober-minded, and remarkably astute when it comes to the heart of the political exchange. Here he demonstrates in seven points the fallacy of the pro-Roberts’ analysis:

1. Yesterday I sent out a tweet that offered my legal analysis of the Obamacare de . . . well, let us call it a decision. That theory was that somebody has PHOTOS of John Roberts. Not an assertion, not a charge, just an attempt to place a charitable construct upon the inexplicable. Others have argued that Roberts was being way tricksy — here and here, fer instance.

2. If John Roberts caved, for whatever reason, we should all be full of hopping indignation. But if he is a deep and tricksy thinker, then the success of his stratagem will depend entirely upon us ignoring his deep meanings, and being full of hopping indignation anyway. So fortunately, that all works out. Our duty is clear. Kick into fulmination mode and hop away.

3. Whether he intended to do this or not, there are some significant silver linings, at least as far as the next two or three tactical moves go. Obamacare was upheld as a tax. This means several things. First, the Constitution requires tax bills to originate in the House, and Obamacare originated in the Senate. A suit should be filed on that basis. Second, this means that Obamacare can now be overturned in the Senate with 51 votes instead of the 60 that were required before. In short, this was a bad decision, but it was convoluted enough to provide conservatives with significant maneuvering room. They should maneuver in it.

4. We have to function in terms of principle, and not in terms of party. The choice is not between Obama/not Obama. The actual choice is between despotism and freedom. Parties will let you down. Men will let you down. Don’t set your hope in princes, man (Ps. 118:9). The liberty-buster that Obama laid on the country was previously laid on Massachuetts by the Republican nominee. The monstrosity of Obamacare was upheld because of Roberts’ vote, and he was a Republican nominee, supposedly an arch-conservative. This significantly dilutes the force of “gotta have a Republican president for the sake of the court nominations.” It doesn’t eradicate that argument (Scalia, Alito, et al.), but it does weaken it.

5. Politically, in terms of motivation and money, this really is bad news for the big spenders. Look for the Tea Party to move from tri-corner hats and the colonial schtick to more of a Bavarian peasants with torches and pitchforks motif.

6. Conservatives will please notice that the current Republican place-holder wants to “repeal and replace” Obamacare. “Repeal,” yay. “And replace,” not so much. I don’t want him to repeal and replace it. I would prefer something along the lines of “repeal and soak with lighter fluid, followed by a torching ceremony, and a conga line dance around the flames accompanied with loud whoops and raucous singing, late into the night.” Of course, the details would have to be worked out, but it should be something quiet and dignified like that.

7. Last, and most significantly, whatever political and policy things happen in Washington, there is now a huge constitutional issue that must be addressed outside Washington, in numerous state capitals. That constitutional issue is now in front of us, whether or not a repeal of Obamacare gets through Congress and is signed by the president.

There is now, in principle, no limiting principle on the congressional power to tax, and the absence of such a limiting principle has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Even if Obamacare is repealed (as I now believe to be likely), this is now just a policy decision — the constitutional green light has been given. If Congress is deemed to have the constitutional authority to tax you for not doing whatever it is they dictate (eating brocoli, wearing blue tee-shirts, whatever), there is no other name for this than despotism. The fact that it is a nanny despotism helps not at all. The fact that their exercise of this authority is currently in abeyance matters not at all.

And so this means that we should resort to Calvin’s doctrine of the lesser magistrate, and call upon our state governors and legislatures to simply refuse to comply with Obamacare. The time has come to just say no. This is because there is no form of government more fundamentally anti-Christian than a government that recognizes, in principle, no limit to what it can require. Absolute claims are the prerogative of Deity. If this decision is allowed to stand, there is no longer any limiting principle inside the Beltway whatever. It is time for the ruling class to discover that there is still a limiting principle outside the Beltway, enforced by those who believe that the only real limiting principle is at the right hand of the Father.

Jesus is Lord — not Caesar, and not Congress.

Jim Demint’s Response

DeMint’s Statement:

Today, U.S. Senator DeMint (R-South Carolina) made the following statement:

“The Supreme Court may have failed to stop this government takeover of health care, but the American people will not. Since the day this law was rammed through Congress, the American people have demanded repeal, and today’s ruling doesn’t make Obamacare any less dangerous to our nation’s health. Freedom-loving Americans are disappointed, but we cannot be discouraged.

“The President’s health care law must be fully repealed as all of its promises have proven false. We were told it was not a tax hike, but this ruling confirms it is an unprecedented and enormous tax on the poor and middle class Americans. President Obama needs to explain why he is enacting this middle class tax hike over the objections of the American people during the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression.

“We were told it would lower health costs, but health care premiums are exploding. We were told that Americans could keep their personal health plans, but millions will now lose it. We were told it would improve our economy, but it is now the largest obstacle to employers hiring new workers.

“This government takeover of health care remains as destructive, unsustainable, and unconstitutional as it was the day it was passed, unread, by a since-fired congressional majority. Now as then, our first step toward real health care reform and economic renewal remains Obamacare’s full repeal, down to the last letter and punctuation mark.

“I urge every governor to stop implementing the health care exchanges that would help implement the harmful effects of this misguided law. Americans have loudly rejected this federal takeover of health care, and governors should join with the people and reject its implementation.”

“The President’s health care law will not reform anything, but is already undermining what does still work in America’s health care system. We cannot build a free market health care system on this flawed structure of centralized government control, we must repeal all of it and start over with commonsense solutions that make health care more affordable and accessible for every American. We can allow Americans to purchase lower cost plans from other states, support state high-risk pools to cover those with pre-existing conditions, medical-malpractice reform to end frivolous lawsuits, and tax equity so Americans who don’t get their health insurance from an employer are not penalized.”

“Today’s decision, however unfortunate, nonetheless represents an opportunity to all Americans, to claim their right to create a health care system of, for, and by the people, not government or special interests. The American people now have the chance and Congress has the responsibility to fully repeal this Washington takeover and reform health care ourselves, together, around the principles of individual liberty, not government mandates.

“The same freedom that made America strong and prosperous will make us healthier, too, so long as politicians remember that the health care system is supposed to serve our people, and not the other way around.”

Post Navigation