Radical abortion legislation in Massachussetts, post-Election truth (and other stories)

Another roundup of news and commentary from around the interwebs.


Over at National Review, Alexandra DeSanctis has a story on abortionists attempting to distance themselves from their eugenicist roots:

The Associated Press reports today that Marie Stopes International, a United Kingdom–based global provider and promoter of abortion and contraception, has altered its official title to “MSI Reproductive Choices.” The decision is an effort to distance the organization from Stopes, who was an early promoter of contraception in the U.K. and a leading member of the eugenics movement in the early 20th century.

According to the group, the name change is meant to serve as “a clear signal that we neither adhere to nor condone” Stopes’s desire to use birth control as eugenic tool to enforce selective reproduction. Stopes also opposed interracial marriage and advocated sterilizing individuals deemed unfit to reproduce.

Read the whole thing. Of course, this doesn’t mean they’ll stop killing babies for eugenicist reasons. That would be a bridge too far. It’s important to appear respectable while dismembering children in the womb, though.


Dr. Michael New has some concerns on new abortion legislation in Massachusetts:

In his Corner post last week, Wesley Smith rightly expressed concern about the ROE Act in Massachusetts, which would effectively expand the right to an abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy. Smith is correct that the ROE Act is similar to recent legislation passed in New York and Vermont, ensuring that there are no legal limits on when a woman may obtain an abortion. This past Thursday, the Massachusetts state house approved a budget bill including the ROE Act, and the state senate will be considering the legislation shortly.

Read the whole thing.


Over at The American Conservative, Rod Dreher has a fascinating piece on why so many evangelicals are walking away from church:

Evangelical conservative (EC) churches have long had a consumer first type attitude. You will hear things like “we need to run the church like a business”, “seeker sensitive”, “felt needs”, “attractional church”, etc. This essentially boils down to “find out what the people want, and give it to them”. Once we get them in the door, then we will give them the Gospel. This is why many EC churches do things like helicopter Easter egg drops on Easter, have entertainment heavy youth group activities, pastors “dress cool” (this is so embarrassing and desperate), have the “black box style of worship music” (lights down, heavy focus on good looking “praise team”, super loud music, etc), coffee shop in the atrium, entertaining sermons with stories, movie references (or outright movie clips shown in church), etc. This often leads to an arms race of sorts where churches are competing to have the coolest, “funnest”, most cutting edge church services. This, much like Amazon crushing the local mom & pop, often ends with the bigger and wealthier churches pulling congregants (especially the highly desired “young family” demographic) from the smaller churches. Sadly, instead of remaining “traditional” and actually setting themselves apart, the smaller churches often try to emulate the latest and greatest fads but they can’t pull it off because they don’t have the money and the talent.

Short version: They aren’t being catechized or preached to, they’re being entertained. Thus, it doesn’t take much to cause a “faith crisis.” This is very interesting context for the ongoing narrative about the impact of Trump support on young evangelicals, which I’ve long been suspicious of.


On that note, give this essay by David French—which explains the cultural impact of “very Republican Christianity”—a read. It is fascinating and insightful.


This, by Russell Moore, is a badly-needed perspective right now. Take a few minutes and read it through.


That’s all for today. More soon!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *