Taking a Stand for Life

When the law is on your side, argue the law. When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When neither the facts nor the law are on your side, make an ad hominem attack.
Old Adage

David Daleiden is the founder of the Center for Medical Progress [CMP], a 501(c)3 non-profit organization located in Irvine, California. According to the organization’s website,


The Center for Medical Progress is a group of citizen journalists dedicated to monitoring and reporting on medical ethics and advances. We are concerned about contemporary bioethical issues that impact human dignity, and we oppose any interventions, procedures, and experiments that exploit the unequal legal status of any class of human beings. We envision a world in which medical practice and biotechnology ally with and serve the goods of human nature and do not destroy, disfigure, or work against them.

Toward these ends, CMP conducted a sting operation in which it produced a series of undercover videos that exposed illegal activities conducted by Planned Parenthood. These activities included, but were not limited to, the sale of aborted babies’ bodies and body parts for profit. All the CMP videos are displayed and can be viewed on a web page provided by Alliance Defending Freedom. In this article, a summary of each video release is presented.

In the days, weeks, and months during which CMP released the videos, the mainstream media, for the most part, were either silent about the scandal, or they slanted their reporting in favor of Planned Parenthood. The following dates link to corresponding stories about lack of coverage or about biased reporting.

July 15, 2015

July 19, 2015

July 30, 2015

August 5, 2015

August 13, 2015

August 16, 2015

October 21, 2015

Despite the media’s silence, the recordings created a stir. One of the lines of defense used by Planned Parenthood [PP] was that the videos had been “deceptively edited” so as to present PP in a negative light. This was and is an empty accusation, one that prompted Media Research Center President Brent Bozell to criticize the selective editing in which network news organizations engage regularly. As CMP spokesman David Daleiden stated, “The fact is, CMP is exponentially more transparent than CNN or any mainstream network about our production decisions….”

A grand jury in Harris County, Texas, was convened to review the evidence raised by one of the CMP videos against a Houston Planned Parenthood clinic, but in the end the grand jury chose to indict CMP spokesman Daleiden. News of the indictments against Daleiden and another member of the CMP team came on January 25, 2016. Writing for lifenews.com, Steven Ertelt explains,

The video of the Houston Planned Parenthood makes it appear the Planned Parenthood abortion business may be selling the “fully intact” bodies of unborn babies purposefully born alive and left to die. The video shows the Director of Research for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, Melissa Farrell, advertising the Texas Planned Parenthood branch’s track record of fetal tissue sales, including its ability to deliver fully intact aborted babies.

In the video, actors posing as representatives from a human biologics company meet with Farrell at the abortion-clinic headquarters of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast in Houston to discuss a potential partnership to harvest fetal organs.

But today [1/25/16], [the] Texas grand jury indicted David Daleiden and another pro-life activist behind the videos. Instead of prosecuting Planned Parenthood for selling aborted baby parts, Daleiden was indicted for buying them.

Daleiden also was charged, along with Sandra Merritt, with a felony—altering a government document to produce a counterfeit ID. If convicted, Daleiden could be sentenced to 20 years in prison. The grand jury offered no adverse consequences to Planned Parenthood.

Denying any wrongdoing, CMP responded, “The Center for Medical Progress uses the same undercover techniques that investigative journalists have used for decades in exercising our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and of the press, and follows all applicable laws. We respect the processes of the Harris County District Attorney, and note that buying fetal tissue requires a seller as well. Planned Parenthood still cannot deny the admissions from their leadership about fetal organ sales captured on video for all the world to see.”

Live Action’s Lila Rose, a former colleague of Daleiden’s, said the CMP founder is a victim. She further said,

David Daleiden and his team have done a tremendous public service by exposing the horrific crimes against humanity that Planned Parenthood hides behind closed doors.  CMP’s investigation forced Planned Parenthood, a tax-funded billion dollar corporation, to admit it was harvesting and selling aborted baby parts.

Rose went on to point out that the office of Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson

was asked months ago about recusing itself from this case because one of its prosecutors serves as a board member of the Planned Parenthood affiliate involved in the case.  It is unacceptable that the office did not recuse itself to eliminate any and all questions of potential bias.  A special prosecutor should be appointed now to review this entire investigation.


Lila Rose is right; one might readily question Ms. Anderson’s perspective in this case. Is she truly unbiased, or does she have an agenda? At the very least, conflict of interest questions can and should be raised. There’s more. Ms. Anderson (pictured above) also is being criticized for failing “to prosecute an abortionist known as the Kermit Gosnell of Houston.” Gosnell was a Philadelphia abortion doctor who was convicted of grisly practices at his clinic, including murdering three infants who had been born alive.

This sad episode tells us a great deal about the abortion lobby. It will seek to hide the truth by ignoring it, and when that doesn’t work, it will accuse pro-lifers everything in the book! Even so, the truth cannot cannot be ignored or denied forever. We must tell it and retell it. We no longer can sit comfortably on the sidelines saying nothing. If we fail to speak up, we become complicit in the ongoing practice of abortion.

Significantly, the indictments of Daleiden and Merritt came just three days after the 2016 March for Life in Washington, D.C. and the 43rd anniversary of Roe vs. Wade. Despite the impending threat of horrific winter weather, the March for Life drew tens of thousands of mostly young people to the nation’s capital to take a stand for life. Their efforts, too, were largely ignored by the media.




Yet, the pro-life message obviously is getting through! It clearly has touched a nerve! Let’s not let up now!


Copyright © 2016 B. Nathaniel Sullivan. All rights reserved.

For further reading and viewing:

Ben Shapiro explains “The Truth About Planned Parenthood” using CMP video footage in his presentation

Pay No Attention to What Planned Parenthood is Doing Behind the Curtain,” Hans von Spakovsky at The Stream

EXCLUSIVE: ‘The charges are baseless,’ says David Daleiden’s lawyer,” Ben Johnson at lifesitenews.com

Carly Fiorina Responds to Biased Planned Parenthood Question During Fox News Debate,” Dr. Susan Berry at Breitbart News




Speak Up!

Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer


In the last two posts1 we have been challenged to confront the prevailing worldview of Secularism and its counterfeit conclusions about marriage with the plain truth evident in nature. Several months ago in a series of articles, we focused on “The High Cost of Denying the Obvious.”2 While the need to declare the truth is clear, so too is the price involved. In other words, there is a high cost associated with affirming the obvious. We know this to be true, because we have seen Christians persecuted, even through court rulings, for simply remaining true to their consciences. The January 14, 2016 ruling of a New York appellate court against Robert and Cynthia Gifford is just one recent example.


In 1 Peter 3:13-17, the apostle Peter told persecuted believers they were blessed if they suffered for the sake of righteousness. They were not to be intimidated or afraid, but were to honor the Lord in their hearts and be ready to defend what they believed whenever anyone asked them about their hope and confidence. Peter also told them to respond with respect and humility to those who disagreed with them. Then he wrote this: “having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed.”

We need Peter’s God-breathed words of encouragement today. While it may appear as if Satan has the upper hand, he does not. God will use believers’ stands for the truth and their pure lives to convict those who would falsely accuse them of bigotry and hate.

In 2014, identical twins and house flippers David and Jason Benham were offered a television series on HGTV. Flip it Forward was to begin airing in the fall, but the reality show was cancelled in its early stages because the brothers were outspoken about issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. A network spokesperson told them the network did not object to their speaking out about their faith in Christ, but addressing social issues “may be a little much right now.”3


David and Jason lost their show, but God gave them a platform they otherwise might never have had. Articulate and engaging, the twins season their presentations with appropriate humor, yet also with clarity, conviction, and grace. They write, “we couldn’t be more thankful for all that has occurred and more steadfast in our desire to live for Christ and to love others with all the conviction we have.”4

Speak up! God—not those who disagree with you—will chart your course.


Copyright © 2016 B. Nathaniel Sullivan. All rights reserved.

Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture has been taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.


1Blinded; Ten Ways Same-Sex Marriage Denies Reality

2The High Cost of Denying the Obvious, Part 1: A Dead End; The High Cost of Denying the Obvious, Part 2: God Speaks Clearly Through Nature; and The High Cost of Denying the Obvious, Part 3: God’s Definition of Marriage is Self-Evident

3David and Jason Benham, Whatever the Cost: Facing Your Fears, Dying to Your Dreams, and Living Powerfully, (Nashville: W Publishing Group, 2015), 3.

4Ibid., 6.



Ten Ways Same-Sex Marriage Denies Reality

The Illegitimate Supports of ObergefellPillar Number 1: A Faulty Worldview, Part 2

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
C. S. Lewis

Part 1 is available here.

Last time we began examining the worldview of Secularism, one of the Obergefell ruling’s three faulty pillars. Please read last week’s post for more information on worldviews in general and on Secularism in particular.

Believers must understand that Secularism is no friend to Christians or the Christian worldview. In their book, Understanding the Times: A Survey of Competing Worldviews, Jeff Myers and David A. Noebel observe that the Secularism’s narrative seeks to rewrite the history of civilization to caricature Christians and to portray Humanists and Secularists as enlightened individuals acting with only the noblest of intentions, for the betterment of all humanity.

Here is how Myers and Noebel summarize the Secularist narrative:

The followers of Jesus were evil liars whose goal was to establish a macho, misogynistic cult. The good people of Rome tried to stop them, but the wicked Emperor Constantine managed to establish Christianity as Rome’s official religion anyway. Once in power, Christians intentionally undermined Rome’s strength until this once-great civilization collapsed. The church blindly pressed forward in its obsession with control, plunging Europe in to the Dark Ages. It took a few hundred years, but Europe was eventually rescued by scientists and philosophers who bravely risked their lives to challenge the church’s teaching that the earth was flat and the center of the universe. Occasionally Christians gained power long enough to burn tens of thousands of witches, massacre millions of natives, and launch cruel crusades against innocent, civilized Muslims. Fortunately, due to the brilliance of those who rejected the church’s teachings, the Enlightenment saw the triumph of science and reason over religion. However, we must not let down our guard, because greedy, ignorant Christians resent the progress made by clever, reasonable Secularists, and they will do everything they can to manipulate their way into power to prevent decent folk from having a good time and living their lives in freedom.1


Myers and Noebel admit that the above summary is “exaggerated to make a point,” but the exaggerations highlight rather than distort the Secularist message. Not one fact can be found in the above summary; yet the summary accurately represents the perspective of A People’s History of the United States,2,3 the most widely used history textbook on American college campuses today. The textbook is “a…diatribe,” say Myers and Noebel. They must be onto something. A People’s History contains no footnotes!4


Dr. Jeff Myers
President, Summit Ministries


Dr. David A. Nobel
Founder and Former President, Summit Ministries

You see, Secularists, contrary to their claims and reputation, push their beliefs with religious fervor. They won a great battle with the Obergefell ruling, but ultimately it cannot stand because it seeks to refute the world that is. In part because the cultural tide is moving in the direction of Secularism, adherents of this worldview tend to think their perspective is an irresistible force. While it is true that many people are being duped by Secularist myths and are jumping on the bandwagon, those who resist ultimately will emerge as true heroes.

We need to be prepared to point out Obergefell’s weaknesses. For our purposes here, let’s think through some of the consequences of just one of the major components of Secularism, that of giving a “green light” to individuals to determine “their own truth.” To where does this lead? It leads to some of the very places where we find ourselves today under Obergefell.

Before listing any outcomes, however, we must say clearly that our analysis is not meant disparage homosexuals as people. All individuals, homosexuals included, have been created in God’s image. God loves them, and so do we. Some are our friends, neighbors, and relatives. We know many of them to be loving and caring people, and loving and caring parents. Even so, we have to state the truth that homosexual activity is sinful and harmful, and to build marriage and parenting around it—and around the false assumption that it is on par with heterosexuality—is detrimental to everyone involved. If we love homosexuals, we will not withhold the truth. This is why we do not shrink back from stating the following.

Secularists have demanded that same-sex relationships be eligible for “marriage,” but the qualities of an authentic marriage are what they are precisely because an opposite-sex couple is involved. The term “same-sex marriage” is, quite simply, a myth. We might even call it a lie, because it is a contradiction in terms. In other words, Secular Humanism and its celebration of individualism and moral relativism under Obergefell reach conclusions that deny reality.

Here are ten.

  1. Individual autonomy under Obergefell stands contrary to the clear teaching of nature regarding the biological differences between the sexes.
  2. The conclusions of Obergefell’s worldview stand contrary to the clear relational dynamic that exists between opposite-sex couples. Put another way, same-sex marriage denies the importance of the mystery that always has been present—inherently—in heterosexual marriage. Because a man isn’t a woman and vice versa, each marital partner must work hard to understand, communicate with, and relate to his/her spouse. Such efforts strengthen a marriage. Same-sex marriage offers no such relational mystery. In fact, Secularism and same-sex marriage trample on this dynamic, effectively denying its importance and reality.
  3. The worldview of Obergefell refuses to acknowledge the profound implications for marriage that flow from the fact that only a heterosexual couple can have a baby.
  4. Secularism turns a deaf ear, not necessarily to a newborn’s helplessness, but to the implications of the baby’s helplessness. We must not forget that the baby would not have arrived were it not for a heterosexual union. Here we are not saying that homosexual parents of adopted infants neglect needs like feeding and changing them. We are saying that when both parents are of the same sex, this thwarts nature’s intention that the baby would have two opposite-sex parents once it is born. Put another way, same-sex marriage neglects the newborn’s innate needs for interacting with both a woman and a man—both a mother and a father. This is true not randomly, but in every case because same-sex marriage inherently denies children either a mother or a father.
  5. Developing point #4 further, we observe that when society says a same-sex relationship can be a marriage, it effectively divorces from marriage and the family the natural, innate responsibilities that come with a sexual union that produces and rears children. I want to be abundantly clear on this point, because I’m not trying to say here that homosexuals are bad parents. Here’s what I am saying: The traits and realities of heterosexual marriage automatically designate who should have the primary responsibility for raising the children. Even though many and probably most homosexual parents in same-sex “marriages” love their adopted children and care for them sacrificially, the marital arrangement they are in does not set the stage for them to do this, because same-sex couples cannot procreate.
  6. Despite Secularism’s claim that discrimination is to be abhorred, it actively discriminates against both men and women through same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage assumes that neither a man nor a woman has any unique contribution to bring to the important task of parenting. In other words, it assumes that both men and women are disposable.
  7. Through same-sex marriage, Secularism deprives children of the emotional balance that opposite-sex couples bring to parenting and to the family. The point here is that men and women are different, so a heterosexual couple provides an emotional balance for their children that same-sex couples cannot.
  8. Secularism through same-sex marriage also denies children the balanced perspective on authority that would receive from opposite-sex parents. Men and women lead, and discipline, differently. Children need from their parents both male and female approaches to authority and leadership.
  9. The worldview of Obgerfell turns a deaf ear to civilization’s clear needs for the future.
  10. Finally, secular humanism upholds homosexuality as being on par with heterosexuality. This denies the reality of the health risks inherent in homosexuality. The denial doesn’t change the reality, however. Indeed, it cannot.5,6,7

These ten items represent the place to which Secularism, through Obergefell, has led us. The longer we stay here, the more we and future generations will be put at perilous risk. We must consistently and repeatedly warn of the dangers. Do not expect the average person on the street to recognize these perils on his or her own, because Secularism has a strong grip on culture.


At the beginning of the Tuesday, January 12, 2016 broadcast of Dr. James Dobson’s Family talk, Dr. Dobson made these important observations (minor edits made for smoothness and clarity).

We’re in a river—I call it the River of Culture—and it flows one way. It takes you downstream; it never takes you upstream. If you’re in that river, it is so difficult to not become part of where it leads! It takes tremendous self-control and instruction and prayer to walk upstream against the current.8

Dobson is right. Even conservative Christians and churches are being duped by gay activist lies.9 Aware of what the pressure can do, Dobson offered both a warning and a challenge.

More importantly, our kids, our teenagers, are in the river, and they’re being carried down to who knows where! We have to oppose this kind of cultural movement. Wherever we see wickedness and evil, we have to stand up and be counted, and then take the consequences for it. I’ve been doing that for a long time, and I can tell you, it’s not easy. It’s not easy because you will be called names, and frankly, I’m tired of being called names! You know, being pro-life and pro-family…brings animosity and hatred. Standing up against the cultural current is difficult, but I urge you to have the courage to be one of those who will stand up and be counted.10

The more who are willing to stand up against the Secularist tide, the more likely it will be that the tide will be turned. Remember that with God, all things are possible. Will you lend your voice in support of the truth?


Copyright © 2016 B. Nathaniel Sullivan. All rights reserved.


1Jeff Myers and David A. Noebel, Understanding the Times: A Survey of Competing Worldviews (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2015), 77.



4Myers and Noebel. 76-77.




8http://www.drjamesdobson.org/Broadcasts/Broadcast?i=40d7360b-c566-4053-9299-7d28ff04b749 These statements also could be heard near the conclusion of the Monday, January 11, 2016 broadcast http://www.drjamesdobson.org/Broadcasts/Broadcast?i=38af707f-a1c5-42cc-a014-1af24c16d9d4#


10http://www.drjamesdobson.org/Broadcasts/Broadcast?i=40d7360b-c566-4053-9299-7d28ff04b749 These statements also could be heard near the conclusion of the Monday, January 11, 2016 broadcast http://www.drjamesdobson.org/Broadcasts/Broadcast?i=38af707f-a1c5-42cc-a014-1af24c16d9d4#




The Illegitimate Supports of Obergefell—Pillar Number 1: A Faulty Worldview, Part 1

If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair.
C. S. Lewis

In a previous entry, we observed that Obergefell, the Supreme Court ruling that granted marriage rights to same-sex couples nationwide, is “like the seat on a three-legged stool.” While probably most three-legged stools are sturdy and reliable, Obergefell is not, because all three supports on which it rests—“judicial activism, a faulty worldview, and bullying by militant homosexual activists”—are illegitimate.

Now, Obergefell would not have to be supported by all three of these to be illegitimate; the judicial activism alone that lies beneath it renders it fully unconstitutional. Still, the ruling’s additional two supports reinforce its illegitimacy. Despite this, we likely will not see widespread recognition of the ruling as invalid without persistent creative activism from those who understand the counterfeit nature of all three of the decision’s supports. I use the term “creative activism” to convey the need for communicating the truth in innovative and vivid ways—ways that stick in hearers’ minds and compel them to think. The non-violent protests of the civil rights movement serve as an example for one facet of this potential effort, but we recall that the civil rights movement involved much more than peaceful protests. It also included appeals to justice in letters to editors of local newspapers (a forerunner to today’s social media), legislative efforts, litigation, sermons, public debates, and private conversations. All of these avenues will need to be used in the effort to restore natural marriage.1,2,3 Of course, we will need courageous leaders in this movement. We already can be thankful for leaders like Roy Moore, Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, for taking a bold stand recently to restore natural marriage in his state.4,5 Although you’ll hear otherwise from the mainstream media, Chief Justice Moore’s action was and is fully constitutional.

This week and next I’d like to focus on the faulty worldview on which Obergefell rests—as well as the erroneous conclusions it espouses. In subsequent entries, we’ll give consideration to judicial activism and militant gay bulling as the additional two legs of the ruling.

A worldview is a set of assumptions through which a person interprets life and everything else around him. Thus, a person’s worldview informs him or her about God, life, sin, death, eternity, right and wrong, human relationships, and a host of other issues. Often an individual embraces a worldview without consciously thinking about its components. People acquire or “pick up” beliefs from various sources, not the least of which is the culture surrounding them.

As we noted in a previous post, some worldviews have theistic implications while others have atheistic implications. While it’s true God’s existence can’t be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, it can’t be disproved, either. All worldviews, therefore, are faith systems. Individuals who espouse an atheistic worldview may praise the virtues of “science” and decry what they see as the negative effects of “religion,” but from a practical standpoint, they actually are promoting an atheistic religion, one that places its faith in science and human wisdom rather than God.

For many years, the prevailing worldview in America was Christianity.

first prayer


The inaugural prayer of President Dwight D. Eisenhower on January 20, 1953
For more information, click here.

Even people who weren’t Christians embraced and upheld biblical teachings about right and wrong and the value of human life, to name just two important arenas. Today Secularism and a related worldview, Secular Humanism, prevail. Secularism is “an atheistic and materialistic worldview that advocates for a public society free from the influence of religion.”6 Yet, as we have just indicated, those advocating these beliefs are promoting just that—beliefs. Theirs is a faith system, too!

Secular Humanism is

A religious and philosophical worldview that makes mankind the ultimate norm by which truth and values are to be determined; a worldview that reveres human reason, evolution, naturalism, and secular theories of ethics while rejecting every form of supernatural religion.7

Secular Humanism and Secularism so overlap that we will consider them to be one and will refer to this belief system by both names. It is this worldview that has led to Obergefell and on which Obergefell rests. A key component of this set of faith assumptions is moral relativism, which exalts the individual and upholds the individual’s right to make up his or her own truth, including standards of right and wrong. By extension moral relativism can manifest itself in the culture as well—with a cultural consensus of beliefs about right and wrong, good and bad. The point is that according to Secularism, there are no objective, absolute standards of right and wrong, no unchanging moral principles outside of individuals and society that apply to all people, at all times, in all places, under all circumstances. Does the belief that absolutes don’t exist coincide with what we observe in the world around us? This is a vital question!

Abraham Lincoln is credited with this insightful quote: “How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”


It might be humorous to call a canine tail a leg, but marriage is a serious issue. Secularism, however, is both attractive and intoxicating, even blinding societies that embrace it. Unfortunately, our society has become so blinded it is pretending a same-sex relationship can be a marriage—but of course the fantasy never will make it one. It will, however, bring severe consequences, since it seeks to change an unbending reality in nature and in human relationships. As we said last week, “Reality is our friend if and only if we cooperate with it and conform our perspectives and actions to it.”

In next week’s post, rather than attempting to refute Secular Humanism’s assumptions, we will present some of its conclusions manifested in the Obergefell decision and discuss how they conflict with reality. This means we will look at ways the Obergefell decision is harmful to both individuals and society at large, and why we must reverse course. Be sure to return for that important discussion!

Part 2 is available here.

Copyright © 2016 B. Nathaniel Sullivan. All rights reserved.

Check out the new category of articles in Breaking Bread (a feature that is easily accessible from the menu)—Foundational Principles of the Christian Faith.




3See item #6 in http://www.wordfoundations.com/2015/05/28/discernment-needed-part-2/



6Jeff Myers and David A. Nobel, Understanding the Times: A Survey of Competing Worldviews, (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2015), 76.

7Ibid., 80.