“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” (Samuel Adams, August, 1776)
A major story last week, for certain elements of the press, was from Massachusetts.
Massachusetts has eliminated its statutory gestational limit on abortion. Previously required specific conditions for abortions at or after 24 weeks were taken away. This was done by the majority vote of both houses of the legislature (119-33 and 15-4), signed into law by the governor (with smiles and applause). Under the new law, an abortion may be performed at any gestational age based on the “professional judgment” of the physician. Of course, residents of Massachusetts are free to switch physicians at any time: if their usual medical provider is unwilling to use their “professional judgment” to approve killing the unborn child, they can go find another one.
Like Colorado, we are sure that Mass has lots of medical doctors who have and will betray their oath. For as the graphic shows, Mass is not alone: ten States and that true hive of infamy and evil, the District of Criminals, say it is fine to kill your unborn child up to 9 months. Including the due date.
The Price of Liberty 
Canadian military tells chaplains not to talk about religion in public
From the point of view of a lover of liberty, the entire idea of military chaplaincy has many rather strange facets.
Here at TPOL, we tend to think a lot of Bob Heinlein’s idea of chaplaincy as a voluntary extra duty of an NCO or officer, rather than a separate corps of officers with a staff and institutionalism in so many ways. The current version of chaplaincy in the US Armed Forces is built on a denominational model and has been pushed quite a ways in a Woke direction – though nowhere near as far as the Canadian military. But it does restrict military personnel (and often, their families) in many ways, especially when deployed to what support they can have. If indeed, any support is truly needed or wanted beyond recognition of people’s rights to practice their religion, and to have communion with those of like faith.
But as always, the biggest problem is government interference, which is (in our opinion) both wrong morally and a violation of the Constitution. And part of that problem is the idea that any public expression of faith should be banned, and any support of any religious concept is unconstitutional. As clearly, the Canadian Parliament has decided.
On July 29, the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) issued a new guidance on “spiritual reflections in military settings,” defined as “inclusive public addresses” that foster “meaning, purpose, and spiritual well-being.” They are not to “use religious specific language, including references to God, etc.,” but rather “reflect upon lessons learned, beliefs, values, and experiences to inspire gratitude, remembrance, hope, and integrity,” grounded in “respect for freedom of conscience and religious expression, while upholding the dignity and value of diverse spiritual traditions.” It contains exceptions for funerals, voluntary religious gatherings, private counseling, and indigenous practices. This is rightly seen as a new policy banning prayer and invoking God at military events, condemning it as a form of religious coercion.
Continue reading →