Annual Florida Trip (2020 ed.) Travelogue

This is my long overdue travelogue from our annual road trip to Florida to visit my parents. In our first year of dating, when we began the road trip tradition (that is, the tradition of going on cross-country road trips together but not necessarily this Florida road trip), my wife and I wanted to have the journey be just as memorable as the destination. Because we both love food, we thought to focus the travel stops around local eateries rather than quick-stop fast food joints. If such dining establishments offered T-shirts or other wearable swag for purchase by which we could remember them, all the better. Thus follows a travelogue that is 70% food related, 6% gun related, and 24% random thoughts. (Seeing that at the time of publishing pandemic hysteria continues mostly unabated, I trust that, like with COVID-19 data, no one will check my numbers here.)

------------------------------------------------

Our journey, as always these days, began in Chicago, Illinois. When I say "Chicago" I mean the heart of the city and not the suburbs or collar counties or even central Illinois. The misery inflicted on the residents of Chicago is unique enough that those who reside outside the limits (reaches?) of City Hall should not be allowed to claim to come from here when speaking to non-Illinois residents. Thus, we left from Buckboldt Square micro-neighborhood, my amalgamation of the small area where our house is that is simultaneously claimed and not claimed by the [West] Bucktown, Humboldt Park, and Logan Square neighborhoods. We hopped on the I-90/94 Expressway heading "East" (South) and were lucky to get out of the city in about an hour. (Insert comment about how Chicagoans refer to the expressways by their deceased politicians' names. Oh, I'm sorry, I thought this was America!)

 

For our first stop, we found the Zip & Sip in Vincennes, Indiana. My wife saw fish sandwich on the online menu, so of course they didn't have it. She saw fried shrimp on the in-store menu, so of course they didn't have it. And as we left she wanted their knock-off blizzard, the "Wizzard", with Reeses Cup and Butterfinger, so of course they were out of both of those. I got a double cheeseburger that was nothing to write home about (probably Bubba Burger patties that may have been microwaved), but the fried mac and cheese bites were pretty tasty. 

We drove through lots more flat, boring Indiana countryside before making it to Fort Campbell just on the Kentucky/Tennessee border. Stopped into Wal-Mart to get gas and use the restroom and let the girls stretch their legs, and it was an experience as Wal-Mart tends to be. The front Men's room was closed for cleaning, so I trekked to the one in the back of the store. As I walked through sections of the store I was amazed at how incredibly affordable so many products are. Wrangler jeans, a well known name brand, for under $20/pair. 50" flat screen TVs for under $400. It's a marvel that the store not only DOESN'T go out of business, but actually thrives with such prices. My sister-in-law insists that she heard Wal-Mart has some deal with electronics manufacturers to produce cheaper-made versions sent exclusively to the store, which is why the prices are so low. I just nodded along when she said that, because it sounds like typical anti-Wal-Mart bias. Any big box store makes its money by selling way more than a person intended to buy. The only way to beat Wal-Mart or Target or Costco, etc., is to make a list and stick to it. 

 

[Note: It was obvious to me then but more obvious now, in 2021, that such big box stores also make their money by benefiting from the obscene amount of regulation that many times they help right (or lobby for). Wal-Mart and its ilk have stayed open and in business because they are "essential" stores offering "groceries" or other items, while smaller businesses that might compete with only one or two of Wal-Mart's areas are forced to close down for in-person shopping because of COVID-19 restrictions.]

I try not to judge other parents (a difficult task, to be sure). While leaving the restroom, however, there was a woman with two kids and the younger one's face was so grody and covered in old food and crusty snot. My wife has drilled into me to wipe Mabel's nose at the first sign of snot, so I'm probably more sensitive to it, but it was still shocking to see such apathy about a kid's appearance. Suffice it to say, the PeopleOfWalmart.com website is not lacking for content, sadly. 

We stayed a day with my wife's friend and her family outside Clarksville, TN. The woman's husband is an attorney as well, but unfortunately the days we visited were midweek so he didn't have much free time for us to talk outside of dinner at O'Charleys the first night. (Love those hot buttery rolls! Not a euphemism, though our waitress did kind of look like Taylor Swift and comped us on Kids Eat Free AND free pie Wednesday, of which you're supposed to only get one or the other.) The friend and their six year old daughter are two sides of the same coin; they're like the living embodiment of the Warner Brothers singing frog. Lots of energy and singing and showmanship over the 36 hours we were with them, but it was a lot of fun and my deadpan humor was welcome. 

After leaving Clarksville, we drove along I-24 to Chattanooga. The few times I've passed through Chattanooga as an adult really leaves me thinking that this is a place I could move to. Between the picturesque location tucked into the Tennessee River Valley at the base of Lookout Mountain, and its proximity to Nashville or Atlanta for travel, it seems to have a lot to offer. For lunch we stopped at St. Elmo's Deli & Grill, where I ordered a club sandwich with side salad and my wife ordered the pimento grilled cheese with sweet potato tots. The food was excellent, though my wife could only finish half of her sandwich because of how rich it was. The service was pleasantly southern: that over-the-top hospitality that makes you feel simultaneously like a member of the family and a foreign dignitary. 

 

St. Elmo's Deli and Grill: club sandwich with side salad

St. Elmo's Deli and Grill: pimento grilled cheese and sweet potato tots

We took a 45-minute detour to find Mabel Street in Chattanooga near the university, but it was worth it even if it put us into the heart of Atlanta during Friday night rush hour.

 

Atlanta has probably the worst traffic structure I've ever driven in. Chicago highways are always under construction, Miami has a mixture of old people driving 35 mph and street racers going 140 mph on bikes, but Atlanta's insane weaving of I-75 and I-85 and HOV lanes make the rest seem like the Golden Streets of Heaven. There's a reason the bypass is numbered I-285, because you're either going two or 85 miles per hour. 

For dinner, we stopped at Gusto! in Atlanta. It's an Atlanta-based chain with a handful of locations, so we felt we were still honoring our "eat local" mantra even though it is a chain restaurant. The style is similar to a Naf Naf or Roti or Chipotle where you can build your own meal based on a set menu of options. I thought the flavor combos set it apart enough from those other Mediterranean restaurants and Tex-Mex options. We seemed to be one of only a few people to dine in, but it was Valentine's Day night and there was a steady stream of customers while we waited. I heard they're opening two more locations soon, so I think they're doing pretty well.

Gusto!: Chipotle mango chicken salad

Finally made it down to Macon area for the night, and it was Mabel's first time in a hotel room. The Super 8 had a portable crib that kind of looked like a death trap, but we got it set up and jury-rigged a blanket over the alcove leading to the bathroom to provide some semblance of a blackout curtain for her. Plus, continental waffle breakfast in the morning! 

The next morning we would complete the southern leg of our journey. We stopped for lunch at The Cuban Guy Grill, Lake City, Florida. Despite its inauspicious appearance--a food truck outside a gas station--this had to be one of the best meals we had in our 3-4 days on the road. The black beans and yellow rice were savory and delectable. My wife ordered the devil crab sandwich, which was almost as big as her head, with double fried french fries. I ordered a Cubano (how could I not???) and Mabel shared a bit of everything.

The Cuban Guy Grill, Lake City, FL

Mrs. Brand and the devil crab sandwich

 

We arrived at my parents' timeshare in Orlando around 4:00 pm. Mabel was relieved to be mostly out of the car for the next seven days. For dinner that night my dad had prepared some burnt ends and some side dishes that 11 months later I cannot remember.

The Sunday following our arrival was my birthday. Happy Birthday to me! There was no better plan for a birthday that I could think of than what I ended up doing. The day started out with driving to my parents' church, Grace Bible Church in Titusville, FL. My dad recently closed his church down but fortunately they were able to get connected quickly with this church, where the pastor is a longtime friend (and former coworker at FedEx) of my dad's. The teaching is strong and grounded in the Bible, and staying after the service to speak with many of the attendees showed me that many are strong, mature Christians who have a deep understanding of God's Word. I'm grateful that God led them to such a wonderful community.

After church, my wife, mom, and Mabel all drove back to Orlando, while my dad and I stayed in Titusville to eat lunch from the Publix deli. I got the chicken tender sub, tossed in hot buffalo sauce with ranch, blue cheese crumbles, bacon, lettuce, tomatoes, and pickles. In the sub sandwich wars, battle lines have been drawn for less. I will just say that when in Florida (or The South near a Publix), you'd be doing yourself a disservice to not try this sandwich. We took our sandwiches to-go and ate them in the car outside the Police Hall of Fame shooting range, which was to be our next stop for the day.

I don't recall the exact year that my dad became a "gun nut", but for me it's definitely been in the past couple of years. [Note: Upon completing Unintended Consequences by John Ross around Thanksgiving 2020, I am firmly in the "gun nut" camp myself. Combining this newfound passion with the debt freedom we now possess, the only question is when, not if, I purchase more guns.] For our shooting pleasure, my dad brought a SIG P938 9mm, Glock 36 compact .45, Glock 19 compact 9mm, Rock Island 1911 MS .45, Rock Island 1911 FS .45, and his Colt Trooper MK III .357 Magnum. My dad prefers his Glocks, but I like the heft of the 1911s. And the Colt Trooper was just pure fun to shoot.

 

From 18': red line shows .38 special, blue line was .38 powder + hollow points, and the unmarked were .357 magnum hollow points

After shooting, we drove back to Orlando and met some of my friends from college and their new baby at Sonny's BBQ near Orlando International Airport for dinner. My wife and daughter, as well as my mom met us there as well, as did my sister, brother in law, and niece who had arrived for a few days in the timeshare with us. Sonny's BBQ was a staple during my college years and the years immediately following while I still lived in Orlando. A group of us would get together every Friday for a ritual we aptly named "Sonny's Friday". (Many occasional participants would always ask us whether there was a special deal on Fridays. "No, just a group of friends going to get BBQ on a Friday night.") I ordered my standard all-you-can-eat sliced pork with garlic bread (Texas toast), mac and cheese, and baked beans. The key with Sonny's AYCE is to put in a reorder (at least of the meat) as soon as the initial batch of food is delivered. That keeps a steady supply of meat on one's plate, and reorders of sides can be added as desired. I ended up having 3 reorders of sliced pork, and one reorder each mac and cheese, fries, and bread.

Sonny's BBQ: AYCE sliced pork dinner

I also ordered a Sonny's red ale. Back in college the restaurant served alcohol at some locations, but never its own beer. In recent years they've partnered with Anheuser-Busch for a Sonny's-exclusive beer. Unfortunately, the waitress came by to tell us that they were out of baked beans, so I switched to crinkle cut fries with a side of ranch dressing to dip in. Two others had to adjust their order as well. A couple minutes later she said they were out of sweet potatoes, which affected another three people in our group. The sweet potatoes are delightfully fluffy, and melted cinnamon butter spread over the top takes it up another level, so it was disappointing to miss out on those also. 

Overall, it was a great birthday with family and friends: delicious food, wonderful conversation, fellowship and study of God's Word with other Christian brothers and sisters, and enjoying my second amendment-protected, God-given right to bear and fire some arms. 

On President's Day we mostly took it easy. We went to one of the resort's pools for a couple of hours. Mabel hadn't been in the pool since we visited last year, and back then she just sat in the little inflatable raft my wife bought, looking super chill the whole time. So it was a lot of fun to see her excited about splashing and bouncing around in the water. She has a ways to go before she's competing for gold medals or anything, though. For lunch I heated up some leftover burnt ends and made a ham, turkey, and Swiss cheese sandwich, all Boars Head sliced products. 

For dinner that night we arranged a pasta bar: three types of pasta, three types of sauce, and both chicken and ground beef to add as topping. We ended the night playing Bananagrams and then Taboo, which despite being guys vs. girls ironically ended in a tie. 

On Tuesday we spent more time at the largest of the four pools in the resort. This pool area included a splash pad that the two girls could swim in. Of course my wife thought the water was TOO COLD, because it was a chilly 73 outside. Even so, we stuck it out and enjoyed the afternoon and some snocones before going back to the room for a taco bar: chicken fajitas, seasoned beef, or seasoned tilapia as the primary ingredients. We ended the night by playing a Bananagrams again and then watching Yesterday.

My dad had to go back to work on Wednesday morning. It was also my sister's family's last day at the resort, so we once again spent time at the pool. We were back at the "warm one", much to my wife's satisfaction.

My mom gave my wife and I a night out by putting Mabel to bed. Because our resort is so close to Disney and the myriad restaurant and entertainment options the parks offer, we had a variety of options available. We decided to eat at Hemingway's in the Hyatt Regency Grand Cypress Resort. I ordered the Matador Burger, which consisted of a grilled beef tenderloin steak and lobster tail, horseradish cheddar cheese and toppings on a squid ink bun and truffle fries on the side. My wife ordered the Duval Street Shrimp Scampi: pappardelle pasta with jumbo tiger shrimp and fried green tomatoes in a white wine butter sauce.

 

Hemingway's: Matador Burger with truffle fries

Hemingway's: Duval Street Shrimp Scampi

Following dinner, we walked around the pool at the resort for a while and enjoyed the warm evening air. Well, warm for us coming from Chicago in February. The locals might have thought it was a bit brisk. From there, we drove a few miles to Universal CityWalk to walk around and see the shops, but mostly to buy some Cinnabon. Universal has built some new attractions since the last time I'd been there (having grown up not far from Orlando and matriculating at the University of Central Florida on the other side of the city), including a steampunk-like candy store and restaurant. It was fun to walk through, but the prices turned us off and cinnamon rolls were already calling to us.

 

Cinnabon

Thursday was our last day at the pool, as Friday we were already planning on driving to Tampa to visit a friend, and the weather was dipping down into the high 50s/low 60s. We took full advantage and went in the morning and afternoon. Dinner was yellow rice and black beans, but my mom hadn't been able to get Cuban bread so we just used a baguette.We ended the night by watching the biopic Harriet on DVD. The resort has a DVD rental service with many favorites and also some new releases available for only $1. I was hoping to get First Man, the story of Neil Armstrong and his journey to the moon, but it was always checked out when I visited the resort office.

On Friday, we drove over to Tampa to my childhood friend Stephanie. I've known her for about 20 years, beginning with one of my dad's former churches and continuing through middle school when I rode in her mom's carpool. She invited us to the Florida Aquarium on her annual pass. We met her and her 13-month old son. We saw many incredible animals, but the highlight of the day (if not my adult life) was when a roseate spoonbill mistook my wife's ponytail for a bunch of weeds or grass and started chomping at her, causing my wife to scream in panic and abandon our child in the middle of the walkway. Everyone was fine, which is what made the whole thing so much funnier. 

 

At Large: roseate spoonbill

After the aquarium, we drove to Coppertail Brewing Co. in Ybor City. My friend's husband owns the brewery and gave us a tour before we sat down for lunch. I ordered a steak sandwich and 4 taster beers. My notes on each of the beers follows:

 

Coppertail Brewing Co.: Florida Special (lager), Unholy (Belgian tripel), Purple Drink (sour), Some Uh Dhss (saison)

 

• Florida Special: easy drinker, like a session ale but it's a lager
  
• Unholy: dangerously smooth, with a good hop profile for a Belgian
  
• Purple Drink: I'm a big fan of sours, and this one delivered the punch
  
• Some Uh Dhss: the crispness of a farmhouse ale but the tart flavors of a sour
  

We also split buffalo cauliflower and a pretzel with beer cheese as an appetizer. The couple also generously sent me home with 3 packs of beer (and probably would have given me more). [Note: With both delicious food and beer, I wish this brewery the best and am thrilled to see that they've managed to stay in business during the 2020 shutdowns.]

Coppertail Brewing Co.: buffalo cauliflower bites and pretzel with beer cheese

We drove back to Orlando and my mom cobbled together leftovers to make homemade nachos and cauliflower cheese soup. We also tried to rent First Man but it was unavailable again, so we settled for MIB International. Their both "space" movies, right? It was not a wise investment of our time. Chris Hemsworth gave a serviceable performance as the aloof and heroic Agent H, who cannot really remember why he is so highly praised but decides to play the part within Bureau anyway. Tessa Thompson, cast as new recruit Agent M, failed to deliver. I think the directors were hoping the two actors' collaboration on Thor: Ragnarok would give them something to build on here, but Thompson has all the on-screen charisma of a dead fish. She seems to be living the same pissed-off, drunk Valkyrie character from Ragnarok with nowhere near the same motivations for her character in this film.

We left early on Saturday to try to make it up to Atlanta by dinner. We wanted to meet my college friend and roommate in Lake City for brunch, but his fiancée was recovering from food poisoning and they couldn't make it. I will take him at his word and not assume it was a dodge to avoid driving an hour to meet us.

We stopped for lunch at the Georgia welcome center and had a picnic outside. It was chillier than we expected, so we didn't dawdle. We drove a few miles further and stopped at a $3 or less book store. We kept seeing the signs on the way down but didn't stop, so we decided to take advantage on the northern leg. The store actually seemed to be a primarily Christian publishing outlet or something, as there were hundreds of copies of the same 40-50 devotionals and Christian worldview books, though there were a few shelves for a more eclectic collection of books. My wife found quite a few children's books that were on our "to buy" list, and I found a photography on the Hebrides, which I've always wanted to visit since hearing Mendelssohn's ode to the island chains, as well as a book about the life of Bill Murray to give to my friend for his birthday in April. [Note: That day has long since come and gone without my being able to give him the gift. The best we could manage was a Zoom birthday call with about 15 of us who taught English in Japan together. Another fun occasion marred by COVID-19 hysteria.] I saved a marker on Google maps so that we can try to visit the store again on future trips.

We drove on to Atlanta and passed by the Ron Clark Academy. Before I met my wife, I knew of Ron Clark (and barely, at that) from the biopic about him starring Matthew Perry. The North Carolina-bred man graduated from college and, after teaching in North Carolina for a few years, moved to New York City to teach in a Harlem public school. He saw the difference that a passionate teacher can make in the lives of troubled students, and about ten years later he co-founded his school in Atlanta, Georgia. The school emphasizes an "all-in" mentality from the kids, the parents, the teachers, and even the community. Since meeting and then marrying my wife, who has had the good fortune of touring the school in person during a teacher training seminar and meeting the man himself, I have seen the effect that his ideas can have in a classroom of just a single teacher. So it's no wonder that having an entire school dedicated to that mindset has earned him spots on Oprah Winfrey's show and New York Times' bestseller list. Being a Saturday evening, though, we were afforded only a slow pass around the front entrance of the school before continuing further into the city to meet my wife's friend and former co-teacher at Ponce City Market. We walked down the Beltline to a skatepark and playground, then walked back to the market for dinner. I ordered broth-less ramen and a Sapporo. 

 

Ton Ton: Invincible Dan Dan ramen

We left Ponce City around 8:00 pm and hoped to escape the metropolitan area before stopping for the night. It was a real struggle to find a hotel that had a portable crib for us to use, but my wife eventually connected with a Quality Inn in Calhoun, GA. While on the phone with this establishment, my wife was told that the law requires every hotel to have a portable crib available, but I haven't stumbled across such a law in my cursory research on the issue. One also wonders about enforcement since so few places even understood my wife's request over the phone. The thought that a hotel wouldn't have one or two cribs available never even crossed our mind until that evening since we were so easily accommodated on the drive down.

The next day we were driving to my uncle's in Bowling Green, Kentucky. We made pretty good time, but had to stop for lunch outside a random gas station when Mabel started losing it. All was not lost, however, when the exit we fortuitously chose happened to be the same one where the historic distillery for George Dickel Tennessee Whiskey is located. I stopped in to see if they had some cool swag for my buddy who was a huge Dickel Rye fan (before he stopped drinking), but disappointingly learned that Dickel Rye is not made at the same distillery as Dickel Tennessee Whisky. Nevertheless, I still purchased an iron-on patch and maybe a T-shirt... can't remember now.

The Man, The Myth, The Legend: George Dickel

George Dickel Tennessee Whisky distillery

We continued unabated for the rest of the day's drive and made it to my uncle's house for the evening. The following morning we went out with him and his wife for breakfast and hoped to visit a new place that he'd heard about, but because it was Monday and many businesses take Mondays off after (presumably) the busy weekend, it was closed. So instead, we went to IHOP for the third year in a row. I think this is how most traditions start: not out of passion but rather complacency.

On the drive back to Chicago, we drove through Louisville and stopped at a park for a stretch break. Unfortunately, any time this little girl gets into a swing she's a bit of a drama queen when we have to take her back out of it. 

 

As we were driving back toward the interstate, we passed the Louisville Slugger Field so I snapped a quick picture of that as well.

Louisville Slugger Field

For a late lunch/early dinner that afternoon, we chose Shapiro's Delicatessen in Indianapolis, Indiana. I ordered a corned beef sandwich on sourdough and the picture below lets you know that this was an authentic delicatessen. I think the extra -catessen to describe a restaurant can only be earned by places that stack the meat that high on the bread, and this place lived up to the hype. The homemade potato salad was top-class as well.

Shapiro's Delicatessen: Corned beef sandwich on sourdough, with potato salad.

The trip was two weeks' vacation well-earned and well-received, and it's a fun drive through six states that also showcases a good deal of Americana. Although I certainly look forward to this year's trip (only a month away... I will try to be better about posting these in the future), I'm also worried for what this past year's unnecessary economic destruction has done to so many places we enjoy seeing and driving through. All we can do as a nation is persevere. And our family will continue to do what it can to support the idea of the American road trip.

Why I Left Facebook (For Good, This Time)

Many people cast the entirety of the blame for the deterioration of civil discourse at Trump's feet, because he was just so abrasive. I could see the writing on the (Facebook) wall well before he was elected, though. Maybe it's the degradation of churches and other organizations as pillars of the community where people would gather and interact over shared morals and beliefs. Perhaps it was decades of government schooling providing the bare minimum in education that established an American people incapable of critically assessing the veracity of claims. The underlying cause(s) can be debated at another time (hopefully); for now, we're stuck with an unthinking populace that accepts the narrative that best conforms to their worldview.

We were treated to more than three years of Democrats complaining about a stolen election in 2016, including a two-year investigation into Russian interference that proved nothing. In the midst of this, social media company presidents and CEOs were called before Congress to testify about how their platforms might have contributed to the spread of "misinformation", which is funny Orwellian term that simply means "anything that those in power don't agree with". As a result, Facebook, Twitter, Google, and other companies with a massive market share over the dissemination of information in our over-connected society began to employ fact-checking on posts, and cracking down more seriously on problematic accounts that allegedly violated an ever-changing Terms of Service agreement. 

In the past two years alone, these dogmatic employees of the Internet's Records Department of the Ministry of Truth diligently fact check and bury such stories as: 

• Any post that included the name of the alleged Ukraine whistleblower Eric Ciaramella used to justify the impeachment against President Trump;
• A New York Post op-ed on the Chinese Communist Party's complicity in releasing Sars-COV-2 on the world;
  
• A woman tased for not wearing a mask at an outdoor high school football game (fact-checkers claim she was tased for refusing to exit the stadium, where she was trespassing--for refusing to wear a mask);
• A New York Post expose on Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden's relationship with Ukraine;
  
• Dozens of articles, videos, and links to evidence suggesting fraud in the 2020 presidential election received "misinformation" and "manipulated media" flags ; and
  
• Myriad articles and videos related to the risks surrounding COVID-19 or the inefficacy of non-pharmaceutical interventions promulgated by state and local governments.

Note that many of these issues were welcomed in the sphere of public discourse until they suddenly were not. Trump's dealings with Ukraine were the justification for his first impeachment, but Biden's dealings through his son were buried. The efficacy of mandatory mask-wearing and harsh lockdowns were the source of rigorous scientific study in years past, but everything prior to 2020 has been declared junk science. Now, following the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th, everything that happened throughout the summer of 2020, when cities were literally on fire (mine included), has been memory-holed in favor of a narrative that right-wing extremists tried to overthrow the government.

This Medium article talks about Facebook's efforts in trying to fact-check users' postings. But my question is, why is it Facebook's responsibility to moderate its users interactions on the platform? In fact, so doing should open it up to liability under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Under that provision, "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider". According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation's primer on Section 230,

This legal and policy framework has allowed for YouTube and Vimeo users to upload their own videos, Amazon and Yelp to offer countless user reviews, craigslist to host classified ads, and Facebook and Twitter to offer social networking to hundreds of millions of Internet users. Given the sheer size of user-generated websites (for example, Facebook alone has more than 1 billion users, and YouTube users upload 100 hours of video every minute), it would be infeasible for online intermediaries to prevent objectionable content from cropping up on their site.

And yet, following the 2016 election, Section 230 has been used to shield content platforms from liability when they moderate, block, or otherwise alter user-generated content. In other words, they have ceased being platforms and become publishers in those moments, and they do not apply this rigor neutrally or universally. Further, because "Big Tech" only instituted these policies in response to Congressional action following Trump's election in 2016, there is a legitimate argument that these private companies are still violating the First Amendment. This Wall Street Journal opinion (behind a paywall) provides some background on U.S. case law that could support such an argument:

Section 230 is the carrot, and there’s also a stick: Congressional Democrats have repeatedly made explicit threats to social-media giants if they failed to censor speech those lawmakers disfavored. In April 2019, Louisiana Rep. Cedric Richmond warned Facebook and Google that they had “better” restrict what he and his colleagues saw as harmful content or face regulation: “We’re going to make it swift, we’re going to make it strong, and we’re going to hold them very accountable.” New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler added: “Let’s see what happens by just pressuring them.”

Such threats have worked. In September 2019, the day before another congressional grilling was to begin, Facebook announced important new restrictions on “hate speech.” It’s no accident that big tech took its most aggressive steps against Mr. Trump just as Democrats were poised to take control of the White House and Senate. Prominent Democrats promptly voiced approval of big tech’s actions, which Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal expressly attributed to “a shift in the political winds.” (emphasis added)

Now that I've laid out the 30,000-foot view of the landscape, let me explain how this affected my decision to leave Facebook. I was one of the early adopters of Facebook, back when a university email address was still a requirement to join.

Twelve of my fifteen-plus years on the social networking site were enjoyable. I managed a few different Groups that were fun and full of laughs. I enjoyed sharing numerous inside jokes with friends, and there was even a time when I began a "Poke-for-prayers" campaign using Facebook's (formerly more prominent) "Poke" feature, which allowed a user to let another user know he or she was being thought about. Though many may have disagreed with my takes on hot issues of the day and even some of my noncontroversial positions, I often looked forward to seeing the notification bell lit up and a post garner so many responses. The "marketplace of ideas" seemed to be thriving.

Facebook has gone through many changes over the years, and that has made it a bit difficult to look up old posts. Although I have matured as a Christian husband (and now father), which hopefully has been reflected in my discourse in recent years, I would like to think that my ideas and arguments made over the last decade and a half have been intellectually consistent. At least the occasional Facebook Memories highlights of old "debates" make me think I continue to argue for liberty and against government overreach.

For example, when I became politically aware in the second term of George W. Bush's presidency I was introduced to libertarianism through Reason.com's blog, Hit&Run. The blog offered quick snippets and myriad examples of government abuses and intrusions into individuals' day-to-day lives. Coupling this exposure with my own experiences in quasi-capitalist, quasi-socialist Japan, as well as the stories I heard from my dad operating his own vending machine business, it became clear early in my adulthood that government can only ratchet one way: toward increasing regulations that protect powerful interests.

Now, many would think this provides a lot of common ground with people across the political spectrum, or with those who are politically apathetic. If we have identified the culprit, then we can work toward a solution, right? Well, Barack Obama's presidency shattered any hope of that possibility, as millions of his supporters suddenly forgot about the antiwar positions they held during Bush's presidency. Similarly, even the socialists who vehemently decry "money in politics" and "powerful interest groups" had little to say when President Obama signed his massive omnibus bailouts for favored industries or boosted insurance company coffers by requiring millions of previously uninsured (by choice) Americans to pony up and start contributing premiums. I was in that latter camp for a number of years, where it simply didn't make financial sense in my mid to late-20s to carry insurance for the 1-2 times per year I went to the doctor.

But after the 2016 election, something "broke" in a lot of people. Reasoned discourse was no longer tolerable, let alone encouraged. Emotions ruled the day. Even the writers at Reason, where I had cut my political chops, had gone off the deep end. Many declared ahead of the election that supporting Hillary Clinton--a deeply-entrenched participant in the DC "swamp" that so many admit exists--was far superior to the firebrand candidacy of Donald Trump. 

I tried to take a break at the onset of COVID-19, and it was actually nice. I knew that I would disagree with most of what was being posted. Too many people, in my opinion, have been overly supportive of government efforts to fundamentally alter our lives because of a virus that cannot be controlled. Yet as the lockdowns dragged on despite ever-increasing evidence that they do not work, I convinced myself that I could not stay silent. As many were expressing outrage toward "systemic racism" they believed existed in American institutions, I reactivated my Facebook account to try to be a voice of reason amidst all the chaos.

Boy, was that a miscalculation on my part! If I thought Trump's presidency broke some people's sanity, COVID-19 shattered it. Any attempt to point out that individuals should have the sole authority to assess risks for themselves without the government ordering them how to behave--after all, are we citizens or children??--was roundly shouted down as uncaring, unloving, and unAmerican. Because I've seen that mask-wearing compliance was over 85% in the country, I posted a straw poll to ascertain people's reasons for doing so since prior to COVID-19 such non-pharmaceutical interventions were not proven effective. The responses varied, but those who felt most justified in their moral superiority used it as an opportunity to say I was "spreading misinformation" and attack my sources. I should take this opportunity to mention that my sources were systematic reviews of randomized control trials, the gold standard for research, and the CDC's own website stating that masks add no significant protection.

Debate is important and healthy for a just and fair society. An important element of debate, however, is intellectual honesty. When my Facebook acquaintances (I struggle to call many of them "friends" at this point) discount sources as not credible rather than address my central argument, and make moral accusations like "that's not very Christian of you", they display intellectual dishonesty and care only about winning the argument, or more accurately, claiming moral superiority for their position. This is not healthy debate; it's shouting down an opponent. And it shows that we're not a free society where ideas can be openly discussed no matter how controversial they might be.

In addition to the platform no longer meeting my desire for healthy debate, I could tell that it was tempting me to sin by lashing out in anger at comments that were angrily directed at me, or leading me to critique posts not directed at me for being wrong. If I wasn't giving way to anger I was seeking out conflict, both of which are called out as sinful works of the flesh (Gal. 5:19-21). Romans 12:1 instructs me to "present [my body] as a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is [my] reasonable service" (KJV, emphasis added). Verse 2 warns that I should not "conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of [my] mind" (NIV). Both of these verses emphasize the importance of keeping the mind, the reasoning faculty or intellect, focused on "the things of heaven, not the things of earth" (Col. 3:2 NLT). The sin nature relies on our emotions to dislodge us from framing our minds on the things of God--His character, promises for believers, or our position in the risen Christ--and the world system likewise tempts us through distraction and by fomenting conflict where there needn't be any. Whether intentionally designed to antagonize the sin nature or not, Facebook and other social media websites' algorithms operate to keep us engaged with their platforms.

Not everyone is susceptible to the same temptations, though everyone's sin nature does operate in the same manner. My wife, for example, can easily scroll through her Facebook feed for 30 minutes without raising an eyebrow or becoming annoyed at what other people are posting, as I might. She is still engaging, however, and at times unconsciously. So even where her emotions are kept in check, she can still be dislodged from the correct framing of her mind due to the distraction of social media. We both recognize that danger, and have taken steps to correct it. For me, that means leaving social media altogether.

So I thank God for revealing through COVID-19, the BLM riots, and the 2020 presidential election the lies and manipulation as well as the distracting nature of both traditional news media and social media. I pray for my fellow citizens and especially that the leaders in my city, state, and country will repent of their unbelief and see the glory of an awesome and unchanging God. Through repentance they might see the folly of their ways and allow God's people to live quiet and peaceable lives (1 Tim. 2:1-2). Until then I find comfort in knowing that I have been chosen by a loving and gracious God to be with him in eternity (Rom. 8:18-30), and he gives me strength and encouragement through His Spirit and in the name of Jesus Christ (Col. 3:15-17, 2 Thess. 2:13-17).

I do want to stay in touch with people. Feel free to reach out via Facebook messenger over the next month if you want to share contact information, and I hope to post more frequently here whenever particular thoughts come to me.

The Satanic Temple Doesn't Understand Religious Liberty

 

If you made it past the headline, then you're already invested in the abortion argument.

One of the overarching themes of the Supreme Court’s recent term was that it was surprisingly liberal on several major issues: upholding gay rights, striking down an abortion restriction, and rejecting the President’s request to be immune from having to turn over his financial records. All of this is true, but that doesn’t make this Court liberal. Rather, despite these rulings, this is still a very conservative court. And one area this has been evident is religious freedom.

Don't you see??? Upholding gay rights, striking down an abortion restriction, and rejecting the President's request to avoid turning over financial records means nothing for the Court's ideological makeup since a few religious liberty cases were decided in favor of Christians! Nevermind that all three of those "liberal" decisions were decided on very tenuous grounds that ignore common law and common sense.

Enter The Satanic Temple. The Satanic Temple is a religion that believes in benevolence and empathy among all people, rejects tyrannical authority, and advocates for common sense and justice. For years now, The Satanic Temple has fought to expand religious liberty notions that the conservative Supreme Court has applied to Christians to apply to its members as well.

Fair enough. Though I think this is little more than a parody religion akin to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I take no issue with "expanding religious liberty" beyond the narrow scope in SCOTUS decisions.

Particularly, The Satanic Temple has fought this battle over abortion. The third tenet of the religion is “One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.” Thus, The Satanic Temple claims that the obstacle course of abortion restrictions that states impose on the procedure should not apply to its members because doing so violates their sincerely-held religious beliefs. As the church’s reproductive rights spokeswoman puts it, “No Christian would tolerate a law that insists state counseling is necessary before someone can be baptized. Our members are justly entitled to religious liberty in order to practice our rituals as well.” (emphasis added)

And here we have the flaw in the underlying premise. Abortion advocates deny the will of the child to live, as does The Satanic Temple. "One's body is inviolable, subject to one's own will alone, except when that one is an unborn child, in which case its will is superseded by the mother's will." With such a convoluted interpretation that deviates from the plain meaning of the critical text, maybe The Satanic Temple really is a religion.

The Satanic Temple is trying to use these laws and this movement to exempt its members from abortion laws. The argument is the same as Hobby Lobby’s, though it’s about state abortion laws rather than federal insurance laws. (emphasis added)

The exact same! One party wants to kill unborn children and the other wants to avoid funding the killing of unborn children. Totes samesies!

In other words, The Satanic Temple is taking the Christian right’s crusade for religious liberty seriously and saying that if it’s good for Christianity, it has to be good for everyone. It’s only a matter of time before the Supreme Court answers the question whether they actually believe in religious liberty for all.

Again, this is where there is a massive disconnect. Employment Division v. Smith was wrongly decided because despite what the SCOTUS declared, an anti-peyote smoking law seems to pretty clearly target the Native American tribes that were smoking peyote as part of religious ceremonies. Who the hell else was really smoking peyote? But peyote smoking does not harm other individuals, so the practice of this activity should not have been restricted. Abortion very clearly harms another party, and it is only through mendacity that someone can argue that is not the case. Should a Molech-worshiping religion be allowed to sacrifice children because of their religious liberty? Should a religion devoted to the Third Reich be allowed to kill Jews because of their religious liberty? It's an asinine argument to say that this is "just like the Christian cases for religious liberty" when a central premise of your argument ignores the infringement of another being's rights.

Many abortion advocates, and likely The Satanic Temple, like to argue that a human fetus is "just a clump of cells" or even a parasite on the mother. Scientific studies show that the relationship between mother and child is actually more symbiotic: when one feels pain, the other does as well, evidenced by a spike in heart rate. A tumor or other cancerous growth may be made of human DNA, but a human fetus is made up of two unique DNA: the mother's and the father's. A human fetus can only grow into a human; it can't become an elephant, or a nematode, or a mushroom. Could a fetus survive outside of the mother prior to the typical 21-week mark of viability? Probably not, but neither could any child younger than 2, an invalid, a severely disabled person, or any number of other human beings of whom we have no issue protecting their life.

The issue of abortion has always been one that is wrapped up in multiple layers, and the legal one is often the least important. When does life begin? At what point do rights attach to a human being? What characteristics does a human being possess that distinguish it from all other life? These ethical and moral questions are ignored by abortion advocates who focus only agency before shifting to the legality of abortion. And until they are willing to confront these hard questions, they stand on very weak and shallow ground when it comes to religious liberty.

Why I Left Facebook

I think Facebook was a wonderful idea when it first started. It was sort of an online 6-degrees of Kevin Bacon that let people who didn't live near one another still share in each other's lives. Although I was not a "first generation" user, I was an early joiner in the era when one needed a university email address to register.

As I see it now, though, this site (along with Twitter, Instagram, and plenty of other social media sites) has led to a devolution in civil conversation and conduct. People go off on rants because they can "hide" behind a digital avatar. I have been guilty of this on occasion. They respond to people they've never met (and even some they have!) with a vitriol and ferocity that they wouldn't unleash on their worst enemies in person. Even our statesmen and business executives sound off on social media because their message can reach the masses, but with little regard for the tone or veracity behind it.

Unfortunately, these tendencies have overflowed into everyday life. Rather than speak with someone who may be acting unprofessionally or in a rude manner, people whip out their cell phones to record the interaction so they can upload it to social media. Rather than seek after the truth, they wait for opportune "Gotcha!" moments that can be posted to millions of followers. And people swallow their objections in the moment so they can go online later and create a tall-tale version of what transpired. They post things that cannot be verified because it sounds true.

After the 2016 election, Facebook began to crack down on so-called "fake news". But fake news on Facebook has been present from the beginning, at an individual level. The majority of people perfectly curate their life on these social media apps to present something that one would not see in the offline world. A family portrait hides the tension and instability underneath. A selfie of ripped abdominal muscles belies a person with an eating disorder.

Of course, there has been a swing in the opposite direction to counteract all of the in-authenticity. Now the cool thing to do is overshare about one's life. The kids were acting unruly today? Here's a post of how much they drove mom crazy! Been too busy at work to clean up the apartment? Here's a picture of that messy apartment. Overwhelmed by relationship woes? Pour out your thoughts to a carefully curated group of friends who will provide the perfect amount of "You go, girl!"s and "You're beautiful!"s to provide the encouragement you need in this difficult time of life.

Ultimately, Facebook just doesn't deliver on what it promises. It sucks away time and attention and gives back facsimiles of personality, thought, and the appearance of friendship. A good friendship will challenge a person to think about their beliefs and grow or mature in the way they handle life's struggles. Facebook encourages people to do "more together" but instead it seems to drive society further apart. It creates bubbles of security from outside pressures and differing opinions. Do you think veganism is the best diet and lifestyle? There are Facebook groups for that. Want to be an anarcho-communist-libertarian? Somehow, there's a Facebook group for that contradiction. Believe that Jesus Christ was not the savior of all mankind but instead came primarily for social justice among the poor and oppressed? Sadly, there's a group for that as well.

And along the last note, I finally see Facebook for what it truly is. It is not a tool to be used for any particular good. Rather, it's a part of the corrupted world system that distracts and misleads and pulls me away from what is most important: the careful and faithful pursuit of Jesus Christ, the Word of God, the Living Water, and my Lord and Savior.

Christianity in the Marketplace: How to think about abortion in America

This post will kick off a potential new series of posts in which I explore the juxtaposition of Christianity and responsible citizenship in the United States of America. Many of the posts will likely be pared down versions of discussions I have had on Facebook or other online fora, edited here for readability and flow.

As Christians, we should strive to live our lives according to God's written, spoken, and revealed (through his son, Jesus) word. I believe that if American citizens, as a whole, lived out the scriptures, much of the so-called problems we face would fall by the wayside. The church as a nation would stand like a city on a hillside, which is what many of the original settlers from Europe hoped for when they moved here for religious freedom.

The founding fathers believed that for the freedom they were establishing to be protected, America needed to be a virtuous nation, and they also largely believed that religious practice inculcated virtue. That being said, America is by no means a Christian nation.  America was not founded as a strictly Christian nation, and I certainly do not believe it resembles anything close to that now. Our country is much too materialistic and focused on the things of this world to be considered Christian (contra Col. 3:2).

Because Jesus came and fulfilled God's promises in the covenantal law, we are not bound to the sin and death that the law reveals. Further, the only command God has ever given to a nation to act a certain way or in accordance with his will was that given to Israel. Jesus's arrival and perfect life on earth, death on the cross, burial, and resurrection not only eliminated all of the ceremonial barriers between God and his people, but also made it possible for us Gentiles to be reconciled to God. Jesus is the great high priest (Heb. 4:14-16), and he enables us to have a personal relationship with our father in heaven. All of that is to say, the Bible first reveals who God is, and then reveals who we are, and finally reveals who we can be if we have faith in Christ our redeemer.

As individual Christians, we are tasked with living out Jesus's two greatest commandments, as instructed in Mark 12:28-34 (see also Mt. 22:34-40 and Lk. 10:25-37). The first (and often overlooked) commandment requires us to love—meaning sacrificially serve—God with all of our heart, mind, soul, and strength. Second, we are to love--sacrificially serve, but can also be read to mean "give the benefit of the doubt" or be charitable--our neighbor as ourselves. When a man in the Gospel of Luke asked Jesus who was his neighbor, Jesus responded with the parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk. 10:25-37), meaning it is not only those with whom we are friendly but also those with whom we would otherwise consider enemies, like the Judahites and Samaritans at the time.

My views on economic or public policy are grounded first in the belief that God is sovereign over all things and that he has placed certain people in positions of authority over the rest of us. That is a difficult reality for me to accept a lot of times, especially when those in power so often act unjustly. But I may advocate for social or governmental change without resisting or defying the authority God has ordained, and so I pay taxes and obey the law to the extent that it does not cause me to violate my conscience. When I deviate from the preferred policy choices of many it is because I do not see how that which is proposed will bring about the desired results. Abortion takes a short view on the sanctity of life that God has created and also denies that he has the power to provide for a woman (or young family) who feels incapable of caring for that child. "Medicare for All" will not lower costs or improve outcomes for the vast majority of people. Gun control does not lower incidents of gun violence and instead infringes on individuals' right to self defense, as well as punish people who have not broken the law. This article will expand specifically on the topic of abortion.

A human baby at 20 weeks, just before the 21-week cutoff for "viability"

The Dehumanizing Effect of Abortion

For starters, I believe that humans—image bearers of God—have an inalienable right to life. Our Creator endows us with this right (among others) because we reflect His image (Gen. 1:27; 1Co. 15:48-49). And because all humans bear the image of God, we do not have the right to unjustly kill another human being (Gen. 9:6 states, "Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind"). The Bible calls such unjust killings—those committed with premeditation, criminal intent, or malice—murder, and it thoroughly condemns it (Ex. 20:13; Mt. 15:19; 1Jo 3:12).  Further, the Mosaic Law prescribes a judgment of death for the taking of another human life (Lev. 24:17). 

However, not everyone throughout church history has taken the position that abortion is murder.  There's evidence that the early church through St. Augustine believed in delayed ensoulment, in which the soul does not attach to the developing child until a certain point after conception. Thomas Aquinas and others also believed that life did not begin until "quickening", or the time a baby's movements in the womb are felt by the mother. Thus, they did not see abortion prior to quickening as murder (though Aquinas still believed it was a violation of natural law). 

Though I unequivocally believe that abortion is the intentional taking of an innocent human life, and therefore a sin, Jesus’s death on the cross provides grace to cover the sin of any woman (or family) that would sacrifice the life of a child for personal or health reasons. Because grace covers the individual sin, however, does not mean that as a society we should advocate for the wholesale murder of human life. Sadly, that is a stance that we see all too often in our increasingly postmodern, post-Christian culture. Teen Vogue, a fashion magazine that targets teenage girls markets itself as the "young person's guide to saving the world," presumably while selling ad space for $3,000 outfits and handbags. But because of their far-reaching influence and social credit, they can push the Overton Window on abortion by publishing straw-man articles like "5 Abortion Myths and the Truth About Them". Noticeably absent from the list is any attempt to mythicize the accusation that abortion is murder. Instead, to downplay the loss of life and reframe the issue, we see the abortion advocates claim that abortion is "reproductive justice" (ironically, as it involves the termination of reproduction); a human baby is "a fetus"; and an embryo that contains human DNA and can only develop into a human being is "a parasite". The United States Senate couldn't even get half a dozen Democrats to vote to protect the babies that are born alive despite a failed abortion!

"Fetus" literally means "unborn offspring", yet the pro-abortion side uses the term to sound more medical or scientific than "unborn child".

A Los Angeles Times article from almost 30 years ago details a study of "mainstream media" and its reporting on the abortion debate. Even back then, the media landscape skewed heavily in favor of pro-abortion over pro-life positions, even when it came to labeling the two sides. And by controlling the language used in the debate, or rather, allowing the pro-abortion side's preferred language to prevail, the cemented the shift toward a larger support for abortion rather than against it:

Because the media have generally, if implicitly, accepted the abortion-rights view that there is no human life to be "helped" before birth. That's why the media use the term "fetus" (the preferred term of abortion-rights advocates), rather than "baby" or "unborn child" or "pre-born child" (as abortion opponents prefer). Editors say "fetus" is medically correct, value-free and non-emotional. A "fetus" does not become a "baby" until it's born.

By dehumanizing the living being growing and developing inside the mother's womb, the pro-abortion side has taken a great leap toward normalizing its preferred method of taking life. It further reframed the immorality of abortion when it stopped talking about whose rights were at stake (mother vs. child) and started a conversation about whose choice it should be (woman vs. government). By changing the language, they have changed society's entire moral value system. According to abortion advocates, this is not a question about life, but a question of privacy.

The Legal Thin Ice that Abortion Rests On

What is ironic about American support for abortion is that even its constitutional basis is suspect. When the pro-life side argues that a human child in utero deserves the same right to life as any other human being, the argument is grounded in the fundamental right to life. This right is embodied in the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, and the Mosaic Law, just to name a few historic sources. The right to life is fundamental because without it, no other rights could spring forth. If we do not protect the sanctity of life, then how can we protect anything else?

The "right" to an abortion, on the other hand, is grounded in a legal quagmire based on a fictional Constitutional provision. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court created a "right" to abortion out of a "right to privacy" that is not based in any Constitutional provision. Of course, the rights held by the people extend beyond those enumerated in the Constitution, but if that were truly the case for abortion than it should have been grounded in the Ninth Amendment and not fabricated through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process clause. The Due Process clause requires states to apply "due process" of the law before they may deprive an individual of life, liberty, or property. This requirement does not mean rights cannot be infringed; it simply means that the State must provide a fair process for implementing the infringement. However, abortion advocates insist that any infringement on having an abortion is too much (see discussion on Planned Parenthood v. Casey below).

The reason that the Court in Roe had to conjure the "right" to an abortion seemingly out of thin air is because it is not a natural right. By its very nature, a natural (or negative) right, such as the right to life or the right to liberty, cannot infringe on another natural right. In declaring a "right" to an abortion, the Supreme Court pits the fundamental right to life against this arbitrarily created right. It gives a person the legal authority to terminate another life, something that has never been recognized in any other natural right. The fact that it has been declared constitutional has nothing to do with its morality, as I have repeatedly stated.

Further decisions by the Supreme Court just added to the confusion. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court took for granted the Roe's conclusion that the "right" to an abortion was found in the due process clause, relying on the judicial principle of stare decisis (to stand by things decided) to leave the decision relatively untouched. Stare decisis, a rule that protects judicial precedent, is not in and of itself a legal argument or justification. It is simply a principle that governs the application of the common law system that our American courts operate under. This principle is the reason that Plessy v. Ferguson remained on the books for 60+ years, and why unjust rulings will not be re-examined. That pro-abortion advocates hinge their entire legal argument on such an untenable position is remarkably telling.

Casey was a Pyrrhic victory for both sides: the pro-abortion side got a "win" but it came with restrictions on abortion under a new framework the Court imposed in the form of its "undue burden" test. The pro-life side lost the case since Roe was not overturned, but the Court largely limited 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions under a "viability" theory--the idea that a baby can live outside a mother's womb after a certain point. Once again, the Court inserted itself into a philosophical or moral argument, designating the point at which personhood (and thus the right to life) begins. (It should also be noted that the trimester framework that any pregnant family is aware of and tends to operate under is the result of the Court's decision.) When the Court divided a pregnancy into three trimester in Roe, it said that the a woman could terminate the pregnancy for essentially any reason up to the start of the second trimester. The third trimester has generally been off limits except to save the life of the mother.

Additional cases since the Casey decision in 1992 have typically expanded on the undue burden test, noting this or that restriction on abortion as too burdensome on a woman's attempt to obtain an abortion. Obtaining parental consent for a minor's abortion was not considered an undue burden in Casey (affirmed in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, although that wasn't the main issue), but spousal or partner consent was found to be an undue burden. Most recently, a Texas law that required abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital was declared an undue burden in  Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016). The underlying implication of the Supreme Court's undue burden test for abortion cases is that the child itself is a burden!

How Should Christians Think About Abortion?

A grown adult should have the authority to make personal choices about his or her life, but we shouldn't act as if that precludes consequences. Abortion advocates say that the government has no business in an individual’s sex life. I agree wholeheartedly! But when the natural consequence of unprotected sex results in human life, it should be the government’s role and responsibility to protect that life.

God gave the Mosaic Law to the Israelites to protect them. Although the Law looks outdated by many of our modern standards, the restrictions on sexual immorality, against certain foods, and for the preservation of life served to enable the Israelites to prosper, were they actually to honor the Lord and live by his commands. Of course, Jesus Christ's death on the cross brought forth a new covenant (Lk. 22:20), and we are no longer bound by the Law. We live by faith that Christ's death reconciles us to God, and we walk by the fruit of the Spirit and not the desires of the flesh (Gal. 5:22-25). A person who walks by faith and in the Spirit "rejoice[s] in the Lord and delight[s] in his salvation" (Ps. 35:9). Because we are saved, obedience to the Lord's will should be our greatest desire. As David wrote in Psalm 19:7-9:

The law of the Lord is perfect,
     refreshing the soul.
The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy,
     making wise the simple.
The precepts of the Lord are right,
     giving joy to the heart.
The commands of the Lord are radiant,
     giving light to the eyes.
The fear of the Lord is pure,
     enduring forever.
The decrees of the Lord are firm,
     and all of them are righteous.

God's laws are perfect, trustworthy, right, radiant, pure, and firm. Jesus is righteousness personified! How could we ever assume that our ways are better than his?! And yet, when it comes to abortion we assume that we know more than God because science has advanced to such a stage that we can see the inner workings of a human embryo and know "that medical evidence tells us fetuses cannot live unsupported, even with a respirator before 21 weeks." Never mind that a human embryo has the DNA of a human; it can only be a human and nothing else. Psalm 139:13 and 16 say, "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. . . . Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be." God revealed the concepts of DNA and human development over three millennia before scientists would even begin to think about them! 

We cite scientific propositions as if they "perfect... trustworthy... right." Did you know that "fetuses under 24 weeks must be pain-free, because at that age the wiring doesn’t exist to send pain signals from nerves around the body to the cortex, the area of the brain where pain is experienced"? Apparently the ability to feel pain is the only thing that makes us human! But scientific discoveries have also revealed that human babies develop a heartbeat by day 23, and a number of scientists and medical professionals agree that human life begins with a single cell: the fertilized egg. The throwaway line about inability to feel pain is irrelevant because no one is arguing that life begins when we feel pain.

The difficulty with making abortion illegal is that it will almost undoubtedly result in criminal punishment for those who obtain or provide an abortion. The last thing a woman who is considering an abortion needs is the threat of prison or the death penalty looming over her. Such women (and their partners or families) need compassion and counsel when considering such drastic measures. The pro-abortion side argues that we overstate the seriousness of abortion, that it's actually safer than giving birth. But notice the subtle shifting of the goalposts in their point: safer for whom?

Even if the physical danger to women who have an abortion is minimal, the psychological and spiritual damage can be devastating. The way we think about life itself is changing, as the abortion industry "introduced a perverse cost-benefit analysis into our collective psyche—which seems to be leaking into other realms as well. The idea that each and every human being has intrinsic value is steadily being replaced by the notion that our human value is mainly utilitarian." How much longer until people in a coma are unpersoned because they can't feel pain? What about those who have severe mental or physical handicaps? As the modern eugenics movement ramps up, will those with certain genetic characteristics (gay? brown-eyed? red-haired?) be cast aside as undesirable? A resounding no, I say! "Children are a heritage from the Lord, offspring a reward from him." (Ps. 127:3)

Spiritually, we are elevating the idol of choice above the will of God. Who are we, the creation, to tell the Creator of all things that something is "unplanned" or unwanted? Rather than trust that God will use this pregnancy to grow us and draw us closer to him, we run from the consequences of our actions like Adam and Eve in the garden (Gen. 3:7-8). If we require strength to make it through nine months of pregnancy, God will grant us strength (Is. 40:29). If we need courage, he will encourage us (Dt. 31:6). Whatever we need, if we remain in him we need only ask and we shall receive (Jn. 15:7).

As Christians, we have a choice to make. We can either stand for the sanctity of human life, walking beside those in pain and helping them realize God's plan for them; or we can follow the ways of the world, asserting that we know what's best and denying the Lord's power to transform our lives.

But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord. (Jos. 24:15)