Governor. For the Republicans, the race comes down to Rep. Nikki Haley and Congressman Gresham Barrett. Haley had a 99% [Grade A] score on our 2007-2008 Legislative Scorecard and so far voted with us every time but once on the 2009-2010 Scorecard (coming later this summer). Barrett pushed a ban on Partial Birth Abortion as legislator and was a leader in killing the Catawba Indian casino scheme.

For the Democrats, Senator Vince Sheheen drubbed his two opponents. Sheheen is the sponsor of the Religious Freedom in School Act (S.134) that went into law the day after the election.

Lt. Governor. The Republicans will choose between Bill Connor of Orangeburg and Ken Ard of Florence in a runoff on June 22.

Attorney General. The Republicans will choose between Columbia area attorneys Leighton Lord and Alan Wilson in a runoff on June 22.

Superintendent of Education. The Republicans will choose between former Newberry College President and retired general Mick Zais and Elizabeth Moffly. The Democrats chose Greenville lawyer and former Clinton administration education official Frank Holleman.

First Congressional District. The campaign is down to former Palmetto Family Council board member Rep. Tim Scott and Councilman Paul Thurmond for the Republicans. The Democrats chose Ben Frasier.

Third Congressional District. In a surprise to many, newcomer physician Richard Cash came out on top followed closely by Rep. Jeff Duncan. Both of these men are strongly pro-family. The Democrats chose Jan Ballard Dyer.

Fourth Congressional District. Incumbent Bob Inglis faces Spartanburg prosecutor Trey Gowdy. Both men have solid reputations are very active in their respective churches.

Note: Palmetto Family Political Action Committee monitored the results of the primaries very carefully. The four candidates that concerned the PAC because of some of their past associations were all defeated last Tuesday.

SC Senate

Senators serve four-year terms. Elections will be held in 2012.

SC House

For now, there are seven (7) runoffs on June 22:

Rep. Joey Millwood faces Doug Brannon in the Landrum area District 38.

Rep. Marion Frye faces Ralph Kennedy in the Batesburg-Leesville-Saluda area District 39.

Rep. Boyd Brown faces Kamau Marcharia in the Winnboro area District 41.

In District 69, former Rep. Rick Quinn missed being nominated by only 40 votes. It appears there won’t be a runoff, however, as his four other opponents appear to be calling it a day.

In Lexington’s District 87, Palmetto Family Council board member Todd Atwater will face Jerry Howard. Atwater received 42% in the primary to Howard’s 30%

In District 117, the runoff to fill the seat of Tim Scott will be between Bill Crosby and Jimmy Hinson. Crosby was at 48% and Hinson at 31% in the primary.

On Hilton Head Island, incumbent Richard Chalk is in a serious fight, having received 35% in the primary. His opponents also received about one-third—Andy Patrick with 34% and Kate Keep with 31%. Chalk and Patrick will be in the runoff.

A more detailed review of the primary will follow next week, including information about the defeat of several incumbents.

An event you won’t want to miss!

Palmetto Family encourages you to attend this important rally at the State House.

Spread the word to help ensure a good turnout!

Stand Up for Life: Pro-Life March and Rally

Featuring: Damon Owen, New Jersey Director for the National Organization for Marriage and spokesman for L.E.A.R.N., the independent network of African-American Pro-Life organizations.

Stop the Abortion Agenda

Saturday, January 16, 2010

Columbia, SC

Master of Ceremonies, Dr. Tony Beam

Host of “Christian World View Today” on WLFJ Radio

Music by “Joyful Sound”

11:00 am – Line up for the march, USC Russell House, Greene Street

11:30 am – Knights of Columbus lead marchers to SC State House

Noon – Rally begins at the State House, Gervais Street side

For more information, contact SC Citizens for Life, 803-252-5433 (sccl@sclife.org)

]]> http://www.palmettopublicsquare.com/?feed=rss2&p=445 http://www.palmettopublicsquare.com/?p=432 http://www.palmettopublicsquare.com/?p=432#comments Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:59:41 +0000 admin http://www.palmettopublicsquare.com/?p=432 Book Excerpt:

During the lifetime of William Wilberforce at the turn of the 19^th century, animals were everywhere. They were in the streets pulling wagons, they were grazing in the town square, they were squawking and flapping around every corner. Animals were a loud, unavoidable part of regular, day-to-day life. Certainly, for twenty-first century Americans, that is no longer the case. Generally speaking, we don’t see bulls and hogs and roosters in our daily existence. However, like in Wilberforce’s day, animals in our modern life can still face the brunt of man’s cruel or mercenary impulses, albeit in ways that are less visible to the public-at-large.

Although our general sentiment towards animals has improved a great deal since those days of publicly approved dog-fights and bull-baiting, the practical application of those good sentiments still falls short of the ultimate goal. To help us determine the proper course of action as Christians in this fallen world, we must continually look to scripture, but we can also be confident in following the biblically-sound example of William Wilberforce.

As a Christian philanthropist and British Member of Parliament, Wilberforce’s inclusion of animal welfare in his life’s work of alleviating all manner of suffering is a resounding endorsement of this endeavor’s importance. His efforts in establishing the world’s first organization dedicated to animal protection—the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—can serve as a model for what we ought to strive to achieve as Christians in this area. …

Like Wilberforce, we cannot tolerate animal fighting in our day and age.

As Christians and stewards of God’s creation, we must look beyond our own backyards and beyond our own well-tended pets, and we must consider those animals suffering at the hands of their tormentors. As Christians, we must look towards our own heavenly Master, and mirror His example of stewardship. Then we must act. We must monitor our communities, faithfully reporting any instances of animal fighting to the proper authorities. We must raise awareness of these types of criminal issues that are far from resolved. And we must advocate for animals that cannot advocate for themselves. …

As citizens of today, we must be vigilant and persistent in reminding our political representatives to represent our best selves, and—in the case of animal cruelty—our best stewarding selves. We need to encourage the passage of stricter laws where those laws are needed, and we need to demand that the laws, as written, are fully enforced. Finally, we must develop and maintain a heightened awareness of the well-being of the animals around us.

For while we cannot know every sparrow that falls, we must seek to grow ever more like the One who does. After all, God created us in his own image. He put the earth and all that is in it under our dominion and stewardship. Our call to action is not about left and right, but about right and wrong: we must care for creation as God would, working for its good, and seeking to make it flourish and prosper.

Dominion & Stewardship is published by Palmetto Family Council.

(Click HERE to order this book.)

Gambling Law in South Carolina:
An Analysis of National Opinion and the South Carolina Code of Law

by Jacob Davis

Enforcement in the Spotlight

It was big news in April 2006 when Mt. Pleasant police cited 22 people after breaking up a high-stakes poker game in what papers called a “raid.”[1] In April 2008, it even made the news in Columbia when Hanahan police raided another underground game, citing an assistant prosecutor and seizing more than $40,000.[2] This kind of strict law enforcement, of laws that some say “go too far,”[3] has helped prompt state legislators to push for a loosening of gambling restrictions in South Carolina.

After a long and bitter fight to ban video poker, and perhaps an even uglier battle to establish a state “Education Lottery,” South Carolina citizens could be forgiven for shouting “Enough already!” to arguments over legalized gambling.  Unfortunately, the recent well-publicized “raids” on “underground” poker games have brought the issue back to the forefront.  Scarcely does an article appear in the newspapers (or online for that matter) without including the old saw that South Carolina law prohibits “playing Monopoly at [the] kitchen table.”[4] Never mind that it probably doesn’t, or that no evidence exists that anyone has ever even been ticketed for something so preposterous.  Even the South Carolina Attorney General’s office is forced to joke that, “Candyland…is safe” in South Carolina.[5]Still, the public’s (not to mention the legislature’s) renewed interest in modifying South Carolina’s 200-year-old anti-gambling laws means the subject deserves an in-depth look.  Even if South Carolina citizens would prefer the issue didn’t “pass go.”
“Gaming Tables”

Far more complicated than situations involving “Candyland” are those with “gaming tables.”  South Carolina statutes against gaming tables aim to outlaw the possession, transportation, or use of the physical apparatus or equipment used in gambling, not just the gambling itself.[6] Gaming tables “distinguished…by…figures,” (think “roulette”) specifically “roley-poley tables,” “faro-banc,” and “rouge et noir” (a game similar to “solitaire”) are specifically prohibited.[7] This prohibition on tables with distinctive markings has a number of exceptions, including billiards, bowls, chess, draughts, and backgammon (as long as no wager are placed on the game by bystanders or players.)[8] However, it seems that a table without markings but for a game without betting, such as “bridge,” would be legal.[9]

Also prohibited are certain “machines or devices” (technically called “coin-operated machines or devices or other amusements”), like the infamous video poker machines.[10] But the category of exceptions to this is vast such that virtually every other kind of “machine or device” (arcade games, juke boxes, pin-ball machines, etc.) is exempt as long as it isn’t “used for gambling purposes.”[11]

Games with “Cards or Dice”

When considering whether a game constitutes “gambling,” the key factor is always whether it is a “game of skill” or a “game of chance.”  The determining factor of chance is that it involves an absence of skill on the part of the participant.[12] Games of skill are not gambling, while games of chance usually are.

The legality of games with “dice” seems to rest on whether there is betting involved.[13] If a game’s “common use” (i.e. how it’s normally played) doesn’t involve gambling it is unlikely it would be illegal unless bets are being placed on its outcome.  Thus, a game like “craps” is illegal, but simply rolling dice for amusement is probably not.[14]

Almost the same goes for card games, for while the statute specifically allows only “whist” and “draughts” (drawing cards), there are plenty of other card games like samba, rummy, canasta, and the aforementioned bridge that do not involve betting.[15]

Those Pesky “Cruises-to-Nowhere”

One of the only bastions of legalized gambling in South Carolina continues to be the small but persistent casino boat industry.  While nowhere near the size or scope of states like Mississippi’s, a few small operations continue to exist in the state.[16] States were delegated the ability to regulate casino boat gambling (”cruises to nowhere”) when the U.S. Congress passed the Johnson Act (originally passed in 1951, later broadened by amendments in 1962 and 1992.)[17] In this act the federal government specifically delegated to state governments the ability to regulate gambling on this kind of cruise that originated or docked in their waters.[18]

Effective June 1, 2005 the South Carolina legislature passed the “Gambling Cruise Prohibition Act,” which further delegated its regulatory powers in this area to local county and municipal governments.[19] The South Carolina Supreme Court last handled this issue in 2006’s Palmetto Princess, LLC v. Town of Edisto Beach,[20] a case that dealt with a local ordinance prohibiting gambling cruises that was put in place before the Act was passed (as the court noted).  Since Edisto Beach passed their ordinance before the legislature’s grant of authority (and since there was no state prohibition against casino boat gambling), the Court ruled Edisto Beach had violated S.C. Code § 5-7-30.

This section of the state constitution says, “Each municipality of the State … may enact … ordinances, not inconsistent with the Constitution and general law of this State, … for preserving health, peace, order, and good government in it….” (Emphasis added).[21] The Court reasoned (despite a strong dissent from Justice Burnett) that in the absence of a STATE prohibition on casino boat gambling, a LOCAL ordinance outlawing it would be an “ordinance…inconsistent with the Constitutional and general law.”  The Court has not heard any other cases on the issue since the legislature passed the Act, so the Constitutionality of local ordinances remains in doubt and casino cruises continue to operate in the state.

However, it should be noted that neither the federal Johnson Act, nor the state Gambling Cruise Prohibition Act allows the regulation of gambling that takes place on cruise ships, also called “destination cruises,” after they have left U.S. or state waters.[22]

The latest front in the ongoing war between casino boat outfits and local governments had been the fight over whether state law required the operators to provide gross proceeds and payouts from their gambling machines in monthly reports to the state Revenue Department.  Operators had resisted turning over the numbers for tax purposes.  But there Little River’s SunCruz Casinos won a victory in May 2008, as the state Supreme Court said casino boats operating out of South Carolina do not have to report how much money they take in each month to the Department.  Justices agreed with SunCruz that state law only requires that they report the percentage of winnings to losses per machine. The ruling means that operators, who could be taxed by local governments based on their gross receipts, will only have to provide that information for a Revenue Department audit.[23]

The State-Run “Education Lottery”

Few issues in South Carolina politics have been as contentious as legalized gambling, and perhaps no facet of legalized gambling has been more contentious than the “State Education Lottery.”  Many political commentators cite the issue as the main (or only) factor in Democratic challenger Jim Hodges’ upset of popular incumbent Governor David Beasley in South Carolina’s 1998 gubernatorial race.[24] [25] [26]
The furor over South Carolina’s “archaic” gambling laws is often stoked by reference to the hypocrisy implicit in the state-run “Education Lottery.”  While technically meeting the definition of “a lottery,”[27] the state’s “Education Lottery” is run by the state Lottery Commission, not private individuals.  Just as the state legislature is able to pass legislation outlawing lotteries,[28] it is able to pass legislation carving out an exception for a state run lottery (the “South Carolina Education Lottery Act.)[29] The state legislature wrote the law outlawing lotteries, so absent a state constitutional amendment, normal legislation can create this exception.

The lottery’s website[30] proudly touts its burgeoning success, noting the more than $2,000,000,000 directed toward various state education programs as of the 2008-2009 fiscal year.  A separate “Winners” tab displays individual profiles of the almost 2,000 winners who have claimed various prizes in lottery games, replete with a summary of how the player felt upon winning and what they plan to do with their prize money.[31] The “Odds” tab explains the odds of winning a “top prize” vary, from around 1 in 17,142.86 (”3 Times Lucky”) to 1 in 146,107,962 (”Power Ball”).[32] For obvious reasons there is no tab with “Loser” profiles.
Nationwide Trends and Opinion

Currently Utah and Hawaii are the only two states in the Union that prohibit all types of gambling.[33] South Carolina, like more than 40 states, has a state lottery (as well as multiple “scratch-off games”).  With the start of our lottery in January 2002, South Carolina followed a national trend toward more-and-more acceptance of state-supported lottery ventures.[34] (Not to mention tacit state approval of gambling as shown through relaxed gambling codes.)

Interestingly enough, this trend seems to be at odds with the public’s opinion of legalized gambling itself.[35] What the Pew Research Center calls “A modest backlash in attitudes” has seen the American public’s disapproval of legalized gambling grow since 1989.[36] And while majorities still approve of legalized gambling as a source for states to raise revenues, this support has fallen across the board, on everything from lotteries to casino gambling.[37]

As of 2006, 70% of Americans agreed that, “legalized gambling encourages people to gamble more than they can afford.”[38] At the same time, the number of Americans who said they enjoyed gambling “A lot” or “a little” dropped from 34% to 23%.[39] The number of Americans who said they had “placed a bet on one thing or another in the past year” also dropped, from 71% in 1989 to 67% in 2006.[40] A plurality of Americans (42%) also said they thought a casino had a negative impact on the local community.[41]

In the face of these trends, 2005 industry estimates say 890 casinos nation-wide took in more than $52,000,000,000 in gross revenues, and commercial casinos have nearly doubled their take in the past decade.[42] It was also a banner year for state lotteries in 2005, as 41 states sold $52,000,000,000 in tickets, up from $19,000,000,000 worth of tickets sold in 32 state lotteries in 1989.  And in 2004, per capita sales figures, averaged across all states with a lottery, were estimated at $184.[43]

Viewing those numbers it’s not surprising that although the number of Americans gambling overall has fallen, the number of Americans who visited a casino or played a slot machine rose from 20-29% and 19-24% respectively.[44] One report placed the number of slot machines in the country at 740,000.[45] (But state lotteries are by far the most popular form of gambling, with 52% of Americans saying they purchased a lottery ticket in the past year.)[46]

One possible explanation for the expansion of legalized gambling in the face of what seems to be dwindling public support for it is offered by Pew’s analysis of why people oppose legalized gambling.  While support for legalized gambling has declined, the number of people who oppose it on moral grounds has remained static or declined.[47] “White evangelical Protestant” was the only demographic group surveyed with more members who still thought it was morally wrong to gamble (and that was only a plurality, 49-43%).[48] It seems the increase in disapproval of legalized gambling has come from those who don’t see it as wrong, but are merely beginning to recognize its “downsides.”[49] Left unstated is the fact that these people apparently think increased state revenues are worth the price of the damage wrought on their communities.

Legislation in the Works

Calls for legislation that clears up the ambiguity surrounding casino boat gambling with a state-wide ban have largely been stymied.  Several bills, H 3363[50] and S 211[51] have come before the legislature in the past year that sought to outlaw “casino-boat gambling” state-wide, but have not made it out of committee.  It’s no secret that the fears of coastal interests, who want to avoid any possible burdens to the lucrative tourist and cruise industry, are a major factor in stalling these bills.

On the other hand, there have also been an attempts H 3201[52] and S 0732[53] to carve out a small exception for “recreational” poker games in the home, but they too have remained stuck in committee.  Rep. Wallace Scarborough, R-James Island, introduced one of the bills, but denies it is an attempt to bring legalized gambling to the state.  Rather, he said “that it is an attempt to let friends put a friendly wager on a couple hands of poker.”[54] Charleston’s Post and Courier credited strong opposition from the Southern Baptist Convention for “derailing” the bill.[55]

Ultimately, these examples show state gambling reforms rely on constituent pressure.  The state legislature created a state lottery under pressure from voters, just like they outlawed video gambling under similar pressure.  Any change, whether it be outlawing gambling boats, or loosening restrictions on poker, will come as a response to voters writing, calling, and campaigning for it.  To that end Palmetto Family Council (PFC) remains a staunch ally of those who decry the destructive nature of gambling (state-supported or not) and wish to see it curtailed in South Carolina.
——————————————————————————–
[1] Smith, Glenn. Mt. Pleasant police cite 22 in poker raid. The Post and Courier, April 14, 2006.

[2] Wire reports. Assistant prosecutor, others arrested in raid.  The State, April, 7, 2008.

[3]Wenger, Yvonne. South Carolina’s lawmakers look at ‘laws that go too far.’ The Post and Courier, March 24, 2008.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Hicks, Brian. Card games of any kind no dice in S.C. The Post and Courier, April 28, 2007.

[6] S.C. Code § 16-19-50.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] 7 S.C. Jur. Gaming § 10.

[10] S.C. Code § 16-19-40.

[11] 7 S.C. Jur. Gaming § 12.

[12] 7 S.C. Jur. Gaming § 3, citing 38 Am. Jur. 2d, Gaming § 10.

[13] 7 S.C. Jur. Gaming § 11.

[14] State v. Robinson, 40 S.C. 553, 18 S.E. 891 (1984).

[15] 7 S.C. Jur. Gaming § 9.

[16] http://www.northmyrtlebeach.net/gambling.html; http://www.suncruzcasino.com/.

[17] S.C. Code § 3-11-200.

[18] 15 U.S.C. § 1171-1177

[19]http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/3694.htm.

[20] 369 S.C. 50, 631 S.E.2d 76 (S.C., 2006; http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/HTMLFiles/SC/26157.htm.

[21] S.C. Code § 5-7-30.

[22] S.C. Code § 3-11-100.

[23] Wire report. High court sides with casino boats. The Post and Courier, May 13, 2008.

[24] http://www.slate.com/id/5155/.

[25] http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/11/03/election/governors/south.carolina/index.html.

[26] http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D02E3DD163EF936A35752C1A96E958260.

[27] S.C. Code § 16-19-10.

[28] S.C. Code § 16-19-10/20/30.

[29] S.C. Code § 59-150.

[30]www.sceducationlottery.com.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Ibid.

[33] http://www.hawaiinews.com/archives/politics/000160.shtml.

[34] Last, Jonathan V. Taste: Not just for losers anymore. The Wall Street Journal, October 21, 2005.  Reprinted as Losers’ Poker, The Weekly Standard, October 21, 2005.

[35] Pew Research Center, Gambling: As the Take Rises, So Does Public Concern, May 23, 2006.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Ibid.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Ibid.

[40] Ibid.

[41] Ibid.

[42] 2006 State of the States: The AGA Survey of Casino Entertainment. American Gaming Association (AGA); NICG Announces Indian Gaming Revenue for 2004, National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC), July 13, 2005.

[43] Clotfelter, Charles T. and Philip J. Cook. 1990 On the Economics of State Lotteris Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 105-119.  Also see Clotfelter, Charles T., Philip J. Cook., Julie A. Edell, Marian Moore. 1999. State Lotteries at the Turn of the Century: Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. 2004 and 2005 figures from the North American Association of State & Provincial Lotteries. http://www.naspl.org/sales&profits05.html

[44] Pew Research Center, Gambling: As the Take Rises, So Does Public Concern, May 23, 2006.

[45] Cooper, Marc. Sit and spin: How slot machines give gamblers the business. The Atlantic Monthly, December 2005.

[46] Ibid.

[47] Pew Research Center, Gambling: As the Take Rises, So Does Public Concern, May 23, 2006.

[48] Ibid.

[49] Ibid.

[50] http://www.scstatehouse.net/cgi-bin/query.exe?first=DOC&querytext=H%203363&category=Legislation&session=117&conid=3958120&result_pos=0&keyval=1173363

[51]http://www.scstatehouse.net/cgi-bin/query.exe?first=DOC&querytext=poker&category=Legislation&session=117&conid=3916980&result_pos=0&keyval=1170211

[52]http://www.scstatehouse.net/cgi-bin/query.exe?first=DOC&querytext=poker&category=Legislation&session=117&conid=3916980&result_pos=0&keyval=1173201

[53]http://www.scstatehouse.net/cgi-bin/query.exe?first=DOC&querytext=S%200732&category=Legislation&session=117&conid=3949073&result_pos=0&keyval=1170732

[54] Wenger, Yvonne. South Carolina’s lawmakers look at ‘laws that go too far.’ The Post and Courier, March 24, 2008.

[55] Ibid.

Bob, a 70 year-old resident of Atlanta, Georgia, had been through two open heart operations because of heart problems. His condition deteriorated again, but his doctors told him he could not have a third procedure. Rather than give in to the “there is nothing that can be done” mentality, he sought help outside the United States and received stem cell injections into his heart tissue. Now, he can go for 30-minute walks, and has vacationed in Florida and Antigua. The stem cell injections generated new blood vessels and heart muscle in his heart. Stories such as this one are becoming more common, and centers in the United States, such as the well-renown Texas Heart Institute, are using stem cell technology to offer hope in previously little hope situations.

Stem cell therapies are not limited to heart disease, however. Now, more than 70 disease and injury conditions have been treated with some degree of success using stem cells. In addition to heart diseases such as congestive heart failure and coronary artery disease (the cause of heart attacks), stem cells are used for replacement of heart valves even in children, where they offer the hope of valves that will grow with the patient, alleviating the need to have repeated surgery as the child develops. Cardiomyopathy, characterized by abnormal and ineffective heart muscle, has responded to stem cell therapy. Poor circulation to the lower extremities is a disease that stem cells show promise to alleviate.

The cardiovascular system is only one for which stem cell therapy holds promise. Another body system where there is much-needed progress for diseases and injuries is the central nervous system. Here, stem cells show potential treating spinal cord injuries, stroke, cerebral palsy, Parkinson’s Disease, traumatic brain injury (including injury after hemorrhagic strokes), and anoxic brain injury (most frequently seen in premature infants who suffer oxygen deprivation). In South Korea, stem cell transplants resulted in the return of sensation and mobility in a patient who suffered a spinal cord injury 19 years earlier!

The success of stem cell treatments for some bone marrow and cancer problems, such as multiple myeloma, is so commonplace today that it can be considered standard treatment. Cancers that have been treated using stem cells include leukemias, lymphomas, neuroblastoma, and breast cancer. Scientists have even been able to grow small “breasts” from stem cells, offering post-mastectomy patients a chance to have restored breast tissue. Now, sickle cell disease, which causes severe anemia, pain and heart problems, responds to stem cell transfusions. Stem cells provide insulin-secreting cells that can treat (cure?) diabetes mellitus Type I.

Dialysis may become a medical historical anecdote if the early success with stem cell treatment of kidney disease progresses. Stem cells have been used to replace a damaged windpipe (trachea) and to overcome pulmonary hypertension that limits blood oxygenation and now requires lung transplantation in advanced cases. In cirrhosis of the liver, whether from alcohol abuse or infectious hepatitis, stem cells can provide new, healthy liver cells. Rare diseases that destroy the lining of the gut and require long-term intravenous nutrition with its many complications are now the subject of stem cell therapy.

Broken bones that do not heal have mended shortly after stem cell injections. Stem cells have been used to “grow” and replace a jaw bone that was destroyed by cancer. Recalcitrant tennis elbow has responded to stem cell injections and new cartilage can be grown to replace injured cartilage, or torn cartilage pieces may be united using stem cells. Stem cells have corrected chronic, non-healing skin sores. They have even shown success in epidermolysis bullosa, a condition in which the skin blisters from the slightest trauma and is prone to recurrent infections. An autoimmune form of the disease affects internal organs as well.

Autoimmune disorders, some of the most difficult problems in medicine, seem to show response to stem cell therapy. These include multiple sclerosis, lupus and Crohn’s disease. Combined immunodeficiency disease, which causes frequent infections that are life-threatening and leads to early death, responds to stem cell transfusions. Other immunological conditions stem cells may treat incldeu conditions related to therapies for cancer. One particularly devastating process is graft-versus-host reaction. In this situation, the tissue or organ transplanted into a patient attacks the patient’s own tissue because it recognizes it as “foreign.” Stem cell transfusions alleviate the reaction in many cases. Stem cells are also used in other transplantation scenarios to “trick” the host tissues into accepting the donor tissue, making immunosuppression with its deleterious effects unnecessary.

With all this exciting success using stem cell therapy, why do we hear so much controversy about it? There really is not controversy over the stem cell treatment I have described. All of the above successes came from utilizing adult and umbilical cord stem cells, which all recognize as being ethically appropriate treatment. As a corollary to this, none of these successes involved the ethically-abhorrent destruction of human embryos to harvest embryonic stem cells.

Many people do not differentiate between embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells (I will include umbilical cord stem cells along with adult stem cells). This is because they do not have the scientific background to know the difference. But it is a crucial differentiation to make. Embryonic stem cell research is problematic on at least two fronts. First and most importantly, on the moral front, embryonic stem cell research necessitates the destruction of living human beings in order to obtain the stem cells for research or treatment. It does not matter how much “good” comes if what is needed to get it is wrong. Of course this understanding raises the fundamental question: Is an embryo a human being?

A simple answer is that no one questions that it is a human thing, and that it is a thing – a being. There is no question, in other words, that it is. The question is, what it is. That it is human is not debated. But those who support embryo destruction see a further refinement of the question as necessary: When does the human being become a person? The advantage with this question is that “person” can be defined however one wishes to support one’s desires. When does a living human being have inherent dignity and “rights”? The common suggestion today is that this requires some level of neurological function. In other words, personhood is a functional thing, not an essential or ontological thing. Of course, there is no non-arbitrary level of function that establishes personhood, and some (e.g., Princeton professor Peter Singer) have argued that personhood does not inhere until some time after birth.

One argument for holding that an embryo is not a person is based upon an analogy with brain death. In brain death, there is no function of the brain tissues including the brain stem (some today argue to liberalize brain death to include higher brain death wherein the brain stem still functions, providing for continued respirations and heart function). Since the brain-dead patient is no longer a person, they reason, because they have lost self-directed integral organic function, then an embryo, which does not have brain function, is not a person. The analogy does not hold, in either the premise or the conclusion. For the “brain-dead” patient, if he still has heart function, for example, does still have self-directed integral organic function. If he did not, then there would be no need for the category of brain dead (a category that, by the way, was created in order to provide more organs for transplantation) – he would simply be dead. On the other hand, an embryo is a unique, self-integrating human organism that controls his own development, implantation, and maturation. The embryo is a human person with potential, not a potential human being. There is no ontological difference between an embryo, a fetus, an infant, or a child.

Another argument for recognizing the non-personhood of the embryo is based on a presumed analogy from cloning of somatic cells (all the non-germ [non-sex] cells). Since all somatic cells contain the entire DNA code with some of the genes “turned off,” and since these genes might be re-activated through cloning techniques such as somatic cell nuclear transfer, then every cell in our body is a potential human. If all the cells could become persons, nothing differentiates the embryo from the living hair cell, for example. Since we understand that there is no moral problem with shedding skin cells, and since embryos are analogous to these tissues, then there is no moral problem with destroying embryos for the good of others.

This argument fails to differentiate, however, between active and passive potentiality. Active potential inheres in a being that has intrinsic drive to direct and unfold its own potential. Passive potential involves external manipulation. An embryo has active potential to mature as a human person. Somatic cells only “possess” passive potential to develop into a human being: the scientist must manipulate it through complex laboratory procedures for it to become a self-integrating organism. Once it does (as would be the case with human cloning), it would be a human organism, and as such, a human person. A somatic cell such as a bone marrow stem cell is not analogous to an embryo; it has the active potential to become a leukocyte (white blood cell) and a passive potential to become a human clone. It is analogous to an acorn which has an active potential to become an oak tree and a passive potential to become a desk. The real human analogy of a somatic cell would be a gamete (egg or sperm). As the male gamete must join a female gamete in order to become a self-integrating human person, so the somatic cell must have its nucleus removed, spliced into an egg cell with its nucleus removed, and then stimulated with an electrical shock to begin dividing. Only then, might the somatic cell be the source (partial) of a living human being.

Finally, those pushing for acceptance (and tax-payer funding) of embryonic stem cell research argue that only “spare” or “left-over” embryos from in vitro fertilization procedures need be used and that they are doomed for destruction anyway. Though this conclusion is not necessary and though the idea of “left-over” embryos raises another host of ethical inquiry, even if the argument was granted (which I do not) there is a moral problem. Can we really ever draw a line that would permit experimentation only on clinically “left-over” embryos that would stand for even a short time in the face of mounting clinical (and commercial!) opportunity for advance? The hype of those who support embryo destruction as well as their media bed-partners shows the naiveté of such a proposal.

The question we face in regards to embryonic stem cell research is distinctly ethical in nature and not practical. It really doesn’t matter if embryonic stem cell research holds great potential for improving the health of the masses. There are things that we should not do – should never do – even though they may bring great benefit. Some things just supersede any utilitarian calculus that seeks to justify deleterious means by a greater utilitarian benefit. When there is a thing we should not do and there is no gain from doing it, then it is easy to refuse to do it. This is true as well when only modest gain comes from the thing which ought not to be done. But when the benefit offered from breaching ethical boundaries seems great (either on a personal, aggrandizing basis or a more altruistic basis), then the challenge to personal morals and public policy lies precisely here.

Excursus on Altered Nuclear Transfer Dr. William Hurlbut, a strong pro-life physician and scientist, proposed an approach for a possible source of “embryonic” stem cells that, he claimed, would not involve the destruction of human embryos. He called the technique “Altered Nuclear Transfer.” The basic technology of this approach is similar to somatic cell nuclear transfer. But either the nucleus of the somatic cell, or the enucleated oocyte (egg) (or both) undergoes alteration in such a way as to make it impossible for the resulting entity to develop into a full human being. Because there is an inherent inability to mature, Hurlbut says, there is no embryo. Therefore, to destroy the entity to derive stem cells holds no moral consequences. Once the entity has developed to the blastocyst stage, the blastomeres may be harvested and “embryonic” stem cells derived. The genetic alteration can then be reversed in the stem cells so that they can return to “normal.” Others hold that what this technique does (and it has been accomplished) is produce a cloned embryo with defects. The entity does possess self-directed organization for the first several days until its defect causes it to degenerate into a disorganized entity that is more analogous to an embryo with severe genetic anomalies than a non-embryo. Of course, this debate boils down to the question, “What, essentially, is an embryo?” Dr. Hurlbut deserves respect for his attempt to achieve “embryonic” stem cells without destroying human embryos. He does this because he recognizes the inherent dignity of the embryo. Like other critics, however, it seems to me that altered nuclear transfer only creates a defective embryo, one that cannot possibly survive to maturity, but an embryo nevertheless. To knowingly create a defective human embryo is problematic, to say the least. As long as there is any moral question that this is so, this technique suffers the same problems as embryonic stem cell research in its traditional sense.

At the beginning of this essay, I alluded to two fronts on which embryonic stem cell research was problematic. I have spent the bulk of the discussion on the front that I think really matters – the ethical one. In fact, even if the second front were alleviated, it would do nothing to legitimatize the destruction of human embryos. The second front is a pragmatic one. Embryonic stem cells were first isolated in 1981; the first human embryonic stem cells in 1998. But in the more than quarter century since the beginning of embryonic stem cell research there has been no successful animal or human treatment using embryonic stem cells.

Paired with this lack of success has been the propensity for embryonic stem cells to produce malignant (cancer) tumors, genetically-defective cells, ineffective tissue development and non-functional cells. The process of obtaining embryonic stem cells is quite inefficient. It takes the destruction of 10,000 embryos to provide 100 viable blastomeres (the embryonic cells from which embryonic stem cells are derived). It has been estimated that there are currently in infertility-industry freezers of the United States 400,000 cryopreserved embryos. Though from the perspective that these are each human beings, this is a huge number. But from the perspective of the inefficiency of embryonic stem cell methodology, this is quite limited. That is why there is a push for funding cloning technologies such as somatic cell nuclear transfer. What is needed by the embryonic stem cell researchers is a means of mass production of embryos. But to create living human beings for the purpose of destroying them and harvesting their body parts is the ultimate commodification of human life.

From a practical standpoint, the already very successful adult stem cell technologies ought to be supported. The table that follows enumerates many of these. This is the reason for the hope in stem cell research. Why has the media been almost silent as to these successes? On the other hand, why the hype of the media and many in politics and science over embryonic stem cell research with its lack of success and the detrimental outcomes? Is there something to the suggested “culture of death” that provides the title for Wesley J. Smith’s provocative book? Finally, will we say that we shall never, no matter what the benefits, experiment on our own kind? Will our legacy be one of holding back from the destruction of innocent human life? Or, shall we do evil that good may come?

–David Blankenhorn,
President of the Institute for American Values,
in TIME magazine.

Tiffany Deierlein’s valedictory speech was so impressive, I asked her for permission to post it on our blog.

I know you’ll be as impressed as I was.

-Oran

Tiffany Deierlein

High School Graduation Speech, 2009

“Friede wenn möglich, Wahrheit auf jeden Fall.”
Peace if possible; truth at all costs.
-Martin Luther

In John 18:37 Jesus declares, “I came that I might testify to the truth.” Likewise, He sends forth his children to proclaim the truth to the ends of the earth. We stand here today solely because of His grace, and we go forth from here in the fear of the Lord to rekindle the Reformation, to proclaim the via, veritas, vita–the way, the truth, and the life. We go forth in the shadow of the Almighty, to reform the culture and reclaim civilization. And we do not go alone.

Our parents gave us life, and then they taught us–trained us–how to sacrifice that life so that it would fulfill its highest, indeed, its only purpose, and that is to glorify the Most High God. Abraham Lincoln said, “Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe.” I doubt any of us realize what our parents have done on our behalf to sharpen us so that when we leave here today as high school graduates we may leave as men and women of honor, of purity, of humility, and of faith. “Education,” William Butler Yeats said, “is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.” We will never be fully ready, and we will certainly never be worthy, but because of our parents’ faithful training we are well-equipped to go forth, and to take the fire they lit within us and to spread it to the ends of the earth.

We go not as spectators, but as reformers.  The battle that raged in Eden draws us in, and the Victor calls us forth to claim His victory. The travelers to Zion in Psalm 84 went, it says in verse seven, from “strength to strength.” We have no strength of our own. Yet we, also, go from strength to strength as we march to Zion because, as we read in II Chronicles, “The battle is not yours, but God’s.” Therefore, we must constantly look to the source of our strength. At times we will not be able to see what lies on the other side of the Jordan; but it is not so much a yearly or a daily calling we have been given as much as one we fulfill each second. We may be yet blind to God’s sovereign will for our lives ten years ahead–even ten days ahead–but we know His will for this moment–and that is obedience. We must live a life of constant surrender to the Lordship of Christ, where we rely entirely on Christ moment by moment, sacrificing ourselves and acknowledging our utter helplessness, that in all things Christ will be preeminent.

Yet at the same time, we do not live for the moment. Each moment is lived deliberately, with our supreme vision before our eyes. Where we set our eyes is where we will go; hence it is all important that we grasp a vision. And what our vision is will dictate each moment of our lives–what we do, how we do, why we do it, for whom we do it. It is a vision that requires absolute surrender to Jesus Christ. It is a vision such that, if we forsake it, we will lose our own souls. But brothers and sisters, if by God’s grace we embrace it and its calling of self-denial and faith in Christ, we will go forth in the strength of the Lord, and our God will use us in mighty ways to advance His Kingdom.

It is a vision of victory, of dominion, of truth, of more than a simple existence, but life abundant. Above all, it is a vision of Jesus Christ and Him glorified. “If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?” We go forth to penetrate the forces of darkness and subdue the culture, establishing the Kingdom of Life. We go forth to wage cultural warfare to reclaim what was lost at the Fall–for the glory of the Almighty God and the exaltation of the name of Jesus Christ.

Dr. Frank Page, immediate past president of the Southern Baptist Convention and pastor of Taylors First Baptist Church, SC, was appointed in February to the President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

Dr. Page flew to Washington this week for the first substantive meetings of the group concerned about where this Council was headed and whether he should stay on. Just looking at the first dozen or so religious leaders appointed earlier this year shows Page had good reason for concern. He may very well be the only pro-life choice…on a faith-based panel. (Fellow panel member Joel Hunter might hold to the biblical view if pressed, but that is another story.)

Dr. Page’s week turned out to be a roller coaster. The initial hope that Super Bowl Champion Coach and devout Christian Tony Dungy would be coming on board the Council for this week’s meeting was dashed. Not only was Dungy not appointed (amid speculation that his opposition to gay marriage may have played a role)—instead, Harry Knox of the Human Rights Campaign (a Washington-based gay rights organization) would be joining the group. Dungy had supported the campaign for traditional marriage in California, Knox had opposed.

But after a few days of the usual Obama Administration party line, a ray of sunshine: the public comment period on healthcare right of conscience had ended and the Administration would not reverse the Bush policy after all. Healthcare providers would still, under Executive Order from the President, be able to refuse to perform procedures or prescribe drugs the physician considered immoral.

On behalf of the people of South Carolina—Thank you, Dr. Page, for your leadership. You are in our prayers.

At the Governor’s Prayer Breakfast a couple of weeks ago, those in attendance had the pleasure of hearing from SC Commissioner of Agriculture Hugh Weathers. He spoke about the honor and privilege of public service, and the humbling gift of prayer.

You may never have noticed it before, but as Commissioner of Agriculture, Hugh Weathers’ name is printed on the inspection sticker found on every gas pump in this state. In his talk at the Prayer Breakfast, The Commish told us about the prayers fueled by those stickers:

It’s an honor to offer a few remarks on behalf of the governor and all elected officials. And I will be brief because I’m reminded that it is scriptural to do so: Ecclesiastes 6:11 says, “The more the words, the less the meaning…and how does that profit anyone.”

I firmly believe that any elected official standing before you would say it is a privilege to serve South Carolina. They might also say that sometimes that “privilege” is more of a labor of love. But they would also be quick to thank you for the prayers you offer on their behalf.

In my four and a half years as your commissioner, I have benefited from the efforts of many prayer warriors—first and foremost, my wife Blanche. When I share with her the challenges that confront me, she always promises to pray about it. But then she also adds, “Well, have you prayed about it?”

I have two good friends in town that many of you may know—Dr. Perry Bowers with Focused Living Ministries and Adrian Despres, the chaplain of the USC football team. They will leave me phone messages from time to time to say, “Hey, I was at the gas pump earlier. Saw your name. Praying for you, man.”

Often when Perry leaves a voice mail, he also asks, “What specifically can I pray about for you?”

And, so now, I’d like to use that question on behalf of folks in leadership at all levels of government, and ask that you pray specifically for us to “use our space wisely.”

Now what exactly does that mean? –Or as they would say in Bowman, “You got some ‘splainin’ to do there.” –Well, I’ll try to explain, and maybe even elaborate:

I’m sure most of you are familiar with the work of Stephen Covey and his book 20 years ago, called The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. Well, he wrote a follow-up book five years ago called The 8th Habit. –Pretty clever title.

The theme of the book is that each of us needs to determine how we are uniquely gifted to make this world a little bit better. Sort of like what would be missing if we weren’t here. –One of the simplest truths in the book is that everyone is blessed from birth with the power of choice. Covey calls it a space.

Now, here are three statements that sum up what I’m getting at, and why I ask that your prayers be specific:

            Between stimulus and response there is a space.

            In that space lies our freedom and power to choose our response.

            In those choices lies our growth and our happiness.

Take the last statement and apply it to the collective leadership of South Carolina, and I believe you could say that the future of our state lies on those choices.

Let’s recall a couple of times President Bush used his space to make choices:

After the attacks of 9/11, he used his space to respond by vowing that we would not be attacked again on his watch, and that we would seek out those who would destroy us if they could.

Now moving to the end of his term in office, it wasn’t as complicated. It went something like this… “There’s a shoe flying at me … I’d better move.” –Now, as I recall, the President did not duck. He just leaned to the right. And Dr. Oran Smith will tell you there’s a message right there: That we can usually avoid trouble just by leaning to the right.

Well, how can Hugh Weathers, Gov. Sanford, Dr. Rex –or any of us for that matter—use our space wisely? I believe the answer is to draw on all available resources to stretch out that space enough to make the most appropriate response.

What resources? Well, one comes automatically—it’s genetic. Some of us are wired with a short space … Shoot first, then ask questions. Others among us are gifted with a naturally long space—they got an extra dose of the fourth fruit of the Spirit—patience. And Psalm 139 tells us that our wiring is no happenstance; God knew long ago how we were wired, and He did not place us where we could not succeed.

Next, there are those around us who can be a resource for stretching that space. Our lives are not intertwined with each other by chance. Acts 17:28, says, “From one man He made every nation of men, they should inhabit the whole earth; and He determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.” So—hey—you don’t like the guy down the street or the person in the next office? Remember, God put him there. And maybe, just maybe, he or she is there for us to engage and to help out in that space between stimulus and response.

And, finally, there’s the strength we draw from our past experiences and our faith. Experience is the best teacher. For instance, I grew up surrounded by females. Unfortunately, they had four legs and swishy tails. But I can tell you that the second kick or swish of a tail from a Holstein cow won’t teach you anything that you couldn’t have learned the first time.

And faith is—well—we are told in Hebrews that faith is, in fact, “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” In our spiritual life, our faith makes us sure and certain of God’s promises. And in the challenges of leadership, that same faith can make us more sure of our decisions and more certain that we are placed where God intends for us to be.

This morning, I hope that some message in song or word will inspire each of you to add to your prayer life those of us privileged to help lead South Carolina—that we stretch out our spaces to make wise choices using all the resources available to us. 

I know from experience that the prayers you offer can help us use our faith in God’s promises to strengthen our faith in ourselves to make wise choices that impact the future of our state.

It has been my pleasure to share with you this morning. It is an honor to serve our state. But more importantly, it is very humbling and very uplifting to know that those we serve would honor us with their prayers.

Thank you, and may God continue his blessings on South Carolina.

Our Father in Heaven, we thank you for the time we have spent together this day. You have said where two are three are gathered together, you are there. We have felt your presence this morning already and we are grateful.

Oh Creator, we praise and adore you. We know that with your very Word you spoke our universe into existence. And now by your grace, you sustain us.

But as we exalt your name and celebrate your light, You know the darkness of our hearts. We confess our sins to you now and ask for your forgiveness.

We are thankful…

By Your grace and mercy we live in free state, our beloved Palmetto State. A state full of churches that send your gospel around the world from this land we call South Carolina.

For sustaining our state in the joys and trials of its history we thank you. From CharlesTown to the fort of Palmetto, from Fort Sumter to that dark day in Orangeburg to Hurricane Hugo, from King Cotton to looms that lay silent to great abundance and diversity, you have brought us through, tried in the crucible. Refine us, but walk with us we pray.

And, as we gather in this place today, we lift up our leaders to you.

For those who serve under the dome we pray—Senators and Representatives of the 118th General Assembly, staff, lobbyists, interest groups—guard them from the temptations of the Statehouse:  using power for power’s sake, accepting accolades for the work of others, double-mindedness, arrogance, greed, and the moral and ethical temptations unique to the Statehouse culture. Thank you for the many who place their trust in you, though many swim upstream.

As our legislature sits, may its members truly fulfill your word to the Romans by always holding no terror for those who do right, but only for those who do wrong. May they be your servants for doing good. May they never bear the sword or bill or act or resolution or appointment or election in vain, but with uprightness and fairness and selflessness. May they be your servants and true servants of the people, agents of wrath only in punishment of the wrongdoer…agents of grace.

For our Governor we pray. Give him the gift of wisdom and the gift of persuasion.

For the others who hold executive authority we pray: Attorney General McMaster, Comptroller General Eckstrom, Treasurer Chellis, our advocate for agriculture Hugh Weathers, Chief Educator Jim Rex, and Secretary of State Hammond—as well as chief executives of the Departments of Alcohol, Commerce, Corrections, Health, Insurance, Juvenile Justice, Labor, Motor Vehicles, PRT, Probation Pardon Parole, Public Safety, Revenue, Social Services, Transportation, and Law Enforcement. You know each function and each department. You know the heavy responsibilities for our four and a half million citizens. Guide their administration, we pray.

For those who preside and lead we also pray: Lieutenant Governor, Speaker of the House and President Pro tempore. Leaders of the party caucuses in the House and Senate. May they be true vessels in your hand.

Give wisdom to our judges as well—may every member of our state courts—supreme, appeals, circuit, family, administrative, summary, probate, municipal and masters-in-equity—be endowed with a very special wisdom to apply the law as written and to administer justice.

Lord, it was you who moved the founders of our state to place in that first Constitution these words:

“It is lawful and the duty of every man, being thereunto called by those that govern, to bear witness to the truth.”

As our leaders serve, show them the Truth, show them your face and may they in all things defend your holy institutions of church, marriage, and family.

And now deliver your message through your servant Tony Hall. Give him your message for us today.

All of these things we ask in the name of your Son, our Savior, Jesus Christ.

Amen.