This is not good.

Two Dallas abortion doctors (Lamar Robinson and Jasbir Ahluwalia) have successfully sued a Dallas hospital to reinstate privileges, that had been revoked in part as a result of public pressure. The state district judge granted a TRO that lasts through May 2, and she has set the court date for Wednesday, April 30, for a hearing on a possible temporary injunction. I think this means that for the present time grassroots activity targeting hospital is not advised. Anytime a hospital denies or revokes privileges for an abortion doctor when there is public pressure to do so, a liberal judge may use that public pressure as an excuse to issue a similar order forcing the hospital to grant or to maintain privileges. There are two laws the judge may cite, one state and the other is federal. Both are very clear the hospitals may not discriminate against doctors because they do or do not perform abortions. State law: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/OC/htm/OC.103.htm (This was cited by the Dallas judge.) Federal law: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/understanding/ConscienceProtect/42usc300a7.pdf Pro Life Leader _________________________

Would you agree that a similar response to the Dred Scott case might be that abolitionists should not take in any runaway slaves because the Supreme Court has ruled that theyre the personal chattel of the slave owner and they could face legal consequences? Or would the moral course of action be to ignore the law and take in the slaves because they have an unalienable right to liberty? The difficult choice is whether to serve a rogue court or defend the God given unalienable rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. Those unalienable rights are not mere suggestions theyre unalienable which means there is no legal way to remove them. They can only be stolen and that process continues so long as we are in a symbiotic relationship with the abortion industry and remain silent for fear of what a rogue court might think about moral actions. The same rogue court(s) that made abortion on demand legal in the first place .

A hospital that wants to do the moral thing must revoke the admitting privileges of abortionists in order to avoid being an accomplice to abortion in my opinion. I dont think there is a gray middle area on this issue. The alternative is to compromise on the sin of the abortion. If we truly want to abolish abortion then compromising our morals and ethics to do it is probably not the best path. As I mentioned in a previous email to you, Its never right to do wrong to do right. I realize that what I call compromise you view as strategy. But any strategy that requires hospitals to advocate for abortion is wrong in my opinion. And any plan that calls pro lifers to be silent is the same plan that allowed abortion to get a stranglehold in this country. What if the state governors where abortion was already banned refused to enforce Roe v. Wade because it was illegal and unjust? The Supreme Court doesnt have an army. We know this because President Jackson marched the Native Americans along the trail of tears in defiance of the Supreme Court. What he did to the Native Americans was wrong but he illustrated that if people stand up against the court it requires an army of American citizens willing to enforce a ruling. When we treat the Supreme Court as if theyre God we are rejecting the true God. Theyre fallen men and women who have given their seal of approval to the murder of the unborn and their inferior courts are not our leader. God is our leader. Do we really think Jesus Christ would NOT revoke the admitting privileges of abortionists and throw them out of the hospitals? Would Christ be okay if we told him to be quiet and not rock the boat? Or might Christ respond, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. Matt. 16:23 He said that to Peter who was his disciple. He corrected his disciples out of love. A lot of people believe Christ was all about bringing peace on Earth, but thats not what Christ said. Rather, he stated very clearly, Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. Matt. 10:35 -36 Segregation didnt end because everyone was silent and played along. It ended because somebody decided they were going to eat at the lunch counter of their choosing and when they got on a bus they were going to sit wherever they wanted. They brought out the dogs and the water cannons but eventually the social unrest brought about a change in the law.

If the hospitals rise up and refuse to wink at the sin of abortion then perhaps they will be the heroes we need to end this tragedy? Perhaps the actions of this hospital will illustrate that if we simply do the right thing and worry about the consequences of sin rather than the legal consequences we might have a revival. The lukewarm church of our time has been sitting on the sidelines for over 40 years. What you seem to be implying is that its not good for a hospital to do the right thing. When we call right wrong, and wrong right does that change the truth? If were to the point that we can no longer recognize the moral course of action then perhaps were following the wrong script. All of that being said, Im open to discussion and willing to listen to any additional thoughts you have on this moral issue. -Steve Steven Lopez Spiritus Films Cell: 832.882.3825 www.spiritusfilms.com