Mediaboss Marketing

Vice President Mike Pence may now live thousands of miles away from Indiana, but his home state is still reckoning with his legacy.

On Friday, a federal judge blocked an Indiana law requiring women seeking an abortion to get an ultrasound at least 18 hours before they undergo the procedure. The state failed to present any convincing evidence that the law did what the state said it did: preserve fetal life and womens mental health by convincing them not to have an abortion, found U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt.

Pence signed the law, which had been in effect since July 2016, when he was still Indianas governor. It mandated that women in the state visit their abortion provider at least twice once for an ultrasound and in-person counseling with state-mandated information about abortions, and once to obtain the abortion itself.

In a 53-page ruling, Pratt found that the state failed to prove that making women view their ultrasounds let alone making them view it 18 hours before undergoing an abortion made them rethink their decision to get an abortion.

Pratt said that Indiana also failed to justify mandating that women make two separate trips to abortion clinics. For low-income women already struggling with the prospect of paying for an expensive abortion, Pratt wrote, forcing them to also pay for travel, lost wages, and possible child care was just too much.

The Indiana law kept at least nine women from getting an abortion because they couldnt afford to make two trips to the clinic, including a woman who couldnt leave her special needs children that often, according to the lawsuit.

The burdens it creates on women seeking to terminate their pregnancies which are significant even if not overwhelming dramatically outweigh the benefits, making the burdens undue and the new ultrasound law likely unconstitutional, Pratt wrote.

Indiana is far from the only state to have such a requirement. Thirteen other states also require women go to in-person abortion counseling hours or days before actually getting an abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Some 26 states also have regulations controlling ultrasounds and abortions, and three require that an ultrasound be performed at least 24 hours before an abortion.

But this ruling may signal a change in how courts approach those laws. Thanks to Whole Womans Health, a landmark Supreme Court decision that struck down Texas abortion regulations, states now have to prove that their restrictions actually do what they say they do.

There may be more of these laws that get struck down, explained Elizabeth Nash, a Guttmacher Institute senior state issues manager. Because oftentimes all we get from the state is an assertion that the law protects womens health and the law protects fetal health. And there isnt much in the way of evidence that these laws are necessary or even achieve their stated goals.

Still, few states have faced legal battles over ultrasound and abortion counseling provisions, and there are only so many attorneys who can fight the myriad abortion regulations across the country. It might be that [lawyers] may see these as real burdens and barriers, but they might not have the bandwidth to challenge all of them, Nash said.

Follow this link:
Mike Pence just had one of his abortion laws blocked in Indiana - VICE News

The Vice-President cant get a burger with Lisa Murkowski without arousing suspicion or, possibly, himself? After the Washington Post pointed out, last week, that Mike Pence once told a reporter that he never dines alone with a woman who is not his wifea variation of the so-called Billy Graham rulepeople had a lot of questions. Are after-sunset encounters allowed if they dont include food? Do canaps count? Pretzels on an airplane? It seemed like a good time to get on the phone, for some perspective, with Billy Grahams forty-two-year-old evangelist grandson, Will.

Im going to give you a little history, is that O.K.? Will said, speaking from Pachuca, Mexico, where he was preparing to lead a revival. Think about 1948the times were different, but one of the things that my grandfather was dealing with was the image of an evangelist, which was kind of synonymous with what youd think of as a used-car salesman. Will pointed out that two decades earlier Sinclair Lewis had published Elmer Gantry. His grandfather, fighting that huckster stereotype, asked three male colleagues to help him make a list of things that could hurt evangelism. One of them was sexual immorality. In what became known as the Modesto Manifesto, Billy and his team pledged to avoid any situation that could create even the appearance of impropriety. When my grandfather would check into a hotel, a man would go inside the room and look under the bed and in the closets, Will said. What they were afraid of was that someone had snuck in the room, like a naked lady with a photographer, and shed jump into his arms and hed take a picture, and theyd frame my granddaddy.

Times have changed, and so has the rule, meaning that today a righteous man must think about how to avoid female company even in scenarios that dont involve a honey trap. But the jezebel mentality persists. For one thing, if Im meeting with a woman, then theres a temptation that maybe it could be something more, Will said, when asked why dinners posed a risk. Another thing, he said, is that I want to do everything I can to protect my wife and my marriage. He continued, I think Mike Pence loves his wife so much that he never wants anything to jeopardize his marriage to what he believes is the greatest woman hes ever been with.

In practical terms, this means that if a man and a woman need to ride in a car together someone else should come along. (The collective evangelical sexual imagination accounts for infidelity, but apparently not for threesomes.) Breakfast is out. So is coffee. We have glass offices, so that you can see everything, Will said. What would he do if he were on a train and the only other person in the car was a woman? Thats why I always travel with a friend, he said. What if his wife is at home and a workman is coming to the house? I always have someone from my office go there and be with her. There are certain exceptions. Have I been in an elevator when theres been only a woman? Yes. He went on, When Im on that elevator, its, like, Ugh. Not that I dont want to be around a woman, but, actually, I feel uncomfortable.

Back to Pence. Isnt his line of work a little different from an evangelists? Isnt it unfair to offer men a point of access that is closed to women? We believe that a woman could meet with another woman, but a woman couldnt meet with a man, so it would go both ways, Will explained. Just take another person into the room. Of the Vice-President, he said, I dont know Mike Pence, but I think hes just trying to protect that nothing could ever be used against him. Hes got so many pressures on him that thats the last thing he wants to deal with.

At ninety-eight, Billy Graham is still upholding the Billy Graham rule. The problem is, hes got twenty-four-hour nursing care at home, Will said. There are always two nurses, for accountability purposes. Will told a story about his grandfather invoking the Billy Graham rule with Hillary Clinton. In 1989, when Graham was in Little Rock for a crusade, Hillary invited him to lunch. As Graham recounted in his autobiography, he told her that hed be delighted, but, he said, I dont have private luncheons with beautiful ladies. Will said, I dont think anyones ever going to suggest that Billy Graham and Hillary Clinton ever tried anything. I heard she was so surprised that he still kept to those rules, but I think she respected that. In the end, Hillary persuaded him to join her in the crowded dining room of the Capital Hotel, and Graham wrote that he left the encounter greatly impressed by her.

Final question: Is the Billy Graham rule purely about physical proximityin other words, is it O.K. to have a one-on-one telephone chat with a female reporter (who, incidentally, was quietly eating some salt-and-pepper shrimp at her desk)? Thats why Ive got a guy sitting right here beside me, Will said.

Here is the original post:
Virtue and Vice: Mike Pence's Dining Policy - The New Yorker

Even though Ive dwindled down my Facebook time to almost nothing, its easy to see folks have been in a bit of a frenzy concerning Mike Pence and his practical application of how best to love and be faithful to his wife. When I say folks, I am speaking of all folks, Christian and not Christian. But since this is the Patheos Evangelical Channel, and since I am particularly saddened at some Christian responses to the situation (as I believe Christians should support rather than tear one another down), lets discuss Christians only.

What is the right response, the Christian response, to hearing the news that Mike Pence will not dine with women to whom he is not married?

Romans 14 talks about Christians judging other Christians. More specifically, how they shouldnt judge when it comes to eating or not eating meat offered to idols. In the Pence case, we are talking about eating with a woman who isnt a spouse vs a woman who is a spouse. But though the situational specifics are a little different, the command is the same:

Dont judge.

There is a time for making judgment calls. For instance, we are told we will know Christians by their fruits, and there are situations where it is necessary to judge whether someone is truly in the faith. But then there is a time to allow for Christian liberty. In the case of Mike Pence choosing to abstain from all evil and guard his heart with all diligence, it is not time to judge. Its time to allow a fellow brother in Christ to make his own choices about whether to abstain or not abstain from eating with a person of the opposite sex, which we can only assume has been chosen as a safeguard in response to thorough and thoughtful self-examination.

Are there better ways? Should the Vice President choose, as Karen Swallow Prior noted in her article, virtuous living over living by a set of man-made rules? Perhaps! But what if Pence recognizes within himself a significant lack of virtue in the area of sexual purity? What then, is he supposed to do? Put on a show as though he is virtuous and dine with women with whom he is not wed? Or enforce a man-made rule in an effort to do what God has commanded (that is, to remain a one woman man)?

Virtue, as Prior noted, is the better practice. Rules say dont be bad and do not touch when virtue says be good and touch what is good. So we are looking at a negative reinforcement of sorts versus a positive reinforcement of sorts. But if theres anything my forty four years of life and twenty-six years of parenting has taught me, its that different types of reinforcement work for different types of people, personalities, and temperaments. Perhaps Pence responds best to negative reinforcement rather than an encouragement to do what is right out of a sincere, virtuous heart.

Christians should eventually get to the point at which virtue rules in their hearts (and therefore actions), rather than rules determining their actions. But each Christian is in a different place in their sanctification. And Pence is in a different place than the rest of us, in that he has been placed one notch down from the highest political office in the country, which no doubt comes with an excessive opportunities to ignore virtue and follow ones own heart (which is not a virtuous practice, as the world would have us to believe). So who are we as fellow Christians to judge another by what boundaries he has set up to protect the sanctity of his marriage? If the boundary has been established because he recognizes a lack of personal virtue and cannot see any way but a rule to help guide and protect him, who are we to say Chuck the rule. Grow up! Be virtuous!

If he is in a place where rules help him best, then so be it. Or if he simply wishes to not have the added burden of temptations to the already rigorous demands of political office, then so be it. He is at liberty to flesh out the command to be a faithful husband however he and the Lord choose.The Bible is adamant about what we should do when sexual immorality becomes a temptation. It says to flee. Run! Find the nearest EXIT sign and scram. So while Mike Pence, according to some, should not have the need to flee, the fact is that clearly, he does have a need to flee. And we should not despise him for it.

To be clear. Karen Swallow Priors article was a helpful clarification of the differences between rules and virtue, and what the more noble option is when dealing with sexual temptation. There was no judgment being passed, and I appreciated her excellent effort to clarify the differences between virtue-based and rule-based obedience. I am simply adding that for those of us Christians who cannot, for whatever reason, bear Pences methods of ensuring fidelity, Romans 14 instructs to not judge a fellow Christian:

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person only eats vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

It would seem that no matter what stand a politician takes regarding sexual morality, frustration and anger are expressed. But I say if a man is being faithful to his wife, he is to be commended and honored. Pence is in the process of practically working out his own salvation. As am I. As is every Christian. We should be allowing him the freedom to do that, even if it doesnt mirror the practical working out of our own salvation. The Lord is helping us to stand, and hes helping Mike Pence to stand. Pence may require a bigger (or different) crutch than we do, but there is no sin in that. There is, however, sin in belittling a fellow Christian for using a different type of crutch than our own. Or for using one at all, until he can walk without constant assistance.

Being a virtuous person will always be better than being a person who simply knows how to follow rules. But rules, and the obeying of those rules, can and often does pave the road to genuine virtuous living. Once a man has remained faithful for any length of time, it would not be uncommon for that man to see the value in remaining faithful, to reap the positive benefits from it, and to eventually be motivated out of virtue to continue in marital faithfulness.

Ill close with this:

Rule keeping for the sake of rule keeping is not a place we want to stay, or where we want to see our brother stay. But rule keeping is a better place to be than say sleeping around or having emotional affairs with someone other than ones spouse. The heart of the matter is always a matter of the heart. But if ones heart is not in it, its still better to do the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing than to not do the right thing at all.

Additionally, who is to say that Pence, though he still follows the Billy Graham Rule, does not also obey out of virtue? Its possible he is indeed virtuous, and yet chooses to practice the Billy Graham rule by way of doubling up on safeguards, because he knows that pride goes before a fall, and to trust in his own virtue would be disastrous.Man sees the outward appearance, but God sees the heart. (I Sam. 16:7) and we would do well to recognize that though weve seen some outward appearances, we dont know the Vice Presidents heart.

I commend him for doing the right thing, whatever his reasoning. I also pray that, at some point, virtue may rule in his heart (if it is indeed absent), more than the Billy Graham rule. Still, if I was his wife, Id be grateful for his sheer determination to remain faithful, no matter the method he uses to attain that faithfulness. Karen Pence is blessed. For she has what too many American wives, and especially American wives of politicians, do not have: a husband willing to do whatever it takes to remain faithful.

Continue reading here:
The Proper Christian Response to Mike Pence's Safeguards - Patheos (blog)

Mike Pence's dining preference is 'rape culture'? MercatorNet (blog) But Csanady went totally off the polemical grid when she wrote: At its core, Pence's self-imposed ban is rape culture. Her reasoning is that if Pence is too scared to be alone with another woman, then he is perpetuating a superannuated sexist ...

See the article here:
Mike Pence's dining preference is 'rape culture'? - MercatorNet (blog)

A Washington Post profile about Karen Pence revealed that Vice President Mike Pence won't dine with a woman alone other than his wife.

The VP wont go to events that serve alcohol without his wife, either.

Originating from evangelical minister Billy Graham, these rules have sparked a slew think pieces on the VP's dining protocols. Detractors slammed Pence's conduct as sexist, arguing that it restricts female staffers' access to him and creates a toxic dichotomy, but women who had worked for Pence havedefendedthe Veep, saying that he is merely doing so to avoid any perception of inappropriateness.

Do you think the "Billy Graham rule" is sexist or a valid strategy to marital longevity? Have you experienced employment barriers because of restricted gender access to your higher-ups? Do you have any similar negotiations within your marriage?

Call 866-893-5722 to weigh in.

Go here to read the rest:
Mike Pence won't dine alone with women who aren't his wife - sexism or marital preservation? - 89.3 KPCC