In July of 1985, my husband and I paraded through the front door of Methodist Hospital in Minneapolis. We came to give birth to a beautiful baby girl, Bonnie Joy. Six years prior to that life-giving entrance, I had quietly slipped in the back door of Methodist Hospital, also known as the Meadowbrook Women's Clinic. Single, lonely, frightened, I had come to "terminate" an "accidental pregnancy." I had come to abort a baby. This is the story of those two doors.

When I entered through the front door, they insisted that I ride in a wheelchair. The nurse called me "Mrs. Woodley" and wheeled me past a nursery brimming with living, breathing, screaming babies. Babies with names. Babies carefully wrapped in blue or pink blankets and little white caps.

Everything about my hospital room invited, embraced, and welcomed babies. Painted in pastel colors, the walls boasted little teddy bears dancing and smiling at me. The décor quietly said, "This is a time for celebration. We will take care of you and your baby."

In stark contrast, when I entered the back door (that is, The Meadowbrook Women's Clinic), they insisted that I, first of all, pay the bill. Then the nurse gave me a number and directed me to a plain waiting room. Little teddy bears did not dance on the walls. Actually, anything baby-like was strictly forbidden. Instead, the décor sternly commanded, "This is not a time for celebration. Take care of your business and go home."

Shortly after entering the front door, my nurse strapped a monitor on my belly. As she tightened the belt, her calm, relaxed eyes met my fear-filled eyes. Gently touching my hand, she offered reassurance: "I know you're nervous, honey, but don't worry. Here we don't take any chances with babies." She silently studied the monitor's printout, and then confidently informed me, "The heartbeat is strong. Your baby is alive and healthy." For the next twenty hours, three nurses took turns methodically recording and analyzing the rapid little heartbeats.

By this time, I knew all about little heartbeats. During our prenatal classes, I discovered that at a mere three weeks after conception, my baby's heart began to beat and pump blood. If necessary, an electroencephalogram could have detected brain waves at about eight weeks. My classes also taught me that at ten weeks from conception, Bonnie Joy was closing her delicate eyelids, puckering her lips, responding to touch, and forming a fist.

Of course, in 1979, when I entered the back door for an abortion, all of these well-documented medical facts were carefully avoided. Nobody talked about baby heartbeats, blood, brain waves, eyelids, lips, or fists. Instead, they spoke about "unwanted tissue," "inconveniences," and "choices." It (the baby that is) was an intruder-a formless, featureless, undifferentiated blob, but still a dangerous intruder. The attitude was simple: let's remove it.

Not so behind the front door. After nearly twenty hours of grueling but unsuccessful labor, a young doctor was called to my room. He sat by my bed…(and) spoke carefully and logically: "Things are not going to plan. I do not want to alarm you, but the baby is in distress. We need your permission to do an immediate C-section." Sensing our fear, he quickly added: "We will do everything possible to protect mom and baby. We have the resources to keep both of them safe."

When I went through the back door, a mother and a baby were also in distress, but no one came to save us. When the abortion procedure was over, as I rested on the bed at The Meadowbrook Women's Clinic, I noticed a poster taped to the ceiling. In bold stark letters, it read, "IF IT WEREN'T FOR PLANNED PARENTHOOD, WHERE WOULD YOU BE TODAY?" Even more than the abortion, the poster nauseated me.

I began to weep quietly. "You didn't help me," I thought. "You had the resources, but you did not protect me or my baby. You found the cheapest, easiest, quickest solution possible: you simply vacuumed the new life out of my womb. You helped my boyfriend pursue his career. He wants to become a United States Senator. You protected him and his dreams. Why didn't someone try to protect the baby and me?"

Today Bonnie Joy is 12 years old. Somehow we (my family, church, and society and Methodist Hospital) found the resources to save her life. That is what they always do inside the front door. Less than 1000 feet away, a few floors down, and one wing over, inside the back door, tiny lives are quietly and efficiently destroyed. That is what they always do behind the back door. The door of life and the door of death exist side by side.

Twelve years ago, I left the front door holding a beautiful baby girl. Six years earlier, I exited the back door with empty arms and deep wounds in my soul. After the abortion, I attempted to cover those wounds by pointing other women to the back door…. I thought it was the only way to freedom and healing.

Actually, it took a third door to heal my back-door wounds. For a society so confused about life and death, this door provides direction. For women wounded by abortion, this door provides forgiveness and hope. For those whose hearts are coarsened by an easy abortion culture, this door provides the power to repent and receive a new heart. By entering through this third door, we join a radically different community, a fellowship committed to protecting the life of both mother and baby.

"I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture" (John 10:9 NKJV). He is the door of life. Now I will spend the rest of my life pointing confused young women to the true door of life and freedom, to Jesus Christ.

This story was told by Mrs. Julie Woodley, founder of Restoring the Heart Ministries, and written by Rev. Matt Woodley, pastor of Cambridge United Methodist Church, Cambridge, MN. It has been expanded into a book, Restoring the Heart: Experiencing Christ's Healing after Brokenness and can be purchased by mailing a money order for $13 to: Book/Restoring the Heart Ministries, PO Box 252, Cambridge, MN 55008.

Editor's Note: January 22 is the 29th anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade decision that legalized abortion in the U.S. Since that time over 112 million babies have been aborted. It is imperative that our young people understand the tragic consequences of abortion. Please support your local crisis pregnancy centers. They are on the front line helping young girls choose life.

Unlike most states, Texas' State Board of Education (SBOE) is elected, not appointed. Its 15 members receive no pay, and have no staff apart from the state education bureaucracy. Yet they have much influence. They decide what Texas textbooks should say. They decide if submitted textbooks measure up. Publishers then sell Texas textbooks nationwide. Since 1995, the "Goals 2000"-driven assault on Texas' elected SBOE remains mostly intact today, however, we think the tide has turned.

In the 1990s, very competent Texas conservatives increasingly won seats on this democratic panel. Publishers who addressed their concerns often sold more textbooks in local adoptions. The education establishment fears this exercise of conservative power, because it knows that rank-and-file classroom teachers are far less politically correct than the professional groups who misrepresent them. Shall public education be run by appointed masters over the people, or by elected servants of the people? You can easily see the elitist nature of liberalism here.

Texas' elected SBOE is too popular to replace an appointed Board outright, so recent legislative proposals have tried to gut its powers. One would have ended SBOE approval of textbooks, letting California dictate what they say. Others would have weakened the Permanent School Fund (PSF), which finances textbook purchases. Also, when SBOE conservatives debated policy with liberals, the press carped at the Board's "bickering."

Meanwhile, in the late 1990s, heroic SBOE conservatives went from strength to strength, attacking anti-intellectualism in textbooks. They killed a bid to exclude traditional Math. They nixed a plan to substitute an enhanced pro-big government slant in Social Studies, for emphasis on benefits of free enterprise. In Science, they supported excellent rules on evolution that the ACLU knows are constitutional and has never challenged. They raised decodability of first grade readers from at least 51% to 80%, a big victory for phonics.

Can the Board still prohibit things in textbooks like unwholesome violence, or blatantly offensive language and illustrations, or group stereotyping? SBOE conservatives had a setback here. Liberal legislators-propped up by a liberal ex-attorney general's flimsy legal opinion-misread the new Texas Education Code to claim the Board had lost this right. With political redistricting and some key turnovers in office, another legal opinion or legislative clarification should soon confirm this important SBOE power.

The education establishment detests elected SBOEs. Its bigotries need a monopoly in textbooks because they cannot compete on their merits with other ideas. Liberals would rather drop the subject then tell both sides of an issue. …conservative input on textbook content enriches the subject-matter base, providing objective grounds to reform student testing and teacher training. We salute magnificent Texas SBOE conservatives!

Editor's Note: Mel and Norma Gabler are true American heroes, as are the conservatives on the SBOE: David Bradley, Don McLeroy, Geraldine Miller, Richard Neill, Judy Strickland and Richard Watson. The Gabler's have blown the whistle on error-filled textbooks for over 30 years and deserve our heartfelt thanks for a job well done. Write them at Educational Research Analysts, PO Box 7518, Longview, TX 75607.

Amid accusations of censorship and religious bias, the Texas State Board of Education recently rejected a high school environmental science textbook, Environmental Science: Creating a Sustainable Future, published by Jones and Bartlett. The vote was along partisan lines with all Republicans voting against the book.

"This is nothing but censorship," fumed Democrat board member Mary Helen Berlanga. Samantha Smoot of the Texas Freedom Network, a liberal political "watchdog" group, accused the board's Republican majority of putting politics ahead of the law. "They have redefined a factual error as something that doesn't agree with their extremist political philosophy," she spouted. Robin Schneider, representing the Texas Campaign for the Environment, said, "We are very concerned that the SBOE might be swayed by religious extremists. America is not Afghanistan."

The Dallas Morning News even got in the act by saying the SBOE should give the publisher a "2nd chance" to redeem itself. (Ed. Note: the book was presented at the September SBOE meeting and the publishers were asked to fix the errors before the final hearing in November. They chose to leave the book as is.)

Disagreeing with the cries of censorship, conservative Board member Don McLeroy, (R-Bryan) wrote a review of the rejected textbook and said, "The entire construct of the book is based on factual error and false premise."

To prove his point, he quotes the author, Daniel Chiras, who states in the preface, "The main theme of this book is that the long-term well-being of this planet and its inhabitants is in jeopardy and that to create an enduring human presence, we must make a massive course change." Throughout the opening pages, Chiras writes that we must "rethink and restructure," "revamp," "redesign," and "reshape" modern society "one system at a time." He states that "most environmental problems spring from a common set of root causes"; two of the most important being "continuing growth in both economic output and population." Chiras believes our present civilization and free enterprise system need to be replaced and we need to "seek a new economic system that is kind to the earth."

Mr. McLeroy asks, "Is this right? Do the economic growth systems that have developed in Western Civilization need to be replaced? Is economic growth the root cause of environmental problems? This book is not an environmental science textbook, but a resource book for one side in the debate on environmentalism."

Sources: Texas Citizens for a Sound Economy, "Victory for Schoolchildren," 11/12/01, The Dallas Morning News, 11/27/01 & 12/2/01, and "The Rejected Textbook," by Don McLeroy, 11/24/01.

Editor's Note: The Gabler's Educational Research Analysts, Peggy Venable with Texas Citizens for a Sound Economy, and parents and citizens reviewed the environmental science textbooks and testified before the SBOE. Rep. Charlie Howard (R-Sugar Land), chairman of the House Environmental Education Subcommittee, said it best: "The SBOE has a duty to uphold the Texas Education Code, which prohibits texts with factual errors from being adopted. You owe it to your constituents, to Texas and Texas children to protect them from political indoctrination and information." Amen.

Since the 9/11 terrorists attacks, support for the United States has poured in from around the world, but the response from Mexico has been decidedly lukewarm. A Gallup poll reported that 78% of Mexicans oppose contributing troops to a multinational coalition, and we have seen no indication that Mexico will modify its oil policy of acting like a member of OPEC.

While there is no evidence that the 9/11 terrorists entered over the Mexican border, the trial in El Paso of an Iraqi smuggler produced evidence that he alone brought more than 1,000 Middle East illegals into the United States via that route, charging his clients $10,000 to $15,000 each. Border Patrol agents have confirmed the increase in illegal aliens coming from the Middle East across our southern border and the fact that Arabs pay up to $50,000 each for a "coyote" to smuggle them into the U.S.

The 9/11 events have temporarily shelved the foolish proposals to grant amnesty to three million Mexicans illegally living in our country. Unfortunately, there is no indication that Mexico has retreated from the longtime goal of opening the U.S. border.

In Chicago on July 27, 1997, then Mexican President Ernesto Zedilla told the National Council of LaRaza, "I have profoundly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders." He announced a Mexican constitutional amendment that purports to allow Mexicans to retain their Mexican nationality even though they become U.S. citizens (which is contrary to the U.S. naturalization oath).

When President Vicente Fox came to the U.S. this year, he reiterated this line, proclaiming that "the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders" and includes migrants living in the U.S. He called for open borders and endorsed Mexico's new dual citizenship law.

Some Mexicans use the term "reconquista," which is Spanish for reconquest, to describe their desire to see California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas acquired by Mexico and named the new country of Aztlan. They are teaching their youth that the United States "stole" those areas from Mexico and they should be "returned."

The U.S. acquired the Southwest a century and a half ago in three ways: part by the 1845 annexation agreement with Texas, which was then an independent republic, part ceded by Mexico in the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo after the Mexican-American War, and part by the 1852 Gadsden Purchase.

Mexico's claim to the Southwest originated with the 1494 Treaty of Tordesillas, which drew an imaginary line on the map to divide the Western Hemisphere between Spain and Portugal. Because geography had so many unknowns at that time, Portugal got only Brazil (which is why Brazilians speak Portuguese). 

Other countries never recognized this treaty, and Americans consider it ridiculous even to talk about giving the Southwest to Mexico. Most national borders all over the world have come about as the result of war.

Mexicans obviously have no thought of invading the Southwest with troops, so their hope is reconquista by migration, both legal and illegal. According to Mario Obledo, founder of Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund, "California is going to be a Hispanic state and anyone who doesn't like it should leave."

An amnesty rally in the Los Angeles Sports Arena on June 10, 2000, attracted 25,000 people. In demanding amnesty for illegal Mexican aliens, the speakers proudly announced the names of at least a dozen unions in L.A. that are now headed by Mexicans.

Vicente Fox presented Mexico's Congress with a five-year development plan to eliminate the U.S.-Mexican border. He said he plans to serve "the 100 million Mexicans who now live in Mexico and the more than 18 million who live abroad," and "to strengthen our ability to protect and defend the rights of all Mexicans abroad."

Juan Hernandez, appointed by Fox as special liaison to Mexicans abroad, lobbies to get U.S. driver's licenses issued to illegal aliens and defends the Mexican government's issuance of desert survival kits to those sneaking across the border. On ABC's Nightline on June 7, he boasted: "We are betting that the Mexican-American population in the U.S…will think of Mexico first."

Fox's five-year plan calls for building a larger consular presence in the U.S., and this is already in operation. In U.S. areas with large Hispanic (including illegal) populations, the Mexican consul donates to the local public schools the same textbooks that are used in every elementary school in Mexico, grades 1-6.

The books, written in Spanish and including all academic subjects, teach that America "stole" the southwest from Mexico and that Mexico is entitled to take it back. The Mexican government considers these textbooks a symbol of Mexican national pride, guarantees a set to every Mexican child, and makes it a crime for anyone to sell them.

The only reason we learned about this Mexican plan is that one school in Santa Ana, CA, decided to see the book at a book fair and the local Hispanics kicked up a fuss about it. The school apologized to the Hispanics for selling the books, but should have apologized to the students for accepting the book in the first place.

The question we should ask our Mexican immigrant friends is, are you assimilating or invading?

It's easy for elected officials in Washington to tell the American people that the government will do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism. Such assurances inevitably are followed by proposals either to restrict the constitutional liberties of the American people or spend vast sums from the federal treasury. The history of the 20th century shows that the Constitution is violated most often by Congress during the times of crisis; accordingly, most of our worst unconstitutional agencies and programs began during the two world wars and the Depression. Ironically, the Constitution itself was conceived in a time of great crisis. The founders intended its provision to place inviolable restrictions on what the federal government could do even in times of great distress. Americans must guard against current calls for government to violate the Constitution-break-the-law in name of law enforcement.

The "anti-terrorism" legislation recently passed by Congress demonstrates how well-meaning politicians make shortsighted mistakes in a rush to respond to a crisis. Most of the provisions were never carefully studied by Congress, nor was sufficient time taken to debate the bill despite its importance. No testimony was heard from privacy experts or others from fields outside of law enforcement. Normal congressional committee and hearing processes were suspended. In fact, the final version of the bill was not made available to members before the vote! These political games should not be tolerated by the American public, especially when precious freedoms are at stake.

Almost all of the new laws focus on American citizens rather than potential foreign terrorists. For example, the definition of "terrorism" for federal criminal purposes has been greatly expanded; you now may be considered a terrorist if you belong to a pro-constitution group, a citizens militia, or various pro-life organizations. Legitimate protest against the government could place you (and tens of thousands of Americans) under federal surveillance. Similarly, your internet use can be monitored without your knowledge, and your internet provider can be forced to hand over user information to law enforcement without a warrant or subpoena.

The bill greatly expands the use of traditional surveillance tools, including wiretaps, search warrants, and subpoenas. In fact, the FBI and CIA can now tap phones or computers nationwide without even demonstrating that a particular phone or computer is being used by a criminal suspect. 

The biggest problem with these new law enforcement powers is that they bear little relationship to fighting terrorism. Surveillance powers are greatly expanded, while checks and balances on government are greatly reduced. Most of the provisions have been sought after by domestic law enforcement agencies for years, not to fight terrorism, but to increase their police power over the American people. There is no evidence that our previously-held civil liberties posed a barrier to the effective tracking or prosecution of terrorists. The federal government has made no showing that it failed to detect or prevent the recent terrorist strikes because of the civil liberties that will be compromised by this new legislation.

In his speech to the joint session of Congress following the 9/11 attacks, President Bush reminded all of us that the U.S. outlasted and defeated Soviet totalitarianism in the last century. The numerous internal problems in the former Soviet Union-its centralized economic planning and lack of free markets, its repression of human liberty, its excessive militarization-all led to its inevitable collapse. The lack of freedom in the Soviet Union, rather than any foreign enemy, was responsible for its downfall. We must be vigilant to resist the rush toward ever-increasing state control of our society, so that our own government does not become a greater threat to our freedoms than any foreign terrorist.

Eagle Cliff Notes

CLONING HUMANS "MORALLY WRONG"
President Bush condemned as "morally wrong" a Massachusetts laboratory's claim to have cloned a human embryo re-energizing a fight to ban human cloning. "The use of embryos to clone is wrong," said Bush. "We as a society should not grow life to destroy it." But despite efforts by the White House, lawmakers and lobbyists to get the Senate to pass a ban this year, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) says Daschle prefers to wait until next year to give senators more time to understand the issue. Gary Bauer says, "It is imperative that action be taken now or we run the risk of a 'brave new world' even worse than the eugenics programs of Nazi Germany. The House of Representatives has already voted overwhelmingly to prohibit human cloning. A Senate bill has not been allowed to come up-blocked once again by Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. The public overwhelmingly opposes human cloning-this shouldn't be that hard for politicians to act on." 
Source: USA TODAY, 11/27/01 & Gary Bauer fax, 11/26/01

PANEL OKs MAP FAVORING GOP
Republicans would have strong majorities in the state House and Senate under redistricting plans ordered by a three-judge federal court panel. Under a map reshaping the 150 House districts, Republicans could hold as many as 88 seats. The map redrawing the Senate districts could result in Republicans holding as many as 19 seats. Currently, there are 15 Republican senators and 15 Democrats, and one seat vacant. The House, with 78 Democrats and 72 Republicans, is the only state government still controlled by Democrats. With the new numbers, a Republican speaker appears certain. Already three Republicans have announced their candidacy: Tom Craddick of Midland, Brian McCall of Plano and Edmund Kuempel of Sequin. Even if the judges' plan was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, analysts say it is likely that the judges' plan would be used at least for the 2002 elections.
Source: The Dallas Morning News, 11/29/01 

GRADE INFLATION
Nearly half of all grades at Harvard University last year were A or A-minus, a steep increase from 10 years earlier, says a university study that follows reports of grade inflation at the Ivy League school. The report found that A's and A-minuses grew from 33.2% of all grades in 1985 to 48.5% last year. Failing grades, D's and C's accounted for less than 6%. The higher grades may be deserved, as students work harder and are better prepared, the study says. But some professor's generosity was driven by pressure to grade similarly to colleagues, fear of being known as a "tough grader," and pressure from students used to higher grades.
Source: USA TODAY, 11/26/01