Pastor Walter “Chick” McGill Walking Across



walkingDaily Blog | Main Walk Site | Press | Sponsors | TV News | Facebook
Walk the Walk, East Coast to West Coast, with “The Cross-Country Flagman”

A National Prayer Walk…

Promoting a new birth of freedom and integrity in America–
Calling attention to the Ten Commandments,
the Golden Rule, and our nation’s founding documents.

Pastor McGill and his Wife Barbara will arrive in Edgewood on Thursday (01/08/15) to present a memento to Edgewood and its citizens.  The exact arrival time is unknown, but tentative arrival is 1:00 PM at the Edgewood Town Hall.

All are welcome to attend.

Please feel welcome to visit his website below and you will find much more to enjoy:


About That Birth Control Restriction


Nobody is restricting access to birth control
Lauren Briggs

Within moments of the Supreme Court decision on the Hobby Lobby case, my Facebook page lit up with exclamations of glee, anger, victory and outrage. The rhetoric was so high from all corners, that I decided to delve a little deeper for my own discovery. I started with the definition of the word contraception. It’s origin goes back to the late 19th century from “contra” meaning “against” and “ception” which is a shortened form of conception, or “against conception.”

The Oxford Dictionary defines contraception as: the deliberate use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy.

Merriam-Webster uses a similar definition: deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation.
Hillary Clinton’s response to the ruling declared it “a setback for women’s health, denying women the right to contraceptives as a part of a health care plan.” She added, “It’s very troubling that a sales clerk…who needs contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception.”

The Supreme Court decision does not deny women access to contraceptives, as Hillary Clinton would lead us to believe.

There are 20 different contraceptive prescriptions, only four of which did Hobby Lobby object to. Those four include the “morning after pill” which is designed to prevent the implanting of a fertilized egg. The four are “abortion related drugs.” Drugs that terminate an already fertilized egg.

Hobby Lobby never objected to covering birth control. It only objected to paying for what it considers to be abortifacients, which don’t prevent a pregnancy, but terminate one.

This decision does not prevent women from accessing those four prescriptions, only that their employer can not be required to provide (pay for) those four. Hobby Lobby has willingly and will continue to provide the 16 or 80% of the 20 available forms of contraception. No woman is being denied access to any means of preventing conception, only a method or medicine that would in fact abort an existing fertilized egg.

I do not believe this is a Republican or Democratic issue. I do not see it as a War on Women. But I do see it as an example of government overreach, about protecting the First Amendment and religious freedom.

Charles Krauthammer said the real significance of the ruling is the court’s affirmation that, as the government expands, it is encroaching upon religious freedom. “Even when…[the government is] doing stuff unintentionally, has no intention of impinging on religious practice, it will inevitably.” He added, “Especially if you’re going to control a sixth of the economy in the most intimate interaction a citizen has, which is healthcare.”

Another interesting facet to this discussion is that there is no Obamacare contraception mandate. This issue was not covered in the Obamacare Law that was voted on by congress, but instead is a regulation added later by the Department of Health and Human Services. The 2009-10 Congress never debated the question of whether companies can be forced to provide such coverage. The HHS simply asserted they could impose such a requirement. Ramesh Ponnuru of the National Review said, “Several pro-life Democrats who provided the law’s narrow margin of victory in the House have said they would have voted against the law had it included the mandate.

I am in agreement with the Supreme Court decision, but I must admit, I do not feel it is time for celebration and rejoicing. I realize it was a narrow 5-4 ruling. That means that four members of the Supreme Court of the United States did not find this a First Amendment issue and for that I am gravely concerned. I also find it ironic that this ruling was based on the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

The pro-abortion-rights lobby argues that “abortion” and “birth control” are synonymous terms, but that doesn’t make it true.

To those who believe that life begins at the time of conception, it is a huge difference.

Lauren Briggs is the president of the Redlands Republican Women’s Club. She can be reached at

Andrea LaFontaine Deserves More Credit — She’ll Get It Too

Seal of Michigan.

Image via Wikipedia

By Chuck Ring (GadaboutBlogalot ©2009 – 2011)

Quote Freely From The Article – Leave The Pseudonym Alone

What?  You’ve not heard of Andrea LaFontaine.  You will after you’ve read this post, and even more, as time passes during the next two years and beyond.  Ms. LaFontaine is 23 years of age, and for now at least, she works as a waitress in Ken’s Country Kitchen in Richmond, Michigan.  Although being a waitress certainly amounts to  employment in an honorable and very necessary occupation, Ms. LaFontaine is heading to Lansing … Michigan’s Capitol, but not to serve sausage, eggs and toast.  She will serve Michigan’s citizens as a  freshman state legislator.  As she legislates, we’re sure it will not be akin, as Otto Von Bismarck once proffered, in any fashion to making sausage.  Let’s find out more about this person who has pledged during her campaign to make a difference. First from The American Spectator’s AMSPECBLOG in a short post by Aaron Goldstein:

Later today, newly elected members of the Michigan House of Representatives will be sworn into office.

One of those rookie members is a 23-year old waitress named Andrea LaFontaine who after narrowly winning the GOP primary in August went on to defeat Democratic incumbent Jennifer Haase in November and will now represent Michigan’s 32nd District which comprises part of Macomb and St. Clair counties in the eastern part of the state. LaFontaine was part of a Republican resurgence that helped the GOP regain the Michigan House.

We know at least three things after reading the above quote: Ms. LaFontaine is a Republican, she defeated other Republicans to go forward and defeat a woman Democrat incumbent.  We said the blog was short, but it does contain a link to a story from The  Detroit News, which story has an extra reward in the form of a video.  I hope you will read all the article.  If you do, I believe you will come away from it feeling inspired and just a little more secure in America’s future.  I think so because with young lawmakers like LaFontaine sure to get credit in their state legislatures before trying the lecterns in Washington, D.C.  they will succeed.   I know this small town politician and seventy year old man is not so worried about the reins-takers as he once was. Yes, it’s for sure, she’ll get more credit and doubt will fade away.

Here’s the link to the Detroit News Article by Karen Bouffard of their Lansing Bureau, and you’ll find a nice video touch if  you click the link below.

Michigan State Representative Andrea LaFontaine

On Taxpayer Paid Abortions — Not So Fast


Anti-abortion demonstration "Each life ma...

Image via Wikipedia


By Chuck Ring (GadaboutBlogalot ©2009 – 2010)

Quote Freely From The Article – Leave The Pseudonym Alone

We often rely on to verify, find false or judge misleading statements and stories found on the internet.  We posted an article yesterday which gave some credence to allegations that ObamaCare was to pay for abortions.  The allegations surfaced when in spite of what is in the ObanaCare bill, Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Maryland reportedly started to implement a “high-risk” abortion pool that would have abortions in those states being paid for in part, by the federal government.  When pro-life and anti-abortion supporters found out about the intent they raised a certain amount of dust.  They started a campaign to publicize the Pennsylvania and New Mexico efforts and their campaign is what eventually caught the attention of  With rumors flying from blog to blog and from television to print media, FactCheck set out to, what else … find the facts.  This is some of what I found at one of their accounts on the subject posted on July 22, 2010:

The claim that the new federal health care law will use taxpayer funds to pay for abortions through “high-risk pools” originated when the National Right to Life Committee issued a press release July 13. It said that Washington had approved a new insurance program that “will cover any abortion that is legal in Pennsylvania.” Abortion foes also raised alarms about similar federally subsidized insurance pools being put together in New Mexico and Maryland.

FactCheck indicates that there might have been good cause to spread the alarm because of programs attempted by Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Maryland.

At issue here are insurance policies to be made available under a newly launched, federally funded program that provides coverage for high-risk uninsured people who have been turned away by private carriers.

We can see what caused abortion opponents to be concerned. An official solicitation issued by the Pennsylvania Insurance Department specified that abortions “will” be covered if they are legal under Pennsylvania law. And according to newsreports, a similar document in New Mexico listed “elective” abortions under “covered services.”

Perhaps those three states did not get the “memo” or they just tried to do whatever they desired.  In any case, U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS)  and two of the states decided to issues press releases denying that abortions which were prohibited under ObamaCare, would not be performed:

State and federal officials have since scrambled to clarify their intentions. Pennsylvania officials issued a statement on July 15 saying that for any abortions performed because of reasons other than rape, incest or a threat to the mother’s life, women “will have to pay for them out their own pocket.” And New Mexico backed down just as quickly, issuing a July 15 statement saying “elective abortion is not and has never been intended to be a benefit.

But that came only after federal officials — who control the money and write the regulations for the high-risk pools — stated on July 14 that no state policy would cover abortions except “in the cases of rape or incest, or where the life of the woman would be endangered.” Those are the only exceptions allowed by long-standing federal laws that broadly ban abortion coverage under the Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) plans covering federal workers and their families, and under most state-federal Medicaid programs.

FactCheck reported that abortion foes, according to  other media sources and press releases, were able to claim a victory with this issue:

In reporting on the HHS statement, the Associated Press wrote: “Abortion foes have scored a victory.” The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement welcoming the policy.

USCCB: We welcome this new policy, while continuing to be gravely concerned that it was not issued until after some states had announced that pro-abortion health plans were approved.

Douglas Johnson, the legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, who first raised the alarm over the Pennsylvania solicitation, cautiously approved the HHS statement. In a July 22 e-mail to, he said:

NRLC’s Johnson: If HHS actually does what they say they will do, in the July 14 statement, then that would resolve the issue for this one component of the health care law — unless the courts get involved, which is certainly possible, since the statute does not dictate an abortion policy on this program.

Pro-Choice advocates hammered the HHS action, although ObamaCare supported the HHS position as it was finally disseminated.  NARAL Pro-Choice America and the American Civil Liberties Union each released statements criticizing the move by HSS.

You can find more analysis and comment by by clicking here.  Here’s hoping that HSS and the many states do not attempt to sneak abortion coverage that is not contemplated, i.e., allowed into any of their programs.

Unless we have missed something in our search efforts, the FactCheck treatment  seems  current on the subject.  If any reader has contrary facts or any information which tends to show “they” are at it again, please feel free to place it as a comment.

Students For Life Of America Team With Wilberforce Leadership Fellows

Pro-life protesters make a silent demonstratio...

Image via Wikipedia

By Chuck Ring (GadaboutBlogalot ©2009 – 2010)

Quote Freely From The Article – Leave The Pseudonym Alone’s editor, Steven Ertelt reports Students for Life of America (SFLA)  has joined with Wilberforce Leadership Fellows Program (WLFP) to train pro-life students who will become adult leaders in the pro-life movement:

“The vision of the Fellowship is to equip and further train student pro-life leaders to form national and state leaders that will help end abortion in our lifetime,” the organization says.

Last weekend, at the SFLA national headquarters, the pro-life group welcomed the 2010-2011 class and the students heard from David Bereit, the national coordinator of the 40 Days for Life program. They participated in seminars on the history of the pro-life movement, pro-life apologetics, how to build and cultivate pro-life campus groups.

“These students are the rockstars of the campus pro-life movement,” Kristan Hawkins, the head of SFLA, told

The Wilberforce Fellows will work with the students throughout the 2010-2011 school year to develop their knowledge of pro-life issues and career opportunities within the movement:

Throughout the 2010-2011 school year, each of the Wilberforce Fellows will be participating in a pro-life leadership training program to help them build their campus groups and to become better leaders.

The Fellows will be reading various books and articles on leadership, listening to webcasts and seminars on leadership in the pro-life movement, and will be meeting and talking with mentors on a regular basis. Each Wilberforce Fellow has been paired with a national pro-life leader to help them get the training and experience they need to start a career in the pro-life movement.

Additional information regarding the students, their schools and the Wilberforce Fellows to work with them, please click here.

This link will take you to the web site for Students for Life of America.

Related Articles

Abortions — They’ll Have Them & We’ll All Pay For Them

The Obama Cabinet.
Image via Wikipedia

By Chuck Ring (GadaboutBlogalot ©2009 – 2010)

Quote Freely From The Article – Leave The Pseudonym Alone

It appears promises were made to be deceptive until the ink sufficiently dried on the health care bill (in this case) and the truth came out.  We do remember, don’t we, the statements of high-powered politicians, including those of our President.  There were a few statements and now we see one subjected to the light of day and found wanting for veracity.  From by Senior Editor Susan Jones we see:

If you want proof that President Obama’s Executive Order on taxpayer-funded abortion was a sham, look no further than Pennsylvania, says House Republican Leader John Boehner (Ohio). Boehner and other Republicans point to reports that the Health and Human Services Department is giving Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new high-risk insurance pool that will cover any abortion that is legal in the state.

Boehner calls the action “unconscionable.”  I would not wish to put words in Representative Boehner’s mouth, however he could just as well called it a whopper of a lie and been right on the mark.  Maybe we should retrace … Boehner says:

“Just last month at the White House, I asked President Obama to provide the American people with a progress report on the implementation of his Executive Order, which purports to ban taxpayer-funding of abortions. Unfortunately, the President provided no information, and the American people are still waiting for answers.” President Obama pledged that under his health care plan “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”

In a May 13 letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Boehner asked if her department has provided guidance to the states on how to implement the president’s Executive Order on abortion funding. Boehner also asked Sebelius if the new federal high-risk pools would exclude abortion coverage.

No answer was forthcoming from Sebelius according to Boehner (see sixth Zemanta link below.)   Unless he is naive, he should not expect any more than he has received, thus far. There are others angry about this deception, but they all probably expected the abortion promises to come to this, even as they hoped against hope that honor would out above trickery.  Tom McCluskey, a vice president of the Human Resource Council’s political arm, is one who seems not deceived, saying:

“This action by the Obama Administration also exposes the worthlessness of President Obama’s Executive Order that supposedly would prevent federal funding of abortion, but which both sides, including Planned Parenthood, agreed was unenforceable.

“While the American people deserve an apology from President Obama for his deception, we should only be satisfied when this Pennsylvania abortion funding is rescinded and the health care law repealed.

McClusky noted that the new health care law also includes $12.5 billion for community health centers, and $6 billion for co-ops, both of which can fund abortions.  And some people will use tax credits to help them pay for plans that cover abortion.

Are you sick and disgusted yet?  There isn’t much left of the article, so read from the start and see how you feel:

Read The Complete Article

Oh, we forgot to tell you, the abortion money thus far, also goes to New Mexico and Maryland.  We would not place too much faith (no pun intended) in the sixth Zemanta link found below.  Just the tip of the scalpel, we bet.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Vandals Accused Of Hitting Pro-Life Advocate Facilities

Partial view of the Paris 2009 pro-life march ...

Image via Wikipedia

By Chuck Ring (GadaboutBlogalot ©2009 – 2010)

Quote Freely From The Article – Leave The Pseudonym Alone

According to, Pro-Life advocates in Dubuque, Iowa and Albuquerque, NM suffered at the hands of vandals:

Dubuque, IA ( — Pro-abortion vandals have hit pro-life advocates in two states — Iowa and New Mexico. In the former, a member of Dubuque County Right to Life was victimized by having his property spray-painted with pro-abortion graffiti; in the latter, a pro-life group’s truck and the home of its driver were pelted with eggs.

The damages were not serious, but there were some curious occurrences that might give one pause to wonder.  In the instance of the Iowa vandalism the reporter seemed to make the victim the local pro-abortion group:

Regarding the Iowa case, the local Dubuque newspaper has attempted to turn the obvious attack on a pro-life activist’s home into a pro-life conspiracy to insult Planned Parenthood.

At first, the Dubuque Telegraph Herald refused to publish the story about the vandalism. Then, the newspaper’s editor made it appear pro-life advocates made up the incident.

Blogger Jill Stanek reveals that e-mail communications and phone calls to the paper’s editor, Brian Cooper, show that his opinion was that the vandalism was conducted by a covert pro-lifer or someone without a view on abortion who was trying to make Planned Parenthood look bad.

In the Albuquerque case, there is some indication that the acts were discussed prior to the event’s execution:

Perhaps not coincidentally, on June 11, 2010, a 17-year old pro-abortion blogger named “Clay” complained about the truck, which bears graphic abortion images, and discussed possible responses.

“What should we do? Chain someone to their door? Egg their vehicles?” he wrote.

We are sure there will be more developments regarding the events in both cities.  Meanwhile for those wo didn’t catch it, we mentioned that Albuquerque might be on its way to becoming the Late Term Abortion Captiol (click link) with the arrival in Albuquerque of abortionist Curtis Boyd and his helpers. Here’s a link to the complete story (click.) There are other links to peruse at the post and the image above is provided by Mathew Moorhead and it depicts. the March For Life, January 2009 in Paris.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Albuquerque — Late-Term Abortion Capital?

Personhood Now! banner in front of the United ...
Image via Wikipedia

Some say that is the goal.  Some say it is legal, so what’s the big deal.  And in answer, some say, “Ask the littlest one in the equation.”

Pro-Life Advocates Head to New Mexico to React to New Late-Term Abortion Biz.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Don’t Get Dizzy As You Read This Article

Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States
Image via Wikipedia

By Chuck Ring (GadaboutBlogalot ©2009 – 2010)

Quote Freely From The Article – Leave The Pseudonym Alone

Terrence P. Jeffrey, writing for CNSNews, tells us of Elaine Kagan’s ability to do the circle shuffle when it comes to her effort to bring a concept around to her way of thinking when it applies to legal opinion and doctrine.  In this article, he cites several examples of Ms. Kagan’s talent for doing so, and he starts with this observation:

…has expended a great deal of intellectual energy searching for a rationalization that would preserve freedom of speech for viewpoints she likes while imposing government controls on speech she does not like.

In Rust v. Sullivan, a U.S. Supreme Court Case (SCOTUS) wherein the United States Health and Human Services Department (H&HSD) had refused to provide money for abortion counseling,  referring of clients to abortionists,  and the advocating of abortions.  The plaintiffs argued that such prohibition violated the freedom of speech of those providing counseling and abortion advice to their clients.  In essence, the argument was that you and , and all taxpayer, must pay for “them” to advise people to obtain abortions.  Put another way from the article by Jeffrey:

They argued—believe it or not—that the First Amendment requires the taxpayers to pay them to counsel pregnant women to get abortions, to direct pregnant women to abortionists and to agitate in our society in favor of the legalized killing of unborn babies generally.

In two articles which Kagan wrote about Rust v. Sullivan, she attacked the SCOTUS opinion in the case where the plaintiff’s arguments were struck down.  In doing so, she seems to have carved her arguments out of manufactured words and phrases, such as:

  • “viewpoint discrimination.”
  • “content-based underinclusion.”
  • “It may be possible to develop guidelines for this purpose—guidelines that will isolate and harshly confine a set of underinclusion cases in which viewpoint distinctions should be tolerated.”

The full impact of  what seems like Ms. Kagan’s circuitous route to get along what should be a straight line can only be had by reading the entire article.  And, you can do so from this link to the complete article.

According to Wikipedia, Rust v. Sullivan was about other amendments to our Constitution (in addition to the 1st amendment) and the regulations promulgated by the then Republican Secretary of H&HSD which expanded on the law:

These regulations were challenged on the grounds that they were not permissibly within the scope of the statute and that they violated the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sometimes It Isn’t Easy To Survive In Italy

Girl 66 months of age having had a cleft palat...
Image via Wikipedia

By Chuck Ring (GadaboutBlogalot ©2009 – 2010)

Quote Freely From The Article – Leave The Pseudonym Alone

Especially, if you are a baby who has been aborted late term, and then discarded like so much detritus.  According to reports in the Telegraph, the baby was 22 weeks old when the doctors recommended or the mother chose abortion because the child had a cleft lip and palate.  The stories do not relate the severity of the malformation the infant suffered, but as most of us know, modern surgical techniques have repaired serious defects in infants and adults.

A quote from one of the stories says:

The mother, pregnant for the first time, had opted for an abortion after prenatal scans revealed that the foetus had a cleft lip and palate, according to reports in the Italian media. The condition is treatable with surgery.

A priest prayed over the baby after it was discarded by the doctor or doctors. It was at this time the priest discovered the baby was moving and breathing.

The stories report Italian authorities are investigating the abortion as a possible homicide and are delving into circumstances surrounding what is referred to as a “botched” abortion.  The stories also report that the incident has caused “outrage” where many are urging change in abortion laws.

Here is the first story reporting on the abortion:

Baby Left To Die

Here’s the second story filed one day later:

Baby aborted due to repairable cleft lip and palate

The girl shown in the image above is post operative for a cleft palate when an infant and was 66 months old when the image was taken.  She is not related to this incident and there is no way to say whether the aborted baby could have had similar success.  The image and the link below illustrate that great advances have been made in caring for infants and adults who have cleft lips and palates.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]