Same-sex-marriage opponents in Washington, D.C., vowed to appeal to the nation's highest court after an appeals court Thursday upheld a city law allowing the unions and rejecting an effort by opponents to put the issue before voters.
-- From "D.C.: Gay marriage upheld" by Matthew Cella, Washington Times 7/15/10
"We will take it to the Supreme Court," said Bishop Harry R. Jackson Jr., pastor at Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Md., who led a coalition of same-sex-marriage opponents that brought the court challenge.
In a 5-4 decision, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a Superior Court ruling in January and an earlier ruling by the city's Board of Elections and Ethics that said a referendum on same-sex marriage would violate the city's Human Rights Act.
"Because appellants' proposed initiative would authorize, or have the effect of authorizing, discrimination on a basis prohibited by the Human Rights Act, it was not a proper subject of initiative," Judge Phyllis D. Thompson wrote in the court's 54-page decision.
But in a 27-page dissent, Judge John R. Fisher wrote that the D.C. Council exceeded its authority when it said that a ballot initiative could not violate the Human Rights Act.
"Even if we assume that the people at large are more likely to discriminate against minorities than are their elected representatives, appellees forget that there are numerous checks and balances in place here to protect against the tyranny of the majority," Judge Fisher wrote.
He pointed out that an initiative could be defeated at the polls, it could be disapproved by Congress, or it could be amended or repealed by the council.
Mr. Jackson and others had sought to have a referendum placed on the city's November ballot that said: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in the District of Columbia."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "D.C. Court of Appeals Bars City Referendum on Same-Sex Marriage; Appeal to Supreme Court Likely" by Pete Winn, CNSNews.com Senior Writer/Editor 7/15/10
"We look forward to bringing our fight for the right to vote on marriage to the nation’s highest court," said Brian Brown, president of National Organization for Marriage.
“The central issue in this case is whether the people of the District of Columbia will be able to exercise their constitutional right to vote on this important issue, just as voters in 31 states have been able to do,” Brown said.
“The razor-thin majority on the DC Appeals court got it wrong when they said they owed substantial deference to the DC Council. In fact, it is the right of the people that is owed substantial deference by courts and the Council. We believe the U.S. Supreme Court will agree with us,” Brown added.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
ObamaCare Covers Abortion, as Expected
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).
-- From "New health care law raises questions on abortions" by Mimi Hall, USA TODAY 7/14/10
Abortion opponents are warning that abortions will be covered in some new government health care programs for people who have been denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions, despite an order signed by President Obama forbidding the use of federal money for the procedure.
The order, signed by Obama in March in an effort to win enough votes to pass sweeping health care legislation, is "a sham," says House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio.
The National Right to Life Committee is citing language on government websites in two states — Pennsylvania and New Mexico— suggesting that new federally funded high-risk insurance pools for patients with pre-existing conditions such as diabetes will cover "elective" abortions for residents of those states.
The Obama administration, however, says it will make sure abortions are not covered under the new high-risk insurance pools in the states, many of which are scheduled to take effect next month. The pools are planned to offer health care to about 200,000 uninsured people with pre-existing conditions.
In keeping with Obama's executive order, abortions will only be covered in cases of rape, incest and if the woman's life is endangered, says Health and Human Service Department spokeswoman Jenny Backus.
Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., head of a group of conservative Republicans, says Obama's order was "just another rhetorical tool to help Democrats pass their government takeover of health care."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Obama Administration Approves First Direct Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Through New High-Risk Insurance Pools" by Susan Jones, CNSNews.com Senior Editor 7/14/10
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.
"The fact that the high-risk pool insurance program in Pennsylvania will use federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortions is unconscionable," Boehner said in a statement on Tuesday.
“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."
The abortion funding for pool participants validates the arguments pro-life groups made throughout the health care debate – that taxpayer dollars will fund abortions, said Tom McClusky, senior vice president of the Family Research Council’s political action arm.
“For our efforts to remove the bill's abortion funding, we were called 'deceivers' by President Obama and 'liars' by his allies. Now we know who the true deceivers and liars really are,’ McClusky said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Maryland Becomes Second State to Offer Federally Funded Abortions under Obamacare" by Matt Cover, CNSNews.com Staff Writer 7/16/10
Maryland will join Pennsylvania as the second state to use federal tax dollars to pay for abortions under the new health care law signed by President Barack Obama in March, according to information released by Maryland’s State Health Insurance Plan.
Maryland will receive $85 million in federal funds for its federally mandated high-risk insurance pool, which will cover abortions.
Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.), the chairman of the House Republican Conference, said Friday that the fact that Maryland will now use federal dollars to fund abortions under a program mandated by the health-care law signed by President Obama represents a “broken promise.
"This is one more example of a broken promise in ObamaCare,” said Pence. “It is morally wrong to end an unborn human life and it is reprehensible to take taxpayer dollars from millions of pro-life Americans and use them to pay for abortions.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "New health care law raises questions on abortions" by Mimi Hall, USA TODAY 7/14/10
Abortion opponents are warning that abortions will be covered in some new government health care programs for people who have been denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions, despite an order signed by President Obama forbidding the use of federal money for the procedure.
The order, signed by Obama in March in an effort to win enough votes to pass sweeping health care legislation, is "a sham," says House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio.
The National Right to Life Committee is citing language on government websites in two states — Pennsylvania and New Mexico— suggesting that new federally funded high-risk insurance pools for patients with pre-existing conditions such as diabetes will cover "elective" abortions for residents of those states.
The Obama administration, however, says it will make sure abortions are not covered under the new high-risk insurance pools in the states, many of which are scheduled to take effect next month. The pools are planned to offer health care to about 200,000 uninsured people with pre-existing conditions.
In keeping with Obama's executive order, abortions will only be covered in cases of rape, incest and if the woman's life is endangered, says Health and Human Service Department spokeswoman Jenny Backus.
Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., head of a group of conservative Republicans, says Obama's order was "just another rhetorical tool to help Democrats pass their government takeover of health care."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Obama Administration Approves First Direct Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Through New High-Risk Insurance Pools" by Susan Jones, CNSNews.com Senior Editor 7/14/10
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.
"The fact that the high-risk pool insurance program in Pennsylvania will use federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortions is unconscionable," Boehner said in a statement on Tuesday.
“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."
The abortion funding for pool participants validates the arguments pro-life groups made throughout the health care debate – that taxpayer dollars will fund abortions, said Tom McClusky, senior vice president of the Family Research Council’s political action arm.
“For our efforts to remove the bill's abortion funding, we were called 'deceivers' by President Obama and 'liars' by his allies. Now we know who the true deceivers and liars really are,’ McClusky said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Maryland Becomes Second State to Offer Federally Funded Abortions under Obamacare" by Matt Cover, CNSNews.com Staff Writer 7/16/10
Maryland will join Pennsylvania as the second state to use federal tax dollars to pay for abortions under the new health care law signed by President Barack Obama in March, according to information released by Maryland’s State Health Insurance Plan.
Maryland will receive $85 million in federal funds for its federally mandated high-risk insurance pool, which will cover abortions.
Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.), the chairman of the House Republican Conference, said Friday that the fact that Maryland will now use federal dollars to fund abortions under a program mandated by the health-care law signed by President Obama represents a “broken promise.
"This is one more example of a broken promise in ObamaCare,” said Pence. “It is morally wrong to end an unborn human life and it is reprehensible to take taxpayer dollars from millions of pro-life Americans and use them to pay for abortions.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Pro-life Law Passes Pro-abortion MO Gov.
Missouri abortion clinics will face new mandates to offer women ultrasound images and heartbeats of their fetuses as a result of legislation allowed to become law Wednesday by Gov. Jay Nixon.
-- From "Missouri Governor Lets Abortion Law Take Effect" by David A. Lieb, Associated Press 7/14/10
The Democratic governor, facing his first decision on an abortion bill, sidestepped a direct endorsement of the new requirements by citing a Missouri constitutional provision allowing bills to become law without the governor's signature.
The legislation [SB793] is part of a national trend among abortion opponents to encourage women to reconsider their decisions through the use of modern medical technology.
Missouri law already requires a woman to be told of the physical and psychological risks at least 24 hours before undergoing an abortion. The new law will require consultation in person instead of over the phone and mandate that women receive a description of the "anatomical and physiological characteristics of the unborn child."
It also requires abortion providers to offer women the chance to view an ultrasound and listen to the heartbeat of the fetus. And they will have to supply a state-produced brochure proclaiming: "The life of each human being begins at conception. Abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being."
A Planned Parenthood official said legal challenges to other states' laws offering ultrasounds generally have been unsuccessful, and its Missouri clinics are preparing to comply with the law when it takes effect Aug. 28.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Missouri Governor Lets Abortion Law Take Effect" by David A. Lieb, Associated Press 7/14/10
The Democratic governor, facing his first decision on an abortion bill, sidestepped a direct endorsement of the new requirements by citing a Missouri constitutional provision allowing bills to become law without the governor's signature.
The legislation [SB793] is part of a national trend among abortion opponents to encourage women to reconsider their decisions through the use of modern medical technology.
Missouri law already requires a woman to be told of the physical and psychological risks at least 24 hours before undergoing an abortion. The new law will require consultation in person instead of over the phone and mandate that women receive a description of the "anatomical and physiological characteristics of the unborn child."
It also requires abortion providers to offer women the chance to view an ultrasound and listen to the heartbeat of the fetus. And they will have to supply a state-produced brochure proclaiming: "The life of each human being begins at conception. Abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being."
A Planned Parenthood official said legal challenges to other states' laws offering ultrasounds generally have been unsuccessful, and its Missouri clinics are preparing to comply with the law when it takes effect Aug. 28.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Prayer Declared Illegal at U.S. Supreme Court
A group of Christian students was allegedly ordered to stop praying outside the U.S. Supreme Court building on May 5 because a court police officer told them it was against the law.
UPDATE 7/19/10 (video news report):
-- From "Students Allegedly Ordered to Stop Praying Outside Supreme Court Building" by Todd Starnes, FoxNews.com 7/15/10
The students were part of a junior high school American History class at Wickenburg Christian Academy in Arizona. After taking pictures on the steps of the Supreme Court building, their teacher [Maureen Rigo] gathered them to a side location where they formed a circle and began to pray.
According to Nate Kellum, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, a police officer “abruptly” interrupted the prayer and ordered the group to cease and desist.
“They were told to stop praying because they were violating the law and they had to take their prayer elsewhere,” Kellum told FOX News Radio.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Christian Teacher Wants to Pray on High Court Steps" by Nathan Black, Christian Post Reporter 7/16/10
A Christian legal firm has threatened U.S. Supreme Court officials with a lawsuit unless they state in writing that people can quietly pray on the court's grounds.
A letter was sent by the Alliance Defense Fund on Thursday on behalf of a Wickenburg, Ariz., teacher who was prohibited by a Supreme Court police officer in May from praying with her students on the steps of the court.
Kellum contends in the letter to Supreme Court officials that Rigo and her students were not praying loudly as to be heard or trying to attract attention. They were simply communicating to each other and to God, he said.
"There is no reason to silence Mrs. Rigo's activities since these activities do not attract attention, create a crowd, or give off the appearance of partiality," ADF Senior Counsel Nate Kellum argues in the letter. "The ban on private prayers cannot hope to survive First Amendment scrutiny."
The incident came a day before the National Day of Prayer, an annual prayer event that was ruled unconstitutional earlier this year by a federal judge.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 7/19/10 (video news report):
-- From "Students Allegedly Ordered to Stop Praying Outside Supreme Court Building" by Todd Starnes, FoxNews.com 7/15/10
The students were part of a junior high school American History class at Wickenburg Christian Academy in Arizona. After taking pictures on the steps of the Supreme Court building, their teacher [Maureen Rigo] gathered them to a side location where they formed a circle and began to pray.
According to Nate Kellum, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, a police officer “abruptly” interrupted the prayer and ordered the group to cease and desist.
“They were told to stop praying because they were violating the law and they had to take their prayer elsewhere,” Kellum told FOX News Radio.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Christian Teacher Wants to Pray on High Court Steps" by Nathan Black, Christian Post Reporter 7/16/10
A Christian legal firm has threatened U.S. Supreme Court officials with a lawsuit unless they state in writing that people can quietly pray on the court's grounds.
A letter was sent by the Alliance Defense Fund on Thursday on behalf of a Wickenburg, Ariz., teacher who was prohibited by a Supreme Court police officer in May from praying with her students on the steps of the court.
Kellum contends in the letter to Supreme Court officials that Rigo and her students were not praying loudly as to be heard or trying to attract attention. They were simply communicating to each other and to God, he said.
"There is no reason to silence Mrs. Rigo's activities since these activities do not attract attention, create a crowd, or give off the appearance of partiality," ADF Senior Counsel Nate Kellum argues in the letter. "The ban on private prayers cannot hope to survive First Amendment scrutiny."
The incident came a day before the National Day of Prayer, an annual prayer event that was ruled unconstitutional earlier this year by a federal judge.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
'New Abortionists' Battle Pro-Life America
Because the American medical profession ostracized the abortion business from mainstream health care, a new breed of abortionists now have strategic plans to re-infiltrate medical schools and providers.
-- From "The New Abortion Providers" by Emily Bazelon, New York Times 7/12/10
As mainstream medicine backed away [from abortion services soon after Roe v. Wade], feminist activists stepped in. They set up stand-alone clinics to care for women in their moments of crisis. In many ways, the clinics were a rebel-sister success story.
But the clinics also truly came to stand alone. In 1973, hospitals made up 80 percent of the country’s abortion facilities. By 1981, however, clinics outnumbered hospitals, and 15 years later, 90 percent of the abortions in the U.S. were performed at clinics. The American Medical Association did not maintain standards of care for the procedure. Hospitals didn’t shelter them in their wings. Being a pro-choice doctor came to mean referring your patients to a clinic rather than doing abortions in your own office.
This was never the feminist plan. . . . As abortion moved to the margins of medical practice, it also disappeared from residency programs that produced new doctors. In 1995, the number of OB-GYN residencies offering abortion training fell to a low of 12 percent.
“Under pressure and stigma, more doctors shun abortion,” wrote David Grimes, a leading researcher and abortion provider of 38 years, in a widely cited 1992 medical journal article called “Clinicians Who Provide Abortions: The Thinning Ranks.” In a 1992 survey of OB-GYNs, 59 percent of those age 65 and older said that they performed abortions, compared with 28 percent of those age 50 and younger. The National Abortion Federation started warning about “the graying of the abortion provider.” In the decade after Roe, the number of sites providing abortion across the country almost doubled from about 1,500 to more than 2,900, according to the Guttmacher Institute. But by 2000 the number shrank back to about 1,800 — a decline of 37 percent from 1982.
There’s another side of the story, however — a deliberate and concerted counteroffensive that has gone largely unremarked. Over the last decade, abortion-rights advocates have quietly worked to reverse the marginalization encouraged by [pro-life] activists like Randall Terry. Abortion-rights proponents are fighting back on precisely the same turf that Terry demarcated: the place of abortion within mainstream medicine. This abortion-rights campaign, led by physicians themselves, is trying to recast doctors, changing them from a weak link of abortion to a strong one. Its leaders have built residency programs and fellowships at university hospitals, with the hope that, eventually, more and more doctors will use their training to bring abortion into their practices. The bold idea at the heart of this effort is to integrate abortion so that it’s a seamless part of health care for women — embraced rather than shunned.
This is the future. Or rather, one possible future. There’s a long way to go from here to there. Between 2000 and 2005, the last year that statistics are available, the number of abortion facilities in the U.S. dropped 2 percent — a smaller dip than those in the preceding five-year periods, but a decline nonetheless. “The ’90s were about getting abortion back into residency training and medical schools,” says Jody Steinauer, an OB-GYN professor at the University of California at San Francisco, the hub of the abortion-rights countermovement in medicine. “Now it’s about getting abortion into our practices.”
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "The New Abortion Providers" by Emily Bazelon, New York Times 7/12/10
As mainstream medicine backed away [from abortion services soon after Roe v. Wade], feminist activists stepped in. They set up stand-alone clinics to care for women in their moments of crisis. In many ways, the clinics were a rebel-sister success story.
But the clinics also truly came to stand alone. In 1973, hospitals made up 80 percent of the country’s abortion facilities. By 1981, however, clinics outnumbered hospitals, and 15 years later, 90 percent of the abortions in the U.S. were performed at clinics. The American Medical Association did not maintain standards of care for the procedure. Hospitals didn’t shelter them in their wings. Being a pro-choice doctor came to mean referring your patients to a clinic rather than doing abortions in your own office.
This was never the feminist plan. . . . As abortion moved to the margins of medical practice, it also disappeared from residency programs that produced new doctors. In 1995, the number of OB-GYN residencies offering abortion training fell to a low of 12 percent.
“Under pressure and stigma, more doctors shun abortion,” wrote David Grimes, a leading researcher and abortion provider of 38 years, in a widely cited 1992 medical journal article called “Clinicians Who Provide Abortions: The Thinning Ranks.” In a 1992 survey of OB-GYNs, 59 percent of those age 65 and older said that they performed abortions, compared with 28 percent of those age 50 and younger. The National Abortion Federation started warning about “the graying of the abortion provider.” In the decade after Roe, the number of sites providing abortion across the country almost doubled from about 1,500 to more than 2,900, according to the Guttmacher Institute. But by 2000 the number shrank back to about 1,800 — a decline of 37 percent from 1982.
There’s another side of the story, however — a deliberate and concerted counteroffensive that has gone largely unremarked. Over the last decade, abortion-rights advocates have quietly worked to reverse the marginalization encouraged by [pro-life] activists like Randall Terry. Abortion-rights proponents are fighting back on precisely the same turf that Terry demarcated: the place of abortion within mainstream medicine. This abortion-rights campaign, led by physicians themselves, is trying to recast doctors, changing them from a weak link of abortion to a strong one. Its leaders have built residency programs and fellowships at university hospitals, with the hope that, eventually, more and more doctors will use their training to bring abortion into their practices. The bold idea at the heart of this effort is to integrate abortion so that it’s a seamless part of health care for women — embraced rather than shunned.
This is the future. Or rather, one possible future. There’s a long way to go from here to there. Between 2000 and 2005, the last year that statistics are available, the number of abortion facilities in the U.S. dropped 2 percent — a smaller dip than those in the preceding five-year periods, but a decline nonetheless. “The ’90s were about getting abortion back into residency training and medical schools,” says Jody Steinauer, an OB-GYN professor at the University of California at San Francisco, the hub of the abortion-rights countermovement in medicine. “Now it’s about getting abortion into our practices.”
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Tea Party Summer School for Public Schools Kids
Call it vacation Bible school, Glenn Beck-style.
Some three dozen kids ages 10 to 15 are spending five nights this week learning what organizers -- some with tea party ties -- say they won't hear in school about the Constitution, the founding fathers and the role of faith in the birth of the United States.
UPDATE 8/8/11: Church hosts Tea Party school teaching "God is the center of my life"
UPDATE 6/14/11: Tea Party summer camp in Florida
-- From "‘Vacation Liberty School’ Aims to Re-Teach Civics With Focus on Faith" by Jeffrey McMurray, Associated Press 7/15/10
It's held in a church basement in Georgetown [Kentucky], a city just north of Lexington that is the site of a major Toyota assembly plant.
The curriculum includes lessons like "equal rights, not equal results," "recognize men don't create rights -- only God," and "understanding falsehoods of separation of church and state."
And organizers say the program has drawn interest from people looking to start new chapters in Ohio, Colorado, New York, Florida and other communities in Kentucky.
Some parents showed up early to quiz the organizers about the curriculum. Others said they wouldn't mind a conservative slant to balance out what they say is a liberal influence in the public school system.
. . . the Rev. Wayne Lipscomb, the pastor there, says he had no political motivations for allowing the classes to be held without a rental fee. Tickets were distributed online for free.
"I think our kids need to know about the founding fathers and they need to understand the connection between God and the founding fathers," he said. "They don't need to hear the revisionists' stories of history."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Some three dozen kids ages 10 to 15 are spending five nights this week learning what organizers -- some with tea party ties -- say they won't hear in school about the Constitution, the founding fathers and the role of faith in the birth of the United States.
UPDATE 8/8/11: Church hosts Tea Party school teaching "God is the center of my life"
UPDATE 6/14/11: Tea Party summer camp in Florida
-- From "‘Vacation Liberty School’ Aims to Re-Teach Civics With Focus on Faith" by Jeffrey McMurray, Associated Press 7/15/10
It's held in a church basement in Georgetown [Kentucky], a city just north of Lexington that is the site of a major Toyota assembly plant.
The curriculum includes lessons like "equal rights, not equal results," "recognize men don't create rights -- only God," and "understanding falsehoods of separation of church and state."
And organizers say the program has drawn interest from people looking to start new chapters in Ohio, Colorado, New York, Florida and other communities in Kentucky.
Some parents showed up early to quiz the organizers about the curriculum. Others said they wouldn't mind a conservative slant to balance out what they say is a liberal influence in the public school system.
. . . the Rev. Wayne Lipscomb, the pastor there, says he had no political motivations for allowing the classes to be held without a rental fee. Tickets were distributed online for free.
"I think our kids need to know about the founding fathers and they need to understand the connection between God and the founding fathers," he said. "They don't need to hear the revisionists' stories of history."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Liberal Media Still Ignorant of Tea Party Movement
While the Tea Party sweeps America, liberal journalists desperately try to pigeon hole the movement into a pre-Internet mold. They just don't get it: The Tea Party IS American citizens; it's not an old-fashioned political organization with a visible head or a limited number of lead spokesmen.
-- From "Tea party groups choose to stand mute on same-sex marriage ruling" by Sandhya Somashekhar, Washington Post Staff Writer 7/13/10
While many conservative organizations immediately decried a federal judge's decision last week to invalidate the federal ban on recognizing gay marriages, tea party groups have been conspicuously silent on the issue.
The silence is by design, activists with the loosely affiliated movement said, because it is held together by an exclusive focus on fiscal matters and its avoidance of divisive social issues such as abortion and gay marriage. Privately, though, many said they back the decision because it emphasizes the legal philosophy of states' rights.
The large tea party-affiliated organizations, including FreedomWorks and the Tea Party Nation, declined to comment on Tauro's ruling because of their groups' fiscal focus.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Tea party groups choose to stand mute on same-sex marriage ruling" by Sandhya Somashekhar, Washington Post Staff Writer 7/13/10
While many conservative organizations immediately decried a federal judge's decision last week to invalidate the federal ban on recognizing gay marriages, tea party groups have been conspicuously silent on the issue.
The silence is by design, activists with the loosely affiliated movement said, because it is held together by an exclusive focus on fiscal matters and its avoidance of divisive social issues such as abortion and gay marriage. Privately, though, many said they back the decision because it emphasizes the legal philosophy of states' rights.
The large tea party-affiliated organizations, including FreedomWorks and the Tea Party Nation, declined to comment on Tauro's ruling because of their groups' fiscal focus.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
More Filthy Language to Airwaves via Court Ruling
Parental rights advocates, anti-pornography activists and at least one current member of the Federal Communications Commission joined forces Tuesday in condemning a three-judge appeals court panel for declaring unconstitutional the FCC's ban on indecency during prime-time TV hours.
UPDATE 8/27/10: Feds appeal court ruling
-- From "The FCC's decency dilemma" posted at Los Angeles Times 7/14/10
A federal appeals court has delivered another setback to the Federal Communications Commission's six-year crusade against expletives on broadcast television, declaring the commission's latest indecency rule to be unconstitutionally vague. Unless it's overturned on appeal, the ruling will force the FCC to try again to lay out clear boundaries for on-air programming. That's been an exercise in futility for the commission in recent years — not just because it's hard to regulate TV programs without violating the 1st Amendment, but because today's technologies render even constitutionally defensible regulation moot.
The Supreme Court upheld the FCC's procedures last year, leaving the constitutional issues for a later day of reckoning. That day arrived Tuesday, and the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals' opinion was blistering. The three-judge panel found that the rule has chilled protected speech, including live broadcasts and news programs. Broadcasters have "no way of knowing what the FCC will find offensive." More ominously, the court suggested that the way the rules were drawn, the FCC could use the policy to discriminate against programs it didn't like while absolving ones it did.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Court Decision Striking Down Broadcast Indecency Ban is ‘Anti-Family,’ Says FCC Commissioner Copps" by Pete Winn, CNSNews.com Senior Writer/Editor 7/14/10
FCC Commissioner Michael Copps condemned the decision as “anti-family.”
“I am shocked by such an anti-family decision coming out of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals,” Copps said in a statement. “Sadly, the court focused its energies on the purported chilling effect our indecency policy has on broadcasters of indecent programming, and no time focusing on the chilling effect today’s decision will have on the ability of American parents to safeguard the interests of their children.”
Patrick A. Trueman, former chief of the Justice Department's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, said the decision by the New York-based court seems “foolish on its face.”
“How is the American public to understand that federal judges don’t know that use of the “F-word” is indecent during prime-time television?” Trueman asked.
“This ruling only increases the public’s belief that government is out of touch with the public and out of step with the U.S. Constitution,” he added.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 8/27/10: Feds appeal court ruling
-- From "The FCC's decency dilemma" posted at Los Angeles Times 7/14/10
A federal appeals court has delivered another setback to the Federal Communications Commission's six-year crusade against expletives on broadcast television, declaring the commission's latest indecency rule to be unconstitutionally vague. Unless it's overturned on appeal, the ruling will force the FCC to try again to lay out clear boundaries for on-air programming. That's been an exercise in futility for the commission in recent years — not just because it's hard to regulate TV programs without violating the 1st Amendment, but because today's technologies render even constitutionally defensible regulation moot.
The Supreme Court upheld the FCC's procedures last year, leaving the constitutional issues for a later day of reckoning. That day arrived Tuesday, and the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals' opinion was blistering. The three-judge panel found that the rule has chilled protected speech, including live broadcasts and news programs. Broadcasters have "no way of knowing what the FCC will find offensive." More ominously, the court suggested that the way the rules were drawn, the FCC could use the policy to discriminate against programs it didn't like while absolving ones it did.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Court Decision Striking Down Broadcast Indecency Ban is ‘Anti-Family,’ Says FCC Commissioner Copps" by Pete Winn, CNSNews.com Senior Writer/Editor 7/14/10
FCC Commissioner Michael Copps condemned the decision as “anti-family.”
“I am shocked by such an anti-family decision coming out of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals,” Copps said in a statement. “Sadly, the court focused its energies on the purported chilling effect our indecency policy has on broadcasters of indecent programming, and no time focusing on the chilling effect today’s decision will have on the ability of American parents to safeguard the interests of their children.”
Patrick A. Trueman, former chief of the Justice Department's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, said the decision by the New York-based court seems “foolish on its face.”
“How is the American public to understand that federal judges don’t know that use of the “F-word” is indecent during prime-time television?” Trueman asked.
“This ruling only increases the public’s belief that government is out of touch with the public and out of step with the U.S. Constitution,” he added.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Commander in Chief Blinding America of Enemy
The Obama administration’s reluctance to acknowledge and confront the religious motivation behind Islamist terrorism is not helping the counter-terror effort, leading experts warn in a new report.
-- From "Critics: US too low-key on Islamic radicalism talk" by Lolita C. Baldor, Associated Press 7/12/10
The Obama administration's recent move to drop rhetorical references to Islamic radicalism is drawing fire in a new report warning the decision ignores the role religion can play in motivating terrorists.
Several prominent counterterror experts are challenging the administration's shift in its recently unveiled National Security Strategy [NSS], saying the terror threat should be defined in order to fight it.
The question of how to frame the conflict against al-Qaida and other terrorists poses a knotty problem. The U.S. is trying to mend fences with Muslim communities while toughening its strikes against militant groups.
In the report, scheduled to be released this week, counterterrorism experts from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy argue that the U.S. could clearly articulate the threat from radical Islamic extremists "without denigrating the Islamic religion in any way."
President Barack Obama has argued that words matter, and administration officials have said that the use of inflammatory descriptions linking Islam to the terror threat feed the enemy's propaganda and may alienate moderate Muslims in the U.S.
In the report, which was obtained by The Associated Press, the analysts warn that U.S. diplomacy must sharpen the distinction between the Muslim faith and violent Islamist extremism, identify radicalizers within Islamic communities and empower voices that can contest the radical teachings.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Experts to Obama: You Can’t Ignore the Islamic Ideology Behind Terrorism" by Patrick Goodenough, CNSNews.com International Editor 7/13/10
[Washington Institute for Near East Policy report authors] J. Scott Carpenter, Matthew Levitt, Steven Simon and Juan Zarate contend that just because ideology is not the only driving force behind violent Islamic terrorism does not mean it can be ignored.
Instead, the administration should recognize Islamism as “the key ideological driver” behind the threat posed by al-Qaeda and other radical Islamist groups, and prioritize an effort to combat the ideology, they say.
“To be sure, officials need to make very clear that they do not consider Islam itself a danger, only the distorted version of Islam perpetrated by radical extremists. But they – and, in particular, the president – must also come to terms with the fact that individuals implicated in each of the recently exposed plots in the United States were imbued with a common radical ethos.”
The NSS unveiled in May used variations of the phrase “al-Qaeda and its affiliates” repeatedly in identifying the enemy. The word “Islam” appeared twice – the U.S. was not fighting a war against Islam, it said, and “neither Islam nor any other religion condones the slaughter of innocents.”
(The NSS released by the Bush administration in 2006 stated that “the struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.” It also called Islam “a proud religion” that “has been twisted and made to serve an evil end.”)
The authors recommend that the administration broaden cooperation with foreign governments, NGOs and others “to empower credible Muslim voices to marginalize” Islamist radicals.
At home and abroad, the government should more effectively identify and support Muslim opinion-leaders who can provide alternative influences to “radicalizers” in their communities.
“Some prominent Muslim American groups have questionable links to banned groups that should disqualify them as trusted government partners in the effort to combat extremism,” the report says. “Others, perhaps less vocal and often active at a more local level, warrant greater institutional recognition and support.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Critics: US too low-key on Islamic radicalism talk" by Lolita C. Baldor, Associated Press 7/12/10
The Obama administration's recent move to drop rhetorical references to Islamic radicalism is drawing fire in a new report warning the decision ignores the role religion can play in motivating terrorists.
Several prominent counterterror experts are challenging the administration's shift in its recently unveiled National Security Strategy [NSS], saying the terror threat should be defined in order to fight it.
The question of how to frame the conflict against al-Qaida and other terrorists poses a knotty problem. The U.S. is trying to mend fences with Muslim communities while toughening its strikes against militant groups.
In the report, scheduled to be released this week, counterterrorism experts from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy argue that the U.S. could clearly articulate the threat from radical Islamic extremists "without denigrating the Islamic religion in any way."
President Barack Obama has argued that words matter, and administration officials have said that the use of inflammatory descriptions linking Islam to the terror threat feed the enemy's propaganda and may alienate moderate Muslims in the U.S.
In the report, which was obtained by The Associated Press, the analysts warn that U.S. diplomacy must sharpen the distinction between the Muslim faith and violent Islamist extremism, identify radicalizers within Islamic communities and empower voices that can contest the radical teachings.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Experts to Obama: You Can’t Ignore the Islamic Ideology Behind Terrorism" by Patrick Goodenough, CNSNews.com International Editor 7/13/10
[Washington Institute for Near East Policy report authors] J. Scott Carpenter, Matthew Levitt, Steven Simon and Juan Zarate contend that just because ideology is not the only driving force behind violent Islamic terrorism does not mean it can be ignored.
Instead, the administration should recognize Islamism as “the key ideological driver” behind the threat posed by al-Qaeda and other radical Islamist groups, and prioritize an effort to combat the ideology, they say.
“To be sure, officials need to make very clear that they do not consider Islam itself a danger, only the distorted version of Islam perpetrated by radical extremists. But they – and, in particular, the president – must also come to terms with the fact that individuals implicated in each of the recently exposed plots in the United States were imbued with a common radical ethos.”
The NSS unveiled in May used variations of the phrase “al-Qaeda and its affiliates” repeatedly in identifying the enemy. The word “Islam” appeared twice – the U.S. was not fighting a war against Islam, it said, and “neither Islam nor any other religion condones the slaughter of innocents.”
(The NSS released by the Bush administration in 2006 stated that “the struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.” It also called Islam “a proud religion” that “has been twisted and made to serve an evil end.”)
The authors recommend that the administration broaden cooperation with foreign governments, NGOs and others “to empower credible Muslim voices to marginalize” Islamist radicals.
At home and abroad, the government should more effectively identify and support Muslim opinion-leaders who can provide alternative influences to “radicalizers” in their communities.
“Some prominent Muslim American groups have questionable links to banned groups that should disqualify them as trusted government partners in the effort to combat extremism,” the report says. “Others, perhaps less vocal and often active at a more local level, warrant greater institutional recognition and support.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Women Choose Homosexuality - Not Genetic: Study
Women are embracing lesbianism in their thirties, according to research indicating that shifts in sexual orientation may be more widespread than previously thought.
-- From "Late-blooming lesbians: women can switch sexualities as they mature" by Matthew Moore, London Telegraph 7/11/10
One study even indicates that as many as two-thirds of women who feel lesbian attractions may have changed their sexual orientation over time.
The findings appear to pose a challenge to the scientific consensus that a person's sexuality is determined more by their genes than environment.
Following interviews with more than 200 married lesbians, [Christan Moran, a researcher at Southern Connecticut State University] concluded that there is “great potential for heterosexual women to experience a first same-sex attraction well into adulthood.”
She added that late-blooming sexuality was often wrongly dismissed as repressed lesbians finally coming to terms with their true feelings.
Most research ignored “the possibility that a heterosexual woman might make a full transition to a singular lesbian identity ... in other words change their sexual orientation.”
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Late-blooming lesbians: women can switch sexualities as they mature" by Matthew Moore, London Telegraph 7/11/10
One study even indicates that as many as two-thirds of women who feel lesbian attractions may have changed their sexual orientation over time.
The findings appear to pose a challenge to the scientific consensus that a person's sexuality is determined more by their genes than environment.
Following interviews with more than 200 married lesbians, [Christan Moran, a researcher at Southern Connecticut State University] concluded that there is “great potential for heterosexual women to experience a first same-sex attraction well into adulthood.”
She added that late-blooming sexuality was often wrongly dismissed as repressed lesbians finally coming to terms with their true feelings.
Most research ignored “the possibility that a heterosexual woman might make a full transition to a singular lesbian identity ... in other words change their sexual orientation.”
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Montana Sex Ed Starting at Kindergarten
Following national guidelines, grade school in Helena Montana will start by teaching kindergarteners about genitals, homosexual behavior to first graders, oral sex to pre-pubescent kids . . . and later it gets more explicit.
UPDATE 7/15/10: Latest TV interviews with parents & school superintendent (see below)
-- From "Sex-ed provisions to get public hearing Tuesday" by Alana Listoe, Helena Independent Record 7/11/10
Helena School District administrators and the [revised health enhancement curriculum] document’s creators defend the comprehensive health education document, saying as a whole it will foster a healthier lifestyle for all students as they mature from early childhood into young adults. Opponents say the proposals on human sexuality give too graphic information to children at too young an age.
A committee made up of administrators, teachers, nurses and health and police department officials met for two years [unbeknownst to parents] considering best practices, as well as state and national standards while they developed the 62-page document that encompasses nutrition, relationships, mental health, environmental health and disease prevention.
But the stirring debate in the community has centered on a few pages about human sexuality.
Some of the sticking points are introduction of body parts by their correct names in kindergarten; understanding in first grade that human beings can love people of the same gender; and understanding in fifth grade that sexual intercourse includes, but is not limited to vaginal, oral or anal penetration.
Much of those points being taught at those specific ages coincide with the Guideline for Comprehensive Sexuality Education put out by the National Guidelines Task Force, as well as other national health education standards. The district’s proposal is somewhat conservative on a few points compared to those national guidelines that, for example, say in early elementary school (ages 5 through 8), students should learn that men and women have sperm and egg cells that enable them to reproduce and that vaginal intercourse is when a penis is placed inside the vagina — the most common way for a sperm and egg to join.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 7/14/10: Video
UPDATE 7/14/10: Video
UPDATE 7/14/10: Video
UPDATE 7/13/10: Video
UPDATE 7/15/10: Latest TV interviews with parents & school superintendent (see below)
-- From "Sex-ed provisions to get public hearing Tuesday" by Alana Listoe, Helena Independent Record 7/11/10
Helena School District administrators and the [revised health enhancement curriculum] document’s creators defend the comprehensive health education document, saying as a whole it will foster a healthier lifestyle for all students as they mature from early childhood into young adults. Opponents say the proposals on human sexuality give too graphic information to children at too young an age.
A committee made up of administrators, teachers, nurses and health and police department officials met for two years [unbeknownst to parents] considering best practices, as well as state and national standards while they developed the 62-page document that encompasses nutrition, relationships, mental health, environmental health and disease prevention.
But the stirring debate in the community has centered on a few pages about human sexuality.
Some of the sticking points are introduction of body parts by their correct names in kindergarten; understanding in first grade that human beings can love people of the same gender; and understanding in fifth grade that sexual intercourse includes, but is not limited to vaginal, oral or anal penetration.
Much of those points being taught at those specific ages coincide with the Guideline for Comprehensive Sexuality Education put out by the National Guidelines Task Force, as well as other national health education standards. The district’s proposal is somewhat conservative on a few points compared to those national guidelines that, for example, say in early elementary school (ages 5 through 8), students should learn that men and women have sperm and egg cells that enable them to reproduce and that vaginal intercourse is when a penis is placed inside the vagina — the most common way for a sperm and egg to join.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 7/14/10: Video
UPDATE 7/14/10: Video
UPDATE 7/14/10: Video
UPDATE 7/13/10: Video
Media Refers to Dead Fetus as "Baby"
In the bizarre world of politically-correct mainstream media, journalists' terminology is perplexing when the unborn are killed outside the abortion clinic. In this article, the Boston Globe refers to the unborn fetus as being "6 months old," and refers to the fetus as having a "life."
-- From "Woman expected to be charged with death of fetus" by Alex Katz, Boston Globe Correspondent 7/12/10
A Wellesley woman is expected to be charged with manslaughter today in the death of a pregnant woman’s fetus after allegedly beating the woman in a Dorchester nail salon in April, according to a spokesman for Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley.
On Friday, a grand jury returned indictments charging Ayanna Woodhouse, 25, with manslaughter and aggravated assault and battery in the April 10 incident at Tulip Nail salon. Woodhouse is expected to be arraigned in Suffolk Superior Court, said a statement from Jake Wark, a spokesman for the district attorney’s office.
The woman was later taken to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, where doctors delivered a girl in an emergency caesarean section. The baby did not survive.
The case raises the long-debated question of when a fetus becomes viable.
According to the district attorney’s office, a homicide charge may be brought in the death of a fetus if it was medically viable at the time of the trauma that ended its life.
Medical experts who testified to the grand jury determined that at 6 months old, the fetus was medically viable.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Woman expected to be charged with death of fetus" by Alex Katz, Boston Globe Correspondent 7/12/10
A Wellesley woman is expected to be charged with manslaughter today in the death of a pregnant woman’s fetus after allegedly beating the woman in a Dorchester nail salon in April, according to a spokesman for Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley.
On Friday, a grand jury returned indictments charging Ayanna Woodhouse, 25, with manslaughter and aggravated assault and battery in the April 10 incident at Tulip Nail salon. Woodhouse is expected to be arraigned in Suffolk Superior Court, said a statement from Jake Wark, a spokesman for the district attorney’s office.
The woman was later taken to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, where doctors delivered a girl in an emergency caesarean section. The baby did not survive.
The case raises the long-debated question of when a fetus becomes viable.
According to the district attorney’s office, a homicide charge may be brought in the death of a fetus if it was medically viable at the time of the trauma that ended its life.
Medical experts who testified to the grand jury determined that at 6 months old, the fetus was medically viable.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Will Troops Accept a Homosexualized Military?
Defense Secretary Robert Gates is urging gays in the military to answer a Pentagon survey on the policy that bans them from serving openly, but advocacy groups worry the poll may be biased against gays or that those who participate could be exposed and expelled.
-- From "Pentagon sends out 'don't ask, don't tell' survey" by Barbara Starr, CNN 7/8/10
The Pentagon on Wednesday began sending out to troops a survey of more than 100 questions seeking their views on the impact of repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" restrictions prohibiting gays and lesbians from openly serving in the U.S. military.
An administration official confirmed to CNN that the survey is being sent to 200,000 active duty troops and 200,000 reserve troops. The official declined to be identified because the survey has not officially been made public.
The survey, which service members can expect to receive via e-mail, asks about such issues as how unit morale or readiness might be affected if a commander is believed to be gay or lesbian; the need to maintain personal standards of conduct; and how repeal might affect willingness to serve in the military.
The survey also asks a number of questions aimed at identifying problems that could occur when troops live and work in close quarters in overseas war zones. For example, the questionnaire asks military members how they would react if they had to share a room, bathrooms, and open-bay showers in a war zone with other service members believed to be gay or lesbian.
There also are several questions about reactions to dealing with same-sex partners in social situations.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Legal Group Urges Homosexuals to Boycott Pentagon Survey on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" by Pauline Jelinek, Associated Press 7/9/10
"I strongly encourage gays and lesbians who are in the military to fill out these forms," Gates said of the poll e-mailed to some 400,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. "We organized this in a way to protect their privacy and the confidentiality of their responses ... and it's important that we hear from them as well as everybody else."
The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network said earlier Thursday that the Defense Department has not agreed to grant immunity to anyone inadvertently outed during the survey, which is intended to help a special working group decide how repeal of the policy might be implemented and how that could affect the military.
Another group, Servicemembers United, said it was concerned about "unintentional bias" in the wording of survey questions but was satisfied it would not violate the confidentiality of participating gays. The Pentagon is not publicly releasing the survey, but some draft questions the group had learned about were homophobic, director Alexander Nicholson said in an interview. For instance, one asked troops if they would be comfortable sharing bathrooms with gays and lesbians.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Pentagon sends out 'don't ask, don't tell' survey" by Barbara Starr, CNN 7/8/10
The Pentagon on Wednesday began sending out to troops a survey of more than 100 questions seeking their views on the impact of repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" restrictions prohibiting gays and lesbians from openly serving in the U.S. military.
An administration official confirmed to CNN that the survey is being sent to 200,000 active duty troops and 200,000 reserve troops. The official declined to be identified because the survey has not officially been made public.
The survey, which service members can expect to receive via e-mail, asks about such issues as how unit morale or readiness might be affected if a commander is believed to be gay or lesbian; the need to maintain personal standards of conduct; and how repeal might affect willingness to serve in the military.
The survey also asks a number of questions aimed at identifying problems that could occur when troops live and work in close quarters in overseas war zones. For example, the questionnaire asks military members how they would react if they had to share a room, bathrooms, and open-bay showers in a war zone with other service members believed to be gay or lesbian.
There also are several questions about reactions to dealing with same-sex partners in social situations.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Legal Group Urges Homosexuals to Boycott Pentagon Survey on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" by Pauline Jelinek, Associated Press 7/9/10
"I strongly encourage gays and lesbians who are in the military to fill out these forms," Gates said of the poll e-mailed to some 400,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. "We organized this in a way to protect their privacy and the confidentiality of their responses ... and it's important that we hear from them as well as everybody else."
The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network said earlier Thursday that the Defense Department has not agreed to grant immunity to anyone inadvertently outed during the survey, which is intended to help a special working group decide how repeal of the policy might be implemented and how that could affect the military.
Another group, Servicemembers United, said it was concerned about "unintentional bias" in the wording of survey questions but was satisfied it would not violate the confidentiality of participating gays. The Pentagon is not publicly releasing the survey, but some draft questions the group had learned about were homophobic, director Alexander Nicholson said in an interview. For instance, one asked troops if they would be comfortable sharing bathrooms with gays and lesbians.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Christian Fired for 'Hate Speech' by Univ. of IL
A professor teaching Catholicism explained Christian beliefs to his students, including the immorality of homosexual behavior. Expounding on such truths was deemed 'hate speech' and he was immediately fired, after a nine-year stint.
UPDATE 7/29/10: Prof. will teach class, but under new University terms
UPDATE 7/22/10: Univ. says professor NOT fired, but rather, he simply has no teaching assignments
UPDATE 7/19/10: Using Britain's template to outlaw Christianity in America (see video below)
UPDATE 7/18/10: Catholic Church involvement is the problem, says Chicago Tribune
UPDATE 7/16/10: Professor's lawyer issues ultimatum to University
UPDATE 7/12/10: Analysis and commentary from the Illinois Family Institute
-- From "U of I fires Catholicism professor" by The Associated Press 7/9/10
The University of Illinois has fired an adjunct professor who taught courses on Catholicism after a student accused the instructor of engaging in hate speech by saying he agrees with the church's teaching that homosexual sex is immoral.
The professor, Ken Howell of Champaign, said his firing violates his academic freedom. He also lost his job at an on-campus Catholic center.
Howell, who taught Introduction to Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thought, says he was fired at the end of the spring semester after sending an e-mail explaining some Catholic beliefs to his students preparing for an exam.
"Natural Moral Law says that Morality must be a response to REALITY," he wrote in the e-mail. "In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same."
Howell said he was teaching his students about the Catholic understanding of natural moral law.
"My responsibility on teaching a class on Catholicism is to teach what the Catholic Church teaches," Howell said in an interview with The News-Gazette in Champaign. "I have always made it very, very clear to my students they are never required to believe what I'm teaching and they'll never be judged on that."
Howell also said he makes clear to his students that he's Catholic and that he believes the church views that he teaches.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Illinois professor fired for giving Catholic teaching on homosexuality" CNA/EWTN News 7/9/10
In response to his firing, Howell wrote a letter to friends explaining the events surrounding his dismissal.
“Since the Fall of 2001, I have been regularly teaching two courses in the department of religion,” Howell explained. One of the classes, “Introduction to Catholicism,” includes an explanation of Natural Moral Law as affirmed by the Church as well as an application of Natural Law Theory to a disputed social issue.
“Most of those semesters, my chosen topic was the moral status of homosexual acts,” he explained.
Howell said he taught the Catholic Church's position on homosexuality. He summed it up by saying, “A homosexual orientation is not morally wrong just as no moral guilt can be assigned to any inclination that a person has. However, based on natural moral law, the Church believes that homosexual acts are contrary to human nature and therefore morally wrong.”
To show how homosexual behavior would be considered under competing moral systems, Howell sent an e-mail to the students contrasting utilitarianism with natural moral law. “I tried to show them that under utilitarianism, homosexual acts would not be considered immoral whereas under natural moral law they would,” Howell said. “This is because natural moral law, unlike utilitarianism, judges morality on the basis of the acts themselves.”
Howell is currently working with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) to seek legal redress.
David French, senior counsel for the ADF said in a written statement, "A university cannot censor professors' speech – including classroom speech related to the topic of the class – merely because some students find that speech 'offensive.' Professors have the freedom to challenge students and to educate them by exposing them to different views. The Alliance Defense Fund is working with Professor Howell because the defense of academic freedom is essential on the university campus."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Click headlines below to see the trend:
Obama Signs Law to End Christian Witness - 'Hate Crimes'
Pastors Tell White House 'Hate Crimes' Law Unconstitutional
Preachers Beware - Obama Justice Dept. to Enforce New Hate Speech Law
Pastor Jailed for Saying Homosexuality is Sin
Supreme Court Ends Christian Witness on Campus
Mass. Court Rules Against Christian Free Speech
Maine Fines Christians for Criticizing Islam
Obama Energy Dept. Boots Conservative Scientist over Homophobia
New York Christian in Jail for Praying at 'Gay Event'
Christian Grandmother's Letter to City Council a Hate Crime?
UPDATE 7/29/10: Prof. will teach class, but under new University terms
UPDATE 7/22/10: Univ. says professor NOT fired, but rather, he simply has no teaching assignments
UPDATE 7/19/10: Using Britain's template to outlaw Christianity in America (see video below)
UPDATE 7/18/10: Catholic Church involvement is the problem, says Chicago Tribune
UPDATE 7/16/10: Professor's lawyer issues ultimatum to University
UPDATE 7/12/10: Analysis and commentary from the Illinois Family Institute
-- From "U of I fires Catholicism professor" by The Associated Press 7/9/10
The University of Illinois has fired an adjunct professor who taught courses on Catholicism after a student accused the instructor of engaging in hate speech by saying he agrees with the church's teaching that homosexual sex is immoral.
The professor, Ken Howell of Champaign, said his firing violates his academic freedom. He also lost his job at an on-campus Catholic center.
Howell, who taught Introduction to Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thought, says he was fired at the end of the spring semester after sending an e-mail explaining some Catholic beliefs to his students preparing for an exam.
"Natural Moral Law says that Morality must be a response to REALITY," he wrote in the e-mail. "In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same."
Howell said he was teaching his students about the Catholic understanding of natural moral law.
"My responsibility on teaching a class on Catholicism is to teach what the Catholic Church teaches," Howell said in an interview with The News-Gazette in Champaign. "I have always made it very, very clear to my students they are never required to believe what I'm teaching and they'll never be judged on that."
Howell also said he makes clear to his students that he's Catholic and that he believes the church views that he teaches.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Illinois professor fired for giving Catholic teaching on homosexuality" CNA/EWTN News 7/9/10
In response to his firing, Howell wrote a letter to friends explaining the events surrounding his dismissal.
“Since the Fall of 2001, I have been regularly teaching two courses in the department of religion,” Howell explained. One of the classes, “Introduction to Catholicism,” includes an explanation of Natural Moral Law as affirmed by the Church as well as an application of Natural Law Theory to a disputed social issue.
“Most of those semesters, my chosen topic was the moral status of homosexual acts,” he explained.
Howell said he taught the Catholic Church's position on homosexuality. He summed it up by saying, “A homosexual orientation is not morally wrong just as no moral guilt can be assigned to any inclination that a person has. However, based on natural moral law, the Church believes that homosexual acts are contrary to human nature and therefore morally wrong.”
To show how homosexual behavior would be considered under competing moral systems, Howell sent an e-mail to the students contrasting utilitarianism with natural moral law. “I tried to show them that under utilitarianism, homosexual acts would not be considered immoral whereas under natural moral law they would,” Howell said. “This is because natural moral law, unlike utilitarianism, judges morality on the basis of the acts themselves.”
Howell is currently working with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) to seek legal redress.
David French, senior counsel for the ADF said in a written statement, "A university cannot censor professors' speech – including classroom speech related to the topic of the class – merely because some students find that speech 'offensive.' Professors have the freedom to challenge students and to educate them by exposing them to different views. The Alliance Defense Fund is working with Professor Howell because the defense of academic freedom is essential on the university campus."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Click headlines below to see the trend:
Obama Signs Law to End Christian Witness - 'Hate Crimes'
Pastors Tell White House 'Hate Crimes' Law Unconstitutional
Preachers Beware - Obama Justice Dept. to Enforce New Hate Speech Law
Pastor Jailed for Saying Homosexuality is Sin
Supreme Court Ends Christian Witness on Campus
Mass. Court Rules Against Christian Free Speech
Maine Fines Christians for Criticizing Islam
Obama Energy Dept. Boots Conservative Scientist over Homophobia
New York Christian in Jail for Praying at 'Gay Event'
Christian Grandmother's Letter to City Council a Hate Crime?
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Defense of Marriage Ambushed by White House
The Obama administration has promised homosexualists to trash the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), so its Dept. of Justice, while charged with defending DOMA in lawsuits, is setting DOMA up for defeat in the courts.
Meanwhile . . . The New York Times claims that limited-government conservatives also want DOMA defeated.
-- From "Basis of Ruling on Gay Unions Stirs Debate" by Kirk Johnson, New York Times 7/9/10
A judge’s decision on Thursday declaring that a state law allowing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts should take precedence over a federal definition of marriage has exposed the fractures and fault lines among groups working to bolster states’ rights.
The decision, by Judge Joseph L. Tauro of United States District Court in Boston, supports and echoes a central tenet of the Tea Party, 9/12 and Tenth Amendment movements, all of which argue that the authority of the states should trump Washington in most matters not explicitly assigned by the Constitution to the federal government.
Congress, the judge said, had infringed on a question that was the province of local voters and legislators.
But in using the argument to support gay marriage in Massachusetts, where the case arose, the judge created an awkward new debating point within the less-government movement about where social goals and government policy intersect, or perhaps collide.
Some people involved in the campaigns to limit Washington’s reach cheered what they said was a states’ rights victory.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Obama, marriage: 'Saboteur in chief'" by Bob Unruh © 2010 WorldNetDaily 7/9/10
An expert on the legal issues of marriage and family is accusing President Obama's administration of knowingly sabotaging marriage in America by ignoring the foundation for the nation's laws and instead citing "politically motivated" claims from special interests.
The accusation comes from Mathew D. Staver, chief of Liberty Counsel, which advocates for religious and civil rights and traditional American values including those belonging to the Judeo-Christian heritage.
The organization explained that in arguments submitted by the Obama administration in the case, the government "expressly disavowed the purposes set forth by Congress in passing DOMA.
"In particular, the administration stated in a September 2009 memorandum that 'the government does not rely on certain purported interests set forth in the legislative history of DOMA, including the purported interests in 'responsible procreation and child-rearing' – that is, the assertions that (1) the government's interest in 'responsible procreation' justifies limiting marriage to a union between one man and one woman and (2) that the government has an interest in promoting the raising of children by both of their biological parents,'" Liberty Counsel said.
"Not only did the administration disavow these important legislative justifications for DOMA, but it relied on various politically motivated statements by medical and social science organizations for the proposition that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents," Liberty Counsel said. "Having disavowed Congress's stated purposes for DOMA, the administration argued that Congress passed DOMA to maintain the status quo."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Click headlines below for previous articles:
Obama & Homosexualists Conspire to Defeat Marriage Nationwide
Obama Restates Opposition to Defense of Marriage Act
Obama Pushes Gay Agenda, but Doesn't Want Us to Know It
Obama to Homosexualists: "Welcome to your White House"
Federal Defense of Marriage Act DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional (Calif. case)
Meanwhile . . . The New York Times claims that limited-government conservatives also want DOMA defeated.
-- From "Basis of Ruling on Gay Unions Stirs Debate" by Kirk Johnson, New York Times 7/9/10
A judge’s decision on Thursday declaring that a state law allowing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts should take precedence over a federal definition of marriage has exposed the fractures and fault lines among groups working to bolster states’ rights.
The decision, by Judge Joseph L. Tauro of United States District Court in Boston, supports and echoes a central tenet of the Tea Party, 9/12 and Tenth Amendment movements, all of which argue that the authority of the states should trump Washington in most matters not explicitly assigned by the Constitution to the federal government.
Congress, the judge said, had infringed on a question that was the province of local voters and legislators.
But in using the argument to support gay marriage in Massachusetts, where the case arose, the judge created an awkward new debating point within the less-government movement about where social goals and government policy intersect, or perhaps collide.
Some people involved in the campaigns to limit Washington’s reach cheered what they said was a states’ rights victory.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Obama, marriage: 'Saboteur in chief'" by Bob Unruh © 2010 WorldNetDaily 7/9/10
An expert on the legal issues of marriage and family is accusing President Obama's administration of knowingly sabotaging marriage in America by ignoring the foundation for the nation's laws and instead citing "politically motivated" claims from special interests.
The accusation comes from Mathew D. Staver, chief of Liberty Counsel, which advocates for religious and civil rights and traditional American values including those belonging to the Judeo-Christian heritage.
The organization explained that in arguments submitted by the Obama administration in the case, the government "expressly disavowed the purposes set forth by Congress in passing DOMA.
"In particular, the administration stated in a September 2009 memorandum that 'the government does not rely on certain purported interests set forth in the legislative history of DOMA, including the purported interests in 'responsible procreation and child-rearing' – that is, the assertions that (1) the government's interest in 'responsible procreation' justifies limiting marriage to a union between one man and one woman and (2) that the government has an interest in promoting the raising of children by both of their biological parents,'" Liberty Counsel said.
"Not only did the administration disavow these important legislative justifications for DOMA, but it relied on various politically motivated statements by medical and social science organizations for the proposition that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents," Liberty Counsel said. "Having disavowed Congress's stated purposes for DOMA, the administration argued that Congress passed DOMA to maintain the status quo."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Click headlines below for previous articles:
Obama & Homosexualists Conspire to Defeat Marriage Nationwide
Obama Restates Opposition to Defense of Marriage Act
Obama Pushes Gay Agenda, but Doesn't Want Us to Know It
Obama to Homosexualists: "Welcome to your White House"
Federal Defense of Marriage Act DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional (Calif. case)
Pastor Fired for Praying in Jesus' Name
A North Carolina pastor was relieved of his duties as an honorary chaplain of the state house of representatives after he closed a prayer by invoking the name of Jesus.
-- From "Pastor Yanked From Capitol Over 'Jesus' Prayer" by Todd Starnes, FoxNews.com 7/9/10
“I got fired,” said Ron Baity, pastor of Berean Baptist Church in Winston-Salem. He had been invited to lead prayer for an entire week but his tenure was cut short when he refused to remove the name Jesus from his invocation.
“When I handed [the prayer text] to the [House clerk], I watched her eyes and they immediately went right to the bottom of the page and the word Jesus,” he told FOX News Radio. “She said ‘We would prefer that you not use the name Jesus. We have some people here that can be offended.’”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "N.C. House leaders consider changes to prayer rules" The Associated Press 7/9/10
"My response to her was I am a Christian, and as a Christian I too can be offended, and I am offended if I cannot pray in the name of Jesus," Baity said.
Baity said he was allowed to give his prayer May 31 but was told that his services weren't needed beyond that.
Lawmakers plan to review procedures for guest chaplains in the state House after one pastor complained that he was asked not to refer to Jesus.
House Speaker Joe Hackney and Minority Leader Paul Stam said they plan to make sure the House rules on prayers are constitutional, multiple media outlets reported.
For many years, the House has requested, but not required, that guest chaplains deliver nonsectarian prayers.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Pastor Yanked From Capitol Over 'Jesus' Prayer" by Todd Starnes, FoxNews.com 7/9/10
“I got fired,” said Ron Baity, pastor of Berean Baptist Church in Winston-Salem. He had been invited to lead prayer for an entire week but his tenure was cut short when he refused to remove the name Jesus from his invocation.
“When I handed [the prayer text] to the [House clerk], I watched her eyes and they immediately went right to the bottom of the page and the word Jesus,” he told FOX News Radio. “She said ‘We would prefer that you not use the name Jesus. We have some people here that can be offended.’”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "N.C. House leaders consider changes to prayer rules" The Associated Press 7/9/10
"My response to her was I am a Christian, and as a Christian I too can be offended, and I am offended if I cannot pray in the name of Jesus," Baity said.
Baity said he was allowed to give his prayer May 31 but was told that his services weren't needed beyond that.
Lawmakers plan to review procedures for guest chaplains in the state House after one pastor complained that he was asked not to refer to Jesus.
House Speaker Joe Hackney and Minority Leader Paul Stam said they plan to make sure the House rules on prayers are constitutional, multiple media outlets reported.
For many years, the House has requested, but not required, that guest chaplains deliver nonsectarian prayers.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Friday, July 09, 2010
Sexually Deviant Pastors OK in Presbyterian Church
The PCUSA convention voted to accept clergy actively involved in homosexual activity, but the votes were split about defining marriage as "two people."
UPDATE 5/10/11: Presbyterians Vote Yea on Gay 'Clergy'
-- From "Presbyterians continue to be divided over gays" by Patrick Condon, Associated Press 7/9/10
Delegates to the Presbyterian church's convention in Minneapolis voted Thursday for a more liberal policy on gay clergy but decided not to redefine marriage in their church constitution to include same-sex couples. Approval of both measures could have made the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) one of the most gay-friendly major Christian churches in the U.S.
Even the more liberal stance on gay clergy faces more debate before it can become church policy. A majority of the church's 173 U.S. presbyteries must approve it. Two years ago — after years of efforts by supporters — a similar measure was sent out to presbyteries but died when 94 of them voted against it.
Both of Thursday's votes were close. Fifty-one percent of delegates voted to shelve the proposal to redefine marriage as being between "two people" instead of between "a man and a woman," just hours after 53 percent of them voted to allow non-celibate gays in committed relationships to serve as clergy.
On Friday, delegates voted down a motion to reconsider the marriage vote. It needed a two-thirds majority to come back to the floor and got just 40 percent. Gay rights supporters must wait two years until the next general assembly for another shot.
Several major Christian denominations have voted in recent years to allow non-celibate gays to serve as clergy if they are in committed relationships. Among them are the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the U.S. Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ.
Fewer major U.S. denominations have taken the step of fully endorsing gay marriage. Only two, the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, have explicitly allowed it.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Presbyterian leaders OK gay, lesbian clergy, shelve same-sex marriage proposal" by Jean Hopfensperger and Mary Lynn Smith, Star Tribune (Minneapolis) 7/9/10
The late-night decision to table the proposal [to redefine marriage] and subject it to two more years of study caught many delegates at the denomination's gathering at the Minneapolis Convention Center by surprise, and there was a stunned silence as delegates absorbed the action.
Had the marriage measure passed, it, too would have had to be approved by the presbyteries.
Hours before the surprise shelving of the marriage measure, the assembly approved changing the denomination's ordination policy to make noncelibate gays and lesbians eligible to become clergy. The vote was 373-323.
It was the fourth time the assembly had approved such a change. The previous times, it was rejected by district leaders. Church leaders believe it has a better chance of meeting district approval this time.
Presbyterian ministers currently are permitted to perform ceremonial blessings of same-sex couples, but nothing more.
A group called Presbyterians for Renewal . . . opposed changes. Its website states: "Blurring or obscuring the clear teaching of God's Word in order to keep in step with secular laws and changing personal morals only confuses our witness and causes innumerable problems for the future."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 5/10/11: Presbyterians Vote Yea on Gay 'Clergy'
-- From "Presbyterians continue to be divided over gays" by Patrick Condon, Associated Press 7/9/10
Delegates to the Presbyterian church's convention in Minneapolis voted Thursday for a more liberal policy on gay clergy but decided not to redefine marriage in their church constitution to include same-sex couples. Approval of both measures could have made the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) one of the most gay-friendly major Christian churches in the U.S.
Even the more liberal stance on gay clergy faces more debate before it can become church policy. A majority of the church's 173 U.S. presbyteries must approve it. Two years ago — after years of efforts by supporters — a similar measure was sent out to presbyteries but died when 94 of them voted against it.
Both of Thursday's votes were close. Fifty-one percent of delegates voted to shelve the proposal to redefine marriage as being between "two people" instead of between "a man and a woman," just hours after 53 percent of them voted to allow non-celibate gays in committed relationships to serve as clergy.
On Friday, delegates voted down a motion to reconsider the marriage vote. It needed a two-thirds majority to come back to the floor and got just 40 percent. Gay rights supporters must wait two years until the next general assembly for another shot.
Several major Christian denominations have voted in recent years to allow non-celibate gays to serve as clergy if they are in committed relationships. Among them are the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the U.S. Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ.
Fewer major U.S. denominations have taken the step of fully endorsing gay marriage. Only two, the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, have explicitly allowed it.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Presbyterian leaders OK gay, lesbian clergy, shelve same-sex marriage proposal" by Jean Hopfensperger and Mary Lynn Smith, Star Tribune (Minneapolis) 7/9/10
The late-night decision to table the proposal [to redefine marriage] and subject it to two more years of study caught many delegates at the denomination's gathering at the Minneapolis Convention Center by surprise, and there was a stunned silence as delegates absorbed the action.
Had the marriage measure passed, it, too would have had to be approved by the presbyteries.
Hours before the surprise shelving of the marriage measure, the assembly approved changing the denomination's ordination policy to make noncelibate gays and lesbians eligible to become clergy. The vote was 373-323.
It was the fourth time the assembly had approved such a change. The previous times, it was rejected by district leaders. Church leaders believe it has a better chance of meeting district approval this time.
Presbyterian ministers currently are permitted to perform ceremonial blessings of same-sex couples, but nothing more.
A group called Presbyterians for Renewal . . . opposed changes. Its website states: "Blurring or obscuring the clear teaching of God's Word in order to keep in step with secular laws and changing personal morals only confuses our witness and causes innumerable problems for the future."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Pro-life Speech Limits Sought by Congress
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) have reintroduced legislation to restrict the speech of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers by regulating the advertising they do.
-- From "CPC 'Truth in Advertising' Legislation Introduced" posted at Ms. Magazine 7/1/10
Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) introduced a bill yesterday that would regulate the misleading advertising practices of Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs). The Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women's Services Act would require the Federal Trade Commission to create and enforce rules to prohibit CPCs' deceptive advertising practices, such as advertising under the term "abortion services." The act expressly defines abortion services to mean "providing surgical and non-surgical procedures to terminate a pregnancy, or providing referrals for such procedures."
Maloney first introduced the Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women's Services Act in 2006. The current bill has 11 co-sponsors in the House. On the state and local levels, similar laws have been referred to as "truth in advertising laws."
Currently, there are an estimated 3,500 CPCs nationwide, most of which are affiliated with one or more national umbrella organizations. CPCs pose as legitimate health centers and offer "free" pregnancy tests. Some CPCs coerce and intimidate women out of considering abortion as an option, and prevent women from receiving neutral and comprehensive medical advice. These clinics are typically run by anti-abortion volunteers who are not licensed medical professionals.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Rep. Maloney and Sen. Menendez Introduce Bill to Restrict Speech of Pro-Life Crisis Pregnancy Centers by Controlling Their Advertising" by Penny Starr, CNSNews Senior Staff Writer 7/9/10
But critics claim the “Stop Deceptive Advertising in Women’s Services Act,” first introduced in 2007, is itself deceptive and is designed to limit the access women have to organizations that provide alternatives to abortion, including adoption services and free parenting support, such as housing, job training, and parenting classes.
“This bill is not at all what it sounds like,” said Joe Young, vice president of Heartbeat International, an association of 1,100 pregnancy-help centers, maternity homes, non-profit adoption agencies, medical clinics and abortion recovery programs in 50 countries.
“Pregnancy centers are reducing the number of abortion sales, and this aggravates the abortion industry,” said Young. “A more accurate name for this bill might be ‘Stop Alternatives to Abortion Advertising to Pay Back the Abortion Industry Act.’”
“Without any financial gain, Heartbeat International affiliates offer alternatives to abortion, providing the emotional support and practical help needed to sustain a healthy pregnancy,” Young said in a statement about the proposed law. “The pregnancy help movement is dedicated to protecting women, protecting maternal health and protecting child well-being.”
NARAL and other pro-abortion groups back the Maloney-Menendez bill, which would make federal law a longtime campaign by NARAL and similar groups to discredit pregnancy resource centers and the work they do for women.
The Web site of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America describes the pregnancy resource centers as “fake clinics.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "CPC 'Truth in Advertising' Legislation Introduced" posted at Ms. Magazine 7/1/10
Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) introduced a bill yesterday that would regulate the misleading advertising practices of Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs). The Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women's Services Act would require the Federal Trade Commission to create and enforce rules to prohibit CPCs' deceptive advertising practices, such as advertising under the term "abortion services." The act expressly defines abortion services to mean "providing surgical and non-surgical procedures to terminate a pregnancy, or providing referrals for such procedures."
Maloney first introduced the Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women's Services Act in 2006. The current bill has 11 co-sponsors in the House. On the state and local levels, similar laws have been referred to as "truth in advertising laws."
Currently, there are an estimated 3,500 CPCs nationwide, most of which are affiliated with one or more national umbrella organizations. CPCs pose as legitimate health centers and offer "free" pregnancy tests. Some CPCs coerce and intimidate women out of considering abortion as an option, and prevent women from receiving neutral and comprehensive medical advice. These clinics are typically run by anti-abortion volunteers who are not licensed medical professionals.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Rep. Maloney and Sen. Menendez Introduce Bill to Restrict Speech of Pro-Life Crisis Pregnancy Centers by Controlling Their Advertising" by Penny Starr, CNSNews Senior Staff Writer 7/9/10
But critics claim the “Stop Deceptive Advertising in Women’s Services Act,” first introduced in 2007, is itself deceptive and is designed to limit the access women have to organizations that provide alternatives to abortion, including adoption services and free parenting support, such as housing, job training, and parenting classes.
“This bill is not at all what it sounds like,” said Joe Young, vice president of Heartbeat International, an association of 1,100 pregnancy-help centers, maternity homes, non-profit adoption agencies, medical clinics and abortion recovery programs in 50 countries.
“Pregnancy centers are reducing the number of abortion sales, and this aggravates the abortion industry,” said Young. “A more accurate name for this bill might be ‘Stop Alternatives to Abortion Advertising to Pay Back the Abortion Industry Act.’”
“Without any financial gain, Heartbeat International affiliates offer alternatives to abortion, providing the emotional support and practical help needed to sustain a healthy pregnancy,” Young said in a statement about the proposed law. “The pregnancy help movement is dedicated to protecting women, protecting maternal health and protecting child well-being.”
NARAL and other pro-abortion groups back the Maloney-Menendez bill, which would make federal law a longtime campaign by NARAL and similar groups to discredit pregnancy resource centers and the work they do for women.
The Web site of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America describes the pregnancy resource centers as “fake clinics.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Thursday, July 08, 2010
Traditional Marriage Law Unconstitutional: Federal Judge on DOMA
A U.S. judge in Boston has ruled that a federal gay marriage ban is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage.
UPDATE 5/31/12: Defense of Marriage Act heads to US Supreme Court
-- From "Federal gay marriage ban is ruled unconstitutional" by Denise Lavoie, Associated Press 7/8/10
U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro on Thursday ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA.
The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.
Tauro agreed, and said the act forces Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens. The act "plainly encroaches" upon the right of the state to determine marriage, Tauro said in his ruling on a lawsuit filed by state Attorney General Martha Coakley.
In a ruling in a separate case filed by Gays & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Tauro ruled the act violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "U.S. Judge Finds Defense of Marriage Act Invalid" by Andrew M. Harris, Bloomberg 7/8/10
The marriage-defining act, popularly known as DoMA, was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996. As of 2003, it affected 1,138 federal programs in which marital status was a factor in eligibility for benefits, the judge said, citing a 2004 report by the federal government.
Tracy Schmaler, a U.S. Justice Department spokeswoman, said in an e-mail that officials are reviewing the decision.
The state’s case is Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, 09-cv-11156, and the couples’ case is Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, 09-cv-10309, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts (Boston).
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Judge Topples U.S. Rejection of Gay Unions" By Abby Goodnough And John Schwartz, New York Times 7/8/10
Although legal experts disagreed over how the rulings would fare on appeal, the judge’s decisions were nonetheless sure to further inflame the nationwide debate over same-sex marriage and gay rights.
Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, said federal officials were reviewing the decision and had no further comment. But lawyers for the plaintiffs said they fully expected the Obama administration to appeal. An appeal would be heard by the First Circuit, which also includes Rhode Island, Maine and New Hampshire.
. . . Neither suit challenged a separate provision of the Defense of Marriage Act that says states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. But if the cases make their way to the Supreme Court and are upheld, same-sex couples around the country will be eligible for federal benefits that are now granted only to heterosexual married couples.
Some constitutional scholars said they were surprised by Judge Tauro’s opinions in the two cases.
“What an amazing set of opinions,” said Jack Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School. “No chance they’ll be held up on appeal.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read this from February 2009: Federal Defense of Marriage Act DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional
UPDATE 5/31/12: Defense of Marriage Act heads to US Supreme Court
-- From "Federal gay marriage ban is ruled unconstitutional" by Denise Lavoie, Associated Press 7/8/10
U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro on Thursday ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA.
The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.
Tauro agreed, and said the act forces Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens. The act "plainly encroaches" upon the right of the state to determine marriage, Tauro said in his ruling on a lawsuit filed by state Attorney General Martha Coakley.
In a ruling in a separate case filed by Gays & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Tauro ruled the act violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "U.S. Judge Finds Defense of Marriage Act Invalid" by Andrew M. Harris, Bloomberg 7/8/10
The marriage-defining act, popularly known as DoMA, was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996. As of 2003, it affected 1,138 federal programs in which marital status was a factor in eligibility for benefits, the judge said, citing a 2004 report by the federal government.
Tracy Schmaler, a U.S. Justice Department spokeswoman, said in an e-mail that officials are reviewing the decision.
The state’s case is Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, 09-cv-11156, and the couples’ case is Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, 09-cv-10309, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts (Boston).
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Judge Topples U.S. Rejection of Gay Unions" By Abby Goodnough And John Schwartz, New York Times 7/8/10
Although legal experts disagreed over how the rulings would fare on appeal, the judge’s decisions were nonetheless sure to further inflame the nationwide debate over same-sex marriage and gay rights.
Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, said federal officials were reviewing the decision and had no further comment. But lawyers for the plaintiffs said they fully expected the Obama administration to appeal. An appeal would be heard by the First Circuit, which also includes Rhode Island, Maine and New Hampshire.
. . . Neither suit challenged a separate provision of the Defense of Marriage Act that says states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. But if the cases make their way to the Supreme Court and are upheld, same-sex couples around the country will be eligible for federal benefits that are now granted only to heterosexual married couples.
Some constitutional scholars said they were surprised by Judge Tauro’s opinions in the two cases.
“What an amazing set of opinions,” said Jack Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School. “No chance they’ll be held up on appeal.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read this from February 2009: Federal Defense of Marriage Act DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional
Evil & the Failure of The Church
"If I were the devil and I wanted to really ruin America, who would I subvert and attack? I would attack the churches, the schools and the news media."
-- From "Kupelian to CBN: Churches 'subverted, dumbed down'" © 2010 WorldNetDaily 7/7/10
[Author, David Kupelian interview excerpts:]
"The churches have very much fallen down on the job," responded Kupelian, who said they "have been subverted and dumbed down just like everything else: Our schools, our colleges, our major institutions have really been hurt, they've been subverted, they've lost their core message that they had, that really gave the great strength that America has had for all these years."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Kupelian to CBN: Churches 'subverted, dumbed down'" © 2010 WorldNetDaily 7/7/10
[Author, David Kupelian interview excerpts:]
"The churches have very much fallen down on the job," responded Kupelian, who said they "have been subverted and dumbed down just like everything else: Our schools, our colleges, our major institutions have really been hurt, they've been subverted, they've lost their core message that they had, that really gave the great strength that America has had for all these years."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)