“You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health and reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortions,” Clinton said Tuesday.
-- From "Hillary Clinton stirs the pot on Afghanistan, abortion and the Arctic" by Bruce Campion-Smith, Ottawa Bureau chief Toronto Star 3/30/10
[Secretary of State Clinton told] a Gatineau meeting of G8 foreign ministers that any initiative to improve maternal health – Ottawa’s signature global project this year – must include abortions, an option the Conservative government has tried to avoid.
It was just one more grenade in the lap of her shell-shocked Canadian hosts. In the eyes of some, the world’s most powerful diplomat turned in a sharp-elbowed performance during her two days in Canada.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Hillary Clinton’s Comments on ‘Legal, Safe Abortion’ Stir Canadian Debate" by Patrick Goodenough, CNSNews.com International Editor 3/31/10
After a disclaimer that she would not speak for Canada, Clinton proceeded to lay out a position in opposition to that taken by conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government, linking maternal health promotion in poor countries to “access to legal, safe abortion.”
Earlier this year, Harper announced that Canada would place the promotion of maternal and child health in the developing world at the center of its leadership of the G8.
Harper’s announcement focused on needs such as clean water, inoculations, nutrition and the training of healthcare and maternity staff, but it quickly sparked a debate over whether the policy would, or should, include abortion and contraception.
The advocacy group Action Canada for Population and Development launched a campaign pressing for the G8 initiative to include “a commitment to sexual and reproductive health care and services and family planning.”
On March 16, Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon declared that the maternal and child health initiative “does not deal in any way, shape or form with family planning. Indeed, the purpose of this is to be able to save lives.”
His comments set off a storm of controversy, and Harper two days later conceded that the policy would not exclude contraception. But he said his Conservative Party government did not wish to open a debate on abortion.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Baltimore Targets Catholic Pro-life Centers - Archdiocese Sues
The Archdiocese of Baltimore filed a federal lawsuit against the city Monday, saying a first-in-the-nation ordinance regulating pregnancy counseling centers violates the rights of church members to freedom of speech and religion.
UPDATE 4/2/10: Austin Texas considers same discriminatory signage
-- From "Archdiocese sues city over pregnancy counseling notice" By Brent Jones, Baltimore Sun 3/30/10
Archbishop Edwin F. O'Brien said the law, which took effect in January, "is hurting the good people volunteering and giving so much of their resources to come to the help of pregnant women." It requires the centers, some of which are supported by the Catholic Church, to post signs stating that they do not refer women for abortion or birth control.
But proponents - including Mayor Stephanie C. Rawlings-Blake, who sponsored the bill last year as president of the City Council - have described the requirement as a matter of public health. A spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of Maryland, which has accused the centers of giving women misleading information about the risks of abortion and birth control, called the law "just responsible policy."
Officials at the counseling centers say staff members provide accurate information. Lawyers for the archdiocese, who filed the suit in the U.S. District Court in Baltimore, say the ordinance unfairly targets four centers that provide needed support and assistance to women and children.
Mark Graber, professor of law and government at the University of Maryland School of Law, said the law appears to favor the city. He said the Supreme Court has made it clear that advertising does not have the same protections as political speech.
Thomas J. Schetelich, chairman of the board for the Center for Pregnancy Concerns, said that the ordinance singles out the Catholic Church for its anti-abortion stance. The nonprofit, anti-abortion organization receives donations from religious groups supporting women who plan to take their pregnancies to term and operates three of the four local centers.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 4/2/10: Austin Texas considers same discriminatory signage
-- From "Archdiocese sues city over pregnancy counseling notice" By Brent Jones, Baltimore Sun 3/30/10
Archbishop Edwin F. O'Brien said the law, which took effect in January, "is hurting the good people volunteering and giving so much of their resources to come to the help of pregnant women." It requires the centers, some of which are supported by the Catholic Church, to post signs stating that they do not refer women for abortion or birth control.
But proponents - including Mayor Stephanie C. Rawlings-Blake, who sponsored the bill last year as president of the City Council - have described the requirement as a matter of public health. A spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of Maryland, which has accused the centers of giving women misleading information about the risks of abortion and birth control, called the law "just responsible policy."
Officials at the counseling centers say staff members provide accurate information. Lawyers for the archdiocese, who filed the suit in the U.S. District Court in Baltimore, say the ordinance unfairly targets four centers that provide needed support and assistance to women and children.
Mark Graber, professor of law and government at the University of Maryland School of Law, said the law appears to favor the city. He said the Supreme Court has made it clear that advertising does not have the same protections as political speech.
Thomas J. Schetelich, chairman of the board for the Center for Pregnancy Concerns, said that the ordinance singles out the Catholic Church for its anti-abortion stance. The nonprofit, anti-abortion organization receives donations from religious groups supporting women who plan to take their pregnancies to term and operates three of the four local centers.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Unemployed? Sell your kidney for $100,000
Paying people for living kidney donations would increase the supply of the organs and would not result in a disproportionate number of poor donors [?!?], a study by researchers from the University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center concludes.
-- From "Study: People would donate kidneys for payment" by Katharine Lackey, The News Leader (posted at USA TODAY) 3/30/10
The study, published this month in the Annals of Internal Medicine, asked 342 participants whether they would donate a kidney with varying payments of $0, $10,000 and $100,000. The study called for a real-world test of a regulated payment system.
The possibility of payments nearly doubled the number of participants in the study who said they would donate a kidney to a stranger, but it did not influence those with lower income levels more than those with higher incomes, according to Scott Halpern, one of the study's authors and senior fellow at the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Bioethics.
Though it is illegal to buy or sell any organ in the USA, payments are accepted for those who become surrogate mothers, donate eggs or participate in clinical research, Halpern says.
Lainie Ross, associate director of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics at the University of Chicago, says she feels the findings are flawed because interviews were done with participants waiting for a commuter train and thus left out poorer people who don't have jobs. "The buying and selling of organs will be exploitative because we will end up buying organs from very poor people," Ross says.
Last year, 6,475 people died while on the waiting list for an organ transplant, and 4,476 were waiting for a kidney transplant, according to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, part of the Health and Human Services Administration.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Study: People would donate kidneys for payment" by Katharine Lackey, The News Leader (posted at USA TODAY) 3/30/10
The study, published this month in the Annals of Internal Medicine, asked 342 participants whether they would donate a kidney with varying payments of $0, $10,000 and $100,000. The study called for a real-world test of a regulated payment system.
The possibility of payments nearly doubled the number of participants in the study who said they would donate a kidney to a stranger, but it did not influence those with lower income levels more than those with higher incomes, according to Scott Halpern, one of the study's authors and senior fellow at the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Bioethics.
Though it is illegal to buy or sell any organ in the USA, payments are accepted for those who become surrogate mothers, donate eggs or participate in clinical research, Halpern says.
Lainie Ross, associate director of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics at the University of Chicago, says she feels the findings are flawed because interviews were done with participants waiting for a commuter train and thus left out poorer people who don't have jobs. "The buying and selling of organs will be exploitative because we will end up buying organs from very poor people," Ross says.
Last year, 6,475 people died while on the waiting list for an organ transplant, and 4,476 were waiting for a kidney transplant, according to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, part of the Health and Human Services Administration.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Students Want Christ De-linked from Calendar
The 'diversity police' at San Antonio's Trinity University don't like diplomas that include the phrase 'In the Year of Our Lord' because it could evoke Jesus Christ.
-- From "Students want ‘Our Lord' phrase off diplomas" by Melissa Ludwig, San Antonio Express-News 3/29/10
[Sidra Qureshi, president of Trinity Diversity Connection,] who is Muslim, has led the charge to tweak the wording, winning support from student government and a campus commencement committee. Trustees are expected to consider the students' request at a May board meeting.
Other students and President Dennis Ahlburg have defended the wording, arguing that references to the school's Presbyterian roots are appropriate and unobtrusive.
Founded by Presbyterians in 1869, Trinity has been governed by an independent board of trustees since 1969 but maintains a “covenant relationship” with the church.
The debate started last year when Isaac Medina, a Muslim convert from Guadalajara, Mexico, noticed the wording while looking at pre-made diploma frames in the Trinity bookstore. When Medina applied to Trinity, university staff told him it wasn't a religious institution and that it maintained only a historical bond to the Presbyterian Church.
At first, Qureshi and Medina sought a change only for students who desired it. But university staff told them the school would not print custom diplomas, so they requested dropping the words “Our Lord” from all diplomas issued.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Students want ‘Our Lord' phrase off diplomas" by Melissa Ludwig, San Antonio Express-News 3/29/10
[Sidra Qureshi, president of Trinity Diversity Connection,] who is Muslim, has led the charge to tweak the wording, winning support from student government and a campus commencement committee. Trustees are expected to consider the students' request at a May board meeting.
Other students and President Dennis Ahlburg have defended the wording, arguing that references to the school's Presbyterian roots are appropriate and unobtrusive.
Founded by Presbyterians in 1869, Trinity has been governed by an independent board of trustees since 1969 but maintains a “covenant relationship” with the church.
The debate started last year when Isaac Medina, a Muslim convert from Guadalajara, Mexico, noticed the wording while looking at pre-made diploma frames in the Trinity bookstore. When Medina applied to Trinity, university staff told him it wasn't a religious institution and that it maintained only a historical bond to the Presbyterian Church.
At first, Qureshi and Medina sought a change only for students who desired it. But university staff told them the school would not print custom diplomas, so they requested dropping the words “Our Lord” from all diplomas issued.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Christ Deleted from Davenport, Iowa
"My phone has been ringing off the hook since Saturday," said city council alderman Bill Edmond. "People are genuinely upset because this is nothing but political correctness run amok."
-- From "Iowa Town Renames Good Friday to 'Spring Holiday'" by Russell Goldman, ABC News 3/29/10
One week before the most solemn day in the Christian year, the city of Davenport, Iowa removed Good Friday from its municipal calendar, setting off a storm of complaints from Christians and union members whose contracts give them that day off.
Taking a recommendation by the Davenport Civil Rights Commission to change the holiday's name to something more ecumenical, City Administrator Craig Malin sent a memo to municipal employees announcing Good Friday would officially be known as "Spring Holiday."
Edmond said the city administrator made the change unilaterally and did not bring it to the council for a vote, a requirement for a change in policy.
It didn't take long for the city the resurrect the name Good Friday. Malin was overruled today and the words "Spring Holiday" disappeared.
The Civil Rights Commission said it recommended changing the name to better reflect the city's diversity and maintain a separation of church and state when it came to official municipal holidays.
Davenport officials called the name change an "error."
"The City of Davenport will be observing "Good Friday" as a City Holiday on April 2," read a statement released today.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Iowa Town Renames Good Friday to 'Spring Holiday'" by Russell Goldman, ABC News 3/29/10
One week before the most solemn day in the Christian year, the city of Davenport, Iowa removed Good Friday from its municipal calendar, setting off a storm of complaints from Christians and union members whose contracts give them that day off.
Taking a recommendation by the Davenport Civil Rights Commission to change the holiday's name to something more ecumenical, City Administrator Craig Malin sent a memo to municipal employees announcing Good Friday would officially be known as "Spring Holiday."
Edmond said the city administrator made the change unilaterally and did not bring it to the council for a vote, a requirement for a change in policy.
It didn't take long for the city the resurrect the name Good Friday. Malin was overruled today and the words "Spring Holiday" disappeared.
The Civil Rights Commission said it recommended changing the name to better reflect the city's diversity and maintain a separation of church and state when it came to official municipal holidays.
Davenport officials called the name change an "error."
"The City of Davenport will be observing "Good Friday" as a City Holiday on April 2," read a statement released today.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Monday, March 29, 2010
States' Myriad New Laws Limiting Abortion
State legislatures across America are continuously advancing restrictions to abortion, including Georgia, South Carolina and Oklahoma.
-- From "Senate passes ban on race-based abortions" by Associated Press 3/26/10
After a lengthy and tense debate that included several personal pleas on both sides of the abortion question, the [Georgia] Senate approved a bill Friday that would make it a crime to perform an abortion on a woman based on the race of the parent or child or the child's gender.
The 33-14 vote broke down along party lines. Critics were disheartened by the decision, which they say does little to address the abortion rate disparity for women of color.
Sen. Chip Pearson, R-Dawsonville, says the proposal addresses the prevalence of gender- and race-based abortions in Georgia, especially among black women. The bill would make it illegal to coerce a woman into an abortion on those grounds.
The House has not yet taken up its version of the bill.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "S.C. Lawmakers Advance Abortion Bill" by Associated Press 3/24/10
Lawmakers have advanced a bill requiring women in South Carolina seeking an abortion to wait at least a day after getting an ultrasound or reviewing information on the procedure.
The measure would increase the wait time from one hour to one day. It had tied the clock to an ultrasound, but a compromise approved on Wednesday in the Senate removed that requirement.
The measure had stalled in the Senate for a year. The tweaked bill will return to the House.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Anti-abortion bills may be challenged" by Michael McNutt, NewsOK.com (The Oklahoman) 3/28/10
[Oklahoma] Lawmakers are . . . pursuing seven anti-abortion measures this legislative session . . .
House Speaker Chris Benge defended the measures, which have won easy approval and appear coasting toward final passage.
"Our motivation is the respect and sanctity of life in the womb,” said Benge, R-Tulsa. "We’ve been very vocal and out front about how important we think that is.
"I believe the value of life has been diminished (since abortion was made legal in 1973) and we’re going to try to do everything to restore the value of life,” Benge said. "We think we can do that through these legislative efforts.”
The seven measures earlier were included in two bills, each of which won legislative approval but were knocked out by the courts. Some slight modifications have been made in some of the bills, but they basically are the same and have the similar intent as the earlier measures.
Five measures were part of a bill that won legislative approval in 2008. The state Supreme Court earlier this month upheld an Oklahoma County judge’s decision who ruled it violated a requirement in the Oklahoma Constitution that legislation deal with a single subject.
Two measures were contained in a bill passed last year. An Oklahoma County judge ruled last month it also was unconstitutional because it violated the state constitution’s single-subject rule.
The Center for Reproductive Rights filed lawsuits against both bills.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Senate passes ban on race-based abortions" by Associated Press 3/26/10
After a lengthy and tense debate that included several personal pleas on both sides of the abortion question, the [Georgia] Senate approved a bill Friday that would make it a crime to perform an abortion on a woman based on the race of the parent or child or the child's gender.
The 33-14 vote broke down along party lines. Critics were disheartened by the decision, which they say does little to address the abortion rate disparity for women of color.
Sen. Chip Pearson, R-Dawsonville, says the proposal addresses the prevalence of gender- and race-based abortions in Georgia, especially among black women. The bill would make it illegal to coerce a woman into an abortion on those grounds.
The House has not yet taken up its version of the bill.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "S.C. Lawmakers Advance Abortion Bill" by Associated Press 3/24/10
Lawmakers have advanced a bill requiring women in South Carolina seeking an abortion to wait at least a day after getting an ultrasound or reviewing information on the procedure.
The measure would increase the wait time from one hour to one day. It had tied the clock to an ultrasound, but a compromise approved on Wednesday in the Senate removed that requirement.
The measure had stalled in the Senate for a year. The tweaked bill will return to the House.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Anti-abortion bills may be challenged" by Michael McNutt, NewsOK.com (The Oklahoman) 3/28/10
[Oklahoma] Lawmakers are . . . pursuing seven anti-abortion measures this legislative session . . .
House Speaker Chris Benge defended the measures, which have won easy approval and appear coasting toward final passage.
"Our motivation is the respect and sanctity of life in the womb,” said Benge, R-Tulsa. "We’ve been very vocal and out front about how important we think that is.
"I believe the value of life has been diminished (since abortion was made legal in 1973) and we’re going to try to do everything to restore the value of life,” Benge said. "We think we can do that through these legislative efforts.”
The seven measures earlier were included in two bills, each of which won legislative approval but were knocked out by the courts. Some slight modifications have been made in some of the bills, but they basically are the same and have the similar intent as the earlier measures.
Five measures were part of a bill that won legislative approval in 2008. The state Supreme Court earlier this month upheld an Oklahoma County judge’s decision who ruled it violated a requirement in the Oklahoma Constitution that legislation deal with a single subject.
Two measures were contained in a bill passed last year. An Oklahoma County judge ruled last month it also was unconstitutional because it violated the state constitution’s single-subject rule.
The Center for Reproductive Rights filed lawsuits against both bills.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Human Egg Market Hot for Smart Babes
Fertility customers run ads offering tens of thousands of dollars for young women egg donors with the right genes, looks, talent and SAT scores
UPDATE 5/11/10: ABC News report
-- From "Yes, top students reap rich rewards, even as egg donors" by Stephanie Ebbert, Boston Globe Staff 3/26/10
The Harvard Crimson was one of three college newspapers that ran an identical classified ad seeking a woman who fit a narrow profile: younger than 29 with a GPA over 3.5 and an SAT score over 1,400. The lucky candidate stood to collect $35,000 if she donated her eggs for harvesting.
The ad was one of 105 college newspaper ads examined by a Georgia Institute of Technology researcher who issued a report yesterday that appeared to confirm the long-held suspicion that couples who are unable to have children of their own are willing to pay more for reproductive help from someone smart. The analysis showed that higher payments offered to egg donors correlated with higher SAT scores.
Anecdotal reports have long depicted eager prospective parents willing to pay outrageous sums for carefully screened donors of sperm or eggs, and stories of parents offering tens of thousands of dollars for eggs from geniuses or extraordinarly talented musicians pop up regularly.
The stories have alarmed some medical professionals and raised ethical questions. Concerned about eggs being treated as commodities, and worried that big financial rewards could entice women to ignore the risks of the rigorous procedures required for harvesting, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine discourages compensation based on donors’ personal characteristics. The society also discourages any payments over $10,000.
Fertility clinics are required by federal law to report their pregnancy success rate but not what donors are paid. Agencies involved in donations say they are not purchasing eggs but compensating donors for their time and the ordeal they must undergo.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 5/11/10: ABC News report
-- From "Yes, top students reap rich rewards, even as egg donors" by Stephanie Ebbert, Boston Globe Staff 3/26/10
The Harvard Crimson was one of three college newspapers that ran an identical classified ad seeking a woman who fit a narrow profile: younger than 29 with a GPA over 3.5 and an SAT score over 1,400. The lucky candidate stood to collect $35,000 if she donated her eggs for harvesting.
The ad was one of 105 college newspaper ads examined by a Georgia Institute of Technology researcher who issued a report yesterday that appeared to confirm the long-held suspicion that couples who are unable to have children of their own are willing to pay more for reproductive help from someone smart. The analysis showed that higher payments offered to egg donors correlated with higher SAT scores.
Anecdotal reports have long depicted eager prospective parents willing to pay outrageous sums for carefully screened donors of sperm or eggs, and stories of parents offering tens of thousands of dollars for eggs from geniuses or extraordinarly talented musicians pop up regularly.
The stories have alarmed some medical professionals and raised ethical questions. Concerned about eggs being treated as commodities, and worried that big financial rewards could entice women to ignore the risks of the rigorous procedures required for harvesting, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine discourages compensation based on donors’ personal characteristics. The society also discourages any payments over $10,000.
Fertility clinics are required by federal law to report their pregnancy success rate but not what donors are paid. Agencies involved in donations say they are not purchasing eggs but compensating donors for their time and the ordeal they must undergo.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
D.C. Homosexualist 'Pastor' Dares Methodist Church to Defrock Her
A new [Washington] D.C. law means the Rev. Mary Kay Totty can now marry same-sex couples. But in the United Methodist Church, the denomination that ordained Totty two decades ago, the act could get her defrocked.
-- From "Local Methodist Church to Hold Same-sex Weddings" producer: Erin Gibson, WJLA ABC TV-7 3/11/10
A local methodist church has decided to go against the teachings of its own denomination by officiating same-sex weddings.
Dumbarton United Methodist Church is the oldest Methodist church in D.C., but has decided to add something new: same-sex weddings.
"We celebrate that and we will treat all couples equally who seek to be married in our church," said Rev. Mary Kay Totty.
Totty [age: 46] says she knows she's breaking that church law.
"We will celebrate love and loyalty wherever it's found. And love and loyalty are the same, whether it's shared between a man and a woman or two men and two women," the reverend said.
The conference that oversees Dumbarton says that if Rev. Totty actually performs a same-sex wedding at the church she will be called to answer charges against a panel of other pastors and they will decide her fate, which could include nothing or stripping her of her duties as a minister.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Clergy torn over church, civil loyalties over same-sex Marriage" by Daniel Burke, posted at Washington Post 3/27/10
"The institutional church has for so many years oppressed and excluded and harmed our [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] sisters and brothers," Totty said. "We have to say: 'Enough already. These are people's lives and loves that we continue to exclude from the fullness of life in the church.'"
Nineteen other current and former United Methodist clergy in the District have signed a statement supporting Totty and Dumbarton UMC, the small, liberal congregation that she has pastored since July. Many others campaigned to legalize same-sex marriage in the city. But only Totty has been willing to put her job on the line.
As gay rights spread through civil society, an increasing number of clergy are . . . caught by conflicting loyalties, forced to choose between church law and civil law in pastoring to their gay and lesbian congregants.
In the Presbyterian Church (USA), for example, the Rev. Jane Spahr was brought up on church charges this month for marrying a lesbian couple in California in 2008, when it was briefly legal in the state. Church courts in the 2.3 million-member PCUSA have ruled against pastors who presumed to marry same-sex couples, though "blessing" such unions is allowed.
In the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the nation's largest Lutheran denomination, the conflict is not between church and civil laws, but within the church itself. One policy, reaffirmed in 2005, says there is "no basis" in Scripture or tradition for establishing rites for blessing gay couples. Last summer, though, the ELCA voted to commit to "finding ways to allow congregations" to recognize same-sex partnerships.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Local Methodist Church to Hold Same-sex Weddings" producer: Erin Gibson, WJLA ABC TV-7 3/11/10
A local methodist church has decided to go against the teachings of its own denomination by officiating same-sex weddings.
Dumbarton United Methodist Church is the oldest Methodist church in D.C., but has decided to add something new: same-sex weddings.
"We celebrate that and we will treat all couples equally who seek to be married in our church," said Rev. Mary Kay Totty.
Totty [age: 46] says she knows she's breaking that church law.
"We will celebrate love and loyalty wherever it's found. And love and loyalty are the same, whether it's shared between a man and a woman or two men and two women," the reverend said.
The conference that oversees Dumbarton says that if Rev. Totty actually performs a same-sex wedding at the church she will be called to answer charges against a panel of other pastors and they will decide her fate, which could include nothing or stripping her of her duties as a minister.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Clergy torn over church, civil loyalties over same-sex Marriage" by Daniel Burke, posted at Washington Post 3/27/10
"The institutional church has for so many years oppressed and excluded and harmed our [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] sisters and brothers," Totty said. "We have to say: 'Enough already. These are people's lives and loves that we continue to exclude from the fullness of life in the church.'"
Nineteen other current and former United Methodist clergy in the District have signed a statement supporting Totty and Dumbarton UMC, the small, liberal congregation that she has pastored since July. Many others campaigned to legalize same-sex marriage in the city. But only Totty has been willing to put her job on the line.
As gay rights spread through civil society, an increasing number of clergy are . . . caught by conflicting loyalties, forced to choose between church law and civil law in pastoring to their gay and lesbian congregants.
In the Presbyterian Church (USA), for example, the Rev. Jane Spahr was brought up on church charges this month for marrying a lesbian couple in California in 2008, when it was briefly legal in the state. Church courts in the 2.3 million-member PCUSA have ruled against pastors who presumed to marry same-sex couples, though "blessing" such unions is allowed.
In the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the nation's largest Lutheran denomination, the conflict is not between church and civil laws, but within the church itself. One policy, reaffirmed in 2005, says there is "no basis" in Scripture or tradition for establishing rites for blessing gay couples. Last summer, though, the ELCA voted to commit to "finding ways to allow congregations" to recognize same-sex partnerships.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
MI Grad Student Dismissed for Christian Beliefs
Judge advances lawsuit:
Julea Ward had nearly completed a graduate degree program in counseling at Eastern Michigan University (EMU) when she was dismissed for refusing to affirm homosexual behavior as morally acceptable and then refusing to enter a "remediation" program designed to demonstrate the "error of her ways."
UPDATE 12/10/12: Appeals court supports Christian graduate counseling student expelled from Eastern Michigan University
UPDATE 1/27/12: Cincinnati-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit overrules lower court; lawsuit will proceed
UPDATE 3/15/11: Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette has filed a brief in support of Julea Ward
UPDATE 7/29/10: Federal Judge OKs Christians Expelled over Morals
UPDATE 4/25/10: Video from ADF
-- From "Gay Rights and Anti-Gay Liberties" by Wendy Kaminer, Contributing Editor, The Atlantic 3/11/10
It should be stressed that Ward was not asserting a prerogative to counsel gay clients in spite of her views; instead, she was relying on the option of referring them to other therapists, and she had done so in a clinical program. Still, she was dismissed for violating EMU policies, which incorporated American Counseling Association ethical codes and included an obligation to "tolerate different points of view," as well as prohibitions on "unethical, threatening, or unprofessional conduct" or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, (among other characteristics, including religious belief).
. . . The conviction that some beliefs (and the people who harbor them) are more worthy of protection and respect than others helps explain . . . dismissal of Julea Ward [who was] accused of violating rules established by private professional associations. State agencies adopt these rules voluntarily and must enforce them in accordance with constitutional guarantees of free speech. But Alliance Defense Fund attorneys claim that they're beginning to see a spate of cases involving complaints to state boards against counseling professionals who consider homosexuality immoral. They cite a complaint filed (unsuccessfully) against Texas therapist whose name appeared on the website of Exodus International, a Christian ministry devoted to "healing" and re-programming gays and lesbians: "We believe that God wants to heal homosexuals through His church. Our goal is to equip you for that task!"
Are therapists who offer their services through Exodus International and similar organizations unqualified to practice their professions? Should they be denied state licenses? . . . it is not the prerogative of the state to withhold or withdraw licenses from people on the basis of their religious beliefs, except in extraordinary cases, for compelling reasons: a teacher whose religious beliefs prevent her from teaching girls or gay students or ethnic minorities should not be licensed to teach in public schools.
. . . Julea Ward was not accused of misconduct either, and she had complied with policies directing counselors whose values conflicted with prospective clients to refer the clients elsewhere. She was dismissed from EMU for mis-belief.
Click here to read the entire opinion above, by Wendy Kaminer, author, lawyer and civil libertarian.
From "Judge advances student's lawsuit against school" © 2010 WorldNetDaily 3/27/10
A federal judge will allow to continue a lawsuit by a former student against a long list of university officials who tossed her out of a graduate counseling program after she said her Christian beliefs would not allow her to affirm homosexual behavior.
She sued following "disciplinary proceedings" that resulted from her request that a training class "client" be referred to another student because she could not counsel him concerning his homosexual relationship, according to the Alliance Defense Fund Center for Academic Freedom.
When the case was filed, WND called president Susan W. Martin's office for comment and was referred to a media relations office. A statement release later by Pam Young, director of communications at EMU, did not address the student's dismissal.
Young said, "Although Eastern Michigan University does not comment on pending litigation, we are a diverse campus with a strong commitment not to discriminate on the basis of gender, race, disability, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression."
Ward was dismissed from the program March 12, 2009, and the dean of the college of education affirmed the decision on March 26, according to the ADF.
The court's decision, written by U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh, said, "Ward has sufficiently [pled] and come forward with evidence that EMU defendants' act of dismissing Ward violated First and Fourteenth Amendment rights so clearly established that a reasonable official in their position would have clearly understood that they were under an affirmative duty to refrain from such conduct."
The judge said there are "genuine issues of material fact" about the school's "true motivations" for dismissing Ward from the program. Further, the judge concluded, the student's actions to avoid in advance a counseling session for which she had reservations probably actually followed professional ethical guidelines, instead of breaking them as the school accused.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Julea Ward had nearly completed a graduate degree program in counseling at Eastern Michigan University (EMU) when she was dismissed for refusing to affirm homosexual behavior as morally acceptable and then refusing to enter a "remediation" program designed to demonstrate the "error of her ways."
UPDATE 12/10/12: Appeals court supports Christian graduate counseling student expelled from Eastern Michigan University
UPDATE 1/27/12: Cincinnati-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit overrules lower court; lawsuit will proceed
UPDATE 3/15/11: Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette has filed a brief in support of Julea Ward
UPDATE 7/29/10: Federal Judge OKs Christians Expelled over Morals
UPDATE 4/25/10: Video from ADF
-- From "Gay Rights and Anti-Gay Liberties" by Wendy Kaminer, Contributing Editor, The Atlantic 3/11/10
It should be stressed that Ward was not asserting a prerogative to counsel gay clients in spite of her views; instead, she was relying on the option of referring them to other therapists, and she had done so in a clinical program. Still, she was dismissed for violating EMU policies, which incorporated American Counseling Association ethical codes and included an obligation to "tolerate different points of view," as well as prohibitions on "unethical, threatening, or unprofessional conduct" or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, (among other characteristics, including religious belief).
. . . The conviction that some beliefs (and the people who harbor them) are more worthy of protection and respect than others helps explain . . . dismissal of Julea Ward [who was] accused of violating rules established by private professional associations. State agencies adopt these rules voluntarily and must enforce them in accordance with constitutional guarantees of free speech. But Alliance Defense Fund attorneys claim that they're beginning to see a spate of cases involving complaints to state boards against counseling professionals who consider homosexuality immoral. They cite a complaint filed (unsuccessfully) against Texas therapist whose name appeared on the website of Exodus International, a Christian ministry devoted to "healing" and re-programming gays and lesbians: "We believe that God wants to heal homosexuals through His church. Our goal is to equip you for that task!"
Are therapists who offer their services through Exodus International and similar organizations unqualified to practice their professions? Should they be denied state licenses? . . . it is not the prerogative of the state to withhold or withdraw licenses from people on the basis of their religious beliefs, except in extraordinary cases, for compelling reasons: a teacher whose religious beliefs prevent her from teaching girls or gay students or ethnic minorities should not be licensed to teach in public schools.
. . . Julea Ward was not accused of misconduct either, and she had complied with policies directing counselors whose values conflicted with prospective clients to refer the clients elsewhere. She was dismissed from EMU for mis-belief.
Click here to read the entire opinion above, by Wendy Kaminer, author, lawyer and civil libertarian.
From "Judge advances student's lawsuit against school" © 2010 WorldNetDaily 3/27/10
A federal judge will allow to continue a lawsuit by a former student against a long list of university officials who tossed her out of a graduate counseling program after she said her Christian beliefs would not allow her to affirm homosexual behavior.
She sued following "disciplinary proceedings" that resulted from her request that a training class "client" be referred to another student because she could not counsel him concerning his homosexual relationship, according to the Alliance Defense Fund Center for Academic Freedom.
When the case was filed, WND called president Susan W. Martin's office for comment and was referred to a media relations office. A statement release later by Pam Young, director of communications at EMU, did not address the student's dismissal.
Young said, "Although Eastern Michigan University does not comment on pending litigation, we are a diverse campus with a strong commitment not to discriminate on the basis of gender, race, disability, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression."
Ward was dismissed from the program March 12, 2009, and the dean of the college of education affirmed the decision on March 26, according to the ADF.
The court's decision, written by U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh, said, "Ward has sufficiently [pled] and come forward with evidence that EMU defendants' act of dismissing Ward violated First and Fourteenth Amendment rights so clearly established that a reasonable official in their position would have clearly understood that they were under an affirmative duty to refrain from such conduct."
The judge said there are "genuine issues of material fact" about the school's "true motivations" for dismissing Ward from the program. Further, the judge concluded, the student's actions to avoid in advance a counseling session for which she had reservations probably actually followed professional ethical guidelines, instead of breaking them as the school accused.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Planned Parenthood Loses to Illinois Pro-lifers
Pro-life advocates won major concessions from the city of Aurora [Illinois] to continue their pro-life witness and sidewalk counseling outside a Planned Parenthood facility, thus concluding their two year fight for their First Amendment rights.
UPDATE 3/31/10: Only ONE mainstream media article has been published on this pro-life court win
-- From "Pro-Life Protestors Win Key Demands From City of Aurora in Settlement" by Peter J. Smith, LifeSiteNews.com 3/25/10
Attorneys for the Thomas More Society, representing Fox Valley Families Against Planned Parenthood and the Pro-Life Action League, successfully settled with the city in federal court in Chicago on Thursday, voluntarily dismissing their First Amendment lawsuit filed in 2007 to protect the rights of citizens who pray and protest at the city’s Planned Parenthood facility, one of the largest abortion clinics in the United States.
Under the settlement’s agreements, the City of Aurora will amend two ordinances that the law firm claimed were unconstitutional, and mandate First Amendment and non-discriminatory law enforcement training for Aurora police. The settlement also establishes a grievance process to handle disputes between the protesters and Aurora officials.
The settlement guarantees that any street signs prohibiting “picketing or protesting” will be removed from the city. Pro-life individuals are guaranteed the right to use public sidewalks and parkways for peaceful prayer and protest.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Thomas More Society Settles Federal Lawsuit Against City of Aurora" posted by Stephanie Lewis, Christian Newswire 3/24/10
Some of the more detailed provisions of the settlement include:
Signs with Graphic Content: Graphic signs may be used in demonstrations, with appropriate warning signs displayed to alert passers-by.
Sidewalk Construction: To assure public safety, Aurora will take necessary steps to ensure a public sidewalk is constructed along the access road.
Case No. 07 C 4803 - Fox Valley Families Against Planned Parenthood, Pro-Life Action League, and Eric Scheidler v. The City of Aurora
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 3/31/10: Only ONE mainstream media article has been published on this pro-life court win
-- From "Pro-Life Protestors Win Key Demands From City of Aurora in Settlement" by Peter J. Smith, LifeSiteNews.com 3/25/10
Attorneys for the Thomas More Society, representing Fox Valley Families Against Planned Parenthood and the Pro-Life Action League, successfully settled with the city in federal court in Chicago on Thursday, voluntarily dismissing their First Amendment lawsuit filed in 2007 to protect the rights of citizens who pray and protest at the city’s Planned Parenthood facility, one of the largest abortion clinics in the United States.
Under the settlement’s agreements, the City of Aurora will amend two ordinances that the law firm claimed were unconstitutional, and mandate First Amendment and non-discriminatory law enforcement training for Aurora police. The settlement also establishes a grievance process to handle disputes between the protesters and Aurora officials.
The settlement guarantees that any street signs prohibiting “picketing or protesting” will be removed from the city. Pro-life individuals are guaranteed the right to use public sidewalks and parkways for peaceful prayer and protest.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Thomas More Society Settles Federal Lawsuit Against City of Aurora" posted by Stephanie Lewis, Christian Newswire 3/24/10
Some of the more detailed provisions of the settlement include:
Signs with Graphic Content: Graphic signs may be used in demonstrations, with appropriate warning signs displayed to alert passers-by.
Sidewalk Construction: To assure public safety, Aurora will take necessary steps to ensure a public sidewalk is constructed along the access road.
Case No. 07 C 4803 - Fox Valley Families Against Planned Parenthood, Pro-Life Action League, and Eric Scheidler v. The City of Aurora
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Obamanation: Same-sex 'Marriage' De facto in Military
As the Pentagon announces the path toward reversing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," defense spending will inevitably include homosexual partnership spousal benefits.
-- From "Would partners of gay troops get benefits, too?" by Kimberly Hefling, Associated Press 3/26/10
Momentum appears to be building for ending the ban on gays in the military. New rules ordered Thursday by Defense Secretary Robert Gates make it harder to discharge men and women under the policy known as "don't ask, don't tell." His decision is intended as a stopgap measure as Congress weighs whether to go along with President Barack Obama's request to repeal the law.
Since the draft ended in 1973, spousal benefits have increasingly been used as an incentive to recruit and retain an effective force. Today, more than half of all troops sport a wedding ring.
Benefits for married service members include college tuition for a spouse and the right of a spouse to be at a wounded service member's bedside. Spouses also have access to military health care and commissaries worldwide, and married service members receive better housing and even extra pay when they go to war.
The ticket to qualifying for those benefits is a marriage certificate. Heterosexual couples have a choice whether to marry, but same-sex marriages are legal in only five states and Washington, D.C. Whether same-sex partnerships would be recognized by the military and what benefits might be afforded gay couples would become issues if the ban were lifted.
Repealing the ban without offering same-sex partner benefits would be like telling gay service members they are equal but not giving them all the advantages of service, said Tiffany Belle, 33, of Long Beach, Calif., a lesbian and former sailor. "You're basically letting us be free being ourselves in the military, but then you're not letting us reap the benefits."
The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. Nathaniel Frank, a senior research fellow at the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, said it's unrealistic to think the military would be out front of the rest of the government in offering benefits to unmarried partners.
But, in addition to repealing "don't ask, don't tell," Obama has called for getting rid of the Defense of Marriage Act and has moved to extend some federal benefits to same-sex partners.
Obama has approved small changes in benefits available to same-sex couples who work for the federal government, such as visitation and dependent-care rights. The State Department extended benefits to gay diplomats, such as the right for their domestic partners to hold diplomatic passports and for paid travel to and from foreign posts.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Don't forget the Census legitimization of homosexuality.
From "Pentagon eases policy on gays, rebukes a general" by Julian E. Barnes, Los Angeles Times 3/26/10
. . . changes announced by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates will make it more difficult to expel gays.
It was the first big step of a yearlong process. For the rest of the year, a task force is to study what the military needs to do to repeal the ban. Discharges will continue under the law during the review.
Adm. Michael G. Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also took the unusual step of publicly chastising a three-star general for urging troops and their families to oppose the repeal.
Mullen said that remarks by Lt. Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon, the commander of U.S. Army forces in the Pacific who urged opposition in a letter to a newspaper, were "inappropriate."
In the weeks since, the leaders of the major military branches all have testified before Congress about the ban. While none endorsed repeal as explicitly as Mullen, only Gen. James T. Conway, the Marine Corps commandant, said it should stay in place.
However, senior military leaders were surprised by a letter to the editor earlier this month by Lt. Gen. Mixon.
In a letter to Stars and Stripes, a Pentagon-owned newspaper that is run independently, Mixon urged service members to write their elected officials and chain of command and oppose repeal.
"If there is a policy direction that someone in uniform disagrees with . . . you feel strongly about it, the answer is not advocacy, it is in fact to vote with your feet," Mullen said, suggesting Mixon ought to resign.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
(Shhh . . . the church is sleeping -- too many pastors are silent).
-- From "Would partners of gay troops get benefits, too?" by Kimberly Hefling, Associated Press 3/26/10
Momentum appears to be building for ending the ban on gays in the military. New rules ordered Thursday by Defense Secretary Robert Gates make it harder to discharge men and women under the policy known as "don't ask, don't tell." His decision is intended as a stopgap measure as Congress weighs whether to go along with President Barack Obama's request to repeal the law.
Since the draft ended in 1973, spousal benefits have increasingly been used as an incentive to recruit and retain an effective force. Today, more than half of all troops sport a wedding ring.
Benefits for married service members include college tuition for a spouse and the right of a spouse to be at a wounded service member's bedside. Spouses also have access to military health care and commissaries worldwide, and married service members receive better housing and even extra pay when they go to war.
The ticket to qualifying for those benefits is a marriage certificate. Heterosexual couples have a choice whether to marry, but same-sex marriages are legal in only five states and Washington, D.C. Whether same-sex partnerships would be recognized by the military and what benefits might be afforded gay couples would become issues if the ban were lifted.
Repealing the ban without offering same-sex partner benefits would be like telling gay service members they are equal but not giving them all the advantages of service, said Tiffany Belle, 33, of Long Beach, Calif., a lesbian and former sailor. "You're basically letting us be free being ourselves in the military, but then you're not letting us reap the benefits."
The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. Nathaniel Frank, a senior research fellow at the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, said it's unrealistic to think the military would be out front of the rest of the government in offering benefits to unmarried partners.
But, in addition to repealing "don't ask, don't tell," Obama has called for getting rid of the Defense of Marriage Act and has moved to extend some federal benefits to same-sex partners.
Obama has approved small changes in benefits available to same-sex couples who work for the federal government, such as visitation and dependent-care rights. The State Department extended benefits to gay diplomats, such as the right for their domestic partners to hold diplomatic passports and for paid travel to and from foreign posts.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Don't forget the Census legitimization of homosexuality.
From "Pentagon eases policy on gays, rebukes a general" by Julian E. Barnes, Los Angeles Times 3/26/10
. . . changes announced by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates will make it more difficult to expel gays.
It was the first big step of a yearlong process. For the rest of the year, a task force is to study what the military needs to do to repeal the ban. Discharges will continue under the law during the review.
Adm. Michael G. Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also took the unusual step of publicly chastising a three-star general for urging troops and their families to oppose the repeal.
Mullen said that remarks by Lt. Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon, the commander of U.S. Army forces in the Pacific who urged opposition in a letter to a newspaper, were "inappropriate."
In the weeks since, the leaders of the major military branches all have testified before Congress about the ban. While none endorsed repeal as explicitly as Mullen, only Gen. James T. Conway, the Marine Corps commandant, said it should stay in place.
However, senior military leaders were surprised by a letter to the editor earlier this month by Lt. Gen. Mixon.
In a letter to Stars and Stripes, a Pentagon-owned newspaper that is run independently, Mixon urged service members to write their elected officials and chain of command and oppose repeal.
"If there is a policy direction that someone in uniform disagrees with . . . you feel strongly about it, the answer is not advocacy, it is in fact to vote with your feet," Mullen said, suggesting Mixon ought to resign.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
(Shhh . . . the church is sleeping -- too many pastors are silent).
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Homosexualists Look to Judicial Activism for Same-sex 'Marriage'
The stage is being set for another court battle, by gay couples who sued New Jersey for the right to marry just two months after the state Senate turned down a bill to legalize same-sex marriage.
UPDATE 6/29/11: Seven homosexual couples sue to force state to recognize gay marriage
-- From "N.J.'s gay marriage debate: Back to court because lawmakers failed" by Star-Ledger Editorial Board 3/24/10
When the state Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that same-sex couples must have the same rights as heterosexual couples under New Jersey law, the justices ducked the obvious question: Can gays get married? They left that question to the state Legislature, which found another way to avoid it, passing a law that established civil unions. They’re just like marriages, the law essentially says, but with a different name.
Except they’re not, as testimony to a state commission showed: Civil union couples still have trouble being recognized as next-of-kin by employers when they seek benefits and by hospital officials when one partner is ill. Not surprisingly, this separate institution turns out to be unequal.
Former Gov. Jon Corzine recognized that and said he wanted to establish "marriage equality" in New Jersey — but calculated it was best to wait until after last year’s election. That turned out to be a strategic blunder: Once Corzine lost to Chris Christie, who opposed changing the law, support withered. Put to a vote in the state Senate, gay marriage lost 14-20.
So now, gay rights organizations are asking the state Supreme Court to reopen the case. If it does, the court could order formal hearings, gather testimony and evidence on problems with the civil union law and then decide, yes or no: Can gays get married?
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Gay Marriage Battle in N.J." by Leah Jones, Christian Web News 3/23/10
A motion was filed on Thursday on behalf of the plaintiffs in the original Lewis v. Harris lawsuit, which ended up in a New Jersey Supreme Court decision that forced the state to allow all the benefits of marriage to committed homosexual couples.
Gay rights activists insist that the civil union remedy enacted by the legislature has not fulfilled the guarantee of equality promised by the court's 2006 order, even though the ruling led to the legalization of civil unions for gay couples.
Hayley Gorenberg, deputy legal director at Lambda Legal, who filed suit Thursday on behalf of the Lewis v. Harris Plaintiffs, said “The New Jersey Supreme Court ordered for same-sex couples when it decided out marriage lawsuit in 2006, and the legislature has failed to meet that crystal-clear obligation.
New Jersey's Senate turned down the bill, by a 20-14 vote, to legalize gay marriage, leaving New Hampshire and Vermont as the only states to have approved of gay marriage legislatively.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 6/29/11: Seven homosexual couples sue to force state to recognize gay marriage
-- From "N.J.'s gay marriage debate: Back to court because lawmakers failed" by Star-Ledger Editorial Board 3/24/10
When the state Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that same-sex couples must have the same rights as heterosexual couples under New Jersey law, the justices ducked the obvious question: Can gays get married? They left that question to the state Legislature, which found another way to avoid it, passing a law that established civil unions. They’re just like marriages, the law essentially says, but with a different name.
Except they’re not, as testimony to a state commission showed: Civil union couples still have trouble being recognized as next-of-kin by employers when they seek benefits and by hospital officials when one partner is ill. Not surprisingly, this separate institution turns out to be unequal.
Former Gov. Jon Corzine recognized that and said he wanted to establish "marriage equality" in New Jersey — but calculated it was best to wait until after last year’s election. That turned out to be a strategic blunder: Once Corzine lost to Chris Christie, who opposed changing the law, support withered. Put to a vote in the state Senate, gay marriage lost 14-20.
So now, gay rights organizations are asking the state Supreme Court to reopen the case. If it does, the court could order formal hearings, gather testimony and evidence on problems with the civil union law and then decide, yes or no: Can gays get married?
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Gay Marriage Battle in N.J." by Leah Jones, Christian Web News 3/23/10
A motion was filed on Thursday on behalf of the plaintiffs in the original Lewis v. Harris lawsuit, which ended up in a New Jersey Supreme Court decision that forced the state to allow all the benefits of marriage to committed homosexual couples.
Gay rights activists insist that the civil union remedy enacted by the legislature has not fulfilled the guarantee of equality promised by the court's 2006 order, even though the ruling led to the legalization of civil unions for gay couples.
Hayley Gorenberg, deputy legal director at Lambda Legal, who filed suit Thursday on behalf of the Lewis v. Harris Plaintiffs, said “The New Jersey Supreme Court ordered for same-sex couples when it decided out marriage lawsuit in 2006, and the legislature has failed to meet that crystal-clear obligation.
New Jersey's Senate turned down the bill, by a 20-14 vote, to legalize gay marriage, leaving New Hampshire and Vermont as the only states to have approved of gay marriage legislatively.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
NY Christian in Jail for Praying at 'Gay Event'
A Christian who prayed in a public park with six other people is serving a nine-day jail sentence for disorderly conduct: praying silently while lying prostrate in the grass.
-- From "Gay Protester Case Headed to NY Court of Appeals" by Naveen Dhaliwal, WETM-TV Elmira-Corning, NY 3/2/10
The case of a protester, who disrupted a gay pride event almost three years ago, may now be heard by New York State's highest court.
The four gay pride protesters who were found guilty in the Elmira City Court in February of 2008 appealed their convictions. The case then went to the Chemung County Court where three of the convictions were dismissed. But the case of Julian Raven is now in the hands of the New York Court of Appeals.
On June 23rd 2007, the protestors were arrested after causing a disruption at the Southern Tier Gay Pride event.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Praying in park puts man in jail for 9 days" by Bob Unruh © 2010 WorldNetDaily 3/24/10
Julian Raven of Elmira, N.Y., said he was "surprised by police at his office," handcuffed and taken into custody this week, according to the Alliance Defense Fund, which is defending Raven.
Raven was arrested while praying in an Elmira public park during a 2007 "gay pride" event. His attorneys are waiting for a response from the New York Court of Appeals.
Originally seven people were arrested June 23, 2007, in Elmira's Wisner Park at a homosexual festival promoted by city officials as open to all. Four were convicted, but three of the convictions already have been overturned.
The Christians "made their way to an area in front of the stage and began to pray silently while lying prostrate in the grass. A police sergeant had earlier informed Julian Raven that he could not enter the public park, walk through the park, or talk to anyone in the park about his religion. After the group began to pray silently on their faces, all were arrested and charged with disorderly conduct," ADF reported.
Court records show Sgt. Sharon Moyer told Raven he could not disrupt the event.
So, ADF reported, he and the others "entered the event to pray silently for event participants and to share the Gospel with them."
"There was plenty of room in the park. No one was being turned away. They walked in silence. Neither the defendant nor anyone from the group bumped into anyone as they entered and they did not force others out of the way," ADF said.
They walked to a grassy area near the front, kneeled or laid down, and prayed.
"They chose this posture in order to be as non-threatening as possible," ADF said.
Moyer then arrested the seven and reported it was because of concern that the homosexual festival participants might react with hostility to the Christians.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Click here to read related article.
-- From "Gay Protester Case Headed to NY Court of Appeals" by Naveen Dhaliwal, WETM-TV Elmira-Corning, NY 3/2/10
The case of a protester, who disrupted a gay pride event almost three years ago, may now be heard by New York State's highest court.
The four gay pride protesters who were found guilty in the Elmira City Court in February of 2008 appealed their convictions. The case then went to the Chemung County Court where three of the convictions were dismissed. But the case of Julian Raven is now in the hands of the New York Court of Appeals.
On June 23rd 2007, the protestors were arrested after causing a disruption at the Southern Tier Gay Pride event.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Praying in park puts man in jail for 9 days" by Bob Unruh © 2010 WorldNetDaily 3/24/10
Julian Raven of Elmira, N.Y., said he was "surprised by police at his office," handcuffed and taken into custody this week, according to the Alliance Defense Fund, which is defending Raven.
Raven was arrested while praying in an Elmira public park during a 2007 "gay pride" event. His attorneys are waiting for a response from the New York Court of Appeals.
Originally seven people were arrested June 23, 2007, in Elmira's Wisner Park at a homosexual festival promoted by city officials as open to all. Four were convicted, but three of the convictions already have been overturned.
The Christians "made their way to an area in front of the stage and began to pray silently while lying prostrate in the grass. A police sergeant had earlier informed Julian Raven that he could not enter the public park, walk through the park, or talk to anyone in the park about his religion. After the group began to pray silently on their faces, all were arrested and charged with disorderly conduct," ADF reported.
Court records show Sgt. Sharon Moyer told Raven he could not disrupt the event.
So, ADF reported, he and the others "entered the event to pray silently for event participants and to share the Gospel with them."
"There was plenty of room in the park. No one was being turned away. They walked in silence. Neither the defendant nor anyone from the group bumped into anyone as they entered and they did not force others out of the way," ADF said.
They walked to a grassy area near the front, kneeled or laid down, and prayed.
"They chose this posture in order to be as non-threatening as possible," ADF said.
Moyer then arrested the seven and reported it was because of concern that the homosexual festival participants might react with hostility to the Christians.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Click here to read related article.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Washington School Arranges Secret Abortion
A Seattle mother is furious after learning that her 15-year-old daughter was sent by her school's health center for a secret abortion, reports ABC-affiliate KOMO.
UPDATE 3/28/10: Seattle Times editorial says "School did nothing wrong when they helped a pregnant student seeking an abortion"
UPDATE 3/25/10: Officials admit 'secret abortions' permitted by law; parents fooled by school 'fine print'
-- From "Mother furious after in-school clinic sets up daughter's abortion" by KOMO-TV staff posted at Seattle Post-Intelligencer 3/23/10
The mother of a Ballard High School student is fuming after the health center on campus helped facilitate her daughter's abortion during school hours.
The mother, whom KOMO News has chosen to identify only as "Jill," says the [Planned Parenthood] clinic kept the information "confidential."
When she signed a consent form, Jill figured it meant her 15-year-old could go to the Ballard Teen Health Center located inside the high school for an earache, a sports physical, even birth control, but not for help terminating a pregnancy.
Jill says her daughter, a pro-life advocate, was given a pass, put in a taxi and sent off to have an abortion during school hours, all without her family knowing.
The Seattle School District says it doesn't run the health clinics at high schools. Swedish Medical Center runs the clinic at Ballard High and protects the students' privacy.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Seattle Mom: School Sent My Daughter for Secret Abortion without Telling Me" by Patrick B. Craine, LifeSiteNews.com 3/24/10
"They just told her that if she concealed it from her family, that it would be free of charge and no financial responsibility," Jill said.
T.J. Cosgrove of the King County Health Department, which oversees the center, explained that Washington state does not recognize parents' opinions on such issues. "At any age in the state of Washington, an individual can consent to a termination of pregnancy," he said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 3/28/10: Seattle Times editorial says "School did nothing wrong when they helped a pregnant student seeking an abortion"
UPDATE 3/25/10: Officials admit 'secret abortions' permitted by law; parents fooled by school 'fine print'
-- From "Mother furious after in-school clinic sets up daughter's abortion" by KOMO-TV staff posted at Seattle Post-Intelligencer 3/23/10
The mother of a Ballard High School student is fuming after the health center on campus helped facilitate her daughter's abortion during school hours.
The mother, whom KOMO News has chosen to identify only as "Jill," says the [Planned Parenthood] clinic kept the information "confidential."
When she signed a consent form, Jill figured it meant her 15-year-old could go to the Ballard Teen Health Center located inside the high school for an earache, a sports physical, even birth control, but not for help terminating a pregnancy.
Jill says her daughter, a pro-life advocate, was given a pass, put in a taxi and sent off to have an abortion during school hours, all without her family knowing.
The Seattle School District says it doesn't run the health clinics at high schools. Swedish Medical Center runs the clinic at Ballard High and protects the students' privacy.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Seattle Mom: School Sent My Daughter for Secret Abortion without Telling Me" by Patrick B. Craine, LifeSiteNews.com 3/24/10
"They just told her that if she concealed it from her family, that it would be free of charge and no financial responsibility," Jill said.
T.J. Cosgrove of the King County Health Department, which oversees the center, explained that Washington state does not recognize parents' opinions on such issues. "At any age in the state of Washington, an individual can consent to a termination of pregnancy," he said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Easter Event at White House Avoids Christians
Whereas last year, President Obama featured homosexuals at the Easter Egg Roll, this year he's decided to limit ticket distribution to public school students only, excluding Christian school students.
-- From "Some D.C. students will receive Easter Egg Roll tickets" by Jenna Johnson, Washington Post Staff Writer 3/23/10
Ever since the scramble for tickets to the White House Easter Egg Roll moved online, many Washington area residents have felt a little cheated. The competition for tickets is no longer a long line you can visually size up. Now it's elusive, nationwide clicking.
But today, some of the District's youngest residents will feel a little ticket love.
Education Secretary Arne Duncan plans to hand out tickets to students at J.O. Wilson Elementary School in Northeast Washington during a visit to observe how the school has improved its academic rigor and helped students live healthier lives.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Obama Excludes Private and Catholic School Children From Easter Egg Roll Ticket Giveaway" by Penny Starr, CNSNews Senior Staff Writer 3/24/10
The Obama administration announced on Tuesday it has reserved 3,000 free tickets to the annual White House Easter Egg Roll for students in D.C.-area public and charter schools, but not for children who attend private or parochial schools.
Why exclude children in private and parochial schools, asked the father of a parochial school student at Tuesday’s press conference where U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan and District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty announced the ticket giveaway.
Robert Brannum’s 17-year-old son Nicholas attends St. John’s College High School, a Catholic school in the District. Brannum told CNSNews.com he believes the 3,000 tickets reserved for public school students should be available to all students.
Brannum said he not only supports D.C. public schools, he attended and taught at those schools. But, he added, “There are students in the District of Columbia who attend private schools, parochial schools, or even (are) home schooled, and their parents pay taxes and they should be able to participate in some of the benefits of being citizens of the District of Columbia.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Some D.C. students will receive Easter Egg Roll tickets" by Jenna Johnson, Washington Post Staff Writer 3/23/10
Ever since the scramble for tickets to the White House Easter Egg Roll moved online, many Washington area residents have felt a little cheated. The competition for tickets is no longer a long line you can visually size up. Now it's elusive, nationwide clicking.
But today, some of the District's youngest residents will feel a little ticket love.
Education Secretary Arne Duncan plans to hand out tickets to students at J.O. Wilson Elementary School in Northeast Washington during a visit to observe how the school has improved its academic rigor and helped students live healthier lives.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Obama Excludes Private and Catholic School Children From Easter Egg Roll Ticket Giveaway" by Penny Starr, CNSNews Senior Staff Writer 3/24/10
The Obama administration announced on Tuesday it has reserved 3,000 free tickets to the annual White House Easter Egg Roll for students in D.C.-area public and charter schools, but not for children who attend private or parochial schools.
Why exclude children in private and parochial schools, asked the father of a parochial school student at Tuesday’s press conference where U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan and District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty announced the ticket giveaway.
Robert Brannum’s 17-year-old son Nicholas attends St. John’s College High School, a Catholic school in the District. Brannum told CNSNews.com he believes the 3,000 tickets reserved for public school students should be available to all students.
Brannum said he not only supports D.C. public schools, he attended and taught at those schools. But, he added, “There are students in the District of Columbia who attend private schools, parochial schools, or even (are) home schooled, and their parents pay taxes and they should be able to participate in some of the benefits of being citizens of the District of Columbia.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
ACLU Garners Lesbian Teen Spotlight: Judge Ruling
A federal judge has ruled that the Itawamba County [Mississippi] school board violated the rights of a lesbian student by canceling the prom when the student challenged a ban on same-sex dates.
UPDATE 7/21/10: School pays lesbian student $35K, putting every school district in America in a bind
UPDATE 5/20/10: Lesbian teen transfers to different school
UPDATE 4/21/10: Lesbian teen, with ACLU, sues school and administration seeking monetary damages for being humiliated
UPDATE 3/30/10: Backup (private) Prom also Canceled
-- From "Judge won't force Miss. district to hold prom" by Shelia Byrd, Associated Press 3/23/10
A Mississippi school district violated a lesbian student's rights by banning her from bringing her girlfriend to the prom, a federal judge ruled Tuesday, but he stopped short of forcing the district to hold the event.
U.S. District Judge Glen H. Davidson denied an American Civil Liberties Union request for a preliminary injunction that would have forced the Itawamba County school district to sponsor the April 2 prom and allow Constance McMillen to escort her girlfriend and wear a tuxedo.
Davidson did say he will hold a trial on the issue later, but he did not set a date and any ruling would likely come too late to force the district to hold the prom when it was originally scheduled.
Davidson said he denied the injunction request because a private prom parents are planning will serve the same purpose as the school prom. He wrote in his ruling that "requiring defendants to step back into a sponsorship role at this late date would only confuse and confound the community on the issue."
[McMillen's] case has become a cause celebre since the school district canceled the prom March 10.
She has appeared on the "The Early Show," "The Wanda Sykes Show" and "The Ellen DeGeneres Show" to talk about how she is fighting for tolerance. DeGeneres presented her with a $30,000 college scholarship from Tonic, a digital media company. A Facebook page set up by the ACLU for McMillen has over 400,000 fans.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Judge won't force Mississippi school to hold prom" by Chris Joyner, Jackson Clarion Ledger 3/23/10
Both sides pled their case in court Monday, with McMillen’s legal team accusing the district of violating her constitutional right to free expression. School district attorneys countered that the board was attempting to restore order to the school by withdrawing sponsorship of the event.
“The Court finds this expression and communication of her viewpoint is the type of speech that falls squarely within the purview of the First Amendment,” Davidson wrote in an opinion published this afternoon.
“The Court finds that requiring Defendants to step back into a sponsorship role at this late date would only confuse and confound the community on the issue,” he wrote.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 7/21/10: School pays lesbian student $35K, putting every school district in America in a bind
UPDATE 5/20/10: Lesbian teen transfers to different school
UPDATE 4/21/10: Lesbian teen, with ACLU, sues school and administration seeking monetary damages for being humiliated
UPDATE 3/30/10: Backup (private) Prom also Canceled
-- From "Judge won't force Miss. district to hold prom" by Shelia Byrd, Associated Press 3/23/10
A Mississippi school district violated a lesbian student's rights by banning her from bringing her girlfriend to the prom, a federal judge ruled Tuesday, but he stopped short of forcing the district to hold the event.
U.S. District Judge Glen H. Davidson denied an American Civil Liberties Union request for a preliminary injunction that would have forced the Itawamba County school district to sponsor the April 2 prom and allow Constance McMillen to escort her girlfriend and wear a tuxedo.
Davidson did say he will hold a trial on the issue later, but he did not set a date and any ruling would likely come too late to force the district to hold the prom when it was originally scheduled.
Davidson said he denied the injunction request because a private prom parents are planning will serve the same purpose as the school prom. He wrote in his ruling that "requiring defendants to step back into a sponsorship role at this late date would only confuse and confound the community on the issue."
[McMillen's] case has become a cause celebre since the school district canceled the prom March 10.
She has appeared on the "The Early Show," "The Wanda Sykes Show" and "The Ellen DeGeneres Show" to talk about how she is fighting for tolerance. DeGeneres presented her with a $30,000 college scholarship from Tonic, a digital media company. A Facebook page set up by the ACLU for McMillen has over 400,000 fans.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Judge won't force Mississippi school to hold prom" by Chris Joyner, Jackson Clarion Ledger 3/23/10
Both sides pled their case in court Monday, with McMillen’s legal team accusing the district of violating her constitutional right to free expression. School district attorneys countered that the board was attempting to restore order to the school by withdrawing sponsorship of the event.
“The Court finds this expression and communication of her viewpoint is the type of speech that falls squarely within the purview of the First Amendment,” Davidson wrote in an opinion published this afternoon.
“The Court finds that requiring Defendants to step back into a sponsorship role at this late date would only confuse and confound the community on the issue,” he wrote.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Schools OK to Discriminate Against Christians: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to let a high school student sue over school officials' refusal to let her play an instrumental version of "Ave Maria" at her graduation . . .
-- From "Supreme Court rejects student's appeal over ban on playing of 'Ave Maria' at graduation" by Jesse J. Holland, Associated Press Writer 3/22/10
The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Kathryn Nurre, a former student at Henry M. Jackson High School. Nurre, who was a senior in 2006, wanted to play "Ave Maria" — Hail Mary in Latin — with the band's wind ensemble at the graduation.
Administrators raised red flags at the Everett, Wash., school when they heard about the idea from the wind ensemble seniors, who had played Franz Biebl's uptempo 1964 rendering of "Ave Maria" without controversy at a winter concert.
A year before, choral performance of the song "Up Above My Head" at the 2005 commencement drew complaints and protest letters to the town's newspaper. Therefore, school officials said the seniors could not play the song since the title alone identified "Ave Maria" as religious and that graduation should be strictly secular.
Nurre sued, claiming unspecified damages from infringement of First Amendment rights. The federal courts threw out the lawsuit, with judges saying it was reasonable for a school official to prohibit the performance of an obviously religious piece.
The case is Nurre v. Whitehead, 09-671.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Alito: Court Wrong to Deny ‘Ave Maria’ Case" by Lee Ross, posted at FOX News 3/22/10
Justice [Samuel] Alito announced his disagreement with the high court's decision to stay out of the case by writing the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision "is not easy to square with our free speech jurisprudence."
Alito was sharply critical of the school officials and their decision. He said that when the school gives students the opportunity to express themselves they must respect the students' right to free speech. "School administrators may not behave like puppet masters who create the illusion that students are engaging in personal expression when in fact the school administration is pulling the strings," Alito wrote.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Supreme Court rejects student's appeal over ban on playing of 'Ave Maria' at graduation" by Jesse J. Holland, Associated Press Writer 3/22/10
The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Kathryn Nurre, a former student at Henry M. Jackson High School. Nurre, who was a senior in 2006, wanted to play "Ave Maria" — Hail Mary in Latin — with the band's wind ensemble at the graduation.
Administrators raised red flags at the Everett, Wash., school when they heard about the idea from the wind ensemble seniors, who had played Franz Biebl's uptempo 1964 rendering of "Ave Maria" without controversy at a winter concert.
A year before, choral performance of the song "Up Above My Head" at the 2005 commencement drew complaints and protest letters to the town's newspaper. Therefore, school officials said the seniors could not play the song since the title alone identified "Ave Maria" as religious and that graduation should be strictly secular.
Nurre sued, claiming unspecified damages from infringement of First Amendment rights. The federal courts threw out the lawsuit, with judges saying it was reasonable for a school official to prohibit the performance of an obviously religious piece.
The case is Nurre v. Whitehead, 09-671.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Alito: Court Wrong to Deny ‘Ave Maria’ Case" by Lee Ross, posted at FOX News 3/22/10
Justice [Samuel] Alito announced his disagreement with the high court's decision to stay out of the case by writing the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision "is not easy to square with our free speech jurisprudence."
Alito was sharply critical of the school officials and their decision. He said that when the school gives students the opportunity to express themselves they must respect the students' right to free speech. "School administrators may not behave like puppet masters who create the illusion that students are engaging in personal expression when in fact the school administration is pulling the strings," Alito wrote.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
ObamaCare Now Law: All Americans Pay for Abortions
Planned Parenthood celebrates Victory! now that Rep. Bart Stupak has been purchased by Washington, because Obama's promise is that abortion will NOT be restricted.
For background, read Social Justice Catholic, Pro-life Dems Promise to Bar Abortions from ObamaCare
-- From "VICTORY! The House finally passed health care reform!" posted at Planned Parenthood: "Thanks to supporters like you, we were able to keep the Stupak abortion ban out of the final legislation and President Obama did not include the Stupak language in his Executive Order."
From "Abortion compromise doesn't satisfy critics" by Erica Werner, Associated Press 3/21/10
A last-minute compromise that swung a half-dozen anti-abortion Democrats behind President Barack Obama's health care bill — virtually ensuring its passage — failed to placate outside activists on either side of the issue, and drew derision from Republicans.
Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., leader of the anti-abortion bloc, said he was satisfied with an executive order issued by Obama affirming prohibitions in current law and in the health legislation against taxpayer money going to abortions.
The National Right to Life Committee quickly issued a scathing statement disputing Stupak's claim.
"The executive order promised by President Obama was issued for political effect. It changes nothing," the group said. "It does not correct any of the serious pro-abortion provisions in the bill."
The powerful Catholic bishops weren't on board, either.
"Without seeing the details of the executive order, our conclusion has been that an executive order cannot override or change the central problems in the statute. Those need a legislative fix," Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the bishops' conference's Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, said in an interview.
The bishops contend that the legislation before the House Sunday allows federal funding of abortion.
House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, dismissed the executive order and said, "Make no mistake, a 'yes' vote on the Democrats' health care bill is a vote for taxpayer-funded abortions."
Stupak said he would have preferred to change the law itself, as sought by the bishops and others, but that it wasn't possible because the votes weren't there in the Senate.
"We cannot get more than 45 pro-life votes in the Senate. The bishops are right, statutory law is better than an executive order. We can't get there," Stupak said. "So what do you have, nothing? Or do you want the same executive order that has the force of law? I'll take the executive order."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Abortion Foes and Pro-Choicers Unite Against Obama Decision" by Kelly Chernenkoff, FOX News Blog 3/22/10
Late in the vote-gathering game, it had appeared President Obama might be able to pass the vote threshold by the skin of his teeth. But in order to lock in that success, as well as glide through an abortion-specific vote unscathed, the President needed to lure the most vocal opponents of his party; specifically, the Bart Stupaks of the US Congress. He did just that.
He [Stupak] told Megyn Kelly that it's better to have an imperfect bill then nothing at all.
But does the order do anything beyond restate what is already destined to become law?
. . . For those concerned about the order, what about its longevity? Abortion opponents say Mr. Obama could easily repeal it.
Stupak told reporters he trusts the President, "The president didn't sign it to rip it up tomorrow."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Stupak Decision Blasted As ‘Unconscionable’" By Susan Jones, CNSNews Senior Editor 3/22/10
Pro-life activists call it “regrettable” that Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) ended up abandoning those who stood by him in his opposition to taxpayer funding of abortion in the Democrats’ health care bill.
Brian Burch, president of CatholicVote.org, said Stupak’s decision to accept the promise of a presidential executive order as a solution to the abortion-funding issue is “unconscionable.”
“The Executive Order fix is a band-aid solution that fails to solve the fundamental problems in this bill, and can be repealed at any time, for any reason, by the president or future presidents. The order is likely to be challenged by pro-abortion groups, and could be struck down by the courts,” Burch said in a news release issued Sunday night.
“The Catholic Bishops along with CatholicVote.org and every major pro-life organization oppose this 'fix.' We have defended Rep. Stupak for months, but today we stand in protest of his decision,” Burch added.
Stupak’s last-minute decision to vote in support of the health care bill he opposed for so long made all the difference in Democrats’ getting enough votes for passage.
But pro-life activists say the Executive Order on abortion funding will further politicize the issue. It will put decisions on taxpayer funding for abortion as well as conscience protections in the hands of Obama, future presidents, and Health and Human Services Secrtary Kathleen Sebelius, Burch said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
For background, read Social Justice Catholic, Pro-life Dems Promise to Bar Abortions from ObamaCare
-- From "VICTORY! The House finally passed health care reform!" posted at Planned Parenthood: "Thanks to supporters like you, we were able to keep the Stupak abortion ban out of the final legislation and President Obama did not include the Stupak language in his Executive Order."
From "Abortion compromise doesn't satisfy critics" by Erica Werner, Associated Press 3/21/10
A last-minute compromise that swung a half-dozen anti-abortion Democrats behind President Barack Obama's health care bill — virtually ensuring its passage — failed to placate outside activists on either side of the issue, and drew derision from Republicans.
Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., leader of the anti-abortion bloc, said he was satisfied with an executive order issued by Obama affirming prohibitions in current law and in the health legislation against taxpayer money going to abortions.
The National Right to Life Committee quickly issued a scathing statement disputing Stupak's claim.
"The executive order promised by President Obama was issued for political effect. It changes nothing," the group said. "It does not correct any of the serious pro-abortion provisions in the bill."
The powerful Catholic bishops weren't on board, either.
"Without seeing the details of the executive order, our conclusion has been that an executive order cannot override or change the central problems in the statute. Those need a legislative fix," Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the bishops' conference's Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, said in an interview.
The bishops contend that the legislation before the House Sunday allows federal funding of abortion.
House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, dismissed the executive order and said, "Make no mistake, a 'yes' vote on the Democrats' health care bill is a vote for taxpayer-funded abortions."
Stupak said he would have preferred to change the law itself, as sought by the bishops and others, but that it wasn't possible because the votes weren't there in the Senate.
"We cannot get more than 45 pro-life votes in the Senate. The bishops are right, statutory law is better than an executive order. We can't get there," Stupak said. "So what do you have, nothing? Or do you want the same executive order that has the force of law? I'll take the executive order."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Abortion Foes and Pro-Choicers Unite Against Obama Decision" by Kelly Chernenkoff, FOX News Blog 3/22/10
Late in the vote-gathering game, it had appeared President Obama might be able to pass the vote threshold by the skin of his teeth. But in order to lock in that success, as well as glide through an abortion-specific vote unscathed, the President needed to lure the most vocal opponents of his party; specifically, the Bart Stupaks of the US Congress. He did just that.
He [Stupak] told Megyn Kelly that it's better to have an imperfect bill then nothing at all.
But does the order do anything beyond restate what is already destined to become law?
. . . For those concerned about the order, what about its longevity? Abortion opponents say Mr. Obama could easily repeal it.
Stupak told reporters he trusts the President, "The president didn't sign it to rip it up tomorrow."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Stupak Decision Blasted As ‘Unconscionable’" By Susan Jones, CNSNews Senior Editor 3/22/10
Pro-life activists call it “regrettable” that Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) ended up abandoning those who stood by him in his opposition to taxpayer funding of abortion in the Democrats’ health care bill.
Brian Burch, president of CatholicVote.org, said Stupak’s decision to accept the promise of a presidential executive order as a solution to the abortion-funding issue is “unconscionable.”
“The Executive Order fix is a band-aid solution that fails to solve the fundamental problems in this bill, and can be repealed at any time, for any reason, by the president or future presidents. The order is likely to be challenged by pro-abortion groups, and could be struck down by the courts,” Burch said in a news release issued Sunday night.
“The Catholic Bishops along with CatholicVote.org and every major pro-life organization oppose this 'fix.' We have defended Rep. Stupak for months, but today we stand in protest of his decision,” Burch added.
Stupak’s last-minute decision to vote in support of the health care bill he opposed for so long made all the difference in Democrats’ getting enough votes for passage.
But pro-life activists say the Executive Order on abortion funding will further politicize the issue. It will put decisions on taxpayer funding for abortion as well as conscience protections in the hands of Obama, future presidents, and Health and Human Services Secrtary Kathleen Sebelius, Burch said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
HIV Infections Rampant Among Homosexuals
. . . a new report out from the CDC . . . finds new HIV cases among homosexuals is more than 44 [times] that of heterosexual men and more than 40 times that of women.
-- From "New HIV Infections Increasing Among Homosexuals, Drug Abusers and Prostitutes" by Edith M. Lederer, Associated Press 3/16/10
New HIV infections are increasing among homosexuals, drug users and prostitutes who don't seek help because of laws that criminalize these practices, the head of the U.N. AIDS agency said Monday.
[Michel Sidibe, the head of UNAIDS] told a group of journalists at a luncheon hosted by the United Nations Foundation that in countries from China to Kenya and Malawi, about 33 percent of new HIV infections are in men having sex with men, a significant increase.
Even in the United States, where laws are not restrictive and the gay community was the first to tackle AIDS, Sidibe said it is "shocking" that more than 50 percent of new HIV infections last year occurred among homosexuals. And he said in the 19-25 age bracket the infection rate was even higher.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "New CDC Report: HIV Rate 44 Times Higher Among Homosexuals" By Bob Ellis, Dakota Voice 3/17/10
For some time now it has been public knowledge (but not common knowledge, since the “mainstream” media is oddly silence on the staggering disease rates in the homosexual community) that Centers for Disease Control (CDC) figures show that 72% of male AIDS cases are associated with homosexual activity…while a survey commissioned by the pro-homosexual group Human Rights Campaign found that only 2.9% of the population is homosexual. The fact that homosexuals also have much higher infection rates from most other types of STDs, as well as hepatitis, anal cancer, depression, substance abuse, suicide and more.
From the March 10, 2010 CDC press release:
-- From "New HIV Infections Increasing Among Homosexuals, Drug Abusers and Prostitutes" by Edith M. Lederer, Associated Press 3/16/10
New HIV infections are increasing among homosexuals, drug users and prostitutes who don't seek help because of laws that criminalize these practices, the head of the U.N. AIDS agency said Monday.
[Michel Sidibe, the head of UNAIDS] told a group of journalists at a luncheon hosted by the United Nations Foundation that in countries from China to Kenya and Malawi, about 33 percent of new HIV infections are in men having sex with men, a significant increase.
Even in the United States, where laws are not restrictive and the gay community was the first to tackle AIDS, Sidibe said it is "shocking" that more than 50 percent of new HIV infections last year occurred among homosexuals. And he said in the 19-25 age bracket the infection rate was even higher.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "New CDC Report: HIV Rate 44 Times Higher Among Homosexuals" By Bob Ellis, Dakota Voice 3/17/10
For some time now it has been public knowledge (but not common knowledge, since the “mainstream” media is oddly silence on the staggering disease rates in the homosexual community) that Centers for Disease Control (CDC) figures show that 72% of male AIDS cases are associated with homosexual activity…while a survey commissioned by the pro-homosexual group Human Rights Campaign found that only 2.9% of the population is homosexual. The fact that homosexuals also have much higher infection rates from most other types of STDs, as well as hepatitis, anal cancer, depression, substance abuse, suicide and more.
From the March 10, 2010 CDC press release:
A data analysis released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention underscores the disproportionate impact of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men in the United States.To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
The data, presented at CDC’s 2010 National STD Prevention Conference, finds that the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women.
The range was 522-989 cases of new HIV diagnoses per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men and 13 per 100,000 women.
The rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women, the analysis says. The range was 91-173 cases per 100,000 MSM vs. 2 per 100,000 other men and 1 per 100,000 women.
Girl Scouts Advocate Guide Teaching Sex Acts?
"Many people think sex is just about vaginal or anal intercourse. But, there are lots of different ways to have sex and lots of different types of sex. There is no right or wrong way to have sex."
-- From "RUSE: The Girl Scout Sex Guide" by Austin Ruse, Washington Times 3/18/10
Sharon Slater, a mother of seven, innocently walked into a panel sponsored by the Girl Scouts USA at the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women a few weeks ago. Almost immediately she was asked to leave. All non-Scout adults were kicked out of the room, which was packed with adolescent girls.
Her curiosity piqued, Slater lingered by the door and when the panel ended she went immediately back inside to look around. What she found has shocked her and shocked Girl Scout moms around the country. Slater found a stack of brochures produced by Planned Parenthood called "Healthy, Happy and Hot" that among other things explained to the girls, "Some people have sex when they have been drinking or using drugs. That is your choice."
But it gets worse. The sex guide explains, "Many people think sex is just about vaginal or anal intercourse. But there are lots of different ways to have sex and lots of different types of sex. Sex can include kissing, touching, licking, tickling, sucking and cuddling. Some people like to have aggressive sex, while others like to have soft sex and slow sex with their partners. There is no right or wrong way to have sex. Just have fun, explore and be yourself!" It tells girls to explore the prostate. Remember, this was distributed in a panel for adolescent girls.
Besides advice about the prostate, the brochure, subtitled "Rights, Sexuality and Living with HIV," also gives incorrect and even dangerous information about rights and responsibilities. It tells the kids that, "sexual and reproductive rights are recognized around the world." Sexual rights are hardly recognized around the world. They are not even recognized here in the sexual paradise of the United States. The brochure tells the kids that their rights are violated when governments require them to tell their HIV status to their sex partners.
At the same UN meeting, which ended last Friday, the World Association of Girl Scouts and Girl Guides produced a document saying young women "demand their sexual and reproductive rights including access to comprehensive sexuality education, and sexual and reproductive services including contraception and emergency contraception, in order to avoid unintended pregnancies" and also called for access to "safe abortion."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Girl Scouts hiding secret sex agenda?" by Drew Zahn © 2010 WorldNet Daily 3/19/10
The Girl Scouts organization . . . has issued a denial statement, distancing itself from any involvement in "family planning," despite clear evidence to the contrary.
Slater further told WND the brochures appeared again a few days later at a panel discussion for the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts, or WAGGGS, of which Girl Scouts of the USA is a member organization.
"I had team of 30 volunteers monitoring meetings, and I sent two volunteers to another event in the same building by WAGGGS, " Slater told WND. "The packets were on their table also; our volunteers picked up a copy."
Included in the rights, services and supplies "demanded" by the group were the following, according to the WAGGGS website:
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "RUSE: The Girl Scout Sex Guide" by Austin Ruse, Washington Times 3/18/10
Sharon Slater, a mother of seven, innocently walked into a panel sponsored by the Girl Scouts USA at the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women a few weeks ago. Almost immediately she was asked to leave. All non-Scout adults were kicked out of the room, which was packed with adolescent girls.
Her curiosity piqued, Slater lingered by the door and when the panel ended she went immediately back inside to look around. What she found has shocked her and shocked Girl Scout moms around the country. Slater found a stack of brochures produced by Planned Parenthood called "Healthy, Happy and Hot" that among other things explained to the girls, "Some people have sex when they have been drinking or using drugs. That is your choice."
But it gets worse. The sex guide explains, "Many people think sex is just about vaginal or anal intercourse. But there are lots of different ways to have sex and lots of different types of sex. Sex can include kissing, touching, licking, tickling, sucking and cuddling. Some people like to have aggressive sex, while others like to have soft sex and slow sex with their partners. There is no right or wrong way to have sex. Just have fun, explore and be yourself!" It tells girls to explore the prostate. Remember, this was distributed in a panel for adolescent girls.
Besides advice about the prostate, the brochure, subtitled "Rights, Sexuality and Living with HIV," also gives incorrect and even dangerous information about rights and responsibilities. It tells the kids that, "sexual and reproductive rights are recognized around the world." Sexual rights are hardly recognized around the world. They are not even recognized here in the sexual paradise of the United States. The brochure tells the kids that their rights are violated when governments require them to tell their HIV status to their sex partners.
At the same UN meeting, which ended last Friday, the World Association of Girl Scouts and Girl Guides produced a document saying young women "demand their sexual and reproductive rights including access to comprehensive sexuality education, and sexual and reproductive services including contraception and emergency contraception, in order to avoid unintended pregnancies" and also called for access to "safe abortion."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Girl Scouts hiding secret sex agenda?" by Drew Zahn © 2010 WorldNet Daily 3/19/10
The Girl Scouts organization . . . has issued a denial statement, distancing itself from any involvement in "family planning," despite clear evidence to the contrary.
Slater further told WND the brochures appeared again a few days later at a panel discussion for the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts, or WAGGGS, of which Girl Scouts of the USA is a member organization.
"I had team of 30 volunteers monitoring meetings, and I sent two volunteers to another event in the same building by WAGGGS, " Slater told WND. "The packets were on their table also; our volunteers picked up a copy."
Included in the rights, services and supplies "demanded" by the group were the following, according to the WAGGGS website:
* All young people must have access to comprehensive sexuality education and sexual and reproductive health services, including contraception and emergency contraception, in order to avoid unintended pregnancies.And despite claiming to "not take a position on family planning," national Girl Scouts leaders have admitted in the past to widespread partnerships with organizations like Planned Parenthood.
* Accessible, affordable and safe abortions should be made part of the minimum packages of sexual and reproductive health services.
* All young people should have access to psycho-social health services for prevention of gender-based violence and violence against women.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Pushing Taxpayer-funded Teen-sex Vaccine
Mainstream media advocates deadly vaccine enabling sexual immorality for underprivileged children
-- From "Poorer girls not getting HPV vaccine for cervical cancer" by Liz Szabo, USA TODAY 3/18/10
A cervical cancer vaccine is not getting to many of the girls who need it the most, a new study shows.
Mississippi and Arkansas, two of the nation's poorest states, also have the highest death rates from cervical cancer — a result of poor access to basic screenings and health care for a large number of women, says Peter Bach of New York's Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.
Yet in Mississippi, where the vaccine could perhaps save the greatest number of lives, only 16% of teen girls in 2008 received the shot, called Gardasil, according to Bach's paper in Saturday's The Lancet. About 22% of Arkansas girls ages 13 to 17 got the vaccine, which costs $390 for three shots.
. . . women's health activist Barbara Brenner of Breast Cancer Action says Bach's study highlights broad inequalities in American health care. "There are places in this country where women have nothing," Brenner says. "But we don't notice them until a story like this comes out."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "One More: USA Today Joins in Misreporting Gardasil" by Sarah Knoploh, NewsBusters 3/19/10
When the vaccine Gardasil was first introduced, the mainstream media wasted no time falsely touting it as a cure for cervical cancer. The dangerous side effects of Gardasil – including death – were also ignored. Even though the side effects are now known, a March 18 article in USA Today by Liz Szabo worried about girls who are not receiving the vaccine.
. . . a National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) study in February of 2009 . . . found that 29 known cases in which patients have died after receiving Gardasil. Szabo never mentioned a single one of those deaths.
And it’s not just deaths that Gardasil causes. According to NVIC press release: “Nearly 90 percent of all Gardasil recipients and 85 percent of aluminum placebo recipients reported one or more adverse events within 15 days of vaccination, particularly at the injection site. Pain and swelling at injection site and fever occurred in approximately 83 percent of Gardasil and 73 percent of aluminum placebo recipients. About 60 percent of those who got Gardasil or the aluminum placebo had systemic adverse events including headache, fever, nausea, dizziness, vomiting, diarrhea, myalgia. Gardasil recipients had more serious adverse events such as headache, gastroenteritis, appendicitis, pelvic inflammatory disease, asthma, bronchospasm and arthritis.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Poorer girls not getting HPV vaccine for cervical cancer" by Liz Szabo, USA TODAY 3/18/10
A cervical cancer vaccine is not getting to many of the girls who need it the most, a new study shows.
Mississippi and Arkansas, two of the nation's poorest states, also have the highest death rates from cervical cancer — a result of poor access to basic screenings and health care for a large number of women, says Peter Bach of New York's Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.
Yet in Mississippi, where the vaccine could perhaps save the greatest number of lives, only 16% of teen girls in 2008 received the shot, called Gardasil, according to Bach's paper in Saturday's The Lancet. About 22% of Arkansas girls ages 13 to 17 got the vaccine, which costs $390 for three shots.
. . . women's health activist Barbara Brenner of Breast Cancer Action says Bach's study highlights broad inequalities in American health care. "There are places in this country where women have nothing," Brenner says. "But we don't notice them until a story like this comes out."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "One More: USA Today Joins in Misreporting Gardasil" by Sarah Knoploh, NewsBusters 3/19/10
When the vaccine Gardasil was first introduced, the mainstream media wasted no time falsely touting it as a cure for cervical cancer. The dangerous side effects of Gardasil – including death – were also ignored. Even though the side effects are now known, a March 18 article in USA Today by Liz Szabo worried about girls who are not receiving the vaccine.
. . . a National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) study in February of 2009 . . . found that 29 known cases in which patients have died after receiving Gardasil. Szabo never mentioned a single one of those deaths.
And it’s not just deaths that Gardasil causes. According to NVIC press release: “Nearly 90 percent of all Gardasil recipients and 85 percent of aluminum placebo recipients reported one or more adverse events within 15 days of vaccination, particularly at the injection site. Pain and swelling at injection site and fever occurred in approximately 83 percent of Gardasil and 73 percent of aluminum placebo recipients. About 60 percent of those who got Gardasil or the aluminum placebo had systemic adverse events including headache, fever, nausea, dizziness, vomiting, diarrhea, myalgia. Gardasil recipients had more serious adverse events such as headache, gastroenteritis, appendicitis, pelvic inflammatory disease, asthma, bronchospasm and arthritis.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Pelosi Appeals to Saint to Pass ObamaCare
Self-professed Catholic, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, calls on one of the most prestigious patron saints of unborn children, St. Joseph, but erroneously does so claiming the occasion of 'the wrong saint.'
-- From "Transcript: Pelosi Press Conference March 19, 2010" posted at Time Magazine
"Today is the Feast of Saint Joseph, the Worker [sorry Nancy -- wrong saint for today!], particularly significant to Italian-Americans. And it is a day that we remember and pray to Saint Joseph to benefit the workers of America. And that is exactly what our health care bill will do.
". . . You see behind me an array of organizations, significant organizations, who are supporting health care reform. That list grows by the moment, since it was printed. The AFL-CIO has given its firm endorsement. The Catholic Hospital Association has endorsed the legislation. I am pleased that we got a letter representing 60 leaders of religious orders, sisters. I'm pleased to say that the School Sisters of Notre Dame and the sisters of Notre Dame de Namur, two sisters who taught me in my life are on the list. Every order that you can think of is there saying they wanted us to pass this life-affirming legislation. So as I say, that list goes on and certainly with more to come."
From "Pelosi prays to St. Joseph for Health Care bill" by Pamela Luther, Roman Catholic Examiner 3/19/10
Nancy Pelosi, self-named ardent Catholic, claims today that she is praying for St. Joseph’s intercession for passage of the health care bill this weekend.
Today is St. Joseph husband of Mary feast day.
This is a strange connection because when one thinks who St. Joseph is-- the foster father of Jesus Christ. When Joseph was told by the angel that his betrothed, Mary, was pregnant by the Holy Spirit and carrying Our Lord, he stood by her and married her.
According to Jewish law of that day, he could have had her stoned to death for adultery. But Joseph listened to God and married her. He is the patron saint of many causes. Many Catholics have a strong devotion to St. Joseph's his patronage because of his goodness and kindness. For more information see St. Joseph Statue.
For truly ardent Catholics, it would appear that Pelosi’s statement is hypocritical at the very least. This so-called Health Care Bill will allow federally paid abortions, something that our country has never embraced.
To think that St. Joseph would intercede for legislation that would promote more abortions paid by our tax dollars is quite frankly, preposterous. Those who are pro-life find this to be most repugnant.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Transcript: Pelosi Press Conference March 19, 2010" posted at Time Magazine
"Today is the Feast of Saint Joseph, the Worker [sorry Nancy -- wrong saint for today!], particularly significant to Italian-Americans. And it is a day that we remember and pray to Saint Joseph to benefit the workers of America. And that is exactly what our health care bill will do.
". . . You see behind me an array of organizations, significant organizations, who are supporting health care reform. That list grows by the moment, since it was printed. The AFL-CIO has given its firm endorsement. The Catholic Hospital Association has endorsed the legislation. I am pleased that we got a letter representing 60 leaders of religious orders, sisters. I'm pleased to say that the School Sisters of Notre Dame and the sisters of Notre Dame de Namur, two sisters who taught me in my life are on the list. Every order that you can think of is there saying they wanted us to pass this life-affirming legislation. So as I say, that list goes on and certainly with more to come."
From "Pelosi prays to St. Joseph for Health Care bill" by Pamela Luther, Roman Catholic Examiner 3/19/10
Nancy Pelosi, self-named ardent Catholic, claims today that she is praying for St. Joseph’s intercession for passage of the health care bill this weekend.
Today is St. Joseph husband of Mary feast day.
This is a strange connection because when one thinks who St. Joseph is-- the foster father of Jesus Christ. When Joseph was told by the angel that his betrothed, Mary, was pregnant by the Holy Spirit and carrying Our Lord, he stood by her and married her.
According to Jewish law of that day, he could have had her stoned to death for adultery. But Joseph listened to God and married her. He is the patron saint of many causes. Many Catholics have a strong devotion to St. Joseph's his patronage because of his goodness and kindness. For more information see St. Joseph Statue.
For truly ardent Catholics, it would appear that Pelosi’s statement is hypocritical at the very least. This so-called Health Care Bill will allow federally paid abortions, something that our country has never embraced.
To think that St. Joseph would intercede for legislation that would promote more abortions paid by our tax dollars is quite frankly, preposterous. Those who are pro-life find this to be most repugnant.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Homosexuals Weaken Military, Proved in 1990s: U.S. General
Retired general testified to Congress that Dutch army's weakened status, caused by homosexual troops, resulted in the 1995 Bosnian genocide -- Homosexualists "circle the wagons" of mainstream media to counter general's account of history
-- From "Retired general: Gays made Dutch weak in Bosnia" by Pauline Jelinek, Associated Press 3/18/10
The comment by John Sheehan, a former NATO commander who retired from the military in 1997, shocked some at a Senate Armed Services Committee, where Sheehan spoke in opposition to a proposal to allow gays to serve openly in the U.S. military. Committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin told Sheehan he was "totally off-target."
A Dutch defense ministry spokesman dismissed Sheehan's remarks as nonsense. Britain, Canada, Australia and Israel as well as the Netherlands allow gays to serve openly.
Sheehan said European militaries deteriorated after the collapse of the Soviet Union and focused on peacekeeping because "they did not believe the Germans were going to attack again or the Soviets were coming back."
Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and other nations believed there was no longer a need for an active combat capability in the militaries, he said. "They declared a peace dividend and made a conscious effort to socialize their military - that includes the unionization of their militaries, it includes open homosexuality."
Dutch troops serving as U.N. peacekeepers and tasked with defending the town of Srebrenica in 1995 were an example of a force that became ill-equipped for war.
"The battalion was understrength, poorly led, and the Serbs came into town, handcuffed the soldiers to the telephone poles, marched the Muslims off, and executed them," Sheehan said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Dutch fuming at retired US general's gays comment" by Mike Corder, The Associated Press 3/19/10
The Dutch prime minister Friday denounced as "irresponsible" a claim by a retired U.S. general that gay Dutch soldiers were partly to blame for allowing Europe's worst massacre since World War II.
Dutch officials, from the Cabinet to the military, were outraged by retired Gen. John Sheehan's remarks at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in Washington, D.C., on Thursday.
Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende called Sheehan's comments irresponsible and said at his weekly news conference that "these remarks should never have been made."
The Netherlands has a long history of accepting homosexuality, and gays have long been welcome in the country's armed forces - which also allow labor unions.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Retired general: Gays made Dutch weak in Bosnia" by Pauline Jelinek, Associated Press 3/18/10
The comment by John Sheehan, a former NATO commander who retired from the military in 1997, shocked some at a Senate Armed Services Committee, where Sheehan spoke in opposition to a proposal to allow gays to serve openly in the U.S. military. Committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin told Sheehan he was "totally off-target."
A Dutch defense ministry spokesman dismissed Sheehan's remarks as nonsense. Britain, Canada, Australia and Israel as well as the Netherlands allow gays to serve openly.
Sheehan said European militaries deteriorated after the collapse of the Soviet Union and focused on peacekeeping because "they did not believe the Germans were going to attack again or the Soviets were coming back."
Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and other nations believed there was no longer a need for an active combat capability in the militaries, he said. "They declared a peace dividend and made a conscious effort to socialize their military - that includes the unionization of their militaries, it includes open homosexuality."
Dutch troops serving as U.N. peacekeepers and tasked with defending the town of Srebrenica in 1995 were an example of a force that became ill-equipped for war.
"The battalion was understrength, poorly led, and the Serbs came into town, handcuffed the soldiers to the telephone poles, marched the Muslims off, and executed them," Sheehan said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Dutch fuming at retired US general's gays comment" by Mike Corder, The Associated Press 3/19/10
The Dutch prime minister Friday denounced as "irresponsible" a claim by a retired U.S. general that gay Dutch soldiers were partly to blame for allowing Europe's worst massacre since World War II.
Dutch officials, from the Cabinet to the military, were outraged by retired Gen. John Sheehan's remarks at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in Washington, D.C., on Thursday.
Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende called Sheehan's comments irresponsible and said at his weekly news conference that "these remarks should never have been made."
The Netherlands has a long history of accepting homosexuality, and gays have long been welcome in the country's armed forces - which also allow labor unions.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Episcopal Lesbian is Second Homosexual ECUSA Bishop
A majority of bishops and dioceses of the Episcopal Church have approved the election of the church’s second openly gay bishop, the Rev. Mary D. Glasspool, a decision likely to increase the tension with fellow Anglican churches around the world that do not approve of homosexuality.
-- From "Annapolis priest is first openly lesbian bishop for Episcopalians" by Matthew Hay Brown, Baltimore Sun 3/18/10
The Episcopal Church has confirmed the election of an Annapolis priest as the first openly lesbian bishop in the worldwide Anglican Communion.
The Rev. Mary Douglas Glasspool, who has served in the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland since 1992, said Wednesday that she was "overjoyed and overwhelmed" by news that a majority of bishops and diocesan committees had approved her election as assistant bishop in the Diocese of Los Angeles.
Her confirmation is likely to further strain relations in a church that has lost members, parishes and dioceses over differences on homosexuality. One prominent traditionalist said he was "saddened but not surprised" by her confirmation.
"It is contrary to the teaching of Holy Scripture and the mind of the church catholic," said the Rev. Kendall Harmon, canon theologian of the Diocese of South Carolina. "One would have hoped that at least the bishops would have waited until they were gathered at their coming House of Bishops meeting to discern prayerfully their response together. They instead sought to embrace a way of life which the church through the Bible has always understood to be forbidden."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Episcopalians Confirm a Second Gay Bishop" by Laurie Goodstein, New York Times 3/17/10
The worldwide Anglican Communion, the network of churches connected to the Church of England, has been in turmoil since the Americans elected their first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson, in New Hampshire in 2003. Theological conservatives in the Communion say the Bible condemns homosexuality, while liberals say the Scripture is open to interpretation.
Bishop Glasspool, 56, is to be consecrated as one of two new assistant bishops, known as suffragan bishops, in Los Angeles on May 15. Both elected suffragan bishops are women — the first ever to serve in the diocese.
She and her partner, Becki Sander, a postgraduate student in social work, have been together for 22 years.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, the leader of the Church of England and spiritual head of the Anglican Communion, issued a warning in December that Bishop Glasspool’s election “raises very serious questions not just for the Episcopal Church and its place in the Anglican Communion, but for the Communion as a whole.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Annapolis priest is first openly lesbian bishop for Episcopalians" by Matthew Hay Brown, Baltimore Sun 3/18/10
The Episcopal Church has confirmed the election of an Annapolis priest as the first openly lesbian bishop in the worldwide Anglican Communion.
The Rev. Mary Douglas Glasspool, who has served in the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland since 1992, said Wednesday that she was "overjoyed and overwhelmed" by news that a majority of bishops and diocesan committees had approved her election as assistant bishop in the Diocese of Los Angeles.
Her confirmation is likely to further strain relations in a church that has lost members, parishes and dioceses over differences on homosexuality. One prominent traditionalist said he was "saddened but not surprised" by her confirmation.
"It is contrary to the teaching of Holy Scripture and the mind of the church catholic," said the Rev. Kendall Harmon, canon theologian of the Diocese of South Carolina. "One would have hoped that at least the bishops would have waited until they were gathered at their coming House of Bishops meeting to discern prayerfully their response together. They instead sought to embrace a way of life which the church through the Bible has always understood to be forbidden."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Episcopalians Confirm a Second Gay Bishop" by Laurie Goodstein, New York Times 3/17/10
The worldwide Anglican Communion, the network of churches connected to the Church of England, has been in turmoil since the Americans elected their first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson, in New Hampshire in 2003. Theological conservatives in the Communion say the Bible condemns homosexuality, while liberals say the Scripture is open to interpretation.
Bishop Glasspool, 56, is to be consecrated as one of two new assistant bishops, known as suffragan bishops, in Los Angeles on May 15. Both elected suffragan bishops are women — the first ever to serve in the diocese.
She and her partner, Becki Sander, a postgraduate student in social work, have been together for 22 years.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, the leader of the Church of England and spiritual head of the Anglican Communion, issued a warning in December that Bishop Glasspool’s election “raises very serious questions not just for the Episcopal Church and its place in the Anglican Communion, but for the Communion as a whole.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Abortion 'Health Care' Wearing Down Catholics
While 59,000 liberal Catholic nuns break with bishops to support health care, despite the bill's favor of abortion, the leading pro-life Democrat congressman says he's experiencing 'a living hell.'
UPDATE 3/19/20: Correction - the LEADERSHIP of an organization that CLAIMS 59,000 nuns has signed on to ObamaCare
UPDATE 3/18/10: Conservative nuns back bishops, oppose ObamaCare, counter liberal nuns
-- From "Stupak: It’s been ‘a living hell’" by Jeffrey Young and Bob Cusack, The Hill 3/18/10
Leading a revolt against President Barack Obama’s healthcare legislation over abortion has been a “living hell” for Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.).
The telephone lines in his Washington and district offices have been “jammed” and he’s gotten more than 1,500 faxes and countless e-mails — most of which he says don’t come from his constituents.
The fight has taken a toll on his wife, who has disconnected the phone in their home to avoid harassment.
“All the phones are unplugged at our house — tired of the obscene calls and threats. She won’t watch TV,” Stupak said during an hourlong interview with The Hill in his Rayburn office. “People saying they’re going to spit on you and all this. That’s just not fun.”
Stupak has become a nationally known figure because of his demands for tough language in healthcare legislation to prevent any federal subsidies from being used for abortion services.
“It’s caused a lot of internal conflict. ‘Am I doing the right thing,’ you know?” he said. “I believe everyone should have healthcare. In all my correspondence — I’ve been saying for years — it’s a right, not a privilege.”
Stupak has never signed up for federal health benefits because he promised voters in 1992 that he wouldn’t until universal healthcare was enacted.
But in the end, the abortion issue has trumped other concerns. “It’s a belief for me, so it’s easier to do. And it’s a belief for my district, so I guess it’s easier to do,” he said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Catholic opposition to health bill fades" by Susan Milligan, Boston Globe Staff 3/18/10
Roman Catholic opposition to the health care overhaul package is crumbling, with some church officials and lawmakers concluding that their long-sought goal of health care overhaul trumps the desire to adopt the severest restrictions on abortion funding.
A coalition of 59,000 nuns released a letter yesterday calling on Congress to approve the overhaul, defying the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, which opposes the measure. The Catholic Health Association, which represents 1,200 Catholic hospitals, has endorsed the package, as have Catholics United and Catholic groups promoting social justice.
That split mirrors a division among some antiabortion US representatives. In preparing to cast perhaps one of the most important votes on a domestic issue in their careers, they are wrestling with questions that strike at the core of their beliefs and that threaten to embolden voters in November.
Ardently antiabortion Representative Dale Kildee, a Michigan Democrat who once studied in a Catholic seminary, said yesterday he will vote for the package despite language that some believe is not strict enough in ensuring that no federal funds are used for abortions.
Another antiabortion Catholic lawmaker, Representative James Oberstar, Democrat of Minnesota, said he is likely to vote for it. Several other antiabortion lawmakers are undecided but say they will not let the abortion issue sway their votes.
The political fissure among prominent Catholics has buoyed the hopes of Democratic leaders that they will be able to enlist enough votes to approve a health care bill this weekend. Abortion has been a central issue in the debate and could make the difference in a close vote.
“Health care is a central theme in the teaching of Catholic social justice," said Representative Richard E. Neal, a Springfield Democrat and Catholic with a moderately antiabortion voting record. “This chance will not avail itself for another decade, and the status quo is unacceptable."
New England Democratic Representatives Stephen Lynch of Boston and James Langevin of Rhode Island joined Neal in voting for the stricter “Stupak amendment" in the House. Lynch and Langevin said they will not let abortion decide their votes.
And while abortion is a fundamental moral issue for the Catholic Church, the commitment to providing health care to everyone “is a pretty strong belief" among Catholics as well, Langevin added.
Antiabortion groups such as the National Right to Life Committee and Americans United for Life have persistently and aggressively lobbied against the Senate version, arguing that it provides a back-door way for federal funding of abortions. Senate Republicans have scheduled a news conference today to slam the health care package for its abortion provisions.
The conference of bishops opposes the current language, saying it defies the church’s deep beliefs that no federal funds should be used for any program that allows abortion. But the moral struggle in the choice between passing universal health care and fighting abortion funding is evident in the bishops’ letter to lawmakers.
. . . the bishops have been less assertive recently in their lobbying effort on Capitol Hill, several lawmakers said, a dramatic change from late last year, when they were helping to write the abortion language in the House bill.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 3/19/20: Correction - the LEADERSHIP of an organization that CLAIMS 59,000 nuns has signed on to ObamaCare
UPDATE 3/18/10: Conservative nuns back bishops, oppose ObamaCare, counter liberal nuns
-- From "Stupak: It’s been ‘a living hell’" by Jeffrey Young and Bob Cusack, The Hill 3/18/10
Leading a revolt against President Barack Obama’s healthcare legislation over abortion has been a “living hell” for Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.).
The telephone lines in his Washington and district offices have been “jammed” and he’s gotten more than 1,500 faxes and countless e-mails — most of which he says don’t come from his constituents.
The fight has taken a toll on his wife, who has disconnected the phone in their home to avoid harassment.
“All the phones are unplugged at our house — tired of the obscene calls and threats. She won’t watch TV,” Stupak said during an hourlong interview with The Hill in his Rayburn office. “People saying they’re going to spit on you and all this. That’s just not fun.”
Stupak has become a nationally known figure because of his demands for tough language in healthcare legislation to prevent any federal subsidies from being used for abortion services.
“It’s caused a lot of internal conflict. ‘Am I doing the right thing,’ you know?” he said. “I believe everyone should have healthcare. In all my correspondence — I’ve been saying for years — it’s a right, not a privilege.”
Stupak has never signed up for federal health benefits because he promised voters in 1992 that he wouldn’t until universal healthcare was enacted.
But in the end, the abortion issue has trumped other concerns. “It’s a belief for me, so it’s easier to do. And it’s a belief for my district, so I guess it’s easier to do,” he said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Catholic opposition to health bill fades" by Susan Milligan, Boston Globe Staff 3/18/10
Roman Catholic opposition to the health care overhaul package is crumbling, with some church officials and lawmakers concluding that their long-sought goal of health care overhaul trumps the desire to adopt the severest restrictions on abortion funding.
A coalition of 59,000 nuns released a letter yesterday calling on Congress to approve the overhaul, defying the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, which opposes the measure. The Catholic Health Association, which represents 1,200 Catholic hospitals, has endorsed the package, as have Catholics United and Catholic groups promoting social justice.
That split mirrors a division among some antiabortion US representatives. In preparing to cast perhaps one of the most important votes on a domestic issue in their careers, they are wrestling with questions that strike at the core of their beliefs and that threaten to embolden voters in November.
Ardently antiabortion Representative Dale Kildee, a Michigan Democrat who once studied in a Catholic seminary, said yesterday he will vote for the package despite language that some believe is not strict enough in ensuring that no federal funds are used for abortions.
Another antiabortion Catholic lawmaker, Representative James Oberstar, Democrat of Minnesota, said he is likely to vote for it. Several other antiabortion lawmakers are undecided but say they will not let the abortion issue sway their votes.
The political fissure among prominent Catholics has buoyed the hopes of Democratic leaders that they will be able to enlist enough votes to approve a health care bill this weekend. Abortion has been a central issue in the debate and could make the difference in a close vote.
“Health care is a central theme in the teaching of Catholic social justice," said Representative Richard E. Neal, a Springfield Democrat and Catholic with a moderately antiabortion voting record. “This chance will not avail itself for another decade, and the status quo is unacceptable."
New England Democratic Representatives Stephen Lynch of Boston and James Langevin of Rhode Island joined Neal in voting for the stricter “Stupak amendment" in the House. Lynch and Langevin said they will not let abortion decide their votes.
And while abortion is a fundamental moral issue for the Catholic Church, the commitment to providing health care to everyone “is a pretty strong belief" among Catholics as well, Langevin added.
Antiabortion groups such as the National Right to Life Committee and Americans United for Life have persistently and aggressively lobbied against the Senate version, arguing that it provides a back-door way for federal funding of abortions. Senate Republicans have scheduled a news conference today to slam the health care package for its abortion provisions.
The conference of bishops opposes the current language, saying it defies the church’s deep beliefs that no federal funds should be used for any program that allows abortion. But the moral struggle in the choice between passing universal health care and fighting abortion funding is evident in the bishops’ letter to lawmakers.
. . . the bishops have been less assertive recently in their lobbying effort on Capitol Hill, several lawmakers said, a dramatic change from late last year, when they were helping to write the abortion language in the House bill.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.