ObamaCare: Taxpayers Funding Sexualization of America

ObamaCare launches a blitzkrieg of sex instruction in public schools coupled with a flood of contraceptive funding through myriad government programs.

"[Planned Parenthood] could reap a financial windfall, if ‘ObamaCare’ includes contraceptive services with mandated preventive care for women."

UPDATE 7/20/11: Raise Health Insurance Rates, White House Plans: Birth Control

-- From "Millions flow to states for contraceptive education" by Joe Dejka, Omaha World-Herald staff writer 1/30/11

A policy change in Washington means millions of dollars heading to the states for contraception education.

Prior to adoption of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act [ObamaCare], the federal government restricted certain grants to abstinence-only education.

The fund marks a break from the abstinence-only education policies of the Clinton and Bush administrations, begun in 1997 and targeted for programs with the exclusive purpose of teaching the social, psychological and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Medicaid expands birth control access" by Sarah Kliff, Politico 1/24/11

For states participating in the new option, CMS [Center for Medicaid & Medicare Services] will continue to reimburse at a 90 percent matching rate for approved family-planning services. Services generally include birth control as well as drugs to prevent the transmission of sexually transmitted infections.

While states vary in what specific family-planning services they provide under the waiver, a 2009 survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that the majority paid for birth control.

The Medicaid provision isn’t the only part of health reform that could lead to greater availability of contraceptives. The law requires that insurers cover preventive health care for women without requiring a copay, a provision that reproductive health groups have aggressively lobbied ought to include contraceptives.

Planned Parenthood launched an extensive campaign, Birth Control Matters, to defend contraceptives as preventive health care. Aside from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which generally opposes the use of birth control, the issue has gotten little pushback.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Defund Planned Parenthood?" by Joan Frawley Desmond, National Catholic Register 1/31/11

A push to include contraceptive services and sterilizations in mandated preventive care for women has deepened fears that the new health-care law will threaten conscience rights of Catholic employers and healthcare professionals.

Federal regulators must determine whether contraceptive services will be included in mandated preventive services for women by August, when the list of mandated services will be issued.

. . . Deirdre McQuade, spokeswoman for the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops [said,] “. . . if contraception is included, it would include all the methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), including ‘ella,’ a drug capable of dislodging an implanted embryo, which by anyone’s view is an abortion.”

Under the new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act [ObamaCare], all health insurers will be required to pay for preventive services that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends. Some experts predict that the advent of free contraception will be a financial windfall for family-planning providers like Planned Parenthood.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Christians Shouldn't Promote Mosque Building

A leading Southern Baptist (SBC) voice says that Christians should defend religious liberty, including the right for Muslims to build mosques in America, but Christians must not "go to bat" for mosques in court, for example.



-- From "Southern Baptist leader leaves mosque coalition" by The Associated Press 1/25/11

Richard Land, the head of the SBC's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said he heard from many Southern Baptists who felt the work [he was doing with] the Interfaith Coalition on Mosques crossed the line from defending religious freedom to promoting Islam.

The Coalition was formed last year as an initiative of the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish group that fights discrimination. Its first action was to file a friend of the court brief opposing a lawsuit that sought to stop a planned mosque in Murfreesboro, about 30 miles southeast of Nashville.

Land opposes building a Muslim community center with a mosque near New York City's Ground Zero, but he qualified that opposition: "That's not a religious liberties issue. That is a good manners issue."

Asked about statements from some evangelical Christians opposed to the Murfreesboro mosque that Islam is not a legitimate religion, Land said neither the government nor society should decide which religions are "kosher" and which are not.

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Liberal Media Claim Evangelicals Back Obama on Immigration

Liberal Media Highlight Christian Support of Immigration Reform

Liberal Media See Immigration as Evangelical Wedge Issue

Pope Welcomes Christians Leaving Anglicanism over Liberalism

Disillusioned by the pro-homosexual, feminist trend within pockets of Anglicanism, clergy and laity of the Church of England, and the Anglican Church in Australia, are joining the Ordinariate - a special structure established by the Pope - while the liberal insurgents within the Catholic Church grumble.



-- From "Vatican Welcomes First Anglicans Converting Under New Rules" by Rachel Donadio, New York Times 1/25/11

The Vatican angered many Anglicans, including the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury, when it announced the new structure in October 2009, because it appeared to upend decades of interfaith dialogue by implying that the Roman Catholic Church sought to encourage the conversion of Anglicans, especially those uncomfortable with the Church of England’s ordination of women and openly gay priests.

In the first concrete result of the Vatican’s offer, the archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, presided . . . over the conversions of three traditionalist Anglican bishops at Westminster Cathedral in London, the Vatican said in a statement.

The new structure, called a Personal Ordinariate, allows groups of Anglicans to convert while preserving some elements of Anglican liturgy and other traditions, including in some cases married clergy.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "The faithful lose in this victory for misogyny" editorial posted at U.K. Guardian 1/16/11

The [British] Catholic leader Archbishop Vincent Nichols tried at the [recent ordination of three former Anglican bishops as Catholic priests] to make the best of an arrangement with which he is privately thought to be uncomfortable. But however it is dressed up, this was the Catholic church fixated on stealing a march on Anglicanism. It is as if the Reformation was a recent score to be settled.

The establishment of a special ordinariate where former Anglicans who reject women's ordination can carry on much as before, but within the Catholic fold, can only cause tension between the two churches. That in its turn will focus attention once again on disputes between different branches of Christianity, and make religion look out of touch with the real world.

. . . Many British Catholics who want no part of this game of ecclesiastical power politics are left despairing. Those of other faiths or none, and of even moderately enlightened disposition, will be more inclined to turn their backs in anger.

To read the entire editorial above, CLICK HERE.

From "Former Anglicans could share old churches, says head of Ordinariate" posted at London Telegraph 1/18/11

In some of his first comments since being appointed “Ordinary” – the leader of the world’s first Personal Ordinariate – Fr [Keith] Newton said he hoped his group could share properties with the Church of England in “specific places”.

His suggestion is likely to be controversial because, while old churches in England belonged to Rome before the Reformation, many Anglicans believe that those who “cross the Tiber” have given up all right to use them. In most cases, the Catholic Church is expected to have to provide new buildings for the Ordinariate to use.

The possibility of church-sharing in London, where many Anglo-Catholics live and worship, has already been ruled out by the city’s powerful bishop, the Rt Rev Richard Chartres.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has said that “working out shared use of churches” will be a “challenge” of the new scheme.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Dissident Anglicans step closer to Rome" by Leesha McKenny, The Sydney Morning Herald 1/29/11

Up to 50 clergy and laity will gather for the first time nationally at St Stephen's College at Coomera for three days from Tuesday to discuss the Australian Anglican ordinariate - the local framework which will allow them to keep their married clergy, liturgy and church structures within Catholicism.

The prominent Sydney barrister John McCarthy, QC, has been briefed to advise the main dissident group of conservatives, the breakaway Traditional Anglican Communion, on constitutional and legal issues arising from the historic move.

The world Traditional Anglican Communion Primate, Adelaide-based Archbishop John Hepworth, was confident the group's assets, such as properties or trust funds, would not be forfeited once the ordinariate becomes official later this year. But he conceded in the case of assets owned by the mainstream Anglican communion it would be a question of "goodwill".

The re-ordination of four Australian Traditional Anglican Communion bishops, a retired Anglican bishop, a Japanese bishop and 24 Anglican priests is expected to be finalised by June 12.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Benedict the Ecumenist" by John Gerardi, The Daily Caller 1/30/11

. . . liberalism infected the Church of England so much that its teachings changed at exactly the same pace as the dominant culture changed. It was the first Christian body to accept the morality of contraception, at the 1930 Lambeth Conference. It shifted its positions on the all-male priesthood, and then (in the Episcopal Church, and soon in the Church of England) on the all-male episcopate, breaking with nearly 2,000 years of Christian practice. Many Anglicans have even come to accept the morality of abortion and the blessing of homosexual unions; the Episcopal Church even went so far as to embrace the openly homosexual Eugene Robinson as a bishop in good standing.

For the past 45 years, Catholics have been involved in ecumenical discussions with this increasingly liberal group through the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC), in attempts to foster greater “unity” between the two bodies. . . .

Cardinal Ratzinger was not very enthusiastic about these fake shows. He put a stop to the worst of these “joint statements,” a ludicrous betrayal of the Catholic faith known as the ARCIC Final Report. . . .

Fast-forward to 2009. At the urging of sizable groups of Anglicans who truly desired unity with the Catholic Church but wished to preserve some aspects of their Anglican identity, Pope Benedict issued Anglicanorum Coetibus, a legislative document that would facilitate the conversion of Anglicans to the Church on a corporate level.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Episcopal Church: Ordaining and 'Marrying' Homosexuals

As Homosexualists Enter, the Sacred Leave Episcopal Church

American Anglicans Ratify Constitution

Who Owns Church Property in ECUSA?

Episcopal Diocese Boots Christian Congregation from Building in Favor of Muslims

Gay 'Marriage' Repeal Bill in New Hampshire

Although the voters of New Hampshire handed the Republicans more power in November, the GOP leadership wants to steer clear of hot button social issues, but Christian legislators want repeal of the year-old legalization of same-sex 'marriage.'

For background, read Lawmakers Sustain Same-sex 'Marriage' and also read Same-sex 'Marriage' in New Hampshire Fails (in 2009)

UPDATE 3/22/12: Republican-controlled legislature overwhelmingly defeats repeal of same-sex "marriage" law

UPDATE 11/4/11: David Bates' repeal of same-sex "marriage" moving through House (replacement with civil unions law, with religious liberty clauses) - Marriage amendment push dropped

UPDATE 7/4/11: Repeal effort put off to next year

UPDATE 2/18/11: State House hearings scares liberals -- repeal odds favorable

UPDATE 2/1/11: Tea Party takeover pushes against 'gay marriage' and abortion

-- From "Gay marriage law could be repealed" by Cara Hogan, The Eagle Tribune 1/9/11

More than 1,000 couples have legally married their same-sex spouses in New Hampshire since Jan. 1, 2010, but the state's newly Republican-dominated Legislature wants to stop future marriages. Local as well as outside interests are getting ready for a long fight over the next year.

Rep. David Bates, R-Windham, has already filed two bills to return the marriage law to exactly what it was four years ago. His bill strictly defines marriage as between a man and a woman, but also has a caveat so marriages performed the past year would remain legal.

If Democratic Gov. John Lynch does veto the bill, the Legislature needs two-thirds of members present to override his veto.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Text of gay marriage ban floated" by Shira Schoenberg, Concord Monitor staff 1/29/11

The bill's preamble states, "Marriage is not a creature of statute but rather a social institution which predates organized government." It says marriage serves "important social goods" in which government has an interest.

It continues, "The vast majority of children are conceived by acts of passion between men and women - sometimes unintentionally." Because of that, the bill states, the state has an interest in protecting the union of men and women to increase the likelihood that children will be born and raised by their natural parents.

Bates's bill lists the marriages that would be prohibited to all men and women. Besides same-sex partners, they include marriages to their children, aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews.

House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt said recently that repealing gay marriage is not a priority for House leadership, and he will ask the House Judiciary Committee to retain Bates's bill until 2012. The final decision will be up to the committee, which is led by Amherst Republican Rep. Robert Rowe. A public hearing has not yet been scheduled.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Teaching Evolution is Religious Indoctrination: Lawsuit

Now in its third century, Darwin's theory of evolution resembles a religion more than a scientific inquiry, as adherents must believe by faith, given the absence of evidence.

Tom Ritter, a former physics and chemistry teacher of over 10 years, filed a lawsuit earlier this month against evolution in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the same court that ruled that teaching of intelligent design in public schools is unconstitutional.

Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, says the theory of evolution "represents one of the greatest challenges to Christian faith and faithfulness in our times."

-- From "Lawsuit Filed Against Evolution" posted at Christian Newswire 1/27/11

Biology studies organisms. It can also explain how organisms got that way, but studying organisms does not require explaining how they got that way, and the theory of evolution is bad science.

Evolutionists cannot demonstrate that three critical points are even possible, let alone that they actually happened:

(1) No one has demonstrated that life can be created from non-life. . . .

(2) No one has demonstrated that a new "sexual species" can be created. . . .

(3) Evolutionists theorize the human brain evolved from lower forms. Over 50 years into the age of computers, machines can crunch numbers far better and faster than humans, recognize and use language and tools, and beat us in chess. Yet science has yet to build even a rudimentary computer that can contemplate its own existence, the hallmark of the human brain. . . .

If evolution is unscientific, why teach it? Because no Creator means no God. In other words, evolution taught without a possible alternative is Atheism.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Retired Science Teacher Seeks to Bar Evolution from Classrooms" by Elena Garcia, Christian Post Reporter 1/30/11

Ritter told The Christian Post this week that he didn't pay too much attention to biology before, but now in retirement he saw problems that he couldn't overlook any longer.

A local resident, Ritter wants the [school] district to stop collecting taxes from him until such teaching is halted. This is one scheme in his plan to get rid of public schools altogether, which he considers to be a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Since evolution is unscientific and teaches the absence of a creator, it is actually teaching atheism, the suit contends. Therefore, teaching evolution should be illegal in public schools because it is a religion.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Mohler at center of debate over evolution & the Bible" by Erin Roach, Baptist Press 1/26/11

"Francis Collins makes the point made by so many others that we will actually lose credibility sharing the Gospel of Christ if we do not shed ourselves of the anti-intellectualism which is judged to be ours by the elite if we do not accept the theory of evolution," Mohler said.

What is most lacking in the evangelical movement today, Mohler said in the address, is a consideration of the theological cost of holding to an old earth position. The position, he said, seems to be at an "insoluble collision with the redemptive historical narrative of the Gospel."

"The cost to the Christian church, in terms of ignoring this question or abandoning the discussion, is just too high. The cost of confronting this question is also costly," Mohler said. "It can be very expensive because it can create intensity and conflict and controversy, but I would suggest that the avoidance of this will be at the cost of our own credibility."

One of Mohler's main concerns with an acceptance of evolution is how believers then can reconcile the absence of a historical Adam with the Apostle Paul's clear affirmation in Romans of Adam's headship and its centrality to the Gospel.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Calif. Abortionist Loses License over Homicide

Andrew Rutland agreed to surrender his medical license, for a second time, after the coroner's office ruled the death of a pregnant woman a homicide as Rutland attempted an abortion. The agreement did not include an admission of guilt, and Rutland will not face homicide charges.

For background, read Abortionist May Lose 'License to Kill' After Mother's Death

-- From "Anaheim doctor agrees to surrender medical license" by The Associated Press 1/26/11

The state Medical Board said Wednesday that Dr. Andrew Rutland violated a court order that limits the kind of procedures he can perform.

He agreed to give up his license by Feb. 11 to avoid disciplinary proceedings for the death of a woman who had a toxic reaction to anesthesia and suffered a heart attack in 2009.

In 2002, Rutland was accused of negligence in the death of two babies and other violations. He gave up his license and successfully applied for reinstatement five years later.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Practitioner Loses License, Killed Woman in Failed Abortion" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 1/26/11

The botched abortion was done in July 2009 at a filthy and ill-equipped acupuncture clinic in San Gabriel that Rutland ran where he also did abortions. Rutland killed [Ying] Chen by administering anesthesia to her and not knowing the proper dosage. . . .

According to the Orange County register, Rutland will surrender his medical license on February 11 rather than face disciplinary proceedings on the allegations of gross negligence related to Chen’s death. He did not admit his guilt related to the botched abortion in making the agreement with the California Medical Board, which says Rutland acknowledges the board could establish “factual basis” for one or more charges other than the homicide.

This is the second time Rutland has surrendered his license — as he did so in 2002 for severing a baby’s spinal column during a forceps delivery, then lying to the parents by telling them that their baby suffered a stroke. The baby later died. His license was reinstated in 2007 and Rutland was placed on five years probation with the restriction that he operate only under the supervision of another physician.

Rutland’s Los Angeles attorney Paul Hittelman would not comment to the newspaper about whether Rutland would pursue a medical license after the three year period is up during which he can’t practice medicine.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Homosexualists to Force Obama off the Fence

The Obama Administration has been torturing the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act for years, both rhetorically and in the courts, but refuses to put it to death for obvious political reasons. However, a pair of upcoming lawsuits, may force the President to take a side.

For background, CLICK HERE for the latest article and follow embedded links therein to earlier articles.

-- From "Gay marriage lawsuits challenge Obama administration" by Charlie Savage, New York Times 1/28/11

The two lawsuits . . . have provoked an internal administration debate about how to sustain its have-it-both-ways stance, officials said. Unlike previous challenges, the new lawsuits were filed in districts covered by the appeals court in New York — one of the only circuits with no modern precedent saying how to evaluate claims that a law discriminates against gay people.

"Now they are being asked what they think the law should be, and not merely how to apply the law as it exists," said Michael Dorf, a Cornell University law professor. "There is much less room to hide for that decision."

The Obama legal team has not yet decided what path to take on the lawsuits, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity about the internal deliberations. But the Justice Department must respond by March 11.

. . . a crucial question: Is it constitutional for the federal government to grant certain benefits — like health insurance for spouses of federal workers, or an exemption to estate taxes for surviving spouses — to some people who are legally married under their state's laws, but not to others, based on their sexual orientation?

To read the entire very lengthy article, CLICK HERE or HERE.

School Board Prayers Challenge Atheist Organization

When the Polk County, FL school received a letter from the Freedom From Religion Foundation threatening a lawsuit to force termination of prayer at Board meetings, the Board decided to allow voluntary prayer before the meeting begins, knowing it will be sued regardless.

-- From "School Board won't bow to anti-prayer group" by Phil Attinger, News Chief correspondent (Winter Haven, FL) 1/26/11

Polk County School Board members have no intention of doing away with prayer before their regular meetings.

During a work session Tuesday, board members said they want to continue to allow local religious leaders to offer a prayer before meetings, but not during them, and make it clear the prayer is voluntary.

School Board Attorney Wes Bridges said [the Freedom From Religion Foundation] appears to exist for the sole purpose of filing lawsuits on the separation of church and state. Usually the question comes up when an organization is upset with how or who, but the group now wants the practice to stop completely.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Polk County School District May Face Prayer Lawsuit" by Merissa Green, The Ledger (Lakeland, FL) 1/25/11

[Wes Bridges] said it could cost the board $300,000 to $500,000 in legal fees to fight a lawsuit. And if the board loses, there's the possibility it would have to pay the legal fees of the plaintiff.

However, there is a possibility an advocacy group could help subsidize the School District's defense, Bridges said.

School Board member Hazel Sellers said people would have the option to come in during the prayer or after the start of the meeting.

"I prayed about this before I came this morning ... and I think we need to ask our community to begin to pray about this," Sellers said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Military Homosexual Training Begins, or NOT

Although the Pentagon announced today the beginning of training warriors, and readiness for homosexual relations, new legislation introduced last week would require extensive certification to Congress prior to any implementation.



-- From "Pentagon to Begin Phase Out of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'" by Luis Martinez, ABC News 1/28/11

Senior Pentagon officials said today they are confident the process could be finished sometime this year.

Each of the military services will create its own training schedules based on guidelines issued by the Defense Department under a plan announced today by Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Cliff Stanley, undersecretary of personnel and readiness.

Both officials said it remains unclear how long it will take to train the entire military . . .

The "don't ask, don't tell" policy remains in effect until President Obama, Defense Secretary Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen certify that the military's implementation of the repeal has been completed and has not affected readiness. The law itself would not be repealed until 60 days after the certification.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Pentagon: Training on 'don't ask, don't tell' starts in Feb. for troops, commanders" by Ed O'Keefe, Washington Post 1/28/11

Training is likely to be led by instructors, and may include written materials, videos, vignettes describing different elements of military life and PowerPoint slides outlining the changes. Each individual will need to certify that he or she completed the training, Cartwright said.

. . . the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] prohibits extending most medical, housing and travel benefits to same-sex partners. The Pentagon will continue to explore whether gay troops could designate same-sex partners as beneficiaries . . .

Officials did not know the expected costs of the training programs, but Gates promised to provide "adequate funding."

Critics warned Friday that the Pentagon is rushing too quickly to end the ban. Elaine Donnelly, founder of the Center for Military Readiness and a vocal opponent of changing the policy, said "scores of complicated issues and problems involving human sexuality" remain unresolved. "All of these problems will be loaded on the backs of trainers and field commanders, who will be expected to divert valuable time to deal with all of the negative consequences in the midst of ongoing wars," she said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Pentagon's training for ‘Don’t ask’ repeal to start next month, but timeline unclear" by John T. Bennett, The Hill 1/28/11

Some in Congress fought the Obama administration's repeal effort and are seeking to hold up implementation. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), for example, has introduced legislation [HR 337] designed to slow repeal.

The measure would add the four military service chiefs to the list of those who must sign off on scrapping the ban.

Hunter is concerned that repealing the DADT policy unjustly “excluded the service chiefs from the certification process,” said one congressional aide.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Hunter Bill Would Stop Implentation of Don’T Ask, Don’T Tell Repeal" posted at East County Magazine 1/28/11

“The idea behind the Restore Military Readiness Act [HR 337] is not necessarily to prevent the implementation of the DADT repeal, but rather to ensure that military readiness and combat effectiveness are not adversely impacted,” Hunter said, according to an article published by UPI. “Given that the service chiefs carry most of the day-to-day responsibilities for each service branch, their independent certification is just as important and equally necessary.”

Hunter, a veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, has drawn criticism over his bill from California Senator Dianne Feinstein, who co-sponsored the DADT bill. “This issue is settled. It’s time to move on to address what California needs, not looking backwards to derail equality.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Read also, Homosexual Behavior in Military Would be Deadly

Obama Admin. Gay Agenda Side-steps Congress, Again

Purposely negating the will of the People, President Obama's Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has issued proposed regulations to provide special status for sexually deviant behavior.

-- From "Housing policy and the gay community" by Ed O'Keefe, Washington Post Staff Writer 1/23/11

HUD has unveiled a series of proposed rule changes that would prohibit lenders from using sexual orientation or gender identity as a way of determining a borrower's eligibility. The rule change would state that eligible families have the opportunity to participate in HUD-based programs regardless of marital status or sexual orientation.

If approved, HUD's proposed rule changes would join a growing list of policy reforms made by federal agencies that don't require congressional approval. The changes include a State Department decision to make passport application forms for children more gender-neutral by including "Parent 1" and "Parent 2" alongside "Mother" and Father." The Census Bureau also plans to publicly disclose the number of same-sex relationships reported in the 2010 Census and hopes to officially count same-sex marriages for the first time with the 2020 Census.

President Obama has also extended some benefits to the same-sex partners of gay and lesbian federal workers.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "HUD Offers Latest Obama Administration Attempt To Strengthen LGBT Rights Through Regulation" by Huffington Post Staff reporter 1/21/11

The HUD proposal marks the latest in a string of Obama administration attempts to enhance gay rights through federal regulation, which may offer a way forward for advocates who worry that legislative efforts have little hope of success this year.

. . . Some other highlights of the regulatory changes by the Obama administration to date:

-- June 17, 2009: Obama signs a memorandum expanding federal benefits for the same-sex partners of Foreign Service and executive branch government employees.

-- Oct. 21, 2009: HHS creates a National Resource Center for LGBT Elders.

-- April 27, 2010: The Justice Department issues a memo stating that that federal prosecutors should enforce criminal provisions in the Violence Against Women Act in cases involving gay and lesbian relationships.

-- June 9, 2010: The State Department [changes passport applications for transgendered.]

Click here to read the entire article above, along with a longer list of Obama's implementation of the Gay Agenda.

Also read, White House Orders Redefinition of Family

Univ. Drops Pro-marriage Christian Food Vendor

Indiana University South Bend has removed Chick-fil-A as a campus vendor citing its donation of food to a Christian marriage counseling event, thus displaying its “homophobic” tendencies.

UPDATE 2/1/11: University reverses itself, after national attention



-- From "Chick-fil-A removed from IU South Bend campus" by Chad Damp, WSBT-TV Reporter 1/27/11

"Chick-fil-A's already known as a Christian organization,” said IU South Bend senior Brian Jernigan. “So, I'm not really surprised that they would donate to an organization that's against homosexual values."

. . . IU South Bend senior Justin Samson [said,] “I just think people are just over-reacting with what Chick-fil-A stands for and I just think that they need to settle down and accept that everybody doesn't have to have the same belief."

Many students said they didn't even notice the sandwiches were gone and the university says they don't plan to bring in a vendor to replace Chick-fil-A.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Gay groups attack Chick-fil-A for supporting marriage counseling event" by Kathleen Gilbert, LifeSiteNews.com 1/17/11

The dispute surrounded Chick-fil-A’s involvement in conferences next month in South-Central Pennsylvania featuring “The Art of Marriage,” a program designed to help Christian couples support their marriage. The conferences are being sponsored by the Pennsylvania Family Institute, which homosexualist bloggers faulted for supporting traditional marriage.

Metro Weekly’s Last Word blog noted the next day that Chick-fil-A’s corporate philosophy is Christian, and links the company’s Christian grounding to its history of supporting events by “gay rights-hating Christianists,” such as the Family Research Council. In 2009, the gay rights corner of Change.org similarly blasted Chick-fil-A as “homophobic” for supporting the leading Christian organization Focus on the Family.

In a video posted on the fast food chain’s Facebook account January 11, however, the company’s president defended its involvement in the local group’s work, saying that providing food for the event was “not an endorsement of the mission, political stance, or motives of this or any other organization.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Abortion More Common Among the Mentally Ill

Unlike the headline from the mainstream media, which implies that abortion is more healthy than giving birth, the study quoted actually demonstrates the opposite, and seems to say that "you have to be crazy" to have an abortion.

"Women who are in a difficult situation -- pregnant and unsure whether or not to continue with the pregnancy -- should know that they do not have an increased risk of having a first-time episode of a severe mental disorder after an abortion."
-- Trine Munk-Olsen, Ph.D., epidemiologist at Aarhus University, in Denmark

UPDATE 1/29/11: Papal adviser finds holes in new study

-- From "Study finds no rise in post-abortion mental issues" by Lynne Peeples, Health.com, posted at CNN 1/26/11

Roughly 1 percent of the women who had abortions were treated for a psychiatric problem -- such as depression, bipolar disorder, or anxiety -- in the nine months leading up to the procedure, a rate that did not change measurably in the year following the abortions, the study found.

Still, the study does have some important limitations. Although the researchers did control for the women's age and any parental history of mental disorders, they didn't take into account social or economic characteristics, nor whether a pregnancy was actually wanted. And the researchers don't know if the study participants had untreated mental health problems, [said Robert Blum, M.D., an adolescent health expert at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, in Baltimore].

It's also unclear how well the findings might translate to the U.S.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Abortion does not increase risk of mental health problems, study says" by Shari Roan, Los Angeles Times 1/26/11

Women [in the study] who had abortions had higher rates of mental health disorders overall. But there was little difference in psychiatric visits before and after the abortion: 1% had contact with a mental health professional before the abortion compared with 1.5% after.

Women who gave birth had lower rates of mental health problems. However, visits for psychiatric healthcare increased after the birth: 0.3% had a mental health visit before childbirth compared with 0.7% in the year following.

Though women who have abortions may tend to have more mental problems, this propensity predates the abortion and may even be a factor that makes termination of pregnancy more likely, the authors concluded.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Abortion Typically Doesn't Harm Mental Health: Study" by Amanda Gardner, HealthDay News Reporter 1/26/11

In Denmark, abortions are both free and legal during the first trimester.

The most frequent reasons for psychiatric visits were neurotic or stress-related complaints. Some past studies may have included issues such as sadness or regret, which don't necessary constitute a mental disorder, Munk-Olsen said.

Among women and girls who actually delivered a baby, about four in 1,000 had a first-time psychiatric episode before the baby and about seven afterward -- an increase possibly related to postpartum depression, the study authors said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Study finds that women who have abortions are more likely to seek psychiatric help" by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, LifeSiteNews.com 1/27/11

A new study financed by the pro-abortion Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation has found that women in Denmark who have abortions are far more likely to seek psychiatric help for the first time in their lives in the months surrounding their abortion than women who give birth.

The study, entitled “Induced First-Trimester Abortion and Risk of Mental Disorder” and published today in the New England Journal of Medicine, examined Danish medical records maintained by the government, which records incidents of abortions and psychiatric counseling among citizens. The study covers the years 1995-2007.

The authors found that women who underwent abortions were almost three times more likely to seek psychiatric help for the first time in their lives during the nine months before and twelve months after the procedure, than women who gave birth.

However, the authors did not regard the results as suggesting a causal relationship between abortion and mental illness.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Abortion Linked to Mental Health Disorders

Late-Term Abortions Harm Mental Health: Study

Mother Regrets Her Addiction to Abortion

Abortion Doesn't Harm Teen Mental Health: Study

UK: Royal College Warns Abortions Can Lead to Mental Illness

Few Believe Evolution Enough to Teach It: Study

Penn State political scientists have found that only 28% of high school biology teachers properly indoctrinate students, by presenting evolution as a fact of history, as demanded by the National Research Council. The study authors say that government should force the teachers.

-- From "High school biology teachers reluctant to endorse evolution in class" posted at PhysOrg.com 1/27/11

The majority of public high school biology teachers are not strong classroom advocates of evolutionary biology, despite 40 years of court cases that have ruled teaching creationism or intelligent design violates the Constitution, according to Penn State political scientists. A mandatory undergraduate course in evolutionary biology for prospective teachers, and frequent refresher courses for current teachers, may be part of the solution, they say.

"Considerable research suggests that supporters of evolution, scientific methods, and reason itself are losing battles in America's classrooms," write Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer, professors of political science at Penn State, in today's (Jan. 28) issue of Science.

The researchers examined data from the National Survey of High School Biology Teachers, a representative sample of 926 public high school biology instructors. They found only about 28 percent of those teachers consistently implement National Research Council recommendations calling for introduction of evidence that evolution occurred, and craft lesson plans with evolution as a unifying theme linking disparate topics in biology.

In contrast, Berkman and Plutzer found that about 13 percent of biology teachers "explicitly advocate creationism or intelligent design by spending at least one hour of class time presenting it in a positive light." Many of these teachers typically rejected the possibility that scientific methods can shed light on the origin of the species, and considered both evolution and creationism as belief systems that cannot be fully proven or discredited.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Training teachers to take on the creationism/evolution battle" by Yun Xie, posted at ARS Technica 1/27/11

[The Penn State study showed that a] majority of teachers (60 percent) taught evolution cautiously, allowing room for debate and doubt. [13%] of the teachers openly advocated creationism.

The [study] authors propose that it is possible to persuade those timid teachers to become advocates of evolution, as the teachers do not exhibit strong conservative markers like believing that the universe is only 10,000 years old. Berkman and Plutzer suggest that the main cause of the problem is that these teachers lack confidence in their grasp of evolutionary biology.

Many of these teachers lack the educational expertise to defend evolution, so they resort to dodging the creationism vs. evolution "controversy" altogether. Some of them shift the blame of having to teach evolution to state examinations, while pointing out to students that they do not need to actually believe it. Other teachers focus on molecular evolution, avoiding macroevolution of species, which prevents students from understanding the complete picture. Finally, some teachers like to provide students with both sides of the discussion and allow students to draw their own conclusions. Berkman and Plutzer find this last approach particularly worrisome, as it gives students the impression that a well-established concept, which is supported by thousands of scientific papers, is debatable based on personal opinions.

To reduce the harmful effects of teaching evolution in an ambivalent way, Berkman and Plutzer recommend requiring biology teachers to take a course in evolution. They argue that if teachers are armed with knowledge, they will be better equipped to stand up to arguments from students and parents.

To read a lengthy interview with the Penn State study authors, in the article above, CLICK HERE.

If you wonder about totalitarianism and indoctrination in American education, you'll want to read both of the above articles in full -- follow the links.

UPDATE 12/31/13: Most Americans Reject Godless Theory of Evolution

Christians Censored by Calif. School

Donors for a school project were allowed to have their chosen inspirational message engraved on paver bricks, except for Bible verses -- VERBOTEN!

“The government cannot single out Christians, because their religious viewpoint does not coincide with campus orthodoxy.”

UPDATE 6/10/11: School cancels fundraiser entirely rather than accept Bible verses

-- From "Desert Sands Unified School District faces federal lawsuit" by Staff, City News Service, Southwest Riverside News Network 1/25/11

The Desert Sands Unified School District, targeted by a religious freedom group, was facing federal lawsuit today, because it would not include some bricks bearing Bible verses in a sidewalk built as part of a fundraiser.

The Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Alliance Defense Fund sued the school district Jan. 18 on behalf of Lou Ann Hart and Sheryl Caronna, claiming school officials violated their First Amendment rights when they rejected bricks bearing Bible verses.

According to the lawsuit, the district cited the constitutional “separation of church and state” in rejecting the bricks. Neither woman received a refund, according to the complaint.

The lawsuit, Hart v. Tomack, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, which is in San Diego. Gary Tomack is a member of the Desert Sands school board.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "School sued over religious bricks" Michelle Mitchell, The Desert Sun 1/25/11

“The so-called separation of church and state … does not justify discrimination against religious speech,” said David Cortman, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, which filed the suit Thursday on behalf of Lou Ann Hart and Sheryl Caronna.

Officials from Desert Sands Unified School District have not responded to requests for comment.

The denied bricks had messages such as “Tell everyone about God’s power, Psalm 68:34” and “’Trust in the Lord with all your heart & lean not on your own understanding’ Proverbs 3:5 The Caronna Family,” according to the complaint.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "District taking money, but censoring Christians?" by Bob Unruh © 2011 WorldNetDaily 1/25/11

[Donors] were allowed to include messages such as:

Be the change that you want to see in the world. Gandhi

God bless you babe

Dream big

Make it happen

"Showtime"

Carpe Diem

Believe

The lawsuit explains the women were told that there was a complaint from within the school about the "religious verbiage" on their pavers, so they would not be included in the project. Nor was their money refunded.

A spokeswoman for the school in the Desert Sands Unified School District told WND that it was an outside organization, the parent teacher organization, that was running the fundraiser and the school did not have a responsibility.

The project was launched in February 2010 by the Palm Desert parent teacher organization. It was approved by the principal, board and superintendent.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Pelosi, Feminists Talk Equal Pay - Dump Marriage: NOW

Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women and Heidi Hartmann, president of the Institute for Women's Policy Research said the federal government should focus on equal pay in order to achieve economic security for women rather than promoting the institution of marriage between a man and woman.



-- From "Event to Address Economy and Legislation of 112th Congress" posted at Business Wire 1/19/11

The National Council of Women’s Organizations (NCWO) is hosting a congressional briefing and lunch for congressional staff, media, and the public.

This briefing is hosted by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and organized by the Older Women’s Economic Security Task Force of the National Council of Women’s Organizations. In the fall of 1998, NCWO formed an Older Women's Economic Security (OWES) Task Force to address the critical issue of Social Security reform and to help policy makers understand women's stake in this crucial issue. The OWES Task Force is co-chaired by Heidi Hartmann, President of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, and Terry O'Neill, President of the National Organization for Women.

To read the entire press release above, CLICK HERE.

From "Women's Groups: Government Should Focus On Equal Pay, Not Promote Marriage" by Nicholas Ballasy, CNSNews.com 1/25/11

Many studies over the years have shown that marriage between a man and a women benefits women financially and leads to healthier lives for the couple’s children.

CNSNews.com asked both activists if the federal government should do all it can to promote marriage between a man and a woman to ensure economic security for women.

O’Neill disagreed with studies showing that married couples live longer and healthier lives, arguing that the federal government should focus on helping women as individuals and not promote marriage.

“Personally, no, I do not believe that and I don’t think you’ll find any of the women’s groups who are members of the National Council of Women’s Organizations advocating that position,” Hartmann told CNSNews.com at the Capitol on Friday following a National Organization for Women briefing about women’s economic security.

Hartmann cited “subsidized childcare” as a way to help women economically.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Obama Serves Homosexualists, Again, in Speech

The President's State of the Union Speech included the usual gratuitous salute to the Gay Agenda; just like the reference to God, it comes at the end, after nearly every American has nodded off. It's routine: The homosexualist media reports the comment widely, while the mainstream media ignores it, and America, again, is largely unaware.

"Our troops come from every corner of this country -– they’re black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American. They are Christian and Hindu, Jewish and Muslim. And, yes, we know that some of them are gay. Starting this year, no American will be forbidden from serving the country they love because of who they love."
-- President Obama 1/25/11

The homosexualists wanted more -- the next step, same-sex 'marriage' -- in the speech.



-- From "Robert Gibbs: President Obama ‘Thinks A Lot About’ Gay Marriage" by Tommy Christopher, Mediaite 1/24/11

Monday’s White House briefing consisted mainly of Press Secretary Robert Gibbs not answering questions about the specifics of President Obama’s State of the Union address, including whether he would bring up same-sex marriage in some form. The Blade’s Chris Johnson asked Gibbs about a 1996 questionnaire that indicated Obama’s support for same-sex marriage, and I followed up by asking if the President was any closer to revealing his “evolved” personal beliefs on the subject. Gibbs pointed to previous remarks by the President, and said it’s an issue that he “thinks a lot about,” but there are no immediate plans for him to address the issue.

Transcript (via email from The White House):

Christopher Johnson: I have some questions for you on marriage. Back in 1996, when the President was running to become Illinois state senator, he stated in a questionnaire response to what is now the Windy City Times that he supports same-sex marriage. He wrote, “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” That’s not the President’s current position. Has he backtracked on an earlier commitment he made to gay and lesbian Americans?

MR. GIBBS: I think there’s a whole host of issues that I would direct you to during the campaign on different questionnaires. And I would again reiterate what the President has said recently on that issue.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Gibbs dodges question on Obama’s early marriage support" by Chris Johnson, Washington Blade (homosexualist news) 1/24/11

In the 1996 questionnaire response, Obama unequivocally stated his support for same-sex marriage, which is different from his current position on the issue. His position since has been that marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman. Still, the president has suggested his position could “evolve” on the matter and said last month he’s “wrestling” with the idea of marriage rights for gay couples.

Although he opposes same-sex marriage, Obama as a U.S. senator voted against a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and said he supports full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex unions.

A number of gay rights supporters have called on Obama to declare support for same-sex marriage during the State of the Union address.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Gay-rights groups react to President Obama's State of the Union address regarding 'don't ask, don't tell'" by Steve Rothaus, Miami Herald 1/25/11

Today the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, reacted to the President’s State of the Union address in which he announced that open service by gays, lesbians and bisexuals in the U.S. Armed Forces would begin this year. HRC President Joe Solmonese issued the following statement:

“Very soon, what will matter in the U.S. military is how you do your job, not your sexual orientation. Last year the President committed to working with Congress to repeal the ban on open service by gay, lesbian and bisexual people and tonight’s announcement is welcome news for all Americans ready to close the book on discrimination in the ranks. Not only does repeal mean troops will be treated with the dignity and respect they deserve, but our nation will be stronger with the best and brightest able to serve in uniform. Tonight is the culmination of a promise kept by this President.

“The issue most prevalent in tonight’s speech was jobs and with discrimination in the military soon behind us, there remain a number of pressing issues for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community when it comes to economic security. The President and Congress can do much more to ensure the economic empowerment of LGBT people including ending the unfair taxation of partner health benefits, prohibiting workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, and ensuring that all married couples have access to the same federal benefits and protections for their families. We look forward to working with this President and allies in Congress on the challenges ahead.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Astronomer: No Intelligent Life Beyond Earth

After analyzing hundreds of planets, Harvard's senior astrophysicist, Dr. Howard Smith has concluded that there is no one beyond our own Earth -- which exists in perfect placement in our Solar System to sustain our lives, unlike any other heavenly body.

Ummm . . . It would seem he's saying that the Earth's perfect existence is not the result of random chance.

-- From "No hope of alien life in space, says US researcher" by The Daily Telegraph 1/25/11

There is no hope of finding alien life in space because conditions on all other 500 planets discovered so far are too hostile, a leading astronomer has claimed.

Dr Howard Smith, a senior astrophysicist at Harvard, said that extreme conditions found so far on planets discovered outside the solar system are likely to be the norm. "Most other planets and solar systems are wildly different from our own," he said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Astronomer discounts chances of alien life" posted at UPI 1/24/11

Smith insists extrasolar planets are too different from our own and even if they did support life it would be impossible for us to contact it.

"Any hope of contact has to be limited to a relatively tiny bubble of space around the Earth, stretching perhaps 1,250 light years out from our planet, where aliens might be able to pick up our signals or send us their own," he says. "But communicating would still take decades or centuries."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Alien life deemed impossible by analysis of 500 planets" by Heidi Blake, London Telegraph 1/23/11

[Dr. Smith] pointed to stars such as HD10180, which sparked great excitement when it was found to be orbited by a planet of similar size and appearance to Earth.

But the similarities turned out to be superficial. The planet lies less than two million miles from its sun, meaning it is roasting hot, stripped of its atmosphere and blasted by radiation.

Many of the other planets have highly elliptical orbits which cause huge variations in temperature which prevent water remaining liquid, thus making it impossible for life to develop.

. . . Dr Smith dismissed the claims [of NASA -- see next article below], insisting that other extrasolar planets differ starkly from our own . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

UPDATE 2/2/11: Media Fanfare for NASA discovering, what might be distant planets, that theoretically could sustain life, but no conclusions are scientifically possible.

From "Astronomers hunting alien Earths" by Dan Vergano, USA TODAY 1/23/11

NASA's Kepler space telescope team this month unveiled the first indisputable detection of a rocky planet spotted in another star's solar system. The find lifted hopes that planets with rocky cores like Earth fill many stars' solar systems. Mission scientists led by William Borucki of NASA's NASA Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif., promise to report on hundreds of more planetary candidates next month.

Dubbed "Kepler-10b," the recently-announced rocky planet roasts in an orbit far too hot for life, circling less than two million miles above its sun-like star. "You have to see this as a warm up for Kepler, literally," says mission team scientist Sara Seager of MIT, however, pointing to expected future finds.

"Although no such planets have yet been discovered, the first will be found within the next couple of years," write astrophysicists Jonti Horner of Australia's University of New South Wales and Barrie Jones of the United Kingdom's Open University in the current Astronomy & Geophysics journal. "And so the time is right to discuss exactly what factors might come together to make such planets more, or less, suitable for life to develop and thrive."

Some caution about planet discoveries might be in order, though. The September announcement of the planet Gliese 581g by a team led by Steven Vogt of the University of California-Santa Cruz and Paul Butler of the Carnegie Institute of Washington (D.C.), has come under fire. Circling just such an M-class dwarf star, the planet was announced as orbiting in a potentially habitable zone. Other astronomers, such as the Geneva Observatory's Francesco Pepe, have since said they couldn't confirm the planet's detection, raising questions about its existence. (Noting that three outside groups have now reported they can't find Gliese 581g, Pepe says in an email, "It turns out today that Vogt's conclusions were wrong.")

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Warning to Dr. Howard Smith: You're about to be labeled a heretic by your peers.

UPDATE 2/3/11 (video): PBS report speculates that "odds are" some planet must have life


UPDATE 12/25/14: From "Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God" by Eric Metaxas (author of “Miracles: What They Are, Why They Happen, and How They Can Change Your Life”), posted at Wall Street Journal

Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. . . .

Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?

Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming” and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

UPDATE 3/17/14: Science Limited to Godless Origins at Ball State Univ.

Christians Flood D.C. to Oppose Abortion

On the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, nearly half a million Americans gathered at the Mall in Washington D.C. for the annual March for Life showing support for unborn human life, while the mainstream media, understating the crowd, either ignored the event altogether, or focused on the handful of pro-abortion protesters.

Read also, Obama Celebrates Roe v. Wade Anniversary

UPDATE 1/27/11 - CBS News video "GOP Pushes for New Abortion Limits:"




From "March Marks 38th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade" by Tom Sherwood, NBC TV-4 Washington, D.C. 1/24/11

Tens of thousands of people braved the cold and took to the streets of downtown D.C. Monday for the annual March for Life . . . [which] condemns the 1973 Supreme Court that set off an on-going battle in American politics.

More than three dozen lawmakers addressed the crowd during the two-hour rally before the march. Buoyed by Republican gains in the November elections, the lawmakers called for the landmark ruling to be overturned, the Associated Press reported. They said they would work to restrict tax dollars for abortions.

Small groups of anti-protesters said the country should remain pro-choice.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Activists at March for Life Rally Demand Tougher Abortion Laws, Overturn of Roe v. Wade" by Huma Khan and Amy Bingham, ABC News 1/24/11

"We are here because Roe v. Wade is bad law. We are here because we believe it was wrongly decided," said Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss. "We believe Roe v. Wade has led to a three-and-a-half decades-long holocaust in the United States of America, and it amounts to a stain on our national conscience, and it's time for it to end."

Wicker, who for years has attempted to pass his "Life at Conception Act," today announced that he will reintroduce the bill in the Senate Tuesday. The legislation would establish that human life begins at conception and calls for legal protection for fetuses.

"It's time for the 14th Amendment protection to be afforded to the unborn," he said.

The rally comes as the new Republican Majority House has made abortion one of its top priorities and reopened the controversial debate. Last week, Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, introduced legislation [HR 3] that would ban federal funding for abortion, calling it one of the House's "top legislative priorities."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Thousands of abortion opponents rally in march on Mall" by Michelle Boorstein and Ben Pershing, Washington Post Staff Writers 1/24/11

Some signs and buttons were evergreen: "De-fund Planned Parenthood," "I was adopted not aborted" and "I regret my abortion." Others mentioned President Obama, whom the movement hopes will be challenged by recently elected conservatives. "Stop the Obama abortion agenda," a common sign said.

. . . House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said the new Republicans in Congress are the "biggest and the most pro-life freshman class in memory."

Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.) also introduced a measure that supporters say would ensure that the health-care reform bill passed last year doesn't allow funding for abortion coverage. . . . In his comments to the crowd Monday, Smith called Obama "the abortion president."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Hundreds of thousands assemble against abortion in DC" by Benjamin Mann, Catholic News Agency 1/24/11

For the first time ever, the morning rally events that preceded the March for Life took place at two locations – the Verizon Center and D.C. Armory – to accommodate larger-than-usual crowds. Growing youth participation, possibly assisted by online social media, has nearly quadrupled the size of the march during the past decade.

In the afternoon, the demonstrators assembled on the Washington Mall before proceeding to the steps of the Supreme Court. Although the city of Washington, D.C. does not provide estimates of the crowd size at the yearly event, organizers predicted that up to 400,000 people would participate in this year's march.

The evening before the event, thousands gathered in the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception for the opening Mass of the National Prayer Vigil for Life. Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo, Archbishop of Galveston-Houston, Texas and chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, celebrated the Mass for a capacity crowd at the nation's largest Catholic church.

“Americans love life as much as we love freedom,” [House Speaker John Boehner] said, indicating that public policy should never seek to balance the freedom of one individual against the vulnerable life of another, but must always respect both. In an authentic vision of freedom, he said, these “founding principles” – individual liberty, and the right to life – are inseparably “intertwined, and form the basis of our national character.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Last year's March for Life (January 2010):