Thursday, May 31, 2012

'Higher Education' Indoctrinates Pro-abortion: Poll

The latest Gallup poll of American opinion concerning abortion finds a direct correlation between the number of years spent in college and the likelihood of a young adult favoring abortion over a pro-life belief.

Not surprisingly, the poll also shows that the vast majority of the nonreligious and Democrats are pro-abortion.

For background, read Poll: Most Americans Pro-life; Liberals Desperate and also read Poll: Pro-life America Becomes More So as well as Pro-life Trends Continue in American Opinion

UPDATE 4/18/14: University of Chicago Teaches Students How to Get Abortion

UPDATE 9/2/13: Christian Pro-life Free Speech Censored at Ohio College

-- From "More Time In School, More Likely ‘Pro-Choice,’ Says Gallup Poll" by Terence P. Jeffrey, 5/30/12

Nonetheless, a majority of American college graduates who did not attend graduate school, as well as a majority of those who have no better than a high school diploma, say they are pro-life.

Only 33 percent of Americans with a high school degree or less said they were “pro-choice." Meanwhile, 41 percent of those who had done “some college,” 45 percent of those who graduated from college but did not attend graduate school, and 58 percent of those who did attend graduate school described themselves as pro-choice.

On the other side of the ledger, 53 percent of those with a high school degree or less said they were “pro-life;” as did 49 percent of those who did “some college” and 53 percent of those who had earned a college degree but did not go to graduate school.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Gallup: Nonreligious Are Least 'Pro-Life'" by Napp Nazworth, Christian Post Reporter 5/30/12

Only 19 percent of those with no religious attachment identified themselves as "pro-life" in the May 3-6 poll of 1,024 adults. Sixty-eight percent called themselves "pro-choice." This represents the largest propensity toward the pro-choice position on abortion of any major demographic group.

The 49 percentage point margin between pro-life and pro-choice positions among the nonreligious is much larger the 16 percentage point margin among Catholics (54 percent pro-life, 38 percent pro-choice) and the 24 percentage point margin among Protestants and other Christians (57 percent pro-life, 33 percent pro-choice).

Gallup also found that men are more pro-life than women, nonwhites are more pro-life than whites, those 55 and older are more pro-life than 18- to 54-year-olds, Southerners are more pro-life than non-Southerners, and those who make less than $75,000 per year are more pro-life than upper-income Americans.

Besides self-proclaimed Democrats and the nonreligious, the only other major subgroup to show a majority identifying as pro-choice are those with a postgraduate education.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read the full Gallup Poll

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Targeting Unborn Girls OK with Planned Parenthood

After undercover sting videos exposed callous Planned Parenthood counselors advising pregnant women how to kill their baby girls in favor of baby boys, this nation's largest abortion mill issued a statement that indeed they will NOT dissuade sex-selection abortions (except in the four states that have outlawed such gendercide) -- thus providing services they consider “high quality, confidential, nonjudgmental care to all who come into” their facility.

Meanwhile, Congress will now consider H.R. 3541, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA), to fight against the abortionists' war on women -- a bill that is strongly opposed by pro-abortion organizations.

For background, read Worldwide Abortion: The War on Girls and also read Sex-selection Abortion Possible at 7 Weeks as well as Arizona Abortion Ban for Race/Gender Selection in addition, read Sex-selection Abortion Outlawed in Oklahoma

UPDATE 5/31/12: As House Democrats defeat bill to save little girls . . .
the White House says motivations to kill the unborn must be private

-- From "South Austin clinic at center of sex-selective abortion controversy" by Jazmine Ulloa, American-Stateman Staff 5/29/12

Live Action, which describes itself on its website as "a youth led movement dedicated to building a culture of life and ending abortion," said the video is the first in a series dubbed "Gendercide: Sex-Selection in America," which activists said is dedicated to exposing how abortion clinics across the country facilitate sex-selective abortion. The group sent actresses posing as patients to clinics across the country as part of what it called a national investigation.

Planned Parenthood said the activists are engaged in an ongoing hoax campaign that is promoting false claims about the group. The staff member seen in the footage had been in the entry-level position for about six months, did not follow protocol and was fired within days of the interaction on April 11, said Sarah Wheat, interim co-CEO of Planned Parenthood of the Texas Capital Region. All staff members at the clinic on East Ben White Boulevard were "immediately scheduled for retraining in managing unusual patient encounters."

[Planned Parenthood] said in a statement ". . . [we] do not believe that curtailing access to abortion services is a legitimate means of addressing sex selection . . ."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Planned Parenthood Sting Caught On Video, Released By Anti-Abortion Activists" by Laura Bassett, Huffington Post 5/29/12

The staffer answers all of the [Live Action] woman’s questions honestly and makes it clear that Planned Parenthood will not deny the woman an abortion despite her reasons for wanting to have one. At the end, she directs the woman to an ob-gyn for an ultrasound and says, "Good luck, and I hope you do get your boy."

Live Action interprets this exchange as Planned Parenthood's “encouraging” the woman to have a late-term sex-selective abortion. “Planned Parenthood and their ruthless abortion-first mentality is the real ‘war on women,'” said Lila Rose, founder and president of Live Action, in a statement. “Sex-selective abortion is gender discrimination with lethal consequences for little girls.”

Sex-selective abortions are the latest target of anti-abortion activists whose goal is to make abortions illegal across the United States. Lawmakers at the state and federal level have also latched onto the issue by introducing legislation that criminalizes doctors who perform abortions because of the race or gender of the fetus. Opponents of such laws say they force doctors into the inappropriate position of investigating a woman's personal motivations for seeking an abortion. The House of Representatives will debate Rep. Trent Franks’ (R-Ariz.) Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act on Wednesday, which would ban sex-selective abortions in the United States.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Republicans Leap on New Abortion Issue This Week" by Meghan McCarthy, National Journal 5/29/12

Republicans are trying to claim victory in the public relations war for women this week, holding a vote [today or] Thursday on a bill that prohibits women from getting abortions based on the sex of the fetus.

Unlike other abortion votes in the House, this bill is heading to the floor under suspension of the rules. It’s a procedural maneuver typically reserved for less-controversial bills and requiring two-thirds of House members present and voting to pass. Somewhere around 287 members will have to vote “aye” in order for the bill to pass (depending how many members show up), meaning approximately 45 Democrats will have to sign on with Republicans. In other words, it’s a higher bar to passing the bill.

Abortion rights groups are opposing the legislation, but a bit more quietly than on other abortion votes. A fact sheet from the National Women’s Law Center says it strongly opposes the legislation, calling it an “unconstitutional burden on a fundamental right.” A bloc of Democratic women is also speaking out in opposition. “House Republicans will hit a new low tomorrow when they bring up for a vote legislation that severely interferes with the doctor-patient relationship, criminalizing doctor’s conversations with the women they care for, while forcing women to endure interrogations regarding their medical care,” Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., said in an e-mail.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "U.S. abortion foes see ally in Chinese activist" by Sandhya Somashekhar, The Washington Post 5/29/12

Conservatives are seizing on the high-profile story of Chen Guangcheng, the blind Chinese activist who recently arrived in the United States, hoping that the spotlight on his human-rights work will bolster their efforts to curb abortions domestically and in China.

Anti-abortion groups, including National Right to Life and the Susan B. Anthony List, are highlighting Chen's work exposing forced abortions and sterilizations in China in hopes it will help them in passing U.S. legislation banning abortions performed because of a child's gender. Chen's plight also has led congressional Republicans to plan hearings this summer on the one-child policy.

. . . Romney has not let up in his criticism. In particular, he has accused the Obama administration of having a permissive attitude toward [China's] one-child rule.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Feminists Fight Ban on Female-targeted Abortion as well as Obama Makes New Promise to Fund Killing Babies

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Fed. Judge Bars Christians from Opposing Gay Agenda

Judge Claudia Wilken of the US District Court for Northern California has ruled the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional because congressmen who passed the law in 1996 based their position on moral values and the historic definition of marriage -- an implication by the judge that Bible-believing Christians are bigots.

To read the saga of lawlessness and judicial activism, read and follow subsequent links: Traditional Marriage Law Unconstitutional: Federal Judge on DOMA and also in Obama Defeats Marriage, Again - Congress Responds

UPDATE 6/29/13: U.S. Supreme Court Agrees, Bible-believing Christians ARE Bigots!

UPDATE 5/31/12: Defense of Marriage Act heads to US Supreme Court

-- From "Defense of Marriage Act: 2nd judge overturns law" by Bob Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle 5/25/12

Congress violated constitutional standards on legalized bigotry when it denied federal benefits to same-sex spouses and excluded domestic partners of state employees from long-term health coverage, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken of Oakland was the second by a Bay Area judge this year to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law withholding more than 1,000 federal benefits - such as joint tax filing, Social Security survivor payments and immigration sponsorship - from gays and lesbians legally married under state law.

Wilken also overturned another 1996 law that denied federal tax benefits to long-term health insurance plans for state employees if they included domestic partners.

That law, like the Defense of Marriage Act, was based on "moral condemnation and social disapprobation of same-sex couples," she said. She cited assertions during congressional debate that same-sex domestic partnership was "an attack on the family" and would "undermine the traditional moral values that are the bedrock of this nation."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Federal Judge: DOMA Is Unconstitutional Because It Denies Insurance Benefits" by The Associated Press 5/25/12

"Congress's restriction on state-maintained long-term care plans lacks any rational relationship to a legitimate government interest, but rather appears to be motivated by antigay animus," Wilken wrote in ordering the California Public Employees' Retirement System to allow current and former state employees to enroll their same-sex spouses and partners in the extended care plan.

Lawyers representing a House of Representatives committee that has taken on the job of defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court since the Obama administration said it no longer would did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment. Wilken said she would stay her decision in the event of an appeal.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Judge strikes down Defense of Marriage Act provision in California employees' case" by Bay City News Service 5/25/12

Wilken issued her ruling in a lawsuit filed against the California Public Employees' Retirement System, known as CalPERS, by same-sex couples. The system has refused to let gay spouses enroll in its federally approved insurance program on the ground that they were excluded by DOMA.

An appeal of [a related] decision by a Republican-led Congressional group is slated to be heard by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco in September.

The group's three Republican members, including Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, supported intervening in the two lawsuits to defend DOMA. Its two Democratic members, including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, opposed doing so.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Gay marriage: Judge overturns DOMA, stepping up pressure on Supreme Court" by Mike Eckel, Contributor to The Christian Science Monitor 5/25/12

Along with a parallel challenge to a California law banning same-sex marriage, the decisions mean the US high court could be hearing arguments about the emotionally charged and politically fraught issue of marriage for gays and lesbians within the next two years.

[Judge Wilken's] argument is outrageous, says Dale Schowengerdt, legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which supports DOMA.

"To say that a law that was passed by overwhelmingly by Congress … to say that that’s the product of animus is – I don’t know how to say it – it's unbelievable,” he says. “It’s just unbelievable that a judge would be making that sort of value judgment against the entire government, the Congress, and President Bill Clinton."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

The case is Dragovich v. United States Department of the Treasury

Also read 'Gay Rights' Winning, Loss of Religious Liberty Documented - Washington Post writer demonstrates it's a "zero sum" game: Winning homosexual 'rights' means Christians must lose freedom of religion.

Sunday, May 27, 2012

'Christian' Late-term Abortionist Claims to Save Lives

Willie J. Parker says his Christian faith brought him from once shunning the abortion procedure to realizing that the happiness of the mother outweighs "the life of a pre-viable or lethally flawed fetus."
"I think my work is honorable and important . . . It’s what I believe in my heart is the right thing to do."
-- From "Why I perform abortions: A Christian obstetrician explains his choice" by New Jersey Star-Ledger Staff 5/27/12

Q. Why did you change your outlook on abortion?

A. . . . In listening to a sermon by Dr. Martin Luther King, I came to a deeper understanding of my spirituality, which places a higher value on compassion. I became more concerned about what would happen to these women if I, as an obstetrician, did not help them.

Q. You say women in their second trimester often have the most compelling need for an abortion. Why?

A. . . . The women most likely to be in those situations are trapped in poverty, often women of color or poor socioeconomic backgrounds, less education, and women and girls at the extremes of reproductive age.

To read the entire interview, CLICK HERE.

From "Abortionist: banning abortions of babies who feel pain would ‘conflate murder and abortion’" by Kathleen Gilbert, 5/21/12

Washington-based abortionist Willie Parker told The Washington Post‘s Sarah Kliff that a Congressional measure banning abortion on children older than 20 weeks in the District of Columbia would jeopardize late-term abortionists and stigmatize them as “callous.”

Congress is currently debating tighter restrictions on the nation’s capital. The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday held a hearing on H.R. 3803, the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act introduced by Rep. Trent Franks, R-AZ. Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress sets policy in the city.

The bill would follow seven U.S. states in challenging the boundaries set by the U.S. Supreme Court by Roe v. Wade, which declared a constitutional right to abortion at any point before the child is viable outside the womb, a threshold usually placed at 22-24 weeks.

Parker said such a measure “vilifies the women who might need an abortion the most.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

For background, read 'Late-Term' Abortion Redefined: Fetal Pain

Saturday, May 26, 2012

Bishops Investigate Girl Scouts' Sexualization

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has intensified its years-long inquiry into numerous accusations and mounting evidence that the Girl Scouts of America encourages its leaders to indoctrinate girls with the liberal culture of sexual immorality, abortion, and homosexual behavior.
"The leadership of the Girl Scouts is reflexively liberal. Their board is dominated by people whose views are antithetical to the teachings of the Catholic Church."
-- Mary Rice Hasson, Ethics and Public Policy Center
For background, read Girl Scouts Advocate Guide Teaching Sex Acts? and also read Pro-abortion, Girl Scouts' Appeal Diminishes as well as Indiana Lawmaker: Girl Scouts Pro-gay & Abortion

-- From "Catholic bishops continue to delve into concerns about Girl Scouts" by Carol Morello, Washington Post 5/10/12

In a letter dated March 28, the head of the bishops committee that has been looking into concerns about the Girl Scouts said . . . that “important questions still remain and need to be examined.”

Critics of the Girl Scouts contend their materials shouldn’t have any links to groups like the Sierra Club, Doctors Without Borders and Oxfam, or other groups that support family planning and contraception. Other critics are unhappy that the American Girl Scouting organization is a member of an international scouting association that supports contraception access.

For the past two years, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has had its Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth ask the Girl Scouts to explain their stances and materials.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Girl Scouts under scrutiny from Catholic bishops" by David Crary, Associated Press 5/10/12

The new inquiry will be conducted by the bishops' Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth. It will look into the Scouts' "possible problematic relationships with other organizations" and various "problematic" program materials, according to a letter sent by the committee chairman, Bishop Kevin Rhoades of Fort Wayne, Ind., to his fellow bishops.

One of the long-running concerns is the Girl Scouts' membership in the 145-nation World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts.

The association, known as WAGGGS, is on record as saying girls and young women "need an environment where they can freely and openly discuss issues of sex and sexuality." It also has called for increased access to condoms to protect against sexually transmitted diseases.

In 1993, Christian conservatives were outraged when the Girl Scouts formalized a policy allowing girls to substitute another word for "God" — such as Allah or Buddha — in the Girl Scout promise that reads: "On my honor, I will try to serve God and my country."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Controversy continues as Girl Scouts celebrate 100 years" by Michelle Bauman, Catholic News Agency 5/11/12

In 2010, two teenage girls who had spent eight years in Girl Scouts left the organization and created Speak Now: Girl Scouts, a website dedicated to raising awareness about the problems they discovered within the organization.

The two young teens – Tess and Sydney – said that it had become “increasingly apparent” that the Girl Scouts organization had values that were incompatible with their own.

Recent years have also brought significant growth for the Little Flowers Girls' Club, a Catholic program for girls aimed at promoting virtue by exploring saints, Scripture and the Catechism.

Started in 1993 by a Catholic mom of 11, Little Flowers now has some 50 registered groups throughout the U.S. and Canada, although registration is optional, as the groups are run at the local level.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Bishops to Investigate Girl Scouts’ Planned Parenthood Ties" by Steven Ertelt, 5/10/12

. . . in a national survey, seventeen Girl Scouts councils admit to partnering with Planned Parenthood; many other councils refuse to answer the survey question. Of the 315 Girl Scout councils in the U.S., 17 councils reported having a relationship with Planned Parenthood and its affiliates, and 49 reported they do not. The other 249 refused to disclose any relationship.

For fourteen years, the Girls Scouts in Waco, TX co-sponsored a sex ed conference with Planned Parenthood. “It’s Perfectly Normal” a book written by a Planned Parenthood executive was given to all children in attendance says abortion can be “a positive experience.” And in January 2012, Girl Scouts employee Renise Rodriguez wore a “Pray to End Abortion” t-shirt during off-duty visit to her Tucson Girl Scout office and was ordered . . . to turn the shirt inside out or leave.

With a sizable number of pro-life advocates distrusting the Girl Scouts because of the various links to Planned Parenthood over the years, any investigation that turns up more damning evidence could make it even more difficult for the Girl Scouts to become a trusted commodity in the minds of many Americans

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

UPDATE 7/7/12 - Former Girl Scouts members document organization ties to abortion and sexualization radicals (video):

Friday, May 25, 2012

Actor Recants Embryonic Stem Cells for Parkinson's Cure

Hollywood celebrity Michael J. Fox, after helping Democrats like Sen. Claire McCaskill gain control of Congress in 2006 (and ultimately the White House in 2008) by hyping the promise that embryonic stem cell research would cure many of the worse diseases, now believes embryos are a virtual dead-end in that regard.

For background, read Stem Cell Hopes: Oprah & Michael J. Fox Ambushed and also read Stem Cell Science Advances Without Embryos as well as Embryonic Stem Cells Fail Where Other Research Advances

-- From "Michael J. Fox sidelines stem cells for Parkinson's" by Peter Aldhous, New Scientist 5/22/12

For years, actor Michael J. Fox was on the front line of the US's "stem cell wars", arguing that embryonic stem cells could cure conditions like his own – Parkinson's disease.

Last week Fox revealed he now believes that other lines of research hold more promise. "There have been some issues with stem cells, some problems along the way," Fox told ABC News. "An answer may come from stem cell research but it's more than likely to come from another area."

The Michael J. Fox Foundation, based in New York City, is still backing stem cell research, says its chief scientific adviser, Gene Johnson of Washington University in St Louis, but has shifted its emphasis in recent years. "Using stem cells as therapeutic agents is a very complicated business," Johnson says.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Michael J. Fox Sees the Light on Embryonic Stem Cell Research" by Rebecca Taylor, 5/23/12

This is no surprise for those of us who were paying attention during the stem cell frenzy of the last decade. We remember the irony that in 2006, Michael J. Fox endorsed Claire McCaskill, Missouri Democratic candidate for United States Senate.

Fox told viewers of a TV ad that McCaskill supported stem cell research that could provide a cure for his Parkinson’s disease. McCaskill, a Catholic, is an ardent champion of embryonic stem cell research.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Michael J. Fox Admits Embryonic Stem Cells Likely Won’t Cure Him" by Steven Ertelt, 5/18/12

“It’s not so much that [stem cell research has] diminished in its prospects for breakthroughs as much as it’s the other avenues of research have grown and multiplied and become as much or more promising. So, an answer may come from stem cell research but it’s more than likely to come from another area,” [Fox] said.

Fox is just the latest big research advocate to admit embryonic stem cells are not helping patients now and probably won’t any time in the near future. Earlier this year, Komen for the Cure quietly changed its position on funding agencies that are engaged in embryonic stem cell research.

More recently, Komen also released a new statement on embryonic stem cell research — saying such research shows “no promise” when it comes to finding cures or treatments for breast cancer. In fact, embryonic stem cells themselves have never been tried on human patients because of massive problems such as the formation of tumors and immune system rejection issues — whereas adult stem cells have helped patients dealing with more than 100 diseases or medical conditions.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Poll: Most Americans Pro-life; Liberals Desperate

The latest Gallup poll confirms the decades-long national trend away from support for abortion. Nonetheless, pro-abortion activists and "journalists" spin the facts in a propaganda barrage to convince the public otherwise.

For background, read Poll: Pro-life America Becomes More So and also read Pro-choice Americans Disagree with Abortionists as well as Pro-life Trends Continue in American Opinion

UPDATE 5/31/12: 'Higher Education' Indoctrinates Pro-abortion: Poll

-- From "Poll: Record low are 'pro-choice'" by Tim Mak, Politico 5/23/12

The percentage of Americans who identify themselves as “pro-choice” is at the lowest point ever measured by Gallup, according to a new survey released Wednesday.

A record-low 41 percent now identify themselves as “pro-choice,” down from 47 percent last July and 1 percentage point down from the previous record low of 42 percent, set in May 2009. As recently as 2006, 51 percent of Americans described themselves as “pro-choice.”

Meanwhile, 50 percent of Americans now consider themselves “pro-life,” one point below Gallup’s record high on the measure.

“Gallup began asking Americans to define themselves as pro-choice or pro-life on abortion in 1995, and since then, identification with the labels has shifted from a wide lead for the pro-choice position in the mid-1990s, to a generally narrower lead for “pro-choice” — from 1998 through 2008 — to a close division between the two positions since 2009,” explains the polling firm.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Gallup poll on abortion: 'Pro-choice' position hits record low" by Michael Muskal, Los Angeles Times 5/23/12

The latest results show a shift among people when asked about their label on the issue. But views of the legality of abortion have remained constant over the years.

Those calling themselves independents were at 41% supporting the “pro-choice” position -- 10 points lower than in May 2011. On the flip side, those calling themselves “pro-life” were at 47%, up 6 percentage points since May 2011. “Pro-lifers” now outnumber “pro-choicers” for the second time since 2001.

A slight majority of Americans, 51%, said they consider abortion morally wrong, while 38% said it was morally acceptable, according to the poll.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "59% of Americans: Prohibit Abortion in Most or All Circumstances" by Terence P. Jeffrey, 5/23/12

In a survey conducted Sept. 6-7, 1994, 33 percent said abortion should be legal in all circumstances and 13 percent said it should be legal in most circumstances—making a total of 46 percent who said all or most abortions should be legal.

In that same 1994 poll, 38 percent said abortion should be legal only in a few circumstances and 13 percent said it should be illegal in all circumstances—making a majority of 51 percent who said abortion should be illegal in most or all circumstances.

In the survey released Wednesday, which was conducted May 3-6 of this year, 25 percent said abortion should be legal in all circumstances and 13 percent said it should be legal in most circumstances—making a total of 38 percent who said all or most abortions should be legal.

By contrast, 39 percent said abortion should be legal only in a few circumstances and 20 percent said it should be illegal in all circumstances—making a majority of 59 percent who said abortion should be illegal in most or all circumstances.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Analysis: Are the new Gallup numbers on abortion meaningful?" by David Lauter, Los Angeles Time 5/24/12

Attention-getting [poll] for sure, but what, if anything, does it mean?

One thing it clearly does not mean is that significant numbers of Americans have changed their views about when women should be allowed to have a legal abortion . . .

. . . what does [the poll] mean? One strong possibility is that the “shift” reflects the ambiguous wording of the question. Gallup doesn’t define “pro-choice” or “pro-life”; it lets respondents choose the label they want. What appears to have happened is that some percentage of Americans who believe that abortion should be legal in some circumstances, but not all, now call themselves “pro-life” whereas people with similar views in previous polls called themselves “pro-choice.”

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

From "Pro-Abortionists unsuccessfully try to finesse great news from latest Gallup poll" by Dave Andrusko, News Today, National Right to Life 5/23/12

. . . when asked a follow up question we find that those who said abortion should be legal under “certain circumstances” are much closer to the pro-life than pro-abortion position.

How do I know? Gallup asked them: “Do you think abortion should be legal in most circumstances or only in a few circumstances?” By a three to one margin (39% to 13%), they chose “few circumstances” over “most circumstances.”

With this clarification, a total of 59% of respondents said abortion should be legal in only a few circumstances (39%) or illegal in all circumstances (20%). That compares with a total of 38% who said that abortion should be legal under any circumstances (25%), or under most circumstances (13%).

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

Also read the full Gallup Poll

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Homosexualists Threaten to Burn Down Mass. Church

After St. Francis Xavier Parish in Acushnet, Massachusetts responded to President Obama's endorsement of same-sex "marriage" by placing the message "Two men are friends, not spouses" on it's front sign, hate-raged anti-Christian homosexual activists descended on the church with threats and demands for love rather than the church's so-called hateful signage.

For background, read Homosexualists Issue Death Threats to Christians and also read Militant Homosexualists Vandalize Illinois Christian Academy as well as Law Protects Worship Services from Militant Gays

-- From "Church's gay marriage message sparks uproar" by Byron Barnett, WHDH-TV7 5/16/12

“It was never meant to be hateful. It was never meant to cause harm to people, just a statement. Six words, we thought we’d get across our point of view in sort of a pithy,” said Monsignor Gerard O’Connor of St. Francis Xavier Church.

Uproar ensued -- protesters with signs gathered outside the church, a barrage of comments were made on Facebook, and a threatening message laced with profanity was left on the church’s voicemail.

“Your sign is completely [expletive]…even post something like that,” the voicemail said. “Your church should be burned.”

“To see the responses come back to us. I didn’t realize the church hated so much by the people that disagree with us,” said O’Connor.

“We think we have the right to express our difference of opinion in freedom without the backlash of hatred,” said O’Connor.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "A sign posted by a Church in Acushnet causes uproar" by John Guice, ABC WLNE-TV6 Reporter 5/16/12

Chad Michael Peters [says] he's been married to a man for five year and found the sign offensive and outrageous.

The Church has received hate e-mails and phone calls, even death threats. Monsignor Gerard O'Connor says, he's doesn't mind stating the churches position on gay marriage. The church did change the sign, but not because of pressure. They say they've always changed it every twenty-four hours.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Anti gay marriage sign sparks protest at Acushnet church" by Anika Clark, South Coast Today 5/16/12

“I didn't calculate reaction into it because, to be honest with you, we're a Catholic institution and our responsibility is to speak out on behalf of Christ,” said Steven Guillotte, director of pastoral services at St. Francis Xavier Parish in Acushnet, who put up the message Tuesday morning.

Meanwhile, three signs of a very different tone were found Wednesday on church property. Among other things they tell the reader to “Pray for Death” and make a sexually derogatory reference to the Virgin Mary.

O'Connor said the protesters have every right to stand on the sidewalk and make a statement but the church also has the right to put up its message. “I thought we had freedom of religion, freedom of speech,” he said. “Show your point of view. But why couldn't we?”

The pastor also disputed the idea that the church's message board was “hateful.” The Catholic Church has “always said marriage is ... a sacrament between a man and a woman, which is open to life,” he said. “It doesn't mean we hate you because of your sexuality. ... But apparently we're hated now because we have that view.”

[New Bedford resident Joshua] Scribner agreed the church is entitled to its beliefs. But “there's a line, I feel, of respect that they kind of crossed,” he said. While the church's message is often heard on the news, “when you're in a small community, I just feel like you need to think about others' feelings. ... I mean, that's what they preach.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Threats against Mass. Catholic church for anti-gay marriage sign" posted at New England Cable News 5/16/12

The Catholic Action League characterized the episode as "compelling evidence clearly demonstrating which side in the conflict over same sex marriage engages in hate tactics."

"At a time when homosexual pride parades monopolize public thoroughfares with police protection, it is now unsafe to post a message upholding traditional morality on private property. This event tells us all we need to know about the totalitarian instincts of organized homosexualism in America. What began as a so-called 'gay rights' movement, has become a neo-fascist enterprise dedicated to suppressing, harassing, censoring, silencing and punishing anyone supportive of biblical morality," said Catholic Action League Executive Director C. J. Doyle.

He also said Attorney General Martha Coakley and Bristol County District Attorney C. Samuel Sutter should investigate the threats against Saint Francis Xavier Parish for possible prosecution as hate crimes.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read 'Gay Rights' Winning, Loss of Religious Liberty Documented - Washington Post writer demonstrates it's a "zero sum" game: Winning homosexual 'rights' means Christians must lose freedom of religion.

Monday, May 21, 2012

2-year-old Says She's a Boy, 'Parents' Say OK

Sexual revolutionaries are Hell-bent to convince parents they should encourage their pre-schoolers to choose their gender.

UPDATE 4/22/15: NBC News launches pre-school/kindergarten pro-transgender indoctrination report series

UPDATE 6/8/14: CBS News Sunday Morning propaganda on transgender children & their parents (video):

For background, read Many Kids Need Sexual Mutilation, Say 'Experts' and also read Toddler Says He's a Girl, 'Parents' Say OK as well as Sexually Confused Boy Becomes Girl Scout, Media Hit

For links to even more news on the transgender tragedy perpetrated on children, see this links list.

The American Psychiatric Association is considering changing the official diagnosis in children from “gender identity disorder” to “gender incongruence.”

For background, read Normalization of Pedophilia Urged by Psychiatrists and also read Bestiality: Tolerance for This Also?

-- From "Transgender at five" by Petula Dvorak, The Washington Post 5/19/12

[Kathryn's] parents, Jean and Stephen, were fine with their toddler’s embrace of all things boy. They’ve both been school teachers and coaches in Maryland and are pretty immune to the quirky stuff that kids do.

But it kept getting more intense, all this boyishness from their younger daughter. She began to argue vehemently — as only a tantrum-prone toddler can — that she was not a girl.

Jean and Stephen gave up trying to force Kathryn to wear the frilly dresses that Grandma kept sending.

Her little girl’s brain was different. Jean could tell. She had heard about transgender people . . .

[The Washington Post "journalist" gives this advice in the article:] Parents who ignore or deny these problems can make life miserable for their kids, who can become depressed or suicidal, psychiatrists say.

Jean didn’t want Kathryn to hate herself or be subjected to hate from others. Maybe allowing her to declare herself a boy in preschool would make life easier in the long run.

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

UPDATE 6/12/14: From "Transgender Surgery Isn't the Solution" by Dr. Paul McHugh, former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, posted at Wall Street Journal

. . . policy makers and the media are doing no favors either to the public or the transgendered by treating their confusions as a right in need of defending rather than as a mental disorder that deserves understanding, treatment and prevention. . . .

You won't hear it from those championing transgender equality, but controlled and follow-up studies reveal fundamental problems with this [transgender rights] movement. When children who reported transgender feelings were tracked without medical or surgical treatment at both Vanderbilt University and London's Portman Clinic, 70%-80% of them spontaneously lost those feelings.

. . . A 2011 study at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden produced the most illuminating results yet regarding the transgendered, evidence that should give advocates pause. The long-term study—up to 30 years—followed 324 people who had sex-reassignment surgery. The study revealed that beginning about 10 years after having the surgery, the transgendered began to experience increasing mental difficulties. Most shockingly, their suicide mortality rose almost 20-fold above the comparable nontransgender population. This disturbing result has as yet no explanation but probably reflects the growing sense of isolation reported by the aging transgendered after surgery. The high suicide rate certainly challenges the surgery prescription.

At the heart of the problem is confusion over the nature of the transgendered. "Sex change" is biologically impossible. People who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

UPDATE 6/3/14: "This poor child is confused, not ‘transgendered’" by Matt Walsh

This child didn’t ‘choose’ her gender. She didn’t choose to cut her hair and dress like a boy. Kids that age can only wear what you put on them, sport the haircut you assign them, play with the toys you give them, and mostly believe what you tell them they should believe. Tell them there’s a magical fat man who flies down the chimney to bring them presents every Christmas, and they’ll believe it. Tell them that they get to choose their own gender like it’s an ice cream flavor at Baskin Robbins, and they’ll believe it. Their reality is whatever you construct for them.

. . . This girl did not choose to be a boy. She can’t. She also didn’t choose to be a world famous face for the transgender movement. Her parents made that decision. Her parents decided to make her a ‘boy’ and alert the press.

It’s interesting, when you think about it. If a girl declares that she’s a lesbian, progressives would tell us that this identity cannot be modified. It is ingrained in her soul and nothing can ever alter it. Her sexual preference is immutable. Her sex, however? Fluid. Subject to change. And what if she ‘becomes a boy’ and still finds herself attracted to girls? By their standards, she’s just turned herself straight. But isn’t that impossible? So is she still gay? But if she’s still gay then she’s still a woman, which means she’s not a man, which means your sex can’t be changed.

They tell us in one breath that it’s OK for boys to like pink and girls to like blue, and we should stop expecting our sons to play sports and our daughters to play with dolls. These are just social norms, they say. We should not subscribe to such archaic notions. But suddenly they proceed to derail their own narrative when they next inform you that a girl liking blue and a boy playing with dolls might actually be a sign that the girl is a boy and the boy is a girl.

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

Saturday, May 19, 2012

No Freedom of Religion for Chaplains, Say Obama & Dems

President Obama says he will veto the defense authorization bill passed in the House because of a freedom of conscience provision for military chaplains to ensure, among other things, that they are not discriminated against for not performing same-sex "marriage" ceremonies. Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco calls the provision, advocated by the Chaplain Alliance For Religious Liberty, "a fraud."
"Liberals may have successfully ended 'don't ask, don't tell,' but they should not be allowed to force members of our military to give up their religious beliefs. That is simply unacceptable and unconstitutional."
-- Congressman Todd Akin (R-Mo.)
For background, read Gay Soldiers Battle American Society via Chaplains and also read Congress Duped on Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal as well as Democrat Senate Legalizes Bestiality in Military

UPDATE 5/21/12: Bishop says Pelosi is illogical and doesn't understand military

-- From "U.S. House Defies Obama With $554 Billion Defense Bill" by Roxana Tiron, Bloomberg 5/18/12

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a $554 billion defense bill that rejects Pentagon proposals to curtail or slow weapons programs, bans same-sex marriages on military bases and backs indefinite detention without trial of terrorism suspects.

The Republican-controlled House today passed on a vote of 299-120 the defense authorization measure setting spending targets and policy for the fiscal year that starts Oct. 1.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "House Republicans add gay marriage measure to defense bill" by Ian Duncan and Lisa Mascaro, Los Angeles Times, Washington Bureau 5/19/12

The annual National Defense Authorization Act, approved 299 to 120 on Friday, is a traditionally bipartisan effort that can prove difficult for lawmakers to oppose. The bill includes a 1.7% annual pay raise for the troops but also is loaded with politically charged extras.

The bill addresses gay marriage with two provisions. One would ban performing gay marriages on any facility owned by the military. Another would protect military chaplains from punishment if they declined to marry a gay couple.

The Department of Defense had opened the door to gay weddings on bases in a memo last September after Congress repealed the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which barred gays from openly serving in the military. The policy change said chaplains were allowed to perform same-sex marriages but noted they could not be required to. It is not clear whether any ceremonies have yet been performed in military chapels.

The Pentagon memos noted that the ceremonies must not be prohibited by "applicable state and local law."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Congressman: There is a War on Religious Belief in Military" by Todd Starnes, Fox News 5/17/12

[Ron Crews, executive director of the Chaplain Alliance,] is one of 19 individuals to write a letter to the House Armed Services Committee urging lawmakers to protect the religious liberties of chaplains and service members.

“Until Congress acts decisively, efforts to silence the voices of our military chaplains of all faiths and backgrounds will likely continue well into the future,” the letter read. “It is time that Congress secures the rights of all chaplains, once and for all, instead of allowing those that do not subscribe to the orthodoxy of the day to be unconstitutionally silenced.”

Crews said they know of dozens of instances where military personnel have come under fire. He said one chaplain was told that if he could not support DADT he should resign his commission.

“Some of these chaplains have in fact had their careers impacted,” he told Fox News. “They’ve been punished. Right now, if you are opposed to this policy you’re not seen as a team player.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Pelosi Calls Chaplain 'Conscience Clause' a 'Fraud'" by Paul Stanley , Christian Post Reporter 5/19/12

"I do not support that provision in the bill, that part of the bill," [House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi] said. "I agree with the administration. And there's nothing that says that chaplains act against their faith."

Arguing that the issue was moot, she added, "Because it's a fraud. It's a – Welcome to the world of manufactured crises. Here's one."

Former Navy Chaplain James Klingenschmitt was lobbying all 26 members of the Senate Armed Services Committee Friday on Capitol Hill and took exception to the minority leader's comments.

"I disagree with Rep. Pelosi. There are dozens of active duty chaplains who have been pressured to not speak against homosexuality," Klingenschmitt told The Christian Post. "I know of one Army and one Navy chaplain who have already resigned. Another active duty chaplain has been silenced, threatened and punished against speaking against 'don't ask, don't tell.' What they are saying is simply false."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "White House 'Strongly Objects' to Legislation Protecting Military Chaplains from Doing Same-Sex Weddings or Being Forced to Act Against Conscience" by Patrick Goodenough, 5/16/12

The Obama administration “strongly objects” to provisions in a House defense authorization bill that would prohibit the use of military property for same-sex “marriage or marriage-like” ceremonies, and protect military chaplains from negative repercussions for refusing to act against their consciences, as, for example, in being ordered to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony.

In a policy statement released Wednesday, the White House Office of Management and Budget outlined numerous objections to aspects of the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 4310).

The memo said the two [religious liberty] provisions “adopt unnecessary and ill-advised policies that would inhibit the ability of same-sex couples to marry or enter a recognized relationship under State law.”

The OMB complained that, “in its overbroad terms,” section 536 “is potentially harmful to good order and discipline.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Court Rules Prayer Unconstitutional in New York Town

The U.S. Court of Appeals (in New York) for the 2nd Circuit agreed with atheists that the upstate town of Greece, NY violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution by opening town board meetings with prayer for eleven years.

For background, read when the lower court ruled in favor of allowing the prayers in this case.

UPDATE 5/20/13: U.S. Supreme Court will decide case by June 2014

-- From "2nd Circuit finds NY town prayers unconstitutional" by Terry Baynes, Reuters 5/17/12

"The town's desire to mark the solemnity of its proceedings with a prayer is understandable; Americans have done just that for more than two hundred years. But when one creed dominates others -- regardless of a town's intentions -- constitutional concerns come to the fore," Judge Guido Calabresi wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel.

Two Greece residents, Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens, complained in 2007 that the town board only invited Christian clergy to deliver the invocation. The next year, the town invited a Wiccan priestess, a chairman of a local Baha'i congregation and a lay Jewish man to give the prayer. But prayers at eight of the 12 meetings were Christian.

Galloway and Stephens [with the Americans United for Separation of Church and State] sued the town and its supervisor in 2008, challenging the prayer practice under the Establishment Clause. The district court ruled in the town's favor before a trial, finding that town employees did not intentionally exclude any particular faiths and did not restrict the content of the prayers.

The 2nd Circuit case is Galloway et al v. Town of Greece et al, No. 10-3635.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Court rules NY town's prayer violated Constitution" by The Associated Press 5/17/12

In what it said was its first case testing the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled the town of Greece, a suburb of Rochester, should have made a greater effort to invite people from other faiths to open monthly meetings. The town's lawyer says it will appeal [all the way to the Supreme Court].

A town employee each month selected clerics or lay people by using a local published guide of churches. The guide did not include non-Christian denominations, however. The court found that religious institutions in the town of just under 100,000 people are primarily Christian, and even Galloway and Stephens testified they knew of no non-Christian places of worship there.

The court ruled the town should have expanded its search outside its borders.

Joel Oster, senior counsel for ADF [The Alliance Defense Fund] who argued the town's case, called the ruling "highly inconsistent" with what the Supreme Court has said on the issue and said it means towns will have to "complete an obstacle course" before they can qualify to say a prayer before a meeting.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Judge Says Lord's Prayer Unconstitutional in Delaware

U.S. District Judge Leonard P. Stark granted a preliminary injunction stopping the Sussex County Council from reciting The Lord's Prayer before the meeting opens because he agrees with the atheist plaintiff that the act violates the First Amendment to the Constitution.

For background, read Atheists Sue to Stop Lord's Prayer in Delaware and also read Prayer in America: Hidden Faith, or Public?

UPDATE 6/28/12: Citizens won't remain silent - keep praying aloud at meetings

-- From "Judge silences Sussex County Council's prayer" by James Fisher, The News Journal (Wilmington, Del.) 5/16/12

The court "is likely to conclude that the Council's practice of opening each meeting with a recitation of this distinctly Christian Lord's Prayer violates the Establishment Clause because it constitutes government endorsement of the Christian faith," Stark wrote in his opinion. "The fact that The Lord's Prayer has been the only prayer recited at the beginning of Council meetings for over six years is likely to be found to demonstrate that the Council gives Christianity an unconstitutionally preferred status."

"Whatever happened to freedom of speech?" Councilman Sam Wilson said when called for comment Tuesday. "I don't know how we're gonna get around it. But we're gonna have to find a way."

Alex Luchenitser, an attorney with Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said he is "very pleased with the court's decision." His group represents [local] plaintiffs Barbara Mullin, Julie Jackson, John Steinbruck and William O'Connor.

Stark's injunction takes effect June 15 but doesn't end the lawsuit. The council would violate the court order if it began its scheduled June 19 meeting with the the Lord's Prayer.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Court halts Lord's Prayer at council meetings" by Ron MacArthur, Cape Gazette - Bethany Beach Wave 5/16/12

The court has issued a 30-day stay of the preliminary injunction in the hope a settlement can be reached out of court. “It is hoped that during this period the parties may confer – perhaps with the assistance of this court's judicial officers as mediators – and attempt to agree upon how to preserve the council's practice of opening its meetings with a prayer but to do so in a manner that is consistent with the United States and Delaware constitutions,” wrote Stark.

Stark said courts across the country have grappled with the determining the constitutionality of legislative prayers, but he noted courts have upheld a legislative body's practice of inviting community religious leaders to deliver prayers of any type – including sectarian prayers – with a variety of religious expressions.

According to court documents, it's unclear exactly when the practice of opening council meetings with The Lord's Prayer began. Audio recordings on the county's website indicate the practice dates back to at least March 28, 2006

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Liberal Jailed for Death Threats to Pro-lifers

The mainstream media have embargoed the story of Theodore Shulman, a pro-abortion activist who threatened to kill several pro-life advocates; Shulman has been convicted in Manhattan Federal Court and could be jailed for up to five years.

-- From "NY man admits to threating anti-abortion foes" by The Associated Press 5/11/12

The U.S. District Attorney's Office says 51-year-old Theodore Shulman pleaded guilty in a federal court in Manhattan on Thursday to transmitting a threat to injure another person.

Prosecutors say Shulman made the threat in a 2010 posting on the website of a Catholic magazine. The threat targeted the director of Priests for Life Rev. Frank Pavone and Princeton University professor Robert George . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Pro-Abortion Extremist Pleads Guilty to Making Death Threats Against Pro-Life Activists" by Elizabeth Harrington, 5/14/12

According to the FBI, Shulman was arrested in February of 2011 for possessing cyanide, castor beans and rosary peas. The toxic agent Ricin, which can be deadly after exposure to even minute quantities, is derived from castor beans.

Calling himself the “first pro-choice terrorist,” Shulman created his own blog, titled “Operation Counterstrike.” The Web site’s mission statement was: “Right-to-lifism is murder, and ALL right-to-lifers are bloody-handed accessories. Swear it, believe it, proclaim it, and act on it.”

Numerous pro-life figures say they have been the target of Shulman’s threats, including nurse and pro-life advocate Jill Stanek, who said she had received threats and assisted the FBI investigation by providing over 4,000 comments from Shulman to her Web site over a four-year period.

One comment posted on Oct. 27, 2010, read: “I’m looking forward to watching a documentary entitled ‘The Assassination of Jill Stanek.’”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Pro-Abortion Activist Gets Prison, Sent Pro-Lifers Death Threats" by Steven Ertelt, 5/11/12

Officials with the pro-life group Operation Rescue and the Life Legal Defense Fund [LLDF] have been on the receiving end of Shulman’s threats as well.

Bryan Kemper, the founder of Stand True, the pro-life group that sponsors the red tape day for students to stand up in silent solidarity for unborn children at their schools, also reportedly received death threats from Shulman.

Meanwhile, in 2009, Shulman left a threatening voice mail message with LLDF Legal Director, Catherine Short.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Monday, May 14, 2012

Police Boot Christian from Festival in Buffalo NY

Gregory Owen has sued the City of Buffalo for infringing the First Amendment rights of many citizens who wanted to talk to him about his Christian faith during a festival on public property.  The police threatened to arrest him if he didn't leave and stop talking to passersby.

Also read Pastor Arrested for Witnessing to Muslims

-- From "Leaflets lead to lawsuit against city" by Aaron Besecker, Buffalo News staff reporter 5/11/12

The Alliance Defense Fund [ADF] has filed the federal civil rights suit on behalf of Gregory R. Owen, who asserts that Buffalo police forced him to stop handing out fliers with Christian messages during the Sorrento Cheese Buffalo Italian Heritage Festival on Hertel Avenue last July.

Other groups were allowed to hand out materials at the event, including the U.S. Army and local schools, according to the suit, which was filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Buffalo.

Upon arriving, [Owen] noticed two people carrying a sign with a Christian message who had been stopped by police.

After handing out their leaflets for a few minutes, Owen and his companions also were stopped by police and told they were not allowed to hand out the literature.

Shortly after, Owen and his group left.

Owen, 31, is not seeking monetary damages in the suit, according to Jonathan Scruggs, a staff lawyer with the [ADF] organization.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Police Threaten Christian With Jail for Handing Out Tracts" by Jennifer LeClaire, Charisma News 5/11/12

As one officer told [Owen], “If you hand out one more tract, you’re going to jail.”

“People of faith shouldn’t be threatened with arrest for peacefully expressing their beliefs,” says ADF attorney Nate Kellum. “The Constitution and court precedent in these types of cases is clear: officials cannot toss someone out of a public event simply because they don’t like the views he’s expressing. This is a classic example of free speech that the First Amendment protects.”

Here’s the backstory: Gregory Owen, together with a friend and members of his family, walked up and down Hertel Avenue during the 2011 Greater Buffalo Italian Heritage Festival to peacefully hand out Christian literature and discuss his faith with willing passers-by. Although the road is a public street in a section of town known as “Little Italy,” police approached Owen and told him to leave under threat of arrest, claiming that his speech violated an agreement with festival organizers.

In truth, the city issued a non-exclusive use permit to festival organizers that does not prohibit members of the public from exercising their free speech rights protected by the First Amendment. The event was free and open to the public, and the street remained at all times a public thoroughfare.

ADF attorneys filed the suit, Owen v. City of Buffalo, with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Christian messages banned in Buffalo" by Bob Unruh, World Net Daily 5/13/12

While handing out tracts to willing recipients on a public street during a public festival, Owen was approached by a police officer who declined to identify himself but told him that the Buffalo Police Department is “the law” and he should stop handing out tracts.

According to the lawsuit: “Subsequently, another police officer, Officer Slomka, arrived on the scene. She quickly informed Owen that they could not hand out tracts in the festival and explained that the prohibition was ‘by our orders.’ Owen asked for her name, and she replied: ‘Slomka, write it down.’ Owen advised that he believed the tracts to be free speech; nonplussed, Officer Slomka reiterated that they couldn’t hand out tracts there and had to go outside of the festival area to continue with their expressive activity.”

Then, “Owen inquired as to whether they would be arrested if they continued to hand out tracts in the festival area, to which, Officer Slomka replied: ‘Yes.’”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Sunday, May 13, 2012

'Day of Prayer' Ruled Unconstitutional in Colorado

A three-judge panel of the Colorado Court of Appeals has ruled unanimously in favor of the atheist Freedom From Religion Foundation, saying that governors' proclamations of a state Day of Prayer are unconstitutional.

UPDATE 12/2/14: Prayer IS Constitutional! Colorado Supreme Court Overturns Appeals Court

To read about the previous Colorado ruling in this case against the atheists, CLICK HERE.

For background, read Under Attack: National Day of Prayer and also read Atheists Lose: 'National Day of Prayer' Ruled Constitutional in Federal Appellate Court

-- From "Appeals court rules on Colorado Day of Prayer" by The Associated Press 5/10/12

The court said the proclamations in question sometimes included biblical verses and religious themes and were effectively a government endorsement of a religion in violation of the state constitution.

The appeals judges sent the case back to a trial court to decide whether any other Colorado governor should be barred from making similar proclamations. They said they didn't consider presidential National Day of Prayer proclamations in their ruling and noted people can still pray. [Wasn't that nice of the judges?!]

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Colorado appeals court declares Day of Prayer unconstitutional" posted at 5/11/12

[By their prayer proclamations, the governors] "undermine the premise that the government serves believers and nonbelievers equally," Judge Steven Bernard wrote in a 73-page decision.

The six Day of Prayer proclamations – from 2004 to 2009 -- are "predominantly religious," wrote Judges Alan Loeb and Nancy Lichtenstein.

The office of Gov. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, said it would talk with the state attorney general before considering an appeal to the state Supreme Court

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Colorado Day of Prayer is unconstitutional, state appeals court rules" by Electa Draper, The Denver Post 5/11/12

The content of six Colorado Day of Prayer proclamations, 2004 to 2009, is "predominantly religious," lacking a secular context or purpose, and the effect is "government endorsement of religion over nonreligion," Bernard wrote. Judges Alan Loeb and Nancy Lichtenstein concurred.

The appeals court sent the case back to the trial court to consider whether a permanent injuntion should be entered against the state prayer event held the first Thursdays in May.

The legal challenge to the Colorado Day of Prayer was made in 2008 against Gov. Bill Ritter by the Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation. The foundation also won a federal case in 2010, FFRF v. Obama, in which a U.S. district court ruled the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional. In 2011, however, the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found the foundation had lacked standing to make the case. Yet the Colorado appellate court affirmed FFRF's standing.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read National Day of Prayer: Hidden Faith, or Public?