Business, Pro Sports, GOP Urge Supremes to Go Gay

Follow the money . . .

As Americans wait "on pins and needles" for nine unelected black-robed jurists to decide the fate of the nation, those pillars of society that deify money are filing their legal briefs insisting that the highest court of the land sacrifice the people's founding document to that most supreme Gay Agenda god.

"No religion's belief or practice should be allowed to restrict the rights of people to marry and receive equal protection under the law."
-- Rev. Gay Clark Jennings, president of the House of Deputies of the Episcopal Church

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

PC MLB & NHL: Professional Baseball & Hockey Embrace Gay Agenda

Christian Sports Commentator Fired for Supporting Natural Marriage

Corporations Embrace Gay Agenda, With a Vengeance

Homosexual Lobby Purchases Elections & Same-sex 'Marriage'

Republicans Going Gay, to be 'Moderate' & Likeable

Republican Party Platform OKs Abortion and 'Gay Marriage'

Republican Strategy: Dump Old Uneducated Christian Voters

'Gay Marriage' is Christian in Presbyterian PCUSA, et. al.

Alabama Supreme Court Says Ignore Federal Court — 'Gay Marriage'

'Gay Marriage' Not Favored in Polls, Only in Court

-- From "Super Bowl, World Series champs back gay marriage at court" by The Associated Press 3/6/15

The reigning baseball and football champions, along with baseball's small-market Tampa Bay Rays, are among the thousands of businesses, religious groups, advocacy organizations and politicians who are filing legal briefs at the Supreme Court in support of gay marriage.

Roughly six dozen briefs backing pro-gay rights plaintiffs in the four states are expected by the Friday deadline. Included is a ''people's brief'' filed by the Human Rights Campaign with the signatures of 207,551 people.

Mayors of 226 U.S. cities also are expressing their support for same-sex marriage. Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley says he is not sure how his constituents feel about the issue, but said it wouldn't affect his view either way. "I don't think constitutional rights are subject to public opinion," Cranley said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Thousands sign court briefs supporting gay marriage" by Todd Spangler, Detroit Free Press 3/6/15

With 2 ½ hours of oral arguments set for April 28, the Supreme Court could issue a ruling later this year that could overturn the bans or leave them in place, which would upset a patchwork of laws and court decisions that currently allow same-sex couples to marry in 37 states and the District of Columbia.

While many of the briefs came from groups who have long fought to have the bans reversed, support also came from more unexpected sources: More than 300 Republican, conservative and center-right activists and government officials signed a brief in support of overturning the bans. Another brief was signed by hundreds of U.S. companies, including Johnson & Johnson, Apple, Microsoft and more.

They ranged from the American Bar Association — which included a table of the many legal protections afforded legally married couples and their children that are denied same-sex couples and their families — to universities, organizations representing gay service members, Ohio's Cuyahoga County, the Commonwealth of Virginia and more.

"Inconsistent state marriage laws impose an added economic burden on American businesses at an estimated cost of over one billion dollars per year," said the brief filed by 379 signers, which included insurance companies, manufacturing giants, financial institutions and sports franchises, the New England Patriots, San Francisco Giants and Tampa Bay Rays among them.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "379 Corporations Tell Supreme Court Gay Marriage Is Good for Business" by Pat Garofalo, U.S. News & World Report 3/6/15

In an amicus brief arguing that the court should legalize gay marriage across the country, 379 corporations and business organizations – including Apple, Bank of America, Dow Chemical, Goldman Sachs, Hilton, Verizon, Disney and even some professional sports teams – said, "Employees with partners of the same sex should be permitted to marry if they so choose, and then should be treated identically to their married heterosexual counterparts. State laws that require otherwise impose a significant burden on us and harm our ability to attract and retain the best employees. Such laws force businesses to uphold discriminatory laws that run counter to important corporate values. In the end, economic growth suffers."

"Employers are better served by a uniform marriage rule that gives equal dignity to employee relationships. Allowing same-sex couples to marry improves employee morale and productivity," they wrote. "Diversity and inclusion strengthen, not weaken, our businesses."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "More than 300 Republicans ask Supreme Court to back gay marriage" by Catalina Camia, USA TODAY 3/6/15

Sen. Susan Collins, Sen. Mark Kirk and Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker are among 300 Republicans who signed onto a friend of the court brief at the Supreme Court in support of gay marriage.

The Republican signatories include billionaire David Koch, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal, top aides in Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign, and a host of current and former members of Congress. Baker, elected in November, was the only sitting GOP governor to sign the brief.

“One of the points that I hope people appreciate when they read the brief is that supporting marriage equality is, in fact, the conservative position,” [former Republican National Committee chairman, now openly homosexual, Ken] Mehlman told The Boston Globe in an interview.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "More Than 300 Republicans Call on Supreme Court to Recognize Gay Marriage Nationally" by Zeke J Miller, Time Magazine 3/5/15

Among the signatories are 23 current and former Republicans members of the House of Representatives and Senate and seven current and former Governors. . . .

Some aides to Republican presidential candidates are hoping that if the Court’s rules in favor of the unions it will provide cover for their bosses, who are hoping to avoid talking about the issue. After the party’s 2012 electoral defeat, its autopsy found that gay rights issues are a gateway subject not just for LGBT voters, but also for young voters of all stripes. “We need to campaign among Hispanic, black, Asian, and gay Americans and demonstrate we care about them, too,” the Growth and Opportunity Project report stated.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie both dropped opposition to same-sex unions in their state after court rulings forced their hand, but they remain personally opposed. After marriages began in his state in January, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush called for respect from all sides. “I hope that we can show respect for the good people on all sides of the gay and lesbian marriage issue — including couples making lifetime commitments to each other who are seeking greater legal protections and those of us who believe marriage is a sacrament and want to safeguard religious liberty,” he said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Jeb Bush Makes A Big [Homosexual] Hire For 2016" by Christina Wilkie, Huffington Post 2/20/15

Tim Miller, a rising star in the world of Republican political opposition research, has joined Jeb Bush's political action committee as a senior adviser. . . .

For Jeb Bush, an establishment candidate with a reputation for reasoned and well-informed policy positions, Miller promises to bring a communications style to the campaign that is sharper and grittier than the candidate's own. . . .

Miller, who is openly gay, is no stranger to presidential politics, having previously worked on the campaigns of former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman (R) and Arizona Sen. John McCain (R).

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Over 300 Republicans Petition Supreme Court to Legalize Gay Marriage" by Anugrah Kumar, Christian Post Contributor 3/7/15

Christian groups say the people and their elected representatives, and not unelected judges, should decide if states should legally recognize gay marriage, which is legal in 36 states and the District of Columbia.

Central to the case are two questions, whether states are required to license marriages between same-sex couples under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which the Michigan case has to decide; and whether the amendment requires states to recognize such marriages when licensed by other states – which the Ohio and Tennessee cases have to decide. The Kentucky case includes both.

Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission . . . [said] this case could potentially transform the cultural landscape of America.

"We should pray for the Court, that they will not seek to redefine marriage," he said. "Marriage was not created by government action, and shouldn't be re-created by government action. Even more than that, we should pray for churches who will know how to articulate and embody a Christian vision of marriage as the one flesh union of a man and a woman in the tumultuous years to come."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Confirmed: President Obama is Liar in Chief RE 'Gay Marriage'

List of Amici (Republicans)

Will Obama End Bush's Faith-Based Initiative?

Members of the religious left, homosexualists, and assorted liberals are calling on President Obama to end the allowance for religious organizations receiving federal money to hire whom they choose, but also a leading conservative Catholic voice has joined the chorus, albeit from a different perspective.

UPDATE 7/28/11: White House partners with churches in several cities to help needy



-- From "Critics push Obama to change faith-based hiring rules" by Lauren Markoe, Religion News Service, posted at USATODAY 6/22/11

A group of clergy and lawmakers is trying to overturn a nearly decade-old policy that allows faith-based organizations that receive federal funds to hire and fire employees on the basis of religion.

Critics say President Obama has reneged on a campaign promise to repeal the policy, which was put into place by President Bush in 2002.

Bush introduced the policy to advance what he deemed a more faith-friendly federal approach toward charitable organizations that receive federal contracts for social services. Previously, groups that received government money were forbidden to consider religion in their employment decisions.

Bush, however, argued that while an organization accepting federal support could not refuse to help people based on their religion, it should be able to take religion into account when hiring and firing employees.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "The Time is Now to Stop Faith-Based Hiring Discrimination" by Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, President of Interfaith Alliance 6/23/11 (member of President Obama's taskforce on the reform of the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships)

Seventy years ago this week, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8802 marking the first time a president took steps to ensure equal employment opportunity in federal defense contracts -- affirming that an individual's race, color, religion or national origin should not deny that individual an equal employment opportunity in federal defense contracts. Across 70 years, almost every president has expanded and reaffirmed the nondiscrimination principles of Roosevelt's Executive Order.

. . . However, in December of 2002 President George W. Bush simultaneously issued Executive Order 13279 to enact his Faith-Based Initiative and with a stroke of a pen, eroded 60 years of civil rights history by exempting religious organizations from the prohibition on religious employment discrimination by federal contractors.

. . . Our First Amendment and civil rights laws have always protected the integrity of religious organizations to make staffing decisions in line with their respective faiths and values. I support and defend their religious freedom to do so. But this freedom, this right, should not stand when government money comes into play. Federal financing changes the rules.

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

From "Are Faith-Based Hiring Policies a Social Evil?" by Bruce Hausknecht, CitizenLink (Focus on the Family) 6/23/11

What really caught my eye about the letter that these groups delivered to the White House, however, is how they justify their argument. Instead of a typical “wall of separation between church and state” liberal talking point memo, which I would have expected to see, they instead used a curious and insidious argument: Faith-based hiring is the same as refusing to hire someone because of their religion.

. . . By casting faith-based hiring as equivalent to invidious discrimination, these liberal organizations are either guilty of illogic on a grand scale, or they are intentionally painting faith-based organizations as perpetrating a social evil via their hiring practices.

. . . I note with interest that a fairly significant percentage of the signatories to the letter are gay and transgender activist organizations, which commonly argue that the religious hiring rights of faith-based organizations equate to hate and bigotry. I’m wondering if there’s a connection between these GLBT groups’ participation in this liberal coalition and the new, harsher arguments against faith-based hiring. Is it just a coincidence, or are they calling the shots?

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

From "Shut Down Faith-Based Programs" posted at Standard Newswire 6/24/11

Catholic League president Bill Donohue explains why he is opposed to funding faith-based programs under President Obama:

President George W. Bush sincerely wanted to end discrimination in awarding federal contracts to social service agencies by including faith-based programs. When Sen. Obama was running for president three years ago, he pledged support for faith-based programs provided they were emptied of any faith component: he opposed the right of faith-based programs to maintain their integrity by hiring only people of their faith.

. . . When faith is gutted from faith-based programs -- when Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox Jews can't hire their own -- we are left with a carcass. It would be better to save the money (Obama's faith-based program received $140 million in stimulus money last year) than to pretend that we are helping religious social agencies. The goal, obviously, is to convert these religious entities into full-blown secular organizations. It would be better not to let them hijack these programs in the name of assisting them, thus it makes sense to shut them down.

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

White House Targets Pro-lifers with Lawsuits

The Obama administration's Justice Department has sued at least a half dozen pro-life demonstrators, accusing them of trying to block access to abortion clinics.

-- From "Feds suing more abortion activists" by Roxana Hegeman, Associated Press 5/4/11

The Justice Department under President Barack Obama has taken a harder line against anti-abortion activists accused of trying to block access to clinics, suing at least a half-dozen of them under a federal law that lay mostly dormant during the Bush administration.

Since Obama's inauguration, federal lawsuits have been filed against a woman who blocked a car from entering a clinic in West Palm Beach, Fla.; a Texas man who threw his body across the door of a patient waiting area in San Antonio; and a Pennsylvania man who posted on the Internet the names and addresses of abortion providers and extolled his readers to kill them.

Government records obtained by The Associated Press show that in slightly over two years, the Obama Justice Department has filed six lawsuits under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, mostly to seek injunctions and fines. That compares with just one such lawsuit during the entire eight years of George W. Bush.

President Bill Clinton signed the law in 1994 after a turbulent period that included massive sit-ins at clinics, clinic bombings and other anti-abortion activities that culminated with Tiller being wounded in a 1993 shooting. The Clinton Justice Department subsequently filed 17 civil lawsuits under the law during his remaining term.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Obama's DOJ ups ante on pro-life groups" by Charlie Butts, OneNewsNow 5/5/11

The lawsuits, filed by the administration under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, charge the demonstrators with civil acts, not criminal acts. Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, says pro-lifers certainly have constitutional rights of free speech -- and criminal cases are more difficult to prove in court.

In one case, a Kansas woman wrote a letter to a physician who planned to open a Wichita abortion facility. She was taken to court as a result, but a federal judge ruled in the woman's favor based on her constitutional rights. No laws were broken.

However, von Spakovsky is reminded of the outrage over members of the New Black Panthers intimidating voters outside a polling place in the November 2008 election and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder refusing to pursue prosecution.

Yet, he says, the federal government took a Kansas woman to court for writing a letter to the physician -- a letter containing no threat of violence whatsoever.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "DOJ Targets Pro-Life Activists" by Raven Clabough, New American 5/5/11

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, when members of the New Black Panther Party stood outside voting booths on Election Day ’08 wearing military-type uniforms, bearing clubs and hurling racial epithets at voters, they were not engaged in voter intimidation. But now the same DOJ has determined that pro-life activists standing outside abortion clinics are trying to block access to the clinics. In fact, the Justice Department has sued half a dozen pro-life activists under a federal law that was relatively unused during the Bush administration.

. . . Operation Rescue President Troy Newman contends, “You don’t just go around filing injunctions against people that you believe are proponents of violence. Domestic violence cases have proven that little injunctions don’t stop people from committing acts of violence.… They are pretty weak cases all around the country.”

Newman asserts that if it has proof of criminal misconduct, the government should file criminal charges under broadly written criminal statutes, instead of pursuing lawsuits against mostly peaceful pro-life activists under an act that specifically targets them.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Obama, Brazil Push Gay Agenda on World

The president of Brazil joined President Obama in calling for special recognition of, and greater tolerance for sexual deviancy, saying they'll work within the Organization of American States (OAS).

For background, read Obama 'In Bed' with Homosexuals for 2012 and also read Obama Administration Advances Gay Agenda at UN

-- From "US demanding gay rights support at UN body" by Bradley Klapper, Associated Press 3/21/11

The issue of gay rights has polarized nations at the U.N. for years. And despite growing acceptance for homosexuality in Western nations and parts of Latin America, lawyers say there is still a gap in human rights treaties for the protection of gays against discrimination and mistreatment.

Obama has stepped up the case for gay rights in recent months, winning a congressional vote to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gays serving openly in the U.S. military and urging last weekend in a joint statement with the Brazilian president for the establishment of a special investigator to monitor respect for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender individuals in the Western Hemisphere.

Under the Bush administration, the U.S. policy was markedly different. The administration didn't support a French resolution at the U.N. General Assembly in 2008 that addressed similar concerns, joining Russia, China, the Vatican and Islamic states in opposition. The U.S. explained its position at the time in technical terms, saying it was fearful of language that would infringe on the right of American states to legislate matters such as gay marriage.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Joint Statement by [Brazilian] President Rousseff and President Obama" posted at Office of the Press Secretary, The White House 3/19/11

The leaders stressed the shared commitment to promote and protect human rights and to support the consolidation of democracy around the world.

. . . They agreed to cooperate in advancing democracy, human rights and freedom for all people bilaterally and through the United Nations and other multilateral fora . . . promoting respect for the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals through the establishment of a Special Rapporteur at the OAS . . .

To read the entire statement from the White House, CLICK HERE.

UPDATE 3/24/11: From "Obama Administration Presses Its Homosexual ‘Rights’ Agenda on Other Nations" by Penny Starr, CNSNews.com

On Tuesday, the United States joined 84 other countries at the United Nations Human Rights Council in a joint commitment to end acts of violence and human rights abuses on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

The joint statement produced by the Human Rights Council – a body dominated by Islamic nations and their allies -- did not come easily. “Over the past months our diplomats have been engaged in frank, and at times difficult, conversations about the human rights of LGBT persons with governments from around world,” the White House noted.

The HRC’s joint statement itself alludes to difficulties: “We acknowledge that these are sensitive issues for many, including in our own societies. We affirm the importance of respectful dialogue, and trust that there is common ground in our shared recognition that no-one should face stigmatisation, violence or abuse on any ground. In dealing with sensitive issues, the Council must be guided by the principles of universality and non-discrimination,” the statement reads.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Obama Ignores Additional Pornography Internet Domain

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Obama Weakens Christians' 'Conscience Clause'

The Obama administration Friday deeply cut a rule protecting U.S. health workers refusing to provide care they find objectionable for personal or religious reasons.

The U.S. Health and Human Services Department wiped out nearly all of the so-called conscience rule put into effect in the waning days of President George W. Bush's administration.

For background, read Obama's Health Care Plans Include Religious Discrimination



-- From "Conscience rule drastically narrowed" posted at UPI 2/18/11

The [Bush] rule has been interpreted as allowing workers to refuse to perform a number of medical services, including providing the emergency contraceptive pill, treating homosexuals and prescribing contraception to single women.

The new regulation, which goes into effect in 30 days, leaves in place long-standing federal protections for workers who object to performing abortions or sterilizations and retains the Bush rule's process for workers to file complaints.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Bush Health-Care Measure Reversed" by Janet Adamy, Wall Street Journal 2/18/11

The Obama administration on Friday peeled back a rule defining when health-care workers can refuse to administer treatments they find morally objectionable, reversing a final act of George W. Bush's administration.

The Bush measure said that a wide variety of health-care workers could object to participating in abortions if they had moral objections to the procedure. Hospitals and clinics faced a loss of federal funds if they failed to uphold what the Bush administration termed workers' "right of conscience."

Liberal groups opposed the rule, saying it could open the door to a broader denial of services. They said it could allow insurance companies to deny claims for birth-control pills or enable hospitals to refuse emergency contraception to victims of rape.

While there was little evidence that such denials were happening with any frequency, the Obama administration said it needed to act to prevent ambiguity. It said decades of law already protect workers from participating in abortions if they don't wish to.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Obama Admin Weakens Protections for Pro-Life Medical Workers" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 2/18/11

Obama officials put a new rule in place that leaves in place protections on abortion but offers no protection for medical workers who have moral or religious objections to dispensing or giving to women the Plan B drug or other emergency contraception that could act in some cases as an abortion drug.

“The administration has made changes in a vital civil rights regulation without evidence or justification,” [Dr. J. Scott Ries, speaking for the 16,000-member Christian Medical Association] told LifeNews.com. “The administration presented no evidence of any problems in healthcare access, prescriptions or procedures that have occurred in the two years since the original regulation’s enactment that would justify any change in this protective regulation.”

“The Obama administration’s regulatory action today diminishes the civil rights that protect conscientious physicians and other healthcare professionals against discrimination. Any weakening of protections against discrimination against life-affirming healthcare professionals ultimately threatens to severely worsen patient access to health care,” the pro-life doctor said.

National survey results show that over nine of ten faith-based physicians, who are among the most likely to be serving the poor and those in medically underserved areas, indicate they would rather leave the profession if denied the ability to practice medicine according to conscientiously held ethical standards. Survey results also indicate that 20% of faith-based medical students say they are “not pursuing a career in Obstetrics or Gynecology” because of perceived discrimination and coercion in that field.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Obama Administration Advances Gay Agenda at U.N.

Homosexualists worldwide celebrated after the United Nations General Assembly voted in favor of an amendment submitted by the U.S., and advocated by Hillary Clinton, to include sexual orientation in a resolution condemning unjustified slayings.

-- From "UN victory for gay rights supporters" posted at Reuters 12/22/10

The 192-nation U.N. General Assembly voted to restore a reference to killings due to sexual orientation that had been deleted from a resolution condemning unjustified slayings. The shift came after the United States submitted an amendment to restore the reference, which the General Assembly’s human rights committee removed last month from a resolution on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions that is adopted every two years.

The U.S. amendment that restored the reference to sexual orientation was adopted with 93 votes in favor, 55 against and 27 abstentions. The amended resolution was then approved with 122 yes votes, one against and 62 abstentions. (Saudi Arabia cast the sole vote against the resolution, and the United States was among those who abstained.)

Not everyone was happy. Zimbabwe’s U.N. Ambassador Chitsaka Chipaziwa told the General Assembly that there was no need to refer explicitly to sexual orientation: “We will not have it foisted on us. We cannot accept this, especially if it entails accepting such practices as bestiality, pedophilia and those other practices many societies would find abhorrent in their value systems.” A European diplomat later told Reuters that Chipaziwa’s statement was “disgraceful.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Gay advocates win victory at UN" by Anita Snow, The Associated Press 12/21/10

The battle underscores the divide between U.N. members with their diverse religious and cultural sensibilities on gay rights issues and sparked something of a culture war at the international body. . . . A coalition of African countries said it was "greatly alarmed" that the direct reference to sexual orientation was included, and called it an attempt "to create new rights, new standards or new groups."

President Obama said the vote "marks an important moment in the struggle for civil and human rights."

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the U.S. reintroduced the language to send an unequivocal message that "No one should be killed for who they are."

"Sadly, many people around the world continue to be targeted and killed because of their sexual orientation," she said. "These heinous crimes must be condemned and investigated wherever they occur."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Gay rights in focus before UN vote" by The Associated Press 12/19/10

A culture war has broken out at the United Nations over whether gays should be singled out for the same protections as other minorities whose lives are threatened.

Benin, a largely Christian country of 8 million with a sizable Muslim population, argued that "sexual orientation had no legal foundation in any international human rights instruments." Morocco, an Arab country in north Africa that is almost exclusively Muslim, asserted that such selectivity "accommodated particular interests and groups over others" and urged all U.N. member states "to devote special attention to the protection of the family as the natural and fundamental unit of society."

More than two-thirds of U.N. members, many of them Muslim nations, are refusing to sign a separate United Nations statement condemning human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity, especially with regard to the application of the death penalty and extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.

Under the Bush administration in 2008, even the United States refused to join all other Western nations in signing that declaration, arguing that the broad framing of the language in the statement might conflict with U.S. laws.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "US Forces Vote on “Sexual Orientation” in General Assembly" by Lauren Funk & Samantha Singson, Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute 12/23/10

With support from the European Union, the Nordic countries and Canada, the US launched a massive campaign to re-insert “sexual orientation” into a UN resolution before final approval in the General Assembly. Reportedly, the US was working “at the highest levels” to push countries to support its amendment.

One delegation blasted the US-led attempt to reintroduce “sexual orientation” into the text as “international legal adventurism.”

President Obama applauded supporters of the US amendment. In a statement, Obama said, “While today’s adoption of an inclusive resolution is important, so too are the conversations that have now begun in capitals around the world about inclusion, equality, and discrimination.”

The high-level political pressure exerted in this resolution caps an aggressive year-long campaign by the Obama administration to push “sexual orientation” issues at the UN and domestically.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Obama Moving Gay Agenda at UN

Obama Elevates Homosexuality via United Nations

UN Rejects Homosexual Group Supported by Obama

World-wide Anti-family Forces Seek Obama's Support

Obama Ceding Parental Rights to U.N.

United Nations = Enemy of the Family

Commander in Chief Blinding America of Enemy

The Obama administration’s reluctance to acknowledge and confront the religious motivation behind Islamist terrorism is not helping the counter-terror effort, leading experts warn in a new report.

-- From "Critics: US too low-key on Islamic radicalism talk" by Lolita C. Baldor, Associated Press 7/12/10

The Obama administration's recent move to drop rhetorical references to Islamic radicalism is drawing fire in a new report warning the decision ignores the role religion can play in motivating terrorists.

Several prominent counterterror experts are challenging the administration's shift in its recently unveiled National Security Strategy [NSS], saying the terror threat should be defined in order to fight it.

The question of how to frame the conflict against al-Qaida and other terrorists poses a knotty problem. The U.S. is trying to mend fences with Muslim communities while toughening its strikes against militant groups.

In the report, scheduled to be released this week, counterterrorism experts from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy argue that the U.S. could clearly articulate the threat from radical Islamic extremists "without denigrating the Islamic religion in any way."

President Barack Obama has argued that words matter, and administration officials have said that the use of inflammatory descriptions linking Islam to the terror threat feed the enemy's propaganda and may alienate moderate Muslims in the U.S.

In the report, which was obtained by The Associated Press, the analysts warn that U.S. diplomacy must sharpen the distinction between the Muslim faith and violent Islamist extremism, identify radicalizers within Islamic communities and empower voices that can contest the radical teachings.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Experts to Obama: You Can’t Ignore the Islamic Ideology Behind Terrorism" by Patrick Goodenough, CNSNews.com International Editor 7/13/10

[Washington Institute for Near East Policy report authors] J. Scott Carpenter, Matthew Levitt, Steven Simon and Juan Zarate contend that just because ideology is not the only driving force behind violent Islamic terrorism does not mean it can be ignored.

Instead, the administration should recognize Islamism as “the key ideological driver” behind the threat posed by al-Qaeda and other radical Islamist groups, and prioritize an effort to combat the ideology, they say.

“To be sure, officials need to make very clear that they do not consider Islam itself a danger, only the distorted version of Islam perpetrated by radical extremists. But they – and, in particular, the president – must also come to terms with the fact that individuals implicated in each of the recently exposed plots in the United States were imbued with a common radical ethos.”

The NSS unveiled in May used variations of the phrase “al-Qaeda and its affiliates” repeatedly in identifying the enemy. The word “Islam” appeared twice – the U.S. was not fighting a war against Islam, it said, and “neither Islam nor any other religion condones the slaughter of innocents.”

(The NSS released by the Bush administration in 2006 stated that “the struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.” It also called Islam “a proud religion” that “has been twisted and made to serve an evil end.”)

The authors recommend that the administration broaden cooperation with foreign governments, NGOs and others “to empower credible Muslim voices to marginalize” Islamist radicals.

At home and abroad, the government should more effectively identify and support Muslim opinion-leaders who can provide alternative influences to “radicalizers” in their communities.

“Some prominent Muslim American groups have questionable links to banned groups that should disqualify them as trusted government partners in the effort to combat extremism,” the report says. “Others, perhaps less vocal and often active at a more local level, warrant greater institutional recognition and support.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Supreme Court to Overturn Roe v. Wade: Walter Dellinger

Former acting Solicitor General Walter Dellinger predicted Tuesday night that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe vs. Wade, the landmark decision that gives women abortion rights.

-- From "Predicting an end to Roe v. Wade" by James Hohmann, Politico 6/23/10

The noted liberal scholar said the 1973 decision has become a “trophy” that the court’s conservative bloc could overturn if a Republican president chooses a replacement for Justice Anthony Kennedy.

“I absolutely believe it,” Dellinger said during a forum cosponsored by POLITICO.

Such a decision by the Supreme Court would pour barrels of gasoline onto the now smoldering fires of the never-ending culture war.

Rachel Brand, the former assistant attorney general under George W. Bush who helped usher Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito through the confirmation process, demurred on a question about Roe’s reversal.

“Frankly it has not occurred to me that that is of any kind of reasonable likelihood any time soon,” she said. “But I will say that whenever Justice Kennedy retires, if the court looks anything like it does now in terms of makeup, that will be the mother of all confirmation fights. That will be brutal, and I wouldn’t want to be in my old job for that one.”

The hour-long debate between Brand and Dellinger about the future of the judiciary, before a packed George Washington University auditorium . . .

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

Embryo Destroyer: Mark Kirk, IL GOP Senate Candidate

Now he'd like a bill making Obama’s endorsement of stem cell research permanent, so it can’t be meddled with by some future right-wing, pro-life president.

-- From "Two-Faced Kirk Actually One-Faced on Stem Cells" by Edward McClelland, posted at NBC-TV5 Chicago 4/8/10

[Pro-abortion] Mark Kirk is in favor of [embryonic] stem cell research.

We've known this for years. Fact, in 2005, Kirk co-sponsored a bill overturning President George W. Bush’s ban on embryonic stem cell research. The bill passed, but was vetoed by the president [Bush].

. . . Kirk made himself look like a fool by promising to repeal health care reform, a promise he couldn’t keep. So now he has to stiff-arm conservatives to demonstrate to mainstream Illinoisans that he’s not a right-wing stooge. And he has to show that he can stay consistent on a controversial issue, in spite of pressure from the GOP’s Tea Party wing.

The Democratic Senate Campaign Committee is mocking Kirk’s ideological flexibility with a pseudo-comic titled “The Adventures of Two-Faced Kirk.”

It’s subtitled “His Position Is Based On Who Flips Him Coin,” and it criticizes Kirk for flip-flopping on health care repeal, federal ear marks, cap and trade and unemployment extensions.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Kirk calls for permanent embryo experimentation funding" posted at Illinois Review 4/8/10

Indeed, the Republicans' candidate for U.S. Senate emphasized his support for using embryos in his introductory "Independent" political ad by emphasizing he was one of the few Republicans that opposed President George W. Bush limited experimentation on cell lines to those already existing at the time. It must be that Kirk fears his call for making taxpayer funding permanent would be rejected by a radically pro-abort Democratic Congress and president.

A press release from the Kirk for U.S. Senate campaign states [in part]:

As a member of the Congressional Stem Cell Whip Team, Congressman Mark Kirk has played a key role in rallying support for pluripotent [embryonic] stem cell research. In 2001, President Bush allowed limited federal research for only 21 adult cell lines. The Executive Order prohibited the use of many pluripotent stem cells and authorized only pre-existing cell lines.

In 2005, legislation backed by Congressman Kirk (H.R. 810) passed the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, authorizing federal funding for expanded pluripotent [embryonic] stem cell research. President Bush vetoed the legislation. In 2007, similar legislation passed the House with no action in the Senate.

Congressman Kirk will highlight legislation permanently authorizing President Obama’s Executive Order, ensuring that future administrations cannot overturn federal support for pluripotent stem cell research.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

U.S. Birthrate Below Replacement; Record Unwed Birthrate

As many European nations' experience devastating population declines, despite a drop in the birthrate, America's population continues to rise as a result of immigration.

In addition, the portion of births to unmarried women rose to a historical high of 40.6 percent.

-- From "U.S. birthrate drops 2 percent in 2008" by Rob Stein, Washington Post Staff Writer 4/7/10

After rising to its highest point in two decades, the rate at which women in the United States gave birth declined in 2008 as the economy deteriorated, according to government statistics released Tuesday.

The nation's overall birthrate fell 2 percent from 2007 to 2008, when about 4.2 million babies were born. The dip pushed the fertility rate below 2.1 per woman, meaning Americans were no longer giving birth to enough children to keep the population from declining.

There were 41.5 births per 1,000 teens ages 15 to 19 in 2008, a 2 percent drop from the previous year. After a two-year increase in teen births prompted concern that one of the nation's most successful social and public health efforts was faltering, 2008 marked the return of a decline in which the rate fell 34 percent over many years.

"This is good news," said Stephanie J. Ventura of the National Center for Health Statistics, which released the annual preliminary analysis of birth certificate data. "It might come as a surprise because people were concerned the teen birthrate was on a different course."

"The downward trend is encouraging and gives us reason to believe that the 2006-07 slight uptick in teen births may have been a hiccup, rather than the start of a troubling new trend," said Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association.

"It is a shame that abstinence education opponents too early use any statistics to denigrate an approach that offers teens the best skills to avoid all the consequences of sex, including teen pregnancy," Huber said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Birthrate declines for American teenagers" by Cheryl Wetzstein, Washington Times 4/7/10

The Obama administration and Congress have created a $110 million teen-pregnancy-prevention program to replace the Bush administration's push for abstinence education.

The abstinence education initiative recently won a reprieve, however. A measure by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican, to continue the five-year, $50-million-a-year federal funding for the Title V Abstinence Education grant program was signed into law with the massive health care package.

The new NCHS report also showed that while the birthrate to unmarried women declined slightly (from 52.9 births per 1,000 single women in 2007 to 52.0 in 2008), the actual number of such births went up (from 1,714,643 to 1,727,950, a 1 percent increase) — reflecting an increase in the number of unmarried women. In addition, the portion of births to unmarried women rose to a historical high of 40.6 percent.

Conservatives and traditional values groups consistently decry the rise in unwed childbearing because of its high social costs and negative effects on children's well-being.

"The dramatic rise of unmarried births among 20-, 30- and even 40-something women has been one of the most troubling family-formation hallmarks of the last half-decade," said Glenn T. Stanton, director of global family formation studies at Focus on the Family.

"Many of these are women who would love to get married, but they hear their biological clocks ticking louder than the prospects of wedding bells," he added.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Increase in Teen Pregnancy and Abortion Blamed on Abstinence

The pregnancy rate among 15-to-19-year-olds increased 3 percent between 2005 and 2006 -- the first jump since 1990 . . . The abortion rate also inched up for the first time in more than a decade -- rising 1 percent -- intensifying concern across the ideological spectrum.

-- From "Rise in teenage pregnancy rate spurs new debate on arresting it" by Rob Stein, Washington Post Staff Writer 1/26/10

The cause of the increase is the subject of debate. Several experts blamed the increase in teen pregnancies on sex-education programs that focus on encouraging abstinence. Others said the reversal could be due to a variety of factors, including an increase in poverty, an influx of Hispanics and complacency about AIDS, prompting lax use of birth control such as condoms.

The report comes as Congress might consider restoring federal funding to sex-education programs that focus on abstinence. The Obama administration eliminated more than $150 million in funds for such groups, but the Senate's health-care reform legislation would reinstate $50 million.

The new findings immediately set off a debate over funding. Critics argued that the disturbing new data were just the latest in a long series of indications that the focus on abstinence programs was a dismal failure.

Supporters of abstinence programs, however, said the findings provided powerful evidence of the need to continue to encourage delayed sexual activity, not only to avoid pregnancy but also to reduce the risk for AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.

The rate increase was highest for blacks. Among blacks, the rate increased from 122.7 per 1,000 in 2005 to 126.3. For Hispanics the rate rose from 124.9 per 1,000 women to 126.6. Among whites, the rate increased from 43.3 per 1,000 women to 44.0.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Teen pregnancy, abortion rates rise" by Sharon Jayson, USA TODAY 1/26/10

The numbers, calculated by the Guttmacher Institute, a non-profit group that studies reproductive and sexual health, show a clear reversal from the downward trend that began in the 1990s.

About 7% of teen girls got pregnant in 2006, a rate of 71.5 pregnancies per 1,000 teens. That's up slightly from 69.5 in 2005, Guttmacher says. In 1990, when rates peaked, about 12% got pregnant.

Guttmacher and others suggest the increase is related to a focus on abstinence-only sex education programs under the Bush administration.

Funding for abstinence doubled from 2000 to 2003, to $120 million. By 2008, funding was at $176 million. Guttmacher is an outspoken opponent of abstinence-only education.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Grassroots D.C. Life March: America Opposing ObamaCare

Chanting, yelling and singing their way down Constitution Avenue, tens of thousands of abortion opponents marched through the cold Friday in the annual March for Life, marking the 37th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

UPDATE 1/23/10: Record large pro-life march in San Francisco (see video)


-- From "Abortion opponents rally on the Mall on Roe v. Wade anniversary" by William Wan, Washington Post Staff Writer 1/22/10

. . . the message this year centered on fighting the now stalled healthcare reform package and ensuring any future healthcare plans prohibit the use of federal funding for abortions.

Many at the rally cited the election of Republican Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts as sign of a shifting momentum to conservative causes like their own.

"Any people from Massachusetts here today?" asked U.S. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), one of several members of congress who spoke a the rally on the Mall. "Thank you Massachusetts. Thank you for helping us kill the anti-life bill," he said referring to the Democrats' filibuster-proof majority in the Senate that will be broken once Brown is sworn in.

During his eight years in office, former President George W. Bush often greeted marchers with a message from Camp David or other locations where he was traveling, expressing support for their cause. Bush appointed two Supreme Court justices who have voted to uphold federal restrictions on some abortion procedures.

Last year, as the march took place during his first few weeks in office, President Barack Obama issued a statement reaffirming his support for a woman's right to choose to end her pregnancy.

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

ENDA: Congress Advances Gay Agenda in Workplace

Hearings in the house began today on H.R. 3017 (Employment Non-discrimination Act) with nearly 200 co-sponsors (six Republicans -- including Illinois Reps. Judy Biggert and Mark Kirk).

The liberals want to sneak this past the public, and so compliantly, the mainstream media is remaining silent.

UPDATE 9/28/09: Video of the House hearings (click to view playlist)

-- From "Homosexual Rights Supporters Seek Anti-Bias Bill" by Sam Hananel, Associated Press 9/23/09

Two openly gay members of Congress on Wednesday urged their colleagues to pass a sweeping job discrimination bill that would - for the first time - protect gays and transsexuals from workplace bias.

The testimony from Reps. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., comes as supporters of the measure believe Congress is closer than ever to banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Opponents complain some of the bill's language is too murky. It offers protection based on "perceived" sexual orientation and for workers who have "undergone" or are "undergoing" gender transition without defining those terms.

The House passed a similar bill two years ago - without protections for transgender workers - but it stalled in the Senate and faced the possibility of a veto from President George W. Bush. This time, President Barack Obama supports the bill.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "House Committee Hears Arguments for Special Rights" by Stuart Shepard, Citizenlink.com Digital Media Director (Focus on the Family) 9/23/09

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) would bar employers from making decisions based on the "actual or perceived" sexual orientation or gender identity of employees or job applicants.

Stuart Ishimaru, acting chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, testified before the House Education and Labor Committee today.

Only one conservative voice was allowed on the panel: Craig Parshall, senior vice president and general counsel of National Religious Broadcasters.

"ENDA, if passed into law would impose a substantial and crippling burden on religious organizations," he said. "In the cases I reviewed recently where there's a clash between homosexual rights -- sexual orientation being protected under discrimination laws on one hand and Christian religious liberties on the other -- Christian liberties lose and the homosexual rights win."

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

Senate Hides Hate Crimes Bill in Defense Appropriation

Late Monday, Senate Democrats told their homosexualist base that they'd attempt to sneak the hate crimes bill (S. 909) past the public as an amendment to the annual defense authorization bill – a must-pass measure (S. 1390)

UPDATE 7/17/09: Hate crimes amendment passes in the dark of night with the help of five GOP senators

UPDATE 7/16/09: Sen. Reid anticipates enough GOP support for hate crimes amendment

UPDATE 7/15/09: Sen. McCain Blasts Dems for Hate Crimes amendment

UPDATE 7/14/09 (late): Vote this week, Senator Reid says at press conference

Illinois residents, click here to E-mail Sens. Burris & Durbin (sponsor of this bill), this takes only a minute, and then click here for their phone numbers.

-- From "Senate Democrats Attach Hate Crimes Law to Defense Bill" by David M. Herszenhorn, New York Times 7/13/09

Senate Democrats said on Monday that they would seek to broaden the federal hate crimes law to protect victims of attacks based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disabilities.

The Senate approved the legislation last year, also as part of the military authorization bill, but it was never reconciled with a similar House-passed bill. [President Bush promised to veto ANY bill that included hate crimes legislation.]

Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said that he would introduce the bill as a bipartisan amendment to the defense authorization measure. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, is also a prime sponsor.

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

Obamanomics: Abstinence Funding Out, Taxpayer Abortion In

President Obama worldview apparent in proposed 2010 budget

UPDATE 5/11/09: Conservatives vow to fight elimination of abstinence-only prgrams

-- From "President Obama's budget cuts funding for abstinence-only sex education programs" by Michael Mcauliff, Daily News Washington Bureau 5/8/09

The White House wants to get out of the business of telling youngsters "Just Say No to Sex."

President Obama is putting his own ideological stamp on federal spending in his proposed 2010 budget by cutting cash for abstinence-only sex ed programs.

He's taken a scalpel to a pair of $100 million George W. Bush-era programs that exclusively preached abstinence. Obama is replacing them with $110 million for comprehensive teen pregnancy prevention.

Dumping the say-no-to-sex programs were a tiny fraction of the $17 billion Team Obama trimmed from its $3.4 trillion funding budget request.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Obama Wants Tax Money To Fund DC Abortions" by Joe Murray, The Bulletin [Philadelphia] 5/8/09

President Barack Obama urged the Democratic-controlled House and Senate to repeal the ban on taxpayer-funded abortions in the District of Columbia as one of his budgetary recommendations earlier this week.

The $3.4 trillion budget Mr. Obama submitted to Congress suggested the repeal of the ban, often referred to as the Dornan amendment, which prevents taxpayer-funded abortions in the District. First passed in 1988, the ban was in place until 1993 when it was briefly repealed under the Clinton administration.

By 1996, the ban was re-enacted and remains law. The budget proposal to repeal the Dornan Amendment has a number of political observers crying foul.

“Some wide-eyed journalists and various political shills for the Obama administration continue to write fairy tales about how President Obama wants to pursue policies that would reduce abortions,” said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC).

“That is a political scam. In reality, President Obama is pursuing a step-by-step strategy to expand access to abortion, and today’s step is to urge Congress to authorize the funding of abortion on demand in the nation’s capital, with funds appropriated by Congress.”

Abortion has been a tricky issue for Mr. Obama since he entered the presidential campaign. While on the trail, Mr. Obama dodged questions pertaining to his pro-choice voting record in Illinois and famously told Pastor Rick Warren the topic of abortion was above his “pay grade.”

. . . Mr. Obama’s rhetoric, pro-lifers say, does not match reality.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Obama's Health Care Plans Include Religious Discrimination

“If anyone should understand the ugliness of discrimination, it is our first African American president. . . My prayer is that he will wake up to what is really going on . . .”

-- From "'Right of conscience' move criticized" United Press International 4/8/09

The Bush administration rule, enacted the day before President Barack Obama took office, expanded the existing "right of conscience" law, under which doctors and other healthcare workers who didn't want to perform abortions could legally refuse to do so.

Under the new federal rule, any worker in a healthcare setting is free to refuse to provide services or information on topics ranging from contraception to vaccine counseling if they are morally opposed to the procedures, CNN reported Wednesday.

With a likely repeal of the rule by the Obama administration looming, Christian doctors argued Wednesday that rolling back the provision would be discriminatory, the broadcaster reported.

To read the entire, above article, CLICK HERE.

From "Health Care Professionals: First Black President Should End Religious Discrimination" by Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer CNSNews.com 4/9/09

Health care professionals on Wednesay urged President Barack Obama not to rescind the "conscience clause" -- the Health and Human Services (HHS) regulation that bars federally funded groups from discriminating against medical workers who, for moral reasons, refuse to perform medical procedures such as abortion and prescribing the "morning-after" pill.

Doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals wearing white coats and green scrubs spoke at the National Press Club on Wednesday [including Dr. David Stevens, CEO of the Christian Medical Association].

The event came one day before the end of the 30-day public comment period on the HHS regulation.

What is happening, Stevens and other health care professionals said, is an ongoing campaign to discriminate against doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and other medical workers who oppose performing procedures or filling prescriptions for religious reasons. They said some conscientious objectors are not being admitted to medical schools and are being passed over for promotions.

The results of a nationwide poll by The Polling Company/Woman Trend of 800 adults, 18 or older, and 2,865 members of faith-based health care professional organizations also was unveiled at the press conference.

The poll found that 87 percent of the adults said they think health care professionals should not be forced to participate in procedures and practices that they morally oppose – a number that represents people across the political spectrum.

The survey of health care professionals showed nearly three quarters, or 74 percent, believed that elimination of the conscience regulation would result in fewer doctors practicing medicine, and 66 percent said it would decrease access to medical treatment to patients in low-income areas. The survey also found that 58 percent of those surveyed predicted a reduction in hospitals providing services.

To read the entire, above article, CLICK HERE.

Federal Judge Orders "Plan B" Pill to Younger Teens

U.S. District Judge Edward R. Korman in New York ordered the FDA to reconsider its 2006 decision to deny girls younger than 18 access to the morning-after pill Plan B without a prescription.

-- From "FDA Ordered to Rethink Age Restriction for Plan B"By Rob Stein, Washington Post Staff Writer 3/24/09

In his 52-page decision, Korman repeatedly criticized the FDA's handling of the issue, agreeing with allegations in a lawsuit that the [2006] decision was "arbitrary and capricious" and influenced by "political and ideological" considerations imposed by the Bush administration.

Plan B consists of higher doses of a hormone found in many standard birth-control pills. Taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, it has been shown to be highly effective at preventing pregnancy.

Conservative Congress members and advocacy groups . . . questioned the drug's safety and argued that wider availability could encourage sexual activity and make it easier for men to have sex with underage girls. They also maintain that Plan B can cause the equivalent of an abortion.

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

Obama, Again, Chooses Death for the Unborn

President Obama's executive order on federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research went farther than he admitted publicly -- he also rescinded the Bush federal funding of the most promising stem cell research alternatives to killing embryos.

-- From "Failing the Stem-Cell Test" editorial at National Review 3/10/09

[Yesterday], Obama eliminated the Bush [embryonic stem cell] policy and then took the unusual and provocative step of also rescinding Bush’s 2007 executive order [13435] providing support for alternative sources of stem cells — an order that in no way limited embryonic stem-cell research and need not have been retracted. Having lifted these restrictions, Obama put no rules or boundaries of any kind in their place, instructing the scientists at the National Institutes of Health to do so on his behalf over the next few months. Obama’s executive order makes no mention of any moral qualm about the destruction of human embryos — whether left over from fertility treatments or created especially for experimentation, including human embryos created by cloning.

The last time NIH scientists were tasked with developing rules for embryo research, in 1994, they returned with proposals so permissive that Bill Clinton felt compelled to reject them. There is no reason to think the NIH will be any more circumspect this time, but President Obama unfortunately has given us considerable reason to think he will not reject even the broadest possible mandate for the exploitation of nascent human lives. With this week’s executive order, Obama has not so much staked out a position in the embryo debate as dismissed the debate itself as unnecessary.

The embryo debate is among the first real tests of our commitment to the equal protection of every human life in the age of biotechnology. The quandaries of this age will only grow more vexing and complicated. But scientific advances in recent years — especially the development of alternative sources of embryonic-like cells that do not necessitate the destruction of human organisms — appear to offer us a way around the test.

President Obama has turned his back on those advances. He has needlessly and clumsily forced a choice between the promise of progress and the respect for life, and has gone out of his way to ensure that we fail the moral test put before us. Let us hope this failure proves reversible in time and does not set the tone for science policy in the years to come.

To read the entire editorial, CLICK HERE.

Mark Hoofnagle, an advocate for destroying embryos for research, who has a PhD in physiology from the University of Virginia, writes the following concerning Obama's executive order:

As someone who works with stem cells I find this largely an empty, symbolic act . . .

What a lot of people don't realize is that in 2006 a revolutionary result was discovered by Japanese scientists led by Shinya Yamanaka at Kyoto University . . . induced Pluripotent Stem Cells or iPSC . . . the ability to reprogram the cells of any individual to a totipotent state - one in which the cells may make any cell-type or tissue in the human body.

So why does it matter that Obama has reversed [the Bush] policy?

Not only are [embryonic stem] cells inferior compared to iPSC for human therapies . . . [embryonic stem] cells will largely be supplanted by iPSC . . .

Ethicist Wesley J. Smith writes on this as well

Obama to Force Abortion on all Health Professionals

Doctors are forecasting the closure of hospitals and clinics across America and a mass migration of physicians and their assistances to other careers should the Obama administration succeed in its attempt to overrule their rights of conscience [which were previously protected by the Bush administration].

UPDATE 4/14/12: Bishops Throw Down Gauntlet Against Obama War on Christianity

UPDATE 9/17/12: Religious Liberty & Anti-Christian Totalitarianism

-- From "Health Workers' 'Conscience' Rule Set to Be Voided" by Rob Stein, Washington Post Staff Writer 2/28/09

The Obama administration's move to rescind broad new job protections for health workers who refuse to provide care they find objectionable triggered an immediate political storm yesterday, underscoring the difficulties the president faces in his effort to find common ground on anything related to the explosive issue of abortion.

The debate centers on a Bush administration regulation, enacted in December, that cuts off federal funding for thousands of state and local governments, hospitals, health plans, clinics and other entities if they do not accommodate doctors, nurses, pharmacists or other employees who refuse to participate in care they feel violates their personal, moral or religious beliefs.

The rule was sought by conservative groups that argued that workers were increasingly being fired, disciplined or penalized in other ways for trying to exercise their "right of conscience."

Women's health advocates, family-planning proponents, abortion rights activists and others condemned the regulation, saying it created a major obstacle to providing many health services, including family planning and infertility treatment, and possibly a wide range of scientific research. After reviewing the regulation, newly appointed officials at the Health and Human Services Department agreed.

The announcement -- which follows an administration decision to lift restrictions on federal funding of international family-planning groups that perform abortions or provide abortion information -- was also disappointing to some who have been working more closely with the administration on reducing the number of abortions.

Administration officials stressed that the president remains committed to protecting the rights of health-care workers who do not want to participate in abortions; such rights have been guaranteed for decades by several federal laws.

[Also,] Administration officials stressed that the proposal will be subject to 30 days of public comment, which could result in a compromise. They said they remain committed to seeking a middle ground but acknowledged that will not always be possible.

To read the entire article (above), CLICK HERE.

From "Physicians: Obama plan will 'shut down hospitals'" By Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily 2/28/09

According to the Los Angeles Times, Obama's move to demand doctors participate in the abortion industry came [Friday]. The report said the move was being made "quietly" even as most of Washington was focusing on the president's budget plan.

"Thousands of conscientious and compassionate physicians, nurses, hospitals and clinics currently serve poor women and those who live in medically underserved areas," said David Stevens, CEO of the Christian Medical Association today.

"Many of these professionals and institutions are motivated and guided by longstanding Hippocratic ethics and biblical principles that preclude participation in abortion and other controversial procedures. Infringing on their right to practice medicine according to these life-affirming ethical standards will force them to leave the profession and to shut down the hospitals and clinics," he warned.

"The Obama administration claims, without offering a shred of statistical evidence, that the regulation has 'created confusion' and will somehow hinder access to healthcare. What can be clearer than not using federal funds to force healthcare professionals to violate longstanding principles of medical ethics like the Hippocratic Oath, which guided medicine for over two millennia?

He said that four in 10 of the organization's members "report being pressured to violate ethical standards. Physicians report losing positions and promotions because of their life-affirming views. Residents report losing training privileges because they refuse to do abortions. Medical students report changing career tracks away from obstetrics for fear of pressure to do abortions."

Stevens said Obama's attack on doctors reveals "the myth of their moderation on abortion."

To read the entire article (above), CLICK HERE.