ObamaCare is poised to provide a huge funding boost to Planned Parenthood, as the Obama administration mandates private insurance companies to include, free of charge, every imaginable type of birth control, including abortifacients, in every policy, thus forcing every citizen to pay for others' sexual habits.
For background, read ObamaCare: Taxpayers Funding Sexualization of America
UPDATE 8/8/11: Force Christians to provide birth control, abortionists tell White House
UPDATE 8/1/11: Obama administration enacts "free" birth control mandate
-- From "Panel recommends that health plans cover contraception for women without co-pays" by Noam N. Levey, Los Angeles Times 7/20/11
The [ObamaCare] law that President Obama signed last year requires new health plans to cover a basic set of preventive health services without co-pays or deductibles for patients, a key provision of the new law that experts believe will encourage more Americans to get recommended immunizations, cancer screenings and other services.
The law directed the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to seek input from clinicians and other authorities about which additional services should be covered for women.
That prompted the report Tuesday from the Institute of Medicine, or IOM, a branch of the National Academy of Sciences that provides guidance to policymakers.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius called the recommendations historic and said her department would review them before it finalizes regulations "very soon" specifying which preventive services would have to be covered. A decision is due by Aug. 1.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Report Backs Contraception" by Katherine Hobson, Wall Street Journal 7/20/11
[The IOM report] recommends that insurers cover "the full range" of contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration as well as sterilization and patient counseling as a way to prevent unintended pregnancies and to help women space their pregnancies over time. There is an increased risk of adverse outcomes for pregnancies that occur within 18 months of a prior pregnancy, the report said.
Contraception coverage is likely to be the most controversial of the eight recommendations in the report. The Family Research Council, a conservative public-policy outfit, said it opposed a mandate to make birth-control coverage free, because people who don't support contraception shouldn't have to subsidize its use by others.
In a statement, Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards praised the report, saying birth control without out-of-pocket expenses "would be a tremendous stride forward for women's health in this country."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Panel Recommends Coverage for Contraception" by Robert Pear, New York Times 7/19/11
Obama administration officials said that they were inclined to accept the panel’s advice and that the new requirements could take effect for many plans at the beginning of 2013. The administration signaled its intentions in January when Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, unveiled a 10-year program to improve the nation’s health. One goal was to “increase the proportion of health insurance plans that cover contraceptive supplies and services.”
Administration officials, who say they hope to act on the recommendations by Aug. 1, are receptive to the idea of removing cost as a barrier to birth control — a longtime goal of advocates for women’s rights and experts on women’s health.
“This report is historic,” Ms. Sebelius said on Tuesday in accepting the document. “Before today, guidelines regarding women’s health and preventive care did not exist. These recommendations are based on science and existing literature.”
. . . The recommendation would not help women without insurance.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "‘Pregnancy is not a disease’: Bishops slam Planned Parenthood push for free birth control" by Kathleen Gilbert, LifeSiteNews.com 7/20/11
“Pregnancy is not a disease, and fertility is not a pathological condition to be suppressed by any means technically possible,” said Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, chairman of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Tuesday.
Like other conservative leaders, the USCCB pro-life chairman noted that the mandate would violate the conscience rights of Americans morally opposed to birth control, and objected to coverage of “emergency contraception” such as ella, a chemical functionally identical to the abortion drug RU-486.
But the cardinal’s challenge did not stop there: DiNardo noted that the IOM report was so radical as to have indicated interest in recommending full abortion coverage as well. The report stated that, “despite the health and well-being benefits to some women,” abortion was outside of the project’s scope given federal legal restrictions.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 8/4/11 (video):
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
New Ohio Law Bans Late-term Abortions
Governor John Kasich signed the viability abortion restriction into law -- a bi-partisan bill that passed the legislature by an overwhelming margin.
For background, read Abortion Viability Restriction Likely in Ohio and also read Pro-life Legislation Floods America
-- From "Gov. John Kasich signs late-term abortion ban into law" by Joe Guillen, The Plain Dealer, Cleveland.com 7/20/11
House Bill 78 bans abortions when a doctor determines a fetus can live outside the womb — a condition known as viability, which is typically when a pregnancy is 23 to 24 weeks along. Doctors would be required to test for viability when a woman is 20 weeks’ pregnant or more.
The law will take effect after 90 days.
Abortion-rights groups and most Democrats opposed the ban, saying it violates women's rights and there is no exception in the law for cases of rape or incest.
Five other states have passed the same legislation and 39 other states have some type of late-term abortion ban, according to Ohio Right to Life. The organization is confident the ban will withstand potential legal challenges.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Ohio Gov. John Kasich signs late-term abortion bill" by Jo Ingles, Reuters 7/20/11
The only exception in the Ohio law is when the woman's life is in danger.
NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, an abortion rights group, said in a statement that the law targets women with wanted pregnancies who experience "heart-breaking complications" such as a fetal anomaly or a cancer diagnosis.
The Ohio House of Representatives last month passed a bill banning abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detectable, which can be as early as six weeks. That bill is not expected to reach the state senate until September.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Ohio Gov. John Kasich Signs Bill Banning Late-Term Abortions" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 7/20/11
“Abortions can currently be performed in Ohio up to the moment of birth, but many doctors agree that a child can live outside the womb after just 22-24 weeks,” Senator Peggy Lehner, one of the bill sponsors, said. “This bill will prevent late-term abortions…and help better protect our youngest and most vulnerable citizens.”
Ohio Right to Life has lobbied for the bill, saying it is strong pro-life legislation that will protect women, save babies’ lives and is part of an overall national strategy to overturn Roe v. Wade.
The Late-Term Abortion Ban would require physicians to test the viability of an unborn child if the mother were seeking an abortion at 20 weeks or later into her pregnancy. If the child is found to be able to live outside the mother’s womb, the abortion cannot be performed, except in circumstances where the pregnancy is a threat to the mother’s health. The measure also contains language making it clear a mental health exception can’t be used to get around the ban — especially since a substantial amount of research shows abortions pose mental health risks for women.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
For background, read Abortion Viability Restriction Likely in Ohio and also read Pro-life Legislation Floods America
-- From "Gov. John Kasich signs late-term abortion ban into law" by Joe Guillen, The Plain Dealer, Cleveland.com 7/20/11
House Bill 78 bans abortions when a doctor determines a fetus can live outside the womb — a condition known as viability, which is typically when a pregnancy is 23 to 24 weeks along. Doctors would be required to test for viability when a woman is 20 weeks’ pregnant or more.
The law will take effect after 90 days.
Abortion-rights groups and most Democrats opposed the ban, saying it violates women's rights and there is no exception in the law for cases of rape or incest.
Five other states have passed the same legislation and 39 other states have some type of late-term abortion ban, according to Ohio Right to Life. The organization is confident the ban will withstand potential legal challenges.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Ohio Gov. John Kasich signs late-term abortion bill" by Jo Ingles, Reuters 7/20/11
The only exception in the Ohio law is when the woman's life is in danger.
NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, an abortion rights group, said in a statement that the law targets women with wanted pregnancies who experience "heart-breaking complications" such as a fetal anomaly or a cancer diagnosis.
The Ohio House of Representatives last month passed a bill banning abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detectable, which can be as early as six weeks. That bill is not expected to reach the state senate until September.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Ohio Gov. John Kasich Signs Bill Banning Late-Term Abortions" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 7/20/11
“Abortions can currently be performed in Ohio up to the moment of birth, but many doctors agree that a child can live outside the womb after just 22-24 weeks,” Senator Peggy Lehner, one of the bill sponsors, said. “This bill will prevent late-term abortions…and help better protect our youngest and most vulnerable citizens.”
Ohio Right to Life has lobbied for the bill, saying it is strong pro-life legislation that will protect women, save babies’ lives and is part of an overall national strategy to overturn Roe v. Wade.
The Late-Term Abortion Ban would require physicians to test the viability of an unborn child if the mother were seeking an abortion at 20 weeks or later into her pregnancy. If the child is found to be able to live outside the mother’s womb, the abortion cannot be performed, except in circumstances where the pregnancy is a threat to the mother’s health. The measure also contains language making it clear a mental health exception can’t be used to get around the ban — especially since a substantial amount of research shows abortions pose mental health risks for women.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Obama, Senate Full Assault on Marriage Begins
Having set the American economy on a course for virtual destruction, next, President Obama and liberals in Congress intend to destroy the underpinning of society -- the familial unit.
UPDATE 11/16/11: Senate committee votes to repeal DOMA; now on to full Senate
UPDATE 9/26/11: Florida Republican sponsors DOMA repeal legislation in U.S. House
-- From "Obama backs bill to end DOMA" by MJ Lee, Politico 7/19/11
The White House on Tuesday publicly supported a bill that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which the Obama administration has opposed.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled Wednesday to hear testimony about the marriage legislation, the Respect for Marriage Act [S. 598], introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement that he celebrates Obama’s position and appreciated the show of support before Wednesday’s hearing.
The Human Rights Campaign, the country’s biggest gay advocacy group, immediately thanked Obama for his support.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "White House: Obama Supports Bill to Repeal Federal Gay Marriage Ban" posted at FoxNews.com 7/19/11
[Sen. Dianne] Feinstein, who is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is hosting the hearing, said she is under no illusion that overturning the ban will be easy, but she does think the public is ready for a change.
"I think eyes have opened. More and more people across this land know people who are gay, who want to have a lasting relationship, who look at marriage as an economic agreement as well as an emotional agreement," said Feinstein, speaking at the National Press Club Tuesday.
The Defense of Marriage Act passed both chambers of Congress by overwhelming margins and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Feinstein was one of 14 senators to oppose the legislation.
Feinstein is now one of 27 co-sponsors, none Republican, supporting repeal. She said with a GOP-dominated House, she understands repeal may not happen anytime soon.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "My Senate Testimony Against Bill to Repeal DOMA" by Ed Whelan, posted at National Review Online 7/19/11
The inevitable effect, and the presumed purpose, of section 3 of S. 598 is to have the federal government validate so-called same-sex marriage by requiring that it treat as marriage for purposes of federal law any such union recognized as a marriage under state law. Section 3 would also require taxpayers in the states that maintain traditional marriage laws to subsidize the provision of federal benefits to same-sex unions entered into in other states.
Further, the principles invoked by advocates of same-sex marriage in their ongoing attack on traditional marriage clearly threaten to pave the way for polygamous and other polyamorous unions, especially via the judicial invention of a state constitutional right to polyamory. . . .
Under section 3 of S. 598, any polyamorous [or polygamous] union recognized as a marriage under state law would have to be recognized by the federal government as a marriage for purposes of federal law. Thus, the foreseeable effect of S. 598 would be to have the federal government validate any state’s adoption of polyamory and to require taxpayers throughout the country to subsidize polygamous and other polyamorous unions.…
Our predecessors understood what too many Americans today have forgotten or never learned or find it convenient to obscure—namely, that the marriage practices that a society endorses have real-world consequences that extend far beyond the individuals seeking to marry and that shape or deform the broader culture. That understanding underlay the 19th-century effort to combat polygamy, which was recognized to be incompatible with democracy. . . .
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Same-sex Household Count Tiny: U.S. Census
"The president has long called for a legislative repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA]."For background, read Obama Pushes Court to Rule Against Marriage and also read Gay Military Offense Against Defense of Marriage as well as House of Representatives Defends DOMA in Court, Countering Obama
--White House Press Secretary Jay Carney 7/19/11
UPDATE 11/16/11: Senate committee votes to repeal DOMA; now on to full Senate
UPDATE 9/26/11: Florida Republican sponsors DOMA repeal legislation in U.S. House
-- From "Obama backs bill to end DOMA" by MJ Lee, Politico 7/19/11
The White House on Tuesday publicly supported a bill that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which the Obama administration has opposed.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled Wednesday to hear testimony about the marriage legislation, the Respect for Marriage Act [S. 598], introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement that he celebrates Obama’s position and appreciated the show of support before Wednesday’s hearing.
The Human Rights Campaign, the country’s biggest gay advocacy group, immediately thanked Obama for his support.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "White House: Obama Supports Bill to Repeal Federal Gay Marriage Ban" posted at FoxNews.com 7/19/11
[Sen. Dianne] Feinstein, who is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is hosting the hearing, said she is under no illusion that overturning the ban will be easy, but she does think the public is ready for a change.
"I think eyes have opened. More and more people across this land know people who are gay, who want to have a lasting relationship, who look at marriage as an economic agreement as well as an emotional agreement," said Feinstein, speaking at the National Press Club Tuesday.
The Defense of Marriage Act passed both chambers of Congress by overwhelming margins and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Feinstein was one of 14 senators to oppose the legislation.
Feinstein is now one of 27 co-sponsors, none Republican, supporting repeal. She said with a GOP-dominated House, she understands repeal may not happen anytime soon.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "My Senate Testimony Against Bill to Repeal DOMA" by Ed Whelan, posted at National Review Online 7/19/11
The inevitable effect, and the presumed purpose, of section 3 of S. 598 is to have the federal government validate so-called same-sex marriage by requiring that it treat as marriage for purposes of federal law any such union recognized as a marriage under state law. Section 3 would also require taxpayers in the states that maintain traditional marriage laws to subsidize the provision of federal benefits to same-sex unions entered into in other states.
Further, the principles invoked by advocates of same-sex marriage in their ongoing attack on traditional marriage clearly threaten to pave the way for polygamous and other polyamorous unions, especially via the judicial invention of a state constitutional right to polyamory. . . .
Under section 3 of S. 598, any polyamorous [or polygamous] union recognized as a marriage under state law would have to be recognized by the federal government as a marriage for purposes of federal law. Thus, the foreseeable effect of S. 598 would be to have the federal government validate any state’s adoption of polyamory and to require taxpayers throughout the country to subsidize polygamous and other polyamorous unions.…
Our predecessors understood what too many Americans today have forgotten or never learned or find it convenient to obscure—namely, that the marriage practices that a society endorses have real-world consequences that extend far beyond the individuals seeking to marry and that shape or deform the broader culture. That understanding underlay the 19th-century effort to combat polygamy, which was recognized to be incompatible with democracy. . . .
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Same-sex Household Count Tiny: U.S. Census
Gay Lobby Purchases Same-sex 'Marriage'
The New York effort to redefine marriage that passed with conservative legislators' support exhibited the latest strategic plan by homosexualists, headed by Tim Gill.
For background, read NY 'Gay Marriage' via Moguls & Corruption and also read Same-sex 'Marriage' Via Purchasing of Politicians
-- From "Gay Marriage Voted In" by Jacob Gershman, Wall Street Journal 6/25/11
The new plan was spearheaded by the Gill Action Fund, a powerful gay-rights group led by Tim Gill, a libertarian-leaning philanthropist from Denver. Mr. Gill's team of operatives and network of donors helped turn the tide on gay marriage in other statehouses, including Iowa and New Hampshire.
Last year, Mr. Gill's group pumped in nearly $1 million into a political action committee called Fight Back NY, which financed attack ads against three vulnerable senators—Democrats Hiram Monserrate and Bill Stachowski and Republican Frank Padavan—who voted against the bill in 2009. They lost their seats to gay-marriage friendly candidates.
"We wanted to send a very strong and clear message about what happens when you double-cross us," said Mr. Gill's political director, Bill Smith, an Alabama-born political operative who began his career in the 1990s working under the tutelage of Karl Rove.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "N.Y. Republicans who backed gay marriage see coffers, criticism soar" by Jeff Stein, CNN 7/15/11
Republicans in New York's state Senate who crossed party lines to legalize gay marriage in the state have seen sharp increases in their campaign coffers, leading conservative activists to allege their votes were bought.
State Sen. Mark Grisanti of Buffalo, for instance, amassed just $30,000 from May 1 to June 24, the day same-sex marriage was approved. But in the two-and-a-half weeks after his vote, Grisanti reported receiving $73,000 in contributions – including huge donations from high-profile gay rights supporters like New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Tim Gill, who is based in Colorado.
Three of the four Republican supporters of gay marriage denied multiple requests for comment on the spikes. But conservatives were quick to decry the flood of donations.
State Sen. Ruben Diaz, the lone Democrat to oppose the bill, also questioned the senators' motives and called for New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to launch an investigation.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Sen. Roy McDonald's ‘yes’ vote on gay marriage wins financial support" by Lucian McCarty, The Saratogian 7/15/11
Since June 1, Sen. Roy McDonald has received more than $118,000 in campaign contributions, many from people who may differ from the Republican senator’s typical supporters in the past.
Gill contributed $10,300 in June to McDonald and similar amounts to Sens. Jim Alesi and Mark Grisanti, three of the four Republicans who crossed party lines to vote for same-sex marriage. On June 24, the measure ultimately passed, 33 votes to 29.
Contributions of $10,300 were also made by billionaire Robert Ziff and Frank Selvaggi, a board member and co-chair of The Empire State Pride Agenda, New York’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights and advocacy organization.
“Some of these people I’ve never met and don’t know,” McDonald said. “These are unsolicited (contributions).”
But McDonald also said he is happy to get them.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read NY Same-sex 'Marriage' Pits Christians vs. 'christians'
For background, read NY 'Gay Marriage' via Moguls & Corruption and also read Same-sex 'Marriage' Via Purchasing of Politicians
-- From "Gay Marriage Voted In" by Jacob Gershman, Wall Street Journal 6/25/11
The new plan was spearheaded by the Gill Action Fund, a powerful gay-rights group led by Tim Gill, a libertarian-leaning philanthropist from Denver. Mr. Gill's team of operatives and network of donors helped turn the tide on gay marriage in other statehouses, including Iowa and New Hampshire.
Last year, Mr. Gill's group pumped in nearly $1 million into a political action committee called Fight Back NY, which financed attack ads against three vulnerable senators—Democrats Hiram Monserrate and Bill Stachowski and Republican Frank Padavan—who voted against the bill in 2009. They lost their seats to gay-marriage friendly candidates.
"We wanted to send a very strong and clear message about what happens when you double-cross us," said Mr. Gill's political director, Bill Smith, an Alabama-born political operative who began his career in the 1990s working under the tutelage of Karl Rove.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "N.Y. Republicans who backed gay marriage see coffers, criticism soar" by Jeff Stein, CNN 7/15/11
Republicans in New York's state Senate who crossed party lines to legalize gay marriage in the state have seen sharp increases in their campaign coffers, leading conservative activists to allege their votes were bought.
State Sen. Mark Grisanti of Buffalo, for instance, amassed just $30,000 from May 1 to June 24, the day same-sex marriage was approved. But in the two-and-a-half weeks after his vote, Grisanti reported receiving $73,000 in contributions – including huge donations from high-profile gay rights supporters like New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Tim Gill, who is based in Colorado.
Three of the four Republican supporters of gay marriage denied multiple requests for comment on the spikes. But conservatives were quick to decry the flood of donations.
State Sen. Ruben Diaz, the lone Democrat to oppose the bill, also questioned the senators' motives and called for New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to launch an investigation.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Sen. Roy McDonald's ‘yes’ vote on gay marriage wins financial support" by Lucian McCarty, The Saratogian 7/15/11
Since June 1, Sen. Roy McDonald has received more than $118,000 in campaign contributions, many from people who may differ from the Republican senator’s typical supporters in the past.
Gill contributed $10,300 in June to McDonald and similar amounts to Sens. Jim Alesi and Mark Grisanti, three of the four Republicans who crossed party lines to vote for same-sex marriage. On June 24, the measure ultimately passed, 33 votes to 29.
Contributions of $10,300 were also made by billionaire Robert Ziff and Frank Selvaggi, a board member and co-chair of The Empire State Pride Agenda, New York’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights and advocacy organization.
“Some of these people I’ve never met and don’t know,” McDonald said. “These are unsolicited (contributions).”
But McDonald also said he is happy to get them.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read NY Same-sex 'Marriage' Pits Christians vs. 'christians'
Monday, July 18, 2011
Liberal 'Churches' Conforming to Decadent Culture
As same-sex "marriage" is legalized in very limited areas of America, leaders of "churches" that have abandoned scriptural authority pursue a variety of avenues to incorporate sexual deviancy.
For background, read Episcopalians Go Gay, Some Go Catholic and also read Presbyterians Vote Yea on Gay 'Clergy' as well as Methodists Ignore Own Rules re: Lesbian Pastor
-- From "Churches debate whether to marry gays" by Rachel Zoll, Associated Press Religion Writer 7/16/11
The decision is especially complex in the mainline Protestant denominations that have yet to fully resolve their disagreements over the Bible and homosexuality. Many have taken steps toward acceptance of gay ordination and same-gender couples without changing the official definition of marriage in church constitutions and canons. With the exception of the United Church of Christ, which approved gay marriage six years ago, none of the larger mainline churches has a national liturgy for same-sex weddings or even blessing ceremonies.
Just last Sunday, the Presbyterian Church formally lifted barriers to ordination for gays and lesbians who are not celibate, although individual congregations had been hiring gay pastors and conducting same-sex blessing ceremonies for years. . . .
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America formally abolished a celibacy requirement for gay and lesbian clergy more than a year ago, but still defines marriage as between one man and one woman.
The Episcopal Church blazed a trail, and enraged fellow Anglicans worldwide, in 2003 by consecrating the first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire. . . . Episcopalians are drafting prayers for blessing same-gender couples that advocates hope will be accepted next year by the General Convention.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Also read Liberal 'Churches' Continue to Wither
UPDATE 7/28/15: Gay Agenda Destroys Everything it Contacts
For background, read Episcopalians Go Gay, Some Go Catholic and also read Presbyterians Vote Yea on Gay 'Clergy' as well as Methodists Ignore Own Rules re: Lesbian Pastor
-- From "Churches debate whether to marry gays" by Rachel Zoll, Associated Press Religion Writer 7/16/11
The decision is especially complex in the mainline Protestant denominations that have yet to fully resolve their disagreements over the Bible and homosexuality. Many have taken steps toward acceptance of gay ordination and same-gender couples without changing the official definition of marriage in church constitutions and canons. With the exception of the United Church of Christ, which approved gay marriage six years ago, none of the larger mainline churches has a national liturgy for same-sex weddings or even blessing ceremonies.
Just last Sunday, the Presbyterian Church formally lifted barriers to ordination for gays and lesbians who are not celibate, although individual congregations had been hiring gay pastors and conducting same-sex blessing ceremonies for years. . . .
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America formally abolished a celibacy requirement for gay and lesbian clergy more than a year ago, but still defines marriage as between one man and one woman.
The Episcopal Church blazed a trail, and enraged fellow Anglicans worldwide, in 2003 by consecrating the first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire. . . . Episcopalians are drafting prayers for blessing same-gender couples that advocates hope will be accepted next year by the General Convention.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Also read Liberal 'Churches' Continue to Wither
UPDATE 7/28/15: Gay Agenda Destroys Everything it Contacts
Gay Military Offense Against Defense of Marriage (DOMA)
Although President Obama and Congress have authorized open sexual deviancy in the military, the Gay Agenda is never satisfied, as the federal DOMA law restricts recognition of same-sex "marriage" regarding military benefits -- thus, the need to repeal DOMA as well.
For background, read San Fran. Judges Usurp Congress: Don't Ask, Don't Tell and also read Obama Pushes Court to Rule Against Marriage as well as White House Torpedoed Marriage from Start
-- From "Same-Sex Marriage Faces Military Limits" by James Dao, New York Times 7/16/11
. . . advocates for gay and lesbian service members are already looking ahead to the next battle: winning equal benefits for same-sex married couples.
Under current law, particularly the Defense of Marriage Act, the Pentagon is prohibited from giving federally financed benefits to same-sex married couples. In the military, those benefits include base housing and allowances for off-base housing, health insurance, certain death benefits, legal counseling and access to base commissaries and other stores.
. . . many advocates expect the number of gay and lesbian married couples in the military to rise significantly.
As those numbers grow, unequal treatment of same-sex married couples will become a source of resentment and poor morale, advocates for gay troops assert.
With Republicans in control of the House of Representatives, advocates for gays in the military said the courts might be their best venue for equalizing benefits. . . .
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Military Gay Couples Won't Enjoy Benefits" by Julie Watson, Associated Press 7/17/11
. . . That means housing allowances and off-base living space for gay service members with partners could be decided as if they were living alone. Base transfers would not take into account their spouses. If two gay service members are married to each other they may be transferred to two different states or regions of the world. For heterosexual couples, the military tries to avoid that from happening.
Same-sex partners can be listed as the person to be notified in case a service member is killed, injured, or missing, but current regulations prevent anyone other than immediate family – not same-sex spouses – from learning the details of the death. Same-sex spouses also will not be eligible for travel allowances to attend repatriation ceremonies if their military spouses are killed in action.
Gay spouses also will be denied military ID cards. That means they will not be allowed on bases unless they are accompanied by a service member and they cannot shop at commissaries or exchanges that have reduced prices for groceries and clothing, nor can they be treated at military medical facilities. They also will be excluded from base programs providing recreation and other such kinds of support.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Same-sex Household Count Tiny: U.S. Census
For background, read San Fran. Judges Usurp Congress: Don't Ask, Don't Tell and also read Obama Pushes Court to Rule Against Marriage as well as White House Torpedoed Marriage from Start
-- From "Same-Sex Marriage Faces Military Limits" by James Dao, New York Times 7/16/11
. . . advocates for gay and lesbian service members are already looking ahead to the next battle: winning equal benefits for same-sex married couples.
Under current law, particularly the Defense of Marriage Act, the Pentagon is prohibited from giving federally financed benefits to same-sex married couples. In the military, those benefits include base housing and allowances for off-base housing, health insurance, certain death benefits, legal counseling and access to base commissaries and other stores.
. . . many advocates expect the number of gay and lesbian married couples in the military to rise significantly.
As those numbers grow, unequal treatment of same-sex married couples will become a source of resentment and poor morale, advocates for gay troops assert.
With Republicans in control of the House of Representatives, advocates for gays in the military said the courts might be their best venue for equalizing benefits. . . .
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Military Gay Couples Won't Enjoy Benefits" by Julie Watson, Associated Press 7/17/11
. . . That means housing allowances and off-base living space for gay service members with partners could be decided as if they were living alone. Base transfers would not take into account their spouses. If two gay service members are married to each other they may be transferred to two different states or regions of the world. For heterosexual couples, the military tries to avoid that from happening.
Same-sex partners can be listed as the person to be notified in case a service member is killed, injured, or missing, but current regulations prevent anyone other than immediate family – not same-sex spouses – from learning the details of the death. Same-sex spouses also will not be eligible for travel allowances to attend repatriation ceremonies if their military spouses are killed in action.
Gay spouses also will be denied military ID cards. That means they will not be allowed on bases unless they are accompanied by a service member and they cannot shop at commissaries or exchanges that have reduced prices for groceries and clothing, nor can they be treated at military medical facilities. They also will be excluded from base programs providing recreation and other such kinds of support.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Same-sex Household Count Tiny: U.S. Census
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Judge Protects Pro-life Free Speech in New York
Scolding city officials for supporting a law he called “offensive to free speech principles,” a federal judge on Wednesday temporarily barred New York City from enforcing a new law that would require crisis pregnancy centers to disclose more information about their services.
-- From "Judge Blocks City’s Crisis Pregnancy Center Law" by David W. Chen, New York Times 7/13/11
The law, which had the strong backing of Christine C. Quinn, the City Council speaker, and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, was scheduled to go into effect on Thursday. It would have required such centers to detail whether they provided abortions or emergency contraception, and whether they had a licensed medical provider on-site.
The City Council had enacted the law in March, framing it as a matter of consumer protection and truth in advertising, not long after Naral Pro-Choice New York released a report saying it had found crisis pregnancy centers using deceptive tactics and false claims to dissuade women from having abortions.
But opponents of the law argued that it violated free speech rights and was motivated chiefly by politics. And in an often tart 22-page ruling, Judge William H. Pauley III essentially sided with the opponents, writing that the city’s definition of commercial speech was too broad.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Abortion Foes Celebrate Judge's Ruling Blocking New York City’s Disclosure Law" posted at FoxNews.com 7/15/11
Critics argued the law is unconstitutional because it violated the centers’ right to free speech and unfairly singled out anti-abortion groups and not places like Planned Parenthood. But supporters say the law will strengthen consumer protection by cracking down on false or misleading advertising.
Pauley rejected the city’s attempt to regard an assembly of people as part of the definition of an economic commodity.
“Under such a view, flyers for political rallies, religious literature promoting church attendance, or similar forms of expression would constitute commercial speech merely because they assemble listeners for the speaker,” he wrote in his opinion.
“Accepting that proposition would permit the government to inject its own message into virtually all speech designed to advocate a message to more than a single individual and thereby eviscerate the First Amendment’s protections.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Federal Judge Issues Injunction Against NY City Law Targeting CPCs" by Dave Andrusko, National Right to Life News 7/15/11
Judge Pauley’s decision is the third time in less than six months a federal judge has slapped down pro-abortion efforts to abridge the free speech rights of women helping centers. The other two are Judge Deborah Chasanow (a law passed by the Montgomery County Council) and Judge Marvin J. Garbis (an ordinance passed by the Baltimore City Council).
Judge Pauley’s opinion was reminiscent of Judge Garbis’s findings.
“Local Law 17” was replete with requirements, including that crisis pregnancy centers “post signs in the lobbies of their counseling centers, add extensive additional written language to their advertising materials, and to provide oral statements during both ‘in person’ and telephonic conversations regarding the services offered by crisis pregnancy centers,” according to ACJU which was one of the counsels for the plaintiffs– Expectant Mother Care/EMC Frontline Pregnancy Center and Life Centers of New York, two CPCs.
Among the many requirements of Local Law 17 is to state whether the facility provides referrals for abortion and emergency contraception.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Judge Blocks City’s Crisis Pregnancy Center Law" by David W. Chen, New York Times 7/13/11
The law, which had the strong backing of Christine C. Quinn, the City Council speaker, and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, was scheduled to go into effect on Thursday. It would have required such centers to detail whether they provided abortions or emergency contraception, and whether they had a licensed medical provider on-site.
The City Council had enacted the law in March, framing it as a matter of consumer protection and truth in advertising, not long after Naral Pro-Choice New York released a report saying it had found crisis pregnancy centers using deceptive tactics and false claims to dissuade women from having abortions.
But opponents of the law argued that it violated free speech rights and was motivated chiefly by politics. And in an often tart 22-page ruling, Judge William H. Pauley III essentially sided with the opponents, writing that the city’s definition of commercial speech was too broad.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Abortion Foes Celebrate Judge's Ruling Blocking New York City’s Disclosure Law" posted at FoxNews.com 7/15/11
Critics argued the law is unconstitutional because it violated the centers’ right to free speech and unfairly singled out anti-abortion groups and not places like Planned Parenthood. But supporters say the law will strengthen consumer protection by cracking down on false or misleading advertising.
Pauley rejected the city’s attempt to regard an assembly of people as part of the definition of an economic commodity.
“Under such a view, flyers for political rallies, religious literature promoting church attendance, or similar forms of expression would constitute commercial speech merely because they assemble listeners for the speaker,” he wrote in his opinion.
“Accepting that proposition would permit the government to inject its own message into virtually all speech designed to advocate a message to more than a single individual and thereby eviscerate the First Amendment’s protections.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Federal Judge Issues Injunction Against NY City Law Targeting CPCs" by Dave Andrusko, National Right to Life News 7/15/11
Judge Pauley’s decision is the third time in less than six months a federal judge has slapped down pro-abortion efforts to abridge the free speech rights of women helping centers. The other two are Judge Deborah Chasanow (a law passed by the Montgomery County Council) and Judge Marvin J. Garbis (an ordinance passed by the Baltimore City Council).
Judge Pauley’s opinion was reminiscent of Judge Garbis’s findings.
“Local Law 17” was replete with requirements, including that crisis pregnancy centers “post signs in the lobbies of their counseling centers, add extensive additional written language to their advertising materials, and to provide oral statements during both ‘in person’ and telephonic conversations regarding the services offered by crisis pregnancy centers,” according to ACJU which was one of the counsels for the plaintiffs– Expectant Mother Care/EMC Frontline Pregnancy Center and Life Centers of New York, two CPCs.
Among the many requirements of Local Law 17 is to state whether the facility provides referrals for abortion and emergency contraception.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Census Shows Fewer Children - Aborted Ones Missing
According to the 2010 census, only 24% of the U.S. population is under age 18, sinking below the previous record low of 26% in 1990. Of this age group, children of immigrants is the fastest-growing segment, thus reflecting the birth rate crisis in America.
-- From "Census: Share of children in US hits record low" by The Associated Press 7/12/11
. . . the percentage of people 65 and older is expected to jump from 13 percent today to roughly 20 percent by 2050 due to the aging of baby boomers and beyond.
In 1900, the share of children reached as high as 40 percent, compared to a much smaller 4 percent share for seniors 65 and older. The percentage of children in subsequent decades held above 30 percent until 1980, when it fell to 28 percent amid declining birth rates, mostly among whites.
Nationwide, the number of children has grown by 1.9 million, or 2.6 percent, since 2000. That represents a drop-off from the previous decade, when even higher rates of immigration by Latinos — who are more likely than some other ethnic groups to have large families — helped increase the number of children by 8.7 million, or 13.7 percent.
The slowing population growth in the U.S. mirrors to a lesser extent the situation in other developed nations, including Russia, Japan and France which are seeing reduced growth or population losses due to declining birth rates and limited immigration. The combined population of more-developed countries other than the U.S. is projected to decline beginning in 2016, raising the prospect of prolonged budget crises as the number of working-age citizens diminish, pension costs rise and tax revenues fall.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Census: More kids live with a grandparent in the house" by Sharon Jayson, USA TODAY 6/29/11
Using 2009 data, the U.S. Census finds that 7.8 million children lived with at least one grandparent, up from 4.7 million in 1991.
By race and ethnicity, the patterns vary between 1991 and 2009, with a bump among white kids but lesser increases among blacks and Hispanics. White kids living with at least one grandparent jumped from 5% to 9%; for blacks it rose from 15% to 17% and for Hispanic children, it increased from 12% to 14%.
Among all children living with a grandparent, three-quarters (76%) also had at least one parent in the household.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Click headlines below to read previous articles:
U.S. Birthrate Below Replacement; Record Unwed Birthrate
Childless Women: White and More Educated
Sex on the Rise, Procreation in Decline
Worldwide Abortion: The War on Girls
Russians Face Extinction from Abortion
Society Without Procreation: Germany Reacts
Study Gives Hope to Industrialized Nations Facing Population Declines
-- From "Census: Share of children in US hits record low" by The Associated Press 7/12/11
. . . the percentage of people 65 and older is expected to jump from 13 percent today to roughly 20 percent by 2050 due to the aging of baby boomers and beyond.
In 1900, the share of children reached as high as 40 percent, compared to a much smaller 4 percent share for seniors 65 and older. The percentage of children in subsequent decades held above 30 percent until 1980, when it fell to 28 percent amid declining birth rates, mostly among whites.
Nationwide, the number of children has grown by 1.9 million, or 2.6 percent, since 2000. That represents a drop-off from the previous decade, when even higher rates of immigration by Latinos — who are more likely than some other ethnic groups to have large families — helped increase the number of children by 8.7 million, or 13.7 percent.
The slowing population growth in the U.S. mirrors to a lesser extent the situation in other developed nations, including Russia, Japan and France which are seeing reduced growth or population losses due to declining birth rates and limited immigration. The combined population of more-developed countries other than the U.S. is projected to decline beginning in 2016, raising the prospect of prolonged budget crises as the number of working-age citizens diminish, pension costs rise and tax revenues fall.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Census: More kids live with a grandparent in the house" by Sharon Jayson, USA TODAY 6/29/11
Using 2009 data, the U.S. Census finds that 7.8 million children lived with at least one grandparent, up from 4.7 million in 1991.
By race and ethnicity, the patterns vary between 1991 and 2009, with a bump among white kids but lesser increases among blacks and Hispanics. White kids living with at least one grandparent jumped from 5% to 9%; for blacks it rose from 15% to 17% and for Hispanic children, it increased from 12% to 14%.
Among all children living with a grandparent, three-quarters (76%) also had at least one parent in the household.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Click headlines below to read previous articles:
U.S. Birthrate Below Replacement; Record Unwed Birthrate
Childless Women: White and More Educated
Sex on the Rise, Procreation in Decline
Worldwide Abortion: The War on Girls
Russians Face Extinction from Abortion
Society Without Procreation: Germany Reacts
Study Gives Hope to Industrialized Nations Facing Population Declines
Friday, July 15, 2011
Gay Agenda Dealt Blow by UK Commission
As anti-Christian religious discrimination claims are headed to the European Court of Human Rights, the British Equality and Human Rights Commission has reversed itself by arguing that homosexual rights do not trump religious rights carte blanche.
For background, read Judge Rules Gay Agenda Trumps Right of Conscience and also read Religious Liberty in Employment Upheld, Journalists in Uproar
-- From "Equality commission backs religious claims" posted at BBC News 7/11/11
[Cases included:]
Mr [Gary] McFarlane, a Bristol counsellor, was sacked for refusing to give relationship advice to gay people
Ms [Lilian] Ladele was disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies in north London
The commission said judges had interpreted equality laws too narrowly in religious claims, leading employers to place undue restriction on how far Christians could behave in accordance with their beliefs.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "At last, equality police decide Christians DO have right to follow beliefs" by UK Daily Mail Reporter 7/12/11
In a major U-turn, the Equality and Human Rights Commission declared that judges should not have backed employers who pursued Christians for wearing crosses or for refusing to give sex therapy to gay couples.
Just seven months ago it had championed the cause of civil partners Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy in their successful bid to sue Christian hoteliers who had refused them a double room.
But yesterday the commission, which is led by former Labour politician Trevor Phillips, said the law was confusing.
The commission said it wanted to see a new legal principle of ‘reasonable accommodations’ to allow a religious believer and their employer to reach a compromise. It said that under this principle, a Jew who did not wish to work on Saturdays could be given his or her wish simply by a change to work rotas.
This would give religious believers similar legal status to disabled people.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Humanists and gays fear EHRC intervention" posted at The Christian Institute [UK] 7/12/11
Humanist and homosexual groups have reacted strongly against the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s move to defend religious liberty of Christians.
However, the intervention has been welcomed by Christian groups who have long been concerned that equality laws are marginalising Christians.
But Andrew Copson, Chief Executive of the British Humanist Association said that “it is one thing to make the case for reasonable accommodation in matters such as religious holidays, and quite another if the accommodation sought is to allow the believer to discriminate against others in the provision of a service.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
For background, read Judge Rules Gay Agenda Trumps Right of Conscience and also read Religious Liberty in Employment Upheld, Journalists in Uproar
-- From "Equality commission backs religious claims" posted at BBC News 7/11/11
[Cases included:]
Mr [Gary] McFarlane, a Bristol counsellor, was sacked for refusing to give relationship advice to gay people
Ms [Lilian] Ladele was disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies in north London
The commission said judges had interpreted equality laws too narrowly in religious claims, leading employers to place undue restriction on how far Christians could behave in accordance with their beliefs.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "At last, equality police decide Christians DO have right to follow beliefs" by UK Daily Mail Reporter 7/12/11
In a major U-turn, the Equality and Human Rights Commission declared that judges should not have backed employers who pursued Christians for wearing crosses or for refusing to give sex therapy to gay couples.
Just seven months ago it had championed the cause of civil partners Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy in their successful bid to sue Christian hoteliers who had refused them a double room.
But yesterday the commission, which is led by former Labour politician Trevor Phillips, said the law was confusing.
The commission said it wanted to see a new legal principle of ‘reasonable accommodations’ to allow a religious believer and their employer to reach a compromise. It said that under this principle, a Jew who did not wish to work on Saturdays could be given his or her wish simply by a change to work rotas.
This would give religious believers similar legal status to disabled people.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Humanists and gays fear EHRC intervention" posted at The Christian Institute [UK] 7/12/11
Humanist and homosexual groups have reacted strongly against the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s move to defend religious liberty of Christians.
However, the intervention has been welcomed by Christian groups who have long been concerned that equality laws are marginalising Christians.
But Andrew Copson, Chief Executive of the British Humanist Association said that “it is one thing to make the case for reasonable accommodation in matters such as religious holidays, and quite another if the accommodation sought is to allow the believer to discriminate against others in the provision of a service.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
MO Dem. Gov. Gives on Abortion Restrictions
Missouri doctors and hospitals will face new restrictions and penalties for performing late-term abortions after Gov. Jay Nixon announced Thursday that he would let legislation backed by anti-abortion groups take effect without his signature.
For background, read Abortion Restricted in Missouri after 20 Weeks and also read 'Late-Term' Abortion Redefined: Fetal Pain
-- From "Dem Governor Lets Bill Limiting Late-Term Abortions Become Law--Without His Signature" by David A. Lieb, Associated Press 7/14/11
Nixon, a Democrat, cited a section of the Missouri Constitution that allows bills to become law if not signed or vetoed by the governor within 45 days after the Legislature adjourns. Thursday was the deadline for him to take action.
At a signing ceremony in Kansas City for unrelated legislation, Nixon told reporters that abortion "is a public policy obviously that's talked about in Missouri tremendously, and I've tried to — you know — make sure that we are sensitive to all sides of the issue."
This marks the second straight year that Nixon has allowed an anti-abortion bill to become law without his signature as he attempts to walk a political tightrope by neither directly supporting nor opposing the measures. His decision was praised by some anti-abortion activists.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Gov. Nixon allows abortion bill to become law; signs other life legislation" by Jennifer Brinker, St. Louis Review 7/15/11
The bills, HB213 and SB65, were sponsored by Rep. Timothy Jones R-Eureka, and Sen Robert Mayer, R-Dexter, respectively.
Nixon also recently signed several other life-related bills, including a piece of legislation requiring the Department of Health and Senior Services to post information about cord-blood banking. Cord blood harvested from an infant’s umbilical cord is rich in adult stem cells and has been used to treat numerous illnesses.
Finally, Nixon signed a bill that will allow adult adoptees better access to information about their biological parents. The bill relaxes rules that govern the release of the identity of biological parents for adoptees wanting that information.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "New Missouri late-term abortion restrictions to become law" by Jason Noble, Kansas City Star 7/14/11
Also under the bill, abortion providers are required to determine the gestational age of a fetus before performing the procedure. For any fetus 20 weeks of age or more, the doctor must determine whether it is viable.
Performing an abortion on a viable fetus when the mother’s health did not require it would be a felony punishable by up to seven years in prison or a fine of up to $5,000.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
For background, read Abortion Restricted in Missouri after 20 Weeks and also read 'Late-Term' Abortion Redefined: Fetal Pain
-- From "Dem Governor Lets Bill Limiting Late-Term Abortions Become Law--Without His Signature" by David A. Lieb, Associated Press 7/14/11
Nixon, a Democrat, cited a section of the Missouri Constitution that allows bills to become law if not signed or vetoed by the governor within 45 days after the Legislature adjourns. Thursday was the deadline for him to take action.
At a signing ceremony in Kansas City for unrelated legislation, Nixon told reporters that abortion "is a public policy obviously that's talked about in Missouri tremendously, and I've tried to — you know — make sure that we are sensitive to all sides of the issue."
This marks the second straight year that Nixon has allowed an anti-abortion bill to become law without his signature as he attempts to walk a political tightrope by neither directly supporting nor opposing the measures. His decision was praised by some anti-abortion activists.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Gov. Nixon allows abortion bill to become law; signs other life legislation" by Jennifer Brinker, St. Louis Review 7/15/11
The bills, HB213 and SB65, were sponsored by Rep. Timothy Jones R-Eureka, and Sen Robert Mayer, R-Dexter, respectively.
Nixon also recently signed several other life-related bills, including a piece of legislation requiring the Department of Health and Senior Services to post information about cord-blood banking. Cord blood harvested from an infant’s umbilical cord is rich in adult stem cells and has been used to treat numerous illnesses.
Finally, Nixon signed a bill that will allow adult adoptees better access to information about their biological parents. The bill relaxes rules that govern the release of the identity of biological parents for adoptees wanting that information.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "New Missouri late-term abortion restrictions to become law" by Jason Noble, Kansas City Star 7/14/11
Also under the bill, abortion providers are required to determine the gestational age of a fetus before performing the procedure. For any fetus 20 weeks of age or more, the doctor must determine whether it is viable.
Performing an abortion on a viable fetus when the mother’s health did not require it would be a felony punishable by up to seven years in prison or a fine of up to $5,000.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Fed. Judge OKs Prayer at Calif. City Council
U.S. District Judge Dale Fischer has ruled that officials of the Los Angeles County city of Lancaster have the right to pray to Jesus at meetings.
For background, read ACLU Sues to Stop Voters' Prayer
UPDATE 3/27/13: 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds Fischer Ruling
-- From "Judge: Lancaster officials can pray at meetings" by The Associated Press 7/12/11
Mayor R. Rex Parris said Tuesday that the city takes pride in defending the rights of citizens to pray.
The suit was brought by Shelley Rubin, the widow of late Jewish Defense League head Irv Rubin, and Maureen Feller, a Christian resident who claimed the invocations violated the constitutional separation of church and state.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Judge upholds Lancaster's policy on prayer before meetings" by Ann M. Simmons, Los Angeles Times 7/12/11
According to information released by the city Tuesday, the judgment allows Lancaster to continue its invocation policy, which has been in place since August 2009.
“Lancaster takes immense pride in winning this case and defending the fundamental right to pray, not only for our citizens, but indeed for all people across this nation,” Mayor R. Rex Parris said in a statement.
Lancaster’s invocation policy calls for randomly selecting clergy from different faiths to deliver the invocation at council meetings, without restricting the content based on their beliefs.
The city, which is home to Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Christians of various denominations, responded by putting the policy to a vote of residents during the April 2010 municipal election. The measure passed more than 3 to 1, according to statistics provided by the city.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Lancaster prayer ruling appeal planned" by Rebecca Kheel, Staff Writer, Daily News (Los Angeles) 7/13/11
Opponents of Lancaster's voter-approved law allowing sectarian prayer at public meetings vowed Wednesday to appeal a district court ruling that upholds the controversial policy.
In her ruling, District Judge Dale Fischer said the plaintiffs "have failed to establish that the Policy has been used for an improper purpose or is otherwise unconstitutional."
The judge also noted that Lancaster's law does not promote any specific religion or discriminate against any other.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
For background, read ACLU Sues to Stop Voters' Prayer
UPDATE 3/27/13: 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds Fischer Ruling
-- From "Judge: Lancaster officials can pray at meetings" by The Associated Press 7/12/11
Mayor R. Rex Parris said Tuesday that the city takes pride in defending the rights of citizens to pray.
The suit was brought by Shelley Rubin, the widow of late Jewish Defense League head Irv Rubin, and Maureen Feller, a Christian resident who claimed the invocations violated the constitutional separation of church and state.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Judge upholds Lancaster's policy on prayer before meetings" by Ann M. Simmons, Los Angeles Times 7/12/11
According to information released by the city Tuesday, the judgment allows Lancaster to continue its invocation policy, which has been in place since August 2009.
“Lancaster takes immense pride in winning this case and defending the fundamental right to pray, not only for our citizens, but indeed for all people across this nation,” Mayor R. Rex Parris said in a statement.
Lancaster’s invocation policy calls for randomly selecting clergy from different faiths to deliver the invocation at council meetings, without restricting the content based on their beliefs.
The city, which is home to Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Christians of various denominations, responded by putting the policy to a vote of residents during the April 2010 municipal election. The measure passed more than 3 to 1, according to statistics provided by the city.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Lancaster prayer ruling appeal planned" by Rebecca Kheel, Staff Writer, Daily News (Los Angeles) 7/13/11
Opponents of Lancaster's voter-approved law allowing sectarian prayer at public meetings vowed Wednesday to appeal a district court ruling that upholds the controversial policy.
In her ruling, District Judge Dale Fischer said the plaintiffs "have failed to establish that the Policy has been used for an improper purpose or is otherwise unconstitutional."
The judge also noted that Lancaster's law does not promote any specific religion or discriminate against any other.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Ohio Court Upholds Parental Rights Over Lesbian's
Only one justice of the Ohio Supreme Court sided with the lesbian suing for custody rights of her ex-lover's child -- majority opinion ruled that non-legal emotional bonds do not trump parental rights.
-- From "'Co-parents' need formal agreement, justices rule" by David Eggert, The Columbus Dispatch 7/13/11
In a 4-3 decision yesterday, the justices upheld lower-court rulings that a Cincinnati woman did not agree to shared legal custody of her daughter, now 5, despite planning the in-vitro pregnancy with her partner and naming her a "co-parent" in power-of-attorney documents.
Biological mom Kelly Mullen voided those documents after she and Lucy, then 2, moved out of the house they shared with Michele Hobbs in 2007. Hobbs' name appears on the ceremonial birth certificate, and she helped raise and financially support Lucy.
In his majority opinion, Justice Robert R. Cupp pointed to evidence that Mullen intended to share custody and evidence that she did not. Using "co-parenting" terminology in legal documents is not the same as agreeing to permanently relinquish sole custody for shared parenting, he said.
Though the high court stopped short of requiring couples to sign a written contract changing custodial rights, it said that is the best way to protect their rights.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Court rules against lesbian 'co-parent' in custody fight" by Kimball Perry, Cincinnati.com 7/13/11
“Hobbs was a nonparent under Ohio law despite her active role in raising and caring for the child,” Justice Robert Cupp wrote in the majority opinion of the case that split 4-3 on the decision.
Giving Hobbs’ parental rights would open a floodgate of similar cases that would weaken parenting laws, noted Mathew Staver, dean of the Liberty University School of Law and founder and chairman of the Virginia-based Liberty Counsel.
While this specific case involved lesbians and was closely watched by gay rights advocates, it also was closely monitored by others who saw it potential impact on parent rights – or the lack of parental rights – of grandparents, step-parents or others raising a child who biologically isn’t theirs.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Ohio Lesbian Loses Bid For Shared Custody" by The Associated Press 7/12/11
Justices Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Terrence O'Donnell and Judith Ann Lanzinger joined the majority. Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor, Yvette McGee Brown and Paul Pfeifer dissented.
O'Connor's opinion, joined by McGee Brown, said the court was wrong to accept the case in the first place because it established no new governing principle. One thing it did show, she said: Couples would be prudent to get custody arrangements in writing.
In his dissent, Pfeifer said Hobbs presented more than enough evidence to back up her claim.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Court says lesbian 'partner' lacks rights to child" by Bob Unruh, World Net Daily 7/12/11
However, as an indication of how far the concept has advanced that two men or two women should be called "married," a dissent by Justice Maureen O'Connor said, "The American family takes many forms, including those in which children are raised lovingly in homes headed by two fathers or two mothers …. Our evolving social and cultural notions of family and parenthood coincide with the advancement of reproductive science, medicine, and technology that now permit people to create families in ways quite different from the traditional paradigm in which children are born of one woman impregnated directly by one man."
She wrote, "As our understandings of the family evolve, so do our understandings of parenthood."
Justice Paul Pfeifer wrote a separate dissent, blasting his fellow justices and lamenting, "The law has not caught up to our culture, and this court has failed to craft a rule that addresses reality. Mullen and Hobbs employed a well-versed lawyer who represents people in their situation, and with his advice did all they could do to protect Hobbs. A maternal relationship existed between Hobbs and Lucy. Mullen taught her daughter to call another woman 'Momma' and to love her as a mother. She now wishes she hadn't, and for the majority, that's enough. It shouldn't be."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "'Co-parents' need formal agreement, justices rule" by David Eggert, The Columbus Dispatch 7/13/11
In a 4-3 decision yesterday, the justices upheld lower-court rulings that a Cincinnati woman did not agree to shared legal custody of her daughter, now 5, despite planning the in-vitro pregnancy with her partner and naming her a "co-parent" in power-of-attorney documents.
Biological mom Kelly Mullen voided those documents after she and Lucy, then 2, moved out of the house they shared with Michele Hobbs in 2007. Hobbs' name appears on the ceremonial birth certificate, and she helped raise and financially support Lucy.
In his majority opinion, Justice Robert R. Cupp pointed to evidence that Mullen intended to share custody and evidence that she did not. Using "co-parenting" terminology in legal documents is not the same as agreeing to permanently relinquish sole custody for shared parenting, he said.
Though the high court stopped short of requiring couples to sign a written contract changing custodial rights, it said that is the best way to protect their rights.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Court rules against lesbian 'co-parent' in custody fight" by Kimball Perry, Cincinnati.com 7/13/11
“Hobbs was a nonparent under Ohio law despite her active role in raising and caring for the child,” Justice Robert Cupp wrote in the majority opinion of the case that split 4-3 on the decision.
Giving Hobbs’ parental rights would open a floodgate of similar cases that would weaken parenting laws, noted Mathew Staver, dean of the Liberty University School of Law and founder and chairman of the Virginia-based Liberty Counsel.
While this specific case involved lesbians and was closely watched by gay rights advocates, it also was closely monitored by others who saw it potential impact on parent rights – or the lack of parental rights – of grandparents, step-parents or others raising a child who biologically isn’t theirs.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Ohio Lesbian Loses Bid For Shared Custody" by The Associated Press 7/12/11
Justices Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Terrence O'Donnell and Judith Ann Lanzinger joined the majority. Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor, Yvette McGee Brown and Paul Pfeifer dissented.
O'Connor's opinion, joined by McGee Brown, said the court was wrong to accept the case in the first place because it established no new governing principle. One thing it did show, she said: Couples would be prudent to get custody arrangements in writing.
In his dissent, Pfeifer said Hobbs presented more than enough evidence to back up her claim.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Court says lesbian 'partner' lacks rights to child" by Bob Unruh, World Net Daily 7/12/11
However, as an indication of how far the concept has advanced that two men or two women should be called "married," a dissent by Justice Maureen O'Connor said, "The American family takes many forms, including those in which children are raised lovingly in homes headed by two fathers or two mothers …. Our evolving social and cultural notions of family and parenthood coincide with the advancement of reproductive science, medicine, and technology that now permit people to create families in ways quite different from the traditional paradigm in which children are born of one woman impregnated directly by one man."
She wrote, "As our understandings of the family evolve, so do our understandings of parenthood."
Justice Paul Pfeifer wrote a separate dissent, blasting his fellow justices and lamenting, "The law has not caught up to our culture, and this court has failed to craft a rule that addresses reality. Mullen and Hobbs employed a well-versed lawyer who represents people in their situation, and with his advice did all they could do to protect Hobbs. A maternal relationship existed between Hobbs and Lucy. Mullen taught her daughter to call another woman 'Momma' and to love her as a mother. She now wishes she hadn't, and for the majority, that's enough. It shouldn't be."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Judge Halts IL Anti-Catholic, Pro-Gay Move
Illinois County Judge John Schmidt in Springfield has countered Gov. Quinn's decision to terminate state contracts with Catholic Charities because of its Christian bounds on placing children, who are wards of the state, with unmarried and/or "gay couples."
For background, read Illinois Civil Unions Law, so Now to "Gay Marriage" and also read Illinois Civil Unions Not Enough; Must Destroy Marriage
UPDATE 1/10/12: Bishops give up - Catholic Charities transfers its foster care
UPDATE 9/26/11: Judge rules against Catholic Charities - adoptions to end
UPDATE 8/19/11: Foster children lose - Illinois can force gay adoptions, judge rules; end of Catholic Charities looms
Illinois residents, take action to Reverse the Gay Agenda in Illinois Law (click here)
-- From "Judge stops state from dropping Catholic Charities from foster care" by Ray Long and Manya Brachear, Chicago Tribune 7/12/11
The order is temporary and a hearing will take place in August on the issue.
. . . Schmidt said that his order freezes the state’s contract with Catholic Charities as it was before the state decided to cut it off earlier this month.
Three Catholic Charities groups sought the injunction to continue serving families and abiding by Catholic principles that prohibit placing children with unmarried cohabiting couples.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Catholic Charities in danger of losing state contracts" by Bob Okon, The Herald-News/Chicago Sun-Times 7/11/11
The state wants to end foster care and adoption contracts with Catholic Charities in Joliet and elsewhere in a dispute centered on the new Illinois civil union law and questions of religious freedom.
The Department of Children and Family Services last week sent a letter to Catholic Charities in the dioceses of Joliet, Springfield, Peoria and Belleville informing the agencies that they will not get contracts for adoptions and foster care in 2012.
A DCFS spokesman said Catholic Charities violates the law because of its practice of referring gay and unmarried couples to other agencies that provide adoption and foster care services.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "In Illinois, same-sex marriage again an issue for religious charities" by Michelle Boorstein, Washington Post 7/12/11
The issue is the same as it was last year in Washington, when the City Council approved same-sex marriage. Catholic Charities, one of the D.C. area’s largest social service providers, said same-sex marriage violates core church tenets and it couldn’t be in the position of validating gay relationships by placing children in the homes of same-sex couples.
While church officials initially said the passage of the law could force Catholic Charities to end its work with the city, ultimately church lawyers crafted a policy that proved controversial: Washington’s Catholic Charities ended spousal benefits for all new employees in order to not give them to a same-sex spouse. Some Catholics said the city had forced the charity’s hand; others were outraged to see basic benefits eliminated in tough economic times.
These local fights are microcosms of a broader, national issue: How to reconcile civil rights (the rights of same-sex couples) with those of religious liberty (the rights of religious conservatives to discriminate on the basis of their religious beliefs). While federal law and many local laws explicitly exempt religious groups from bans on religiously-based employment discrimination, how that applies to programs that receive public dollars is still a matter of huge dispute.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Civil Unions Fallout: Homosexuals Sue IL Christians over Their Faith
For background, read Illinois Civil Unions Law, so Now to "Gay Marriage" and also read Illinois Civil Unions Not Enough; Must Destroy Marriage
UPDATE 1/10/12: Bishops give up - Catholic Charities transfers its foster care
UPDATE 9/26/11: Judge rules against Catholic Charities - adoptions to end
UPDATE 8/19/11: Foster children lose - Illinois can force gay adoptions, judge rules; end of Catholic Charities looms
Illinois residents, take action to Reverse the Gay Agenda in Illinois Law (click here)
-- From "Judge stops state from dropping Catholic Charities from foster care" by Ray Long and Manya Brachear, Chicago Tribune 7/12/11
The order is temporary and a hearing will take place in August on the issue.
. . . Schmidt said that his order freezes the state’s contract with Catholic Charities as it was before the state decided to cut it off earlier this month.
Three Catholic Charities groups sought the injunction to continue serving families and abiding by Catholic principles that prohibit placing children with unmarried cohabiting couples.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Catholic Charities in danger of losing state contracts" by Bob Okon, The Herald-News/Chicago Sun-Times 7/11/11
The state wants to end foster care and adoption contracts with Catholic Charities in Joliet and elsewhere in a dispute centered on the new Illinois civil union law and questions of religious freedom.
The Department of Children and Family Services last week sent a letter to Catholic Charities in the dioceses of Joliet, Springfield, Peoria and Belleville informing the agencies that they will not get contracts for adoptions and foster care in 2012.
A DCFS spokesman said Catholic Charities violates the law because of its practice of referring gay and unmarried couples to other agencies that provide adoption and foster care services.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "In Illinois, same-sex marriage again an issue for religious charities" by Michelle Boorstein, Washington Post 7/12/11
The issue is the same as it was last year in Washington, when the City Council approved same-sex marriage. Catholic Charities, one of the D.C. area’s largest social service providers, said same-sex marriage violates core church tenets and it couldn’t be in the position of validating gay relationships by placing children in the homes of same-sex couples.
While church officials initially said the passage of the law could force Catholic Charities to end its work with the city, ultimately church lawyers crafted a policy that proved controversial: Washington’s Catholic Charities ended spousal benefits for all new employees in order to not give them to a same-sex spouse. Some Catholics said the city had forced the charity’s hand; others were outraged to see basic benefits eliminated in tough economic times.
These local fights are microcosms of a broader, national issue: How to reconcile civil rights (the rights of same-sex couples) with those of religious liberty (the rights of religious conservatives to discriminate on the basis of their religious beliefs). While federal law and many local laws explicitly exempt religious groups from bans on religiously-based employment discrimination, how that applies to programs that receive public dollars is still a matter of huge dispute.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Civil Unions Fallout: Homosexuals Sue IL Christians over Their Faith
Bachmann Believes Jesus Saves Us from Sin
In a supposed block-buster investigative report, ABC News has exposed presidential candidate Michele Bachmann's family business (her husband's Christian marriage counseling) as encouraging clients to pray to Jesus Christ that they be freed of sin, including homosexual behavior.
For background, read Michele Bachmann Signs ["anti-gay"] Culture War Pledge and also read Media Prepare Anti-Christian Campaign for 2012 as well as ABC News Scrutinizes Faith of GOP Candidates
UPDATE 7/15/11: Media concoct Bachmann evangelical vs. Catholic church controversy
UPDATE 7/16/11: New York Times presents Bachmann as public enemy #1 to Gay Agenda
UPDATE 7/18/11: Homosexualists target Bachmann for defeat
-- From "Michele Bachmann's clinic accused of trying to straighten out gays" by Andrew Malcolm, Los Angeles Times 7/11/11
A clinic owned by GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann and her husband, Marcus, is being accused of telling homosexuals that they can "pray away the gay."
Andrew Ramirez was a patient at Bachmann & Associates, a Christian counseling clinic in Lake Elmo, Minn., in 2004. He claims he was told by one of the clinic's counselors that if he read the Bible and prayed to God, he "would no longer be gay," according to ABC News.
Ramirez told the Nation that the therapist tried to "cure" him of his homosexuality. “He basically said being gay was not an acceptable lifestyle in God’s eyes,” and offered the assistance of an ex-lesbian as a mentor, Ramirez said.
Bachmann is no stranger to anti-gay rhetoric. Her strategist-husband last year said homosexuals were barbarians who needed to be disciplined.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "ABC News probes gay 'cure' claims about Bachmann clinic" by Maggie Haberman, Politico 7/11/11
The questions about Michele Bachmann's husband's crisis clinic - and reports its services including helping to "cure" homosexuals - went mainstream tonight, with an ABC News story featuring undercover video shot of one of the center's counselors saying it's "possible" to be "totally free" of such feelings.
The reports - denied repeatedly by the Bachmanns - have been circulating for years. But the ABC News story included undercover video of a counselor shot by a member of the advocacy group "Truth Wins Out."
The report is the latest in a string of headlines about Bachmann, whose record is relatively unvetted by the national press, amid a quick ascent in the polls.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "‘God Has Created You for Heterosexuality’: Clinics Owned by Michele Bachmann’s Husband Practice Ex-Gay Therapy" by Mariah Blake, The Nation 7/8/11
As Republican presidential contender Michele Bachmann has surged in the polls, the spotlight has turned on her husband and main political adviser, Marcus Bachmann, who has a PhD in clinical psychology and owns two Christian counseling centers in Minnesota. There has been a great deal of speculation that his clinics, which have received $161,000 in state and federal funding, try to cure homosexuality—and the chatter has only grown louder since his comments likening gays to “barbarians” who “need to be educated” and “disciplined” surfaced in the blogosphere last week. Marcus Bachmann has denied these allegations. “That’s a false statement,” he replied when the Minneapolis City Pages asked if his clinic tried to cure gays. And until now there was no firm evidence to back these allegations up. But information obtained by The Nation suggests that Bachmann & Associates therapists do, in fact, try to change sexual orientation. It also sheds new light on the Bachmanns’ embrace of the controversial ex-gay movement and related psychological approaches, which portray homosexuality as a disease to be rooted out.
Some of the most potent material was provided by Truth Wins Out, a gay rights group that opposes the ex-gay movement. In late June, a Truth Wins Out activist named John Becker donned two hidden cameras—one embedded in a wristwatch—and attended five treatment sessions at Bachmann’s Lake Elmo clinic. Becker, who is openly gay, presented himself as a committed Christian who was struggling with homosexuality. The video he collected seems to confirm Ramirez’s allegations that staff members at Bachmann & Associates try to change sexual orientation. Becker’s therapist (another of Marcus Bachmann’s employees) repeatedly assured him that homosexuality could be overcome.
Both Bachmann & Associates and the Bachmann campaign declined to comment for this story, though in the past Marcus Bachmann has insisted his clinics don’t push people to change their sexual orientation. “If someone comes in a homosexual and they want to stay a homosexual, I don’t have a problem with that,” he told the Minneapolis City Pages. Nevertheless, the techniques the therapist at his Lake Elmo clinic used were typical of so-called reparative therapies, which cast homosexuality as a mental disorder and see conversion to heterosexuality as the only healthy outcome. “The explicit goal of the sessions was transforming Becker from homosexual to heterosexual,” says Wayne Besen, Truth Wins Out’s executive director.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
(Longer version of above news video, from ABC Nightline:)
UPDATE 7/12/11 Followup story from ABC News (saying Bachmann clinic is dangerous):
Also read Following God's Will: Michele Bachmann for President
For background, read Michele Bachmann Signs ["anti-gay"] Culture War Pledge and also read Media Prepare Anti-Christian Campaign for 2012 as well as ABC News Scrutinizes Faith of GOP Candidates
UPDATE 7/15/11: Media concoct Bachmann evangelical vs. Catholic church controversy
UPDATE 7/16/11: New York Times presents Bachmann as public enemy #1 to Gay Agenda
UPDATE 7/18/11: Homosexualists target Bachmann for defeat
-- From "Michele Bachmann's clinic accused of trying to straighten out gays" by Andrew Malcolm, Los Angeles Times 7/11/11
A clinic owned by GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann and her husband, Marcus, is being accused of telling homosexuals that they can "pray away the gay."
Andrew Ramirez was a patient at Bachmann & Associates, a Christian counseling clinic in Lake Elmo, Minn., in 2004. He claims he was told by one of the clinic's counselors that if he read the Bible and prayed to God, he "would no longer be gay," according to ABC News.
Ramirez told the Nation that the therapist tried to "cure" him of his homosexuality. “He basically said being gay was not an acceptable lifestyle in God’s eyes,” and offered the assistance of an ex-lesbian as a mentor, Ramirez said.
Bachmann is no stranger to anti-gay rhetoric. Her strategist-husband last year said homosexuals were barbarians who needed to be disciplined.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "ABC News probes gay 'cure' claims about Bachmann clinic" by Maggie Haberman, Politico 7/11/11
The questions about Michele Bachmann's husband's crisis clinic - and reports its services including helping to "cure" homosexuals - went mainstream tonight, with an ABC News story featuring undercover video shot of one of the center's counselors saying it's "possible" to be "totally free" of such feelings.
The reports - denied repeatedly by the Bachmanns - have been circulating for years. But the ABC News story included undercover video of a counselor shot by a member of the advocacy group "Truth Wins Out."
The report is the latest in a string of headlines about Bachmann, whose record is relatively unvetted by the national press, amid a quick ascent in the polls.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "‘God Has Created You for Heterosexuality’: Clinics Owned by Michele Bachmann’s Husband Practice Ex-Gay Therapy" by Mariah Blake, The Nation 7/8/11
As Republican presidential contender Michele Bachmann has surged in the polls, the spotlight has turned on her husband and main political adviser, Marcus Bachmann, who has a PhD in clinical psychology and owns two Christian counseling centers in Minnesota. There has been a great deal of speculation that his clinics, which have received $161,000 in state and federal funding, try to cure homosexuality—and the chatter has only grown louder since his comments likening gays to “barbarians” who “need to be educated” and “disciplined” surfaced in the blogosphere last week. Marcus Bachmann has denied these allegations. “That’s a false statement,” he replied when the Minneapolis City Pages asked if his clinic tried to cure gays. And until now there was no firm evidence to back these allegations up. But information obtained by The Nation suggests that Bachmann & Associates therapists do, in fact, try to change sexual orientation. It also sheds new light on the Bachmanns’ embrace of the controversial ex-gay movement and related psychological approaches, which portray homosexuality as a disease to be rooted out.
Some of the most potent material was provided by Truth Wins Out, a gay rights group that opposes the ex-gay movement. In late June, a Truth Wins Out activist named John Becker donned two hidden cameras—one embedded in a wristwatch—and attended five treatment sessions at Bachmann’s Lake Elmo clinic. Becker, who is openly gay, presented himself as a committed Christian who was struggling with homosexuality. The video he collected seems to confirm Ramirez’s allegations that staff members at Bachmann & Associates try to change sexual orientation. Becker’s therapist (another of Marcus Bachmann’s employees) repeatedly assured him that homosexuality could be overcome.
Both Bachmann & Associates and the Bachmann campaign declined to comment for this story, though in the past Marcus Bachmann has insisted his clinics don’t push people to change their sexual orientation. “If someone comes in a homosexual and they want to stay a homosexual, I don’t have a problem with that,” he told the Minneapolis City Pages. Nevertheless, the techniques the therapist at his Lake Elmo clinic used were typical of so-called reparative therapies, which cast homosexuality as a mental disorder and see conversion to heterosexuality as the only healthy outcome. “The explicit goal of the sessions was transforming Becker from homosexual to heterosexual,” says Wayne Besen, Truth Wins Out’s executive director.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
(Longer version of above news video, from ABC Nightline:)
UPDATE 7/12/11 Followup story from ABC News (saying Bachmann clinic is dangerous):
Also read Following God's Will: Michele Bachmann for President
Monday, July 11, 2011
Congressional Investigation of Planned Parenthood Considered
Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), the chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, wants his committee to examine a report issued last week by Americans United for Life [AUL] that raises questions about Planned Parenthood--and possibly hold hearings on the activities of the nation’s largest abortion provider.
For background, read Left Fears a Take-down of Planned Parenthood and also read Planned Parenthood Defunded by More States
UPDATE 7/27/12: Stearns calls Planned Parenthood to testify on death of mother by abortionist and on the organization's stonewalling of Congress
-- From "Report on Planned Parenthood Calls for Congressional Investigation" by Dave Bohon, New American 7/10/11
Following a study of more than 20 years of Planned Parenthood records, law enforcement reports, and other evidence, the AUL has released an intensive, 181-page report detailing what it charges are large-scale financial irregularities and circumvention of state laws committed by the nation’s leading abortion provider. During 2008-09 Planned Parenthood received more than $363 million in government contracts and grants, while its affiliates were responsible for performing more than 332,000 abortions.
In an executive summary of the report, AUL noted that Planned Parenthood “often tries to underplay the significance of abortion to its business model. However, as this report details, abortion has a tremendous impact on Planned Parenthood’s bottom line. This is true to a greater degree each year, and Planned Parenthood has plans to expand its abortion business.” In fact, last year the abortion provider indicated its intention to further expand its abortion business by making it a requirement that each of its affiliates have at least one clinic performing the procedure by 2013.
Planned Parenthood’s own figures show that abortion accounted for at least $114.9 million of the $404.9 million the organization reported as “clinic income” during 2008 to 2009, AUL’s investigation found. And, according to the report, abortion has made up an increasing portion of Planned Parenthood’s income over the past 10 years — some 32 percent in 2001, 33 percent in 2006, and 37 percent in 2009.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Stearns Says His House Subcommittee Should Hold Hearings on Planned Parenthood" by Pete Winn, CNSNews.com 7/11/11
AUL released the 37-page report Thursday and distributed copies to every member of Congress, including Stearns.
“(AUL) also found as government funding of Planned Parenthood rises, so does the number of abortions. They found repeated instances of overbilling government health care programs,” [Stearns] said.
“I believe my Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee should review the findings of this report and possibly hold a hearing on why taxpayers are funding Planned Parenthood with its record of abuse and violations of state laws,” Stearns said. “The American people deserve a concrete reason for funding Planned Parenthood; a reason I do not believe (exists).”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
For background, read Left Fears a Take-down of Planned Parenthood and also read Planned Parenthood Defunded by More States
UPDATE 7/27/12: Stearns calls Planned Parenthood to testify on death of mother by abortionist and on the organization's stonewalling of Congress
-- From "Report on Planned Parenthood Calls for Congressional Investigation" by Dave Bohon, New American 7/10/11
Following a study of more than 20 years of Planned Parenthood records, law enforcement reports, and other evidence, the AUL has released an intensive, 181-page report detailing what it charges are large-scale financial irregularities and circumvention of state laws committed by the nation’s leading abortion provider. During 2008-09 Planned Parenthood received more than $363 million in government contracts and grants, while its affiliates were responsible for performing more than 332,000 abortions.
In an executive summary of the report, AUL noted that Planned Parenthood “often tries to underplay the significance of abortion to its business model. However, as this report details, abortion has a tremendous impact on Planned Parenthood’s bottom line. This is true to a greater degree each year, and Planned Parenthood has plans to expand its abortion business.” In fact, last year the abortion provider indicated its intention to further expand its abortion business by making it a requirement that each of its affiliates have at least one clinic performing the procedure by 2013.
Planned Parenthood’s own figures show that abortion accounted for at least $114.9 million of the $404.9 million the organization reported as “clinic income” during 2008 to 2009, AUL’s investigation found. And, according to the report, abortion has made up an increasing portion of Planned Parenthood’s income over the past 10 years — some 32 percent in 2001, 33 percent in 2006, and 37 percent in 2009.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Stearns Says His House Subcommittee Should Hold Hearings on Planned Parenthood" by Pete Winn, CNSNews.com 7/11/11
AUL released the 37-page report Thursday and distributed copies to every member of Congress, including Stearns.
“(AUL) also found as government funding of Planned Parenthood rises, so does the number of abortions. They found repeated instances of overbilling government health care programs,” [Stearns] said.
“I believe my Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee should review the findings of this report and possibly hold a hearing on why taxpayers are funding Planned Parenthood with its record of abuse and violations of state laws,” Stearns said. “The American people deserve a concrete reason for funding Planned Parenthood; a reason I do not believe (exists).”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, July 09, 2011
Bible is from God, Say 79% of Americans
Gallup's latest poll regarding belief in the Bible provides the usual fodder for journalists, such as: Devout believers are the least educated, low-income, church-going Americans; AND more Democrats and liberals view the Bible as a "book of fables."
UPDATE 7/14/11: Correlation of greater Bible belief with higher national unemployment level
-- From "In U.S., 3 in 10 Say They Take the Bible Literally" by Jeffrey M. Jones, Gallup 7/8/11
Three in 10 Americans interpret the Bible literally, saying it is the actual word of God. That is similar to what Gallup has measured over the last two decades, but down from the 1970s and 1980s. A 49% plurality of Americans say the Bible is the inspired word of God but that it should not be taken literally, consistently the most common view in Gallup's nearly 40-year history of this question. Another 17% consider the Bible an ancient book of stories recorded by man.
To read the entire analysis from Gallup, CLICK HERE.
From "Poll: 3 in 10 Americans Say They Believe the Bible Word for Word" by R. Leigh Coleman, Christian Post Reporter 7/9/11
Gallup polls have tracked whether Americans take the Bible literally for the past 40 years.
. . . highly religious Americans, particularly those of Protestant faiths, still commonly believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Respondents to the Gallup poll were given three options as responses to the poll:
From "Gallup Poll on the Bible" by John W. Martens, America (Catholic weekly) 7/8/11
. . . I am slightly confused by what the poll was attempting to measure, as it seems to confuse "literal interpretation" of the Bible with belief in the Bible as the "actual word of God." . . .
. . . I suspect the pollsters mean that the Bible as "the actual word of God" indicates that God has directly "spoken" these words as opposed to a view of the Bible as written by human beings, somehow under the inspired direction of God, or inspired by God, yet that is not clear. I do, for instance, think the Bible is the word of God, inspired by God and written by people. . . .
To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.
From "Bible Is Word Of God Say 4 In 10 Republicans And Low-Education Americans" by David Badash, The New Civil Rights Movement 7/8/11
The Bible is the actual, literal word of God, say four out of every ten Republicans and four out of every ten low-education Americans, according to a new study released by Gallup today. The belief that the Bible is the actual word of God, and not the inspired word of God that should not be taken literally, drops dramatically in people who have any exposure to college, who attend a religious institution less than once a week, or who grow to middle-income or above. In short, the typical portrait of those who believe the Bible is the actual word of God are Republican weekly church-goers who are lower-income, lower-educated Americans.
Specifically, 42% of Republicans, 23% of Independents, and 27% of Democrats believe the Bible is the actual word of God.
46% of those with a high school or less education, 22% of those with some college, and 15% of college graduates believe the Bible is the actual word of God.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Liberals, Democrats More Likely to Disbelieve Bible, Says Gallup Poll" by Terence P. Jeffrey, CNSNews.com 7/9/11
Liberals and Democrats are more likely than conservatives, moderates, Republicans and independents to believe the Bible is nothing more than a book of fables and legends made up by man, according to a new Gallup poll.
When the respondents were broken down by political ideology and party, liberals and Democrats were more likely to reject the divine origin of the Bible. Almost a third of liberals and almost a quarter of Democrats said the Bible was a book of fables, legends, history and moral precepts recorded by man.
Seven percent of conservatives, 20 percent of moderates and 31 percent of liberals said that the Bible was an ancient book of fables, legends, history and moral precepts recorded by man.
Fifty-five percent of moderates, 48 percent of liberals, and 45 percent of conservatives said the Bible was the inspired word of God.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Americans Believe in God: Gallup Poll
UPDATE 7/14/11: Correlation of greater Bible belief with higher national unemployment level
-- From "In U.S., 3 in 10 Say They Take the Bible Literally" by Jeffrey M. Jones, Gallup 7/8/11
Three in 10 Americans interpret the Bible literally, saying it is the actual word of God. That is similar to what Gallup has measured over the last two decades, but down from the 1970s and 1980s. A 49% plurality of Americans say the Bible is the inspired word of God but that it should not be taken literally, consistently the most common view in Gallup's nearly 40-year history of this question. Another 17% consider the Bible an ancient book of stories recorded by man.
To read the entire analysis from Gallup, CLICK HERE.
From "Poll: 3 in 10 Americans Say They Believe the Bible Word for Word" by R. Leigh Coleman, Christian Post Reporter 7/9/11
Gallup polls have tracked whether Americans take the Bible literally for the past 40 years.
. . . highly religious Americans, particularly those of Protestant faiths, still commonly believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Respondents to the Gallup poll were given three options as responses to the poll:
- The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word. [30%]To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
- The Bible is the inspired word of God, but not everything in it should be taken literally. [49%]
- The Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts. [17%]
From "Gallup Poll on the Bible" by John W. Martens, America (Catholic weekly) 7/8/11
. . . I am slightly confused by what the poll was attempting to measure, as it seems to confuse "literal interpretation" of the Bible with belief in the Bible as the "actual word of God." . . .
. . . I suspect the pollsters mean that the Bible as "the actual word of God" indicates that God has directly "spoken" these words as opposed to a view of the Bible as written by human beings, somehow under the inspired direction of God, or inspired by God, yet that is not clear. I do, for instance, think the Bible is the word of God, inspired by God and written by people. . . .
To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.
From "Bible Is Word Of God Say 4 In 10 Republicans And Low-Education Americans" by David Badash, The New Civil Rights Movement 7/8/11
The Bible is the actual, literal word of God, say four out of every ten Republicans and four out of every ten low-education Americans, according to a new study released by Gallup today. The belief that the Bible is the actual word of God, and not the inspired word of God that should not be taken literally, drops dramatically in people who have any exposure to college, who attend a religious institution less than once a week, or who grow to middle-income or above. In short, the typical portrait of those who believe the Bible is the actual word of God are Republican weekly church-goers who are lower-income, lower-educated Americans.
Specifically, 42% of Republicans, 23% of Independents, and 27% of Democrats believe the Bible is the actual word of God.
46% of those with a high school or less education, 22% of those with some college, and 15% of college graduates believe the Bible is the actual word of God.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Liberals, Democrats More Likely to Disbelieve Bible, Says Gallup Poll" by Terence P. Jeffrey, CNSNews.com 7/9/11
Liberals and Democrats are more likely than conservatives, moderates, Republicans and independents to believe the Bible is nothing more than a book of fables and legends made up by man, according to a new Gallup poll.
When the respondents were broken down by political ideology and party, liberals and Democrats were more likely to reject the divine origin of the Bible. Almost a third of liberals and almost a quarter of Democrats said the Bible was a book of fables, legends, history and moral precepts recorded by man.
Seven percent of conservatives, 20 percent of moderates and 31 percent of liberals said that the Bible was an ancient book of fables, legends, history and moral precepts recorded by man.
Fifty-five percent of moderates, 48 percent of liberals, and 45 percent of conservatives said the Bible was the inspired word of God.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Americans Believe in God: Gallup Poll
Methodists Ignore Own Rules re: Lesbian Pastor
Homosexualist clergy in mainline denominations regularly challenge the rules to demonstrate that the denomination leadership doesn't "have what it takes" to enforce their own codified church discipline.
-- From "The Trial of Pastor Amy DeLong: Methodism and Same-Sex Unions" by Justin Horwath, Time Magazine 7/1/11
The Rev. Amy DeLong, a Methodist pastor from Osceola, Wisconsin, decided to come clean. She brought to the attention of her local bishop that she had officiated over the same-sex union of a lesbian couple. It is a rite prohibited by her religion and having performed it, DeLong could be put on trial by the church. She also told the bishop that she might as well be prosecuted for something else: she is in a lesbian partnership.
And so, last week, DeLong, 44, faced a jury of church elders in Kaukauna, Wisconsin. At issue was whether she violated the Book of Discipline, which guides the church's teachings, by blessing the same sex union and for being a "self avowed, practicing homosexual." The 13-member jury acquitted her on the second charge. But it also found her guilty of the first. But that's where something historic happened. The elders handed down the first sentence in 20 years of United Methodist jurisprudence that did not indefinitely suspend or defrock an elder for officiating a same-sex union.
Instead, DeLong's sentence is a 20-day suspension . . .
She is pleased with the ruling. "They certainly had every opportunity to be punitive and throw the book at me," she says.
The most startling part of the sentence, DeLong says, is that she has kept her clergy credentials.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Lesbian pastor begins suspension" by Jaclyn E. Martin, World Magazine 7/1/11
“The suspension is for spiritual discernment,” the jury’s ruling said, with the goal being “to restore the broken clergy-covenant relationship.”
Delong finds herself among a growing but still small number of pastors in the United Methodist Church who have said that in spite of the church rule, they will marry same-sex couples. But other church officials defend the Bible’s teachings that homosexuality is an “abomination.
Delong’s suspension reflects a degree of leniency compared to previous decisions in the United Methodist Church. A senior pastor in Omaha, Neb., was defrocked in 1999 for performing a same-sex union.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Click headlines below to read previous articles:
Renegade Methodist Clergy for Same-sex 'Marriage'
Allah Worshiped in Virginia Methodist Church
Methodist Seminary Trains Pluralistic Clergy
Methodists Team Up with Atheists for Bible Study
-- From "The Trial of Pastor Amy DeLong: Methodism and Same-Sex Unions" by Justin Horwath, Time Magazine 7/1/11
The Rev. Amy DeLong, a Methodist pastor from Osceola, Wisconsin, decided to come clean. She brought to the attention of her local bishop that she had officiated over the same-sex union of a lesbian couple. It is a rite prohibited by her religion and having performed it, DeLong could be put on trial by the church. She also told the bishop that she might as well be prosecuted for something else: she is in a lesbian partnership.
And so, last week, DeLong, 44, faced a jury of church elders in Kaukauna, Wisconsin. At issue was whether she violated the Book of Discipline, which guides the church's teachings, by blessing the same sex union and for being a "self avowed, practicing homosexual." The 13-member jury acquitted her on the second charge. But it also found her guilty of the first. But that's where something historic happened. The elders handed down the first sentence in 20 years of United Methodist jurisprudence that did not indefinitely suspend or defrock an elder for officiating a same-sex union.
Instead, DeLong's sentence is a 20-day suspension . . .
She is pleased with the ruling. "They certainly had every opportunity to be punitive and throw the book at me," she says.
The most startling part of the sentence, DeLong says, is that she has kept her clergy credentials.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Lesbian pastor begins suspension" by Jaclyn E. Martin, World Magazine 7/1/11
“The suspension is for spiritual discernment,” the jury’s ruling said, with the goal being “to restore the broken clergy-covenant relationship.”
Delong finds herself among a growing but still small number of pastors in the United Methodist Church who have said that in spite of the church rule, they will marry same-sex couples. But other church officials defend the Bible’s teachings that homosexuality is an “abomination.
Delong’s suspension reflects a degree of leniency compared to previous decisions in the United Methodist Church. A senior pastor in Omaha, Neb., was defrocked in 1999 for performing a same-sex union.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Click headlines below to read previous articles:
Renegade Methodist Clergy for Same-sex 'Marriage'
Allah Worshiped in Virginia Methodist Church
Methodist Seminary Trains Pluralistic Clergy
Methodists Team Up with Atheists for Bible Study
Friday, July 08, 2011
Gay Clubs Required in Schools, Says White House
Education Secretary Arne Duncan issued a “Dear Colleagues” letter on June 14 advising federally funded schools about establishing clubs on campuses, specifically Gay-Straight Alliance [GSA] clubs for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students.
For background, read Texas School Bucks Homosexualist Club GSA and also read White House Says Gay Recruitment of Kids Successful as well as Gay Recruitment of Kids: Senators Join Obama
-- From "Duncan Warns Schools on Banning Gay-Straight Clubs" by Nirvi Shah, Education Week 6/14/11
Citing 1984’s Equal Access Act, created to prevent discrimination against religious groups at schools, Mr. Duncan said schools must treat all student-initiated groups equally, pointing out the benefits of groups that address issues related to students who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender in particular, and noting the verbal and physical abuse these students sometimes experience.
Mr. Duncan’s letter to school districts was accompanied by legal guidelines from the Education Department’s General Counsel Charles P. Rose. It follows an October 2010 letter to districts about how bullying, in particular of students who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, may violate students’ civil rights.
The first such [GSA] group was created by Kevin Jennings when he was a teacher in 1998. Last week, Mr. Jennings left his post at the department as assistant deputy secretary of the office of safe and drug-free schools.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Education Secretary Advises School Districts on Homosexual Clubs for Students" by Penny Starr, CNSNews.com 7/8/11
The letter was issued from the department’s Office of Civil Rights for elementary and secondary schools and was sent to all school districts in the United States, according to Jo Ann Webb, spokesperson for the Department of Education (DOE).
Duncan’s letter cites statistics in a 2009 survey done by the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a gay activist organization founded by former Obama administration’s Education Department official Kevin Jennings.
In the press release issued by the organization that hired Jennings after he left the Obama administration, Jennings’ homosexual activism was touted, including the fact that during his 14-year tenure heading GLSEN, Jennings helped increase the number of Gay-Straight Alliance clubs from 50 in 1995 to 4,300 when he stepped down as the head of the organization in 2008.
Duncan’s letter, identified as one of the department’s “key policy letters,” also states that there is legal grounding for the LGBT guidelines in the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
For background, read Texas School Bucks Homosexualist Club GSA and also read White House Says Gay Recruitment of Kids Successful as well as Gay Recruitment of Kids: Senators Join Obama
-- From "Duncan Warns Schools on Banning Gay-Straight Clubs" by Nirvi Shah, Education Week 6/14/11
Citing 1984’s Equal Access Act, created to prevent discrimination against religious groups at schools, Mr. Duncan said schools must treat all student-initiated groups equally, pointing out the benefits of groups that address issues related to students who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender in particular, and noting the verbal and physical abuse these students sometimes experience.
Mr. Duncan’s letter to school districts was accompanied by legal guidelines from the Education Department’s General Counsel Charles P. Rose. It follows an October 2010 letter to districts about how bullying, in particular of students who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, may violate students’ civil rights.
The first such [GSA] group was created by Kevin Jennings when he was a teacher in 1998. Last week, Mr. Jennings left his post at the department as assistant deputy secretary of the office of safe and drug-free schools.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Education Secretary Advises School Districts on Homosexual Clubs for Students" by Penny Starr, CNSNews.com 7/8/11
The letter was issued from the department’s Office of Civil Rights for elementary and secondary schools and was sent to all school districts in the United States, according to Jo Ann Webb, spokesperson for the Department of Education (DOE).
Duncan’s letter cites statistics in a 2009 survey done by the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a gay activist organization founded by former Obama administration’s Education Department official Kevin Jennings.
In the press release issued by the organization that hired Jennings after he left the Obama administration, Jennings’ homosexual activism was touted, including the fact that during his 14-year tenure heading GLSEN, Jennings helped increase the number of Gay-Straight Alliance clubs from 50 in 1995 to 4,300 when he stepped down as the head of the organization in 2008.
Duncan’s letter, identified as one of the department’s “key policy letters,” also states that there is legal grounding for the LGBT guidelines in the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
