“Gender identity” is routinely used by homosexual groups to define differences in sexual orientation, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and, in some cases, “questioning.”
UPDATE 8/3/09: HHS Secretary Sebelius Says She Has ‘No Idea’ What ‘Measurement of Gender’ Means
-- From "Health Care Bill Directs HHS Secretary to Develop 'Standards for Measuring Gender'-- As Opposed to 'Male' and 'Female'" by Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer CNSNews.com 7/20/09
The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee’s health care legislation will give the Health and Human Services secretary the authority to develop “standards of measuring gender” -- as opposed to using the traditional "male" and "female" categories -- in a database of all who apply or participate in government-run or government-supported health care plans.
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is required by the proposed law -- The Affordable Health Choices Act,which was voted out of committee on July 15 -- to create a database within one year of the law’s enactment that will include detailed information about those who sign up for government-run or supported health care programs, including their race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, language and disabilities.
The proposed law states that the database can use the Office of Management and Budget “standards for race and ethnicity measures.”
But for the collection of “gender” data, instead of using the categories “male” and “female," the legislation calls for “developing standards for the measurement of gender.”
The language is found on page 410 and 411 of the 615 document under SEC. 332: Understanding Health Disparities: Data Collection and Analysis. [.PDF]
The legislation says that the purpose of the database is to “detect and monitor trends in health disparities” at “federal and state levels.”
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Hillary Agrees 'Family Planning' Critical to Global Warming
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking about her meeting in Mumbai, India, said, “one of the participants pointed out that it’s rather odd to talk about climate change and what we must do to stop and prevent the ill effects without talking about population and family planning. That was an incredibly important point.”
UPDATE 10/28/14: Limiting Births Fails to Save Earth, Says Government Report
UPDATE 9/22/09: Obama White House Advises 'Green' Abortions
UPDATE 9/20/09: World Health Organization Says Earth's Enemy is Too Many Babies
UPDATE 10/20/09: Environmentalists Say Trade Babies For Climate Change
-- From "Hillary Clinton talks climate change in India" by John Ward Anderson, Politico 7/20/09
Hillary Clinton, in her first visit to India as secretary of state, said Sunday that the United States and India can work together to combat global warming and at the same time spark economic growth and generate new jobs.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Universal family planning access" by Duncan Clark, UK Guardian 7/13/09
Global investment in family planning and female education could slow down global population growth, reducing future emissions and tackling climate change vulnerability.
Demographic factors will play a significant role in determining future emissions. The most obvious such factor is the global population, which is expected to rise to around nine billion by 2050.
Rising population is significant not only as a driver of emissions but also as a key factor in determining the vulnerability of developing countries to the impacts of global warming. In almost all of the climate change adaptation plans submitted to the United Nations by least-developed countries, rapid population growth is mentioned as something that either exacerbates vulnerability or impedes adaption. More than half of these least-developed countries will at least double in population by the middle of the century.
Ensuring universal access to family planning services and investing in female education is a pivotal climate change solution, Louise Carver of the Population and Sustainability Network (PSN) told the the Manchester panel. According to Carver, 200 million women wish to delay or prevent their next pregnancy but lack access to contraception. Despite this fact, and the sharp projected growth rate in potential contraception users, global investment in family planning is at an all-time low, having declined by 30% in real terms since the mid-1990s.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Clinton Accepts Blame for ‘Global Warming’ Role, Ponders Link Between Climate Change and Family Planning" by Patrick Goodenough, International Editor CNSNews.com 7/20/09
Some green activists have long advocated a greater focus on population control in the climate change campaign.
In a position paper adopted by its board of directors in November 2007, the Sierra Club said, “Given the grave implications of population growth, the Sierra Club urges greater effort to explain how population pressure is affecting the environment and stronger support for the program – family planning, health care, and education and opportunity for women – that most effectively encourages smaller families.”
Identifying an average of two children per family as a requirement to stabilize the world population, the paper said the Sierra Club “welcomes non-coercive, culturally sensitive policies that will help lower birth rates, stabilize global population, and make a smaller population a realistic possibility.”
In 2007, an Australian academic argued that a government campaign to encourage bigger families was flying in the face of the fight against climate change.
Rather than offering couples financial incentives to have more children, he said, a tax should be levied on parents who have more than an agreed number of children, “in line with the ‘polluter pays’ principle.”
The Chinese government, which enforces a controversial and often coercive birth limitation policy, has listed its population control efforts among its contributions to combating climate change.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 10/28/14: Limiting Births Fails to Save Earth, Says Government Report
UPDATE 9/22/09: Obama White House Advises 'Green' Abortions
UPDATE 9/20/09: World Health Organization Says Earth's Enemy is Too Many Babies
UPDATE 10/20/09: Environmentalists Say Trade Babies For Climate Change
-- From "Hillary Clinton talks climate change in India" by John Ward Anderson, Politico 7/20/09
Hillary Clinton, in her first visit to India as secretary of state, said Sunday that the United States and India can work together to combat global warming and at the same time spark economic growth and generate new jobs.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Universal family planning access" by Duncan Clark, UK Guardian 7/13/09
Global investment in family planning and female education could slow down global population growth, reducing future emissions and tackling climate change vulnerability.
Demographic factors will play a significant role in determining future emissions. The most obvious such factor is the global population, which is expected to rise to around nine billion by 2050.
Rising population is significant not only as a driver of emissions but also as a key factor in determining the vulnerability of developing countries to the impacts of global warming. In almost all of the climate change adaptation plans submitted to the United Nations by least-developed countries, rapid population growth is mentioned as something that either exacerbates vulnerability or impedes adaption. More than half of these least-developed countries will at least double in population by the middle of the century.
Ensuring universal access to family planning services and investing in female education is a pivotal climate change solution, Louise Carver of the Population and Sustainability Network (PSN) told the the Manchester panel. According to Carver, 200 million women wish to delay or prevent their next pregnancy but lack access to contraception. Despite this fact, and the sharp projected growth rate in potential contraception users, global investment in family planning is at an all-time low, having declined by 30% in real terms since the mid-1990s.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Clinton Accepts Blame for ‘Global Warming’ Role, Ponders Link Between Climate Change and Family Planning" by Patrick Goodenough, International Editor CNSNews.com 7/20/09
Some green activists have long advocated a greater focus on population control in the climate change campaign.
In a position paper adopted by its board of directors in November 2007, the Sierra Club said, “Given the grave implications of population growth, the Sierra Club urges greater effort to explain how population pressure is affecting the environment and stronger support for the program – family planning, health care, and education and opportunity for women – that most effectively encourages smaller families.”
Identifying an average of two children per family as a requirement to stabilize the world population, the paper said the Sierra Club “welcomes non-coercive, culturally sensitive policies that will help lower birth rates, stabilize global population, and make a smaller population a realistic possibility.”
In 2007, an Australian academic argued that a government campaign to encourage bigger families was flying in the face of the fight against climate change.
Rather than offering couples financial incentives to have more children, he said, a tax should be levied on parents who have more than an agreed number of children, “in line with the ‘polluter pays’ principle.”
The Chinese government, which enforces a controversial and often coercive birth limitation policy, has listed its population control efforts among its contributions to combating climate change.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Hate Crimes' Faux Protection of Religious Liberty
As the Senate moves forward this week on the Hate Crimes Amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill, politicians of both political parties pretend that such a "thought crimes" law will not infringe on Christian free speech.
UPDATE 10/9/09: Hate Crimes passing Congress via defense bill; Obama will sign
UPDATE 7/23/09: Defense Bill with Hate-Crimes Amendment passes Senate
UPDATE 7/20/09: Hate Crimes Amendment passes Senate
-- From "Does the Hate Crimes Bill Threaten Religious Liberties?" by Dan Gilgoff, God & Country, U.S. News & World Report 7/17/09
After more than a decade-long effort by gay rights advocates, the Senate [Thursday] night adopted a measure to expand the definition of federal hate crimes to include sexual orientation. It was attached as an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill, which is expected to pass [this] week.
Conservative Christian groups, who've led the charge against expanding the federal hate crimes law since the mid-1990s, are stepping up warnings that the bill threatens religious liberties, including the freedom of clergy to condemn homosexuality. "What you say from the pulpit could literally become illegal," the Family Research Council wrote in a recent letter to pastors. The conservative Alliance Defense Fund has received more calls and E-mails on what the hate crimes bill means for pastors than on any other issue in recent months.
As religious conservatives mount a last-ditch effort to derail the bill, however, legal experts say the legislation narrowly focuses on violent acts and that pastors' speech remains protected by the First Amendment. And some religious activists acknowledge that they're less concerned about the immediate effects of expanding hate crimes protections than about the broader message it sends. "This is the first time you would have written into law a government disapproval of a religious belief held by the majority of Americans—that homosexuality is sinful," says Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund. "It's more of a slippery slope argument than about the law itself."
. . . religious conservatives say that all crimes are motivated by hate and that gay victims shouldn't be accorded special status. Religious liberties are a much bigger concern. "When you have pastors being called to testify about what they taught or preached to a person convicted of a hate crime, that's going to send a shock wave through the religious community," says Stanley. "It will lead to a chill on speech and free exercise of religion as it relates to homosexual behavior."
Legal experts note that under the hate crimes bill, a person's religious beliefs about homosexuality become relevant only once he or she is accused of a violent crime against someone from the LGBT community. The bill prohibits a defendant's religious expressions and associations from being introduced as substantive evidence at trial, though the information can be used to help determine whether the defendant was motivated by bias. "Your penalty is being enhanced because of your religious beliefs," says Prof. Douglas Laycock of the University of Michigan Law School. "But you're being prosecuted for the crime."
Proponents of an expanded hate crimes law say religious beliefs should be subject to scrutiny if they lead to violence. "Even the strongest proponents of religious freedom do not claim that religious liberty means the right to beat people up," says Prof. Andrew Koppelman of the Northwestern University School of Law.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Senate includes homosexuals in hate crimes protection" by Tom Strode, Baptist Press Washington bureau chief 7/17/09
The Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) and others oppose such efforts to expand hate crimes protection based not only on their inclusion of categories defined by sexual behavior or identity but also concerns about the potential impact on religious freedom.
They fear the measure, combined with existing law, could expose to prosecution Christians and others who proclaim the Bible's teaching that homosexual behavior and other sexual relations outside marriage are sinful. For example, if a person commits a violent act based on a victim's "sexual orientation" after hearing biblical teaching on the sinfulness of homosexual behavior, the preacher or teacher could be open to a charge of inducing the person to commit the crime, some foes say.
The Senate approved in a 78-13 roll call before the cloture vote an amendment by Sen. Sam Brownback, R.-Kan., intended to protect the free exercise of religion and other First Amendment rights. Brownback's amendment says such freedoms are not to be infringed on under the hate crimes measure as long as their use is not intended to plan, prepare for or incite physical violence.
"The Brownback amendment offers some needed protections for people of faith who express their faith convictions about homosexuality and certain other aberrant sexual behaviors," said Barrett Duke, the ERLC's vice president for public policy and research. "The amendment protects the pastor as long as his speech or other action was not 'intended' to lead to an act of violence. However, it does not protect a pastor from government scrutiny if a member of his congregation engages in an act of violence against someone in one of these protected groups after he has heard a negative statement from the pastor about the group. So, anyone who speaks against homosexuality or other aberrant sexual behaviors may be presumed guilty of inciting violence and be forced to prove his innocence.
"In addition, the Brownback amendment doesn't resolve other inherent problems in the bill," Duke said. "The bill still elevates homosexuality and other aberrant sexual behaviors to a specially protected class, and it still creates an opportunity for the prosecution of thought. Consequently, while we appreciate the protection that Senator Brownback gained for people of faith, the hate crimes bill is still inappropriate legislation and should be defeated."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 10/9/09: Hate Crimes passing Congress via defense bill; Obama will sign
UPDATE 7/23/09: Defense Bill with Hate-Crimes Amendment passes Senate
UPDATE 7/20/09: Hate Crimes Amendment passes Senate
-- From "Does the Hate Crimes Bill Threaten Religious Liberties?" by Dan Gilgoff, God & Country, U.S. News & World Report 7/17/09
After more than a decade-long effort by gay rights advocates, the Senate [Thursday] night adopted a measure to expand the definition of federal hate crimes to include sexual orientation. It was attached as an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill, which is expected to pass [this] week.
Conservative Christian groups, who've led the charge against expanding the federal hate crimes law since the mid-1990s, are stepping up warnings that the bill threatens religious liberties, including the freedom of clergy to condemn homosexuality. "What you say from the pulpit could literally become illegal," the Family Research Council wrote in a recent letter to pastors. The conservative Alliance Defense Fund has received more calls and E-mails on what the hate crimes bill means for pastors than on any other issue in recent months.
As religious conservatives mount a last-ditch effort to derail the bill, however, legal experts say the legislation narrowly focuses on violent acts and that pastors' speech remains protected by the First Amendment. And some religious activists acknowledge that they're less concerned about the immediate effects of expanding hate crimes protections than about the broader message it sends. "This is the first time you would have written into law a government disapproval of a religious belief held by the majority of Americans—that homosexuality is sinful," says Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund. "It's more of a slippery slope argument than about the law itself."
. . . religious conservatives say that all crimes are motivated by hate and that gay victims shouldn't be accorded special status. Religious liberties are a much bigger concern. "When you have pastors being called to testify about what they taught or preached to a person convicted of a hate crime, that's going to send a shock wave through the religious community," says Stanley. "It will lead to a chill on speech and free exercise of religion as it relates to homosexual behavior."
Legal experts note that under the hate crimes bill, a person's religious beliefs about homosexuality become relevant only once he or she is accused of a violent crime against someone from the LGBT community. The bill prohibits a defendant's religious expressions and associations from being introduced as substantive evidence at trial, though the information can be used to help determine whether the defendant was motivated by bias. "Your penalty is being enhanced because of your religious beliefs," says Prof. Douglas Laycock of the University of Michigan Law School. "But you're being prosecuted for the crime."
Proponents of an expanded hate crimes law say religious beliefs should be subject to scrutiny if they lead to violence. "Even the strongest proponents of religious freedom do not claim that religious liberty means the right to beat people up," says Prof. Andrew Koppelman of the Northwestern University School of Law.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Senate includes homosexuals in hate crimes protection" by Tom Strode, Baptist Press Washington bureau chief 7/17/09
The Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) and others oppose such efforts to expand hate crimes protection based not only on their inclusion of categories defined by sexual behavior or identity but also concerns about the potential impact on religious freedom.
They fear the measure, combined with existing law, could expose to prosecution Christians and others who proclaim the Bible's teaching that homosexual behavior and other sexual relations outside marriage are sinful. For example, if a person commits a violent act based on a victim's "sexual orientation" after hearing biblical teaching on the sinfulness of homosexual behavior, the preacher or teacher could be open to a charge of inducing the person to commit the crime, some foes say.
The Senate approved in a 78-13 roll call before the cloture vote an amendment by Sen. Sam Brownback, R.-Kan., intended to protect the free exercise of religion and other First Amendment rights. Brownback's amendment says such freedoms are not to be infringed on under the hate crimes measure as long as their use is not intended to plan, prepare for or incite physical violence.
"The Brownback amendment offers some needed protections for people of faith who express their faith convictions about homosexuality and certain other aberrant sexual behaviors," said Barrett Duke, the ERLC's vice president for public policy and research. "The amendment protects the pastor as long as his speech or other action was not 'intended' to lead to an act of violence. However, it does not protect a pastor from government scrutiny if a member of his congregation engages in an act of violence against someone in one of these protected groups after he has heard a negative statement from the pastor about the group. So, anyone who speaks against homosexuality or other aberrant sexual behaviors may be presumed guilty of inciting violence and be forced to prove his innocence.
"In addition, the Brownback amendment doesn't resolve other inherent problems in the bill," Duke said. "The bill still elevates homosexuality and other aberrant sexual behaviors to a specially protected class, and it still creates an opportunity for the prosecution of thought. Consequently, while we appreciate the protection that Senator Brownback gained for people of faith, the hate crimes bill is still inappropriate legislation and should be defeated."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Maine Ruling: Cross-dressing Male Students Allowed in Girl's Room
The Maine Human Rights Commission ruled . . . that the Orono School Department discriminated against a transgender child by denying her [him] access to the girls bathroom.
This radical ruling, and its far-reaching significance, has been ignored by every major news outlet.
UPDATE 2/2/14: Maine Supreme Court Opens Girl's Room to Men
UPDATE 1/25/10: Christians organize to oppose boys in girl's room
-- From "State rules in favor of young transgender" by Abigail Curtis, Bangor Daily News Staff 7/1/09
While the school department’s lawyer warned that schools around the state may not be ready to manage the practical fallout from the decision, civil liberties advocates hailed the ruling as an advancement of human rights.
The discrimination in question first occurred in October 2007 when the child was in the fifth grade at Asa Adams School. Until then, she [he] was allowed to use the girls’ bathroom, although she [he] was biologically male. But that fall, the transgender child was followed into the girls room by a male student who had “previously started to harass her by stalking her and calling her ‘faggot,’” according to the Maine Human Rights Commission investigator’s report.
After the second such episode, the boy was suspended and removed from the transgender child’s class. At that point, school officials told the transgender child that she [he] had to use a single-stall faculty bathroom at the other end of the school, and that was when her [his] parents decided to take the matter to the Maine Human Rights Commission.
Paul Melanson, grandfather of the boy accused of harassing the transgender student, also filed a complaint with the Maine Human Rights Commission, saying that not allowing his grandson to use the girls bathroom or the faculty bathroom as the other child did was a violation of his grandson’s right to public accommodation under the Maine Human Rights Act. Melanson had given his grandson permission to use the girls bathroom as long as the transgender student was doing so, according to the report.
On Monday, the commission found that Asa Adams School did not unlawfully discriminate against Melanson’s grandson “because of his sexual orientation,” which is a heterosexual male.
“Minor Student 2 was disciplined because his biological sex is male and his gender identity is male and he used the girls’ bathroom,” the investigator’s report said.
Patricia Ryan, executive director of the Maine Human Rights Commission, said this decision is among the first to involve schools, sexual orientation provision, gender identity and the issues of bathroom use. She said schools in Maine likely will want to take a look at it.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
This radical ruling, and its far-reaching significance, has been ignored by every major news outlet.
UPDATE 2/2/14: Maine Supreme Court Opens Girl's Room to Men
UPDATE 1/25/10: Christians organize to oppose boys in girl's room
-- From "State rules in favor of young transgender" by Abigail Curtis, Bangor Daily News Staff 7/1/09
While the school department’s lawyer warned that schools around the state may not be ready to manage the practical fallout from the decision, civil liberties advocates hailed the ruling as an advancement of human rights.
The discrimination in question first occurred in October 2007 when the child was in the fifth grade at Asa Adams School. Until then, she [he] was allowed to use the girls’ bathroom, although she [he] was biologically male. But that fall, the transgender child was followed into the girls room by a male student who had “previously started to harass her by stalking her and calling her ‘faggot,’” according to the Maine Human Rights Commission investigator’s report.
After the second such episode, the boy was suspended and removed from the transgender child’s class. At that point, school officials told the transgender child that she [he] had to use a single-stall faculty bathroom at the other end of the school, and that was when her [his] parents decided to take the matter to the Maine Human Rights Commission.
Paul Melanson, grandfather of the boy accused of harassing the transgender student, also filed a complaint with the Maine Human Rights Commission, saying that not allowing his grandson to use the girls bathroom or the faculty bathroom as the other child did was a violation of his grandson’s right to public accommodation under the Maine Human Rights Act. Melanson had given his grandson permission to use the girls bathroom as long as the transgender student was doing so, according to the report.
On Monday, the commission found that Asa Adams School did not unlawfully discriminate against Melanson’s grandson “because of his sexual orientation,” which is a heterosexual male.
“Minor Student 2 was disciplined because his biological sex is male and his gender identity is male and he used the girls’ bathroom,” the investigator’s report said.
Patricia Ryan, executive director of the Maine Human Rights Commission, said this decision is among the first to involve schools, sexual orientation provision, gender identity and the issues of bathroom use. She said schools in Maine likely will want to take a look at it.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Poll: Most Americans Believe Intelligent Design over Darwinism
A recent Zogby survey gives Darwinists good reason to fear scientific study of evolution, as most Americans prefer to look at facts, rather than placing blind faith in evolution theory.
-- From "Darwin and unnatural disbelief" posted at the Los Angeles Times 7/1/09
Some 71% of Americans know of Darwin and at least a little about his theory of natural selection, a number right up there with Great Britain, according to the poll of 10 countries conducted by the British Council, which describes itself as "the UK's international body for cultural relations." And if 71% seems sort of low, compare it with South Africa, where 73% had never even heard of Darwin.
But knowing isn't necessarily loving. Among those who are familiar with the author of "On the Origin of Species," only 41% of Americans agreed with the statement that "Enough scientific evidence exists to support Charles Darwin's theory of evolution."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Zogby Poll: Most Americans Believe in Intelligent Design" by Bob Ellis, Dakotavoice 7/1/09
After 150 years of rapturous embrace by the “scientific” community, decades of one-sided promotion in the public education system, uniform adherence from movie and television media, and still most of the American people just aren’t buying the contention that this incredibly beautiful and fantastically complex universe we see around us just happened to end up this way without an intelligent designer.
That’s what a new Zogby poll finds after sampling 1,053 likely voters on the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species.
Those surveyed were asked this question:
Statement A: The development of life came about through an unguided process of random mutations and natural selection.
Statement B: The development of life was guided by intelligent design.
From "Zogby Poll: Most Americans Want Strengths and Weaknesses of Darwinism Taught In Schools" by Christopher Neefus, CNSNews.com 7/13/09
A Zogby poll commissioned by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute says more than three-quarters of Americans would like teachers to have the freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution, with an even higher number reported among Democrats.
. . . respondents were given the two following statements:
Statement A: “Biology teachers should teach only Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it.”
Statement B: “Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.”
Of those surveyed, 78 percent said Statement B came closest to their own point of view on the issue, representing a 9 percent increase over 2006, the last time the question was asked.
More striking, though, was the finding that 82 percent of Democrats also chose statement B, versus 73 percent of Republicans.
Self-identified liberals showed stronger support than self-identified conservatives, 86 percent to 72 percent. Those who did not identify with any Christian or Jewish denominations supported teaching evidence against Darwinian evolution at a level of 82 percent.
When young adults age 18-24 were posed with the same choice, the poll said no respondents -- 0 percent -- thought only Darwinism and its supporting evidence should be taught.
Dr. John West, associate director of the Center for Science and Culture, said the findings contradict the prevailing notion that “a small group of the uneducated” – as critics charge -- drove skepticism over Darwin’s theory.
“Media reports insinuate that a right-wing conspiracy of know-nothings and religious-extremists is afoot,” he said. “But the new Zogby poll represents a broad-based and well-informed public consensus for academic freedom on evolution. The Darwin lobby has isolated itself from public opinion.”
In a press release distributed with the poll West said, “There seems to be a backlash against the strong-arm tactics that have been used in recent years to censor and intimidate scientists, teachers, and students who raise criticisms of Darwin.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Darwin and unnatural disbelief" posted at the Los Angeles Times 7/1/09
Some 71% of Americans know of Darwin and at least a little about his theory of natural selection, a number right up there with Great Britain, according to the poll of 10 countries conducted by the British Council, which describes itself as "the UK's international body for cultural relations." And if 71% seems sort of low, compare it with South Africa, where 73% had never even heard of Darwin.
But knowing isn't necessarily loving. Among those who are familiar with the author of "On the Origin of Species," only 41% of Americans agreed with the statement that "Enough scientific evidence exists to support Charles Darwin's theory of evolution."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Zogby Poll: Most Americans Believe in Intelligent Design" by Bob Ellis, Dakotavoice 7/1/09
After 150 years of rapturous embrace by the “scientific” community, decades of one-sided promotion in the public education system, uniform adherence from movie and television media, and still most of the American people just aren’t buying the contention that this incredibly beautiful and fantastically complex universe we see around us just happened to end up this way without an intelligent designer.
That’s what a new Zogby poll finds after sampling 1,053 likely voters on the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species.
Those surveyed were asked this question:
Statement A: The development of life came about through an unguided process of random mutations and natural selection.
Statement B: The development of life was guided by intelligent design.
Statement A: 33%[From the survey:] Would you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory?
Statement B: 52
Neither: 7
Other/Not sure: 8
Strongly agree: 54%To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Somewhat agree: 26%
Strongly disagree: 11%
Not
Sure: 4%
From "Zogby Poll: Most Americans Want Strengths and Weaknesses of Darwinism Taught In Schools" by Christopher Neefus, CNSNews.com 7/13/09
A Zogby poll commissioned by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute says more than three-quarters of Americans would like teachers to have the freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution, with an even higher number reported among Democrats.
. . . respondents were given the two following statements:
Statement A: “Biology teachers should teach only Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it.”
Statement B: “Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.”
Of those surveyed, 78 percent said Statement B came closest to their own point of view on the issue, representing a 9 percent increase over 2006, the last time the question was asked.
More striking, though, was the finding that 82 percent of Democrats also chose statement B, versus 73 percent of Republicans.
Self-identified liberals showed stronger support than self-identified conservatives, 86 percent to 72 percent. Those who did not identify with any Christian or Jewish denominations supported teaching evidence against Darwinian evolution at a level of 82 percent.
When young adults age 18-24 were posed with the same choice, the poll said no respondents -- 0 percent -- thought only Darwinism and its supporting evidence should be taught.
Dr. John West, associate director of the Center for Science and Culture, said the findings contradict the prevailing notion that “a small group of the uneducated” – as critics charge -- drove skepticism over Darwin’s theory.
“Media reports insinuate that a right-wing conspiracy of know-nothings and religious-extremists is afoot,” he said. “But the new Zogby poll represents a broad-based and well-informed public consensus for academic freedom on evolution. The Darwin lobby has isolated itself from public opinion.”
In a press release distributed with the poll West said, “There seems to be a backlash against the strong-arm tactics that have been used in recent years to censor and intimidate scientists, teachers, and students who raise criticisms of Darwin.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Congressman Pushes to De-Fund Planned Parenthood
Indiana Republican Congressman Mike Pence says $350 million from government sources across America is too much money going to Planned Parenthood. He wants the federal government to mirror the trends in states like Tennessee, Texas, and even in California by offering an amendment to the appropriations bill that funds the Department of Health and Human Services.
UPDATE 7/24/09: House votes 247-183 against Pence amendment
-- From "Congressman to Offer Amendment to De-Fund Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor 7/17/09
The amendment would stop HHS’ Family Planning funding (Title X) from going to Planned Parenthood.
The Pence amendment says “None of the funds made available under this Act shall be available to Planned Parenthood for any purpose under Title X of the Public Health Services Act.”
The amendment does not cut any funding from the family planning program but ensures none of the money goes to the Planned Parenthood abortion business.
While the majority of Americans who are pro-life likely support such an amendment, members of the House of Representatives may not get an opportunity to vote on it.
Pence will offer the amendment next week in the House Rules Committee, which has already repeatedly voted to prevent pro-life amendments stopping the direct taxpayer funding of abortions that President Barack Obama wanted in the District of Columbia and overseas.
[Thursday], Democratic leaders manipulated a vote on rules that prevented consideration of an amendment to stop tax-funded abortions in the nation's capital.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 7/24/09: House votes 247-183 against Pence amendment
-- From "Congressman to Offer Amendment to De-Fund Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor 7/17/09
The amendment would stop HHS’ Family Planning funding (Title X) from going to Planned Parenthood.
The Pence amendment says “None of the funds made available under this Act shall be available to Planned Parenthood for any purpose under Title X of the Public Health Services Act.”
The amendment does not cut any funding from the family planning program but ensures none of the money goes to the Planned Parenthood abortion business.
While the majority of Americans who are pro-life likely support such an amendment, members of the House of Representatives may not get an opportunity to vote on it.
Pence will offer the amendment next week in the House Rules Committee, which has already repeatedly voted to prevent pro-life amendments stopping the direct taxpayer funding of abortions that President Barack Obama wanted in the District of Columbia and overseas.
[Thursday], Democratic leaders manipulated a vote on rules that prevented consideration of an amendment to stop tax-funded abortions in the nation's capital.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Episcopal Church: Ordaining and 'Marrying' Homosexuals
Christian exodus of the ECUSA is expected to increase as the church's trienniel national convention ended with approval to ordain homosexual bishops, and provide for the blessing of same-sex unions and marriages.
-- From "Episcopal Church to Allow Bishops to Bless Same-Sex Unions" by William Wan, Washington Post Staff Writer 7/17/09
. . . officials stopped short of creating liturgical rites to bless same-sex unions, but approved a compromise measure that allows bishops, especially in states where same-sex unions are legal, to bless the relationships. The key portion of the legislation says bishops "may provide generous pastoral response" for such unions.
The vote came three days after the church passed a resolution allowing for the ordination of gay bishops. Both moves have prompted strong reactions among the larger worldwide Anglican Church, of which the Episcopal Church is a part.
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the preeminent Anglican clergyman, had asked the Episcopalians before the convention not to take up issues that would further divide the church. This week the influential bishop of Durham, England, wrote an essay describing the ongoing crisis as "a slow-moving train crash" and the most recent actions of the Episcopal Church as marking "a clear break with the rest of the Anglican Communion."
Meanwhile, gay rights advocates said this week's victories lay the groundwork for future moves. Friday's resolution included a call for bishops to "collect and develop theological, and liturgical resources" on same sex unions to report to the next convention. Three years from now, they may consider creating a standard liturgy for same-sex unions with the eventual goal of including a rite for gay marriage in the church's prayer book.
But some believe the recent moves have come at a cost. A number of parishes and dioceses have left the 2.3 million member Episcopal Church and affiliated with overseas branches of the Anglican Communion. Last month, some conservatives who left the Episcopal Church over issues of Scripture and sexuality formed the Anglican Church in North America.
The ECUSA has essentially abandoned Christianity.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Episcopal Church to Allow Bishops to Bless Same-Sex Unions" by William Wan, Washington Post Staff Writer 7/17/09
. . . officials stopped short of creating liturgical rites to bless same-sex unions, but approved a compromise measure that allows bishops, especially in states where same-sex unions are legal, to bless the relationships. The key portion of the legislation says bishops "may provide generous pastoral response" for such unions.
The vote came three days after the church passed a resolution allowing for the ordination of gay bishops. Both moves have prompted strong reactions among the larger worldwide Anglican Church, of which the Episcopal Church is a part.
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the preeminent Anglican clergyman, had asked the Episcopalians before the convention not to take up issues that would further divide the church. This week the influential bishop of Durham, England, wrote an essay describing the ongoing crisis as "a slow-moving train crash" and the most recent actions of the Episcopal Church as marking "a clear break with the rest of the Anglican Communion."
Meanwhile, gay rights advocates said this week's victories lay the groundwork for future moves. Friday's resolution included a call for bishops to "collect and develop theological, and liturgical resources" on same sex unions to report to the next convention. Three years from now, they may consider creating a standard liturgy for same-sex unions with the eventual goal of including a rite for gay marriage in the church's prayer book.
But some believe the recent moves have come at a cost. A number of parishes and dioceses have left the 2.3 million member Episcopal Church and affiliated with overseas branches of the Anglican Communion. Last month, some conservatives who left the Episcopal Church over issues of Scripture and sexuality formed the Anglican Church in North America.
The ECUSA has essentially abandoned Christianity.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Obama's Catholic Surgeon General Nominee Favors Abortionist Training
She "spoke in favor of a vote by the AMA's governing body to 'urge medical schools to expand their curriculum' to teach 'more about abortion,'" LifeNews reported.
-- From "Obama's surgeon general pick will be grilled on 'life issues'" Posted at USA Today 7/14/09
Some Catholic health care voices are delighted with President Obama's pick for Surgeon General, Dr. Regina Benjamin, but there are already rumbles of concern in the Catholic blogosphere over her stance on life issues.
Benjamin was named just days after Obama's audience with the pope (who gave him a copy of the church's latest statement on bioethics). But Obama has many abortion-rights supporting Catholics in his camp including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who attends Mass weekly.
. . . Benjamin's clinic is not an expressly Catholic institution. Experts questioned by various Catholic media had no comment on where she stood on life issues. And Obama has nominated other Catholics to critical positions who support abortion rights such as Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Surgeon general pick: Train new doctors on abortions" © 2009 WorldNetDaily 7/14/09
Obama announced his nominee for surgeon general, Regina Benjamin, at the White House Monday. Benjamin, 52, is a family doctor in Alabama who established the Bayou La Batre Rural Health Clinic "to provide health care with dignity to impoverished residents."
She is the first black woman and the first doctor younger than 40 to be elected to the American Medical Association's board of trustees, and in 2002 she became the first black woman to head a state medical society.
On the issue of abortion, Benjamin has advocated more training for doctors on how to terminate pregnancy.
"We are adopting a policy that medical school curriculum provide the legal, ethical, and psychological principles associated with abortion so students can learn all the factors involved," she said, according to the Associated Press.
Benjamin is also a member of the board of directors of Physicians for Human Rights, an organization that condemns illegal abortions in many nations across the world. According to LifeNews, the group has used on questionable statistics on mothers' deaths from abortions to call for legalization.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Obama's surgeon general pick will be grilled on 'life issues'" Posted at USA Today 7/14/09
Some Catholic health care voices are delighted with President Obama's pick for Surgeon General, Dr. Regina Benjamin, but there are already rumbles of concern in the Catholic blogosphere over her stance on life issues.
Benjamin was named just days after Obama's audience with the pope (who gave him a copy of the church's latest statement on bioethics). But Obama has many abortion-rights supporting Catholics in his camp including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who attends Mass weekly.
. . . Benjamin's clinic is not an expressly Catholic institution. Experts questioned by various Catholic media had no comment on where she stood on life issues. And Obama has nominated other Catholics to critical positions who support abortion rights such as Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Surgeon general pick: Train new doctors on abortions" © 2009 WorldNetDaily 7/14/09
Obama announced his nominee for surgeon general, Regina Benjamin, at the White House Monday. Benjamin, 52, is a family doctor in Alabama who established the Bayou La Batre Rural Health Clinic "to provide health care with dignity to impoverished residents."
She is the first black woman and the first doctor younger than 40 to be elected to the American Medical Association's board of trustees, and in 2002 she became the first black woman to head a state medical society.
On the issue of abortion, Benjamin has advocated more training for doctors on how to terminate pregnancy.
"We are adopting a policy that medical school curriculum provide the legal, ethical, and psychological principles associated with abortion so students can learn all the factors involved," she said, according to the Associated Press.
Benjamin is also a member of the board of directors of Physicians for Human Rights, an organization that condemns illegal abortions in many nations across the world. According to LifeNews, the group has used on questionable statistics on mothers' deaths from abortions to call for legalization.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Teacher's Union Votes for Same-sex 'Marriage' (and more)
Public school focus on Gay Agenda and sexualization of children made crystal clear at annual meeting
-- From "At meeting, NEA declines to remain neutral on abortion" by Erin Roach, staff writer for Baptist Press 7/6/09
The National Education Association, the nation's largest labor union, voted July 5 to reject a proposal officially to remain neutral on the issues of abortion and family planning.
Also during its annual meeting in San Diego July 1-6, the NEA went on record as supporting laws legalizing civil unions and "gay marriage" -- it said either are acceptable -- and it backed efforts to repeal federal legislation that "discriminates" against same-sex couples, which presumably could target the Defense of Marriage Amendment.
The proposed bylaw amendment regarding abortion would have invalidated NEA Resolution I-16 on family planning, which says NEA "supports family planning, including the right to reproductive freedom."
The defeated proposal said the NEA takes "no position" on the issues of abortion and family planning. It would have prohibited the NEA from filing a friend-of-the-court brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in litigation seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade, and it would have kept the NEA from "lobbying for or against legislation regarding the dissemination of birth control information, the funding of birth control procedures, or the sale of birth control products."
By voice vote delegates in San Diego adopted the following action plan July 3:
-- "NEA will support its affiliates seeking to enact state legislation that guarantees to same-sex couples the right to enter into a legally recognized relationship pursuant to which they have the same rights and benefits as similarly-situated heterosexual couples, including, without limitation, rights and benefits with regard to medical decisions, taxes, inheritance, adoption and immigration.
-- "NEA will support its affiliates in opposing state constitutional and/or statutory provisions that could have the effect of prohibiting the state and its political subdivisions from providing the same rights and benefits to same-sex couples as are provided to similarly-situated heterosexual couples.
-- "NEA will take such actions as may be appropriate to support efforts to (a) repeal any federal legislation and/or regulations that discriminate against same-sex couples, and (b) enact federal legislation and/or regulations that treat same-sex couples and similarly-situated heterosexual couples equally with regard to social security, health care, taxation, and other federal rights and benefits.
[This] has been interpreted by some conservatives as aiming at the Defense of Marriage Amendment [DOMA]. . . . Signed into law in 1996, DOMA gives states the option of refusing to recognize "gay marriage" from other states.
NEA's executive committee will monitor the implementation of the action plan on "gay marriage" and will keep NEA affiliates informed of actions taken to achieve its objectives, the organization said.
NEA's 3.2 million members work at every level of education, from preschool to university graduate programs. NEA has affiliate organizations in every state and in more than 14,000 communities across the United States.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "At meeting, NEA declines to remain neutral on abortion" by Erin Roach, staff writer for Baptist Press 7/6/09
The National Education Association, the nation's largest labor union, voted July 5 to reject a proposal officially to remain neutral on the issues of abortion and family planning.
Also during its annual meeting in San Diego July 1-6, the NEA went on record as supporting laws legalizing civil unions and "gay marriage" -- it said either are acceptable -- and it backed efforts to repeal federal legislation that "discriminates" against same-sex couples, which presumably could target the Defense of Marriage Amendment.
The proposed bylaw amendment regarding abortion would have invalidated NEA Resolution I-16 on family planning, which says NEA "supports family planning, including the right to reproductive freedom."
The defeated proposal said the NEA takes "no position" on the issues of abortion and family planning. It would have prohibited the NEA from filing a friend-of-the-court brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in litigation seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade, and it would have kept the NEA from "lobbying for or against legislation regarding the dissemination of birth control information, the funding of birth control procedures, or the sale of birth control products."
By voice vote delegates in San Diego adopted the following action plan July 3:
-- "NEA will support its affiliates seeking to enact state legislation that guarantees to same-sex couples the right to enter into a legally recognized relationship pursuant to which they have the same rights and benefits as similarly-situated heterosexual couples, including, without limitation, rights and benefits with regard to medical decisions, taxes, inheritance, adoption and immigration.
-- "NEA will support its affiliates in opposing state constitutional and/or statutory provisions that could have the effect of prohibiting the state and its political subdivisions from providing the same rights and benefits to same-sex couples as are provided to similarly-situated heterosexual couples.
-- "NEA will take such actions as may be appropriate to support efforts to (a) repeal any federal legislation and/or regulations that discriminate against same-sex couples, and (b) enact federal legislation and/or regulations that treat same-sex couples and similarly-situated heterosexual couples equally with regard to social security, health care, taxation, and other federal rights and benefits.
[This] has been interpreted by some conservatives as aiming at the Defense of Marriage Amendment [DOMA]. . . . Signed into law in 1996, DOMA gives states the option of refusing to recognize "gay marriage" from other states.
NEA's executive committee will monitor the implementation of the action plan on "gay marriage" and will keep NEA affiliates informed of actions taken to achieve its objectives, the organization said.
NEA's 3.2 million members work at every level of education, from preschool to university graduate programs. NEA has affiliate organizations in every state and in more than 14,000 communities across the United States.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Federal Judge Bars College's 'Anti-homophobe Policy'
A California court has ruled in favor of a student who was insulted for defending traditional marriage and has ordered the college to strike from its website a sexual harassment policy that censors speech deemed "offensive" to homosexual people.
-- From "L.A. Community College District's sexual harassment policy put on hold" by Gale Holland, Los Angeles Time 7/15/09
Saying it violates students' free speech rights, a federal judge has barred the Los Angeles Community College District from enforcing a sexual harassment policy that bans "offensive" remarks in and out of the classroom.
U.S. District Judge George H. King granted a preliminary injunction against pressing the policy at the request of Jonathan Lopez, an L.A. City College student who in February filed a suit accusing a professor of censoring his classroom speech about his religious beliefs, including opposition to gay marriage.
Lopez delivered the speech in the emotional aftermath of the passage of Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California.
The student said that the professor cut his presentation short, called him a "fascist bastard" and told him to "ask God" for his grade.
The district disciplined the professor, John Matteson, and Lopez received an A in the course. His suit sought financial damages and a ban on enforcing the sexual harassment code.
King said the policy's use of "subjective" terms such as "hostile" and "offensive" discouraged students from exercising their 1st Amendment rights.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Homosexclamation! Christian student fights prof, wins big" by Drew Zahn © 2009 WorldNetDaily 7/14/09
Represented by attorneys from the Alliance Defense Fund, Lopez sued the Los Angeles City College District, the largest community college system in the U.S., with over 135,000 students.
The lawsuit not only targeted the school over the professor's comments, however, but also sought removal of a campus sexual harassment and speech policy that court documents allege "systematically prohibits and punishes political and religious speech by students that is outside the campus political mainstream."
ADF claims the district's policy, which labels speech as sexual harassment whenever it might be "perceived as offensive or unwelcome" – such as Lopez's opinions on sexual morality – opens the door for Christians and defenders of traditional marriage to suffer abuses similar to the type Lopez endured.
Even though college administrators informed ADF that a "progressive discipline" procedure had been started in the case, ADF filed for a preliminary injunction that would require the school to remove the sexual harassment policy from its website.
According to court documents, the district's website sexual harassment policy stated, "If [you are] unsure if certain comments or behavior are offensive do not do it, do not say it. ... Ask if something you do or say is being perceived as offensive or unwelcome."
Judge King, however, ruled, "By using subjective words such as 'hostile' and 'offensive,' the policy is so subjective and broad that it applies to protected speech."
He further quoted court precedent, stating, "'It is firmly settled that under our Constitution the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers.'"
"Thus," the ruling concluded, "the policy reaches constitutionally protected speech that is merely offensive to some listeners, such as discussions of religion, homosexual relations and marriage, sexual morality and freedom, polygamy, or even gender politics and policies. Indeed, the LACC's website indicates that sexual harassment can include 'sexist statements ... or degrading attitudes/comments about women or men.' This could include an individual's outdated, though protected, opinions on the proper role of the genders. While it may be desirable to promote harmony and civility, these values cannot be enforced at the expense of protected speech under the First Amendment. Thus, the policy is unconstitutionally overbroad."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "L.A. Community College District's sexual harassment policy put on hold" by Gale Holland, Los Angeles Time 7/15/09
Saying it violates students' free speech rights, a federal judge has barred the Los Angeles Community College District from enforcing a sexual harassment policy that bans "offensive" remarks in and out of the classroom.
U.S. District Judge George H. King granted a preliminary injunction against pressing the policy at the request of Jonathan Lopez, an L.A. City College student who in February filed a suit accusing a professor of censoring his classroom speech about his religious beliefs, including opposition to gay marriage.
Lopez delivered the speech in the emotional aftermath of the passage of Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California.
The student said that the professor cut his presentation short, called him a "fascist bastard" and told him to "ask God" for his grade.
The district disciplined the professor, John Matteson, and Lopez received an A in the course. His suit sought financial damages and a ban on enforcing the sexual harassment code.
King said the policy's use of "subjective" terms such as "hostile" and "offensive" discouraged students from exercising their 1st Amendment rights.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Homosexclamation! Christian student fights prof, wins big" by Drew Zahn © 2009 WorldNetDaily 7/14/09
Represented by attorneys from the Alliance Defense Fund, Lopez sued the Los Angeles City College District, the largest community college system in the U.S., with over 135,000 students.
The lawsuit not only targeted the school over the professor's comments, however, but also sought removal of a campus sexual harassment and speech policy that court documents allege "systematically prohibits and punishes political and religious speech by students that is outside the campus political mainstream."
ADF claims the district's policy, which labels speech as sexual harassment whenever it might be "perceived as offensive or unwelcome" – such as Lopez's opinions on sexual morality – opens the door for Christians and defenders of traditional marriage to suffer abuses similar to the type Lopez endured.
Even though college administrators informed ADF that a "progressive discipline" procedure had been started in the case, ADF filed for a preliminary injunction that would require the school to remove the sexual harassment policy from its website.
According to court documents, the district's website sexual harassment policy stated, "If [you are] unsure if certain comments or behavior are offensive do not do it, do not say it. ... Ask if something you do or say is being perceived as offensive or unwelcome."
Judge King, however, ruled, "By using subjective words such as 'hostile' and 'offensive,' the policy is so subjective and broad that it applies to protected speech."
He further quoted court precedent, stating, "'It is firmly settled that under our Constitution the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers.'"
"Thus," the ruling concluded, "the policy reaches constitutionally protected speech that is merely offensive to some listeners, such as discussions of religion, homosexual relations and marriage, sexual morality and freedom, polygamy, or even gender politics and policies. Indeed, the LACC's website indicates that sexual harassment can include 'sexist statements ... or degrading attitudes/comments about women or men.' This could include an individual's outdated, though protected, opinions on the proper role of the genders. While it may be desirable to promote harmony and civility, these values cannot be enforced at the expense of protected speech under the First Amendment. Thus, the policy is unconstitutionally overbroad."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Senate Hides Hate Crimes Bill in Defense Appropriation
Late Monday, Senate Democrats told their homosexualist base that they'd attempt to sneak the hate crimes bill (S. 909) past the public as an amendment to the annual defense authorization bill – a must-pass measure (S. 1390)
UPDATE 7/17/09: Hate crimes amendment passes in the dark of night with the help of five GOP senators
UPDATE 7/16/09: Sen. Reid anticipates enough GOP support for hate crimes amendment
UPDATE 7/15/09: Sen. McCain Blasts Dems for Hate Crimes amendment
UPDATE 7/14/09 (late): Vote this week, Senator Reid says at press conference
Illinois residents, click here to E-mail Sens. Burris & Durbin (sponsor of this bill), this takes only a minute, and then click here for their phone numbers.
-- From "Senate Democrats Attach Hate Crimes Law to Defense Bill" by David M. Herszenhorn, New York Times 7/13/09
Senate Democrats said on Monday that they would seek to broaden the federal hate crimes law to protect victims of attacks based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disabilities.
The Senate approved the legislation last year, also as part of the military authorization bill, but it was never reconciled with a similar House-passed bill. [President Bush promised to veto ANY bill that included hate crimes legislation.]
Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said that he would introduce the bill as a bipartisan amendment to the defense authorization measure. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, is also a prime sponsor.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 7/17/09: Hate crimes amendment passes in the dark of night with the help of five GOP senators
UPDATE 7/16/09: Sen. Reid anticipates enough GOP support for hate crimes amendment
UPDATE 7/15/09: Sen. McCain Blasts Dems for Hate Crimes amendment
UPDATE 7/14/09 (late): Vote this week, Senator Reid says at press conference
Illinois residents, click here to E-mail Sens. Burris & Durbin (sponsor of this bill), this takes only a minute, and then click here for their phone numbers.
-- From "Senate Democrats Attach Hate Crimes Law to Defense Bill" by David M. Herszenhorn, New York Times 7/13/09
Senate Democrats said on Monday that they would seek to broaden the federal hate crimes law to protect victims of attacks based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disabilities.
The Senate approved the legislation last year, also as part of the military authorization bill, but it was never reconciled with a similar House-passed bill. [President Bush promised to veto ANY bill that included hate crimes legislation.]
Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said that he would introduce the bill as a bipartisan amendment to the defense authorization measure. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, is also a prime sponsor.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Homosexuality and Contracting for Children
Absent natural procreation, homosexual relationships lead to a variety of convoluted "parenting"
Utah court ruling preserving traditional parental rights fuels the politically-correct drive toward same-sex marriage
-- From "Helpless, as ex rips boy away" by Rosemary Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune 7/10/2009
Gena Edvalson tried for years to be a mom. So when her partner of six years, Jana Dickson, became pregnant through artificial insemination and gave birth to a boy in March 2006, nothing brought her "instantly more joy."
And nothing brought Edvalson more pain than a recent court ruling depriving her of a chance to even visit the child.
But the two split up when the boy was 17 months old and last week, after a yearlong legal fight, Edvalson was cut off from any contact with the 3-year-old she loves as a son. A 3rd District judge, citing a 2008 Utah law, upheld Dickson's "fundamental" right, as the biological parent, to refuse visitation.
The case highlights the predicament of same-sex parents in Utah, a state where gay and lesbian couples cannot marry, adopt children or even expect their own contracts for shared parenting and guardianship to stand in court.
Such documents did not protect Edvalson, who signed co-parenting and co-guardianship agreements with Dickson near the time the baby was born.
Her advice for other same-sex couples: Don't have kids unless you have the legal protection of an adoption (something you cannot get in Utah).
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Contract or not, lesbian can't be 'mommy'" by Drew Zahn © 2009 WorldNetDaily 7/11/09
In 2006, Gena-Louise Edvalson entered into a "contract" with her lover, Jana Dickson, to co-parent her partner's newborn son. But after the relationship ended, Edvalson sued Dickson, who is now married to a man, demanding the mother honor the contract and grant her former partner parental standing in the boy's life.
Judge Leon Anthony Dever of Utah's Third District Court, however, voided the contract and dismissed the lawsuit, arguing "parents retain the fundamental right to exercise the primary control over the care and supervision of their children."
"The fundamental rights of parents to raise children the way they see fit should not be threatened by the wishes and desires of a legal stranger," said [Frank D. Mylar, Alliance Defense Fund] in a statement. "The court correctly ruled that this little boy's right to his mother under state law is of far greater value than the wishes of someone who has no legal relationship to the child."
The judge's ruling came in spite of the "parenting plan" for co-guardianship that the two women had signed.
Judge Dever [wrote], "The Utah Supreme Court has held that contracts that offend public policy are void. ... Therefore, while people are generally free to bind themselves to any contract, those contracts which are contrary to public policy are illegal."
Mylar explained, "There has always been a legal concept that certain contracts are illegal and void, where no court will be party to enforcing such an agreement. If a person had a contract, for example, to conduct illegal activity, the contract is void. He or she shouldn't be held to it.
"Since both Utah law and the U.S. Constitution clearly protect the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit," Mylar told WND, "it stands that you can't just 'bargain away' those constitutionally protected parental rights, because to be able to do so is not in the best interest of the child."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Utah court ruling preserving traditional parental rights fuels the politically-correct drive toward same-sex marriage
-- From "Helpless, as ex rips boy away" by Rosemary Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune 7/10/2009
Gena Edvalson tried for years to be a mom. So when her partner of six years, Jana Dickson, became pregnant through artificial insemination and gave birth to a boy in March 2006, nothing brought her "instantly more joy."
And nothing brought Edvalson more pain than a recent court ruling depriving her of a chance to even visit the child.
But the two split up when the boy was 17 months old and last week, after a yearlong legal fight, Edvalson was cut off from any contact with the 3-year-old she loves as a son. A 3rd District judge, citing a 2008 Utah law, upheld Dickson's "fundamental" right, as the biological parent, to refuse visitation.
The case highlights the predicament of same-sex parents in Utah, a state where gay and lesbian couples cannot marry, adopt children or even expect their own contracts for shared parenting and guardianship to stand in court.
Such documents did not protect Edvalson, who signed co-parenting and co-guardianship agreements with Dickson near the time the baby was born.
Her advice for other same-sex couples: Don't have kids unless you have the legal protection of an adoption (something you cannot get in Utah).
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Contract or not, lesbian can't be 'mommy'" by Drew Zahn © 2009 WorldNetDaily 7/11/09
In 2006, Gena-Louise Edvalson entered into a "contract" with her lover, Jana Dickson, to co-parent her partner's newborn son. But after the relationship ended, Edvalson sued Dickson, who is now married to a man, demanding the mother honor the contract and grant her former partner parental standing in the boy's life.
Judge Leon Anthony Dever of Utah's Third District Court, however, voided the contract and dismissed the lawsuit, arguing "parents retain the fundamental right to exercise the primary control over the care and supervision of their children."
"The fundamental rights of parents to raise children the way they see fit should not be threatened by the wishes and desires of a legal stranger," said [Frank D. Mylar, Alliance Defense Fund] in a statement. "The court correctly ruled that this little boy's right to his mother under state law is of far greater value than the wishes of someone who has no legal relationship to the child."
The judge's ruling came in spite of the "parenting plan" for co-guardianship that the two women had signed.
Judge Dever [wrote], "The Utah Supreme Court has held that contracts that offend public policy are void. ... Therefore, while people are generally free to bind themselves to any contract, those contracts which are contrary to public policy are illegal."
Mylar explained, "There has always been a legal concept that certain contracts are illegal and void, where no court will be party to enforcing such an agreement. If a person had a contract, for example, to conduct illegal activity, the contract is void. He or she shouldn't be held to it.
"Since both Utah law and the U.S. Constitution clearly protect the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit," Mylar told WND, "it stands that you can't just 'bargain away' those constitutionally protected parental rights, because to be able to do so is not in the best interest of the child."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Government Teaches Children to Enjoy Sex - Daily Orgasms Recommended
Europe all the rave?! Consider the UK government/public school track record that tells parents to stop teaching morals to children, distributes abortion pills like candy, mandates Gay Agenda indoctrination, favors homosexual adoption, and thinks that encouraging sex decreases teenage pregnancy.
UPDATE 7/14/09: Associated Press reporting attempts to quell outrageousness
-- From "NHS tells school children of their 'right' to 'an orgasm a day'" by Roya Nikkhah, The London Telegraph 7/12/09
The advice appears in leaflets circulated to parents, teachers and youth workers and is meant to update sex education by telling students about the benefits of enjoyable sex.
The authors of the guidance say that for too long, experts have concentrated on the need for "safe sex" and committed relationships while ignoring the principle reason that many people have sex.
Entitled Pleasure, the leaflet has been drawn up by NHS Sheffield, but it also being circulated outside the city.
The leaflet carries the slogan "an orgasm a day keeps the doctor away". It also says: "Health promotion experts advocate five portions of fruit and veg a day and 30 minutes' physical activity three times a week. What about sex or masturbation twice a week?"
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 7/14/09: Associated Press reporting attempts to quell outrageousness
-- From "NHS tells school children of their 'right' to 'an orgasm a day'" by Roya Nikkhah, The London Telegraph 7/12/09
The advice appears in leaflets circulated to parents, teachers and youth workers and is meant to update sex education by telling students about the benefits of enjoyable sex.
The authors of the guidance say that for too long, experts have concentrated on the need for "safe sex" and committed relationships while ignoring the principle reason that many people have sex.
Entitled Pleasure, the leaflet has been drawn up by NHS Sheffield, but it also being circulated outside the city.
The leaflet carries the slogan "an orgasm a day keeps the doctor away". It also says: "Health promotion experts advocate five portions of fruit and veg a day and 30 minutes' physical activity three times a week. What about sex or masturbation twice a week?"
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Obama Science Czar Holdren Called for Forced Abortions
President Obama just promised, in the presence of the Pope, that he would do everything possible to reduce abortion, but Obama isn't fooling the Catholic hierarchy, with his pro-abortion appointments, and overt funding of Planned Parenthood and shifting policies away from abstinence, and forcing abortion on all health professionals.
UPDATE 7/30/09: Look out, Holdren OK with you being hauled into court by a tree!
UPDATE 7/29/09: Holdren's opinion of life in the womb, and his advocacy for 'De-Development' of the United States
UPDATE 7/25/09: Left meets Right - On the Edge of Genetic Control in US?
-- From "Obama Science Czar Wrote Book Supporting Forced Abortions, Mass Sterilization And A World Government" posted at KXMD-TV CBS11 7/11/09
. . . John Holdren, Obama’s “Science Czar,” once wrote a book supporting things such as mass sterilization and forced abortions. Things even staunch members of the liberal Democrat base would probably find objectionable and radical.
These ideas (among many other equally horrifying recommendations) were put forth by John Holdren, whom Barack Obama has recently appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology—informally known as the United States’ Science Czar.
From "Obama science czar Holdren called for forced abortions" by Drew Zahn © 2009 WorldNetDaily 7/11/09
The man President Obama has chosen to be his science czar once advocated a shocking approach to the "population crisis" feared by scientists at the time: namely, compulsory abortions in the U.S. and a "Planetary Regime" with the power to enforce human reproduction restrictions.
"There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated," wrote Obama appointee John Holdren, as reported by FrontPage Magazine. "It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."
Holdren's comments, made in 1977, mirror the astonishing admission this week of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who said she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of."
In 1977, when many scientists were alarmed by predictions of harmful environmental effects of human population growth, Holdren teamed with Paul R. Ehrlich, author of "The Population Bomb," and his wife, Anne, to pen "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment."
Holdren's book proposed multiple strategies to curb population growth, and, according to the quotes excerpted by FrontPage Magazine, advocated an international police force to ensure the strategies were carried out.
"Such a comprehensive Plenetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable," Holdren and the Ehrlichs reportedly wrote. "The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. ... The Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 7/30/09: Look out, Holdren OK with you being hauled into court by a tree!
UPDATE 7/29/09: Holdren's opinion of life in the womb, and his advocacy for 'De-Development' of the United States
UPDATE 7/25/09: Left meets Right - On the Edge of Genetic Control in US?
-- From "Obama Science Czar Wrote Book Supporting Forced Abortions, Mass Sterilization And A World Government" posted at KXMD-TV CBS11 7/11/09
. . . John Holdren, Obama’s “Science Czar,” once wrote a book supporting things such as mass sterilization and forced abortions. Things even staunch members of the liberal Democrat base would probably find objectionable and radical.
These ideas (among many other equally horrifying recommendations) were put forth by John Holdren, whom Barack Obama has recently appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology—informally known as the United States’ Science Czar.
From "Obama science czar Holdren called for forced abortions" by Drew Zahn © 2009 WorldNetDaily 7/11/09
The man President Obama has chosen to be his science czar once advocated a shocking approach to the "population crisis" feared by scientists at the time: namely, compulsory abortions in the U.S. and a "Planetary Regime" with the power to enforce human reproduction restrictions.
"There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated," wrote Obama appointee John Holdren, as reported by FrontPage Magazine. "It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."
Holdren's comments, made in 1977, mirror the astonishing admission this week of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who said she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of."
In 1977, when many scientists were alarmed by predictions of harmful environmental effects of human population growth, Holdren teamed with Paul R. Ehrlich, author of "The Population Bomb," and his wife, Anne, to pen "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment."
Holdren's book proposed multiple strategies to curb population growth, and, according to the quotes excerpted by FrontPage Magazine, advocated an international police force to ensure the strategies were carried out.
"Such a comprehensive Plenetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable," Holdren and the Ehrlichs reportedly wrote. "The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. ... The Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Church Attacked for Proclaiming Beliefs in Lawn Sign
Those behind a sign posted in front of their northwest Gainesville church, proclaiming in red letters "Islam is of the devil," say it's a way to express their religious beliefs and is a message of "a great act of love."
-- From "Anti-Islam church sign stirs up community outrage" by Lise Fisher & Karen Voyles, Staff Writers Gainesville Florida Sun 7/8/09
Some living near the Dove World Outreach Center, however, are outraged and disappointed with the sign's message, which has sparked protests and acts of vandalism at the church since it was posted over the weekend.
"It's an act of saying there is only one way, and that is actually what Christianity is about. It is about pointing the people in the right direction, and that right direction is Jesus and only Jesus," said the church's senior pastor, Terry Jones. "We feel the sign is an act of giving the people a chance."
Jones acknowledged not everyone has welcomed the sign.
The church has received about 100 calls in the past 24 hours about the sign, Jones said. One was positive, he said Tuesday.
Since the sign went up, it reportedly has been protested by picketers, successfully torn down in another expression of protest late Sunday, quickly re-erected on Monday, and marred by spray paint before it was repainted and back in place Tuesday morning.
Jones said the acts of vandalism will be reported to police and that there are no plans to remove the sign or change what it says.
"We actually posted the sign because there is a tremendous growth in Islam at this time. It is a violent and oppressive religion and does not have anything to do with the truth of the Bible," Jones said. "We are definitely trying to send the message that Jesus Christ is the only way."
The church's first sign won't be its last, Jones said.
In the future, the message on the sign might change to express the church's beliefs against same-sex marriage or abortion, Jones said.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Anti-Islam church sign stirs up community outrage" by Lise Fisher & Karen Voyles, Staff Writers Gainesville Florida Sun 7/8/09
Some living near the Dove World Outreach Center, however, are outraged and disappointed with the sign's message, which has sparked protests and acts of vandalism at the church since it was posted over the weekend.
"It's an act of saying there is only one way, and that is actually what Christianity is about. It is about pointing the people in the right direction, and that right direction is Jesus and only Jesus," said the church's senior pastor, Terry Jones. "We feel the sign is an act of giving the people a chance."
Jones acknowledged not everyone has welcomed the sign.
The church has received about 100 calls in the past 24 hours about the sign, Jones said. One was positive, he said Tuesday.
Since the sign went up, it reportedly has been protested by picketers, successfully torn down in another expression of protest late Sunday, quickly re-erected on Monday, and marred by spray paint before it was repainted and back in place Tuesday morning.
Jones said the acts of vandalism will be reported to police and that there are no plans to remove the sign or change what it says.
"We actually posted the sign because there is a tremendous growth in Islam at this time. It is a violent and oppressive religion and does not have anything to do with the truth of the Bible," Jones said. "We are definitely trying to send the message that Jesus Christ is the only way."
The church's first sign won't be its last, Jones said.
In the future, the message on the sign might change to express the church's beliefs against same-sex marriage or abortion, Jones said.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Kansas City Council Condemns Christian Witness, Praises Homosexuality
Kansas City officials said Thursday that they would pull city support from a large spiritual conference planned at Bartle Hall this month . . . after Kansas City Council members expressed concern about a scheduled preacher who has condemned homosexuals.
-- From "City withdrawing its support from Bartle Hall spiritual conference" by Michael Mansur, The Kansas City Star 7/9/09
At the council’s business session, council member Deb Hermann said the conference would feature a speaker who has used hateful speech against the gay and lesbian community. The council later passed a resolution that condemned hateful, hurtful and harmful speech. It also recognized the gay and lesbian community.
David Park, acting director of neighborhoods and community services . . . said the event schedule showed worship services listed, which would appear to violate city requirements that the event organizers “provide no religious instruction or counseling, conduct no religious worship or services, engage in no religious proselytizing and exert no religious influence.”
Bishop Mark Tolbert, director of the Life Changers Conference, said . . . that the preacher in question, Prophet Todd Hall, would not be talking in Kansas City about homosexuality.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "City withdrawing its support from Bartle Hall spiritual conference" by Michael Mansur, The Kansas City Star 7/9/09
At the council’s business session, council member Deb Hermann said the conference would feature a speaker who has used hateful speech against the gay and lesbian community. The council later passed a resolution that condemned hateful, hurtful and harmful speech. It also recognized the gay and lesbian community.
David Park, acting director of neighborhoods and community services . . . said the event schedule showed worship services listed, which would appear to violate city requirements that the event organizers “provide no religious instruction or counseling, conduct no religious worship or services, engage in no religious proselytizing and exert no religious influence.”
Bishop Mark Tolbert, director of the Life Changers Conference, said . . . that the preacher in question, Prophet Todd Hall, would not be talking in Kansas City about homosexuality.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Episcopal Church Head Says Salvation Overdone
The presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church called the evangelical notion that individuals can be right with God a "great Western heresy" that is behind many problems facing the church and the wider society.
-- From "Episcopal presiding bishop terms individualistic salvation 'heresy'" by Bob Allen, senior writer for Associated Baptist Press 7/9/09
Describing a United States church in crisis, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori told delegates to the group's triennial meeting July 8 in Anaheim, Calif., that the overarching connection to problems facing Episcopalians has to do with "the great Western heresy -- that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God."
"It's caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus," Jefferts Schori, the first woman to be elected as a primate in the worldwide Anglican Communion three years ago, said. "That individualist focus is a form of idolatry, for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy, at the center of existence, as the ground of being."
Jefferts Schori said "heretical and individualistic understanding" contributes to problems like neglect for the environment and the current worldwide economic recession.
About 200 Episcopal bishops and 850 clergy and lay deputies were expected to convene for the 10-day meeting. Business items are set to include debates over human sexuality [a.k.a. homosexual behavior], politics and poverty.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Episcopal presiding bishop terms individualistic salvation 'heresy'" by Bob Allen, senior writer for Associated Baptist Press 7/9/09
Describing a United States church in crisis, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori told delegates to the group's triennial meeting July 8 in Anaheim, Calif., that the overarching connection to problems facing Episcopalians has to do with "the great Western heresy -- that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God."
"It's caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus," Jefferts Schori, the first woman to be elected as a primate in the worldwide Anglican Communion three years ago, said. "That individualist focus is a form of idolatry, for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy, at the center of existence, as the ground of being."
Jefferts Schori said "heretical and individualistic understanding" contributes to problems like neglect for the environment and the current worldwide economic recession.
About 200 Episcopal bishops and 850 clergy and lay deputies were expected to convene for the 10-day meeting. Business items are set to include debates over human sexuality [a.k.a. homosexual behavior], politics and poverty.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Massachusetts Bans Pro-life Sidewalk Counseling
Federal appeals court ruled the ban necessary to stop "unduly aggressive behaviors in the vicinity of reproductive healthcare facilities" -- Pro-lifers say law . . . had a "content-neutral patina" that masked a "more sinister reality," that the Legislature’s true motive was to curb antiabortion speech.
-- From "Abortion clinic buffer law upheld" by Martin Finucane, Boston Globe Staff 7/10/09
A Massachusetts law that bans protesters from a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinic entrances has been upheld by [the First US Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.]
The law, the court said, "represents a permissible response by the Massachusetts Legislature to what it reasonably perceived as a significant threat to public safety."
But Tim Chandler - legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which helped represent the plaintiffs - said antiabortion advocates "shouldn’t be penalized for expressing their beliefs."
"The government cannot single them out for punishment simply because they want to share their message with people entering the clinic," Chandler said in a statement. "The government simply cannot create censorship zones where the First Amendment does not apply in order to silence a particular viewpoint." He said the fund and its allies were evaluating the "next legal step."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Abortion clinic buffer law upheld" by Martin Finucane, Boston Globe Staff 7/10/09
A Massachusetts law that bans protesters from a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinic entrances has been upheld by [the First US Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.]
The law, the court said, "represents a permissible response by the Massachusetts Legislature to what it reasonably perceived as a significant threat to public safety."
But Tim Chandler - legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which helped represent the plaintiffs - said antiabortion advocates "shouldn’t be penalized for expressing their beliefs."
"The government cannot single them out for punishment simply because they want to share their message with people entering the clinic," Chandler said in a statement. "The government simply cannot create censorship zones where the First Amendment does not apply in order to silence a particular viewpoint." He said the fund and its allies were evaluating the "next legal step."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Abortionist Kills both Mother and Baby, Again -- Small Fine Imposed
Abortion practitioner Alberto Hodari, based in the suburbs of Detroit, Michigan, has been fined $10,000 by a state board in connection with a woman's botched abortion death. One of Hodari's staff did an abortion on Regina Johnson and, afterwards, suffered respiratory and cardiac arrest.
-- From "Abortion Practitioner Alberto Hodari Fined $10,000 For Woman's Abortion Death" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor 7/3/09
Staff at Hodari's abortion center allegedly failed to help her or call for an ambulance and she was deprived of oxygen for an extended time. She died a short time later at Hodari's Womencare clinic in Lathrup Village.
Johnson's death is one of several women to have died over the years under Hodari's care.
At least two other women have also died from failed abortions at Hodari's abortion centers and many more have been injured.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Abortion Practitioner Alberto Hodari Fined $10,000 For Woman's Abortion Death" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor 7/3/09
Staff at Hodari's abortion center allegedly failed to help her or call for an ambulance and she was deprived of oxygen for an extended time. She died a short time later at Hodari's Womencare clinic in Lathrup Village.
Johnson's death is one of several women to have died over the years under Hodari's care.
At least two other women have also died from failed abortions at Hodari's abortion centers and many more have been injured.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Hate Crimes Laws = Blatant Discrimination
The 4th of July attack on a family by a hate-filled mob of nearly fifty teens doesn't qualify as a hate crime because of the race of the victims and perpetrators.
-- From "Akron police investigate teen mob attack on family" by Phil Trexler, Akron Beacon Journal staff writer 7/7/09
Akron police say they aren't ready to call it a hate crime or a gang initiation.
But to Marty Marshall, his wife and two kids, it seems pretty clear.
It came after a family night of celebrating America and freedom with a fireworks show at Firestone Stadium. Marshall, his family and two friends were gathered outside a friend's home in South Akron.
Out of nowhere, the six were attacked by dozens of teenage boys, who shouted "This is our world" and "This is a black world" as they confronted Marshall and his family.
The Marshalls, who are white, say the crowd of teens who attacked them and two friends June 27 on Girard Street numbered close to 50. The teens were all black.
"This was almost like being a terrorist act," Marshall said. "And we allow this to go on in our neighborhoods?"
Marshall was the most seriously injured. He suffered a concussion and multiple bruises to his head and eye. He said he spent five nights in the critical care unit at Akron General Medical Center.
The construction worker said he now fears for his family's safety, and the thousands of dollars in medical bills he faces without insurance.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Akron police investigate teen mob attack on family" by Phil Trexler, Akron Beacon Journal staff writer 7/7/09
Akron police say they aren't ready to call it a hate crime or a gang initiation.
But to Marty Marshall, his wife and two kids, it seems pretty clear.
It came after a family night of celebrating America and freedom with a fireworks show at Firestone Stadium. Marshall, his family and two friends were gathered outside a friend's home in South Akron.
Out of nowhere, the six were attacked by dozens of teenage boys, who shouted "This is our world" and "This is a black world" as they confronted Marshall and his family.
The Marshalls, who are white, say the crowd of teens who attacked them and two friends June 27 on Girard Street numbered close to 50. The teens were all black.
"This was almost like being a terrorist act," Marshall said. "And we allow this to go on in our neighborhoods?"
Marshall was the most seriously injured. He suffered a concussion and multiple bruises to his head and eye. He said he spent five nights in the critical care unit at Akron General Medical Center.
The construction worker said he now fears for his family's safety, and the thousands of dollars in medical bills he faces without insurance.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Ginsburg: Feminizing From the Bench
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in rare, bazaar interview, demonstrates disconnect with most all Americans -- explains her assumption that Margaret Sanger eugenics was basis of Roe v. Wade
UPDATE 7/10/09: Justice Ginsburg: I Thought Roe Would Help Eradicate Unwanted Populations
Be sure to read the entire interview; below are just a few excerpts . . .
-- From "The Place of Women on the Court" by Emily Bazelon, New York Times Magazine 7/12/09 edition
Q: Let me ask you about the fight you waged for the courts to understand that pregnancy discrimination is a form of sex discrimination.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: I wrote about it a number of times. I litigated Captain Struck’s case about reproductive choice. [In 1972, Ginsburg represented Capt. Susan Struck, who became pregnant during her service in the Air Force. At the time, the Air Force automatically discharged any woman who became pregnant and told Captain Struck that she should have an abortion if she wanted to keep her job. The government changed the regulation before the Supreme Court could decide the case.] If the court could have seen Susan Struck’s case — this was the U.S. government, a U.S. Air Force post, offering abortions, in 1971, two years before Roe.
Q: And suggesting an abortion as the solution to Struck’s problem.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes. Not only that, but it was available to her on the base.
Q: The case ties together themes of women’s equality and reproductive freedom. The court split those themes apart in Roe v. Wade. Do you see, as part of a future feminist legal wish list, repositioning Roe so that the right to abortion is rooted in the constitutional promise of sex equality?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Oh, yes. I think it will be.
Q: If you were a lawyer again, what would you want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don’t know why this hasn’t been said more often.
Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.
Q: When you say that reproductive rights need to be straightened out, what do you mean?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman.
Q: Does that mean getting rid of the test the court imposed, in which it allows states to impose restrictions on abortion — like a waiting period — that are not deemed an “undue burden” to a woman’s reproductive freedom?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: I’m not a big fan of these tests. I think the court uses them as a label that accommodates the result it wants to reach. It will be, it should be, that this is a woman’s decision. It’s entirely appropriate to say it has to be an informed decision, but that doesn’t mean you can keep a woman overnight who has traveled a great distance to get to the clinic, so that she has to go to some motel and think it over for 24 hours or 48 hours.
I still think, although I was much too optimistic in the early days, that the possibility of stopping a pregnancy very early is significant. The morning-after pill will become more accessible and easier to take. So I think the side that wants to take the choice away from women and give it to the state, they’re fighting a losing battle. Time is on the side of change.
Q: Since we are talking about abortion, I want to ask you about Gonzales v. Carhart, the case in which the court upheld a law banning so-called partial-birth abortion. Justice Kennedy in his opinion for the majority characterized women as regretting the choice to have an abortion, and then talked about how they need to be shielded from knowing the specifics of what they’d done. You wrote, “This way of thinking reflects ancient notions about women’s place in the family and under the Constitution.” I wondered if this was an example of the court not quite making the turn to seeing women as fully autonomous.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: The poor little woman, to regret the choice that she made. Unfortunately there is something of that in Roe. It’s not about the women alone. It’s the women in consultation with her doctor. So the view you get is the tall doctor and the little woman who needs him.
Q: In the 1980s, you wrote about how while the sphere for women has widened to include more work, men haven’t taken on as much domestic responsibility. Do you think that things are beginning to change?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: That’s going to take time, changing that kind of culture. But looking at my own family, my daughter Jane teaches at Columbia, she travels all over the world, and she has the most outstanding supportive husband who certainly carries his fair share of the load. Although their division of labor is different than mine and my husband’s, because my daughter is a super cook.
Q: Can courts play a role in changing that culture?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: The Legislature can make the change, can facilitate the change, as laws like the Family Medical Leave Act do. But it’s not something a court can decree. A court can’t tell the man, You’ve got to do more than carry out the garbage.
UPDATE 7/10/09: Justice Ginsburg: I Thought Roe Would Help Eradicate Unwanted Populations
Be sure to read the entire interview; below are just a few excerpts . . .
-- From "The Place of Women on the Court" by Emily Bazelon, New York Times Magazine 7/12/09 edition
Q: Let me ask you about the fight you waged for the courts to understand that pregnancy discrimination is a form of sex discrimination.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: I wrote about it a number of times. I litigated Captain Struck’s case about reproductive choice. [In 1972, Ginsburg represented Capt. Susan Struck, who became pregnant during her service in the Air Force. At the time, the Air Force automatically discharged any woman who became pregnant and told Captain Struck that she should have an abortion if she wanted to keep her job. The government changed the regulation before the Supreme Court could decide the case.] If the court could have seen Susan Struck’s case — this was the U.S. government, a U.S. Air Force post, offering abortions, in 1971, two years before Roe.
Q: And suggesting an abortion as the solution to Struck’s problem.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes. Not only that, but it was available to her on the base.
Q: The case ties together themes of women’s equality and reproductive freedom. The court split those themes apart in Roe v. Wade. Do you see, as part of a future feminist legal wish list, repositioning Roe so that the right to abortion is rooted in the constitutional promise of sex equality?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Oh, yes. I think it will be.
Q: If you were a lawyer again, what would you want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don’t know why this hasn’t been said more often.
Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.
Q: When you say that reproductive rights need to be straightened out, what do you mean?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman.
Q: Does that mean getting rid of the test the court imposed, in which it allows states to impose restrictions on abortion — like a waiting period — that are not deemed an “undue burden” to a woman’s reproductive freedom?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: I’m not a big fan of these tests. I think the court uses them as a label that accommodates the result it wants to reach. It will be, it should be, that this is a woman’s decision. It’s entirely appropriate to say it has to be an informed decision, but that doesn’t mean you can keep a woman overnight who has traveled a great distance to get to the clinic, so that she has to go to some motel and think it over for 24 hours or 48 hours.
I still think, although I was much too optimistic in the early days, that the possibility of stopping a pregnancy very early is significant. The morning-after pill will become more accessible and easier to take. So I think the side that wants to take the choice away from women and give it to the state, they’re fighting a losing battle. Time is on the side of change.
Q: Since we are talking about abortion, I want to ask you about Gonzales v. Carhart, the case in which the court upheld a law banning so-called partial-birth abortion. Justice Kennedy in his opinion for the majority characterized women as regretting the choice to have an abortion, and then talked about how they need to be shielded from knowing the specifics of what they’d done. You wrote, “This way of thinking reflects ancient notions about women’s place in the family and under the Constitution.” I wondered if this was an example of the court not quite making the turn to seeing women as fully autonomous.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: The poor little woman, to regret the choice that she made. Unfortunately there is something of that in Roe. It’s not about the women alone. It’s the women in consultation with her doctor. So the view you get is the tall doctor and the little woman who needs him.
Q: In the 1980s, you wrote about how while the sphere for women has widened to include more work, men haven’t taken on as much domestic responsibility. Do you think that things are beginning to change?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: That’s going to take time, changing that kind of culture. But looking at my own family, my daughter Jane teaches at Columbia, she travels all over the world, and she has the most outstanding supportive husband who certainly carries his fair share of the load. Although their division of labor is different than mine and my husband’s, because my daughter is a super cook.
Q: Can courts play a role in changing that culture?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: The Legislature can make the change, can facilitate the change, as laws like the Family Medical Leave Act do. But it’s not something a court can decree. A court can’t tell the man, You’ve got to do more than carry out the garbage.
Massachusetts Sues to Force Nationwide Same-sex 'Marriage'
The federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is under attack from all sides, including the 9th Circuit Court, as well as President Obama, who vows to repeal DOMA, and now this from Massachusetts.
UPDATE 5/2/10: Federal judge in Boston will hear arguments this week
UPDATE 2/19/10: Mass. A.G. Martha Coakley files for ruling DOMA unconstitutional without trial
UPDATE 9/18/09: Obama Justice Dept. "defends" DOMA, while saying Obama opposes DOMA
-- From "Mass. is 1st to fight US marriage law" by Nandini Jayakrishna and Jonathan Saltzman, Boston Globe Correspondent 7/9/09
Massachusetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage, yesterday became the first to challenge the constitutionality of a federal law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, contending that Congress intruded into a matter that should be left to states.
The suit filed by state Attorney General Martha Coakley says the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 violates the US Constitution by interfering with the state’s right to define the marital status of residents. The suit also says the law forces the state to discriminate against same-sex married couples - on certain health benefits and burial rights - or risk losing federal funding.
[Separately,] On March 3, six same-sex couples and three men whose husbands died brought a claim that said the federal law barred them from getting more than 1,000 marriage-related benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy. The benefits include health insurance for spouses of federal employees and tax deductions for couples who jointly file federal income tax returns.
Charles Miller, a spokesman for the Justice Department, which defends the government in litigation, issued a two-sentence statement yesterday saying President Obama "supports legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. We will review this case."
Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire allow or will soon permit same-sex marriages. The unions are scheduled to become legal in Maine, as well, in September, but that could be put on hold if opponents gather enough signatures to force a statewide vote.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 5/2/10: Federal judge in Boston will hear arguments this week
UPDATE 2/19/10: Mass. A.G. Martha Coakley files for ruling DOMA unconstitutional without trial
UPDATE 9/18/09: Obama Justice Dept. "defends" DOMA, while saying Obama opposes DOMA
-- From "Mass. is 1st to fight US marriage law" by Nandini Jayakrishna and Jonathan Saltzman, Boston Globe Correspondent 7/9/09
Massachusetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage, yesterday became the first to challenge the constitutionality of a federal law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, contending that Congress intruded into a matter that should be left to states.
The suit filed by state Attorney General Martha Coakley says the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 violates the US Constitution by interfering with the state’s right to define the marital status of residents. The suit also says the law forces the state to discriminate against same-sex married couples - on certain health benefits and burial rights - or risk losing federal funding.
[Separately,] On March 3, six same-sex couples and three men whose husbands died brought a claim that said the federal law barred them from getting more than 1,000 marriage-related benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy. The benefits include health insurance for spouses of federal employees and tax deductions for couples who jointly file federal income tax returns.
Charles Miller, a spokesman for the Justice Department, which defends the government in litigation, issued a two-sentence statement yesterday saying President Obama "supports legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. We will review this case."
Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire allow or will soon permit same-sex marriages. The unions are scheduled to become legal in Maine, as well, in September, but that could be put on hold if opponents gather enough signatures to force a statewide vote.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Monday, July 06, 2009
UK Law Forces Homosexuality into All Churches
Religious groups are to be forced to accept homosexual youth workers, secretaries and other staff, even if their faith holds same-sex relationships to be sinful.
And . . .
Homosexual "weddings" should be celebrated in churches, a Government minister has said in defiance of religious teaching.
-- From "Law 'will force churches to employ gay staff'" by Matthew Moore, The London Telegraph 5/21/09
Churches will be banned from turning down gay job applicants on the grounds of their sexuality under new anti-discrimination laws, a Government minister said.
Christian organisations fear that the tightened legislation, which is due to come into force next year, will undermine the integrity of churches and dilute their moral message.
It comes amid growing concern that Christians are being unfairly targeted by discrimination laws, following a number of high-profile cases of courts finding against believers who stand up for their faith.
Religious leaders had hoped to lobby for exemptions to the Equality Bill but Maria Eagle, the deputy equalities minister, has now indicated that it will cover almost all church employees.
Under existing equalities legislation, any roles deemed to be necessary "for the purposes of an organised religion" are excluded from gay rights protection.
But the Equality Bill, which is currently passing through parliament, for the first time defines this as applying only to those who lead the liturgy or spend the majority of the time teaching doctrine - essentially just ministers, bishops and their equivalents in other faiths.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Homosexual 'weddings' should be celebrated in church, says Chris Bryant" by Martin Beckford, Religious Affairs Correspondent, The London Telegraph 7/2/09
Chris Bryant, [a government minister] who once posed in his underpants on a gay dating website, said he wanted clergy to be "much more open" to the idea of treating civil partnership ceremonies like traditional marriages.
However, his suggestion goes directly against the rules of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, which state that only the union of a man and a woman can be celebrated by a priest in church.
It comes as the Government is pushing through an Equality Bill that religious groups fear will force them to give jobs to homosexual youth workers or secretaries, even if their faith maintains that same-sex relationships are sinful.
Mr Bryant, a former deputy leader of the Commons who is now a junior Foreign Office minister, trained as an Anglican priest and served as a curate before becoming the MP for the Rhondda.
He was questioned by the magazine Time Out this week on whether he believed civil partnerships, introduced to England and Wales in 2005, should be scrapped in favour of same-sex marriage.
The minister replied: "All my friends who have entered into a civil partnership refer to it as their 'marriage' or their 'wedding' so the most important issue is that nobody should be discriminated against because of their sexuality.
"I would like to see churches be much more open to the idea of gay relationships or partnerships being celebrated in church."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
And . . .
Homosexual "weddings" should be celebrated in churches, a Government minister has said in defiance of religious teaching.
-- From "Law 'will force churches to employ gay staff'" by Matthew Moore, The London Telegraph 5/21/09
Churches will be banned from turning down gay job applicants on the grounds of their sexuality under new anti-discrimination laws, a Government minister said.
Christian organisations fear that the tightened legislation, which is due to come into force next year, will undermine the integrity of churches and dilute their moral message.
It comes amid growing concern that Christians are being unfairly targeted by discrimination laws, following a number of high-profile cases of courts finding against believers who stand up for their faith.
Religious leaders had hoped to lobby for exemptions to the Equality Bill but Maria Eagle, the deputy equalities minister, has now indicated that it will cover almost all church employees.
Under existing equalities legislation, any roles deemed to be necessary "for the purposes of an organised religion" are excluded from gay rights protection.
But the Equality Bill, which is currently passing through parliament, for the first time defines this as applying only to those who lead the liturgy or spend the majority of the time teaching doctrine - essentially just ministers, bishops and their equivalents in other faiths.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Homosexual 'weddings' should be celebrated in church, says Chris Bryant" by Martin Beckford, Religious Affairs Correspondent, The London Telegraph 7/2/09
Chris Bryant, [a government minister] who once posed in his underpants on a gay dating website, said he wanted clergy to be "much more open" to the idea of treating civil partnership ceremonies like traditional marriages.
However, his suggestion goes directly against the rules of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, which state that only the union of a man and a woman can be celebrated by a priest in church.
It comes as the Government is pushing through an Equality Bill that religious groups fear will force them to give jobs to homosexual youth workers or secretaries, even if their faith maintains that same-sex relationships are sinful.
Mr Bryant, a former deputy leader of the Commons who is now a junior Foreign Office minister, trained as an Anglican priest and served as a curate before becoming the MP for the Rhondda.
He was questioned by the magazine Time Out this week on whether he believed civil partnerships, introduced to England and Wales in 2005, should be scrapped in favour of same-sex marriage.
The minister replied: "All my friends who have entered into a civil partnership refer to it as their 'marriage' or their 'wedding' so the most important issue is that nobody should be discriminated against because of their sexuality.
"I would like to see churches be much more open to the idea of gay relationships or partnerships being celebrated in church."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Darwinists Fear Fred Flintstone and Barney & Friends
Children as young as five should be taught about evolution to prevent pupils mistaking Barney the Dinosaur and Fred Flintstone for scientific fact, an academic has claimed.
-- From "Young children 'should be taught evolution so they don't mistake Fred Flintstone for scientific fact'" By Laura Clark, London Daily Mail 7/4/09
The failure to teach primary school children scientific truth [sic] is playing into the hands of advocates of creationism - the belief that God created the world in six days, according to James Williams, lecturer in education at Sussex University.
He warned that creationists go to great lengths to influence primary children with comics, magazines and videos that mix scientific misconceptions with proper science.
'While creationists have a right to publish and voice their views, no matter how far from real science they may be, the science education community must respond by introducing evolution and the reality of how life developed and diversified much earlier in the curriculum to combat the establishment of creationist misconceptions.'
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Also read: Intelligentsia Fear Critique of Darwin in Texas Schools
-- From "Young children 'should be taught evolution so they don't mistake Fred Flintstone for scientific fact'" By Laura Clark, London Daily Mail 7/4/09
The failure to teach primary school children scientific truth [sic] is playing into the hands of advocates of creationism - the belief that God created the world in six days, according to James Williams, lecturer in education at Sussex University.
He warned that creationists go to great lengths to influence primary children with comics, magazines and videos that mix scientific misconceptions with proper science.
'While creationists have a right to publish and voice their views, no matter how far from real science they may be, the science education community must respond by introducing evolution and the reality of how life developed and diversified much earlier in the curriculum to combat the establishment of creationist misconceptions.'
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Also read: Intelligentsia Fear Critique of Darwin in Texas Schools
Obama 'Stimulus' Funds Contraception Distribution Study
The so-called economic stimulus legislation is funding comparative studies on the effectiveness of health care options, which includes strategies of "over-the-counter access to oral contraceptives or other hormonal methods, expanding access to long-acting methods for young women, [and] providing free contraceptive methods at public clinics, pharmacies or other locations."
-- From "Panel Suggests U.S. Medical Priorities" by Barry Meier, New York Times 7/1/09
An influential scientific advisory panel has recommended that federal officials give top priority to comparing the effectiveness of competing medical strategies in areas that include treating prostate cancer, reducing hospital infections and lowering the rate of unwanted pregnancies.
In a highly anticipated report, released Tuesday morning, a panel assembled by the Institute of Medicine released a list of 100 health topics that it said should get high priority as the Obama administration proceeded with a plan to spend $1.1 billion in comparing the effectiveness of competing drugs, medical devices, operations and other treatments for specific health conditions.
Some of the panel’s recommendations also involved social or preventative issues that could generate controversy among industry or interest groups. For example, the panel . . . recommended research to determine the programs most effective in reducing unwanted pregnancies, including the free distribution of contraceptives.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "IOM Panel's Comparative Effectiveness Report Includes Pregnancy Prevention Measures" posted at Medical News Today 7/2/09
Harold Sox, co-chair of the IOM panel that wrote the report and the editor of the Annals of Internal Medicine, said that based on public comments, the panel decided it was important to include pregnancy prevention and other public health issues in its recommendations.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Panel Suggests U.S. Medical Priorities" by Barry Meier, New York Times 7/1/09
An influential scientific advisory panel has recommended that federal officials give top priority to comparing the effectiveness of competing medical strategies in areas that include treating prostate cancer, reducing hospital infections and lowering the rate of unwanted pregnancies.
In a highly anticipated report, released Tuesday morning, a panel assembled by the Institute of Medicine released a list of 100 health topics that it said should get high priority as the Obama administration proceeded with a plan to spend $1.1 billion in comparing the effectiveness of competing drugs, medical devices, operations and other treatments for specific health conditions.
Some of the panel’s recommendations also involved social or preventative issues that could generate controversy among industry or interest groups. For example, the panel . . . recommended research to determine the programs most effective in reducing unwanted pregnancies, including the free distribution of contraceptives.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "IOM Panel's Comparative Effectiveness Report Includes Pregnancy Prevention Measures" posted at Medical News Today 7/2/09
Harold Sox, co-chair of the IOM panel that wrote the report and the editor of the Annals of Internal Medicine, said that based on public comments, the panel decided it was important to include pregnancy prevention and other public health issues in its recommendations.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Friday, July 03, 2009
Calif. Prop 8: Homosexualists Fear Supreme Court Decision
Two high-profile lawyers, one liberal, one conservative, have teamed up to overturn the will of the California voters, and fabricate same-sex 'marriage' as a civil right, but many homosexual advocates believe that the inevitable U.S. Supreme Court decision will not be in their favor.
UPDATE 8/20/09: Judge sets January 11, 2010 date for trial
UPDATE 7/20/09: Why Ted Olson and I are working to overturn California's Proposition 8 - by David Boies
-- From "Judge clarifies purpose at first federal Proposition 8 hearing" by Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times 7/3/09
In the first hearing on a federal challenge to Proposition 8, a judge reminded lawyers Thursday that the constitutionality of the anti-gay marriage measure would be determined by higher courts and that his job was to give them as many facts and findings as possible.
U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, appearing before a packed courtroom, also declined to suspend Proposition 8 before trial, noting that such a move would create too much uncertainty for the state and same-sex couples who would marry.
"This case is only touching down in this court," Walker said. "It will have life after this court, and what happens here in many ways is only a prelude to what is going to happen later.
"Our job at this point," he said, "is to make a record."
Walker's statements Thursday mirrored a tentative ruling he handed down Tuesday. That ruling heartened gay rights activists, who said Walker made it clear he appreciated the gravity of the challenge and their arguments.
Neither side objected to Walker's refusal to issue a preliminary injunction.
Theodore B. Olson, representing two same-sex couples who wish to marry, said he understood Walker's concerns and respected the judge's "wisdom."
Olson repeatedly noted that Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, the state's top law enforcement officer, believes that the November ballot measure violates the U.S. Constitution.
With neither Brown nor Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger defending Proposition 8's constitutionality, Walker permitted backers of the measure to argue on its behalf.
Walker, appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush, is viewed as independent. The next hearing in the case is scheduled Aug. 19.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Federal marriage lawsuit premature, gay groups say" Associated Press 5/27/09
A coalition of gay rights groups said Wednesday that a federal same-sex marriage lawsuit brought by two high-profile lawyers is premature and they'd rather work through state legislatures and voters to win wedding rights.
A day after the California Supreme Court upheld a voter-approved ban on gay marriage, the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and other national organizations issued a statement saying they think the U.S. Supreme Court is not ready to rule in their favor on the issue.
On Tuesday, lawyers Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, who represented opposing sides in the 2000 Bush v. Gore election challenge, announced they had filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of two gay men and two gay women.
Their case argues that California's voter-enacted ban on same-sex marriage, known as Proposition 8, violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and due process.
Olson said he hopes the suit, which seeks a preliminary injunction against the California measure until the case is resolved, will wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
A favorable ruling there would allow gays and lesbians to get married in every state, just as the court's 1967 ruling in a Virginia case outlawed prohibitions on interracial marriage.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Former Bush Solicitor General Ted Olson Files Suit Claiming Same-Sex Marriage is Constitutional Right" by Monica Gabriel, CNSNews.com 6/24/09
Olson and Boies say that Prop. 8 violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and that homosexuals have a constitutional right to marry.
Olson is a member of the Federalist Society, a group of conservative and libertarian attorneys who advocate an “originalist” interpretation of the Constitution. This means that the words of the Constitution should be considered to mean the same thing now that they meant to the people who wrote them.
For an "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution to conclude that the 14th Amendment protects a right to same-sex marriage, it would need to be demonstrated that the people who wrote the 14th Amendment in the late 1860s understood it to mean that.
The lawsuit requests that the court prohibit the enforcement of Prop. 8 and any other related California statutes. It also cites other cases, such as Loving v. Virginia, Romer v. Evans, and Lawrence v. Texas as precedents to support the idea that Prop. 8 is a violation of the rights of homosexual men and women.
Boies and Olson are representing the plaintiffs Kristin Perry, Sandra Stier, Paul Katami, and Jeffrey Zarrillo. Perry and Stier have been in a relationship for nine years and Katami and Zarrillo have been in a relationship for eight years. The plaintiffs are arguing for the right to a state-sanctioned marriage in California.
Olson and Boies were retained by the group American Foundation for Equal Rights, a liberal, pro-homosexual group, to file their lawsuit. In their suit, the lawyers state that the “defendants” – Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and other state officials -- “cannot meet their burden of demonstrating that they have compelling reason for consigning gay and lesbian individuals to the separate-but-inherently-unequal institution of domestic partnership.”
The plaintiffs are in a “committed relationship” and want to express their love for each other “by getting married and obtaining official sanction for their family from the State,” reads the lawsuit. “But Prop. 8 denies them that right in violation of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 8/20/09: Judge sets January 11, 2010 date for trial
UPDATE 7/20/09: Why Ted Olson and I are working to overturn California's Proposition 8 - by David Boies
-- From "Judge clarifies purpose at first federal Proposition 8 hearing" by Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times 7/3/09
In the first hearing on a federal challenge to Proposition 8, a judge reminded lawyers Thursday that the constitutionality of the anti-gay marriage measure would be determined by higher courts and that his job was to give them as many facts and findings as possible.
U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, appearing before a packed courtroom, also declined to suspend Proposition 8 before trial, noting that such a move would create too much uncertainty for the state and same-sex couples who would marry.
"This case is only touching down in this court," Walker said. "It will have life after this court, and what happens here in many ways is only a prelude to what is going to happen later.
"Our job at this point," he said, "is to make a record."
Walker's statements Thursday mirrored a tentative ruling he handed down Tuesday. That ruling heartened gay rights activists, who said Walker made it clear he appreciated the gravity of the challenge and their arguments.
Neither side objected to Walker's refusal to issue a preliminary injunction.
Theodore B. Olson, representing two same-sex couples who wish to marry, said he understood Walker's concerns and respected the judge's "wisdom."
Olson repeatedly noted that Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, the state's top law enforcement officer, believes that the November ballot measure violates the U.S. Constitution.
With neither Brown nor Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger defending Proposition 8's constitutionality, Walker permitted backers of the measure to argue on its behalf.
Walker, appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush, is viewed as independent. The next hearing in the case is scheduled Aug. 19.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Federal marriage lawsuit premature, gay groups say" Associated Press 5/27/09
A coalition of gay rights groups said Wednesday that a federal same-sex marriage lawsuit brought by two high-profile lawyers is premature and they'd rather work through state legislatures and voters to win wedding rights.
A day after the California Supreme Court upheld a voter-approved ban on gay marriage, the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and other national organizations issued a statement saying they think the U.S. Supreme Court is not ready to rule in their favor on the issue.
On Tuesday, lawyers Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, who represented opposing sides in the 2000 Bush v. Gore election challenge, announced they had filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of two gay men and two gay women.
Their case argues that California's voter-enacted ban on same-sex marriage, known as Proposition 8, violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and due process.
Olson said he hopes the suit, which seeks a preliminary injunction against the California measure until the case is resolved, will wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
A favorable ruling there would allow gays and lesbians to get married in every state, just as the court's 1967 ruling in a Virginia case outlawed prohibitions on interracial marriage.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Former Bush Solicitor General Ted Olson Files Suit Claiming Same-Sex Marriage is Constitutional Right" by Monica Gabriel, CNSNews.com 6/24/09
Olson and Boies say that Prop. 8 violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and that homosexuals have a constitutional right to marry.
Olson is a member of the Federalist Society, a group of conservative and libertarian attorneys who advocate an “originalist” interpretation of the Constitution. This means that the words of the Constitution should be considered to mean the same thing now that they meant to the people who wrote them.
For an "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution to conclude that the 14th Amendment protects a right to same-sex marriage, it would need to be demonstrated that the people who wrote the 14th Amendment in the late 1860s understood it to mean that.
The lawsuit requests that the court prohibit the enforcement of Prop. 8 and any other related California statutes. It also cites other cases, such as Loving v. Virginia, Romer v. Evans, and Lawrence v. Texas as precedents to support the idea that Prop. 8 is a violation of the rights of homosexual men and women.
Boies and Olson are representing the plaintiffs Kristin Perry, Sandra Stier, Paul Katami, and Jeffrey Zarrillo. Perry and Stier have been in a relationship for nine years and Katami and Zarrillo have been in a relationship for eight years. The plaintiffs are arguing for the right to a state-sanctioned marriage in California.
Olson and Boies were retained by the group American Foundation for Equal Rights, a liberal, pro-homosexual group, to file their lawsuit. In their suit, the lawyers state that the “defendants” – Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and other state officials -- “cannot meet their burden of demonstrating that they have compelling reason for consigning gay and lesbian individuals to the separate-but-inherently-unequal institution of domestic partnership.”
The plaintiffs are in a “committed relationship” and want to express their love for each other “by getting married and obtaining official sanction for their family from the State,” reads the lawsuit. “But Prop. 8 denies them that right in violation of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Senate to Pass Hate Crimes as Amendment to Defense Bill
In an effort to end Christian witness in America, homosexual advocates in the Senate connive to attach the hate crimes legislation (having already passed in the House as a standalone bill) to troop funding, expected to pass in mid-July.
-- From "Hate crimes measure to ride on defense bill" by Chris Johnson, Washington Blade 7/3/09
David Smith, HRC’s vice president of programs, said in a June 26 statement to the Blade that the Senate would probably pass the bill in this way.
“The [Department of Defense] authorization bill as well as other vehicles have been under consideration since House passage earlier this year,” he said. “Between now and the August recess, DOD appears to be the most likely candidate for hate crimes.”
A senior Senate Democratic aide confirmed that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid intended to pass hate crimes legislation as an amendment to the fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill.
[In contrast,] A standalone bill submitted to the Senate floor would be vulnerable to dangerous amendments, such as a measure that would ban same-sex marriage in D.C., the he said. [Read about, and view last week's Senate hearings on the bill by clicking here.]
Smith said a vote on the defense bill is tentatively scheduled in the Senate by mid July, but added that “as with any Senate scheduled bill, that could change.”
Upon hearing of the Senate’s plan, gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said he’s “disappointed” the Senate settled on this method of passage. But he added “we could still be all right” because the House passed its version of the defense bill with a bigger margin than he expected.
The Senate aide noted that Reid had pledged to pass hate crime legislation by August recess and said the defense bill is the only option as a vehicle before that time.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Hate crimes measure to ride on defense bill" by Chris Johnson, Washington Blade 7/3/09
David Smith, HRC’s vice president of programs, said in a June 26 statement to the Blade that the Senate would probably pass the bill in this way.
“The [Department of Defense] authorization bill as well as other vehicles have been under consideration since House passage earlier this year,” he said. “Between now and the August recess, DOD appears to be the most likely candidate for hate crimes.”
A senior Senate Democratic aide confirmed that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid intended to pass hate crimes legislation as an amendment to the fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill.
[In contrast,] A standalone bill submitted to the Senate floor would be vulnerable to dangerous amendments, such as a measure that would ban same-sex marriage in D.C., the he said. [Read about, and view last week's Senate hearings on the bill by clicking here.]
Smith said a vote on the defense bill is tentatively scheduled in the Senate by mid July, but added that “as with any Senate scheduled bill, that could change.”
Upon hearing of the Senate’s plan, gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said he’s “disappointed” the Senate settled on this method of passage. But he added “we could still be all right” because the House passed its version of the defense bill with a bigger margin than he expected.
The Senate aide noted that Reid had pledged to pass hate crime legislation by August recess and said the defense bill is the only option as a vehicle before that time.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Government-run Health Care Rules Against Prayer
The UK government's universal health care system warns a baptist nurse "that she could be disciplined after a patient complained that she had offered to pray for her."
-- From "Doctors and nurses demand right to pray for patients" by Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor, The [UK] Telegraph 6/29/09
Guidance given by the NHS suggests staff could be sanctioned if they offer spiritual help to anyone who does not share their beliefs, according to the sponsors of a motion at the British Medical Association’s (BMA) annual representatives meeting in Liverpool.
The doctors will argue that the rules need clarifying to distinguish between those who try to offer religious support to patients as part of a programme of care and zealots who might target the infirm as potential converts.
The debate, which comes after the case of a nurse, Caroline Petrie, who given a warning earlier this year, will take place on Wednesday.
. . . a Department of Health document warns explicitly that disciplinary action could be taken against health staff discussing prayer with patients.
The NHS guidance says: "Members of some religions ... are expected to preach and to try to convert other people. In a workplace environment, this can cause many problems, as non-religious people and those from other religions or beliefs could feel harassed and intimidated by this behaviour.
"To avoid misunderstandings and complaints on this issue, it should be made clear to everyone from the first day of training and/or employment, and regularly restated, that such behaviour, notwithstanding religious beliefs, could be construed as harassment under the disciplinary and grievance procedures."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Doctors and nurses demand right to pray for patients" by Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor, The [UK] Telegraph 6/29/09
Guidance given by the NHS suggests staff could be sanctioned if they offer spiritual help to anyone who does not share their beliefs, according to the sponsors of a motion at the British Medical Association’s (BMA) annual representatives meeting in Liverpool.
The doctors will argue that the rules need clarifying to distinguish between those who try to offer religious support to patients as part of a programme of care and zealots who might target the infirm as potential converts.
The debate, which comes after the case of a nurse, Caroline Petrie, who given a warning earlier this year, will take place on Wednesday.
. . . a Department of Health document warns explicitly that disciplinary action could be taken against health staff discussing prayer with patients.
The NHS guidance says: "Members of some religions ... are expected to preach and to try to convert other people. In a workplace environment, this can cause many problems, as non-religious people and those from other religions or beliefs could feel harassed and intimidated by this behaviour.
"To avoid misunderstandings and complaints on this issue, it should be made clear to everyone from the first day of training and/or employment, and regularly restated, that such behaviour, notwithstanding religious beliefs, could be construed as harassment under the disciplinary and grievance procedures."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
