A U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention panel has (surprise!) concluded that abstinence is ineffective, but refuses to substantiate the conclusion with facts.
UPDATE 11/26/09: Still waiting for CDC to disclose data
-- From "Findings inconclusive on teaching abstinence" by Rob Stein, Washington Post Staff Writer 11/7/09
Sex-education programs that encourage teens to delay sexual activity and teach them about contraception cut risky sexual behavior, increase condom use and lower the chances of getting the AIDS virus and other infections, a panel of independent experts concluded in a report released Friday.
But there is insufficient evidence to know whether programs that focus on encouraging teens to remain sexually abstinent until marriage are effective, the panel concluded.
The analysis was conducted by a 19-member team of experts assembled by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to examine the politically sensitive question.
The findings come as Congress considers whether to approve President Obama's request to discontinue earmarking funding specifically for abstinence programs and instead allocate funding based on whether scientific research supports the approach.
The findings were welcomed by advocates of programs that reduce teen pregnancy and critics of abstinence programs.
Two members of the CDC team issued a dissenting report disputing the findings. They argued, among other things, that the analysis actually shows that comprehensive sexual-education programs in schools do not significantly increase teen condom use, reduce teen pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases.
"This is an important finding because the school classroom is where most teens receive sex education," said Irene Erickson of the Institute for Research and Evaluation, who issued the dissenting report with Danielle Ruedt of the Georgia Governor's Office of Children and Families. "Furthermore, the data indicated that many types of [comprehensive] programs do not work, even in non-school settings, yet the recommendations do not identify what those are. Unfortunately, the report's conclusion that comprehensive sex-education programs are broadly effective simply ignores these findings. This is misleading to policymakers who are seeking evidence-based programs, especially for schools."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "CDC Task Force Says Sex Ed Better Than Abstinence Ed But Won’t Release Full Data to Public" by Penny Starr, CNSNews Senior Staff Writer, 11/16/09
The 15-member Task Force on Community Preventive Services and four other experts made up the team, which analyzed dozens of studies of sex education programs conducted between 1980 and 2007.
A list of the studies is available on the Community Guide portion of the CDC Web site, but the task force’s analysis of the studies is not.
Lack of access to that analysis, critics say, prevents an open review of data they contend shows that abstinence programs were underrepresented in the studies used and that using comprehensive sex education programs in school settings did not reduce teen pregnancy, STDs, or increase the use of condoms.
“The Task Force has made public its recommendation statements without also making available to the public the full set of study findings upon which the recommendations are based – both supporting and otherwise,” Irene Ericksen, a member of the review team and researcher with the Institute for Research and Evaluation, said about the recommendations.
“This prevents the public from scrutinizing the body of evidence underlying the CDC Task Force Recommendations in the same time frame in which the CDC recommendations will influence the decisions of policymakers and public health professionals,” she said.
Danielle Ruedt, the public health program coordinator for the Georgia governor’s Office of Children and Families and a member of the task force, said that when used in school settings, the data do not support the task force’s sweeping recommendations.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
Sexual Disease Epidemic Means Infertile Generation Imminent
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control report released Monday paints a dismal future as most sexually active teenage girls suffer from one or more disease. President Obama's solution is to terminate abstinence education.
-- From "Sex infections still growing in U.S., says CDC" by Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor, Reuters 11/16/09
"Chlamydia and gonorrhea are stable at unacceptably high levels and syphilis is resurgent after almost being eliminated," said John Douglas, director of the division of sexually transmitted diseases at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
"We have among the highest rates of STDs of any developed country in the world," Douglas added in a telephone interview.
The administration of President Barack Obama has signaled a willingness to move away from so-called abstinence-only sex education approaches promoted by his predecessor, George W. Bush, and conservative state and local governments.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Teen Girls at Higher Risk for STDs: Report" U.S. News & World Report 11/16/09
Teen girls aged 15 to 19 accounted for the largest number (409,531) of the 1.5 million reported chlamydia and gonorrhea cases in the United States in 2008, followed by women aged 20 to 24, according to an annual federal report released Monday.
The researchers also found that black females continue to have a higher rate of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) than any other racial or ethnic group.
Early testing, diagnosis and treatment are essential to prevent long-term health consequences of sexually transmitted diseases. Each year in the United States, untreated STDs lead to complications that cause at least 24,000 women to become infertile, according to the CDC.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Teen Girls' Chlamydia Drives STD Rate Up" by Daniel J. DeNoon, WebMD Health News 11/16/09
Because chlamydia infections usually don't cause symptoms until they result in pelvic inflammatory disease, many cases remain undetected and hence unreported. Sexually active girls and women under age 26 should be screened for chlamydia every year, but only 41.6% of eligible women enrolled in Medicaid or private health plans do so.
Left untreated, some 10% to 20% of chlamydia infections cause pelvic inflammatory disease. That can lead to long-lasting pelvic pain, ectopic pregnancy, and infertility.
Overall, chlamydia rates went up 9.2% from 2007 to 2008, the most recent year for which there is data. Some of the increase is due to increased screening, but the CDC suspects that much of the increase reflects a rising number of new infections.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Sex infections still growing in U.S., says CDC" by Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor, Reuters 11/16/09
"Chlamydia and gonorrhea are stable at unacceptably high levels and syphilis is resurgent after almost being eliminated," said John Douglas, director of the division of sexually transmitted diseases at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
"We have among the highest rates of STDs of any developed country in the world," Douglas added in a telephone interview.
The administration of President Barack Obama has signaled a willingness to move away from so-called abstinence-only sex education approaches promoted by his predecessor, George W. Bush, and conservative state and local governments.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Teen Girls at Higher Risk for STDs: Report" U.S. News & World Report 11/16/09
Teen girls aged 15 to 19 accounted for the largest number (409,531) of the 1.5 million reported chlamydia and gonorrhea cases in the United States in 2008, followed by women aged 20 to 24, according to an annual federal report released Monday.
The researchers also found that black females continue to have a higher rate of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) than any other racial or ethnic group.
Early testing, diagnosis and treatment are essential to prevent long-term health consequences of sexually transmitted diseases. Each year in the United States, untreated STDs lead to complications that cause at least 24,000 women to become infertile, according to the CDC.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Teen Girls' Chlamydia Drives STD Rate Up" by Daniel J. DeNoon, WebMD Health News 11/16/09
Because chlamydia infections usually don't cause symptoms until they result in pelvic inflammatory disease, many cases remain undetected and hence unreported. Sexually active girls and women under age 26 should be screened for chlamydia every year, but only 41.6% of eligible women enrolled in Medicaid or private health plans do so.
Left untreated, some 10% to 20% of chlamydia infections cause pelvic inflammatory disease. That can lead to long-lasting pelvic pain, ectopic pregnancy, and infertility.
Overall, chlamydia rates went up 9.2% from 2007 to 2008, the most recent year for which there is data. Some of the increase is due to increased screening, but the CDC suspects that much of the increase reflects a rising number of new infections.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Episcopal Church Shuns Pro-life Convert but Embraces Homosexual Priest
Texas ECUSA church gives cold shoulder to member who resigned as Planned Parenthood director, now a pro-life activist
Former New Jersey governor, who resigned due to covert homosexual behavior, now to be openly-homosexual ECUSA priest
UPDATE 1/21/11: Abby Johnson leaves her pro-choice Episcopal church
-- From "Forgive Me Father McGreevey, For I Have Sinned" by Emily Feldman, NBC New York 11/16/09
The disgraced ex-governor -- who shocked the nation when he abruptly confessed to a homosexual affair -- is set to graduate from General Theological Seminary's Masters of Divinity Program next spring, and in preparation for priesthood, he's spending his weekends warming up at the pulpit, the New York Post reported.
In 2004 . . . Jim McGreevey, spurned wife at his side, announced he had been concealing his homosexuality, "engaged in adult consensual affair with another man," and intended to resign the Garden State's chief executive.
During his time in office, he identified himself as Roman Catholic, an association he traded in for the Episcopal faith, a more liberal branch of Christianity.
Half-a-decade later, he's spending his Sundays in a white robe, greeting parishioners at Hoboken's Episcopal All Saint's Church and helping with everything from sermons to donation drives.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Former clinic director: Church chilly to my pro-life turn" by Julia Duin, Washington Times 11/13/09
Abby Johnson, the former Planned Parenthood clinic director whose about-face on abortion prompted her to resign her job, says she's gotten flack for her decision from an unexpected quarter: her own church . . . St. Francis Episcopal in nearby College Station, the home of Texas A&M University.
Whereas clergy and parishioners welcomed her as a Planned Parenthood employee, now they are buttonholing her after Sunday services.
"Now that I have taken this stand, some of the people there are not accepting of that," she told The Washington Times. "People have told me they disagree with my choice. One of the things I've been told is that as Episcopalians, we embrace our differences and disagreements. While I agree with that, I am not sure I can go to a place where I don't feel I am welcome."
The rector at St. Francis refused to comment on the charge of nonacceptance.
"I was raised Southern Baptist but didn't find the Southern Baptist community was very accepting of my work at Planned Parenthood," she said.
She and her husband, who grew up Lutheran, dropped out of church until two years ago, when they began attending St. Francis, a 25-year-old church that achieved parish status in February.
The U.S. Episcopal Church has one of the most liberal stances on abortion of any mainline Protestant denomination and is a member of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC), which supports legalized abortion.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Former New Jersey governor, who resigned due to covert homosexual behavior, now to be openly-homosexual ECUSA priest
UPDATE 1/21/11: Abby Johnson leaves her pro-choice Episcopal church
-- From "Forgive Me Father McGreevey, For I Have Sinned" by Emily Feldman, NBC New York 11/16/09
The disgraced ex-governor -- who shocked the nation when he abruptly confessed to a homosexual affair -- is set to graduate from General Theological Seminary's Masters of Divinity Program next spring, and in preparation for priesthood, he's spending his weekends warming up at the pulpit, the New York Post reported.
In 2004 . . . Jim McGreevey, spurned wife at his side, announced he had been concealing his homosexuality, "engaged in adult consensual affair with another man," and intended to resign the Garden State's chief executive.
During his time in office, he identified himself as Roman Catholic, an association he traded in for the Episcopal faith, a more liberal branch of Christianity.
Half-a-decade later, he's spending his Sundays in a white robe, greeting parishioners at Hoboken's Episcopal All Saint's Church and helping with everything from sermons to donation drives.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Former clinic director: Church chilly to my pro-life turn" by Julia Duin, Washington Times 11/13/09
Abby Johnson, the former Planned Parenthood clinic director whose about-face on abortion prompted her to resign her job, says she's gotten flack for her decision from an unexpected quarter: her own church . . . St. Francis Episcopal in nearby College Station, the home of Texas A&M University.
Whereas clergy and parishioners welcomed her as a Planned Parenthood employee, now they are buttonholing her after Sunday services.
"Now that I have taken this stand, some of the people there are not accepting of that," she told The Washington Times. "People have told me they disagree with my choice. One of the things I've been told is that as Episcopalians, we embrace our differences and disagreements. While I agree with that, I am not sure I can go to a place where I don't feel I am welcome."
The rector at St. Francis refused to comment on the charge of nonacceptance.
"I was raised Southern Baptist but didn't find the Southern Baptist community was very accepting of my work at Planned Parenthood," she said.
She and her husband, who grew up Lutheran, dropped out of church until two years ago, when they began attending St. Francis, a 25-year-old church that achieved parish status in February.
The U.S. Episcopal Church has one of the most liberal stances on abortion of any mainline Protestant denomination and is a member of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC), which supports legalized abortion.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Senate Pushes Anti-christian Judge Confirmation
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., announced his plans to move forward as early as Monday with a confirmation vote on the pro-abortion appeals court nominee who ruled against praying "in Jesus' name" on the floor of the Indiana Legislature.
-- From "Conservatives Oppose Judicial Nominee" by Kate Phillips, New York Times 11/12/09
Conservative groups have been rallying their troops to urge senators to oppose the nomination of Judge David F. Hamilton of Indiana to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
As recently as Thursday morning, Senator Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, labeled Judge Hamilton as too liberal during a speech before the Federalist Society. Advocates and supporters of Judge Hamilton have also jumped into the fray.
The moves afoot followed a decision by the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, to file a procedural motion on Tuesday night that will likely force a vote early next week that will require the support of 60 members to push the nomination forward.
The two Hamilton decisions most often cited by critics are one that struck down the use of Christian prayer by Indiana state lawmakers, and another that struck down a segment of a state law requiring informed consent and a waiting period for women seeking abortions.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Reid speeds confirmation of anti-Jesus, pro-abortion judge" by Chelsea Schilling © 2009 WorldNetDaily 11/12/09
Republicans have attempted to block a vote on Hamilton's nomination. Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., called for a filibuster in April and May. Sessions recently sent a letter to several Republican legislators in opposition to Hamilton, warning that in more than a few instances, he "has used his position as a district court judge to drive a political agenda."
Sessions said Hamilton declared in a 2003 speech that a judge's primary job is "write footnotes in the Constitution" and said he believes "empathy" should sway a judge's decisions.
"This view evidences an activist judicial philosophy," Sessions warned. "Judges are not given the power to amend the Constitution or write footnotes to it."
Also, in 2003, Hamilton struck down an Indiana informed consent law requiring women to receive information about risks and alternatives to abortion in the presence of a physician or nurse 18 hours before the procedure. Hamilton said the provision imposed an "undue burden" on women. His ruling was later dismissed by a panel of the 7th Circuit after appeal.
"In reversing, the 7th Circuit noted that Judge Hamilton had abused his judicial discretion," Sessions wrote.
Hamilton made yet another controversial ruling in the 2005 case Hinrichs v. Bosma. He ruled that the speaker of Indiana's House of Representatives could not allow "sectarian" prayers as part of its official proceedings. He said prayers that use "Christ's name or title" are sectarian, but he ruled in a post-judgment motion that it's not sectarian for a Muslim imam to offer a prayer to "Allah."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Conservatives Oppose Judicial Nominee" by Kate Phillips, New York Times 11/12/09
Conservative groups have been rallying their troops to urge senators to oppose the nomination of Judge David F. Hamilton of Indiana to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
As recently as Thursday morning, Senator Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, labeled Judge Hamilton as too liberal during a speech before the Federalist Society. Advocates and supporters of Judge Hamilton have also jumped into the fray.
The moves afoot followed a decision by the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, to file a procedural motion on Tuesday night that will likely force a vote early next week that will require the support of 60 members to push the nomination forward.
The two Hamilton decisions most often cited by critics are one that struck down the use of Christian prayer by Indiana state lawmakers, and another that struck down a segment of a state law requiring informed consent and a waiting period for women seeking abortions.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Reid speeds confirmation of anti-Jesus, pro-abortion judge" by Chelsea Schilling © 2009 WorldNetDaily 11/12/09
Republicans have attempted to block a vote on Hamilton's nomination. Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., called for a filibuster in April and May. Sessions recently sent a letter to several Republican legislators in opposition to Hamilton, warning that in more than a few instances, he "has used his position as a district court judge to drive a political agenda."
Sessions said Hamilton declared in a 2003 speech that a judge's primary job is "write footnotes in the Constitution" and said he believes "empathy" should sway a judge's decisions.
"This view evidences an activist judicial philosophy," Sessions warned. "Judges are not given the power to amend the Constitution or write footnotes to it."
Also, in 2003, Hamilton struck down an Indiana informed consent law requiring women to receive information about risks and alternatives to abortion in the presence of a physician or nurse 18 hours before the procedure. Hamilton said the provision imposed an "undue burden" on women. His ruling was later dismissed by a panel of the 7th Circuit after appeal.
"In reversing, the 7th Circuit noted that Judge Hamilton had abused his judicial discretion," Sessions wrote.
Hamilton made yet another controversial ruling in the 2005 case Hinrichs v. Bosma. He ruled that the speaker of Indiana's House of Representatives could not allow "sectarian" prayers as part of its official proceedings. He said prayers that use "Christ's name or title" are sectarian, but he ruled in a post-judgment motion that it's not sectarian for a Muslim imam to offer a prayer to "Allah."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Washington Post: Porn is Everywhere
Oh, how American society has changed! Such a writing as this would be unimaginable not many years ago -- it used to be that "consuming" porn was relegated to creepy, back alley shops.
-- From "Publicly, a whole new lewdness" by Monica Hesse, Washington Post Staff Writer 11/12/09
. . . the increasing popularity of laptops and handheld devices, and the prevalence of wireless Internet access, means there's a greater chance of becoming a bystander to a complete stranger's viewing proclivities. Like being exposed to the cigarette smoke of a nicotine addict on the street, people are inhaling secondhand smut.
Last fall, some airlines announced they would work on filtering in-flight Internet access to prevent the surfing of inappropriate content (dirty DVDs brought on by passengers, however, would be nearly impossible to filter). But this secondhand smut can also happen on the ground. On buses. In gyms. In movie theaters.
Perhaps this is the real problem: the increasingly blurred boundary between public and private. If we are so accustomed to burying our noses in tiny screens, carrying our entertainment in and out of the house, perhaps people are simply getting confused as to where they are.
Those afflicted with secondhand porn say it's not that they oppose adult entertainment. The trouble was knowing that they couldn't escape it, not until the plane landed or the Metro doors opened.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Publicly, a whole new lewdness" by Monica Hesse, Washington Post Staff Writer 11/12/09
. . . the increasing popularity of laptops and handheld devices, and the prevalence of wireless Internet access, means there's a greater chance of becoming a bystander to a complete stranger's viewing proclivities. Like being exposed to the cigarette smoke of a nicotine addict on the street, people are inhaling secondhand smut.
Last fall, some airlines announced they would work on filtering in-flight Internet access to prevent the surfing of inappropriate content (dirty DVDs brought on by passengers, however, would be nearly impossible to filter). But this secondhand smut can also happen on the ground. On buses. In gyms. In movie theaters.
Perhaps this is the real problem: the increasingly blurred boundary between public and private. If we are so accustomed to burying our noses in tiny screens, carrying our entertainment in and out of the house, perhaps people are simply getting confused as to where they are.
Those afflicted with secondhand porn say it's not that they oppose adult entertainment. The trouble was knowing that they couldn't escape it, not until the plane landed or the Metro doors opened.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Bishop Tobin Preaches Catholicism to Kennedy
Representative Patrick J. Kennedy of Rhode Island was to meet Thursday with Thomas J. Tobin, the Roman Catholic bishop of Providence, and perhaps start healing a bitter rift over whether health care legislation now before Congress should restrict abortion coverage.
-- From "Patrick Kennedy clashes with outspoken RI bishop" by Ray Henry, Associated Press 11/12/09
Their feud over a proposal expanding the nation's health insurance system has escalated to the point where Tobin has publicly questioned Kennedy's faith and membership in the church and said he should not receive communion, the central sacrament in Catholic worship.
Patrick Kennedy is among several Catholic politicians to clash with their bishops over abortion, which the church considers a paramount moral evil not open for negotiation. Fewer than 20 of the roughly 200 bishops overseeing U.S. dioceses have threatened to deny communion to Catholic politicians who support abortion, [said the Rev. Thomas Reese, a church observer and senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University.]
"I don't think you'll find widespread support among Catholics for this," he said. [Oh really? Check out these statements.]
Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kan., has said that U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, a Catholic Democrat who supports abortion rights, should stop taking communion until she changes her stance.
Former Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis has said he would withhold communion from politicians who support abortion, such as former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Republican who also ran afoul of the church because he is divorced.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Verbally, bishop isn’t turning cheek" by Noah Bierman, Boston Globe Staff 11/12/09
The bishop from America’s most Catholic state, and increasingly one of the church’s most provocative prelates, has provided a rather concise explanation for his willingness to clash with politicians: Christians are not supposed to be nice, at least not all the time.
"In confronting moral evil, Jesus wasn’t nice, kind, gentle, and sweet," Thomas J. Tobin, the bishop of Providence, wrote in his diocesan newspaper column earlier this year. "He lived in a rough and tumble world and He took His message to the streets."
Tobin has followed his interpretation of Jesus’ demeanor most devoutly, and he is quickly positioning himself at the national forefront of a renewed debate over the role of Catholic orthodoxy in the public square, most recently in a very personal feud with Representative Patrick Kennedy. As the abortion issue has taken on prominence in the national health care debate, Tobin has insisted Catholics get involved in the rough world of politics - even if it means tangling with prochoice Catholic legislators. And he has led by example.
Tobin wrote [to Patrick Kennedy], "Your position is unacceptable to the church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the church."
Earlier, Kennedy had questioned why church leaders would oppose the opportunity to insure millions of poor Americans because the bill could possibly provide coverage for abortions.
"You mean to tell me the Catholic Church is going to be denying those people life-saving health care?" Kennedy told the Catholic News Service last month. A health care bill was passed by the US House of Representatives over the weekend, with a controversial amendment restricting federal funding for abortion - considered a major victory for the nation’s Catholic bishops and other abortion opponents. Kennedy voted against the amendment but supported the final bill.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Rep. Kennedy and Bishop in Bitter Rift on Abortion" by Abby Goodnough, New York Times 11/12/09
. . . Bishop Tobin stepped up his public rebuke of Mr. Kennedy, accusing him Wednesday of “false advertising” for describing himself as a Catholic and saying he should not receive holy communion because he supports using taxpayer money for abortions.
“If you freely choose to be a Catholic, it means you believe certain things, you do certain things,” Bishop Tobin said on WPRO, a Providence radio station. “If you cannot do all that in conscience, then you should perhaps feel free to go somewhere else.”
“It’s not too late for you to repair your relationship with the Church,” he wrote, “redeem your public image, and emerge as an authentic ‘profile in courage,’ especially by defending the sanctity of human life for all people, including unborn children.”
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has lobbied forcefully against including federal financing for abortion in the health care legislation, and Bishop Tobin, who has led the Catholic Church in Rhode Island since 2005, has been a vocal participant.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Patrick Kennedy clashes with outspoken RI bishop" by Ray Henry, Associated Press 11/12/09
Their feud over a proposal expanding the nation's health insurance system has escalated to the point where Tobin has publicly questioned Kennedy's faith and membership in the church and said he should not receive communion, the central sacrament in Catholic worship.
Patrick Kennedy is among several Catholic politicians to clash with their bishops over abortion, which the church considers a paramount moral evil not open for negotiation. Fewer than 20 of the roughly 200 bishops overseeing U.S. dioceses have threatened to deny communion to Catholic politicians who support abortion, [said the Rev. Thomas Reese, a church observer and senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University.]
"I don't think you'll find widespread support among Catholics for this," he said. [Oh really? Check out these statements.]
Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kan., has said that U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, a Catholic Democrat who supports abortion rights, should stop taking communion until she changes her stance.
Former Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis has said he would withhold communion from politicians who support abortion, such as former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Republican who also ran afoul of the church because he is divorced.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Verbally, bishop isn’t turning cheek" by Noah Bierman, Boston Globe Staff 11/12/09
The bishop from America’s most Catholic state, and increasingly one of the church’s most provocative prelates, has provided a rather concise explanation for his willingness to clash with politicians: Christians are not supposed to be nice, at least not all the time.
"In confronting moral evil, Jesus wasn’t nice, kind, gentle, and sweet," Thomas J. Tobin, the bishop of Providence, wrote in his diocesan newspaper column earlier this year. "He lived in a rough and tumble world and He took His message to the streets."
Tobin has followed his interpretation of Jesus’ demeanor most devoutly, and he is quickly positioning himself at the national forefront of a renewed debate over the role of Catholic orthodoxy in the public square, most recently in a very personal feud with Representative Patrick Kennedy. As the abortion issue has taken on prominence in the national health care debate, Tobin has insisted Catholics get involved in the rough world of politics - even if it means tangling with prochoice Catholic legislators. And he has led by example.
Tobin wrote [to Patrick Kennedy], "Your position is unacceptable to the church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the church."
Earlier, Kennedy had questioned why church leaders would oppose the opportunity to insure millions of poor Americans because the bill could possibly provide coverage for abortions.
"You mean to tell me the Catholic Church is going to be denying those people life-saving health care?" Kennedy told the Catholic News Service last month. A health care bill was passed by the US House of Representatives over the weekend, with a controversial amendment restricting federal funding for abortion - considered a major victory for the nation’s Catholic bishops and other abortion opponents. Kennedy voted against the amendment but supported the final bill.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Rep. Kennedy and Bishop in Bitter Rift on Abortion" by Abby Goodnough, New York Times 11/12/09
. . . Bishop Tobin stepped up his public rebuke of Mr. Kennedy, accusing him Wednesday of “false advertising” for describing himself as a Catholic and saying he should not receive holy communion because he supports using taxpayer money for abortions.
“If you freely choose to be a Catholic, it means you believe certain things, you do certain things,” Bishop Tobin said on WPRO, a Providence radio station. “If you cannot do all that in conscience, then you should perhaps feel free to go somewhere else.”
“It’s not too late for you to repair your relationship with the Church,” he wrote, “redeem your public image, and emerge as an authentic ‘profile in courage,’ especially by defending the sanctity of human life for all people, including unborn children.”
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has lobbied forcefully against including federal financing for abortion in the health care legislation, and Bishop Tobin, who has led the Catholic Church in Rhode Island since 2005, has been a vocal participant.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Pro-marriage Maine Churches Targeted by Homosexualists
Christian churches in Maine whose leaders encouraged support for a referendum that repealed a law allowing same-sex marriage are being targeted in an intimidation campaign urging homosexuals to file complaints against them with the Internal Revenue Service.
-- From "Churches targeted by 'gay' intimidation campaign" by Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily 11/12/09
A "Maine Marriage Equality" website that lobbied for the same-sex marriage measure is asking its followers to file the complaints.
The homosexual activists are telling supporters IRS policy allows the withdrawal of church-status recognition if "a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying)."
The campaign was launched after a decision by Maine voters, by a 53 percent to 47 percent margin, to restore the definition of marriage to only one man and one woman. State lawmakers had expanded it to include same-sex duos, but voters made Maine the 31st state out of 31 to limit marriage to one man and one woman.
Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, said pastors and churches have a right to discuss biblical truths from the pulpit without fear of being punished for their religious beliefs.
"This is an all-too-obvious attempt to use the IRS to intimidate pastors and churches as a means of punishment and to get them to be quiet," said Stanley. "We encourage the churches of Maine not to be intimidated and to contact us if they are contacted by the IRS."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Churches targeted by 'gay' intimidation campaign" by Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily 11/12/09
A "Maine Marriage Equality" website that lobbied for the same-sex marriage measure is asking its followers to file the complaints.
The homosexual activists are telling supporters IRS policy allows the withdrawal of church-status recognition if "a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying)."
The campaign was launched after a decision by Maine voters, by a 53 percent to 47 percent margin, to restore the definition of marriage to only one man and one woman. State lawmakers had expanded it to include same-sex duos, but voters made Maine the 31st state out of 31 to limit marriage to one man and one woman.
Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, said pastors and churches have a right to discuss biblical truths from the pulpit without fear of being punished for their religious beliefs.
"This is an all-too-obvious attempt to use the IRS to intimidate pastors and churches as a means of punishment and to get them to be quiet," said Stanley. "We encourage the churches of Maine not to be intimidated and to contact us if they are contacted by the IRS."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Abortionists Declare War on America
Abortion-rights advocates are calling in the cavalry to help fight off an anti-abortion provision House Democratic leaders swallowed in order to win passage of their health care reform bill.
UPDATE 11/15/09: White House assures abortionists Obama is on their side
UPDATE 11/14/09: FAQ on Abortion Amendment, from the Washington Post
-- From "Abortion activists call for backup" by Jonathan Allen, Politico 11/11/09
Laurie Rubiner, vice president of policy for the Planned Parenthood Federation, said the tight restriction on public funding for abortions “has completely galvanized the reproductive health community and the women’s community.”
On Tuesday, Planned Parenthood summoned 80 progressive groups to plot strategy for keeping the anti-abortion amendment — named for sponsors Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and Joseph Pitts (R-Pa.) — out of a final health care bill.
If that doesn’t work, Plan B is to rely on progressives in the House to vote against a bill containing the language. Forty-one House Democrats threatened to do just that in a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), according to a report by Washington Post blogger Greg Sargent.
But the first battlefield is in the Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has yet to unveil his chamber’s version of the health care bill. It’s still not entirely clear whether Reid, who has a mixed record on abortion and a tough reelection bid next year, will include the Stupak/Pitts provision or if abortion foes will have to try to amend it in. Either way, there is likely to be a vote on the issue on the Senate floor, forcing socially conservative Democrats to pick sides.
They are already starting to get pressure from a coalition of abortion-rights advocates and their allies in the progressive movement.
The Planned Parenthood meeting included representatives of influential liberal organizations like the Service Employees International Union, MoveOn.org, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Human Rights Campaign and the Center for American Progress, according to a list provided to POLITICO.
NARAL Pro-Choice America plans to “patch through” calls from activists in 17 states to their senators’ offices next week to lobby against the Stupak/Pitts anti-abortion amendment in the Senate version of a health care overhaul. The group’s online petition to Reid collected 30,000 signatures in less than 24 hours, and an e-mail campaign from the group’s grass roots to lawmakers is due to start soon, according to an official.
NOW chapter leaders are making appointments with individual senators. In the meantime, 53 activists showed up to picket Senate offices in the Dirksen Building earlier this week, according to NOW President Terry O’Neill.
With so much on the line, the abortion-rights activists recognize that they have to mobilize quickly and forcefully to counteract Pelosi’s decision to give the anti-abortion lawmakers what they wanted in exchange for their accession to passing the bill.
Leaders of abortion-rights groups met with high-ranking White House officials to discuss the health care bill on Wednesday.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 11/15/09: White House assures abortionists Obama is on their side
UPDATE 11/14/09: FAQ on Abortion Amendment, from the Washington Post
-- From "Abortion activists call for backup" by Jonathan Allen, Politico 11/11/09
Laurie Rubiner, vice president of policy for the Planned Parenthood Federation, said the tight restriction on public funding for abortions “has completely galvanized the reproductive health community and the women’s community.”
On Tuesday, Planned Parenthood summoned 80 progressive groups to plot strategy for keeping the anti-abortion amendment — named for sponsors Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and Joseph Pitts (R-Pa.) — out of a final health care bill.
If that doesn’t work, Plan B is to rely on progressives in the House to vote against a bill containing the language. Forty-one House Democrats threatened to do just that in a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), according to a report by Washington Post blogger Greg Sargent.
But the first battlefield is in the Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has yet to unveil his chamber’s version of the health care bill. It’s still not entirely clear whether Reid, who has a mixed record on abortion and a tough reelection bid next year, will include the Stupak/Pitts provision or if abortion foes will have to try to amend it in. Either way, there is likely to be a vote on the issue on the Senate floor, forcing socially conservative Democrats to pick sides.
They are already starting to get pressure from a coalition of abortion-rights advocates and their allies in the progressive movement.
The Planned Parenthood meeting included representatives of influential liberal organizations like the Service Employees International Union, MoveOn.org, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Human Rights Campaign and the Center for American Progress, according to a list provided to POLITICO.
NARAL Pro-Choice America plans to “patch through” calls from activists in 17 states to their senators’ offices next week to lobby against the Stupak/Pitts anti-abortion amendment in the Senate version of a health care overhaul. The group’s online petition to Reid collected 30,000 signatures in less than 24 hours, and an e-mail campaign from the group’s grass roots to lawmakers is due to start soon, according to an official.
NOW chapter leaders are making appointments with individual senators. In the meantime, 53 activists showed up to picket Senate offices in the Dirksen Building earlier this week, according to NOW President Terry O’Neill.
With so much on the line, the abortion-rights activists recognize that they have to mobilize quickly and forcefully to counteract Pelosi’s decision to give the anti-abortion lawmakers what they wanted in exchange for their accession to passing the bill.
Leaders of abortion-rights groups met with high-ranking White House officials to discuss the health care bill on Wednesday.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Mormon Church Supports New Homosexual Rights for Salt Lake
The Mormon church for the first time has announced its support of gay rights legislation, an endorsement that helped gain unanimous approval for Salt Lake city laws banning discrimination against gays in housing and employment.
-- From "Salt Lake OKs gay rights laws with Mormon backing" by Jennifer Dobner, Associated Press 11/11/09
The Utah-based church's support ahead of Tuesday night's vote came despite its steadfast opposition to gay marriage, reflected in the high-profile role it played last year in California's Proposition 8 ballot measure that barred such unions.
"The church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage," Michael Otterson, the director of public affairs for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said.
Passage made Salt Lake City the first Utah community to prohibit bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Under the two new ordinances, it is illegal to fire someone from their job or evict someone from their residence because they are lesbian, bisexual, gay or transgender.
. . . the church has pointed out an inherent dispute it has with the gay lifestyle. Mormonism considers traditional marriages central to God's plan. Gays are welcome in church, but must remain celibate to retain church callings and full membership.
. . . addressing the council on Tuesday, Otterson said the endorsement is not a shift in the church's position on gay rights and stressed it "remains unequivocally committed to defending the bedrock foundation of marriage between a man and a woman."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Salt Lake OKs gay rights laws with Mormon backing" by Jennifer Dobner, Associated Press 11/11/09
The Utah-based church's support ahead of Tuesday night's vote came despite its steadfast opposition to gay marriage, reflected in the high-profile role it played last year in California's Proposition 8 ballot measure that barred such unions.
"The church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage," Michael Otterson, the director of public affairs for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said.
Passage made Salt Lake City the first Utah community to prohibit bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Under the two new ordinances, it is illegal to fire someone from their job or evict someone from their residence because they are lesbian, bisexual, gay or transgender.
. . . the church has pointed out an inherent dispute it has with the gay lifestyle. Mormonism considers traditional marriages central to God's plan. Gays are welcome in church, but must remain celibate to retain church callings and full membership.
. . . addressing the council on Tuesday, Otterson said the endorsement is not a shift in the church's position on gay rights and stressed it "remains unequivocally committed to defending the bedrock foundation of marriage between a man and a woman."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Homosexualists Issue Death Threats to Christians
Angry after Maine voters upheld marriage, homosexualists target pro-family leaders -- ironically, just days after President Obama signed 'hate crimes' legislation.
"It seems the more the gay movement achieves, the more hostile the activists become toward religious people. They know the religious and moral people are the last impediment to their full agenda."
-- From "Threat made against gay marriage opponent in Maine" by Associated Press 11/9/09
Augusta police say the voicemail threat targeted Michael Heath, former leader of the Christian Civic League of Maine and its successor, the Maine Family Policy Council. The person who left the voicemail said, "I can tell him this. I’m a gay guy who owns guns, and he’s my next target." [CLICK HERE to hear the voice mail audio.]
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "'Gay' blogger calls church-bomb threat a 'joke'" by Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily 11/9/09
A homosexual blogger passed off as a "joke" a suggestion by a contributor to his website that there might be church bombings because of Christians' refusal to support the homosexual lifestyle.
But several individuals named in the column are taking the threat seriously.
"That is what Fort Hood teaches us," said Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, referring to the attack on the Texas Army base by a Muslim officer that killed 13 people and wounded 28.
LaBarbera was cited by name in the postings on the "joemygod" website run by homosexual advocate Joe Jervis.
LaBarbera and Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel, who also is an active supporter of biblical marriage, confirmed to WND they notified authorities of the threats.
To read the entire article, with numerous threats from homosexualist blogs, CLICK HERE.
"It seems the more the gay movement achieves, the more hostile the activists become toward religious people. They know the religious and moral people are the last impediment to their full agenda."
-- From "Threat made against gay marriage opponent in Maine" by Associated Press 11/9/09
Augusta police say the voicemail threat targeted Michael Heath, former leader of the Christian Civic League of Maine and its successor, the Maine Family Policy Council. The person who left the voicemail said, "I can tell him this. I’m a gay guy who owns guns, and he’s my next target." [CLICK HERE to hear the voice mail audio.]
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "'Gay' blogger calls church-bomb threat a 'joke'" by Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily 11/9/09
A homosexual blogger passed off as a "joke" a suggestion by a contributor to his website that there might be church bombings because of Christians' refusal to support the homosexual lifestyle.
But several individuals named in the column are taking the threat seriously.
"That is what Fort Hood teaches us," said Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, referring to the attack on the Texas Army base by a Muslim officer that killed 13 people and wounded 28.
LaBarbera was cited by name in the postings on the "joemygod" website run by homosexual advocate Joe Jervis.
LaBarbera and Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel, who also is an active supporter of biblical marriage, confirmed to WND they notified authorities of the threats.
To read the entire article, with numerous threats from homosexualist blogs, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Abortionists Harangue IL Senate Candidate Mark Kirk
The Republican-in-name-only candidate for the former U.S. Senate seat of Barack Obama, whose House voting record is virtually 100% liberal on social issues, has been the darling of the pro-abortion crowd, but now is masquerading as a conservative.
UPDATE 11/12/09: Kirk insists he's not a social conservative -- doesn't know Sarah Palin
-- From "Abortion rights group, Senate candidate Kirk spar on vote" by Rick Pearson, Chicago Tribune 11/10/09
A leading abortion rights group delivered a rebuke to Republican U.S. Senate contender Mark Kirk today for supporting an amendment to the House-passed health care reform legislation that would prevent taxpayer-backed insurance policies issued under the plan from providing abortion coverage.
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said it no longer regards the five-term North Shore congressman “as a moderate, fair-minded supporter of women’s privacy and rights” and that the organization “no longer considers Kirk pro-choice” on abortion.
In response, Kirk’s campaign contended the congressman continues to support abortion rights — except for the use of federal funds to pay for the procedure. His camp also said NARAL had distorted Kirk’s record in his first campaign for congress when the group backed his Democratic opponent.
Kirk has come under fire in recent weeks for moves in which he has moved toward the right in trying to secure the votes of core GOP conservatives for the Feb. 2 U.S. Senate primary. Though several Republicans are in the primary field, conservative opposition has not coalesced around an alternative candidate.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
You can research Mark Kirk's voting record here.
UPDATE 11/12/09: Kirk insists he's not a social conservative -- doesn't know Sarah Palin
-- From "Abortion rights group, Senate candidate Kirk spar on vote" by Rick Pearson, Chicago Tribune 11/10/09
A leading abortion rights group delivered a rebuke to Republican U.S. Senate contender Mark Kirk today for supporting an amendment to the House-passed health care reform legislation that would prevent taxpayer-backed insurance policies issued under the plan from providing abortion coverage.
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said it no longer regards the five-term North Shore congressman “as a moderate, fair-minded supporter of women’s privacy and rights” and that the organization “no longer considers Kirk pro-choice” on abortion.
In response, Kirk’s campaign contended the congressman continues to support abortion rights — except for the use of federal funds to pay for the procedure. His camp also said NARAL had distorted Kirk’s record in his first campaign for congress when the group backed his Democratic opponent.
Kirk has come under fire in recent weeks for moves in which he has moved toward the right in trying to secure the votes of core GOP conservatives for the Feb. 2 U.S. Senate primary. Though several Republicans are in the primary field, conservative opposition has not coalesced around an alternative candidate.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
You can research Mark Kirk's voting record here.
Poll Finds Californians Had Enough Same-sex 'Marriage' Voting
A small majority of California voters supports the right of gay couples to marry, but a much larger portion of voters opposes efforts to place the issue back on the ballot next year, a new Los Angeles Times/USC poll has found.
-- From "Voters oppose putting gay marriage back on the ballot, Times/USC poll finds" by Cathleen Decker, Los Angeles Times 11/6/09
Views on same-sex marriage were sharply polarized based on political party, with 66% of Democrats thinking it should be legal and 71% of Republicans in opposition. Nonpartisan voters were less enthusiastic than Democrats but still backed it, 59%-34%.
Overall, 51% of California voters favored marriage rights for same-sex couples and 43% were opposed. Strikingly, however, almost 60% of Californians did not want to revisit the issue in 2010, just one election cycle after it last hit the ballot.
In November of 2008, Californians voted 52% to 48% to limit marriage rights to one man and one woman.
Among those ages 18-29, 71% said they supported same-sex marriage; among those 65 and older, only 37% favored it. Younger voters were also one of the few groups who backed putting it on the 2010 ballot, which will be dominated by the races for governor and U.S. Senate.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Voters oppose putting gay marriage back on the ballot, Times/USC poll finds" by Cathleen Decker, Los Angeles Times 11/6/09
Views on same-sex marriage were sharply polarized based on political party, with 66% of Democrats thinking it should be legal and 71% of Republicans in opposition. Nonpartisan voters were less enthusiastic than Democrats but still backed it, 59%-34%.
Overall, 51% of California voters favored marriage rights for same-sex couples and 43% were opposed. Strikingly, however, almost 60% of Californians did not want to revisit the issue in 2010, just one election cycle after it last hit the ballot.
In November of 2008, Californians voted 52% to 48% to limit marriage rights to one man and one woman.
Among those ages 18-29, 71% said they supported same-sex marriage; among those 65 and older, only 37% favored it. Younger voters were also one of the few groups who backed putting it on the 2010 ballot, which will be dominated by the races for governor and U.S. Senate.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Monday, November 09, 2009
Homosexualists Declare War on Obama, DNC
Obama's vocal dedication to the Gay Agenda is simply not enough for the strident homosexualists who helped get him elected. Obama's homosexual celebration at the 'Hate Crimes' law signing two weeks ago has been dismissed, as they blame Obama for the same-sex 'marriage' defeat in Maine.
Not even the Senate hearings on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) a few days ago satisfies the homosexualist's zealousness.
UPDATE 11/10/09: According to The Hill, liberal boycott against Obama catching on
-- From "The War Within: DNC Gets Boycotted Over Gay Rights" by Chris Good, The Atlantic 11/9/09
John Aravosis and Joe Subday of AMERICAblog, two bloggers who frequently cover gay rights issues, have announced that they and a handful of other gay activists and liberal bloggers are organizing a boycott of the Democratic National Committee and Organizing for America (what has become of Obama's campaign apparatus, now led by the DNC) until President Obama puts his political weight behind moving their key issues through Congress--namely, repeals of "don't ask, don't tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act, and passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
The boycott's "cosponsors," as Aravosis and Subday put it, are Daily Kos, Dan Savage, Michelangelo Signorile, Paul Sousa, Pam Spaulding, Robin Tyler, Bil Browning, and Jane Hamsher.
The boycott is a financial one: they're calling on supporters to refuse to donate to the DNC and OFA.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Not even the Senate hearings on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) a few days ago satisfies the homosexualist's zealousness.
UPDATE 11/10/09: According to The Hill, liberal boycott against Obama catching on
-- From "The War Within: DNC Gets Boycotted Over Gay Rights" by Chris Good, The Atlantic 11/9/09
John Aravosis and Joe Subday of AMERICAblog, two bloggers who frequently cover gay rights issues, have announced that they and a handful of other gay activists and liberal bloggers are organizing a boycott of the Democratic National Committee and Organizing for America (what has become of Obama's campaign apparatus, now led by the DNC) until President Obama puts his political weight behind moving their key issues through Congress--namely, repeals of "don't ask, don't tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act, and passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
The boycott's "cosponsors," as Aravosis and Subday put it, are Daily Kos, Dan Savage, Michelangelo Signorile, Paul Sousa, Pam Spaulding, Robin Tyler, Bil Browning, and Jane Hamsher.
The boycott is a financial one: they're calling on supporters to refuse to donate to the DNC and OFA.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Democrat Schism Assures Defeat of Health Care Legislation
For months, scores of pro-life Democrats have vowed to scuttle the entire health care bill if it pays for abortion. Now that they succeeded Saturday by inserting pro-life language into the bill that passed the House, scores of pro-abortion Democrats have vowed to scuttle the entire health care bill if it does NOT fund expanded abortion.
UPDATE 11/26/09: Pro-life Democrat Senators support House abortion funding restrictions
UPDATE 11/10/09: Liberals demonize Catholic Church and swear vengeance against pro-life Democrats
UPDATE 11/10/09: Dem congresswoman criticizes Catholic Church and calls for IRS to reconsider tax-exempt status
-- From "Abortion an obstacle to health-care bill" by Alec MacGillis, Washington Post Staff Writer 11/9/09
President Obama and Senate Democrats sought on Sunday to generate momentum from the House's passage of health-care legislation, even as a new hurdle emerged: profound dismay among abortion-rights supporters over antiabortion provisions inserted into the House bill.
Obama left the abortion issue unmentioned Sunday when he appeared in the White House Rose Garden to give brief remarks congratulating the House on its "courageous" passage of the bill.
The House passed its version of health-care legislation Saturday night by a vote of 220 to 215 after the approval of an amendment that would sharply restrict the availability of coverage for abortions, which many insurance plans now offer. The amendment goes beyond long-standing prohibitions against public funding for abortions, limiting abortion coverage even for women paying for it without government subsidies.
The abortion issue had been rumbling within the House Democratic caucus for weeks, but Saturday's votes revealed the depths of the fault lines. The amendment passed with the support of 64 Democrats, roughly a quarter of the party caucus.
But abortion-rights supporters are vowing to strip the amendment out, as the focus turns to the Senate and the conference committee that would resolve differences between the two bills.
Although House liberals voted for the bill with the amendment to keep the process moving forward, Rep. Diana DeGette (Colo.) said she has collected more than 40 signatures from House Democrats vowing to oppose any final bill that includes the amendment -- enough to block passage.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Tears, tempers fly in Pelosi campaign" by Patrick O'Connor and John Bresnahan, Politico 11/8/09
One by one, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had leaned on her rank-and-file Democrats for months to cast off personal prerogatives for the sake of a history-making health care bill.
But for Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, this was too much to ask.
So when Pelosi announced late Friday that she would allow an amendment strictly limiting insurance coverage of abortions, it touched off an angry yelling match between DeLauro and another Pelosi confidant, California Rep. George Miller, and tears from some veteran female lawmakers, according to people in the room.
Some of the lawmakers argued that Pelosi was turning her back on a decades-long campaign by female Democratic members in support of abortion rights. Miller rose to Pelosi’s defense, which resulted in an angry confrontation between him and DeLauro, said the sources.
Miller told DeLauro that there were “more pro-life votes in the House than pro-choice” and that abortion-rights advocates had better acknowledge that reality.
In the end, Pelosi’s strategy paid off in a big win for her and President Barack Obama. After Rep. Bart Stupak’s (D-Mich.) amendment banning abortion funding was approved with 64 Democratic votes, Pelosi was able to push through the health care reform package on a virtually straight-line party vote, 220-215.
Pelosi wasn’t the only one getting pressure on the amendment. As rumors spread that Republicans might vote “present” in order to scuttle the entire bill, even Cardinal Francis George, archbishop of Chicago and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, called Republican leader John Boehner to make sure the GOP didn’t play any games with the Stupak amendment, sources said.
But the speaker’s decision — like so many others she made during the drafting of this bill — showed Pelosi, a Roman Catholic and committed supporter of reproductive rights, to be more ruthlessly practical than her frequent caricature as an activist, upper-crust liberal from San Francisco would suggest.
It wasn’t just that she was disappointing some members over a last-minute change they disagreed with. She had to take on her closest and senior-most lieutenants on an issue that for many of them is like an article of faith, a defining tenet of what makes them a Democrat. And when she needed the votes, that’s what she did.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 11/26/09: Pro-life Democrat Senators support House abortion funding restrictions
UPDATE 11/10/09: Liberals demonize Catholic Church and swear vengeance against pro-life Democrats
UPDATE 11/10/09: Dem congresswoman criticizes Catholic Church and calls for IRS to reconsider tax-exempt status
-- From "Abortion an obstacle to health-care bill" by Alec MacGillis, Washington Post Staff Writer 11/9/09
President Obama and Senate Democrats sought on Sunday to generate momentum from the House's passage of health-care legislation, even as a new hurdle emerged: profound dismay among abortion-rights supporters over antiabortion provisions inserted into the House bill.
Obama left the abortion issue unmentioned Sunday when he appeared in the White House Rose Garden to give brief remarks congratulating the House on its "courageous" passage of the bill.
The House passed its version of health-care legislation Saturday night by a vote of 220 to 215 after the approval of an amendment that would sharply restrict the availability of coverage for abortions, which many insurance plans now offer. The amendment goes beyond long-standing prohibitions against public funding for abortions, limiting abortion coverage even for women paying for it without government subsidies.
The abortion issue had been rumbling within the House Democratic caucus for weeks, but Saturday's votes revealed the depths of the fault lines. The amendment passed with the support of 64 Democrats, roughly a quarter of the party caucus.
But abortion-rights supporters are vowing to strip the amendment out, as the focus turns to the Senate and the conference committee that would resolve differences between the two bills.
Although House liberals voted for the bill with the amendment to keep the process moving forward, Rep. Diana DeGette (Colo.) said she has collected more than 40 signatures from House Democrats vowing to oppose any final bill that includes the amendment -- enough to block passage.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Tears, tempers fly in Pelosi campaign" by Patrick O'Connor and John Bresnahan, Politico 11/8/09
One by one, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had leaned on her rank-and-file Democrats for months to cast off personal prerogatives for the sake of a history-making health care bill.
But for Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, this was too much to ask.
So when Pelosi announced late Friday that she would allow an amendment strictly limiting insurance coverage of abortions, it touched off an angry yelling match between DeLauro and another Pelosi confidant, California Rep. George Miller, and tears from some veteran female lawmakers, according to people in the room.
Some of the lawmakers argued that Pelosi was turning her back on a decades-long campaign by female Democratic members in support of abortion rights. Miller rose to Pelosi’s defense, which resulted in an angry confrontation between him and DeLauro, said the sources.
Miller told DeLauro that there were “more pro-life votes in the House than pro-choice” and that abortion-rights advocates had better acknowledge that reality.
In the end, Pelosi’s strategy paid off in a big win for her and President Barack Obama. After Rep. Bart Stupak’s (D-Mich.) amendment banning abortion funding was approved with 64 Democratic votes, Pelosi was able to push through the health care reform package on a virtually straight-line party vote, 220-215.
Pelosi wasn’t the only one getting pressure on the amendment. As rumors spread that Republicans might vote “present” in order to scuttle the entire bill, even Cardinal Francis George, archbishop of Chicago and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, called Republican leader John Boehner to make sure the GOP didn’t play any games with the Stupak amendment, sources said.
But the speaker’s decision — like so many others she made during the drafting of this bill — showed Pelosi, a Roman Catholic and committed supporter of reproductive rights, to be more ruthlessly practical than her frequent caricature as an activist, upper-crust liberal from San Francisco would suggest.
It wasn’t just that she was disappointing some members over a last-minute change they disagreed with. She had to take on her closest and senior-most lieutenants on an issue that for many of them is like an article of faith, a defining tenet of what makes them a Democrat. And when she needed the votes, that’s what she did.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Gay Agenda: Cross Dressing at School
In recent years, a growing number of teenagers have been dressing to articulate — or confound — gender identity and sexual orientation. Certainly they have been confounding school officials, whose responses have ranged from indifference to applause to bans.
-- From "Can a Boy Wear a Skirt to School?" by Jan Hoffman, New York Times 11/8/09
. . . schools are more accepting of unconventional gender expression. In September, a freshman girl at Rincon High School in Tucson who identifies as male was nominated for homecoming prince. Last May, a gay male student at a Los Angeles high school was crowned prom queen.
. . . when officials want to discipline a student whose wardrobe expresses sexual orientation or gender variance, they must consider antidiscrimination policies, mental health factors, community standards and classroom distractions.
. . . educators and psychologists say that more schools will have to address them in the near future. There are 4,118 gay-straight alliance clubs in high schools across the country, which raise awareness of such issues. Gender-boundary questions are even bubbling up in elementary schools, with parents seeking to pave the way for their children, in blogs like acceptingdad.com and labelsareforjars.wordpress.com.
At minimum, more students are trying on their curiosity for size. Typically during “Mix ’n’ Match Day,” at Ramapo High School in Spring Valley, N.Y., students might wear polka dots with stripes, said Diane Schneider, a teacher who is a chairwoman of the Hudson Valley chapter of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. But this year, she said, “about 50 kids came as cross-dressers.”
Jeff Grace, faculty adviser for a gay-straight alliance club at high school in Columbus, Ohio, said he has seen student perceptions change over the last decade.
One student, Mr. Grace recounted, born male and named Jack, has long, straight hair and prefers to be referred to with a female pronoun. Jack is careful not to violate the dress code. She favors tops that are tapered but not revealing, flats, lip gloss.
“One day I heard a student say, ‘Man, there was a girl in the guy’s restroom, standing up using the urinal! What’s up with that?’ ” Mr. Grace recalled.
Bathrooms can be dangerous for transgender students. But the other student replied off-handedly, “That wasn’t a girl. That’s just Jack.”
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Can a Boy Wear a Skirt to School?" by Jan Hoffman, New York Times 11/8/09
. . . schools are more accepting of unconventional gender expression. In September, a freshman girl at Rincon High School in Tucson who identifies as male was nominated for homecoming prince. Last May, a gay male student at a Los Angeles high school was crowned prom queen.
. . . when officials want to discipline a student whose wardrobe expresses sexual orientation or gender variance, they must consider antidiscrimination policies, mental health factors, community standards and classroom distractions.
. . . educators and psychologists say that more schools will have to address them in the near future. There are 4,118 gay-straight alliance clubs in high schools across the country, which raise awareness of such issues. Gender-boundary questions are even bubbling up in elementary schools, with parents seeking to pave the way for their children, in blogs like acceptingdad.com and labelsareforjars.wordpress.com.
At minimum, more students are trying on their curiosity for size. Typically during “Mix ’n’ Match Day,” at Ramapo High School in Spring Valley, N.Y., students might wear polka dots with stripes, said Diane Schneider, a teacher who is a chairwoman of the Hudson Valley chapter of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. But this year, she said, “about 50 kids came as cross-dressers.”
Jeff Grace, faculty adviser for a gay-straight alliance club at high school in Columbus, Ohio, said he has seen student perceptions change over the last decade.
One student, Mr. Grace recounted, born male and named Jack, has long, straight hair and prefers to be referred to with a female pronoun. Jack is careful not to violate the dress code. She favors tops that are tapered but not revealing, flats, lip gloss.
“One day I heard a student say, ‘Man, there was a girl in the guy’s restroom, standing up using the urinal! What’s up with that?’ ” Mr. Grace recalled.
Bathrooms can be dangerous for transgender students. But the other student replied off-handedly, “That wasn’t a girl. That’s just Jack.”
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, November 08, 2009
Pro-life Democrats Force Abortion Restrictions on Pelosi
Representative Bart Stupak, Democrat of Michigan, with the Catholic bishops held firm, and were joined by Republicans to include an amendment in the House health care bill forbidding federal money to pay for abortions.
Abortion advocates are furious.
UPDATE 11/8/09: Conservatives suspect Pelosi holding back-room deal for Senate-House negotiations
-- From "Abortion Was at Heart of Wrangling" by David M. Herszenhorn and Jackie Calmes, New York Times 11/8/09
It was late Friday night and lawmakers were stalling for time. In a committee room, they yammered away, delaying a procedural vote on the historic health care legislation. Down one floor, in her office, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi desperately tried to deal with an issue that has bedeviled Democrats for more than a generation — abortion.
After hours of heated talks, the people she was trying to convince — some of her closest allies — burst angrily out of her office.
Her attempts at winning them over had failed, and Ms. Pelosi, the first woman speaker and an ardent defender of abortion rights, had no choice but to do the unthinkable. To save the health care bill she had to give in to abortion opponents in her party and allow them to propose tight restrictions barring any insurance plan that is purchased with government subsidies from covering abortions.
The restrictions were necessary to win support for the overall bill from abortion opponents who threatened to scuttle the health care overhaul.
The results of that fight, waged heavily over two days, were evident as one liberal Democrat after another denounced the health care plan because of abortion restrictions, even though they were likely to hold their noses in the end and vote for the bill itself.
On Friday, Ms. Pelosi met twice with Democratic lawmakers from the Pro-Choice Caucus. In between, she huddled with staff members from the bishops conference, Mr. Stupak and two other leading Roman Catholic lawmakers, Representative Mike Doyle, Democrat of Pennsylvania, and Representative Brad Ellsworth, Democrat of Indiana.
The representatives of the nation’s bishops made clear they would fight the bill if there were not restrictions on abortion. In an extraordinary effort over the last 10 days, the bishops conference told priests across the country to talk about the legislation in church, mobilizing parishioners to contact Congress and to pray for the success of anti-abortion amendments.
The bishops sent out information to be “announced at all Masses” and included in parish bulletins, and urged priests and parishioners to tell House members: “Please support the Stupak Amendment that addresses essential pro-life concerns.” They added: “If these serious concerns are not addressed, the final bill should be opposed.”
In the end the abortion opponents had the votes, and Ms. Pelosi yielded, allowing Mr. Stupak to offer his amendment. At a news conference, Ms. Pelosi denied being angry about it.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "In Pelosi's House, 64 Democrats Sell Women Out" by Taylor Marsh, Political analyst, commentator, with foreign policy focus; The Huffington Post 11/8/09
The first female Speaker of the House makes history by passing a health care bill that not only doesn't have a robust public option, but also sells out women's civil rights. The Republicans acted reprehensibly today, heckling women lawmakers like the chamber was a frat house.
. . . But let's be honest. It was Pres. Obama who opened the door to sell us out when he decided to put the Hyde Amendment in the budget, something Bill Clinton never did. But Mr. Obama didn't stop there. During the stimulus fight, at the first sign of displeasure, our President personally asked that contraceptives be taken out. Now the President seems ready to finish the job, with Democrats in the House helping him do it.
This means that any woman opting to join the [health care insurance] exchanges would not have access to full women's health care and abortion coverage.
There is no health care bill worth supporting that sells out women's civil rights.
Right now every woman who values her civil rights should understand how the gay community feels. Democrats just sold us out too.
Progressives in the House should have killed the bill.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Abortion advocates are furious.
UPDATE 11/8/09: Conservatives suspect Pelosi holding back-room deal for Senate-House negotiations
-- From "Abortion Was at Heart of Wrangling" by David M. Herszenhorn and Jackie Calmes, New York Times 11/8/09
It was late Friday night and lawmakers were stalling for time. In a committee room, they yammered away, delaying a procedural vote on the historic health care legislation. Down one floor, in her office, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi desperately tried to deal with an issue that has bedeviled Democrats for more than a generation — abortion.
After hours of heated talks, the people she was trying to convince — some of her closest allies — burst angrily out of her office.
Her attempts at winning them over had failed, and Ms. Pelosi, the first woman speaker and an ardent defender of abortion rights, had no choice but to do the unthinkable. To save the health care bill she had to give in to abortion opponents in her party and allow them to propose tight restrictions barring any insurance plan that is purchased with government subsidies from covering abortions.
The restrictions were necessary to win support for the overall bill from abortion opponents who threatened to scuttle the health care overhaul.
The results of that fight, waged heavily over two days, were evident as one liberal Democrat after another denounced the health care plan because of abortion restrictions, even though they were likely to hold their noses in the end and vote for the bill itself.
On Friday, Ms. Pelosi met twice with Democratic lawmakers from the Pro-Choice Caucus. In between, she huddled with staff members from the bishops conference, Mr. Stupak and two other leading Roman Catholic lawmakers, Representative Mike Doyle, Democrat of Pennsylvania, and Representative Brad Ellsworth, Democrat of Indiana.
The representatives of the nation’s bishops made clear they would fight the bill if there were not restrictions on abortion. In an extraordinary effort over the last 10 days, the bishops conference told priests across the country to talk about the legislation in church, mobilizing parishioners to contact Congress and to pray for the success of anti-abortion amendments.
The bishops sent out information to be “announced at all Masses” and included in parish bulletins, and urged priests and parishioners to tell House members: “Please support the Stupak Amendment that addresses essential pro-life concerns.” They added: “If these serious concerns are not addressed, the final bill should be opposed.”
In the end the abortion opponents had the votes, and Ms. Pelosi yielded, allowing Mr. Stupak to offer his amendment. At a news conference, Ms. Pelosi denied being angry about it.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "In Pelosi's House, 64 Democrats Sell Women Out" by Taylor Marsh, Political analyst, commentator, with foreign policy focus; The Huffington Post 11/8/09
The first female Speaker of the House makes history by passing a health care bill that not only doesn't have a robust public option, but also sells out women's civil rights. The Republicans acted reprehensibly today, heckling women lawmakers like the chamber was a frat house.
. . . But let's be honest. It was Pres. Obama who opened the door to sell us out when he decided to put the Hyde Amendment in the budget, something Bill Clinton never did. But Mr. Obama didn't stop there. During the stimulus fight, at the first sign of displeasure, our President personally asked that contraceptives be taken out. Now the President seems ready to finish the job, with Democrats in the House helping him do it.
This means that any woman opting to join the [health care insurance] exchanges would not have access to full women's health care and abortion coverage.
There is no health care bill worth supporting that sells out women's civil rights.
Right now every woman who values her civil rights should understand how the gay community feels. Democrats just sold us out too.
Progressives in the House should have killed the bill.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, November 07, 2009
Homosexualists Plan Attack on New Jersey Next
The battle over gay rights will move to New Jersey and the federal government, advocates said, after Tuesday's narrow rejection of same-sex marriage by Maine voters in a hard-fought contest.
ENDA UPDATE: See final paragraph below for Senate status on Employment Non-Discrimination Act
Click for interactive map documenting status of same-sex 'marriage' in each state.
-- From "Gay-Marriage Fight Heads to New Jersey" by Keith J. Winstein, The Wall Street Journal 11/7/09
The Democrat-controlled legislature in New Jersey, which currently recognizes same-sex couples in civil unions, is under pressure to pass a bill authorizing gay marriage before Gov. Jon Corzine ends his term in mid-January.
Mr. Corzine, a Democrat unseated in Tuesday's election, said he would sign such a bill. His successor, Republican Chris Christie, opposes same-sex marriages.
Gay-marriage advocates have resisted "civil union" licenses, saying the separate term is demeaning and the status isn't honored by many employers.
Some gay-rights advocates said, their priorities have shifted away from the ballot box and toward nonmarital issues.
Thursday, a U.S. Senate committee held a hearing on a bill that would prevent businesses from discriminating against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or "gender-related" mannerisms. Thomas Perez, an assistant attorney general, called the bill, known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, "a top legislative priority for the Obama administration."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
ENDA UPDATE: See final paragraph below for Senate status on Employment Non-Discrimination Act
Click for interactive map documenting status of same-sex 'marriage' in each state.-- From "Gay-Marriage Fight Heads to New Jersey" by Keith J. Winstein, The Wall Street Journal 11/7/09
The Democrat-controlled legislature in New Jersey, which currently recognizes same-sex couples in civil unions, is under pressure to pass a bill authorizing gay marriage before Gov. Jon Corzine ends his term in mid-January.
Mr. Corzine, a Democrat unseated in Tuesday's election, said he would sign such a bill. His successor, Republican Chris Christie, opposes same-sex marriages.
Gay-marriage advocates have resisted "civil union" licenses, saying the separate term is demeaning and the status isn't honored by many employers.
Some gay-rights advocates said, their priorities have shifted away from the ballot box and toward nonmarital issues.
Thursday, a U.S. Senate committee held a hearing on a bill that would prevent businesses from discriminating against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or "gender-related" mannerisms. Thomas Perez, an assistant attorney general, called the bill, known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, "a top legislative priority for the Obama administration."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
American Voters Getting Message - Gay Agenda Targets Children
Now that Maine voters have rejected same-sex marriage, this Associated Press article represents the liberal media recognizing that the pro-family message resonates with Americans. This article of Gay Agenda propaganda claims to refute documented facts of the results of legalizing same-sex marriage, including the U.S. Supreme Court's acceptance of homosexual indoctrination in schools (video documentation included).
See extensive documentation/links refuting this propaganda below.
-- From "Schools emerge as new tactic in gay marriage votes" by Lisa Leff and David Sharp, Associated Press 11/6/09
In one ad after another, voters in California and Maine were besieged with images of what would supposedly happen if same-sex marriage were legal: Students on a field trip to a lesbian wedding, elementary kids gobbling up books featuring gay couples, kindergartners learning about homosexuality from their teachers.
The strategy worked. Overruling the courts and lawmakers, voters defeated gay marriage ballot measures in California last year and in Maine this week after conservatives convinced residents that same-sex unions would become common classroom fodder without any say from parents.
The punch-to-the gut claim has emerged as the latest tool in the ever-evolving playbook of same-sex marriage opponents, and the Achilles' heel of the gay-marriage movement. Voters seem to be swayed by the notion that gay marriage will be a corrupting force among children, even though critics blasted the message as a blatantly misleading case of fear-mongering.
"It was very effective. It's drawing on the fears of the unknown," said Sandy Maisel, director of the Goldfarb Center for Public Affairs and Civic Engagement at Maine's Colby College. "There's no evidence that it's going to happen, but there's very clear evidence that it's an effective campaign tactic."
But the [false, homosexualist's] response did not defuse the hot-button issue, advocates on both sides of the issue observe, in part because they failed to address what many parents knew to be true: Many public schools already have lessons that include references to gay families in the younger grades and confronting anti-gay discrimination for older students. Although the topics usually are broached in the context of appreciating diversity and tolerance, for some parents any discussion of gay people is too close to talking about gay sex.
"The trend that we are seeing is homosexuality is being promoted more and more in schools, and the increase in this is creating a hostile environment for kids with Christian or socially conservative viewpoints," said Candi Cushman, education analyst for the Christian group Focus on the Family.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Click on headlines below; to read complete documentation, follow links embedded within posted articles.
Parents Sue School over Mandatory Homosexual Indoctrination Course
Homosexual Training Videos Infiltrate Schools
Teacher's Union Votes for Same-sex 'Marriage' (and more)
President Obama's "safe schools czar" Founded Nation-wide Homosexual School Clubs
Annual, Nation-wide "Day of Silence" Promotes Homosexuality in Schools
Congress Advancing Homosexuality in Schools
Judge Forces Florida School to Accept Homosexuality
CA Kindergartners Pledge to be Homosexual Advocates
Chicago Elementary School Kids Recruited by Homosexualists for 'Pride Parade'
Gay Agenda: Cross Dressing at School
Maine Ruling: Cross-dressing Male Students Allowed in Girl's Room
Virginia School Bans Books Critical of Homosexuality
Homosexual-only High Schools in New York and coming to Chicago
San Fran. Launches Homosexual School Indoctrination Website
Boston Mayor Promotes Deviant Sex to Children
Children Learn Transsexualism from Their Massachusetts Elementary School Janitor
Chicago Mayor Appoints Homosexual as City School Superintendent
Illinois School Superintendent's Gay Agenda Exposed in Lawsuit
Homosexual Advocates Capture Barely-post-pubescent Students in Wisconsin
ACLU Demands Homosexual Website Access for Tennessee Students
South Carolina School Forced to Accept 'Gay Club'
CA Legislature Mandates Schools to Celebrate Homosexuality
Feds Fund Group Indoctrinating Children on Homosexuality
See extensive documentation/links refuting this propaganda below.
-- From "Schools emerge as new tactic in gay marriage votes" by Lisa Leff and David Sharp, Associated Press 11/6/09
In one ad after another, voters in California and Maine were besieged with images of what would supposedly happen if same-sex marriage were legal: Students on a field trip to a lesbian wedding, elementary kids gobbling up books featuring gay couples, kindergartners learning about homosexuality from their teachers.
The strategy worked. Overruling the courts and lawmakers, voters defeated gay marriage ballot measures in California last year and in Maine this week after conservatives convinced residents that same-sex unions would become common classroom fodder without any say from parents.
The punch-to-the gut claim has emerged as the latest tool in the ever-evolving playbook of same-sex marriage opponents, and the Achilles' heel of the gay-marriage movement. Voters seem to be swayed by the notion that gay marriage will be a corrupting force among children, even though critics blasted the message as a blatantly misleading case of fear-mongering.
"It was very effective. It's drawing on the fears of the unknown," said Sandy Maisel, director of the Goldfarb Center for Public Affairs and Civic Engagement at Maine's Colby College. "There's no evidence that it's going to happen, but there's very clear evidence that it's an effective campaign tactic."
But the [false, homosexualist's] response did not defuse the hot-button issue, advocates on both sides of the issue observe, in part because they failed to address what many parents knew to be true: Many public schools already have lessons that include references to gay families in the younger grades and confronting anti-gay discrimination for older students. Although the topics usually are broached in the context of appreciating diversity and tolerance, for some parents any discussion of gay people is too close to talking about gay sex.
"The trend that we are seeing is homosexuality is being promoted more and more in schools, and the increase in this is creating a hostile environment for kids with Christian or socially conservative viewpoints," said Candi Cushman, education analyst for the Christian group Focus on the Family.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Click on headlines below; to read complete documentation, follow links embedded within posted articles.
Parents Sue School over Mandatory Homosexual Indoctrination Course
Homosexual Training Videos Infiltrate Schools
Teacher's Union Votes for Same-sex 'Marriage' (and more)
President Obama's "safe schools czar" Founded Nation-wide Homosexual School Clubs
Annual, Nation-wide "Day of Silence" Promotes Homosexuality in Schools
Congress Advancing Homosexuality in Schools
Judge Forces Florida School to Accept Homosexuality
CA Kindergartners Pledge to be Homosexual Advocates
Chicago Elementary School Kids Recruited by Homosexualists for 'Pride Parade'
Gay Agenda: Cross Dressing at School
Maine Ruling: Cross-dressing Male Students Allowed in Girl's Room
Virginia School Bans Books Critical of Homosexuality
Homosexual-only High Schools in New York and coming to Chicago
San Fran. Launches Homosexual School Indoctrination Website
Boston Mayor Promotes Deviant Sex to Children
Children Learn Transsexualism from Their Massachusetts Elementary School Janitor
Chicago Mayor Appoints Homosexual as City School Superintendent
Illinois School Superintendent's Gay Agenda Exposed in Lawsuit
Homosexual Advocates Capture Barely-post-pubescent Students in Wisconsin
ACLU Demands Homosexual Website Access for Tennessee Students
South Carolina School Forced to Accept 'Gay Club'
CA Legislature Mandates Schools to Celebrate Homosexuality
Feds Fund Group Indoctrinating Children on Homosexuality
Friday, November 06, 2009
Abortion Health Care: NPR Rips Obama, Pelosi & Co. for Dishonesty
The familiar liberal bias of National Public Radio is abandoned in their posting of this editorial from National Review Online.
-- From "The National Review: No Public Money For Abortion" by The Editors, National Public Radio 11/6/09
What pro-lifers, Democratic and Republican, seek [in the health care bill] is simple and should be noncontroversial: that public money not be used to fund abortions. Abortion is the most controversial subject in American politics, and anything that modifies its status quo needs careful consideration — consideration that is independent of other complex issues, such as health-care reform.
. . . [Democrat Congressman Bart] Stupak's challenge reveals something important: Democrats' repeated assurances that the health-care bill would not fund abortions were dishonest. Factcheck.org, hardly a pro-life mouthpiece, has found President Obama misleading the American public on the subject: "Despite what Obama said," Factcheck writes, "the House bill would allow abortions to be covered by a federal plan and by federally subsidized private plans." If the Democrats had been telling the truth about funding abortions through the health-care bill, then Stupak's proposed amendment would be superfluous, and its inclusion in the legislation unremarkable.
Instead, Speaker Pelosi and other Democratic leaders worry it will pass. They have engaged in backroom maneuvers to block a vote on the amendment and substitute a fig-leaf "fix" of their own. The fake compromise is the Ellsworth amendment, which, relying upon the fiction that funds paid into a federal program are private "insurance premiums," establishes an abortion money-laundering procedure that would do nothing to stop public funds from being used to procure abortions. Studies of the impact of public funding of abortion strongly suggest that the effect of this amendment would be to increase the abortion rate a great deal — and make a mockery of the president's professed commitment to finding common ground with pro-lifers in an effort to reduce that rate.
If President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and other Democratic leaders want to have a national debate about abortion at this moment, we welcome that. But cowering in the legislative murk surrounding health-care reform is underhanded, and ought to be denounced as such by people of good faith, Republican or Democratic, pro-life or pro-choice.
To read the entire editorial, CLICK HERE.
-- From "The National Review: No Public Money For Abortion" by The Editors, National Public Radio 11/6/09
What pro-lifers, Democratic and Republican, seek [in the health care bill] is simple and should be noncontroversial: that public money not be used to fund abortions. Abortion is the most controversial subject in American politics, and anything that modifies its status quo needs careful consideration — consideration that is independent of other complex issues, such as health-care reform.
. . . [Democrat Congressman Bart] Stupak's challenge reveals something important: Democrats' repeated assurances that the health-care bill would not fund abortions were dishonest. Factcheck.org, hardly a pro-life mouthpiece, has found President Obama misleading the American public on the subject: "Despite what Obama said," Factcheck writes, "the House bill would allow abortions to be covered by a federal plan and by federally subsidized private plans." If the Democrats had been telling the truth about funding abortions through the health-care bill, then Stupak's proposed amendment would be superfluous, and its inclusion in the legislation unremarkable.
Instead, Speaker Pelosi and other Democratic leaders worry it will pass. They have engaged in backroom maneuvers to block a vote on the amendment and substitute a fig-leaf "fix" of their own. The fake compromise is the Ellsworth amendment, which, relying upon the fiction that funds paid into a federal program are private "insurance premiums," establishes an abortion money-laundering procedure that would do nothing to stop public funds from being used to procure abortions. Studies of the impact of public funding of abortion strongly suggest that the effect of this amendment would be to increase the abortion rate a great deal — and make a mockery of the president's professed commitment to finding common ground with pro-lifers in an effort to reduce that rate.
If President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and other Democratic leaders want to have a national debate about abortion at this moment, we welcome that. But cowering in the legislative murk surrounding health-care reform is underhanded, and ought to be denounced as such by people of good faith, Republican or Democratic, pro-life or pro-choice.
To read the entire editorial, CLICK HERE.
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Judge Halts Abortion Parental Notification in Illinois, Again
[Cook County Circuit Court] Judge Daniel Riley granted a temporary restraining order sought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois in the late afternoon, hours after Illinois' medical disciplinary board decided the state could begin enforcing the law.
-- From "Abortion law: Court blocks Illinois' parental notification law" by Sara Olkon, Chicago Tribune reporter 11/5/09
The restraining order was based on an October lawsuit filed by a Chicago physician and a Granite City women's medical clinic who believe the 1995 law is unconstitutional and would harm minors by preventing them from obtaining safe abortions or force them to carry their pregnancies to term.
During the hourlong court hearing Wednesday, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Ioppolo argued that the state was well within its right to enforce notification.
Debate has shadowed the notification law for more than 30 years. In July, a federal appeals court in Chicago lifted an injunction on a 1995 version of the law, clearing it for enforcement. In August, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation gave doctors a 90-day grace period before enforcement would begin Tuesday.
Critics of the delay say teens from neighboring states with stricter rules drive to Illinois to avoid talking to their parents about a pregnancy. Iowa requires notification, and with some exceptions, doctors performing abortions in Indiana, Michigan, Missouri and Wisconsin must have parental consent before doing the procedure.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Abortion law: Court blocks Illinois' parental notification law" by Sara Olkon, Chicago Tribune reporter 11/5/09
The restraining order was based on an October lawsuit filed by a Chicago physician and a Granite City women's medical clinic who believe the 1995 law is unconstitutional and would harm minors by preventing them from obtaining safe abortions or force them to carry their pregnancies to term.
During the hourlong court hearing Wednesday, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Ioppolo argued that the state was well within its right to enforce notification.
Debate has shadowed the notification law for more than 30 years. In July, a federal appeals court in Chicago lifted an injunction on a 1995 version of the law, clearing it for enforcement. In August, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation gave doctors a 90-day grace period before enforcement would begin Tuesday.
Critics of the delay say teens from neighboring states with stricter rules drive to Illinois to avoid talking to their parents about a pregnancy. Iowa requires notification, and with some exceptions, doctors performing abortions in Indiana, Michigan, Missouri and Wisconsin must have parental consent before doing the procedure.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Homosexualists Blame Obama for Maine Marriage Vote
Stunned and angry, national gay rights leaders Wednesday blamed scare-mongering ads — and President Barack Obama's lack of engagement — for a bitter election setback in Maine that could alter the dynamics for both sides in the gay-marriage debate.
UPDATE 5/25/12: Churches raise money to defeat referendum to redefine of marriage
UPDATE 8/20/11: Petition drive begins for same-sex "marriage" referendum on 2012 ballot
-- From "Gay leaders blame TV ads, Obama for loss in Maine" by Lisa Leff & David Crary 11/4/09
Gay activists were frustrated that Obama, who insists he staunchly supports their overall civil rights agenda, didn't speak out forcefully in defense of Maine's marriage law before Tuesday's referendum. The law was repealed in a vote of 53 percent to 47 percent.
"President Obama missed an opportunity to state his position against these discriminatory attacks with the clarity and moral imperative that would have helped in this close fight," said Evan Wolfson of the national advocacy group Freedom to Marry. "The anti-gay forces are throwing millions of dollars into various unsubtle ads aimed at scaring people, so subtle statements from the White House are not enough."
Had Maine's law been upheld by voters, it would have become the sixth state to legalize gay marriage — and the first to affirm it by popular vote. In Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Iowa, gay marriage resulted from court decisions or legislation.
Some California activists said the outcome in Maine strengthened their belief that it will fall to the U.S. Supreme Court — not the voters — to make gay marriage legal. A federal lawsuit challenging Prop. 8 is scheduled to go to trial in January, the first step in a legal journey that is expected to reach the high court in a few years.
To read the entire article, including the status of same-sex marriage in several other states, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 5/25/12: Churches raise money to defeat referendum to redefine of marriage
UPDATE 8/20/11: Petition drive begins for same-sex "marriage" referendum on 2012 ballot
-- From "Gay leaders blame TV ads, Obama for loss in Maine" by Lisa Leff & David Crary 11/4/09
Gay activists were frustrated that Obama, who insists he staunchly supports their overall civil rights agenda, didn't speak out forcefully in defense of Maine's marriage law before Tuesday's referendum. The law was repealed in a vote of 53 percent to 47 percent.
"President Obama missed an opportunity to state his position against these discriminatory attacks with the clarity and moral imperative that would have helped in this close fight," said Evan Wolfson of the national advocacy group Freedom to Marry. "The anti-gay forces are throwing millions of dollars into various unsubtle ads aimed at scaring people, so subtle statements from the White House are not enough."
Had Maine's law been upheld by voters, it would have become the sixth state to legalize gay marriage — and the first to affirm it by popular vote. In Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Iowa, gay marriage resulted from court decisions or legislation.
Some California activists said the outcome in Maine strengthened their belief that it will fall to the U.S. Supreme Court — not the voters — to make gay marriage legal. A federal lawsuit challenging Prop. 8 is scheduled to go to trial in January, the first step in a legal journey that is expected to reach the high court in a few years.
To read the entire article, including the status of same-sex marriage in several other states, CLICK HERE.
Abortionists Favor Pelosi's ObamaCare, but Pro-life Dems Resist
Pro-life Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak holds firm on blocking ObamaCare-funded abortions, raising ire of Planned Parenthood, and worrying congressional leadership.
UPDATE 11/10/09: Stupak - The Man Who Made Pelosi Cry 'Uncle'
UPDATE 11/5/09: House Democrats lock horns over abortion funding in health care bill . . . while GOP leader posts: "Speaker Pelosi’s Government-Run Health Plan Will Require a Monthly Abortion Premium"
-- From "Planned Parenthood Assails Democratic Health Reform Critic" by Deborah Kotz, U.S. News & World Report 11/3/09
Add Planned Parenthood to the special interest groups assailing Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak for potentially holding up passage of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's health reform bill until it clearly states that public funds cannot be used for abortions. He says the current bill leaves open that possibility, while Planned Parenthood says he's trying to reduce the number of insurance plans that currently cover abortions. Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards described Stupak, the Michigan congressman, in ways the group normally reserves for talking about conservatives.
Richards says she doesn't think that "pro life" voices have gotten stronger in the Democratic Party: Stupak has always held his views, she says, and he's always been in the small minority.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Democrats Near Deal on Abortion Coverage" by David M. Herszenhorn & David D. Kirkpatrick, New York Times 11/3/09
Struggling to finish their big health care legislation, House Democratic leaders signaled Tuesday that they were prepared to make several changes to the bill to satisfy abortion opponents, including many Democrats, who had threatened to block it.
. . . Democratic leaders have little choice but to make some concessions. As many as 40 Democrats have said they might oppose the health care bill without tighter restrictions on abortion – a potentially decisive number.
Democratic aides said that Representative Brad Ellsworth, Democrat of Indiana, and a stalwart opponent of abortion, was working with House leaders on a deal that achieve two of his goals: prevent federal tax dollars from being used to pay for abortions, and guarantee the availability of insurance plans that do not cover abortions. Party leaders said they believed the deal would win over enough votes to advance the bill.
Generally speaking, Democrats had [falsely] argued that the health care legislation would make no change to existing federal laws regarding how tax dollars could be used to pay for abortions.
For weeks, a group of Democratic abortion opponents led by Representative Bart Stupak of Michigan had vowed that they had enough votes to block the legislation.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 11/10/09: Stupak - The Man Who Made Pelosi Cry 'Uncle'
UPDATE 11/5/09: House Democrats lock horns over abortion funding in health care bill . . . while GOP leader posts: "Speaker Pelosi’s Government-Run Health Plan Will Require a Monthly Abortion Premium"
-- From "Planned Parenthood Assails Democratic Health Reform Critic" by Deborah Kotz, U.S. News & World Report 11/3/09
Add Planned Parenthood to the special interest groups assailing Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak for potentially holding up passage of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's health reform bill until it clearly states that public funds cannot be used for abortions. He says the current bill leaves open that possibility, while Planned Parenthood says he's trying to reduce the number of insurance plans that currently cover abortions. Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards described Stupak, the Michigan congressman, in ways the group normally reserves for talking about conservatives.
Richards says she doesn't think that "pro life" voices have gotten stronger in the Democratic Party: Stupak has always held his views, she says, and he's always been in the small minority.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Democrats Near Deal on Abortion Coverage" by David M. Herszenhorn & David D. Kirkpatrick, New York Times 11/3/09
Struggling to finish their big health care legislation, House Democratic leaders signaled Tuesday that they were prepared to make several changes to the bill to satisfy abortion opponents, including many Democrats, who had threatened to block it.
. . . Democratic leaders have little choice but to make some concessions. As many as 40 Democrats have said they might oppose the health care bill without tighter restrictions on abortion – a potentially decisive number.
Democratic aides said that Representative Brad Ellsworth, Democrat of Indiana, and a stalwart opponent of abortion, was working with House leaders on a deal that achieve two of his goals: prevent federal tax dollars from being used to pay for abortions, and guarantee the availability of insurance plans that do not cover abortions. Party leaders said they believed the deal would win over enough votes to advance the bill.
Generally speaking, Democrats had [falsely] argued that the health care legislation would make no change to existing federal laws regarding how tax dollars could be used to pay for abortions.
For weeks, a group of Democratic abortion opponents led by Representative Bart Stupak of Michigan had vowed that they had enough votes to block the legislation.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Cross-dressing Woman Wants Custody as Father of Unrelated Child
Liberals claim that legalizing same-sex marriage will take the confusion out of such bizarre parental custody cases.
-- From "This transgender custody battle is odd, even for New York" by Scott Shifrel, New York Daily News Staff Writer 11/2/09
In an unusually tangled custody battle, a Brooklyn mom is fighting her ex - a woman who lives as a man - for custody of her 7-year-old son.
The Brooklyn judge who annulled their 1998 marriage because it was a legal fiction - they put the partner down as "male" on the license - has ruled that the boy's "father" may seek permanent custody, despite having no biological or legal ties to the child.
"When the judge gave him standing to sue for custody, I thought, 'What's happening? She voided the marriage, she knows he is a woman.' It's ludicrous," the boy's mother told the Daily News.
The convoluted case - which includes accusations of abuse - is complex even for New York State.
"The lack of a [same-sex marriage] law leads to confusion for many couples," said Cathy Marino-Thomas of Marriage Equity New York. "There's no doubt this case, no matter which side ultimately wins, will be appealed."
Melanie and Sam [not their real names] decided to become parents and Melanie was artificially inseminated.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "This transgender custody battle is odd, even for New York" by Scott Shifrel, New York Daily News Staff Writer 11/2/09
In an unusually tangled custody battle, a Brooklyn mom is fighting her ex - a woman who lives as a man - for custody of her 7-year-old son.
The Brooklyn judge who annulled their 1998 marriage because it was a legal fiction - they put the partner down as "male" on the license - has ruled that the boy's "father" may seek permanent custody, despite having no biological or legal ties to the child.
"When the judge gave him standing to sue for custody, I thought, 'What's happening? She voided the marriage, she knows he is a woman.' It's ludicrous," the boy's mother told the Daily News.
The convoluted case - which includes accusations of abuse - is complex even for New York State.
"The lack of a [same-sex marriage] law leads to confusion for many couples," said Cathy Marino-Thomas of Marriage Equity New York. "There's no doubt this case, no matter which side ultimately wins, will be appealed."
Melanie and Sam [not their real names] decided to become parents and Melanie was artificially inseminated.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Pro-life Win: Court Rejects Abortionists' Buffer Zone Ordinance
A federal appeals court has struck down an ordinance that created two types of buffer zones around medical facilities after a Christian legal group challenged the law on behalf of a nurse who protests abortions.
-- From "Court rejects Pa. buffer law on abortion clinics" by Joe Mandak, Associated Press 11/2/09
In a ruling issued Friday, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the 2005 Pittsburgh ordinance unduly restricted protesters from passing out leaflets and participating in other forms of free speech. The Pittsburgh law bans protesters from standing within 15 feet of entrances but also makes them stand 8 feet from clients in a 100-foot buffer around entrances.
The court found that either zone by itself could be legal. The U.S. Supreme Court has already upheld a Colorado state law establishing a similar 100-foot zone and decisions by courts in Florida and New York to ban protesters from within several feet of medical facility entrances.
But, combined, the appeals court found the zones violate the free speech rights of the protesters who find it difficult to hand leaflets to clinic clients.
[The Alliance Defense Fund] sued to challenge the ordinance in 2006 on behalf of Mary Kathryn Brown, a nurse from Indiana Township, a suburb of Pittsburgh. Brown has spent more than 15 years attempting to persuade women not to have abortions by speaking to them and handing out literature about the procedure's physical dangers.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 3/31/11: "Lawsuit over citation near Planned Parenthood settled" posted at Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Keith Tucci claimed in a complaint in U.S. District Court that a police officer wrongly cited him for defiant trespass and described him on the ticket as "known anti-abortion activist."
Mr. Tucci said he had simply passed through the legislated buffer zone around the clinic on a public sidewalk, and was later found not guilty at a hearing before District Judge Oscar J. Petite. He claimed that the citation was a violation of First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion, and of due process.
Mr. Tucci was director of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue from 1990 to 1994. In 2005, as pastor of Living Hope Church in Latrobe, he went before Pittsburgh City Council to threaten to defy, and challenge legally, limits on protests near abortion clinics.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Court rejects Pa. buffer law on abortion clinics" by Joe Mandak, Associated Press 11/2/09
In a ruling issued Friday, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the 2005 Pittsburgh ordinance unduly restricted protesters from passing out leaflets and participating in other forms of free speech. The Pittsburgh law bans protesters from standing within 15 feet of entrances but also makes them stand 8 feet from clients in a 100-foot buffer around entrances.
The court found that either zone by itself could be legal. The U.S. Supreme Court has already upheld a Colorado state law establishing a similar 100-foot zone and decisions by courts in Florida and New York to ban protesters from within several feet of medical facility entrances.
But, combined, the appeals court found the zones violate the free speech rights of the protesters who find it difficult to hand leaflets to clinic clients.
[The Alliance Defense Fund] sued to challenge the ordinance in 2006 on behalf of Mary Kathryn Brown, a nurse from Indiana Township, a suburb of Pittsburgh. Brown has spent more than 15 years attempting to persuade women not to have abortions by speaking to them and handing out literature about the procedure's physical dangers.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 3/31/11: "Lawsuit over citation near Planned Parenthood settled" posted at Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Keith Tucci claimed in a complaint in U.S. District Court that a police officer wrongly cited him for defiant trespass and described him on the ticket as "known anti-abortion activist."
Mr. Tucci said he had simply passed through the legislated buffer zone around the clinic on a public sidewalk, and was later found not guilty at a hearing before District Judge Oscar J. Petite. He claimed that the citation was a violation of First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion, and of due process.
Mr. Tucci was director of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue from 1990 to 1994. In 2005, as pastor of Living Hope Church in Latrobe, he went before Pittsburgh City Council to threaten to defy, and challenge legally, limits on protests near abortion clinics.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Monday, November 02, 2009
New IL Parental Notification for Abortion Harmful to Minors: Liberal Media
After years of abortionists' and other liberals' court battles against this new law, abortion clinics must now notify a parent or guardian for girls 17 and younger; critics claim minors will now seek back-alley abortions.
-- From "Illinois parental notification law goes into effect Tuesday" by Sara Olkon, Chicago Tribune reporter 11/2/09
The state parental notification law, scheduled to take effect Tuesday, has been subject to legal challenges and revisions for more than 30 years. In July, a federal appeals court in Chicago lifted a federal injunction on a 1995 version of the law, clearing it for enforcement. In August, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation granted doctors a 90-day grace period before the law would go into effect.
In Illinois, a parent or guardian does not have to give consent for the procedure, but they would need to be notified that a teenager is planning to have an abortion. The laws often are stricter outside of the state.
With some exceptions, doctors performing abortions in Indiana, Michigan, Missouri and Wisconsin must have parental consent before going ahead with the procedure. Iowa requires notification only.
Critics of the notification law believe it's unconstitutional and that it will harm minors by preventing them from obtaining safe abortions or forcing them to carry their pregnancies to term. [Studies prove otherwise.] Most teenagers already involve their parents in the decision, abortion rights advocates say. Those who don't, they argue, have good reason.
No notice is required in a medical emergency or if the girl declares in writing that she is a victim of sexual abuse. And a provision in the law allows girls to bypass parental notification by going before a judge, who would then have 48 hours to rule on the petition.
The Illinois civil rights group has been training lawyers and advocates on how to shepherd girls through the court procedure. The group also created a Facebook profile and a Web page, ilbypasscoordinationproject.org, to provide information.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Illinois parental notification law goes into effect Tuesday" by Sara Olkon, Chicago Tribune reporter 11/2/09
The state parental notification law, scheduled to take effect Tuesday, has been subject to legal challenges and revisions for more than 30 years. In July, a federal appeals court in Chicago lifted a federal injunction on a 1995 version of the law, clearing it for enforcement. In August, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation granted doctors a 90-day grace period before the law would go into effect.
In Illinois, a parent or guardian does not have to give consent for the procedure, but they would need to be notified that a teenager is planning to have an abortion. The laws often are stricter outside of the state.
With some exceptions, doctors performing abortions in Indiana, Michigan, Missouri and Wisconsin must have parental consent before going ahead with the procedure. Iowa requires notification only.
Critics of the notification law believe it's unconstitutional and that it will harm minors by preventing them from obtaining safe abortions or forcing them to carry their pregnancies to term. [Studies prove otherwise.] Most teenagers already involve their parents in the decision, abortion rights advocates say. Those who don't, they argue, have good reason.
No notice is required in a medical emergency or if the girl declares in writing that she is a victim of sexual abuse. And a provision in the law allows girls to bypass parental notification by going before a judge, who would then have 48 hours to rule on the petition.
The Illinois civil rights group has been training lawyers and advocates on how to shepherd girls through the court procedure. The group also created a Facebook profile and a Web page, ilbypasscoordinationproject.org, to provide information.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Planned Parenthood Director Resigns Realizing Abortion Murders Children
Abby Johnson worked at Planned Parenthood for eight years, but after looking at an ultrasound of an abortion procedure she realized that she could no longer promote the abortion business.
UPDATE 2/16/11: Live Action announced that Abby Johnson has joined the team as its chief research strategist
UPDATE 1/21/11: Abby Johnson leaves her pro-choice Episcopal church
UPDATE 11/26/09: Planned Parenthood gives up by withdrawing lawsuit
UPDATE 11/8/09: TV interview video
UPDATE 11/5/09: Ex-director exposes Planned Parenthood's abortion quotas
UPDATE 11/4/09: Planned Parenthood attempts to silence former director with restraining order
-- From "Planned Parenthood Director Leaves, Has Change of Heart" by Ashlea Sigman, Reporter, KBTX-TV Bryan/College Station, Texas 11/1/09
She handed in her resignation October 6. Johnson worked as the Bryan Planned Parenthood Director for two years.
According to Johnson, the non-profit was struggling under the weight of a tough economy, and changing it's business model from one that pushed prevention, to one that focused on abortion.
"It seemed like maybe that's not what a lot of people were believing any more because that's not where the money was. The money wasn't in family planning, the money wasn't in prevention, the money was in abortion and so I had a problem with that," said Johnson.
Johnson said she was told to bring in more women who wanted abortions, something the Episcopalian church goer recently became convicted about.
Johnson now supports the Coalition For Life, the pro-life group with a building down the street from Planned Parenthood.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 2/16/11: Live Action announced that Abby Johnson has joined the team as its chief research strategist
UPDATE 1/21/11: Abby Johnson leaves her pro-choice Episcopal church
UPDATE 11/26/09: Planned Parenthood gives up by withdrawing lawsuit
UPDATE 11/8/09: TV interview video
UPDATE 11/5/09: Ex-director exposes Planned Parenthood's abortion quotas
UPDATE 11/4/09: Planned Parenthood attempts to silence former director with restraining order
-- From "Planned Parenthood Director Leaves, Has Change of Heart" by Ashlea Sigman, Reporter, KBTX-TV Bryan/College Station, Texas 11/1/09
She handed in her resignation October 6. Johnson worked as the Bryan Planned Parenthood Director for two years.
According to Johnson, the non-profit was struggling under the weight of a tough economy, and changing it's business model from one that pushed prevention, to one that focused on abortion.
"It seemed like maybe that's not what a lot of people were believing any more because that's not where the money was. The money wasn't in family planning, the money wasn't in prevention, the money was in abortion and so I had a problem with that," said Johnson.
Johnson said she was told to bring in more women who wanted abortions, something the Episcopalian church goer recently became convicted about.
Johnson now supports the Coalition For Life, the pro-life group with a building down the street from Planned Parenthood.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, November 01, 2009
Life to Personhood Means Death to Roe v. Wade
Legal rulings, voter initiatives, and legislation defining all humans, including the unborn, as "persons" have been slowly sweeping across America, and abortionists can "read the writing on the wall" -- their time appears to be limited.
-- From "Personhood Nevada: Initiative part of U.S. drive" by Ed Vogel, Las Vegas Review-Journal 10/24/09
The "personhood" amendment petition drive beginning in Nevada is part of a national effort by a religious organization to come up with a legal argument that can be used to challenge the U.S. Supreme Court's decision allowing abortion.
PersonhoodUSA co-founder Keith Mason said Friday that his Christian anti-abortion group is trying in 30 states to pass laws or constitutional amendments that define all human beings as "persons" from the moment of "biological development" to the natural end of their lives.
On behalf of Personhood Nevada, the group's state affiliate, veteran Las Vegas conservative activist Richard Ziser filed a petition Wednesday with the Nevada secretary of state that specifies government may not deprive "persons" of "life, liberty and property" without due process of law.
Similar petitions to amend state constitutions are being circulated in six other states, including Colorado, where voters last year rejected it by a 73 percent to 27 percent vote.
The "personhood" language is significant, according to Ziser, because of the majority opinion authored by Justice Harry Blackmun in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision allowing abortion.
Blackmun said if "personhood" could be established for a fetus, then "the fetus' right to life would be guaranteed" by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
By passing state constitutional amendments that define a person as beginning with biological development, Ziser said they could make a case that answers Blackmun and could challenge Roe v. Wade.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Initiative underway for ‘legal personhood' status for fetus" by Rebecca Palsha, KTUU TV2 10/29/09
ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- Sponsors of an initiative for "legal personhood" are gathering signatures to get the issue on the ballot.
It's an attempt to make a fetus a legal person and it could affect birth control and abortion rights in Alaska.
Planned Parenthood says if it becomes law, it could lead to police investigating miscarriages.
Sponsors say it's a civil rights issue, and police would only investigate if it appears the miscarriage was actually an abortion.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Planned Parenthood Sues Missouri Over 'Personhood' Initiative" by Christian News Wire 11/1/09
Planned Parenthood sued the State of Missouri this week to challenge two pro-life ballot initiatives, in an apparent effort to stifle the people's constitutional right to the ballot process.
One of the ballot initiatives, submitted by Personhood Missouri . . . The personhood amendment, along with another pro-life initiative, were both approved by Secretary of State Democrat Robin Carnahan on October 20th.
"The motivation of Planned Parenthood is highly suspect. This lawsuit addresses a concern about loss of funds, yet Planned Parenthood reportedly brought in over 10 million dollars in 2008 in Missouri alone, and over a billion dollars nationwide," [said Keith Mason, of Personhood USA]. "This is clearly an act of desperation by a billion dollar industry, seeking to keep the issue of Personhood away from the people of Missouri."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Personhood Nevada: Initiative part of U.S. drive" by Ed Vogel, Las Vegas Review-Journal 10/24/09
The "personhood" amendment petition drive beginning in Nevada is part of a national effort by a religious organization to come up with a legal argument that can be used to challenge the U.S. Supreme Court's decision allowing abortion.
PersonhoodUSA co-founder Keith Mason said Friday that his Christian anti-abortion group is trying in 30 states to pass laws or constitutional amendments that define all human beings as "persons" from the moment of "biological development" to the natural end of their lives.
On behalf of Personhood Nevada, the group's state affiliate, veteran Las Vegas conservative activist Richard Ziser filed a petition Wednesday with the Nevada secretary of state that specifies government may not deprive "persons" of "life, liberty and property" without due process of law.
Similar petitions to amend state constitutions are being circulated in six other states, including Colorado, where voters last year rejected it by a 73 percent to 27 percent vote.
The "personhood" language is significant, according to Ziser, because of the majority opinion authored by Justice Harry Blackmun in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision allowing abortion.
Blackmun said if "personhood" could be established for a fetus, then "the fetus' right to life would be guaranteed" by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
By passing state constitutional amendments that define a person as beginning with biological development, Ziser said they could make a case that answers Blackmun and could challenge Roe v. Wade.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Initiative underway for ‘legal personhood' status for fetus" by Rebecca Palsha, KTUU TV2 10/29/09
ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- Sponsors of an initiative for "legal personhood" are gathering signatures to get the issue on the ballot.
It's an attempt to make a fetus a legal person and it could affect birth control and abortion rights in Alaska.
Planned Parenthood says if it becomes law, it could lead to police investigating miscarriages.
Sponsors say it's a civil rights issue, and police would only investigate if it appears the miscarriage was actually an abortion.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Planned Parenthood Sues Missouri Over 'Personhood' Initiative" by Christian News Wire 11/1/09
Planned Parenthood sued the State of Missouri this week to challenge two pro-life ballot initiatives, in an apparent effort to stifle the people's constitutional right to the ballot process.
One of the ballot initiatives, submitted by Personhood Missouri . . . The personhood amendment, along with another pro-life initiative, were both approved by Secretary of State Democrat Robin Carnahan on October 20th.
"The motivation of Planned Parenthood is highly suspect. This lawsuit addresses a concern about loss of funds, yet Planned Parenthood reportedly brought in over 10 million dollars in 2008 in Missouri alone, and over a billion dollars nationwide," [said Keith Mason, of Personhood USA]. "This is clearly an act of desperation by a billion dollar industry, seeking to keep the issue of Personhood away from the people of Missouri."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Mother Regrets Her Addiction to Abortion
Irene Vilar tries to explain the pathology that led her to abort 15 pregnancies
-- From "An addiction that only motherhood could cure" by Manuel Roig-Franzia, Washington Post Staff Writer 10/30/09
That Irene Vilar embraces the role of motherhood is a grand incongruity, a mind-blower. She has just published a precariously nuanced, intellectually ambitious and unnervingly frank memoir titled "Impossible Motherhood: Testimony of an Abortion Addict." In the book, Vilar writes about a "shameful" period in her life -- before she became a mother -- when she says she underwent 15 abortions in 15 years. What she now sees as her "nightmare" began with a teenage affair with a Syracuse University professor who was 34 years her senior.
Yet, in Vilar's deft hands, her story of serial abortions mostly bypasses the volatile abortion rights standoff, instead plumbing her "self-mutilation," her "pregnancy fantasies" and multiple suicide attempts, her conflicts over submission and control, and, ultimately, her healing. She wants to steer readers to a subtler point: that abortion was, for her, an addiction, a warped and tragic vehicle to assert control over her life.
Years ago, she wrote that an 11-year period in which she had 12 abortions was "the happiest" time of her life. Looking back, she diagnoses the person she was as "a deluded creature in suspended animation."
Her book is less ideological than personal, and so original that she thinks her story might actually engage the two sides of the abortion debate that rarely agree on anything. "It could be a pro-choice extreme," she says. "It could be an argument for abortion foes."
To read this extensive article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "An addiction that only motherhood could cure" by Manuel Roig-Franzia, Washington Post Staff Writer 10/30/09
That Irene Vilar embraces the role of motherhood is a grand incongruity, a mind-blower. She has just published a precariously nuanced, intellectually ambitious and unnervingly frank memoir titled "Impossible Motherhood: Testimony of an Abortion Addict." In the book, Vilar writes about a "shameful" period in her life -- before she became a mother -- when she says she underwent 15 abortions in 15 years. What she now sees as her "nightmare" began with a teenage affair with a Syracuse University professor who was 34 years her senior.
Yet, in Vilar's deft hands, her story of serial abortions mostly bypasses the volatile abortion rights standoff, instead plumbing her "self-mutilation," her "pregnancy fantasies" and multiple suicide attempts, her conflicts over submission and control, and, ultimately, her healing. She wants to steer readers to a subtler point: that abortion was, for her, an addiction, a warped and tragic vehicle to assert control over her life.
Years ago, she wrote that an 11-year period in which she had 12 abortions was "the happiest" time of her life. Looking back, she diagnoses the person she was as "a deluded creature in suspended animation."
Her book is less ideological than personal, and so original that she thinks her story might actually engage the two sides of the abortion debate that rarely agree on anything. "It could be a pro-choice extreme," she says. "It could be an argument for abortion foes."
To read this extensive article, CLICK HERE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
